Atheist Gamer Attacked for Tweet Defends Faith, Free Speech and the Constitution

March 13, 2017

WRITER

Colin Moriarty, gamer and cofounder of KindaFunny.com, recently found himself in hot water with gaming industry colleagues over a tweet he meant as a joke.

Ah. Peace and quiet.#ADayWithoutAWoman
— Colin Moriarty (@notaxation) March 8, 2017

Apparently, no one has a sense of humor anymore --- on the left or right (just ask Sam B).

A longtime fan of Glenn's, Moriarty joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to talk about the brouhaha and why his political viewpoints confuse people.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Colin Moriarty joins us now. He's the cofounder of kindafunny.com. And he's a gamer. And welcome to the program, Colin. How are you, sir?

COLIN: I'm well. Thank you so much for having me. It's very surreal. I appreciate you taking the time.

GLENN: Why do you say it's very surreal?

COLIN: Well, my father and I -- well, I grew up with my father listening to talk radio and kind of listening to all sorts of people. And when I told him I was going to be on with you, he said he got chills actually because we used to listen to you and watch together.

GLENN: Oh, that's wild. That's wild.

Well, I am so glad that you have joined us. I saw you on Dave Reuben's show. And was fascinated by you, because you say you're a Libertarian, but you're also a proud conservative. And if this was visual, you're all tatted up. You live in San Francisco. And I can't imagine -- it's one thing to say Libertarian, it's another thing to say conservative in San Francisco. How is that going for you?

(chuckling)

COLIN: Not very well, as you can see.

GLENN: Yeah.

COLIN: Yeah. But, no, I kind of take -- you know, I think the good parts of both sides. And I think even the good parts of liberalism to come up with some amalgamation that makes sense to me. So I think -- socially, I think I'm very Libertarian. In fact, I think I'm more Libertarian than many progressive liberals.

But at the same time, I believe in the Constitution. I believe in deference to the Founders. I believe in a small government that stays out of your business. The thing is that I marked those altogether. So a government that stays out of your business, to tell you you can have a gun, for instance, is the same government that I think should stay out of your business if a man wants to marry another man. And I think that's where my Libertarianism comes into play.

GLENN: Yes. Colin, it's why I was in this strange position ten, 15 years ago of saying, look, you know, morally my religion teaches one thing. But my constitutionalism tells me I have no place to tell anybody who can marry and who can't. The government should be out of this entirely. Don't affect my church. And I won't affect your marriage. Just leave each other alone. And that creates some really strange bedfellows that we're currently trying to chase out of the public square. And that's the answer.

COLIN: I agree with you. You know, this is where -- I think people have a hard time identifying people like me, Glenn. Because I'm actually an atheist. But I grew up in a Catholic household, a very devoutly Catholic household. And people of faith have a very great ally in me because I believe that faith is a good thing. I believe it's good for polity. I think it's good for people to have faith in something, in a higher being. I just don't. But I would always protect to the very last a person's right, for instance, to believe.

Just because I don't believe doesn't mean, as you said, you can't believe. And so I also respect -- you know, I'm pro-choice, but I respect the pro-life argument. I think it's a very principled argument. I think it's good that there are people out there that are challenging my beliefs. And so this is the kind of the confusing thing, this kind of -- this kind of thought policing that's happening. This very -- you know, I'm considered an enemy to liberalism, even though I share many of their values, because I believe the government should stay out of your business. So I'm the enemy.

GLENN: Isn't it strange to see how people have flipped on almost every point just because their guy is not in office? Now liberals are concerned --

COLIN: Yes.

GLENN: -- they're concerned about, you know, executive orders. But they weren't under Obama. And now the people who were concerned about executive orders under Obama are fine with it now. It's crazy.

COLIN: To me, I agree with you. It's insane. You know, people that listen to me and know me -- I go off on politics often. And, you know, I was disgusted with the Republican Party. I was a registered Republican. And, you know, I'm not a Trump fan at all. I was sickened by how people took what I thought Republicanism was and, you know, morphed into something that it wasn't, simply to win. And to me, that's not -- that's not principled. And I'd rather lose and retain my principles. So when it was clear Trump was going to win, here in California -- we vote very late, as you know -- I voted for Kasich as a protest vote. And then I disavowed the party completely.

That doesn't mean I'm a conservative -- or, I'm sorry, that doesn't mean that I'm not a conservative. It means that I think the conservative principles and the free principles that we stand upon were actually kind of taken away by people that don't really share our values. And it seems like it's all in the name of winning. It's all in the name of being better than the other side. There is no one talking to each other. There's no gray area. It's just all orthodoxy. And it really makes me sick.

GLENN: So help me out what conservative -- I know what Republicanism means right now. It means the same exact thing as being a Democrat. It means I'll do whatever it takes and whatever it has to, to win. But conservatives, what does it mean to be a conservative? I mean, you're 32 years old. You're out in San Francisco. You're a gamer. You do -- you know, you do a gaming kind of blog.

So who are -- the people you relate to, what does that word even mean to them and to you?

COLIN: Well, I think -- you know, as you said, things are changing. I think we're at an inflection point. And, to me, conservatism simply means -- in my mind, and everyone might have a different opinion on this, I'm sure they do -- you know, a deference to the Constitution. If the government can get out of something, it should get out of something. If the state or local government can take care of something over the federal government, I think that's ideal. To me, it's personal freedom, responsibility, the right to succeed, and the right to fail. And the right to express yourself freely, without having to worry about being called a bigot or being called a sexist, as I was for making a silly joke. And I'm glad you brought that up specifically because there are so many people that play video games, there are so many people that enjoy entertainment that don't have anyone speaking for them.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: The video game industry in the United States is out of San Francisco. The media, which I come from -- I used to be the senior editor of the biggest video game website in the world. And two years ago, I quit to do my own thing with my friends.

But it is exclusively liberal. I am the only real conservative voice out there in what I would call mainstream media. Obviously there are people on YouTube that do that as well in the gaming space. And you would be shocked about how many people talk to me every day, and they're like, you are the only person I can relate to. I am a gun owner, for instance. You know, I'm not. But they're saying, I'm a gun owner, for instance, and I would be ridiculed and labeled by these other people. But you support me. Or I'm a man of faith. Or I'm Christian. Or I'm Jewish. Whatever it might be. And you don't judge me for that. So I think that there's a conservative bent to gaming and a conservative bent -- or an independent bent -- or a Libertarian bent to those things that people support.

GLENN: But what I'm asking you is, does the word conservative -- the word itself. Because what you're saying -- to me, conservative has been so bastardized that it doesn't mean anything that we almost -- and this is not the right word because it's so misunderstood, but almost classic liberalism. Because I think -- you know, everything -- I hope. And maybe this is wishful thinking. You will be able to tell me. Is anybody in San Francisco waking up to the point of, "Hey, safe spaces is a restriction on speech. And we're really starting to go down on the roads of fascism, and it's really kind of the progressive side that's pushing hard?"

COLIN: Yes. There are some people. And I want to keep it in the scope of reality. You know, there are people here that are waking up. That said, only 10 percent -- and I'm not saying a vote for Trump is a good thing. But just as an illustration, only 10 percent of San Francisco voted for Trump. So you're dealing with a very hyper liberal society here in San Francisco.

GLENN: Right. Right.

COLIN: That supports those things more than anything. But there are people, even in the gaming industry that are waking up to this and think this stuff is so silly.

And, Glenn, I've expressed it in the past. I went to Northeastern in Boston, and I studied American history. And I couldn't imagine -- you know, I graduated in 2007, and I couldn't imagine being in college now where people are restricted. I took a bunch of classes on Nazi Germany, for instance, or the Civil War, the bloodiest conflict, as I'm sure you know, as you're very learned, in American history. And I couldn't imagine how they might teach those things now to kind of placate people or to make sure that they're coddled.

So, yeah, there are people waking up. But what's disappointing to me is I'm one of the only ones speaking outwardly, and I'm the proxy for a lot of people that are afraid to talk. They talk to me. People at gaming companies, all the way up to CEOs of gaming companies, down to the lowest trenches, as I told Dave, will talk to me and tell me, I believe what you say. But, man, I'm afraid to say it. Because they're going to get ridiculed in the public population.

GLENN: So then what makes you -- what do you say to people like that? What makes you heroic and them not willing to do something that is now considered heroic?

COLIN: I think, you know -- I try not to judge anyone for that. I think that there's a real fear for people's jobs. These people have families. They don't want to be basically blacklisted from the industry, as people have -- you know, de facto kind of tried to do to me over the years. And as you see with this joke, people came down on me -- nobody is offended by that joke, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I agree. Nobody is offended by that.

COLIN: They see an opportunity. They see an opportunity to take down someone that speaks a different language than them.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

COLIN: So to me -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.

GLENN: So to you --

COLIN: I was going to say, so to me, it's just, I understand people's fear, but I'm also kind of getting exhausted by being their proxy because I know they're out there. And, you know, I was so happy that a few people came to my defense in such a way. And people that are not even conservative.

A buddy of mine, David Jaffe, who is a well-known game developer. He makes the game -- he was responsible for the games Twisted Metal and God of War. These are very big games. Came out and said -- basically, I'm just paraphrasing. But, what is everyone's problem here?

So there are even people on the left. He's a very liberal person. That are concerned about that as well. But San Francisco, specifically, is as cartoonish, if not more so, than people think it is.

GLENN: Hey, I would be -- it would be wrong of me to have you on because a lot of people that listen to you don't like me because I have said, quoting, colonel -- I'm trying to remember his name. He wrote On Killing. And he is one of -- he is the leading expert on killing and has developed all these programs for the Pentagon to be able to get people to have a positive shooting experience. How do we get guys to shoot when they first get off the back of an airplane? Et cetera, et cetera.

And he has said -- and his research shows that video games help break down a mental wall that -- they don't make you into a killer. But they break down a mental wall where it makes it easier for you to kill.

And that is somehow very controversial for me to even say. I don't believe video games make you into a killer. I think you have something inside of you or don't have something inside of you. But it does break down a wall.

Do you want to tell me off for that? I want to give your fans an opportunity to say, "Yeah, all right. You told him."

COLIN: I mean, I have no interest in telling anyone offering a differing opinion or whatever like that. But to me, I'm not an expert, and I haven't read the work you're talking about.

GLENN: Yes.

COLIN: What I will say is that, it doesn't -- it doesn't I believe -- for me to say that if a person plays Grand Theft Auto 5 and he might already have some preexisting mental condition or some preexisting propensity, as you said, to do something already that, running around in a car, murdering people with it, might set that person off, is that possible? I'm sure that it probably is.

But I try keep the numbers in balance. This is actually a similar argument to what I use with the right to own a gun, which is to say Grand Theft Auto 5, which is a very violent, very provocative game, had sold 70 million units around the world, one of the best-selling games of all time. If there are five people that play Grand Theft Auto 5 and go on to kill someone because they're inspired by that, I know it sounds kind of strange, but that's a really almost mathematically insignificant number of people, if that makes any sense.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

COLIN: Similarly to a person that has access to a gun. Should none of us have access to a gun because a mentally unstable person has access to a gun and kills himself? I always defer -- you know, it's like an old Benjamin Franklin quote, you defer to liberty over kind of security, in that regard. And so I take a similar stance there. Can something like that set someone off? Of course. I'm sure that's possible.

GLENN: Colin. Colin, I would love to talk to you again. Colin Moriarty. He is the cofounder of kindafunny.com.

It's great meeting you. Really great meeting you. Thanks, Colin, I appreciate it.

COLIN: Thank you so much, Glenn. I appreciate it.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

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

A history of violence

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

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

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

Dismember the dragon

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

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

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

One‑sided freedom

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

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

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

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

Censored belief

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

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

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

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

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

Faith on trial

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

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

The real test

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

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

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that’s not what we hear.

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

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

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

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

That’s an everlasting promise.

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

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

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

“Take me instead”?

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep