Glenn: Here's the truth on Benghazi

Tonight I want to cover two scandals and in these two scandals – Benghazi and the IRS – remember that timing is everything. Just last week, it was a week ago Saturday, the president was speaking to graduating students and of all of the messages that he could deliver to people, here’s the one he thought was the important message.

VIDEO

President Obama Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

This is one of the most incredible things. Okay, I can’t take his voice anymore. To actually hear this guy, this is exactly the opposite of George Washington, this is the opposite of Kennedy, for the love of Pete. No president ever says Don’t worry about government tyranny. Are you kidding me? That’s what has made us America and it is something really bizarre for the most powerful man on the planet to say. It kind of wreaks of Hey, here’s my license and registration, Officer. And by the way, there’s nothing absolutely of interest in the trunk, so you shouldn’t look.

The definition of Tyranny: “Cruel or oppressive government rule.” Oppressive Rule: “The unjust exercise of authority.” Now, what would that mean, “the unjust exercise of authority”? Well, you’re looking for tyranny, I don’t have to explain it. Let me have the guys this morning on MSNBC explain it.

VIDEO – Morning Joe Show MSNBC

Man: One other point to make, there’s been many overblown claims of tyranny and abuse of power from the government over the last few years. We’ve had those, “we’re coming for your guns,” that kind of thing. This is tyranny.

Man: This is.

Man: If this is a government, a non-partisan agency coming after specific groups, this time it’s real.

This time, this time it’s real. I hope “this time” it’s not too late. We’re going to get to the IRS scandal here in a minute, but we need to lead with the thing that I think, I hope, or I think the people in the administration are hoping will just go away, because I hope all of the people in Washington are terrified of the news media actually on this story – Benghazi.

Why would they be terrified? Well, because of the one thing that no one really is reporting on yet and it is the truth, what’s really going on with Benghazi. The government is running guns and aid to our enemies: the Muslim Brotherhood, they go into the hands of al Qaeda, other Islamic radical groups and what they’re doing is fomenting revolutionary democracy. They’re running guns.

Ambassador Stevens was the point man for the exchange of guns. When it comes to what happened on September 11, they had forewarning. It came under attack by terrorists. The administration knew it, they watched it happen in real-time, they stopped the military from intervening and they are covering up and have done so by validating the radical Islamist excuse of Islamophobia in an attempt for sympathy and leniency on their murderous attacks. The Pentagon, the CIA, the White House and the State Department, they’re all involved.

And the scariest part is, it continues today. No one will speak out about this yet, but it’s coming. I believe this to be the worst scandal and worst cover up in our nation’s history and we’ve had some bad, bad scandals. The president wants you to look away from this, but we mustn’t as a country. If we don’t solve this problem this time around, God help us, because the administration will be completely out of control.

On September 11, 2012, the president was informed of an ongoing attack in Benghazi. He then decided, strangely, to announce to the world two days later that he just turned in for the night and he said You just tell me what happens in the morning. That should have been the media’s first red flag. Wait a minute, the guy is running for reelection, in the middle of a campaign, there’s an ambassador that’s killed, why would he come out and say Yeah, I was a little sleepy. I went to sleep. They were protecting him. They’re saying, Mr. President, if this ever gets out, you couldn’t be in the room. That was the first red flag, but let’s review on what they said.

First of all, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and the president said that the best intelligence suggested that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

VIDEO – Meet the Press

Susan Rice: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous, uh, reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, uh, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

VIDEO – Face the Nation

Susan Rice: It began spontaneously in Benghazi uh as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. That it was, we saw evidence that it was sparked by uh the reaction to this video.

VIDEO

President Obama: This was a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

This is a really important time. This September 25, really important time, because the president said today, he said he released somebody to go up to Capitol Hill and say it was an attack. Yet two or three days later, he said this, so which is it, Mr. President? It’s only getting worse for them. Every day that goes by, the more they’re on the record, the worse it gets.

They said there was no indication that what happened in Libya was terrorism.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: I’m simply saying that based on the information of what we initially had available and have available, we do not have any indication at this point of premeditation or preplanned attacks.

Okay, here’s the truth – No protest ever took place.

VIDEO

Congressman Trey Gowdy: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you, perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?

Greg Hicks: He said, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Would a highly decorated, career diplomat have told you or Washington had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?

Greg Hicks: Yes, sir, he would have.

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?

Greg Hicks: No, sir. He did not.

No intelligence report, phone call, evidence or anything ever suggested otherwise. In fact, every report from the ground indicated this was clearly a coordinated terror attack planned by a group – not an act of terror by angry protestors. When caught in that lie, the White House tried to shuffle the blame on to the CIA saying the Benghazi talking points that blamed the video were put together by the Intelligence community.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: Those talking points originated from the Intelligence community. They reflected the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

Right. Here’s the truth. There was an extensive amount of input from the State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson concerning the edits.

VIDEO

Reporter: I have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that shows that they were dramatically edited by the administration.

Dramatically. Jay Carney said the administration made one change to the talking points – one.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from uh, referring to the, the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post.” I think I had referred to it as a diplomatic facility, I think it may have been diplomatic post.

That is incredibly specific. But here’s the truth, there were 12 major revisions that went beyond stylistic. Jay Carney said the edits didn’t change the substance of the talking points.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: But the point being, it was a matter of uh, uh, non-substantive, factual correction.

Right. Anybody watch, anybody watch last week? Buck Sexton was on and he had it all on the chalkboard, all of the changes. The truth is, the State Department edits deleted all reference to the al-Qaeda affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. The edits prove the administration knew from day one that this was a planned terror attack and specifically went out of their way to provide cover for the terror groups involved in the attack.

Why? And then why would you instead direct the blame on America and American freedom and a filmmaker? It proves that Hillary Clinton lied in the face of families of the fallen Americans while she gave that speech when she said, “We are going to do everything we can to make sure that the guy who made this video goes to jail.” And they put him in jail. Hillary Clinton also said there was no advanced intelligence that warned of an attack.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: And with all of our missions overseas in advance of September 11th, as is done every year, we did an evaluation on threat streams. And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.

Key word – actionable. I’ll get to that in a second, but here’s the truth. September 8th, three days before the attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and he warned them about the deteriorating security. He told the U.S. officials, “The situation is frightening. It scares us….” And Gregory Hicks said this.

VIDEO

Greg Hicks: In Bahrain, my Shia opposition contacts gave me advanced warning of impending attacks on our embassy and anti-American demonstrations, allowing us to prepare and avoid injuries to staff.

Okay. We received a quote from one our sources, “Everyone in the Intelligence community knew this attack was coming.” This bolsters Hicks’ account and further proves Hillary Clinton was lying when she said there was no advanced intelligence or warning of any pending attacks. However, she used “actionable.”

Well, if you want to excuse her by using the word “actionable,” then we have to know the answer to this question: why were you confused, why did you swear you were going to arrest a filmmaker, because you did have intelligence. Maybe it wasn’t actionable at the time, but once it broke, you knew.

Just a few hours ago, about noon, the president again talked about the video. Here’s what he said today.

VIDEO

President Obama: Immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had been, uh, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen uh, attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film.

Unbelievable. But here’s the truth, there was no protest in Benghazi. It was an attack. The protests in Egypt weren’t about the video either. He’s lying again. We know that the 9/12 Egypt protests were about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik; a terrorist serving a life sentence in the States for his role in the ’93 World Trade Center bombings. So he’s making this up yet again!

No one even knew this video existed. There were no media reports prior to September 11, 2012. It had virtually no views. People weren’t even motivated to email it, let alone protest and kill somebody over it. It is a mountain of lies.

Let me give you a flashback from the debates.

VIDEO

President Obama: And the suggestion that anybody on my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

Oh, well, I want the president to know, I’m not only suggesting it, I’m declaring it and I agree, it is offensive. It’s sick. And so why would this administration do it and then lie? Well, a few reasons. One, it fits with their political correctness theme; their embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals. It also provides political cover for the administration’s lie that al-Qaeda was defeated.

But it goes deeper than that, and this is the one thing that you’re not going to get the Republicans to talk about either. And believe me, believe me, at the highest levels, they know. It goes back to the original theory that we broadcast here on this network just a few days after Libya, and on Friday Geraldo Rivera reported on that very thing, about what we talked about days after Benghazi he said he’s now hearing from his sources – arming the Syrian rebels. Watch.

VIDEO

Geraldo Rivera: I believe and my sources tell me they were there to round up those shoulder-fire surface to air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria. It was like Iran Contra. I think that it merits gigantic investigations. It will all become clear—

Okay, this is really interesting, because FOX News should either discredit Gerald Rivera and make it clear that his sources were wrong, or they should follow that story up. We made the same prediction on September 17th. We’re a scrappy little media group. I don’t have the global resources of Fox or ABC or CBS, but we’re still breaking ground on this story.

Why is it the big networks, with all of those resources have nothing? Well, actually they do. CBS News has spiked a couple of stories on this. Yet, the problem is, is that the head of CBS News, he has a brother and his brother happens to be the guy who changed all the talking points on Benghazi – David Rhodes. Now this is the head of ABC. This is Ben Sherwood. I actually like the guy. He’s a friend, but he’s wrong here. Give him credit, they did break the story on Friday and they were the ones that broke the damn, but his brother is President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, no, that’s this person. Ben’s is his sister. His sister is Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood. She is the Special Assistant to the President. And then you have Jay Carney. Well, Jay Carney is married to somebody, she just happens to be the Senior National Correspondent, Claire Shipman.

Let’s see, CBS, ABC, NBC. Hello! NBC spiked the story this weekend – Gregory Hicks, the whistleblower – they spiked it. The story is a Democrat, a Democrat that voted for Hillary Clinton. But NBC didn’t think that that was important. Maybe the president mocked the idea of tyranny lurking around the corner, because it’s not around the corner. It’s already here. It’s not only here with Benghazi, it is also here with the IRS. And please, Dear God, pray that your neighbors open their eyes, because the IRS becomes the healthcare enforcer in just a few months. And we’ll show you what the press has finally recognized that the IRS has been doing for the last couple of years, next.

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.