Pat's Pleasantly Political Mother's Day

If only Glenn had shown up in his Braveheart costume with blue-painted face to save Mother's Day. Unfortunately for co-host Pat Gray, no such luck. Pat's version of Mother's Day was riddled with politically progressive pleasantries.

"My son-in-law tends to be . . . he's got a . . . I'm going to put this very . . . he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?" Pat said.

Well, that's sweet, but there seems to be something more there.

"He's a bleeding heart liberal," Pat admitted.

What heated political topic drove Pat nuts this Mother's Day? Transgender bathrooms? Illegal Immigration? Right to life issues?

"You know what it was? Food," Pat said. "Food."

Some people, it turns out, don't realize they're making bad food choices that are harmful to their bodies.

Sounds like a case for government intervention.

"It's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics . . . and the issue, of course here, is that it is about politics, right?" co-host Stu said. "The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities."

Naturally, progressives think dumb people who don't know the difference between "good" and "bad" food need help from the government.

"Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses," Glenn said. "They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid."

"These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about," Pat said.

And what did Margaret Sanger and her ilk want to do to stupid people?

"Their idea was to eliminate them, and it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them," Glenn said.

"Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now," Pat said.

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

GLENN: So I just unplugged this weekend from politics entirely. Pat didn't have that opportunity.

JEFFY: Just like you.

PAT: No, I didn't.

JEFFY: Oh, no?

GLENN: Yeah. Because Pat has allowed his children to marry.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Well, my -- my -- I -- my son-in-law --

STU: I think you as well.

GLENN: Yeah, but I approve. I approve.

PAT: My son-in-law tends to be -- he's got a -- I'm going to put this very -- he's got a very gentle heart. Isn't that a nice?

JEFFY: He does?

PAT: He's a bleeding heart liberal.

And he's liberal on some things, but he's conservative enough on other things to where, you know, most of the time you can get along.

JEFFY: And that's what you talked about mostly all weekend was all the conservative stuff that you see eye to eye on.

PAT: No. No. No.

GLENN: It's not even politics that drove him nuts. It's not even politics.

PAT: You know what it was? Food. Food.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: So he starts going off on food and nutrition and all --

GLENN: What's he do? Is he a nutritionist?

PAT: He's going to school, and he's studying in -- one of his classes involves food.

GLENN: You know him really well.

PAT: So he and Jackie are talking about food. Because you know what a health nut she is in nutrition and all that stuff.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: And so they're talking about that. And I'm fine with that. And then he starts in on how there are people in this world who just don't know the food that's good for them.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: They just don't understand what food is good for them. And I said, "What?"

(laughter)

Who are these people? Because I've never met them. I mean, you might think by looking at me that I don't know, but I do. And I disregard all that knowledge and consume the food.

(chuckling)

Who doesn't know about food?

(chuckling)

GLENN: Happy Mother's Day.

(laughter)

PAT: And he's like --

JEFFY: Can you pass me the mashed potatoes?

PAT: And he's like, "No, Pat, people just don't. They don't know. A lot of people don't know. A lot of them." I said, "In the United States of America, there are a lot of people who don't know?" And then my daughter starts in, "Well, in your area, Dad, like you guys have really nice grocery stores. There's some people who only have Walmart." Walmart? You can get fine food in Walmart!

STU: And, by the way, that's where I go to shop with the choice of all the great grocery stores.

PAT: Right. Most of us do because it's really cheap, right?

GLENN: And it's good food.

PAT: You can get good food cheaply.

JEFFY: You can get other things there.

STU: Yeah. They also have --

JEFFY: It's all in one.

GLENN: Now, can you get Duck ‡ l'orange at Walmart?

PAT: No, but you can't get it where I shop either.

GLENN: Okay. I can't where I shop either. I don't know where you buy Duck ‡ l'orange.

PAT: I think you buy the duck and then you buy the ‡ l'orange, and you can put them together at home. I think that's what happens.

GLENN: Okay. I don't know.

PAT: But you can do that at Walmart too. And so, anyway, he's -- at one point, he said there was something -- something like a Hispanic woman that he saw outside his work, and she was drinking some large cappuccino or frappuccino or something with all kinds of cream. And it was huge. And he was like, "Do you think she knew what she was doing with her body?" Yes. And I think she disregarded.

GLENN: Why is it important --

PAT: Why -- and why don't you think it's -- she knew?

GLENN: Well, that's what I was going to ask you: Why did he point out she was Hispanic?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know. Because in Hispanic community, they have less knowledge than we do? I mean, I think that's really insulting to Hispanics.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: To blacks. And liberals do this though. They -- it is the -- it is the -- it's the prejudice of low expectations.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: It's the racism of low expectations.

JEFFY: It's way of saying, all she had to do was go to this fast food store.

PAT: I'm like, are there schools? Is there television? Is there internet? Has she seen a newspaper? Is there a magazine? Is there a flier?

GLENN: Is there a nutritional guide?

PAT: Is there a nutritional guide on -- which none of us look at, but are there all those things? And aside from that, you inherently know, ice cream is not as good for me as broccoli. I know because of the taste. Everyone knows it. But for some reason, we're supposed to believe that -- that minorities don't that know.

GLENN: Because progressives have not changed. They have only lowered the consequence. Back in the early Progressive Era, around the 1900s, these people were idiots. There were idiot houses.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Crazy houses. Idiot houses. They were idiots. They were degenerates. They were people that were going to spoil the race because they were too stupid.

PAT: These are the people that Margaret Sanger talked about.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger. And so their idea was to eliminate them. And it was not Hitler that did the gas chamber. It was, what's his name? George Bernard Shaw. He's the guy that came up with the gas chamber. So their idea was to eliminate these people. The progressives have not changed. They still believe these people are idiots. They just think that now we have to care for them.

PAT: Their punishment has changed. They don't want to eliminate them. They just want to control them now.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And it's funny because, Pat, you say it's not about politics, which it was about food. And the issue, of course, here is that it is about politics, right?

PAT: It is. Because what do you do about it?

STU: Because the solution -- you have every right to think everyone else is an idiot and doesn't know what is in their frappuccino. The answer to that might be, I will start an educational program. I will start a website that will inform people. I will try to do outreach to these communities.

GLENN: I'll learn how to speak Spanish so I can say, "Lady, what are you doing, fatso?"

STU: El lardo, get out of the street. You'll do whatever you have to do.

GLENN: I don't think that's Spanish.

STU: I think it is.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: You have to put an O on street.

GLENN: Again, I don't think adding O to words is Spanish.

STU: The problem with the approach is you're doing it through government enforcing it. It's taking these beliefs that you have and saying, "Because I'm progressive and I'm smarter than everybody else, I get to be right and enforce it on everyone else, instead of letting them make their own decision."

PAT: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: It's amazing. Because these people are the ones that believe in Darwin. Survival of the fittest.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Then let them die in their fatness.

PAT: Yes. Or us. Because we're part of that, right? We're four fat guys sitting on two different couches that we barely fit on.

GLENN: I don't know if you know this, America is the fattest country in the world.

PAT: Except it's not. Except it's not. That came up in the discussion too.

GLENN: I was going to say, it sounds almost like -- you know that --

PAT: That America is the fattest -- that's one of the things he said was America's the fattest country on earth. And my son quickly thought, "Hmm, I don't think that's true." My 18-year-old son it up quickly on Google and finds out we're number seven. We're number seven. Mexico is ahead of us. Iceland is ahead of us. There's a bunch of countries. There's six countries ahead of us.

JEFFY: Is that true?

GLENN: I had no idea.

PAT: Yeah, most people don't.

JEFFY: We're always told we're the fattest.

PAT: We're always told -- and we just accept -- and I think at one time it was true. Five, six, seven years ago, we probably did top one of those lists. But I think in 2012, Mexico passed us. And now so have others.

GLENN: You know why? They've adopted our western way of life.

PAT: And that's why our western way of life needs to stop.

STU: It does seem to be winning a lot, doesn't it?

GLENN: I'd rather have the problem of fat than starvation.

PAT: Well, yes. That's the greatest problem that has ever faced mankind. Why would you rather do? Die of a heart attack when you're 65 or die of malnutrition and starvation at 16? I'm taking 65. Thank you very much.

STU: You talk about that story from the Soviet Union many times where they showed a documentary of what was going on in the United States about poor people.

GLENN: Poverty. This happened during the Reagan administration. This is when Gorbachev knew they were losing.

60 Minutes did this horrible, horrible piece on homelessness in America and how -- how bad the poor and the homeless were living in America. And he thought, look, they're taking -- they're taking themselves down. We can't be accused of propaganda. We'll take that 60 Minutes, and we'll play it on our state television and say, "This isn't coming from us. There's no edits here." It backfired because all the people looked at the poorest among us and went, "Holy cow, look at how they're living."

STU: They're overweight.

GLENN: They're overweight. They are -- look at what they have. Oh, my gosh.

And that was the story on poverty in America.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's a good problem to have, man.

GLENN: Great problem.

STU: It's a problem that has evaded every other country in human history in any other time. The fact that you have to worry about eating too much, not having the -- the official supply or enough supply to get through and, you know, keep yourself fed. That was always the problem.

PAT: They would say, it's only because we're eating the wrong foods.

STU: Yeah, by the way, that's not true. Study after study after study has shown the same mineral intake, the same vitamin intake, similar caloric intakes. It has nothing to do with that across the spectrum. Obviously, the food taste goes down when you can spend less on it.

GLENN: We were talking about this the other day. Imagine what food tasted like 100 years ago.

STU: Oh, it was probably horrible.

GLENN: Horrible. When everything had to be preserved with salt. So all of the meat, everything, all preserved with salt. Or smoke. Can you imagine how dark -- without sugar. How dark the food was? How salty and nasty food was?

PAT: Could not have looked appetizing.

GLENN: Oh, no.

JEFFY: But did you -- Pat, some people have to shop at Walmart.

PAT: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: I know. That's horrible.

PAT: I know. Really, it's crazy.

GLENN: Can you imagine?

PAT: Because you can't get lettuce.

STU: I love Walmart. I freaking love Walmart.

GLENN: Can you imagine taking people from any second world country --

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: -- and bringing them to Walmart. How they would just be overwhelmed. They would look at that and say, "Oh, this is disgusting."

PAT: The choices you have.

GLENN: Can you imagine? Not third world. Any second world country.

PAT: They wouldn't know what to do.

GLENN: Many places in Europe, they would come to that and go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at this." And we are rejecting it. Don't get me started. Because I'm about to go into an ugly, ugly place.

PAT: Thank you. Welcome to my Mother's Day.

GLENN: Thank you. Thank you.

And now, this. Why didn't you call me? I would have gladly come and battled it out. I would have painted my face and come over there.

JEFFY: You were busy arranging.

GLENN: I would have -- I would have dressed and painted my face like Braveheart and come with a battle ax.

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.

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.