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

Screwed On a Technicality: John Kasich's Underhanded Strategy

March 18, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

Steven Crowder, comedian and founder of LouderWithCrowder.com, brought a little levity to The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday. While Glenn apologized for his choice words about John Kasich the previous day, Steven enlightened the guys with just how underhanded the presidential candidate actually is.

"What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, 'I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land,'" Crowder said. "What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card."

Now that he told us how he really feels, does Crowder think Kasich stands much of a chance the rest of the way?

"No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very off-putting, but he's dishonest," Crowder said.

Guess not.

Check out the rest of the interview below to get your daily dose of laughter. After all, in this sickening election, laughter might not just be the best medicine --- it could be the only medicine.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Steven Crowder from LouderwithCrowder.com is on with us now.  

Steven, how are you, sir?

STEVEN:  Thanks for having me.  You know, you've seen this week.  We're all doing the same.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  I can't -- I can't figure out if John Kasich is -- has done a deal with someone, if he's just delusional.  I watched him win, and I think he really actually thought he won something big on Tuesday.

STEVEN:  John Kasich, he's like party guest who just never leaves, only he wasn't invited.  Nobody invited John Kasich.  You're cleaning up.  You're trying to wrap it up.  And he's like, all right (inaudible) with you guys.  Of course, John Kasich would.  No one wants him around.

What really bothers me about him Glenn is the phoniness.  So it was one thing to say, well, maybe he's a good guy, and he's delusional.  His winning Ohio with the confetti and the fireworks and the rockettes came up.  I mean, it was like winning the cup in Mario Kart.  I couldn't believe how big of a celebration this guy had.  What really bothered me is the phoniness.  He says, "I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land."

What?  Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality.  There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card.

(laughter)

GLENN:  I haven't looked at it that way, but you're exactly right.  There is no way for him to take the upper hand and the high road and win.  He's got to knife somebody in the back.

STEVEN:  Exactly.  There's no way -- I know we push the common format.  That's the obvious joke.  But it's mathematically impossible for him to win.  The only way is if he gets to some kind of a brokered convention, and people screw the voters.  

No, nobody wants John Kasich.  You know, you get past the ad hominem.  We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch.  He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill.  He's just very offputting, but he's dishonest.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Do you think he cut a deal with Donald Trump or anybody?  Because I've heard -- have you guys heard those conspiracies that he's only in it -- he's got a deal with Donald Trump?

PAT:  Yeah.

GLENN:  You think he cut a deal like Ben Carson did?

STEVEN:  I don't even think Ben Carson cut a deal.  I really don't.  And I know I sound naive.  And I really like Ben Carson as a good guy.  And I still want to believe he's a good guy.  I think he's somebody who is very bright.  But he's not necessarily politically savvy.  And I think if you read his book, and I've read his book, he wants to believe the best in people and he's very forgiving.  And I think he just bought it.  I think he probably sat Donald Trump down and said, "You know, just not be so decisive.  And I need to know that you won't, for example, call another candidate a pedophile."

And Donald Trump just said, "I won't do it."  And he said, "Good enough for me."  And he just endorsed him.

(laughter)

STU:  Where was that treatment with Cruz though?  He thinks Cruz is Satan, and Cruz didn't even do anything.

STEVEN:  Did he say that about Cruz?  I didn't read that.  I know John Boehner did.

STU:  He didn't actually call him Satan.  But, you know, he came out and was calling him a liar.  He said that he was doing all these dirty tricks.  Then Cruz apologized to him.  He -- he then -- Cruz offered to meet with him.

GLENN:  Yeah, he apologized twice.

STU:  He would not --

GLENN:  Wouldn't forgive him.  Wouldn't forgive him.

STEVEN:  Well, okay.  Then that obviously changes the game.

I mean, if you're Ben Carson, it's kind of like when you have a guy who you know who is just in this marriage and his kids don't respect him.  Everybody has that dad in the flock.  And he's just miserable when he sinks back into his chair.  

You kind of get that sense with Ben Carson.  He openly said, "If there were another scenario, I would endorse someone else.  But there wasn't, so I'm picking Donald Trump."  It doesn't really make sense as far as the leap.  I didn't know that about -- I know obviously John Boehner literally called Ted Cruz Lucifer.  So I wanted to make sure that Ben Carson didn't hop on that train.  He might.

I think the guy is just a nice kind of go-along guy.  And he might have been in the room, and John Boehner says, "Hey, Ted Cruz is Lucifer."  And Ben Carson could just say, "Okay.  I'll go with that."

GLENN:  Let me ask you this:  I was watching a speech with Bernie Sanders.  And I get the fact that Bernie Sanders is talking about, you know, socialism and it's a totally new track and, you know, it's exciting and everything else.

But I'm watching the crowd that's standing behind him.  And I'm thinking to myself, the whole time I'm watching, the guy could drop dead of a heart attack in the middle of his speech, and I don't know if anyone thinks that he could live long enough for the four years that he would be in office.  And I don't know what people see in him as a person, other than he's got this socialist thing going for him.

Who are the people that are voting for Bernie Sanders?  Really?

STEVEN:  It's funny that you bring that up, though.  Because remember Matt Damon talking about the actuary tables, as it related to John McCain.  And here you have Bernie Sanders -- true story, you know, I did that video at the rally.  We actually have like a Christmas roll that we just figure we'll roll out sometime.  It's about two and a half minutes of Bernie Sanders mid-speech going -- just coughing and making bizarre noises.  Like you think he'll just want to keel over.  Kind of like with Hillary Clinton, they whittled down the line to 13 minutes.  We just couldn't whittle it down.  Every couple of minutes, Bernie was (coughing).  All the time.  I mean, I swear to you.  I have the footage.  And we couldn't fit it in, it was too much.

You know, we wrote about this on the site.  And I have a writer, Courtney, who is my main editor.  So I've written about this from a male perspective.  And as a woman, she wrote a great piece on it.  I would highly recommend people read it.  She's getting a lot of flak about how, if you are a Bernie Sanders voter, if you believe it's the government's job to provide for you, if you don't believe you can do it on your own, you're not a man.  You're not a man I can respect.

And that's something I've always felt.  It really is hard in 2016 to be a male.  And when I say be a man, I don't mean drinking beer and burping.  There are people who do that, and they abuse their wives.  There are people who are macho, and they're horrible men.  I'm talking about a man who can lead his family, a man who believes that he can provide for his kids.  

That's what makes someone a man:  Their families, their communities, people under their tutelage are flourishing.  People voting for Bernie Sanders don't believe they can do it.  They'll tell you it's out of their control.  The system is rigged against them.  And it's someone else's job to pay for it.  

So we wrote about that on the site.  Got a big reaction.  It really is -- you know, men have been shamed because of just who they are.  Right?  Your male privilege.  Well, Bernie Sanders exemplifies the antithesis of that.  It is radically anti-rugged individualism to believe that you have no control over your destiny, but the 72-year-old Jewish socialist is going to fix it to you.  That's not happening.

GLENN:  So you're saying you cannot be a man if you're standing on the stage or if you're voting for him; even if you have the correct genitalia, you're not really a man?

STEVEN:  I don't know now.  The new rules and Caitlin Jenner still carrying around the equipment but is a woman, so your guess is as good as mine.  But the spirit is that.  Yeah.

GLENN:  Tell me about the Buzzfeed thing.  Because you did -- you went around -- you wrote about a black guy dressed as a preppie for a week to prove microaggressions.  Tell me about this.

STEVEN:  Buzzfeed.  I can hear Stu.  Did Stu or Pat make a reference article?  It seems that not many conservatives saw it.

STU:  Maybe I didn't.  

STEVEN:  It's huge.  It's all over Buzzfeed.  It's this black guy.  And he writes microaggression.  Black lives matter.  He talks about dressing nicely and sort of dressing down.  You know, in sweatpants and a hoodie.  And talking about how people treat him differently.  So the big examples of discrimination are when he was dressed in a suit and tie, you know, the bus drivers were nicer to him.  The people at the cleaners were nice to him.  People lent him some change; whereas, when he was dressed in sweatpants and a baggy hoodie, they didn't treat him very well.  

Now, he writes this, and his conclusion is racism.  And so I read, and I just said, "This proves the opposite."  Listen, if someone hates black people, you're not tricking them out with a skinny tie.  Okay?  Like, isn't this wonderful?  You're a black guy, you put on a blazer, and nobody cares.

But apparently he thought this was proof that if you treat someone who dresses nicely, well, you're a racist.  And I don't go into Banana Republic in sweatpants.  They look at me funny.  So I just don't go into Banana Republic anymore because I only wear sweatpants.

STU:  But you're right, it actually proves the exact opposite.

GLENN:  The exact opposite.

STU:  If you are a person who walks around -- if you're intimidated by a black person in a suit, for example, and you are not intimidated by a white person in a gang attire, then you're racist.

STEVEN:  Right.

STU:  But that's different.  That's a totally different story.

STEVEN:  Right.

STU:  It's based on the dress.  It's based on -- if you're going down and you have a bunch of people coming at you, looking like Eminem in their prime, you might very well be intimidated.  That doesn't make you racist against whites.

STEVEN:  Eminem.  At least Eminem had a prime.  What about my prime?  

Listen.  You could take Glenn, right?  Take off the cardigan.  Okay.  Get rid of the scruff there that he has going.  And if you put him in no-belted prison pants and, you know, a giant red hoodie that looks like he's not staying neutral.  He's in the Bloods.  And you walk him down the streets of Inglewood, I'm going to walk on the other side of the street.  So that gives you some context.  And that's exactly what this guy proved.

GLENN:  I think there's a slam in there someplace.  I'm just not sure exactly where it is.

STU:  Yeah.  He's using you as the least threatening --

GLENN:  I know.  Steven Crowder.  LouderwithCrowder.com.  LouderwithCrowder.com.  Thanks, Steven.  We'll talk to you again.

Featured Image: Screenshot from YouTube

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.

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.