Another Logical American—A Journalist!—Converts to Conservatism

March 07, 2017

WRITER

What could more difficult than coming out as a gay man? Easy. Coming out as a conservative gay man.

Chadwick Moore, a journalist who recently published an article in the New York Post titled, "I'm a gay New Yorker, and I'm coming out as a conservative," says it's the hardest thing he's ever done.

Moore joined The Glenn Beck Program to talk about his conversion to conservatism.

"I've had conservative-leaning Libertarian values for a long time, and they've been growing. And even just a couple years ago, you know, I could get into political discussions with people, and it would be very clear that I have these views. And they might not like it, and they might yell and storm out, but you could still mostly have a debate. And now that is not the case," Moore said.

Moore explained it's not his politics that have changed, but rather the line has shifted beneath his feet.

"It's moved me to the right," he said.

Glenn welcomed the opportunity to close ranks with another American using reason and logic over emotion.

"This is happening," Glenn said. "If we don't open arms [to] those who feel like he does --- left or right --- if we don't close ranks and open arms, right now . . . we have a chance to gather so many people, so many people.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Chadwick Moore, a lifelong liberal and journalist who has now written this line in his op-ed: When I was growing up in the Midwest, coming out to my family at the age of 15 was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Today, it's just as nerve-racking to come out to all of New York as a conservative.

Chadwick, welcome to the program. May I call you Chad, or what do you prefer? Chadwick?

CHADWICK: You can call me anything you would like, Glenn.

GLENN: I know. What do you prefer though? Do you prefer Chadwick?

CHADWICK: Most people call me -- yeah, Chadwick is fine, yeah.

GLENN: So, Chadwick, is this harder than -- are the consequences greater than when you came out, or the same, or less?

CHADWICK: The consequences are definitely greater. You know, when I came out as a teenager, of course, it was scary for all the reasons that everyone hears about. You're worried about being bullied. Worried about your family rejecting you. But I had at that time sort of -- you know, I had a fake ID. I was going out to gay bars. I sort of -- I already had the sort of network of friends, gay friends that I had made, or at least accepting friends who I could sort of secretly tell.

This -- I didn't know -- I didn't have any conservative friends. I didn't know anyone, and I live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, which is the epicenter of New York City of sort of the social justice, identity politics brigade.

GLENN: Holy cow.

CHADWICK: Yeah. And -- and so I had -- I was going in completely blind. As we know that coming out as a conservative, you face unemployment discrimination, absolutely, especially in industries like media, which I'm in. We feel this violence in the street. We see people being assaulted and yelled at for no reason. So it was definitely -- definitely more nerve-racking --

GLENN: So, Chadwick, I have a friend who is on the other side of the aisle. I have several of them. And one of them was telling me just the other day that they don't know how to even speak sometimes to their own friends. And they're rock solid liberal. They don't know how to speak to some of their own friends because things are so crazy. And I think it's this way on the right too. That if you're not lockstep against Donald Trump, if you're in a liberal circle, you're -- you're an enemy.

CHADWICK: Oh. 100 percent, yes. You know, I've had conservative-leaning Libertarian values for a long time. And they've been growing. And even just a couple years ago, you know, I could get into political discussions with people, and it would be very clear that I have these views. And they might not like it, and they might yell and storm out. But you could still mostly have a debate. And now that is not the case.

And especially over the last year, if I would start to challenge my friends' political ideas and start to present the other side, you were an enemy. And the next time that person saw you, they would not talk to you.

So it's definitely changed. You know, I'd like to say that my politics has not changed. The line has moved beneath my feet. It's moved me to the right.

GLENN: So what is it -- was it Donald Trump that moved you there? How do you define conservative? Because I'm not sure how to define that anymore.

CHADWICK: Great point. I define -- you know, lots of people can disagree with me on this. I find conservative to be a very useful term, a very useful umbrella term for the sort of diverse political thought that's on the right. So the evangelical Christians, the Tea Partiers, the establishment Republicans, and then people more like me who are the Libertarian classical liberals.

So that's how I use the term "conservative." I find that useful.

Donald Trump was definitely a huge -- you know, I feel like his rise -- and a lot of people who identify more Libertarian on the right, their visibility, has really shifted the borders of conservatism and been more welcoming to people like myself who are disaffected liberals who are against the leftists.

And Donald Trump has really sort of -- you know, no longer is this base of conservatism, these kind of Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan types, who I would have just as little in common with I think as I do Hillary Clinton, even though I've held my nose and ticked her box last November.

GLENN: So, Chadwick, so we're probably then in the same category of conservative. I don't relate to the big government people at all. And I want to leave people alone. I was -- you know, I didn't have a problem with gay marriage, you know, long before Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I just don't think the government has a place in anybody's marriage, left, right, gay, straight -- it doesn't matter. They just don't have a place there.

And so you're more of a Libertarian small government, leave people alone, kind of constitutionalist?

CHADWICK: Absolutely. Yes. Firm, staunch believer in first, Second Amendment. Absolute constitutionalist.

GLENN: Did you have a problem with the Obama administration on the First Amendment?

CHADWICK: You know, they didn't really say anything. With the press, you know, everyone likes to think that Trump is this authoritarian person. But, you know, Obama was going after journalists left and right.

PAT: Uh-huh.

CHADWICK: And, you know, the Democrats are sort of -- his administration, you know, they didn't really get much done. But the sort of liberal base then under his administration seems to have been galvanized in this radical, awful way. And the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton and the DNC have never called them out or try to reprimand them. They've just let them run wild.

So I think in that sense, I think Obama -- yeah, he never tried to stop this, this radical push to the left that his followers have undergone.

GLENN: Talking to Chadwick Moore. He's a journalist out of New York. He was known as a liberal. He's now a conservative. A Libertarian, small government conservative, constitutionalist.

The -- I have said this to my inner circle that I have met with a bunch of people that have, in fact, given lots of money to the Democratic Party who have now woken up for the first time to the fact that, wait a minute, my party is really pretty extreme. They're embracing this authoritarian kind of idea. And they rejected that serious Marxists -- and people who really didn't like the Constitution or didn't like the free market system. You know, had a real serious place at the table. They knew they were in the party. But they didn't have a real serious place at the table.

And they've opened their eyes. Now, many of them haven't been strong enough as you are now. But they have told me behind the scenes, "I'm not with the Democrats either." Do you think there is -- that you're alone. Or do you think that there's a lot of people like this, that are feeling the way you did?

CHADWICK: Oh, Glenn, I know for a fact that there are a lot of people. And the evidence is in my inbox. I've gotten thousands of messages from people since that post ran. And I would say legitimately 50 percent of those messages are conservatives from all walks of life, evangelicals to Libertarians, the other half I would say are disaffected Democrats who have been saying to me, I feel the exact same way you do. I'm scared to come out. I don't agree with this. I consider myself a moderate, but there's no place for me in the party anymore. I'm scared if I speak up, I'll lose my job. That's a big thing. I'll lose clients. You know, I'm an independent contractor. And I don't know what to do. And people have said, like, thank you for being a vessel for this voice of reason. You know, especially coming from the left.

And what you said about -- it's like President Reagan said, if fascism comes to America, it will be in the guise of liberalism. You know, it will be private ownership with absolute government control.

GLENN: Yeah. How do we grow this? Because, Chadwick, this is something that I have been, you know, working towards for a while and felt really alone for a long time, that there would be strange bedfellows, that we're not going to agree on everything, and we're going to come from the left and the right. And we're just going to stand for basic principles. And people will say, what principles would we have in common? We could start with just the Bill of Rights. And if you could give me nine out of the ten of the Bill of Rights, I think we have enough to build strong coalitions. And I don't think it's that hard.

How do we empower the people on both sides that are afraid to come out? Because I've seen it on both sides. It's -- it's bad.

CHADWICK: Yeah. And that is an excellent question and an excellent point. I agree with you that -- that the strongest weapon we have is the Bill of Rights. It is the Constitution.

You know, a few months ago, you know, I was thinking, this country is either on the verge of a bloody civil war or a really radical wonderful political enlightenment and it looks like staunch constitutionalism. And I think that's what you see happening. I think there are tons of people like me, who -- you know, the sort of liberal I was, was what this term -- a lot of people are using now called the "classical liberal," which is a constitutionalist. It's someone who supports free people, free markets, free speech, free thought. And I think that is -- nobody disagrees with that. So I think that you're right, that that is the greatest weapon we have.

And the sort of authoritarian element on the left, I still believe, is so small and so fringe. But they're so violent. And their biggest weapon is their -- is their, you know, racist homophobic Nazi bigot. That's all they can say because they have no argument. And nobody wants to be called of those things. So if you challenge them, they throw those words at you. Shut up! And that's why the media doesn't challenge them because the media doesn't want to be boycotted. They don't want to be this and that. I think most people in the media are terrified of these people too. But I think there are signs that that's no longer working. People see that Donald Trump isn't, you know, a white supremacist. So I think it's beginning to crack. And I think you're right that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, is the greatest weapon to unite the most patriotic and fair-minded people in this country. Because our country, if you look at Europe, how authoritarian the culture is becoming in Europe, we really are the last hope for the sort of great idea of free people and free markets and individual responsibility.

GLENN: How do you argue with people who will say this to a Republican? They said it under George Bush. And they will say it again because of Donald Trump. And they say it to people like you, who voted for Barack Obama, assuming that you did, voting for Barack Obama, supported or was relatively quiet during Barack Obama. What do you say to those people that say, "Well, where were you as a staunch constitutionalist when X, Y, or Z were happening?" And you could say that to both sides. How do we tell people, "The past is the past, and I'm sincere in standing with the Constitution?"

CHADWICK: That's another great question. Right. So I was thinking about this just the other day. You know, when Obama was president, it was very much like, I'm just going to close my eyes and let him take the wheel. I think a lot -- you know, if I just speak of my own personal experience, people are allowed to make mistakes. I didn't know any better. And also, at the time, I just felt I didn't have -- it's strange because I've been on both sides now. I didn't feel I had a choice. Especially when the religious right was in control of the Republican Party, and as a gay person -- and the sort of very anti-gay, non-Libertarian rules they were trying to enforce, you just feel like you didn't have a choice. So you were like, "Well, these are my people. I'm a Democrat. I have to be a Democrat."

And this is what we were saying earlier about the sort of lines being changed. And Donald Trump -- Donald Trump is the first president to take office being for gay rights, Democrat or Republican.

And so it's -- now that the culture has shifted so rapidly, I think a lot of people don't feel like they have to find blindly with their party affiliation because the other side is evil. Because they're just being told that.

So I think that most people in this country have just been falling into party lines. But now there's such an anti-establishment vigor amongst the people in this country, on the left too.

That's why Bernie would have been the nominee. He was a nationalist. He was anti-establishment. He would have been the nominee if the Democratic Party had not colluded against him and all these other things. And the superdelegates and all this other stuff. So I think most people are on our side. And it's just the misbehavior of the establishment that's finally reached a breaking point where people can actually come together.

GLENN: Chadwick, I'd love to talk to you some more. I think you're fascinating and extraordinarily brave. Extraordinarily brave.

CHADWICK: Thank you.

GLENN: And congratulations on sticking to your principles and come what may. It's -- it's a rare thing.

CHADWICK: The exact same to you, Glenn. Great admirer of yours.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We'll talk again. Thank you.

STU: It's interesting to hear that --

GLENN: This is happening. I'm telling you, if we -- if we walk together, if we don't open arms, those who feel like he does, left or right, if we don't close ranks and open arms, right now, we have a chance to gather so many people, so many people.

STU: I really like the -- his answer to, well, wait a minute. What about when this side did this and this side did this? Well, you know, maybe I made a mistake. I didn't have all the information, and now I do.

GLENN: I really like him a lot.

STU: That sort of attitude is so missing from our society that you can admit that, you know what, maybe I had the wrong perspective back then, and now I have the right one.

GLENN: Yeah, like him a lot.

STU: Yeah.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep