Glenn Beck: Common Sense Congressman



Cot-Side Chat: Democrats Spend Taxpayer Money, Unchecked, Without Debate

We have Congressman Jason Chaffetz on the phone who I have to tell you has come up with, you want to talk about common sense, here's common sense. The census is a nightmare and the census should not be   ACORN or its subsidiaries or anything like it, they should not be getting money to do the census. And he brought up an idea in congress, and are you introducing this bill today?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, I'll be introducing it later this week but we just unveiled it today. Yeah, I'm excited about it.

GLENN: Okay. Explain what it is.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, on the one hand you have the census who is going to go out and hire some 750,000 people to count all Americans, and they are engaging with partners like ACORN to go out and find all these people to go and count everybody in America. But I also sit on the subcommittee that deals with the post office which is suffering from a huge financial crisis itself. Well, they happen to have 760,000 postal employees who are already charged with going to every home in America. So why would we be going out and getting, engaging ourselves with the likes of ACORN when we already have federal workers who already go to all these homes?

GLENN: May I   total common sense. Now let me play Washington with you, okay?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Sure.

GLENN: The unions will stop the postal workers from doing that.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: You know what, I laid the groundwork with the unions. They love this. There's attrition happening at the post office right now. Mail volumes are way off. They are upside down by billions of dollars. So for them to go through the training and the payment. Remember, the census was given some $11 billion in order to execute the census. That's money that they could use. Otherwise their membership is going to be depleted. They are going to have to lay people off.

GLENN: So in other words, we would be fixing two problems.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Yeah.

GLENN: That's why this will never pass, Jason. You're a freshman this year. That's why   you are making too much sense. That won't work. They will find some way.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: It's a little too simple. But I'm hoping that the freshman naivety will pay off. I can't imagine why we wouldn't do this.

GLENN: So this week you guys are going to vote in the house on cap and trade.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Yeah.

GLENN: You sit there and you deal with all of the stuff going on with, you know, with the post office. Is it true that congress spends more time debating post office stuff than cap and trade?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Oh, no, absolutely. I mean, we have post offices which are rightly named and it's per the Constitution, but we get 20 minutes to debate a post office. Most of this will happen with less than 5 minutes debate. Amendments that are offered on all these appropriations for the trillions of dollars we're going to spend, we're going to have one of the largest single tax increases in the history of the United States in this cap and trade and yet we're not given 20 minutes to debate that. It's insane. It is absolutely insane.

GLENN: Is it going to pass?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: I'm afraid that they have cut too many deals on the side with Democrats who are weak kneed and that it probably will. And there will be some Republicans in there as well, but I tell you, this scares the living daylights out, between this and the move on healthcare, that   

GLENN: What is in this bill that scares you?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, we were looking, for instance, at schools in Utah. They are going to have, it looks like $10,000 per school as a new cost for their energy. Now, at a time when we're losing jobs and we've got to make America more competitive and we've got to remember that manufacturing is a good thing in this country. This tax, it fundamentally changes the equation and hurts and harms America and our competitiveness on a global scale. It's a new tax. I want everybody to understand that the president said 95% of Americans weren't going to get a tax increase. 100% of Americans are going to get a tax increase with this.

GLENN: What do you mean that they are charging a new   the schools have an energy   

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, if you look at what the utilities are expected to do in terms of jumping up in their costs, I mean, it takes electricity to run a school and so we've gone back and taken the numbers and tried to do an analysis and figure out, well, what's it going to cost each school in Utah in their bills for just electricity, and it looks like it's in the neighborhood of, like, $10,000.

GLENN: What is it going to be for the average? What about the average person?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Well, the average person is going to   at least the analysis we did in the State of Utah, we're looking at hundreds of dollars per month in new expenses. I offered a bill that said let's require the utility companies to actually have to articulate on their bill what the cost of this increase is going to be because I mean, that's the goal. The goal of this bill is to raise energy prices. If you've raised energy prices, you use less. And   but that is just the wrong formula for America.

GLENN: Jason, how do we survive, how do we   no, no, I'm not going to waste time on that question. Let me ask you this: There are eight million people within the sound of my voice right now and yours, and they are tired of calling and being ignored. They don't feel like anybody in Washington is listening to them. What gets the attention in Washington? What can they possibly do? What should they do?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Flush the toilet, you know? It's not everybody else's congressmen but yours. You've got to go look hard at your congressmen and your senators and figure out where they are on these issues and hold them accountable and work hard to make sure that you make a change within that district because   

GLENN: What do they do   for this Friday we're having the largest tax increase ever, according to your numbers, with the cap and trade. What do they do to stop it?

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: They've got to bombard their members of congress with faxes and e mails and telephone calls that does get their attention. They have got to write letters to the editor and get it on the Internet and expose what this really is. They have got to wake up and actually take action. And it does have an effect. It really does.

GLENN: Okay. Jason, thank you very much. We'll talk to you again.

CONGRESSMAN CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Congressman Jason Chaffetz. Thank you so much, we'll talk again.

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.

'The fool builds walls': China blasts Trump over tariffs

NICOLAS ASFOURI/AFP/Getty Images

I can picture it now: Thousands of years ago, Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, standing before hordes of his followers, in the Qin Dynasty, with a bright red bamboo hat on, and chanting, "Build that wall!"

It took a couple centuries to build the thing, but it got built. And it has been carefully maintained over the last 2,000 years, but, today, the Great Wall of China is so massive that astronauts can see it during good weather conditions from the lower part of low Earth orbit. The wall boasts over 3,000 miles of towers and brick embankments, with over 1,200 miles of natural defensive barriers. It's worth mentioning that the Chinese government is also exceptionally good at imposing digital walls, so much so that China ranks worst in the world for internet freedom.

RELATED: Trump is following through on his campaign promises. Here are the top 10.

So it's a little strange to hear an editorial run by a major news network in China criticized President Trump for his proposal to build a large wall along the southern border of America.

"Following the path of expanding and opening up is China's best response to the trade dispute between China and the United States, and is also the responsibility that major countries should have to the world," the author wrote. "The wise man builds bridges, the fool builds walls."

Similarly, the Pope told reporters in 2016, "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel."

Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

If you've been to the Vatican, you know that it is surrounded by enormous walls. The same goes for all the celebrities who live in heavily walled compounds—a safety measure—but who have also vehemently criticized President Trump's plans to build a wall.

You know the adage: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at other people's glass houses." Perhaps the phrase needs an update: Don't throw stones at people who want to build walls when you live in place surrounded by walls.

An immaculate Nazi doctor hovers over newborn. He probes and sneers at it. "Take it away," he says. This is the very real process that Nazi doctors undertook during the era of Nazi Germany: Nazi eugenics, the studious, sterile search to find children who would define a pure breed for the German lineage. The Übermensch.

RELATED: Glenn responds to advocates of aborting Down syndrome babies: 'No better than Nazi Germans'

During a speech to a delegation of Italy's Family Association in Rome on Saturday, Pope Francis referred to this cruel Nazi practice, which he used as a comparison to the increasingly popular process throughout Europe of "ending" birth defects, by offering abortions to women who have babies with chromosomal defects.

Here are two passages from the Pope's remarks:

I have heard that it's fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first months of pregnancy they do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first offer is: let's send it away.

And:

I say this with pain. In the last century the whole world was scandalized about what the Nazis did to purify the race. Today we do the same, but now with white gloves.

When CNN got the quote, and it shocked them so much that they had to verify the quote with the Vatican—in other words, it didn't fit the usual narrative.

It didn't fit the usual narrative.

The Pope also addressed claims that he has dedicated himself to LGBTQ causes:

Today, it is hard to say this, we speak of "diversified" families: different types of families. It is true that the word "family" is an analogical word, because we speak of the "family" of stars, family" of trees, "family" of animals ... it is an analogical word. But the human family in the image of God, man and woman, is the only one. It is the only one. A man and woman can be non-believers: but if they love each other and unite in marriage, they are in the image of God even if they don't believe.

The media have largely seen Pope Francis as the cool Pope, as the Obama of Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see how abruptly and severely that perspective changes.