If the younger generation wants to know the keys to success, they need to follow the success sequence published by Bradford Wilcox and Wendy Wang. They say that the millennial generation is “more likely to flourish financially if they follow the “success sequence.” They say, you need to get at least a high school degree, work full-time, and marry before having any children, in that order.

Their recent study at the American Enterprise Institute has the title, The Millennial Success Sequence: Marriage, Kids, and the “Success Sequence” among Young Adults. They persuasively argue if millennials follow this success sequence, they will have a 97 percent chance of not being poor by the time they reach their young adult years. In fact, 86 percent of those studied had family incomes in the middle class or above.

Their study reminded me of another study posted by William Galston. Many years ago, he found that in order to avoid being poor you must do three things: (1) graduate from high school, (2) wait until age 20 to have children, and (3) wait until getting married to have children. He has found that young people who follow these rules have a 92 percent chance of staying above the poverty line. By contrast, a young person who breaks just one of these rules, has a 79 percent chance of ending up below the poverty line.

In a more recent op-ed, William Galston (who served in the Clinton Administration) made it even simpler. Want to know the best poverty cure? Get married. Single parenthood hurts all children, and black children bear the greatest brunt of the harm. He even goes on to say that cohabitation is not a replacement for marriage. Most cohabiting couples only stay together for about 18 months on average.

All of these different studies come to the same conclusion. Marriage is important, and the keys to success are to follow what is now being called the “success sequence.”

In a recent column, Victor Davis Hanson referred to the Silicon Valley billionaires as the new “robber barons.” The term was used in the 19th century to describe those millionaires who used their monopolies to crush competitors and to rig markets and even corrupt politicians in government. That’s a pretty strong term to use against these high-tech personalities and companies, but let’s look at his arguments.

He reminds us that President Obama attacked Mitt Romney as a potential “outsourcer in chief” for investing in companies that went overseas. Yet, most of the computers and smartphones sold by Silicon Valley companies are still being built abroad. We hear little about it from progressive watchdogs.

“Progressives demand higher taxes on the wealthy,” says Hanson. “They traditionally argue that tax gimmicks and loopholes are threats to the republic.” But just a few seem to care that the Silicon Valley companies of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Starbucks filter hundreds of billions of global profits through tax havens and various tax shelters.

It is worth mentioning that the riches of these Silicon Valley multibillionaires dwarf the wealth of the original robber barons. Yet they also accumulated their vast wealth by using monopolies and finding ways to stifle competition. Facebook, with 2 billion monthly global users, has effectively cornered the social media market. Amazon, he says, is America’s new octopus. Its growing tentacles reach into nearly every area of our lives.

That is why he is asking where we might find muckrakers today who are in the spirit of Upton Sinclair, Frank Norris, and Lincoln Steffens. Maybe one reason they get a pass is due to the fact that the Silicon Valley elite are overwhelmingly liberal and gave over 90 percent of their donations to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps that is why few criticize these 21st century robber barons.

For the last year, we have occasionally seen violence on college campuses. Now, some of that violence had made its way into the streets and into city parks and neighborhoods. What can be done to end the violence? Former senator Jim Talent has some concrete suggestions.

First, he says, “state laws must single out violence and disorderly conduct in the context of mass expression for special and certain punishment.” He also explains that the “punishment must be meaningful to the kind of people who do this sort of thing.” He is convinced that the problem of street violence has grown so great that jail time is the only measure that will be sufficient to stop it.

Second, he says that, “the laws must be strictly enforced.” This is where governors and mayors must step up. “Too many mayors have been lenient for fear that they will suffer political consequences if they enforce the law against members of politically favored groups.”

This is where the governors of various states may need to step in. In order to provide enough protection, they should have “large numbers of well-trained and equipped personnel ready, whether from the state police or their National Guards.” In fact, he says that governors need to make it a personal priority to ensure that state law enforcement personnel are properly trained and equipped.

Once those engaging in street violence are arrested and incarcerated, their names and their faces and fingerprints are on the books. That means that subsequent violations can be punished more harshly with felony imprisonment when warranted.

As a former politician, Jim Talent understands there are political risks in taking some of the steps he has outlined. But he also realizes that street violence can quickly get out of hand if officials do nothing and hope that violence won’t come to their jurisdictions. This is how to bring law and order back to our streets.

The mainstream media has done a respectable job of identifying the alt-right and explaining who they are. I have devoted time on my radio program to do the same. But another group hasn’t been given much publicity. That would be the group “Antifa.” In fact, Ben Shapiro calls it “The Group That Got Ignored in Charlottesville.”

The group is a loosely connected band of anti-capitalist protesters on the far left that also designate themselves as anti-fascist. They have been the center of many protests and street riots since the 1990s. We have seen them protesting globalization at the World Trade Organization meetings. But they are probably best known for two incidents. They were visible at the University of California, Berkeley riots that were protesting Milo Yiannopoulos. And they were visible at the Charlottesville riots where they clashed with the alt-right, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis.

Even though Antifa engaged in street violence at Charlottesville, much of the media ignored their actions. It is easy to see why. Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times tweeted this comment: “The hard left seemed as hate-filled as alt-right. I saw club-wielding Antifa beating white nationalists being led out of the park.” It didn’t take more than a few minutes for the backlash. One responder tweeted: “Don’t buy into the false equivalency like Trump and sympathizers.” Soon Stolberg said she was “rethinking” her earlier tweet and modified the next tweets.

In a recent column, Austin Petersen wrote that, “you can reject Antifa and Commies and Alt-Right Nazis at the same time.” Unfortunately, he observed that Antifa activists are gathering steam and seem to be protected from much scrutiny because of the way the press covers riots and street violence.

The obvious solution is to condemn evil, hate, and violence wherever it occurs and from whatever source. Politicians and the media would be wise to learn.

Over the last few years, I have been speaking and writing about the challenge that technology poses to parents and really to all of us. And if you watch the news and visit various websites, you will see the growing concern on the part of parents and policy makers.

Perhaps you read about the Denver anesthesiologist Tim Farnum who has been on a crusade against smartphones. He is convinced they have turned his young sons into zombies. He says it made them moody and withdrawn. As a responsible parent, he has limited their time on them and discovered that his sons exhibited scary withdrawal symptoms equivalent to the withdrawals of a crack addict. You may have read that he wants a ballot initiative to make Colorado the first state to ban smartphones to pre-teen kids.

A study by Common Sense Media surveyed more than 1,700 parents of children age 8 to 18, who shared their perceptions of their kids’ engagement with media and technology. The parents did see some slight positives in terms of relationships with friends. And they also thought they saw a slight benefit in education.

On the other hand, they detected many problems. By a margin of three-to-one, they believed technology hurt their kids more than helped their kids with face-to-face communication, ability to focus, and behavior. By more than five-to-one, they all agreed that these devices have a harmful impact on physical activity. And they also by a lower margin believed that heavy screen time hurt emotional health more than it helped.

These and other stories should be a reminder to us that we need to set an example for our children and grandchildren. If we are addicted to technology, then we shouldn’t be surprised that they become addicted to the same technology. Also, we should work to protect them from the negative aspects of smartphones and social media. Young people spend too much time in front of a screen.

The opioid epidemic in America will be getting more attention this month due to policy statements and popular magazines. A week ago, President Donald Trump declared the opioid epidemic to be a national emergency. Given the recent statistics, that might be an understatement. Last week, People magazine featured the epidemic on it cover and shows pictures of the faces of the epidemic.

The statistics are alarming. Fatal overdoses from natural and semisynthetic opioids like morphine and oxycodone are at 24 percent. Fatal overdoses involving heroine have tripled in the last decade from 8 percent to 25 percent.

Nearly 200,000 Americans have died from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Overdose death rates were the highest for adults 45-54. The greatest increase in fatal overdoses was for adults 55-64. No wonder some refer to the opioid epidemic as this generation’s AIDS crisis.

All these statistics may even be under reported. One study estimated that due to variation from state to state in filling out death certificates, opioid deaths may be underreported nationally by as much as 24 percent. Many autopsies may show pneumonia as the case of death even when a toxicology report shows high levels of opioids in the body. Also many people die in ways related to opioid addiction (suicide, car accidents while driving under the influence).

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has also been looking at the possibility that the Medicaid expansion under ObamaCare may be contributing to the rise in opioid abuse. Most people who are prescribed painkillers don’t become addicted. But those who get hooked often turn to the streets.

All of this attention on the opioid epidemic is helpful if we are to address this crisis with compassion and sound policy.

The ongoing debate about school vouchers suffers because both opponents and proponents often do a poor job of explaining what they are and what they would accomplish. First, let’s look at what opponents are saying. Randi Weingarten is the president of the American Federation of Teachers. In a recent speech, she talked about the racist roots of the school-choice movement. She even compared Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss to Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door.

The comparison is historically inaccurate. A seminal essay by economist Milton Friedman back in 1955 is considered the beginning of the school choice movement. His concern was that government school monopoly prevented innovation by retarding competition. Many of the first state laws allowing school choice were proposed by progressives who wanted to help poor kids get a better education. You could actually turn the illustration around and say that the teachers’ union is the one blocking the door of these private schools by preventing school choice.

Proponents of school choice haven’t always done their best in arguing for this policy. In order to gain a hearing, proponents often use the language of fairness to get a hearing. School choice, they say, is about fairness to kids who come from lower-income backgrounds. Unfortunately, by focusing on the fairness argument, proponents have abandoned the ideological foundation of school choice and make school choice more like another form of social welfare.

The argument by Milton Friedman was that educational success would be achieved by competition. Public education is a monopoly and much less likely to innovate. He argued that parents, regardless of their income level, should be allowed to choose the best education for their children. Schools would be forced to compete for all students no matter their financial status.

Proponents should abandon the fairness argument. But they also need to appeal to voters on the basis of liberty and competition.

It was a grand experiment. Declare a “War on Poverty” and years later celebrate a victory. Unfortunately, poverty won the war. The percentage of people in poverty today is just slightly lower than the percentage in the 1960s when the war to end poverty began. People living in poverty now are doing better than decades ago, but we certainly have not eliminated poverty.

Peter Cove has a bold vision. The title of his book is, Poor No More: Rethinking Dependency and the War on Poverty. He contends that the only thing that really helps end poverty is work itself. That was the foundation of the 1996 welfare reform bill, but hasn’t been the focus for some time since.

He understands the problem from the inside. He is the founder of America Works, which is the first for-profit, welfare-to-work company. He has created more than one million jobs for welfare recipients through various endeavors.

He concluded that many of the government programs were not helping individuals because they stressed education and training over work itself. In the end, they had very little real world work experience and were still dependent on government largess.

America Works instead offers employment services to state and local welfare agencies with the aim of placing welfare recipients in jobs quickly. Trainers work with clients on the basics: maintaining a businesslike personal appearance, speaking properly, preparing a resume, and showing up on time. Clients quickly learn that success depends on their own self-discipline and their own motivation and effort.

Given the poor success rate of existing welfare programs, you would think that bureaucrats and politicians would be open to new ideas and concrete suggestions from people who have worked in the field. You would be wrong. Many liberal groups seem like they merely want to “double down” on the failed programs. That’s why Peter Cove’s book and ideas deserve a hearing.

The events over the last two weeks are reason enough to ask a tough question. Why do some people believe there are superior races and inferior races? That is certainly not a biblical perspective.

Mark Bailey is the President of Dallas Theological Seminary. He has written an insightful commentary on “The Absolute Absurdity of a Supreme Race.” His biblical argument looks at two key Bible passages. First, is the biblical account of creation that explains that, “God made each and every human being in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). But not only does the idea of a supreme race contradict the biblical revelation of creation, it contradicts the Great Commission where “Jesus commanded his disciples to reach and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19-20).”

So where does this idea of superior and inferior races come from? In the past, each race and country probably thought of themselves as superior (Greeks and Romans for example thought they were superior to the barbarians). But if you want to find the origin of the modern idea of inferior races, you need look no further than Charles Darwin.

The full title of his book was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life. In his book, The Descent of Man, he predicted that “the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” It is an interesting irony that although Darwin was an abolitionist who hated slavery, he also in his books promoted the idea of superior races and inferior races.

Once again we see the clash of worldviews. One worldview says that every person is created in the image of God and therefore has value and dignity. The other worldview says that we are an evolutionary product, and that some races are more evolved than others.