Americans who care about liberty, equality, justice, safety, and economic prosperity should not vote for any Democrat in upcoming elections, including the 2024 presidential election.

A Democrat-controlled presidency and U.S. Congress (as well as state legislatures) will further empower the arrogant, ignorant, divisive, tyrannical cancel culture that has taken root in every major cultural institution in America. Academia, the mainstream press, Big Tech, corporate America, Hollywood, and professional medical and mental health organizations collude to censor the dissemination of ideas leftists hate and oppress those who disseminate them. The power these institutions already enjoy and employ to destroy speech rights, religious liberty, and careers is not enough to satiate the unquenchable thirst for power of leftists.

Leftists consumed by rage and bloodlust after the leaking of the U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion on Dobbs, will continue their push to pack the U.S. Supreme Court with leftists in order to ensure that the Court becomes the supreme lawmaking body in America. The U.S. Supreme Court, which was intended by America’s founders to be the weakest branch of government, is intended by leftists to become the most powerful.

A Democrat administration with a Democrat-held Congress will continue the economic carnage Biden has begun, destroying our economy through increased business regulation, increased taxes, and the destruction of the oil industry, which in turn decimates the lives and retirement income of Americans.

Assaults on religious liberty and speech rights will intensify, especially via the deceitfully named “Equality Act,” which has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with forcing compliance with policies that the homosexual community and “trans” cult want.

Democrats will continue to fight for federal funding of abortion and for a federal law protecting a non-existent moral or constitutional right of women to kill their offspring.

“Trans” cultism will continue its march through shelters, prisons, bathrooms, and locker rooms where women and girls will be forced to do private things in the presence of men and boys. Let’s remember that with Democrats in charge, male coaches who masquerade as women will be allowed in girls’ locker rooms. Democrats, ignorant of the meaning of “woman,” will continue to insult and erase women by referring to them as “birthing persons.”

Leftists will continue to try to confiscate guns and eviscerate gun rights, even if that means exploiting tragedies.

Federal promotion of toxic ideas derived from Critical Race Theory will continue to corrupt the military.

Hopes for school choice will be obliterated.

They will continue their effort to get rid of the filibuster, thereby clearing the path to easily pass any oppressive piece of legislation their Machiavellian hearts desire.

In their unholy quest to acquire and secure power in perpetuity, leftists will make sure our borders are gaping open and continue their efforts to make Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. states.

They will continue to try to dismantle the Electoral College in order to effectively disenfranchise the Republican heart of America.

A Democrat presidency would mean a great leap forward toward the revolutionary “Great Reset”—a project of a small group of mega-wealthy globalists who seek to reshape the earth and the fulness thereof. That’s not some conspiracy group’s view of the Great Reset. That’s the explicitly stated view of the mega-wealthy globalists who meet every year in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The Great Reset envisions a “stakeholder” form of capitalism:

“Stakeholder capitalism,” … positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges. … The young Swedish climate activist [Greta Thunberg] has reminded us that adherence to the current economic system represents a betrayal of future generations, owing to its environmental unsustainability. Another (related) reason is that millennials and Generation Z no longer want to work for, invest in, or buy from companies that lack values beyond maximizing shareholder value.

[T]o uphold the principles of stakeholder capitalism, companies will need new metrics. For starters, a new measure of “shared value creation” should include “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) goals.

A stakeholder form of capitalism contrasts with the “shareholder” form of capitalism most notably defended by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman. Stakeholder capitalism is essentially “woke” socialism that will redistribute wealth to achieve “equitable” results. Sound familiar? “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”? And we thought the demise of the Soviet Union meant the end of Communism.

Integral to the Great Reset are the “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG) standards. Sounds innocuous as do all tyrannical leftist projects, but a closer look reveals the dark side cloaked in euphemistic language. Here’s a description of the goals of the Great Reset from the WEF’s website:

COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. … To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism. … We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems. (emphasis added)

The goals are global and radical:

The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. … governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. … (emphasis added)

Anyone who’s been paying attention understands what is really meant by “fairer” and “more equitable outcomes.” The goal of globalist socialists is not the creation of fairer more equitable opportunities but, rather, the flattening of outcomes to ensure that everyone’s outcome is the same—well, everyone but the mega-wealthy globalists.

Andrew Stuttaford, editor for National Review’s financial and economic coverage, warns against “stakeholder capitalism”:

[S]takeholder capitalism is a betrayal of democracy as well as of shareholders. The power it gives to managers is used to support an agenda influenced by a cabal of activists, NGOs, representatives of the “international community,” and politicians too arrogant to go through the usual legislative channels.

Like the “social and emotional learning” (SEL) standards leftists use to indoctrinate children with leftist views on sexuality in public schools, every company rejiggered in accordance with the wishes of the WEF will be expected to implement ESG standards, that is to say, leftist environmental and social standards:

Environmental criteria may include a company’s energy use, waste, pollution, natural resource conservation, and treatment of animals. … For example, are there issues related to its … compliance with government environmental regulations?

Social criteria look at the company’s business relationships. Does it work with suppliers that hold the same values as it claims to hold? Does the company donate a percentage of its profits to the local community or encourage employees to perform volunteer work there?

In other words, wokesters will control all aspects of the economy to control citizens’ beliefs.

In an opinion piece published by The Hill, Justin Haskins, editorial director and senior fellow at the Heartland Institute shares Stuttaford’s concerns about the Great Reset:

Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. …

[T]he general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan. …

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans. … For those of us who support free markets, the Great Reset is nothing short of terrifying. … America is the world’s most powerful, prosperous nation precisely because of the very market principles the Great Reset supporters loathe.

Like the mostly violent protests Americans endured in 2020, this massive economic revolution requires an army of revolutionaries:

Of course, these government officials, activists and influencers can’t impose a systemic change of this size on their own. Which is why they have already started to activate vast networks of left-wing activists from around the world, who will … demand changes in line with the Great Reset.

In October 2020, Andrew Stuttaford warned that the pace of the march toward the WEF’s socialism-infused stakeholder capitalism “will only pick up in the U.S. should Joe Biden, who has caricatured shareholder primacy and described it as ‘an absolute farce,’ be elected president.”

The warning about the Great Reset is even more urgent today. The colossal economic reset envisioned by socialists who identify as capitalists, along with dozens of other reasons, should lead Americans to choose a new path: The Great Conservative Reset.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/America-Needs-a-Great-Conservative-Reset.mp3

---

Written by Janice Shaw Crouse

More Millennial mothers are single than married

In pre-modern times, the disparity in men’s and women’s higher education opportunities was often defended by the view that women’s education would be wasted because they’d end up “just being mothers.” Of course, we now recognize that a mother’s education plays a vital role in the education of her children and, thus, in the welfare of the community and society as a whole.

Today, when women comprise 57 percent of all undergraduates (as compared to only 42 percent in 1970), there is a new twist on inequality, and it shows up prominently among Millennial women. More Millennial mothers (ages 26-31) are single than married. Only a third of all mothers in their late twenties and early thirties are married, and the determining factor has been known by scholars and researchers for quite a while. Now the difference between single motherhood and married moms is becoming more widely recognized: the less education a young woman has, the higher the likelihood that she will have a child outside of marriage, which is pretty much a one-way ticket to poverty (the poverty rate of children under five years of age living in female-headed households is 57 percent). The other side of this equation is that those moms who are educated have a much higher probability of being married before having a child.

By now, everyone should know the realities that single parenthood is disastrous financially for young women and has predictable, well-known risks for children of single mothers. Yet public discourse continues to focus on “inequality” as the nebulous concept “polarizing” the nation and can only be reversed by expanding government programs and increasing entitlements. Hardly anyone escapes the abundant evidence of the failures of single parenting all around us —— from unruly and unprepared children in the school classrooms to belligerent fatherless boys terrorizing neighborhoods to abused and neglected children in emergency rooms to harried moms and wild kids at the local Walmart. Single mothers are the first ones to say that they can’t do the 24/7 job of parenting all alone, and while many are heroic, even more have given up and “go with the flow.”

A new Johns Hopkins study was just popularized in Time magazine. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (widely known as the NLSY97 — U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005), the study found that among those who were in their teens and twenties in 1997, 81 percent of all births reported by women and 87 percent of births reported by men occurred to non-college graduates and that 57 percent of those births were outside of marriage. In addition, 64 percent of those women and 63 percent of those men had at least one child outside of marriage. Among those without a four-year college degree, the figure rose to 74 percent among women and 70 percent among men. “It is now unusual,” the report stated, “for non-college-graduates who have children in their teens and twenties to have all of them within marriage.” The implications of that fact are profound for American culture and society; they are highly significant regarding the “growing social class inequalities in family patterns.”

The original scholarly article is quite clear: this “distinctive fertility regime in early adulthood reinforces the growing social class differences in American family life.” The authors are unequivocal about the fact that “nonmarital fertility is associated with greater relationship instability and family complexity… [that] reinforces family inequalities between the non-college graduate and college-graduate populations.”

The evidence regarding the effects of the ongoing dismantling of the traditional family structure for alternative arrangements since the 1960s sexual revolution pervades the social science research, yet public policy lags behind, and the nation’s leaders continue to pretend that the decline in marriage is not the primary cause of social and financial inequality. As the Time article put it, “Motherhood is beginning to show the fissures along income and education lines that have already appeared in other aspects of U.S. society, with a small cluster of wealthy well educated people at one end (married with kids), a large cluster of struggling people at the other (kids, not married) and a thinning middle.”

The bottom line of the Johns Hopkins study is that those unmarried parents who live together tend to break up during the very stressful first years of parenting; the enormous growth in this choice by today’s young adults gives sad validity to what the sociologists call the “multi-partner fertility” and the popular culture calls multiple “baby mamas.” It is long past time for America’s opinion leaders to face up to a harsh reality: the liberals’ myth that all types of families are equally viable (if only we pour enough money into government programs to support them) has produced a toxic brew of family instability, complex family dynamics, and constant changing household structure leading “to the calcification of social inequality.”