Glenn Beck: Can abortion be a kindness?

GLENN: The first thing I want to play for you, though, however, is an interview from an environmentalist who is on the BBC yesterday and she's talking about the compassionate thing today. She believes the compassionate that abortion is compassionate. Now, shocking as it may seem, she doesn't think that this is an out of your mind statement whatsoever and she just like the people at 10 2 10 felt that she was in the majority. This is the beginning of where it gets scary.

VOICE: And I think that if I were a mother of a suffering child, I would be the first to want I mean a deeply suffering child I would be the first one to put a pillow over its head. I would with any suffering thing and I think the difference is that my feeling of horror suffering is many greater than my feeling of getting rid of a couple of cells because suffering can go on for years.

VOICE: I'm sorry. I was just about to introduce the next guest, but that is a pretty horrifying thing to say.

VOICE: What?

VOICE: That you would put a pillow over a

VOICE: Of course I would, if it was a child I really loved who was any agony. I think any mother would.

PAT: It's about love.

VOICE: I think any mother would.

PAT: She doesn't even know what was outrageous.

VOICE: This would shock most people.

VOICE: I don't know any mother who wouldn't say if this was there was nothing else that could be done and it was

VOICE: That's just not true. That's just

VOICE: Do you think mothers would agree with you?

VOICE: I think a lot would. Maybe not any, but a lot.

VOICE: Dr. Peter Evans is from the Christian medical

GLENN: Stop. I mean, is there any commentary needed here? We've heard this rhetoric before. Now, if you don't think that these people and here's the problem. Here's why the word creator, all men are created equal and endowed by that creator, the reason why that is there is because if you take God out of it, man starts to make the decisions on who's worthy and who's not, what rights you have and what you don't have and there is one of them. Well, deeply suffering, it's the humane thing to do. This is the Fabian society over in Europe, the Nazis I'm sorry the Fabian society over in England and Australia, the Nazis over in Germany, the communists in the former Soviet Union and the progressives here in America. They will decide who is a value, who is not. That is for God to decide, not for man to decide, especially when you start to run into economic troubles. Does anyone see what this leads to? How is it, how is it a planet that said we will never forget has forgotten the same conversations were had in the 1920's?

We are not these people. May I ask you, if America falls, who is there to stop it this time? If America falls, will it be Canada? Canada is maybe our best shot! Does Canada have the ability to stop the world going down this road? Does Australia? Does New Zealand? Australia and New Zealand, so close to China. If America falls, does Australia have the ability to do it? Who does? Don't you see, this is not about the almighty dollar. This isn't about your house. It's not about your job. It's not about your pension. This is about man's freedom. This is it, gang. If we fail here, the world is plunged into global darkness. This isn't about saving. Let me give you a headline, Wall Street from Bloomberg. Wall Street sees world comedy coupling from U.S. The next one comes from the telegraph in the UK, IMF admits that the west is stuck in near depression and that things are only going to get worse.

It is going to get worse. This is the time period I told you about when they were discussing TARP. Their idea is to be able to bring the plane down into the forest. It's going to rip the wings off, it's going to rip the engine off, but we will be alive and we will have each other. I was foolish because I thought they had your best interest at heart when there were so many on this globe that only have their power and their money and their own interest at heart. Some of us may be lost on the way down, but the rest of us need to look for the exits and guide others out of the plane when they finally land. Do not go where they are telling you to go, place that place might as well be the Super Dome. Where they will lead you will be a place that will not be good. This is happening because it's unsustainable, everything is too big, everything is out of control, and what do they want to do? They want to shove you into a global community where we have to share all of the resources by force. Well, you will have people like this that will tell you, whether it be grandma or a suffering child, just as the benevolent dictators of the past have done. Nazi Germany started out of compassion. People started to have the argument, my son or daughter is fighting on the front lines but they can't get medicine because your handicapped child is using the medicine, while they're trying to keep the Third Reich afloat, your son or daughter is choking us to death. It is the compassionate thing. We all survive if we cut your child loose off of medication or we just as all mothers would do, put a compassionate pillow over their face. This is not going to come in black, shiny boots. This will come with reason. This will be this will be protection. It will be safety. It will be prosperity. It's our only way to save X, Y, or Z. It will end in nightmares. You must be prepared to be a person that will stand and help others, stand and educate others. You have to, because they are revealing themselves in unbelievable ways, as people that will do and say anything for their point of view and destroy anyone that stands in their way. Evidence? I'll show you something else that has been running on TV. They've tried to scrub it even off of the Internet and think can't. Nor will they be able to have you been it off of television and they can't because I'm playing it at 5:00. It's on theblaze.com, that audio from the BBC and what is it? three ads that they don't want you to see about their environmental nonsense coming out of England, three ads that I can't I couldn't have designed an ad to make it more frightening to show you who these really people these people really are. I couldn't have designed an ad any better than they did and they didn't see a problem with it. They thought it was okay and now, now they're trying to scrub it off of the Internet. They're doing everything they can to get it off the Internet, but the genie is out of the bottle and I am about to smash the bottle open. I'll play the audio for you, but you have to see it tonight at arrest 5:00 or if you're by a computer, go to theblaze.com right now.

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.