Article Comment 

In defense of Glenn Beck




I''m surprised our Dispatch editor printed Janice Floyd''s letter in Friday''s Voice. The writer was calling folks liars and racists who disagree with the backward policies of this president. I think the letter revealed more about the writer than anyone else. Why would the editor print something like that without specific examples and evidence to prove the accusations are true? Must have just overlooked it. 


Why did the author of the letter, who claimed to be African American, call Glenn Beck a lying, fact-distorting racist? Was it because of the color of his skin? Lots of people other than whites feel this president is taking our country in the wrong direction and way too fast. 


Glenn Beck is a very loving, caring, devoted husband and father who is fighting for our rights and freedoms. He bravely stands and boldly says, "Give me liberty or give me death!" 


Millions of others are standing right beside him, not because of hatred but because of love. Love and devotion for the greatest way of life on this earth. I admit, there are some who don''t give a flip about their rights and freedoms, so it doesn''t matter to them what this president does to mess things up or how backward his policies are, "because he''s our first black president, you know." Sad indeed. I remember MLK saying it''s a man''s character that really counts, not the color of his skin. 


I ask the writer who called Glenn Beck all those names to please name the "distorted facts," if there is such a thing, she is referring to in her letter. Also, give examples of lies and racism from this great patriot, Glenn Beck. I don''t think she''ll be able to mention anything specific, however, she might discover some hidden hatred; not racism, in her own heart that motivated her to speak as she did.  




Raymond Gross 





printer friendly version | back to top


Reader Comments

Article Comment Neil Tentoni commented at 9/27/2009 12:28:00 PM:

Mr. Gross,
I do not like Glenn Beck. Although he is a citizen like you and me, Beck is an opinionated dimwit. He does not put America first, but merely for his own interests and those he gets paid to speak for...the sheep that follow him.
His remarks that Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people" and that Obama is a "racist" forced me to believe that this man has no credibility at all. Who do you think he was pandering to when he made those statements, Mr. Gross?
I know you to be quite the vocal citizen yourself, Mr. Gross. I also know that you have proudly served out great country in the military...and I appreciate this fact. I also know that Glenn Beck is a very polarizing individual that does not bring America towards solutions...but merely divides it by race, class, and ideology.


Article Comment KJ commented at 9/27/2009 2:52:00 PM:

Glenn Beck tells lies and distorts facts.

On July 22nd, 2009, Glenn Beck claimed that John Holdren (director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy) has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population. This was a lie, refuted by a reading of the book in question, by Holdren, and by his co-authors. Discussing concepts is not the same as advocating.

Do we need more than one to call someone a liar? Ok.

In July of this year, Glenn Beck asserted that visiting the website for the cash for clunkers program would give the government complete access to your computer. This was untrue and remains so.

More? Ok.

On June 10, 2009, Glann Beck said that "We're the only country in the world that has it [automatic citizenship upon birth]. Why?" As a matter of fact, 33 countries provide for automatic citizenship to people born inside their borders, including Canada, Brazil, and Romania. Admittedly, this is not a high number. But what a weird lie to tell when you only have to go as far as Canada to bust it.

One more, just for giggles?

On April 10th, Glenn Beck claimed that the symbol of Italian Fascism was a group of rods, bound together with an axe. He claimed that the rods symbolized the people collectively brought together and the axe signified the government, hacking away at anyone who got in its way.

Not exactly. The symbol dates from the Roman empire. From Wikipedia: "The bundle of rods bound together symbolizes the strength which a single rod lacks. The axe symbolized the state's power and authority. The ribbons binding the rods together symbolized the state's obligation to exercise restraint in the exercising of that power."

My lack of a defense for the racism charge merely reflects my disinterest in it. Here's the links used for researching the above lies:


Article Comment Melody commented at 9/28/2009 9:47:00 PM:

Sure can tell you guys don't watch or listen to Glenn Beck. If you did, you'd know he is not a racist. Look up the meaning of racist. Sounds like all you know about him is what the left stream feeds you plus stuff from the left leaning snopes. The millions who stand beside Him would be standing for our rights and freedoms even if Glenn didn't exist..just as Mr. Gross stated. Probably not you guys though, huh. Gotta get back to work.


Article Comment KJ commented at 9/29/2009 12:55:00 AM:

Rights and freedoms, eh? Like his defense of torture or, say, the Patriot Act. To be fair, his defense of the Patriot Act was revised to include "sunsets." So he's ok with ceding our rights and freedoms as long as we put a time limit on it. Laughable.

Nice job at sidestepping the fact that he lies, by the way. Thumbs up on that.


Article Comment Neil Tentoni commented at 9/29/2009 11:18:00 AM:


I do not know who you are (you do not sign your last name), but I often see you making harsh critical remarks towards folks who are not strictly Republicans, conservatives, and those who do not rely solely on Fox News for their so-called "mainstream" made-for-cable news. Why so harsh all the time (I have seen many of your posts), Melody?
My favorite news (lol) show happens to be "The Factor", but that does not mean I always agree with Bill O'Reilly...or anyone else getting paid millions to tell me what to think or how to feel. MSNBC does the same thing. Do you, Melody?
O'Reilly at least knows how to play both sides of the coin when he wants to...and he doesn't call our elected and American-born president a "RACIST." Neither does John McCain and most Republicans.
Do you agree with Beck, Melody, when he says Obama has a "deep-seated hatred for white people" and is a "racist?" I do not.
Beck is a dimwit...plain and simple. I NEVER called Beck a "racist" AND I happen to have much respect for Mr. Raymond Gross. I remember in times past when Mr. Gross came to my house to ask for my vote...I respect Mr. Gross and agree with him about many issues, but not all of them.
I have watched Beck's show several times, but I refuse to now. Beck's statement about Obama caused me to tune him matter what he has to say. Even the hosts of Fox Morning News THAT DAY knew he was off-base with his remarks and defended our president.
I am an INDEPENDENT, but I always end up voting for the one candidate that matches my views regardless of party affiliation. I, like many, look forward to the day when one of our leaders will truly STAND and DELIVER for once, and I hope Obama will finally get something of substance saving our jobs and help the private sector put us back to work.
I stand by what I said earlier...I do not like Glen Beck. If you like him...than watch him.


Article Comment Walter commented at 9/29/2009 12:21:00 PM:

Beck is one of the holdovers from a dying breed of Americans who just happens to be able to profit from sprouting outlandish divisive comments. He, and any other American citizen, with the audacity to object to our duly-elected President and main leader of the free-world speaking directly, in real-time, to this country's youths, has got to be a quack! As I write this, I hope and pray that educators within my hometown did not buy into that non-sense about preventing the President speech from being presented to city and county school children. If so, then there is much work to be done and perhaps Mr. Brook is correct in continuing his efforts to mobilize and educate residents of color, separately from others. Why? There is a drastic difference of opinion, in terms of what is or isn't American or Un-American between whites and blacks. There are more Becks with access to radio and t.v. commentating positions, than there are Leroys in Mississippi or America. We strive for a color-blind society; currently, it is still beyond our reach. As long as it remains beyond our reach, Leroy Brooks, and others like him, must voice their opinions, right or wrong, as long as they do so in a spirit of civility and mutual respect for all, regardless of race, class, nationality or religious affiliations. Abrasive, perhaps, but Leroy is not the racist that Glen Beck and his hue are proving themselves to be.


Article Comment observer2 commented at 9/29/2009 2:44:00 PM:

I did look up the meaning of racism----It is
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
You're right, Neil, doesn't sound like Glenn Beck at all but would probably fit Leroy pretty good. I'd agree that the millions who stand for our rights and freedoms are not racist either. You're also right about supporting people 100% no matter what, we're all human and it's our nature to have different views on different issues. I think it's best to remain independent and conservative , just like you. I think we would agree that we don't believe everything that comes out of Obama's mouth either, right. But have you stopped listening to him? Melody is right, there's a big difference in racism and disagreeing with a persons policies. Mr. Gross is right too, hatred is often called racism brought on by impulsive angry emotions.


Article Comment Gogetum commented at 9/29/2009 3:40:00 PM:

Obama likes Diversion here, diversion there, diversion everywhere. Healthcare and racism is all you hear about while the obama's are taking another tour around the world! The most important thing is national security and Obama ain't man enough to handle it. He's fiddleing while we're getting ready to burn. What good is it evef if our healthcare system is good enough to keep us alive till we reach 110 years old while allowing the Iranians to make a bunch of suit case nukes to sell on the black market to anybody with cash on hand. Just one each of them in ten of our largest cities at the same time will be the end!! No healthcare sys can handle that . I think somebody in the head shed needs to get his head out-- asap!!


Article Comment observer2 commented at 9/29/2009 4:22:00 PM:

The Gogetum man is in the house! Right on Bro, he don't know how to handle the Afgan problem either. Sorta putting everything on the back burner till after the vacation around the world I reckon. He said he'd get all his advice from old Joe the Biden about all the wars and national security so we know we don't have to worry now, yeah right. Another thing I don't get hardly at all is all these people who say they are athesist, who don't care what Jesus did or who He is, who don't believe in God but somehow now are bowing and praising Barrack Insane Obama as their God. Can you explain that one for me? Some of them are even leading little school children in praise songs to the guy. Adults too. KJ and JC should eat that up, right down their alleys don't you think? Hey bro. Neil, have you asked KJ and JC for names? At least Melody gives a first name.


Article Comment KJ commented at 9/29/2009 6:23:00 PM:

Obama as god? That's not my m.o. But you're wrong on the security indictment, for Iran and Afghanistan both.

In Iraq, Obama postponed rapid withdrawal, and is keeping troops there on Bush's timetable. He put a stop to torture, but kept key provisions for extraordinary rendition, and has scored successes in the terror war -- including what looks like the first real al Qaeda plot within America and accomplished quietly without any presidential boasting or fear-mongering. We've recently taken out al Qaeda leaders with drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama sent additional troops to Afghanistan andis having McChrystal give him a wholesale review of the situation. Israel no longer has carte blanche from the White House to do whatever it wants on the West Bank.

Obama told Iran that he was willing to talk. Iran isn't interested. But it is now Iran which looks as though it is the stumbling block, not America. Following Obama's Cairo speech, it is Iran's election in turmoil with a severe crackdown that reveals the government there for the brutal dictatorship that it is. In talks with Russia, he changes the defense focus to the Mediterranean and Israel's happy. Russia appears to consider that sanctions against Iran are a possibility. He gets a unanimous agreement on the importance of nonproliferation on his visit to the U.N. And then follows it up by revealing Iran for the dishonest negotiators that they have been for their non-disclosure of a second enrichment facility.

It's been incremental success after incremental success with this guy. The U.S. position in the international community is far better than it was a year ago...because Obama is willing to talk and willing to find a point of agreement before blustering over a difference.

To repeat a point from an earlier exchange: many criticisms of Obama voiced here do not appear to be based on fact. We know they aren't racist, because you say they are not. We know that they aren't based on party, because everyone that goes to tea parties claims, in public, to be an independent. And the facts on security belie that complaint. But the objection seems to be real, nonetheless, because it continues to crop up. What never does appear is any sort of consistent reason for the complaints, many of which the tea baggers could have made against the previous occupant of the white house, but did not.

"Well, we don't like him." OK. "He talks to our kids." Like Reagan and Bush the First? "He's a socialist." I know, on health care. A lot of people on Social Security, Medicare, and in the military-industrial complex are making this point; along with people whose grandparents worked for the WPA way back in the day; along with companies who spent millions of dollars to make sure that everyone who drives a car is required to buy auto insurance. I get it, ya'll don't like something when some politician without an idea calls his opponent's plan "socialism" regardless of whether or not it is. "He's spending too much money." Good thing he doesn't have to pass a prescription drug benefit. "He's going to raise taxes." We could cut entitlements. "He's going to destroy medicare or social security." We could borrow more money. "He's putting us in more debt." We could stop fighting two wars. "He's weak on security." *shrug* I can't figure out what you want. Except for the part about Obama failing at whatever he does to try and fix anything. I hear that loud and clear.

It is my belief that some significant number of folks at the tea parties and on right-wing talk shows are being disingenuous about the true nature of their complaints.


Article Comment Melody commented at 9/29/2009 8:34:00 PM:

Sorry if I mislead you, Mr. Neil. I don't agree with Glenn Beck all the time. Some of the stuff is a little off the wall but I still listen to him and do the dvr thing. Heck, I don't support my own Mom 100% but I still listen to her. This President has been caught in so many lies it's not even funny but I still listen to him even with his numorus uhs and whistles at the end of his words, both drive me up a wall. Wish he could speak without doing that. As for who is the better American, Glenn has Obama beat , hands down. Observer2-I heard some of that stuff about praying to Barrack Insane Obama on the radio today. Is that what they were calling him? Worse things have happened I guess, like the followers of Jim Jones who ended up killing themselves with his cool aid. Might happen to the Obama cool aid drinkers if this keeps up, too bad. We must stop it from happening in our schools though. Don't you agree?


Article Comment Gogetum commented at 9/29/2009 9:05:00 PM:

KJ says, "He's weak on security." *shrug* I can't figure out what you want.
How about kicking some butt in Iran, heck, a jack rabbit could stare him down, without his teleprompter he can't talk his way out of a paper bag, so he needs to let the military use their mussle and shut that little squirt up in Iran. Take out the nuke sites , make an example now before it's too late. Trying to talk with terrorist is a waste of time, blow up their little labs then tell them to shut up so's the other runts around them won't get any idea's. That poor col. from Libia for one. He's still having night mares about the FB-111's. It'll take pressure off Israel too. Let them along to defend them selves from the crazies around them. How's that for a starter, KJ? Don't you agree?


Article Comment KJ commented at 9/30/2009 1:48:00 AM:

So, you'd rather start another war in Iran -- put military lives in jeopardy -- to bomb non-existant "nuke sites" rather than help a people in a revolutionary mood bring down a corrupt government from the inside? I think the change in tactics with regard to Iran in particular serves to undermine them in the international community and apply external pressure to bring about internal change in that nation while allowing us to ultimately be a friend to a new, more acceptable government instead of cementing a neocon position that would serve us up to the people of that nation to tar us the same "enemy of Islam" brush that the current regime loves to tar us with. Supporting true democracy in Iran (even if tainted with theocratic leanings) rather than subverting it will only help our influence in the region and make it safer for everyone.

We're not talking about putting away the big stick. We're just talking a little more softly in the hopes that a big stick won't have to be brandished. Don't we owe it to our boys in the military to take prudent steps to keep them from harm's way? Yes, I'm grateful that we have a strong military ready to bomb the ever-living crap out of anyone that attacks us. Yes, I support Israel's right to exist. But I don't think that we should just throw bodies at potential problems without trying to solve them as best we can, first. And I don't think that we should adopt a policy that makes it more likely that Israel will pull some kind of first-strike madness prematurely and drag us into yet another middle east conflict without giving smarter diplomacy a chance.

After eight years in Iraq, I think that we -- as a nation -- have demonstrated that the nation-buildling skills which we displayed after WWII are, at best, ineffective or inapplicable in the Middle East and, at worst, simply did not exist in the last administration. I'm willing to take a new tack for the next couple of years. The big stick we wield will still be there. The opportunity to avert the use of force is here now with Iran, and may not always remain.

George H.W. Bush got the first Iraq war exactly right, IMO. His son, given the opportunity to wage a just war (based on Sadaam's refusal to honor the terms under which he sued for peace by allowing inspections) instead fabricated intelligence to invent an unnecessary reason to wage a war that, after the initial collapse of Sadaam's regime under our overwhelming military might has resulted in a nation-state mired in chaos which we have been powerless to prevent. I believe that chaos is at least partially a result of our inability to convince the broader family of nations that we were participating righteously.

It's time for a new tack and I'm willing to give Obama the opportunity to try. If he doesn't produce results, I'll be voting against him in the primaries. It isn't as though I'm enamored with everything he's done so far. It's more accurate to say that I don't think he's done enough to reverse some of the Bush policies I most loathe.

Most importantly, if Obama's overtures do not produce a satisfactory result, we still have the ability to yield a big stick. Even a developing nation as large as China has decades at their current pace to be able to hope to match our current military capabilities. And while we do share technology with other political partners, there as of now are none as able as we to put them into play with the ferocity and scope that we can muster.


Article Comment Gogetum commented at 9/30/2009 8:52:00 AM:

I see a couple signs of common sense coming through-maybe there's hope for you yet, KJ. But if talking is the new tact we are to try ,then it's a hopeless one. History has proven that. The only thing that works in that area is "A good show of butt kicking". See what it did to the Col.? They have short memories though so it's time to do it again, actually it's overdue. Agree, we are able and I say a Big Amen to let's gogetum. I have an old friend who voted for BO and wanted to give him a year to prove himself, foolish in my book, how much more opportunity time do you allow him? Please don't rely on the liberal media to base your decision , one way or another. We would not be starting another war in Iran. We have been in the middle of a world war for years. So if we don't do it , wouldn't it be like aiding the enemy.


back to top





Follow Us:

Follow Us on Facebook

Follow Us on Twitter

Follow Us via Email