I write to you today as someone who has listened to both your shows for some years, and, like both of you, I am extremely concerned for this country, the direction it has taken in recent years, and the (possible) horrible outcome of this year’s election. I am also concerned in that I have heard both of you rail against one another, and this is what concerns me the most: divide and conquer is the primary strategy of the Left, and so long as the Right remains divided, the Left will continually win. More on that later, but for now, I will try to get to the heart of the dispute between the two of you.
….And therein lies the rub: spiritual knowledge is reserved for those who have actually become spiritual. One of the most important verses in all of Scripture is found in the statement attributed to Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:14: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
No statement could be truer, and yet most believers read that statement and assume that it does not apply to them because they are believers. I know, because I was once one of those believers, I read it that way myself, and I cannot tell you how many sermons I listened to, both sitting in a church pew, as well as hearing it in a sermon on Christian radio, where the statement was applied only to the “unbelievers,” yet in all my years of attending various churches and other faith-based groups, I never once heard of how the verse applies equally to the “believers,” yet surely it does, since this letter to the Corinthians begins in its first chapter with Paul praising the Corinthian community for the fact that they were (paraphrasing). “enriched by Christ in all utterance and knowledge, and that the testimony of Christ was confirmed in them.” He also notes that they are not lacking in any spiritual gift. So, these people to whom the letter is addressed certainly were believers. Yet, after making his crucial statement in 2:14, he goes on in chapter 3 to say, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.”
Mr. Hannity, I will begin with you. You, of course, have never made any claim to any great level of spirituality. Since your role is much more pragmatic, it is therefore also easier for you to make the call you are asking your listeners to make. Since the election of Hillary Clinton would guarantee the continued decline in America’s economy, as well as its role in the world, not to mention the virtual end of the First and Second Amendments through the appointment of radical Leftist judges to the Supreme Court and lower courts, to you, the choice is obvious: Trump represents our nation’s last best hope to overcome the conditions imposed upon it by eight years of Leftist rule. I can certainly understand why it would frustrate you to no end that Beck, and others on the Right, oppose Trump. Yet, please try to understand that there is an important spiritual reason why those who view Trump see him the way that they do, and spiritual things are much more difficult to properly discern. My purpose in this letter is to explain the way I see it, and hopefully, in a way that the both of you can understand and accept. The people (on the Right) who oppose Trump largely do so because they have a built-in confirmation bias against him, and they are clearly afraid that he either will become a dictator or will pave the road for some kind of dictatorship. If you continue to yell at them as well as demean them and accuse them of being traitors, and encourage your audience to do the same, it will only increase their confirmation bias that Trump would become a dictator, and as such, would be deadly toxic to our country. I can’t speak to the other critics of Trump, but after having listened to Mr. Beck for several years, I believe that what Mr. Beck needs is for someone to speak to his heart and explain this choice in a way that he can understand, accept, and even (hopefully) embrace. I am not sure that I will be able to do that, but I feel it is my duty to do my very best to try, and so that is what I will attempt to do in this letter. Please forgive me, but since spiritual things are so difficult to discern, and they are even more difficult to articulate, I will need a lengthy background explanation in order to build my case, one that goes back hundreds of years into history, yet I promise you that it is entirely relevant to this election, so please hold with me until the very end.
Now, for you, Mr. Beck. It is a good and praiseworthy thing that you have always tried to present a case that considers God and spirituality when you do your show. However, as I mentioned above, spiritual knowledge and understanding are reserved for those who have become spiritual, and as a seeker who has not yet “become spiritual,” I know from personal experience how tricky it is even to begin to get a tiny bit of progress in that direction. Just because a person is a baptized and confirmed believer, has undergone some secret church ritual, and has an interest in spiritual matters, does not in any way prove that person to be “spiritual.” I don’t in any way mean to be critical; it is just that spiritual matters are that difficult to even begin to understand. Why? Because our natural senses are primed to see virtually all things in reverse of their true reality: backwards/forwards, upside-down, inside-out, etc. Think about it for a minute. Are we humans the Creator? Or is God the Creator of The All? I say this because it is self-evident that we live in the world of Effect, and it is nearly impossible to correctly perceive the cause of all things, thus we cannot even judge ourselves with true objectivity, much less judge anyone else properly, without first learning how God see us/them. God, on the other hand, Who is the Ultimate Cause of All Causes, and lives in the world of Cause, ultimately has the vision to understand the consequences of each potential choice, and thus, sees everything for what it truly is. We, however, who still see through our natural senses, and have not yet fully developed the proper “eyes to see and ears to hear” must humbly admit that we still remain as one who“looks through a glass darkly.” and we don’t yet see all the consequences of our choices for what they really are, as the Proverb goes, “there is a way that seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof is death.”
In that vein, let us do a little fill-in-the-blank exercise. I will provide a quote from the Bible, and let’s see if you can fill in the missing words.
The point of the above verse is that everything, down to the smallest tragedy–that of a small bird falling to the ground, happens in accordance with the Laws of Providence, or what our Founding Fathers called The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Jesus goes on to say that the flock of believers is even more valuable than many sparrows, so if we take that to the next level, surely the United States of America is even more valuable than that? Even though I know it is hard for you, Mr. Beck, please do try to keep this in mind when you consider the nomination of Donald Trump as the GOP candidate. Even though you may not understand it yet, just the fact that it has already happened, it surely has to factor into the Father’s plan somehow or somewhere. I have been carefully watching and listening to try to get a sense of where this is going, and I do believe that I have encouraging news for you, Mr. Beck! But please forgive me, as this is not easy to explain, and I must give a lengthy background in order to properly present my case to you. I promise you that it is all relevant to this current situation, and the election that is happening just a few weeks away, but since the roots of our current distress go back many centuries, I have to begin there in order to properly explain.
The greatest story never told is that the Scriptures are exactly what they were always intended to be. They are written so as to provide apparent support for a seemingly infinite multitude of conclusions that can be drawn by each person or group. By design, therefore, they serve as a catalyst that divides the people into a multitude of different groups that view reality from a vastly different array of perspectives, each in accordance with their level of spiritual development, the condition of their mind and being, and their contribution to the greater whole, in order to explore and develop all the characteristics necessary in order reach what Jesus called the Second Birth.
You wouldn’t know it now, of course, judging by the ease with which modern Christians declare themselves to be “born again,” but the original concept of the Second Birth was a much more extraordinary achievement–a much greater accomplishment than simply making an altar call, saying “The Sinner’s Prayer” and then declaring that you have “come to Jesus,” as they do in our modern churches today. Otherwise, how is it possible that Nicodemus didn’t have a clue what Jesus was talking about? I don’t have time to go into that topic, but it is an important piece of background information to note that the Second Birth, as originally taught by the historical man Jesus, was a massive achievement–one that only a few souls were expected to achieve in any given point in history.
Getting back to the issue of the Scriptures: they were intentionally written in such a way that each person sees in the text whatever he/ she is inclined to believe. This then naturally causes people to organize themselves in various like-minded groups, like the saying goes: “birds of a feather flock together,” and this helps people make incremental progress towards the next stage of birth. But the steps that are necessary in order to actually reach it are difficult to understand, very easy to get wrong, and next to impossible to get right. It is by design this way, and although it can be very frustrating for the seeker, think of the wisdom in it: as the prophet Ezekiel says: “the soul that sins will die,” and the writer of Hebrews puts it this way: “if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.”
Keeping the above warnings in mind, therefore, it is imperative that we must not be able to stumble upon enlightenment, while still in a spiritually immature state, in the same way that a person could make a wrong turn and end up in the line to enter Mexico, like Andrew Tahmooressi
did. Thus, the Scriptures are designed to “mislead” us into a having variety of experiences from which we can get actual, direct, empirical evidence for the multitude of different lessons we need in order to (ultimately) be “not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
Thus, the original religion established by Jesus and confirmed by all the apostles was one that was simple, rational, and required absolutely no blind faith in any particular creed, dogma, or sectarian/partisan interpretation. In the first three centuries of our Common Era, the Christian Church as established by Jesus and his original disciples was the most advanced spiritual healing center known to mankind, with a spiritual inner core of disciples that had reached maturity (that stage at which a person could be said to have “become spiritual”), an outer core of seekers who lived at various levels of maturity, and the multitudes, who were just getting started, and oftentimes needed a great deal of healing in order to deal with their past mistakes.
Tragically, though, since the road is so difficult and long, and the instructions are so easy to misunderstand, it makes it very easy for the flock to fall prey to false shepherds who then take advantage of the flock and use them for personal and/or political gain. This is an age-old story, and I do not have time to get into every detail, but the most important thing to note is that in the Fourth Century of the Common Era, the Emperor Constantine convened a council of Church elders, bishops and cardinals, all belonging to the “Orthodoxy.” These men had been arguing for decades over the proper Christology, and some of them even advocated killing people who disagreed with them. It cannot be understated that when Constantine convened this council, known to history as The Council of Nicea, the Emperor did NOT invite the Ebionites or Nazirenes, the natural Hebrew-born heirs of the movement that Jesus started. He also did not invite the Spiritual (Gnostic) Christians, which were the closest Gentile equivalent. These three groups were all considered to be “deplorables” in the eyes of the Emperor and the “Orthodox” clergy, thus their opinions or teachings were rejected ab initio.
So, when Constantine convened the Council of Nicea, he heard ONLY from the “Orthodox” priests, bishops, scribes, etc. They hashed out their sectarian opinions on the nature of Christ, and then Constantine picked the opinion that he liked the best, and imposed his choice on the entire Church. Those who opposed this takeover of the spiritual movement that Jesus started (ie. the spiritual core) were either put to death or silenced. It is in this way that the seeds for the modern “Progressive” movement were sown. Yes, you did read that right: the modern “Progressive,” and “politically correct” dogma that we are dealing with today has its (ultimate) origin in Constantine’s takeover of the movement started by the historical man Jesus. The reason why I say this is that at its root, the whole notion of “Progressivism” and “political correctness” asserts that one person or group of people have the right and duty to dictate to all others what they must believe, and how they must live their lives. You don’t have to look very long on social media to see some of these people even calling for the arrest and execution of people they disagree with. Since the Secular Progressives have already given up all notion of the Sanctity of Human Life, it is only a matter of time before the actions that they take in order to enforce their dogmatic belief system turn to literal murder of those they consider “deplorable.” Don’t doubt me on this! This is humanity’s default position: arbitrary rule and abuse of the masses by those in power. See, for example, America’s Move Toward Tyranny
, Walter Williams’ excellent expose of this natural tendency, of which I will quote a small part here:
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.” The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the Founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind’s history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind’s normal state of affairs.
What is unknown by most today is that thousands of years ago, when the Tanakh (Torah-Prophets-Writings, or what Christians call the “Old Testament”) was written, the world was populated by ISIS-type people who would happily cut your head off if you openly disagreed with their superstitious and primitive belief system. Therefore, the sages who wrote these spiritual texts had no other choice but to take the tribalistic beliefs that the people who called themselves “Jews” already had, and put them into narratives into which they hid the most important knowledge that they had gained about secrets of the higher mysteries of creation. Into these narratives, they deliberately inserted contradictions, which would cause the more intelligent members of the community to ask questions, which would indicate to the rabbi or leader that they were ready to go to the next level of understanding. For a modern example, think of that scene in “The Matrix,” where a cat goes by in an alley, and then a few seconds later, goes by again. That was said to be a sign of a glitch in the matrix: look closely, because your opportunity for freedom is getting closer. Thus, Judaism is what is known as a “mystery religion,” in that the teachings that were given to the masses differed from the gradual revelations allowed to the developing seekers, and thus, over thousands of years, the tribe that called themselves Jews gradually evolved.
At one time, this sort of organization into a mystery religion environment was critical–as I said earlier–if an enlightened sage openly declared what he knew to be the truth, then the masses would happily cut off his head (or worse). Thus, he had no other choice but to write what he knew in allegorical writings where the true spiritual meaning is gradually revealed as the seeker gradually matures and proves that he can handle the new information. This type of organization, however, has a huge downside in that after the founding generation dies, these religious movements are always taken over by priests who lack the original vision of the founders. Also, since the nature of the work is spiritual, and thus the truth or falsehood of it is hard for the masses to discern, these priests always end up rewriting the rules to their political and economic advantage, thus leading the people into a period of stagnation until another true visionary came on the scene and helped to make more growth possible. This went on for thousands of years. Thus, by the time that the historical Jesus entered the scene, Jewish society had evolved to the point where many of the most critical teachings could be openly stated. This is an important point: the gospel does not in any way contradict the spiritual essence of the Torah. Where the gospel appears to contradict the Torah, it is because the Torah was deliberately written to conceal what the gospel openly reveals, and the gospel was written so as to free the people from the mystery religion environment, where they would always have to be dependent on another person, usually a man, to tell them what the text really says. So, please do not make the mistake of thinking that the gospel openly reveals everything in its written text: there is still much more to be discerned, since the gospel was written so as to allow each person to begin where they are, and by direct experience, learn the truth of the mysteries of creation, eventually reaching that state at which it could be said that they “shall all be taught of God.”
In the same way that Judaism developed as a mystery religion, the entire ancient world was populated by members of these “mystery religions,” one of which was the Roman religion known as “Mithraism,” which was the religion of Constantine before his famous “conversion” to Christianity. It was dying out because it was not really genuine: it basically amounted to Emperor worship, and thus, it lacked the vibrancy of a genuine spiritual religion such as Christianity had (when originally founded). Constantine “left” Mithraism behind, and “converted” to Christianity for this reason, plus one other: his own Mithraic priests had told him that he had been so evil as to be completely irredeemable. The priests of “Orthodox” Christianity, on the other hand, offered him a bargain he couldn’t refuse: they said that all he had to do was to be baptized in order for his sins to be forgiven. Then, after that, he would need to live a sinless life. Now, Constantine may have been an evil tyrant, but he was not stupid: he knew darn well that he would never be able to even halfway live up to Christianity’s moral code, much less to the point of sinless perfection. Thus, he did what any evil tyrant would have done in his place: he set himself up with a personal cadre of “Orthodox” priests surrounding him 24/7, so that he could get himself baptized just before death.
If you are a Christian today, it ought to give you pause to think that the man almost single-handedly responsible for the “non-negotiable” doctrines of your church wasn’t even a genuine, baptized Christian when he sat on those church councils and used his political power to force his favored viewpoint onto the church! To get a modern-day equivalent, imagine Barack Obama convening a council and dictating to you what beliefs you are allowed to hold about Christ, and then sending people in to kill you if you disagreed with him: would you cave into that, or would you resist? Contrast that thinking with the important statement of Paul in Galatians 1: “though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” In other words, the people in the Early Church had already received the gospel–each individual and group receiving and understanding it in accordance with amount of light afforded to them by the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The masses didn’t know any better, and many of them were probably being taught the doctrine favored by Constantine, but the spiritual inner core of the Early Church–the Ebionites, the Nazirenes, and the Gnostic Christians–could never be so easily fooled, so that is why Constantine had them either put to death or silenced. Now ask yourself this question: if Constantine’s Christology was so superior, wouldn’t it just be self-evident? Why, then, did he have to put people to death for refusing to cave into it?
After the Council of Nicea, there were several more Church councils, each of which purported to set the “correct” doctrine for the entire church. Each one of these councils was, no doubt, convened in order to suppress some movement or teaching that was cropping up. If you read through the declarations of these councils, and especially through the anathemas issued, you can get a glimpse–fragments of truth really–which if you piece them together carefully, they can give you a sense of what some of the original, yet now forbidden, spiritual teachings of Jesus might have been. This is because the gospel is designed to take a person and help him heal in his present condition, and gradually reveal to him all things that are necessary in order to fulfill that condition in which the Scripture says “they shall all be taught by God.” But this means that additional truth would tend to be received as little fragments, which remain misunderstood until the person has proven them true in his own life through direct experience. The trouble is, though, that Constantine had either put to death or silenced everyone who had such a Living Connection with the Source. Therefore, as the believers lived their lives, they tended to create movements that were distorted and divorced from their true reality and context. Picture, for instance, an unwanted tree that has been chopped down. Since the roots are still alive, it continues to put forth branches, trying to re-establish itself. You can continue to cut these branches off, but if they keep coming up, the only way to kill the tree is to completely take it out by all its roots.
It was in this way that the Council of Nicea gave the Early Church a mortal wound; it was the Second Council of Constantinople, convened under Emperor Justinian on behalf of his wife Theodora that finished it off and (seemingly) forever pulled it out by the roots. Why? Because it was at the Second Council of Constantinople that the teaching of the Eternal Soul was declared to be anathema. If you look at the above Wikipedia article, you will see that it is mischaracterized as forbidding the doctrine of “reincarnation,” but to describe the doctrine of the Eternal Soul as “reincarnation” is not entirely accurate. Reincarnation is the Eastern belief that the soul incarnates into a body, lives a lifetime worthy of praise or punishment, and then dies and is then reborn in accordance with whatever rewards or punishments that person earned in his/her previous lifetime. However, if we accept Jesus’ notion that a man cannot even enter the kingdom of God until after he is reborn, then how can it be said that the soul incarnates at all upon its initial, physical birth? In other words, if a person, having been born physically, still needs another stage of birth, isn’t it logical to say that the person who has yet to be reborn is actually, from a soul perspective, still in an unborn (embryonic or fetal) state? Think of this from a physical perspective: if a developing fetus dies in the womb, it certainly is a great tragedy, but we don’t then speak of him/her as having ever lived. So, taking it to its next level, a person who lives his entire life without reaching the next stage of birth, cannot be said to have become an “incarnated soul.” In such a case, “reincarnation” is impossible. Why? You can’t “redo” something before you first “do” it. Keep in mind what I said about Jesus’ original teaching on the Second Birth: it was a much greater accomplishment than it is portrayed today to be. You may wish to disagree with me on this point; however, consider this: if the modern Church is so loaded with people who have achieved the Second Birth, then how is it possible that they are not prevailing in the war that is currently being waged against them by the Left?
Let us, therefore, rethink the concept of the Eternal Soul. If Man needs a Second Birth in order to enter the Kingdom of God, then, by definition, when he is physically born, he remains, from a soul/spiritual perspective, in a yet-unborn state. While the Soul itself is eternal, each individual person represents just one character in the life of the Soul. Thus, the Soul lives multiple lifetimes, while each individual person get just one shot at it (unless he reaches that next level of birth). While each person is only a fragment of his own Soul, the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God ensure that the whole pattern is replicated in the outer world, with each person representing a different fragment of his Soul, and the balance being maintained across society. In the Book of Revelation, it speaks about The Tree of Life, which has Twelve Fruits (which are for the healing of the nations), as well as the 144,000. This is due to the fact that it is impossible to form abstract thought without a high degree of complexity. The 144,000 are thus, each of them, fragments of the Tree of Life, and they can each be considered like a personality type. Each person, then, who is born represents 1/144,000th of the Tree of Life. What this also means is that each living person who you interact with gives you a chance to “see” and interact with a part of your soul that is currently inactive.
Just to illustrate, let us do a thought experiment. If I were to say to you, “please describe to me how you look, but do not look in the mirror, and do not refer back to a time when you looked at yourself in the mirror (or other reflective surface).” Would you be able to do it? Clearly not, because your eyes are designed to look outwardly, at the world around you. Without some way of looking at your reflection, you would not even have a way to turn your gaze back on yourself. In the same way, it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively judge your own character, because you are polarized to one of these 144,000 personality types, and if you rely just on your natural senses and natural reasoning, then everything you think you see will be filtered through that sensory funnel, and there will remain a massive hole in your understanding. This is not a criticism of you; it is a universal fact of the human condition. However, because the entire Tree of Life is at all times living in the world around you, through the people that you interact with, you can benefit from the spiritual nourishment that is at all times flowing through the Whole Tree, thus, you would be able to intuitively sense the things that they are perceiving, too, and you would be able to widen your viewpoint.
In order to benefit from this intuitive nourishment, there is just one rule: God said “of all the trees you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat; for in the day you eat thereof, you will surely die.” Now, just because that verse was co-opted by the priests and politicians of the church and used in order to set up a religious institution with monopoly power doesn’t mean that it’s not still in force, even today. Why? Because even though you probably don’t feel like you live in the Garden of Eden, God still does, and his nourishing sap continues to flow even until this day, and each person is like a tiny part of that tree. As the Scripture declares, “he causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust,” and he provides nourishment to all. This is why the message in your new theme song “We Are One” is so critical at this time. When the people come together in Unity, then nothing will be impossible to them, because they will have God’s power behind them.
Do you know that this rule–the Unity of God–is so important to religious Jews that they try if at all possible to make it so that the Shema is the last word that they utter on their lips? “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One.” I remember a story about a religious family that was murdered in the Sbarro pizza shop bombing that happened in Jerusalem in the year 2000. The witnesses who were there said that the man was leading his children to recite the words as soon as he realized what was happening. A similar concept is found in Nehemiah 8:10, where Nehemia is speaking to the downcast exiles of Judah, and he says, “Don’t be dejected and sad, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.” Now, when you read it in English, doesn’t that seem like the most curious thing you have ever read? It makes it seems like God is sitting in heaven, having a good time while laughing at us mortals and all of our suffering, doesn’t it? Yet, if you read it in Hebrew, it tells a different story. The Hebrew word translated as “joy” is chedva, which is related to the word Hebrew word echad (one). In other words, Nehemia is telling the exiles that the Oneness of the Lord is their strength. Put another way, unlike the Gentiles, who appease the god of war, and then have to worry about the god of love getting angry, or who make sacrifices to the god of crops and then worry about the god of fertility, if you realize that the Lord is One, it also means that, even though you might feel downcast at the moment, dealing with the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune;” at a higher level, everything is in perpetual balance. In other words, God really is Sovereign, and everything really does work together for good for those who love God, even if it seems like we go through times like today when everything seems topsy-turvy.
I like to picture it this way: remember that moment in Birmingham last year where the lights were turned off and everyone in the room held up their cell phone with their flash turned on? Just a single person with a single light would not have been able to light up that hallway, yet the thousands of people there, each one providing a small contribution, made it a beautiful sight. In the same way, each person represents a tiny spark of the Divine soul, from the greatest saint, down to the common every day “sinner,” and all the way through to the most vile of criminals. Now, that doesn’t mean that all are equal and the same: the greatest saints, of course, are those who have made the most of the amount of the Divine light that they were given; whereas the villains are those who have basically walled themselves off from the Divine light, in order to seek power. The rest are simply people who would normally remain complacent, and it probably would never even occur to them to seek out any greater light unless forced to as a result of the work of evil in the world. Thus, evil serves a very real and necessary purpose in the world. One of its purposes is to give people the opportunity to discern the forces that lead people into temptation and into evil.
Remember, though, that God said not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One of the reasons is that once you have rendered judgment on someone, it is easy for your natural mind to convince you that you already know the truth about that person, when in fact, you are still missing many key facts (see, for example, this incredible story
). Once you eat from the forbidden fruit, then the mind tends to only notice those “facts” that support your hypothesis and ignore all other facts. Perhaps Paul Simon put it best when he said “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” Mr. Beck, I do believe that this is what has happened to you vis-a-vis Donald Trump. You started out in the primary season giving all the reasons why you did not think that he would be a good candidate for the GOP nomination. You also surrounded yourself with people who have a very clear disdain for him. Now, at all times, of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and especially during the primary season, you had every right to cover each candidate in whatever way you wished to. However, from the very beginning, it is clear that you had a bias against Trump. I think also that your pride was injured when he did not agree to establish contact with you in the way you expected. In any case, it was fair for you to choose not to be favorable to Trump and endorse Ted Cruz instead (just so that you know, I also supported Ted Cruz during the primary season).
It seems, though, that everything went downhill after the Indiana primary, when Ted Cruz got out of the race. Your coverage of Donald Trump got worse and worse, more biased, and with more and more misunderstandings that you had blown way out of proportion. Please forgive me, but I must point something out here: you like to criticize Donald Trump a lot for not having “principles,” but do you even realize how difficult it is to really live out your life with stated “principles” and consistently put those principles into practice? So, please allow me to ask this of you, Mr. Beck: is keeping your word a principle that you have, or is it not? The reason why I ask is because I listened to your show faithfully during the whole primary season, and I remember you stated several times that if Trump wins the GOP nomination, then you would stop talking about Trump, and you would exclusively focus on lifting up the downballot candidates. Yet, you certainly did not stick to that, did you? Instead, you continually sounded out more and more warnings about a Trump presidency. In many of your warnings, you were clearly describing exactly what would happen under a Clinton presidency, yet you were “sounding out the warning” about Donald Trump. Some of the things you talked about were just plain misunderstandings that were blown way out of proportion. It got so bad that I could no longer stand to listen to your show much any more, because every time I tuned in, it was another Bash Trump Fest. Then there was the innuendo: the worst example that I can think of is that a few weeks back, you opened up one of your segments saying that the GOP had said we need to have a “New, New Deal.” You then invited an economic expert on, who explained that the “New Deal” under Obama has cost six times the amount of money in real dollars as FDR’s New Deal. At no time did you ever explain how this related in any real sense to either Trump or the GOP–you just left it up to people to conclude that somehow Trump and/or the GOP were implicated in this fiasco of Obama’s.
In all honesty, Mr. Beck, I cannot blame those in your audience who have concluded that you must be working on Hillary Clinton’s behalf. I, on the other hand, have another explanation that I would like to share with you, sir, because I do not believe that you are irredeemable in that way. You have had a dose of the poisoned fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which brings (spiritual) death to the eater thereof. To a certain extent, this started from the beginning, but as long as Ted Cruz remained in the race, you were at least as focused on supporting Ted Cruz as you were on criticizing Trump, so there was some balance there, and your criticism of Trump was an attempt to discern which of the GOP candidates would be the best qualified to run for the presidency. But once Ted Cruz and John Kasich got out of the race, it was at that point a question of Clinton vs. Trump, and that’s when everything went down hill. Go back for a minute and think again about that moment in Birmingham, AL (I was there, too). Remember those thousands of little lights in that convention hall? What if all of those lights were connected into One Whole, and the Spirit of God was able to freely move from little light to little light, all the way across the room and around and back. Now, what would happen if you wrote off a large chunk of the lights as, oh, I don’t know–deplorable? The whole thing would go dark. Of course, every analogy breaks down at some point, but that little “festival of lights” in Birmingham is the closest thing to an illustration that I can come up with to explain my perception of what has happened to you. The day after the Indiana primary, when Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, you and your co-hosts declared “Indiana, you’re dead to us!” At that point, you basically wrote off a good chunk of your listening audience as “deplorable.” Words have consequences: remember that God says that his word will not come back to him void, but will accomplish what he sent it for. Likewise, we have the same trait in that our own words often do come back to haunt us. Once you had written off much of your audience, your own perceptions became more and more distorted and twisted, being as they were more reliant on your natural senses, because you no longer benefited from the intuitive perceptions of the people you had written off.
Now, I do understand that you do not want to have to choose in a “lesser of two evils” scenario, but if you put it that way, it shows me that you just don’t get it. I do realize that Trump has his faults, as do most people. There are many things that I, too, find troubling about him, especially his idea of how eminent domain should be used. However, Hillary Clinton represents the forces of pure, raw, unadulterated evil, and it must not be forgotten that she poses an absolute existential threat not only to this country, but to its Constitution. There is no evil that Trump has done that even comes close, so how can you even compare the two side by side and ask which one is the lesser? Sure, he is bombastic and brash, and lives a lavish lifestyle, and has had his share of sexual escapades, but for just about every fault you find in him, HIllary Clinton is a million times worse. For instance, when she reacted to Trump’s 2nd Amendment comment, interpreting as an assassination threat, she revealed that that is how she operates–when someone gets in the way of your grasp of power, you just assassinate. So, we’re not talking about a lesser of two evils scenario. We are talking about electing a president that is truly evil vs. someone that we are simply not sure about. It’s like with Hillary Clinton, we get to play Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver, whereas with Donald Trump, we might have a good time, or we might have it rough. In a way, both candidates are a sort of metaphor for the country itself. After all, the nation was birthed, in its infancy, with a great divide: some of its people considered slavery, a genuine evil, to be one of its indispensable. Don’t forget the other great evil that was committed by this country: the genocide of the Native Americans. Both of these things were promoted in large part (if not entirely) by the Democrat party, and they continue to hold the Black man down even today, although they have changed their tactics. Perhaps they watched Mary Poppins and learned from that song “A Spoonful of Sugar Makes the Medicine Go Down.” Thus, Hillary Clinton is like an allegorical representation of that part of the American Republic which agreed with slavery and genocide, whereas Donald Trump is like an allegorical representation of the other half: certainly not perfect, but nowhere near as evil.
You asked recently, after Donald Trump’s hot mic scandal was revealed, how far is “a bridge too far.” I submit to you, sir, that you have asked the wrong question. Let me ask you this: how far would our Heavenly Father be willing to build a bridge in order to rescue just one of his stranded prodigal sons who was seeking him? How deep into the soil would he be willing to place his roots? What if there were millions who had been on the verge of losing all connection with the principles on which this country was founded, yet in the nick of time, managed to wake up and cry out for someone to rescue the republic? You know, it is very important, for a leader, that his people be able to see themselves in him, and that he see himself in them. One of the reasons why the republic has not been doing so well lately is because it was designed to be a republic of the people, by the people and for the people, organized along the lines of Natural Law. It was never designed for career politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists to perpetually run it. Sometimes people get themselves into a rut, mainly because “we have always done it this way,” and they simply can’t think outside the box.
When you were promoting Ted Cruz, you said that one of the reasons for promoting him was because “it wasn’t about a particular man; it was about the republic.” So, if that principle was true, how is it that it’s no longer true, just because Ted Cruz is no longer in the race? In other words, do you really believe that it’s the people that make the republic? Well, then, why do you think that Donald Trump will destroy it? It seems like you have very little faith in the republic itself if you think that Donald Trump can go in and single-handedly blow it up. He may go in and shake up the Congress and the bureaucracy, but isn’t that what we’ve been wanting all along? We certainly want the bureaucracy to be greatly curtailed. But will he be able to single-handedly destroy the republic? On the other hand, you just published an entire book detailing the plan carried out by progressives over more than a hundred years to pull apart the underpinnings of the republic and place a stranglehold on what remains. HIllary Clinton represents the linchpin in their grand scheme to neutralize the Constitution.
It must be understood that the reason why the Left has been winning all this time is that they are servants of the Left Hand of God, and as such, they have the power of Unity on their side. They are also willing to do whatever it takes to defeat us and remain in power, since “the end justifies the means” tends to be the only principle that they consistently stick to; everything else gets thrown under the bus in their quest for power. To a large extent, all we need to do is to unify and the power of God will once again be on our side. But this also means that we need to humble ourselves and be open to doing things God’s way, rather than insisting that our earlier analysis was the correct one, and then going off in several different groups which remain divided and impossible to unite–sort of like herding cats. Another thing: who has ultimate control over Donald Trump’s heartbeat? If we do everything in our power to unify, and Donald Trump makes one step to try to destroy the Constitution, as you fear, is it not God who has the power to pull the plug? If that happens, Mike Pence will be the president. Do you have something against Mike Pence (don’t say it’s because he agreed to be Trump’s VP)? So, if you continue to warn against Trump being elected, it’s like saying that you don’t trust in God. Perhaps one of the best reasons to vote for and promote Donald Trump is that the Left seems to genuinely be afraid of him. Can you imagine the delicious irony if they end up cooperating with the GOP to unravel some of the encroachment of the executive branch that they were planning to use to strangle the Constitution? I think that with Donald Trump, there is a very real chance that he might end up creating a gridlock in Washington, because both the Democrats as well as many in the GOP oppose him. In contrast, you are fantasizing if you think that the GOP in Congress will stand up to the first female president in history.
I beg you, sir, as this election season comes to a close, will you please fast and pray and seek Divine guidance. For the sake of the country, and for the sake of your listening audience, and for your own sake.