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.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep