LETTER TO CONGRESS: How YOU can fight back against the Great Reset

Help me get this letter into the hands of every member of Congress.

At both of the links below, you can type in your ZIP code to search for your member of Congress. There are links to representatives and senators that allow you to fill out a form message. I've annotated the letter with footnotes to original sources, so you and Congress don't just take my word for it!

Just type in their respective names and copy and paste this letter—including the footnotes—into your email to keep America America.

Contact your member of Congress:

Here is the letter:

Dear Rep. [or Sen.] XXXXXX,

The foundation of the American way of life is freedom from tyranny, which can only exist in a nation that defends the rights, powers, and property of individuals and families. Over the past two centuries, the greatest threats to liberty have come from governments, both foreign and domestic. And from the beaches of Normandy to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Americans have repeatedly conquered the challenges placed before them by those seeking to extinguish or limit individual rights.

However, over the past few years, a new, potentially catastrophic danger has emerged, but not primarily from the halls of Congress or state capitols. This threat to freedom has largely emanated from the boardrooms of the world's wealthiest, most powerful corporations, large financial institutions, central banks, and international organizations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum.

In an attempt to secure vast amounts of wealth and influence over society, corporations, bankers, and investors, working closely with key government officials, have launched a unified effort to impose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards on most of the industrialized global economy. (ESG standards are also referred to as "sustainable investment" or "stakeholder capitalism.") According to a report by accounting firm KPMG, thousands of companies, located in more than 50 countries, already have ESG systems in place, including 82 percent of large companies in the United States. 1

ESG standards are designed to create a "great reset of capitalism" and to "revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions." 2 The way ESG supporters plan to enact these radical changes is by using ESG schemes to alter the way businesses and investments are evaluated, so that instead of focusing on the quality of goods and services, profits, and other traditional economic metrics, companies—including financial institutions—are evaluated largely on their commitment to social justice and environmental causes, and then assigned scores so that companies can be compared, rewarded, or potentially punished.

For example, the metrics developed by the International Business Council rank businesses, in part, on the "percentage of employees per employee category, by age group, gender and other indicators of diversity (e.g. ethnicity)." 3 In other words, a company with the "wrong" ratio of Asian to Hispanic workers could be given a lower ESG score than its competitors with the "right" ratio, even if that business provides consumers with better products or services and earns higher profits.

Other metrics include companies' "carbon footprint," the size of a business's facilities, and the "percentage of active workforce covered under collective bargaining agreements," among dozens of others. 4 Facebook has been given a relatively low ESG score by some agencies for not censoring enough speech.

The ESG "stakeholder capitalism" system has become popular because central banks, governments, and wealthy investors have tied trillions of dollars to ESG commitments. The Principles of Responsible Investment group—which has a close relationship with the United Nations and has worked for more than a decade to get investors, governments, pensions, and businesses to agree to support ESG 5—claims its signatories control more than $100 trillion in assets.6

In recent months, many of the world's largest banks, including the six biggest banking institutions in the United States, have not only committed to pursuing many ESG goals in their own businesses and supply chains, but also in all of their financing activities, which means that those businesses that refuse to comply with ESG mandates will soon lose access to vital sources of capital. 7,8,9 And this is just the beginning. The Biden administration effectively killed regulations in January that would have stopped financial institutions from targeting industries based on many of the metrics in ESG systems, opening the door to further discrimination.10 Financial services companies like Merrill Lynch have started to hand out ESG scores to individual investors, based on the companies in their portfolios.11

Corporations, operating with ESG concerns in mind, have started, in an unprecedented way, to engage in political activities, participate in radical social justice causes, and impose draconian restrictions on privacy rights. Coca-Cola has implemented racial training seminars asking workers to be "less white," so that they can be "less oppressive," "less arrogant," and "less ignorant." 12 Hundreds of large corporations and their leaders, including Microsoft President Brad Smith and Apple CEO Tim Cook, have made public condemnations of Georgia's new election security law or other, similar proposals.13 Social media companies and tech giants like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Amazon have banned or limited the speech of millions of Americans, including politicians and political activists.14 Corporations and airlines are considering vaccine "passport" mandates for their customers.15

Nearly all of these activities would undoubtedly be forbidden by U.S. courts if they were to be put into place by government agencies. But because ESG systems technically operate apart from government — even though they are heavily influenced by government spending and central banks' monetary policies—corporations can impose these dangerous assaults on liberty, engaging in an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

Our free society and the American way of life will not survive this "great reset" unless policymakers put rules into place that ensure banks and corporations, which benefit immensely from special legal and tax advantages, cannot unjustly discriminate against nonviolent individuals and legal businesses. If powerful financial institutions, international organizations, corporations, and governments are allowed to work together to control society to their benefit, then our "rights" will become nothing more than meaningless scribbles on old, fading pieces of parchment.

As a member of Congress, you are duty-bound to defend the rights of all Americans against such attacks on freedom. Failing to do so would be an egregious violation of the oath you swore upon entering Congress. I write this letter to you today to ask that you work as quickly as possible to stop this "great reset" of the United States—before it's too late to reverse course.

Sincerely,
YOUR NAME

Footnotes:
  1. Richard Threlfall et al., The Time Has Come: The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020, KPMG, December 2020, https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf
  2. Klaus Schwab, "Now Is the Time for a 'Great Reset,'" World Economic Forum, weforum.org, June 3, 2020, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset
  3. Jonathan Walter, lead author, Toward Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation, World Economic Forum, Sept. 2020, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_IBC_Measuring_Stakeholder_Capitalism_Report_2020.pdf
  4. Ibid.
  5. Principles for Responsible Investment, "About the PRI," unpri.org, accessed Jan. 12, 2021, https://www.unpri.org/pri/about-the-pri
  6. Ibid.
  7. Eamon Barrett, "Wells Fargo Is the Last of the Big Six Banks to Issue a Net-Zero Climate Pledge. Now Comes the Hard Part," Fortune, March 9, 2021, https://fortune.com/2021/03/09/wells-fargo-climate-carbon-neutral-net-zero
  8. Bank of America, "Bank of America Announces Actions to Achieve Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions before 2050," press release distributed by BusinessWire, February 11, 2021, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bank-america-announces-actions-achieve-141500511.html?guccounter=1
  9. Jane Fraser, "Citi's Commitment to Net Zero by 2050," Citi, citigroup.com, March 1, 2021, https://blog.citigroup.com/2021/03/citis-commitment-to-net-zero-by-2050
  10. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, "OCC Puts Hold on Fair Access Rule," occ.gov, January 28, 2021, https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2021/nr-occ-2021-14.html
  11. Justin Haskins, "How Big Banks Are Planning to Force Americans into the 'Great Reset' Trap," Townhall.com, March 30, 2021, https://townhall.com/columnists/justinhaskins/2021/03/30/how-big-banks-are-planning-to-force-americans-into-the-great-reset-trap-n2587085
  12. Mariem Del Rio, "Coca-Cola Asks Its Workers to Be 'Less White' to Fight Racism," Entrepreneur, February 25, 2021, https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/366132
  13. Sanya Mansoor and Madeleine Carlisle, "Companies Condemn Georgia's Restrictive Voting Law Amid Pressure Campaign From Advocates," Time, April 2, 2021, https://time.com/5952337/corporations-condemn-georgia-voting-law
  14. Alex Fitzpatrick, "Why Amazon's Move to Drop Parler Is a Big Deal for the Future of the Internet," Time, January 21, 2021, https://time.com/5929888/amazon-parler-aws
  15. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Adam Liptak, "Likely Legal, 'Vaccine Passports' Emerge as the Next Coronavirus Divide," The New York Times, April 7, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/us/politics/vaccine-passports-coronavirus.html


Please share this letter far and wide. Be sure to join my FREE email newsletter to stay updated on the results of this initiative and learn more ways you can get involved!


Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.