Glenn Interviews Texas Gov. Greg Abbott: The Best and Most Efficient Governor EVER

Glenn has lived all over the United States, and he calls his current governor the best.

"There's been no governor that I think is as good as Greg Abbott. And, yeah, you can throw up Sam Houston. Whatever," Glenn said.

Not only that, Gov. Abbott is extremely efficient, having proposed to his wife on Valentine's Day 30 years ago, which earned the admiration of Glenn's co-host.

"That's really smart. And you combined two present opportunities, so you don't have to do it twice. You've got the engagement and Valentine's Day . . . that's efficiency. That's how he's running the state --- efficiently," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The governor joined the program to discuss his recent State of the State address, where Texas stands on a Convention of States and his thoughts on the Lone Star State ever hosting another Super Bowl.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: We've said it before. We'll say it again. The best governor I have ever had in my life, and I've lived all over the country. There's been no governor that I think is as good as Greg Abbott. And, yeah, you can throw up Sam Houston. Whatever. Meet Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas.

Greg, how are you, sir?

GREG: Doing good. I'm perplexed. I didn't know you knew Sam Houston.

GLENN: I didn't. But we're doing the history of Texas on radio in a few weeks. So we've been doing a lot of research on him. And I don't think he had anything on you.

PAT: He was pretty awesome though.

GLENN: He was pretty awesome. But you are -- you've assembled a great team around you, and Texas is in good hands.

GREG: Texas in great shape.

Before we get going, let me follow up on that last caller. Today is Valentine's Day. Let me give a shout-out. Happy Valentine's Day to my wife. It was on this day 30 years ago she and I got engaged.

GLENN: How did you do it?

PAT: Nice. What a romantic.

GREG: Did it on the River Walk in San Antonio, Texas.

STU: That's really smart. And you combined two present opportunities, so you don't have to do it twice. You've got the engagement and Valentine's Day. You can just combine -- that's efficiency. That's how he's running the state, efficiently.

GLENN: Efficiently. Really smart. So, Greg, we want to talk to --

GREG: She and I also have the same birthday. So that takes care of that also.

STU: Nice.

GLENN: Holy cow.

We wanted to talk to you about a couple of things. Let's start with the most pressing. And that is the bathroom situation with the NFL, where they say that if we don't correct our bathroom situation, we'll never get another Super Bowl.

GREG: The NFL is walking on thin ice right here. The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.

PAT: That's for sure.

GREG: Let's go back, first of all, to their last previous political statement they made, which is allowing NFL football players to kneel during the national anthem. These are people, especially with the quarterback for then San Francisco, taking a knee when the national anthem is being played. He's getting paid $100 million to play a game, complaining that he is oppressed. He needs to be standing up in respect for the men and women who died fighting in the United States military so he had the freedom to go out and play a game and get paid $100 million.

I got to tell you, I cannot name or even count the number of Texans who told me that they were not watching the NFL. They were protesting the NFL this year because of the gross political statement allowed to be made by the NFL by allowing these players who are not oppressed, who are now almost like snowflake little politicians themselves, unable to take the United States national anthem even being played. And now, most recently, for some low-level NFL adviser, to come out and say they are going to micromanage and try to dictate to the state of Texas what types of policies we're going to pass in our state, that's unacceptable.

We don't care what the NFL thinks. And certainly what their political policies are. Because they are not a political arm of the state of Texas or the United States of America. They need to learn their place in the United States, which is to govern football, not politics.

GLENN: But tell us how you really feel.

The amazing thing is --

GREG: It's a family show, so I've toned it down a little.

GLENN: I know. I was watching the Super Bowl. And if you look at the way they image themselves as all about fathers and sons and the rah-rah America and the troops and everything else -- they know who their audience is. Their audience is middle America. And yet it seems as though they're on this suicidal bent as a corporation.

GREG: For one -- listen, there's something easier here. And that is, if the NFL -- this is a heartfelt policy of theirs, if they really want to do something about, then they can install all these special bathrooms that they want that live up to their policy, as opposed to trying to dictate to states what types of policies they have. You know me, Glenn, I sued the federal government 31 times because I thought the federal government, a governmental body, by the way, was wrongly trying to tell Texas what to do.

Who is the NFL thinking they can tell Texas what to do politically?

GLENN: Let's switch gears. We have so much to talk to you about. Let me switch to sanctuary cities.

The Dallas -- what is it, the Dallas commissioner -- Dallas County courts or something came out.

JEFFY: Dallas County.

GLENN: And said they support the -- the sanctuary cities. We had the mayor of Irving on yesterday. She was outraged by it.

What's going to happen to sanctuary cities in Texas?

GREG: First, we need to understand that these are people -- unlike the NFL, these are people in Dallas County -- same thing happened in Travis County. For your listeners, Travis County is the county seat for Austin, Texas, which is a very liberal bastion.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

GREG: These are people who take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as the state of Texas. And they are violating their oath of office by refusing to follow federal immigration law that dictates two local officials, two state officials, that they must cooperate with ICE and the immigration services. And if they fail to do so, they're in violation of federal law.

And so it is abhorrent that we have local officials saying that they are not going to apply the law.

Listen, they don't have the ability to pick and choose which laws they will apply. And hence, I believe that it should be a criminal penalty. I believe that they should be defunded. I believe that they should be fined for this conduct.

Now, Glenn, I've already started this process. Because when the Travis County sheriff announced a sanctuary city policy by refusing to comply with immigration services, by refusing to provide them information about who they were holding, these dangerous criminals behind bars, I as the governor of Texas, defunded governor grants to Travis County, to the tune of more than $1.5 million. If this in Dallas turns out to be more than talk and turns out to be action, I will defund them also from the governor's grants, which will add up to -- I haven't seen the amount. But I would assume it's going to be more than Travis County. It should be more than millions of dollars.

But we already -- I called sanctuary city policies, an emergency out in Texas. And the Texas senate has already passed out my bill out of their chamber. And what does is exactly what I said, is it imposes criminal penalties. It imposes fines to the tune of 25,000 a day, every single day a violation is taking place, as well as defunding the sheriff's offices or any other offices from any funds that they receive from the state of Texas.

And so we are going to bring the hammer down on anyone who thinks they can impose a sanctuary city policy.

Now, let's tie this back to football. This last fall, there was a man who was leaving a Dallas Cowboy game, going back home. He stopped in Cedar Hill, which you may know -- your listeners may know. It's a suburb of Dallas. And he stopped at a gas station there. And he was brutally murdered by an illegal immigrant who went on a crime spree. This illegal immigrant had been arrested multiple times. Deported three times. Was back into the state illegally. And we have to send a message that we are not a welcoming state for these repeat violators, these people who have been repeatedly deported, these people who now turn into mass murderers because this guy -- the murderer, Juan Rios, not only killed this man in Dallas County, but killed someone else and went on a crime spree across the entire state of Texas before he was arrested. We don't want any Kate Steinles in the state of Texas. And we are going to make sure that our law enforcement officials are going to follow and apply existing immigration law. And if they fail to do so, there will be heavy consequences to be paid.

GLENN: We're talking to America's governor, Governor Greg Abbott, from the great state of Texas.

Governor, you know and I know that the vast majority of Democrats may disagree with us on things. But they're not radicals. They're not -- they don't want to see the end of the country or anything like that. But there are radicals, on both sides, that do want chaos.

And if -- just play this out for me. If -- if we defund the -- the cities, and there are those radicals that want that to happen, and crime starts to rear its ugly head and things start to get bad, Donald Trump has already said he'll send in federal troops. We don't want federal troops in our cities.

How do you balance this? How do you make sure that the cities are -- are running and the people are safe?

GREG: Well, it goes back to the -- if you would, the tax structure of the state of Texas. We won't fully defund the cities. A lot of their funding -- really, the majority of their funding comes from local and property taxes as well as sales taxes. So it's not going to defund their operations. What it will do is it will put such heavy financial consequences on them that one of two things will happen, either one, they will go ahead and say, "Listen, the penalty is too much. I'm going to overturn our sanctuary city policies." Or two, the local citizens are going to be fed up with the irresponsibility, lawlessness, of these local officials, and they will kick them out of office. But a third is, because of the criminal penalties, we will put these noncompliant sheriffs behind bars. They will lose their job, and they will be followed up by somebody who will apply the law. If they don't apply the law, we will put them behind bars also.

So, in other words, we can continue going through the turnstile of sheriffs who refuse to comply with the law, until we find one who does comply with the law. And at that point in time, they will be in compliance. They won't be losing any money.

GLENN: All right. Let's go to -- let's go to something that I feel strongly about. And I'm afraid that there are a lot of Republicans now that have Donald Trump in office, they will say, "Oh, things aren't so bad. We don't really need this."

And that is the Convention of States. In your state of the state speech, you spent a good deal of time talking about the Convention of States and why we need this.

Are we going to -- are we going to be added to the list? Are we going to be a state that is involved in the Convention of States?

GREG: There is such a strong movement in the state of Texas right now. I began talking about this when I wrote a book on it and started touring around the state of Texas talking about it. And there are well over 100,000 -- I'm told, hundreds of thousands of activists. Not just people who have supported -- but people who have actively engaged in the political process, who are taking the capital by storm. Educating the members of the House and Senate, that it needs to be done.

Remember this, and that is last session we had here in the state of Texas, the Texas House of Representatives did adopt the Convention of States platform. We -- at that time, we were only a vote or two short in the Texas senate. I think we will have enough votes in both the House and the Senate to finally get this done and make Texas a leader in this process of the Convention of States.

Let me follow up as kind of a comment you were suggesting about Trump. And that is, remember this, for your audience, the problem that we are in now nationally is not a problem caused by one president alone. Yes, Barack Obama did more than his share to depart from the Constitution. But this is something that's been going on for almost a century now.

It goes back well before FDR who was one of the leaders of getting away from the Constitution.

But it goes back into the 1800s. So it's been a process of erosion. Just the way you would see a river erode over time. Our Constitution has been eroded over time. So this wasn't a problem caused by one president. It cannot be fixed by one president. Simply because Donald Trump is in there, doesn't mean our constitutional flaws are going to be fixed.

Let me give you the most easiest example. And that is, I know you and many of your listeners will know the Tenth Amendment. We want a Tenth Amendment to be upheld. And that is that all powers not delegated to the federal government and the Constitution are reserved to the state and sort of the people. Well, there's a problem in the way that provision is written. It doesn't specifically say who gets to enforce the Tenth Amendment. All we want to do is to add a clause or a sentence that says, "States have the power to enforce the Tenth Amendment." That's easy. That's common sense. That's something we can get 38 states, which is three-fourths of the states to agree upon. And it restores power to the states to enforce the Tenth Amendment.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: We would like to have you back on. I know you have to go because you're a governor I guess of an important state. But we'd love to have you on again. Because there are just so many things that need addressing. And you distill them so well. Texas Governor Greg Abbott, we appreciate your time, sir. Thank you so much.

GREG: My pleasure. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. You know, it's interesting to me. And I wish we had time to talk to him about what's happening in California. California, remember, they all made fun of us for saying we wanted to secede. Texas wanted to secede. And now, Slate and Atlantic and all these left magazines are all saying --

PAT: That's not so outrageous. That's not so bad.

JEFFY: Why it makes sense for California to leave.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No. What makes sense is the Convention of States so you as a state are not being held with a gun to your head, depending on who is elected.

We've got to stop this, now. Because I've got news for you. Trump can reverse all this stuff. You think the other guy is not going to come in and reverse all this stuff when they get in, of course.

PAT: And how about a constitutional amendment to take away some of that power.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Take that power away from some of these people. And just term limit them.

STU: Yes.

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.