Chuck Baldwin: My Thoughts On The Movie "American Sniper"

Lexington'96

New member
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin841.htm

As did millions of other Americans, I went to see the hugely popular Clint Eastwood-directed movie, “American Sniper.” Here are some of my thoughts:

No one, at least not me, doubts the patriotism, courage, and sacrifice of our nation’s military personnel--especially our combat forces. I certainly do not share Michael Moore’s opinion that Chris Kyle (and the rest of our military snipers) was a coward. Snipers have been effective in helping to wage America’s wars since our War for Independence. In lawful combat, snipers are as needful as any other specialized fighting man.

My issue is not with Chris Kyle--or with any other American fighting man. My issue is with the justness of the war Chris Kyle was ordered to fight. Yes, I realize that we have an all-volunteer army; but let’s be honest enough to admit that the vast majority of our young people joining the U.S. military sincerely believe that they are doing their patriotic duty by volunteering to conduct war against America’s “enemies.” They learn nothing else from family, school, movies and television, and church. The singular message they hear is that everything the U.S. military does is right and righteous and that every military engagement is just and justified. I’m sure Chris Kyle was no different.

However, at the risk of sounding unpatriotic, after watching the real-life military exploits of Chris Kyle on the Big Screen, I left the theater extremely angry.

In the first place, Saddam Hussein and the country of Iraq had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11, and virtually everyone on the planet now knows it. G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney unabashedly lied to the American people about the necessity of America invading Iraq. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses; we occupied Iraq under false pretenses; and we took (and lost) thousands of lives under false pretenses.

If those miscreants in Washington, D.C., want to invade countries that truly have Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), why don’t they invade Russia, or China, or Great Britain, or North Korea, or India, or Pakistan, or Israel? We haven’t heard the first word about the need to invade and occupy any of those countries. Why not? Each of those countries has known stockpiles of nuclear weapons. And when it comes to abusing human rights, most of the countries listed above have miserable records. But, no one from either party in Washington, D.C., even broaches the idea of invading and occupying (or even bombing) any of these nations. But we were told that the little country of Iraq posed such a severe and imminent threat against the United States that a military invasion was required. Everyone in the world now knows that was poppycock.

And for the benefit of my Christian readers, Saddam Hussein was one of the most tolerant and accommodating Muslim leaders in the entire region. Christian churches thrived under Hussein. For the most part, Hussein happily accommodated the exercise of the Christian religion in Iraq. He even had at least one Christian in his cabinet.

What has happened to Christianity in Iraq since the United States overthrew Saddam Hussein? Several recent reports have documented the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Christianity has been totally expunged from the country of Iraq. Christians have fled the country in terror due to intense persecution. There are no churches left in Iraq. This is AFTER the “liberation” of Iraq and the installation of a puppet government by the United States.

Secondly, as I watched the depiction of U.S. Marines going house-to-house kicking down doors and manhandling old men, women, and children, it occurred to me that these exact same tactics are now being employed by American police agencies against the people of the United States. Our so-called SWAT teams are nothing more than occupying military units on American soil. The strategies, philosophies, mindset, and tactics are exactly the same as soldiers in a war zone.

Thirdly, ask yourself these questions: what if, instead of the place being Fallujah, Iraq, the place was Kansas City, Missouri? Instead of the invasion force being the U.S. military, it was military troops from China, Russia, or North Korea? What if the occupying military snipers were killing American women and children instead of Iraqi women and children? Would we still consider them “heroes?” And would we act any differently from the Iraqi people who were simply trying to defend their homes and communities against an occupying foreign power?

When I left the theater, I was not angry with Chris Kyle because he happened to apparently be the best at what he was trained to do; I was angry with the politicians in Washington, D.C., who sent Chris Kyle into an unjust and undeclared war against people who posed NO imminent threat to the United States...

Read the whole thing, it's very insightful.
 

Levolor

New member
Read the whole thing, it's very insightful.

Yes it is. I've had those same thoughts and the righteous anger about it too, but that was experienced, especially, while it was happening. When the subject comes up... it's still unpleasant to realize all that surrounds the subject.

But, I knew the gov' 'ment wasn't to be trusted long before 9-11-01.

What to do? Seems most have the sense of accomplishing something by complaining online... seems fluoridating the water has been successful in keeping the feet off the pavement... meaning that the protests would be different if there was less apathy, which fluoride promotes.


Oh ma-an... now I'm thinking about all this stuff! ugh


Time to start praising the Lord, ... anyway.

Psalm 103:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is a good start. :)

Because of Philippians 4:8
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
first of all
there is already a thread on this in all the rest
did you even look?

second
you just cut and pasted what someone else said
did you see the movie?

third
I didn't read the whole thing
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin841.htm



Read the whole thing, it's very insightful.


I read it. While I agree to an extent with the points he's making, it's hard to get past the fact that it's Chuck Baldwin, and there's a lot I find problematic with Chuck Baldwin. And when I go to his site and see InfoWars in his newsfeed, it doesn't help.

I agree that many Americans, myself included at the time, were fed a line of propaganda that on the surface justified the war in Iraq. Looking back now, I can't believe I went along with it, but I live/lived in an environment where with few exceptions, everything I heard was reinforced by most of the people I knew or was related to and without realizing what I was doing and because I didn't know any better (which isn't an excuse) I was finding for myself (including at the time membership on a large conservative forum and of course talk radio... ) all the confirmation bias necessary to keep myself right where I was.

But Chuck Baldwin? The same Chuck Baldwin who thought he'd win the 2008 election because God was on his side, who would take draconian measures for his goals when it's obvious he has little idea how to accomplish those goals administratively?
TNA: Should we have protective tariffs?
Baldwin: No, I'm not for protective tariffs. First of all, we've got to eliminate the 16th Amendment. And the IRS and the income tax. The second thing I would seek to do would be to eliminate excessive federal spending. I would do what Newt Gingrich promised to do back in 1994 and then failed to do. I would eliminate those same federal departments that he named - the Department of Education, the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, etc. - as well as the many other agencies where spending could be severely reduced or eliminated altogether. So I would slash federal spending and bring it down to levels that are constitutionally valid.
And what I would propose is an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution's prescription for financing the federal government — duties, imposts, tariffs. And it would supply the needs of a limited federal government, as the constraints of the Constitution require.

TNA: Have you run the numbers on that? Do you have an estimate on how much revenue a 10-percent tariff would bring?
Baldwin: I don't have hard numbers on that. But Ron Paul does, and when I am president, I will appoint him as Secretary of the Treasury.

I recognize the doomsday language of Chuck Baldwin, I've heard it for years from the people around me in real life. It sells books, foments fear and a bunker mentality among good people who hear what they've been raised to hear, trained to hear. They see a family man, a God-fearing patriot, he leads their church, shapes their political mindset regarding a nameless faceless global entity that's out to destroy them. It's this American conservative Christian identity that's politically religious and religiously political, the two so completely entwined that it's a whole new entity entirely.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Pro legalization of dope, pro Ron Paul. What can you say about Chuckie Wuckie Baldwin other than "Loonatarian".

 

Zeke

Well-known member
I read it. While I agree to an extent with the points he's making, it's hard to get past the fact that it's Chuck Baldwin, and there's a lot I find problematic with Chuck Baldwin. And when I go to his site and see InfoWars in his newsfeed, it doesn't help.

I agree that many Americans, myself included at the time, were fed a line of propaganda that on the surface justified the war in Iraq. Looking back now, I can't believe I went along with it, but I live/lived in an environment where with few exceptions, everything I heard was reinforced by most of the people I knew or was related to and without realizing what I was doing and because I didn't know any better (which isn't an excuse) I was finding for myself (including at the time membership on a large conservative forum and of course talk radio... ) all the confirmation bias necessary to keep myself right where I was.

But Chuck Baldwin? The same Chuck Baldwin who thought he'd win the 2008 election because God was on his side, who would take draconian measures for his goals when it's obvious he has little idea how to accomplish those goals administratively?
TNA: Should we have protective tariffs?
Baldwin: No, I'm not for protective tariffs. First of all, we've got to eliminate the 16th Amendment. And the IRS and the income tax. The second thing I would seek to do would be to eliminate excessive federal spending. I would do what Newt Gingrich promised to do back in 1994 and then failed to do. I would eliminate those same federal departments that he named - the Department of Education, the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, etc. - as well as the many other agencies where spending could be severely reduced or eliminated altogether. So I would slash federal spending and bring it down to levels that are constitutionally valid.
And what I would propose is an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution's prescription for financing the federal government — duties, imposts, tariffs. And it would supply the needs of a limited federal government, as the constraints of the Constitution require.

TNA: Have you run the numbers on that? Do you have an estimate on how much revenue a 10-percent tariff would bring?
Baldwin: I don't have hard numbers on that. But Ron Paul does, and when I am president, I will appoint him as Secretary of the Treasury.

I recognize the doomsday language of Chuck Baldwin, I've heard it for years from the people around me in real life. It sells books, foments fear and a bunker mentality among good people who hear what they've been raised to hear, trained to hear. They see a family man, a God-fearing patriot, he leads their church, shapes their political mindset regarding a nameless faceless global entity that's out to destroy them. It's this American conservative Christian identity that's politically religious and religiously political, the two so completely entwined that it's a whole new entity entirely.

Yet this is how they keep the truth of what he said defused, with guilt by association with others like Alex Jones who are also part of the system, and a old propaganda trick that keeps the cattle from stampeding by using this tried and perfected ploy.

Every things is based on seven/seventies that happen seeing the Babylonian system is based on the literal letter of the OT law and numerology that runs this pyramid scheme/Mt Sinai, if you support war or patriot nationality you are not in the Kingdom of Creation that has no system based on things made with or scribbled with hands.

This kind of stuff goes in cycles of planned chaos, look on the federal reserve note order out of what?, the Bankers and Wall street cause the economy to go in the tank, and ruin lives but get away with anything, and get rewarded for it yet the populace is herded around in circles caused by the duality programming propaganda with the divisional effects we partake in everyday, oh someone rob a store how awful, or someone disobeyed and was killed for resisting arrest etc...........yet these are fleas on the Elephants rump and are a mental distraction to keep the mind satisfied while the real criminals are praised and re-fused over and over by the citizen though frustrated, still thinks the remedy is with Baal. That is insane.
 
Last edited:

Lexington'96

New member
you just cut and pasted what someone else said
did you see the movie?

No, I have not. But there is a lot more to this review than the movie itself.

This part is also good:

And if you think there is religious liberty for the Jewish people in the modern state of Israel, you haven’t been there. Let a Jew in Israel convert to Christianity and try to publicly witness for his faith (in much the same manner as did the Apostles in the New Testament) and see what happens. The persecution is intense.

When I was in Israel, I preached in the two Baptist churches in that country. One was in Jerusalem; the other was in Bethlehem. What I discovered surprised me: over ninety percent of the Christians in those churches were not converted Jews; they were converted Muslims. And most of them were Palestinians. In fact, Christianity is growing exponentially among the Palestinian people, even as we speak.
 

Lexington'96

New member
But Chuck Baldwin? The same Chuck Baldwin who thought he'd win the 2008 election because God was on his side, who would take draconian measures for his goals when it's obvious he has little idea how to accomplish those goals administratively?

I'm pretty sure he knew he would lose the election.
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
But Chuck Baldwin? The same Chuck Baldwin who thought he'd win the 2008 election because God was on his side, who would take draconian measures for his goals when it's obvious he has little idea how to accomplish those goals administratively?
TNA: Should we have protective tariffs?
Baldwin: No, I'm not for protective tariffs. First of all, we've got to eliminate the 16th Amendment. And the IRS and the income tax. The second thing I would seek to do would be to eliminate excessive federal spending. I would do what Newt Gingrich promised to do back in 1994 and then failed to do. I would eliminate those same federal departments that he named - the Department of Education, the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Commerce, etc. - as well as the many other agencies where spending could be severely reduced or eliminated altogether. So I would slash federal spending and bring it down to levels that are constitutionally valid.
And what I would propose is an across-the-board, general 10-percent tariff on all imports and that would meet the Constitution's prescription for financing the federal government — duties, imposts, tariffs. And it would supply the needs of a limited federal government, as the constraints of the Constitution require.

TNA: Have you run the numbers on that? Do you have an estimate on how much revenue a 10-percent tariff would bring?
Baldwin: I don't have hard numbers on that. But Ron Paul does, and when I am president, I will appoint him as Secretary of the Treasury.



:chuckle: Not exactly something that inspires confidence.

I do like Ron Paul though. :plain:​
 

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
I'm glad to see someone else appreciate the significance of that. :chuckle:

It's like a little boy saying, "no, I can't, but my BIG BROTHER can..."
:chuckle:

I considered Ron Paul. I wasn't convinced.
I didn't/don't agree with him on everything but I supported him because I liked enough of it and I wanted a change of pace. And it's not like he would have been able to enact everything he wanted. Congress would have fought him on much of it. :box:

I don't think I like his son as much. :think:
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
:chuckle:


I didn't/don't agree with him [Ron Paul] on everything but I supported him because I liked enough of it and I wanted a change of pace.

The legalization of all recreational drugs, prostitution and any kind of pornography would have definitely been a "change of pace" for our country had the lunatic from Texas been elected POTUS.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
:chuckle:


I didn't/don't agree with him on everything but I supported him because I liked enough of it and I wanted a change of pace. And it's not like he would have been able to enact everything he wanted. Congress would have fought him on much of it. :box:

I don't think I like his son as much. :think:

True, there were things I liked as well, and who's going to get a candidate they agree with on everything?

Here's where I agree with him completely. This was pre-9/11:

At 3:33: "Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us."

Ron Paul's prediction
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally Posted by kmoney
I didn't/don't agree with him on everything but I supported him because I liked enough of it and I wanted a change of pace. And it's not like he would have been able to enact everything he wanted. Congress would have fought him on much of it.

I don't think I like his son as much.

True, there were things I liked as well, and who's going to get a candidate they agree with on everything?

Here's where I agree with him completely. This was pre-9/11:

At 3:33: "Our foolish policy in Iraq invites terrorist attacks against U.S. territory and incites the Islamic fundamentalists against us."

Poor anna, she too is living in Libertarian la la land where people think if you leave evil alone, it will leave you alone as well.

Islam Imperialism
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
[/INDENT]I recognize the doomsday language of Chuck Baldwin, I've heard it for years from the people around me in real life. It sells books, foments fear and a bunker mentality among good people who hear what they've been raised to hear, trained to hear. They see a family man, a God-fearing patriot, he leads their church, shapes their political mindset regarding a nameless faceless global entity that's out to destroy them. It's this American conservative Christian identity that's politically religious and religiously political, the two so completely entwined that it's a whole new entity entirely.

I'm not saying I agree with all of Chuck Baldwin's theology, but politically he's pretty solid.
Pro legalization of dope, pro Ron Paul. What can you say about Chuckie Wuckie Baldwin other than "Loonatarian".


Remember when you quoted this guy favorably?

I'm glad to see someone else appreciate the significance of that. :chuckle:

It's like a little boy saying, "no, I can't, but my BIG BROTHER can..."

I guess it sort of does, but oh well. A: Chuck wouldn't have won, B: If he did, I trust Ron Paul;)
:chuckle:


I didn't/don't agree with him on everything but I supported him because I liked enough of it and I wanted a change of pace. And it's not like he would have been able to enact everything he wanted. Congress would have fought him on much of it. :box:

I don't think I like his son as much. :think:

Rand isn't as consistent as Ron but I'm still going to vote for him. There's no perfection in this world, I'm afraid.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Remember when you quoted this guy [Chuckie Wuckie Baldwin] favorably?

Oh but Jr., a broken cuckoo clock is always right twice a day. While Baldwin does have some good things to say (he writes for a wonderful conservative website "renewamerica.com"), one has to wonder why a Christian pastor would associate with a drug pushing pervert like Ron Paul?
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
I'm not saying I agree with all of Chuck Baldwin's theology, but politically he's pretty solid.

He's either sympathetic to, or in agreement with 9/11 truthers, from what I remember. He seems to lean to the conspiracy, apocalyptic, one-world government type mindset, which isn't what I'd be looking for in a political representative, no matter at what level of government.

I guess it sort of does, but oh well. A: Chuck wouldn't have won, B: If he did, I trust Ron Paul;)
Yeah, it does. :chuckle: It doesn't inspire confidence in my mind, that's for sure.
 
Top