Stu & Pat resign

GLENN: I want to give you the story that we were talking about in the first half hour. I want to read the actual story. The only one that really covered it and did a good job on it is Mediaite. Mediaite I'm torn on and I think that's what you should be on all media. You should be torn. You should think that some of the stories they get right and some of the stories they don't get right. When they're writing about you, you’re sometimes like, yeah, finally somebody has gotten it right and other times you're like, no, that's not the story. And to me it shows that they tried to get the story right.

Here is an honest piece of reporting that I think, you know, anybody with an integrity an ounce of integrity would have reported on this story. Here's what they wrote. Let's end the week with some Shirley Sherroding, editing of a clip to make it sound like someone is saying something that is exactly the complete opposite of what they are saying. In this case the offender is Media Matters when they try to prove that Glenn Beck's radio cohosts were saying Keith Olberman was responsible for the deadly Manchester workplace shooting. Here was Media Matters' headline. Quote, Beck's sidekicks Gray and Burguiere, Keith Olberman and Media responsible for Manchester shooting, end quote. That was the headline. The side kicks are Pat Gray and Steve Burguiere who cohosted without Beck today. And why did Media Matters write this? Well, that is because what Beck and Burguiere said at first. Quote, Gray, obviously Keith Olberman is responsible for those eight people dead. Burguiere, quote, a guy like that who's a little unstable, anyway, can't help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olberman on the air and on MSNBC and all of MSNBC talking about the racism that is out there, end quote, but the problem is the cohosts were being sarcastic to make a point. One minute later they got serious and Stu says, quote, Keith Olberman was not responsible for any shooting, but that part is conveniently out of the Media Matters' audio because Media Matters cut the audio right before they started to make it clear. Right after the Media Matters' edit, Burguiere says, quote, Obviously we're making a point here. Let's move to the case against the Tea Party members. They're constantly convinced that the government is after them. They're going to come after their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So, therefore, he's responsible for every time anyone does anything violent. Later Gray says, just like you can't blame Keith Olberman for this dumb racist thing and Burguiere reiterates, Keith Olberman ills not responsible for any shooting. Keith Olberman is not. It's not possible for him to sit there and inspire that by talking about a topic.

Update, at the end of the story: Media has updated their post. Here's their correction. Correction: The original headline on this clip did not make clear let me give you the headline again. The headline is: Beck's sidekicks Gray and Burguiere Keith Olberman and Media responsible for Manchester shooting. The original headline on this clip did not make it clear that Beck's cohosts were being satirical when they linked Keith Olberman to the Manchester shooting.

PAT: They're right about that. Didn't make that clear.

STU: Not clear at all.

PAT: No.

GLENN: Their subsequent statements that Olberman was not responsible for the shooting, Media Matters regrets the error.

STU: Error.

GLENN: In other words, says Mediaite, in other words, the exact opposite of Media Matters' post. Now, there's no error there. Media Matters made no error. Be very clear. This is the kind of things are you recording this, media matter? You can go ahead and well, if I say this, though, if I say that you are nothing but a smear machine funded by Soros, what you'll print is: Glenn Beck hates us. Please donate to the DNC.

The Media Matters does nothing but smear. This is a political organization only and all they do is provide disinformation, period. They're trying to smear and discredit anyone who stands against the Soros selected machine.

PAT: And in this case, I mean, have they not discredited themselves to the point now where

GLENN: For anybody

PAT: for anything they say.

GLENN: Anybody who plays attention, but they're not playing for anybody who pays attention. They're not playing to those people. They are playing to those who are who rely on Twitter feeds, because all that was

STU: True.

PAT: Right. Exactly. And if you go back they probably pulled it down at this point, but if you go back ad look at the comment, the original way they posted it, they were going, I can't believe these people. How can it be obvious that Olberman is responsible? The real people who are responsible are the right wring didn't question it for a second.

GLENN: Do me a favor. Do me a favor. Make sure you get all of those comments and you go back in because nothing is gone forever. You go in and get all of those comments so the next time there's any kind of violence, we have those comments that all we have to do is change the names

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: These guys are ridiculous and I'm glad that I've distanced myself from Joe Kerry who fired and I want you to know, too, that today, because I'm using this as a teachable moment, not only can America see how stupid America was and how brilliant I was, in this moment I have also created or saved four jobs.

PAT: Four?

GLENN: Four jobs

STU: Pat and I, right?

GLENN: I saved your job, but when I fired you when Joe fired you

PAT: Yes, uh huh

GLENN: okay? I wasn't going to replace you. So, I stopped I closed those jobs?

STU: Okay.

GLENN: So, when I when I found out that you had been wronged, you two princes of men, really, I came in and I said, no. We are going to create those positions. So, I have saved two jobs and created two jobs.

PAT: That's four altogether

STU: But it's just Pat and I.

GLENN: I have saved please.

PAT: Do you want to talk to Joe again?

GLENN: I have saved or created four jobs

STU: Wow. So, this is a triumph for you.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

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.