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.
Excerpt:
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.
The Postlude
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.
*******
Also see:
Fabian = Progressive: Crisis is Fundamental To “Fundamental
Transformation”….. - Originally we wrote
this post in March 2012 in response to the continuing crisis that surrounds this
administration, and consequently our nation, on a daily...
Hobby Lobby Fined $1.3M PER DAY Beginning January 1 2013:
Sotomayor Defers to Muslim Inmate’s Belief – Refuses Emergency Injunction for
Christian Family - The Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals has ruled that Hobby Lobby’s owners, the David Green Family, must pay
the ObamaCare fine of $1.3 Million PER DAY, beginning...
#myjihad: Jihadists behead Christian and feed him to the dogs' as
fears grow over Islamist atrocities - Obama
is backing these guys. Obama. supports. the jihadists. But it's our ads -
they're the problem. "Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the d...
REPOST: Standing for Something: Part 3 - Beyond Good and Evil
- The Declaration of Independence - one of the
anchors of my conservative thought. This is the third part of a multi-part
article (see part 1 or see part 2) ...
Posts
12 comments:
CJW: ”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...
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.”
Oh, I see. You're calling for this:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no assault rifle, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luk 22:36
Which is rather odd, because a bit over four years ago, a prominent local Christian wrote these words to me, concerning another shooting in a church in which two people died:
”Those Christians who genuinely understand the priceless value of God's gift to the world - namely - Jesus Christ, do not trust in a gun for political, social, individual, or spiritual gain.
They just don't.” (emphasis mine)
I sometimes wonder what that person thinks now.
Hau'oli Makahiki Hou
GM,
I don't know where you are getting your Bible verses from. There is no version of Luke 22:36 that says, "gun." The KJV reads:
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The notes on Luke 22:35-38 explain:
Here Jesus reversed his earlier advice regarding how to travel (9:3). The disciples were to bring bags, money, and swords. They would be facing hatred and persecution and would need to be prepared. When Jesus said, "That is enough," he may have meant it was not time to think of using swords. In either case, mention of a sword vividly communicated the trial they were soon to face.
What the Christian said is true:
”Those Christians who genuinely understand the priceless value of God's gift to the world - namely - Jesus Christ, do not trust in a gun for political, social, individual, or spiritual gain.
"Gain" is the operative word.
But there are times we need to protect ourselves and families; and for the purpose of having the ability to continue spreading the Gospel.
There were times throughout Jesus' earthly ministry where the enemies of God tried to kill him. [i.e. when Herod heard of a new King and Mary and Joseph were told by an angel to flee Bethlehem and head for Egypt].
However, when Jesus' arrest happened after Gethsemane,(and Peter chopped off the Roman officer's ear) it was Jesus' willingness to go to the cross that this was allowed. In prior efforts (it wasn't his time yet), Jesus escaped capture and death.
So...you are against the freedom given by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Americans to bear arms? You are for gun bans GM?
If so, I would guess that military oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America don't particularly mean anything to you anymore?
The title you chose today caught my eye Christine. Only a short time ago another commenter found a new curse for us based upon Santayanna's famous observation: "Those of us who know our history are condemned to watch those who don't repeat it."
Given the facts that GM is clearly not uninformed, I would amend that comment to read:
Those of us who know our history are condemned to watch those seeking its repetition to get away with their culpability for at least some time."
Oh, did I say “gun”? My bad. I thought I said “assault rifle”.
”But there are times we need to protect ourselves and families; and for the purpose of having the ability to continue spreading the Gospel.”
If you don't trust the armed forces OR the police, then what are you paying them for? So you can point to them and talk about how they're being trained to take your freedoms away? Is there a gun in your home? And do you need one to continue spreading the Gospel?
If there were any mass killings at the time the Constitution was drafted, you may be sure it was done by massed armies, and probably against aboriginal peoples. It could not have been done by one man in one hour with a Pennsylvania long rifle.
”So...you are against the freedom given by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for Americans to bear arms? You are for gun bans GM?”
The US Constitution also entitles your right to speak freely—but not to yell “fire!” in a crowded space.
Soldiers know a thing or two about “fire discipline.” So do most NRA members. But young Mr. Lanza neither knew nor cared. Apparently his mother didn't either; were her guns locked, or locked away?
I have no beef with pistols and shotguns. I just happen to believe that military-grade weapons should be in military hands.
”...I would guess that military oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America don't particularly mean anything to you anymore?”
It meant everything to me when I wore a uniform. But in those days I was authorized (and sometimes required) to carry such weapons. Now, I don't wear the uniform, I don't have the authority, and I don't feel the need. I'm still bound by the oath, though.
Put all able-bodied-men into military reserves, as they do in Switzerland, for example. Let the government issue a rifle to every male in every household, and make it clear that there are extremely stiff penalties if any of them turn up missing, or are used in the commission of a crime.
I had my fill of firearms in the service; like scrubbing pots, it's something they taught me, but I'm not anxious to keep doing it.
”If you don't learn your history, you will be doomed to repeat it!”
Actually, that should be “from your history,” hostess.
Funny how you weren't thinking of that a few weeks ago when you were talking about state petitions for secession as if you approved of it. That was tried once before, I believe, and history tells the tale.
Not that it matters, but even Pascal Fervor seems to think I'm 'not uninformed'. If you've ever seen someone ripped up by such weapons and not been horrified, maybe you should have been in the Forces.
It seems that those who know the least about history work the hardest to make a place for themselves in it.
Hau'oli Makahiki Hou
Oh, I almost forgot:
Midnight is less than three hours away, and there's still no further breaking news on the Alvin Onaka-Ken Bennett axis, as 'reported' by The Obama Hustle last Friday.
Given that, I'll make my comments now.
Oooh, do you think the men in the black helicopters got to them? Or was it just another birfer fantasy? 'Cause TOH never got around to telling anyone where and when the 'public certification' took place.
I lived in Hawaii for many years; it's hard to keep secrets on an island, and Onaka is of course a public official. It stands to reason that if he'd done something like that, it would have been known in a matter of hours. So either he did it outside his state (why?), or he didn't do it. Guess which one I picked.
Looking forward to more of the same in 2013. Hau'oli Makahiki Hou!
What seems to escape you, GM, is the fact that the Second Amendment freedom for citizens to carry firearms was precisely written to protect WE THE PEOPLE from not only theft of property, bodily harm etc., but the term "militia" is in there for the purpose of protecting us from an aberrant, abhorent, and TERRIBLY anti-American government - which is what we unfortunately have right now.
People have not learned from history because they are not teaching it correctly in public schools and colleges. With 90% of the professors (and probably teachers in public schools) of the liberal leftist bent (i.e. the 60's radicals and those who have since learned and copied them) the brain-dirtying has led to young minds thinking that socialism/communism is worth a try. Thus, individuals need to learn THEIR history on their own - the true kind that may be on the cutting room floor of schools these days.
I think that it is fine for states to petition to redress their grievances - and if secession is their desire - it is their right to do so.
Why did 11 southern states secede from the union which caused the Civil War? Go see the movie Lincoln for a reminder. Oh wait...you may not want to see it. Doesn't portray democrats very well - especially regarding ending slavery.
For someone who claims to still uphold the U.S. Constitution, your hero (more like zero) Obama has been busy writing executive orders and harmful regulations like crazy(e.g. against coal industry); and refuses to allow a pipeline from Canada which would have brought a million jobs to Americans. BHO is always in campaign mode - but doesn't LEAD (latest example - Joe Biden had to deal with the Senate re: fiscal cliff fiasco). BHO is skillful at causing class, race, wealth, ideological warfare in order to divide Americans and get them to hate each other; clear Alinsky/Cloward Piven methods to get the people under his wannabe commie/Islamo-fascist dictatorship.
But you keep your hands over your eyes and ears; and continue being a useful idiot mouthpiece for BHO. One day, perhaps you will wise up and smell the tyranny.
"One day, perhaps you will wise up and smell the tyranny."
Solzhenitsyn informs us that many a communist apparatchik when to his doom in the gulag muttering "if Stalin only knew." I cannot imagine GM does not know that. Maybe he thinks he'll be spared or die before events overtake useful idiots. Maybe you'll pray for him Christine, because he sure doesn't seem to believe he'll need it one way or the other.
(repost) from Jan. 1, 2013
“Smell the tyranny”? HA! All I smell at this site is the crazy, and it's increased since last October.
I'm well aware of what a militia is for. But many gun owners aren't interested in joining one. Militias have rules and regulations; some gun owners just want to own guns to hunt wildlife, not overthrow a government they perceive as hostile. That would require organization, and what 'patriot' would want to join an organization that would regulate his gun use? In the former USSR, individuals didn't own guns, but somehow the German Army never managed to conquer the place; and it wasn't just the winter cold that stopped them.
Speaking of which, you've dodged my question as to whether you own one. I don't need to know, but it would be interesting to see if you practice what you preach.
”Why did 11 southern states secede from the union which caused the Civil War? Go see the movie Lincoln for a reminder. Oh wait...you may not want to see it. Doesn't portray democrats very well - especially regarding ending slavery.”
They seceded because of something they called 'states' rights'. One of those 'rights' they wished to preserve was the 'right' to own another human being as property, to be bought, used, and disposed of as the laws saw fit. Learning false history (cough*Barton*cough) is worse than learning no history at all.
I'm quite surprised you endorsed that movie; Spielberg is notoriously liberal, and you have never been a fan of 'Hollyweird'. But I didn't need Schindler's List to tell me that Nazis were evil, and I don't need Lincoln to tell me about Lincoln. It's a drama, not a documentary. (That being said, I liked it.)
Of course Joe Biden has had to deal with the Senate! As VP, he is President OF the Senate, just as the Constitution says! The President stays out, just as the Queen stays out of the House of Lords. If Obama had gone into the Senate chambers you'd be screaming even louder about how he was usurping all legislative powers unto himself, or some similar bullsh.
For someone who claims to love the Constitution, you don't really understand it, do you?
Don't you just love history lessons from liberals who don't have a clue as to what they're talking about Christine? Then goes on with Joe Biden's job description along with a quip that you don't really understand the Constitution.
I'm kinda wondering how an intellectual such as Mr. Pilot, obviously a Constitutional scholar would leave out this small part where in 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?
But you know, liberals are very smart. So real facts don't matter.
Pascal wrote, "Those of us who know our history are condemned to watch those who don't repeat it."
Excellent (but at the same time very sad) point!
Some people can't even learn from more recent history. How long has it been since Mubarek was ousted and the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists took over Egypt? How many people have been killed in the name of radical Islam - just in that country alone over the past2? years?
How about Syria? Wasn't the last count something like 40,000 people have been killed in that war for radical Islamic control of that country?
Tyranny exists in many forms - not only communism and nazism. Radical Islam continues to be on the rise and BHO is using taxpayer money to buy planes and tanks for the terrorists in Egypt??
There are too many ignorant people who think "that will never happen here." Well, with BHO's tyranny over the next 4 years they may end up shocked at the additional damage he will do to our nation!
Pascal, did you ever see the euphemistically entitled YouTube video, "A Tribute to Communism"?
The creator of that video writes:
Uploaded on May 12, 2007
A tribute to the glorious accomplishments of many decades of communist governments around the world.
After so many attempts in history, it seems the ideology still has legions of fans and supporters. The notion behind this film was to quickly explain how and why communism works exactly as it does on the state and the people living there.
YouTube and GoogleVideo are littered with sincere highly rated tributes to communist regimes around the world and throughout the 20th Century. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FskHWvDk8sA
Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDwPjVrshWg
This one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_woAU1fjOQ
This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNj3JRUjDE
That: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQE5jg6Yfao
This thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqM_hnUpw4M
...and this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV0_uCiS0DQ
Seems only fair to raise the reality bar a bit on them.
Terribly disturbing...isn't it?
I really appreciate your input here, Pascal and hope you continue to share such much needed wisdom.
Hi Steve,
The liberal lunatics burst blood vessels over that Supreme Court ruling...didn't they!
Thanks for pointing that out.
I think it is so sad to see GM, (who fought against communism in the military) support BHO - who is a wannabe dictator; radical Islam and commie supporter.
It's truly sickening that he and half the country voted for the worst pResident in the history of the United States of America...a second time...just because of their gimme dat mentality where they value getting free "stuff" over the health and survival of our free nation.
Pardon me. The total killed in Syria is closer to 60,000. There are fears it will become a new Rwanda.
See article here:
Legal Insurrection: Is Syria becoming a 21st century Rwanda?
In keeping with the original post here, take special note of this paragraph from the above link:
“This massive loss of life could have been avoided if the Syrian government had chosen to take a different path than one of ruthless suppression of what were initially peaceful and legitimate protests by unarmed civilians,” [U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi] Pillay said.
UNARMED CIVILIANS.
Let that be a lesson to us all not to listen to the Hollyweird types (which just got something like 230 million of tax payer money in the "fiscal cliff" bill???) who are stumping for BHO and his civilian disarmament propaganda!
Post a Comment