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

Paul Ryan and the GOP Make Lindsey Graham Look Like Benjamin Franklin

May 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Well, it looks like Republicans are going to pull a Nancy Pelosi with the Obamacare replacement bill. We'll have to pass it to see exactly what's in it. If only we'd elected someone who promised to drain the swamp, destroy the GOP, tear the system down and get the weasels out. Oh wait, we did.

Unfortunately, Trump has failed to deliver on many of his promises --- and it won't be Paul Ryan and the GOP holding his feet to the fire.

"I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're like, 'Oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham.' Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now . . . Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse," Glenn said Thursday on radio.

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 4:10 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Glad you're here. So the Republicans are looking to pass the new health care bill, and I like the fact that we all know all about it, we've had a chance to debate the bill and talk about it, and they're not just jamming it down and jamming it through.

PAT: No and yes.

GLENN: Look at how twisted he is. No and yes. Which one is it?

STU: Make up your mind, moron.

GLENN: Right. Moron. Moron. Moron. Why do you hate people so much, moron?

Anyway, so we're going to pass it, and we don't really know what's in it, except they're going to cut back on some of it, which will make it even better.

PAT: Well, I think what the Republicans are kind of saying is they're going to get this done, even if they have to pole vault over it, if they have to parachute into it, if they have to bulldoze through it, they're gonna get it done. And then when they get it passed, then we're going to find out what's in it. I mean, shut up.

GLENN: Well, we do know this.

PAT: Right? I'm with you guys now.

GLENN: Make America great. So here's the thing. We're going to -- apparently, this is -- because I've heard this in the media. This is the biggest transfer of wealth in American history.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. That's great.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: They didn't say that when they were taking money from people who were working and then giving it directly to the poor for their health care. That was not -- that was social justice. This now taking the money from the people who have jobs and not giving it to the poor but allowing those people who have jobs to maybe keep a couple of extra dollars that they already earned, that's a transfer of wealth. You're transferring the wealth not from the rich to the poor but you're not transferring it --

PAT: No, you're taking it from the poor, and you're giving it to the wealthiest among us who don't need it.

STU: A huge tax cut for the rich. This is illegitimate their argument. You're not making this up. They're saying as of a few years ago, money was earned by people, and then they passed a bill where the money they earned had to be given to someone else.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And, by the way. One of the architects of the program said it must be that way.

STU: It must be that way.

PAT: That a health care plan that was fair and just and right must, must redistribute wealth.

GLENN: By the way, it's not just somebody who was part of it, it was the head guy.

PAT: Donald Berwick.

GLENN: Yeah. It was the head guy of ObamaCare. So it was about redistribution of wealth. But, no, everybody called us racists by pointing that out, using their own words. But now the press is saying this is the biggest transfer of wealth of all time. This is a horrible, horrible thing. They're right. Not about the, you know, transfer of wealth. They're right about this is a horrible, horrible thing because all this is going to do is weaken things. First of all, it started out as a 5 billion-dollar pool for those with existing conditions. Well, no. $5 billion? That's going to cover everybody with existing conditions? Probably not. Okay. So we're going to really bulk down, says the Republicans. What we're going to do is we're going to ask for $8 billion. Exactly like Dr. Evil would do. Okay, then it is $8 billion?

CBO estimates, and they don't have anything out on this officially yet. But it will take five times that amount. Could be $50 billion to be able to cover preexisting conditions. Now, if that's what the CBO says, you can guarantee it is at least five to ten times what the CBO says because they always have it wrong. So they're going to take more money and put it into the existing conditions. And the Republicans will say, yes, but at least we're not going to collapse the insurance companies. Yes, you will. You'll be able to find a way to collapse. Believe me. We have no doubt that you can collapse the free-market system.

Make no mistake, the reason why the Heritage Foundation was targeted, remember, if it wasn't for Jim DeMint, you wouldn't have Neil Gorsuch as your Supreme Court justice. You would not have them. It was Jim DeMint that put that list together, that pushed that list, that made sure Donald Trump stayed on that list, and that's why we have Neil Gorsuch. They took him out because the Heritage Foundation at the time was saying "No, this health care bill is just as bad. Maybe it's a little bit better, but this isn't what the American people wanted.

So just like Obama, we have to watch what this administration see what the other hand is doing. They told us we're coming after the Freedom Caucus. But instead, what they did is we were rallying around the Freedom Caucus, they took out and took out the Heritage Foundation. Now the Heritage Foundation is in the clutches of the Steve Bannons of the world and the Lindsey Grahams who strangely makes more sense now than people like Paul Ryan. When -- I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're, like, oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now. That's how far out -- Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse.

So now what they're going to do is they're going to pass this thing and strong arm everybody to vote for it, as Pat said, Nancy Pelosi said during the ObamaCare debacle, we're going to pole vault over the wall, we're gonna drop in, parachute in, we're going to do whatever we have to do, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

STU: Is there room for the argument? And some Republicans are making it, that we all know whatever the house passes. Let's say they pass the perfect health care plan, it's going to go to the senate, and the senate is going to do something completely different, and they're going to have to come together at the end anyway. So is it worth getting something through? You're going to have to go through this process later on anyway with the senate. Get it through, and figure out if you can come up with something good with the senate, and then you'll be able to vote on that. Is it not worth advancing this so at least there's --

GLENN: No, it's not to at least do anything because it's going to collapse, and anything you do ... then the whole damn thing is blamed on you just in time for the Democrats to ride in on their Marxist horse and say "See? They screwed it up. Made it worse. We have to go single pair health care."

STU: What do you do, though? Nothing?

GLENN: No, what you do is you fix the damn thing. You actually fix and allow it to be free market.

STU: But the reality is --

GLENN: That's not going to happen.

STU: The reality is that it's not going to --

GLENN: Yeah, I know that.

STU: So why not advance something? And you're going to have to have this negotiation at the end anyway.

GLENN: You know what? There's -- because there's nobody with a spine, I guess, you know, I could look at that and say, well, I'm paying taxes. I would rather have less taxes take from me for something that I know is a disaster and destroying health care. But at least I'm paying less for it.

STU: So what you're advocating for, seemingly, is a massive transfer of wealth from your paycheck back to you.

GLENN: Yes. I am.

STU: Can you believe this guy? He's saying it out loud. He wants his own money.

PAT: Selfishness. Selfish. Selfish.

STU: Selfish, what a jerk. In reality, I don't know what you do here. I would not want to vote for this. It's a disaster, and it's getting worse by the day. However, with this process the way it is, with the people in office that are in office, I don't know if you just take a 5 percent gain, and it's -- hey, it's 5 percent better than ObamaCare, so take it and go. And maybe you'll have a few years of 5 percent better until the whole thing blows up anyway because keeping ObamaCare, if it's going to blow up with this plan, it's going to blow up with ObamaCare too. It's just a matter of who you're blaming it on. So do you sit here and not do anything?

GLENN: No, because they'll blame that on you. "You knew that ObamaCare wasn't working, and you refused to do anything."

STU: You're going to get blamed either way. We all know this.

GLENN: You know what would have been nice? Man, we should have thought of this. If we would have had somebody that -- what is it? Oh, had principles. If we just had somebody that had principles, you know, because don't get me wrong. This guy, this president, he's going to be able to go in there and is going to be able to destroy the GOP, tear the system down, he's going to get the weasels out, he's going to get those things done, and he can beat the media, and that's why he's going to be able to do it because he doesn't care about the media, and he doesn't care about losses.

So he's going to be able to get that done.

STU: He can certainly have talked his way through the Civil War but not this. Not a GOP congress and repealing.

GLENN: Yes. Right. Right.

STU: That's too high of a hill.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But certainly would have solved the slavery thing by a little talking if he was around.

PAT: Just exactly like Andrew Jackson did.

GLENN: No, but he didn't.

PAT: No, he did. He fixed all Civil War.

GLENN: And he had a gigantic plantation down in the south. I don't know if anybody noises that. But he had a giant plantation. Of course, he didn't have it when he got into office. He was poor when he got into office, and then he just started taking the land from the Indians, the Native Americans, and he would tell his friends. He set up a little kind of offshore real estate company, and he would look at the map after inviting his friends to the White House and say "And, by the way, I'm about to release all of this land. You might go have it appraised. And then when I release it, the first in the title office, and I had nothing to do with this." That's how he bought his mansion. He left -- he came in poor, and he left one of the wealthiest presidents of all time.

PAT: You have to admire, though, how he broke every promise to the Indians. You have to admire that.

GLENN: You do. You really do.

PAT: You have to say --

GLENN: Well, he had a big heart.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: Huge.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: And he was so upset about slavery, he could have solved it. He was a soldier in the south. I mean, what soldiers in the south back then weren't against slavery?

STU: Well, I didn't say he was going to solve it that way. Maybe he was going to solve it by keeping it. We just said that he was going to solve the problem. We didn't say slavery was going to go away.

GLENN: Yeah, solve the problems of the Civil War.

STU: Civil War.

GLENN: You're right.

STU: Because people ask. Why does Civil War happen? We don't know. Who knows. There hasn't been any thought put into that. No historian has written a book about it. It's just basically someone flipped a coin and said we're going to war. Why do that?

GLENN: They didn't be need to.

PAT: They need to.

STU: That was one of the big issues at the time.

GLENN: Abraham Lincoln, he was more of a war monger. It was Andrew Jackson who was such a decent human being and sometimes the slaves would come in and wipe the tears from his eyes. He was such a good guy. And the Native Americans --

PAT: They loved him.

GLENN: And he loved them. He loved the kerosene lamps that he, the lamp shades made out of Native American skin. It was beautiful. And he had such a heart. And those lamps lit the way for American divine destiny and manifest destiny.

STU: A lot of people blame the Trail of Tears on him and in reality, that was someone who littered and the Indian was looking over the hill and saw the litter and started crying. One tear.

GLENN: Yeah. And they were mixed with Andrew Jackson's tears. He was, like, you're bloodying up this property that I'm about to sell to my friends so that I can be the richest man in America by the end of my term. But who doesn't admire him?

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.