Why Is the United States Negotiating With Terrorists?

A Gallup poll of several months ago asked, “On the whole, would you say that you are satisfied or dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today?” Only one-third, 33%, said they were satisfied. This down from 53% in February 2020 at the conclusion of Donald Trump’s presidency. It’s a wonder that even a third of Americans are comfortable with President Joe Biden’s disastrous leadership. Many scholars now liken the world today to the 1930s, the years preceding World War II. Latest is Biden’s new proposal to resolve the conflict in Gaza. The proposal ignores Israel’s main objective, final removal of the presence and influence of the terrorist organization Hamas from leadership and control in Gaza. Of the 120 hostages that remain from the 251 originally abducted Oct. 7, 2023, it is not even clear how many are alive. Yet, in exchange for release of an unspecified number of hostages, Israel is asked to pull its troops out of all populated areas of Gaza. I pray that, for the sake of Israel but also for the sake of all remnants of decency in today’s crazy world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu resists pressure to accept this horrible arrangement. Why is the United States negotiating with terrorists and giving legitimacy to those who commit atrocities beyond the pale of minimally decent human behavior? The widespread backlash against Israel’s campaign in Gaza is supposedly because of the large number of civilian casualties. But those criticizing Israel should look in the mirror to see who has led to these casualties. If Hamas, who hides their fighters and equipment among civilians, whose priority is the death of Israelis and not saving lives of their own people, was immediately condemned and isolated by global leadership, Israel would not be left to take unilateral military action as its only option for its national security. Let’s recall that immediately following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, rather than condemning Hamas, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned Israel. The attack “did not happen in a vacuum,” said Guterres. And he then justified it, saying, “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. ... Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.” Guterres chose to ignore that it was the organization that he leads, the U.N., that endorsed partition in 1947 to create a Jewish state and a Palestinian state — an arrangement accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, who chose, instead, war. Hillary Clinton appeared on “The View” last December and reminded viewers that her husband tried to broker a peace deal in 2000, inviting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for talks in Camp David. Barak accepted the Clinton plan, and Arafat rejected it and, per Hillary Clinton, returned home and launched an intifada that would claim the lives of 1,000 Israelis, most of them civilians. But why, when the U.N. secretary-general started with his distortions of truth, did the United States U.N. representative sit by in silence? We saw nothing like this when Nikki Haley was the U.N. representative during the Trump presidency. When Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the U.N. voted 128-9 criticizing the U.S. Nikki Haley stood before the U.N. General Assembly and said, “To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. ... It’s a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in turn is harmful for the entire world.” The United States is one of 193 nations in the U.N. yet provides some 22% of its budget — $18 billion in 2022. The U.N. gives a vote and a say in world peace to unfree countries, countries led by dictators and despots. How about redirecting that $18 billion into our own sagging defense budget? It’s time for a new era of principled American leadership. This is the only path to peace. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Biden’s Democracy Smokescreen

President Joe Biden makes no speech without mentioning the importance of democracy in our nation. We would like to believe this comes from deep ideals about human liberty lodged within our president. But more accurate is that Biden, a politician all his adult life, is defined by just that — politics. No word, no act emanates from our president that does not emerge from some political calculation. In the case of the ongoing reminders about the importance of democracy, the subliminal message Biden wishes to convey is to always remind of the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol and to brand Donald Trump as an anti-democratic autocrat. But let’s go beyond this and examine Biden’s premise about democracy itself. In Biden’s latest speech on Memorial Day, he said, “Our democracy is more than just a system of government. It is the very soul of America.” Hanging on a wall in my offices in Washington, D.C., is a picture of Booker T. Washington, with his quote saying, “A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good just because it is accepted by the majority.” An important reminder from Booker T. Washington, founder of Tuskegee University, is that there is good and evil in this world, and they are transmitted to us through the Bible and our faith. Democracy can only be the means through which a nation accepts or does not accept these eternal truths. But Democracy does not invent them. We should recall, again, the words of President George Washington in his farewell speech in 1796. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. ... Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” In the 1850s, Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois proposed to use democracy to solve the problem of whether slavery would be permitted in new states entering the union. The Kansas-Nebraska Act provided that new states would determine by the vote whether it would be a slave state. Abraham Lincoln rejected this proposition. Per Lincoln, “Judge Douglas interrupted me to say that the principle of the Nebraska bill was very old, that it originated when God made man and placed good and evil before him, allowing him to choose for himself, being responsible for the choice he should make.” “The facts of this proposition are not true as stated,” said Lincoln. “God did not place good and evil before man, telling him to make his choice. On the contrary, he did tell him that there was one tree, of the fruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death.” What really interests Biden is growing government to advance his left-wing agenda, thereby diminishing individual freedom. In 1950, shortly after World War II, federal government spending accounted for 14.1% of GDP. Per the Congressional Budget Office, in 2024 federal government spending will consume 23.1% of GDP; in 2034, 24.1%; in 2044, 25.7%; and in 2054, 27.3%. Social Security trustees now project bankruptcy of the system by 2033. Revenues will fall short by 21%. Why doesn’t Biden support letting every American choose to opt out and instead invest in their own private retirement account? Why doesn’t Biden support the right of parents to send their child to whatever K-12 school they choose? The only place where Biden wants more choice is to hide behind his religion and give women the right to destroy their unborn child until the final moments of her pregnancy. The founders of our country conceived of a nation rooted in core truths, which, by limiting government, would enable individual liberty. They would not recognize our politicized nation today under Joe Biden. Star Parker is president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education and host of the weekly television show “Cure America with Star Parker.” Her recent book, “What Is the CURE for America?” is available now. To find out more about Star Parker and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Fix Social Security With Ownership, Not More Government

The trustees for Social Security have just issued their annual report. And, as we have learned annually over recent years, the system cannot meet its obligations. According to this latest report, the Social Security system will not be able to meet its obligations to retirees by 2035. In 2035, the system will be adequate to meet just 83% of its obligations. This is supposedly good news because the projected shortfall occurs one year later than reported last year. But the change simply reflects the fact that the system is so massive -- it's the single largest government program, with annual expenditure of $1.2 trillion -- that small changes in assumptions in the planning model produce big changes in the projected results. Young people today start working and immediately have 6.2% of their paycheck deducted in payroll tax for Social Security, with their employer matching this with another 6.2% -- all paid into a system that is bankrupt. Our political leaders, to the extent they choose to speak about this issue, reiterate their commitment to “save the system.” But “saving the system” means just taking a bad situation and making it worse. Who wants to “save the system” by raising taxes, raising the retirement age or cutting benefits? Many still believe that Social Security is some kind of retirement investment program, but it's not. It is a government tax and spending program. Individuals are forced to pay the payroll tax. And those payroll taxes are used to pay retirement benefits for those currently retired. Even if you think this is a good idea, it no longer works. When the system began in the 1930s, there were over 40 working Americans per retiree. Today, because of longer life spans and declining birthrates, there are just a little over three working for each retiree. Worker's taxes soon won't be enough. I have been writing for years that the system should not and cannot be saved, and I make this same declaration now. It is quite reasonable for the government to insist that individuals take steps to secure their future in retirement. But it is not reasonable for government to step in and take away an individual freedom on how to take care of themselves. Individuals should be allowed to take ownership of the payroll tax they are forced to pay and use these funds to invest in their own personal retirement account. The benefits of giving individuals freedom to take ownership of their own earnings and invest are huge. For one thing, putting funds into the equity markets over a 45-year working life yields far higher returns than Social Security provides. In one study, done a number of years ago at the Cato Institute, they looked at a theoretical average-income couple that retired in 2009, one year after a huge crash in the stock market. Despite a 37% market decline in 2008, the cumulative returns they received since they started investing when they were 21 in 1965 yielded savings of $855,175. This is based on the actual market returns over those years, not theory. This is 75% more than what they would have gotten from Social Security, per the study. Lack of ownership in stocks greatly accounts for the huge difference in household wealth between Black households and white households. Whereas, per the Federal Reserve, 65.6% of white households own stocks, only 39.2% of Black households do. As a result, average household wealth in assets among white households is approximately $1.5 million compared to $297,000 among Black households. Plus, investing gives everyone “skin in the game” to limit government and keep our American system of capitalism alive and healthy. No move could do more to restoring economic vitality and individual freedom in our country than transforming our broken Social Security system into a nationwide personal investment program.