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

'This guy is lying to you': Glenn breaks down the case against Grover Norquist

March 28, 2015
Staff

WRITER

GLENN: So let me make this case for you. And I think this is the most important part of this whole interview with Grover Norquist last night. You want to know who Grover Norquist is? He will tell you that he is a guy who is fighting the bad guys in the Middle East. He started the Islamic Institute. He took two checks of $10,000 each from Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi. A guy who [was sentenced to] prison for 23 years. His sentence has just been reduced to 16 years by the Obama administration.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: Yes. Al-Amoudi's number two man is Khaled Saffuri. When Al-Amoudi is known as a guy who is going to jail, Grover Norquist says he distances himself from it. But the number two man for Al-Amoudi is Saffuri. Grover brings him in as the co-founder of the Islamic Institute. Okay?

Doesn't make sense to me. I think you should probably ask a few questions. Now, Grover says, he didn't like Al-Amoudi because Saffuri had told him he was an old-style Muslim. If you remember at the beginning of the interview, he was saying that the problem was the old-style Muslim. So why would you take money from an old-style Muslim? Why would you take a loan from a guy who was an old-style Muslim, who also started many of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in the United States? Why would you be involved with him at all, if Saffuri told you that's who he was? Then he gets involved with Sami Al-Arian. He claims, 'I barely knew him. Maybe I sneezed in the same room he was in, but I didn't even know him.'

Then Jamal al Barzinji. Jamal is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S. He is the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S.

Grover Norquist marches him in to the Treasury Secretary's office arm-in-arm saying we have to stop the secret evidence trail. When they were looking to shut down Muslim Brotherhood financing and terror financing and money laundering here in the United States, it was Grover Norquist and Jamal al Barzinji that walked into the Treasury Secretary and demanded that it stop.

Now, last night, he tried to say, 'well, it didn't prove any fruit. There was nobody that was indicted.'

The guy he mentioned that didn't come up with anything, we have the draft subpoena. I think it's 116 charges of money laundering and terror financing. It was the Justice Department under -- who is our current Justice Department guy? Head of the FBI, Holder. It was Holder's office that called it off. So they had the charges ready to go, and Holder called it off. So that doesn't hold any water.

But what did Barzinji do? Well, he also started Muslim Brotherhood front groups or his name is on the roster. He's part of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Then we got to Suhail Khan. Now, Suhail Khan has worked with the White House. This guy is fully laundered. This is the Van Jones of the Muslim Brotherhood. Everybody trusts Suhail Khan.

Last night I asked him, are you friends with Suhail Khan? Are you friends with him? I'll play his answers in a little while. His answer is stunning. I guess. It's my understanding that he and Suhail Khan are very close. Very close. That these two are joined at the hip. That they are very good friends.

He answered the question, 'I guess.' So wait a minute. What does that mean. Is he a friend? 'Well, he's a friend as much as anybody has a friend in Washington.' What does that mean? So he's not a friend? 'Well, I have a lot of friends in Washington. 150 people in my office every Wednesday, you know, that I have meetings with and I guess they're all friends too.'

So he's distancing himself from Suhail Khan. Why would you do that? If you think this guy is absolutely clean and you are indeed a friend.

Stu, if somebody came to you and said, are you friends with Glenn Beck? 'Yes.'

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Really close friends? 'Yeah, I guess. We've been together for a long time. Know each other really well.; Why? If they smeared all your other friends, I would hope you would say, 'look, I know Glenn. What charges are you making here, he's a good guy.' Right?

He didn't say that. He never said that.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. 'Yes, I'm friends.' That's not a hard question to answer, okay? Especially a guy who has been clean and clear for everybody. He's got the full weight of the White House behind him saying Suhail Khan is a great guy.

STU: You would be proud. You're tying someone who is a good guy to yourself.

GLENN: For instance, he said about al Barzinji, he said, 'what charges are you making against him? He's a good guy.' And I said, 'he was the founding father of the American Muslim Brotherhood. I think that is enough said.' 'Well, I don't think so.'

Okay, so he stands for the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group he says at the very beginning is a bad group.

STU: Yep. Should be opposed.

GLENN: So he should be opposed. But he won't do that with Suhail Khan. He doesn't see my line of questioning. I think he thought I was going for another line of questioning with Suhail Khan. But here was my line of questioning. Remember, you're starting the anti-Klan thing. You're looking for people that can help you get people away from the Klan.

Suhail Khan's parents were Muslim Brotherhood, bad Muslim Brotherhood. They're friends with Al-Amoudi, a guy who is serving a prison sentence. They actually were involved in getting al-Zawahiri in to the United States covertly in the 1990s. Okay? So he could observe. That's the number two al-Qaeda guy under Osama bin Laden and then the number one guy after Osama bin Laden's death. So a really bad guy. They help him get into the United States covertly.

Then a few weeks or a few months before the World Trade Center bombing, they have a dinner with the Blind Sheik. So are there parents that are more Muslim Brotherhood than Suhail Khan's parents?

STU: That's pretty hardcore.

GLENN: If these things are contract accurate, that's the hardest core of hardest core. So here's what I asked. 'So you're friends with him. Have you had a beer with him and just shot the breeze?' 'Well, yeah.'

'Have you asked him, what was it like growing up in a household like that? What was it like to have your parents bring in the blind sheik, friends with Al-Amoudi, al-Zawahiri, what was that like?' 'No, I didn't ask that.' Play cut 11.

GLENN: Have you ever said to him, so Suhail, your folks were -- were pretty intense? I mean, your folks were Muslim Brotherhood, your folks just before the World Trade Center bombing had the blind sheik over to the house. What was that like?

GLENN: Listen to this.

GROVER: His dad has been dead for 15 years. Twenty years or something. So I've never discussed his dead father with him. I've heard -- again, I've heard the accusation.

GLENN: I've heard the accusation. I didn't talk to his father, who has been dead for 15 or 20 years, he says. Fifteen or 20 years. Well, I think the pain - it's not like he died last Wednesday. He's been dead for 15 or 20 years. Stu, you're running it. I have the guy whose parents were both grand wizards of the Klan, okay? They brought in the worst of the worst. They made the ropes and picked out the trees. They had David Duke over for dinner. He's out.

Two-part question. The son is out. He is against the Klan now. You're running an anti-Klan thing. Do you say, 'you know, I hate to bring this up because I know your dad is dead and it must have been horrible, but this can really help us, you're a massive asset, how did you get out?' Do you say that?

STU: Not only do I say it, it's the most interesting thing about you. It's literally priority number one to talk to someone like that. This is what my organization is designed to do.

JEFFY: On top of the fact, why do you have to ask that?

GLENN: That's question number two! Can I ask you -- have you ever met David Horowitz?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: David Horowitz parents were the worst of the worst. They were communist sympathizers. They were part of the undoing of the US during the red scare and everything else. They were spies. You can't shut David Horowitz up. You're like, can we talk about something else besides -- okay. If your parents were Muslim Brotherhood Al-Amoudi, Blind Sheik, al-Zawahiri, and you're now in the White House, you would be the biggest -- people around you would be like, 'please shut up. I get it.' You would be the number one guy ringing the warning bell. They've never discussed it. He is lying.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court that makes no sense whatsoever.

STU: I mean, it just makes sense. Here is an example of the exact thing you want. Someone with radical parents to turn around against those organizations. You have that person in front of you as a good friend on a routine basis, and it never comes over a ten-year --

GLENN: Fifteen-year time span. It makes no sense whatsoever. You've never discussed that. Makes no sense.

Now, my question to you is, you didn't accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now, this guy agrees with you on much of the stuff. He agrees with you, lower taxes. He's helping people get elected and everything else. He's on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent? Do you have the balls to have the courage of your conviction and say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term, but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the G.O.P. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of 150 Republicans every single Wednesday.

Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he white-washed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in?

This guy is lying to you.

STU: And what's important about this is, when we all look at the Republican Party and people working in those circles in Washington and we wonder why over and over and over again we -- we're able to win elections and not get the results that we want, we're able to put -- we have so many people saying the right things, but never doing the right things. Why does this continue to happen? This very well could be the string at the end of this --

GLENN: It is. I'm telling you this leads to Karl Rove. This leads to all of them. You want to know why we played footsy in the Middle East? You want to know why we have the Muslim Brotherhood in this White House and the last White House? Here it is, gang. Now, do you have the courage to look at it. Do you have the courage to stand? He's on the board of the NRA. He was with CPAC. I'll give you the list of all the boards that he was on. I don't have the list right now.

You tell me you think this guy is a good person to have around. He's not. He's not. And I will just say this, I don't know his motivation. I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the United States. My guess is he likes power and money. That's it. There's a lot of money in the Middle East, all you have to do is play footsie. And we'll be fine. And stop being so panicky and little girl. That's what's happening. He's choosing to turn a blind eye. I don't think he's Muslim. I'll just tell you this, his answers make no sense. None.

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.