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

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.

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.