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

Hillary Wants You to Suspend Reality and Live in Her Alternate Universe

September 28, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Conspiracy theorists came out swinging following the first presidential debate, accusing Hillary of wearing a robotic cough suppressor that also alleviated symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Unfortunately, it was a waste of time. Hillary's alternate reality provides more than enough fodder to prove she's completely unfit for the presidency.

RELATED: Which Hillary Lie Bothered You Most During the Debate?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these suppressed questions:

• What illogical reason did Hillary give to prove she has stamina?

• Does Glenn wear a robotic cough suppressor?

• Do women deserve equal pay if they do as good of a job as men?

• How long would it take a person devoid of corruption to testify before Congress?

• Does filing for bankruptcy make you a good businessperson?

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

GLENN: Holy cow. We have to -- can we start at the conspiracy theory of the day?

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Have you seen the conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton's robotic, anti- -- or her cough suppresser.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Her robotic cough suppresser.

STU: So stupid.

PAT: I haven't seen that.

STU: Isn't it just her microphone?

GLENN: Yeah, it's her microphone. Yeah, it's a -- a hidden device -- a hidden device on the back of Hillary Clinton's clothing.

PAT: What?

GLENN: It was an instrument that sends impulses to the brain to alleviate symptoms of Parkinson's disease.

You'll never guess who came up with this one. I like to call it a battery pack.

(laughter)

STU: For the microphone that she's wearing plainly.

GLENN: Right. Well, that's what it is: A battery pack and transmitter for the microphone. Which you can see, there's the battery pack, and then you can see underneath her like sweater thing is the microphone cable going up. And if you look at the picture of her standing the other direction, which I don't think I have, you see that her microphone is right there.

STU: Right. Which we are all aware of --

GLENN: And show me your battery pack.

STU: Oh, it's right here.

GLENN: Right here. There's your battery pack. Here's my battery pack. But if you're on television, it's always in the back.

STU: And they normally don't want you to see it.

GLENN: Right. And if you're wearing a dress with women, it is usually underneath their dress. And they look like they have a big huge bump right to the center of their back, where -- like, they clip it on the bra usually. Is that the way they do it? Underneath, yeah. So they clip it no their bra, so it looks like they have this big square box. That's why you never see Megyn Kelly from the back.

PAT: All women on television have Parkinson's disease, and that little device helps them control it.

GLENN: Well --

PAT: It's weird.

GLENN: -- it's not Parkinson's only, Pat. It's a cough suppresser.

PAT: Oh, what else is there? Okay.

JEFFY: I mean, if you're going to hide it, what a perfect place that is --

PAT: Cough suppresser. Is there such a thing? Does such a device exist?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Then you would think Michael J. Fox would have that at all times. Right?

GLENN: Yes, yes. And he would be fine. Yeah. Why take medicine? Why not just have the Parkinson's --

PAT: The little device that helps you suppress it. I mean, I'd wear that all the time if I had it.

GLENN: I'm wearing it now.

STU: If anything, it proves Hillary is nuts. It's, of course, her incredibly lengthy testimony in front of numerous corruption investigations, which is essentially her excuse.

Oh, yeah. You don't think I have stamina? Well, I sat in front of an investigation for 11 hours and answered questions about how corrupt I am. So that proves you're wrong.

That's not making a point you want to make, Hillary.

JEFFY: Made it pretty good though.

PAT: Yeah, she coughed her brains multiple times on that, if you remember that. She coughed her brains out several times.

JEFFY: Yeah, she did.

STU: That's not a --

GLENN: Her actual brains came out?

PAT: Her brains came out.

GLENN: Wow.

JEFFY: It was ugly.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that was an amazing moment in the debate that for some reason, Trump missed her excuse for saying how healthy she was, was to say she gets berated through lengthy questioning and testimony in front of Congress. That's not something you want to brag about: I was in front of Congress because people think I'm really corrupt, and I had to answer questions for 11 hours. They couldn't get me out of there in an hour because I'm so corrupt, they kept me 11 times that amount.

GLENN: Well, hang on just a second, his excuse on knowing how to run the country is because he's a good businessman. And to prove that, he's gone bankrupt, what, four or seven times?

PAT: Four times. Uh-huh.

GLENN: And that's just him knowing the laws and knowing how to use it. That's good business. And his defense of being a good businessman is, I go bankrupt. I know how to do it. Oh, and I don't pay taxes because I'm super smart.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I mean, both of them were using these defenses, that were like, "What?"

PAT: So bad. So bad.

STU: It's sort of a bizarre missed opportunity though. It seems like it happened a lot in the debate.

JEFFY: It sure did.

PAT: Yeah, what was the other thing that we noticed about Hillary --

STU: I like this one. First of all, she said during the debate -- this is a quote -- because she's going through this litany of things that Trump has said that is bad about women. One he said -- Donald Trump said then women don't deserve equal pay, unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: If they don't do as good a job, they probably shouldn't make the same amount of money.

STU: That's exactly --

GLENN: But I think --

PAT: But when they do as good a job, they should.

GLENN: Right. And if men don't do as good a job as a woman would do, then we probably shouldn't have to pay the man the same that the woman is paid.

STU: Exactly. That is an exact quote: Women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah! Is anyone standing up against that?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And in the same sort of litany, she said something to the effect of, you know, Donald Trump called pregnancy an inconvenience for a business. Now, Trump's response to that --

PAT: And?

STU: -- I never said that. Of course, he did say it. So, you know, typical -- like horrible response. However, what if he were to go down the road of, "Look, we can be honest here. It is an inconvenience for a business to lose some of its most valuable workers for an extended amount of time."

JEFFY: And that's what he said -- I mean, that's what he originally said.

STU: Right.

The point here though is that, who cares? We have decided, and I have decided that it's more important -- human life is more important than how it affects a business. We believe in people who come -- and this would be awesome if he would go down this road. But it's like, I'm not going to sit here and be lectured about the value of pregnancy from a person who worships at the altar of Margaret Sanger.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: I mean, what a ridiculous thing to bring up. Yet, I didn't say that, was his response.

GLENN: Well, here's the other thing. And it goes kind of in this, where she's asking you to deny reality. He can't defend. He's worthless and incapable of defending principles. Incapable.

That would have been a great answer. Great answer. But he's incapable of doing it.

Let me give you -- oh, shoot. Now I just lost it. There was another one that she brought up. You're going to have to go to something else. Because I can't remember now. It will come to me as soon as I stop talking.

STU: You know why? Because that Parkinson's device you're wearing is screwing with your brain. That's why.

GLENN: It is. (coughing).

STU: He's turned it off. He's turned it off.

PAT: Oh, no.

GLENN: There was something else that she said -- oh, oh, I remember what it was.

They are so disconnected -- they're asking you to -- to deny reality. And if he would have said that, it would have been great. Look, are you kidding me?

I think even a woman would say, having a baby is a pretty big inconvenience in my life.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Being pregnant for nine months is a pretty big inconvenience. So let's not argue about inconvenience. Look at what you're trying to do, Hillary. You're trying to take something and have us deny the very reality that we know is true.

You have done that with al-Qaeda and ISIS, denying the reality. Denying the reality of people who are bombing things here in the United States, blowing us up, going into Fort Hood and shooting people. Has nothing to do with Islam.

This is one of the problems. Here's another one, Hillary, that you just said: I just said one of the bravest and most true statements that has been uttered by an American politician on the plight of the African-American in inner cities, that has been spoken since possibly Booker T. Washington. And that is this: The African-Americans that is living in places like Chicago, where their kids and their relatives are being shot in the street, are living in hell.

And you responded with, "Oh, but you forget about all the great wonderful churches." Yes, and I've also left out that I'm sure there's a few cold stone creameries in Chicago as well. I'm sure I've left out there's some other really great things that happen. But it's also a living hell. And for you to ask the American people -- no, forget the American people. For you to ask African-Americans to deny the reality that they're living in some sort of hell -- and, quite honestly, Hillary, one you would never allow your children to live in. Never. You would never move in.

Well, I'm sorry. You moved into Harlem because you have presidential security.

PAT: Well, they -- she didn't.

GLENN: Yeah, she didn't.

PAT: He moved his office there.

GLENN: Yeah. And Harlem isn't the inner city of Philadelphia or the inner city of Chicago.

STU: It's actually pretty nice at this point.

GLENN: Yes. It's very nice.

STU: Many areas of it are very nice.

GLENN: So she just -- that was the craziest thing is both of them were asking us to deny reality. I've never seen it like this before. I've never seen it this obvious before.

PAT: Had he responded with those -- in that way, he would have destroyed her.

GLENN: Destroy her.

PAT: She would be absolutely destroyed. This thing would be over. It would be a runaway.

Featured Image: Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton speaks during the first presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York on September 26, 2016. (Photo Credit: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

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

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

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

Establish basic liability laws

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

Pass increased whistleblower protections

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

Prevent AI from having legal rights

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

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

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

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

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Midnight Hammer

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

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

What comes next

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

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

That would be catastrophic.

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

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

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

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

Now we pray

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

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

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


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising Islamism

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Blending the worst ideologies

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

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

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

Call out radicalism

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

Here’s what’s really happening.

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

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

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

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

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

Failed management

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

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

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

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

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

Biden’s federal land-grab

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

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

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

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

Land as collateral

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

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

The American way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.