'The Great Reset' advice for dummies: ESG in Insurance

June 02, 2022

YouTube

Hi everybody!

A listener reached out recently asking how to find an insurance company that isn’t engaged in a sordid love affair with ESG scores. The short answer is — it’s not easy. I did a quick search for some of the most common insurers, and most of them are openly bragging about their commitment to ESG.

I can’t tell you which insurance company you should use, because every situation is unique, and besides, I’m just a 26-year-old who is doing all of this for the first time, remember?

BUT, I have become a certified ESG supersleuth, and I would love to share with you my findings and teach you my sleuthy ways.

First, a bit of bad news. In just a quick search, I was able to find multiple insurance companies proclaiming their fealty to ESG scores.

For example:

Allstate

“Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors increasingly influence Allstate’s strategy, guide its management of risks and opportunities, and drive long-term enterprise value creation.”

State Farm

“State Farm has a long-standing commitment to excellence in environmental, social and governance (ESG) areas of our work. In 2020, we made a concerted effort to more holistically place ESG activities at the forefront of our business strategy and everyday practices.”

Progressive

“Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives have been an integral part of our business throughout our 84-year history and here, in our second annual Corporate Sustainability Report, we showcase ESG’s fundamental value to Progressive.”

USAA

“USAA Real Estate has a reputation for excellence in customer service and taking a leadership role in the real estate industry. As part of our commitment to excellence, we will identify and implement improved financial and operational efficiencies, striving toward world-class status in environmental, social and governance performance. ESG will play an important role in our efforts to achieve our strategic objective.”

Liberty Mutual

“Addressing ESG issues isn’t new to us. In 2022, we will mark our 110th anniversary and we are more motivated than ever to continue making a difference as we tackle the world’s most pressing environmental, social and economic challenges. As the world around us continues to transform at a rapid pace, I have never been more confident in our ability to harness the full resources of our company to deliver for our customers, partners, employees and communities.”

Nationwide

“We take responsible investing seriously and use environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors to inform our investments approach.”

(This is not a comprehensive list of ALL companies who embrace ESG scores.)

That’s the bad news. But the good news is, anyone with the internet and some patience can become an ESG supersleuth as I have, and then we can work together to expose what we find.

It all begins with a search engine. I searched phrases like:

(Name of Insurance Company) ESG
(Name of Insurance Company) commitment to ESG
CEO of (Name of Insurance Company) on ESG’s
(Name of CEO) on ESG’s
(Name of Insurance Company) Corporate Sustainability Report
(Name of Insurance Company) governance/environmental/social standards

(Note: Many insurance companies are owned by parent companies. You may want to check those out too.)

Unlike years ago, when these standards were kept on the DL, lots of companies had super obvious pro-ESG statements at the top of the webpage.

Other times, it took a bit more persistence.

If it was a long webpage, I would just copy it over to a word document and then search for “ESG” or “Governance” or something of the like.

I was able to do my search totally online. But, if you find calls to be more successful for you, then remember when you call to be excessively clear about what you're asking. For example, you don’t want to know if the company has been assigned an ESG score, because they don’t control that. You want to know if their company uses an ESG framework to make decisions. Also, remember what your Grandma taught you—you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Remember what your Grandma taught you—you’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Let me be totally real with you.

At the end of my search, I don’t feel that I have any perfect options. I have an idea of which companies to avoid, which counts for something, but which companies to pursue is still a bit of a mystery.

Maybe there isn’t a perfect option for me right now.

In this process, I’m learning that sometimes the right thing is all mixed up with some of the wrong things. When there is no perfect option. I just have to go with the best course of action I have at the time.

Although we know that ESG and other Great Reset accouterments have been in the works for a while now, I feel like this all came up out of nowhere and is suddenly boxing me in from every side. That makes me want to fix everything at once, but I can’t.

I still try though.

We all have to be patient with ourselves and unravel this mess the same way it was built – slowly and one move at a time.

There won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution because the solution itself is decentralization. There won’t be one bank, one investment, one agency, one farmer's market, or one legislation that solves everything at once.

We each journey on individual paths toward the same goal.

Stuck on a lack of insurance options? Speak out: tell the companies how you feel (remember Grandma’s advice.) Or, If you’re not the type to do that, then try working on your investments. If that doesn’t work, make an effort to get you and your family into a local bank you trust. If you can’t do that, meet your neighbors.

What else can we be doing? (Seriously, I want to know.)

Also, insurance-minded folks, I am seeing a major opportunity here... just saying.

This post is part of a series by Mikayla G. Hedrick with all the advice you'll need to survive "The Great Reset." View more here.

GLENN

Without civic action, America faces collapse

GLENN

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

BLOG

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.