Month: June 2025

Bill Gates vs. Elon Musk

Bill Gates and Elon Musk are both massively wealthy innovators.  They have also become divisive figures to large swaths of the population. 

Mr. Musk, of course, riled the left by heading the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which had as its goal to cut government spending and help our country be more fiscally responsible. 

Mr. Gates is known for his charitable giving through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  While many conservatives take issue with some of the left-wing causes that Gates contributes to, most people would praise much of the giving that deals with feeding children in third world nations.  In May, he announced that he would donate almost all of his fortune, nearly $200 billion, by 2045.

Conflict arose after Gates announcement when he took a shot at Musk.  Gates accused Elon of “killing the world’s poorest children” with his proposed cuts in USAID programs.  While Mr. Gates is right that we should help the poor, there are some big problems with his criticism of Elon. 

First, while Gates might have good intentions wanting to help people through USAID, it is a very unwise use of our money.  The United States Government does not have the money to spend.  It would be one thing if the government had a large budget surplus.  Unfortunately, the government is operating on an estimated budget deficit of $1.83 trillion!  It is not a good idea to spend money that you do not have.

Second, and more importantly, there is the issue of freedom.  One of the main differences between conservatives and leftists is what we do about disagreement.  Conservatives say, “I disagree, so I’ll do what I want and you do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.”  Leftists say, “I disagree, so the government should force you to do what I say.”  In short, conservatives believe in freedom.  Leftists do not. 

This criticism by Gates denies the American people of their freedom.  If we cut USAID, it does not deny the people the ability to help people through foreign aid.  Any person who wants to donate money to the causes that Gates supports can do it the same way he does, through private donations.  There are, in fact, many good reasons for a person to prefer individual charitable donations to going through the government.  If we have learned anything from DOGE, it is that government is wrought with waste and fraud, and highly inefficient. 

There is a recent TikTok that went viral by a woman named Jen Hamilton, where she makes a similar argument.  She even tries to make the case that the Bible backs her position.  In the video, she is responding to a comment that said, “Whoa.  Be careful there.  I am happily MAGA and absolutely love Jesus.  We are exhausted from liberal nonsense.”  Hamilton opens her Bible and reads from Matthew 25:31-45, which culminates in Jesus explaining, “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.”  As she reads the passage, she overlays on the screen headlines that say things like, “Millions of Low-Income Households Would Lose Food Aid Under Proposed House Republican SNAP Cuts,” “Trump’s new spending bill includes reducing federal funding for SNAP food program by nearly $300 billion,” and “Exploring the potential impact of Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big budget bill.”  Then she says, “I don’t know.  Sounds pretty liberal.”

This woman and Gates make the same mistake.  They equate care for the needy with government spending.  What she forgets is that the Bible also advocates for free will.  The Bible is very clear about this.  2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”  When you push for government spending to fund your pet causes, you are using compulsion through taxes to pay for what you think is best.  Government spending does not even count towards what the Bible says to do, because it is not by choice.  You are basically saying, “I care about this cause, so you should be forced to pay for it.”  That is not caring.  It is controlling.

When it comes to the giving that the Bible actually calls for, conservatives dominate the left. Statistics show that while conservatives earn 6% less income, they give 30% more to charity.  The fact that Elon wants to save money for taxpayers is the opposite of greedy.  It actually helps people, and respects their freedom to choose where to give their charitable dollars.  Those charitable dollars are far more likely to be spent wisely when not being filtered through government bureaucracies. 

Bill Gates has the right to give his fortune to whatever causes he chooses to.  Some of those causes are probably great.  Likewise, you should have the right to give to whatever causes you choose to.  Here lies the big difference.  While conservatives would love it if Bill Gates gave to causes of our choosing, we respect his free will.  Conservatives think that freedom must be protected, even if people choose to use their money differently than we want.  It is their money, not ours, and not the government’s.  Elon Musk respects this fact, and should be praised for his work at DOGE, not attacked.

California Classrooms:  From “Yes, Ma’am” to “F Off”

California is fighting back.  No.  Not against crime.  Not against sky-high gas prices.  Not against overregulation.  My home state is fighting back to keep obstinate, disruptive kids in classrooms with your kids. 

In a Los Angeles Times article by Daniel Miller, he explains that President Trump signed an executive order on April 23 that directed the Education Department to “root out school discipline frameworks based on discriminatory equity ideology and issue new commonsense practices in the nation’s K-12 schools.”  In other words, President Trump does not think school discipline should be a matter of skin color.  The state of California worries that this will lead to legal challenges, because their school discipline policies were changed in 2019 based entirely on woke, racial ideologies.  They passed a law that year that banned suspending students who were “willfully defiant.”   

Willful defiance is not an accident.  It is, by definition, a purposeful act.  Imagine a teacher who sees a kid with his cellphone out during class and tells him to put it away.  In the past, kids would say, “Yes, Ma’am,” and put it away, knowing they had been caught.  If they instead kept tapping at their phone and told the teacher to “F Off,” that would be willful defiance.  Until 2019, schools could respond to such bad behavior by suspending the kid from school.  After 2019, that student could not be suspended.

Why would California want to protect a willfully defiant student like that?  The answer should not surprise you.  California is woke, and based its decision on twisted, misused, and incomplete statistics on race and suspensions.  Miller writes that “President Obama had directed schools to avoid enacting discipline policies that disproportionately punished underrepresented student groups – a stance later supported by President Biden.”

The state of California is allowing willfully defiant students to disrupt your child from learning because they say that black students are more likely to be suspended for willful defiance than white students, once again falsely implying that racism is rampant in our country.  Here is the problem.  California bases its claim that black students are disproportionately punished on twisted statistics.  Miller’s article says that “Black students accounted for 17% of total suspensions in California – despite making up less than 6% of the student population.”  That does not mean that black students are disproportionately punished.  The article does not give you the relevant information to know that.  The implication is that since only 6% of the students are black and 17% of the suspensions are black, those students are overrepresented by 11%.  The problem is, the 6% number is entirely irrelevant, and the one statistic that is important is not even mentioned.  The statistic that you actually need to know is the percentage of willfully defiant students who are black.  That number is likely right around 17%.

To make it easy to understand, say there are 10,000 students in your school district.  If 6% of the students are black and 94% are white, that means 600 students are black and 9,400 are white.  Then, say that 100 of the students are willfully defiant; 17 blacks and 83 whites.  According to the logic of Obama, Biden, and California, if you do not suspend 94 whites and 6 blacks, that would be disproportionate and racist.  That would mean you have to let 11 of the willfully defiant black students get away with it, and worse, you would have to suspend 11 innocent white students.  While this solution makes perfect sense to Democrats, they realize it would be hard to explain to the public, and especially to the parents of those 11 innocent white students.  That led them to an alternative solution; to stop suspending any of the willfully defiant students.  Now, the 9,900 other students have to sit in class with willfully defiant brats disrupting them, both black and white.

As you can see, the relevant number in that scenario is not the percentage of the 10,000 students who are black.  It is the percentage of the 100 willfully defiant students who are black that is important.  The article does not tell us that number.

The divisive left does the same thing when talking about people in prison for murder.  They often claim that there is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison for murder than whites because more than 50% of the people in prison for murder are black, and only about 12% of the U.S. population is black.  The 12% statistic is, of course, irrelevant.  They fail to mention the one relevant fact, that more than 50% of murders are committed by blacks.  That means that the number of blacks in prison for murder is proportionate to the number of murders they commit.  Hopefully, their solution is not the same as it is with willfully defiant students; to stop putting any murderers in prison.

The list of reasons you should never let your child attend a public school is as long as Santa’s naughty and nice lists put together.  The fact that they have to deal with willfully defiant students in class can now be added.