Glenn Beck: Meghan McCain is like, so totally progressive

GLENN: Meghan McCain, like, she is like so cool. First start with the progressive, the progressive line from Meghan McCain. Can you do that?

PAT: The progressive, yes.

GLENN: Here she is. She's a progressive. I don't know if you know that.

MEGHAN McCAIN: I consider myself a progressive Republican.

PAT: Do you want the whole thing is that enough?

GLENN: No, is there any more that needs to be said before that?

PAT: No, no.

STU: I vote for enough.

MEGHAN McCAIN: I consider myself a progressive Republican. I consider myself a progressive Republican. I consider myself a progressive Republican. I consider myself a progressive Republican.

GLENN: Okay, stop. There's the problem. That's the disease in the water: I consider myself a progressive Republican because I like progress. I like progress so much, I like to progress, I like to come like, for instance, Larry, in the studio I like, if I wouldn't have progressed, I'd still be sitting in the car because I like progress. So I got out of the car and then I closed the door and I took a couple of small steps and before I knew, I was in your studio. I like progress.

PAT: Isn't it interesting that none of these pseudo intellectuals on the left are calling her stupid? None of them are saying, she sounds like an idiot, she can't put together an intellectual thought, she hasn't had a deep thought in her life but they will say that all the time about Sarah Palin, all the time.

GLENN: But she's on Larry King!

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: For the full hour. All right. So now here she is on The View, whole thing.

MEGHAN McCAIN: We're saying that this is a new movement in the Republican Party and the first I knew, I did not want to go

GLENN: Stop. It's not a new movement in the Republican Party. Your daddy knows this. Maybe Daddy should sit you down and learn you a lesson or two on progressives. Daddy knows that his favorite president was the one who started the progressive party. Called the Bull Moose Party because Daddy couldn't take the seat from the Republican. So he had to start a third party. The progressive party. So it's not a new movement. It's the reason why your daddy's been a progressive for a long time. Your daddy is one of the reasons why our government is so out of control. How's that, Megan?

PAT: But I think here she's confusing, if I'm not mistaken, I think she's confusing the tea party with a movement within the Republican Party because I think she's referencing the tea party now.

STU: So she's saying the tea party is a new movement?

PAT: It's a new movement within the Republican Party and it's not.

GLENN: No, that was only the, that was only the Jefferson part of the movement. The tea party thing is really the Jefferson, Jefferson. A Republican. Not in the way we know them now. Before daddy's favorite president. Before there were progressives. A true Republican, which is for state control. Not a big federal government. I mean, how far away from the true Republican can you possibly be? If I said a Republican is somebody who is for the smallest possible government and does not like state wants state control, not federal control, name the Republicans that think that way.

STU: You mean currently?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That want the small I mean like obviously Jim DeMint type.

GLENN: Jim DeMint,

PAT: Michele Bachmann.

GLENN: Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul.

PAT: Jason Chaffetz.

GLENN: Jason Chaffetz.

PAT: Good, uh huh.

GLENN: There's four of us, we've come up with four.

STU: There's definitely congressmen that would fit into this. I mean, there's

GLENN: But it's to the like

PAT: John Culbertson, some of those guys.

GLENN: But it's not like it's an overwhelming number. Maybe we could come up with 50 of them. It's not an overwhelming number. I don't think so. I'm being generous. Because I'm in California and that's what people are in California. They're generous. You know, they're like progressive and yet for small government and fiscally conservative government. Small progressive, fiscally conservative, spend a lot kind of conservative Republican. That's what I am. All right. So she goes on.

MEGHAN McCAIN: I have very different, much ideological differences with Dad, but Congressman Tancredo went off

GLENN: Hang on, I have very much, like, ideological differences with them but I'm like super smart and nobody's going to point out that I'm stupid because I say things like I'm very much like ideological differences with them.

STU: But isn't this like, too, she's talking about the tea party movement which is generally described as a libertarian leaning movement.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: It's the movement that has de emphasized the social part of the platform of the Republican Party.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: So it makes no sense what she's talking about when she's talking about ideological difference and she described the only similarities that she has with them.

GLENN: Exactly right. The tea party movement is a movement that says I mean, because it could be independent, it can be it could be Republican or Democrat. It could be any of those things. What they're saying is be fiscally conservative. Stand for the Constitution, period. That's the main thrust. If you start getting into, "And we want to talk to you about gay marriage, and we want to talk to you about this," the tea party movement splits apart. Everybody is united on fiscally responsible. Stop spending us into oblivion, reduce the size of government and read the Constitution. That's what it's about.

STU: Yeah, I get that you could make the case, too, that there's not even consensus among national defense among tea party members. A lot of the Ron Paul people are a part of this.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: And they can't stand any of the war stuff. I mean, I think really it unites specifically on the Constitution and fiscal conservatism.

GLENN: So she's saying and this is great. I'm like, such a progressive Republican and I have nothing these tea party people, I have, like, much I disagree with. Exactly what? If you are a Republican, you're supposed to be for small government. If you're an American, you are supposed to be for the Constitution. If you're a Republican, you're supposed to be for fiscal responsibility. She says, "I'm a Republican, but I'm a progressive Republican." What does that even mean?

STU: I'm like a Jersey Shore Republican. I watch it and I want to make sure the situation doesn't control Snookie too much but that's really about it.

MEGHAN McCAIN: On TV and he was the first opening speaker and he said that people who could not even spell the word vote or say it in English couldn't commit a Socialist ideologue in the White House whose name is Barack Hussein Obama and then he went on to say that people at the convention should have to pass literacy tests in order to be able to vote in this country, which is the same thing that happened in the Fifties to prevent African Americans from voting. It's innate racism and I think young people are turned off by this movement.

PAT: Because of innate racism.

MEGHAN McCAIN: Revolutions start with young people, not with 65 year old people talking about literacy tests and people who can't say the word "Vote" in English.

GLENN: You hear this?

PAT: Revolutions start with young people.

GLENN: Yeah, it's weird how, may I could you do me a favor? Could you just, I would just like to play this and then if you would play the audio of Barack Hussein Obama and his, like, organization to, like, where they're saying, "Oh, I, like, have to talk to my parents because they're so stupid, I have to trick them into talking about politics." Isn't it interesting, mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack Hussein Obama. Isn't it interesting how they have targeted the colleges, how they have targeted our youth, how they have targeted the schools and yet here she is a progressive Republican that understands that revolutions start with the young. And listen to the disrespect. And not like somebody who, like, is 65 years old. They've already how far of a reach is it to say they've already lived their life. They were 25 once. They have their healthcare, okay? It's like our turn. I mean, what are they contributing to society? I mean, somebody's going to have to lose their healthcare. Are you going to have it like us, the 25 year olds? We're not the ones who screwed this up. We're the ones trying to fix it.

Tell me, tell me that that is a stretch. The arrogance of the 25, the disrespect for the 65. Like, we're revolutionaries. Tell me it's a stretch, gang. It's not.

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.