First Lady didn’t wear head scarf when visiting Saudi Arabia

January 28, 2015

Writer

First Lady Michelle Obama joined the diplomatic group to meet the new king of Saudi Arabia, and it's what she didn't wear that's causing a bit of a stir. The First Lady chose not to wear a head scarf, upsetting some in Saudi Arabia. Was it disrespectful? Was it liberating for women? Glenn debated the issue on radio this morning.

GLENN: Welcome to the program. I want to start with Michelle Obama over in Saudi Arabia. And I -- I think we should have an adult conversation here, if you will, and one where we think out loud and we're allowed to -- we're allowed to disagree with each other. That's a crazy thought. Michelle Obama went over and they were meeting the king of Saudi Arabia, the new king of Saudi Arabia. So he goes over and there's this big welcoming committee. And the women in Saudi Arabia are asked to veil their heads and to you know -- you go to the Vatican, you go to -- you go to Jerusalem, and in some places, you wear a yamaka, you wear a veil. You don't wear a skirt that is showing anything above the knee. Some places you're supposed to wear a skirt all the way to the ground. And that's the way it is in Saudi Arabia. So Michelle Obama goes and she has bare arms and she doesn't wish a veil. Now, in Saudi Arabia, you're not as a foreigner required to veil your head or your face. But it is customary, especially when you're going to meet the king.

This would be like somebody going over and saying, I don't bow to the -- I don't bow to the queen. I'm not going to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth. There are certain customs that you do. Okay. So she goes over and she's decided not to veil her head and she wears bare-armed dress.

PAT: It's because she has fabulous arms.

GLENN: Yeah, no offense.

PAT: You don't want to cover those June so now she's being hailed by the left as a champion of women's rights. Okay. I guess actually it shows here, I'm seeing a picture. She doesn't have the bare arms. I thought she had the bare arms. But she didn't veil her head. Okay. That's fine. Some men came and shook her hand, some people didn't.

It's just like yesterday I was with the chief rabbi of England. I met his aide. It's a woman. I was foolish. I reached out. I put my hand -- she was gracious. She reached out. She shook my hand and as she shook my hand I'm thinking to myself, what an idiot. She does not want to shake my hand. But she was being gracious.

STU: Why, because that's --

GLENN: Tradition. Yeah, when you're -- orthodox Jew, men and women don't shake hands. You don't touch -- like rabbi Le Pen. He used to give his wife a hug. I'm a hugger and I'm like, hey, and I give her a big hug. And she's like, that's great. That's so good. Until finally, somebody came to me and said, Glenn, you're driving them out of their minds. She doesn't touch other men.

(laughing)

GLENN: And so you just don't do that. You just don't to that. But gracious people will do what this woman did yesterday and gracious people did what they did with her with Saudi Arabia and shook her hand. Okay. I'm really actually glad that Michelle Obama did not change who she was in front of the king. So part of me says, look, we don't veil -- we don't veil our faces. However, we're in their house. You've been invited to go to their house. It's like if I come over to your house and you're like -- you know, here. I go over to Penn Jillette house. I'm not going to bring my Bible and start talking to his kids about Jesus. You know what I mean? I'm not going to come in and say, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. We all have to pray before this meal. I'm at Penn Jillette's house. Now, if Penn Jillette's comes over to my house, I am going say a prayer for my meal. I'll say it quietly to myself without being obnoxious, without trying to make a point in his home. That's just the way it is. We're over in their house. They say we're not at war with Islam. The reason why they veil their faces is out of deference to Allah. It is their religion that tells them to veil their faces. You're in their house, in their country, operating under their traditions, saluting their new king. You say that you don't have a problem with Islam. And yet you won't follow the Islamic teachings in their house. They say that -- you know, no, no, they just have a problem with our -- they just have a problem with us as Americans, because of the way we live our life. We're too decadent. So then you go over and you're in their face going, yep, you see my whole face. How turned on are you now? So I'm really torn. Because I'm glad that we don't change who we are. However, in their house, I think was a mistake.

STU: Yeah, I mean, it seems like if it's really strict. You said it was optional for foreigners to do it.

PAT: I don't think it is when it comes to diplomatic protocol. I think when you go there as a --

GLENN: The president of the United States.

PAT: On an official visit or whatever.

STU: For that event as well, where it's just -- you know -- the death of a leader.

GLENN: You're going to meet the new king. It's like -- you know, you meet -- you go over the queen and you somehow or another, you know, you're shopping and there's the queen next to you. You don't necessarily have to follow all the protocol. But if you're going to Buckingham palace, you're going to be schooled in protocol on exactly what to do and not to do with the keen.

STU: And past first ladies -- have veiled themselves.

STU: Veiled themselves. You think you'd stick with tradition. We always criticize people who are -- especially feminists and gay activists for not standing up. You know -- for criticizing people -- I hear about the little things that they complain about here as compared to the real stuff that goes on in countries like that and maybe just say, hey, you know what, you won't give driver's license to women. We're not going to fold into that environment.

PAT: But they almost did.

STU: He did try to do it but --

(overlapping speakers)

GLENN: It was really hard. When you can --

PAT: Really hard.

GLENN: When you're the guy who can only behead people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You know, for not following your rules.

STU: Right.

PAT: Surely you can't just give them to go out and drive. No, you can't do that.

GLENN: No.

(laughing)

GLENN: So I don't know.

STU: I'm with you. I think you probably should do it. But I'm a little torn on it.

PAT: I think we're all torn. She's going to get criticism either way.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: From somebody. Right?

GLENN: Of course. And she's going to get praise either way. Here's where I come down on this. I think she should receive the praise for doing -- for doing who she is and saying, I think this is important. So I think we should have the praise for Michelle Obama. But we should also look at that and say, was that the wisest thing to do in this time -- at this time with an ally who is really kind of shaky.

PAT: And here's another --

GLENN: In Middle East.

PAT: Another interesting side note to this. On a trip a little while ago to Indonesia, she wore the headdress. She wore it. So why cover up in Indonesia but not in Saudi Arabia? What -- that doesn't make any sense. Saudi Arabia is a much more important alley, I would think, than Indonesia is.

STU: Also, with a new king --

GLENN: Indonesia --

PAT: Who is?

GLENN: Barack Obama.

PAT: Lived there.

GLENN: But I mean he's very well versed in the customs and the people of Indonesia.

PAT: Yeah, but they know the custom is similar in Saudi Arabia, so why would you cover up in one place and not the other?

GLENN: Because maybe he's not as much of a fan of Saudi Arabia as he is of Indonesia.

PAT: I think that's what they're trying to show here.

STU: And the anti-Americans in Saudi Arabia are looking for a way to overthrow that family all the time. And to give them sort of another thing to argue about, saying, look, you know, he's allowing this woman to come in here and she's not even covered, do you believe this, that's the type of pressure they talk about. This is in all seriousness that he couldn't do things like the driver's license out of nowhere. They talk about how the king wanted to do things like that, but the religious hard-liners in the country were so strict that if he did a lot of it at once, he could be overthrown and that's why --

PAT: He had some time.

STU: He was only 90. I mean, he died at 90.

GLENN: He was right in his prime.

PAT: And he took over in early '90s? Somewhere in there, mid '90s?

GLENN: Here's the thing. The world is on fire with Islamic extremists. And this is only going to piss them off even more. This kind of thing -- this may not mean anything really to us. We may not think that this is a big deal. But it is a big deal to them. And it is also I think -- it weakens the king, because those hard-line extremists that said, you want -- you want women to drive, what? He's welcoming this woman in and those hard-line extremists say, see, this is guy is weak. I mean, the first thing in, you slap him across the face and make it difficult for him with the hard-line extremists.

PAT: Another side --

GLENN: Look at this. If you're watching on the BlazeTV, you're seeing in Indonesia she's got the full Muslim headdress. And she looks like she's just going to a summer party in Saudi Arabia.

PAT: And I --

GLENN: And that's really remarkable.

PAT: What's interesting about this, too, is I'm looking at one of the headlines from the Indonesia thing, and it says, Michelle Obama wears head scarf honoring Indonesian culture. Too much? Well, so, you know. She can't win.

GLENN: No --

PAT: It's a tough decision. She wore it once and not -- correct. See if anybody can find the pictures of her when she went to -- what was the big mosque in Spain? Do you remember when she took the girls?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And she went to the big mosque in Spain? Let's find all the times she's worn the headdress. So if question is why wouldn't you wear it this time?

She's not wearing it this time because she wants to send a message. Now, it could be that now -- well well, no because she was in Indonesia.

STU: Maybe she didn't have a headdress that matched her out fit. Is that possible?

PAT: I think it is possible.

GLENN: Doesn't the woman travel with designers? Sometimes -- I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a loom now in Air Force One. But -- so maybe it's just like, hey, we're in our last couple of years. I don't really care what anybody thinks. I'm just going to be who I am. So there's a possibility. But when did she go to Indonesia? That was just now, right?

PAT: It was not too long ago.

GLENN: So I mean, she's just done that. So that doesn't make sense. So you would have to ask yourself, if she's done this every single time, why is she -- why is she picking this event, which is honoring a new king, which you really would like Saudi Arabia to be stable, why would you go in and pick this time to slap them across the face?

STU: You know, I don't know the answer to that. Maybe -- you know, I would not be entirely stunned if they just didn't put that much thought into it. I mean, while -- look -- again, like we talk about how bad their diplomatic procedures have been over the years. I mean, sending copies of speeches for --

GLENN: But only to the queen.

STU: The only the queen, right. The reset button. They can't even get the word "reset" right --

GLENN: But only Russia.

STU: This has been a long series of diplomatic failures by this administration. This could just be another one.

PAT: Anything is possible with these two.

GLENN: However, however, however, I said this to somebody the other day. We talked about it on the air, too. You can't be this wrong. Really. I mean, honestly. I'd love a Vegas oddsmaker to tell me what are the odds of being this wrong where it always falls into -- on to the side of revolution, bolstering Islamic extremism, hurting the United States of America. I mean, every time. You can say that they're sloppy, but every time it works not to be in our favor.

STU: Oopsie.

GLENN: How many times before we start saying oopsie.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep