Friday, January 23, 2015
AMERICAN SNIPER Conflict of Nations and The Morality of Religions
AMERICAN SNIPER -Conflict of Nations and The Morality of Religions
American’s choice to spend at about $10 dollars a ticket just under 100 million dollars this last weekend on a movie called American Sniper- Clint Eastwood’s biggest opening cash cow, is a politicians dream weekend, and a big conflicting recipe for the concern of the Republic for which we now stand. I think the reason the movie hit so hard is because it puts nearly every perspective of morality on the line in plain sight and shall we say in the deadly cross hairs of a high caliber rifle scope.
In the movie, a true story, U.S. Navy Seal Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle (April 8, 1974 – February 2, 2013) respected as America’s deadliest sniper is gutted with the internal conflicts of morality that come with the lethal job he volunteered for in the service of his Country swearing an oath to the United States Constitution. "I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Some of the conflicts in the movie opening up the discussion of morality can register in the twist of circumstances what moral compass our society has and is fighting for. As you read this I’m going to be a little bit facetious to explain a point or two so don’t lose your sites. At one point we see Chris’s rifle scope bear down on first a woman carrying a Russian grenade, and then her elementary school age child telling him to go throw it at the marines.
The circumstances in Iraq depict the U.S. Military in the film as the foreigners. Can anyone imagine the idea of using the innocents of women and children to deliver a payload of explosives if they thought it would work and the men couldn’t do it because they had been rounded up and put in concentration camps or evacuated? Our own military invites women into combat now. Can you imagine how the son or mother feels if perhaps their father and husband had already been killed by foreigners to which there was no Court to settle in for losses or damages?
Chris has to weigh in the balance his military duty, his responsibility to his fellow army buddies and all of their families at home depending on him for their safety, as well as the moral conflict of shooting what looked to be a child in about the fourth grade. Parents go to jail for spanking their child here in America in public as it can be considered abusive rather than disciplinary. Parents can’t shoot their children either. Chris first shoots the child, and then when the mother picks the weapon up the child was instructed to carry and throw at the Marines he shoots her. So parents’ can’t spank their children, husband’s can’t beat their wives, but the U.S. military is authorized to kill men, women and children who are defending their home and country?
One might say, “That’s just how it is over there. Hopefully we wouldn’t send our kids out to do something like that!” Can you imagine if we were being invaded by other countries, the men had been killed or rounded up, and the five o’ clock news wasn’t explaining the morality of the circumstances for which the invasion was lawful, how we might do the same thing in the hope that future generations might not have to, or even for revenge because of the hurt caused by destroying everything you had grown up with? Then the question comes up justifying our being over there in the first place.
Is it a natural resource we don’t have available here to harvest, or is it our own law which has set aside land as a national park a million visitors every year can gaze upon without an oil pump outlining the horizon or some species can crawl around on uninterrupted? One might say they are all important and violence would be much worse if we couldn’t get people back and forth to work in their automobiles. In other words we are justifying the assassination of foreigners for both major parties particular interest? How sweet is that?
If you want to stay home and mind your own business you’re an isolationist? If you want to go out and fight everyone’s battle you’re nothing but a bullying policeman to the world? Well which is it Democrats? Which is it Republicans? Democrats accused Bush of being a war monger for oil but don’t want to lay a finger on the development button of our reserves in Alaska’s Anwar? Who’s morally responsible for the deaths of the Iraqi’s? If Democrats think more civil deaths are not coming around because of our needs not being met in oil and gas they should all retire their vehicles in order to stop their hypocrisy. If Democrat don’t think there is a cost to refusing to developed our own energy supplies in order that we can gaze upon uninterrupted lines on the horizon they are mistaken as they are about their ordering more assassinations for the beauty of it all. The blame game works both ways folks.
Another conflict is perceived as Chris as the guest of an Iraqi man presumed first to be friendly. When the man’s stash of weapons is found without Chris retaining a search warrant from the Judge of the Judicial Branch first, that man is basically left without any civil rights. Now in the U.S. some might say the 2nd Amendment comes into play here and the man from Iraq has every right to hold those weapons in defense of his family but it ultimately gets him drafted as an informant and killed in a dangerous mission. Of course his neighbors are a little upset about our military not going through proper channels of the Judicial Branch to get a search warrant, confiscating his weapons, and basically setting him up to get killed one way or the other. They parade his body in the streets not really appreciating the U.S Militaries respect of said U.S. Constitutional Rights. Who could at a moment like that?
Of course we know that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to anyone who is not a U.S. Citizen. Taxation without representation is illegal. If you can’t vote technically you have no voice and your living under a dictatorship, perhaps your parents authority of force. They don’t need a search warrant either to go through your bedroom with a fine tooth comb and confiscate your weapons, porn, and drugs in which in many cases they might be able to use themselves legally. The main point is the value of the U.S. Constitution that you have right now and for you to understand losing those rights subjects you to know better treatment then those our military gives Iraqi’s in a declared state of war.
Now how do you feel about Barack Obama not being a ‘natural born Citizen’ (born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents) if you understand all your rights as Citizens are attached to that principle being neglected by Democrats and Republicans? And how do you feel about a movie being able to raise 100 million in one weekend at $10 a ticket but the only candidate in America running for President who stood up to both parties and sued McCain and Obama not being able to raise $2,000 dollars in 6 years because American’s wouldn’t buy a $10 dollar ticket that was good for all their Constitutional rights? Is there a slight conflict here of moral principle?
CONFLICT OF RELIGIOUS MORALITY
Religions have long been associated with discerning what’s basically wrong and right. Of course the law of the land is most generally considered to be alright with religions. So you have to wonder if in Sunday school next week you’ll get a lesson on why homosexual marriages and relations are now ok and authorized as ok by your church because it’s the law of the land now.
Religions have long used the doctrine of the law of the land to get their particular denomination into foreign countries. Communist authorities for instance are fine with Christian principles as long as those instructors of the religion follow up with the one question to missionaries about resistance to a particular governmental practice with “well, you need to obey the law of the land”. In other words, as long as you’re following the laws of your land you’re not in conflict with our religion?
What that means is Christians in Russia are happy with the anti-sodomite verses of the Bible because Vladimir Putin has outlawed homosexuality while the Christians here in America have adopted it because it’s the law of the land. The Church Authorities both accept and condemn it based on ‘the law of the land’. Let’s see, same Church, different cultures, and ultimately different doctrines about the same circumstances or practice. It’s a geographical oddity of truth. Everything is right; just please pay your 10% and the morality of God will stand by you? What world wide religion doesn't teach that we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law?
Churches are not likely to teach their missionaries to teach something that is going to get them killed or thrown in prison. That’s why ‘worldwide Christian religions’ like Catholics, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, LDS Mormons, etc., all can function outside of the United States. They have arrangements with the Governments which are basically non-conflictive and passive aggressive but it also makes them co-partners in every type of Government including Dictatorial, Communistic, and Tyrannical Despots.
Is the communist Chinese Christian any different than the capitalistic American Christian? How about the Saudi Arabia Christian from the Indonesian Christian? Which geographical Christian can have one wife, which can have more than one, and which can have a man and women to marry? Obama declared love is love in his State of the Union Address, but there is the consideration of which love is allowed to live and which one is disposed of in an assassination that for instance he in the oval office has ordered.
Really who cares? Why do you bring up different sides to any story? Well, presumably so you don’t get sold down the river to one and regret it. One thing I can tell you is precious is your individual rights as a United States Citizen under the Constitution of the United States. Lose those and your life can really become a living hell quickly. They are just as easily compromised domestically as they are in a foreign land if you don’t stand up for them.
Collectivism is willing to use or sacrifice in a horror show a view individuals starving or being killed to distribute the wealth. The U.S. Constitution is not willing to give up the individual’s rights so that the group is more protected and the individual is lost. Of course time and time again we see examples of the theory of collectivism weeding out their weak so the safety net presumed is false.
How could we emphasize this? So baby-boomers were the result of a need for labor but they grew selfish and taught their children to be selfish as well. Fewer children from Gen X were encouraged shrinking the population pool so children could be more spoiled or have more. That contributed to the baby-boomers social security fund also shrinking and so Gen. Y came along and ordered the death panels to dispose of the baby-boomers? How do Bill and Hillary Clinton feel about their chances now as individuals at say ‘retirement’ age when their own practices and policies come back to consume them for the good of the group?
That’s what not standing up for ‘individual rights’ or our U.S. Constitution gets you. Chris Kyle ultimately had to decide whose individual rights he was standing up for and who his oath of loyalty was going to protect. Those boundaries often get blurred just like the borders of the United States get blurred at times. The Union for which we stand must be protected and the best way to help others is in fact to take a stand for the United States Constitution because it is concerned with your individual rights.
Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro is not a natural born Citizen qualified to be in the Office of the President. Many atrocities are happening with the cover of his being in that office illegally with no U.S. law seeming to apply to him. He and his co-ops force mandates, open borders, and basically run an operation of war to ignite a firestorm in the Arab Springs instituting Muslim Republics slipping weapons to the Al-Qaida militia financed by your tax dollars.
I really think more Americans should be buying a $10 ticket to my campaign then Clint Eastwood’s movie because it sure as hell is going to cost a lot more if you don’t take a stand for the U.S. Constitution and start demanding it from your elected officials by your support for me. If there were others who had stood up against both McCain and Obama in the eligibility outlines of our U.S. Constitution so they wouldn’t be seen as racist I’d recommend supporting them to, but there just isn’t. As Clint Eastwood might say with that consideration in mind, “Without me there’s just no one sitting in the chair. I’m all you got.”
Ignoring the facts just like Congress has ignored them isn’t going to change them and the thing about facts is they eventually catch up with you.
Judy v. Obama is indeed in chambers and is set to be ruled upon shortly. I don’t know exactly when it was submitted for a decision as ripe by the Clerks and I don’t know how long it may be in chambers much like one doesn’t know how long it will take for a jury to reach a decision but we do know now for certain that the process of a decision is underway, that all arguments have been submitted and now are closed. The U.S. District Court Records submitted and a decision is now close at hand.
Cody Robert Judy
For those wishing to read the court action I have filed in Judy v. Obama filed in the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Denver, CO. I invite you to here. I also would like to make an appeal to you for contributions which you can send to the address listed on the Court document to me if you'd like or you can now do that online at the web site now.
We need your help. Will you help us or are the outrageous lies your being told by your elected leaders okay for you and your children? If you won't defend your children and their future who will you defend?
The 2016 Campaign begins now. Please send your contributions and help with the ABC (American Birther Campaign) today and my election for President in 2016 and Join the 257 of us now on my Facebook Cody Robert Judy for U.S. President 2016 site.
Cody Robert Judy for President 2016
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401
Cody Robert Judy
Candidate for United States President 2016
The Commercial is simply called "America"
Join the new CODY ROBERT JUDY FOR PRES 2016 FB SITE Here