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

Colorado Undersheriff: DHS told police to monitor "people who take The Bible literally"

April 12, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this week, Glenn told audiences about the undersheriff in Colorado who claimed that the Department of Homeland Security was teaching police in his state to look at Christians who interpret The Bible literally, believe America was founded on Godly principles, or are "fundamentalists" as potential members of the sovereign citizen movement. Today, Glenn interviewed that undersheriff, Ron Trowbridge, about exactly what he saw during the training session and why he decided to speak up.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Okay. I want to go to Prowers County, the Colorado undersheriff Ron Trowbridge. Last Monday he attended a Colorado State Patrol training session and they were warned by the State police to watch out for sovereign citizens and Christians who take the Bible literally or say that America was founded on Godly principles, and fundamentalists because they're trouble.

Ron is with us now. I'm sure this caused a firestorm in Colorado. Again, the undersheriff from Prower County ‑‑ Prowers County, Colorado. Welcome to the program, Ron.

TROWBRIDGE: Thank you, Mr. Beck.

GLENN: Thank you. First of all, thank you for having the guts to actually expose this. Because I have to believe at some point you thought that yourself or maybe you talked to your wife and said, "This could turn out ugly for me; do I say anything."

TROWBRIDGE: Yeah, I did. You know, it offended me greatly at the time. It took me back so much, I just ‑‑ I just went back to the office right away. I regret that I should have said something there at the time, but it stuck with me, it stewed with me and ‑‑ but I ‑‑ you know, I teach to my kids, I teach to our people that we're to do the right thing no matter what the cost, and I think this is the right thing. I think they need to know.

GLENN: Okay. So here is the statement from the Colorado State control: Law enforcement training class offered by a Colorado State control April 1st, Southeastern Colorado has come under scrutiny from one of its attendees, blah, blah‑blah. Baker, the guy who was teaching it, Baker's statement went on to note that the officials had spoken with several officers who attended the same training ‑‑ I'm sorry. It was not Baker. This is ‑‑ Baker is the ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Kluczynski.

GLENN: Yeah, and Baker is the guy who was the Colorado State patrol sergeant that released this thing.

Baker's statement went on to note that officials had spoken with several officers ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ who attended the same training and they did not interpret the comments delivered by Kluczynski in the same manor as the undersheriff. We regret that he misinterpreted the training material in a way that is clearly not the position of the Colorado State Patrol.

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I don't know how you misinterpret those who believe the country was established on Godly principles, those who believe the Bible is literal, those who take it too serious, I don't know how you misinterpret that. I am one of those people.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: And that was the statement was that he said that those who interpret the Bible literally are dangerous, are extremists or ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, he didn't say "dangerous." What he was trying to do was show that, hey, these people tend to gravitate towards this sovereign citizen movement and they're potentially ‑‑

GLENN: Tell me what a sovereign ‑‑ tell me what a sovereign citizen is.

TROWBRIDGE: Well, there's no direct definition for them, but generally they're people who, they like to dodge their responsibility for debt, for ‑‑ they don't pay taxes, they don't recognize laws when it concerns them. They often use the court system to bully those who stand in their way.

GLENN: Extraordinarily anti‑police as well.

TROWBRIDGE: Oh, absolutely, yes.

GLENN: Right. Stu, correct me if I'm wrong, but the sovereign citizen is the movement that I came out, this was right maybe even before the Occupy Wall Street and I said this movement is going to happen from the left and here, look at this movement because this is extraordinarily anti‑police. And weren't they saying that they were going to build bombs and blow up police stations?

STU: Yeah, you're talking about a specific militia group ‑‑

GLENN: I think it ‑‑

STU: ‑‑ that was related to this, yeah. But that's correct.

GLENN: Okay. So now he's talking about this and this group is a threat and ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Yes.

GLENN: And so he's talking about this and so then how did he get from those guys to Christians?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, see, he ‑‑ he never really described those guys and that's what angered me so much. I get the point that many people hide behind the banner of Christianity while they preach anything but Christianity. And had he explained that clearly, well, yeah, no problem. But he never really got there. He explained it as simply, just as I described, those people who take the Bible literally. He never really went into any depth on it.

GLENN: All right. So I take the Bible literally as well. Are you, are you telling me then that he said that they were sovereign citizens or they should be watched, or how, what ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, he wasn't saying that they were necessarily sovereign citizens, although several of the people kind of laughed about that saying, "Yeah, I guess I'm a sovereign citizen then." But what he was saying was that these people have leanings towards sovereign citizen ideology. And he described it as, you know, a chunk of icebergs is what I'm trying to think of in the ocean and the big portion of it is underwater and that's where these groups tend to be. They're kind of, they're legal, and he emphasized that they have the right to their opinion, but that when something ‑‑ something may happen that might spur them on to illegal behavior.

GLENN: Okay.

TROWBRIDGE: And so he kind of lumped us all together.

GLENN: You talked to ‑‑ when you released this, what has the blowback been? What's happened since?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, I've ‑‑ I got a lot of support from several people around the country, and I certainly appreciated that. I don't mind telling you I'm scared to death and ‑‑ not for myself but ‑‑ I'm not worried, but really about, did I do the right thing or not. And I spent many sleepless nights wondering about that. I ‑‑

GLENN: Why do you question it?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, you know, because unfortunately there are those who took that opportunity, who took my statements to make threats and attack the troopers at the state patrol. And I think that was wrong because they're good people. They ‑‑ many of them believe just like I do. They've got a tough job to do and they're trying to do it and ‑‑

GLENN: Well, I don't think this is about anybody ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: ‑‑ they don't deserve that.

GLENN: Maybe I'm the only one that read it this way, Ron, but I think this is only about the guy who made that statement, and he's leaving the State Patrol to go to the Department of Homeland Security.

TROWBRIDGE: That's the way intended it to be.

GLENN: Right. And that's the way I at least read it. I mean, am I alone in that? I don't see this as something against the state troopers. I see this as a guy who is packing his bags. I mean, isn't he ‑‑ is he now no longer part of the state patrol?

TROWBRIDGE: Yeah, he said at the class. He at the beginning of the class he said, I'm going to the Homeland ‑‑ Department of Homeland Security. Friday is his last day and this is his last hoorah.

GLENN: So your sheriffs have kind of rallied around you, have they not?

TROWBRIDGE: Yes, he has. The sheriff's been very supportive.

GLENN: But I mean the sheriffs around Colorado, in Colorado, have they not all kind of ‑‑ isn't there a group of you that are kind of standing together?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I don't know. I think that's probably too strong of a statement.

GLENN: Okay.

TROWBRIDGE: I think they're not sure about my stand or why I'm making the stand. I think that's why so many in that class, why they just don't get it, why ‑‑ what I'm bothered about, why this upset me. So there have been some who have called and the sheriff spoke to them. I did ‑‑ I spoke to one and he seemed supportive but I can't really say that for sure.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Ron, there's a lot of people that would say things like this and try to become famous or they try to have their, you know, their five minutes of fame or they would try to become more powerful or anything else. I sense from you that you are an extremely reflective man, a decent man who, you are reluctantly saying this, you feel compelled to say it. I think that's honorable, Ron. Have you heard from any of the state control?

TROWBRIDGE: Yes, I have. I spoke to Major Copley. I've known Major Copley for several years. He tried to reassure me that the way I took the class was not the way it was intended to be taught.

GLENN: See, I got a problem with this. I mean, I'm sure you know him, and I'm not saying ‑‑ I am a huge supporter of our police, I am a huge supporter of our state patrol. I have been ‑‑ when Pat and I worked together 30 years ago in Baltimore, Maryland when they were just shooting at the state patrol on the highways as they ‑‑ I mean, it was bad. I have been a ‑‑ I would never want to do any of your jobs and I have tremendous respect for you. With that being ‑‑

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I've got to tell you I would rather go into a big bar fight than deal with this again.

GLENN: Well, I know. I will tell you that ‑‑ and that's what they want you to learn, by the way, Ron. I will tell you that what bothers me about this is it's one thing to say, you know, "Well, I'm sorry for the misinterpretation" because that's not really ‑‑ I mean, if he said those things, what they should have said is, "That's not our policy." If, you know, "We've discussed it with him and he said that wasn't his meaning, we're sorry for the misinterpretation but we want to make it extraordinarily clear we disagree with those things," and I ‑‑ I guess I kind of see this. You know, "We regret that he misrepresented the training material in a way that clearly is not the position of the Colorado State patrol." Are they talking about you, or are they talking about Kluczynski on that line? Do you know?

TROWBRIDGE: Well, I'm not sure about that. Other statements, of course, are that nobody else in the class took it the way I took it and so I tend to believe they're referring to me on that.

GLENN: Do you know if anybody else took it that way? I'm not asking for names or any ‑‑ pardon me? You didn't talk to anybody else?

TROWBRIDGE: I'm sorry? I ‑‑ you know, I have not talked to them about it really and, you know, I'll make my stand where I need to make it. I think that assume look at it as a battle not worth fighting. Some, I think many look at that as ‑‑ and think that, "You know what? I don't see the problem with it." So I think that I probably stand alone in the group.

GLENN: Ron, when you're you standing up for the truth, there is nothing that at the end of the day is more honorable than standing alone, and I congratulate you for it and I wish you well, and we will keep you in our prayers as we will all of the sheriffs around the country, all the state control and all the police as well as we head into turbulent times in our nation. God bless you.

TROWBRIDGE: Thank you.

GLENN: Thank you very much.

This is the kind of guy who is ‑‑ we need more of. I wish I would have handled my career that way for a longer period of time.

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.