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

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.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

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

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

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

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.