The Press-Dispatch

B-4 Wednesday, July 7, 2021 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg School choice only option in divided nation The issue of critical race theory is raising a more fundamental question about our nation: education. Education is about more than teaching children to read and write. It is about transmitting values, trans- mitting a worldview, that will define how our youth think and how they will live. Per the Department of Educa- tion, in 2020, 56.4 million children were enrolled in K-12 education. Of these, 50.7 million were in public schools, and 5.7 million were in pri- vate schools. So, government plays a substantial role in the education of our children. Per the Department of Education, "Each educational institution that re- ceives federal funds for a fiscal year is required to hold an educational program about the U.S. Constitution for its students." But do we care at all what is taught? In a survey done by Pew Research last October, just prior to the presi- dential election, 80 percent of Donald Trump supporters, and 77 percent of Joe Biden supporters said, regarding the opposition, "Not only do we have different priorities when it comes to politics, but we fundamentally dis- agree about core American values." If half the country disagrees with the other half about "core Ameri- can values," what exactly can we ex- pect public schools receiving federal funds to teach regarding the nature and purpose of our Constitution or about our nation's history? In a recent survey done by Morn- ing Consult/Politico, of those who said they had seen, read or heard "a lot" about critical race theory, 7 per- cent of Democrats and 78 percent of Republicans described it negatively. Among all voters, 36 percent said it should not be included in K-12 cur- ricula, and 32 percent said it should be included. We're not talking here about a dif- ference of opinion regarding enact- ing some new national holiday, or dif- ference of opinion about particular government spending programs. We're talking about fundamental- ly different worldviews about our na- tional history and culture. In one view, our nation is rooted in and defined by racism and oppres- sion. In the other view, the nation's founding was a landmark moment in human history, in which, for the first time, a society would be defined by human liberty, justice and equality before the law. Can we have a school system that mixes oil and water? I don't think so. But critical race theory has al- ready made it into many school cur- ricula. According to the Manhattan In- stitute's Christopher Rufo, writing in The Wall Street Journal, "Critical race theory-inspired lessons have of- ten devolved into race-based strug- gle sessions, with public schools forc- ing children to rank themselves ac- cording to a racial hierarchy, sub- jecting white teachers to 'antiracist therapy' and encouraging parents to become 'white traitors.'" This is precipitating pushback. Legislation has been introduced in 24 states and enacted in six states, blocking critical race theory instruc- tion — indoctrination is perhaps a better word — in public schools. Americans are not just deeply di- vided in understanding our nation's history. We are deeply divided in our values regarding life itself. According to a new Gallup poll, for the first time since they have been asking the question, more Ameri- cans define themselves as social lib- erals than social conservatives. Thirty-four percent define them- selves as social liberals, versus 30 percent defining themselves as so- cial conservatives. We're talking here about deep dif- ferences in attitudes regarding sex, marriage, family and abortion. According to the National Confer- ence of State Legislatures, 30 states and the District of Columbia require their public schools to provide sex education. But what are they teaching? I think there is only one answer Can we not all agree that our na- tion is about freedom? If we can The right to bear arms Would carrying a gun make you feel safer? Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, say- ing they hadn't demonstrated a "spe- cial need." Why did they have to prove such a "need"? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Amer- icans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live. "Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court rul- ing," Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He's excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch's lawsuit over New York's law. I understand Nash and Koch's frustration. I once tried to get a car- ry permit in New York. First, I had to read 60 pages of in- structions about irrelevant things like "metal knuckle knives" and "kung fu stars," fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized and then go in person to police head- quarters. There they fingerprinted me, de- manded reasons why I should be al- lowed to have a gun and charged me $430. I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was "denied." I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that "special need" to carry a gun. A fter years of confronting crooks on T V, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life. Not good enough, said the NYC permit department. They turned me down again. Apparently, my mistake was not No one is paying much attention, but Washington is building up a vast new multitrillion-dollar welfare class: corporate America. Deep inside President Joe Biden's budget are hundreds of billions of dollars of loans, grants and loan guarantees for corporate America. This Aid to Dependent Corporations is most prevalent in the area of re- newable energy. Despite more than $100 billion ALREADY doled out to wind and solar companies, over the past 30 years, the Biden plan would enrich often-very wealthy investors in solar and wind plants with anoth- er $100 to $200 billion in the presi- dent's green energy scheme. For the past dozen years, we keep hearing how much cheaper and more efficient the wind and solar indus- tries are becoming, and yet the sub- sidies keep getting more expensive and long-lasting. Explain that one. Then there is another stash of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for companies such as Tesla and Ford so they can make electric cars. The government will also spend billions for road recharging stations. Wait a minute. I don't recall Uncle Sam pay- ing to build gas stations across the country. These are mostly Democratic ini- tiatives, but Republicans are in on the gambit. In early June, the Sen- ate passed by a 68 -32 margin what CNBC has called "one of the largest (bipartisan) industrial bills in U.S. history." The idea is to shower money to manufacturers, semiconductor mak- ers, tech companies and the military industrial complex to allow Ameri- ca to compete more effectively with China. The bill's price tag is $250 billion. Congress and the White House ac- tually believe that politicians and gov- ernment agencies can do a better job of allocating capital than our multitril- lion-dollar financial markets and venture capital firms. Brian Deese, the chief economist for the Biden White House, recent- ly explained the rationale for erect- ing this new corporate welfare state: "The idea of an open, free-market global economy ignores the reality that China and other countries are playing by a different set of rules. Strategic public investment (cor- porate welfare) to shelter and grow champion industries is a reality of the 21st-century economy." That is a dangerous absurdity. If you believe this, you believe that Al Gore invented the internet. And what has the government "invested" in over the last 20 years that has had a positive return? The New York sub- way system? Back in the 1970s, there was a big scare that Japan's industrial policy, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, would overtake Amer- ica's technological prowess. Liber- als said we should imitate the hands- on policies of the Land of the Rising Sun. Instead, Ronald Reagan was elected, who cut investment taxes and cut government spending, and since then, the U.S. stock market has risen three times faster than Japan's. It was almost all pri- vate sector-driven, with tens of trillions of dollars of wealth created by the revolution in innovation in places such as Silicon Valley. The last big government venture to "partner" with pri- vate industry happened in the Obama years, when his tril- lion-dollar stimulus plan of 2009 wasted tens of billions of dol- lars on more than a dozen now-bank- rupt companies such as Solyndra. The quest to keep America dom- inant in 21st-century industries in robotics, bioengineering, manufac- turing, 5G technologies, 3D imaging, artificial intelligence, fracking tech- nologies, micronuclear power plants and so on is an honorable one. But inventions and innovations almost never come from government; when they do, they often send companies on wild-goose chases as they hunt down "free" government dollars in- stead of selling private investment capitalists on their business mod- els. Operation Warp Speed wasn't so much a government-directed pro- gram as a deregulation to get a vac- cine in people's arms in record time. If we want more investment, what is the logic of the Biden plan to raise taxes on private investment capi- tal — through higher personal in- come, capital gains, and dividend and corporate tax rates? These will drain funding for private ventures and make investments in U.S. com- The nation lost a true giant on Wednesday, June 30. Two-time Sec- retary of Defense Donald H. Rums- feld, who served Presidents Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, died in his beloved home in Taos, New Mex- ico. He will always be remembered by those of us who worked with him simply as The Boss. Rumsfeld was a controversial fig- ure, mostly because throughout his long and storied career he nev- er suffered fools well, always spoke his mind, and cared far more about serving the nation well than what people thought about him. In Wash- ington, D.C., that makes you loyal friends and not a few enemies. Over the next few days, we will hear lots of talking heads opine about him. Most never really knew him, so the read- er is cautioned to take the "popular line" with more than a little salt. I had the privilege to serve as Rumsfeld's military assistant for four years and another 18 months as his staff director. I had nearly seven day a week contact with him during that entire period. Based on that experi- ence, I would like to debunk a few fal- lacies that will likely come up in the aftermath of his death. Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >> First, in those nearly 6 years, I never heard The Boss knowingly say anything untrue. On two occa- sions, he misspoke about subjects that were frankly of little conse- quence. He said something like "it was 12", when it was really 14. Hon- estly, both incidents were of that pe- destrian nature. A fter both his un- witting public errors, we informed him about the mistake. He immedi- ately directed me to find and make the correction with every person who heard the misstatement. In both cases, I reported back to him that the task had been completed, and rather than simply acknowledging the report, he proceeded to quiz me as who specifically I had informed, by name (he knew ev- ery one of them). I had to look him in the eye and assure him that, yes, every single person got the correct infor- mation. You might say he was a bit ob- sessed with integri- ty. To a military offi- cer like myself, it is pretty easy to be loyal to a boss who cares that much about the credibility of his word. Next, I cannot tell you how often I read in he media that Rumsfeld was "harsh", "rude", and even "abusive." That is all a complete load of non- sense. Was he tough? Yes. Was he de- manding? Certainly. Did he expect a high standard of both effort and achievement from his subordinates? Absolutely. Never in all my time with the secretary did I ever witness him being in any way abusive or rude. If you failed at a task he had given you, or delivered a substandard per- formance, you knew it. He would give you explicit feedback as to what was deficient. He never did this to belit- tle or demean; he did it because he expected you to go back out and do it correctly, not to sit in a corner and suck your thumb. Is that an unrealis- tic expectation from the people work- ing around the man bearing the bur- den of managing two simultaneous wars? I do not think so. He would point out that the reason we had to do things "right" was because there were young men and women out on the end of a long string, doing dan- gerous and difficult things, and who were depending on us to get it right. Rumsfeld also hated wasting mon- ey. I saw many high-ranking appoin- tees who arrived in his office ex- pecting a pat on he back for some extravagant project, only to depart chastened, and their ears burning. They had been told that ev- ery dollar that the Defense Department spent came from the taxes of working people across America (he liked to refer to a pipe fitter in Pitts- burgh to exemplify work- ing Americans). This was not showmanship. He never talked about it publicly, but the Pentagon learned: shiny, showy, and stupid was no lon- ger going to cut it. He utilized furniture already found in the Pen- tagon for his office, and reused ma- nila folders ("write on them with pen- cil! "). He was a frugal man, and ex- pected all of us to never waste any- thing the taxpayers provided. A side of Rumsfeld seldom ac- knowledged was his love of our troops. When speaking to them, he blossomed. He would take all the of- ficial briefings, then push through his prepared remarks at a visit to an installation, so he could get to the part when he could directly inter- act with the troops. He would come alive with energy and quite literal joy in answering their always thought- ful questions. He also would visit the wounded at local D.C. medical centers on Sundays. He never took the press. We would go, sometimes just the two of us, sometimes togeth- er with our wives. There was never a time schedule for those visits, he would spend as much time as the troops needed to ask anything they wanted. I always came away with a list of tasks to run down to support their needs. Once, at the big field hospital in Baghdad during a visit to the war zone, we had finished all the sched- uled activities (visiting both the wounded and the incredibly hard working medical staff ) and the head doctor asked me if The Boss could Race for the Cure By Star Parker Give Me a Break John Stossel Points to Ponder By Rev. Curtis Bond Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5 Eye on the Economy By Stephen Moore The return of the corporate welfare state Heritage Viewpoint By Steven P. Bucci, Ph.D. Remembering Donald Rumsfeld Freedom or Bondage: It is our choice! We hold these truths to be self-ev- ident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Cre- ator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Those are the opening words of the Declaration of Independence. When I was a kid, we learned these words in public school. In my judg- ment the Declaration of Indepen- dence is inspired by God. It is writ- ten for encouragement to all people laying out universal rights for every- one. It is also published as an indict- ment to all people that fail to live up to the 'Freedoms God has given ev- eryone.' It begins with Jefferson appealing to the 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God.' He joins the two together. He places God above everything. He ap- peals to a power beyond the secular kings and rulers of this world. He says the truths of God are self-evi- dent. This truth is your creator has given you rights. Secondly God has given you these rights and no king or government can give them to you or take them away. You have unalien- able Rights. Inalienable rights are rights that we cannot surrender, even if we want to. God has bequeathed them to us. Among these unalienable rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This is not an exclusive list. This is just the beginning of the rights God has given to everyone. They have been given to you by God! So, what does all this mean? On July 4th, do we shoot off some fire- works, eat too much food, revel in the freedoms we enjoy in America, then fall asleep on the couch in our cozy air-conditioned homes? If you know the Declaration of In- dependence you realized that I left out one statement in Jefferson's doc- ument. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created Continued on page 5 Continued on page 5

• Cover