What are your thoughts on #1 American "Mr Glenn Beck"?

I think he's a bigoted idiot who seems to live to cause trouble and stir controversy.

For the first time I disagree with you, bonestructure. In what way is Beck "a bigoted idiot"?

That's okay if you disagree. Let's just say you and I differ in our political philosophies and let it go at that. Better that way.

Bonestructure can't handle anyone craping on the guy the call the president

Hey, I'm just glad I'm not the only one that has the balls to stand up to Obatty.  If you ain't from Kenya you can't understand what goes on in that twisted creep.

Beck just makes things up about Smithsonian exhibit

November 30, 2010 11:05 pm ET ? 7 Comments

Glenn Beck falsely suggested that "tax dollars" were being used to pay for a Smithsonian art exhibit that included an image of what Beck described as "Jesus with ants on him." In fact, donations from companies, foundations, and individuals paid for the exhibit, not tax dollars.

EMBED

Embed this video:

Beck claims "tax dollars" funded Smithsonian exhibit
Beck: "And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian." On his Fox News show, Beck said of the exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":

Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.

And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.

What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]

FACT: The exhibit is privately funded

Smithsonian lists contributions from private individuals and institutions. The National Portrait Gallery website lists the companies, foundations, and individuals who contributed to the exhibit:

The exhibition has been made possible by The Calamus Foundation with the leadership contributions of Donald A. Capoccia and Tommie L. Pegues, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Major support is provided by the John Burton Harter Charitable Trust, E*TRADE, Ella Foshay, Vornado/Charles E. Smith, the Wyeth Foundation for American Art, Catherine V. Dawson, Robby Browne and Madison Cumnock, The Durst Organization, Ashton Hawkins and Johnnie Moore, The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, Occasions Caterers, the David Schwartz Foundation, Frank J. Sciame, Jonathan Sheffer and Christopher Barley, and Jon Stryker. Additional significant support is provided by many generous friends of the National Portrait Gallery, including Tonio Burgos and Associates, Cambria Estate Winery, Lisa and Porter Dawson, Craig Kruger and Eric Michael, the Toby D. Lewis Philanthropic Fund, The Morrison & Foerster Foundation, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, David von Storch, Alexander and Bonin, H. van Ameringen Foundation, Lisa Bodager and Rebecca Linder, the David Bohnett Foundation, Dan Critchett and Greg Slimko, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Doty, Charles C. Francis, Sidney Lawrence and Thomas Birch, Weston F. Milliken, Leo Mullen and Helene Patterson, the Jerome Robbins Foundation, James Sharp Brodsky and Philip E. McCarthy II, William Sofield, Peter and Barbara Thompson, Paul Travis & Mark Fichandler, Paul Washington and Stan Sagner, and Diane Wondisford. [National Portrait Gallery website]

Wash. Post: Smithsonian "receives public funds" but "does not use that money for exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:

The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.

[...]

As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]

CNSNews: Smithsonian says "federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves." The conservative CNS News website reported:

The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian's chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum's annual report. The gallery's overall funding in that year was $8 million.

St. Thomas told CNSNews.com that federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves, including the "Hide/Seek" exhibit. The federal funds received by the Smithsonian, she said, pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff, including the salaries for curators of exhibits. The exhibits presented at Smithsonian museums, including "Hide/Seek," are funded by donations from individuals or institutions. [CNSNews.com, 11/29/10]

Beck previously suggested that he could not "just make things up and remain on the air"

Beck: "[D]o you really believe that I could ... just make things up and remain on the air?" On his Fox News show, Beck said:

What is it that we make up? I would ask you to just take a moment here -- do you really believe that I could -- or anybody here at Fox News could -- just make things up and remain on the air? No. [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

Beck just makes things up about health care reform

November 29, 2010 10:42 pm ET — 8 Comments

Glenn Beck falsely claimed that "the tactic known as deem and pass" was used for "final passage" of health care reform legislation. In fact, House Democrats did not use "deem and pass" to pass the bill, which Fox News itself reported in March.

EMBED

Embed this video:

Beck falsely claims "deem and pass" was used to pass health care reform
Beck: "deem and pass ... gave the final passage to Obamacare." On his Fox News show, Glenn Beck said of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

In fact, it was SEIU's then-president Andy Stern, the most frequent visitor to the White House by far, who pushed for the tactic known as deem and pass. That gave the final passage of Obamacare. It was supposed to help the unions -- Affordable Care Act. [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

McClatchy: "House Democratic leaders dropped a controversial plan that would have 'deemed' Senate-approved health care legislation passed." From a March 20 McClatchy Newspapers article:

Inside the building, House Democratic leaders dropped a controversial plan that would have "deemed" Senate-approved health care legislation passed as part of a resolution setting rules of debate but would not have required House members to vote directly on the legislation.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Democrats abandoned "deem and pass" because the party leadership is confident that the votes to pass the health care bill.

"We determined that we could do this and it's a better process," Hoyer told reporters. "We believe we have the votes."

The maneuver had been seen as a way to allow Democrats to avoid voting on the bill, but Democrats were uneasy about the prospect. Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., said it looked like a "back door deal."

"We've had sanity prevail here," said Rep. Dennis Cordoza, D-Calif., a supporter of the legislation. "This is something that should be done in the light of day." [McClatchy Newspapers, 3/20/10]

FoxNews.com: "House opts against 'deeming' health care bill passed." From a FoxNews.com article headlined "House Opts Against 'Deeming' Health Care Bill Passed":

House Democrats on Saturday decided against using a controversial tactic to pass the Senate's version of the health care bill without an actual vote.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-MD., said he believes Democrats have enough votes to pass the legislation.

The decision capped an ongoing discussion on whether to use a so-called "deem and pass" strategy that would allow House members to approve the Senate version of health care bill without an actual vote before taking up a second "fix-it" resolution, known as reconciliation.

[...]

Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., cheered the decision by Democrats to abandon "deem and pass,"calling it a sign that Democrats are buckling under pressure. [FoxNews.com, 3/20/10]

House voted to adopt Senate bill, passing health care reform legislation. On March 21, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Senate's version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 219-215.

Beck: "Do you really believe that I could ... just make things up and remain on the air?" Earlier, Beck said:

I would ask Mr. Dean to help me out. What is it that we make up? I would ask you to just take a moment here -- do you really believe that I could -- or anybody here at Fox News could -- just make things up and remain on the air? No. [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]

Beck invents facts to attack food safety bill

November 30, 2010 1:26 am ET — 169 Comments

Glenn Beck distorted a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate to claim that food-safety legislation would mean "higher taxes for you," baselessly claimed the bill would drive up food costs, and underplayed concerns about food safety. Beck demonized the legislation as a George Soros-backed effort to "control you."

Beck distorts CBO report to claim legislation means "higher taxes for you"
Beck: Food Safety Modernization Act "will mean higher taxes for you." During the November 29 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that the Food Safety Modernization Act is "going to mean higher taxes for you as well. Congressional Budget Office estimates between $1.4 billion and up, between 2011 and 2015." Beck said the bill represented a George Soros-backed effort to "control your food" and "control you." [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]
FACT: CBO said the bill would "increase spending subject to appropriation" -- not taxes. In its cost estimate of the Food Safety Modernization Act, the CBO wrote, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill with the manager's amendment would increase spending subject to appropriation, on net, by about $1.4 billion over the 2011-2015 period, assuming annual appropriation action consistent with the bill." [Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]
FACT: CBO said the bill would authorize collection of fees from food manufacturers -- not "higher taxes for you." In its cost estimate, CBO reported:

S. 510 would amend and modify the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the FDA to collect fees to help defray some of the FDA's costs of performing food safety activities. The bill would create new fee programs including: a facility reinspection and recall fee program for mandatory recalls, an importer fee program for voluntary qualified entities, and a fee program to support accreditation of third-party auditors.

The legislation also would authorize the FDA to collect fees for food (including animal feed) export certificates under the current export certification program. Fees are currently collected for drugs and devices that are issued export certifications.

Fees authorized by the bill would be collected and made available for obligation only to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriation acts. As a result, those collections would be credited as an offset to discretionary spending.[Congressional Budget Office, 8/12/10]

Beck: The cost to "you at the grocery story" is "expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year." From the November 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Cost to the private sector -- you know, you at the grocery store? Now, they haven't calculated that yet, but it is expected to be hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

FACT: Michigan State University professor says bill "isn't likely to make a huge dent" in food prices. As Media Matters documented, Craig Harris of the Food Safety Policy Center at Michigan State University reportedly said that the bill is unlikely to raise consumers' food costs:

Although costs of food production may rise as a result of the bill, the amount isn't likely to make a huge dent in most large food companies' profits, Harris said, so the added costs shouldn't trickle down to the consumers. For small companies and local farmers, the bill includes exemptions and special accommodations, recognizing that some companies may not be able to keep up with the costs of adopting new safety practices.

Beck: "Is there a big problem" with food safety "that I don't know of?" From the November 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: Congress is working hard to make sure that the food that you eat is completely safe. Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Glenn, I think my food is already safe." But that's just how stupid you are. They know better in Washington.

Apparently, our food is very unsafe. That's why tonight, the Senate is scheduled to start voting on S510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. It is fanta-- it's gonna be so modern, what they're doing. May I ask you, who on the planet has a safer food supply than we do while feeding 300 million people? Is it China? Is it India? Is it -- oh, is it Great Britain? Ooh, Sweden? Oh, no.

Is there a big problem that I don't know of? I mean, I know that, you know, we could always make things better here. There was a problem with spinach a couple of years ago, and then guacamole or avocados, or something. I think that was quickly resolved -- minimal to no interruption of our normal food supply.

[...]

BECK: We could always improve, but there will be never be a perfect system with zero problems, will there?

FACT: GAO declared federal oversight of food safety a "high-risk" problem. From a 2007 Government Accountability Office report that was part of its series on "high-risk problems":

Each year, about 76 million people contract a food-borne illness in the United States; about 325,000 require hospitalization; and about 5,000 die, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually, or about 13 percent of the gross domestic product. The value of U.S. agricultural exports exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006. An introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such as avian influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted exports. Similarly, food contamination, such as the recent E. coli outbreaks, can have a detrimental impact on local economies. For example, industry representatives estimate losses from the recent California spinach E. coli outbreak to range from $37 million to $74 million.

A challenge for the 21st century is how several federal agencies can integrate the myriad food safety programs and strategically manage their portfolios to promote the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. In numerous previous reports, we have described the fragmented federal food safety system in which 15 agencies collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food safety. The two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and processed egg products and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other foods. Among other agencies with responsibilities related to food safety, the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable residue levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for coordinating agencies' food security activities.

The food safety system is further complicated by the subtle differences in food products that dictate which agency regulates a product as well as the frequency with which inspections occur. For example, how a packaged ham-and-cheese sandwich is regulated depends on how the sandwich is presented. USDA inspects manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches (e.g., those with two slices of bread). Although there are no differences in the risks posed by these products, USDA inspects wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an average of once every 5 years.

This federal regulatory system for food safety evolved piecemeal, typically in response to particular health threats or economic crises. During the past 30 years, we have detailed problems with the fragmented federal food safety system and reported that the system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. [Government Accountability Office, January 2007]