Sen. Mike Lee: Progressives are completely circumventing the Constitution

There are days where you wake with just a mild irritation with the news out of Washington, and then there are days where you have “blood shooting out of my eyes” pain over what is happening on Capitol Hill. Have our elected officials completely lost their way? Thankfully, there are still a few out there looking out for the people who elected them. Sen. Mike Lee is one of the good guys. He’s managed to hold onto his soul, and on radio this morning Sen. Lee explained the ways in which the Obama administration and the progressives are disregarding the Constitution in order to push their agenda.

Related: Purchase Mike Lee's new book Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America's Founding Document

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Tons to cover today. I want to start right out of the chute with a guy I really respect. A guy who I honestly said the other take, if there was ever a problem in the world and I couldn't go on, I would feel so comfortable with this man, I would leave him my children. And, in fact, I would like to leave him my children now, just in case. Mike Lee is here. Senator from Washington, DC. Hello, Mike.

MIKE: Hello, Glenn. It's good to be with you. And I suppose I would like to get to know your kids if you're going to --

GLENN: No. It's an emergency, Mike. There's no time. Just take my children. I can't go on.

MIKE: My wife Sharon is here with me, and she's saying, yes, absolutely.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Sharon, I'll deliver them in a box by the end of the show. So, Mike be with I have your new book "Our Lost Constitution". Where is it hiding? Where did it go? Who stole it?

MIKE: Well, you know, it's hiding in plain sight. And I'm not sure there's any one person who has caused it to be hidden, but this is the net result of the American people not reading it, not being aware of its provisions. Not being aware of the stories behind its most important features, and not understanding its most important function is to limit the power of government, both along the horizontal axis, to make sure nobody within the federal government gets too much power, and along the vertical axis, making sure that the federal government itself has powers that Madison described as few and defined, and that most of the powers would remain with the states.

GLENN: But we're here at a time where -- the founders never saw this coming. They never saw a time when people in Congress would gladly give their power up. You guys aren't even defending it.

MIKE: Yes. I think that's an important feature. This is something I discuss in the book. One of the things that they may not have ever expected was that members of Congress wouldn't defend their own power. Rather than increase their own power by making sure that they and only they would write the law, they would delegate it to someone else to make it easier to stay in office.

I explain in my book. It just makes it easier to stay in office forever by delegating the power. They pass a law that says basically, we shall have good laws regarding X. And then they'll say, we hereby delegate that power to make good laws to Agency Y to make sure we have good laws in the area of X. And then it's done. We don't see anything else.

GLENN: Then they can blame it on the EPA or they can say, we'll get down to the bottom of this. And they never do. But there's other things. For instance, you talk about the clause in the Constitution. All bills that raise taxes have to originate in the House. But Obamacare didn't originate in the House, and it didn't matter.

MIKE: That's right. It didn't matter at the end of the day. Because even though the origination clause says that all bills to raise taxes must originate in the House of Representatives, members of Congress have found ways to circumvent that. The law we now call Obamacare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it essentially originated in the Senate. That's where the language from this bill first got put into it. This shell, if you will, that started in the House of Representatives. But the real language came in from the Senate. It should never have happened that way. But members of Congress chose to circumvent this. And I don't think the law would have ever passed. It certainly would have had a much more difficult time passing, had it really started in the House of Representatives where it was supposed to start.

PAT: Mike, we go through kind of waves here of absolute despair and then hopefulness and then absolute despair again.

GLENN: I say absolute despair and suicidal thoughts back to absolute despair.

STU: But occasional normal despair.

GLENN: You're right. Occasional profound sadness.

PAT: Last week was absolute despair when I heard Josh Earnest answer a question from I think Shannon Bream from Fox News. She asked him, hey, with this executive order, President Obama is planning on climate change, isn't that something that should go through Congress? And Josh Earnest said, look, these are people that don't even believe that man caused global warming is really a thing. So we can't really give them the opportunity to have any impact on this. To me, that was one of the most outrageous things ever spoken by an administration official, that just because Congress disagrees with you on an issue, you don't have to go through Congress and abide by the Constitution and our system of government.

GLENN: And we didn't hear a peep from Congress.

PAT: Nothing. So how do we fix that?

GLENN: Bring us to a level to where we're just profoundly sad.

MIKE: Okay. I like that standard.

[laughter]

I think I can match that.

GLENN: All right.

MIKE: So here's the thing. What they're saying is that we can't trust -- we can't trust the unwashed masses to choose representatives who will do the right thing. Therefore, we the all powerful, all knowing administration will have to take matters into our own hands and either ignore or outright contravene the will of the people, as expressed through their elected representatives. That's exactly what they're saying. And that, by the way, is exactly the rationale used by kings over the course of centuries and millennia, to ignore the people and to impose their own will on that of the people.

PAT: Because they know better.

MIKE: This is what despots do. And we have to call this for what it is, which is a form of despotism. It may be despotism with a smiley face on it, but it's despotism nonetheless. And we have to call it as such, we have to resist it, and we have to neutralize it by invoking the Constitution every single time it arises.

GLENN: My uncle Leo is from Italy. And he came before the Second World War. He saw the war was breaking out. And the family decided, we don't know how this will end up. So we'll send Leo who was born in the United States -- and, you know, on a trip and went back to Italy. He came to the United States, and he served honorably in our military. But he was not a guy who was against Mussolini. I said to him one time at dinner, I said, you know, what was it like with Mussolini? And he said, Mussolini was a good man. I said, Uncle Leo, that's inside voice. You should leave that as your inside voice. And he said, the country was falling apart and Mussolini got things done. He wasn't talking about the later Mussolini. He was talking about getting things done. And I honestly think that the American people are to a point where everything is just so screwed up. They'll get to this place where they're going to be like, somebody has got to do something. And that's when they welcome a despot.

MIKE: That's exactly right. And if all you want in a government, if all you expect out of your government is something -- someone to get something done, then you'll end up with a form of despotism. But if instead what you want is a government that works for you, is responsive to you and to your fellow citizens, then you want to follow the Constitution. And that's why I wrote my book. That's why my book really outlines what we can to do restore our lost constitution and protect ourselves against this accumulation of power in the hands of the few, that leads ultimately to a form of despotism. You have to understand the text, the language in the Constitution, and just as importantly, the stories behind it. And that's what I do in this book.

GLENN: All right. Let me play some audio here from Patrick Kennedy and get your thoughts on it.

PATRICK: My dad was always an optimist. I mean, having overcome so many of his personal challenges and political challenges, I mean, this was a guy that everyone loved. Why?

PAT: Not everyone.

PATRICK: Because he persevered. And what does the Senate need to do, but persevere and become the place that my dad wanted always for it to be, and that's a place where major conflicts were resolved for the national interests. Not for either party's interest, but for the national interest.

VOICE: What is it that current senators now should learn from your dad about how you it is you can work across the aisle?

PATRICK: Well, I think the personal etiquette of trying to make an effort to understand what's going on in the other person's life, personally, because you're working with them.

VOICE: Because that's how he did it. He forged these personal bonds. Him and Orrin Hatch. You know, Orrin Hatch got elected probably bashing your dad.

VOICE: He says it. He came from Washington to counteract my dad's vote. Orrin Hatch did. Ended up cutting every deal in the world because he knew it was going to pass if Ted Kennedy signed off on it and he was sponsor of it, then, boom, everyone else would say, well, jeez, if Warren and Ted are for it, then bang. What a revolutionary concept.

GLENN: Yeah, truly what a revolutionary concept. I won't ask you to comment on Orrin Hatch, but just this idea that you go and you cut every deal --

PAT: With who should be your sworn ideological enemy. Someone who is diametrically supposedly opposed to everything you stand for and believe in and you ran against him in your initial campaign for the Senate, and then you work with him on every single bill.

GLENN: How do we as people balance this, Mike? Because there are things that I will work together, across the aisle, even across ideology in some regard, if we happen to agree on one thing, I'll go ahead and say I agree with this one thing and this one thing only. But that's not what happens in Washington.

MIKE: No. It's not. And, you know, I listened to this quote, this recording from Mr. Kennedy. And he's talking about something. But in one sense, it's already happening. He's referring to it as if never happened. He's referring to it as if Democrats and Republicans never come together and never learn about each other's life stories and interests and passions. Never try to resolve something under mutually agreeable terms. This happens all the time. Every single day.

GLENN: That's the problem.

MIKE: You won't agree on every single issue with your ideological opposite. So, look, I run bills all the time. And I refer to these in my book. Bills that I've run with guys like Pat Leahy and Dick Durbin, who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum for me. But sometimes we agree, and when we do, we can get something done. But that's very different than saying we have to agree at the outset to agree, regardless of the issue, because sometimes we don't agree. And when you try to say that we'll come to an agreement on this issue, no matter what, whether it's in a situation like with this Iran deal, where we say we'll get an agreement with Iran or whether you're talking about something within the United States Senate. That's where bad legislation comes from.

GLENN: Go ahead.

MIKE: Something done, regardless of what that something is.

GLENN: Let's talk about two things. We're talking to senator Mike Lee. His new book "Our Lost Constitution". Let's talk about two things. The president is saying, let's get something done with Iran. And going around Congress as well and cutting what everyone believes now, at least our allies believe -- even France says, is not a good deal. Will Congress just allow this to happen?

MIKE: No. No. I don't think so. And, first of all, we don't know, what, if anything, is going to come out of this. First of all, we're being told all of a sudden, oh, a deal is just around the corner. It doesn't materialize. Then they announce something. What they're announcing instead is a framework rather than a deal itself. It's not clear they will come out with any deal at all. I think they're using the worst negotiation tactic possible which is saying we want a deal. Suggesting almost that a bad deal is almost better than no deal at all, which is usually a guarantee that you'll get the worst deal possible.

But, no, I don't think you'll just have Congress just capitulating to it, no matter what. Assuming they do get some kind of an agreement, I think you'll have a heavy weigh-in by Congress. If what the president ends up negotiating is tantamount to a treaty, it would of course be subject to the treaty ratification provisions of the Constitution, which would require a two-thirds super majority vote in the Senate. It's also possible that both houses of Congress could weigh in on one side or another of this deal. But it's hard to predict exactly what the response will be before we even know what the deal is or whether we'll have one at all.

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.

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.