Articles

temp-post-image

January 16, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


Black women constitute 6 percent of our population, yet they account for 35 percent of abortions. How can Democrats possibly be serving this community by supporting and encouraging this disaster?

This year, as every year, I will be joining the hundreds of thousands who will be arriving in Washington, D.C., for the March for Life. March for Life notes the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, Jan. 22, 1973, which legalized abortion on demand in our country.
The event has taken place every year since 1973 and will continue to take place every year until this disastrous and destructive decision is reversed.
Those who come to Washington express the breadth and depth of the resolve they hold for enshrining respect for the sanctity of life as part of our national culture.
They often brave the hostile elements of winter in our nation's capital. And have also braved many different political climates.
Fortunately, this year, the pro-life political climate has dramatically improved.
Operation Rescue, one the nation's leading activist pro-life Christian organizations, has named President Donald Trump its Pro-Life Person of the Year.
Last October, the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, the point at which it's estimated that the unborn child can feel pain.
Trump has indicated that he is ready to sign the bill into law. In order for this to happen, it must pass the Senate. However, there is considerable doubt that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can muster the necessary 60 votes, particularly now that the Republican count in the Senate is down to 51.
Nevertheless, the push should be made in the Senate, and there are indications that the vote will take place.
Today's political landscape is characterized by increased partisan polarization, and abortion is no exception.
According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 71 percent of Democrats self-identify as "pro-choice" compared with 36 percent of Republicans — a difference of 35 percentage points. Sixteen years ago, in 2001, the gap between Democrats and Republicans on this issue was 26 points. The 71 percent "pro-choice" figure among Democrats in 2017 was the highest it's been in the last 17 years.
The nation's highest abortion rates are among black and Hispanics, both of whom vote disproportionately for Democrats. So, as in other areas, these minority communities are not getting the leadership they need in the Democratic politicians they vote for.
It's why Republicans should push for floor votes on abortion. It provides an opportunity to push Democrats and raise awareness among their constituents about this issue.
Black women constitute 6 percent of our population, yet they account for 35 percent of abortions. How can Democrats possibly be serving this community by supporting and encouraging this disaster?
It's vital for blacks, and for all Americans, to understand that abortion is not an issue that can be viewed in isolation. Lack of respect for the sanctity of life spills over into other critical areas of human behavior.
Thus it is no accident that the years since the Roe v. Wade decision have been years in which the American family has collapsed.
In 1960, 73 percent of all children were living with two parents in a first marriage. By 2014, this was down to 46 percent.
In 2014, 54 percent of black children were living with a single parent. Seventy-one percent of black babies were born to unwed mothers in 2014 compared with 40 percent in 1960.
Research is overwhelming regarding the centrality of a healthy family structure to success in life. There is little question that the deep issues in black communities today tie to family collapse.
And at the core of that collapse is the absence of reverence for the sanctity of life.
There is no issue more central to our national moral, physical and fiscal health than abortion. And the partisan implications are clear.
Republicans must help lead blacks and Hispanics out of the darkness in which the Democratic Party is holding them hostage.

Read more

May 1, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


America is divided into two sides that have so little in common, and share so few values, that it is not clear whether our national fabric can withstand the great tension pulling on it.

temp-post-image

Humor is a good and important thing.
The ability to laugh at life, to laugh at oneself, shows faith, optimism and humility. Laughter in the face of adversity is a sign of a healthy spirit.
In this sense, the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner was once a positive event.
Poking fun at the highest centers of power in Washington showed that, despite differences of opinion, our commitment to our most fundamental values — particularly our First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and religion — held us together and our sense of nationhood.
But something has happened. The common ground that held us together is shattering.
There was no humor in this year's correspondents' dinner. What pretended to be humor was politicized vulgarity driven by animosity and hate.
The attacks on members of the Trump administration by leftist comedienne Michelle Wolf were shots across a ravine — a ravine that now divides America into two sides that have so little in common, and share so few values, that it is not clear whether our national fabric can withstand the great tension pulling on it.
Wolf called Vice President Pence a "weirdo", saying he "thinks abortion is murder, which, first of all, don't knock it till you try it. And when you do try it really knock it. You know, you got to get that baby out of there."
It interesting that Wolf referred to the humanity in the mother's womb as a "baby." If she thinks the infant is a baby, then she agrees with Mike Pence that abortion is the destruction of a distinct and unique individual.
When we cannot agree as a nation on something so fundamental as the nature and meaning of life, our national unity stands on very shaky ground. This was on display at the correspondents' dinner.
The retiring president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, is now touring the country promoting her new book in which celebrates her 12 years as head of he nation's largest abortion provider and extolling the virtues of the pro-abortion movement. Not once does she mention, per Alexandra de Sanctis in National Review, that "under her watch Planned Parenthood clinics have performed 3.5 million abortions."
When President Lincoln delivered his second inaugural address, as the Civil War raged, he said, "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other."
Arguably our national fabric is more damaged today than then, when the nation was torn apart over the issue of slavery.
Not only do the warring sides today not "read the same Bible," but many, probably most, do not read it, care about it, nor share any common thoughts on the existence and nature of our Creator.
According to a new Pew Research report, although 80 percent of Americans say they believe in God, just 56 percent of this 80 percent say they believe in God "as described in Bible."
This means that only 44 percent of all Americans today believe in the God of the Bible.
In a Marist poll of January 2018, 44 percent self-identified as "pro-life" — exactly the same percentage that believe in the God of the Bible.
Perhaps one reason White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was able to so graciously hold her composure, despite the vicious attacks directed at her at that maybe final WHCA dinner, was she knew deep inside that Michelle Wolf is the epitome of our nation's great divide, which is not a laughing matter.
Perhaps we should turn again to Lincoln who said that a "nation divided against itself cannot stand." Per his wisdom, we might expect that we will move again to be a nation that reveres life and the God of our Bible. Or maybe we'll continue our descend into the abyss of nihilism.

Read more

April 24, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


I find the prospect of Jordan running for House speaker of great interest.

temp-post-image

Ohio Republican Congressman Jim Jordan has confirmed that he is looking to run for House speaker when current Speaker Paul Ryan departs at the end of the year.
This puts Jordan up alongside the other principal candidates, current Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., whom Ryan has endorsed as his successor, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La.
Jordan co-founded the House Freedom Caucus in 2015 with eight other conservative Republicans. He explained then that the motivation for founding the caucus was to give "a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution, and the rule of law and policies that promote liberty, safety, and prosperity for all Americans."
The caucus now has more than 30 members and has dug in as a unified bloc fighting for exactly those principles that Jordan articulated at its founding. Most recently, the caucus opposed the $1.3 trillion spending bill passed by congress and urged President Trump to veto it.
In addition to being a fiscal and constitutional conservative, Jordan is also a stalwart pro-life Republican and has been on the front lines fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.
In other words, he stands for what I call the three C's that have been the pillars of American success and greatness.
Christianity, Capitalism and the Constitution.
For this reason, I find the prospect of Jordan running for House speaker of great interest.
In a recent Fox radio interview, Jordan put it best by saying that in order to win, Republicans "have to fight for things. All too often Republicans want to forfeit even before the referee blows the whistle to start the game. ... Let's not forfeit, let's go have the debate."
But it's not just a matter of the fight. It's what the fight is about.
Certainly, in 2015, when the House Freedom Caucus was formed, few would have predicted that Donald Trump would be sitting in the White House today.
Trump's appeal to make America great again spoke to the frustration among many Americans that we've lost touch with our American "exceptionalism." This is the sense that we are not like other nations — that something special and vitally important is going on here. And that this "something" is what has given the nation strength, prosperity and leadership.
Unlike other nations, American identity is about aspiration, not fate. Geography, ethnicity or circumstances of birth do not define America — ideals and principles do.
These ideals define the struggle that is taking place today.
Many want to drag us down to the lowest common denominator when we should be fighting for our highest aspirations.
As we teeter on fiscal and moral bankruptcy, it's the three C's — Christianity, Capitalism and the Constitution — that shine like a lighthouse in the night to guide our ship of state in the direction we need to be headed.
Those who founded the nation, fired up by those ideals, appealed, in the Declaration of Independence, to the "Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions (and) with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Of course, Jim Jordan faces an uphill struggle to achieve the 218 votes necessary to achieve the House speakership.
But when Jordan says he's ready to fight for it, and that we shouldn't forfeit the game before it starts, he's not just tapping into the dissatisfaction of the nation. He's tapping into what defines the nation and its spirit.
The possibility of bringing the spirit of the Freedom Caucus to lead the House, as Jordan will do, is an exciting development.

Read more

April 17, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


The usual left-wing megaphones, those that can't tell the difference between compassion and spending billions of other people's dollars, have wasted no time to go on attack.

temp-post-image

It takes a lot of courage for a president to target almost a quarter of the federal budget for reform in an election year.
But this is exactly what President Trump is doing with his executive order, "Reducing Poverty in America by Promoting Opportunity and Economic Mobility."
We're now spending more than $700 billion per year on low-income assistance, which is more than we are spending on our national defense. And there are plenty of reasons to believe this spending is inefficient, wasteful and counterproductive.
Over the last half-century, some $22 trillion has been spent on anti-poverty programs and yet the percentage of poor in this nation remains unchanged. And it is not only a matter of the percentage staying the same but also that the people and families who are born poor stay that way.
The Better Way report produced by the House speaker's office in 2016 reported that 34 percent of those born and raised in the bottom fifth of the income scale remain there all their lives.
The point has often been made that the greatest charitable gesture is teaching those in need to help themselves.
This principle defines the president's reforms to our anti-poverty programs and spending. Let's make sure that every dollar spent goes to those truly in need and that those dollars are spent to maximize the likelihood that the recipients will get on their feet and become independent, productive, income-earning citizens.
The executive order directs federal agencies to review the some 80 federal anti-poverty programs, consolidate where there is redundancy and overlap, and look to reform by applying the principles of hard work and self-sufficiency.
Needless to say, the usual left-wing megaphones, those that can't tell the difference between compassion and spending billions of other people's dollars, have wasted no time to go on attack.
The headline from the Southern Poverty Law Center screams, "Trump's executive order on work requirements punishes low-income people for being poor."
Calling the executive order "heartless," the SPLC rejects the premise that there are those receiving benefits from these programs who could work but don't.
However, Robert Doar of the American Enterprise Institute reports that there are almost 20 million working-age Americans receiving benefits under Medicaid and food stamps who don't work.
The "Better Way" report notes that "44 percent of work-capable households using federal rental assistance report no annual income from wages."
But it's not just about work requirements.
Vital to this reform project is moving programs out of Washington's grasp and into the administrations at the state and local levels. Assistance programs need humanity and flexibility. This can only be done locally. There's no way an army of bureaucrats in Washington can develop and implement programs for 50 million needy individuals that can properly recognize what unique individuals need to move out of poverty.
Assistance programs need to promote and embody those principles that go hand in hand with prosperity — ownership, investment, savings and personal freedom and responsibility.
According to the Better Way report, almost 10 million Americans have no bank account and another 25 million have an account but get financial services outside of the banking system.
When I was a young woman on welfare, I saw the destruction that occurs when assistance programs penalize work, marriage and saving, as was the case with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Subsequently, this was reformed and transformed with great success to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
We can't go on spending hundreds of billions of dollars of limited taxpayer funds on programs that may have been conceived with sincerity and compassion but don't work.
President Trump deserves credit for exercising the courage and vision to move to fix what is broken in our anti-poverty programs. It is vital for the poor and vital for the nation.

Read more

April 10, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


We lose when politicians start picking winners and losers, whether domestically or internationally. Let the marketplace pick winners and losers.

temp-post-image
Read more

March 27, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


The idea that part of living free is taking personal responsibility has become a concept alien to many of our young Americans.

temp-post-image

Covering the pro-gun control March for Our Lives in Washington, CNN ran a headline that read, "They're marching through the same streets as Martin Luther King Jr. did — hoping for similar change."
The article then quoted a 16-year-old as saying, "The civil rights movement was started by teenagers."
How can we expect to properly deal with an issue as serious as guns and the Second Amendment when the media peddle such ignorance?
It should be sufficient to point out that Dr. King and Rosa Parks were not teenage activists.
But more seriously, it is critical to understand that this current movement to limit the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right to own a firearm is at total philosophical odds with what the civil rights movement aimed to accomplish.
The civil rights movement was about fixing what was broken in America regarding the ideals of individual freedom and dignity.
When King spoke his famous words at the National Mall in August 1963, his appeal was to perfect the American ideal. He called the "magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" a "promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men ... would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
King's movement shone light on the fact that there was pain and suffering in the country because there were still Americans who were not free. That is what needed to be fixed.
Today's movement against guns and the Second Amendment aims in the opposite direction. The claim of this movement is that we have pain and suffering in our nation because we are too free. The marchers and others are telling us we can make a better nation by using the force of government to scale back our freedoms.
In a USA Today column, Obama-era Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Dale Erquiaga, a former superintendent of public instruction for Nevada's schools, tell us: "Children should not have to pass through metal detectors to go to school. Nor should teachers have to arm themselves to keep students safe."
Is having children walk through metal detectors to go to school too high a price to pay to avoid scaling back our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? Is having armed guards and/or armed teachers too high a price to deal with the costs and demands of our free society, as opposed to dealing with these challenges by choosing to use government force to scale back our freedoms?
Perhaps metal detectors and other measures to make schools more secure and less vulnerable to attack would play an important role in our educational process to help our young people understand that freedom is not free.
We have a young generation in our country today from whom we ask nothing for the privilege of living in freedom. The idea that part of living free is taking personal responsibility has become a concept alien to many of our young Americans.
We might recall the fall of 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard, which Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus had used to block nine black children from entering Little Rock's Central High School to attend school. Eisenhower then sent in more federal troops to protect these black children and their right to attend this school.
Eisenhower, who had served as supreme commander of Allied troops in Europe during World War II, understood force and understood freedom. He said it would be "a sad day for this country ... if schoolchildren can safely attend their classes only under the protection of armed guards."
The nation watched aghast as federal paratroopers were deployed to Central High School. It was an excruciatingly difficult decision for Eisenhower, but in the end, he concluded that he had to do it "to preserve the institutions of free government."
Republicans might note Eisenhower's example and recall that in 1956, Republican Eisenhower received 39 percent of the black vote.

Read more

March 20, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


Everyone should understand the moral and fiscal bankruptcy to which the liberal secular state is taking us.

temp-post-image
Read more

March 13, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


Study: The proportion of economically inactive American men of prime working age leapt from 3.4 percent in 1965 to 11.8 percent in 2015.

temp-post-image

Writing last week about the opioid crisis, I suggested that, as we consider policy options for dealing with the problem, we consider that at least some part of it may reflect a spiritual, moral crisis in the country.
I noted that casualties from opioids show that they are disproportionately men, disproportionately divorced or never married, and disproportionately individuals with no more than a high school education.
We can look beyond the opioid crisis and see a broad, disturbing picture pointing to a social and spiritual crisis among our young men.
In 2016, Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., published a book called "America's Invisible Crisis: Men Without Work."
He discusses what he calls a "flight from work" in which droves of our male population have disappeared from the work force.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics just issued its new jobs report, and the results were heartening. Data shows a return to growth in jobs in the American economy and return to the work force of many who dropped out during the years following the recent recession.
The labor force participation rate of prime-age working men ages 25-54, that is, the percentage working or actively seeking work, was 89.3 percent in February 2018.
Given that this rate was down to 88.4 late in 2011, we see progress here — good news.
However, Eberstadt points out that average labor force participation rate of these prime-age working men in 1965 was 96.6 percent.
"Expressed another way," says Eberstadt, "the proportion of economically inactive American men of prime working age leapt from 3.4 percent in 1965 to 11.8 percent in 2015, and remains at 11.5 percent today."
By my own calculations, almost 5 million prime-age working men have disappeared from the work force.
The U.S. population of men 25-54 today is 64.5 million. If their work force participation today was 96.6 percent, as it was in 1965, 62.3 million would be working or actively seeking work. But today's reported rate of 89.3 percent indicates that there are now 57.6 million prime-age men working or actively looking for work — 4.7 million less than there would have been at the 1965 rate.
How are these millions of men who have dropped out of the work force sustaining themselves?
According to Eberstadt, they get help from friends, family, and, of course, government.
Using Census Bureau data, Eberstadt reports "as of 2013, over three-fifths of prime-age men not in the labor force lived in homes that relied on at least one means-tested program for income. Some 41 percent of these men lived on food stamps, while just over half reported using Medicaid, a noncash benefit program."
Additional Census Bureau data, according to Eberstadt, shows that "in 2013, some 57 percent of prime-age unworking men were getting benefits from at least one government-disability program."
What is the profile of these prime-age unworking men?
They most likely have no more than a high school diploma, are not married, have no children or are not living with children they may have, are born in the USA and are black.
Although overall the workforce participation rate for black men is lower than that of white men, the cultural dynamics at play are more fundamental driving factors of what's going on than race.
For instance, Eberstatdt points out that "labor-force participation rates for white men today are lower than they were for black men in 1965."
Also, the labor-force participation rates for never-married white men are consistently lower, by about 3 percentage points, than for married black men.
We are paying a large social price for the widespread collapse of Christian values — in particular, the values of marriage and family. And our young men may be disproportionately bearing the brunt of this.

Read more

March 6, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators

Opioid casualties are disproportionately men and not married.

temp-post-image
Read more
temp-post-image

February 27, 2018 | Star Parker | Syndicated Nationally by Creators


I watch with amazement the ease with which so many are ready to compromise the core freedoms that define us as Americans, for which so many have struggled and died.

President Trump has signed into law bipartisan legislation establishing the Frederick Douglass Bicentennial Commission to celebrate Douglass' life and work. I have been honored to be appointed, along with Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and others, to this commission.
Born into slavery 200 years ago, Douglass taught himself to read and write, escaped to freedom and became an anti-slavery and human rights activist, newspaper publisher and advisor to presidents.
I consider Douglass' life and struggles as I watch this latest round of public debate about the right of American citizens to bear arms. I watch with amazement the ease with which so many are ready to compromise the core freedoms that define us as Americans, for which so many have struggled and died.
In May of 1865, one month after the end of the Civil War, Douglass spoke to the American Anti-Slavery Society, convened at New York City's Church of the Puritans.
The topic of discussion was whether the society should continue its work in light of the formal abolition of slavery. By the end of that year, the 13th Amendment, prohibiting slavery in the United States, would be ratified.
Douglass's address was entitled "In What New Skin Will the Old Snake Come Forth?"
He spoke prophetically, questioning the value of the anti-slavery amendment if black Americans still would not be protected by rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
"...while the Legislatures of the South can take from him (the black man) the right to keep and bear arms, as they can ... the work of the Abolitionists is not finished."
Fast-forward 145 years to another black man, Otis McDonald, suing the city of Chicago because of its ordinance prohibiting him from owning a handgun to protect himself and his property from the vandalism and break-ins that were regularly taking place in his neighborhood.
McDonald's lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled, in 2010, that states and localities cannot infringe on the Second Amendment protection for individuals to keep and bear arms.
This decision stemmed from the 14th Amendment, the second of the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution. Whereas the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment guaranteed protection of constitutional rights in the states:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law."
This amendment addressed the concerns of Frederick Douglass that although slavery may have been abolished, states still had great latitude to deny citizens constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court decision of McDonald v. Chicago argued that the 14th Amendment "due process" clause protects citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the states.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, while supporting the majority decision, wrote a separate concurring opinion arguing that the 14th Amendment protection stems from the "privileges or immunities" clause.
"Privileges or immunities," argued Thomas, are our most fundamental rights as citizens. And this is what the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms is about.
Thomas, in his opinion, documents the bloody history of murder and lynching against blacks and white civil rights activists.
"Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful against the very people the 14th Amendment had just made citizens."
Freedom is not free, nor is it easy. The alternative to freedom is tyranny. Those who think it's a good idea to compromise our freedom rather than deal with its great challenges err tragically.
Frederick Douglass would surely be an NRA advocate today, and would be fighting to preserve our right to protect ourselves.

Read more

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education IS a 501(c)3 non-profit think-and-do tank based in Washington, D.C. 

All donations are tax-deductible.