Glenn Beck: DNC takes a gas holiday

GLENN: Now, here's one of the most incredible stories I have read today and I've read a lot of incredible stories.  Wait until I get to the John Edwards story.

I've read a lot of incredible stories today.  Here's one from the DNC host committee in Denver, tanking up at city gas pumps to avoid paying the $0.40 a gallon in combined Federal and State gas taxes.  Let me repeat that.  The DNC would like to save money for their convention and so they have decided that they're going to buy it from the State gas pumps.  You know where the police officers and State troopers and everybody else, you know, the snow removal trucks, where they gas up.  The DNC has struck a deal that they can gas their cars up during the convention and they've already started this, to avoid the $0.40 a gallon gas tax.  From the same people who said the gas tax won't make any difference, the gas tax means nothing.  I mean, is there economists that have approved this, because this is fantastic.  The gas tax doesn't make a difference.  Now, I'm sure they'll counter with saying, we're buying so much gas, which makes sense, because now when you think about it, you realize that they did suspend the gas tax for all the trucking companies ‑‑ oops.  No, no.  They didn't do that.  But they did cut it for small business people because small business people are ‑‑ um, no, no, they didn't do that, either.  This is the same party that wanted to temporarily suspend the Federal portion of the gas tax, 18.4 cents a gallon for the summer, remember, because it doesn't really add up to very much.  That's what they ‑‑ that's what they said when they were against suspending the Federal gas tax, but I think this goes even further.  They also say that the republicans are doing it at the GOP convention.  Well, do you know what?  Two wrongs don't make a right.  The GOP at this point says that they're not doing that.  They can show you the gas bills where they're, you know, buying it at private pumps.  They're not doing that.  If they are, they're just as big a scum bags as you are.  You've got to be kidding me.  They're doing it.  She started it!  I don't care who started it.  I don't care who else is doing it.  You're doing it and we'll look into the GOP.  If they're doing it, they're just as arrogant as you are.

Now, here's the interesting thing, as well, because, boy, there's just a little ways to go on this one, it's interesting that the DNC has decided to cut the private sector out of it.  Instead of pouring money into the economy and helping people who are running gas stations, going and helping people at the ‑‑ you know, because sometimes you go in and you might buy a bottled water at the same time you're filling up at the gas tank because that's the only food you can afford.  No, no, no.  Instead of doing that, they're giving the money to the State government.  They're buying the gas from the State.  So, let's cut out any kind of private industry.  You've got to be kidding me.  But, wait.  There's more.  They also say ‑‑ this is their excuse this morning ‑‑ we're only doing this ‑‑ I want to quote this.  "We're only doing this so we know that the gas is not tainted.  We are using this as a safety and security measure."  Excuse me?  Excuse me?  Who the hell do you think you are?  Nobody knows you.  You're standing next to a gas pump.  Nobody knows who you are.  You're using it as a safety and security measure?  What?  Operatives are going to go in and put sugar in the tanks where they think you might go buy your gas?  Here's an idea.  Don't buy your gas at the same gas station.  Spread the wealth around.  What do you think of that one?  What do you mean?  You know what they should do?  They should just nationalize all of the oil companies.  That way they know for sure that the oil coming out of those oil companies is safe for them and then they could just nationalize all of the refineries.  That way they know all of the refined oil in the gas would be safe for them.  Oh, no.  Here's what they could do:  They could also nationalize all of the pumps.  That way they know that everything pumped into their car would be safe.  No.  But somebody could steal their credit card.  Maybe they should nationalize American Express and Visa.  While you're at it, why don't we just nationalize all the banks?  I mean, we're almost there, anyway.  They're too large to fail.  These people are insane and out of control!  The arrogance is just ‑‑ I mean, I can't ‑‑ two things.  I can't take it anymore and part of the thing I can't take anymore is that these guys continue to do it over and over and over again, insulting and injuring us over and over and over again and, yet, nobody in the media is really going to pay attention to this.  This isn't going to be a big deal because half of the country ‑‑ no, I wouldn't say that ‑‑ 20 percent of this country is asleep.  They don't care.  Whatever!  Oh, they're all like that!  While the other half just continually is reinjured over and over and over and over again.  It's a ticking time bomb, man, when you think that you can go and get away with skipping the Federal and State gas tax because, well, you're a politician, you're a political party, and, yet, you let the people suffer, let them eat cake.  Is there no cake?  Unbelievable."

You know, I found somebody the other day that somebody brought to my attention.  I want to introduce her.  Her name is Sarah Steelman.  I'm got to go this with republicans and the democrats.  I'm going to search these people out.  I am so tired of the weasels.  I'm so tired of people saying, oh, no, our party is innocent.  It's them.  No, it's not.  It's both of you.  So, I want to look for the politicians that are doing the right thing and I don't care what political party they're in.  Right now this woman, Sarah Steelman, she is the Missouri State treasurer and she's running for the governor of Missouri, but the ‑‑ and she's running at a Republican, but the RNC ‑‑ no, they don't want her in.  The republicans have endorsed the opposition.  It's a primary for the governor.  It's a Congressman.  Now, I don't know anything about the Congressman and I know he's done pork spending and everything else, but what's interesting to me is that the party doesn't endorse her.  That's fine.  They've got to pick a side but listen and see if approximate you think this might have played a role on why she has not been endorsed by the Republican party.  This is the reason why she should be endorsed.  One, she's the State treasurer.  She has attempted to strip all of the State similarities through their pension through legislation.  She says you shouldn't get a lifetime pension for that.  You served.  Bye bye.  Move on.  She enacted the sunshine law requiring politicians to be more open in their activities.  She has been after the earmarks in the pork spending ‑‑ you've got to love this one.  As the State treasurer, she stopped a payment on a $70,000 secret settlement check that the Republican State government cut to settle a sexual harassment suit.  She said, you want to settle this thing, fine.  But it's the people's money.  You can't just brush this one under.  It's $70,000.  I'm not going to sign any check that you are ‑‑ that is a secret.  You tell the people how you're spending their money.  She also announced that the State would no longer provide below market interest rates for ethanol plants that had State officials or their relatives among primary investors.  Think of that.  That's crazy.  She's attacked ethanol waste.  She wants more drilling.  She wants to build a refinery.  She says I don't want to build a refinery just anywhere.  I want to build it in our own state.  Build it in my backyard.  We need the energy.  I love this woman.  Do we have her on the phone?  We have her at 9:30?

This is the kind of politician I want, one that will say, here's the facts.  We've got to drill.  We've got to build more refineries.  I'm not covering up for you because, I'm in your party.  You don't even me.  You don't cover up.  I work for the anywhere, not for the RNC.  I work for the party, not for the DNC.  Somebody ‑‑ why did this story in the DNC in Colorado, why did this story come out not from a Democrat?  Is there no Democrat involved that says, this is crazy!  Was there nobody involved that said that?  Is there anybody that sees hypocrisy here?

To me, I just ‑‑ I just can't imagine what it's going to take for the American people to finally say, "excuse me?"  Stu, do you think anybody is going to pay attention to the gas tax in Colorado?  Here's my prediction:  It's going to be right down partisan lines.  They're going to say, oh, well, that's republicans do it, too, without absolutely no fact and if it is, I'll the be the one saying those reps cans are doing it out, let's kick them both out.  They'll deflect it and so the argument will be about which party is better instead of, my gosh, this is unethical and hypocritical and wrong.  Do you think anybody will have that discussion on television?"

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.