Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

John Ziegler's Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

John Ziegler with Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on Glenn's radio program last week, suggesting that George W. Bush might endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days later his prediction came true --- sort of. Another George Bush --- George Bush 41 --- said he was voting for Hillary. 

"Does this count, John?" Glenn asked.

"I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition," Ziegler joked.

Standing by his intial prediction, Ziegler said George Bush 43 could still cast his vote for the Democratic nominee.

"If this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president," Ziegler clarified.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these bi-partisan questions:

• What would make Trump winning the White House an unprecedented situation?

• What favor might Bill Clinton ask of his brother from another mother?

• Is Barbara Bush voting for Trump?

• How much would TheBlaze pay for a pay-per-view interview with Babs?

• What did George W. Bush tell Glenn in the Oval Office?

• What one question could Lester Holt ask at the debate to sink Hillary?

• What's with American blue bloods?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  John Ziegler from Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on this program last week, and he suggested that George W. Bush might end up endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.  Three or four days after he made that prediction, George Bush 41 said that he was voting for Hillary.  We wanted to get him back on the phone.  

Does this count, John?

JOHN:  I'll take it, Glenn.  One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition.  

I -- just to clarify, my theory when you had me on last week was, look, if this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president.

GLENN:  But who does that -- who do you think that actually helps?  Because you will immediately hear -- a lot of people, even me -- I mean, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush and his policies, you know, with prescription drugs and the border and everything else.  He was not the right guy for many things.  Constitutionally, the Patriot Act.  So does this work for or against?

JOHN:  Well, let's pretend it happens.  

And, by the way, you know, as interesting as 41's vote for Hillary would be, how much would TheBlaze pay for the pay-per-view rights on the Barbara Bush interview on why she's not voting for Trump?  That's what I really want to see.  That's a 29.99 deal right there.  I want to see Barbara Bush's interview because I think she would be the one to tell it like it really is.

GLENN:  Right.  Right.  Yes.

JOHN:  But if this were to happen -- if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, but it's just the beginning -- and if George W. Bush really is willing to grab a bat at the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied, and Bill Clinton calls him up and says, "Hey, I'm not sure we can get this runner home.  We need your help, George" -- if that happens, you know, from his brother from another mother, then I think it would have an impact.

Now, would it be a complete game-ender?  No.  But the reality, Glenn, is you would then have an unprecedented situation.  You would have a situation where a guy who has never held elected office, never won a major war, and would have every living president from both parties anti-endorsing him.  I'm talking about obviously Donald Trump here.

Now, we live in an era where the establishment is not seen very highly, especially on the Republican side.  But there are still enough furious people out there of both parties, I think, where that would make a difference.

Like, for instance, how he would win -- how Trump would win North Carolina if George Bush did that, I have no idea.  There's a lot of very educated moderates in North Carolina, and I just don't see how he could win that.  I think it would also impact New Hampshire, Maine, where the Bushes are still very well respected

GLENN:  Yeah, well, if he loses the Carolinas or New Hampshire, he's pretty much done.  Is that still true, Stu?

STU:  Yeah.  Carolina, for sure.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And, by the way, one path to make Trump win North Carolina is have Black Lives Matter burn the cities down in it.

GLENN:  Yes, that is.

STU:  Because you want to see people push back against something, they'll do it there.  

JOHN:  You know, that's an interesting theory, and I've heard people say that.  And it might be true.  

Having lived in North Carolina though, I view North Carolina no longer as a Southern state.  I think North Carolina is very wussified.  I think the white people in North Carolina are as likely to say, "Oh, my gosh, we've got to help this Black Lives Matter thing," than they are to say, "Wow, this is repulsive.  We've got to rush to Donald Trump."  That's just my gut feeling, having lived there.

STU:  Hmm.

GLENN:  So let me go here:  We were talking about George Bush doing this.  And we've pretty much come to the conclusion -- I mean, I sat with Donald Trump -- or, not Donald Trump.  George Bush.  

Do you know George by any chance, John?

JOHN:  I don't.  But my marriage is intact because I somehow got George W. Bush to take a picture with my wife and I backstage at The Tonight Show a couple years ago.  And my wife is a huge fan.  But I do not know the Bushes, no.

GLENN:  Okay.  Okay.  So I don't really either.  But I happened to be in the Oval once where George Bush was in kind of a testy mood towards people who didn't necessarily like him.  And so I had finger pointed in my chest several times.

And he is -- he's rock solid on a few things.  For instance, I made the point off the air that -- that George Bush said to me, "I don't care if I'm the most hated man in the next 50 years, I'm prepared for that because I know this is right."

JOHN:  Right.

GLENN:  However, that being said, that was about terrorism and not about politics.  The other thing that can be said about George Bush is he is G.O.P. through and through.  How would George Bush do that and throw the party and Reince and everybody else completely under the bus?

JOHN:  Well, his father apparently already is willing to do that.

GLENN:  So you don't buy that this was a Kennedy that was having a private conversation and George H.W. Bush had no intent that that was supposed to get out?

JOHN:  That's quite possible.  But the reality is, there were a lot of people there, and, you know, the Bush team did not deny it.  It's also -- I mean, you know how these blue bloods work.  I mean, that would be a great betrayal if there was not at least some understanding that it was okay for this to get out.  But it's the Kennedys.  So who the heck knows?

So, look, I'm not pretending that -- I do not believe this is going to happen because I don't think it's going to be that close in the closing days.  But I do believe that George W. Bush, to your point, Glenn, is a guy who cares more about the country than he cares about his own personal self-interest or reputation.

GLENN:  Yeah.

JOHN:  And oddly enough, I think the thing that would keep him from doing it is he probably has so much class that he would be -- he doesn't want to be perceived as doing this as revenge for his brother Jeb, or something along those lines.

GLENN:  Yes, yes.

JOHN:  I mean, that's where we are in this country.  As you well know, when an act of courage and principle is ridiculed as somehow not being that because people want to rationalize it in whatever way they can.  And, of course, the Trump fans are, you know, black belts in rationalization.

GLENN:  Well, quite honestly, both sides are.  I mean, Barack Obama supporters --

JOHN:  Oh, absolutely they are.  But I used to think that our side was better, Glenn.

GLENN:  Yes, I did too.

JOHN:  I really did.  But you want to see rationalization, wait till White House spokesperson sean Hannity on a Friday night announces that, "Oh, by the way, the wall isn't going to happen," and the Trumpsters will rationalize that somehow that was a great idea too.  So we're not living in a world where rationality makes any sense anymore.  Has any value.  The facts don't matter.

But, look, so my whole point on this thing is, I think the Bush family cares about the institution of the presidency.  I think they care about the country.  And I think that they know that Donald Trump has no business being president of the United States, regardless of what the other alternative is, when -- as liberal as she is, as horrible as she is, as corrupt as she is, as much of a liar as she is, at least she seems relatively qualified for the position from a traditional standpoint.  And I think that that's where the Bushes are coming from.  And I don't think that's illogical and I don't think that that's a situation where they're trying to pursue their own self-interests or get revenge for Jeb getting crushed in the primaries by this buffoon Donald Trump.

GLENN:  Last question:  You wrote in Mediaite the other day that you thought Condi Rice and Dick Cheney will start to come out.

JOHN:  Well, no.  Dick Cheney won't because his daughter obviously is running.  And he's got his hands tied.  I think that if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, I think we will see Condoleezza Rice take a shot at Donald Trump's lack of foreign policy, jobs.  And I'd love to see that.

By the way, since this is the last question, let me throw out another quirky prediction for you.

GLENN:  Go ahead.

JOHN:  I think that Trump's big chance on Monday and the worse thing that could happen for Hillary is if Lester Holt decides to ask the Colin Kaepernick question.  I think that is potentially deadly on Monday for Hillary Clinton because that is one area where her hands are completely tied, and Donald Trump can hit a grand slam/home run on an issue that I believe the vast majority of the American people are on his side and not on hers.  But she can't do anything about it because of the racial politics involved.

GLENN:  How should she answer that?

JOHN:  There's no good answer.  She's got to give the greatest "I love free speech" answer in the history of the world, and I don't think she's capable of that.

GLENN:  Yeah.  No, we were just talking about this.  This could be game-changing for Donald Trump.  She better have a different strategy if she wants to win than the 17 Republicans that didn't want to hit him.  And I don't know if she's capable of hitting him without looking horrible.

She's so horrible, that I don't know how she does it.  However, I don't know how he hits her without looking like a big man beating up on an old lady.

JOHN:  Well, if I was advising her, I would have one-liners.  And I would -- by the way, if he decides to be presidential, I would hit him with, "It's interesting to see that you've decided to be low energy today, Donald."  You know, go -- basically use some of his own medicine against him to provoke him into being unpresidential, which I think would probably be a tactic that would work.  

But I don't believe that we're a substantive people anymore.  I think substantively, she will win the debate, but it's always about style points in this day and age.  And so who the heck knows.  

I do think the media will protect her from a disaster.  But overall, she'll probably win the debate.  And I don't think it's -- but it probably won't matter very much because very few people are in a situation where they want to change their minds at this point anyway.

GLENN:  John, thank you very much.  Talk to you again.  

JOHN:  Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN:  God bless.  You bet.  

John Ziegler.  

I think he's fantastic.  What an interesting mind he has.  

Featured Image: Advanced copies of '41: A Portrait of My Father,' by Former U.S. President George W. Bush, are stacked in the George Bush Presidential Library Center on the Texas A&M University campus on November 11, 2014 in College Station, TX. Bush gave a talk about the book moderated by former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., who also served as Secretary of Transportation for U.S. President George H.W. Bush. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images)

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.