Why This Market Needs to Crash (And Likely Will)

Editor's Note: The following is a guest post by Chris Martenson with PeakProsperity.com.

Like an old vinyl record with a well-worn groove, the needle skipping merrily back to the same track over and over again, we repeat: Today's markets are dangerously overpriced.

Being market fundamentalists who don’t believe it’s possible to simply print prosperity out of thin air, we’ve been deeply skeptical of the financial markets ever since the central banks began their highly interventionist policies. Since 2009, they have unleashed over $12 Trillion in new money into the world, concentrating wealth into the hands of an elite few, while blowing asset price bubbles everywhere in the process (see our recent report The Mother Of All Financial Bubbles).

Our consistent view is that price bubbles always burst. Which is why we predict the world’s financial markets will implode spectacularly from today's heights -- destroying jobs, dreams, hopes, economies and political careers alike.

When this happens, it will frighten the central bankers enough (or merely embarrass them enough, being the egotists that they are) that they will respond with even more aggressive money printing -- and that will then cause the entire money system to blow up.  Ka-Poom!  First inwards in a compressed ball of deflation, then exploding outwards in a final hyperinflationary fireball (see our recent report When This All Blows Up...).

It really cannot end any other way.  Money is not wealth; it is merely a claim on wealth.  Debt is a claim on future money.  The only way to have faith in our current monetary policies is if one believes that we can always grow our debts at roughly twice the rate of GDP -- forever.   That is, compound the claims at twice the rate of income year after year from here on out.

This would be like having your credit card balance rolled over every month as the balance grows at 10% each year, while your income advances at only 5% per year.  Eventually you simply have a math problem: your income becomes swamped by your debt service payment.  First you are insolvent, then bankruptcy eventually follows.

At the national level, the US is already insolvent, meaning liabilities exceed assets.  The US has been spending far above our means for decades and decades, amassing a tremendous amount of public and private debt (as well as entitlement promises) along the way. And, yes, even nations can go bankrupt.

But bankruptcy is a legal process, and it’s not possible for an entire economy to enter a legal process, so what do we mean when by talking of a looming bankruptcy? Simply put, all those the claims represented by all the debt and excess printed currency have to be destroyed, or reduced, to bring things back into balance. 

The Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises said it best: “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

Sadly, there’s been absolutely no demonstrated willingness on behalf of our national leadership for  “voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion”. In fact, it’s been the exact opposite.  With the Federal Reserve leading the way, the ‘plan’ has been the voluntary, increasingly desperate, attempt to expand credit even more aggressively than before.

To understand just how dangerous this has become, we need look no further than this chart:

Our current debts and other national liabilities now total more than 1,000%(!) of the nation's annual income, a.k.a GDP.

US economic growth began slowing due to its accelerating ‘too much debt’ problem back around 2000. Instead of allowing natural market forces to clear out the excessive debts, the Federal Reserve chose to go into overdrive to ‘remedy’ the problem. It's remedy? Drive interest rates to 0% to reduce the service burden of those debts, and print trillions of fresh dollars that in turn can fund new borrowing.

Of course, no true ‘solution’ for having too much debt involves piling up even more of it.  That's like treating cancer with more cancer.  Or alcoholism with more alcohol. But such has been the twisted logic of our central bankers.

The only path that history has shown works involves fiscal austerity and reducing debt.  Or, as von Mises put it, "a voluntary abandonment of the credit expansion".  But, that requires real political courage and a willingness from society to endure actual ‘pain’ in the form of living below its means to make up for the prior periods of living too lavishly. Don't expect that to happen anytime soon? Nether do we... 

Returning to the chart above, it’s sufficient to know that no country, ever, in all of history, has ever dug out from such a mountain of excess claims.  Never.  Not once.

The only possible way we're avoiding crisis is if the economy suddenly returns to extremely rapid economic growth for an extremely long time.  And that’s if AND ONLY IF during such a period of rapid growth, we use that windfall to pay down the debts and other associated IOU’s -- rather than as an excuse to once again look the other way because, hey, everything's awesome now!

At any rate, what we can divine from all of this is that there’s been zero effort towards ‘voluntary abandonment’ of the credit cycle. And there's been every effort made towards extending it farther. We're simply climbing ever higher up an extension ladder from which we will someday fall.  We passed the ‘moderately painful’ height a long time ago; now we're up at the ‘quite possibly lethal’ altitude.

But make no mistake, pushing us further up this credit ladder is exactly what 0% interest rates were meant to do.  The openly-stated intent of the central banks in treading into the never-before-tried ZIRP and NIRP waters was to spark more borrowing (and spending). 

The fact that savers and pension plans have been utterly decimated by these low (even negative rates in some parts of the world) is not even a passing concern to the Federal Reserve.  Their only goal has been to get credit expanding again as fast as possible.  Ditto for the European Central Bank, The Bank of England, and the Bank of Japan, as well as The People’s Bank of China.

All of them have the same plan: Expand!

But this ‘plan’ does not pencil out.  It fails basic math both here in the short term, as evidenced by more than a decade of sub-par GDP growth, but especially later over the long term. Why?  Because there’s no such thing as perpetual exponential expansion of anything. Even the universe itself is expected to one day stop expanding and eventually implode in a "big crunch".

Regrettably, though, that’s the ‘plan’ of every major central bank around the world right now.

Because it's mathematically guaranteed to fail, our only job as private individuals is to understand the situation accurately and to then take actions that are in alignment with the reality of living within such a broken system.  If we can’t stop the lunatics, at least we can foresee the consequences of their actions and begin to unhitch ourselves as best as possible from their nutty trajectory.

Just how reality-detached are these bankers?

As Adam Taggart recently wrote:

Janet Yellen just poured more gasoline on the anti-bank fire smoldering in my heart...

Speaking today at the 10th Biennial Federal Reserve System Community Development Research Conference in Washington, D.C, she delivered a short speech titled "Strong Foundations: The Economic Futures of Kids and Communities". In it, she focuses on the difficulties of growing up poor and is clearly trying to present herself as an advocate for raising families out of poverty.

Really, Janet? Really???

What about the record-low interest rates you've presided over?

The ones that have destroyed all incentive to save?

The ones that have starved American households of savings income, especially for those on a fixed income?

The ones that have created asset bubbles everywhere, making it nearly impossible for young families to buy a house and sending the cost of rent and other living expenses skyrocketing?

The ones that have made it tremendously cheap for companies to borrow and invest in automation, gutting future demand for unskilled/low-skilled workers?

The ones that have led to the greatest wealth disparity in our country's history?

This is a classic example of the shameless pathological hypocrisy/evil of those running our monetary and financial systems. It's akin to a bloody-handed serial killer lecturing to his dying victims "You know, someone should really do something about the murder rate in this town")

Janet has a strong tradition of “blaming the victim” which she did a few years ago by lecturing poor and working class Americans that their own lack of advancement had nothing to do with Federal Reserve policies that literally hand money to big banks and wealthy insiders. Instead, she saw the root causes as shoddy early childhood education, a lack of entrepreneurship, and not having had wealthy parents who passed down a reasonable inheritance.  I kid you not, she really said all that back in 2014. 

Maddening?  You bet.  But only if you're of the mind that Janet Yellen cares about connecting the consequences of her actions to real people and their increasingly poor outcomes.  Once you understand that Janet, et al., are psychologically unable to cross the chasm between their personal views of themselves and the consequences of their actions, it’s much less surprising. And much more sad and pathetic.

But also very human.  All throughout history, oppressors and genocidal maniacs have always deployed elaborate psychological defenses to protect their fragile egos from the sort of crushing destruction that would result from a clear-eyed view of themselves and their actions.  It’s hard to transition from one's self-inflated view of being a virtuous superhero to admitting you're actually the source of untold misery and heartbreak.

At Peak Prosperity, we hold out hope, dim though it may be, that the bankers and their bought-and-paid-for-politicians will be held accountable for the lives they are ruining, as well as the immoral and criminal acts they've committed in the process.  Without accountability, nothing ever changes. You only get a repeat of the same bad behavior that got you into trouble in the first place.

That right there, in a nutshell, describes the systemic abuse by the banking elite that began under Greenspan when he bailed out Wall Street in 1998 (during the LTCM debacle). This was followed closely by the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton in 1999.  Since then, it has been an orgy of exploitation. And after a brief pause during the Great Recession (during which the banks paid themselves record bonuses while receiving taxpayer bailouts), it got worse than ever.

Conclusion (To Part 1)

All of the efforts to extend today's sky-high asset prices are drawing to a close. And the ending will be ugly. As prices correct, dazed investors will lose $trillions of market value, likely quite swiftly. 

But how was it ever supposed to end any differently?  The entire premise of what the Federal Reserve has been attempting to do is completely preposterous.  They have ignored (or just as alarming, have been ignorant of) the risks of everything from moral hazard, to historical precedent, to the role of incentives on human behavior, to common sense.

And just as happened in 2008, the accumulating instabilities within the system will reach a tipping point where they can no longer be suppressed. The deflation monster will escape from the box the central banks have been desperate to confine him within, and he will very quickly set about making up for lost time. A lot of wealth will get destroyed very quickly.

Strange as it may sound, it's our opinion that the sooner this happens, the better. Crash now while there’s still chance of picking up the pieces afterwards and making something useful from them. The longer we push off the inevitable correction, the more destructive it will be and the more difficult it will be to recover from.

Why risk taking the overdrafts to such extreme levels that the future is ruined for generations? Or ends in the sort of global warfare that can result from economically-wounded nations lashing out instead of holding themselves to proper account? 

The boomer generation in charge has a lot to answer for in this story; from their inability to lead boldly, to their selfish pushing-off of the repercussions of their own poor decisions onto future generations

More simply put: We not only need a market crash, but deserve one.  

So, with that somber realization in mind, what to do? Well, for individuals like yourself, our strongest advice is to position yourself for crisis before crisis arrives.

In Part 2: Positioning Yourself For The Crash we detail out the steps a prudent individual should seriously consider taking now, while things are still relatively tranquil.

You want to make sure the bulk of your investment capital is positioned for safety, and you want to make your lifestyle as resilient as possible so that, no matter what jarring developments the future may bring, you and the ones you love are least impacted by them.

Click here to read the report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

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.