Steven Crowder discusses dangerous mainstreaming of pedophilia

Glenn had Steven Crowder on his radio program Tuesday to discuss an article on Salon.com by a self described pedophile, who said, "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?"

When Glenn first read the article, he said he thought the author must have had a really horrible childhood.

"You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it," Glenn said "As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster."

Crowder, who wrote a rebuttle to the article, put it in a slightly different way.

"I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet," Crowder said. "If you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: Steven Crowder is a good friend of the program. And been with us since really we launched TheBlaze. And has gone off and done his own thing. And is on with Dana an awful lot. He is really funny. Really, really smart. And we're honored to have him on the program with us. Steven Crowder, from LouderWithCrowder.com. Now doing a show in Detroit on WAAM. You don't have to be in Detroit to do that, do you, Steven?

STEVEN: No, thank God, I don't. How dare you with that lofty phrase before bringing me out here. Now people are going to have actual expectations.

GLENN: Right. So, Steven, you read an article on Salon. And I've been fascinated by this because I was fast food by the story on Salon where they have a pedophile who said, "I'm a pedophile, but I'm not a monster," which is interesting. "I'm attracted to children, but unwilling to act on it. Before judging me harshly, will you be willing to listen?" Now, I read the first article. And I should say, I didn't sit down and read it. I read it while I was on the air, so I read it quickly. But what I saw in it was, okay, you've had a really horrible childhood. Really horrible. You have feelings. And now you're not acting on it. As long as you're not acting on it, I'm not going to call you a monster. The minute you act on it, you're a monster.

STEVEN: Yeah, you know, I still think -- you're not quite monster, you're like Alice Cooper transitioning. It's sort of your stage at that point. Because if you're having sexual thoughts about kids and impulses, you know, it becomes incredibly problematic.

So I did write a response. And, listen, Glenn, I won't walk it back at all. Let me give some context to people. I said, I have a steadfast rule. You touch a kid sexually, you deserve a bullet. I'm not going to walk that back. Now, what I did say was if you have sexual thoughts about children, we'll give you a three-second head-start to get out of the building. Now, that's symbolism, Glenn, and I'm a comedian. So you shouldn't take it literally. What I'm saying is, you deserve a mental institution. You need to be locked away. Because for me, my priority is making sure the kids are not sexually molested. Making pedophiles feel good about themselves occurs way down the list, like into the seven digits.

And I wrote a rebuttal at Salon.com. My week in the right-wing hate machine didn't get my name right. So I'm thinking, what kind of a cosmic bunny hole did I fall into that a pedophile gets to call me a right-wing monster without even getting my name right?

He compares me to Nazis, Glenn. And his plight to that of the Jews in Auschwitz. So Salon gave him this platform. Now, you know me -- I'm up there in your wonderful affiliate in Detroit. Of course, I do it remotely. Thank God.

But I will admit, I do not in any way -- I'm not the guy who calls for boycotts. I don't believe in them. But in this case, I'm going, okay, the guy is calling me out. He's comparing me to Hitler. I might do a little bit of digging.

It turns out, this guy has had a lot of information out there for a long time. You know, allegedly, from what he has written, he has groomed children. Now, grooming is a pedophile term used to mean introducing them to sexualization. And he directly contradicts what he wrote in Salon.

GLENN: Okay. How do you say he groomed people? What evidence do you have on that?

STEVEN: From his own user name on a message board where he repeatedly talked about being a pedophile and he referred to one of his companions as Kay. The code name he used was Kay. All available information I have confirms that this is the guy without a doubt.

GLENN: And what did he say about grooming?

STEVEN: Here's the thing, it's kind of like if you go on to drug message boards, they use the term "swim." I don't know if you know that. Like, someone I know, not me. I don't know what it stands for. So he was saying, you know, I wouldn't quite say I groomed Kay, but I brushed her hair out of her face on occasion.

Now, grooming is a pedophile term that often includes introducing them to pornography, establishing a romantic relationship, giving romantic gifts. And there is him directly saying -- in Salon, he said I would never act on this. That was the linchpin. That was what provided the propriety to post it on Salon. Well, this guy wants pedophiles to get better.

But we found a post from him where he directly said, if we lived in a much more sex friendly society, of course, I would engage in a sexual relationship with a young girl. And he argues that he's more qualified, pedophiles are more qualified to determine consent than parents because they're more in tune with the romantic needs of children. So this is the thing, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STEVEN: I want to be really clear. People can go to LouderWithCrowder.com. We're going to set up a website where people can sign a petition. All I'm requesting -- because I'm a web guy. This shouldn't occur on message boards. But I do think it warrants some kind of investigating from the FBI. Because if Salon is giving an actual pedophile a platform and he is saying these things, that goes beyond the realm of friendly combat and politics on blogs. And I think it's something that requires some serious addressing.

GLENN: Wow, I would agree with that. There's no harm, no foul in looking into something.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: You don't think they will actually look into it, do you?

STEVEN: Salon. I don't know.

GLENN: No, I mean the Justice Department. Is this going to the Justice Department?

STEVEN: Well, I know people have been investigated for far less from the FBI regarding child pornography.

GLENN: No, hang on just a second. They will investigate you for far less, but they're not going to investigate Salon for far less.

STEVEN: Well, I want them to investigate this guy, and hopefully Salon can provide some information.

Listen, you're right. You're right. I'll be audited like clockwork. Believe me, I'm expecting it. But maybe Salon didn't know this about this guy that he could be a more active pedophile than they knew.

So the petition is really just to get either Salon to investigate. And if they don't want to do that, get the Justice Department. Hopefully they do. I don't know, Glenn. I could be ignorant. You could be right. Maybe the Justice Department has no interest in finding who is a pedophile, who is not. I could have five on my block, and I would never know. You never know. That's the problem.

And it ruins everything. These people ruin everything. Because you know what the problem is? You and I can't play with like the neighbor's kid anymore. You can't just say hi and make stupid faces. You're worried. You don't know who is a sex offender, and we don't prosecute them.

GLENN: LouderWithCrowder.com is where you'll find this.

STU: You would think with the way it's presented -- let's give Salon the benefit of the doubt, which they do not deserve in any way. But someone comes to them and says, I'm a pedophile. I want to make a case that this should be accepted. And because I'm not acting on it, it's okay. And they don't know about these postings. Maybe they post this as obviously they are the biggest click bait people in the universe. So they are dying for anyone to click on anything. So maybe they post it without checking it out. But when you're giving them the information that this guy has actually admitted this in the past, it's a totally different standard for them. They should look into it themselves. If they don't, what does that say about their organization?

STEVEN: I think you're right. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the best scenario. Let's say a pedophile comes to TheBlaze. Glenn, obviously I'm not.

GLENN: Let's use another website. Let's say a pedophile comes to LouderWithCrowder.com.

STEVEN: Okay. And it's much more likely. You should see the private messages I get. I wouldn't put it past some of the people who request to contribute.

So someone comes to LouderWithCrowder.com and says, hey, I'm a pedophile. I say, well, what does that mean? They say, well, I'm sexually attracted to children, but I don't act on it. And I would like to write about it on your site. Okay. Let's assume that's the scenario. I can't imagine any parallel universe in which any answer could possibly be appropriate other than no.

(laughter)

STU: That's a fair point.

PAT: It is. It is when you put it like that. You make it sound bad.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Steven, let's play devil's advocate here. And actually devil's advocate.

STEVEN: Okay.

GLENN: Somebody who says, "I am tortured by this. I had a horrible childhood. I was molested as a kid, and I don't act on it -- I have these feelings. I want them to stop. I want them to stop. And I want people to know what it's like being trapped inside of me."

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: I think that is actually an interesting story to read. However, let me just say, if it is happening at theBlaze.com, I do a personal investigation myself. I mean, I have everybody -- we have -- we investigate you inside and out to make sure that you are who you say you are and you haven't been on websites, you know, grooming children or anything else. And we as a company would be very, very clear. We don't endorse him, his activities. We are -- he's approached us with this particular story. And we think this particular part of the story is interesting.

STEVEN: Okay. Well, I don't want to speak for TheBlaze. I'll speak for myself. That situation occurred. The molester said, I think my story is important and I could help people. Speaking on behalf of Louder with Crowder, I would say, have you read the comments section? This is not the place to tell your story. This is not a friendly audience. You better go on a couch with a qualified therapist because my platform is not the one for you.

Now, let me give you another comparison. I hate how people bandy about the Nazi comparison. I think if you're talking about an active pedophile, it's getting into the realm of evil that's comparable to the worst evil.

If Hitler walked in. Let's say he was in the cryogenic freezer. You know, Austin Powers. Came out. And he came to me and he said, "Listen, I screwed up. I was very wrong. I would like to come to your barbecue." I would say, "Hey, listen, Hitler, sorry man. I'm glad -- sounds like you've made some real progress. Let's try to create some momentum with that. But you won't come to my barbecue. It's not the place for you."

(laughter)

PAT: I like that you're going to create some momentum with that though, just to help him out on the side.

(laughter)

GLENN: You are truly a funny guy. You are really funny. It will be too bad when we have to have you destroyed in Detroit.

(laughter)

And left by the side of the road at night. Steven, let me change the subjects with you.

STEVEN: Yes.

GLENN: Let me go to Donald Trump. Where do you stand on Donald Trump?

STEVEN: Are you really going to do this to me right now? You know what you're doing.

STU: Big time conservative, right?

GLENN: Big time conservative, right?

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: I would love to make you even more popular. Pedophiles and Trump people are going to love you.

STEVEN: Yes, exactly. Well, let me tell you this, Glenn. As someone who works at TheBlaze, I'm not a big Trump fan. Here's something that is very interesting to me. And new media is great. And I'll bring it back to Trump really quickly. So new media is great because it gives someone like me the same kind of a platform as, you know, someone like you, someone like Fox News who has been around for a long time. I'm able to reach a lot of people, so I'm grateful. Here's the problem, particularly with Facebook, right? Facebook curates what you like. They go, here's your feed. Social media says you like this. You're sharing this. We'll show you more of this. We'll not show you the stuff you're not engaging with.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: So the problem with Trump. I think there's this myth that Fiorina is the establishment candidate compared to Trump. And for all of her faults compared to Trump, who gave hundreds of thousands to the Clintons, who had the Clintons at the family wedding, who supported her in her Senate race, who got up there and supported liberal policies time and time again. Here's the problem, people are so dead-set on selling Trump because like you used the term earlier, click bait. Right? I know Trump is great for ratings to websites.

So these conservative websites, many of them now, let's be honest, work alongside Trump, have been giving people a steady diet for five, six, seven months of nothing but pro-Trump. And anything even remotely critical of Trump -- here's the thing, Glenn -- doesn't even show up in people's news feed. So you want to talk about an echo chamber. The people who are on board with Trump, I get why he exists. I understand it's backlash to the establishment Republican Party. I get it. That's valid. The problem is they've become like the Obama supporters. It's a cult of personality. And you can't even get any remote criticism no matter how valid of Trump in their news feed.

So there is a group of people for whom nobody but Trump will do. So my problem doesn't rest so much with Trump, but for conservatives and conservative media -- and I know you're not among them, so please don't think I'm lumping this with you, but there are some of them out there that have a vested interest in maintaining clicks. And I know for a fact that some of the top conservative websites out there have policies out to their writers, nothing negative of Trump because they don't want to risk the backslash or the boycotts. And I hate to see ball-less conservatives. I hate to see it.

GLENN: Steven, great to have you on. We'll talk again. LouderWithCrowder.com. Steven Crowder.

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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

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.