Election 2016: Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum calls in to discuss the issues facing the country

The list of potential GOP nominees keeps growing, and the latest man to enter the race joined Glenn on radio this morning. When it comes to standing against radical Islam, no one speaks louder than Rick Santorum. He spoke about the threat of the Islamic State, the role of government in the gay marriage debate, the police officer in McKinney, TX, and more.

GLENN: Rick Santorum is a good friend. And a good friend of the program. And somebody that I have -- and I truly believe this -- is the closest thing to Winston Churchill that we have on the planet today. Probably next to Benjamin Netanyahu. When it comes to radical Islam. Rick and I have talked about rallied Islam before radical Islam was cool. And talked about these kinds of days and what it's going to take and the kind of enemy we would face. Unfortunately, we're seeing all of the things that when Rick was even a senator, he was talking about, we've seen them all come true. And he's a guy who has truly been raised for this time to be able to deal with things like rallied Islam. We haven't spoken about this in a while. I'd like to get his take on it. He declared his candidacy for president of the United States when we were away on Memorial Day. So we have our first chance to speak to him now. Senator, or, Mr. Presidential Candidate, Rick Santorum. How are you, Rick?

RICK: I'm doing great, Glenn. It's so great to be back on your show. Thank you for having me.

GLENN: Thank you. How is your wife? How is your daughter?

RICK: Thanks for asking. Everybody is doing just great. Thank you. Our girl just got a great clean bill of health. And life is good.

GLENN: Good. So, Rick, let's start with ISIS. The president in so many words said, I don't really have a strategy on ISIS. The strategy that we are using is obviously not working. What do we do?

RICK: Well, the strategy is not working because we haven't identified who they are, what they want to accomplish, and why they're trying to accomplish it. I mean, it's all just denial that this has anything to do with Islam or that they have any designs that are religiously motivated.

It's really clear -- Glenn, you and I talked about this years ago, when he talked about the establishment of the caliphate and what that means. And ISIS has established a caliphate. They now have legitimacy within the Islamic world, at least the radical Islamic world, to call people to jihad, not just in Iraq and Syria, but all over the world, including the United States. And they're doing that. And as long as they can maintain territorial control in an area and expand that area, I believe they will grow exponentially. Because when I say grow exponentially -- and be able to recruit jihadists. What they believe is, if they can maintain this territory and expand it, that shows that Allah is blessing them, that Allah is with them, that they're defeating the great Satan. As America tries to stop them, that they can't. This will encourage more and more people to join them. So what the president is doing is the worst of all things. He's saying that he's fighting, not committing any real resources to do so, and giving ISIS an easy victory, if you will, as he moves into Ramadi -- as they move into Ramadi and other places.

GLENN: So, Rick, you're president of the United States. What's the first thing you do?

RICK: Well, the first thing you do is -- you step up the real campaign against ISIS.

Number one, we arm the Kurds. That's the first -- that's the easiest thing to do. This is a fighting force that can fight, will fight, and can win. We have to have a real air campaign. We're flying, according to Centcom that I saw recently, something on the order of 14 HEP sordis a day against ISIS. Which, 70 percent of the airplanes aren't even dropping ordinances. So we're not -- during the Gulf War, we flew 800 to 1,000 planes a day to try to win the battle. We aren't even touching ISIS with the handful of bombs that are being dropped on them. We have a real coordinated campaign with the Kurds. With whatever Iraqi forces that are willing to fight. We have to support the Jordanians. I mean, the Jordanians are in this fight they're willing to fight. They need more resources. They need more help. We can provide it to them. The Egyptians. The kidnapping of these 88 Christian girls in Libya. And the Egyptians are willing to fight the -- the -- ISIS in Libya. But we're holding back --

GLENN: It's truly amazing. We didn't hold back supporting Mubarak, a bad guy. But a better guy than we had with the Muslim Brotherhood. Then we supported the Muslim Brotherhood. Now we get a guy who may be the best person in the presidential palace in Egypt that they have had in modern -- in modern history, and we're nowhere to be found around this guy.

RICK: Well, that's because the president supports the Muslim Brotherhood controlling Egypt. I mean, it's just almost impossible to conceive that the president is standing by this terrorist organization that was turning Egypt into a Sharia radical state, you know, sustaining the judiciary, doing all these things that were making it very clear that they were going to move away from democracy. The Egyptian people got it. They rose up along with the military and took the Muslim Brotherhood out. And our president continues to stand with them and objects to this government because they overthrew a legitimately elected government. This is the kind of -- I just -- it's almost incomprehensible how the president can look at that situation and not see who the good guys and the bad guys are.

GLENN: Okay. A couple of other things that are going on. One is, injustice on the streets. Our police now are no longer -- I mean, we have a guy in McKinney, Texas. Have you followed the McKinney, Texas, story at all?

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: So this police officer has now retired. He quit the force. He's gone. That's insane to me. If I'm a police officer, I don't go and answer some of these calls now. And that's what's happening in some of these bigger cities. We've made our police officers guilty until proven innocent. And even when it's innocent, we don't really care. We are giving the rule of the street to thugs. In Baltimore, they were actually thanking -- the city officials were thanking the Nation of Islam and the Crips and the Bloods for holding the peace in the streets. What do you do? You're president of the United States, how do you get your arms around this one?

RICK: You know, this is a really tough one because what we've had unfortunately is a president who was in a position to actually heal a lot of racial divide in this country and he's done anything, but that. Which is unfortunate. Which makes it that much harder for the person who comes in after this president and try to repair that. The only way you do that is actually in my opinion is going after the root cause of the problems here and start talking about what's going on within the black community. Within the minority communities. And many poor communities. Not just black communities across this country. Which is the lack of opportunity. The breakdown of the family. The lack of opportunity for jobs and good-paying jobs because of a lot of other factors. Poor schools. I mean, there's just a whole series of issues here that have led to hopelessness and despair. And we -- this president simply has not addressed them.

He's promoted more government, more transfer payments, and not real opportunities, not real -- trying to heal the family and the family situations within those communities. All of those things are key. There's a big just published about six weeks ago by a guy named Robert HEP Putnam. And Robert Putnam is a liberal Harvard sociologist. And he concluded, in looking at the problems of being able to rise in America, that the number one issue was the breakdown of the family in these communities.

And we've had a president who had an opportunity to do something dramatic about that. And he's chosen not to. He's chosen to play the vice of politics. What I'm going to do, and one of the things that I pledge as president, we're going to focus on children and providing a society that will help nurture families again. That will start putting families as the number one priority for our country to try to heal those -- the wounds in these communities by restoring the building block of those communities, which is the traditional family.

GLENN: Okay. And the traditional family is usually supported by the traditional church.

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: And I know last time -- it used to be, Rick, that they would ask people about gay marriage and everything else. And there was no reason to ask that. Nobody would change gay marriage. And nobody was trying to change the Constitution one way or the other on that. In a serious way.

Here's what's happened. The president -- now the Supreme Court is going to deal with gay marriage. And the -- we had David Barton on yesterday who showed us some things that came from the Department of Justice, their attorneys on the changes that they will inflict on churches. We will lose our -- our tax-free status.

RICK: Yeah.

GLENN: They will start telling us who we can and cannot hire. What we can say. What we cannot. Who we can marry, who we cannot. You're going to have to deal with that as president of the United States, what do you do there?

RICK: Well, this is tantamount to government establishing religion. When the United States government comes in and says, this is what you'll believe. This is how you'll practice your faith. This is a new religion. This lies, in my opinion, in the establishment clause of the Constitution that says the Congress shall make no law with respect to establishing a religion.

If the government goes around and tells churches what they have to believe in and what their doctrine is, that is something that is a violation of the First Amendment. That's why I have actually some hope that the court will not get this wrong. That they will not go as far as some are suggesting. Because there is no -- there is no way that the left will stop at just tolerance. They will demand conformity. They will demand it from the church and every institution. They will demand it from businesses. And there will be no tolerance to a different point of view on this issue. And that's why, again, I'm hopeful that the court will not do what it is -- does. But if it does, I will tell you, and I said this on Meet the Press a couple weeks ago -- that's the court's opinion. They're entitled to their opinion. But the president and the Congress have an opinion too of what the Constitution is. And if they get it wrong and the consequences are what I suspect they will be toward people of faith, then this president will fight back.

PAT: Rick, the media's tactics with you last time and now are either ignore you or attack you. And still last time you finished second. Now, the latest thing is that supposedly one person showed up in Iowa. Tell us what really happened there.

RICK: Yeah. Well, the funny thing was. The last time around, I had that happen to me once too. I went to a town hall meeting, and only one person showed up. It turned out to be in all honesty the best town meeting I ever had. The one person who showed up became my coordinator for the county. She actually became the regional coordinator. And it turned out, the fact that I had time with her to be able to talk with her, it turned out to be the greatest thing.

GLENN: Which, by the way, had you -- had you end up second place. So it's happened before.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: In a town of 300 people. So three people show up. And you're 1 percent of the town showing up. And it's happened before. But they're attacking you.

RICK: Yeah. You know, look, when I did this the last time, no one was paying any attention to me. I mean, I was going around, going to all these small towns with 2- to 300 people. And, of course, you won't get 50 people. I mean, last night, we were at a town a little larger in Iowa. And we had 50 people at a reception. They didn't cover that. We had a great town hall meeting for an hour and a half.

But when you go to a lot of small towns during the middle of the afternoon, during workdays, and people are out doing their things, you will get a smaller crowd, and that's what's expected. That's what makes this so hard because politicians are used to being cheered by big crowds and being in front of audiences. And this is all about meeting real people and the one person, by the way, who was there signed up to be a caucus chairman for us. Agreed to actually run the county for us.

GLENN: Now, I've read conflicting reports that there were more than one.

RICK: There actually was more than one. There were three or four people there.

GLENN: Okay. Doesn't make it that much better.

RICK: One person was at the bar and had a milkshake with me. I think that's what they were taking. But the point is, we don't -- to me, it's all about quality and not quantity. Particularly these little counties of just a few thousand people in the county. That's what makes it hard to do. That's why people don't want to do it because you don't want to take a hit. And from my perspective, I'll just keep chugging away. They can criticize my one or two or three people that I get to volunteer in every county. But, you know what, that's how I won Iowa last time.

GLENN: Rick, would you do me a favor? Can we sit down sometime? I want to meet you someplace. Your house. Someplace. I'll bring my cameras, and I want to put a list of, I don't even know, 25, 50 questions together. And I'll ask all the candidates that I would seriously consider voting for -- I'm not going to ask Jeb Bush or Chris Christie or some of the other clowns -- but, you know, about four guys who I would consider voting for. I'm going to ask them exactly the same questions, so there's no gotchas or anything else. Would you do that?

RICK: Yes! I will never forget, one of the first interviews you ever did with me. We did this, and I was in a parking lot in north Pennsylvania. And you said, I have 20-some questions, yes or no answers.

GLENN: That's right.

RICK: You asked me about 20-some questions, and you demanded yes or no answers. No caveats. I finished. And I'll never forget what you said as long as I live. I finished the last question, and you said, I want to kiss you in the mouth.

[laughter]

GLENN: Well, that's sick. Although, we have found out now, it's perfectly normal.

RICK: Normal. It's a natural reaction for that.

GLENN: That's right. It's a perfectly natural reaction. Rick, all the best of luck to you. And we will -- we will schedule sometime where we can really sit down and go in. Because I want to talk about the size of government and where you stand on some of the more Libertarian issues.

RICK: Love to talk about that.

GLENN: Is there a website? I'm doing Pat's job.

RICK: RickSantorum.com. Even a dollar helps us. Help us out. Join the fight and get out there and make a difference for your country.

GLENN: RickSantorum.com. Thanks a lot, Rick. I appreciate it.

RICK: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye. He's a really good guy. Really, really good guy.

PAT: He is.

GLENN: Why are we not on his bandwagon?

PAT: I don't know that we're not. I mean, we're still deciding. Still deciding.

GLENN: He's probably one of the four.

PAT: He's in there. Yeah.

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.