Unbelievable: Michelle Obama’s Target story has nothing to do with race and she knows it

Yesterday Glenn reacted to Michelle Obama’s story of experiencing racism while shopping at Target. Turns out she’s told the same story before, only it doesn’t seem to have any racism in it at all. See Michelle Obama tell the story to David Letterman in quite a different way. Plus, Glenn gets a call from a woman claiming to be the sister of the person who offended Obama. Is she racist?

Watch the Letterman appearance below:

Below is a transcript of the segment:

GLENN: All right. Michelle Obama. We just played the audio. She was on David Letterman. She spoke about going to Target. She talked about meeting a short woman who was in the detergent aisle, and she said, nobody knew who I was. This woman didn't know who I was, asked if I could help, and get the detergent. She said the short woman then, you know, said, you didn't need to make it look that easy. So she had a good sense of humor. That's what she said on David Letterman about a year ago.

Now in "People" magazine when asked about the kind of racism they have to put up with -- the Obamas, you know, there in the White House. This is what she said. Can you read this, please?

JEFFY: I think people forget that we've lived in the White House for six years. Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the south side of Chicago who had his share of troubles catching cabs. I tell this story, I mean, even as the first lady, during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised. The only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf because she didn't see me as the first lady. She saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life, so it isn't anything new.

STU: Then the next line is Barack talking about race as well.

JEFFY: There is no black male my age who is a professional who hasn't come out of a restaurant waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their car keys.

STU: So it's all about race all around. This is -- obviously she's telling this as a racial story.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Donna is on the phone. She's a fan of Pat and Stu. She called the Pat & Stu Show yesterday. And we have her on her words. So we don't have independent verification that her sister was the one that was in the aisle, that asked the first lady, could you help me with that box of detergent.

Donna, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you.

GLENN: Why should we believe you, that this is your sister?

CALLER: Well, you know, just there's no reason, except there's no reason for me to call and tell y'all this except that it happened. And I'll tell you, the funny thing is, my sister didn't even know it was Michelle Obama until she was lying in the bed with her husband watching David Letterman and heard Michelle Obama tell the story. And she looked at her husband and said, that was me.

And he wouldn't believe her, except that Michelle Obama included that detail about, well, you didn't have to make it look so easy. That that's my sister. He knew she would have said that. And he said, oh, my word, it was you.

And that's how she found out that it was Michelle Obama. And then wrote her a little note. Now whether Michelle Obama ever got it, I don't know. She just said, hey, it was me in the store, and I probably didn't even say thank you.

What she didn't tell her, she told us, and we laughed about it. Probably one of the reasons why she didn't recognize her is because she didn't really look up. She was examining the detergent. She said, she reached down -- a real flowery scent, and this was for her son to take off to college. And she kept thinking, I'd really like a different one, but I'd hate to ask this woman to put this back and get another one too.

Michelle Obama told it accurately the first time, but she is twisting it now to make my sister out to be a racist. Now, her name isn't out there. But I just got furious on my sister's behalf. I can -- we have political differences, big time, but my sister is not a racist.

GLENN: Okay. You're a fan of Pat and Stu, so I'm assuming that you're a conservative.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: And your sister -- it's our understanding -- because I believe somebody on the Blaze spoke to your sister yesterday.

STU: I think Keith did.

CALLER: Yeah. I asked for her permission to give her number to y'all. Because I wasn't going to do that without her permission. She had no idea I had called. I thought she would be furious with me.

GLENN: Well, it's our impression that she was not. That she's actually very upset that she's being painted as a racist as well.

CALLER: Yeah, she's not happy about it because she knows how it happened, and Michelle Obama knows too because she wouldn't have told the story like she did on David Letterman, very close to the real event. Now time has passed and it's a great story for her to, you know, make it into a race thing, which it is not.

And I just called to set the record straight because that infuriated me. I'm all about great race relations. I want to talk about it. I want to -- if I can help in any way, I want to help. But this is not helping. There's real racism out there that we could talk about. This is not real racism at all. Race didn't even come into play.

GLENN: Your sister voted for Obama twice?

CALLER: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. They are huge Obama fans. Which, you know, and I'm the one -- my brother-in-law works -- I won't say. The banter around the water cooler at that station was, hey, when that story broke, wasn't this your wife? And they were jabbing with him about it. Can you imagine if his wife came on Glenn Beck? He'd never hear the end of it.

GLENN: Here's the interesting thing, that station knows exactly what the story is.

CALLER: Oh, yeah. They won't play it though.

GLENN: But that is fascinating. That they have first-hand knowledge of who this person is, how it came down --

CALLER: Oh, yeah. When they found out about it on the David Letterman Show, of course, he went in the office laughing about it. You all won't believe this, but, you know, my sister ran into -- told the whole story. That's when the story broke. They knew exactly who it was. But you'll never hear about it over there, no.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

CALLER: Yeah. But I don't appreciate anybody making someone else out to look like a racist, when clearly they are not, and she told the story honestly the first time. And it was fluky. I would love to be in on a conspiracy, believe me, because I just love you, Glenn. But there's nothing more to it.

I grew up there. And I went to high school with senators kids and diplomats. And we weren't a wealthy family by any stretch. But, you know, growing up in the area, it's not uncommon at all. Run into someone at the grocery store, that just happens, you know.

GLENN: Well, God bless you. I appreciate it. Say hello to your sister. I hope she ends up going on the record with the Blaze. We will tell the story as she tells it to us.

CALLER: Yeah. I wish she would.

PAT: Donna, I know the news department is trying to get in touch with her. They haven't had too much success. If you could assist in that, we would really appreciate it.

CALLER: Yeah, well, she teaches school during the day. She doesn't take off work for anything. You can get her in the afternoons. I just wanted to set the record straight. I hope she'll come on.

GLENN: Thank you, Donna, I appreciate it.

STU: Even go she doesn't come on, just text --

GLENN: Yeah. For the record. Let's set this record straight. It's obscene. In a country that's having the kind of race relations that we have right now, keep getting ratcheted up and ratcheted up, for the first lady to dig in her big basket of all the things, all the oppressions she's had to suffer suffered through, to come through and say, that's her story, when it's been told before, completely differently, and the person who asked her is an Obama supporter.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Times ten.

STU: I mean, how on earth do you leave this situation continuing to be an Obama supporter? How can you see the way they manipulate racial relations for their own benefit, when you're involved --

GLENN: How do you continue to work -- how do you continue to work at that news organization? How do you do that?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: When it is your wife and everybody knows. And now it is your wife, and here's a story in "People" magazine, where she's changing history. Barack knows, you got to change our history. She's changing history. And it's your wife. And everybody in the office knows, that's your wife. Don't you have a little righteous indignation and say, guys, you either correct this story because this is about my wife. I know nobody knows this is about my wife. This is important. This is important. To me. To my wife. This hurts my wife. We're supporters. We have no axe to grind. This story needs to be corrected.

And if they don't, why wouldn't you walk. Do you have no credibility? Do you have no honor and integrity? Is there not a chivalrous bone in your body for your wife? How do you continue to work there?

STU: If they won't tell that story thank they actually have it through one of their employees, if they won't tell that story to protect them, how can you possibly work there? These people are willing to wreck your wife.

GLENN: Yeah, they're willing to let your wife go through a buzz saw. This isn't even a big story. So if they're willing to do this to your wife, so what, she's in a wood chipper. Oh, well. And you're willing to let your wife go through the wood chipper, when the chips are down, so to speak. When things are really important, how do you trust that you know what the news are S? How do you trust you are getting the truth?

STU: If you work at this particular establishment, you don't care about the truth.

GLENN: I disagree with that. I think these people are so -- they're so -- they've had to convince themselves of two things. One, either the ends justify the means. I think this is the deal. It wasn't that important of a story. Nobody knows. It's going to be gone. Why dig all this up. It will only put your wife in the spotlight, and you don't want that to happen. So they've just convinced themselves. Ends justify the means.

STU: Maybe. Let me ask you this: Donna is a caller. Our news department is making sure everything is buttoned up on this story. As of now, it's not a news story, it's just a caller. You listen to her. Do you believe her?

GLENN: Yes, I do.

STU: She sounds completely credible. That's not enough for a news story. It's an amazing thing. It doesn't sound like she has a huge axe to grind. She wants to protect her sister. That's a human instinct.

GLENN: And, you know what, because her sister -- this story is easy to verify. It's easy to verify once you have the names. It's easy to verify, does that person work there? Does that person do this? You're not going to say, and her husband works for this person at this network, because, I mean, who -- who has done that kind of thinking. And how would you know -- I mean, we very well could know that individual? Someone in our organization, I can guarantee you, knows that individual. So nobody sits there and makes that up.

STU: No. And she gave a lot of different details to the initial call. Sounds -- but, again, this is why you have a news organization.

GLENN: I know.

JEFFY: She even said that, I know her name isn't out there, but I was mad because I knew it was my sister.

GLENN: But her sister talking to the producers yesterday, talking to the news people yesterday, her sister said, she was mad. She's a supporter and everything else. But she's mad.

STU: Wouldn't you be?

GLENN: Yes. I would be.

STU: Especially because she's probably spent hundreds of hours defending these people. She's probably sat there with some conservative, her sister, around a Thanksgiving table and said, no, you're wrong about these people. That's not what they do. And now here she is a victim of it.

GLENN: Doing it to you.

STU: I mean, that is crushing. That's crushing.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.