Dana Loesch: Conserving the Individual is the Basis of Conservatism

March 20, 2017

WRITER

On her way to do tactical training and "blow stuff up," Dana Loesch, host of The Dana Show on TheBlaze TV and national spokesperson for the National Rifle of Association, joined Glenn on radio to give a blistering defense of pro-life conservatism.

"Conserving the individual is the basis of conservatism. It is classical, de Tocqueville liberalism. And if anybody knows anything about politics 101, if they know this, this should not be a surprise to them," Loesch said.

Loesch went on to stress the importance of political theory and history in education.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Dana Loesch joins us now. Hello, Dana.

DANA: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: Do women have the right to abort their children in the terrible twos? I'm just throwing that out there.

DANA: Do women have the right to abort other women who whine too much?

[Laughter]

GLENN: How are you doing, Dana?

DANA: I'm going to do some tactical training, so I'm going to blow stuff up.

GLENN: You are.

PAT: You are more macho than we are.

GLENN: That's not saying very much.

STU: Seeing last week's monologue of the opera, if you would like to investigate that one.

PAT: She's blowing stuff up.

GLENN: And you're going to the opera.

PAT: Beautiful.

GLENN: Anyway, Dana, let's talk about the underpinnings of the constitution for life. Are you -- would you be a hypocrite, and I know Tommy, you know, didn't call people hypocrites, she said she would be a hypocrite if she. Do you believe that?

DANA: Well, I don't want to get into what other people say and stand because people are going to do them. I'm going to keep doing me and the position I've always held is a limited government conservative is completely not hypocritical because you cannot -- you simply cannot enjoy the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness without first having the right to life because everything else hinges on your right to exist, and that's how it is always. You don't have the right to pursue anything if you can't live first. I mean, it's nuts. It's a cop out when people say it's a purity test. What you know? Yeah, life should be a purity test and those people who lack the courage of their own conviction, and they don't publicly hold their own position, that's what it is.

GLENN: I was talking off air this morning. You have to start with is it life? And the founders knew the moment it stirs, the moment you know it's -- you're pregnant, the moment it stirs, called -- I believe they used to call that the quickening.

DANA: Yes.

GLENN: Then it was a child. We're trying to go scientifically in the scientific age, we're going to deny it's a child by denying people the right to an ultra sound. It's really crazy to think how antiscience we have become. But you have to decide if it is a child or not. Once you decide, yes, it is a child, there is no right that anyone would have to take another's life.

DANA: No, I agree with that. It's science. We should be the party of science. And we all know how it takes place. It's a life. It's a life. Choice occurs before conception. If we want to talk about choice, that occurs before conception. Afterwards, it's not choice. It should be always -- that should be our mantra. Choice before the conception. Afterwards. And choice is just a fancy word that people hide the fact that it is murder.

PAT: That's the way I always felt too, Dana. From that standpoint in order to be consistent, you would have to say you're conceding when a woman is raped then. That it would be illegal in the case of rape and incest because her choice was taken away in that case.

DANA: Well, even then, to use that as a universal measurement, according to planned parenthood's own statistics, it's fewer than 1 percent of all cases.

PAT: Yeah.

DANA: If people want to have a discussion of the fewer than 1 percent to stop the 99 percent that's being used, I think it's a great argument to have. But to use it when it's fewer than 1 percent as the universal rule in arguing for legalized, I think it's a disingenuous argument.

GLENN: How do you feel, Dana, about what's happening to the conservative movement, becoming this populist, really in some ways nonintellectual kind of movement?

DANA: I think there's industry conservatism, and then there's the actual movement of conservatism. I think that the industry attracts people who -- and they're capitalists, I have to give them credit. I'm always going to trust the capitalists. But I think that it looks like an opportunity for people to see the bond, and it's great to put out content and get views for it. But at the same time, it's still a real movement. I like populism in tiny amounts. I don't like a whole lot of populism because I think then it tends to obscure the truth and people look for personalities instead of principle, and you always have to fall back on principle because everything else is going to be a flash but principle is always going to stay. And that's something that we should be focusing on as a movement. But I look at it, and I think that the right, it's a big tent. And these are the conversations that we're going to have when you have a big tent. Here's the big problem that I have, Glenn, and I know I've spoken with you about this before.

People use the words like Republican and independent and conservative, they use these terms interchangeably because they think incorrectly that they all mean the same thing, when they do not. And you're going to have pro-choice Republicans and atheist Republicans and you're going to have pro-choice and atheist independents. But one of the things I cannot see and I do not define conservatism as is a pro-choice conservative. Because the basis of conservatism is conserving the liberty of the individual. Conserving the individual, and it all goes back to the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So you cannot, and I'm not being a bouncer of conservatism. I'm pointing to logic. And if people want to could you say me of having a purity test. Hell yes, I will always use life as a purity test. And if anyone else doesn't, I pity those people. But, yes, conserving the individual is the basis of conservatism. It is classical de Tocqueville liberalism. And if anybody knows anything about politics 101, if they know this, this should not be a surprise to them. This is why political theory in class is important. This is why history is important.

This is why learning what these terms mean is important. They are not click-based sound bytes. They mean something.

GLENN: I've got to run, Dana, God bless you.

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

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two turning points, decades apart

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

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

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

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

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

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

A time for courage

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

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

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

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

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

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep