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.

POLL: Was Malaysia Flight 370 taken by a WORMHOLE?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

It's hard to know what's real and what's fake anymore.

With the insanity that seems to grow every day, it is becoming more and more difficult to tell what's true and what's not, what to believe, and what to reject. Anything seems possible.

That's why Glenn had Ashton Forbes on his show, to explore the fringe what most people would consider impossible. Forbes brought Glenn a fascinating but far-out theory that explains the decade-old disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 along with riveting footage that supposedly corroborates his story. Like something out of a sci-fi novel, Forbes made the startling claim that Flight 370 was TELEPORTED via a U.S. military-made wormhole! As crazy as that sounds, the video footage along with Forbes' scientific research made an interesting, if not compelling case.

But what do you think? Do you believe that the U.S. Government can create wormholes? Did they use one to abduct Flight 370? Is the government hiding futuristic tech from the rest of the world? Let us know in the poll below:

Does the military have the capability to create wormholes?

Is the U.S. military somehow responsible for what happened to Malaysia Flight 370?

Is the military in possession of technology beyond what we believe to be possible?

Do you think American military tech is ahead of the other superpowers?

Do you think there would be negative consequences if secret government technology was leaked?

5 videos that reveal the WOKE GARBAGE being taught to our kids

School today is not like it used to be...

Glenn recently covered how our medical schools have been taken over by gender-affirming, anti-racist, woke garbage, and unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. Education at all levels has been compromised by progressive ideology. From high-level university academics to grade school, American children are constantly being bombarded by the latest backward propaganda from the left. Luckily, in the age of Zoom classes and smartphones, it's harder for teachers to get away their agenda in secret. Here are five videos that show just how corrupt schools really are:

Woke teacher vandalizes pro-life display

Professor Shellyne Rodriguez, an art professor at Hunter College in New York, was caught on camera having a violent argument with a group of pro-life students who were tabling on campus. Rodriguez was later fired from her position after threatening a reporter from the New York Post, who was looking into this incident, with a machete.

Woke professor argues with student after he called police heroes

An unnamed professor from Cypress College was captured having a heated discussion with a student over Zoom. The professor verbally attacked the student, who had given a presentation on "cancel culture" and his support of law enforcement. The university later confirmed that the professor was put on leave after the incident.

Professor goes on Anti-Trump rant

Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox was filmed by a student going on an anti-Trump rant during her human-sexuality class at Orange Coast College. This rant included Professor Cox describing Trump's election as "an act of terrorism”. The student who filmed this outburst was suspended for an entire semester along with several other punishments, including a three-page apology essay to Professor Cox explaining his actions. Orange Coast College continues to defend Professor Cox, citing the student code of conduct.

Unhinged teacher caught on video going on left-wing political rant

Lehi High School teacher Leah Kinyon was filmed amid a wild, left-wing rant during a chemistry class. Kinyon made several politically charged remarks, which included encouraging students to get vaccinated and calling President Trump a "literal moron." Despite her claims that the school admins "don't give a crap" about her delusional ramblings, a statement from Lehi High School reveals that she "is no longer an employee of Alpine School District."

Far-left Berkeley law professor melts down when a Senator asks her if men can get pregnant

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Berkeley Law Professor Khiara M. Bridges was asked by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley to clarify earlier statements involving "people with a capacity for pregnancy." The senator's line of questioning is met with a long-winded, frantic rant accusing the senator of being transphobic. When Sen. Hawley tries to clarify further, Professor Bridges makes the outrageous claim that such a line of questioning somehow leads to trans suicides.

Woke ideology trumps medicine in America's top 5 medical schools

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Progressive ideology has infected our most prestigious medical schools and is seeping into our medical system.

As Glenn covered in his latest TV special, "diversity, equity and inclusion" (DEI), and leftist rhetoric have overtaken science and medicine as the focus of medical schools across the nation. The next generation of doctors and nurses is being force-fed DEI and "anti-racist" nonsense at the expense of slipping standards. This has led to a decline in people's trust in the medical industry and for good reason. Woke ideology has already been the driving force behind at least one medical malpractice case, and more are undoubtedly on the way.

All of this is being spearheaded by universities, which have integrated DEI practices into the fabric of their programs. Our top medical schools now require students and staff to participate in mandatory DEI and "anti-racist" classes and training and are adjusting the standards to reflect this new shift in focus. Here are 5 statements from the top American medical schools that show that medicine is no longer their primary focus:

Harvard Medical School

Boston Globe / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Harvard University "Unconscious bias" resource page:

“As members of HMS, we each have a responsibility to create an inclusive community that values all individuals. Barriers to inclusion may include assumptions we make about others that guide our interactions. Recognizing our Unconscious Bias is a critical step in developing a culture of equity and inclusion within HMS and in our partnerships with other communities.”

The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Rob Carr / Staff | Getty Images

Pulled from the JHM Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Health Equity blog:

“One-hour live, virtual unconscious bias training ... [w]ill be required at all Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS) entities for managers and above; hospital nurse leaders; credentialed providers (such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners); and for school of medicine faculty and trainees (including residents, fellows, medical and graduate students, and research postdocs), as well as those at a manager level or above.”

Stanford University School of Medicine

Philip Pacheco / Stringer | Getty Images

Found on the Stanford Medicine Commission on Justice and Equity page:

“The Commission on Justice and Equity—composed of external and internal leaders, experts, and advocates—represents an institution-wide, collaborative effort to dismantle systemic racism and discrimination within our own community and beyond.”

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Education Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Taken from the Penn Medicine Commitment to Inclusion, Equity, and Antiracism site:

“We openly acknowledge the role of structural forces of oppression as primary drivers of the disparate health outcomes. We believe that working to reverse the underrepresentation of historically excluded groups is critical in achieving equitable health outcomes. While this is an ongoing journey for our program, here are some of the tangible steps we have taken to achieve an inclusive culture”

Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons

Jeenah Moon / Stringer | Getty Images

Pulled from the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, Justice, and Anti-Racism page:

"Courses are being revised to be more inclusive and informed by the key principle of race as a social construct and a social determinant of health. We are training faculty that Anti-Racism is not an add-on to a course. Anti-Racism is a pedagogy - a manner of teaching, designing courses, and measuring learning outcomes. We make sure that the classroom environment is inclusive by holding space for respectful conversation and ensuring that we address any “classroom ruptures”– a disorienting dilemma or situation when a bias or microaggression that may occur, providing real time opportunities for professional development, learning, and growth. Racist actions and remarks are never tolerated at Columbia University and will be dealt with following established protocols."

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

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

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.