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

Why Don’t People Understand the Dangers of Socialism?

December 29, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) popularized socialism with his presidential campaign. Socialism is no longer seen as a risk by many young voters. What happened? Why don’t people understand the dangers of socialism when they can see how North Korea and Venezuela have used socialist structures to starve their own people?

Doc talked about free markets and capitalism vs. socialism on today’s show, wondering why younger voters don’t seem to understand that socialism is a threat to freedom.

“Capitalism has become a bad word,” Doc said. “From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure and social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments: fascism, communism.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck today. I'll be with you tomorrow as well, if you want to follow me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonShow. And I'll engage with you as well. We'll find out what you learned throughout the program, with the #whatIlearnedtoday. We'll get to some calls coming up, 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

Over the past few years, on our morning broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network, and you can find out more about me at TheBlazeRadio.com. It's TheBlazeRadio.com.

We have focused on free markets and freedom. The idea that these things are really good. And I know you're like, well, of course, they're good.

But the problem is, capitalism has become a bad word. Socialism has become, as you know, just this norm, accepted, wonderful, starry-eyed way to go. Just bizarre that we've gotten to that.

From my earliest memories, I learned the truth about socialism. Socialism is an unsustainable political structure or social structure that will lead to one of several evil, oppressive governments.

Fascism, communism, theocracies. Any of these things start with the idea of socialism. Somebody can orchestrate the perfect society by dictating how you live, how much you must give, redistributing what everybody has. It's unsustainable and leads to some sort of totalitarianism. It gets the support of the masses from the concept of, well, you don't have enough. So we'll go get it from those people. And the government will tell them how much they can have, and you get to have some of theirs. It all starts off with the noblest of causes and always ends the same way. One bad society.

We're seeing a living example of that throughout 2017. In Venezuela. An absolute disaster.

That's what always ends up happening. The countries that have been totalitarian regimes that have had increased successes over the last few years, decades, are countries who have gone away from that. Countries like China, for example. And taken up more capitalist policies.

So we support the idea of free markets. And not just bitching about the little snowflakes who support socialism in their safe spaces on college campuses and why socialism is so wonderful. "Bernie 2020." But the good news and positive ideas. And positive outcomes from capitalism and free markets and letting people decide for themselves how to live.

And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We offer free commercials to people on the air. You got a business? Email me. Believe America at TheBlaze.com. We spotlight businesses, just to say, hey, here's your jump-start because marketing is difficult and expensive. And we're going to do even more of that in 2018. We got some huge ideas coming up that are going to help you, even if it's not a full business.

You just have a little side stream of income. Ideas. Practical things that are going to help. Helping you and helping people understand the positive of free markets is where we're going 2018. So please join us on our program. Again, building America at TheBlaze.com if you want to be spotlighted on our show.

All right. We'll get to some calls before we move on. We have some other things happening in the world today.

Let's go to Line 44. Jerry in Wisconsin, you are on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, Doc, you're probably right. There's probably sometimes where the media has been unfair to Donald Trump. I'm not going to completely deny that. But considering what Donald Trump has said about the media, he has called the media -- he has stated that it's disgusting, that the American person press, that the media has the right to report what they want.

He has -- he's literally a fascist. You're a Libertarian. He's a fascist. He's an authoritarian. He has contempt for the First Amendment. His quotes are nothing different than what Mussolini might say. He has disdain for our idea, for the press to report. The only media he likes is media that parrots what he says and that praises him like Fox News. This is a man who just shouldn't be president. He has contempt for the first president and what our Founding Fathers gave us.

DOC: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Shouldn't be president. What do you mean by that?

CALLER: Because he has contempt for the Constitution. He has contempt for what the right of free press, as I stated -- he said it was disgusting. Said the media has the media to report what they do --

DOC: Let me ask you something. Hang on one second. Hang on one second, Jerry. I'll let you talk some more.

I just want to explore one thing. Is Donald Trump over the age of 35?

CALLER: Yeah.

DOC: Is he a natural-born citizen?

CALLER: I didn't say that he's ineligible. I said he shouldn't be.

DOC: Well, he became president. Based on --

CALLER: Mussolini became the leader of Italy. Should Mussolini -- tell me, should Mussolini become the leader of Italy? Do you think it was a great thing that Mussolini became the leader of Italy? Because I don't.

DOC: No, no, no, you're conflating it. People supported him, and people have a difference of opinion.

Now, you can say you don't support his ideas. But I hate this idea of shouldn't be and not my president and all of that nonsense.

CALLER: I didn't say not my president. I just said he shouldn't be. He shouldn't be. Like Republicans said the same thing about Obama. When Obama was president for eight years, they said the exact same thing. I'm saying the same thing about Trump. He shouldn't be.

DOC: You mean you don't want him to be president? You wish he was not president?

CALLER: No. Mentally, he's deranged. He's a narcissist. He's emotionally immature. He's completely unqualified. He's president, but he's a horrible president. That's the point.

DOC: Okay. Now, you're basing that on you having different values than him? Is that why you're saying he's a horrible president?

CALLER: I've listened to him for the last 20 years.

DOC: Give me a couple of specifics of him, and you say he's a horrible president.

CALLER: Well, okay. The war on the media -- the war on freedom on the press.

DOC: Hold on one second. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

CALLER: Praising Nazis.

DOC: We're taking this one at a time. This is a conversation. One at a time.

CALLER: Okay.

DOC: So the war on the press. Do you mean the war on the press where he's challenged people like Jim Acosta and said that's fake news? Is that what you mean by that?

CALLER: That's one. But anyway --

DOC: No. Hold on, Jerry. I want to explore these -- hold on. Hang on. Jerry, hang on. Hang on.

We're going to get to this stuff. It's a conversation, Jerry. Hold on. Hold on. So are you talking about stuff like Jim Acosta, where he has challenged them and said, sit down, you're fake news and stuff? Is that what you're talking?

CALLER: Well, anything they report he calls fake news, even if the reporting is exactly right. Because to Donald Trump, anything that's not in his reality is fake news. He praises news that praises him, like Fox News, which is the propaganda arm of Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

DOC: And, Jerry, you really -- really are going to say those things without calling out President Obama for his closed door special meetings with certain members of the media? You're not going to call out MSNBC for being his talking surrogate during his platform -- during his presidency? You're not going to be consistent?

CALLER: Okay. Those -- they did favor President Obama. That's true. Yes.

DOC: No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, Jerry, hold on. Hold on. Wait a minute. Hold on a second. Hold it. No, no, no. They did not favor him. They promoted him. They, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC --

CALLER: The liberal media. The liberal media.

DOC: Don't do that. See, this is the reason people can't have discussions, Jerry. This is the reason. I'm admitting Donald Trump of course likes media that's going to favor him. And, yes, Fox News praises him because they are a right-wing media outlet. Of course. But you're not willing to give that due? You're not willing to be consistent? You've lost credibility if you're not willing to point out that the other media outlets rabidly, blindly supported President Obama because they are progressives.

CALLER: Okay. Rabidly, blindly, no.

DOC: Hold on. Hold on. Do you work in the media? Do you work in the media?

CALLER: No.

DOC: Okay. I work in the media. My wife works in the media. She works in television media. And I can tell you overwhelmingly, people in the media are progressive. It's not even close. It's not even, well, it's 60-40. It's like 80-20. 90-10. The number of progressives. It's true. But you don't -- hold on, Jerry. You don't even need to know that though to look at the reporting. I can't believe you would defend this, knowing, just admit it -- listen, is Rush Limbaugh, is Glenn Beck, are they on the right? Yes. I'm not disputing that. Were they critical of Obama because they don't like his policies? Yes, I'm not disputing that. So wouldn't you simply hold people accountable to have credibility so we can have honest discussions? Why do you make me go through this when you know the truth?

CALLER: Okay. Know the truth. One, even MSNBC, they're not as biased as Fox News. Probably -- one of the reasons why so many people in the media are on the left are --

DOC: You lost all credibility -- hold it. When you say -- hold it. We can't argue here. When you say they're not biased, you've lost as credibility. You know that's not the truth.

CALLER: Well, Doc, you still don't answer me. Are you fine with Donald Trump saying the media was disgusting, that they have the right to report what they did? Because to me, that's disdain and contempt for our Founding Fathers.

DOC: No, I have no problem with him saying the media is disgusting.

CALLER: No, it's disgusting they have the right to report and publish. He believes the media shouldn't have the right. He believes the media shouldn't have the right -- in the First Amendment that James Madison wrote down --

DOC: Hold it. Jerry, Jerry, stop with the historical lesson. Trust me, I understand the First Amendment. I understand that.

No, of course, the freedom of the press is solid. It's absolute. Of course, it is. And anybody who says, whether it's Donald Trump or President Obama, is wrong. Do you remember President Obama calling out Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? Do you remember --

CALLER: I don't remember him saying --

DOC: Do you remember him calling out Fox News? Do you remember those things?

CALLER: Disgusting. I don't remember him saying it's disgusting that Sean Hannity can report what he wants. You tell me when President Obama said that and I will apologize and take that -- any position. You tell me when President Obama said it was disgusting for the media to do that.

DOC: When he called them out for their biases and not admitting the other, so you're hung up on the word disgusting. Jerry, you know the truth here. I'm not argue that go Fox News is biased. And I'm not arguing that President Trump shouldn't say people don't have a right to report.

Of course, they do. They can report opinion for that matter. I just prefer them to be transparent up front.

But the fact that you and others are not being consistent now because you simply do not like policies of his and you may not like the way he presents himself, you've lost all credibility. You are actually -- Jerry, you are actually the problem.

CALLER: He's a fascist. He's a fascist.

DOC: Stop. Stop. We're not going down that road. I'm talking about your lack of credibility right now. How are we supposed to find common ground and have discussions when you know the truth and you can't just simply admit that?

CALLER: I know the truth as you stating what I should know the truth.

DOC: Jerry, you've exposed yourself.

CALLER: CNN. Somewhat on the left.

DOC: No, no, no, no. No probably. No, Jerry, no. Hold it. Hold it a second. There's no probably with this, Jerry. There's no probably with, yeah, they are. Just admit it.

MSNBC is every bit as progressive as Fox News is conservative. I'm willing to concede. Fox News -- absolutely the same. But on the other side, CNN, absolutely. I'm not trying to say, oh, Fox News isn't. Fox News is right. Of course. I work for TheBlaze.

We're from a right-leaning perspective. Of course, we're admitting it. We will never get beyond this stuff. We will never find solutions. We will never find common grounds that you supposedly want. You want to have discussions. We got to have a conversation on race in America. We can never have any conversations on this stuff.

Because you will not be consistent. Because that is not what a progressive is. It is a cornerstone of progressivism, which you are, to not be consistent.

CALLER: That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

DOC: And there you go. There it is.

Willing to have a conversation, but he's a fascist, whatever, whatever. I'm willing to discuss with you. We can find common ground. But if you're going to start with, those people are worse and it didn't happen here, President Trump should not say, people do not have a right to report. Of course, they do. And the things where he has tweeted, suggested, said things like that, absolutely wrong. The First Amendment is absolute. Period.

He was wrong. Calling the media out, I have no problem with. I have no problem challenging the media and reporting.

Why can't you? Why can't you as president or a senator or a governor? Of course, you can call people out.

I had no problem with President Obama calling media sources out, as long as he was being consistent and willing to admit that he has these little back-door meetings, special, private, hey, can you guys report on this and not that meetings, with people at the White House. You're not being honest. You're not being transparent. As long as you do that and you're consistent, we can move forward. We can find solutions.

But until you do, yeah, it actually gives me a little bit of pleasure when President Trump beats up on the media. Because finally, somebody calls them out, unlike you.

This is Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

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.