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

Pastor Hutcherson reacts to Riley Cooper

August 05, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Glenn talked to the always entertaining Pastor Ken Hutcherson on radio today about Riley Cooper and political correctness in general.

Transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: All right. Let me go to Hutch who's in Seattle. He is the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church. Pastor Hutch, how are you, sir?

HUTCHERSON: I'm doing good, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: Very good. Very good. I ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: I'm glad to hear that about Marcus.

GLENN: He is really doing well. It's amazing what this new therapy is able to do for some of these guys.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah, yeah. You know, he was really having problems sleeping and I think that that was one of the major ‑‑ did you hear about the first time we met?

GLENN: You and Marcus?

HUTCHERSON: Yeah.

GLENN: No.

HUTCHERSON: I'm ‑‑ we were going in to do this fundraiser in the Dakotas and I'm waiting for this brother named Marcus Luttrell. Ain't no white guy named Marcus Luttrell.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

HUTCHERSON: And he walks in and I'm going, what? That's Marcus? And we had ‑‑ I mean, we laughed about that the whole weekend, man. I go, a white guy named Marcus Luttrell, come on. Give me a break.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: So Ken, let me ask you a couple of questions. First of all, Riley Cooper is in trouble.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah, he is. Yeah, he is.

GLENN: And, you know, he was ‑‑ you know, I can't imagine you would know what the locker rooms at the NFL, especially today, how often that word is used.

HUTCHERSON: Oh, my lands, please.

GLENN: Right?

HUTCHERSON: Absolutely.

GLENN: Okay.

HUTCHERSON: Absolutely. But it's how you use it, bro. I mean, it's how you use it, what reference you use it. Do you say it to one another as friends, as close friends; but when you get angry and derogatory and call names out, I mean, you know, for heaven sakes.

GLENN: Right.

HUTCHERSON: The boy's in trouble. And if his teammates, which I understand one I think a running back has come out now and said that he has totally lost respect for him.

GLENN: Well, I ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: So I think he's in trouble.

GLENN: So let's ‑‑ so let me ask you this, Ken. I don't use that word. I don't like that word. I wouldn't like to hear that word coming from you, but I understand that you've just used it in a ‑‑ in a sermon.

HUTCHERSON: I used it in a sermon now and in Dallas.

GLENN: You used it in a sermon.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm just very uncomfortable with the word myself, but I just think we have to get over it.

HUTCHERSON: Thank you. Thank you very much. I mean, even when it comes to ‑‑ you know, we're not that ‑‑ we're not that ‑‑ we're not that conservative on black‑on‑black crime as we are blacks using the N‑word towards one another between friends. I don't understand this whole philosophy that we're going to, threatening. I mean, we'll throw someone out of the NFL for using the word, which I don't think he should be kicked out. You know, I think he should really understand what he's done and how he said it and how his teammates are and how they feel. But, you know, guys with black‑on‑black crime gets a better break.

GLENN: How about ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: ‑‑ in using that word.

GLENN: How about Paula Deen who we just chased out of the public square?

HUTCHERSON: I totally admit the best thing about Paula Deen is her hot grease.

GLENN: That's just a whole disturbing sentence there. I mean ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: I mean, the TV network, my girl will be right on there and her contract will be, you'll have to cook me some fried chicken once a week.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: We're sitting in a country now where we are chasing, like the guy from ESPN who said there is a chink in the armor, and they chased him out.

HUTCHERSON: Come on. It's political correctness, Glenn.

Let me ‑‑ can I throw a question at you?

GLENN: Yeah.

HUTCHERSON: All right. I really love the way you said "yeah." Guys, did you hear the way Glenn said, "Yeah."

GLENN: Go ahead.

HUTCHERSON: He don't know what's coming, right?

All right. Do you think God discriminates?

GLENN: No, I don't think he discriminates. I think he judges.

HUTCHERSON: Okay. What's the difference between discriminating and judging?

GLENN: Well, we have changed the word.

HUTCHERSON: Thank you.

GLENN: There's discriminating taste.

HUTCHERSON: Thank you very much.

GLENN: Yeah, Discriminating taste.

HUTCHERSON: Discriminating is negative.

GLENN: Yeah.

HUTCHERSON: You know, I think we are so cautious about what we do. Even our e‑mails discriminate. If you think I'm kidding, don't get that e‑mail correct when you're trying to talk to one another. I ran into that with you.

GLENN: What do you mean?

HUTCHERSON: E‑mails discriminate. Well, I'm sorry, bro, but you got real close. So I think I sent it through anyway. E‑mail don't work that way. God don't work that way. God just says, "Hey, I'm worse than e‑mail. You've got to get it exact for what I say. Close isn't good enough."

GLENN: Oh, I see what you're saying, that we ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: We discriminate.

GLENN: Right.

HUTCHERSON: But we don't want to admit that.

GLENN: Well ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: And I discriminate against other women compared to my wife. I discriminate against different food. I discriminate against different people. I know that's really surprising, but there are some people I don't like.

GLENN: But we are ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: I love them. I don't like them.

GLENN: But we are supposed to, we're supposed to do that.

Pat, this is one of the oldest arguments that Pat and I have had with people and that is we are ‑‑ discriminating tastes used to be a good thing.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

HUTCHERSON: Yes.

GLENN: We are supposed to say I don't want that kind of ‑‑ and I do. Let's go back to the N‑word. I don't want that word used around me. I don't like that word. Now, if you choose to use it, that's fine, but you better have a damn good reason for using it and, you know, in your particular sermon, I looked at it.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah.

GLENN: And I think it was exactly the right word to use coming from you. But I couldn't use that word.

HUTCHERSON: You know, you look at Jesus saying, and calling that woman a dog in Matthew 15. And today we don't understand the derogatory putdown that Jesus said to that woman. It is one of the worst things you could say back in the day. And he says it to a woman. But he got his point over because of the caliber of the decision that she had to make whether she was going to walk away from it or she was going to trust him to the end to get her daughter saved. And today we are so afraid to discriminate to someone that has a greater score to someone in a game. We want everyone to be a winner. Everyone is not a winner!

GLENN: Okay. So let me take you here and see if you can answer this.

HUTCHERSON: Sure.

GLENN: We were in our morning meeting today and we were talking about Detroit. And Stu, what are the stats on black versus white on bailout with Detroit? Do you have them handy?

STU: I don't have them handy, no.

GLENN: Well, generally speaking, generally speaking whites are against the bailout and blacks are for the bailout.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, I don't know if that was the same for GM or not, but it is for Detroit.

HUTCHERSON: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, I was against the GM bailout.

HUTCHERSON: Me too.

GLENN: I'm against the Detroit bailout.

HUTCHERSON: Me ‑‑ I'm right with you, right with you.

GLENN: But they are going to make this about race, that we don't care about Detroit because of race. I don't care if it's California. I don't care if it's Scandinavia. We don't bail people out.

So how do we break that cycle? Because you're getting free stuff.

HUTCHERSON: You know how we break that cycle, Glenn? We vote in good people.

GLENN: I tried that.

HUTCHERSON: We've got to vote in people, man, that's not afraid to do what's right instead of being liked. It's the same thing with radio hosts. It's the same thing with pastors. It's the same thing with our Republicans, our Democrats, our, you know, independents. I don't care what it is. We've got to have people that's going to start having guts enough to vote what's right in this state.

GLENN: I have to tell you ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: I'm writing you a letter right now for TheBlaze, what I would do if I was president. It's going to make some people really mad.

GLENN: Are you? You write it; I'll publish it. Ken, here's the problem. The ‑‑ I think that you're at the last stop. You're at, let's vote good people in. I think the people don't even know how to judge good and bad people anymore, and most people ‑‑ I mean, you've got to start at the pulpit, you have to start at the head of the households. Am I a good person? Have I done the right thing? Do I even know the difference between right or wrong? Am I holding myself to a higher standard?

HUTCHERSON: Individual responsibility starts it off, absolutely correct. That's why one of the first things I would do is I would ‑‑ if I was president, brother, I would take the 90‑week ‑‑ listen to me ‑‑ the 90‑week unemployment benefit, I would cut it to six weeks, and you can't get back on.

GLENN: You would not be popular.

HUTCHERSON: Any woman outside of wedlock that has two babies that's not married, as the government I will only help her on the first one. After that ‑‑ you know, anybody can make a mistake, Glenn. We know that. Anyone can make a mistake. I will help her on that first one. But the second, third and fourth and fifth baby that she has outside of wedlock is not a mistake. That's a lifestyle. And I will not support that lifestyle.

GLENN: Yeah, but then you would just increase the number of abortions.

HUTCHERSON: No, sir. Because I am going to get all ‑‑ I'm going to make sure that all that support we're going to Planned Parenthood and all those things, I'm going to get some good legislation going and we're going to quit paying all that money to Planned Parenthood to help people get abortions.

GLENN: Why do you hate black people so much, Ken?

HUTCHERSON: I love black people. I be one, you know.

GLENN: Pastor Ken Hutcherson, good to have you on and we'll see you soon.

HUTCHERSON: My pleasure, what you had

GLENN: Wait, wait, Ken, are you there? Shoot of the I wanted to ask him about the brown bag thing.

HUTCHERSON: What's that?

GLENN: I wanted to ask you about, because you're in Seattle, I wanted to ask you, how offended are you when somebody says we're going to brown bag it today? Because the City of ‑‑

HUTCHERSON: I ask them what's in the bag; can I have some.

GLENN: The City of Seattle says they're going to ‑‑ they're banning the use of the word, the words "brown bag."

HUTCHERSON: Brown bag, come on. You know, there's several of them that TSA can't use out here. Man, we're so liberal out here, I love it because I'm not ever going to run out of people I can deal with. I'm going to always have a job out here in Seattle.

GLENN: Thanks a lot, Ken. Talk to you later.

HUTCHERSON: Thanks, bro.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.