This Doctor Wants to Change Health Care to Give People Quality Over Quantity

Health care is a hot-button issue because it directly affects people’s lives. But is there a better approach than debating which government health care system is the least burdensome on Americans?

Dr. Ryan Neuhofel opened NeuCare in 2011, a “direct primary care” facility that uses a subscription-based model instead of health insurance. Patients can sign up and pay a flat monthly fee for comprehensive health services.

This model lets the patient be the true customer instead of an insurance company or the government.

“Whenever you enter into these direct relationships, it changes the way that the doctor thinks about things, it changes the way the patient does, and it inherently provides transparency,” Neuhofel said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So if you're like the average American, you are having problems paying for your health insurance. You are having problems keeping your doctor. You don't know what to do. Nobody in Washington is making any sense. It doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything at all.

What do you do? Well, if you're a doctor, there are things that you can do. And I want to introduce you to a guy who I read about a couple weeks ago. Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Am I saying your name right, Dr. Neuhofel?

RYAN: That's correct, Glenn.

GLENN: So tell us what you're doing, because you've decided that you've had enough of this. And you're in, if I'm not mistaken, Lawrence Kansas.

RYAN: Right.

GLENN: And you knew that people weren't being served. And you were no longer even a doctor, you were more of a paper pusher. So what did you do?

RYAN: Well, I started a practice about six years. So I guess you could say I got fed up a long time ago, even when I was in medical school. And so I operate in a pretty unique model of practice that is growing around the country, called Direct Primary Care. And basically what that is, is it allows patients to have a direct and simple relationship with me, their primary care doctor. It's organized around a membership fee, much like Netflix or a gym. And we're just able to serve people's needs in an innovative way and not be distracted by all the bullcrap that comes along by a normal system.

GLENN: So you're not -- you don't take insurance.

RYAN: No.

GLENN: And so how much is the monthly fee?

RYAN: So on average, my monthly fee for all of my patients combined is about $43 per member, per month. So some people pay a little more. Some people a little less. Families get a discount. And doctors around the country are doing this. And it's not just a few of us rogue people anymore. There's hundreds and maybe close to a thousand primary care physicians doing this model or something very similar to it.

GLENN: I will tell you that I have -- you know, I still try to purchase the best health insurance that money can buy for my employees and for myself for catastrophic. But I -- this is the system that I use. I have a doctor, and I pay him a -- you know, a retainer, I guess. And I can go see him when I want to go see him.

And I'm -- I'm glad that this is starting to come around, because the one thing that is good about this, is when you are paying for yourself, the doctor doesn't just say, oh, go here to get this done. You know, he -- he knows which tests cost the most money where, and where you can get them inexpensive. You know, an inexpensive run of that test.

Do you provide that as well?

RYAN: Yeah, absolutely. I think it changes the whole dynamic. If you really look at it, although doctors are really caring people. And trying to serve people and provide them great care. Ultimately, if you're using insurance, the insurance company or the government, if you're in a program like that, is the real customer. So the patient, at that point is kind of a building vessel of sorts. And whenever you enter into these direct relationships, it changes the way that the doctor thinks about things. It changes the way the patient does. It inherently provides transparency. So I'm working for my patients now, as opposed to a third party.

GLENN: So explain that to the average person. Because I think the average person knows this. When you hear your doctor say, are you insured? Who is your insurance provider?

What they're asking you -- and correct me if I'm wrong, what they're asking you is, I know the insurance providers, and some of them accept some things. Some don't accept others. And so I just need to navigate and how to write, instead of now -- you know, you don't have insurance. If you don't have insurance, your doctor says, okay. So here are the options. And it's -- it's never just, you know, here's a 3,000-dollar test.

RYAN: Yeah, well, I think the thing that's most difficult for people is actually the language. So people across the political spectrum use terminology like health insurance and health care. And they don't even really make a distinction between what those two things mean.

So you hear a lot of politicians talk, they'll say, you know, we're giving you health care. Well, they're kind of giving you an insurance product that gives you a network of doctors. But that gets all very confusing.

So what we're doing is we're stripping away all of that stuff. And much like if someone were purchasing food or something else in their life, you know, they -- I am serving my customers, my patients, and I have to be fully transparent in that. So we're very aware of what stuff costs, whereas if I was billing an insurance company, it's kind of just backwards stuff. And there's a bunch of complicated contracts. So, yeah, it's a totally different way to approach health care.

GLENN: So this is good if you're the run-of-the-mill, you know, I've got the sniffles. I've got the cold. Even a broken arm. Et cetera, et cetera. But what happens to your patients when you can't deal with it. They've got to go to a specialist, and it's going to be expensive.

RYAN: Well, you know, I think one of the big downsides of the system that we have, is it's devalued primary care to such a degree that most people don't really recognize the family physician, like myself, can take care of a lot of really complicated stuff.

So I do take care of a very broad spectrum of stuff. And I think in the normal system because doctors are so rushed and we don't get to spend time with our patients, we're paid on a volume basis. That we often do end up ordering stuff and referring people to specialists, when we could have taken care of it ourselves. But, you know, we're trying to get to the next patient. So I think that's the first thing to recognize, is that primary care get done correctly and valued high enough, that we could provide more service.

But really, what you're getting to, is there is a point, where financially insurance starts to make sense. What I think we're challenging is doing most people's health care across the spectrum of care, to a third party doesn't make a lot of sense. So, yeah, there is a point where insurance makes sense. But is that $100? Is that $1,000? Is that at $10,000? It kind of depends on the person.

STU: Talking to Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Doctor, you have -- this is a great idea. And I think everyone looks at this and says, wow, this would be a perfect way to knock out 90 percent of the stuff that could happen as far as health care goes. It seems to me though that the current system would really discourage this. You're going to get fined if you don't have insurance and you decide to go this way. I mean, how are you dealing with that? And is this a problem with a lot of the patients that you have?

RYAN: Yeah. I'm not advocating that people not have insurance. In fact, I do the opposite. I think insurance makes sense for certain things. A great analogy, if we tried to use car insurance to cover everything related to our car --

GLENN: Oil changes.

RYAN: -- if we tried to use it to pay for our gas, oil changes, tire rotations, you know, shampooing our carpets in our car, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. Now, if our car gets totaled and it costs $20,000 to get replaced, that tradeoff with insurance makes sense. And the same thing with homeowner's insurance.

So, yeah, there needs to be a safety net and insurance policy of some type. Whether that's government-based, private-based, to where that makes sense.

Right now, in the current system, because of all of the mandates, they're basically -- you know, the ACA and many things before it are forcing people to pay a third party. A financial institution, which we call it an insurance company, to kind of manage all their money for them. And I think clearly that's led to many of the ills in our current health care system.

STU: Because it's more than just not having insurance at all. It's all the restrictions they put on higher deductible plans. There's so many things that must be covered by these insurance policies. I mean, if you could combine what you're doing, a monthly fee, you can go when you need to go, with a high deductible plan, for only the worst catastrophic stuff, that is a great formula for a family. But it's really discouraged right now.

RYAN: Well, yeah, you can get -- in fact -- and I'm sure your audience will tell you this. They had been forced into a high deductible. So a lot of the patients we're serving, you know, end up getting a bronze plan, or their employer switches them to a plan with a high deductible, they really start seeing the value and transparency and up front prices. And, you know, not overpaying for things.

So, yes, in a sense, I think we should move to kind of a more true catastrophic system. And I think that could be done in a lot of ways.

But, you know, our entire health care system is built upon kind of an understanding of what health care was looking like in 1930, through 1970. And, you know, health care is a much more integral part of our lives now. People have chronic diseases they live with their entire lives with. And 1960, whenever we developed Medicare and Medicaid and even going back further, you know, health care really couldn't do a whole lot. It could kind of do surgery to save you, but I think health care right now looks so much different. We're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole at this point.

GLENN: So neucare.net. NU -- I'm sorry. N-E-Ucare.net is the address if you would like to find out more.

How does somebody find somebody in your local area like you? What do you even look for?

RYAN: Yeah. Actually, there's a really great resource now online. The best one that I direct people to is called DPCfrontier.com. And there's a mapper on that website. So if you click FlashMapper, there's about a thousand doctors around the country, six to 800 practices, who are operating at a very similar model to mine. They all have their own kind of flavor of it. But if you're looking for a doctor in your area, that's by far the best resource to look for. Or you can Google -- Google if you Google direct primary care in your city, you'll probably stumble upon somebody.

GLENN: Great. Dr. Ryan Neuhofel. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Good work. God bless.

(music)

STU: So Dr. Ryan Neuhofel is at Neucare. N-E-U-C-A-R-E on Twitter. And Neucare.net is his website. But, yeah, DPC Frontier is a cool site. I've never been to this before. Direct Primary Care. DPC Frontier. And they have a map of all of the doctors that do this type of thing. And there's a lot of them. Worth checking out.

GLENN: I have to tell you, it's a different kind of health care.

STU: You do this?

GLENN: I do. I do.

STU: That's really cool.

GLENN: Because I -- the doctor is allowed to spend more time with you. The doctor gets to know you better. Because he's not -- like he said, he's not rushing through things. He doesn't have all the paperwork to do. He doesn't have to worry about that. So we'll get a call from our doctor. We'll call him up and say, hey, this is going on with the family. Blah, blah. And then he'll call. He'll treat. And then, you know, he'll call -- you know, 8 o'clock on a -- you know, on a Friday night, and go, hey, I'm just thinking about Raphe. How is he feeling? What's going on?

And so it's like that old style medicine.

STU: You don't to have hang out with him, do you? You don't have to go to his Christmas parties or anything like that?

GLENN: No, you don't have to. No, you don't have to.

STU: Just wanted to make sure. I've got enough relationships.

GLENN: I do know that. I do know that. But it's nice to be able to have a doctor who has the time to actually get to know the family.

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.