Conservatives in America are being divided over the wrong things. Glenn Beck asks: Who’s the real threat to America: Sen. Mike Lee, who wants to sell 3% of federally-owned land to states and cities, or the rising radical communist wing of the Democratic Party, who recently chose Zohran Mamdani as their NYC mayoral candidate?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to talk to you about the enemy being clear. Crystal clear!

But I'm not sure to everybody.

I'm so sick and tired of us turning on each other.

We saw it with Elon Musk and Donald Trump. I like both men. Can we stop?

Thankfully, they did.

You're seeing it with Trump's bombing of Iran. Where you were either a Jew-loving Zionist or raging anti-Semite, or if you're me.

Both!

And then there's something that really caught me off-guard. The people who are turning on Utah Senator Mike Lee over a housing proposal, he's had this housing proposal since 2022.

But if you go on X, you're going to learn, apparently Mike Lee, one of the most Constitutional loving conservatives I know, wants to sell off our national parks and forest.

You know, he was probably in Coeur d'Alene lighting the matches, because he hates our forest so much. He wants to make sure you never get to hunt.

All he wants to do is take away your fishing and hunting rights. And build cheap housing complexes. Amazon warehouses. And whatever China and BlackRock want.

You know, I addressed this a few weeks ago. I invited Mike to clarify where he stands. Because some of my family are very concerned.

You can find the segments on my YouTube channel. Go and subscribe to my YouTube channel. Will you please? But since then, apparently, there's a crusade out to cancel Senator Lee.

There have been a few major updates. So today, let me just take a look at just the facts here, where we stand on this right now.

Over the weekend, Mike Lee decided to withdraw his federal land sale provision from the big, beautiful bill.

He said, quote, while this has been a tremendous amount of misinformation, and in some cases, outright lies about my bill. Many people brought forward sincere concerns.

Because of the strict constraints of the budget reconciliation process, I was unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee, these lands would never be sold.

Only to American families. Not to China. To not BlackRock.

And never to any foreign interests.

Wow! What a shill for the globalists, right?

Or maybe how it should work. Members of Congress propose something presented to the people. And then they listen to the community. Instead of just insisting, we have to pass it, to know what's in it.

And I didn't hear this kind of outcry for that!

Here's one of the bigger issues here. We're speaking two different languages.

A lot of criticism online is that Mike Lee wants to sell off our public lands!

Our public lands. Pragmatism to a lot of Americans, those lands are the lands we use for recreation. And hiking. And haunting. And fishing.

And things like that. That's whatnot he wanted to sell. And he promised to make that much clearer in the revised bill.

Now, let me remind you, on the public lands. President Biden, under his administration. The federal government was ordered to conserve 30 percent of our lands. And our waters by 2030. So apparently, our public lands are being gobbled up even more.

That's another, I think six percentage points. Another 6 percent of the entire land in the United States, going to be seized by the federal government, by 2030. And it falls directly in line with the UN's 30 by 30 plan.

It's an initiative for governments to seize 30 percent of all land and water by 2030. Now, do you think the UN wants to give you more hunting and fishing land?

Do you think they're all for that? Or do you think these radical environmentalists want to restrict your access in the name of fighting climate change?

By the way, current -- currently, the US government owns 640 million acres of land. That's nearly a third of the country. So they've almost met that 30 by 30 goal.

And they will meet it, and then what's next? The 50 by 50 UN goal.

And in order to seize the rest of the land, there's the Sustains Act that passed. Do you know about this? I didn't hear about any outcry for this.

Where was the right on this one? It was enacted in 2023, allows the government to receive private funds to advance conservation programs.

So BlackRock, if they wanted to, could buy up the conservation lands! Does your property contribute to pollination, photosynthesis. The air we breathe. The water we drink?

Well, as I -- as I exposed, on a show back in September, the Sustains Act allows all of that to be monetized through the relationship of private investors like Bill Gates. And the government!

And it occurs without the landowners permission.

So they can take your land. Or tell you exactly what you want to do, or what they want you to do on that land, what you cannot do on that land, because photosynthesis happens.

Where was I?

Where were you on that?

This is the real seizing of American assets.

This is the real seizing of American assets, by the global corporations. That you were all so afraid of!

Mike Lee, oh, my gosh.

What about the Sustains Act?

In his revised bill. Which he's still working on.

Lee has promised to remove all forest land. Good. Significantly reduce the amount of BLM land in the bill.

Good. Only land within 5 miles of population centers is eligible.

Yeah. But when he gets that, then he'll build buildings there, and then he'll have another five.

And next thing you know, he will be putting a cap on -- on Old Faithful.

He'll establish freedom zones to ensure these lands benefit American families. Ranchers. Recreational users. But there's a lot of claims online.

Whatever.

Charlie Kirk said, the Democrats -- this is their war on single family housing.

Hmm.

Do you remember when we talked on the program about the globalist plan of 15-minute cities. That all of BlackRock and everything else is for.

Remember when BlackRock came in, and just started buying up whole neighborhoods. Just priced every regular citizen out of the neighborhood.

Why?

Because it's part of the plan to pack the majority of humanity into easily controllable cities where everything you need is just 15 minutes away. And you never need a car. But is that the American dream?

Currently, rural land is getting so expensive. Most Americans can't afford rural land!

I know. I'm living in a place that has a population of 400 -- I think it's 51. Might have had a baby, so maybe it's 452. And nobody can afford it.

How is it possible you're living in the middle of nowhere, with a population of 451 people, and you can't afford a house!

The elites don't need Mike Lee's proposal. But take more of your land.

They're already doing that. But here's my biggest issue.

This is not about Mike Lee's proposal. Okay?

It's not.

There is a much bigger issue.


And I'll share that when I come back.

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. So I was talking about federal -- I want to get off that. I want to change to, instead, what the real problem here is.

What the real problem is. The real problem on the seizing of the federal lands. Is that we are so quick to turn on ourselves.

We are so quick, lately, to turn on our -- our allies.

See, that's -- the issue isn't Mike Lee's proposal.

It's how fast we turn on each other!

If you believe Mike Lee's proposal didn't go far enough to safeguard our land from adversaries. Great!

That's fine. And, you know what, you won!

He's revamping that.

He listened.

The government listened. Good!

But can you say that without calling him a traitorous shill for the elites?

I mean, I don't know what traitorous shill for the elites that actually listens.

Do you?

Donald Trump Jr. He was against my plan. He thanked him over the weekend for pulling the proposal saying, quote, Mike is a great friend. And we usually agree on almost everything. But this was a rare exemption of where we didn't! Hello!

We don't need to hear people tear each other down. Who is our real enemy?

Who is -- who is more dangerous?

Can we go to -- can we go?

I don't have number on these, unfortunately. Six.

Seven, eight, nine, ten. Let's go to cut ten, please, on whiter neighborhoods.

VOICE: I realized there's a policy proposal, and I'm going to quote it for folks to shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer bureaus toward expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.

Explain why you are bringing race into your tax proposal.

VOICE: That is just a description of what we see right now.

It's not driven by race.

It's more of an assessment of what neighborhoods are being undertaxed versus overtaxed. We've seen time and again, that this is a property tax system that is inequitable. It's one that actually Eric Adams ran on, saying that he would change in the first 100 days.

He since sought to defend it, and lost at every juncture in court.

VOICE: And I understand, you're saying, we're simply describing the types of neighborhood that would see these increases in taxes.

And yet by invoking race, do you run the risk of potentially alienating key constituents.

STU: I think I'm just naming things as they are. And ultimately, my -- the thing that motivates me in this, is to create a system of fairness.

It's not to work backwards from an original assessment of our neighborhood or our city. Rather, it's to ensure that we actually have an equal playing field.

And right now, what we see with the property tax system, is one that is overtaxing a number of New Yorkers and undertaxing others. And inability of political will to resolve that.

VOICE: So no plans to change that language on your website?

VOICE: The focus here is to actually ensure a fair property tax system, and the use of that language is an assessment of the neighborhood.

GLENN: Just want it to be fair. Just want it to be fair. Play the next cut. This is Mamdani, by the way, the candidate in New York, that looks like he might win, to become the next mayor of New York. Next cut.

VOICE: You are a self-described democratic socialist. Do you think that billionaires have a right to exist?
(laughter)

VOICE: I don't think that we should have billionaires, because frankly it is so much money, in a moment of such inequality.

And ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city, and across our state, and across our country.

And I look forward to work with everyone. Including billionaires. To make a city that is fair for all of them.

GLENN: Wow!

That is fantastic.

We shouldn't have billionaires.

Hmm. So how would we get there?

What would be his ultimate goal?

Listen.

VOICE: Do you like capitalism?

VOICE: No. I have many critiques of capitalism.

And I think ultimately, the definition for me, of why I call myself a Democratic Socialist.

Is the words of Dr. King decades ago. He said, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism.

There must be a better distribution of wealth for all of God's children in this country.

And that's what I'm focused on, is dignity and taking on income inequality. What the purpose is about, about this project, is not simply to raise much consciousness, to win socialism.

And obviously raise class consciousness. We were a part of that. But making sure that we have candidates that both understand that and are willing to put that forward, at every which moment they have.

Every which moment that they are given.

We have to continue to elect more socialists. And we have to ensure that we are unapologetic about our socialism. And there are also other issues that we firmly believe in.

Whether it's BS -- right? Or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we don't have the same level --

GLENN: Wait. Can you say that again for me?

Whether it's the end goal of ceasing is the means of production.

Let me ask you the question: Which is more dangerous to our country, and our heritage?

Is it the -- the senator?

That controversial maybe. Says 3 percent of federal land should be transferred back to the states?

Or is it the politician standing at a modem declaring, you know, not in some offhanded gap, that he has a real problem with capitalism. That he wants to tax white neighborhoods. That he wants to get rid of billionaires. And seize the means of production.

Now, for those who studied history. I don't need to tell you why your blood has suddenly run cold. Seize the means of production, that's not economic theory.

That is a revolutionary war cry. It always has been. It's the heart of Lenin, of Marx, of Mao. Of Gulags. Of five-year plans. A food line. Total state control. It is the slogan, whispered in the barracks of all of the camps.

Printed on the walls of the Khmer Rouge Torture cells.

That's not American. That's not a goal any of us should look for. But let's take down Elon Musk.

Let's -- let's take down our FBI.

Let's -- let's take down Mike Lee. Let's take down Tucker Carlson. Let's take down at the scene. Because we don't have enough enemies. Riley rightfully, somebody on this program, asked around on this time, on Friday. Glenn, why did you have Steve Bannon on? This is why I had Steve Bannon. We have enough enemies, don't we?

Can we find people we generally agree with, maybe 80 percent. Even if that 20 percent is massive!

If I'm going to be friends with anybody, for the times I'm going to be friends with.

Then I have to say, I part with you here.

You will have to go on your own way. But when you come back to this, I'm with you.

We are -- we are being -- our college campuses, the floor of our own legislative bodies. As if it were another just regular day in paradise of America.

You know, let me -- we want to talk about highway funding and seizing the means of production.

Wait. What?

Meanwhile, the man who says, we should return a tiny sliver of public land. Land that Washington hoards like a miser. While local communities struggle to pay for schools and police.

Why you can't afford a house!

That's an extremist. A radical. A threat. But this guy, I don't see anybody on the right, really standing up against this guy. Where is the big movement against this guy? It's almost as if, that whole federal lands thing, was orchestrated. And so many of our side played right into it!

That man who says, let the states manage their own forests, their own minerals, their own resources.

Just give us 3 percent of our land, so we can actually have a tax base, so we can build some houses there that people can afford. Let's make sure that the land is controlled by the people, who are closest to that land.

Let them be the stewards of it. Not the bureaucrats 2,000 miles away, who have never set foot in a pine thicket, or a desert mesa.

Which one is more in line with the Constitution? Which one is our bigger enemy here? Which one echoes Jefferson's belief in a government closest to the people? Which upholds the vision of the Founders who feared centralized power, more than foreign armies. Which one is calling for the seizing of the -- of the production?

You know, not all ideas are morally equivalent.

We're not dealing here with difference of opinion on tax rates. Or zoning codes.

One wants to give power back to the states.

And, you know what?

People rose up, and said, I don't like that idea.

So that idea has to be closed and forfeited.

Great! But where are the people standing up saying, seizing the means of production?

This guy wants to take control of your factory. Your farm.

Your business, your labor.

One believes in federalism. The other believes in collectivism. One respects the individual as a moral agent of society. And the other sees the individual as a cog in the great machine of the state that's just going to make utopia. Because they always do!

As you just -- you just can't see it. Because you're behind the barbed wire fence!

When somebody shrugs and says, you know, both sides are really pretty extreme. You know, it's time we say, no, no, no, no.

It's that kind of false equivalence that got us into this mess. That's how the frog stays in the pot as the water slowly boils. You know what, they're both really kind of extreme, no, they're not. No, they're not.

If you believe in America, is a place where rights are granted by God, not government.

Where property is yours. It is sacred!

The fruits of your labor belong to you. That we cannot pretend these are equal threats.

Because they're not. Because one man questions how much land the federal government should own.

The other questions whether you should be allowed to own anything at all!

If the government should not own everything!

Which one is dangerous? Which one snuffs out your rights?

It's not about land. This is all about economics. It's about freedom. And history has already told us where these roads lead.

One road leads to liberty. One road leads us to having a discussion and a debate.

Without calling each other names and killing one another.

The other road doesn't allow debate. And if you try to debate, you're disappeared, or you're killed! One leads in liberty, one ends in chains!

What do you say, we -- we have enough enemies. Why do we need to turn on ourselves? And do you think there's a possibility that the communist, the socialist, the anarchist, the Islamist will all band together, to destabilize the Middle East. Europe, come America to destabilize that, to end the Western world. Do you think there's a chance you're being played?

Because I do. And I refuse to be played. I'm not a moron. And neither are you.

See, here's the thing. This is why, when Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings. This is why that's so important.

Because they've hit an emotional spot with you. They've hit a spot of, they're going to take my right away to fish or to hunt.

And that's not what he was doing. But that's what it turned out to be. Our sacred public lands.

It's not what he was talking about.

And if it was, he's not talking about it now.

He wants to make it very, very clear. Exactly what he was talking about.

But see, the idea of going hunting and fishing and hiking. And these glorious places.

We all love that.

I mean, I don't like to actually -- I like to hunt. I don't like to fish.

I don't like to be outside, really.

But I love the lands. I love to be in an air-conditioned car, driving through Yellowstone, going, wow. Look at that. And look at that moron, trying to feed the car, to feed the buffalo.

That's going to be fun to watch.

Why are we so emotional, about that? When it's not really what the argument is about. And it's coming from our friends, when we really should have listened more and had a conversation.

And we're not emotional about someone who says, the end goal is to seize production.

Seize the means of production.

That's Karl Marx!

Why is that one not emotional for us?

Why is it we cannot see the actual enemy?