Gov. Scott Walker reveals new details of his tax plan modeled after of that of Ronald Reagan

Wisconsin Governor and GOP 2016 hopeful Scott Walker joined Glenn on radio Thursday morning to share his thoughts on the prior night's debate and to dive deeper into some of the policies he has been running on.

Topics ranged from repealing Obamacare to marijuana use to taxes. When Walker expressed frustration that the debate didn't focus enough on the issues, Glenn invited him to set the record straight on radio right then and there.

"You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now," Glenn said.

Walker proceeded to explain how his tax plan would follow that of Ronald Reagan, which he said led to the economic boom that occurred thereafter.

"It's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today," Walker said. "We can say to the American people, 'this has worked.' This is not in theory, this is something that has worked."

Listen to the full dialogue or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Governor, how are you?

SCOTT: Hey, I'm doing well. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: How did you feel last night?

SCOTT: Well, really I felt like we had scored some real points, if that's what you call it, I guess, in terms of getting the message out. If you want someone who has been tested, I'm the guy. If you want an apprentice, someone who has never been tested before, then you're likely to get someone like we have in the White House right now.

STU: The apprentice line was fantastic.

GLENN: It was.

SCOTT: And I think we used the limited time CNN gave us, even though we tried to get in there many of times, we used it to the best of our effect to get our message out.

GLENN: When you walked off the stage, did you have one opinion of what happened and then you listened to the people, the press and then saw the reviews and everything else and have another, or did they sync up for you?

SCOTT: Oh, I think I knew going in, we knew the narrative, no matter what happened, they were going to say that Carly had a big night no matter what. And obviously they said that. I think the other impression was -- the feedback I got back from folks, not just from the press but from across the country I talked to was a frustration that there wasn't more talk. I mean, I mentioned I broke in at one point and said, "That's what's wrong with this campaign. We're not actually talking about issues. We're talking about personalities." But it seemed pretty clear that CNN was trying to pit people against each other for ratings instead of talking about issues.

GLENN: I will tell you that I heard you say that and I heard a couple of candidates try to get it back. What are we doing? We're attacking each other and the real challenge here are the policies that are -- well, the policies of Donald Trump and the other side of the aisle.

And I think that actually -- at least for me because it was such a circus at times, for me, I actually found myself saying about people like you, even Chris Christie who I'm not for at all, when he was saying some things like that, "I'm like, yeah, fine. Can we just have an adult conversation here, please?"

SCOTT: Right. Because -- I mean, I mentioned briefly, I would have loved to have them question, push back, put me on the spot, I've got a plan to repeal Obamacare. Literally to repeal Obamacare and to get Congress to have to pass it by signing an executive order that requires them to live under the same rules as everybody else. Ask me about it. Probe me about it. Ask me about my tax plan. Ask about energy independence. Ask about using all of the abundance of energy that we have here in America. Ask about any of those things. But those weren't the questions they were asking. It was, "Well, hey, you said this about this person, or you said that about that person." Ironically, one of my sons pointed out something interesting. He said, "Dad, you didn't get asked any of those questions because you don't attack other Republicans. You just attack Hillary Clinton."

PAT: That's a good point.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, Scott. Let's go through some of these things. I know the tax plan of Rand Paul, which I'm in love with. I know the tax plan now -- I heard for the first time, flat tax from --

PAT: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: -- Ted Cruz, which is great. I heard somebody else say they'll abolish the IRS.

PAT: Huckabee.

GLENN: Was that Huckabee?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What is your tax plan?

SCOTT: You know, we're going to wrought week by week. So we'll wrought in greater detail. But for us, I mean, I wish I would have got more time. It was right in the Reagan Library. Our plan is modeled after the tax plan of '86, what Ronald Reagan did. You simplify the code. You had two rates. Brought about one of the most extended periods of economic prosperity in American history. There is a model there. It is a proven model. It has worked. A simple flat concept that we've done in the past. It didn't just apply to individuals. I think you have to do the same thing to job creators. We did that. We've actually seen more of these jobs that have parked overseas come back to America. Put more of our fellow Americans back to work. But, again, instead of spending a lot of time talking about that, we were asked about who took a jab at whom and what they thought about that. And I hope in the future we'll have more chances to talk about tax policy, true immigration policy, all sorts of other things.

GLENN: But we have one right now. Hold on just a second. We have that opportunity right now. You got 10 million people across the nation that listen to this program. So let's take that opportunity right now. And let me go back to tax policy. You know, what used to sound really good to me was the Ronald Reagan plan. That -- and if we could get that done, I'd be happy with that. However, we're in such a place now to where I think the bolder the idea, the better the chance of getting it done. Because people are tired of eating around the edges.

Why not abolish the IRS and give me a flat tax? Russia does it. It's 18, 15 percent. Whatever it is. Here's what it is. How much did you make? What's 18 percent. Put it in an envelope and send it to us.

SCOTT: Well, it's pretty similar to what Reagan did. He had two tax rates. Same sort of concept back in 1986. It was 15 and 28 percent. We'd adjust it for current numbers today. To me, it's essentially almost the same sort of thing you're talking about. But the difference being, we can say to the American people, "This has worked." This is not in theory, this is something that has worked. It brought about this extended -- people talk even last night about the 1990s and the balanced budget. The balanced budget wasn't because of Bill Clinton in Congress. The balanced budget was because we were still benefiting from the economic boom -- the residuals of Ronald Reagan's economic policies, not just with tax benefits, but reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Imagine what we could do if we had a Republican leader who was willing to push in the White House to get both the House and the Senate back on these issues, instead of having a split Congress like Reagan did. We could go even further.

GLENN: I had a hard time listening to the nonsense last night about the War on Drugs. You know, marijuana, smoke it, don't smoke it, that's really not the crux of our problems in America, especially when we're about to vote for a deal that says, "Hey, Iran, we're you're buddy and screw Israel." What do you do as president --

SCOTT: It is unbelievable. I mentioned this last night. I'd love to play cards with President Obama because the guy folds on everything. On this deal, almost all the major things he talked about that had to be in the deal are not in the deal. We have moved to Iran when Iran -- I mean, Iran didn't come to us because they wanted to be really nice people. They came because they were on their knees. They were crippled because of economic sanctions that were in place. They were ready. They were ready to give in. And instead of negotiating on our terms, the United States basically backed up and said, "Do whatever you want. Or do just about anything you want out there." We need to terminate the bad deal on day one. To me, anybody who says that they're not prepared to terminate that bad deal on day one is not ready to be president of the United States.

So I spent the time -- and I got knocked on this. President Obama came out and said that I was -- needed to bone up on foreign policy, to which I laughed saying, "This is the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story." He wants to talk about boning up on foreign policy. Bottom line is it's a bad deal for America. It's a bad deal for Israel. It's a bad deal for the world.

It doesn't just open the door towards a nuclear race in the Middle East. In the short-term, the money that will be freed up from these sanctions being lifted will go, not into helping the Iranian people who really do want to be free of this oppressive government, it will go into Hamas and Hezbollah, some of the worst terrorist activities in the world that are directly aimed at Israel. And, ultimately, for Iran, who hates us just as much as they hate real Israel. This is a bad, bad deal.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, let's switch over to ISIS. I said six years ago that there would be a caliphate established. It would sweep the Middle East. And then it would begin to destabilize Europe and the western world. That is exactly what happened. We are now in the final stage of destabilizing Europe. It's amazing to me that all of the refugees. I should say the vast majority of refugees that you see that are trying to flee into Hungary and everything else all seem to be 20-something guys. You're the only ones. Really? Just these 20-something guys trying to get in everywhere. This is not the way that you save people. This is not -- you know, Saudi Arabia has room for 2 million people. They can take in all kinds of refugees. They should be taking their own kind. How do we separate the Muslims that you don't know who the good Muslims and the bad Muslims are, how do we separate those guys from the Christians who you do know who they are? And how do we do something to help the Christians who don't have a -- any kind of history of trying to behead people?

SCOTT: Well, you got a combination of things. You've got refugees. You've got people seeking asylum. I think there's a difference in asylum. You have to sort that out. And I said we should be taking in more refugees. Because right now, we've already done a lot. In the last year we've permanently settled something like 70,000 refugees in total in the United States. We spent $4 billion.

GLENN: But, Scott, we picked up whole Somali Muslim communities. We're resettling people who don't want to blend and who are Muslims. And a lot of them are Islamists. We're saving the wrong people.

SCOTT: And when you talk about refugees, that's the issue. To me, a refugee is someone who is fleeing, but who ultimately should be restored to their country, which means you have to fix the real problem as opposed to someone seeking asylum who is fleeing from political and sometimes religious persecutions just like you mentioned the Christians there. There is a distinction. But with the refugees, that's why we draw the line and say, "Until we actually deal with Assad, until we deal with ISIS within Syria, why would we be taking any more refugees when we're not fixing the fundamental problem?" We're only going to exacerbate the symptoms of those problems.

GLENN: Would you grant asylum for those who are being marked for death?

SCOTT: Christians, absolutely. The Christians, Jews, others. For people being targeted and persecuted because of their religious beliefs, particularly in that region as Christian, absolutely.

GLENN: Scott, we have -- three, four months ago, we didn't know who you were exactly. We've had great conversations with you. We knew your record. But we didn't know you. And we've been lied to so many politicians that we don't trust any politician anymore. We have grown to like you. The audience has grown to like you even more. And yet your poll numbers are slipping. What do you think this is? What's happening?

SCOTT: Oh, I think -- you know, it's interesting being in the Reagan Library, being reminded that Reagan, even in September of 1979, had some challenges. He was behind, even days before the 1980 election. He came through. And I think right now what you see amongst a lot of the mix of different conservative candidates out there is that there are so many good candidates, and then there's Trump out there who has kind of gotten all the media attention.

I think for a lot of people -- and I see it not just in the polling. We see it out on the campaign trail. Just in Iowa the other day. People routinely say to us, "I like you. I like what you did in Wisconsin. Like your ideas for America. You're one of my top two or three choices." And so they're still trying to sort out between the mix.

They also say, "You know, I'm not high on the -- I'm not excited about the guy that is the frontrunner right now. I like you." They say, "I like Cruz. I like Carson." Whoever it might be. I think in the end, for us, it's about grassroots. We have a good organization in Iowa. We're going to have to get the grassroots out. That's what will make the difference. And we win in the Iowa caucuses, that's what will take us going forward.

GLENN: I have about a minute. Tell me what you would say to somebody who is currently on the bandwagon and not a -- just somebody who is so far gone. But they're on the bandwagon of Trump. They may have been a supporter of yours or somebody else, but they like the fireworks show. Talk to them right now. Why should they come to you? We have about a minute.

SCOTT: You know, I would say, we had an apprentice. We had a novice, somebody we didn't know who they were, where they were going in the White House, someone who said many things that many Americans liked and it didn't work out very well. We don't need to do that again. If you want to take on Washington, if you really want to shake things up, the best way to do it is to get behind somebody who has actually done it. We took on the machine. We took on, not just big government union bosses, all the liberal special interest groups from Washington who tried to stop us. We didn't back down. We fought. We won. We got results. We did it without comprising our conservative principles. If that's what you want out of the next president, then I'm your guy.

GLENN: Scott, I would like to sit down with you and talk to you specifically about progressivism because you are at the belly of the beast and you have taken it on. So maybe sometime in the future we can actually sit down and have a real conversation about some -- some deep issues about what the country has to choose right now.

PAT: Meantime, where do people go if they want to help out?

SCOTT: ScottWalker.com. ScottWalker.com. We appreciate it. Thanks, guys.

GLENN: Thank you. God bless you. ScottWalker.com.

Featured Image: Scott Walker speaks during the Western Conservative Summit at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver, Colorado on June 27, 2015 in Denver, Colorado. The Western Conservative Summit attracts thousands of conservatives and a number of prominent politicians; this year the lineup includes Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, and Scott Walker. (Photo by Theo Stroomer/Getty Images)

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.