This book, "The Original Argument," is a very good idea, namely, translate The Federalist Papers into modern English thus rendering it accessible to the contemporary reader. It is obvious that Glenn Beck (or a ghost writer?) put a lot of energy into this 400 page work. However, it is often difficult to know when James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are speaking and when it is a commentary, emphasis, underscore, exaggeration, or distortion on the part of Glenn Beck.

From the beginning, the reader is treated to Beck's unswerving and dedicated beliefs to his version of God and he is very transparent about his feelings; though he doesn't use the term 'sacred' he clearly sees The Federalist papers as the work of God or inspired by him. He makes very passionate arguments that one should see the intent of God in the documents. While I admire his conviction, what about those who do not share his version of God? Are we on the wrong side? It appears that they are.

Beck doesn't seem to understand speaking and writing conventions. Nearly every time the writers refer to "Providence" Beck comments then or later about the writer's deep conviction to God. In today's world people - regardless of their beliefs or disbeliefs - say "Oh my God," "God Bless You," and the like. Yet these exclamations are not intended as a proclamation of faith. Fact is, the three men in question, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (though one could argue that Jay was somewhat religious by today's standards) were Renaissance men and Deists. Beck implies that the Founding Fathers, in general, were deeply religious, having a personal relationship with God. Such talk is atavistic given the beliefs of these men. There is much to say about this and I would expect a prominent and educated man like Beck to understand the role of Providence within a Renaissance/Deist framework.

Before being a special education teacher I taught U.S. history so I am familiar with the Federalist and anti-Federalist positions, though I am certainly not an expert. Beck, in my view, builds a strawman argument by repeatedly focusing on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Of course its weaknesses included the inability to print universal currency and conscript soldiers for national defense, etc. But there were positive things about the Articles of Confederacy that Glenn refuses to comment on, as if the Federalist argument is the only one. Indeed, our Federal government is currently engaged in activities, to which the writers of the Articles of Confederacy would most assuredly have pointed out, "Ah ha, that's what we didn't want to happen!" It felt very unbalanced like partisan politics.

This book, though a very good idea, struck me as a distortion 'par excellance.' What is more, it read like a treatise of Glenn Beck's personal ideologies rather than a translation of The Federalist Papers. Try though I did, it was difficult to hear Madison, Hamilton, and Jay through the personal emphasis of Beck and his style which seems to be, "take a concept and pound the reader over the head with it by repeating it 35 times" is vexing. He does have an excellent command of English and I jotted down many phrases to add to my active vocabulary. On a positive note, I admire Beck's support of Israel and the Israeli people, which is why I was eager to read his book, but his political support of Israelis has no connection to the disappointment that is this book.

I find it difficult to take seriously a person who pins the weight and truth of his arguments on, 'God is on my side.' Such a position requires no comment and no serious consideration.