I read the article twice and I still don’t understand why the author dislikes Beck. He talks about the damage he could do, but doesn’t talk about how, or why. He talks about things that Beck has been involved with, that I have never heard him try to take credit for, and says he isn’t responsible for them.
Beck does the unforgivable and believes in the US Constitution’s literal interpretation. This premise makes a person take some positions that seem “radical” in modern times. It is those with a timid and false morality that object to the US Government adhering to the principals that founded it.
A constitution is something with an actual, and literal rather than ideal existence. A constitution can be referred to section by section and article by article. Where a specific article cannot be pointed to regarding a specific issue in a constitution, there is none.
The only legitimate power a government can have is through the consent of the governed. In the US’s case, that consent is in written form as the US Constitution. When a government, a congressman, a judge or a president acts with power not ceded to them by the constitution, it is a usurpation, an act of despotism, a tyranny and an inherent evil.
The farther the US gets from its founding principals, the weaker the country and less secure the individual rights that have separated the US from lesser countries since its founding. The only protection the people of the United States have against despotism is the literal and absolute implementation of the Constitution of the United States, regardless of the consequences.
Is the First Ammendment’s protection against the Congress establishing a national religion worth not having federal funding of religious institutions? Yes.
Is the First Ammendment’s protection of religious expression, worth some people being offended by the mention of Jesus, Allah, Buddha or Zoroaster at a highschool graduation? Definitely yes.
Is the First Amendment’s protection against government’s censors worth the abuse by pornographers and racists? Absolutely.
Is the Second Amendment’s protections of all other individual liberties worth the thousands murdered every year? Without question, yes.
Is the protection of state and individual rights through the narrow and limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause worth not having federally funded national healthcare, education, pollution controls and drunk driving laws? Resoundingly yes.
Is the preservation of the principal of Federalism worth not allowing the Federal Government to withold highway funds from states that won’t change their laws in ways the Constitution specifically restricts the Federal Government? Certainly so.
The cost of not strictly addhering to the US Constitution as written on the page is economic ruin, governmental tyranny and disintegration of the Union. What was once the greatest military and economic power in the world will become another third rate dictatorship yearning for status lost.
The 10,000 year history of human government is a history of totalitarianism, despotism, opression and tyranny. The USA is an extreme anomoly, a freak circumnstance where individual liberty is prized above the false security of a nanny state. This freak occurance has existed less than 300 years, it would be expected that it would fade into the normalcy of opression and tyranny. It is utterly foolish to think this cannot happen.
If we value the liberty that we have had and wish it to be handed down another generation, difficult choices have to be made very soon by ordinary people. The outcome of those decisions made today will shape the lives of your great grandchildren.
