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

Creator of Trump vs. CNN Meme Offers Apology We All Need to Hear

July 05, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Welcome to the new normal, another day, another Presidential tweet story. A Redditor who created the video clip of Trump going WWF on a guy with CNN logo superimposed on his face was tracked down by CNN and he's now offering an apology. The mea culpa doesn't fit with the typical media narrative but there is a message he shares that is important for everyone to hear.

Trolling is addictive and what you say actually means something even when you mean nothing.

"Now listen to what the guy said who made the original and was accused of this and did some really bad things. Look what he said: 'Your self-worth does not come from this. It's addictive. Think of the other people on the receiving end, before you say really horrible things that you know you don't mean. Because it's real,'" Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

For good or evil, there is a powerful message for our society.

"Your voice is more powerful than you ever could imagine. And man's individual voice is more powerful than it's ever been since the creation of the earth and Adam first woke up," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: All right. So CNN finds the guy who made that video of Trump in the WWF fight from years ago. And -- and -- and they ask him, okay. So what's up, dude?

Because he posted, wow, can't believe the president retweeted this.

Well, you go to his Reddit file, and you see that he has done horrible, horrible things. Really anti-Semitic. Really bad.

And this is the part of the story that doesn't make sense to me. Because the usual way for the mainstream media to handle this is you see a guy who is posting anti-Semitic stuff. You do nothing. You just assume he's a conservative. And you go for him. And it doesn't matter what the truth is. And, I mean, I don't know how you can post anti-Semitic stuff and the truth be good, but you just never give him a break in the mainstream media ever.

They -- they do everything they can to connect decent, innocent people to those kinds of thoughts, when they don't exist.

Here's a guy where it does exist. He apologizes. And they're like, okay. Well, we accept his apology.

I don't understand that. Because the way I look at the media, they are only in for the president's blood, at every step of the way. And so it doesn't -- something is not right on this story. Or something has changed that I find hard to believe. But maybe.

So what do we get out of this? Well, I want you to read what he posted yesterday. I think this is something that we should all read to our kids at dinner tonight. I'll share it, when we come back.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: I just can't get over the feeling that something is not right with this -- with this story, this HanAholeSolo story from Reddit.

STU: The internet makes every story interesting because you have to read their stupid screen names.

GLENN: I know. I know.

This -- this guy was up on Reddit and filed all kinds of anti-Semitic stuff. And then he's the guy who apparently did a version of the -- the tweet the president sent out. And it's the one where the president is -- it's old footage of Donald Trump at a wrestling match, and he throws a guy down on the ground and just beats the snot out of him. It's a wrestling thing.

And -- and this guy superimposed the CNN logo over the face of the guy the president is beating.

Well, he gets up -- he sees the president has tweeted it. And he thinks it's his. And he's like, oh, my gosh, that's great. And he's happy.

But then when the media gets a hold of it and says, look at the violence, the guy isn't happy. He's like, you know what, that's not mine. That was somebody else's. Somebody else took my original tweet and then added sound effects and music behind it or audio.

STU: Initially, he was happy.

GLENN: Yeah, initially he was happy.

STU: Then he turned around.

GLENN: Then he turned around. Yes.

STU: It's important.

GLENN: Now, this is the part that I think we can actually use to help our own children. But some of this is really interesting.

First of all -- this is his apology now: First of all, I'd like to apologize to the members of the Reddit community for getting this site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened. I would also like to apologize for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic. I am in no way that person. I love and accept people of all walks of life, and I've done so for my entire life.

Huh. Okay.

I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life. I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in these posts. I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others, simply for what they believe in, their religion, or their lifestyle they choose to have, nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anybody who did.

Do you believe that?

STU: You know, it's -- it's weird coming from someone who would post that kind of trash on the internet. But, I mean, it reads I think in an authentic way, does it not?

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: You know, someone who --

GLENN: I think there's a lot of people -- I think there's a lot of people -- I know I have responded kindly to people who are just trolls. And not so much anymore. But there were times when they would be like, "Oh, man, I was just kidding."

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And it was really -- people do try just to get a reaction.

STU: Totally, and I think it's a way for people to feel alive. And it says a hell of a lot about our society.

GLENN: It says a lot.

The meme was created purely as satire, he continues to write. It was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation. I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it and then put it up on the president's Twitter feed.

That's the question. Who did that?

It was a prank, nothing more. What the president's feed showed was not the original post posted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sounded added to it and then sent out to Twitter.

I think this is why they're accepting the apology. They're giving him credit to bring this to closer to the president.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Because who did that? Did the president have somebody do that?

I think this is why this is being accepted. Because it makes no sense to me. Something's wrong. Something's wrong.

And only because -- and I want to take people at face value. But you need more than one time of letting somebody go of something like this.

JEFFY: Well, there has to be a first time.

GLENN: There does. There does. There does.

It was a prank, nothing more. I thought it was the original post that was made, and that's why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalistic community. And they put their lives on the line every day with jobs that they do, reporting the news.

Okay.

PAT: They do?

STU: In war zones.

PAT: I mean, war correspondence maybe. But that's a pretty small percentage.

STU: Yes. An exaggeration of the --

PAT: Yes. Yes. They're not the military.

GLENN: To people that troll -- now, this is the part -- this is the part that I think is important to read to your family, to sit down and talk about, was this right -- play the video. Was this right? Was this right of the president to post it? Was it right for somebody who made it? Was the media's reaction right?

PAT: No.

GLENN: And just -- just talk to -- just talk to your kids about the difference between right and wrong. Because our kids look at the internet as a game.

To people who troll on the internet for fun, he writes, consider your words and the actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger. Put yourself in their shoes before you post it.

I mean, I remember saying things, doing things, and then, you know, a friend of the family or somebody else would say, "Hey -- that I didn't know what was standing there -- what would your mother say about that?" And you would immediately freeze and go, "Yes, sir." That's as bad as it got for us, was just saying it to four or five of our stupid friends and getting caught.

It's totally different now. What this guy said got somehow or another to the president of the United States.

Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it -- if you have a problem with trolling, it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something. And don't be embarrassed to ask for help.

That's powerful to say to your kids. And that goes to all of the studies that we're reading about now, that talk about the hits that you get in your head every time somebody likes what you've said.

STU: Studies and South Park episodes. Both -- both scientific genres are speaking about --

GLENN: Yes. I believe the South Park episode actually more.

Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don't feed your own self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online, just because you're behind a keyboard.

I think that's a tremendous story.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It's a good apology. I -- I just -- I can't help, but think that this has been blown way out of proportion. I mean, you know, it's Trump doing a wrestling move on somebody with CNN on their face. It wasn't really CNN.

STU: What? No, it said it right on his face.

PAT: He didn't really do this. Nothing happened in real life. It's just a dumb little, what? Five-second video?

STU: Yes.

PAT: It's just -- it's so out of proportion. We've just lost all connection with proportion now.

GLENN: No, because we've lost all connection with decorum. We've -- I mean, guys if Barack Obama would have done that with a teabag over a guy's head, we would have gone crazy, and the media would have said nothing. We would have gone crazy. We would have. We would have.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Yes, we would have.

STU: Yeah. Probably.

GLENN: If Barack Obama would have tweeted out something like that, and he had like a 9/12 Project and a Tea Party --

STU: I can -- I can imagine.

GLENN: Can you imagine? We would have gone crazy. We went crazy when he said, you know, and the car is in the ditch. And a bunch of Teabaggers, we're not going to let them drive. You'll put us in the ditch.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: A more exact example would be Fox News. Would we have gone crazy if it was Fox?

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Maybe.

GLENN: Yes. Yes, we would have.

PAT: He trashed Fox all the time.

STU: And we went crazy. And we went crazy.

PAT: And it was him. Literally him, not just the president retweeting him. It was him saying Fox was --

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: So...

GLENN: But we had a problem with it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. That's --

GLENN: We had a real problem with it. And so it's not that this is a big deal. It's -- honestly, yesterday -- I should share this. I wrote something on Facebook, and it started with this premise, that the older I get, the less I hate things. You know, when you're a kid, you hate stuff. And your mom is always like, oh, no. You don't hate. You hate the actions that -- no, I hate the person, Mom. I hate them.

No, you hate their actions and the things that they do.

The older I get, the less I hate. The more I realize that things really, really matter, or they don't matter at all.

And the reason why this was going through my head yesterday was this tweet doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter at all.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: We're reading into it what we want to read into it. And we are reading into -- or, we are looking at a presidency that this -- this happens -- Bush was the last real president that tried to represent both sides. He tried to represent both sides.

He never was, well, tell them to go to hell. He did say that about -- you're either with us or against us, it came to conquering al-Qaeda and evil. But I'm okay with that one, but some people weren't. But he never went out -- I mean, he met with Cindy Sheehan and everything else. The president did not reach out to the right.

PAT: He didn't meet with her eight times. So...

GLENN: Right. So he never -- President Obama never reached out to the Tea Party heads, tried to really talk to the people.

PAT: Nope. No.

GLENN: Instead, you know, the IRS and Teabaggers and all this stuff. And this president has just upped that game. So we're just seeing -- we're just seeing an evolution of the presidency that I don't like. I didn't like it in the last one. I don't like it in this one. Some people don't mind it in this one because of what happened in the last one. Some people are minding it in this one because they didn't see it happening in the last one.

We saw it in both. I don't like it in either. I think that's a good place to be.

But it doesn't matter. What matters are the little things.

You know, when I -- when I wrote that yesterday, I don't hate, there are just things that matter and don't. And it's funny because a lot of the stuff that the media focuses on, really, it doesn't matter to me. The things that matter are the things I used to hate when I was a kid. Sitting down at the dinner table and having dinner every night. I was always like, I got to go. I got to go. I got another thing. I got practice. I have this. I have that. I've got to go.

I hated sitting down at dinner. I I had a --

PAT: What kind of practice did you have? Like violin? What sort of practice did you have to get to?

JEFFY: I had the same question.

STU: Pinochle. Pinochle. Was it -- what kind of --

GLENN: Theater and choir. Yes.

PAT: Theater. All right.

GLENN: There are other kinds of practices, you know.

JEFFY: Well, that's why we were asking.

STU: He was just trying to clarify.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So, anyway, had to go do stuff. Now, that's one of the most important things ever. It's just -- and I don't hate practice. I don't hate other things that you have to do. I just really love this. I just really love this. And I found meaning in the small things.

Which brings me to how I read this about Donald Trump and about CNN, you know, holding this guy hostage or whatever the hell is going on.

I don't care. That story, they can have it. They -- go further that story all you want. Here's what really needs to -- you need to know: The last paragraph of this three-paragraph apology, is one we should all be sitting down with our kids tonight and saying, here's news. I don't know what that means.

I mean, does any of this make you feel like it's right?

Now listen to what the guy said who made the original and was accused of this and did some really bad things. Look what he said.

Your self-worth does not come from this. It's addictive. Think of the other people on the receiving end, before you say really horrible things that you know you don't mean. Because it's real. Your voice -- just think of this lesson.

His voice, unbeknownst to him, made it to the president's desk. Don't tell me that you can't be heard in today's society.

Your voice is more powerful than you ever could imagine. And man's individual voice is more powerful than it's ever been since the creation of the earth and Adam first woke up.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

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

Establish basic liability laws

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

Pass increased whistleblower protections

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

Prevent AI from having legal rights

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

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

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

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

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Midnight Hammer

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

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

What comes next

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

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

That would be catastrophic.

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

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

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

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

Now we pray

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

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

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


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rising Islamism

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Blending the worst ideologies

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

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

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

Call out radicalism

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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.