Tag: Gavin Newsom

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.

What Is Liberty?

The week before California’s recall election I had the privilege of meeting the world’s greatest athlete from 1976.  That title was traditionally bestowed on the winner of the decathlon, and at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal Bruce Jenner won the gold medal for the United States while setting a new world record.  In 2015 Bruce Jenner shocked the world in an interview with Diane Sawyer in which he told Sawyer that he was now a she.  (Disclaimer:  So as not to be a science denier I am using the scientifically correct gender pronouns in this article.  That is not the focus of the article.)  Jenner, who now goes by the name Caitlyn, ran in the California recall election as a Republican to replace the inept Governor Gavin Newsom.  The Friday before election day Caitlyn Jenner was the guest speaker at a discussion group that I have been attending for the last couple of months.

Caitlyn’s talk was impressive.  He was personable, friendly, and funny.  Jenner said that after the Sawyer interview there was more criticism for coming out as a Republican than there was for coming out as transgender.  Jenner also told a funny story about being in the weight room at the Olympics when a female East German athlete came in and started lifting heavier weights than him, ironically causing him to leave because he felt emasculated.  Jenner genuinely cares about California and wants it returned to the greatness it once had.  I did not expect much talk about actual policy positions, but Jenner has a pretty solid grasp of many of the problems Gavin Newsom and years of Democrat control have caused, including sky-high tax rates and backbreaking regulations.  A lot of ideas that Jenner had to fix some of these problems were good, including a sunset provision which would require regulations to be reevaluated by the legislature every ten years or else they would fall off the books. 

There was, however, one major point that Jenner made that stood out to me because it was based on a flawed premise.  Jenner said that he decided to run because of his belief that California needs a moderate Republican to fix the state.  Specifically, he said that people should vote for him because he is conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues.  Jenner also said that the candidate that I endorsed, Larry Elder, is “far-right.”  The premise of that argument ignores the fact that conservatism comes with a built-in solution to people disagreeing on social issues:  liberty.

Jenner’s reasoning assumes that the choice you have is between voting for a left-wing government controlling your life or a right-wing government controlling your life.  In actuality, the choice is between a left-wing government controlling your life or you controlling your life. 

For example, as a conservative Republican, I believe that the country would be much better off if every single American attended church weekly.  I would agree with Jenner if a governor who is “far-right” was going to mandate church attendance.  As much as I think we would all be better off if everyone went to church, I only believe that to be true if it was done voluntarily instead of under coercion.  If the Right operated like Democrats this might be something to worry about.  Imagine, the government forcing all businesses with over 100 employees to require proof of church attendance to be employed there.  Jenner’s argument only works if the Right did that kind of thing.  Instead, the Right wants people to be free to choose, even if we disagree.  That is what liberty is. 

Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, are often accused of telling people what to do on moral issues.  The truth is, we do care about your moral decisions and we want you to choose what God wants for you.  Notice, however, that I said: “choose.”  Except on the issue of abortion, where the choice directly harms another person, we do not want to take the decision away from you.  The difference is huge.  Conservatives may try to persuade you to do certain things, but that is not the same as using tyrannical power to force those things.  This is what Caitlyn Jenner was missing.  The further to the left a politician gets, the more parts of your life they want to control.  Being a moderate Republican still means they want to have more control over you than a “far right” candidate does.  That is not a good selling point. 

Jenner was asked if he would run for office again if he lost this election and answered that he wasn’t sure about running again, but he would definitely work with the Republican Party to become more of a big tent party that is more inclusive.  I hope that he does, but it needs to be done by explaining clearly that the way to do it is to push for a return to limited government and personal liberty.  We can agree to disagree.  You are welcome in the Republican Party even if you want to use your God-given liberty to do things we may not agree with.  I certainly do not agree with many of Caitlyn Jenner’s lifestyle choices, but I also do not want the government to force him to do what I would prefer.  The Right has no interest in taking away your liberty.

My Endorsement for the California Recall Election

October is my favorite month of the year.  I spend most of the month playing baseball tournaments in Arizona and watching postseason baseball on television.  Last October was even better because I got to escape the tyrannical lockdown orders in my home state of California that destroyed businesses, ended friendliness by covering up smiles with mask rules that do not even work, turned record employment numbers into record unemployment, crushed the dreams of young athletes, and kept people from enjoying meals together by forcing the closure of restaurants.  That is, unless you were the worst governor in the nation, Gavin Newsom, who proved that he did not believe in his own dictatorial mandates by eating with a group of lobbyists at a swanky restaurant, The French Laundry, where they ran up a $12,000 bar tab. 

It is obvious that California is a mess.  People and businesses are fleeing the state in droves.  As you all know, we are now less than a month out from a special election to recall Governor Newsom.  There are two questions on the ballot.  Question one asks whether Governor Newsom should be removed from office.  VOTE YES!  His failures are so clear that the vote should be unanimous.  Question two asks who should become governor if Newsom is removed.  Over 40 candidates are running, and that is what brings me back to Arizona last October.

During one of my stints in the Phoenix area, I noticed that radio host Larry Elder would be doing a screening of his movie, Uncle Tom, at a local theater.  As a big fan who had listened to Larry Elder for years, I bought a ticket and headed downtown for the night.  The film is excellent and I highly recommend you take the time to watch it.  It explores how black conservatives are marginalized and disparaged by Democrats and the media in America.  Larry Elder produced, co-wrote, and starred in the film.  Before each showing of the film, he did about a half-hour talk, introduced the film, and answered some questions from the audience.  He knows his stuff! 

His focus then was on ending racial division, strengthening families, and because it was a week before the election, President Trump and Joe Biden.  Larry Elder is now one of the candidates running for governor of California.  He is running on a platform that includes giving Californians back our freedom, improving the homelessness crisis that was exacerbated by the current governor’s policies, giving parents the choice of where to send their children to school, reducing wasteful government spending and regulations that harm our economy, and lowering California’s skyrocketing crime rate.

Wait, there’s more.  I know that many people are less worried about policy than they are about personality.  I don’t understand that myself, but I have good news for you.  The best part of my evening at the theater last October was when I met Larry Elder after the movie.  I have been to events with other celebrities and radio personalities, and they will usually shake hands and sign a copy of their book or DVD for the guests in attendance, but Larry Elder did more than that.  He stood there in the lobby of the theater and had a real conversation with every person who lined up to meet him.  He wasn’t running for anything at that point.  He didn’t have to stand there all night.  He genuinely took an interest in two theaters full of strangers.  When I got to the front of the line, he spoke with me for literally a few minutes.  I was wearing a Dodgers jacket, so he talked baseball with me, and actually knew what he was talking about.  I gave him a copy of my book, The God Bet, and he asked me about it.  He kept asking me questions about myself long after most people would have moved on to the next person in line.  I was very impressed.  He has the personality and character to go along with the solid policy positions that I want in a leader.

California would be lucky to have Larry Elder as the next governor.  This is why I am proudly and enthusiastically endorsing him in the September 14 special election.  If you live in the state, vote YES on question one, and vote for Larry Elder on question two.  If you don’t live in the state, you might as well come vote anyways.  We don’t check ID here!  (To be clear, that was a joke.  I do not condone cheating.  What do you think I am, a Democrat?)

Why Romans 13 Is Inapplicable to What Is Happening Now

In the Best Picture winning film from 1965, The Sound of Music, the von Trapp family lives in Austria when it is annexed by Germany during World War II.  The main conflict arises when the father, Captain von Trapp, is ordered to accept a commission in the German Navy.  Did he quietly comply because the powers that be gave him a command?  Should he have?  No!  He concocted a plan to disobey the rulers and flee the country.  What a different film it would have been if he had done what so many of our churches have done and obeyed his orders.

Ever since the California government terminated our liberty last year, I have been disappointed that so many churches quietly complied.  This past week I received an email from a local church, once again saying that they were going to keep their doors shut until we are endowed by our government with some liberty.  (That sounds wrong, doesn’t it?)  The reason given has been inappropriately used since the beginning of the lockdowns to justify compliance with tyrannical edicts… Romans 13: 1-7.  It says this:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Let me be clear.  I believe the Bible completely, from Genesis to Revelation, including Romans 13.  In fact, I talk about the importance of Romans 13 multiple times in my book, The God Bet.  There is, however, a big problem with hiding behind these verses to justify weakly complying during this fight between good and evil.  While we are not supposed to “resist the authority,” our government DOES NOT HAVE the authority to do what it is doing.  There are two main reasons for this.  The first is found in our founding documents.  The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that liberty is endowed not by the government, but by our Creator, and is unalienable.  That means that the government does not have the authority to take away our freedom on a whim. 

I know.  Some of you are saying, “Wait a minute.  The government does have the authority to take away our liberty in certain situations, like when they put a thief in prison.”  You are absolutely correct.  There are instances where the government can take away our freedom.  That leads us to the second reason this is not one of those instances.  Romans 13 not only tells us that we are subject to the governing authorities, but it also tells us what those authorities are authorized to do.  Verse 3 specifically tells us that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.”  Verse 4 explains that “he (the ruler) is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”  As you can clearly see, the rulers have the authority to punish you or take away your liberty if you do evil, but NOT for doing good works.  Stealing is evil; thus, the government is authorized to execute wrath on that thief.  Opening the doors of your church, on the other hand, is a good work.  If a church quietly closes its doors and cites the government as the reason, they are implying that a father who wants to take his family to church and sit inside is doing evil.  Any thinking person can see that the rulers who are putting these crazy dictates on churches are being a terror to good works and Romans 13 does not authorize them to do that. 

Why does it matter since California Governor Gavin Newsom is going to allow churches to open on the magical date of June 15?  It matters because these lockdowns and regulations were just the first major battle in the fight to remain a free country.  It was a test to see how many of us would stand up for each other’s liberty.  Unfortunately, the answer was, “not enough.” 

To those of you who are on the side of good, you may be tempted to write off the churches and Christians who sat on the sidelines during this battle and say, “you’re dead to us.”  I urge you not to do that.  We must be forgiving of churches or individuals who were complicit in our loss of rights when they realize what their complacency is leading to.  It is better that they are late to the party than miss it altogether.  Things will get worse and we need more churches to see the light and speak up before it is too late.  We need to pray for these churches to come around, and when they do, we need to welcome them to the fight with open arms.  They need to loudly declare that they will never again remain silent when the government acts as a terror against good works, which is against what Romans 13 says.  Never again will they close the doors of our churches, or limit who or how people can attend.  Our founding documents do not allow it, and the Bible does not allow it.