Mother of 'free range’ kids shares her story with Glenn

Do you remember being a kid and running wild in the neighborhood? Not anymore! In fact, now you can get in trouble for something called “free range parenting.” A Maryland family found this out the hard way when their kids were taken into custody by the police after they were found at the park without adult supervision. On radio this morning, Glenn spoke with Lenore Skenazy, founder of FreeRangeKids.com, about this story and why and how parents should start letting their kids grow without constant supervision.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Lenore Skenazy, she is a woman who started freerangekids.com. And she -- I believe, Lenore, you're the one who coined this phrase.

LENORE: Yeah, I am. Hi.

GLENN: How are you?

LENORE: Very good. Kind of exhausted.

GLENN: You were a woman who was in trouble with the Department of Children and Families. When was it? Back in January?

LENORE: It was 2008. I have to say that I wasn't actually in trouble with the authorities. I was in trouble with the media because I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone, which is something he had been asking to do. And my husband and I decided he was ready and so were we. So I wrote a column after he had taken the little trip. And I called it why I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone here in New York City. Two days after the column appeared, I was on the Today Show, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, you name it. And being decried as America's worst mom because how dare you let your children do anything alone. So I started free-range kids, my blog that weekend to explain that I'm very -- I say I'm a nervous mom. I love car seats. Seat belts. Mouth guards. If you have a birth -- you know, a baby shower, the gifts I always bring, I'm so boring, predictable, I bring a fire extinguisher. I believe in safety. I just don't think our kids need a security detail every time they leave the house. And, apparently, that is controversial to this day.

GLENN: So tell me about the stranger danger myth. Because we were trying to figure this out. We were talking about this yesterday. And we were like, nothing is -- this is -- things have gotten better since we were kids, and none of us would consider doing it. And we all know that it's unreasonable that we should.

LENORE: Right. That we should let our kids go outside and play?

GLENN: Yes. Pat wouldn't let his daughter -- he like had a heart attack. She was like, dad, I want to go literally half a block down to the lake. He was like, no. No. No.

PAT: She's 15.

GLENN: She's 15. He let her do it. But he freaked out.

LENORE: Wow. Well, first of all, congratulations. I'm glad you let it happen.

PAT: Yeah. Thank you. Very proud.

LENORE: What I've noticed over the years is that once we let our kids do something on their own, provided they're not arrested by the police, let them walk to school, let them make dinner, let them ride their bike to the library and back, generally you end up so proud from just that one incident, seeing your kid being this competent blossoming young man and woman instead of little vulnerable baby that we are sort of encouraged to think of our kids as. That pride allows to you give them even more freedom. And that's always been the way it has been with human beings. You know, you see your human growing up. It's bittersweet. This is the little girl I carried. Not anymore. But, look, she's growing up.

So if you're asking how did we get to this point where all of us who played outside until the street lights came on won't let our kids do that until they're 29.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. You should do it at 29?

STU: Thirty-five.

LENORE: With an escort, of course. And by escort, I mean, police escort.

STU: Okay.

LENORE: The way we got to this point is that we've had really fear shoved down our throats for the last 20 or 30 years, ever since -- you know, there's a bunch of reasons. But the media discovered, first with the Etan Patz case and then with the very sad -- equally sad Adam Walsh case, that there's no story that grips viewers, that gets eyeballs, that gets ratings as that of a white middle class child who is abducted.

PAT: So, Lenore, how did you break free of that? Because it sounds like a frightening thing to let your 9-year-old ride the subway in New York.

GLENN: One, you stop listening to WOR TV, where it says, it's 10 o'clock. Do you know where your children are?

PAT: My gosh. No, he's on the subway.

Was it a white-knuckled thing? Were you scared the whole time he was away? Did you follow behind him at first? How did you let go like that?

LENORE: How did I let go? I think what makes me a little different is that I don't watch a lot of TV news. And I think that is very freeing. I think the reason our parents let us go -- you know, my mom let me walk to school as a kindergartener, not because she was some free-range nut who didn't care if I lived or died, but because back then -- this is how old I am. I'm probably older than you, Glenn. Back then, there was only a half hour of news at night. They just didn't spend it all talking about some horrible tragedy that happened 17 states away. And so if you're not sort of reading in every day the terrible sadness that the news is bound and determined to show you, it's a lot easier to let go. Some people say like, well, you know, you're living in a la-la land. Don't you watch the news? It's like, the news is not reality either. It's what horrible thing happened to .0001 sad percent of the population today. And if I made my decisions based on that, I could never let my kids do anything, including eat solid foods or walk down the stairs because kids die doing those things too.

GLENN: I know you're a fan of Gavin de Becker. Gavin de Becker is the protection detail that we have for my family and company. And he's a remarkable guy. And he has been involved in the rescue of children who have been kidnapped before. And he says that a child is vastly more likely to have a heart attack than to be kidnapped.

LENORE: I know.

PAT: Wow. Jeez.

GLENN: And child heart attacks are so rare that no one ever considers the risk.

LENORE: It is so hard to keep risk in perspective when all you see are the very rare, very sad stories. And we also have something that I consider kind of babyish about our society today, which is that, we demand that if something isn't 100 percent safe, 100 percent of the time, it's dangerous. I mean, we really see no gradations. This is leading us to crazy things like in Spokane. They just decided -- Spokane, Washington, they decided to do away with swings on all the playgrounds. That's because there's no guarantee that every child who swings in America for the next ten years will never fall off or, you know, hurt themselves. And it's true. We can't guarantee that. But you also can't guarantee that a kid in her bedroom won't be stolen. I mean, once in a while, something terrible happens. And if you're basing all your everyday decisions on the very worst-case scenario, you will start acting crazy like Spokane is and getting rid of all the swings. So kids don't get to go on swings at the playground anymore.

GLENN: Beyond that, when I was at the -- what is it -- the north rim. Which is the Native American side? The north rim of the Grand Canyon. Or the south rim. I can't remember. Well, the one that is not the American side. I went there. And there are no guardrails.

LENORE: Wow.

GLENN: There are no fences. It's just cliff canyon.

LENORE: Wow. That's scary.

GLENN: It was bizarre. Because it's obviously dangerous.

LENORE: Right.

GLENN: And I was talking to the guide, and I said, there are no fences. There are no guardrails or anything. And he said, no, it's not America. And I said, holy cow. And he said, but if you look at the stats, there are problems on the American side of the canyon because they put a false sense of security, and so people are like -- they'll look over the fence. And they'll fall because they're cheating death. He said, here everybody stays away from the rim. You have to be a real dummy to approach the rim.

LENORE: How fascinating.

GLENN: Yeah. It's amazing.

LENORE: So when I spoke with the head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. They're the people that put the pictures of the missing kids on the milk cartons. Remember those? Made us think that kids are being snatched left and right and forgot to mention that most of them were taken in custody disputes or runaways.

But anyways, when I spoke to him, he too said that this stranger danger idea was a, quote, unquote, myth we are trying to explode. And he said something that reminds me of your Grand Canyon story which is that the safest kids are the ones who have sort of self-confidence and street smarts. And the way you get those is by doing some stuff -- again, it's called self-confidence. It's not parent-assisted confidence. So you sort of almost have to let people have some experiences in the real world, almost like get as close as they feel comfortable to the edge of that cliff without saying, you can stand here. And here's a guardrail. And here's an emergency number to call. And here's somebody watching you.

GLENN: Right.

LENORE: You must let kids have some independence if you want them to be sensible and safe. And so the idea that we're keeping kids safe by not allowing them on a sunny Sunday afternoon to play -- a 10-year-old and a 6-year-old together in their local park. And we think that that's too dangerous. If you ask me what's dangerous, it's not letting your kids play in the park.

GLENN: Lenore, hang on the phone. I want to ask you one more question. That is this, how do we handle when somebody calls 911 on our kids because they're half a block away playing by themselves. How do you not get the state involved? We'll go to that here in just a second.

LENORE: That's a great question.

GLENN: Lenore Skenazy, by the way, she speaks all over the country. And she's absolutely fantastic. If you'd like her to speak at your group, Lenorespeaks.com. Lenorespeaks.com. Or you can go to freerangekids.com.

[BREAK]

GLENN: We have Lenore Skenazy on the phone with us from Freerangekids.com talking about the story out of Silver Springs, Maryland, where these parents had their kids, ten and six, go to the park. They dropped them off at the park. It's half a block away from their house. The kids walk all the time. They're responsible kids. Somebody called 911 and said, there's no adult watching these kids. The police came, picked them up, took them to the Department of Family and Child Services, and they're now under threat of losing their kids again.

I think this is insane.

LENORE: Yes. Sorry.

GLENN: No. No.

LENORE: Listen. I think it's insane too.

GLENN: I was going to say. But, A, how do we get to the place -- because everything you've said, Lenore, I agree with. So how do we get to the point to where we can -- how do we ease into it? And then how do we stop others from calling 911, or what do we do when the state shows up and says -- because this is what they said. They were responsible for child neglect.

LENORE: Yeah. Child neglect. Like all our parents who neglected us and all we could do was go outside and play. Wow, those horrible neglectful parents. Every single parent in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, I guess, was one of those. So this is a question that I've puzzled over on a daily basis. And I've come up with a couple of ways that I think we can try to fight back the criminalization of very decent parents.

One is, I have a bill of rights. It's one sentence long. And I'm trying to get people to introduce it to a town hall meeting, to a city council meeting, to a PTA meeting. Anywhere they can. It's simply this. It's the free-range kids bill of rights. Kids and parents bill of rights. And it is: That our children have a right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without being arrested. It's that simple.

STU: Radical.

LENORE: We all know that we loved unsupervised time when we were growing up. We all know that if you look at the FBI statistics, crime is down today. It's not just down because we're helicoptering kids. It's down against -- the murder rate is down. And arson and burglary and assault. So these are actually safer times than when most of us were growing up. So considering that crime is down and that we know that letting kids play outside is a time-honored thing that parents have done forever, we should be able to give that to our children without threat of arrest. I think CPS exists for a reason. And you're actually harming a kid and if it's obvious and indisputable and immediate, the harm that they're in, grab those kids away from those parents. But don't grab away kids who happen to be playing at a park near their house. There's just a world of difference between those two scenarios.

GLENN: What's the second idea?

LENORE: Second idea is something I started about a month ago. It's this free thing I put on my site. You can go to it directly. It's called freerangefriend.com. And all you do is you enter your ZIP code. If you want to, you can enter the ages or genders of your kids or not. But it allows you to find other free-range parents in your neighborhood. Because one reason that people are calling 911 when they see a kid outside, is that they never see any other kids outside. It's like seeing an escaped gazelle. I just saw this thing on the street. It was small. It had pigtails. I don't know what it is.

[laughter]

Then asking the officer to catch it with the net.

GLENN: Lenore, I have to break. I have a hard network break. But I want to give that. It's freerangefriends.com?

LENORE: Freerangefriend.com.

GLENN: Okay. Freerangefriend.com. Freerangekids.com. And if you would like Lenore to come speak at one of your events, she's absolutely tremendous as you've just heard. Lenorespeaks.com. Lenore, thank you so much. God bless.

LENORE: Oh, thank you, Glenn. Thank you for having me on.

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.