Star Parker: Here's Why Nobody (Except Glenn) Played Audio of My Pro-Life Testimony

Abortion is one of those topics that is never fun to talk about. Some people respond to the horror of killing an innocent life by pretending it doesn't exist. That's partially why the left has been able to further their agenda and completely change the abortion narrative.

Thankfully, there are people like Star Parker, who is a columnist and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), who stood up last week and testified on behalf of the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 490) in the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

Her testimony sparked intense interest and garnered many interview requests, but in most of these appearances, the media was more focused on her response to Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who confronted her on her testimony, calling her ignorant and demanding her to apologize.

Parker joined Glenn on his radio program Friday. Before introducing her, Glenn played an audio clip of her testimony that has since gone viral. Then, Parker gave a shocking revelation.

"Thank you, Glenn, for having me on," she said. "You are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony. Mostly because of what happened after."

Glenn was astounded.

"Wow," was all he could say.

Parker continued.

"So that's what went viral," she said. "So what really got lost --- I really appreciate you playing that --- is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing."

Glenn expressed how sick he is of the media's use of "back and forth viral bites" that have nothing to do with the actual problems at hand. In a time when the definition of life is coming into question, Glenn emphasized the need to get this one right before it's too late.

"If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up," Glenn said.

Watch Parker's testimony below.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

GLENN: I swear to you -- it's like I woke up in a parallel universe. I cannot believe the conversations that we have to have today as a society. Even polite society. There is no such thing as polite society anymore.

I want to play some audio we played for you earlier this week. This was actually from a hearing on H.R.490. The Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017. And Star Parker was testifying in front of Congress. And, man, is she brave. Listen to this.

STAR: But if you also consider in your deliberations regarding H.R.490, the last time in American history that we were faced with hard Constitutional and political questions on the civil conflict between humanity and convenience, personhood and property, justice and public opinion, slavery was as abortion is, a crime against humanity.

Like slavery, tensions were created in a public square and in law concerning who qualified for natural rights worthy of protection.

In the first 89 years of our nation's existence, it was the black slave who sought freedom and equal protection under the law. And many attempts were made to heed their cry. Today, it is the concede person living in the womb of its mother that should be considered human with opportunity of equal protection under the law.

It is ironic that, while the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1868 humanized slaves, the United States Supreme Court of 1973 dehumanized of the life of the being in utero, handing down a decision that wreaked in ethnic cleansing, to once again allow a powerful few to determine exactly who had a right to humanity.

GLENN: Star Parker is with us now.

How much heat are you getting, Star Parker?

STAR: Well, thank you, Glenn, for having me on. And, frankly, that is the first interview -- you are the first to actually play some of what I said in the testimony.

GLENN: Shut up.

STAR: Mostly because of what happened after.

No, seriously. So I'm listening to it saying, oh, so I did make my point.

No, what happened during the Q&A, I answered a question and then referred back to some of the discussion that was earlier, one of the congressmen.

We call him now Congressmen Coward Cohen. And because he kept throwing in welfare programs into the discussion. But he wasn't the only one. So did a protester during the time that they were actually shown an ultrasound in the hearing room, first in the history of the country. You think it would be front page news that they actually showed an ultrasound of a live, in-the-womb child in a congressional hearing.

As I said, so I then answered and addressed his promise about welfare and trying to delude what we were talking about, called it disingenuous to combine the two issues. And he lit into me. I mean, he called me ignorant. He told me that I didn't know how to address the Congress, after the hearing was over. He came up and put his finger in my face and told me I better come to his office and apologize.

GLENN: Wow.

STAR: Yeah. So that's what went viral. So what really got lost, I really appreciate you playing that, is the actual testimony. This is very serious business what we've been doing.

GLENN: Yeah. I have to tell you, Star, I am so sick of the back and forth viral bites that have nothing to do -- I'm sorry. And they will call me ignorant as well. Arguing about welfare programs when it comes to abortion is exactly the same is arguing for slavery because it will destroy the economy and people will suffer.

STAR: Right. Well, and that's why I had to address it, even though maybe I was a little out of order because he didn't ask me a specific question. But I wasn't addressing him. I was addressing the chairman who did ask me a question. Chairman of the subcommittee for the judiciary on Constitution and civil justice. Getting to what you're discussing earlier and how it's unbelievable the things that we have to now discuss in the public square, when children are listening, because of the sexual matters that are coming on to the front pages. And yet they're rooted in this abortion question.

When you're killed in the womb -- what we're doing in abortion -- let's even set aside for one moment, the moral, the medical, and the mental implications to abortion. Abortion feeds a narrative that women are just victims that can't control their impulses. They can't, as you said, learn how to say no when things are inappropriate and find the language to say, "Excuse me, sir, but this is not appropriate. So I'm leaving the room right now."

And it's because it feeds that narrative that you can't control your sexual impulses. And so now people are sexually out of control. That's why marriages have collapsed. That's why out-of-marriage births have escalated. And we, as a nation, better get a grip on this.

Otherwise, we're going to always have discussions about sexual matters and somebody else. And accusations that are coming forth, that we don't even know if are true. Like just wanted happened to the candidate who, 40 years earlier, someone said, a-ha, this is what you said to me. Who remembers what they said 40 years ago?

GLENN: So, Star, how do we -- we are entering a time -- and we -- you know, we have the oldest Congress in the history of the United States. This is the oldest Congress ever.

And we are on the -- the edge of profound technology change that is going to make us question what life even is. And I don't mean, is it life in the womb? That's a pretty easy one. Yeah.

STAR: Yeah.

GLENN: If it's a puppy when it's in the dog's womb, it's a child when it's in the human's womb. We're entering a time now where we're going to have to define life with AI. And that's going to screw everything up.

How do we get -- how do we get to a point to where we can have rational discussions that must be had now?

STAR: That is the million-dollar question. But, you know, you just brought up a fascinating point that I'm going to have to contemplate and think about later, about the oldest Congress. Because you would think there would be deep passion, since they're on the senior year, to argue for the most innocent in the womb, because they're next.

A couple of states have already passed euthanasia. We're starting to, as a culture, collapse when it comes to protecting the innocent, understanding what the Constitution really means.

But how do we get there? We may have to start over. That's why I fight a lot for school choice. We're going to have to again build a moral framework within our youth.

And the only way to do that is get you out of these cesspools that we call schools that indoctrinate them in secularism and put them in schools where they're building moral framework and integrity.

The only ones that are really trapped now in failing government schools are the very poor, the most vulnerable, who are getting lost in all of this noise. And that's why their lives are in more chaos. So how do we get back? You replace everybody in Congress.

I was surprised that after McCain lost the -- you know, the presidency when he ran. That he didn't just retire even at that age.

What is he still doing there? Why hasn't he passed the baton to younger energy? And now they can have it even over his own. The whole thing may get to the place that we were in the 1850s, to where we can't go on anymore. And end up in a real difficult direction.

GLENN: I think we're headed in that direction.

STAR: I do too.

STU: Star, your commentary was really interesting in talking about abortion, as it relates to slavery. And I think a lot of people assign their sort of moral decision-making on difficult topics like this to society. So I think even back in the day, a lot of people who probably if they really stopped and thought about it, would think, slavery is crazy. It's a crazy idea.

But since society said it was accepted and it was legal, people just sort of went along with it. It was a controversial issue, maybe. But they didn't want to talk about it in polite company.

STAR: Yeah. Same thing.

STU: Is that what you're seeing now because it's not people who are necessarily horrible people, but they want to avoid the tough sort of moral --

GLENN: Big time.

STU: -- examination of themselves to really think about whether this is right or wrong.

STAR: That's right. That's right. And not only on abortion. On many issues. But you're absolutely right. The same politicians would have it today. And, in fact, one of the things I also said in that testimony is, if you put Roe v. Wade next to Dred Scott, they read almost verbatim. They're both talking about property. They're both talking about, you know, the rights of the person who had -- the letter we hear from the left, even on abortion: Well, if you don't like it, don't have one. That's the same they were saying during slavery. Well, you don't have to own one. Yeah, well, remember, very few owned slaves.

Now, the narrative of the left is every white person is guilty of slavery because all of them had one. No, that was not true. Slavery was elite -- you had to have some money to own a slave.

Anyway, it was very controversial. But you're right. The silent majority allowed this country to go 89 years and then enter into a Civil War because they just didn't have the courage to speak up.

You're absolutely right. They knew it was wrong. And every time the Congress tried to manipulate around. It's the same way they manipulate us now around abortion.

Well, maybe we just won't let it into the (inaudible) state. Well, maybe we can just pass this bill after -- maybe we can -- no, if it is a crime against humanity, you shouldn't be doing it, and you should be doing everything you can to stop it. And that's where we are even with the abortion question today, exactly where we were with the question of slavery back in the day.

GLENN: Does it amaze you that Margaret Sanger and all the eugenicists back then that were trying to wipe out the black race, openly wipe them out, are so seemingly celebrated as friends of the black community now, that that's what they're standing up for? Oh, no. We're just trying to help the poor inner city black woman.

STAR: It's crazy. On Halloween, they tweeted out their real agenda: Black women, have an abortion. Because they're safer than having the child.

It's crazy. The first black president in the country goes to Planned Parenthood's annual celebration. The way they kill off black children in this country. Twenty million blacks have died in the womb of their mom since Roe v. Wade. And he goes. And not only he goes, but he says, God bless you.

Yeah, it's amazing how blinded people are to these facts. How is it that we allow ourselves to be complicit in abortion, with Planned Parenthood, by allowing them to get corporate welfare year after year at $520 million. It's what they're getting.

In fact, everyone you know. Everyone -- they know everyone. They know probably ten times. Might as well just hand the money straight to Planned Parenthood. Because it still wouldn't equal $520 million.

And for some reason, we want corporate welfare out of here. But that billion dollar corporation gets 520 million tax dollars every year to do their primary business, which is to kill offspring.

GLENN: Star, thank you so much. God bless. Thank you.

STU: Hmm.

Star Parker is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. You can get her on Twitter @UrbanCure. UrbanCure. Or UrbanCure.org.

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.

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.