'You've got to distance yourself': Bundy under fire for racist "negro" comments

Earlier this month, Glenn came under fire from some in his own audience and beyond for his response to the standoff in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government. Despite the escalating tensions, Glenn advocated for a peaceful response to the conflict. While the majority of Bundy’s supporters and those who gathered at his ranch were simply standing up for what they believed to be another example of government overreach, there were violent and fringe elements of the group that caught the media’s attention.

[newsletter_inline bgcolor='#ebebeb' header_text='Get More Glenn!' sub_text='Sign up for the Glenn Beck daily email newsletter, and never miss out on our most popular stories.']

On radio this morning, Glenn revisited the Bundy story in the light of an alarming report from the New York Times, in which Bundy is quoted spewing racist remarks at a recent press conference.

As Glenn explained, he was initially hesitant to throw his support behind the rancher because there was very little known about Bundy or what he stood for. While Glenn did have a chance to speak with Bundy both privately – those conversations led to more questions than answers.

Glenn explained that his private conversation with Bundy centered primarily on faith and Scripture. Glenn hoped to get a better sense of what kind of values and principles Bundy was rooted in, and he walked away from the conversation with the sense that Bundy was “a decent guy.” When Bundy joined the radio program the following day, however, the conversation had a different and more bizarre tone. During the interview Bundy said that he wanted the government to be disarmed, and Glenn found that particularly strange.

“When I asked him to tell the story, he said, ‘Here's what I'm told to say: The government needs to be disarmed.’ Okay. Well, that's not what we talked about, but if that's how you want to use your time… I don't have preconditions of guests,” Glenn said. “Pat looked at me [when Bundy said that] like this guy is so unhinged. And I just put my hand up and I turned my mic off and I said, ‘Let him speak. If he's going to hang himself, it's better for him to hang himself than us too.’ So we let him speak for 45 minutes. People that were listening started to say, ‘Well, wait a minute, I agree with some things but I think he's unhinged on other things.”

Glenn, Pat, and Stu agreed that, at the end of the day, they really never felt like they fully understood Bundy’s intentions, and they were disappointed with the way he handled the situation.

“We don't know him,” Pat said. “And while we agree with the basic principle of states rights and land ownership and all of those basic principles, the way in which he's gone about this, we've been bothered by. We've been bothered by that from the beginning.”

A New York Times article published Wednesday, paints Bundy in a very different light. In the article, “A Defiant Rancher Savors the Audience That Rallied to His Side,” reporter Adam Nagourney explains that while the federal government has seemingly moved on from the conflict, Bundy “has not.”

According to Nagourney, Bundy has chosen to continue holding a daily news conference – regardless of how much press is on hand. This past Saturday, just one reporter and one photographer joined Bundy supporters at the ranch. The Times article describes the scene as “a town meeting with supporters, discussing, in a long, loping discourse, the prevalence of abortion, the abuses of welfare and his views on race.” It was to that audience that Bundy delivered some alarming remarks:

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Read the entire New York Times article HERE.

“That shows you how unhinged from reality this guy is," Glenn said. "You've got to distance yourself. You must know who you are standing next to at all times – with exactness. With exactness we will save our nation.”

Glenn believes these “degrading,” “disgusting,” and “offensive” comments should give pause to all those who have considering aligning with or supporting Bundy.

“You wondered if blacks were better off as slaves picking cotton and having a family life? They didn't have a family life! That's the real key to what he said. And there's no way around that sentence,” Glenn said exasperatedly. “Unless the New York Times made this up out of whole cloth… If that doesn't end your relationship with [Bundy], you've got to go back and question where did you go wrong.”

Ultimately, Glenn is keenly aware of and understands the American people’s overwhelming frustration with the federal government. But Bundy and the standoff at his ranch simply does not provide the proper opportunity to take a real stand.

I beg of you. A: Don't let this harden your heart by saying… I still say: The government is out of control. I still say they used over-the-top force. I still say return the land to the west – I am still for that. But I'm not with him. And if we don't clean out our own ranks –

I wrote two weeks ago to the boys: This is the beginning of the separation. And it's an important separation. There was the Martin Luther King movement and there was the Malcolm X and Weather Underground movement. One side was violent. Vengeance was theirs. The other side was peaceful and loving. I know you. I know your heart. I know your intent. I know your love for this country. I was with you in Washington, D.C. I know you felt it. If that is what you're looking for, then that comes through peace and love and kindness. That's what I am looking for. And if I stand alone in the end, I stand alone in the end. I'm totally fine with that, if I'm the only American left. But I know I'm not.

I know what you want. And if you want vengeance, then… I'm not with you. I am not with you. If you want peace and love and true tolerance, if you want small government that doesn't steal things from people and leaves people alone – let them make their own decisions, whether that is in their bedroom or their house of worship or their office, trust people to do the right thing because they will if they're given the opportunity. If they're given the chance, they will do the right thing.

I have seen on social media, people have said they are so sick and tired of hearing me talk about God. That's okay. I warned my staff five years ago when I started talking about God, we're in trouble. When I start actually reading scriptures, we're doomed. But it will be the sign of the times. I don't want to be this guy any more than you want to be who you are at times. But the times call for it. It is not exactly the road to success to be the guy who says, ‘Peace and love, no matter what it takes.’ And ‘Read your Bible.’ That's not the road to mainstream success. But it is the road to winning in the end. Bonheoffer won. Gandhi won. Martin Luther King won. And so will we.

Updated: Watch video of Bundy's remarks below:

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.