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

If Trump Embraces Single-Payer Health Care, the Country Is Lost

April 03, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way --- or is he headed toward universal health care? It's hard to tell.

"What I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul, he's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus and then he comes out over the weekend and says --- the White House does --- No, you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats. Fake news? It's your tweets, dude," Glenn said Monday on radio.

One thing's for sure, if Trump embraces single-payer health care, we're done and officially the country formerly known as the United States of America.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want to get to the Los Angeles times on Donald Trump, which it really is incredible, how the mainstream media just does not see their own hypocrisy. We'll get to that here in just a second.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way? Which way is he going?

STU: Maybe we can ask Rand Paul. They played some golf this weekend. Hopefully some good results out of that. Rand has a much better idea on health care than Ryan or Trump.

PAT: We should try to get him on the air. Ask him about it. Wonder if he would be willing to talk about it.

GLENN: Yeas. Of course he would. Of course he would.

Mike, see if we can get him on the air.

STU: Because he's been very solid on this since the election. He's been pushing hard. He has a much better plan than most --

PAT: Yes, he has. He's been maybe the most solid on it.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAT: Because you got other people defecting from like the Freedom Caucus, like Ted Poe.

GLENN: You can't let that go.

PAT: It just pisses me off. He wrote a big opinion piece on why I left the Freedom Caucus. And it's filled with the same infuriating BS. This is not a perfect bill. There's no such thing as a perfect bill. Hey, we must stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good?

No, why don't we focus on being good. And then maybe that can be the enemy of really terrible. How about that?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Just --

GLENN: We're not looking for perfection.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Just looking for --

PAT: That's the excuse the Democrats used when they crafted this piece of garbage in the first place. Well, it's not a perfect bill. But we had to do something.

GLENN: But we'll get there.

PAT: And we'll get there eventually. No.

GLENN: And we are getting there eventually.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We are. To their goal.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And I understand you're never going to get perfect. But shouldn't you be able to see perfect from your first proposal? Shouldn't you be able to at least in the distance be able to see perfect from your first beginning negotiating point? Now, I understand you're not going to get everything in there.

PAT: Yes. Yes. If perfect is heaven, this bill is in south hell right now.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: You can't even see it from there.

STU: On the wrong side of the railroad tracks. It's sad.

PAT: Yes. Yes. I mean, and for them to be okay with it, for them to craft this delicious turd burger and say, "Go ahead. Eat up. Okay. No, it's not steak, but it's better than going hungry." No, it's really not. It's really not.

GLENN: I just can't figure out --

PAT: Especially when we've got good chefs in the kitchen who could be cooking us something delicious.

GLENN: Rand Paul is doing it. Ted Cruz has done it.

PAT: Yeah. Mike Lee.

STU: Mo Brooks.

PAT: Yeah, Ted Cruz's plan is awesome.

GLENN: Yeah, there's some good plans out there. He should pick one and try that. You know what's -- what I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul. He's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus. And then he comes out, over the weekend, and says -- the White House does, "No -- you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats."

STU: So weird.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Fake news? It's your tweets, dude.

STU: You are the one saying -- and not even in another venue. It was on the same account. You're saying that everyone is fake for saying there's differences, when you are promising to primary people in 2018 that disagree with you. That's not a loving relationship.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: That's really incredible. I don't know -- I mean, I just don't think people care, right? We were talking about this off the air. Because there's a new -- there's a professor. His name -- Jonah Goldberg wrote about him. His name is F.H. Buckley. He's the law professor who helped organize Scholars and Writers for Trump.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Okay. And he wrote an interesting column for the New York Post this weekend. The headline: Why Trump should embrace single-payer health care.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And it goes into saying that, well, Ryancare, which, again, is a bit fraudulent -- look, Trump pushed just as hard for this, and now he's saying he's going to primary people who opposed him on the battle. So it's just as much Trumpcare as it is Ryancare. Let's get over that for a second.

But Ryancare was something only an accountant or a right-wing ideologue could love. How could a right-wing ideologue love that?

That was a disastrous plan. It locked in 75 percent of Obamacare with a couple improvements on it.

So it goes in to say, Trump didn't promise that. He promised a plan that would leave no one insured. The SimpliSafe way to do this --

PAT: No one uninsured.

STU: Sure. Sorry. That would be a real weird campaign promise.

PAT: That would be weird.

STU: I promise you will not have insurance.

GLENN: But you'll pay through the nose.

STU: Sorry. The simplest way to do this is with universal health care or on the Canadian model with a right of individuals to purchase a Cadillac plan on top of this, out of pocket.

PAT: Oh, my.

STU: And there are things that might be added like removing the ban on reimporting drugs from Canada.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: And he goes on to say, you know who would support this? The people who elected Trump in 2016.

PAT: Would they?

STU: They weren't right-wing ideologues. They were people who had lost or feared they would lose their jobs. Many -- is this you, in the audience? I mean, certainly some of these things are these people. But a lot of other people voted for him as well.

They were people who had lost or had feared they would lose their jobs. Many were, but a few steps away from the diseases of despair, social isolation, drug and alcohol poisonings, and suicide.

PAT: What?

STU: And it goes on --

PAT: So it was suicidal people who voted for Trump.

STU: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Well, that explains a lot.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's so ridiculous. It's so crazy to say.

(laughter)

STU: As Jonah finished up: This is a problem. His estimation, Buckley -- and a lot of people say this -- that the Trump voter or the people who elected Trump, are one vast undifferentiated mass of down-on-their-luck, on-the-verge-of-suicide alcoholics and opiate-addicted sad sacks. As a mathematical or statistical proposition, it's a bit much to say they were the people who elected Donald Trump. Sure, they may have provided him the margin of victory in a handful of counties in Florida and Michigan, but if they did, it was only because rank-and-file Republicans put those states in play in the first place. About 9 percent of people who identify themselves as Democrats voted for Trump. About 7 percent of those who identified as Republican voted for Clinton.

So there's very little difference there. This whole idea that all these independents rushed one way or the other, it doesn't seem that that's necessarily what happened. The issue here though is, you know, if you did vote for Trump, you know, if he starts going down this road, will you oppose him then? We should get that on record now. Remember it now before he does it. Because people in the groups that supported him, the people he thinks have been loyal to him are going to him to encourage that he go to single-payer health care. At the same time, he's promising to primary the people who want it to be more conservative

PAT: And this is the Bernie Sanders plan, by the way. Keep that in mind. It's the socialist Bernie Sanders plan. So can we get behind that as a Republican Party?

STU: Say, we don't like that. Can we get to that one?

PAT: Can we? Can we say that right now, before Trump does get on board with this? Hopefully, he won't. But if he did, wouldn't that be wrong? Can we get that out of --

STU: It's a mental experiment. Sure, he's not going to do it. We can all agree he's not going to pay for it. But let's just think now how we feel if he did.

What would you say about it? Think about it now, before it happens, before it's a big issue.

Would you support it or oppose it?

STU: Right.

PAT: That's an important thing to remember.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And then write it down somewhere. Write it on like -- you know what, write it on permanent marker somewhere, like on a wall in your home, that you remember that when Donald Trump wasn't proposing single-payer health care, I thought it was a really bad idea. Just write it somewhere, I don't know, on your door. On your mirror, in permanent ink.

GLENN: There's no way -- there's no way -- I will tell you, you said eat your underwear. If the conservatives -- if you would go -- and he's not going to do this. If he would go for a single-payer health care system and the conservatives would go right along with him, I don't -- do I eat the whole underwear factory?

STU: I mean, would you?

GLENN: I don't know -- there's no way.

STU: Think of this scenario for a second.

PAT: If that happens, aren't we fairly lost as a country?

GLENN: Oh, yeah, we're done.

STU: In that crazy scenario, we would be lost, right?

PAT: We're lost.

STU: So -- but think of the scenario where let's say things don't go well the next couple years for Donald Trump as president and he's opposed by the Freedom Caucus and it pisses him off.

JEFFY: It's almost impossible.

STU: And in 2018, maybe the Democrats take control of the House. They only have 52 seats in the Senate. Maybe they take control of the House. And then he's thinking, well, things aren't going well. And these people stood in my way the whole time, and we have these real problems. I can solve them with the Democrats, and enough Republicans would certainly go along with him on this. You wouldn't need the Freedom Caucus on that one. You get the Democrats and you put together the most annoying Republicans in the House. He can absolutely get it done. It would be difficult for a Democrat president to get that done. It would not be difficult for a Donald Trump if he changed views on this or adopted his views from the campaign.

It would not be that difficult.

And, you know, it would be a big change, but, you know, you put --

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Trump supporting it.

PAT: He's done that stuff before though.

STU: He can do that. Trump supporting it. Because you'd get Democrats. You'd only have to get a few Republicans -- or maybe none! Depending on what happens in 2018. It might be none.

PAT: It's not like he's never changed a point of view, is it? In fact, it's quite the opposite.

GLENN: I don't think he's ever changed his view on health care. He has said that that's what he wants. Single-payer universal health care where everyone is covered.

PAT: Yes. And the government pays for it.

GLENN: And the government pays for it.

STU: And it seems like the Ted Poe argument here is to say, well, you should be scared of that. So let's embrace the really terrible policies he's doing right now so he doesn't get mad at us.

PAT: Yeah. Rather than saying, look, we've got a majority in Congress and we have the executive branch. Let's get something really good passed. I don't know why that can't be the mindset for the Republicans. But it just never is.

STU: And he's not making the policies. Put good policies in front of him and make him veto them.

PAT: Right. It's what they did with Obama.

STU: Right.

PAT: But they showed they weren't serious, didn't they? We're not serious.

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.