Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Dana Loesch Shares How ‘Repeated Threats’ Forced Her Family to Move

October 17, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Dana Loesch spoke out about the increasingly detailed death threats that she and her family have been receiving and why she knew they had to move on today’s show.

“When your kids are too afraid to ride their bikes outside in front of the house, up and down the street … that was obviously a clear sign: ‘Time to leave,’” she said.

People angry over her stance on the Second Amendment were putting her address and phone number online and sometimes even pictures of her house. Dana tweeted this thread about her ordeal under the hashtag #MeToo this week as part of a larger conversation about violence toward women.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So Dana Loesch, who is just one of the most remarkable conservatives that I know, a -- a strong and fierce woman who is -- does everything she does because she's a mom.

And, you know, after the World Trade Center came down and things started getting crazy, she was -- she was a mom. And she decided to start speaking out. And next thing, you know, she's on the radio. And now she's syndicated. She's got her own TV show here at TheBlaze.

And she's also a spokesperson for the NRA, which has caused her real problems in the last year. So much so, that Dana tweeted over the weekend, that she was moving. And had to move to a new house, undisclosed location, because people on the left had found out where she was living and began to threaten her and her family.

Welcome to the program, Dana.

DANA: Hey, Glenn, good to be with you.

GLENN: First of all, you safe?

DANA: Yeah. I am. I'm good. I mean, I'm safe wherever I am.

GLENN: I wouldn't mess with you. Ever. I just would not mess with you.

DANA: It's crazy. I mean, it's crazy that it's to this point. It's crazy that in the past year, just by being vocal on a particular issue and understandably so, that it has gotten to this point.

And I tweeted -- you mentioned the tweet before where I took it because I just thought this was so crazy. And I love where I live. And I'm staying in Texas. And I love where I live. And nobody wants to move right as the holiday season is gearing up. I had thought to do this a little bit more planned out.

But when you have people that send you emails that say things like, well, I'm going to make it to where you feel like the parents of Newton. And where you get all this crazy stuff.

And they can't just keep it to you. And they can't just keep it to ideas. They have to start bringing in innocence and very young soft targets in. That's when -- I'm fine to stay where I am. But when your kids are too afraid to ride their bikes outside, in front of the house, up and down the street -- which is one of the reasons why I loved where I moved. Because when I left downtown St. Louis, my kids couldn't do that. And that was obviously a clear sign, time to leave. And come here to what I think is one of the safest and best places in the country. And I had people driving by my house, taking pictures of my home. Not just Google Maps stuff. Like actual photos of my home and putting it online. Putting my address online. Putting my private cell phone number, which I know anybody can find anything about anybody. But they put that online.

They started calling my cell phone number. At one time, they called it when the cops were at my house a little after midnight one evening. But it was when I really -- they couldn't get me by going after me, so they decided to target my kids, which is always the most dangerous place in the world for anybody to be, is between a mother and her kids. And especially so for me.

I guess that they thought they were going to send a message to them. So I'm just going to louder, but I'm going to do it from an undisclosed location.

GLENN: Dana, what was the conversation with your kids like?

DANA: We have had it before. The first big conversation that we had was after my oldest son who is on the internet, in a limited way. Like he's not allowed on Twitter. He's not allowed on Facebook. He's not allowed on Snapchat. And I always go through everything. Because it's not a democracy. It's a momocracy in the house.

And one of his friends -- the day that -- I was actually doing my program at TheBlaze. My TV program at TheBlaze. And this is the day that that video came out, where this guy had made this death fetish video where I killed myself. And before I got home, after doing my show at TheBlaze, my son's best friend had already sent him a link to the video. Saying, did you see this? This is your mom.

And that's how my oldest son found out. So when I got home, we had to have this -- you know, it's not like I sit down every night with my kids over the dinner table, and we have Ronald Reagan school. You know what I mean? They're able to go and live their own lives and do their own thing. Obviously, we have a certain set of ideals that they must live by. But we don't pummel them by politics. And so we had to have that conversation over the dinner table in a night. And that was really one of the first staid conversations that we had. Then when we had local police here and when this one individual found my cell phone number and called it while the police were here, we had to have another conversation.

And then after there were reported emails about the void, that's when we had a big -- yet another conversation because we had to have law enforcement have to go to their school and make sure their school security was safe, which it was. And their school is amazing. I just wish I could go there myself and work with the school administrators and make sure that they had a good security plan and they worked with us -- and they were just awesome. We had a private security firm as well.

And so now they're aware. But we don't want to scare them. They're just aware. We want to make them situationally aware, but not freaked out or paranoid, because it's no way to live your life. But my youngest feels like, yeah, I don't want to have anything to do with going outside in front of the house. I don't want to go to ride my bike in front of the house. I don't want to do any of this stuff. And I said, that's what I can't handle.

Okay. We're going to need to go. We're going to need to go. If you don't feel safe in your own home, we have to leave.

STU: Dana, do you find it odd how here we are talking about people like Harvey Weinstein and how these powerful men are abusing women by the thousands and thousands and people are tweeting about it and telling all their stories, and at the same time, these same people are asking for the Second Amendment to essentially go away, so that women have no way to defend themselves.

DANA: I think that's a good point. And I had that observation just I guess right after the Weinstein thing broke. Because he said he was going to go after gun owners. And he was going to target the NRA. And I thought, well, of course. You're a serial predator. Of course, you want women disarmed. That makes perfect sense. Because rapists and pedophiles and predators agree, they love soft targets. They love them.

And so, yeah, I do find that weird. Because that's one of the biggest reasons I advocate for what I advocate, because I want people to be safe. I want men and women, particularly, to be able to defend themselves. Because as much as -- as empowered as a woman thinks she is and as tough as a woman thinks she is and as many Lara Croft movies as she watches, you are still going to be statistically outweighed by a man. You're still going to be overpowered by a man's mere muscle mass and bone density. You're still going to be overpowered, which is why I carry, because then I can overpower my attacker.

STU: Did you have a moment going through any of this, Dana, that you thought to yourself, you know what, why am I doing this? Why am I bothering?

DANA: Oh, no. No.

STU: Not even a second?

DANA: No. No. No.

I haven't. And I don't know if that's weird or not. But I haven't. I just -- I believe so strongly in what I believe in. I believe I'm on the right side and I'm fighting for truth.

If I were -- if I were pushing propaganda, if I were saying something that I didn't feel in my soul was true, then, yeah, I can see how I would not have a firm foundation on which to stand during difficult times.

But I -- I don't feel that way.

I know that I'm on the right side. I'm talking about defending people's lives, and I can never -- that's a pro-life issue, really. And I can never and will never feel bad about that, ever. Just so long as I'm on the right side, I'm good

GLENN: Have you had anybody from the left reach out to you and at all say, this is inexcusable?

DANA: I've had one reporter at CNN, who reached out privately, which I thought was nice. Publicly, there have been a few progressive men and progressive women. And I think perhaps the biggest name among those was Chelsea Clinton. Which -- and to her credit, she did not -- and you know I wouldn't -- I wouldn't mince my words. But to her credit, she didn't -- she didn't predicate it upon anything. And she just said, this is awful, period. And it should be. Because that had other people say, well, despite the politics, I still think -- that's irrelevant.

Because here's the thing: We're all citizens first. And this is where your identity politics stuff has got to stop. Everybody -- we are Democrat and Republican and conservative and progressive. Everything else comes after -- you know, I listed as a child of God. Then you're an American citizen. And then you can be all the other stuff you want to be. But people don't have their priorities right in terms of identity. And that's what's messing everybody up. Everybody wants to focus on all of the places in which they're different. And I did appreciate that Chelsea Clinton tweeted that. Because she got right to the point. She didn't predicate it on anything. It was just simply, it was wrong. And that's what people need to do. Now, I know that everyone said, well, it exists on the right and the left, this stuff. And it does.

It absolutely does.

GLENN: And we stand against it, when it happens on the right.

DANA: Exactly. That's absolutely right. And you have done that, and I have done that.

But here's the big difference though: There is a big difference. It is perceived. The perceived and treated differently on the public stage.

GLENN: Yes.

DANA: When you have a progressive woman and a conservative woman, if they receive the same foul treatment, it's virtuous for the progressive and the conservative woman, it doesn't exist.

And that's what I want to stop.

GLENN: Dana Loesch, best of luck. God bless you.

DANA: Thank you, Glenn. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye.

Glenn Beck: Here's what's WRONG with conservatism today

Getty Images / Handout | Getty Images

What does it mean to be a conservative in 2025? Glenn offers guidance on what conservatives need to do to ensure the conservative movement doesn't fade into oblivion. We have to get back to PRINCIPLES, not policies.

To be a conservative in 2025 means to STAND

  • for Stewardship, protecting the wisdom of our Founders;
  • for Truth, defending objective reality in an age of illusion;
  • for Accountability, living within our means as individuals and as a nation;
  • for Neighborhood, rebuilding family, faith, and local community;
  • and for Duty, carrying freedom forward to the next generation.

A conservative doesn’t cling to the past — he stands guard over the principles that make the future possible.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, I'm so tired of being against everything. Saying what we're not.

It's time that we start saying what we are. And it's hard, because we're changing. It's different to be a conservative, today, than it was, you know, years ago.

And part of that is just coming from hard knocks. School of hard knocks. We've learned a lot of lessons on things we thought we were for. No, no, no.

But conservatives. To be a conservative, it shouldn't be about policies. It's really about principles. And that's why we've lost our way. Because we've lost our principles. And it's easy. Because the world got easy. And now the world is changing so rapidly. The boundaries between truth and illusion are blurred second by second. Machines now think. Currencies falter. Families fractured. And nations, all over the world, have forgotten who they are.

So what does it mean to be a conservative now, in 2025, '26. For a lot of people, it means opposing the left. That's -- that's a reaction. That's not renewal.

That's a reaction. It can't mean also worshiping the past, as if the past were perfect. The founders never asked for that.

They asked that we would preserve the principles and perfect their practice. They knew it was imperfect. To make a more perfect nation.

Is what we're supposed to be doing.

2025, '26 being a conservative has to mean stewardship.

The stewardship of a nation, of a civilization.

Of a moral inheritance. That is too precious to abandon.

What does it mean to conserve? To conserve something doesn't mean to stand still.

It means to stand guard. It means to defend what the Founders designed. The separation of powers. The rule of law.

The belief that our rights come not from kings or from Congress, but from the creator himself.
This is a system that was not built for ease. It was built for endurance, and it will endure if we only teach it again!

The problem is, we only teach it like it's a museum piece. You know, it's not a museum piece. It's not an old dusty document. It's a living covenant between the dead, the living and the unborn.

So this chapter of -- of conservatism. Must confront reality. Economic reality.

Global reality.

And moral reality.

It's not enough just to be against something. Or chant tax cuts or free markets.

We have to ask -- we have to start with simple questions like freedom, yes. But freedom for what?

Freedom for economic sovereignty. Your right to produce and to innovate. To build without asking Beijing's permission. That's a moral issue now.

Another moral issue: Debt! It's -- it's generational theft. We're spending money from generations we won't even meet.

And dependence. Another moral issue. It's a national weakness.

People cannot stand up for themselves. They can't make it themselves. And we're encouraging them to sit down, shut up, and don't think.

And the conservative who can't connect with fiscal prudence, and connect fiscal prudence to moral duty, you're not a conservative at all.

Being a conservative today, means you have to rebuild an economy that serves liberty, not one that serves -- survives by debt, and then there's the soul of the nation.

We are living through a time period. An age of dislocation. Where our families are fractured.

Our faith is almost gone.

Meaning is evaporating so fast. Nobody knows what meaning of life is. That's why everybody is killing themselves. They have no meaning in life. And why they don't have any meaning, is truth itself is mocked and blurred and replaced by nothing, but lies and noise.

If you want to be a conservative, then you have to be to become the moral compass that reminds a lost people, liberty cannot survive without virtue.

That freedom untethered from moral order is nothing, but chaos!

And that no app, no algorithm, no ideology is ever going to fill the void, where meaning used to live!

To be a conservative, moving forward, we cannot just be about policies.

We have to defend the sacred, the unseen, the moral architecture, that gives people an identity. So how do you do that? Well, we have to rebuild competence. We have to restore institutions that actually work. Just in the last hour, this monologue on what we're facing now, because we can't open the government.

Why can't we open the government?

Because government is broken. Why does nobody care? Because education is broken.

We have to reclaim education, not as propaganda, but as the formation of the mind and the soul. Conservatives have to champion innovation.

Not to imitate Silicon Valley's chaos, but to harness technology in defense of human dignity. Don't be afraid of AI.

Know what it is. Know it's a tool. It's a tool to strengthen people. As long as you always remember it's a tool. Otherwise, you will lose your humanity to it!

That's a conservative principle. To be a conservative, we have to restore local strength. Our families are the basic building blocks, our schools, our churches, and our charities. Not some big, distant NGO that was started by the Tides Foundation, but actual local charities, where you see people working. A web of voluntary institutions that held us together at one point. Because when Washington fails, and it will, it already has, the neighborhood has to stand.

Charlie Kirk was doing one thing that people on our side were not doing. Speaking to the young.

But not in nostalgia.

Not in -- you know, Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.

In purpose. They don't remember. They don't remember who Dick Cheney was.

I was listening to Fox news this morning, talking about Dick Cheney. And there was somebody there that I know was not even born when Dick Cheney. When the World Trade Center came down.

They weren't even born. They were telling me about Dick Cheney.

And I was like, come on. Come on. Come on.

If you don't remember who Dick Cheney was, how are you going to remember 9/11. How will you remember who Reagan was.

That just says, that's an old man's creed. No, it's not.

It's the ultimate timeless rebellion against tyranny in all of its forms. Yes, and even the tyranny of despair, which is eating people alive!

We need to redefine ourselves. Because we have changed, and that's a good thing. The creed for a generation, that will decide the fate of the republic, is what we need to find.

A conservative in 2025, '26.

Is somebody who protects the enduring principles of American liberty and self-government.

While actively stewarding the institutions. The culture. The economy of this nation!

For those who are alive and yet to be unborn.

We have to be a group of people that we're not anchored in the past. Or in rage! But in reason. And morality. Realism. And hope for the future.

We're the stewards! We're the ones that have to relight the torch, not just hold it. We didn't -- we didn't build this Torch. We didn't make this Torch. We're the keepers of the flame, but we are honor-bound to pass that forward, and conservatives are viewed as people who just live in the past. We're not here to merely conserve the past, but to renew it. To sort it. What worked, what didn't work. We're the ones to say to the world, there's still such a thing as truth. There's still such a thing as virtue. You can deny it all you want.

But the pain will only get worse. There's still such a thing as America!

And if now is not the time to renew America. When is that time?

If you're not the person. If we're not the generation to actively stand and redefine and defend, then who is that person?

We are -- we are supposed to preserve what works.

That -- you know, I was writing something this morning.

I was making notes on this. A constitutionalist is for restraint. A progressive, if you will, for lack of a better term, is for more power.

Progressives want the government to have more power.

Conservatives are for more restraint.

But the -- for the American eagle to fly, we must have both wings.

And one can't be stronger than the other.

We as a conservative, are supposed to look and say, no. Don't look at that. The past teaches us this, this, and this. So don't do that.

We can't do that. But there are these things that we were doing in the past, that we have to jettison. And maybe the other side has a good idea on what should replace that. But we're the ones who are supposed to say, no, but remember the framework.

They're -- they can dream all they want.
They can come up with all these utopias and everything else, and we can go, "That's a great idea."

But how do we make it work with this framework? Because that's our job. The point of this is, it takes both. It takes both.

We have to have the customs and the moral order. And the practices that have stood the test of time, in trial.

We -- we're in an amazing, amazing time. Amazing time.

We live at a time now, where anything -- literally anything is possible!

I don't want to be against stuff. I want to be for the future. I want to be for a rich, dynamic future. One where we are part of changing the world for the better!

Where more people are lifted out of poverty, more people are given the freedom to choose, whatever it is that they want to choose, as their own government and everything.

I don't want to force it down anybody's throat.

We -- I am so excited to be a shining city on the hill again.

We have that opportunity, right in front of us!

But not in we get bogged down in hatred, in division.

Not if we get bogged down into being against something.

We must be for something!

I know what I'm for.

Do you?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.