Dinesh D'Souza to lift the veil on the Democratic Party in new documentary film

On radio Monday, author and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza joined Glenn to discuss a new film he's creating with Gerald Molen - producer of Schindler's List, Jurassic Park and other classics. The new film, called Stealing America, will open during the Democratic Convention in July, 2016.

D'Souza compared the narrative of the film with his previous documentary, 2016: Obama's America, which he released in 2012 as an attempt to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of the incumbent president people didn't know.

"We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are, and I think the Obama we described is the Obama he's turned out to be," D'Souza said. "We want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party."

He went on.

"People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side," he said. "But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery."

Listen to the eye-opening dialogue below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza, you know he is -- is one of my favorite writers. He came out with an incredible documentary right before the election last time that really kind of showed Obama's America and what he was planning on doing. And Gerald Molen is a guy that you know his work. You may not know him. Schindler's List. Minority Report. Jurassic Park. Days of Thunder. Rain Man. As executive producer. They are now working on a new movie called Stealing America. Welcome, guys. How are you?

DINESH: Great to be here, Glenn.

GLENN: Dinesh, this is coming out during the Democratic convention, and it is?

DINESH: Yeah. You know, four years ago, we tried to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of him that people didn't know. And part of what I wanted to say about Obama is that he wasn't just a bungler. He wasn't just an amateur, someone who didn't know what was going on. He actually wanted to see a shrinking of American prosperity and power. And so he we made a call on Obama. We made some predictions about Obama. And here we are. And I think the Obama we described as the Obama has turned out to be.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So we want to do the same thing with Hillary. But in the new film, I want to go beyond the candidate, and look at the secret history of progressivism and of the Democratic Party.

GLENN: Love this.

DINESH: Because there's a whole narrative here, the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy. It's the party of progress. It's the party of abolitionism and equal rights and equal opportunity and women.

GLENN: It's the exact opposite.

DINESH: So the truth is completely different. And this truth is buried. It's not just buried in the media, it's buried in academia so that there's a kind of false narrative out there. And that's all young people are exposed to. So we think part of the decision next year is a decision about -- not just about America, but what really does progressivism and the Democratic Party stand for?

GLENN: And it's unbelievable, because we're working on a new book that will come out right before the election called The Progressives. And it is the same thing, that people don't understand what they're dealing with. They have no idea. What is the -- what is the thing that you have put together so far that you say, "People are going to be shocked when they find out?"

DINESH: We're going to -- we're going to tell a new story about the party system in America. We'll tell you a new story about the Civil War. People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side. But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery.

So in other words, right away, you see that this was not so much a North/South divide, it was a divide between the Republican and the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party, both in the north and in the south, staunchly defending and digging in in to protect slavery.

Now, of course, part of the narrative we'll deal with in the film is just the idea that, "Oh, yes, that's how things used to be. But we Democrats got really enlightened, and we got really smart. And now we're the good guys. And all the Dixiecrats and all the old slavery and segregation guys became Republicans." That is part of the official narrative. So this is part of the intellectual content of this movie. So we'll have a movie about a candidate. And we'll lift a lot of veils to show the candidate behind the mask. But we'll also lift the veils on the party itself.

GLENN: Do you guys think that Hillary will be the candidate? Gerald?

GERALD: I think it's questionable right now.

GLENN: I mean, put a movie in production that has Hillary Clinton as the candidate. I'm not sure. She is -- I mean, I hope she is. She's so wildly unlikable, by even her own party.

GERALD: It doesn't necessarily have to be all about her. The point that Dinesh has made about the -- you know, getting the truth about what the Democratic Party is all about. What they've been about. And about how anything that has become good in America, they have basically stolen. Abraham Lincoln was not a Democrat, even though they want to say so.

GLENN: How do you go from Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, all of these things, and then go to documentaries. Why are you doing that, Gerald?

GERALD: Look, I'm not a kid anymore. I've got grandkids and great-grandkids. And I really, really wanted them to have a little piece of America like I had, maybe the same opportunities that I had. And this guy right here has afforded me the opportunity to step back, and I don't worry about the big films anymore. I think the documentaries have a chance on being bigger because they speak -- if nothing but truth, to life. And I'm just concerned about those kids, and that's why I'm here.

GLENN: When you look at Schindler's List, it's happening all over again now with the Christians in the Middle East. And you would think that that's one of your more important films. But Minority Report, I would make a case, I mean, with exception of the pro cogs that are in the milk bath, that was so far ahead of its time. We're now seeing a lot of the stuff that was in Minority Report. Did you -- when you guys were putting that together, did you think, "Oh, this is total science fiction?" Or did you think, "Parts of this are real that are coming?"

GERALD: I looked it as strictly just --

GLENN: Just a movie?

GERALD: Just a movie, yeah. Just, it was fun and well put together by, you know, the genius himself. I enjoyed working on that film just for that reason.

GLENN: You did a lot of work with Spielberg. How did you get connected?

GERALD: I love him. I worked on a project in 1985 called The Color Purple as a production manager, and our relationship grew from that point on.

GLENN: Amazing. And now you're connected. How did you guys --

GERALD: I keep looking for geniuses.

(laughter)

DINESH: Well, someone told me that if I was going to go from being a writer and a think tank guy and a speaker to making films, that I should find someone who could really help me do that in the right way.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: So they said, "Have you heard of this guy, Jerry Molen?" And I had -- I mean, I knew once I saw his resume. So I went and found Jerry, and I left him a copy of my book. And we talked. And we realized that although we come from opposite ends of the earth, our stories are actually unbelievably similar. By that, I mean, both of us are sort of outside guys who went into something. And we have experienced the American dream in our own life. And ultimately, our politics is based on that.

GLENN: When we're looking at the things that are coming, Dinesh, you and I have talked about the state of our country for quite some time. And I'm to the point to where I'm -- I think we've missed all the exits. We're going to pay a very heavy price. I don't know what that entails, but we're going to pay a very heavy price. And not just us, the entire western world.

DINESH: And the entire world. Because America brought something new into the world. And it's made the world a lot better. It's almost impossible to envision the 20th century without America, what would have happened to World War II. What would have happened to the Cold War? And I think Americans don't realize that for the last 65 years, they've been living in a privileged position, in which American prosperity, American power, the American passport is better than anybody else's passport. So once that goes away, history shows that it never comes back.

I mean, think of the ancient Athenians. Or think even about -- the sun did set on the British empire, and British empire is just never coming back. So America has its moment now, but if we squander it -- and I think what drives me nuts is I think that at the highest level, it's being squandered deliberately. And by deliberately, I mean by an ideological vision that wants America to be subtracted, to be shrunk, to be reduced. And if anyone had said, you know, even seven years ago that the United States would be, in a sense, in an oppositional position against Israel and aligned with Iran, I think even Democrats would have thought that was crazy. That would never happen.

GLENN: And we don't seem to care now. I mean, if I would have said to you ten years ago -- in fact, during the Obamacare debate, one of the deals was, "You're going to be paying for abortions." No, that's outrage that you could even say something like that. No, no, no. Look, now, even the Republicans won't do anything to stop us paying for Planned Parenthood and abortions. I mean, it's insane, where we have end up. And people just seem to be kind of okay with it.

DINESH: Or even the idea that this whole stand -- Shout Your Abortion. The idea of abortion as a positive good. It almost reminds me of the time when, during the American founding, slavery was seen, even by people who had slaves, as a regrettable necessity. Thomas Jefferson said, "We have the wolf by the tail. We can't hold it, and we can't let it go." So this ambivalence was there, even on the part of the South and the southern planters. But starting about the 1820s, you had the positive good school of slavery, the idea that slavery was good, not just for the slave owner, but good for the slave.

This was like taking things way beyond -- and no one thought that in the 18th century. Similarly now with abortion, we've gone from sort of safe, legal, and rare, to this sort of idea that this should be promulgated.

GLENN: That this is actually good.

DINESH: A sacrament in modern liberalism.

GLENN: Yeah. You mentioned the youth. I'm torn. There is -- there's two sides. There are those who are completely clueless that have bought into it 100 percent. See America as the bad guy. See capitalism as, you know, a horrible, horrendous thing. And then you see another side, the side generally speaking, I think it's the Christian youth, that are awake and saying, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute." And are active. Which way do they fall? And how does this film actually hit them?

DINESH: I think that there's an idealism in young people that's very good. And there's a brand of conservatism that some people have been selling for 30 years, which does not resonate with young people. And that's the idea that, "Hey, you're young and idealistic, and we know that you're a liberal. But wait till you become older and jaded like we are and start having to pay taxes, and then we hope you'll swing over to our side." But that's never going to tap into the idealism of young people. We need a competing idealism.

GLENN: That's right. Are you a little shocked that in the -- we just said it earlier today. That there's not this -- that many of the people who are running today -- I said to -- which candidate was it recently? I said, "Stop with the IRS. What I'm looking for is someone who comes up and says there's a whole new way to do this." Because that's what we're doing with everything else in society. Everything else is, there's a whole new way of doing this. Why are we doing something that was started in the early teens of the last century and saying, "That's a good system." It's not. I'm looking for game-changers. I'm looking for people who say, "I have a completely new way of looking at this, through the framework of the Constitution. But a totally different system." Are you surprised that we're not getting that kind of thinking from very many -- I mean, Bernie Sanders is still looking back at the old system. But Bernie Sanders, that's what is attractive about him to so many people, is he's saying, "This doesn't work. We're going to try something entirely new."

DINESH: Yeah, both sides are actually now in a moment of reaction, in my opinion. We are -- our team is back to the '80s, and their team is back to the '60s.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DINESH: Now, when I came to America, this was in the very late '70s, there was a kind of electricity around modern conservatism. It actually didn't come from Reagan. It preceded Reagan. A lot of the ideas that we consider Reaganism were out there. Jack Kemp was talking about supply-side economics. General Daniel Graham was talking about missile defenses. And so there was a whole new way of looking at the world, but we haven't advanced beyond that. And so I think we're back in that moment now when we do need not only new ideas, but new ways of getting those ideas out.

GLENN: Do you see them on the horizon? Do you see -- who are the leaders of tomorrow? Have you seen anybody that -- that you're excited about?

DINESH: Well, let me put it this way. I think that when I look back at Reagan. Reagan came along, and all the ideas were out there. And Reagan said, "I like this. I like that. I like this." And that became Reaganism. So, in other words, it's a mistake for us to look to these candidates and say, "You're going to save us. We're waiting for you to come up with these ideas and then we're going to -- no, the candidates are actually looking to us to generate the ideas.

GLENN: But do you see someone that is capable of selling those ideas? Like my guy is Ted Cruz. But I -- I worry about his ability to sell it to the American people. Do you see a good -- do you see a good person out there? You're going to vote today. Who are you voting for?

GERALD: Today?

GLENN: Yeah.

GERALD: Rubio?

GLENN: Why?

GERALD: Because I like his message. And the more I listen to him, the more I like it. He seems to be able to get across and make his point, I think understood by the people that he's speaking to.

DINESH: It's surprising. And I feel this a little myself. As I talk to people, "Who are you for?" And they're hesitant to say. They're hesitant to say in part because they feel that our field is wide, it's deep, it's diverse, it says a lot of good stuff out there. It's not like previous times, where we want to pull our hair out.

There's an impressive group of guys out there, and gal. But not -- one hasn't come forward, I think where people feel like, "That's our man. That's the guy who is going to take it all the way." And so we're in that shaking out moment. And Trump, of course, is in the middle of it breaking all the toys and kicking everything upside down. I don't think a bad thing, by the way. Because I think the Republican Party has been so sleepy, so out of it, so disengaged, that it takes a little bit of a bull in a China shop to wake those people --

GLENN: I really don't have a problem with him being a bull in a China shop. I'm surprised how many conservatives look at him and say, "Yeah, I'll take him." I mean, I understand he's making things interesting. He's breaking things up. I understand the role he's playing right now. But to look at him and say -- after all we've gone through, with saying, "Constitution, Constitution, Constitution." And then to have a guy who is like really not a Constitution guy.

DINESH: I think it's because people distrust the Republican team from -- look, we had a Republican House and Congress. So the question becomes, "What do those guys do all day?" I feel like Obama wakes up every morning and goes, "How do I put the knife a little more deeply into the other side?" That's his daily agenda. And our side appears to wake up thinking, "How do we prevent the knife from going a little more deeply into our back today?"

GLENN: Right.

DINESH: That's all we do. So people are annoyed, they're frustrated, and they feel maybe Trump will do something different.

GLENN: Dinesh D'souza and Gerald Molen, the name of the next project that is coming out during the Democratic Convention is Stealing America.

Stealing America by Dinesh D'souza. Thanks guys for being a part of the program.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.