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

Rand Paul Schools Whoopi on Automatic Weapons

January 07, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Senator Rand Paul was a featured guest Wednesday on the ultra-liberal daytime talk show The View. When the topic of gun control came up, the senator held his ground, informing one co-host about the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons.

"I just don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons," Whoopi Goldberg, a handgun owner, exclaimed.

Goldberg’s belief that automatic weapons are available to the public exposes her ignorance on the issue. Like most liberals, her ignorance doesn’t preclude outrage or advocating for the regulation of guns.

Senator Paul kindly explained that automatic weapons are actually banned, and what the The View co-host must have meant was "semiautomatic" weapons.

Glenn and his co-hosts on The Glenn Beck Program had a bit of fun discussing the exchange.

"I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg, I would love to know what kind of gun she has," Glenn posed. "Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon."

Watch the exchange between Senator Paul and Whoopi Goldberg beginning around 4:28.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Rand Paul and Whoopi Goldberg had a fascinating conversation about guns that we have to get to. In fact, we're going to start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Let's start with some good news on Rand Paul who is -- you know, is in my top three guys of who I could vote for. I could vote for -- and actually if Rand Paul was doing better in polls, I would say he's my number two guy. But as far as I am, full disclosure, policy-wise, it's Cruz, Rubio -- sorry -- Cruz, Paul, and then policy-wise, a distant third is Rubio. And the rest of them I don't think I could consider.

If I think of electability and policy be, it would be Cruz, Rubio, Paul. And I would have put Paul up there earlier if he hadn't just kind of fizzled out. I mean, he has -- unfortunately, he's nowhere to be seen. And I think this is a real tragedy.

But he is good. He is really good when he sits down for an interview and is going -- and you're arguing with him. Listen to him with Whoopi Goldberg on The View.

WHOOPI: I don't understand why anyone objects to getting rid of automatic weapons. Automatic weapons, they're not for hunting. They do nothing. They're not --

PAT: As if the Second Amendment was made for hunting.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's a hunting clause. They call it the hunting --

GLENN: Sports and hunting. There wasn't bowling as we know it, at the time. Otherwise, that would have been the Third Amendment. Your right to bowl and go to bowling allies on Tuesday nights for our league shall not be infringed.

(laughter)

PAT: It's a pretty historically famous story, when James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and Thomas Jefferson were sitting around. I think it was Gouverneur's pad one night.

GLENN: Pad?

PAT: And Tom said, "Jim, I don't know. We need something for hunters." And Gouv said, "Well, what about -- what if we let them have a gun so they can go out and shoot some deer from time to time?"

GLENN: You know what, let's make that the First Amendment. And that's when Jefferson knocked on the door and said, "No, you got to make it the second one. I have something about speech or something that I really want to do --

STU: It the right to pornography. We got to get that as the first one.

GLENN: That's right. There's going to be a guy in a golden wheelchair at some point that wants to show, you know, mama's jugs, and we got to get that in first place.

JEFFY: Amen.

(laughter)

PAT: And we call that the Jeffy Amendment.

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: So hang on. Before we go back. Whoopi is now talking about automatic weapons.

PAT: Automatic weapons.

GLENN: And we already have a ban on automatic weapons.

WHOOPI: -- are only there to kill. And you notice that a lot of things that happen, happen with automatic weapons.

GLENN: Can you stop for a second? She's so stupid.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Okay. So, first of all --

PAT: I just can't.

GLENN: -- the dumbest sentence of her mouth is not what you're thinking. I think the dumbest sentence of her mouth was, "Automatic weapons are only there to kill."

PAT: AR-15s, of course, the semiautomatic weapons are there to heal and as planters --

GLENN: Right.

STU: And handguns are known as the massage weapon.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, that's what a gun is for, to kill.

PAT: They're only there to kill. Stupid.

WHOOPI: -- why don't we say, "You know, who really needs to have one, other than people who are at war?"

(applause)

PAT: And then the lemming audience, every time, this drives me out of my mind. Oh, jeez.

JEFFY: Oh.

GLENN: You have to understand, I've been on that set. I was on -- I'm on that set. They have applause signs, and they have people to get the audience to applaud.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: Right.

GLENN: So they're trained to be lemmings.

STU: But even if they were lemmings completely and they just had no thought and were clapping, you could be excused maybe for not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons or whatever.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But when you're a commentator making a point on the air about how smart you are about guns and how dumb the other argument is, shouldn't you be mildly aware that what you're saying is completely wrong?

PAT: Yes, mildly.

JEFFY: And she always makes a big point of being a gun owner.

PAT: She does.

GLENN: And I'd like to know what kind of gun she has. Does she have a revolver? Does she have a revolver, or does she have a Glock? Because if she has a Glock or a Sig, she owns a semiautomatic weapon. Unless she has a revolver or a flintlock, I'll give her Cap 'N Ball as well, she owns a semiautomatic.

PAT: Wow. And nobody needs that. That's the other thing. Progressives always do something you don't need. Nobody needs this. Nobody needs more money. Nobody needs certain things.

Well, who are you to tell me what I need and what I don't need?

GLENN: I would love to know from Whoopi Goldberg -- I would love to know what kind of gun she has. Because unless it's a revolver, she owns a semiautomatic weapon.

PAT: Yeah.

RAND: Truly automatic weapons, we don't have. You know, we banned truly automatic weapons I think in 193- --

WHOOPI: Yeah, but we still got a lot of them, Rand.

RAND: Well, what we have are not automatic weapons. We have semiautomatics --

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Stop. How many automatic weapons do we -- how many fully automatic weapons, just ballpark it, Stu. You had this number for me a couple days ago.

STU: Yes. I actually have the same article up. Give me a second, and I can find it.

GLENN: Truly automatic weapons.

STU: Something like 160,000.

PAT: 160,000 or something like that.

GLENN: I was amazed at the number. I own two fully automatic weapons. And I was amazed at the number -- how small the number is. 160,000 fully automatic weapons.

STU: We should point out none of the attacks --

PAT: None. Since 1934. There hasn't been one since 1934.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

PAT: There's been no automatic weapon fire killing Americans in America since about -- well, since 1933. Then they banned them in '34.

STU: Right. There are some. There is 160,000 that still exits.

PAT: They still exist. They're just not killing anybody.

STU: They were banned in 1986.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Do you know why? Do you know why? Because to buy them, first of all, the government has inflated their price so to buy a used -- a gun that costs you $3,000 can cost you anywhere from ten to $30,000, depending on how much everybody is freaked out by Barack Obama. Okay. So they've inflated the price, and they've made it almost impossible for you to buy or to use. You have to -- the reason why you could have 160,000 of these weapons out is because the people who have them are really, really responsible. You're going into a store, you're not going in and buying a -- I mean, even if you're a drug dealer and you have $10,000 to lay down on this weapon, you're not buying it.

STU: And you're going through so many background -- it's so ridiculous to try -- one of the first things they did with this was you had to have the head of your local police force sign a document saying it was okay for you to have an automatic weapon.

GLENN: I'm -- I'm not sure --

STU: I'm not sure if that still applies, but that's one of the first --

GLENN: I'm not sure, but I think at least in Connecticut, maybe in Texas too, I think -- something makes me remember that I think I had to let the police department know that I had an automatic weapon.

STU: Oh, yeah. And there's all sorts of requirements like that. Drug dealers are not going in and getting legal automatic weapons. That's absolutely implausible.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: And they're not letting the local police chief know they have it either.

STU: No.

GLENN: Right. And I will tell you this. I think your stat -- you should check with the border. I think with all the drug cartels. Because they're carrying now automatic weapons on our side of the border with the drug cartels.

PAT: Yeah, the drug cartels rarely kill people in America though. They kidnap them and take them to Mexico. But rarely do they kill their potential customers. It usually doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay. Good one.

RAND: In a fairly fast sequence, but you can't pull the trigger and then come like a machine gun. Those are -- those are no longer out there.

WHOOPI: Okay. But you know what I'm saying.

RAND: Yeah. This is --

GLENN: No, I don't.

STU: Yes, we do know what you're saying. What you're saying is you don't know anything about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: What you're saying is stupid. Yeah.

STU: You're announcing it to everyone who does know something about the issue you're talking about.

PAT: And thank you for doing that.

GLENN: I wish he would have asked her, what kind of handgun do you have? Because that would have sealed it that she has no idea. Whoopi, what kind of handgun do you have? I don't know. It's a --

STU: It's a little black one.

GLENN: Does it have a revolver? Do you spin the chamber out, and do you put the six little bullets in and put it back in?

No, I put it in with the clip. I put the clip in the bottom of it. Okay. All right. Then you have a semiautomatic. I thought no one needed one of those.

STU: Guaranteed that's what she has.

GLENN: Guarantee it.

PAT: Oh, that would have shut it down completely.

GLENN: Shut it down completely.

RAND: People do hunt with them. And do shooting. And sport shooting and target shooting with these guns. And come to Kentucky, I'll introduce you to -- there are a lot of people who like and enjoy this as a sport. But the other problem is if we're going to take away ownership of specific types of guns, you really have to modify -- something that big has to either be legislation or even possibly a constitutional amendment. We can't allow one individual to do it, and I'll give you an example why.

Let's say we had a terrible president that you didn't like from another party, and that president said, "The View, oh, you should hear the things they're saying on The View. We should limit their speech. We should register the journalists, and then we should have an approval board." And, you know, that's silly. We would all be opposed to that. But that's the danger of letting a president make the rules.

PAT: Undeterred, here's how Whoopi finishes.

WHOOPI: Sorry, man. There's no reason anybody needs to have an automatic weapon. I'm sorry. I get everything else --

(applause)

PAT: She's just told they've been banned.

GLENN: She doesn't have any idea.

PAT: No idea.

GLENN: These people are so stupid. So stupid.

STU: And it's not just Whoopi Goldberg, by the way. Michael Bloomberg, the guy who is donating tens of millions of dollars to organizations to stop you having a gun has made the same mistake on television.

GLENN: No, he has.

STU: And several journalists have done it as well.

GLENN: And I'd like to ask Michael Bloomberg what kind of gun he carries because he has a carry permit. What kind of gun does Michael Bloomberg carry? Does he carry a six shooter?

PAT: No way. You know he doesn't.

STU: He has one with a bayonet on it.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. I've got to open up the powder tray and put some powder into it. Nobody needs more than one shot.

STU: You don't have to know every detail about guns. But if you're telling people that they have to restrict certain types of guns, you need to know what types they are. You need to understand whether they're already banned and have been since the 1930s. That's kind of a major issue. And you need to have a basic handle on that before you start running your mouth.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The View

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.