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

Get the Duct Tape: This DIY Demo Will Teach You EXACTLY How to Add a Chainsaw to Your AR-15

November 09, 2017
Jon Boldt

Writer

As if the mainstream media hadn't already proven how gun-illiterate they are, USA Today decided to push the envelope and go all-in on the gun insanity.

In a tweet Wednesday afternoon, USA Today shared a video showing "common" and "rare" modifications to an AR-15 rifle that would turn your Walmart Special into a video game-esque, zombie-hunting chainsaw-shotgun-laser-hybrid from your worst nightmare.

Check out the tweet:

When he first saw the video, Glenn said he thought it was a joke and reacted accordingly.

"So when I saw the chainsaw bayonet, first of all, I was like, I’ve got to get me one of them," Glenn said on radio Thursday. "The second thing that I thought of is this: the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chainsaw to AR's."

He then proceeded with a little DIY gun-modification project of his own. Stu captured the moment on Facebook Live.

Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Maybe Glenn and Stu didn't get it quite right. Have a suggestion for them? Share your favorite modification ideas in the comments section below.

GLENN: So I saw something yesterday I thought had to be joke. It's really not.

STU: Yeah. Because you seem to be joking a lot so far in the show.

GLENN: I know. I know.

STU: You're mocking people who were screaming helplessly at the sky. But what are you supposed to do in a culture that allows legal chain saw bayonets on their guns?

GLENN: Right! Am I right?

STU: Right? And you might think it's a joke. You might think it's some silly thing. I don't know. But, I mean, I can tell you this. It scared the hell out of me when I saw it yesterday from USA Today.

GLENN: Okay. So USA Today put out a video of all of the attachments. Like a flash light. Good God, you could put a flash flight on the end of a gun. Why would someone ever need something like that?

STU: It's almost as if you'd want to see where the bullets were going.

GLENN: See what's in front of you. It's crazy these -- then they showed a laser site.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Hello. Does anybody remember Dr. Evil? What was he putting at the top of sharks' heads? Lasers.

STU: So that is really -- they actually did do this video, if you haven't seen it. First, they go through the actual attachments that were on the gun, that the shooter used. Then they go through some other possible attachments that are available.

GLENN: That are available.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And people do this, they put lasers on their guns.

STU: It says possible modifications. One hundred round drum magazine. They also have a shotgun attachment.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment.

STU: So you had attach another shotgun below the gun.

GLENN: A shotgun attachment, now, that is not something I've seen before. But if it's in USA Today, it's a shotgun attachment. I get that.

STU: And, of course, most terrifying is the chain saw baneet.

GLENN: Don't even say that out loud.

STU: Well, I unfortunately have. So it's impossible to stop now.

GLENN: I wish you hadn't. Because once people get the idea that this is available, that you can go out in a store and you can buy an attachment for your AR, and it's a chain saw and you just mount that chain saw underneath the barrel so it's -- it's a chain saw bayonet. My gosh, do you know the kind of carnage?

STU: Oh, my gosh. Everyone is going to have one by the end of the week. And that's what's terrifying to me. You know, I used to be for the Second Amendment. Then chain saw bayonet.

GLENN: So now let me just say that I don't think -- and I'm doing something at 5 o'clock tonight that I believe -- we're going to take you through the fantasy land that Hollywood lives in. Because I don't think that they can find the difference between truth and fiction. I really -- you know, it's like these actors who are like, well, when I was climbing the -- the Himalayas with HEP Niblick. With who?

He was my Sherpa guy. That was a movie, man. That was a movie. And they have no idea the difference between real life and movies and fiction. George Takei yesterday tweeted out how in the United Federation of Planets, they had universal health care.

George, I want you to -- I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the United Federation of Planets, doesn't exist. It's a TV show.

STU: It's also movies.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So...

GLENN: So.

STU: Back up. Second source there. That's how it works, right?

GLENN: When you're right, you're right.

So when I saw the chain saw bayonet --

STU: Hmm. Terrifying.

GLENN: First of all, I was like, I've got to get me one of them.

STU: I actually think I do want one if they exist.

GLENN: And then the second thing that I thought of is this -- the people that are telling you that guns are evil are so disconnected from reality, that they actually think that there is a movement to attach chain saw to ARs. That that is something -- you know, I'm --

STU: I'm going to Cabela's.

GLENN: I'm going to Cabela's. I'm just going to grab a chain saw attachment, honey. I'll be right back.

STU: That's like a totally normal thing to them.

GLENN: Right. That they would attach them. And they would -- it's ridiculous to believe. So we started to look into it. The gun exists. And I have it.

STU: You do? And this is -- by the way, do not try this at home. Because this is a very dangerous weapon.

GLENN: This is the actual gun, that they are basing -- and I'm not kidding you. This is the gun that they're basing that attachment on. And as you see, Stu, I don't want to point it to you.

STU: Please don't. It's very scary.

GLENN: I'm putting it at the camera. You will see that this is an AR.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I don't know if it's an actual --

GLENN: And right underneath it's a chain saw.

STU: Now, some would say that potentially, that gun seems to come from the video game games of war -- Gears of War.

GLENN: That's what some would say. What's the difference between real life and a video game?

STU: Apparently to many in the media, nothing.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right.

This is from the video game --

STU: And a lot of people actually think that's where they got that idea. It's a popular video game from the '90s.

GLENN: Where else would you get that idea? Have you ever heard of that?

STU: I've never heard of that. There's a few YouTubers who have sort of jokingly attached, you know, chain saws to guns. I guess they then use the chain saw. But it's not like it's an actual functional thing. There's no reason --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, Stu, you are so stupid. I am going to -- you know what, could we get -- here, here, I got it. I got it.

I brought in a few things today.

STU: He brought in a few things, he's across the room now.

GLENN: So I brought in the AR.

STU: Okay. Be careful with that.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

Yeah, no, I know. I brought the AR in. And I brought in a chain saw.

STU: That's a -- and a real chain saw.

GLENN: So I have the AR and the chain saw.

Wait a minute. I've got more.

I also have a shotgun.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Handgun. And some duct tape.

Now, I am -- I am of the mindset.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That USA Today was on to something.

And I believe that we need to make one of these.

So could we -- is Jason around?

Come here, Jason. Jason is our -- today in-house weapons expert.

Now, Jason, what I would like to do is first I would like to take the AR. And it is unloaded and safe.

I would like you to take the AR, and we want to attach the chain saw right here. Come here. We want to attach the chain saw. Now, I'm left-hand. So I'm going to be shooting like this. So I would like the chain saw right here, so I can -- you know what I mean? So I think it should be like that. Because that's --

STU: Wait. That's not how the design is on the actual chain saw bayonet. The chain saw bayonet from USA Today has it underneath.

GLENN: You know, you can go -- you can go with that. Sure, you can do that.

STU: I have the schematic right here.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I don't want it that way. I want it right there.

STU: You want it on the side basically?

GLENN: They have it like this. Yeah, because I want it on the side. Because I want to be able to chop their heads off.

STU: Wait. The concept of this would be you would shoot the person.

GLENN: You would shoot the person and then you would chop their heads off.

STU: After you've shot them?

GLENN: Sure.

STU: Why would you want -- what's the purpose of chopping their heads off after you've already --

GLENN: Because then there's dead, and then there's, that was sick.

STU: So straight out bloodlust?

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Making sure.

GLENN: Are you a member of the NRA?

STU: I'm not. So maybe I don't understand real blood lust.

GLENN: Yeah. It's just every member of the NRA knows, I want to shoot something, and then I want to take a chain saw and just hack it up.

STU: Really? Because the guy who was an NRA instructor who stopped the shooting.

GLENN: Yeah, he used one of these.

STU: He used the if one, not the chain saw.

GLENN: Yeah, he used the AR. ARs have to be removed only when killing people.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Except he didn't kill him. He wounded him and stopped the slaughter with his AR. But pay no attention to that. You know, because he didn't kill him.

STU: A lot of people aren't paying attention to him, it seems like.

GLENN: Yeah. So he had just the AR. But I'm going to have the AR with just the attachment. Okay? So can we work on that right now? Can you just take that over there? Because I'd got some other attachments that I would like to add to it as well.

For instance, Stu, what is this?

STU: Well, that's a knife.

GLENN: A knife. What kind of knife is it?

STU: I would say steak knife.

GLENN: That's what you would think.

STU: Looks like a steak knife to me. Is that what it is?

GLENN: Yeah. That's it. Just a regular knife.

I don't want you to freak out. I don't want you to freak out.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But what is this?

STU: That appears to be another knife.

GLENN: Another knife.

STU: It's slightly larger. It's like a butcher knife. Not quite --

GLENN: So a butcher knife. Okay.

You don't see the difference here?

Besides the size. Oh, my gosh.

STU: What's the -- it looks like --

GLENN: What is this?

STU: That's like a butcher knife.

GLENN: That's a butcher knife, right?

STU: That's a butcher knife. Regular butcher knife, right?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Does it make you afraid.

STU: No, we have them --

GLENN: What's this?

STU: Basically a butcher knife. I don't know the exact at the table term of that knife.

GLENN: But it makes you afraid?

STU: No.

GLENN: Yes, it does.

STU: It does?

GLENN: This one is spray-painted black. (?) this is a tabling knife. This is a steak knife. This doesn't make you afraid. This doesn't make you afraid. But I spray pained this one black, so it's now a tactical knife.

Don't you --

STU: But would they all be sharp and dangerous and stab you in the same --

GLENN: Yeah, but this one is more frightening.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: I come at you with this.

STU: Oh, that's just a normal silver knife.

GLENN: He's just going to come at me and maybe we're going to butcher some meat together. I believe at you with this, (?), but I come at you with this, and you know I have deadly intent.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: And I'm a serial killer.

STU: Right. Because it's painted.

GLENN: It's pained black.

STU: Okay. Now I'm getting it. (?)

GLENN: Good. We need to put the tactical knife. I was thinking, if we put -- except, I don't like the look of the tactical (?)

STU: It's just silver.

GLENN: No, it's just silver.

STU: That part is just scary.

GLENN: That part is scary. If I came (?) then you would be terrified.

STU: But you had the barrel.

GLENN: As soon as I put the barrel, and you see it's silver, you're like --

STU: It's not a big deal. By the way, that is essentially the subscription of the new Feinstein bill. It's basically her new (?) is it a black weapon? Then it must be banned.

GLENN: Wow. Racist. Listen to the racism.

STU: That's typical progressives.

GLENN: Hey, can I have some of that duct tape. Because I'm going to show you here at home, if you happen to be listening, you can go to TheBlaze TV and capture this sometimes later today, in case you want to make some of this yourself. But I'll try to be very descriptive on radio. But, again, if you can't follow this, and you want to get this exactly right --

STU: And we're getting this live on Facebook. Stu Burguiere on Facebook. (?) you can see this happen.

GLENN: You take a Smith & Wesson here. Okay? Regular Smith and resin. Because I can carry this. I'm going to show you how to make a concealed weapon with an at home attachment to make it a little more sick.

STU: Oh, my gosh. And this is legal, right?

GLENN: Oh, this is totally legal. Totally legal.

STU: Because the NRA. The freaking NRA.

GLENN: We'll do that just a second. (?)

STU: No, it's just silver.

GLENN: We'll go through all this. Because I'm an NRA member. And I know. And we'll also show you the finished product of the real chain saw AR coming up in a second.

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.