If you want more information about the movie, you can visit the various sites that share insight and reviews (including Wikipedia).
What I want to concentrate on in this post is the fact that long ago, it was evident that Hollyweird's early leftist leanings were destined to one day reveal it's full-blown socialist/communist approval. What the movie critics and commentators don't mention about the film, is the spin that was placed upon Katie's communist leanings. I found it really disgusting to see the posters of Communist murderer Stalin in many scenes within the movie. Consider that 1973 was not as far removed from the years of Stalin's terrorist dictatorship (when millions were killed) as perhaps the current year of 2012. Too bad that many of those who apparently objected to (or even mocked) "the Red Scare" back then, (and hated McCarthy's exposure of communist infiltration here in the U.S.), didn't see this facetiously titled "Tribute to Communism."
It was comical to see Katie call Hubbell (Robert Redford's character in movie) a "Fascist" at one point. Being Jewish apparently made her an enemy of Hitler, but not an enemy of Stalin? As a writer at IMDb points out,
"The era in which these two characters were set was a very interesting time in American history, and the characters' actions during these times created some compelling cinema, particularly when it touched on the Red Scare."
The "Red Scare"?? Well, perhaps We The People should have been paying more attention to that "red scare" of communism because now, most of our government is being run by them! [But don't take my word for it...see all the links with incriminating evidence at the right top sidebar at CommieBlaster.com.]
We can see the commie/Islamist supporting dictatorship developing at the fastest rate ever; right before our very eyes here in America under BHO, his nasty, nefarious handlers, and clueless "you die last" Borg-Bot minions! [Note the man in the Che RED shirt in photo below. It was a picture taken in San Francisco years ago at an anti-Israel, anti-Bush rally during the Bush Administration].
1. CNS News: Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith.
CNSNews.com) - In a legal argument formally presented in federal court in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Kathleen Sebelius, the Obama administration is claiming that the First Amendment—which expressly denies the government the authority to prohibit the “free exercise” of religion—nonetheless allows it to force Christians to directly violate their religious beliefs even on a matter that involves the life and death of innocent human beings.Read the rest: CNS News: Obama Administration: We Can and Will Force Christians to Act Against Their Faith.
Because federal judges—including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—have refused to grant an injunction protecting the owners of Hobby Lobby from being forced to act against their Christian faith, those owners will be subject to federal fines of up to $1.3 million per day starting Tuesday for refusing to include abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plan.
The Obama administration is making a two-fold argument for why it can force Christians to act against their faith in complying with the regulation it has issued under the Obamacare law that requires virtually all health care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs.
The first argument the administration makes against the owners of Hobby Lobby is that Americans lose their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion when they form a corporation and engage in commerce. A person’s Christianity, the administration argues, cannot be carried out through activities he engages in through an incorporated business.
“Hobby Lobby is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not exercise religion,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery in a filing submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
“Because Hobby Lobby is a secular employer, it is not entitled to the protections of the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” Delery told the court on behalf of the administration. “This is because, although the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association are ‘right[s] enjoyed by religious and secular groups alike,’ the Free Exercise Clause ‘gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.’”
In keeping with Delery’s argument, the Washington Post, as a corporation, can use its First Amendment-protected freedom of speech to write editorials in support of the Obama administration imposing its contraception mandate on businesses like Hobby Lobby. But the members of the family that created and owns Hobby Lobby, because they formed Hobby Lobby as a corporation, have no First Amendment freedom of religion that protects them from being forced by the government to act against their religious beliefs in providing abortion-inducing drugs.
The second argument the administration makes to justify forcing Christians to act against their faith is more sweeping. Here the administration argues it can force a person to act against his religion so long as the coercion is done under the authority of a law that is neutral and generally applicable—in other words, as long as the law was not written specifically to persecute Christians as Christians, the government can use that law to persecute Christians.
First they came for the Christians...
Then they came for the guns....
There are probably millions of posts out there on the Internet that describe why gun control (excuse me - make that GUN DISARMAMENT AND CONFISCATION) - DOES NOT WORK for WE THE PEOPLE, but disarmament works for EVIL AND NEFARIOUS GOVERNMENTS to take over their populations!
Here's just one:
2. WND: The Nazi roots of U.S. gun-control laws Exclusive: Ellis Washington has historical chart linking firearm restrictions to genocide
An excerpt of the above article isn't enough. Here is a copy of it:
Here’s the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide.
What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: Unarmed, defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: Evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th century alone.
~ Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership website
The pretext: Massacre of the innocents – Newtown, Conn.
I am a professor at a wonderful online school called National Paralegal College (NPC). Shannon Southard, a student there recently raised some very prescient questions on the issue of gun control:
Seems that almost every shooting that has made national headlines recently has involved a shooter suffering from one form or mental issues or another. We had two tragic shootings this week – one in a crowded mall another in an elementary school. Not to mention the awful shooting earlier this year at the movie theater. … Who should be blamed for these individuals being able to commit such heinous acts – lawmakers for allowing access to weapons, mental health professionals for possibly not treating appropriately, society for turning their backs on them?This prompted fellow NPC student, Kathryn Dunigan to remark, “Almost all the mass shooters over the past 20 years, including the ones at Columbine and the Aurora Theater were on mind altering psychiatric drugs. Is gun control really the national conversation we need, or is [it] medication control?”
This comment prompted my response to Kathryn:
Don’t take the easy (unconstitutional) way out. … I want you to reconsider your remarks in light of constitutional history. If you follow Obama’s and the Democratic Party path to disarm law-abiding citizens, then the criminals (who won’t obey any gun laws) will be emboldened to use gun violence without limits. Why? Because they will know that law-abiding citizens will be disarmed and easy prey for criminals to abuse We the People. When in doubt, always follow the Constitution.The Policy
I would invite you to read Dr. John Lott’s excellent book dispelling liberal assumptions on the correlation between the access of guns and the proliferation of gun violence. You can read a short analysis of Dr. Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
Note the level of vitriol in the academic community against his theories. Why? Because progressives understand that to effect and increase federal government hegemony and state-control throughout society, the Second Amendment must be repealed. Look at the history of all fascist societies from Robespierre and the Jacobins, the French Enlightenment, Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, to Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, etc. The first thing these tyrants want to do as soon as they secured power was to disarm the public and make the STATE (e.g., the army, police, secret police, Gestapo, etc.) the only entity legally allowed to possess guns. Why? So the state can steal your unalienable (God-given) liberties and make you slaves of the Leviathan State. … In my opinion, President Obama has almost taken America to that abyss.
The great Spanish philosopher George Santayana warned us decades ago: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is an organization dedicated to the preservation of gun rights in the United States and “to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone.” The group was founded by former firearms dealer Aaron S. Zelman in 1986. JPFO interprets the Second Amendment as recognizing a pre-existing natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
According to the comprehensive research by JPFO, all of America’s present gun-control laws have Nazi origins, evidenced by the group’s shocking accusation that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was plagiarized almost word for word from Nazi legislation. The German Weapons Law, which existed before the Nazis came to power in 1933, was amended on March 18, 1938, by the Nazi government. The JPFO’s claim is based in part by the fact that the 1968 law introduces the “sporting purpose” test to distinguish different types of weapons, similar to the “sporting purpose” test that existed in the German law in question. Sen. Thomas Joseph Dodd (father to Sen. Chris Dodd) was a prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46) and had reviewed copies of the Nazi 1938 firearms law as the 1968 Gun Control Act legislation was being drafted.
It is very probable that it was none other than Sen. Thomas Dodd who brought copies of the 1938 Nazi German Weapons Law, had that language literally translated and copied into America’s 1968 Gun Control Act which would explain why the two laws are almost identical. History tells us that the 1938 Nazi law facilitated the disenfranchisement, imprisonment and murder of millions of Jews and millions of other untermensch (sub-humans, undesirables). The 1968 Gun Control Act has already lead to the disenfranchisement of our Second Amendment rights, imprisonment and the needless maiming and murder of countless citizens who, due to liberal fascist anti-gun policies, could not lawfully use a firearm to defend themselves.
Examine carefully the JPFO chart below detailing the history of global gun control laws in just a few selected countries over the past 100 years; it is a Who’s Who of hatred of liberty, government fascism, disarmed civilians and genocide.
America, you have a constitutional natural right to be armed in order to protect yourself, because under U.S law the police have no duty to protect the average person. The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution) are all unalienable rights, which meant that they are God-given, self-evident truths, natural rights that originated from God, the Bible and Natural Law and therefore can never be lawfully taken away by man or the State.
America, if you don’t learn your history, you will be damned to repeat it.
Hat Tip and Read more in the comment section at WND: The Nazi roots of U.S. gun-control laws
Hat Tips to all links.