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

What Made the Cost of Living Skyrocket in the Last 50 Years?

May 03, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In 1924, you could buy a new house for $7,720. In 1962, just shy of 40 years later, a new house was up to $12,000. However, just nine short years later in 1971, the cost of a new house doubled. Seven years later in 1978 it doubled again. By 1983, the average new house cost $82,000. Why did housing costs --- and other costs --- remain stable for decades then begin to skyrocket? What happened in the 1970s that caused an increase in the cost of living?

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 3:15 from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Here's how crazy the housing market is in Texas. My daughter and son-in-law are about to buy a house. And they were looking at this beautiful house. I think it was $155,000. But it had a lot of upgrades. It was kind of small. Like 1800 square feet.

GLENN: I was going to say, in Texas, that's got to be a five-square-foot house.

PAT: But it's beautiful. With all the upgrades that you would expect in a house half a million dollars. So they went to look at it. Loved it. Put an offer in, at 165. Like 10,000 over. They didn't get the -- they didn't get the house. The bid that won was $175,000.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: 20,000 over.

GLENN: See, this is what makes me concerned --

STU: Buy high, sell low, right?

GLENN: No. That's the way I usually do it.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Here's what makes me really concerned: You know, I live in a town that's in a higher tax bracket, and so there's some pretty spectacular houses. I'm telling you, houses that I thought were spectacular three years ago look like tiny houses.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: We went for a Sunday drive.

JEFFY: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: This last Sunday. And honestly, we saw three houses that we said, where the hell does that one stop? It doesn't stop.

JEFFY: It doesn't, Glenn. They don't.

GLENN: They don't.

JEFFY: They don't.

GLENN: I saw a house that just kept going and going. Honestly, we were driving down the street --

JEFFY: See, that's the downsizing I believe you're talking about. When you say, I want to sell my house and downsize, I look at those homes and go, that's the downsize --

GLENN: No. You know what, we have a house -- you know, our ranch is like 1800 square feet. We love it. We absolutely love it. Because the family is always together.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's not great when you're like, "Get out of my face." If somebody has -- is having a really bad day, not a good house. Not a good house. But when you're all getting along, that's -- I mean, that's just great. And we love being close together. And some of these houses that they're building now are so --

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: -- huge. And, you know, you'll be like, oh, it's a family of three.

What? What do they each have 18,000 square feet? What -- I mean, what's in that house?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: There's a house they've been building for like 18 years, I think. Because they just keep adding new sections to it.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: That is fairly close to us. And you just think, what do you people do for a living? How big a house -- what is this, a Ronald McDonald House? How big does this clown need his house to be?

JEFFY: That's not the only one, man. That's not the --

GLENN: Okay. So I live down the street from one of the guys who is the chairman of the board of the train -- you know, one of the big trains. So, I mean, you know -- I mean, you know --

PAT: Are there big trains?

GLENN: Yeah. There are big trains.

PAT: That's still a thing?

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: A guy who is pulling down some coinage.

STU: Some cash. Yeah, a lot of shipping goes down --

GLENN: Yeah, a lot of -- a big shipping area here in the southwest. And he's like the president or chairman of the board or something. And he's got a large house.

JEFFY: Pretty nice place?

GLENN: A large house. We drive by and we're like, "Wow, that's a large house." You go, you know, six blocks away from him, and I'm telling you, you look at him and say, this must be where Jesus lives. Because I know this guy who I can't relate to on how much cash he's making, I know what his house looks like. Who lives here? The entire holy family? What is this house?

(chuckling)

PAT: I think Jesus has a smaller house.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Well, the camels. You have to keep camels. Sheep. You don't want the sheep and the camels mixing.

JEFFY: He only has half a basketball court. Not a full basketball court?

PAT: No, it's like that documentary Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade.

GLENN: Again, learn the difference between a movie and a documentary.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: May I go here?

Cost of living. How much did a house cost in 1924? A new car was $275.

PAT: Not very much.

Really.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: $265.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Your average rent was $18 a month. And tuition to Harvard --

PAT: Eighteen!

GLENN: Tuition to Harvard for a full year was $250.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: How much was a house?

PAT: 2,000.

JEFFY: Yeah. Got to be close --

GLENN: Okay. This shows you the run-up of the Roaring Twenties. A new house was $7,720.

PAT: Wow, that's --

JEFFY: Even with the Sears catalog.

GLENN: That's the average house. So now in 1938, how much was a new house?

PAT: During the Depression, probably considerably less.

GLENN: Harvard tuition had gone up to $420. A new car was $860. A new house, $3,900.

JEFFY: Wow.

Oh, yeah.

STU: Wow. Yeah.

GLENN: You go to 1943, it's $3,600.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: So you held on to your house -- you had to hold on to your house -- you couldn't sell --

PAT: You were taking too much of a loss.

GLENN: You were taking a bath.

You didn't get back up to a $9,000 until 1952. In '52, tuition to Harvard University was $600. A new car was $1,700.

Let me skip ahead here.

Let's go to -- let's go to 1962. A new house was $12,000. So you've got from 1924 to 1962.

JEFFY: Pretty stable.

GLENN: Pretty stable. Except for the depression where it went down, you've got gone from $7,000 to $12,000. Okay?

In 40 years.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: 1962, cost of a new house is $12,000. A new car is $2,900. Tuition to Harvard is 1500.

Now let's go to 1973. Let's go to 1970 -- let's go to 1971.

A new house has gone in nine years. A new house has gone from $12,000 to $25,000.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: Your car has gone to $3,500. And your Harvard tuition has gone to $2,600 a year. Okay?

From in 1927 -- or 1924, $250 a year to go to Harvard. To now in 1971, $2,600. Here's where it gets interesting. Remember, 1971, a house was $2,500. How much was a house in 1978?

PAT: If it acted the way it did during the depression, we were in a serious recession.

JEFFY: No way, though.

PAT: You would think maybe it went down again?

JEFFY: Because in '78 they were still -- they weren't building as much.

GLENN: Remember, double incomes. Double incomes had just started in the early '70s.

JEFFY: It was okay for mom to work.

GLENN: Yep. Yep. So your house went from, in '61 or '63, $12,000 to '71, $25,000.

PAT: So it doubled.

GLENN: To 1978, to$ 54,000.

PAT: Doubled again.

GLENN: Your cost in 1983 has gone to $82,000.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: A new car is now $8,500. Ticket -- or, tuition to Harvard is now $8100. It had gone from $250 to $1,500 to now $8,000. What happened? The government started guaranteeing tuitions.

Then in 1999, a new house, $131,000. A new car, $21,000. And tuition to Harvard, $31,000 per year.

STU: Hmm.

PAT: And now it's, what? Sixty? Fifty or $60,000 a year?

GLENN: Yeah, I don't have anything past '99.

PAT: Wow.

STU: One of the things, if you remember, go back to the 2007 era, before the housing collapse happened, and you were making the arguments on the air all the time that this stuff was going to occur -- giving me some weird eye signals. I don't know what that means.

GLENN: No, I'm just listening.

STU: You're just pleased with yourself, I got it.

GLENN: No, no, I'm just listening to you.

STU: But one of the things you based that on was the Case-Shiller Index. It was one of the big pieces of data that you found to be incredibly problematic because it controls for things like inflation. These numbers obviously are partially inflation, partially the housing market going up. It's tough to break those things out.

GLENN: And now -- you can't look at anything like Case-Shiller. You can't look at anything anymore because nothing is real. Because the fed has dumped money. Because we have printed money.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You don't know -- is the stock market real? Is the housing price real? You don't know. Nothing is based on truly free market principles.

STU: Yeah. And I think, you know, there's a lot of complication there, which is what I think you're getting at.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: But it's still an interesting thing to look at.

GLENN: It is. It is.

STU: So basically 100 is your average of the Case-Shiller Index for basically the entire time. So it ranged between 80 and 120 the entire time. Kind of just measuring how overinflated housing prices are.

GLENN: And 100 is -- I don't remember how it works.

STU: Normal. Let's say normal is 100. So it ranged between 80 and 120 --

GLENN: For how many years?

STU: -- from 1880 to 2000. Okay?

GLENN: 1880 to 2000.

STU: The only exception to that was the Great Depression, where it was a little bit under 80, but it was basically between there the entire time between 1880 and 2000.

PAT: And this is on the Kay Jewelers scale?

GLENN: No, this is Case-Shiller.

STU: Case-Shiller.

GLENN: Who have we talked on? We've had Shiller on?

STU: I can't remember which one it is.

GLENN: Yeah, we've had one of them on. Really, really bright. This is as scientific as you can get on housing.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Okay.

STU: Yes. So between 80 and 120, for 120 years, okay? The housing crisis peaks in 2005?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And it hits almost 200. So it's double normal.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: It had never even come close to that in its history. Then you have the housing collapse, right? We all remember the big inflation and the housing collapse. And finally we're getting back -- we're getting back. That's not the story the Case-Shiller Index tells at all. It went from -- about 120 at the beginning of the housing bubble, up to 200, and then it dropped. The bubble popped, and it came back to 120.

GLENN: Still the highest level --

STU: So it was still at the highest level it had been in 120 years, was the end of the crisis.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Wow.

STU: It has now reached back up to 160.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: From 120 to 160 again.

GLENN: And I tell you, the only place that -- the only place that to me makes any sense at all is Texas. Because the people are moving to -- the influx of people here is just outrageous. How fast it's growing.

JEFFY: You see the apartments they're building.

GLENN: Oh, and they pop up fast. And they're all sold. I mean, it's just so fast. Because people are moving here. Everywhere else, what is happening in your town that is causing this big bubble?

JEFFY: I didn't even see that mentioned in the Kay Jeweler Index.

GLENN: It's not Kay Jeweler.

PAT: I think that's why people go to Jared.

JEFFY: Right.

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.

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.