Keep sharing good news without ads.
#NoDespair2020
Shelter -in -place order day 8. I read a very disturbing article on Drudge Report yesterday.
Apparently, many Americans are panic -buying live chickens, you know, like baby chicks.
Yeah, that's where we're at. Oh man, well that article definitely caught my attention because one of the things
I was super excited about when I made this move, and I'm in my new house, I'm in my bunker right now, I was excited because we had a pretty, you know, nice little property.
Even though we're in town, it's not a huge property, but enough to raise some chickens. And I've been wanting to do that for the last couple years.
But now, you know, maybe I'll go to the store and it'll be like the toilet paper aisle. I won't be able to get baby chicks. Still ordered some of my stuff though, so hopefully that works out.
And in some future videos, you'll be hearing some little peeping in the background of the live chicks that I buy.
But anyway, I wanted to just do a few things today. This is kind of a grab bag.
This is kind of what I've been doing lately with all the news and various things regarding coronavirus.
The first thing is, I wanted to kind of address something. I've seen a lot of people being very critical of Donald Trump and how he's a science denier and how he's so irresponsible.
How can he be so irresponsible to be against his expert, Dr. Fauci? Dr. Fauci.
And honestly, I think the people that are criticizing this relationship between Fauci and Trump to be honest, it really reveals that you really don't know what it takes to run a business or to run a crisis or to manage a crisis or things like that.
And I'm going to use an example that I think will be relatable to a lot of people who don't understand what's going on.
I think this is really encouraging to see the dynamic between Trump and Fauci.
There's a difference at play there. And it's not about science denying and it's not about being irresponsible.
It's about what a leader needs to do in a crisis. So here's the example. Here's what I want to relate it to.
Star Trek, right? Star Trek. There's a difference between Scotty, the engineer, and Captain Kirk, right?
Captain Kirk might be like the Trump figure where he's just kind of irresponsible and he doesn't understand.
He's a science denier. I can't believe it. But what Captain Kirk does is, he's a bit of a visionary, right?
He says, I need this done now. I need this done in two days. I need this done in two hours. And Scotty's like, well, that can't be done in two hours,
Captain. We need at least three months to trust you. And this is the whole thing. Because what you need is someone to push you.
You know, in business, this is what you need. You need someone that can push you to improve your productivity.
To hurry things along. And to really inspire you to do as best you can as quickly as possible.
Because here's the thing. Engineers and a lot of doctors and people that are more into sciences, they know that there's a proper way to do things and it takes a certain amount of time and all of that kind of stuff.
And they'd be perfectly happy to make sure they go through all of their appropriate procedures and processes and things like that.
And before you know it, a year has passed and we don't have a proper treatment for disease. Or we don't have a proper procedure for things like that.
Because you're doing this according to what you know is the right way. And it's hard for you to get outside of that because you've trained your entire life doing things the right way.
What you need is someone to light a fire under your, you know what, every now and then.
And so I think this dynamic between Trump and Fauci is actually pretty good. What you have is a leader, someone who's trying to manage a crisis, and he says, we're going to be open by Easter.
Now figure it out. And does he really think we're going to be open by Easter? I don't think he does.
I think what he's trying to do is say, okay, I need this done in three weeks. And then hopefully
Fauci, not just Fauci, but just everyone who's involved in this, instead of taking a year to do something, go through all the trials and processes and stuff like that, maybe they can figure out a way to get it done in two months, three months.
A shorter time frame. And what you need is someone to light a fire. I want this done now. And maybe you don't get it done by that deadline, but you get it done a lot faster than you would have if you kind of just went your normal sort of engineer, you know, science kind of nerd kind of a way.
And this is the reality. Like, okay, if you don't do it exactly the way you always have done it when you had tons of time and it wasn't a time -sensitive situation where, you know, we keep the economy shut down, lives will be lost.
And not only lives, but, you know, entire families will be ruined kind of thing. We don't have all the time in the world now, so we might need to do things a little bit differently.
We might end up making some mistakes, but we need action. And I think that's really the role that Trump is playing.
It's not about science denying. It's about, you know what, we need to get creative here. We need to figure things out quicker than we normally would if we were in a controlled lab situation or if you were in your master's thesis or your
PhD thesis. We have all the time in the world. We don't have that time now, and so we needed someone to light a fire.
And I think that Trump is lighting a fire under Fauci. And I think it's a very good and important and necessary fire to light.
Now, we need the Faucis. We need the engineers. We need the people that do things according to procedure because that's how you manage risk but also visionary -ness.
Visionary -ness. That's how you manage speed and also accuracy. You've got to have those people that say, well, hold on a second,
Trump. Hold on a second. We don't really know this, this, this, and this, and so it's a tug in a war, and I think that's healthy.
That's a healthy thing. That's not a bad thing. Alright, a couple more things. A couple more topics here today.
One of the things I saw my co -host on Reform Jellicle, Matt Williams, get into a bit of a discussion about a suggestion that he had in these dire economic times especially for small businesses.
Matt Williams said, hey, here's a good idea. He said, why don't you shop from Christian businesses to support your fellow believer, your brother and sister in Christ in these trying times?
I think that's a great idea. And I told Matt that I thought that was a great idea, but I saw somebody who
I like, a person I respect very much, and said that that wasn't in line with free market principles, and I really was confused by that because you would think that being able to support who you want to support is part of a free market.
Like, I think there's this idea floating around out there that free market, if you support a free market, then you have to be for getting the best possible product for the best possible price, and that's pretty much all you have to be focused on at all times, making those economically rational decisions.
And while I would agree that shopping for the best possible product for the best possible price, and balancing that out depending on your desires and your cost benefit analysis that you do, that is something that is economically rational to do.
That's a good thing. We should have economically rational people making economically rational decisions.
That is a good thing to do. It's not against free market, though, to maybe alter that for a minute to support people that you like.
Like, if you have a buddy, and he has, I don't know, a bakery or something like that, and maybe they don't have the best product, or they don't have the best prices, but you want to support your buddy, there's nothing wrong in a free market, if you believe in free markets.
There's nothing wrong with supporting your buddy because he's your buddy, just because he's your friend. And likewise, there's nothing wrong with supporting
Christians just because they're Christians. There's nothing against free market principles there.
However, we would have to agree that it might not necessarily be the economically rational decision to make.
You know, people aren't just cold, rational calculators where they just calculate everything according to what you should do.
People also have emotions. People also have familial connections. People also should, you would think, have a love for the brethren.
And so, in some ways, that could override your rational economic decision making.
But there's nothing against free markets principles when you make that suggestion. It would only be against free markets if you said, okay, if you're a
Christian, you have to buy from Christians. If you're a Muslim, you must buy from Muslims. If you're an atheist, you must buy from atheists.
That would be against free markets because as a Christian, I can buy from whoever I want to. But in a crisis, if I know my
Christian brethren are struggling, there's nothing wrong with me patronizing their business, even if they don't have the best prices, even if they don't have the best product that meets my needs perfectly.
I don't have to do it, but I could do it. I think, and personally, I believe, in a situation like this, we ought to show love for the brethren as much as we can.
And if that means buying maybe a slightly inferior product or a slightly less competitively priced product to help your
Christian brothers and sisters, I think that's, I'm all for that. I'm all for that. Not against free market principles at all to do that.
It's just an idea. It's kind of a mix between economic and commerce and also a little bit of charity in some regard.
And we should have charity for people. We should have, you know, we should be able to support our friends and our family if we want to in the midst of a crisis.
So I don't understand how that goes against free market principles, but hey, to each his own, I guess.
I mean, I'm not going to argue with someone for making completely economically rational decisions in this time, too, because we're all struggling.
We're all struggling. So if the Christian business is more expensive and you have limited funds, which we all do, and you want to make sure that you're doing the best that you can with your limited funds, sure.
Buy the cheapest product that you can that meets your needs. The best and cheapest product. That's a good idea as well.
I'm not saying anyone has to buy Christian, but I think it would be a good idea to support Christian businesses at this time.
Nothing against free market principles there. Alright, one last thing. This is a question I've gotten a few times. I am definitely 100 % against pretty much all stimulus packages.
It doesn't have to be this one. Pretty much any stimulus package where you're bailing out industries, you're buying stakes in companies, you're providing these interest free loans, grants, free money, cash.
I'm against all that stuff because to me, it's very immoral to come up with a scheme like that because it'd be like this.
Honestly, this is what it's like. It's like okay, I lost my job. I don't have any money.
What am I going to do? What am I going to do to feed my family? What am I going to do to pay my mortgage? What am
I going to do? And then you say, okay, I know what I'll do. I know what I'll do. I'll take out a credit card in my son's name.
He's only five, but I'll see if I can scam the system and take a credit card in his name and then he'll have the debt, but don't worry.
I'll eventually make it up. I'll pay it back and it won't be a problem, but yeah, I'll take a $20 ,000 line of credit in my son's name.
That's what I'll do and that would clearly be very immoral. I shouldn't be taking on debts for my son.
I shouldn't pass on my trials and tribulations to my son because in the short term, it alleviates my problems.
Like I think that's a very bad idea. Not only do I think it's a bad idea. I think it's a sinful idea.
I think it's immoral to make your sons pay for your situations. You're responsible men.
Men are responsible for their own family's financial situation. So we need to figure that out now.
If you lost your job, you should go try to find a job in all of these industries that are hiring. Is it risky?
Yeah, it might be risky. You might be putting yourselves in harm's way to work at a grocery store right now or be a delivery person or work in an
Amazon warehouse or something like that because this COVID thing is super scary. Yeah, it might be risky, but as a family man, if you did not have a nest egg to sit on or to have in case of a rainy day, then you need to go maybe put yourself in harm's way to do this kind of stuff.
But that's not how America works these days. We don't take responsibility for ourselves. Instead, we put these stimulus packages out.
And so my family is due to get a check from the government for about $4 ,000. I'm against it, but I will not return it.
I'm against it, but I will not return it. I will take the money. And you might say, well, that's kind of inconsistent.
If you think it's so sinful, why don't you return the money? And the reality is that the way
I see this, and again, I'm willing to be corrected here on this whole timeline, right? So when I get my $4 ,000 in my bank account from the
Trump stimulus, Trump care, you know, all that stuff, I'm definitely going to spend it. I'm going to spend it on things that I think will strategically put me in the best possible situation.
The way I see it is that I've been taken from for years.
I mean, for years. A couple decades. They've taken from my paychecks against my will.
They've probably taken more than a quarter million dollars from me at this point. So I've lost a lot of money to the government and to their schemes.
And so when they put that $4 ,000 in my bank account for the stimulus, Trump care, all that stuff,
I'm going to take it. I'm going to spend it on what I think puts me in the best strategic advantage for the future. I might buy gold stocks with it.
I might buy some silver mining stocks. I might buy some actual gold. I might buy a weapon. I might buy some chickens.
I'm definitely going to buy some chickens. But not with the stimulus money. I might buy things that I think put me at an advantage for what's going on these days.
That's what I'm going to do. I'm just going to do that. And the way I look at it is the robber offered to give me a little bit of my money back.
Now, the reality is that we're in a bad situation. We're in a bad situation. So my kids are going to have to end up paying for that $4 ,000 check that I got.
And there's nothing I can do about it. I didn't make these decisions. If I was Trump, I would have vetoed that bill. Donald Trump should have vetoed that stimulus bill.
He just should have. He didn't, because Trump does what he thinks is going to put him and the country to an advantage.
He has fallen for victim to this idea that these stimulus packages actually put us in an advantage.
They put us in a short -term advantage, but a long -term disadvantage. They make us debt slaves long -term.
And so when you don't have godly principles on what to do, somebody said to me when I was criticizing this, well, we're in a rock and a hard place,
Adam. How could you criticize us for doing what we think is best? And my thing is, when you're in a rock and a hard place, that's the time you need to stick to the biblical principles the most.
The Bible simply does not give the government the right or the authority to do this whole thing, this whole stimulus kind of thing.
It's just not in there. It's not in scripture. It's immoral. Stealing is immoral. And so if I was
Trump, I would have vetoed it. Since I'm not Trump, I don't have the authority to veto it. I'm going to use it, and I'm going to try to put myself in a situation where I have my children in a better financial situation than they would have been without the $4 ,000 because they're going to have to pay this back on the sweat of their brow.
And so I want to try to mitigate that as much as possible. That's why I mentioned potentially mining stocks or other kinds of stocks, things like that.
Other kinds of investments that I think will help them in the future. That's what I'm going to do. I don't see there's anything immoral about that.
There's nothing I can do about it. If I was a leader, I would have vetoed this. I would not have voted for it and that kind of thing because I think the principles of the matter actually matter.
You can't sin your way out of calamity. The way to stop the calamity, the way to stop the economic calamity, the pestilence, the plague that God has sent to America.
Let's just get that straight. Any kind of illness, whether this is a very serious illness or a very non -serious illness,
I have no way to know. I don't know. The experts disagree. I don't know, but what I do know is that economic calamity is definitely real, and God sent it.
The way to get out of it is to turn to Christ, to humble yourself and obey Him.
You can't sin your way out of calamity. You can't out -sin your sin. I always talk about this with the social justice movement, where they're trying to, like reparations is an attempt to sin your way out of sin.
It's like, okay, well I know how to fix the sin of the past. We'll sin now. That's what we'll do. That sounds great.
And to lots of people, that does sound great, but it's not good. God's not going to bless that kind of thing. He's just not.
Anyway, and so the reality is it's about principles here. It's not about what team I'm on. At the beginning of the year,
I said I'm going to vote for Trump in November. I'm still planning on voting for Trump in November, but the way he's handled this stimulus thing has been really wrong.
It's been absolutely terrible, so I'm not going to support it. That's about principles for me. It's not about personality. Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful and informative.
If you have any follow -up questions, let me know, and hopefully I'll be able to get my checks later today or tomorrow.
I don't know. We'll see. People are panic buying. Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.