Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

RELATED: Will Millennials Turn to Capitalism or Socialism on Their Quest for Truth?

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

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today.  And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world.  You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do.  You don't do it.  You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program.  And so it's already kind of cute and quaint.  It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture.  You're like, "They're just old.  Don't -- you know, just go along with it."  Okay?

PAT:  I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN:  It's pretty close.  It's pretty close.  Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY:  No.  No, they do not.

PAT:  I mean, they watch it less.  But they do watch it.

GLENN:  Not cable news.  Not cable news.

PAT:  Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY:  No cable.

GLENN:  Yes, they do.  

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news.  So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news.  And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends.  Is like old people speak.

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  And you're rolling your eyes at her.  Because you're like, "Total sellout."  And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious.  They're saying the same basic thing.  They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this."  Okay?

That's the world they're coming from.  Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good.  Hey, we're on the road to recovery.  They're massively in debt.  They have -- they are -- they've gone to college.  All their friends have gone to college.  Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY:  If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN:  Yes, they're underemployed.  They can't pay for their --

PAT:  And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind.  That their debt is not their fault, they believe.  Which pisses me off.

GLENN:  Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT:  That they accrued.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.

PAT:  All right.

GLENN:  That the old world, as they see it --

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college.  When are going to go to college?  Where are you going to go to college?  Got to go to college.  Got to go to college.  Everybody goes to college.  Got to go to college.  Got to get into a good college."  

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."  

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college.  And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college.  This is a great college."  Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work.  And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt.  Dad is still having to work.  Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was.  They haven't really been happy.  Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart.  Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house?  Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad.  Why did you do that?"

STU:  It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things.  It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY:  No, it is not.

STU:  Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN:  Some.  Some.  I'm telling you --

STU:  Of course, some --

GLENN:  -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU:  Right.  But let's think about --

PAT:  Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY:  Exactly right.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

PAT:  Move out of that house.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

STU:  Why would you bring that up?  That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT:  I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU:  Okay.

PAT:  I just know that exists.

GLENN:  You have five examples.  You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU:  The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty.  Right?  We spend all of this money.  We get in lots of debt to get college.  And they agree that that's faulty.  You know what, I agree also that that's faulty.  My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis.  Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt?  Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive?  Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT:  Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN:  Hang on.  Hang on.

STU:  Hold on.  Let me just finish the point.  

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem.  The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it.  I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY:  Yes.

STU:  -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study.  That, I shouldn't question at all.  I should only question the cost I acquire for it.  And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this?  Do I need to do it in a different way?  Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT:  Can I go to trade school?  Can I go to a community college?  

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?  

JEFFY:  Not without getting a job though.

PAT:  You know.  Right.

STU:  I stopped talking already.  Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you.  How dare you.

GLENN:  No, no.  No, no, no.  

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view.  I absolutely agree with your point of view.  Here's where we differ, I think.

STU:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway?  Everybody likes to think, I'm different.  I'm special.  I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY:  Right.

GLENN:  Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently.  It's to think collectively because of their generation.  Okay?  To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are.  It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild.  I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility.  So it's kind of fun."  No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle.  Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children.  It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle.  Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently.  Our children are looking at things much differently than we are.  We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this.  Do this."  All of society was, "You -- you can do it."  All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it.  No man is an island.  You all have to work together for the common good."  Everything is teaching them the opposite.  And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching.  And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids.  Get off my lawn."  That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Where their professors are all --

PAT:  Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN:  All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY:  That's right.

GLENN:  We're not.  We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care.  And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy.  Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan.  We need another Ronald Reagan."  They don't even know who the hell that is.  

STU:  I mean, I think that's the point I was making.  In that, that's the generational gap.  Right?  That's the difference.

PAT:  Yeah.

STU:  And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan.  They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush.  Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao.  Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy.  So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think.  What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is.  And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff.  And, you know, I find it to be problematic.  I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary.  But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN:  But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide.  You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction?  Because that happens every time.  It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution.  Very different things, all the same piece:  We, the people.  We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing.  That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.  

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights.  That was all about individual liberties."  

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you.  But that's why they started it with, "We, the people."  Not, I, the individual:  We, the people.  We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual.  We're going to get together as a collective.  

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual."  Because that's all they want to do.  "We want to help the downtrodden.  We want to help."  Great.  Well, there's ways to do that.  And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.  

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme."  Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way."  And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you.  You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be.  They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are.  You're not who everybody says who you are.  I know who you are.  You are the hero generation.  And people are going to try to misguide you.  We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that."  You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking?  You didn't tell me about this part?  You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed.  You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer.  I can't trust you at all."  We have a massive win.  But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/AFP/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.

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.