Glenn: I owe Sarah Palin an apology

We all have bad days and bad moments.

Today was one of mine.

I stand by all of my comments on Sarah Palin EXCEPT when I called her a clown. It was unkind, childish and wrong of me to name-call.

What I should have said is this:

I don't know what she really believes. I don't think she is who I thought she was and haven't for some time.

When I saw her interview Donald Trump on her TV show I was stunned. Not that she interviewed him, but that she agreed with him and backs him.

I have seen her speak many times about many topics and I just don't understand her. But I am sure she doesn't agree or understand me often as well.

I haven't had a relationship with Sarah since about the time of the shooting of Gabby Giffords. Nothing to do with that at all, but it was around that time that she withdrew from me and my team and it was because, as Todd told me on the phone, "we have been told who our real friends are." I was stunned. I had backed her hard in every way I knew how. At that time I really believed in her and in fact I really believed she had the ability to change the world for the better.

While I have reached out since, we have not spoken in an any meaningful way since.

I don't know what they were told or by whom, but I can guess, as it most likely was the same person that tried to drive a stake through my relationship with Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and did for several years.

Thank God, I finally reached out to them, because I had been "told" things about them and they were the same lies that they were told about me.

Celebrity, fame and TV/radio are poison to humans, I believe. At least it has been to me. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Two years ago, I realized that we were all going to lose our freedom if we didn't work together. That is when I reached out to Mark and Sean and the three of us had a very open and honest conversation. We all realized what we had all been told lies.

We are now all good friends and I support them 100%, even though we don't agree on every point. We all are doing our level best to save the republic and I will support them in every way, and they have been more than kind to me.

Sean and I disagree on Trump and have openly discussed our differences. We see him differently. Sean has a personal relationship with DT, which I believe either gives him clearer vision or blinds him. But he openly talks about his personal knowledge of Donald and why he believes him. I do not have that relationship and thus I either see clearly or I am blind because of it.

We are never going to agree on everything and it is unreasonable to think we would. As a libertarian, I don't expect to agree with everyone nor do I think it is good for society. It is the push and pull that makes us strong.

One of our problems as a nation is we have been told that if we disagree, we must view the other as a sell-out, traitor or worse. That is a dangerous lie.

Sean is smart and loves the nation and truth. So do I.

I have not reached out to Sarah for quite some time as I do not believe there is a repairable relationship, but I also have never said anything publicly or privately about her that I would regret until today.

She is not a clown. Obviously.

This, however, is the only thing I regret saying.

I do not understand her position and love of Trump. He is clearly a progressive, not a small government constitutionalist.

He was for the bailouts, he is for the idea that the government can just take private land from someone and give it to someone else because they will pay more taxes. Shameful.

There are so many warning signs, policy wise, that the size of the list is frankly shocking.

But he is also a bully, sexist, cruel, an ego-manic and narcissist in ways that make Barack Obama seem like Saint Francis.

He is so thin-skinned that he destroys anyone who crosses him. It should be noted that this is a trait held by some of the 20th century's greatest dictators and absolutely NOT something that I find comforting in a president.

As Sarah Palin holds a unique place with the Tea Party, I expect more from her. Perhaps this is wrong of me. To support Trump and ignore his very disturbing policies makes you a populist at best. But I am almost alone in this it seems. At least with almost anyone in my job. Maybe they all have a personal relationship with him or I am just wrong.

As I told her once off air, "you have a great power and while I'm not deeming you Spider-Man, with that power and pulpit comes great responsibility."

What principles that the Tea Party is founded on is she promoting with her love of Trump?

So how did I get from disagreement to "clown?"

My - unrighteous - anger came from her speech at the Iran rally.

I am at a point that I cannot see past the dying children at the hands of ISIS, and I truly believe that we are at a point of no return with God if we don't act now to stand for His principles.

I heard her speech after Donald's speech - his WAS a clown show - and I couldn't believe that this is how we are dealing with this issue.

This was wrong of me.

Who do I think I am by thinking that everyone should see this issue the same way or adopt the same approach?

It was wrong of me, but because I know she is religious - in a very real way - I again expected more from her.

So today, what you heard was a very old frustration that I have never voiced where I feel wrongly accused and judged by her and Todd which frankly is no one's business and should not have been discussed on air, at least not in the heat of a moment. That is my problem, not hers.

It was coupled with total confusion on her love affair with Donald Trump (made worse in my head by my lack of ability to grasp what 30% of small government, self-proclaimed constitutionalists and religious people see in him).

Coupled with his speech and combining hers with his in my head, coupled with my unwillingness to play the stupid "game" one second longer -- because I truly believe that we are at a point of choosing and the consequences are much more grave than ever before as God will not be mocked.

So, the truth is:

I don't have a relationship with her and most likely now never will. That is okay, she is not losing any sleep over this, I am sure.

We don't see eye to eye on things. That is okay but some of them are large ticket items.

I do hear her speak sometimes and I don't know what I saw in her. But, that is probably my fault because I probably projected many things that I wanted to believe she stood for.

With all of that said: none of that makes her a clown.

Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a rough road to walk if you want to have lots of friends in powerful places. Especially if you are as weak in the restraint in the tongue as I am.

It may mean that I don't have a single listener left in the end, but I would rather be true to myself, principles and to my God than to parties, cliques or popularity. But I never want to lose anyone because I said something cruel or untrue.

I am okay with losing friends or popularity over the truth. What I am not okay with is spouting off in anger or frustration and being a poor example to my children.

That is where I owe Sarah Palin an apology. I was unkind and inaccurate.

It is really ironic, I am the one looking for and preaching unity.

I just held an event called restoring unity. But unity on principles. We don't all have to agree, but we do have to recognize the time and answer to a higher call.

In some cases it may even mean we lose an election. But I think it is high time we lose elections for what we believe and stand for. Not because we backed horses or policies that made us think we could win.

We all have bad days and bad moments.Today was one of mine.I stand by all of my comments on Sarah Palin EXCEPT when...

Posted by Glenn Beck on Thursday, September 10, 2015

 

Featured Image: Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin addresses a rally against the Iran nuclear deal on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol September 9, 2015 in Washington, DC. Thousands of people gathered for the rally, organized by the Tea Party Patriots, which featured conservative pundits and politicians. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.