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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Beck and O'Reilly Are Skeptical of This University That Wants a ‘Free Speech Year’

August 17, 2017
Staff

WRITER

University of California – Berkeley will commemorate a “Free Speech Year” under new chancellor Carol T. Christ, who is planning to use “point-counterpoint” panels to promote open-minded discussions.

Asserting that “more speech” is the right response to hate speech, Christ has said that she aims to keep students “physically safe” while not shielding them “from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious.”

In February, UC Berkeley students wreaked havoc on campus and caused $100,000 worth of damage in order to stop an appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, a Trump supporter and former Breitbart editor who is known for his outrageous and often offensive remarks.

“Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view,” Christ told the Los Angeles Times. “We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

On radio Thursday, Glenn and Bill O’Reilly were a bit skeptical of UC Berkeley’s ability to promote open discussion.

“I’m sure they’ll respect what I’ll say, and we can have a very, very intelligent, calm dialogue,” O’Reilly said sarcastically.

“And that is the problem with America: we can’t,” Glenn added.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Here's what's really exciting is we have BillO'Reilly.com and Bill O'Reilly on with us right now. I don't think he's going to have much to say when I ask him about Berkeley announcing the free speech year, where Berkeley is going to teach everybody how to all come together and be tolerant and really celebrate diversity and free speech.

Bill, that's exciting news, isn't it?

BILL: Very exciting.

(laughter)

GLENN: You sound almost like you don't believe that might happen.

BILL: No, it's so exciting, Beck, I'm going to buy a condo in Berkeley. I'm moving there, so I can have free speech rights because I'm sure they'll respect what I say, and we can have a very, very intelligent calm dialogue with those people out there.

GLENN: Yeah. And that is the problem with America is we can't.

Now, let me change to the media.

Bill, I think you would agree with me that, you know, the -- the media and tolerance and actual fair and balance has changed on multiple fronts.

BILL: It's done. Absolutely done.

GLENN: Done.

BILL: What you're seeing -- you know, talk radio is the last holdout because basically you guys can run the show the way you want. Your syndicators and your corporations understand who you are. That's why they hired you. You're going to take some hits on sponsors from time to time, but you basically do and say what you want.

But on television, it's totally different because there's so many things involved. You've got, in cable, you've got all the different systems that have to buy the program. You've got the corporations that run the actual presentations. And all of these people are very susceptible to being attacked, as we talked about in the prior segment.

And the far left knows this. They know they can hire people like Color of Change. I want everybody to Google "Color of Change." This is an organization that was formed solely to get paid to go out and attack people with whom they disagree publicly. Right?

GLENN: No.

BILL: And so they're for hire. You can hire them to go stand in front of a building or to go stand in front of a house and scream and yell and accuse and smear and hold signs and do whatever they want.

Well, instead of marginalizing that group as anti-democracy, the corporations fear them. And Color of Change, Media Matters, all of these people, they know that.

GLENN: Well, besides -- hang on. Hang on. That's quite a statement here, Bill. Besides the actual evidence of one of the guys who started Color for Change, Van Jones, working for CNN, what evidence do you have that they embrace and bring Color of Change into the news media?

(laughter)

BILL: Beck, first of all, Van Jones is a self-avowed communist. We all know that, right?

GLENN: No!

BILL: All right. So he even says he is. I don't have anything against Van Jones, by the way.

But the organization -- all right? And many others like it, they're not the only ones. All right?

They are basically being paid good money to do destructive things. And corporations know it, but look the other way and tremble when they get the call from Color of Change.

GLENN: Do you think --

BILL: So this is what -- you want Nazis again? Let's get Nazis here again. You want Nazis? I'll give you Nazis. Okay? This is exactly what happened in Germany in the early '30s, when the Third Reich people would show up and basically tell the newspapers, "Hey, if you say one bad word against us, we're going to burn your place down. Okay? So you better not." Now, the Color of Change people, they're burning the place down through sponsors, not through torches. But it's the same thing. And Stalin did it. And Castro did.

GLENN: Mussolini. Yep.

BILL: They all do it. And people don't know about it.

GLENN: So, Bill --

BILL: No, I'll ask your next question and answer it, Beck.

so how does that affect on television that you see every night? They're scared as well. They're frightened. One of the few that isn't is Hannity.

You know, I've had my issues with Hannity in the past. But I admire Hannity for going out and basically being in your face, telling folks what's going on. You may not agree with Hannity's take, but he's honest about it. And he loves Trump. He thinks Trump is the savior to the country, but he'll tell you that he's under siege 24/7. So -- but that's a very rare exception.

The others are -- I better not say this. Everybody -- oh, that's right. We have to condemn Trump. You know, Trump made a mistake, a tactical error. All right?

He's not an idealistic Nazi, but that's what you're hearing in the media constantly over and over. And who's saying that's not true? They're afraid to say it, Beck. Because then they'll be lumped in with Trump.

GLENN: Well, hang on -- let me give you -- and I agree with you, Bill. You know that I agree with you. I mean, when you're treading the Van Jones, Color of Change, Media Matters thing, I got that one down in spades. I'll show you all the chalkboards on that. So I agree with you.

However, there is one name that people don't pay attention to, and they should. Because I believe -- this guy is one of my heroes: Michael Medved.

BILL: Oh, he's great! He's great.

GLENN: Okay. So do you know what happened to Michael?

BILL: Tell me.

GLENN: So his corporation -- his radio corporation put down an edict that you are not allowed to have anybody on -- on-air that is anti-Trump. And everybody is falling in line. Michael was the only one that pushed back and was fired.

Michael doesn't have his radio gig now because he stood against the same kind of fascism, just on the other side. There is the fascists on both sides.

BILL: Yes. But it's nearly as organized.

GLENN: Oh, I agree with you on that. I agree with you on that.

BILL: I experienced it when I did The Radio Factor. I did The Radio Factor for seven years, and I was not a conservative ideologue by any means. And I got attacked by the right, as you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

BILL: And I remember one station in Houston basically called us and said, "Well, we don't like O'Reilly. We're going to drop him." Good. You know, I mean, because it was -- but it was just one station out of 280.

GLENN: Yeah. I --

BILL: That we had. Or something like that.

GLENN: I agree with you. And the -- the blessing on the right is, you know, herding a bunch of Libertarians and free market people is like herding cats. It's almost impossible. So we can't get our act together well enough to boycott the free speech that we shouldn't -- so that's a good thing, they're so disorganized, they're way behind the left.

BILL: Way behind.

GLENN: It does exist, but it is way behind.

So let me ask you this, Bill: Play out the media. Because people may not know the names. They may not know the connections like you do, like we've tried to lay out for a long time.

But they -- they know they're not getting the truth. And on top of it, all they're getting is yelling back and forth. You're a Nazi, or you're a communist.

BILL: But there's not even much yelling anymore. Because all of the -- not all -- but most of the commentators, at least on cable news, are cowed. They know now that their whole livelihood is in jeopardy.

Look, on Wednesday night -- no, sorry. Tuesday night. Tuesday night. The -- the biggest news night of the year, with Trump in Charlottesville, right? The press conference.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: Guess who came in third in cable news? Guess who came in third.

GLENN: Fox? Fox?

BILL: Yes. Fox News came in third. CNN and MSNBC -- CNN beat them in the demo. MSNBC beat them outright. And it wasn't even close.

Fox -- it was stunning to watch the television ratings come in. Why? Because on Fox, which would be naturally inclined to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt. All right? The benefit of the doubt.

GLENN: Yep.

BILL: They no longer do that, en masse. Because they're afraid. And so the audience of Fox knows, outside of Hannity and maybe Carlson a little bit, they're not going to get a robust defense of the right, of the conservative position. And so they don't watch.

Yet, the left hate Trumpers. Flock in to watch CNN and MSNBC work Donald Trump over.

GLENN: Okay.

BILL: So, therefore, the whole thing is changing and collapsing.

GLENN: Okay. So may I propose one change to this theory and see what you think.

I agree with that theory, generally. Generally. Except this time.

Because of the injection of the actual torch-carrying Nazi banner-wearing Jew -- you know, anti-Jew chanting Nazis, now people don't want to -- they don't feel comfortable with a full-throated -- and I'm talked about the audience. A full-throated defense. Because they -- it worked to Trump's -- to his advantage.

BILL: That's absolutely right, Beck. But you don't have to do that. You do what I did in my two columns on this: You explain the mistakes Trump is making.

GLENN: Correct.

BILL: Which I did. All right? And then you say, "Here's what should take place."

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

BILL: Here's the truth. Okay? That's all the audience wants.

The audience isn't mad at me. My audience on BillO'Reilly.com and on The Hill and every place else I go isn't mad at me because I point out Trump's mistakes -- they aren't. They're happy that I'm trying to apply some perspective to it. That's what's missing.

And so that you have a media now that is -- it's flocking -- it's unbelievable. Let's get Trump out of office. That's the goal of the media.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: So where is the counter to that? It's evaporating, which is why Fox News came in third place on Tuesday.

GLENN: Because I don't think, honestly -- I mean, I have a very low opinion of people in the news. I don't think they're generally curious. I think they're intellectually dishonest. I mean, I think they've gone a little dead inside, quite honestly. And so I don't know a lot of people that can make that intelligent case and draw that line and -- and be able to say, "No. He's wrong here. He's right there."

Most of them are too afraid by the numbers, by, you know, whatever.

And so --

BILL: They're intimidated. They don't really have the intellectual heft to do it anyway. All right?

GLENN: Exactly right. And you have the intellectual heft to do that. And that's why you're being successful right now. Our ratings are going up. While everybody else is going down, our ratings are up 11 percent. Why? Because we will tell you when Donald Trump has done well. And we will tell you when he's really screwing it up. We will try to give you perspective as well.

But we don't -- I don't believe that people are comfortable right now. And this is what the media thinks they have to do on the right. And that is just, you back him. Back him. Back him. No matter what.

That's not the right course.

BILL: You can't do that. But you can't buy into a dishonest analysis. But you're wrong about why your ratings are going up, Beck.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BILL: It's your goatee. It's the goatee. Ever since --

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Did Bill O'Reilly just make something not about him?

STU: I thought for sure --

GLENN: That is not possible.

BILL: Personal attack. Personal attack.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: Bill, good to talk to you. BillO'Reilly.com. Check out his new webcast. Once in a while he has a good guest like Colonel Sanders.

BILL: Oh, yeah, is it all about you, Beck?

GLENN: But BillO'Reilly.com. Check him out every day. The No Spin News. Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate it.

BILL: All right. Thanks for having me in.

GLENN: You bet.

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.