"He's a good friend and a good guy": Glenn talks to congressional candidate Dan Bongino

On radio today, Glenn introduced listeners to several candidates who have expressed support for constitutional values through their words and values. One person Glenn has had onto the show several times is former Secret Service Dan Bongino.

Bongino is running for U.S. Representative of Maryland's 6th Congressional District.

Watch the interview below:

GLENN: We have Dan Bongino. Dan is a former Secret Service guy. A really fine upstanding guy. Really gives me hope that there are good people that are in Washington who wake up. He was standing listening to some meetings after watching my program on Fox and at one point it was like I don't think these guys make any sense at all. What am I doing. And got out and decided that he was going to run and has put his whole family at risk quite honestly, put his family in financial risk. Walked away from everything to be able to run. And doesn't -- doesn't find anything but honor in running for the office. I don't think Maryland could have a better Congressman. Dan Bongino, welcome to the program.

BONGINO: Hey, thanks, Glenn, I appreciate all those kind words that. Means a lot, thank you.

PAT: Dan, there's no real polling on this race, there seems like. Where do you stand? What kind of sense do you have? Do you have any kind of internal polling over when are are you right now.

BONGINO: We did, I'm almost afraid to tell you, because we had $6,000 worth of our signs stolen last weekend and my opponent dumped about a quarter-million negative ads in my head. One poll had us up by six. So why no one is paying attention to this case except for TheBlaze family and a couple of other talk radio hosts out there with an audience is beyond me. It's not even that far of a democrat-leaning district. It's just a slight tilt.

GLENN: Who else is paying attention to it? What other hosts?

BONGINO: Well, Sean, who's obviously a friend of yours. Mark Levin has been good to me as well.

PAT: Good.

BONGINO: Rush gave us a shout-out about a year ago when I spoke out about Benghazi. But outside of that, Glenn, I mean, listen, I'm known you for a long time before I decided to run for office. I'm probably here because of passion and appeal you gave on your old Fox News program one time that made me go look at "Road To Serfdom" and read through it. It's probably the reason I would say I'm doing this.

GLENN: Tell me the -- tell the audience the pivot point. What was it.

BONGINO: Well, were you given this argument and the gist of it was that this is going to require some sacrifice. Obviously I'm not quoting you directly. I have it on T i V o upstairs, the actual episode, so I'm hoping I can take the actual box with me when I leave. But it's an older one and the division is the what did you think this was, goes to be ease?

Listen, the folks, the fights we're undergoing now are not the fights we were -- you know, having even a hundred years ago. These are now fights against people who are saying things like, businesses don't create jobs. You know, you didn't build that. I mean, this is a far different fight than arguing over a 19 or 20% tax rate. But the sacrifice theme you had made me ask myself, what in hades am I doing here. I'm just throwing the Nerf football at the screen collecting a government paycheck as a Secret Service agent. There's tons to do and not talk.

GLENN: So you're a fair tax guy. Can you tell me why -- I'm a flat tax guy. I don't understand the fair tax thing.

BONGINO: You know, I've got issues with both. The fair tax had some issues as well. It's a consumption tax. The reason I like it is because of the incentives or disincentives. The fair tax tax is consumption, it's a sales tax. Whatever you earn you take home. There are no federal sales tax at all. It doesn't disincentivize this thing we called work that conservatives really like. We should work. We work, we produce. We produce, we're wealthy. People's prosperity is measured by what they have. You know, their food, their cars, things like that. So it doesn't disincentivize work. The flat tax I like the idea as well, but the flat tax is still an income-based tax. But both of them have issues. I'm thinking we may be able to move towards more of a hybrid scaled program, flat tax to fair tax later, but they both have pluses and minuses.

PAT: The thing that scares me about tear fax and we're going to get a billion calls, so please don't.

PAT: The fair tax requires that you get rid of the IRS, which is just a monumental undertaking.

GLENN: I'd love to do it, though.

PAT: I'd love to do it, I just don't know how you do it.

GLENN: Needs to be done.

PAT: Do you think it's possible, Dan?

BONGINO: I hope it's possible, because as we've seen, whether it be Nixon who tried it or this administration that successfully implemented, you know, using the IRS as a -- you know, political attack dog program as their own 501( c )(3), something has to be done with our tax enforcement. One of the issues of the fair tax as well, is I think as -- I had a conversation about it this weekend with someone. They may be underselling the evasion rate. And you do need some semblance of revenue neutrality to sell it to people. You're going to have to get some people on the other side to go along or else you're never going to get it passed. So there are definitely issues with both. And I agree. I know when you mention that word, I'm totally with you guys. My Twitter feed will go crazy, too. But we have to be realistic and we can't pretend that there's some kind of -- panacea out there to solve all our tax problems. There's not.

GLENN: So the president printing up nine million green cards. They won't -- they won't verify. They won't talk about something as meaningless as what color the paper is that they're printing in Washington. That's almost a quote. What do you think it means and what do you do?

BONGINO: Well, I think we all know what it means. We're all terrified to say it because we're afraid we almost might incentivize him to do it. Do you know what's amazing about this administration, Glenn? They always pick the issue that really annoys Americans the most and then they poke and prod. Even when it comes to judicial nominees, it's like when they have this -- this portfolio of people and they're like, okay, let's rate them 1 to 100. A hundred meaning the most vile that conservatives will go crazy about. That's my guy. So with this thing I always fear the worst, because with this administration the worst always comes true. This is going to be a massive, lawless, completely lawless amnesty where people who just walked into the country -- by the way, my wife is an immigrant. We did it the right way. I always ask, do I --

GLENN: Why do you hate immigrants.

BONGINO: We paid to be legal immigrants. Do we get refund physical they're going to declare amnesty of of course they're going to do it after the election, which is amazing.

GLENN: Why do you hate Mexicans?

BONGINO: Of course, that's got -- you know, it's funny you say that, because my opponent ad doesn't like -- he eats them after he doesn't like them. So -- did you see that clip with the female candidate running for office who goes off the war on women and the audience starts cracking up like they can't control themselves anymore?

PAT: Yeah.

BONGINO: It's gotten so absurd on the left.

PAT: It's you can blink.

GLENN: It really has. Dan, five years ago when you were first listening to me and I said things are going to be upside down. You won't recognize your country. And up will be down, down will be up. What was liquid will be solid. You never really thought we'd actually get there, did you? Because I only halfway did. And I was the one saying it.

BONGINO: I remember reading on my time when I had a personal Facebook feed all of the -- the left wing Bloggers who would say, this guy is crazy. But you notice none of them are saying that now, because they're afraid to reprint and link to the old articles where the stuff actually happened. The dark money you were always talking about between tithes and Soros, funding these campaigns. And they do the little -- dipsydoo fliparoo, the left. Dark money, the Koch brothers. The Koch problems 15th in the country in donations behind all these left wing people who are out there pumping money with the campaign. All the stuff you talked about undo influence of our government and total evaporation like an Alka Seltzer tablet of liberty is now sadly coming true and Americans need to wake up and the independents among us and the moderate Democrats need to wake up too, that don't think they won't come after you next. Remember, there are Democrats who have been targeted too by this administration. Just ask people at the chase bank and other folks who have been -- and the guy in the -- HHS and the IRS who were Democrats who were gone after the administration after they spoke out.

PAT: Dan, what's going on -- you're for -- I think most people in our audience understand this and know this, but you're a former Secret Service agent. What has happened? I mean, as we watch the meltdown of the Secret Service agency, how -- what is going on with them? Do you have any sense of what's happened there?

BONGINO: I'll give you the Reader's Digest version. When we transferred from Treasury to Homeland, it became just a bureaucratic mess, just about like everything else in the government does. When you expand and grow bigger. The layers of management grew and they became insulated. In my opinion, there was a small group, not all, there are a lot of good managers there, but a small group of innings whose incentives then became to look for security jobs after their retirement with these Homeland Security personnel. They were now almost in bed with now that we from in the department of homeland security. That wasn't the case with treasury. The Secret Service wasn't going to leave with Tim Geithner to evaluate black shows derivatives. That's not the way it works. So the over bureaucratization of the agency created a perverse incentive to abandon the rank and file Secret Service agents for management. It really all comes down to that. And someone said to me you can't blame poor management for the fence jumper. No, you can't. I'm not absolving them of this catastrophic failure of course, but there were people there on the front lawn of the White House that had six months on the job because the uniform division can't retain anyone because they're led by really terrible managers. That does have something to do with it. You can't view in it a vacuum.

PAT: Where were the dogs that night? Because --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: Well, the Secret Service did. The second time. But the first time, no one let the dogs out. Do you know what happened there?

BONGINO: Well, from what I'm hearing, I saw it in a couple media reports and a couple of my friends give me an inside scoop on it. That the handler was apparently afraid that a couple of the folks that were chasing them, that they would be the ones targeted by the dog. I don't know about that. These dogs are pretty well trained. I was in our train center, I was an instructor there and these dogs are pretty well trained to discriminate amongst targets. I don't know. I don't know if he just dropped the ball. There's no question it was a catastrophic mistake.

PAT: Bizarre.

BONGINO: You had some asking why didn't we shoot the guy, which I find absurd. You -- this is the United States. We don't shoot trespassers. It just doesn't happen. Then they --

PAT: Even when they're trespassing on the White House lawn? I would think you would. When they're trespassing on the White House lawn --

GLENN: Or --

PAT: Or inside the house. He took down one of the agents.

GLENN: We paint the front door because it's been stained a little bit.

(laughing).

BONGINO: I don't agree. No, here's the thing. If he had a weapon in his hand, if he vocalized the threat, you would be absolutely correct.

GLENN: Dan, Dan --

BONGINO: But remember the south grounds incident with Miriam Carey when the woman with the car went on the --

GLENN: They shot her in the head, right.

BONGINO: Right.

PAT: That we didn't agree with it.

GLENN: But she wasn't inside the White House. We shot somebody outside of the White House gates.

PAT: In a car.

GLENN: In a car. And we just let somebody run into the White House. I mean, it's insane. Just -- here's the thing, Dan. On this, because you and I agree on everything. Just remind me if I ever become president, you're not the head of treasury.

(laughing).

BONGINO: All right, I'll remind you.

GLENN: Or as long as you just say, yes, sir, Mr. President, when I say, I don't mind repainting the front door. Keep my family safe.

PAT: Don't worry, Dan, that's smog you'll ever have to worry about.

GLENN: You'll never have to worry about.

PAT: You don't have to consider it ever.

GLENN: Dan, best of luck to you. And we're really counting on you to do great things when you get to Washington. We're just really excited for you. And I just -- I can't endorse you any higher than I have. In fact, I never endorse candidates. What the hell, I just did.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: He's a good friend and a good guy. And I wish you all -- I wish you all the best.

PAT: How do you help if somebody wants to jump in and help out?

BONGINO: Thanks. Bongino.com. And I really, really appreciate that, Glenn. I hope you can hear the emotion in my voice. I mean it. You've been a good friend to me and I really appreciate that. Good to know there are people out there willing to take a chance.

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.