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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep