Thomas Massie on New Healthcare Bill: 'It's Going to Be Worse Than Obamacare'

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who has been an outspoken critic of the House's leadership Obamacare replacement, joined Glenn on radio today to discuss what he called the "dumpster fire that we're calling Obamacare-lite." Massie's office has received 275 calls from constituents opposing the bill and only four supporting it. He also shared a very troubling change made to the bill just last night, especially in light of Trump's promised commitment to veterans.

"They made another small tweak . . . when people find out about it they are not going to be happy. If you're a veteran and you could go to the VA, but you don't go to the VA, the tweak they made last night says you can't get the health care subsidies that everybody else gets when they go into the individual market," Massie reported.

The news didn't sit well with Glenn and his co-hosts.

"Oh, my gosh," Glenn said.

"What in the . . . what are they thinking! What is this?" Co-host Pat Gray exclaimed.

The House votes Thursday on the new bill in what will be Trump's first major legislative test.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Thomas Massie, a critic of the House's leadership on Obamacare replacement bill is joining us now.

Thomas, how are you, sir?

THOMAS: I am doing great. It's a tale of two chambers today here on Capitol Hill.

GLENN: I bet it is.

THOMAS: You know, in one chamber, you've got Neil Gorsuch doing a great job on his confirmation hearings, and Trump looks like a hero because he listened to conservatives and took advice on the Supreme Court nominee. In the other chamber, you've got this Dumpster fire that we're calling Obamacare-lite, where Trump listened to the swamp creatures. And he's taken a hit in his popularity in trying to get people to vote for something that's not good.

GLENN: He's really come out strongly and said, "If you vote against it, you're going to -- you'll lose your reelection."

THOMAS: Yeah, well, he's got the zeal for the deal, and that's okay. But this is a bad deal.

PAT: Yeah.

THOMAS: And the phone calls to my office are 275 opposed to this bill and four supporting it.

JEFFY: There you go.

PAT: That's widespread.

THOMAS: Yeah, pretty wide.

PAT: Congressman, the other thing is the Republicans -- the G.O.P. yesterday just tweaked the provision to crack down on illegal immigrants getting this health care coverage. Right? They took that provision out of the bill.

So they've even done -- they've even done more than the Democrats kind of did with this particular thing because the Democrats kept telling us, no, illegal aliens will not be part of this. And now, as they tried to stop this from happening, it was taken out.

THOMAS: Well, they made another small tweak when people find out about it are not going to be happy. Which, if you're a veteran and you could go to the VA, but you don't go to the VA, the tweak they made last night says you can't get the health care subsidies that everybody else gets when they go into the individual market.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: What in the -- what are they thinking! What -- what is this?

JEFFY: What.

PAT: Wow.

THOMAS: You know, some of the changes they've made, they say, are because of the so-called birdbath.

GLENN: What the hell is that?

PAT: What's the birdbath?

GLENN: I'd like to drown a lot of these birds.

(laughter)

THOMAS: I call it the hogwash. But it's the bird rule in the Senate that's supposed to make the bill, you know, ecumenical -- or amenable to the parliamentarian. But I think they're just using it as an excuse to keep the things they want for the insurance lobby and to take out the things the insurance lobby doesn't want.

STU: We're talking to Congressman Thomas Massie.

Congressman, let me be a cynic here for just a moment. I was looking at the count from -- I think CNN has a web count from this bill. And I think you can lose, what, 21, is it?

THOMAS: That's right.

STU: Twenty-one votes. And the way they had it broken down was they had lost 19, and there were seven who were leaning no. And, man, does it not look to me that this thing is going to line up, and just, they're going to somehow get this through by one vote. The Freedom Caucus, who we're huge fans of, they're not doing the whole, everyone votes the same way thing on this bill, if I'm understanding that correctly. It seems like they're doing everything they can to kind of have this little wiggle room. And at the last second, they'll give a few things away, and they'll clear this by one vote. So that a lot of people, like yourself, who -- and you've been on record for this from the beginning, you know, fighting it, but everyone is going to be able to say, well, I didn't vote for it, but it's still going to get passed.

GLENN: I've seen this on House of Cards.

STU: That's how this works.

THOMAS: Well, let me what they used to do under Boehner. A lot of times, when it was raising the debt limit or, you know, voting for an omnibus, they would -- when conservatives bucked up, they would go over and get Democrats to vote for it. And so they always had this safety margin. But they don't have that with this bill. And so they can -- it really is 21 votes they can afford to lose.

I've got a Whip vote on my i Phone. Hopefully nobody has hacked it yet. But -- as all the hackers now go after my phone. But 29 conservatives oppose this bill. Those are private conversations I've had with them. They're not leaning no, they're no. Twenty-nine conservatives. That's before you count the moderates who are against this bill. And they're not as audible or public in their opposition, but I think there are probably six of them that are hard-nosed and maybe a dozen more that are leaning no on the moderate side. So if this vote were right now absent the -- the kneecap breaking and the arm twisting, they would probably be short 20 votes. But as you say, the next 24 hours, we're going to see a lot of broken kneecaps.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So what happens after this? Let's take it both ways. This passes. What happens?

THOMAS: It's -- it's going to be worse than Obamacare. I tell people, if we're going to do socialized medicine, leave it up to the real architects like Jonathan Gruber. Because we're doing a horrible job of architecting socialized medicine. You cannot keep the requirement that healthy people and sick people pay the same price for insurance and then lose the individual mandate and expect that to work.

GLENN: It won't.

THOMAS: That market is going to go to hell in a handbasket very quickly. And healthy people are going to flee it. And that's my prediction. And we're going to own it. That means prices will spiral upward. And it will be ours to own. And I think the electoral danger here is to the Republicans in passing it, not opposing it. So that's -- I think it's going to be horrible, and that's my prediction.

GLENN: So let's say it doesn't pass and the thing just gets worse and worse and worse. I mean, either way, with -- presented with this, I just don't see the Republicans being able to win anything because if it doesn't past, most likely, it will just sit there and you guys won't do anything. And Obamacare is just -- it's bad. And people are feeling the pain. And they're not going to take it from somebody who had the House, the Senate, and the White House and couldn't fix this. They'll give it to the Democrats, and the Democrats will engineer a single-payer system. And, quite honestly, Donald Trump will sign it.

THOMAS: Well, I think we're being given a false choice here tomorrow, which, you know, they say you have a binary choice, either you pass this or pass nothing. That's a load of bunk. The negotiations actually start when one side says no. And conservatives tomorrow, hopefully there will be enough of us that say no that we can then have a negotiation. And Paul Ryan cannot go to the Democrats and try and architect another version of Obamacare. He has to do this with conservatives. And hopefully, Donald Trump will come and listen to individuals at Heritage and the other conservative organizations, like Freedom Works, that have credibility when we take another crack at this. I don't see Donald Trump as a person who is going to accept failure. If this bill fails tomorrow, we'll come up with a better one.

STU: Are you at all surprised to see him go to bat as hard as he is for this bill? I mean, it doesn't seem -- it's not like this is the bill he ran on. This is clearly a, you know, Paul Ryan type of thing that he just is kind of just getting behind, and I'm surprised to see him throwing his weight around, to try to push through this bill that really didn't -- isn't really similar to what he argued for in the campaign.

THOMAS: Yeah, well, he wasn't big on specifics in the campaign. And I think he believes that if we pass something, he can check this off, put it in the win column and go on to the next battle. You know, he's got a list of things he wants to accomplish.

The problem is I think he's just got the zeal for the deal here. And the deal is not a good deal. He needs to step back and look at it. I just think he's getting bad advice on this one. And I -- the fallout is going to be interesting because I also think he's being misled by Paul Ryan about how many votes there are to pass this thing.

And maybe he'll come to realize that taking advice from Paul Ryan wasn't the best way -- the best thing to kick off his presidency.

GLENN: I just can't believe -- and I don't know how his supporters are going to shake out, but I can't believe Paul Ryan who was, you know, cancer before the election -- he was cancer. Every conservative -- every Republican was like, I got to get rid of Paul Ryan, that he somehow or another is the savior that everybody is listening to or is shouting praises for with Donald Trump.

And I don't know how it's going to shake out because Donald Trump did say he was going to make sure everybody got covered. You want it to go the opposite way than what he does. This is this awful middle ground that we're negotiating. But I don't know how his voters are going to handle it. Because half of his people wanted, you know, Paul Ryan and everybody out. And half of his people wanted more health care from the government.

THOMAS: Yeah. Well, maybe the silver lining in this is that when Trump moves on to tax reform or immigration that he's promised or taking care of the veterans, he will listen to somebody other than Paul Ryan after Paul Ryan drags him through this debacle. And hopefully the American people don't get drug through it. Hopefully this bill fails, and they don't have to be subjected to this experiment in Donald Trump listening to the swamp and coming up with policy.

Hopefully he'll listen to those voices from the outside like he did so well with Neil Gorsuch.

GLENN: I will tell you that the stock market priced in -- you're seeing the stock market cave. The stock market priced in a repeal of Obamacare. They priced in tax cuts. They're now saying that the tax cuts are going to be a lot lower than they thought. And the stock market is on thin ice now because they had priced in all these things, and it doesn't look like some of these things are going to happen. Does the financial situation worry you at all?

THOMAS: Let me tell you something that's false that's being repeated on Capitol Hill. They're saying that this stuff has to happen like clockwork. And if we don't do health care reform, we can't do tax reform. That's absolutely false. If you go back and look at how the Democrats implemented Obamacare, they did a reconciliation bill, literally a week after they did Obamacare so that they could fix it. And they included student loans in that.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

THOMAS: You can put whatever you want in reconciliation. You can double up and put more than one thing in it. It doesn't have to be health care in this reconciliation bill. Tax reform can still happen. It is not linked to this debacle of a health care bill that we're calling Obamacare-lite.

GLENN: Representative Thomas Massie, thanks so much. And thanks for your leadership on this. We're counting on you guys to do the right thing and actually return us to a free market which would be very, very nice.

THOMAS: Well, thank you, Glenn. It's called the walk of shame here in Congress. When somebody votes one way, and then before the vote closes, they twist their arm and get them to walk down to the counter and turn in a different voting card. Hopefully, we won't see too many conservatives take that walk of shame tomorrow.

GLENN: Are you feeling the pressure? I mean, how much pressure is on these guys?

THOMAS: Well, Trump was in Kentucky a day before yesterday, in my state. And the week before that, Pence was there. And Donald Trump was giving rides to Kentucky congressmen on Air Force One. But I noted, I haven't even gotten a ride on Amtrak One yet.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

THOMAS: So I think the pressure is on the other members who they think are more likely to switch.

GLENN: Are you concerned that the -- you know, Trump does not forget who was against him. Are you concerned at all that they will campaign against you?

THOMAS: That's not really a concern for me. I've had so many people here in DC -- it would be ironic if he joins the swamp creatures and goes after conservatives back in their districts, but I don't think that's going to happen. I think when this is all said and done, he may be more upset with Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan than he is with the people that supported him in his election, frankly.

GLENN: Thomas Massie, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

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.