This is a copy of a video presentation that I was given from the Constitution Party while I was in Iowa. I thought it would be interesting to post it and allow you all to view it. I am betting it will cause quite a debate. I had to break it up into segments in order to get it to post on the blog.
Enjoy!
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Voter's Guide
Posted by Nate at 3:35 PM
Labels: Constitution Party, Videos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I know this video is a little lengthy but I was hoping you all would take the time to watch it.
I thought the it would stir up some debate.
Let's hear your comments....
I've watched the first and last one, but I'll wait until I get to the others before I comment...
That's good, but they go in sequence so you should watch them in order because they are really one video I just had to break them up to get them to post.
Who put this together? Quotes from J. Rueben Clark and ETB?
Benson is one of the worst examples of using fear mongering to manipulate followers. His rants on Communism and Socialism were so far-fetched and off the mark it should be embarrassing to anyone who believed what he said. Just his membership in the John Birch Society alone should be a clue.
Ezra Taft Benson defends the John Birch Society
This dude was seriously loco!
The John Birch Society is just another one of many racist, sexist, homophobic organizations in this country that seek to force everyone to live under the conditions of freedom as they define to be correct. Forget about personal freedom and choice with organizations like these. It's all about conformity.
From what I could tell from these videos, the Constitution Party is just like that. They talk about freedom while all they want to do is limit freedom as they see fit.
Why should it matter who put this together. From your comment I am gathering that you are inferring that this was put together by a bunch of Mormons. I don't know, maybe it was and what is wrong with that. They aren't preaching what you call "religious dogma" they are talking about liberty, freedom, the constitution and government.
Since both Ezra Taft Benson and J. Reuben Clark had high positions in government they have experience and knowledge of the government and therefore they are legitimized in using them to quote on topics as such. So the mere fact that they are Mormons does that discredit anything they say that is outside a religious context? Does this mean to you that in every instance what they say is wrong, absurd, and incorrect? I surely hope not because everyone no matter what religion or, no religion, share valid and true view points on government and society.
However, by your clear reaction of attacking Clark and Benson and the people who put this together it makes me feel that you are discrediting anything that comes from a Mormon. Do you think the same of my comments? Do you think that since I belong to this religion that my thinking is clearing off base and therefore compromises my judgment to make rational and valid discussion on topics outside of religion?
You talk of narrow mindedness and that all religious people are this way. From your comments above I don't see how you are any different than what you claim us to be.
Lastly, if you think that the constitution party is about conformity, fear mongering, and loss of liberty you apparently weren't watching the video or perhaps it is because you couldn't get over the fact that Benson and Clark were quoted in this so you were busy coming up with an attack instead of listening to the presentation.
They clearly showed how the two current parties (they focused on mainly on the republicans) are using fear politics in order to take away basic constitutional freedoms in order to ensure safety. Sacrificing liberty for security.
They also are showing how with the growing influence of globalism we are losing some of our sovereignty and could continue to lose much much more.
In a nut shell they are for small government, constitutional principles, and no socialism.
Your problem was that you made a generalization by assuming that since they quoted Ezra Taft Benson that they share all of his political beliefs as well as the beliefs of the John Birch Society which is clearly not true.
They are not about conformity but about freedom liberty and our rights to sovereignty.
Relax Nate. You are combining two separate points I made into one, which would make me look like an intolerant jerk.
I don't think I'm an intolerant jerk, but I can't control how others view me.
My first point about Benson is applicable only because they use him within the context of validating their political position. Benson was so fanatical during that time in his life (which is related to his membership in the John Birch Society) that he even alienated relationships within the Mormon hierarchy. His views were extreme, but that fit right in with the Eisenhower Presidency and McCarthyism in full swing.
My second point was that the Constitution Party seems to me like a more right-wing version of the Republican Party. They don't focus on things like equality and civil rights. They're too busy trying to redefine the Constitution as "God's word". People like this limit freedom because they are too concerned with telling people how to behave and think instead of leaving those things up to each individual.
But again, these things would only resonate with someone who understands what it means to be forced to give their allegiance to an idea or cause in which they do not believe in, simply because their government mandates it.
Nate,
I really didn't have much time to shoot off a reply to you last time. Now that I do, let me be more clear about my positions in regards to your original post. I don't want to just leave it because it matters to me if you think of me as narrow-minded or intolerant. I'm not, and I don't think I presented my comment that way.
You took serious offense at my comment and spoke of my intolerance towards Mormons. The problem with that is that I don't have any intolerance towards any Mormon, and if you re-read my comment, you will find that there is no negative connotation in anything I wrote. How did you find negativity where there was none?
Analogy time: Let's say you were checking out a political party and their platform. You watch a video that describes their political views. You notice that these videos quote John Travolta and Tom Cruise several times. The thought occurs to you that it seems odd that this political video is so adamant about profiling two Scientologists. It makes you wonder if the video's producers are involved in Scientology.
But regardless of this Scientology connection, you find that you disagree with the political leanings of not only the two actors but the political party themselves.
After hearing this opinion from you, I promptly ask you why you can't tolerate Scientology. Maybe going even so far as accusing you of discounting anything that comes out of a Scientologist's mouth as rubbish.
But of course, you never said that. And neither did I.
I was critical of ETB's political views, not his religion. You made that part up. Yes, I expressed interest in the video's origins, but never said anything of a negative nature regarding it.
For all you know, the fact that a Mormon might have created that video gives it more credibility to me because I feel that they are presenting things as honestly as they know how.
But you assumed my sentence to be a negative judgment against your religion, for reasons I can only guess. Maybe you assume that it is impossible to leave Mormonism and still appreciate other's freedom to continue practicing it. Maybe you think I have nothing positive to say about Mormonism. Maybe you don't like to hear criticism of a person you hold in high esteem. Maybe you think there are evil forces clouding my judgment and affecting my behavior. I don't know, you'd have to tell me, I can only guess.
I think that every human being should be held to the same levels of accountability, regardless of position or office, religious or secular. No one should be considered untouchable. Your prophets are no exception.
I'm sorry if I offended you. But let me be clear: I don't agree with the Constitution Party's world-view, emphasis on a religious-based government, or their economic policies. This all being based on the video you shared. That's all I wanted to get across. None of which has anything to do with Mormonism.
Post a Comment