Well after 50 years from the end of the Civil War, black Americans in much of the country were not allowed to enter the homes of whites by the front door. Black men could be lynched for looking a white woman in the face. Schools, restaurants, even drinking fountains were all segregated.
Today, no such legal discrepancies exist. Yes, fringe actors still show that vestiges of racism remain and maybe always will. Yet even though Americans of all races mingle peaceably, the income gap between white and black Americans stubbornly persists. Racism itself can no longer provide a satisfactory answer.
Educational disparities account for some of the gap. Too many black children are still trapped in inner-city schools, where unionized teachers often can’t manage to educate even one student per school who acquires basic academic skills.
Unfortunately for the students, individuals who graduate from high school with ninth grade academic skills have the lifetime earning potential of a dropout. You can’t fool the real world with a meaningless diploma. It would be astonishing if there weren’t a sizable income gap when such educational inequities exist.
The overwhelming evidence points to fatherless homes as the main driver of black economic stagnation. In 1960, 24 percent of black children were born to single mothers. By 2018 the figure was 70 percent. Overall, 37 percent of black kids live with married parents, compared with 84 percent of Asians and 77 percent of whites.
Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty than those of married couple-headed families. We all know the depressing statistics for fatherless children—the increased incidence of incarceration and drug dependence, the lower probability of educational achievement, and the high likelihood they will create single parent-headed families themselves.
It’s neither fair nor accurate to blame black fathers exclusively for this social calamity. In fact, black men are often more attentive fathers than their white counterparts. Black fathers were more likely than others to have “bathed, dressed, changed or helped their child every day” according to a National Statistics report.
The problem is not the quality of black fathers but the quantity. Too many black fathers don’t stay to model fatherhood and provide the guidance and structure that children, especially boys, need.
Some critics ascribe this tendency to “black culture” as if something inherent in blacks is the cause. Others claim that poverty causes weak family structures, not the reverse. But history debunks both contentions.
The institution of the black family emerged from centuries of slavery, poverty, and bigotry virtually intact with strong and loyal family structures. By the time of the mid-20th century civil rights movement, family incomes and social standing were also improving. Ironically, it was the Great Society modern welfare state, offering an omnipresent financial incentive for family break-up, that marked the beginning of the decline of the black family, with all its devastating consequences.
Progressives, especially influential academics, and activists like Black Lives Matter argue that the nuclear family should be dismantled because it is…racist!
For example, a 2021 academic webinar promotion stated, “Family privilege is an unacknowledged and unearned benefit” that “serves to advantage certain family forms over others and is typically bestowed upon white, traditional nuclear families.”
So, the fact that more single parent families are black, according to this traditional Marxist interpretation, means that racism is the culprit? Hogwash alert: the number of parents in the family is a far better predictor of economic outcomes than race. You can look it up.
Although intellectual sophisticates preach tolerance of all family relationships, they are more traditional in their personal behaviors. The college educated mostly delay childbearing until after marriage and raise their children in a two-parent household. It’s called “talk left, walk right” or, in other words, hypocrisy.
Rather than stigmatizing families and their fathers, we should support, in meaningful ways, their importance to human well-being. Judging from the results, families without government “help” do a better job overall of rearing and feeding children, of caring for the dependent elderly, and of creating responsible, competent human beings than does government.
We will never close the economic and social gaps until we close the Dad gap.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
During his debate with former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden claimed: “The only existential threat to humanity is climate change.” What if I told you that it is not climate change but climate policies that are the real existential threat to billions across our planet?
The allure of a green utopia masks the harsh realities of providing affordable and reliable electricity. Americans could soon wake up to a dystopian future if the proposed Net Zero and Build Back Better initiatives — both aimed at an illogical proliferation of unreliable renewables and a clamp down on dependable fossil fuels — are implemented.
Nowhere is this better reflected than in remote regions of India where solar panels — believed to provide clean and green energy — ultimately resulted in being used to construct cattle sheds.
The transformation of Dharnai in the state of Bihar into a “solar village” was marked by great enthusiasm and high expectations. Villagers were told the solar micro-grid would provide reliable electricity for agriculture, social activities and daily living. The promise engendered a naïve trust in a technology that has failed repeatedly around the world.
The news of this Greenpeace initiative quickly spread as international news media showcased it as a success story for “renewable” energy in a third world country. CNN International’s “Connect the World” said Dharnai’s micro-grid provided a continuous supply of electricity. For an unaware viewer sitting in, say, rural Kentucky, solar energy would have appeared to be making great strides as a dependable energy source.
But the Dharnai system would end up on the long list of grand solar failures.
“As soon as we got solar power connections, there were also warnings to not use high power electrical appliances like television, refrigerator, motor and others,” saida villager. “These conditions are not there if you use thermal power. Then what is the use of such a power? The solar energy tariff was also higher compared to thermal power.”
A village shopkeeper said: “But after three years, the batteries were exhausted and it was never repaired. … No one uses solar power anymore here.” Hopefully, the solar panels will last longer as shelter for cows.
Eventually, the village was connected to the main grid, which provided fully reliable coal-powered electricity at a third of the price of the solar power.
Dharnai is not an isolated case. Several other large-scale solar projects in rural India have had a similar fate. Writing for the publication Mongabay, Mainsh Kumar said: “Once (grid) electricity reaches unelectrified villages, the infrastructure and funds used in installation of such off-grid plants could prove futile.”
While green nonprofits and liberal mainstream media have the embarrassment of a ballyhooed solar project being converted to cattle shed, conventional energy sources like coal continue to power India’s over 1.3 billion people and the industries their economies depend on.
India saw a record jump in electricity demand this year, partly due to increased use of air conditioning units and other electrical appliances as more of the population achieved the financial wherewithal to afford them. During power shortages, coal often has come to the rescue. India allows its coal plants to increase coal stockpiles and import additional fuel without restrictions.
India will add more than 15 gigawatts in the year ending March 2025 (the most in nine years) and aims to add a total of 90 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2032.
Energy reality is inescapable in a growing economy like India’s, and only sources such as coal, oil and natural gas can meet the demand. Fossil fuels can be counted on to supply the energy necessary for modern life, and “green” sources cannot.
India’s stance is to put economic growth ahead of any climate-based agenda to reduce the use of fossil fuels. This was reaffirmed when the country refused to set an earlier target for its net zero commitment, delaying it until 2070.
The story of Dharnai serves as a cautionary tale for the implementation of renewable energy projects in rural India, where pragmatism is the official choice over pie in the sky.
Vijay Jayaraj is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK.
This fall, the people of Arizona will have a number of critical decisions to make about the future of our state. But one initiative may be the most important issue facing voters in November.
Earlier this month, the special interests behind a plan to bring California-style jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. If approved, this proposed constitutional amendment would not only make our elections unfair, but it would radically change how Arizonans select and approve candidates for public office in several alarming ways.
The Measure Grants One Politician Too Much Power
It’s never a good idea to give one politician total power over anything—especially an election—but that’s exactly what the Make Elections (Un)Fair Act would do. The measure grants one politician, in this case the Secretary of State, the power to determine how many candidates will appear on the general election ballot for each race. On top of that, the Secretary of State could even decide how many candidates advance in his or her own race…
On July 3rd, the Arizona Abortion Access Campaign submitted petitions with the aim of amending the Arizona State Constitution to permit abortions up until the moment of birth. This chilling proposal would prevent the state from intervening in abortions “after fetal viability,” based on the “judgment” of a “healthcare professional.” Since the petition campaign began last September, it has been shrouded in controversy and deceit, while they attempted to gather 383,923 signatures to place this evil amendment on Arizona’s ballot this November.
As someone who wholeheartedly believes in the sanctity of life, I felt it was critical to be present as the submission process began. The first thing I witnessed was a truck carrying 240 boxes being unloaded and rolled into the Secretary of State’s office. The irony of police dogs sniffing the truck for bombs was not lost on me—considering the horrifying reality that the very proponents of this amendment are advocating for painful late-term abortions.
Over the past week, I closely monitored the Secretary of State’s meticulous process of unstapling, scanning, and reviewing the petitions. A 5% sample will then be sent to the county recorder’s office in each county to verify the authenticity of the signatures.
But let’s not be fooled. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign is a masterclass in deception. During my time observing the unpacking of boxes, I was astounded to see several boxes unsealed only to reveal that they were completely empty. Not a single petition was inside!
This grotesque stunt at the Capitol, performed in front of the media, was a blatant act of deceit—an attempt to manipulate the public into believing they had garnered overwhelming support. The reality is far more sinister. The 240 boxes quickly shrank to fewer than 70 boxes once the cameras were turned off, contradicting their claim of having amassed “800,000 signatures.”
But it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. The Arizona Abortion Access Campaign’s facade of overwhelming support has always been nothing but a dangerous illusion. And their deceitful tactics reveal the sad reality of a campaign more focused on manipulation than genuine advocacy. But I would expect nothing less from a group determined to kill babies up until the moment of birth in a disturbing assault on the most vulnerable among us.
Now, we all have a duty to fight against this. And Arizona Right to Life is leading the charge to stop this ballot measure.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
As an 18-year-old student graduating from Arizona State University this May, I constantly think about what is next. Many people in Gen-Z are often told, “After school, you need to find a good paying job” or “You should go to graduate school.” But I find it sad that there are so few people telling Gen-Z to “raise a young family and provide for them any way that you can.”
Generation Z has the moniker of being the social media generation. Because of that, many tend to think that the majority of my generation is made up of a bunch of degenerates. But the reality is quite the opposite.
Generation Z has a very high percentage of individuals who want to enhance their lives by placing family at the center. Vice Media Group reported, “73% [of Gen-Z] say that becoming a parent enhances who you already are as a person.” This is significant because it shows that Gen-Z recognizes the inherent value of starting and sustaining a family.
The birth rate in America has been declining for some time now, and births out of wedlock are at an all-time high. Many often wonder what has gone wrong in America for this to happen. The truth is that the deconstruction of the nuclear family unit and a growing lack of faith have played a significant role. But despite all this, there is optimism. Between 2010 and 2020, births out of wedlock did not increase for the first time since the 1930s. Between 2020 and 2030, there are reasonable projections that this number will decrease for the first time. This can be attributed to Generation Z starting families and reverting to traditional values.
This brings me to the 2024 election. There is so much on the line for younger voters this November, and many of them will vote for candidates who will focus on the economy and homeland security. These hot-button issues directly affect the ability and environment to have a family. Many do not buy the claim that “their vote doesn’t count” because they have seen how the ability to start and keep a family has been much more difficult under the Biden administration’s policies.
Another important issue for Gen-Z is the value of faith in family life, and recent research backs this up, showing a resurgence in religious faith among Gen-Z. After the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health issues were at an all-time high, especially within my generation, and the return to normal life after crippling lockdown policies was extremely difficult for many. Due to this, Gen-Z began to wake up to faith and become believers. Of course, this is not a new concept. After the Black Death that crippled Europe, many people thought of religion in new ways, which eventually led to Protestantism and other forms of Christianity. Before COVID-19, faith started to decline in the United States, and many people were leaving it for atheism. But now that the pandemic is over and we move into the mid-2020s, we may be in the early stages of a religious revival that could prove to be similar to medieval Europe.
Generation Z has been shaped by a unique time period. We’ve seen family and religious values fall to dramatically low levels, and we’re starting to see what that can do to a society. When Rome and Greece abandoned these values, their empires fell into ruin. Now, Generation Z has the opportunity to keep us from this same fate by resurrecting this country to focus on family and faith once again.
Carson Carpenter is an Arizona State University student majoring in Political Science. He is the President of The College Republicans at ASU and is the National Committeeman to Arizona for The College Republicans of America. He has also interned for Reps. Gosar and Crane.
The latest official employment report finds once again that the federal government and state-and-local government hiring spree is still in full gear. Over the past year health care and government hiring has outpaced every private sector industry.
So, even though there are a lot more government workers, good luck finding them or getting them on the phone.
This is because so few of them are actually physically on the job.
What is happening in the federal government (“Club Fed”) these days borders on the absurd — or should I say the obscene. A recent survey by Federal News Network of federal workers finds only 6% are working full time in the office. Thirty percent are full time remote. Office buildings in Washington have become city-block long zombies. Especially on Fridays.
While exact comparisons between public and private employees are tricky and inexact, best estimates are that in 2023 roughly 30% of private workers were working from home or remotely either some or all of the time. In the private sector, the percentage of employees working from home has actually declined from about 50% during Covid (2020).
This means that federal employees are three times more likely to be working remotely either some or all of the time.
I am all for employees working remotely a few days a week and this is likely to become more common in the information and digital age. I do that myself.
But one has to wonder how many of these workers are really necessary. And what are the chances that these remote government workers who can almost never get fired for bad performance are putting in an honest day’s work. My suspicion is very few.
The irony is that three years ago the federal government issued an order for federal employees to return to work post-Covid. Many thousands have blatantly ignored the order.
Remember, government workers have some of the cushiest and least stressful jobs on the planet. And they get paid roughly 30 to 40% more than comparably skilled private workers — when taking account exorbitant benefits.
Here is my solution. Uncle Sam is losing almost $2 trillion a year. Stop hiring new people. Every federal agency including the biggest bureaucracy in the world — the Pentagon — should impose a hiring freeze — except for extraordinary circumstances — until the budget is balanced. Then impose a 30% across the board reduction in force (RIF).
Finally, if the government needs more revenues, start by selling federal buildings that are less than one-half occupied. Many buildings are less than 20 percent occupied.
Former President Donald Trump’s most popular rallying cry in 2016 was to “drain the swamp.” But today the swamp is deeper than ever and the deep state swamp creatures are more numerous than ever after four years of the Biden-Kamala administration. If Trump wins, he and Republicans should get draining.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
