Glenn Beck: Obama wants your thermostat

VOICE: The Glenn Beck program presents Spotlight on Science.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We'll restore science to its rightful place.

VOICE: A series dedicated to President Obama's passion for everything science.

GLENN: The climate czar, Carol Browner, wants your thermostat. Thank God for science -- no, I'm sorry. Got to put science back in her place. Thank science for science. We the American people can now rest easy. Obama's climate czar, not kidding, not making it up, somebody he appoints as a czar is a former leader in the Socialist International group, a group that advocates one world government, that Carol Browner. Carol Browner is out there giving media interviews now and compared to how clumsy the Obama administration looks on the economy, they are crystal clear on the environment. Czar Browner enlightened the readers of U.S. News and World Report, a fantastic magazine that people may or may not read, U.S. News and World Report questioned: How much have attitudes shifted on climate change? Stu, can you give me the real answer? Give me that tomorrow, will you? I'd like the real answers on these. How much have attitudes shifted on climate change? Czar Browner says, I think first of all that the science has just become incredibly clear that the impacts are real, that they will be real and we need to do something right away. We need to make sure that we're moving electricity in the smartest way -- listen to this -- and using the most cost effective electricity at the right time of day. Eventually we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of the power so that your air conditioner won't operate at its peak.

Do you remember when the people that were all around Obama said that people like me were crazy and just conspiracy theorists and, oh, well, you're just, they're never going to try to control the thermostat in your home; that's crazy. Only in an emergency. Quote: Eventually we can get to a system where an electric company will be able to hold back some of the power so maybe your air conditioner won't operate at its peak. Can't wait for that. I can't wait for the 97 degree day in August when Czar Browner in Washington decides it's in my country's best interest to make sure I'm not cooling my house. And, of course, they are going to know which houses are sufficiently cooled and, you know, when they cut them back, when they cut back the power, nothing could wrong there like in 2003 when 30,000 people died in a two-week heat wave. Nothing like that could happen. I mean, the government is definitely going to know which houses have old people in them and need them to be cooler and which ones don't have old people. They are going to need to know, they will know exactly which ones have little children in them as well or people who just got out of the hospital or whatever, they'll know that because they are going to control all of our medical records and they will know exactly who's in the house. Oh, and by the way, if you want to sell your house, they are also going to have your fingerprints as well. So they will know exactly who is where. There's no way the government would turn down the air conditioning at the wrong place and kill someone. I mean, you know, that just doesn't -- the only thing that has become incredibly clear on the science of climate change is that they can't decide whether to call it global warming or call it climate change. She also says we need to do something, which means of course we need to implement one of my favorite socialist ideas, cap and trade, which is already failing in Europe. Quote: There's a long history of the government making decisions and creating opportun ities for business -- there is a long history of the government making decisions and creating opportunities for businesses, and I think you've got a growing number of businesses in this arena that understand that. Yes, yes, businesses realize what big overreaching governments do to them and that's why they are preparing for the taxation onslaught by hemorrhaging jobs like crazy. Of course, the big, big, big corporations like GE, well, they've put their lobbyists in gear. So they know that you're not going to pass anything that will hurt them, but everybody else. Czar Browner saved the best for last, though. She gave us a glimpse into our glorious future under her socialism where government knows better than you.

VOICE: You've been listening to Spotlight on Science exclusively heard on the Glenn Beck program, America's number one source for science and science-related items.

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.