Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

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

June 08, 2021
Glenn Beck

CEO/Founder

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!


Can fear win the vote? Democrats have a dangerous strategy to demonize Trump.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

The Democratic Party’s nominee is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Donald Trump, regardless of the consequences.

Have you noticed how Kamala Harris and her allies in the corporate left-wing media have become bolder in labeling Trump a “fascist”? A recent New York Times article revealed that Democrats have shed their reluctance to use the term. In fact, it has become their rallying cry as Election Day approaches.

What’s the real goal here? According to John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist, Harris and her supporters are using this rhetoric to energize their base — and more disturbingly, to prepare them for violence if Trump wins. The fearmongering isn’t just about driving people to the polls; it’s about creating an atmosphere of rage and chaos.

Let’s show the Democrats that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

Harris is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Trump, regardless of the consequences. This is the same Kamala Harris who, during the George Floyd riots in 2020, encouraged bailing out rioters and urged the violence to continue both before and after the election.

For example, Harris has claimed that Trump will use the Department of Justice as a weapon against his political enemies if he returns to office. But let’s pause for a second: Who is using the Justice Department as a political tool right now? Harris’ own administration, led by Joe Biden, has weaponized federal agencies against Trump and conservatives for years.

Harris also recently entertained the idea that Trump would round up people who “don’t look white” and throw them into camps. During an interview with Charlamagne tha God, a caller suggested this scenario. Instead of refuting the caller’s paranoia, Harris nodded and said, “You have hit on a really important point.”

This kind of divisive rhetoric fuels fear and division in our country. Let’s not forget: Trump was president for four years, and there were no camps, roundups, or authoritarian crackdowns on dissenters. Leftists claim Trump and his supporters spread conspiracy theories, but they are the ones pushing baseless and dangerous claims.

While Democrats claim to defend democracy, they are increasingly aligning with authoritarianism. For example, the EPA funneled billions of dollars to left-wing organizations, including one tied to Stacey Abrams, for “voter mobilization” efforts. This funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act — a taxpayer-funded omnibus bill. Imagine the outrage if Republicans in Congress gave billions of taxpayer dollars to right-wing groups. The media would be in an uproar, and there would be protests at the White House gates. But because it’s Democrats doing it, the mainstream media turns a blind eye. These are the warning signs of an authoritarian regime.

This is why it’s more critical than ever for Americans to see through the left’s manipulation. Trump’s not the fascist here — he’s a threat to the left's power. The real danger lies in the left’s escalating rhetoric, which is designed to incite chaos if things don’t go its way. And let me be clear: That’s exactly what leftists are preparing for.

Don’t let them succeed.

The best way to counter their lies is by getting out to vote and encouraging others to do the same. If every single one of us does this, we won’t let the fearmongering and lies being peddled by Harris and the Democrats succeed. Let’s show them that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

'Get involved': Here's how YOU can join Glenn on election night

America is currently standing at a fork in the road. Which path we take will determine our fate as a nation.

One path is “we try something entirely new,” as in “not the Constitution,” and the other path is “we go back towards the Constitution,” says Glenn Beck.

The stakes for this decision are higher than they’ve ever been.

“We're deciding this year whether or not our kids are going to grow up in a country that gives them the opportunity to be themselves and to move forward and chart their own course, or we're going to continue to live in a place where we're not sure if our kids are going to have a better life than we did,” Glenn warns.

Regardless of who you vote for, Glenn says that one thing applies to everyone: “You’ve got to get involved this year,” which includes voting.

Election Day is rapidly approaching, and it will undoubtedly be a night that goes down in history, which is why BlazeTV will be broadcasting it live.

“We’d love to share it with you,” says Glenn.

Go to BlazeElection.com for exclusive access to our election night broadcasting. Your BlazeTV+ subscription also gives you access to all BlazeTV content as well as Blaze News.

“Sign up and be a part of the family as we go through this together,” invites Glenn.

Get $40 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code ELECTION.

TOP THREE craziest leftist reactions to Trump's McDonald's visit

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Trump visited a McDonald's in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to serve up some french fries to hungry supporters.

MAGA fans from across the country came to celebrate and support Trump, quickly swamping the small town with a tide of Trump merch. With a roaring crowd outside, Trump cooked up some crispy fries and served them to a small selection of supporters through the drive-thru window, creating a light-hearted, fun moment— a pleasant break from the turbulent election cycle.

Naturally, the Left quickly swooped in to rain on Trump's parade. From unsubstantiated fact-checks to overused insults, here are the craziest reactions to Trump's McDonald's trip:

Fact check on Donald Trump's claims about Kamala Harris

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

While working his brief 15-minute shift, Donald Trump quipped that he's now worked at McDonald's longer than Kamala Harris, referencing the Vice President's unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's one summer during college. McDonald's further substantiated Trump's claim by indicating that there are no existing records of Harris's employment, though they admit that records from the pre-digital age may not have survived to the present day.

Despite the lack of evidence, left-wing media outlets, such as the Washington Post, were quick to defend the Vice President. Their argument essentially put Trump's word against Harris's, suggesting that Trump was deliberately lying to defame the Vice President, while simultaneously treating Harris as a more credible source.

Pointing out the obvious fact that this was a political stunt

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

In what is likely the least informative journalistic piece of the century, MSNBC made the "shocking discovery" that Donald Trump didn't actually work at McDonald's and that the entire event was for his campaign. It's unclear what detail gave this away to the "ever-vigilant" reporters at MSNBC. Maybe it was the fact that McDonald's was closed for the event, or the lack of employees within the restaurant, or possibly it was the crowd of cheering fans outside. Thank you captain obvious, the event was a carefully coordinated and secure political event. The former President who has had several assassination attempts on his life did notwork in an unsecured restaurant, dealing with countless unknown people.

Truly "top-notch" reporting by MSNBC.

Calling Trump supporters "weird"... Again.

LOGAN CYRUS / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to paint Trump's fast food fiesta in a negative light. Instead of attacking Trump, they went after his supporters who lined the street to cheer on their favorite presidential nominee. They went so far as to describe the event as a violent riot full of unhinged and uneducated fanatics. The New York Times even quoted a pro-Harris protester who showed up to the event and suggested that "Jan. 6 was maybe a trial run ... and now they’re a lot more organized — and a lot angrier.” The insults didn't stop there. They dredged up the archaic and cringeworthy Tim Walz original calling the Trump supporters "weird." This "zinger" doesn't have the punch the New York Times wanted it to have, and came across as a sad attempt to bring Trump down in one of his high points in his campaign.

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.