Will Bobby Jindal be the next Republican to throw his hat in the ring for president?

This morning on radio, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana called into the radio show to discuss a big announcement he has coming up this Wednesday. Is Governor Bobby Jindal possibly running for president in 2016?

Glenn immediately started off the interview complimenting Jindal, but also asking him some difficult questions, such as, “What makes you different than Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, and Scott Walker?”

Listen to Jindal’s answer below and hear more of what he had to say the government's involvement in marriage and the current crisis with ISIS.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: Bobby Jindal, one of our -- really truly one of our favorite guys. I hate to say politicians. Because I don't like any politicians. But I like Bobby Jindal. He's a very smart, very gracious, God-fearing man, who is -- who has really changed Louisiana for the better and done a lot of things in Louisiana to help Louisiana out, without raising in taxes whatsoever. We welcome him now to the program.

Governor Jindal, how are you, sir?

BOBBY: Glenn, it is such a privilege to be on the air with you. And, look, I wish I had time to return all those wonderful compliments. Thank you for what you said.

The last time you and I were together was I believe with Steve Green. If you remember, he was doing his fundraiser for his Bible museum. I couldn't agree with you more on your opening comments. Now more than ever, we need to have faith. I was actually in South Carolina recently calling for a spiritual revival with many pastors and folks there. So it's so great to be back on the air with you, and it's great to be talking with you again.

GLENN: So, Bobby, are you announcing on Wednesday that you and your wife are happy and you'll stay together?

PAT: Or that you'll keep being the governor of Louisiana?

GLENN: Or is there something else that maybe you might be --

BOBBY: Glenn, I'm always waiting for that -- to do a listening tour and say, the people told me to stay at home.

[laughter]

GLENN: Please tell me you're not going on a listening tour.

BOBBY: No. On the 24th, we'll make our final decision. And, look, this is what I believe, I think we need dramatic changes in the direction of our country, not minor tweaks.

I think President Obama, Secretary Clinton, they're trying to redefine the American dream. It's something called the European nightmare. That dream has always been about freedom and opportunity. They're trying to redefine it to redistribution and government dependence. If I become a candidate, it won't be to sugarcoat anything. We can own the future. Our best days can be ahead of us, or we can recede and decline as we're doing right now. Success isn't inevitable. This isn't an exercise. Every politician says the next election is the most important one. This one really, really is. We can't afford four more years on this path.

GLENN: So, Bobby, you're probably one of our or five that I have real confidence in. In my lifetime, I've never seen a group of politicians from any walk that I have more confidence in than the Republican field. I mean, there is the Donald Trumps of the world, and, quite frankly, and I'm not going to put you in a corner here on Jeb Bush, but there's some people here who are just the same old, same old, or crazy. And then there are a few that are really, really good. Ted Cruz is really good. Rand Paul, I think, is really good. I think Governor Walker could be really good. Marco Rubio is worth consideration.

PAT: And should you decide somehow to potentially run, you'd be great as well.

GLENN: Yeah. So now, how do you differentiate yourself? I mean, I just want to go through those people. Because our audience has selected -- we ask them every month to rate all of these politicians, A through F. So the top five are Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, who else?

STU: Bobby Jindal is up there for sure.

PAT: Scott Walker.

GLENN: Scott Walker. And there's one other. So let's start with those guys. What makes you different than Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Scott Walker?

BOBBY: First of all, that's a great question. I would say, it's not enough just to send any Republican -- you're right. We need to sort through the field. They told us, we give them a majority in the Senate, they would repeal this illegal amnesty. They would repeal Obamacare. They would shrink the size of the government. They haven't done that. We need somebody who is not going to play by the Washington rules.

In terms of the list, one, I'm biased towards governors. We have now a first-term senator in office. We can't afford more on-the-job training. We don't need a talker. We need a doer. So I'm biased towards governors.

I think the two things that set me apart as a successful governor is number one, many candidates are talking about repealing Obamacare. We're the only potential candidate with specific plans. How do you get rid of Obamacare, all of the spending, all of the taxes, not just some of it? We're the only one with a plan on energy independence, on education reform, on rebuilding our defense.

So we're not just talking about platitudes. We have detailed plans.

Then secondly, when you look at what we've done back home, we've cut our budget 26%. Over 30,000 fewer state and government bureaucrats. No, that's not a mistake. I'm not talking about slowing the growth of government. We've reduced the size of government. That's what we need in D.C. $18 trillion of debt and growing. And there's no end in sight. We don't need to rearrange the chairs on the debt. We need to make serious changes in D.C. I've done that in Louisiana. In doing that, our private sector economy has done very well. We're in the top ten states for job creation. More people working in Louisiana than ever before, earning a higher income than ever before. We need that kind of drastic change in D.C. as well.

GLENN: Bobby, how are you going to deal with -- I mean, quite honestly, the biggest enemy of the Constitution is not the Democrats or the liberals. It is the progressives. And we have progressives on both sides of the aisle. Right now, I got up this morning, and I saw another news story again about how the Republicans are going to save Obamacare.

How do you stop the -- the -- the progressives in your own party?

BOBBY: Well, first of all, you're exactly right. You have Republicans bending over backwards. They said, once Obamacare is now the law, now that it's passed, we can no longer ever shrink it. We can't get rid of an entitlement program. If that's true, we're done as a party. There's no need for a Republican Party. We've said, once the progressives [inaudible] out of dependence, we can never cut it back, there's no point in having two political parties. We need a conservative movement. And it's not just Obamacare.

I'm against giving this president fast-track authority. Talk about a president that already breaks the Constitution. Doesn't follow the law. We have Republicans bending over backwards to give him even more authority. Here's where I think the real breakdown is. The Republican Party has rightfully not been the party of big government. That's good.

Unfortunately there are some that want to make the Republican Party the party of big business, and that's bad. Big business has given us amnesty, Common Core. Big business, some of them are lobbying against repealing Obamacare. They say you can't do it. No, if you listen to conventional wisdom in D.C., they'll tell you you can't shrink the budget, you can't have term limits, you shouldn't say radical Islamic terrorism, you shouldn't say things that are spiritual, that's politically incorrect. That's nonsense. People in the real world, out there in America, they want term limits, they want a balanced budget, they want to get rid of Common Core. They don't want big government in bed with big business. I think a great example of this, progressives in the Republican Party, as you mentioned, look at the fight in Indiana over religious liberty. Again, this unholy alliance between big business and the radical left going after religious liberty and conservatives. Look, the radical left wants to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. They think profit is a dirty word. So these businesses need to be careful who they're making these alliances with.

GLENN: Let me ask you. Because you're talking now about the religious. There is a -- there is the possibility of -- of us completely changing the idea behind the First Amendment of us living in a world of really not having a right of conscience anymore.

What do we do there, Bobby?

BOBBY: First of all --

GLENN: I believe that -- I believe that if you're gay, and you want to get married. You can get married. Because I don't believe -- I mean, the marriage institution, the paperwork for it for the government was really started to keep blacks from marrying whites. So we didn't have this. It was all done through our churches and everything. So government shouldn't get into the marriage deal. With that being said, no one should be able to tell my church that my church has to live a certain way or marry people. Whatever. You stay out of my life. I stay out of your life. That's not happening.

BOBBY: Not at all. I don't want to see the definition of marriage change. But you're right. This is bigger than marriage. And now you have bakers, musicians, caterers, being charged thousands of dollars in fines, being forced to choose, do you want to operate a business, or do you want to follow your conscience? That's not what the First Amendment intended. That's not what the Founding Fathers intended.

America didn't create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America. And the left is trying to take God out of the public sphere and public square. I gave a talk about this at the Reagan Library over a year ago. I'm glad that we passed good laws in Louisiana. Going back to my first term for religious freedom restoration. We did an executive order this year to stop the state from doing exactly what you said, discriminating against sanctioning, going against businesses or individuals who simply want to live by their conscience.

My hope is that even those that are secular, even those that may not be Christian, may not share your or my views on marriage would respect our right to live our lives. The danger is, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, when they say freedom of religious expression, all they mean is you can say what you want in your church. Glenn, that's not religious freedom. Religious freedom is being able to live your life 24 hours a day, seven days a week, according to our sincerely held religious beliefs, according to our conscience, according to our morals. That's what is at stake here. This is a very, very important fight. The left has gotten more radicalized on this.

My hope is that even those that aren't religious or Christian or don't share our traditional views would still fight for our right to be able to have those views and live according to those views in America.

PAT: Governor, I would guess that we probably line up pretty closely on almost every domestic issue. But the Middle East is in such disarray right now. ISIS is making incredible inroads. They've taken over huge swaths of territory.

How would you handle that? How would you handle foreign policy especially when it comes to ISIS in the Middle East? Are you -- would you favor military intervention again or staying out of that mess? Where are you on that?

BOBBY: Well, there are several things that the president could and should be do right now.

First of all, leading from behind hasn't worked. Secondly, we have to name our enemies. Radical Islamic terrorists. It's not the crusades, it's not the evil Christians. It's not even trans fat. The most important enemy in front of us right now is radical Islamic Muslims.

I said yesterday, look, I'll protect my kids from Oreo cookies or microwave popcorn if the president will protect us from radical Islamic terrorists.

When you look at ISIS in particular -- let's arm, let's train, let's work with the Kurds. They've been successful on the ground. And Kobani, again in Syria this past week, when combined with allied airstrikes, they've been very successful at repelling ISIS' ground troops. Secondly, I think there are Sunni allies are willing to do more in this fight if they thought America was committed to victory.

Part of the problem is that the president drew this red line in the sand. There are no consequences. Assad (phonetic) is still in power. So many of our allies fear, if they fought ISIS, they would strengthen Assad and Iran indirectly. So we need to show our Sunni allies that we're committed to victory. I think they would be more willing to commit more to this struggle and fight.

Third, I think the president made a fundamental mistake in setting the authorization and use of military force to Congress with two restrictions on it. The ban on ground troops. The three-year deadline.

Not because I'm advocating -- I don't think anyone is advocating for a surge of ground troops right now. But rather, no commander-in-chief should ever telegraph to the enemy that this is what we're not going to do. Here's our time line. I think he needs to take the political handcuffs off. Go to the Pentagon and say, give me a plan. He now twice has admitted he has no plan. Every time he does this, it's hilarious -- not hilarious, but, you know, the spokespeople come out and say the president didn't mean what he said. It's not a verbal gaffe. He really doesn't have a strategy here.

Instead we're sending a few hundred more trainers over there. No coherent strategy. No commander-in-chief should send American troops in harm's way without the resources, the support, as well as a strategy they need for victory. This president is not doing that. And look, this fight will not stay over there. As you saw with the attack in Garland, Texas. This is an enemy that we can face here at home. That's why -- he has to name the enemy for what it is. We have to fight this enemy culturally as well. This president needs to say to Muslim leaders, look, Islam has a problem. It's called radical Islam, and clerics need to denounce terrorists by name and say -- not just condemning generic acts of violence, condemn those individuals so they're not martyrs going to enjoy a reward in the afterlife. Making it clear we're fighting this enemy on all fronts.

STU: You mentioned Oreos, Bobby. Would you consider an executive order to make sure red velvet Oreos stay on the market and are not limited edition?

BOBBY: I've never actually had a red velvet Oreo. But it sounds like it would be a good thing. Look, you can eat kale 24 hours a day. Three meals a day and live to 100 years old. I'm not going to do that.

PAT: Thank you. Thank you.

GLENN: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. Bobby, Governor, it's always great to have you. And we wish you all the best of luck. And I'd like to -- if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you and pin you down on this on the air, I'd like to spend maybe an hour or two with you with a camera. I'll fly to wherever you are. And we'll sit down one-on-one. I want to put together the five candidates that I would really consider and ask them all the same questions and let people hear them all answer the same questions and no gotcha or anything else. Would you be willing to participate in that?

BOBBY: I would love to do that. I'm honored to be on your list of five. That means a lot to me. You and I go way back. I have a lot of respect for you.

GLENN: Likewise.

PAT: If someone wanted to help out if you had any announcement to make that was out of the ordinary on Wednesday --

GLENN: You mean like join a campaign.

PAT: Yeah, or contribute to it or whatever. Where would you go to do that? There's probably nowhere to go. Right?

BOBBY: It's funny you should ask that. There is a site. You can go to BobbyJindal.com. It's very simple. B-O-B-B-Y J-I-N-D-A-L.com. We'd love for folks to come down. It's in the greater New Orleans area. June 24th for our announcement. They can find out more about what we're doing, as well as those detailed policy plans I mentioned as well.

GLENN: Why would you have that website if you're just going to announce how happy you and your wife are? I don't understand that. Thank you very much, Bobby. I appreciate it.

BOBBY: Thanks. Y'all have a great day.

GLENN: You too.

PAT: He's great.

GLENN: He's a contender.

PAT: Oh, he's a contender. He's good.

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.