A True Conservative to Her Core

Editor’s note: We at HUMAN EVENTS are pleased to bring you this week a series of profiles from the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute​​​​​.  These are profiles of influential and prominent conservative women who have made a tremendous impact for the better on this great country.

One of the most frustrating things I continuously witness while working with college campuses is the left’s ongoing attempts to bully and intimidate conservative students into keeping their views quiet or watering them down to be more “politically correct.” The most effective way a conservative activist can fight back against the bully tactics of leftist administrators is to host a conservative speaker and one of the most effective speakers they can host is Star Parker.

Young America’s Foundation first discovered Star after she spoke at Marshall University in 1993. From the first time we at the foundation heard her story, we knew she would be a force to be reckoned with on the campus lecture circuit. She hasn’t let the movement down.

Hypocritical leftist administrators, professors and students completely abandon their “tolerance” and “diversity” mantras when a black woman—who herself used to be on welfare and has had four abortions—comes to campus proclaiming that government entitlements are keeping blacks enslaved to the government and that Planned Parenthood is committing black genocide by targeting lower-class communities for abortions.

This was on full display back in 2008 when St. Thomas Catholic University in Minnesota banned Star from speaking on campus on the grounds that previous conservative speakers on campus were “too inflammatory.” However, they did allow far-left Sen. Al Franken and a trans-gendered activist to speak that same year.

But Star, a true conservative to her core, did not even consider allowing these campus liberals to intimidate her into toning down her message to be less “offensive.” On the contrary, she counted the response as a clear sign that her message was—and still is—effective.

After Star’s public response and pressure from the media, the university caved and allowed her to speak on campus to a packed house, and she even received a standing ovation at the end of her talk. Star pointed out that the controversy turned out to be a blessing in disguise because it attracted a massive audience, many of whom were students probably hearing conservative ideas for the first time. And they didn’t hear a watered-down, politically correct version of conservatism, either. They got to hear from a woman who is not ashamed to condemn and expose the harmful, dangerous policies of leftist big-government programs and stand up for the rights of the unborn.

Star’s unapologetic approach to conservative activism is something we need more of on our college campuses. Students on more than 100 college campuses across America have had the privilege of being exposed to her fearless defense of freedom and she is most deserving of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute’s honor as one of the top 10 most influential conservative women in America.

Sign Up
  • Bamaguje

    “St. Thomas Catholic University in Minnesota banned Star from speaking on campus on the grounds that previous conservative speakers on campus were “too inflammatory.”” – Patrick Coyle.

    I just don’t get it, a Catholic University banning an anti-abortion conservative from speaking …but allowed a trans-gender activist to speak.
    What is America turning into? I thought the Catholic Church was supposed to be against abortion.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    Disgraceful and scandalous, is it not?  The Church has been in absolute free fall since and because of Vatican II, but one can take solace from the knowledge that the traditionalist movement within the Church is thriving.  And, in the end, the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph.

  • http://www.theconservativevoices.com/ dmacleo

    I often enjoy Stars articles, well worth reading.

  • ghostshirt

    I would recommend Ms. Parker’s “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” to anyone who really wants to understand what Liberalism has done to Americans of African descent.

    The carnage of Giverment ‘charity’ sure doesn’t stop at one skin color either. While each of us is finally responsible for our choices, Giverment policy has influenced bad choices among our nation’s most vulnerable millions, for decades.

    I recall doing a Vacation Bible school project at a housing project in the 1990′s. All of the kids I got to know there were third generation on public assistance, growing up without a Dad in the house.

    This is what Ms. Parker is trying to tell anybody who’ll listen. God bless her for that.  

  • ombdz

    Why stop at college campuses?!?  The left’s “bully tactics” have now even spilled into the sports arena where we’re witnessing, shall we say Palinesque attacks, against a certain prominent athlete … http://bit.ly/qVdDUt

  • jwebsmall

    We should be thankful they didn’t burn her at the stake.  Rome used to rule countries so what’s the big surprise if they make political decisions.    If I ran a school Star Parker would be welcome any time she wanted to visit! If you ever hear Star speak she leaves other conservative women in the dust (like Palin , Coulter etc.) Star is tops in my book.

  • Jason Johnson

    What further proof do you need that conservatism transcends racial and cultural boundaries?

  • wodiej

    I agree.  Tebow is getting Paliniized.

  • wodiej

    There is no need to diss Palin because you like Parker.  Palin is a very energetic and enthusiastic speaker and there is room at the table for both.

  • wodiej

    I commend Parker for getting out of the cycle many blacks find themselves in and she herself experienced.  She is living proof if you want out bad enough, it can be done.  You’ve got alot of courage for speaking out about it.

  • jwebsmall

    Lots of people are energetic and enthusiastic like football, basketball and baseball players.   If a person doesn’t vet an candidate they endorse or else endorse someone as flawed as Gingrich they have a problem grasping the crisis that faces our country.  I have many friends whom I would not vote for  for president.  This isn’t a popularity contest or an IQ conquest but rather an ideological, practical common sense and proven executive skill track record contest.  If Palin chooses Gingrich I would not vote for her based on this judgment call.  I still like Palin but if this is true that she would pick Gingrich that is a reflection on other personnel choices she would have made as president.  In this case I would be glad I wasn’t given the opportunity to vote for her as president. The GOP moved up the primaries to shorten the vetting time in order to help the RINO’s. This is unacceptable.

  • Stratosaurus

    I have enjoyed Ms. Parker’s views for quite awhile.  She’s articulate, well-spoken, and VERY intelligent.  She’s been labelled an “oreo” by people who believe Jesse Jackoff, Looneytune Farouttahismind, Al Sharp-dressed-toon, and Jerkmeoff Wrong have some valuable ideas — in other words, self-deluding morooooons, who become prime fodder for the demoncrap giveaway artists.  More success to her.

  • Sweetrae aka: LeAnn

    Ms. Parker is another great black conservative who has been called some of the most vile names by liberals who can’t stand the fact that conservative minorities have escaped the enslavement that the democrat party has done to them.

  • another_engineer

    Ugh… another one. Perhaps Whoopi Goldberg in drag would be more appropriate.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    Tebow could avoid that if he plays hard for 60 minutes!

    @ghostshirt:disqus those things that have happened to blacks—it’s self-inflicted these days. Parker may not be aware of the Thomas Sowell school of thought…or it may actually be a separate but related school of thought, come to think of it. Because (blacks) know what they’re getting into these days (or ought to)! And single mother (or in some cases, a single father) to me means that the mother has to work harder—it should never be a crutch.

    As such, if Star Parker can do it, anyone can do so…and the only reason for not getting out is choice. Stop with the crutch!

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    Okay now…REALLY? Whether you agree or not with Star Parker…that’s an insult to someone who has made it. I may not agree with the existence of a plantation, but that’s a matter to debate on.

  • globalcrap

    Star Parker, a beautiful, intelligent ,Black American  republician. She works for the American people,and not for the socialist liberals cry babies. God bless.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

    Other then, rehash conservative talking points, what has Larstella Irby
    (Star Parker) done for America, anyone know? Parker spent her teen and early
    adult years as an unemployed mother on welfare. She has chronicled her teenaged arrests for
    shoplifting and publicly disclosed that she has had four abortions.

  • http://twitter.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

    What one does in one’s teenage years isn’t exactly relevant for someone north of the age of 40. One can learn and modify—as I generally say with respect to anyone in the public eye, it’s usually the last 10 years that are most relevant, as I see it. I have used that standard on Democrats and Republicans…and I intend to use it on Star Parker too. People aren’t the same for their entire lives always.

    What does her “body of work” look like within the past 10 years or so (or since 2000)? Examine that.

  • rebelyell4

    To me it’s a new thing. To be seeing “conservative activism” is just about a contradiction in terms. I still have a heard time trying to figure out how to put a definition on the whole thing. We need to define it for ourselves, becaue the progressives will certainly do it for us.

    Think about the liberal agenda. Most of our fellow conservatives have only really noticed it a few times in history. Right now, or at least two years ago being a recent case. It could even be said that now we are regressing, believing we have somehow made our point?

    Defining a conservative as being “active brings up some interesting contradictions. Conservatives for some reason are considerred “status quo” folks. Not out to change the world, but keep it from change. How we overcome this has always been our problem. It’s as though progressivism or socialism have to go so far to one side that we have something to fight against rather than being conservative. We need our worst fears to actually happen before we turn against the status quo.

    We are people who attempt to maintain the status quo but seem to realize that at some point it has gone too far in some fashion. We have reached a point along the line of civilization that has struck our warning system. Things are out of hand. Yet even at this time we cannot come up witha good definition of what is needed. It’s really quite hard to come up with.

    To me it boils down to right and wrong. It boils down to honesty and reality. Leaving out pipe dreams and unproven hopes and desires we know have never worked before. Utopian thoughts that are not based on realistic expectations is something to be fought against. Odd though that our own utopian reality is honesty and reality itself, with a bit belief in more than what may well be realistic expectations. We can believe they are true because we believe they are not of man, but outside of man and from a higher power..

    Conservative behavior has to be groounded and have a baseline. Generally most conservatives find their reality in Religion of some form or another. No one needs to be Christian to be conservative. Yet in this country this is the usual common denominator. The oddest part of religion itself is that even though based on pure fact it is seen as a pipedream by much of our opposition. Basicly the socialist movements always depend on religion being proven as falsohoods and dreams. We believe in someone set above us with a knowledge and power far superior to ourselves.

    Most progressive or socialist behavior is based on man himself being the ultimate being to make decisions for us. The weird and unreasonable part is that it is always THEM and never us that are chosen to make these decisions. The society of “open minds” cannot believe within its own bounds that religion can be part of their outlook. Religion would place a power higher than themselves at the top of the decision making tree, right? They can never absorb that anything or one can know or be more than they are.

    So right there, at that very level is where the conservative in all of us becomes far more liberal than any socialist or progressive. We allow that something or someone exists that can and has made all the decisions needed for us to exist and live, therefore all we really need do is follow the lead of a greater power. Liberal or socialist believers cannot grant their own power over to any belief because “they” are the ones they believe in. In the greatest sense of the definition; we as conservatives have the strongest and most liberal ideal of all. We allow that a structure of rule and behavior already exists that man has to be guided by and man can and should not change.

    Only when a liberal finally reaches the ultimate point of knowledge do they ever realize that somethng is out there and they are truly not in control. We knew it all along.

  • http://granitegrok.com/author/mprogers Mike Rogers

    Looking forward to Star’s next run for congress.
    I am a suporter, and regularly read her columns.

  • Former Nevadan

    Traditional slavery meant that the owner of the plantation paid all the expenses, and made all the investments, for the facility, and the slaves were kept productive, making cotton, tobacco, corn, sugar cane, etc. Uncle Sam’s Plantation bills YOU for the upkeep, and its product is indolence, attitude and dependency, and Dhimmicrat votes.

    She’s no longer indolent or dependent, her attitude has improved, and the only way the Dhims can count on her vote, now, is to field the kind of candidate they abhor. They resent that.

    Definitely off the plantation.

  • CPAguy

    Vatican II has nothing to do with it.  Vatican II was a terrific reform which has allowed the Church to greatly expand and spread the word of God.

    Priests naturally tend to be liberal (they have pledged their lives to others after all).  The problem is that many socialists/Marxists/etc. hide in liberal clothing.  Thus, these priests are always getting in trouble because they think that everybody they deal with is an honest broker while the reality is the opposite.

  • CPAguy

    Tebow sucks.  Religion has nothing to do with it.

  • TanongSak

    What has your savior B.S. ever done for America, except to f*** it up? The liberal attack on any African American who dares to deviate from the official worldview is predictable. Much worse than what you’re saying is expected.

    Since you raised the question, what have you ever done for America, except to vegetate, consume scarce resources, and breathe oxygen? Were it up to me, you would do none of these things.

  • TanongSak

    A very incisive, intelligent analysis. In fact, this would make a good book: you ought to consider writing it. I would, except that I’ve become to cynical to believe that it would do any good in a country that lost its way long ago. The flaw in liberalism, as you intimate, is in its worldview, and in particular, its view of the human reality. The story is as old as Genesis: liberalism believes that man should eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and thus be as God. The same insight was expressed by the atheist philosopher, Sartre, who defined man as the futile desire to be God. (I learn more from him than from reading just about any theologian.) Liberalism embodies two axioms: (1) that man is spiritually self-reliant; (2) that man is spiritually self-sufficient. However, (1) does NOT imply (2). Because liberals reject any higher sovereign power, they are left of necessity with (1). But then they fallaciously assume that (2) is a consequence of (1). They are mistaken. If God doesn’t exist, then (1) is true by default. Man is on his own. But if (2) is not also true (and there’s no reason to believe that it is, given the course of human history, and the abundant evidence of human folly and depravity) then the end result must only be despair. The more sober world religions, like Buddhism understand this and don’t try to run away from it. This core despair, a sense of the utter futility and emptiness of human existence (as the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes speaks of) is manifest in the dehumanizing, nihilistic, and life-denying behavior and policies which liberals champion, and attempt, by any means necessary, to foist on the rest of us. In short, liberalism is latter-day barbarism–barbarism with a human face.

    Let there be no mistake about it: liberalism is not a “mental disorder,” as many conservatives believe. It’s a profound spiritual pathology. No one is driven into liberalism by logic or the weight of any evidence. It is a worldview freely chosen. And for that free choice, liberals must accept the consequences. In many cases, they believe in their heart of hearts that their worldview is true. In others, it’s merely a Faustian bargain: they’ve sold their soul for the sake of power and glory. In either case, they’ve damned themselves.

    That, of course, is their prerogative. What is not is their desire and willingness to drag the Republic down to hell with them. No country at all would be infinitely preferable to one dwelling in the hell of liberal hubris and depravity.

  • Tomas de Torquemada

    No offense, but your contention is historically groundless and indefensible; indeed, the adjective “absurd” leaps to one’s mind.

    The evidence that Vatican II has brought woe and wreck and ruin to the Church is unanswerable — e.g., in 1965 there were almost 105,000 teaching sisters in the United States; today there are about 8,000 (a decline of some 94% since the close of the Second Vatican Council).

    Permit me to commend to you Kenneth C. Jones’ “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators”. 

  • rebelyell4

    My best information on the socalled “liberal” point of view came from being one. There is not a single way to learn any faster if one thinks. I didn’t last long as one, though. I’m with the simple view. There is good and evil. We can only choose one, no matter what other faults we have. Deep down there is just this one choice. Good helps us realize our weaknesses and evil excuses them.

  • Liberal Soup N Crackers

    Apparently she did all that while enslaved on the Democratic Plantation but by the grace of God escaped to experience the American dream for herself.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

    Two years US Army! You?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DGT5LFXDWHPKRWLSI2WPBXIGXE Wil

    Her “body of work” is typing rehashed right-wing dribble!

  • TanongSak

    “Good helps us realize our weaknesses and evil excuses them.”

    Now, that’s quotable. And it’s also an absolute truth. It really wish I knew you personally.

     It’s hard, I think, for anyone to believe that human beings are actually capable of choosing evil. This has two effects: first, we insist upon justifying (excusing) our choices by appealing to some moral principle which seems to be applicable to them. And secondly, we try to explain evil away, by reducing it to some non-moral category: ignorance, poverty, maldistribution of wealth, etc. Both of these tactics are an exercise in self-deception.

    Of course, when the evil is monstrous enough (e.g., slavery, the holocaust), we reach a point at which we can no longer believe our own lies, that is, if we have any semblance of a conscience left. The problem with habitually choosing evil, and then trying to run away from our choice instead of acknowledging it and repenting, is that it puts us on a downward spiral into a spiritual abyss from which in due course we’re unable to rise up by our own power. It’s not a matter of setting our moral principles on a shelf for safe keeping for the time being, going out and doing what we want, and then coming back and claiming them, as though nothing had happened. This is simply not possible. By our every choice–act, word, and deed, we literally BECOME WHAT WE DO. There is no “I” or “me” which exists in isolation from my moral choices.  Nietzsche put it well when he remarked that “every time an act of injustice is committed, justice itself dies.” Liberalism, by its intricate labyrinth of lies, subterfuges, and attemps to justify what’s unjustifiable, puts its adherent in precisely that position. In time, there’s nothing, however diabolical and depraved, that they’re incapable of. For this, evidence abounds.

  • TanongSak

    It doesn’t seem to have done you much good.

  • rebelyell4

    I suppose the left would rather she had not confessed her prior problems. I say good for her. She’s now had the chance to look squarely into the eye of evil and knows where it lives. You cannot know it till you meet it.

  • rebelyell4

    Geez, I really hope she’s using some of mine.

  • rebelyell4

    I may have seen her on the telly at some point, but I am sure I was not familiar with her story. I am always thankful when a person who has truly had the experience of being a part of the system changes their outlook or “sees the light”.

    I am certain that many more people are becoming aware of what is really going on. As long as we can bring real thought and answers to this question and express ourselves without resorting to the usual remarks made by the shreaking left I will look toward a brighter future.

    Thank you for informing us or at least me. I thank her for her hard work and we certainly need more speakers to hold up our end of the argument. It may not bring her riches and fame, but I hope our thanks will help.

  • George Roxandich

    The Church is weaker after Vatican II than at any other time in history, and many of the Catholics are “social Catholics” at best. This sort of liberal reaction is typical of most Catholic communities (traditional Catholics excepted).

  • George Roxandich

    Your understanding leads much to be desired. As co-redeemer Mary is NOT on par with Jesus, but as the Mother of God wouldn’t you admit that she holds a singular place in human history?

  • Ksmith_Tx

    “Your understanding leads much to be desired.”

    Tell me then, why do Catholics pray to plaster statues, light votive candles in shrines to the saints as though the saints were gods and confess their sins to a mere mortal man and not directly to God when all of these things are commanded against in the the Word of God?  

    You admit that the catholic church claims Mary to be co-redeemer with Jesus.   A redeemer pays the price to claim possession of an object.  In the case of Jesus, the Kinsman Redeemer, He paid the price to free all, who would accept His gift, from the bondage of sin we are all born into. Christ was lifted up like the golden serpent in the desert after having suffered being whipped, wearing a crown of thorns and being nailed to the cross.  The Bible speaks of Christ as Lord and Our Father and our Redeemer. This is the true work of the Holy Spirit  ~  Jesus Christ is both God and Man and as such has two natures — the nature of God and the nature of man , which is flesh.  That is why Jesus is the Perfect and Unique Redeemer.   Mary is the mother of Jesus’ man or human nature and is NOT the mother of God because GOD has no beginning and no ending, He is from everlasting.  To claim Mary is co-redeemer is blasphemy and is adding something to God’s Holy Word that is definitely NOT there nor even hinted at as being true.

  • Ksmith_Tx

    “This implies he was born fully human and, at some later time, was made God.”

    You’ve been reading those catholic books again.  Jesus was not “made God”.  The Bible, that apparently you don’t read, states that in John 1:1-2 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…” and in John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,….”. You see, God became man (the second Adam, the perfect and obedient Son), man did not become God. 

    “We pray to Mary and the saints for intercession on our part, not pray to them as the ones that will ultimately answer our prayers.”

    Jesus is our HIGH PRIEST, our intercessor in heaven, and He alone speaks to the Father for us through His RIGHTEOUSNESS that is attributed to us by our faith in Christ and acceptance of the completing work of the Holy Spirit in and through Christ.  Christ ALONE is our mediator and your church and its members seek to replace Christ with human beings who do not have, as yet, the righteousness of Christ but have his righteousness attributed to them if they have faith in Christ.  You like your Church DENY the purpose of Christ and His unique positions of Redeemer and Mediator as well as the fact that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus.  Praying to a DEAD person is in fact attempting to speak to or communicate with the DEAD and that is absolutely against the will of God. The Bible commands us to pray at all times to the Father in heaven and in the name of Jesus whose righteousness we do not yet have but is attributed to us as in being sealed by the Holy Spirit. And the Bible is emphatic in God’s repudiation of man praying  to anyone other than God Himself. 

    So, go ahead and continue to pray to those man made icons and build your little shrines to them ~ you might as well pray to a tree.  I will pray to my Father in heaven in the name of Jesus Christ for that is the will of my Father in heaven.