Bill O’Reilly Slams ‘Corrupt’ Media Backlash Over Trump’s Call With a Gold Star Widow

The Trump administration came under fire this week after a congresswoman spoke to the press about a confidential phone call between President Donald Trump and the widow of a U.S. soldier who died in Niger.

What happened, and is this just another case of people being outraged over nothing again? Bill O’Reilly didn’t hold back in his analysis of the story on today’s show.

“They don’t know what happened,” he said of the media. “They couldn’t possibly know. Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way, and it’s on them.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: The one, the only, Mr. Bill O'Reilly joins us now. Bill, did you see -- did you see the speech from Kelly yesterday?

BILL: Beck. Yes, yes, yes, yes. You left one thing out though, which is really the crux of all the savagery -- and that's the word, "savagery" -- that's going on in this country right now. And that's the media.

What happened was that 24 hours before the president made the call to the widow of the slain soldier in Niger, the family knew the president was going to call, because you have to give them a heads-up and find out where they're going to be and all of that.

Then the family apparently alerts this Congresswoman Wilson. Why? Why?

Would you -- if it were your son, Beck, would you alert any politician?

GLENN: Never.

BILL: That you were going to get a call from the president.

GLENN: Never.

BILL: I would. So who would do that? What's the point of that? So then the call comes in. And they're in the call apparently, on a speakerphone, and the president was disregarding the advice of General Kelly as chief of staff. Because General Kelly said, "Listen, the family is grieving. No matter what you say, it's not going to make a difference. And it's a very difficult situation for any president to be in." But you said to his credit, and I agree with that, but Donald Trump said, "Look, I want to try. I want to try to give them words of sympathy." And it is an honor to get a call from the president of the United States.

GLENN: It is. And I will tell you this as a sidebar, we were all very, very upset -- at least I was -- Taya Kyle wasn't. But I was very upset. And I asked Taya Kyle for a year, has the president reached out at all? I mean, here's this great hero. Has the president reached out at all? Now, she didn't want the call.

But still, it is something that a president should do.

BILL: Well, you're talking about President Obama.

GLENN: Yes, I am.

BILL: Yeah. And he didn't. Because there is no protocol that is in stone. And I think there should be. And that's what I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday. There should a way to handle these kinds of things that always happens.

Now, I don't think that should require a phone call.

GLENN: No, I don't think so either.

BILL: But the president is the commander-in-chief. He has the option to do that.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So, anyway, so the call comes into the limo. And they're all in the limo. And according to General Kelly, President Trump was trying to tell the widow that her husband was a hero because he voluntarily put his life at risk for his country. That was the theme of the call. He was a hero. He voluntarily. And I guess they used the word signed up. He knew the danger. But he did it anyway because he wanted to protect his country, which is a noble sentiment.

Okay. So then the call is over. Within, what? Ten minutes. This congresswoman is calling CNN. That can't happen spontaneously, Beck. That's got to be planned in advance. You can't just call up a major network and say, "I want to be on your air." They got to vet you. They got to know who you are. All of that.

So you can't tell me that this wasn't a setup. It was an absolute setup. That is a huge story.

The second huge story is, as they always do, the barbarians on cable news and broadcast news, believe every word Wilson says. Okay? Like they were there. Even though Wilson, incredibly, admits while I didn't hear the whole phone call.

How could you not possibly hear the whole phone call, if it's in a car on a speakerphone and you were sitting there?

So right away, her credibility is zero. So I'm watching the cable news, and I'm seeing these hit one after the other after the other. Of, oh, what a disgrace. This is horrible. He's insensitive. He's this, he's that. This is talking about Trump. They don't know what happened. They couldn't possibly know.

Yet they use this once again to divide the country in a hateful way. And it's on them. It's on them.

This media we have now is as corrupt as any time in our republic. This is off the chart, from the newspapers, to the television programs, to the internet. It is corrupt in the extreme, and it is harming the United States. No question.

GLENN: Okay. So I want to go back to that. You sound like you're speaking with some passion there.

BILL: I'm really keyed off, Beck.

GLENN: No, I know you are.

BILL: I got to deal with this personally. I got to deal with this kind of crap all the time. You do.

Anybody that doesn't toe the far left line is in danger now. I mean, it's so out of control. So out of control.

GLENN: Bill, I will tell you -- I will tell you, we have spoken off the air about my -- I had a -- I had a day in court in Boston on the Boston bombing.

And, you know, I had good government sources. And the government knew exactly what sources. And some day, some journalists -- well, no, they won't. No, they won't. Some day I'll just write a book, I guess, with this in it. But I have all of the documents. I have all of the transcripts from the trial. I have absolutely everything, including the ability to speak about the trial, because that was part of one of the conditions of the settlement.

But I will tell you, it's not just the media, it is the government that is corrupt. You cannot defend yourself if the government won't respond and abide by the constitutional constraints. And they don't.

You have no way to defend yourself.

BILL: The only -- and I sympathize because you were at Fox News Channel when you broke that story. And I am familiar with the story. And I know you didn't make it up. And I know you were going on people in the government telling you certain things. So that's absolutely true.

But I don't have any expectation the United States government would do anything for anybody at any time. Zero expectation on that.

But what we have here is, the -- the president of the United States is now in a position where the media, about 80 to 90 percent of it wants to destroy him.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: When has that ever happened? How can you run a democracy when the media doesn't care about the truth or any kind of accurate reportage? Their whole bent every single day is to destroy the leader of the country.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't know how you can run a democracy, let alone a republic like ours.

BILL: I mean, it is shameful and disgraceful. And the politicians on both sides, you know, they're scrambling for cover. They go, I don't want to be in this.

You know, I give Kelly a lot of credit. I said on BillO'Reilly.com yesterday, look, you expect the chief of staff to defend his boss, the president. You expect that. Okay?

So we have to listen to what Kelly has to say very closely, as you pointed out. But what he brought to the explanation was logic. Here's what was said and why it was said. And then his disgust with this congresswoman trying to -- who hates Trump. Trying to make it a political issue. But he didn't take it a step further. Is that the media immediately grabbed on to this corrupt congressman, congresswoman, and ran with it. They always do. And it's just sickening.

GLENN: So, Bill, here we are, we're looking at this corrupt media. Do you see a way out of this?

BILL: I don't. I don't. I mean, I've been in this business 43 years. And, you know, I try to run an honest program. As do you. I wouldn't be appearing here every Friday if I thought you weren't. I'm trying to run an honest enterprise at BillO'Reilly.com. And look at things and verify things and check things out. And if I can't get it, I don't say it.

But you put on these cables, and they don't -- I'm not going to use an obscenity, but you know what I'm talking about. They couldn't care less. It's, we're going to get Trump. Going to get him today. Here's how we're going to get him. Tomorrow, we'll get him this way, and we'll get O'Reilly, we'll get Beck, we'll get Limbaugh. We'll get Hannity. We'll get anybody we disagree with. We'll get them.

GLENN: So do you believe that the right is -- some people in the right are engaging in this same behavior? We'll get the left. We'll get the media. It doesn't matter who they are, or what they've done.

BILL: Certainly they're -- in the Hillary Clinton situation, there's an element of that. And I'm not sympathetic to Mrs. Clinton, okay? I'm not. I think she's an imperious woman -- word of the day "imperious" -- who lost the election because people flatout didn't like her. And I really -- I mean, if there's one person I would not want to dine with, it would be her. Okay? I just don't have any use for her at all. But there is an element on the right, that incorporates some of these scorched earth, I hate you tactics. But it's not nearly -- it's not even in the same universe as organized and funded as it is on the far left. It's individuals on the far right, okay?

So you can't make the comparison. Because they don't have the megaphone, number one. They don't have the organized cabal. And, you know, there are various websites like Breitbart and Daily Caller and some of them like that. They do their thing. But it's not nearly the way it is when you have Comcast, NBC, NBC. CNN. I mean, these are huge, huge conglomerates. So I don't think it's any comparison.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com, talking about General Kelly's speech yesterday. And, Bill, I want to hit one more thing here before we move on. And that is, his question, is there anything sacred anymore?

BILL: You know, I don't think that's a question that can be answered in a specific way. I mean, I think most Americans are decent people. And to them, there are things that are sacred.

But, you know, I hate to keep going back and being boring, but to the media, you know, no. There isn't. Politicians, again, it's a case-by-case basis. But there are good people, and there are people that understand that the world is not a place where trying to destroy people should be your main focus.

And I think folks are getting disgusted. I'm waiting for the backlash, Beck. I'm waiting for the backlash. I think it's going to come against the media.

GLENN: And how would that manifest itself?

BILL: Well, it will be ratings. You're seeing it in the NFL. The backlash against the NFL. You're seeing the ratings down, fairly significantly. And also, marketing and merchandising.

I think you're going to see a backlash against the media because people are disgusted with it.

GLENN: So what is the replacement? Because I'm afraid that the backlash comes and then you just don't believe anything or anyone, and so you just unplug. That's not good.

BILL: No, it's not. And, you know, I think people will, what they call look in. They'll look in on occasion. The newspaper industry is dead. Good. TIME Magazine, Newsweek, dead, good. Television is still there, but declining.

So they'll look in on their machines, on their devices, on the internet. They'll look in. But I really think that people have had it.

GLENN: Well, people in Media Matters are already in the halls of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. Google.

BILL: Yeah, you're never going to get a square play on the net. It's just a convenience thing. I mean, I go -- just so people know, I go to CBSNews.com in the morning. Because they give me a headline service that's useful. Sometimes their articles are ridiculous. But I know immediately when I'm getting conned. I go to theHill.com to get the Washington stuff. I write for them. And they're fairly fair. They have both sides.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: And that's about it.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: That's about it for me.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. More of the news of the week and his perspective without the spin. BillO'Reilly.com. Coming up, more in a minute.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com is joining us.

Bill, let me give you something from the Wall Street Journal. Now, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal paper in America. I mean, mainstream paper. When it comes to the news. However, its editorial section is not.

And in the editorial section -- I don't know if you saw this, Donald Trump may be following Palin's trajectory. And I'd like to get your thought on this.

BILL: I didn't see the piece yet. So just tell me what the theme was.

GLENN: Okay. So here it is: In this day, like Sarah Palin supporters, who saw her intellect polish as proof of her sincerity -- but in times, she lost a place through antic statements, intellectual thinness, and general strangeness. The same may happen or be happening with Donald Trump.

And what they're saying is, you know, what you liked about Sarah was she was just, you know, one of us. Saying it like it is. And then after a while, that started to wear really thin. And you're like, I don't think there's anything behind this. And then the -- the theatrics and everything else. And it just wore thin. And she's nowhere.

BILL: All right. I know both people pretty well, particularly Trump. I wouldn't say I know Sarah Palin very well. But I've been around her enough to be able to evaluate her.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too.

BILL: It's an unfair comparison. There's no similarity and intellect between Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Trump has a much wider frame of reference than Ms. Palin. There is similarity in that they're both populists, and they both tailor their message to the folks, and they both can't stand the media. So they're similar.

But if the Palin thing was going to happen to Trump, it would have happened already. All right? Trump's problem is that his wording sometimes is imprecise. All right? It's not as exact as it has to be for a president. He just wanders too much.

Ms. Palin didn't really know that much as far as history is concerned or, you know, her country. And when Katie Couric asked her about what she read, she couldn't really articulate that.

So there's a big difference between Trump's life experience and what he's accomplished and what Sarah Palin has accomplished.

GLENN: Next story. Transgender Wyoming woman convicted Thursday of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl inside a bathroom.

Michelle Martinez, known -- formerly known as Miguel Martinez, before identifying as a female, found guilty first degree and second degree sexual abuse of a minor. Could face 70 years in prison.

Martinez, who was a family friend, invited the girl into the bathroom on March 23rd. Touched her. Penetrated her. The girl told her mother immediately.

Martinez, when questioned by police, became notably hostile and defensive. Said the girl was just talking crap before denying being a child molester. He is also calling accusations a publicity stunt. He has pleaded not guilty on both counts.

BILL: You know, what do you want me to say -- you know, this is a heinous thing. All Americans should want justice. So let it play out. There's really -- you know, I don't think you can take one or two situations and make any general points. What I will say is that the pressure from the politically correct precincts and the ACLU, to force public schools and public facilities to allow people who were born one gender to go into a locker room of another gender is insane.

And there is an easy solution, whereas you make a third facility for transgendered people to use. And you would think that they would want privacy anyway. So make a facility. It costs a little money. But in this PC world, that's the solution to the problem.

So I'm not big on generalizing from specific heinous situations. I don't think that's fair. And I want to be fair.

But I think that this movement for America to do things that are not in the best interest of children and are not based in common sense, common sense says you build a third facility. So that's my take.

GLENN: President Trump releases petition requesting support on standing during the national anthem.

I read this, this morning, and he came out yesterday and said, I want to know who is patriot enough to stand and pledge to stand during the national anthem. I want -- I've issued a petition.

And I thought it was a little strange. And then I saw where the URL leads, and it's to the GOP. This --

BILL: I'm going to comment on that. But I want you to answer the next question on Killing England, my number one book, because it plays into this. And I don't want your audience to think I'm crass in using the question about the anthem to promote my book, okay?

GLENN: All right. All right. Well, you're not the boss of me.

BILL: I want you to set it up.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

BILL: Rather than me be a doofus.

GLENN: This is probably -- if this is the way we're going to run this show, this is probably something you should have said before we went on the air. It's a little -- it's a little less crass.

BILL: No, but I want to be honest here. I want them to know the interaction is genuine.

GLENN: All right. All right. All right.

BILL: Okay. National anthem. No question Donald Trump is using it for political benefit. Everybody got that? Because he's already come out. He's already said he believes that everybody should respect the flag and the anthem. Most Americans concur. Word of the day "concur."

GLENN: No, the other was the word of the day.

BILL: And he won. He won it, okay? So he's on the side of apple pie and goodness and flag and anthem. Okay. Enough. Enough. You're the president. We need the tax cut. All right? You don't have to keep going back. We don't need a petition. We don't need to go trick-or-treating, dressed up like the flag, okay? We don't need it. We got it. You won. There's my take.

Now, Killing England. Go.

GLENN: You're not the boss of me.

The budget that they passed yesterday, only one G.O.P. person voted against it. Rand Paul.

BILL: Of course.

GLENN: There's no cuts. Real cuts to this. How do you feel about the Republicans?

BILL: Yeah. I'm not surprised. Because the Republican Party knows there's only one thing that's going to save it at this point, and that's the tax revision. And the working people getting the 4,000-dollar average into their pockets. So if they have to spend more money to get that -- which is what the trade is, okay? They're going to do it. So there's no surprise here.

GLENN: I don't think there's any trade.

BILL: Because it's all about tax cuts.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think there's any trade.

Okay. Tell me about Killing England.

BILL: England. England. Okay. Number one book. Knocked off Hillary Clinton in the New York Times Best Seller list. Three weeks running, which is amazing because I don't have the platform I used to have to market the book.

GLENN: (clearing throat)

BILL: Well, your -- and you've been generous, Beck. You really have. I have to say.

GLENN: All right.

BILL: And there's no kickback. Although, I did send Beck a free book.

GLENN: I don't believe -- I don't believe you did.

BILL: No, I did. I sent you a free book.

GLENN: Did you sign it?

BILL: Yes, I signed it.

GLENN: You did not.

BILL: I think I just put one N in Glenn. No, I spelled your name correctly.

But, look, the reason I'm trying to get people's attention on this is because I obviously want the book to be successful, but I want you to compare George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the three central characters in our revolution, to what we have now. To what we have now.

I mean, it's unbelievable, the difference in -- in every single way. Intellect. Character. Courage.

And right down the line. When you get through reading about these men who gave us this unbelievable freedom that we have, that's now being abused, by the way. But we have it. When you read about the suffering they went through -- the suffering, and what they actually did. And you compare it to these weasels that we've put into power -- I mean, across-the-board. There's some good people. But most of them are just -- are just ugh. Glenn.

GLENN: Also, the weasels that we have become. I mean, we don't really demand the highest standards from ourselves anymore, as a people.

BILL: Well, you're generalizing though. I'm going back to, there are people who do that. And it wasn't uniform back in 1775, '76.

GLENN: No, I know that.

BILL: Half of the colonists wanted to stay with the insane king.

GLENN: I know.

BILL: And they wanted to do it, most of them, for money reasons. Not because they believed in the monarchy. They were cowards.

So human nature is human nature. I always say that. But I think the majority of Americans do want high standards and are good people. I don't know if I differ from you or what on that.

GLENN: I'm not sure anymore. I would have said yes to that. But I'm not sure anymore. I'm not sure that we're much different than we were in the colonies, with the exception of that we are also -- we have -- you know, there was an overwhelming understanding back then of some morality. Some things were sacred, to a majority of people. And I don't know if that's true at all anymore.

BILL: Well, we're certainly more fragmented and scattered. And our focus is not on other people.

I mean, I did a thing last night for a Philadelphia radio station, where the subject of religion came up. Because religion is under fire in this country, as everybody knows. If you're a believer and you live in Los Angeles or New York, they think you're a kook. You know, if you go to church every Sunday, people look at you like, what's wrong with you?

Certainly, back then, that was not the case. And so there is a big difference. The secular progressives have power. They have power. And they're using it because the media sympathizes with them, and they get their message out. And it's easy for them to get their message out. So you're right in that sense, that there's been a big erosion in, you know, treating your neighbor as yourself, putting other people ahead of you. How often do we hear that these days?

GLENN: Yeah, not very often as well. Bill, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right, Beck. I did send you a free Killing England. So you find it in all of your stuff. You find that book.

GLENN: Right. Right. I'll find it after you send it.

BILL: Oh, man.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly -- Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com. Number one book, three weeks running in the country, is Killing England.

Bill O'Reilly, thanks for joining us.

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.