Investigate the Heritage Foundation

Sample Letter

I. The System is Functioning as Intended

Question: How is the system functioning as intended? Meaning it was always meant to keep the public masses out? So, it’s always been this evil, but it’s just that now the powerful are threatened they are stopping pretending? Why can’t we end it in a year? They need to all go. I cannot stand another day of them in power. Let alone another year. Climate change must be addressed now. We need them out of power by the end of next year

II. Strategy

I strongly oppose the proposed rule that would require economic impacts to be considered in listing and critical habitat decisions. This proposal directly contradicts the plain text, intent, and judicial interpretation of the Endangered Species Act.

Under 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(1)(A), listing determinations must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Courts have consistently affirmed that Congress intentionally prohibited economic considerations during listing decisions (See Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978)). The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that Congress intended to “halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost.”

Reintroducing economic considerations violates statutory requirements and undermines half a century of precedent, making this proposed rule unlawful.

Beyond legality, this rule would create a dangerous and obvious conflict of interest. The industries most responsible for endangering species—logging, mining, fossil fuels, industrial agriculture—would effectively gain veto power over scientific determinations. This contradicts the core purpose of the ESA: to place science and the preservation of ecosystems above short‑term corporate profit.

Requiring economic analysis at this stage invites political manipulation, delays, and litigation while species continue to decline. It transforms the ESA from a science‑based conservation tool into a negotiable permitting program.

I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal entirely. It is contrary to the ESA, unsupported by science, and harmful to the Nation’s biodiversity, public interest, and legal integrity.

I oppose the elimination of the longstanding “blanket 4(d) rule,” which has automatically extended endangered‑level protections to threatened species since 1978.

This rule has been foundational to the ESA’s success. The transition from “threatened” to “endangered” can happen rapidly; without default protections, species may decline irreversibly during the years‑long process of drafting species‑specific rules. Congress created the threatened category to prevent species from reaching the brink of extinction. Removing baseline safeguards defeats that purpose.

Legally, the ESA requires the Secretary to implement protective regulations “as necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species” (16 U.S.C. § 1533(d)). For 45 years, administrations of both parties interpreted this to mean that threatened species generally require robust protections while individualized rules are being developed.

Removing automatic protections for newly listed threatened species creates a dangerous regulatory vacuum where industry can accelerate the very harms that triggered the listing. This is contrary to Congressional intent, which emphasized precaution, not delay.

The proposed change would lead to increased habitat destruction, population loss, and regulatory confusion. It is neither scientifically justified nor administratively efficient.

I urge the agency to withdraw the proposal and retain automatic protections that have been essential to preventing species from sliding into endangered status.

I oppose the proposed revisions to the ESA’s Section 7 consultation process. These changes would narrow definitions of “effects,” ignore cumulative and indirect impacts, and dramatically lower the obligations of federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing listed species.

Section 7(a)(2) imposes an affirmative, non‑discretionary duty on federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to “jeopardize the continued existence” of listed species or “destroy or adversely modify” critical habitat. Courts have held that this requires a comprehensive, science‑based evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts (see Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2012)).

The proposed rule attempts to redefine away large categories of harm by excluding cumulative, long‑term, or “uncertain” impacts — which in ecology are often the most significant drivers of decline.

This is scientifically indefensible. Species are not harmed only by sudden catastrophic events; they decline through chronic habitat fragmentation, pollution, noise, climate‑driven stressors, and repeated small administrative decisions that add up to irreversible loss.

By raising the evidentiary threshold and weakening the definition of adverse modification, the rule would allow agencies to green‑light destructive federal actions — pipelines, highways, logging, mining — with virtually no accountability.

The ESA’s effectiveness depends on Section 7. Gutting consultations effectively guts the Act.

I urge the agency to withdraw this proposal.

I strongly oppose this proposed rule, which would allow industries to exert disproportionate influence over critical habitat designations and require the agency to exclude habitat whenever economic claims outweigh ecological needs.

This flips the ESA on its head. Critical habitat is defined under 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5) as areas “essential to the conservation of the species.” Congress did not authorize industry veto power, nor did it require the agency to prioritize economic concerns over ecological necessity.

The proposal would require the agency to exclude habitat unless it can prove the exclusion would lead directly to extinction — an impossibly high standard that contradicts both science and law. Recovery, not mere survival, is the legal standard of the ESA. Species need habitat to expand, recolonize, adapt to climate change, and achieve viable population levels.

The rule also undermines the precautionary principle by dismissing unoccupied habitat, even when essential for climate resilience, migration corridors, or recovery planning. Courts have upheld the inclusion of unoccupied habitat as long as it is essential for conservation.

Giving regulated industries the ability to demand exclusions invites political pressure, manipulation of economic projections, and decisions contrary to both the statute and the best available science.

I urge the agency to withdraw this rule and maintain science‑based habitat protections.

Why We Need a Media Revolution

Picture/Post from Media Revolution in the UK

This Moment is Symbolic

Image from FreePic.com

I appreciate DOE’s decision to solicit public comment on the CWG draft report. The following technical points respond to specific claims in the report, using the most recent authoritative data to ensure that U.S. policy is grounded in accurate climate science.

1. Climate Sensitivity Range (CWG Report: Overview paragraph on doubling CO₂ — 1.8°C to 5.7°C)
While estimates vary, multiple independent lines of evidence — paleoclimate records, observed historical warming, and modern Earth system models — converge on a likely range of 2.5–4°C per CO₂ doubling (IPCC AR6 WG1, 2021). Lower estimates (<2°C) are now considered extremely low likelihood, and we are blowing past 1.5°C as we speak.

2. Extreme Weather Trends (CWG Report: “Most extreme weather events… do not show long-term trends”)
This statement is incomplete. Certain events (e.g., U.S. tornado counts) lack clear trends, but heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and extreme rainfall have increased significantly since the mid-20th century (NOAA, 2017; IPCC AR6, 2021), with direct consequences for health, infrastructure, and agriculture.

3. Sea Level Rise (CWG Report: “No obvious acceleration in U.S. tide gauge measurements”)
Global mean sea level is now rising ~4.5 mm/year — more than double the 20th-century average — with clear acceleration since the 1990s (NOAA, 2022). Tide gauges in many U.S. coastal locations confirm this trend, even after accounting for vertical land motion. Ignoring acceleration risks underestimating flooding hazards for coastal communities.

4. Ocean Acidification (CWG Report: “Possibly detrimental… rebound of Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise”)
The cited “rebound” of parts of the Great Barrier Reef is a short-term recovery of coral cover, driven by a period of reduced bleaching events and fast-growing species. This does not negate the well-documented, ongoing global trend of coral decline linked to warming and acidification (Hughes et al., Nature, 2023). Local rebounds cannot be extrapolated to a global or long-term recovery.

5. Attribution & Natural Variability (CWG Report: “Challenged by natural variability”)
While natural variability influences year-to-year and decadal fluctuations, multiple attribution studies using independent methods show that over 100% of the observed warming since 1970 is attributable to human greenhouse gas emissions, with natural factors having a net cooling or neutral effect over this period (NOAA, IPCC AR6).

6. U.S. Policy Impact & Global Cooperation (CWG Report: “Undetectably small direct impacts”)
This framing is misleading. While U.S. emissions reductions alone will not stabilize global temperature, the U.S. remains the world’s largest historical emitter and the second-largest current emitter. As in other areas of global security (nuclear non-proliferation, infectious disease control), leadership from major powers like the US is essential to catalyze collective action. 

7. Risk Framing
The report’s comparison of potential climate damages with potential costs of mitigation underplays systemic and non-linear risks (e.g., crop failures, supply chain disruptions, climate migration). These “tail risks” — though lower probability — carry catastrophic potential.

Historically, the U.S. has acted decisively against such risks: during the Cold War, even a 1% chance of nuclear exchange justified massive investments in deterrence and diplomacy. Climate change poses a similar low-probability/high-impact threat profile, except that its probability is much higher and its effects cumulative. Applying the same precautionary principle here is both rational and consistent with past U.S. policy precedent.

Conclusion:
The CWG report raises important points about uncertainties but selectively emphasizes findings that downplay risk. The full weight of evidence demonstrates significant observed impacts, accelerating trends, and credible high-end risks.

To ensure not only the survival of our country and our people, but also that of the human species, we must commit to sustained investment in both mitigation and adaptation, coordinated on an international scale.

Failing to act with the same urgency we have applied to other impending disasters would be willful self-sabotage at best — and, at worst, could qualify the United States for crimes against humanity or even contribute to the end of our species.

"Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I’m calling as a concerned American.

I know the pressure must be intense right now. But we see you. And we need you to hold the line.

This bill is moving too fast. It’s massive, it’s sweeping, and Americans haven’t had time to read it or respond.

From what we can tell, 90% of Americans wind up worse off from this bill - even those not on medicaid will face soaring healthcare costs, closing hospitals and nursing homes, and a deficit whose interest payments will not exceed that of the military budget. This is red flag for the economy and future of our nation.

These are not partisan issues. These are American issues. Human issues.

Please — if nothing else — stand for transparency and due process.

Delay the vote. Don’t let this pass before the 4th of July.

You don’t have to oppose every part of the bill — but you can oppose a rushed reconciliation process for a bill that changed the fundamental functions of the government and how it serves the people.

History will remember who stood for democracy when it was most under threat.

Thank you for you service."

The Threat is Real, and it's Here, Now.

This is About the Future of Humanity

And here’s the heart-wrenching truth: Many of those fleeing the Global South coming to the US are escaping harm caused in large part by the U.S.—through proxy wars, exploitative policies, and climate destruction. We are all complicit, and it’s up to us to help make it right.

It's Time to Choose A Side

Because if we don't fight for them now, by the time they come for us it will be too late.

Hi, my name is [Your Name], and I’m a constituent calling about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — also known as the Social Murder Bill that ends democracy.

This bill cannot pass, it must die on the Senate floor.

As you know, the bill contains provisions that have nothing to do with the budget — and do real harm to democracy, children, and working people.

Under the Byrd Rule, provisions that are “extraneous” to budget matters can and must be removed. It takes only 41 Senators to enforce this rule and protect the country.

We are urging you to demand the following 4 non-budget related provisions be struck immediately:

 1. Judicial Contempt Clause (Section 70302)

2. 10-Year Ban on State AI Regulation (Section 43201(c))

3. Regulatory Rollback Clauses - OBBBA includes “Reins Act–style riders”, which block agencies like the EPA, FDA, and DHS from creating major new protections—unless Congress approves them first. ➡️ This means even in an emergency, agencies can’t act unless both houses of Congress vote yes. It paralyzes our government’s ability to respond to corporate abuse, health threats, or environmental disasters. -> this is major policy precedent not budget or tax-related and does not belong in a reconciliation bill!

4.. Deregulatory Fast Track - OBBBA embeds the Congressional Review Act (CRA) into multiple sections of the bill, instructing agencies that rules may be subject to CRA disapproval. It expands the definition of “major rules” and resets timelines to maximize CRA applicability ➡️This means Congress can quickly cancel new protections—like worker safety or environmental rules—with a simple majority vote, no filibuster, and no chance to reissue similar rules. -> THIS IS NOT BUDGET RELATED!

Please help protect the American people. We are watching closely. We need real resistance. Thank you.

Tone: Calm, Respecive, Urgent

Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I’m urging Senator [Name] to vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — what many of us now call the Social Murder Bill.
This bill would devastate vulnerable Americans — stripping food, housing, and healthcare from those already barely surviving. It also guts essential checks on AI and judicial power.

This is a line-in-the-sand vote — not just about politics, but about the kind of future we want to live in.

You’ve shown independence before. Please do so now. Stand for life. Vote "no". Or be known as one of the senators who voted for social murder and the death of democracy.

Tone: Direct, confrontational, historic
This is [Your Name]. I’m calling to say clearly: If Senator [Name] votes for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — we will remember.

This bill is not governance. It is an act of social murder — knowingly sentencing millions to suffering and death while consolidating power for a ruling minority and leaving children unprotected by the dangers of AI for ten years. 

This is beyond austerity. Beyond negligence. People that vote for this bill will go down in history as child murderers.

This is your line in the sand. History will record how you acted.

Nuremberg is on the calendar. And the world is watching.

Do not cross this line.

I want to say a few words about the situation in Los Angeles, California.

Have you heard of the place, where I've deployed thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to protect federal law enforcement from the attacks of a vicious and violent mob and some of the radical left. They say, oh, that's not nice. Well, if we didn't do it, there wouldn't be a Los Angeles we'd be burning today just like their houses were burning a number of months ago.

Generations of army heroes did not shed their blood on distant shores only to watch our country be destroyed by invasion and third world lawlessness here at home like is happening in California. As Commander in chief, I will not let that happen. It's never going to happen. What you're witnessing in California is a full-blown assault on peace, on public order and on national sovereignty carried out by rioters bearing foreign flags with the aim of continuing a foreign invasion of our country.

We're not going to let that happen. Remember, millions of people were allowed to come into our country totally unchecked and unvetted by stupid people or radical left people or sick people. But regardless, open border policy, the dumbest policy yet. I would say even dumber than men playing in women's sports, transgender for everyone, even dumber than that.

They're hurling bricks and cinder blocks at law enforcement. Did you see they're breaking up the sidewalks and the curbs, breaking it up with big strong hammers? These guys are professionals. These are not amateurs. They're breaking it up because they took the bricks away from them. They came in with bricks, red bricks that they could throw at our military and at the police in L.A., who are very good.

But they weren't aggressive like our soldiers. Our soldiers really were aggressive, but they all worked together. But they came in with bricks. They were taken away and they had hammers. Oh, wow, how did that happen? And they're pounding the sidewalk. I said, what the hell is he doing? And he's breaking it up and making it into concrete bombs, in a way.

And they're dropping them on our military. They're throwing them at our military pretty good arms they had too, hit guys right in the face, big chunk of concrete, worse than a brick. They're taking him up to the bridges and they're dropping them in the cars that are going by. These are animals, but they proudly carry the flags of other countries, but they don't carry the American flag.

They only burn it. Did you see a lot of flags being burned? They weren't being burned by people from our country or from people that love our country. People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year. That's what they should be doing, one year, and we'll see if we can get that done. We're going to try and get that done.

We're working with some of your senators. I know Senator Josh Hawley is very much involved, and I know the two senators from here. I think you guys -- are you guys in favor of it? Boy, would this be a bad time for them to say no. I got you. I got those two votes. The agitators are throwing firebombs, Molotov cocktails, lighting vehicles ablaze.

You saw all the cars that were burning, mobbing police officers and ICE officers who are the toughest people you'll ever meet. And they love our country and they're getting really -- tried to -- they want to stomp on them, but they're too tough. They don't allow it. And attempting to infiltrate and occupy federal buildings, wearing armor and face shields.

The best money can buy, somebody is financing it and we're going to find out through Pam Bondi and Department of Justice, who it is. They're already on it, who's financing all this equipment, very professional. Under the Trump administration, this anarchy will not stand. We will not allow federal agents to be attacked and we will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy and that's what they are.

A lot of those people were let in here by the Biden administration. They just poured right in. They came from prisons. They came from jails from all over the world. They came from mental institutions, they were the leaders of gangs. They were drug lords allowed to come into our country. Their countries threw them out.

Their countries would bus them or drive them right to our border and say, go in there, you ever come back, we're going to kill you. And we got them and we're getting them out of here. I want to applaud the courage and the strength of the incredible troops who are right now standing guard to protect federal property and personnel and uphold the supremacy of federal law.

That's what they're doing. They're protecting our ICE agents. They're protecting the police in Los Angeles. The head of the police in Los Angeles, a good man. I hear a good man, but he was actually saying we really did need this help. It had gotten away from them. It had long gotten away, and we gave it to him.

Not only are these service members defending the honest citizens of California, they're also defending our republic itself. And they are heroes, they're in there, they're heroes. They're fighting for us. They're stopping an invasion, just like you'd stop an invasion. The big difference is most of the time when you stop an invasion, they're wearing a uniform.

In many ways, it's tougher when they're not wearing a uniform because you don't know exactly who they are. In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they're incompetent and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists. They're engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders.

That's what it is. They're invaders, no different. Their position is that the rioting will not stop unless ICE withdraws from Los Angeles and ceases the enforcement of federal immigration law. In other words, they came in here illegally, many of them came out of prisons and jails, the most heinous people.

They came from all over the world. They came from the Congo in Africa. They came from Asia. They came from the prisons of these places. They were put into the United States and allowed to stay here because we had a grossly, grossly unfit president who listened to whoever was operating the autopen, and they allowed these people to stay.

And by the way, I've known this guy for a long time. He was never the sharpest bulb, but you know what he was, he wasn't a radical left lunatic. He never dreamt about open borders. He never said that when he was of sound mind, which actually was a very long time ago. So sad what they've done to our country.

I will say without question, however, you're seeing the financial numbers. We've now got the hottest country anywhere in the world and six months ago it was the coldest country. We're being laughed at all over the world. I was in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. We brought back $5.1 trillion into our country and all three leaders, they're great leaders, all three said, you are presiding over the hottest country anywhere in the world.

And they said the exact same thing. They said, six months ago, it was the coldest country. I'll tell you it changed on a date. You know what November 5th was, it was the election of a president that loves you and that's when it all changed. That's when it all changed. Within the span of a few decades, Los Angeles has gone from being one of the cleanest, safest and most beautiful cities on Earth to being a trash heap with entire neighborhoods under the control of transnational gangs and criminal networks.

It's horrible what's happened so quickly. As the entire world can now see, uncontrolled migration leads to chaos, dysfunction and disorder. And you know what, they have it in Europe too. It's happening in many of the countries of Europe. They don't like it when I say it, but I'll say it loudly and clearly, they'd better do something before it's too late.

Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again, it's happening very quickly. The One Big, Beautiful Bill, you've heard about it, we call it the One Big -- you know, I was on one of the television shows, I think Deface the Nation. Ladies and gentlemen, Deface the Nation. It's actually called Face the Nation for those of you that are smart enough not to know, because you're better off not knowing.

But I was on one of the shows and I said we've got to get a great bill. They said, would you like it to be one bill or would you like it to be seven or eight bills? I said I want one big, beautiful bill. And the Republican Party liked that statement. They call it One Big, Beautiful Bill. So, that's good and that's what it is. It's great.

And it's currently before Congress, it provides all necessary funding for ICE, for Border Patrol and for the Department of Defense. And I told you at a level that we've never had before, over $1 trillion. We'd better get that bill approved otherwise your helicopters and your planes and your equipment is going to start to look a little bit old, General.

You'd better push your favorite Congressman; you'd better push these two Senators. I think they're in good shape, however. But we've got to get it approved and those Congressmen by you are all 100 percent. I don't even have to talk to them; they've been so great. So, I want to sign this into law immediately and with the signing so many great things will happen to our country.

Full Speech here: Fort Bragg Speech June 10, 2025 

He is openly threatening Congress:
“Pass this bill or your helicopters fall from the sky.”
That’s extortion. It’s also military corporatism.