Global Warming Mandate

GLENN: Well, a Silicon Valley lawmaker is gaining momentum with a bill now that would require "climate change" to be among the science topics that all schoolchildren are taught. State senator John Simitian who also wants to have future textbooks contain climate change material says you can't have a science book that is current and relevant if it doesn't deal with the science of climate change. Gosh, John, actually you can and you should. Since when is the science of the month required? Maybe we can is a science of the month club. How many trees, Mr. Environmentalist, would have been wasted if we rushed to print textbooks on global cooling in 1975? I'm just -- wasn't that the scientific consensus at the time? Global cooling. Then how many trees would have been wasted when we had global warming? And now we would have to reprint because it's global climate change. That way you get it covered either direction. He says this is a phenomenon of global importance and our kids ought to understand the science behind that phenomenon. You know what? I've got to tell you something. He used a couple of words here that are exactly, exactly appropriate. He used the word "Phenomena" because that's exactly what it is, a global phenomena. Wow. How about the scientists who understand it first? Could we do that? Right now we have a bunch of theories and despite what Al Gore's proclamation, you know, says, it's hardly settled. The state Senate in California approved a bill 26-13. Now it heads to the state assembly. Some say the science isn't clear. Others worry that this would inject environmentalism propaganda into the classroom. No, where would they get that crazy idea? In California? Never! Opponents want guarantees that the views of skeptics will be included. Oh, yeah, that's going to happen, yeah. Just like intelligent design, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. That's included in the science behind -- it was a big bang; it just started. Just, boom! "What happened before the Big Bang?" What was -- shhh, quiet. Wouldn't that be one of the theories in forgive me if my confidence is a little low on the, "We just want the opposite side, you know, to be able to be in there as well." Uh-huh. Jeff Denham, United States senator, he has said we don't have factual information yet. The Earth is heated and cooled on its own for thousands of years. I don't know if there's any direct cause right now other than this is what the Earth does." We can do a better job of cleaning up the planet. That's what we should talk about." Whoa, what a hate monger Jeff is, huh? How did that guy get elected state senator? Why do you hate the environment so much? You just want to clean it? Are you in the pocket of big oil there, Jeff? Oh, crap, he operates a recycling business. Well, I'll have to reevaluate. Okay, I just does. He's a hate monger.

The main problem with the global warming argument is that the activists try to paint anyone who, you know, is skeptical of "Man is behind it," they try to paint them as in the pocket of big oil and haters of the environment. I'm neither. I think all of us love the environment. Who hates the environment? Is there anybody -- have you ever met anybody that's like, this damn environment; I hate it. I don't know anybody. I'm all for going green. That's great. Let's leave it in better shape. Just don't try to scare me into it, you know? There are other reasons to go green. The problem is the movement to go green has been hijacked by the radical socialist whose main purpose is to spread around wealth. You want to be afraid of something? Be afraid of global socialism. It's coming, my friend. Ooh, freak out; or just calmly look at the facts. Just calmly do your research and then go, wow, hmmm, maybe we should stop that. You know, here's a question. Why is it so many things are split right down party lines? Is it because the Republicans hate the environment? Do Republicans hate the environment?

See, this is what Jonah Goldberg, you know, wrote the book. He said that liberals never have to self-examine. They never have to self-examine. If you call, you know, a Democrat a socialist, they will say, yeah, that's right because socialized medicine, okay, that might be bad but we've got to help people out. We've got to spread the wealth, these evil hate mongering rich people.

We had a woman on the phone last week. She said she was a Progressive. I said, do you know what the history of Progressive movement is? Do you know who these people are? She said, no, it just sounds good because it's Progressive; it's for the future. Oh, jeez, what a pinhead. Yet, if you disagree with global warming, you're either in the pocket of big oil which, I mean, you can pretty much do a self-exam there and say, gee, do I have money from big oil? No, I'm giving them a lot of money every time I fill up my car. Or you hate the environment. Do I hate the environment? Why is it that I -- see, you have to ask questions: Why is it I don't recycle more than I should? Should I use styrofoam companies? We're constantly self-examining because we're constantly told we're evil people. Why do you think it's split down the party lines? We don't hate the environment. It's because the bills that have been put forth have socialist principles behind them. It is redistributing wealth. It's moving wealth from here to over here. That's what it is. It's the Global Poverty Act that passed last week with Barack Obama. The Global Poverty Act. He says we've got to stop spending money over in Iraq; we've got to start spending money fixing America first. But yet he okays and sponsors a bill that will give us almost a 1% GDP tax to the United Nations. Take a look at the viewpoints of these parties in the coming election. Which one tends to agree with socialist principles? That's why they don't have a problem with these bills. They're socialist principles. They also believe the U.S. should be propping up third world countries everywhere. I think this is a bad idea for many reasons but honestly if I were on the left, I think I would be against this bill as well. I would be saying, "Hey, hey, hey, keep it quiet on this bill, shhh. Dude, teachers are already indoctrinating the kids. They are teaching this without any mandate. Let's not rile anybody up. Keep it on the down low. You can show the Al Gore thing without showing the other side once." I mean, even the teachers who like the bill have a lot to learn before they, you know, before they really start teaching climate change.

Try this on for size. Although global warming is mentioned in high school classes about weather, it's currently not required to be mentioned in all textbooks. This is a great idea. I don't think there's any reason to talk about politics. There's no argument that there's climate change. The argument is how much is caused by the activities of man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The argument is how much is caused by the activity of mankind, really? Silly teacher, that argument is already over. You need to go back and rewatch the Al Gore movie.

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.