Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation
What does the African-American community think of Barack Obama? Do they remember the 1960’s? Do they remember how their ancestors began life in this world on the good old American plantation?
Star Parker knows–and she’s uniquely qualified to tell her story to her fellow African Americans and all the rest of us. This article is so good, so true, it will make you cry. RB
By Star Parker
Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam’s Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.
I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas — a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.
I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.
A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”
Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.
The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.
Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.
I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent of its Democratic members.
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.
But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.
Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.
Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”
Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.
There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.
In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.
“This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America ‘s long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education.”
Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with unprecedented transparency and accountability.”
Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.
Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “…does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.”
Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.
It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.
Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?
“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education, a 501c3 non-profit think tank that provides a national voice of reason on issues of race and poverty – in the media, inner city neighborhoods, and public policy.
In addition to heading CURE, and its network of inner city clergy nationwide, Star is a syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Service, offering weekly op-eds to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.
Marriage on Trial: The Case for Marriage
If you live in the state of Washington, we are moving into the final week of collecting signatures for Referendum 71 which would strike down the recently passed law equating domestic partnerships with marriage (SB 5688). The deadline for mailing in the petitions is July 22. We need you to go into a full-court press of citizen activism to help us reach our goal of 120,000 signatures.
If you need more petitions for a last minute thrust, please call (360) 631-1894. When your petitions are filled up, please send then in by July 22nd to: Protect Marriage Washington, P.O. Box 501, Arlington, WA 98223.
The following article by Gary Randall, the head of the “Preserve Marriage–Protect Children” Coalition will fire you up to understand the issue and do the right thing. God bless you! RB
By Gary Randall
I want to address some of the questions and charges that are raised by those who want to redefine marriage. The primary source for my comments will be taken from a book titled, “Marriage On Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting,” written by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier. You can buy it from Amazon for $10.20 and if you buy it through our website Faith and Freedom Foundation will receive between 4% and 8% on your purchase. (Click here for details).
If not through us, please buy the book somewhere. Every family that cares about marriage and family and its future, should have this book in their home. Particularly in these days when marriage is under such assault. Every person of faith should read it–parent and child.
One of the questions often raised by those who want to redefine marriage is, “If heterosexuals can fall in love and form committed relationships called marriage, why can’t we?” Or, “If heterosexuals gain access to legal, tax and health benefits with their marriages, why can’t homosexuals have access to these same benefits when they commit themselves to one another?”
Marriage equality.
Here’s something to consider.
I watched as homosexual couples brought their children into the hearings on SB 5688 to testify and help make the case for same-sex parenting. The adults and children argued that kids need loving parents and two men or two women can love and care for a child as well as a mother and a father can. They often point to the failures in marriage as reason to redefine it.
Here’s the problem with that.
These arguments exclusively serve the interests of those making the argument. They are never about serving the common good.
Marriage is never only about the couple. It is always about the larger community. Marriage is an agreement between a couple and the larger society. Concern for the good of all society is the primary reason social institutions such as churches and governments get involved at all.
In the great debate about marriage we seem to have forgotten that marriage is not just about benefits for the couple. It always includes concern for the next generation.
Stanton and Maier expand on this a great deal and outline why every society needs marriage and how it contributes to the greater good. Among other things, they say the institution of marriage:
*Regulates sexuality, keeping it confined to committed, loving exclusive relationships.
*Socializes men, channeling their sexuality and masculine energy in community-building ways.
*Protects women from being exploited from men.
*Ensures that children grow up with a biologically connected mother and father.
The failure of some marriages is not a legitimate argument to redefine and deconstruct marriage.
The institution of marriage serves these purposes in all known human civilizations and it does so because it brings men and women together in permanent, exclusive relationships.
Same-sex marriage is incapable of doing any of these things.
Stanton and Maier conclude, there is simply no social need for same-sex “marriage”. But all societies need what they call natural marriage.
Consider this.
Could society be harmed by too much same-sex “marriage”? Of course, if all or a majority of “marriages” were same-sex, a society would disappear.
On the other hand, is too much natural marriage ever harmful? No. Actually, too little natural marriage can be harmful.
Natural marriage cannot be regarded as “equal” in social value and benefit. Society needs one, but does not need the other.
“Marriage equality” cannot be achieved by simply redefining or deconstructing natural marriage.
SB 5688 is not about benefits or children, it is the final incremental step to redefining marriage. If you are unsure about the issue of defending marriage, please consider these things.
To those in the faith community who have been persuaded to sit this out and not support the defense of marriage for whatever reason, please reconsider.
If you have been led away from supporting Referendum 71 because of political calculations and economic considerations, please reconsider.
We cannot wait two years to address the deconstruction of marriage.
Consider this:
“If you wait for perfect conditions, you will never get anything done.”
“God’s ways are as mysterious as the pathway of the wind, and the manner in which a human spirit is infused into the body of a baby while it is yet in its mother’s womb.” Ecclesiastes 11:4-6 Living Bible.
Strategy is a good and wise action. Being faithful in standing for righteousness and righteous purposes and principles is the higher calling.
There is a time for everything and this is the time to defend marriage.
Thank you for standing with us.
God bless you.
Why the Press Hates Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement during the 4th of July weekend that she will step down as the governor of Alaska once again took the national media by storm. Her resignation, just two-and-a-half years into her first term, was greeted with the usual off-color jokes, over-the-top criticism, and elite scorn. As she had done both during and since the 2008 presidential campaign, her retreat into a “higher calling” took center stage over such notable stories as North Korea firing off seven ballistic missiles and the on-going saga of Michael Jackson’s death.
Our regional newspaper–The The Seattle Times–carried a large “Happy 4th of July” banner at the top of its masthead, and below in large letters their lead story declared “Palin Creates Political Stir with Sudden Resignation.” The article described her announcement as a “mostly rambling speech” and then went on to largely question the former vice-presidential candidate as being reckless and unconventional. The Times also “happened” to mention a recent Vanity Fair article that was critical of the governor. Their glee over the announcement and disrespect for Sarah Palin was clear.
My oh my, how perspectives can differ! My wife and I watched the entire Palin speech and were nearly in tears at the end. It was actually one of the most heart-felt political speeches we have ever heard:
- It oozed sincerity and honesty–such a missing quality in most politicians.
- She mentioned her faith numerous times, her principles, her policy perspectives, and each one brought a responding “yes” in our spirits.
- Her decision made sense. She had already decided not to seek a second term and could have easily stayed around as a lame duck for the next eighteen months and taken junkets on the public dime and reveled in the power and position. But because of the unfair and relentless liberal attacks on her governance that was costing Alaskan tax-payers millions of dollars to defend, she had decided to do the right thing for the state of Alaska. How novel. How refreshing.
A couple of days later on her blog, she again stated her future goals: “I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint.”
Yet, despite her explanations and candor, the press continued to question and ridicule her. That prompted this response from Governor Palin: “How sad that Washington and the media will never understand; it’s about country.. And though it’s honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make.”
How true. Sarah Palin is the most media-brutalized politician of my life-time. Only George W. Bush is comparatively close–but still a distant second. Barack Obama left halfway through his first term as US Senator to run for president without a peep from an adoring press. No criticism–no questions. Not Sarah Palin.
The press absolutely hate Sarah Palin. Why?
Before I answer that question, let’s review with honesty the unfairness of the 2008 campaign coverage against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. How was she mistreated and mis-characterized? Just a few examples:
- She was labeled “inexperienced”– even though she was the only candidate on either presidential ticket that had executive governing experience, both as a mayor and as a governor. Not a peep was said about Barack Obama being the most inexperienced candidate in the history of the United States.
- She was labeled as lacking detailed policy knowledge — That’s true of every candidate that steps onto the national stage. She was an expert on energy policy but needed a crash course in foreign affairs. Barack Obama was experienced in nothing–and made numerous gaffes when away from his tele-prompter. Joe Biden was a gaffe-a-minute–with no outrage from the national media.
- She “blew” the interviews with Katie Couric & Charlie Gibson – They weren’t her best moments, but both were rigged to trip her up. Totally unfair. Gotcha questions. Barack Obama was given softballs for an entire year. Major media bias.
- Criticizing her looks and ward-robe – What’s wrong with being pretty? Do we criticize Hollywood stars for their beauty–and the money they spend to have it artificially created? And the $150,000 clothes? Please. How come we never got a monetary figure for Hillary’s pant-suits or Michelle’s sleeveless dresses? Totally one-sided bias.
- The tabloidization of her family – This was really low. Most families in presidential campaigns are off-limits–and for good reason. And to imply that her eighteen year old daughter’s getting pregnant out of wed-lock was a stain on her family values is to say that Jimmy Carter was responsible for Billy Carter. No–people, children, siblings, make their own choices–regardless of parental input. Everyone knows that–except the jaded national press.
Yet, despite the media machine that pummelled her daily, Sarah Plain drew bigger crowds in many cities than Barack Obama, and probably added three-to-five percentage points to John McCain’s losing campaign–an unheard of accomplishment for a VP nominee.
So why do the national press and political elite hate Sarah Palin?
It’s very simple. She’s a threat to their future power because:
1. She’s the wrong kind of woman – In the age of feminism, only liberal feminists are tolerated by a supportive press. Geraldine Ferraro was a media darling in 1984 and Hillary was the establishment choice in 2008. Barack Obama was embraced because he is a liberal African-American. Sarah Palin? “Why she even made the “horrific mistake” of having a Downs Syndrome baby. She didn’t abort Trig! The audacity of being pro-life!”
2. She has the wrong political philosophy. She’s a conservative on almost every issue. Gad zooks! That makes her non-enlightened, a red-neck nutcase, out of touch, terribly old-fashioned and worthy of late night TV ridicule and scorn.
3. She has the wrong kind of faith. She is a born-again Christian. “She’s one of those religious bigots.” There is a sinister move in this nation to label “all things Christian” as not only out-dated but in need of some hate speech laws. This was the number one reason for trying to damage her. The “progressives” now in control of the media and academia are trying to stamp out the Christian foundations of this nation. Sarah Palin is the type of political leader that stands in the way of their plans.
4. She’s the wrong kind of American. She’s one of us–an average person who worked hard and rose to become mayor of a city and governor of a state. But she never forgot her origins. She shares simple American values of faith, family, hard work, personal responsibility, and freedom. She wasn’t educated at an Ivy League School or born into a weathy family. She’s a “little guy” who still acts and thinks that way. That puts her at odds with the liberal elite who really don’t care too much for the Average Janes among us.
Sarah Palin is the number one target of the liberal media and elite because she is the greatest threat to their dreams since Ronald Reagan in 1980. She has to be destroyed. The devil–the Destroyer–is very much in play here. So whenever you hear Sarah Palin being called a “Caribou Barbie” or described as a “Slutty Flight Attendant” you can know you’re hearing a demonic echo.
In a few weeks she will step out of office into a new future–one she will have to craft herself. There will be no trappings of power around her, just her faith, family, principles and passion. Let’s pray for Sarah Palin that she will be is used by God to raise up many people like her in all the fifty America states. There’s great darkness on the immediate national horizon. We need, as Ronald Reagan used to say, a “new morning in America.”
Will Sarah Palin ever run for office again? I don’t know. But based on her past record, I know she’s going to do what’s right for America–regardless of what the media says.