Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Which Revolutionary Will America Choose — Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz

February 09, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The Context

Are we facing a revolution? Are we already there? Glenn thinks so. But the revolution could go either way.

"I think we're still pre-revolution, but the country is a lot farther down this road than anyone in Washington or the media really understands," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Four more years of moderate, wishy-washy conservatives like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich --- or a Hillary Clinton that keeps the steady "progress" going --- will only lead to more discontent. And if Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump get elected, that discontent will only escalate with their dramatic changes.

"I've been struck by the media saying that people like Ted Cruz are extremists, but at the same time they continue to say that Bernie Sanders is leading a revolution," Glenn said. "And it has stuck out to me because that's exactly what's happening."

If the People Ain't Happy . . .

American citizens are not happy with the way their government is being run — and they haven't been for a long time. Glenn listed these disturbing stats on what Americans currently believe:

• 81% believe the power of ordinary people to control our country weakens every day

• 80% believe the federal government is its own special interest, primarily looking out for itself

• 79% believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office at all levels of government who are ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians or lawyers

• 78% believe the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless to create meaningful change because they both are beholden to special interests

• 76% agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism that is happening in our government

• 75% believe the U.S. government is not working for the people's best interest

• 75% believe powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves

• 74% See the bias and slanted news coverage of the media as part of the problem

• 72% believe the U.S. has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find and where huge corporations get all the rewards

• 72% believe the reason families and our middle class have not seen economic conditions improve for decades is because of the corruption and crony capitalism in Washington

• 71% believe our government is not only dysfunctional, but collapsing before our eyes

• 70% believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people

• 56% wish there was a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests

• 15% say the values and principles of their political party are so important that they strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of their party

"If that's not a revolution waiting to happen, nothing is," Glenn said.

Common Sense Bottom Line

America is headed for a revolution. In fact, there are three revolutionaries that will dramatically change the country — Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — currently in the race for president. Only one is tied to the Constitution.

"These are the three that understand what is happening right now in America," Glenn said. "And the choice is socialism, a strongman or the Constitution. Which one do you want? Because the others will just continue this same game."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: You know, I've been struck by the media saying that people like Ted Cruz are extremists, but at the same time they continue to say that Bernie Sanders is leading a revolution. Have you heard that? They all are saying that there's a revolution that is going on, and they're saying it in a way to protect Hillary Clinton. You know, Bernie Sanders is calling for a revolution. You know, we don't want a revolution, right, Hillary? So revolution. And it has stuck out to me. And it stuck out to me because that's exactly what's happening.

I think we're pre -- I think we're still pre-revolution. But the country is a lot farther down this road than anyone in Washington or the media really understands.

Let me give you some stats. 84 percent of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right. We all agree with that? 84 percent do.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: 81 percent believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day, as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege. 80 percent believe the federal government is its own special interest, primarily looking out for itself. 79 percent of voters believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office at all levels of government who are just ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians or lawyers. 78 percent believe the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything because both political parties are too beholden to special interest to create any meaningful change. 76 percent of all Americans agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism that is happening in our government. 75 percent of all Americans believe the US government is not working for the people's best interest. Seventy-five people -- 75 percent of the people believe that powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves.

So far, I agree with absolutely every one of these. Do you?

STU: The only one I disagree with was the one where you said both parties can't get anything done because they only care about their own interests. The Democrats get a lot of stuff done. They get stuff done all the time. They move the country significantly to the left. And they've been successful over a long period of time --

GLENN: It's all moving towards their interest, not the interest of the people.

STU: I suppose. But their interest -- their interest is to make the government bigger. I think that's against the interests of the people, but that's the only one I would even quibble with.

GLENN: Yes. 74 percent see the bias and slanted news coverage of the media as part of the problem. 72 percent of Americans believe the US has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find and where huge corporations get all the rewards. 72 percent believe that the reason families and our middle class have not seen their economic condition improve for decades and economic growth is stalled, because of corruption and crony capitalism in Washington.

71 percent believe our government is not only dysfunctional, it is collapsing before our eyes. 70 percent of people believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people. The majority, 56 percent, say they wish there was a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests. And only 15 percent say the values and principles of my political party are so important that I strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of my party.

If that's not a revolution waiting to happen, nothing is. That's why, quite honestly, if America picks Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Hillary Clinton, we are setting ourselves up, I believe, for more revolution and revolutionary discontent in four years from now. Because things are going to get so bad that we need somebody who is going to be dynamic in their change.

Now, you get somebody like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, I believe that's going to be even worse. Because they are going to move the country, but they're going to move the country in a way that I believe Americans don't really fully understand at this point. They're looking for change. Because of these things they're looking for dramatic change, but neither of them are pegged to the Constitution. Rand Paul was pegged to the Constitution. Cruz is pegged to the Constitution. And there was an interesting thing that I heard Ted Cruz talk about, where Ted was -- was speaking about how he had respect for Bernie Sanders.

Now, he's the first guy that I've heard say this. Listen carefully.

TED: You know, actually when it comes to diagnosing the problem, many folks in the press are often surprised when I say in large part, I agree with Bernie Sanders. I agree with Bernie Sanders, that the fix is in, that Washington is corrupt, that it is responding to the giant corporations and the special interests, and the people getting the short end of the stick are the working men and women of this country.

(applauding)

GLENN: Listen to that. Applause, I agree with Bernie Sanders.

TED: Now, where I disagree with Bernie Sanders is on the solution. If government is corrupt, Bernie's solution is, we need more government. I think that's getting it backwards. So I think when it comes to income inequality, Republicans ought to be campaigning on it. What I'm campaigning is all the people trapped away from getting the economic dream, we can get back to the robust economic growth that enables anybody starting with nothing to achieve anything. I think that's the core of our message and how we win.

GLENN: Getting back to the principles of the Constitution. But the problem is that most people aren't talking about the Constitution. Most people don't even understand what the -- I Googled the Bill of Rights this morning, and I thought, "How low on the Google list is the Bill of Rights, compared to, what is socialism? How many people are actually A/B comparing, wait a minute. What is socialist? What is the Bill of Rights saying?" Nobody is paying attention to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the things that have always brought us together.

On the other hand, you see Bernie Sanders with his righteous indignation, but nobody is listening to his solution. They don't know what socialism is. That's a proven fact now. Nobody knows what socialism really means.

On the other hand, you have Donald Trump playing into the same -- there are three revolutionaries. There is Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Only one of those revolutionaries is pegged to the Constitution now. You also had the fourth for a while was Rand Paul.

PAT: Paul.

GLENN: Now you only have three left. So we know that Ted Cruz, revolutionary, but he is saying, "Go back to the Constitution." Bernie Sanders, his solution is socialism. But most people don't even know what that means. And Donald Trump is revenge. And let me show you an example here. This is getting an awful lot of -- cut 250. This is getting an awful lot of play now. What happened at a rally and what -- this is where the disagreement comes, what he called Jeb Bush after a woman in the audience called Jeb Bush this.

PAT: This is Ted Cruz.

STU: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: Or, yeah, Ted Cruz.

DONALD: Asked Ted Cruz a serious question: Well, what do you think of waterboarding? Is it okay?

And honestly, I thought he'd say absolutely, and he didn't. He said, well, it's -- you know, it's --

(inaudible)

DONALD: Okay. You're not allowed to say, and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said -- I never expect to hear that from you again. She said he's a (bleep).

Because some people -- she just said a terrible thing. You know what she said?

Shout it out because I don't want to --

VOICE: Pussy! (bleep)

DONALD: That's terrible. Terrible.

STU: Unbelievable.

PAT: It's so ridiculous. And he's -- he had her do it again so that everybody would know -- he repeats it.

GLENN: Yeah, he repeats. And his supporters are saying, he never said it. Well, yes, technically he did, and he was just using her as a foil to say this.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, listen to how sick the supporters are. This is CNN. You're going to hear a woman fighting against this. She is clearly a leftist, but if you listen to her, she's making sense. And the other woman who is supporting Trump, is a woman who is wearing a cross prominently displayed on her chest.

Now, listen to this.

VOICE: Has anyone heard that word being used in a campaign before? Were you there?

VOICE: Never been used.

VOICE: Look, here's my take. I was not there. But here's my take on this. I'm not a prude, but I think this is the culture of degradation. I think this is an example of why Donald Trump is surging. I do not think you could get away with this even ten years ago. And I think this is an example of really -- I don't want to say the dumbing down, but the lowering of our standards for what is presidential. This should not be accepted.

VOICE: No. Well, but nobody else can get away with it either. I mean, this is very unique to Donald Trump.

PAT: Right. That's true.

VOICE: He has been able to say, really, the most outrageous, amazing things one after the other, time after time. And we've seen his poll numbers go up.

You see, tomorrow, he's going to go on TV, and he's going to tell us he was talking about a baby cat.

VOICE: You're probably right.

GLENN: Now, this is the leftist lady. This is the conservative.

VOICE: I don't think you're understanding what's happening in America. Everyone is talking about Donald Trump's rhetoric. But that's not why he's resonating with one-third of the Republican Party. He's resonating because Americans care about ISIS. They care that 60 ISIS fighters were in Europe on the day 130 Parisians were killed --

VOICE: But, Kaley, he's not saying that. He's calling someone the P-word or repeating that.

VOICE: He did not call someone that.

VOICE: Okay. You're right, but he's repeating a word.

VOICE: He said you shouldn't say that word.

STU: Come on.

PAT: Isn't that pathetic?

VOICE: I was embarrassed. I was there with my 15-year-old daughter, my intern/daughter. And there were a lot of kids in the crowd. I just thought it was one of those -- it was one of those wash-your-mouth moments. I mean, I'm glad my mom wasn't in the audience, or there --

VOICE: You don't have a problem with that as a woman?

VOICE: I don't have a problem with that --

VOICE: Well, I sure as hell do. He said that the POWs were losers.

VOICE: No, he did not. No, he did not say that.

VOICE: I don't know how much Kool-Aid you have to drink in order to lose your ability to hear.

VOICE: Words -- words matter.

VOICE: -- the man today was being sarcastic. Of course, words matter. That's what we're talking about.

GLENN: Did you hear what she just said? Stop for a second. I don't know how much Kool-Aid you have to drink to lose your ability to hear.

PAT: That's a great point.

STU: That's a great point.

PAT: That's a great, great point.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Let me go back to the original point. How much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to lose your ability to question what socialism is? It goes back to these numbers. We are in a revolution. And the mainstream media refuses to see it. The -- the regular political class refuses to see it. There are three people now running that understand it: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Those are the three that understand revolution. Those are the three that understand what is happening right now in America. And the choice is socialism, a strongman, or the Constitution. Which one do you want? Because the others will just continue this same game.

At one level or another, they will continue the crony capitalism and deal-making. Strongman, socialist, or constitutionalist?

PAT: And what's the slogan of New Hampshire?

GLENN: Live free or die. They're picking the die part.

Featured Image: Getty Images

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.