People Now Say ‘Unsafe’ When They Really Feel ‘Uncomfortable’

November 08, 2017

WRITER

Glenn shared some words of wisdom in an audio clip from Justice Clarence Thomas on today’s show. Thomas remembered how his grandparents lived, with a “calmness and a contentment about life.” They emphasized context, priorities, education, respect for others and wisdom for picking your battles.

The justice pointed out that people now live with a one-size-fits-all approach to life where people are expected to think the same and not say anything that makes others feel uncomfortable.

Ginni Thomas — Wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — Visits With Glenn at CPAC

People have exchanged “uncomfortable” for the word “unsafe,” wanting a world where they are never confronted with ideas they disagree with. Glenn noted the distinction between truly feeling unsafe and simply being uncomfortable. Not being properly secured on an amusement park ride would be an unsafe feeling.

“What we used to call ‘uncomfortable’ we now call ‘unsafe,’” Glenn said. “I feel uncomfortable when somebody is challenging me.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Tonight at 5 o'clock, I'm going to go deeper into this. I started yesterday on the TV show, on what do we have in common? What is our unum? And showed you the problems that we're experiencing right now because we don't have an unum. E pluribus unum. From many, one. That was our national motto. We're now e pluribus pluribus. From many, many. It doesn't work. And now we're adding arrogance to it, on it's my way or the highway. I can kill you, if I don't agree with you.

Clarence Thomas said this recently. I want you to listen to this.

VOICE: When you think of people like my grandparents, these were people who had been through quite a bit and had a calmness and a contentment about life and they understood putting things in context, what was important, priorities, what battles are you going to fight today, what decisions are you going to make? What decisions you're going to make today will result in you being able to eat, those sorts of things. And the long-term. That these two boys, they were raising will be educate. And that they will have good manners and go to school and be polite to the neighbors, et cetera.

I think that today, we seem to think that everything has to be one-size-fits-all. And people can't have opinions that make us uncomfortable or ideas that make us uncomfortable or that we don't agree with.

GLENN: I want you to -- I want you to think of that. See, we've -- we have -- we're changing language. What we used to call uncomfortable, we now call unsafe.

I feel unsafe. No. You feel uncomfortable. Unsafe is when somebody comes into the office with a gun. That's when I feel unsafe. I feel unsafe when I go to a theme park and they haven't locked me in. I feel unsafe.

I feel uncomfortable when somebody is challenging me. That's huge. Because we can't even promise safety. There's no one that can say to you, you're going to be safe your entire life, unless you're in a bubble. And even then, there could be a fire. And if you're in a bubble, maybe the oxygen tanks blow up. I mean, I can't promise you safety, no one can.

But you should never want to be promised a lack of uncomfortability. I am only uncomfortable when I'm learning something new. For instance, yesterday, I was in a -- I was in a meeting, and I was very uncomfortable. I was very uncomfortable.

But I was very uncomfortable, because we were all learning something new. Never been there before.

Didn't know exactly how to handle it. None of us did. And we were all uncomfortable. But we will be better because we had that moment of uncomfortability. If we didn't have that uncomfortable moment, we would never solve it. It would just decay and get worse and worse and worse.

Your kids are uncomfortable doing their homework. They don't like it. You do it because you know it's important.

So the first thing that we have to -- the first thing that we have to change is the understanding of being unsafe and uncomfortable.

If somebody says to you, hey, I like that dress, and would you like to go out? That may make you uncomfortable. And say, that makes me uncomfortable. Don't do that anymore.

Somebody stalking you is making you unsafe. And they are very different. Learn that first. More in a minute.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

All right. So Clarence Thomas said, you know, a couple of things. And could we play this again, Sarah, please? This is Clarence Thomas.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. First of all, I want to start there. What he said here is, our grandparents were content.

And why? Because they had priorities. They put things in context. They put -- they knew what mattered.

This is why I've been on this kick lately in my own life. What matters most? Once you know and you make a list of what matters most, this is what matters most to me. This is where I'm headed. This is what I want to do.

Once you start doing that, oh, my gosh, your life changes. You suddenly have no tolerance for stuff that just doesn't matter. You're just like -- you want to have this conversation, go someplace else and have this conversation.

I'm working on this. Once we know -- Stu, what is the greatest gift from God? What would you say -- I thought of this yesterday. What would you say God's greatest gift to us is? Most precious gift.

STU: Probably queso, I would think. It's a tough line.

GLENN: Right. That was the first one that I thought of too. But now go to the second level.

STU: Obviously chips --

GLENN: Well, I'll help you a little. I'll bet a lot of people would say and I've said most of my life, forgiveness.

STU: Grace.

GLENN: Yeah, grace. The chance to start all ovary again is phenomenal.

But I don't think that's his greatest gift. Time -- time is our greatest, most precious commodity. Time.

And there's a limited amount of it. There's enough grace for the entire universe, for all eternity. But time is limited.

What are we doing with our time? We are not putting things into order. What matters most? We're like -- we are so ADD driven -- think of this. Where are we on ISIS today, talking about what happened in ISIS? We're not talking about it. Because we're currently talking about guns because of the shooting. Last week, we were all about ISIS. Last week, we got to be all about ISIS. This week, shooting, shooting, guns. First Amendment. Next week, it will be something else.

What the hell is wrong with us? We are, shiny object, shiny object, squirrel!

STU: Yeah. If you were super-duper into the NFL protests a few weeks ago, now that's ancient history. Was there any purpose in getting all fired up about that? I don't know.

GLENN: Nope. Nope.

STU: And this goes, every single week, there's another one of these stories.

GLENN: No. So we have to say: What matters most? For our time. But we have for look at that also as, in our society, what matters most?

What matters most? And I will tell you, that it is not getting rid of ISIS or getting -- or, I'm sorry. Getting rid of the Nazis or getting rid of Antifa. It's not getting rid of the Democrats or the Republicans. It's not getting rid of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

Because another one will appear. Have you ever thought -- I don't watch the news anymore. And you're all keyed up from it from it.

And then you leave, what have I missed? And it's the same crap, different names. Have you ever noticed when you read the Bible, it's the same crap, just different names. You're reading this, and you're like, did these people not see what happened 500 years before? Did they not see?

They didn't see it. We're not seeing it. It's the same story over and over again.

So what matters most? We could do all kinds of things to get rid of guns. But is that what matters most?

We want to get rid of guns because we're against guns. No, I am for security. I am for the defense of the innocent. I am for the defense of the helpless. Now, that changes things. Because if I'm against guns, I can solve what happened in a Petri dish. Not actual solve it. I could solve what happened in a petri dish, by telling you that I'm going to make sure that that gunman on Sunday, isn't going to get a gun. Well, he's going to find someplace else. He'll mow a bunch of people down with a truck. You know, and if they're really committed, they'll fly a 747 or 727 into a building. They'll find a way. That doesn't solve anything. That kicks the can down the road.

What matters most is, I am for security and safety. I am for a -- a society that doesn't want to rip the throats out of each other. Well, now that's a different problem. That's a totally different problem.

That's going to make me now look at the shooter on Sunday and say, we have to look at mental health. We have to look at the divide between Christians and atheists. How can Christians and atheists -- what would be better in our country? If we were having a discussion this week about, how do we get together with atheists? You know what, see if we can get Penn Jillette on tomorrow. Penn, this guy was an atheist, what can the Christian community do to reach out, to atheists, and say, "We don't want to be those kinds of people, and I know you don't want to be those kinds of people. How can we break down some of these barriers?"

Wouldn't that do more for the safety of our nation and the -- and the calmness of the nation? Wouldn't that make us feel more safe? It's going to make us feel uncomfortable. But if you're not willing to be uncomfortable in thought, what you're saying to the world is, I got it all figured out, and it's my way or the highway. And that leads to Nazis. That leads to Antifa. That leads to rounding people up.

We have to be for things. I'm going to show you tonight at 5 o'clock, on TheBlaze TV, I'm going to take to the chalkboard, and I'm going to show you the things that people are saying now that we need to solve. We have to do something. And I'm going to show you that if you are against something, that solution will look really good. That solution will be like, yep. That could take care of it. I'm not going to guarantee it. But that could take care of it. But unless you're for something -- and these are really big principles that we should all be for, you will destroy those big principles. Because you're just going to pick them off, one by one, without even noticing.

I'll show you that tonight on the chalkboard at 5 o'clock, only on TheBlaze TV. Become a subscriber now at TheBlaze TV. That's TheBlaze.com/TV. And you can watch them all -- I think it's a buck an episode or something. And you can watch them all. But we just did -- last week was all about socialism. This week is kind of turning out to be e pluribus unum. What do we believe that will bring us together? Because if we don't bring ourselves together, we're toast. We're absolutely toast.

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.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.