How did a former liberal become a conservative activist? Dana Loesch tells her story.

This morning on the radio show, Dana Loesch filled in for Glenn who is away on vacation. Many of you may know her from CNN, Breitbart news, or even her guest spots right here on GBTV, but Dana wasn't always the strong conservative that she is today. In fact, prior to September 11th, Dana was a pretty hardcore liberal.

"I'm a reformed liberal," Dana said this morning while introducing herself to the Glenn Beck radio audience.

She continued, explaining that she had her "come to Jesus moment" on 9/11 as she watched the towers falls on her television. She realized in that moment that the ideology which she had believed in doesn't work in reality - there are repercussions.

Dana, who grew up in a home of southern Democrats in Missouri, had already started her journey towards conservatism prior to 9/11 after being disenfranchised by the left's treatment of Hilary Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Having a background in journalism, she began writing for a couple of daily newspapers, did a few television spots here and there, and right before the 2008 election Dana got involved in radio.

Dana's radio show is where the St. Louis Tea Party was launched.

"Conservatives didn't take the streets and protest," Dana recalled.

She explained thinking, at that time, that no one would show up to their first Tea Party rally, which took place under the arch in St. Louis. It was a cold, bitter day, but people began flooding the city - nearly 2,000 people showed up that day in St. Louis, and even more in cities all across the country.

"It was inspiring," she said. "We felt that the odds were against us. We didn't really think that people were going to show up for this. We asked ourselves, 'are people upset enough to get involved? Are people going to want be involved as much as us?' But they did. And it took one person like me and many other one persons out there all across the country that made this happen."

And now, four years later, we are still seeing the same involvement across our country, Dana noted, looking to what occurred with Chick-fil-a just last week, and the bigger victories that have occurred over the last few years.

"We have come such a long way. We have amassed so many victories," Dana started. "You can't depend on mainstream media to report what we have accomplished. If you compare the new conservative movement. If you compare the grassroots movement to what the left has tried to copy from the 60s - the Occupy Movement. It shows that dedication, persistence, compassion, and passion are all going to pay off. We completely secured the Republican majority in the house. Were it not for the Tea Party there would be no Republican majority in the House. We wouldn't have enough in the Senate even to raise a fuss. Were it not for the Tea Party movement we wouldn't have victories like we did over the establishment in Indiana, we wouldn't have people like Chris Christie in New Jersey, we wouldn't have Marco Rubio in Florida, and we definitely wouldn't have Ted Cruz in Texas. This is a grass roots uprising and we have really racked up a lot of victories. And it's been because of people like you. Because of people like me. Everyone rolling up their shirt sleeves and saying, 'What can I do? Where can I get involved? I have this particular skill set. How can I use it to amplify the movement and conservatism?' and that's what I'm about."

"I hope when people hear what my background is that they are somehow motivated to get involved themselves."

Dana will also be guest hosting tonight on The Glenn Beck Program LIVE at 5pm ET (or on demand) on GBTV. Start a 14 day FREE trial today!

NASA now has an official plan for taking out asteroids

Ethan Miller/Getty Images

The next time asteroids menace the earth, we'll be ready. Because NASA has created a plan.

But before you get too excited, unfortunately, NASA's just-released plan does not include a Bruce Willis-led crew of roughnecks landing on an asteroid and blowing it to smithereens with a nuke. Which begs the question, if that's not part of the plan, what's a potential "Space Force" actually for?

RELATED: Science saves us again: Octopuses are really aliens who crash-landed on Earth

Yesterday, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report titled, the "National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan." Okay, see, this is the problem with government bloat. That title is a waste of words. Just call it "Armageddon."

The report is 18 pages of steps for NASA and FEMA to take over the next decade to prevent big asteroids from clanking into Earth. Wait, why is FEMA part of this action plan? Well, you know, in case the NASA part fails and we do get squashed by an asteroid. FEMA calls the we-get-squashed scenario "a low-probability but high-consequence event."

Step one in the NASA plan is better asteroid detection and tracking. That seems important. You can't dodge punches you never see coming.

Second, improving our ability to predict where an asteroid might hit, so FEMA can respond appropriately.

Third, the awesome part — asteroid deflection. So, if NASA's not using tough oil-drillers to land on and kill the asteroid, how would they do it? The plan would be to launch a spacecraft toward an asteroid that would change the asteroid's trajectory just enough to give us earthlings a good scare and a great show. But live to tell about it.

Just call it "Armageddon."

NASA has plans to experiment with this deflection technique with a spacecraft launching in 2021. It's called the "Double Asteroid Redirection Test" or DART. Clever.

Currently, astronomers have found over 8,000 asteroids in space measuring at least 460 feet across. That would be big enough to pulverize an entire state if it hit the US. But don't worry — only one-third of all near-earth asteroids are that large.

So, just a 33.3 percent chance of total annihilation.

We made it. It's Friday. This has been a tornado of a week. We endured the nonstop commotion of the migrant family separation policy and, best of all, we saw a near-immediate resolution, with President Trump's reversal of the policy. Whatever your stance on the policy, you have to admit, it's a good thing the chaos is over.

RELATED: Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Apparently, not everyone feels the same. Time magazine, for instance, has chosen to focus on the now-resolved matter for their July 2nd issue. They've released the cover. It features a cutout of the sobbing 2-year-old Honduran asylum-seeker — you've likely seen the image — captured by Getty photographer John Moore. Only, instead of featuring the original image, Time has chosen to photoshop an oversized image of President Trump, postured to appear like a bully standing over the crying girl. The background is solid read. The caption reads: "Welcome to America."

It's not enough to blame Trump for the whole debacle. We can't even have that conversation. No, the mainstream media feels the need to literally plaster him on the cover, to photoshop him into an awful situation, to make him look like a villain however they can. What good does that accomplish? And how long is the media going to demonize the President—what does he have to do?

The cover story is titled "A Reckoning After Trump's Border Separation Policy: What Kind of Country Are We?" Excellent question. What sort of country are we? Are we the sort of country that can pull it together and make this thing work despite our differences? Or are we the kind of country full of ungrateful people who throw tantrums even when everything goes their way?

President Trump reversed the policy, shouldn't that get some attention? Shouldn't he get some credit for affecting change in a way that his predecessor — contrary to what you'd surmise from the media — was unable to? No, instead, lately, we're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

We're the sort of country that shames and bullies our own leader even when he does the right thing.

Nietzsche noted that the severest punishment you can inflict on a person isn't to punish them after they've done something wrong or bad. In many ways, that sort of punishment can actually foster relief. The severest punishment is to punish someone when they've done something good, because you lessen the chance that they'll continue to do good.

And we need good.

I know at the heart of things, we're the kind of country that can come together for the good of mankind. We've proven that. But we need everybody.

The Left has been protesting and throwing tantrums since the day Trump was elected. They don't like him, we get it. At some point they need to change from diapers to undies so we can move forward.

Has anybody else noticed how politicized sports have gotten? The NFL is practically three berets away from a socialist revolution. They seem more concerned with dismantling social norms and protesting than with playing football. The Minnesota Vikings announced yesterday they will host a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.

According to LifeSiteNews, the LGBTQ inclusion summit will "include speeches, interviews, and panel discussions with a variety of athletes, coaches, and activists who are homosexual or transgender" and "will be hosted at the team's recently-completed TCO Performance Center."

The summit marks the latest in the NFL's continued advocacy for LGBTQ rights and initiatives. Last year, the league launched NFL Pride, in a bid to "heighten sensitivity to the LGBTQ community" and reinforce "commitment to an inclusive environment in which all employees are welcome."

RELATED: New NFL policy will punish players who protest the national anthem

Fair enough. No one should be harassed or discriminated against in the workplace, but is that really what this is about? Because it kind of seems like there's more going on here. Kind of seems like there's a political, ideological slant to it. At the very least, it's virtue signaling.

The summit is "part of a settlement agreement the Vikings made after [former Vikings punter Chris Kluwe], who is straight, filed a lawsuit against the team in 2014 for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for homosexual and transgender people."

So, yeah, virtue signaling.

Ultimately, the NFL is a private business and, as we saw with the National Anthem kneelers, they can conduct their business however they like, and in turn the consumers can decide whether or not to keep giving them their money.

Mostly, the situation is just strange. Can you imagine how well this partnership would have gone over in the 1970s? Moreover, at what point does being LGBTQ come up during sports? How have we landed in this strange place, where politics and gender and race must be represented within every single interaction?

It's also worth mentioning that most people don't care if an athlete is gay — with the possible exception of transgender athletes, but that's another topic entirely. This tolerance has actually been confirmed by studies and surveys throughout all kinds of sports, in various countries throughout the world. Even countries with, shall we say, a far less tolerant view of the LGBTQ community than we have here in the USA — even people in those countries believe that it doesn't matter. People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

People watch sports to see athleticism, to enjoy the unpredictable fury of sports at its finest.

Overwhelmingly, regardless of the sport, people do not care about the athletes' sexuality — in fact, most of us would rather not know. We don't watch golf to muse the social significance of gender norms and sexuality. We don't go to a baseball game to meditate on the evils of the patriarchy and the terrors of cultural appropriation. If an athlete is good, who cares what their orientation is? It's certainly not a new idea that LGBTQ can perform in sports. Typically, what sports fans care about is talent. Is the athlete good?

I guarantee that if Liberace rose from the dead tomorrow morning and was suddenly able to play basketball as well as 90s-era Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls fans would not complain if he joined the team. I think it's fair to say that most people like sports better when they aren't swamped with politics. Keep the politics elsewhere, especially these days, when it's nearly impossible to escape the increasingly intolerant politics of the Left.

Perhaps they could learn a lesson from our friends, the Ancient Greeks. It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks indulged in, well, LGBTQ activities. They were quite fond of the various activities. But they also built a civilization of tremendous importance to humanity as a whole. Philosophy, art and, yes, sports. When they were charged off to war, they didn't slap a Rainbow flag bumper sticker on the back of their chariot. Their sexuality did not define their identity. They were multifaceted human beings, able to go to war or to the theater or to the town hall as a citizen, because citizenry was what mattered, personhood and selfhood. More importantly, they lived in a time when people cared about self and tribe over sexuality and gender. Identity was selfhood, not sexuality.

At the end of the day, who cares if the Minnesota Vikings want to host an LGBTQ event? But they should expect to see an increase in shoulder-padded men traipsing across the stage on Broadway.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Most people like sports better when politics aren't involved

Breaking down the announcement that the Minnesota Vikings will be hosting a summit and fundraiser for LGBTQ inclusion in sports.


Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?