Glenn Beck: Hidden deep in the Climate Bill

GLENN: We're going to do a control case, here, just a little control case. Just hypothetically speaking here on a control case. Hypothetically speaking, a Republican, a Republican chairperson, Republican chairperson of, let's say an energy and commerce chair decides to present a bill and for fun let's say it's a global warming bill, and in this Republican global warming bill let's say that it was close to 1,000 pages long and it is of, quote, the utmost importance, even quote, especially if we, you know, hate mongers actually care about the planet. Remember, hypothetically you care about the planet, and this is the utmost we've got to pass this bill. Let's just say that that Republican chairperson was confronted with a detail from the bill that he wrote. He was the author. Remember, he was the author. So now let's say that this author of a global warming bill that is of the utmost importance to save the Earth forgot some of the information in it. Would this oversight by a Republican chairperson on a bill which he authored be considered acceptable by the Democrats or the Republicans? I'm going to go with big fat no on that one. But for fun let's say this whole situation hypothetically was a Democratic chairperson of the energy and commerce committee who wrote the bill, wasn't aware of its contents, instead blindly followed the scientists from the United Nations. Yeah, but that would never happen, right?

VOICE: Before I ask the question to counsel, did you know that was in this bill?

VOICE: Are you asking me?

VOICE: Yes, sir.

VOICE: Well, I certainly don't claim to know everything that's in this bill. I know that we left it to we relied very heavily on the scientists, on the IPCC and others and the consensus that they have that there is a problem of global warming, it's having an impact and that we need to try to reduce it by the amounts that they think we need to achieve in order to avoid some of the consequences. That's what I know, but I don't know the details.

VOICE: I'm asking a question

VOICE: that rely on the scientists.

GLENN: This is unbelievable. Remember, he relied on the UN scientists to put a lot of information in. UN scientists, the IPCC, who we relied on putting a lot of stuff in here. "I can't say because we relied on the scientists who were telling us about global warming." The details are now coming out about this bill, and you can bet that this is not one of the pieces that Waxman didn't know about. Quote: An eligible worker, specifically workers who lose their jobs as a result of this measure, may receive a climate change adjustment allowance under this subsection for a period of not longer than 156 weeks, 80% of the monthly premium of any health insurance coverage up to a maximum payment of $1500 in relocation allowance and job search expenses not exceeding $1500. That's in the climate bill. For three years. If you lose your job because of anything in this bill, the federal government provides this to you for 156 weeks.

Remember the March to Socialism? You know, remember that a while back, you know, in our we talked about it, the climate bill? It cited Spain's woes with the cap and trade program. Studies show that only one in ten green jobs that are created is permanent. For each permanent green job created, 2.2 jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy. This bill is the end of our republic. This bill puts almost everyone on the dole. Obama says that he will create 5 million new green jobs. If he does that, according to the research now coming out of Spain that did this program, he will cause 11 million jobs to be lost elsewhere in the economy. So 11 million people under the climate bill will start getting climate change adjustment allowances. 11 million people getting $3,000 to find a new job and that's just the beginning of it. I'm not a scientist, but I do have a calculator. That's $33 billion for the one clause on one page in a 1,000 page bill that our representatives who wrote it say "I don't really know everything that's in this thing." That doesn't count paying 80% of all those people's health insurance costs. Do you think this is ever going to stop? I'm starting to think this bill that trusted the scientists to write it instead of the authors would have been a better fit in the March to Socialism quite frankly.

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.

'The Handmaid's Tale' got it right, just with the wrong religion

Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Just in case The Handmaid's Tale's heavy-handed message wasn't already heavy-handed enough, a recent episode made it clear there's always room for further hysteria. Particularly, in relation to depictions of a “patriarchal society" run by Christian doctrine and determined by men — oh those dastardly men.

RELATED: Christian privilege is the new white privilege

The show appropriates Margaret Atwood of the same name, depicting a totalitarian society led by Christian doctrine in which women's bodies are controlled, and they have no rights. The story sounds familiar, but not in the same way Atwood and the show's creators have so smugly assumed.

Just as tone-deaf as 4th wave feminism itself, and tone-deaf in all the exact same places. Most notably, the show's heavy-handed indignation toward Christianity. Toward the patriarchy. Toward conservatives and traditional values. And just like 4th wave feminism, the show completely overlooks the irony at play. Because there is a part of the world where women and children are being raped and mutilated. In fact, in this very real place, the women or girls are often imprisoned, even executed, for being raped, and they are mutilated in unspeakable ways.

Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life.

There is a place, a very real place, where women are forced to cover their entire bodies with giant tarp-like blankets, which is all the more brutal given the endless heat of this place. There is a place where women literally have one-third of the rights of men, a place where women are legally, socially and culturally worth less than men.

They cannot drive cars. They cannot be outside alone. They cannot divorce, they cannot even choose who they marry and often, they are forcibly married at a young age.

They are raped. A lot. Theirs is a cruel, bloody, colorless life. This is the life of tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of women. And, I'll tell you, their religion isn't Christianity.

Science did it again. It only took 270 million years, but this week, scientists finally solved the mystery that has kept the world up at night. We finally know where octopuses come from: outer space. That explains why they look like the aliens in just about every alien movie ever made.

RELATED: Changes in technology can be cause for concern, but THIS is amazing

It turns out octopuses were aliens that evolved on another planet. Scientists haven't determined which one yet, but they've definitely narrowed it down to one of the planets in one of the galaxies. Hundreds of millions of years ago (give or take a hundred), these evolved octopus aliens arrived on Earth in the form of cryopreserved eggs. Now, this part is just speculation, but it's possible their alien planet was on the verge of destruction, so Mom and Dad Octopus self-sacrificially placed Junior in one of these cryopreserved eggs and blasted him off the planet to save their kind.

This alien-octopus research, co-authored by a group of 33 scientists, was published in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal. I'm sure you keep that on your nightstand like I do.

Anyway, these scientists say octopuses evolved very rapidly over 270 million years. Which sounds slow, but in evolutionary terms, 270 million years is like light speed. And the only explanation for their breakneck evolution is that they're aliens. The report says, “The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes — more than is present in Homo sapiens."

Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

They mention that the octopus' large brain, sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies and ability to change color and shape all point to its alien nature. Octopuses developed those capabilities rather suddenly in evolution, whereas we're still trying to figure out the TV remote.

These biological enhancements are so far ahead of regular evolution that the octopuses must have either time-traveled from the future, or “more realistically" according to scientists, crash-landed on earth in those cryopreserved egg thingies. The report says the eggs arrived here in “icy bolides." I had to look up what a “bolide" is, and turns out it's a fancy word for a meteor.

So, to recap: a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, an alien race of octopuses packed their sperm-bank samples in some meteors and shot them toward Earth. Lucky for us, they landed in the water. Otherwise, we might be octopus pets.

President Trump's approval rating is rising, and Democrats — hilariously — can't seem to figure out what's going on. A few months ago Democrats enjoyed a sixteen point lead over Republicans, but now — according to CNN's recent national survey — that lead is down to just THREE points. National data from Reuters shows it as being even worse.

The Democratic advantage moving towards the halfway mark into 2018 shows that Republicans are only ONE point behind. The president's public approval rating is rising, and Democrats are nervously looking at each other like… “umm guys, what are we doing wrong here?"

I'm going to give Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi a little hint. We know that the Left has enjoyed a “special relationship" with the media, but they might want to have a sit down with their propaganda machine. The mainstream media is completely out of control, and Americans are sick of it. We're DONE with the media.

RELATED: The mainstream media wants you to believe Trump is waging war on immigrants — here's the truth

Look what has been going on just this week. The president called MS-13 gang members animals, but that's not the story the media jumped on. They thought it was more clickable to say that Trump was calling all immigrants animals instead. In the Middle East, the media rushed to vilify Israel instead of Hamas. They chose to defend a terror organization rather than one of our oldest allies.

Think about that. The media is so anti-Trump that they've chosen a violent street gang AND A GLOBAL TERROR ORGANIZATION as their torch-bearing heroes. Come on, Democrats. Are you seriously baffled why the American people are turning their backs on you?

Still not enough evidence? Here's the New York Times just yesterday. Charles Blow wrote a piece called "A Blue Wave of Moral Restoration" where he tried to make the case that the president and Republicans were the enemy, but — fear not — Democrat morality was here to save the day.

Here are some of these cases Blow tries to make for why Trump is unfit to be President:

No person who treats women the way Trump does and brags on tape about sexually assaulting them should be president.

Ok, fine. You can make that argument if you want to, but why weren't you making this same argument for Bill Clinton? Never mind, I actually know the reason. Because you were too busy trying to bury the Juanita Broaddrick story.

Let's move on:

No person who has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar should be president.

Do the words, “You can keep your doctor" mean anything to the New York Times or Charles Blow? I might have saved the best for last:

No person enveloped by a cloud of corruption should be president.

I can only think of three words for a response to this: Hillary Frigging Clinton.

Try displaying a little consistency.

If the media really wants Donald Trump gone and the Democrats to take over, they might want to try displaying a little consistency. But hey, maybe that's just too much to ask.

How about starting with not glorifying terrorist organizations and murderous street gangs. Could we at least begin there?

If not… good luck in the midterms.

In the weeks following President Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the mainstream media was quick to criticize the president's pro-Israel stance and make dire predictions of violent backlash in the Middle East. Fast forward to this week's opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the simultaneous Palestinian “protests" in Gaza.

RELATED: Just another day in Iran: Parliment chants death to America after Trump pulls out of nuclear deal

Predictably, the mainstream media chastised Israel for what they called “state-sanctioned terrorism" when the IDF stepped in to protect their country from so-called peaceful Palestinian protesters. Hamas leaders later admitted that at least 50 of the 62 Palestinians killed in the clashes were Hamas terrorists.

“In our post-modern media age, there is no truth and nobody even seems to be looking for it …. This is shamefully clear in the media especially this week with their coverage of the conflict between the border of Israel and the Gaza strip," said Glenn on today's show. He added, “The main media narrative this week is about how the IDF is just killing innocent protesters, while Hamas officials have confirmed on TV that 50 of the 62 people killed were working for Hamas."

The mainstream media views the Palestinians as the oppressed people who just want to share the land and peacefully coexist with the people of Israel. “They can't seem to comprehend that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, only one side is actively trying to destroy the other," surmised Glenn.

Watch the video above to hear Glenn debunk the “peaceful Palestinian protest" fallacy.