Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
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.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.