Glenn: Industry, energy key to securing America's future

While Obama wants to keep picking losers like Solyndra as the future of American industry, Glenn said on radio that we need to start focusing on the abundance of natural resources here in America that can not only lower energy prices but also create new jobs.

"Let's talk about principles for a second. Let's talk about what we're facing as a nation, how is it going ‑‑ how is this going to affect you. It's going to affect you in many ways. How do you create jobs? Why did America create jobs after World War II? Because we are in ‑‑ something that we're going to come out the other side and we're going to be as transformed as we were when we get to the other side as the Great Depression or the Civil War," Glenn said.

"When we got out of World War II, we were a different country than we were in 1929. Radically different. And we were an industrial giant on the other side. Why did that happen? Well, because in 1929 we had just really started manufacturing things on an assembly line. That made a huge difference. But then we found ways in World War II to pretty much put everything on an assembly line, manufacture everything that way because we had to. We're going to have to do these differently if we're going to survive. If you want to be Mexico, well, then keep going the road where you're going. But if you want to be America, we're going to have to redesign absolutely everything. Everything. And that's what this election really is all about. What do we look like on the other side?"

"The other thing that we had in World War II that nobody else really had and that is abundance of cheap energy. We were exploiting our own resources, our own oil, our own coal."

"And then you add on top of that natural gas. I mean, we have more energy than anybody else. There's no reason. We're sitting on a gold mine. A gold mine. That's what we used in World War II, to win, was our resources, our ingenuity, cheap energy, and our manpower. The entrepreneurial spirit. That's what transformed us," Glenn explained.

"Well, now our ingenuity, we're being told 'you didn't build that. And if you do build it, you can't keep it.' What do you think that's going to do to the entrepreneurs? It's going to make them go away. They are not going to do it. Why do it? Why wait up all night? Why worry all the time? Why live this life? Not going to do that. Why, if it's not mine? You're not going to do it. So they are turning you there."

" They are also trying to make sure that they curb the industrial might, the real backbone of America, of labor. They think it's the labor unions. Please read freedom's forge. I've been talking about it here for the last couple of weeks but it will open your mind. The labor unions almost destroyed us in World War II. We almost lost the war because of the labor unions here. And everybody who's ever worked for a labor union, look, there are things that labor unions are good for. With he need to be able to take care ‑‑ companies will sometimes get out of control and you need to make sure that somebody is representing the little guy because they will. Bad people do bad things, whether it's a labor union or a company. So you need some representation on labor. But anybody who's ever worked for a labor union, you know. You do less than you're capable of. You're dragging around people that should have been fired a long time ago. Come on, teachers. You know that to be true."

"So they're killing us in the labor and they're killing us in energy. They're killing us in entrepreneurial spirit. But the key here, the one that you don't recover from quickly is energy. And they are doing it under the guise of global warming, which is the biggest scam known to mankind. I'm a guy who is willing to say, "Look, you have to look at the thermometer. If the thermometer's going up, then the thermometer's going up." You have to look at facts. If that's really happening, then we should address that. However, how do you address it? Should we all be good stewards to the Earth? Absolutely. Even if the temperature is not going up, we should be good stewards to the Earth. But that's not what's happening. The temperature isn't going up and they are still saying ‑‑ they are trying to do this scare. This is why they call it climate change now. Because they knew. But now it's just being verified."

Over the weekend, reports emerged indicating that global warming actually ended in 1996.

"Does the average person ‑‑ when this stuff starts to come out, I mean, you are ‑‑ think of this: They are destroying the American economy ‑‑ no, no, no. Let me ‑‑ your parents, your grandparents, maybe you will not be able to afford your electricity rates in two years if we stay on this path. You will not be able to afford your electricity rates. You will have lots of extra blankets. You will have more people dying because they'll put those space heaters up and they'll try to get ‑‑ they will try to get warm with a space heater and it will set their house on fire. You will have many more deaths from cold or from heat not because the Earth is getting colder or warmer but because people will not be able to keep up with the electricity rates because in the words of the president, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket under his plan. And we've already, out of 500 power plants powered by coal, we've already shut down, this last year with President Obama 100 of those. 500 provide 43% of our electricity in the country. 500 coal power plants. We've shot down ‑‑ we've shut down now 1/5th of our ability to produce energy and they're going to shut down another 200 plants in the next two years. So you'll take 3/5ths of our electricity."

"I believe in the future. I believe in the next generation. And when I see it ‑‑ and I did believe that the hydrogen car, and it would be. The hydrogen car is the answer if you would get people to build a nuclear power plant because unlimited hydrogen can be made while everyone is asleep. Unlimited hydrogen. It's not hard. So I believe in the future and I believe in new technology. But it's not here. When it's here, great. Shut the power plants down. But until it arrives, we need energy. If we are going to lead a world. And that is ‑‑ that's the question: Does the person leading the United States of America want America to lead the world... or to be an "also ran," to be like everybody else. Well, I have news for you: As nice as that is, oh, we want everybody to succeed, that means your lifestyle will go down and it will become like the rest of the world. If you think that's a good idea, why don't you just move some place else? Seriously. I mean, I'll pay for it. I will move you some place else. Why would you live here?"

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.