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

Those Standing on Principle Are in Good Company

September 26, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

And then there was a baker's dozen, give or take.

Only a handful of conservative media voices remain firm in their opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. While the others have caved, a core group continues to stand for principles.

RELATED: The Gift Ted Cruz Gave Us

"I am to the point of, 'bring it on!' We are in good company," Glenn said on his radio program Monday. "We are in good company."

Glenn made a list --- albeit small --- of those still fighting the good fight, along with himself and his co-hosts:

• Steve Deace

• Erick Erickson

• Mary Matalin

• Michael Medved

• Ben Shapiro

• Charles Sykes

• George Will

• Leon Wolf

• John Ziegler

"I know there are more," Glenn said. "And a good portion of this audience."

Under enormous scrutiny and pressure, these voices have held fast to the principles and ideals that founded the United States. They are, indeed, in good company:

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – James Madison, 1788

And in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech. – Benjamin Franklin, 1722

The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. – Alexander Hamilton, 1787

They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure. – John Jay, 1788

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. – George Washington, 1779

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It is a government of the worst possible people.

PAT: Oh, that -- I mean, that's exactly what we are.

(chuckling)

PAT: Dumb name. But it's exactly what we are.

GLENN: You get there because you vote for the lesser of two evils. And by the end, you have compromised yourself down so far, that you're just dealing with people.

You know, "Hmm, should I have Pol Pot or Mao? I don't know. I don't know." And so you get the worst possible people that rise to the top. Because the good people stay at home and they're like, "I don't have anything to do with it." I think that's where we are now. That's where we are. And good people get into it, and they compromise themselves because they say, "I have to be in here, and I have to be a part of it." And I don't think you do.

PAT: And the guys who they didn't like when they were on the outside are those same ones who were schmoozing them and saying, "Hey, look, you support my bill, and I'm going to get you the chairman of this committee." And they start to like this person. And, you know, we saw it happen with Orrin Hatch, with Ted Kennedy. I mean, Ted Kennedy groomed Orrin Hatch from the very beginning in the Senate, and look what happened there. I mean, the guy is not conservative. Started out that way, but they don't end up that way. Nobody does. How is it that we're always co-opted and we co-opt no one?

GLENN: We co-opt no one, ever. Ever. Because we have convinced ourselves that the only way to win is to play the game. We haven't -- maybe we should all go back and watch WarGames. What was the lesson of WarGames? The only way to win is to not play the game.

PAT: Not play the game.

STU: I mean, every Matthew Broaddrick movie has a lesson like that we can take through life.

GLENN: I think so. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, yeah.

I don't understand -- does anybody understand the calculus here?

STU: No. I mean, it -- certainly I don't understand it now.

PAT: To win.

STU: I mean, what the hell was the point of the convention speech? What the hell was the point of that?

PAT: Right. Why didn't you just do it then?

STU: Just do it then. And I think everyone at that point would have been like, "All right. Well, he said he was going to support the nominee."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Well, may I give you a hypothesis?

PAT: That should maybe be our first question to him, "Why didn't you do it then, if you were going to do it."

JEFFY: Yeah. Why'd you wait?

GLENN: Here's my hypothesis: Reince Priebus was on the warpath and said, "I will destroy -- I'll destroy anybody." There's enough of your big tent, gang. Don't talk to me about a big tent.

PAT: Oh, they don't want a big tent.

GLENN: They don't want a big tent. They are just as bad as GLAAD and PETA. I mean, I'm only -- I'm waiting for the buckets of blood to be splashed on me or anybody like me because you won't get in bed with the party. That is exactly -- this is the way the left does it. And we're doing the same thing. And Reince Priebus is the head of that march. And you will all march in line like little soldiers, or we'll destroy you.

And so here's what I think, I think that they were playing the game and playing the calculus as everybody was. And his numbers were starting to go down. Roger Ailes joins the Trump team. You saw another Roger Ailes move this weekend when Donald Trump said, "I'm going to put Gennifer Flowers in the front, for the debate tonight." What happens? The campaign retracts that and says, "Oh, I'm sorry. And we're not going to do that." That's Roger Ailes.

And the response was, "Maybe we'll put one of the bed -- the mothers of one of the dead soldiers from Benghazi in the front." That's Roger Ailes.

STU: So the first one is --

GLENN: Donald Trump is, "I'm going to go after Gennifer Flowers." Roger Ailes is, "Benghazi, dude. Benghazi." And so what happened?

Roger Ailes comes in, and the numbers start going up. And I think if the numbers were going down at this point, Reince Priebus would probably start to torpedo -- or probably just unplug and start worrying about the House and the Senate. But the pressure started to mount. Pure speculation: Pressure started to mount, and the G.O.P. saw, "This is within striking distance now. All hands on deck. And we'll destroy you if you don't play --

PAT: Wasn't that the same message though they gave before the convention?

GLENN: Yes, but I think the convention numbers -- I think they were doing that, and then the convention numbers started to slide, and they kind of backed off. And now the numbers are coming back up. They start putting the pressure back on.

STU: And this is the issue. This tells me nothing new about Reince Priebus. It tells me a lot new about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz folding to that is not the guy I thought it was.

PAT: That's the problem.

GLENN: And here's the problem.

STU: Glenn, honestly, you think if Donald Trump was down 15 points right now, Ted Cruz would be endorsing him? No, absolutely not.

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Let's ask him that question. I mean, he'll say probably yes. But, I mean, if he was down 15 points right now and this was a complete disaster, there's no way he would be out there endorsing him.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that tells me way too much. Much more than I wanted to know. I wanted to live in the dark, and now unfortunately I live in the light.

GLENN: No. I'm actually glad I know.

STU: Of course I am. You know, I want to be the only one. I want all these guys out of here. I want to be the last man standing. I want Sasse on the phone. Get him on the phone! I want him folding too! I want Sasse! I want Lee! I want all of them to fold. I want all of you to fold. I want to be the only one. That's it.

GLENN: I do too. That's where I got last night. First -- my first reaction was, no one you can believe in. No one you can actually believe in. That was my first reaction. It would have been mass suicide for anyone who thought like I did on Friday when I hung up the phone.

I almost just -- and it wasn't out of anger. It wasn't out of anger. It was just --

PAT: Disappointment.

GLENN: It was so just disappointment and disconnect of like, "Nothing even matters anymore."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: As I was talking to him, I almost just -- I found myself actually taking the phone and looking at it like, "Where is the off button," while he was talking. "Where do I just -- okay. End call, right there." I mean -- and it wasn't like, "I'm going to hang up in disgust." It was like, "Okay. I don't have time for anymore of this."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it was just complete disconnect. Nothing mattered. And so it wouldn't have been good. It wouldn't have been good for me to have been on the radio.

PAT: No.

GLENN: Because it was that -- but now, I am to the point of, bring it on.

We are in good company. We are in good company.

PAT: Who? With the four of us? It's very bad company.

GLENN: I made a list, and it's a very small list. It's a very small list. Ben Shapiro. Michael Medved. Charles Sykes. Erick Erickson. Steve Deace. George Will. Mary Matalin. Leon Wolf. John Ziegler. I know there are more.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Uh-huh. Yeah.

GLENN: I know there are, but I couldn't think of them.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And a good portion of this audience.

PAT: That's eight. Plus us, that's 12.

GLENN: A Gang of Eight.

JEFFY: So?

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah, they -- yeah.

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah. And that article that Erick Erickson wrote last week was one of the best I've seen --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. You should read -- I read Steve Deace's book. What is it?

JEFFY: Nefarious.

GLENN: Nefarious. Oh, my gosh, I wrote to him last night --

PAT: He's good. Really good.

GLENN: That is C.S. Lewis. That is C.S. Lewis. That is brilliant. Why -- why I'm not an up-and-coming struggling talk show host and he's not the guy with the titan title, I don't know. He is so much smarter than I am and really brilliant. That is a brilliantly written book.

PAT: Billions of people can say that.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. I know that.

Featured Image: Founding Fathers via Flickr

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

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

Establish basic liability laws

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

Pass increased whistleblower protections

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

Prevent AI from having legal rights

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

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

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

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

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Midnight Hammer

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

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

What comes next

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

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

That would be catastrophic.

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

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

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

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

Now we pray

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

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

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


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising Islamism

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Blending the worst ideologies

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

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

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

Call out radicalism

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.