A Surgeon's Son Diagnoses the Health Care Mess in America

Riaz Patel, television producer and friend of the program, joined Glenn on radio Monday to share a very personal story about health care in America. Patel's father, a surgeon who practiced on three continents and treated an estimated 250,000 patients, recently passed just weeks after being diagnosed with cancer. He described what his father saw at board meetings as the head of a hospital.

"He ran all the decisions of the hospital: who needed what, when they needed it, how long they'd stay. Then eventually there was one MBA, then two MBAs. And then eventually, there were no doctors represented. So everything we're talking about, whether it's two-party system, single-party system, the government, insurance, pre-approvals, none of that has anything to do with you and your doctor," Riaz said.

Most doctors dislike the current medical system which is burdened by red tape and bureaucracy. They just want to treat patients.

"You go through four years of undergrad, four years of medical school, you end up with this enormous amount of debt. And you come out, and you cannot practice medicine freely. You cannot make decisions autonomously between you and your patient that's sitting in front of you bleeding. You have to go consult with people who have nothing to do with that patient dynamic," Patel described.

The experience is infuriating to doctors and patients alike.

"What I'm really angry about these days is the business of the politics of health care. There is enough money out there, Glenn, to cover us all. I saw patients come to my father's house in the 1970s, when we had it out of our garage. To treat patients on a day-to-day basis is not that expensive. Why does it become so prohibitive? Why can the patient not receive the care, the doctor not treat? Where is the money going?" Patel questioned.

Some small town doctors are returning to a cash-only system that Patel's father once practiced as well, cutting out the middle man and lowering costs.

"These doctors would come, roving through these small towns and say, look, I'll do it for this much cash. And I think at a certain point, this is all we're discussing, bringing it bottom-up. We need to bring it back to basics. You and your doctor need to decide what is best for you and how to pay for it. They say one-third is going to policy and bureaucracy. That's insane," Riaz said.

Glenn summed it up.

"What you're asking for," he said, "is a return to common sense and a return to trust in neighbors."

GLENN: A very good friend of the program and one of the more decent men I know, Riaz Patel is joining us now. Riaz has been away for a while and been out of the country, had a new baby, has been spending time with his family, and unfortunately has lost his dear family here recently. Riaz, how are you doing recently?

RIAZ: I'm okay. Hi, Glenn. Nice to hear your voice. Hello.

GLENN: Good to hear you. Good to hear you. I wanted to talk to you today a little bit, Riaz, about -- you know, we had kind of a nice conversation over the last week about our dads.

RIAZ: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: And losing your dad and what that feels like. It's a weird thing that never seems to go away.

RIAZ: It's like a free fall of sadness and emotion. It's so visceral. It's so hard to explain. When we were going back and forth, it was one of those things that I'm like, if you've been through it, you sort of sense it. It's intense.

GLENN: Yeah. And it's strange because it -- at least with me, and I don't -- you know, I don't know about anybody else, but at least with me, the memories of my mother and my father have changed. And they -- they change as I get older. And -- and it's weird. Depending on which part of them you want to focus on, they become either better or worse than they really were.

RIAZ: Fascinating. Because it's so recent. It's, you know, less than two, three weeks. you know, when we were talking, I couldn't imagine that memory adjusting and changing. But, you know, I'm only a couple weeks in, so I imagine life as long it will.

GLENN: Yeah, you really want to write down everything you knew about your dad because it will change and you'll forget some things.

RIAZ: I started yesterday, per your advice. I actually did. I started writing down all the memories, good, bad, all that, to sort of keep it fresh now and notice how it changes overtime.

GLENN: Yeah. So, Riaz, your dad was a doctor. And he was a doctor on three continents.

RIAZ: Correct.

GLENN: With three different systems of medicine. And you and I were also going back and forth on health care. And you are, you know, a lefty or a liberal, if you will. But you're also the guy who went up to Alaska during the -- the Trump campaign, and all of your friends were saying, "How could these people ever vote for Trump?" And as you looked at it, you went up to Alaska, and you saw the suffering of people in the country and said, they're afraid of losing everything. And they don't have -- they don't have the money to be able to survive in this, if continues this way.

RIAZ: Yeah. Yeah. Part of the quest of, what do I not know out there? What do I think I know, but I not know?

And you have to be pretty deaf to not be able to hear that health care is broken. And I don't know anyone -- anyone, if you were to ask people to raise their hands, would raise their hand and say, yep, it's working for me.

So it was fascinating, as I was sitting in the aftermath of my father's death and talking to his secretaries -- Bernie and Ruth had been with him, you know, 20, 30 years -- about the patients, the patient community. Because he had been there for 40-plus years. So those patients are going to feel the change.

And as we discussed that patient community of Edgewood, Maryland, I realized it's very much a microcosm of what's happened in America. And what's fascinating is the way my dad adapted his practice and the practice of medicine to the changing economic times.

Edgewood, Maryland, is a blue-collar town. And over the past 40 years, it has statistically decreased its income. I mean, jobs went out. I remember factories closing when I was a teenager, but people still got sick. And people still slipped and fell.

And so what happened when they lost their job, they lost their income, they lost their insurance, but they still got sick. And they went to my dad. And my dad created this island -- you know, and it's not that uncommon, for a doctor to just want to practice medicine and say, to hell with the insurance and the preapprovals.

GLENN: Oh, I -- I think -- I think most doctors are like that. Most doctors just hate the system. They want to treat people. And they hate the system.

RIAZ: You go through four years of undergrad. Four years of medical school. You end up with this enormous amount of debt. And you come out, and you cannot practice medicine freely. You cannot make decisions autonomously between you and your patient that's sitting in front of you bleeding. You have to go consult with people who have nothing to do with that patient dynamic. And that's infuriating to doctors. It's infuriating to patients. And so what I'm really angry about these days is the business of the politics of health care. There is enough money out there, Glenn, to cover us all. I saw patients come to my father's house in the 1970s, when we had it out of our garage. To treat patients on a day-to-day basis is not that expensive. Why does it become so prohibitive? Why can the patient not receive the care, the doctor not treat? Where is the money going?

GLENN: So, Riaz, here's part of the problem: If I am spending somebody else's money and I -- let me say this carefully. One of the problems is, with the -- with the employer insurance and you not having to shop around -- when we are responsible for our own money, when somebody says to us, hey, there's -- I can get you in for a CAT scan right here, right now, and it's -- I'm just making numbers up. $1,000. Or you can drive in Dallas, there's a place you can drive from my -- my house, there's one that you can drive just down the street. You'll have to make an appointment. You'll get it by tomorrow. But it's not right here. And it's half the cost.

Same thing, just half the cost.

RIAZ: Which shows the fluctuation of pricing that has nothing to do with the actual administration of medicine.

GLENN: Well, convenience -- one thing is convenience. And also, these companies being able to gouge your eyes out because most people, they don't care about the price because it's not them paying for it.

RIAZ: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so when you remove the responsibility of, wait a minute. It's my money. I'm going to have to pay for it, then you -- you -- for instance, with home insurance. I could file -- my home was struck by lightning this weekend.

RIAZ: Oh. Oh, I would look into that, Glenn.

GLENN: I know. I know. Wait a minute. What are you saying there?

So it was struck by lightning, and I said to my wife -- she was gone and she worked with her dad who was an insurance agent. And I'm like, "Blew the TV. Blew the system. You know, blew a whole bunch of stuff." And she said, "Well, we have a huge deductible." And I thought, "Oh, crap. We do, don't we? Oh, it's not free anymore."

RIAZ: Yeah.

GLENN: So you start to now care, wait a minute. Who did I call? Let's make sure I'm pricing this the right way. And so there is a difference. And it's the free market system. And Washington is taking it even further. They're just making deals with the insurance companies and with all the people who are getting rich, including them.

RIAZ: So my father was in the 1970s and '80s, was a medical director of a hospital, a small hospital in this area. And I watched as a kid as the board -- he ran all the decisions of the hospital: Who needed what, when they needed it, how long they'd stay. Then eventually there was one MBA, then two MBAs. And then eventually, there were no doctors represented.

So everything we're talking about, whether it's two-party system, single-party system, the government, insurance, preapprovals, none of that has anything to do with you and your doctor.

And to me, what my father brought, having trained in Karachi, Pakistan, in London, England, was a very different perspective, that you treat first your physician and then the billing comes next.

And what he did is said, you're sick, you come in. And then you go to billing. And what happened was, it became so personal that Ruth or Bernie would say to Mr. Johnson, "Okay. Here's what happened." And Mr. Johnson would say, "I don't have my job. I don't have insurance. But I can pay $40." And they would be like, "Okay." Because we know, in health care, that's better than nothing.

And my father would just say, the personal responsibility of the physician to treat is the joy of his life. And at a certain point, working at the hospital, it was so bureaucratic with the lawyers and the MBAs and the lobbyists in a small hospital, that he actually left the hospital, built his own surgical center and said, "I cannot practice medicine appropriately in the way it works."

GLENN: So what you're asking for though is a return to common sense and a return to trust in neighbors.

I'm reading this book called Mistakes Were Made, But Not by Me. And it talks about the -- why we don't say I'm sorry. And it gets to this one place about doctors. And they track doctors in a study of those who said, "Wow, I made a huge mistake," all the way to a doctor who came out of surgery, the patient dies, and he says, "Look, I -- I don't know what the -- I don't know what the autopsy is going to show. I don't know. There will be an investigation. But your husband died, and I believe it was my fault."

And they were angry. And he said, "Look, I didn't have any reason to suspect this, but I just really feel like I should have caught that. And I just want you to know I take responsibility."

The doctors that say the truth are the least likely to be sued. But because of the system that has been set up by the attorneys and everything else, nobody is having real conversations with each other.

RIAZ: And that is the problem. And so in this tiny patient community of Edgewood, they were able to create this walk-in medical center, nothing fancy, where neighbors walked in, up to three, four generations and were treated.

And to me -- and my father was diagnosed with cancer and died in seven weeks, literally. I would say we spent 80 percent of our time trying to navigate insurance: Was this preapproved? Was this equipment sent?

And my father, who treated a quarter of a million patients over the course of his life, we could not get a bed for him to ease his pain because we could not track down the paperwork. So the last five days of his life, he sat in pain because the four of us --

GLENN: Wow

RIAZ: -- you have -- I'm a producer. My sister is a lawyer. My other sister is a physician with her own practice. My husband manages health care.

The four of us could not navigate the system. And each day, my father sat there in pain. And we said, "I think the bed is arriving today. I called the office. I called the home health. I called the person." All we did was manage it.

And I'm thinking, after he's dead and I'm standing there near the grave, I'm like, "How can this continue? How can a person get sick and go to their doctor and 4,000 people and 10 million letters will go on, that has nothing to do with that dynamic?"

GLENN: I have about two -- I have about two minutes.

Can you talk a little bit about the off-the-grid medicine that you saw in Alaska?

RIAZ: In Alaska, when I was there, I saw in a local paper that they actually were advertising -- doctors were coming and setting up basically bundling your health care, saying people are not going to doctor's offices because they don't have insurance and money. But you cannot avoid your own health.

And so these doctors would come, roving through these small towns and say, "Look, I'll do it for this much cash." And I think at a certain point, this is all we're discussing. Bringing it bottom-up. We need to bring it back to basics. You and your doctor need to decide what is best for you and how to pay for it. They say one-third is going to policy and bureaucracy. That's insane.

GLENN: So Mike -- Mike Lee, the senator -- the most conservative senator, one of them, just wrote an op-ed and said, "Look. I'll sign on. This is not going to fix anything. It's already premiums from Obamacare are up 140 percent. There's nothing in this Trumpcare that's going to make this any better." He said, "I'll sign on, but only if you let states opt out and come up with their own thing." He said, "Because I believe the people of the country will figure it out in their own way, if you just leave them alone." Do you agree with that?

RIAZ: I believe it is so broken right now, I do not know how to fix it. But I know that people will still slip and fall. They will still feel unwell on a Monday morning, and they need to go to their doctor. So I don't know what DC or politicians or insurance are going to do with their multibillion-dollar lobby, but I really encourage people if they're sick, to go to their local physician and say, "Here's what's going on. This is my life."

The insurance companies have removed that ability to talk to your doctor and vice-versa about the fact that, hey, I'm sick, but I don't have money. How can I be treated? And there's money for all of us to be cared for. But the business of politics and health care is absorbing it at all.

GLENN: Riaz, always good to talk to you. And I'm so sorry for the loss of your father.

RIAZ: Thank you. Good to talk to you. Bye, Glenn!

GLENN: God bless you. We'll see you soon. Thank you, Riaz. Buh-bye. Riaz Patel.

I know that in Texas, this is the feeling of many of the doctors of you know what, I'm just pulling out of the system. And I'll just deal with it myself.

I personally think that as we get closer to universal, single-payer system, those doctors are going to be told, you can't do that. But that is the solution. Leave people alone, and they will work it out on the -- on the most basic level.

Now, maybe they won't in the big cities, so the cities do something else. But they will around the rest of the country.

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.