Eye on the Stimulus - Turtle Tunnel



Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Now available in book stores nationwide...

GLENN: You know, it's been really, really tough to find flaws in the stimulus package, I mean really, really tough. You know, the shovel ready projects that are designed to save America. I can't believe they aren't working. Have you seen the projects? Don't worry, don't worry. We're supervising, not ABC, CBS, NBC. No, no, no. The Glenn Beck radio program is the only one really looking at the stimulus projects to see what exactly, how are they spending this money that is going to turbo us into the future?

All right. One of the projects in the stimulus is in Florida where the state transportation officials have devoted $3.4 million to tackling roadkill on U.S. Highway 27 near Lake Jackson. This is creating jobs that are going to make us the superpower of the future. $3.4 million for roadkill on U.S. Highway 27. Now, I don't know if you've been to Lake Jackson lately. I hear it's beautiful, especially this time of the year, and the smell of the animal carcasses is just overwhelming, but   so why is the $3.4 million needed to tackle roadkill? I mean, that's a lot of roadkill. Well, because the government solution to the problem is to build a 13 foot tunnel under the highway to accommodate the more than 60 species of animals that have met   I'm quoting   an untimely end on the road, end quote. Turtles are the most frequent victims on this road. Tunnels for turtles. $3.4 million. Who says common sense is dead? Why in the world would you build a tunnel for turtles? I mean, are they going to put up little road signs everywhere, very, very short ones that say, animals, please use the tunnels; cars approaching? Are they   how are the turtles going to find the tunnels? I'm not an animal expert here but it just doesn't seem like it's going to work. But when did I say that before? The only reason why they are going to waste our taxpayer money on this turtle tunnel would be if they had tried this before and it worked. Well, I happen to remember this story because I've been in the broadcast business for a very long time and even when I was drinking, bloodshot out of my eyes when they were going to build a frog tunnel in California! Sacramento Bee reported this one and we talked about it in 2007. It was a toad tunnel, toad tunnel. They built one in the mid Nineties. The result? 2007 Sacramento Bee, quote: Toads had pretty much disappeared from the area around the Davis Toad Tunnel, which was dug with great fanfare in 1995 to allow the critters to get safely across a new highway ramp. John McNerny told the Bee he hadn't found any toad tadpoles in a nearby pond for a couple of years, leading him to conclude the tunnel had not been much help and that the toads had faded into oblivion. Quote: No tunnels had helped, ever being used by a toad. Not one toad, not 100, not a thousand, not one toad. Quote: It was well intentioned but not successful.

Just a quick ADD moment here. The toads weren't even toads. They were actually frogs, which underscores a major problem in this country. The evidence the toad tunnel isn't for toads. The Holland tunnel isn't for the Dutch. The Lincoln tunnel isn't for Lincoln. We have no idea how to even name stupid tunnels! The toad tunnel cost $14,000. Even California had more common sense. They only spent $14,000 on a toad tunnel. $3.4 million of your taxpayer dollars going to be used on a turtle tunnel!

Oh, wait. Hang on just a second. I apologize. I didn't finish reading the whole story. The wildlife crossing is only in the design stages. Oh. Hang on. Let me keep reading. $3.4 million for the design, for the design. So we're putting architects to work. For the design of the tunnel. Oh, here it is. It will require $6 million to be completed. So an unworking wildlife tunnel for turtles has cost you already $3.4 million and is going to be $6 million paid for by you.

Now, let me ask the question that the press has been asking me lately. So why did you write Common Sense.

VOICE: Next time try applying some common sense directly to the forehead and if that fails to solve the problem, read Glenn Beck's new book Common Sense: The Case Against an Out of Control Government. Get the details at GlennBeck.com.

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.