My Smart Strategy For Resolving So Called " Climate Crisis"

Let's put aside the debate over man-made global warming or climate change's evolving concept, and for now, assume its reality. This shift in focus lets us delve into productive discussions without debating its existence.

Starting from the premise that human actions contribute to global warming and air pollution, what steps can we take to address this problem?

Halting car production isn't practical; it might damage the economy. Stopping oil drilling and coal mining could also backfire economically. Stricter industry regulations could make things harder for manufacturers and raise consumer prices. Thus, this approach might not yield positive economic outcomes.

While we aspire to a future free from fossil fuels, we're not there yet.

Promoting electric cars is challenging but a step forward. Raising taxes for Green New Deal initiatives is another option. However, none of these solutions can remove existing CO2 from the air. And they might further slow the economy, which wouldn't benefit our nation.

The mentioned measures, whether implemented or discussed to counteract global warming's impact, could undermine our national interests. Such actions might even favor China, which seems less concerned about global warming's urgency.

This situation requires carefully designed strategies that balance environmental needs with economic stability.

I envision a continued reliance on fossil fuels, given their current effectiveness and economic impact. However, we must simultaneously encourage automotive manufacturers and other stakeholders to transition to exclusive electric vehicle production. This shift requires patience and perseverance, recognizing that progress toward this goal is inevitable, though not immediate.

This approach would be prudent for addressing potential anthropogenic global warming, assuming human activities play a role. Even if it's unrelated, transitioning to electric vehicles offers advantages. Just as innovations like iPhones and computers have seamlessly integrated into our lives, the embrace of electric cars will likely follow suit once they're affordable and as functional as our current vehicles.

Thinking back on COVID

COVID was one of the more interesting times in our history. It was something that we have never experienced before. And hopefully never will again. We were so busy. There was one day I came to work and we had seven high flows and three ventilators. And I was the only therapist available to take care of them. It was unsafe, but that's all we had.

I did have a coworker, but she had her half of the hospital to care for. And she was equally as busy. And I remember one time when ER called and said they needed me STAT in the ER. And I said, "Sorry, I can't go. I have two patients up here that we are about ready to intubate." 

And there was another time I was so busy that, when ER texted that they needed me STAT, I never even had time to respond. It was just so busy. 

I was so busy, one of the nurses asked if I would help prone a patient. "Nope! I'm sorry, I am just too busy." 

I was asked to help take a ventilated patient down to cat scan. "Sorry, I am unavailable right now." 

And there was no way to get more staffing, because it was this busy at every other hospital too. And at one point we needed more ventilators. And I talked to my boss about this. And he said, "Sorry, every other hospital needs more ventilators too." 

Gosh, it was so busy. And it was fun. It was monotonous, but it was fun. It was fun because we really got to use our skills. We got the utmost respect from doctors and nurses AND the community. There was one day I got home, feet hurting like crazy, mind spent with burnout, and there was a sign in my front yard that said, "A Healthcare Hero Lives Here!" 

That was neat. And that same day, as I was walking up to my house, the neighbor lady came over with a pasta dish. It was hot and ready to serve. And she said, "I just appreciate what you are doing so much. I didn't know what else to do for you. So I made you this." That was neat. 

IndividualJustice Versus Social Justice

Liberals in our society conflate justice with social justice. And this does not bode well for justice and a free society.

Individual Justice. That's a reduntant term as justice is always thought to be on an individual basis. If something happens to you on an individual level, YOU should have justice. This is because YOU were the one damaged. If you do harm to someone else, Justice should be after YOU. Justice, therefore, is always individual in nature. 

Gorup Justice. Social Justice. There is no such thing. It undermines the notion of individual justice. 

We have a tendency in our society to turn everyting into a referendum on groups. 

Example. Matt Araiza. He was charged of gang rape. He was a member of the Buffalo Bills. And, rather than waiting for him to be found guilty or not guilty in a court of law, the Bills released him. They told him to deal with his problems. 

As it turned out, he was not charged. It turned out he wasn't even present and a gang rape never even occurred. But, he is still unable to get a job in the NFL. And this sucks. It is so unfair. Why is he not able to get an NFL job? He would dominate as a punt returner. He shined in his brief stint with the Bills. 

Another example is Trevor Bauer. He was accused of rape. And he was released from the Dodgers before he even had a triel. Justice was not served here. And the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. Yet he still cannot get a job. 

Why? He is innocent until proven guilty. 

In a court of group justice, he is guilty. He is guilty by association. Because these two athletes were not treated on an individual basis. They were treated as thought they are part of a group. And he is judged as part of a group. 

The reason Araiza was kicked out of the NFL was not because he committed a crime. It was a stand in for every ME TOO incident. This is what we not do with every incident that turns into a media narative. This is indicative of a broader issue and therefore we must make an example of this individual. We have made a decisoin as a society that the minute an accusation is made against a man that he is guilty and we are going to destroy his life. 

If he is convicted of this crime, his life should be destroyed. But, if you are not, then you should be set free. And you should be able to rejoin society. But, that is not the case with social justice. And this is why social justice is so wrong. 

The idea that our society is based on white supremacy patriarchy. And the only way to break down the patriarchy is to break some things. So, if allegations are alone to convict someone, that is the important thing. It sets an example that we do not tolerate such behaviors. Such was the case with Matt Aeraiza. It was also true for Bauer. It was also true for Brett Kavenaugh. They also tried to do this with Trump, but in that case they failed. 

The opposite is true too. You have people getting arrestede and doing horrible crimes. And if a white person did such crime he'd get a long prison sentence or jail sentence. But, if a black person is arrested, he gets off or gets a short jail or prison term. This is because they are victims of white supremacy. So it's not their fault they committed crime. So they are let off. 

The victims here are those crimes are committed against. That person does not get justice. Plus, with all these criminals being put back on the streets, then you have a greater risk for more crimes being committed. 

So, group justice is bad. It is horrible. In fact, social justice may be the result of the perversion of our Bible. Or the fact that so many people have gotten away from the Bible. For, in the Bible, we have Levaticus 19:15 which states: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the gret, but judge your neighbor fairly." 

Today, with social justice, we treat one group one way and another group another way. And this has messed up our society. And, hopefully, it will wrech the democratic party which is partial to social justice and impartial to justice. 

‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

What Happens When You Forget The Purpose Of Sex/ Life?

Andrew Tate argued that he would rather have sex with a really good looking woman who is really a man than an ugly woman who is a natural woman. 

Huh! 

Like, what is he talking about? This makes no sense. 

Allow me to make sense of this. 

Here is his initial question: 

"Would you rather have sex with a transexual, which is a legitimate 10, or woman, which is a legitimate one?"And everyone is sittin' there clicking woman, woman, woman 'cuz they think they're gonna be gay if they do anything else, but they're not actually thinking about the question. I am so smart, I operate on so many levels higher than the average man. When I say a one and a ten, I mean Megan Fox with a d*ck – that's the tranny. Or Hulk Hogan with a p*ssy – that's the girl. This is the question I'm asking. Megan Fox or Hulk Hogan?"

This is similar to people who say we should allow transgender women with male body parts to use female bathrooms, the same bathrooms our daughters use. And this is similar to people who say that transgender women who have penises should compete against our daughters in female sports. 

So, how did we get here as a society? 

It's because we are seeing the death of masculinity and femininity. We, as a society, have lost sight that things were created with a purpose. God created us with a purpose. Or, if you don't believe in God, Evolution created us with a purpose. 

The purpose is reproduction. 

Life is created with the purpose of creating life. If reproduction does not happen, then life stops. If bears stop having sex with the purpose of reproducing, then the bear species will be discontinued. The same with humans. The same with any beings: The purpose of all life is to reproduce. 

You date with the purpose of some day having sex and reproducing. Sure, sex can be done for fun. But, the idea is to make a baby, which is the purpose of life. Males and females are built around this purpose

The same with the roles of men and women. The role of women is to get pregnant, give birth, nurse, and comfort children. The role of men is to make babies and then to protect and defend them. 

We as a society have blown this all up.  Our society now claims that there is no purpose to sex other than to have fun. When you disconnect sex with the purpose of life things get crazy really quickly. And this is what leads to men who think they are women who use women's restrooms and crazy stuff like that. 

When you separate male and female sexual bonding. When you sever that connection, all the rules go away. Now you can do whatever you want. And the only thing that actually matters is sexual pleasure. 

But, there is a problem with that. The problem is the animal instincts remain. Evolutionary and biological male and female instincts remain. Men have a natural instinct to have sex. And now you hear stories of men raping women in women's restrooms. Women have a natural instinct to attach to men they trust and who provide protection and offer sexual comfort. When you promote rules of monogomy and chastity all this works out fine. But when you throw these out in favor of having sex with whomever you want so long as you have fun, then chaos ensues and you end up with questions like the one Andrew Tate asked. 

You end up with people like Dr. Jill Biden giving the woman of the year award on International Women's day to a biological man. 

The people this really hurts is women. Women feel less safe in bathrooms. They feel like sports for them no longer matter, despite all the progress that has been made over the years. 

By the way, the normal answer to Tate's question is you have sex with the woman because you can only make a baby with a woman. When you get rid of that you end up in weird Andrew Tate world. You end up in Chaos. 

Look, I am fine with whatever people decide they want for themselves. As a Christian and a Catholic, I love all people. Yet that doesn't prevent me from putting flaws in our society in perspective. 

I Want My Kids To Grow Up As Conservative Christians.

Since Rush Limbaugh died, I spend a lot of time listening to Ben Shapiro podcasts. He recently talked about how Mitch McConnell cried at Nancy Pelosi's going away party. And he said something like, "My daughter's, who are both liberals, love her. She has done a lot of good for the liberal causes in America." 

And Ben said, "Name one democrat who has two conservative daughters." 

You can't do it. 

He said, if you are a conservative and a Christian, which McConnell is, and your children grow up with values the opposite of yours, then you are a failure as a parent. 

This statement by Ben has caused me to do a lot of thinking over the past few weeks. I am a conservative Christian, and I'm wondering if my two oldest children have opposing values as me. And it is very frustrating. 

I still love my children, don't get me wrong. Yet, it's very frustrating to see that neither of them goes to Church. And they often say things that are in line with liberal thinking. Does that make them liberals? No. Does that make them atheists? No. But, still, it does make me wonder. 

Will I give up on them? No. 

But it does make me wonder. And I have decided that Ben Shapiro is wrong. It is not that we conservatives are failures if our children do not grow up with similar beliefs. I say this for two reasons. 1. There are many children prior to our current situation who grew up opposing their parents. I can name a couple aunts. And there's also Ronald Reagan Jr ,who is a liberal (Ronald Reagan was as conservative as they come). 

Thankfully for Reagan he has another some Mike who is a true conservative. So, that children grow up with to develop liberal views is not new. 

2. Liberals have an advantage of controlling the schools and the media. So all our children hear all day is liberal propaganda. So, it only makes sense that my kids, who listen to this stuff every day, are easily pulled over to that side. And it is this that makes it extra hard for conservatives like me to make sure my kids develop conservative thinking. 

My oldest two I decided not to talk much about politics. I figured that they would develop conservative values based on the fact they'd want to be like their dad. But, with my two younger kids, I will not take this chance. I talk about politics as much as I can. And I have politics on TV as much as I can. I want to have that discussion with them. 

Will it work? I don't know. There remain a lot of opposing forces. My kids go to school and learn that global warming is caused by man, as opposed to being caused by the natural cycle of climate change. They go to school and learn, as Al Gore teaches, that climate change is a global crisis. And yet, you wonder why kids are so depressed. 

The easiest thing to do is to become a liberal. All you have to do is to say, "I feel your pain," and create a government program that you don't pay for. And the people think you are doing something productive, and yet you solve no problems. 

A perfect example is the recent attempt by Biden to pay off student loans. They wanted to give each student with a load $10,000. This, they say, would solve the college loan crisis. But, in effect, this does nothing to solve the problem. It merely makes a bunch of kids happy so they vote for democrats. It did nothing towards solving the problem with colleges overcharging. Typical liberalism, as conservatives would say. 

Yet they are winning. As I am, as a conservative dad, a victim of. It's easy to be a liberal. Liberalism is the default setting. Conservatism takes a lot of thought. To be a conservative, you have to ask questions such as, "Will that work? If we do this (Obamacare for example), what will be the long term effect?"

Conservatives are doubters. They want evidence that something will work before they vote to make that change. Conservatives believe in the institutions that have been built over hundreds of years and have been tested year after year after year, such as the institution of marriage. Liberals are opt to come up with an idea that sounds good, and vote on it, even without any evidence that it will work. They vote based on feelings as opposed to thinking.

Conservatives believe in God and the Constitution. Liberalism cannot live side by side with God because God is a capitalist -- yes he is. God gives you a choice. You can choose Him or you can choose the Devil. And you are responsible for the consequences of your decision. That, my friends, is a capitalist view. And liberals want to control you, to make you do things the way they want (or, to at least nudge you in that direction). 

So, I am a conservative because I don't want my government telling me what I an and cannot do. And I love God and the Bible and I love Capitalism and freedom. And, Lord, I pray my kids see the value in that. 

Most important, I want to do more than watch TV with my kids. I want to have discussions about politics and about the world and know that my kids are on my side. If nothing else, this is the most basic wish I have as a father. 

The Honeymoon Phase

S

o, you start dating someone. You enter into what is called the "Excitement Stage." You are excited about the prospects to be. And you can let your imagination run free here. 

This stage is short lived. Then you enter into what is referred to as a the "Honeymoon Period."  This period may last anywhere from several months to a few years. This is a period early on in a relationship where everything seems carefree and happy. 

Of course, he or she cannot do anything wrong. Everything seems so perfect. And this period only lasts so long, and reality sets in. You learn that your partner is flawed. 

Of course, then you spend time introducing her to your friends and family members. And, of course, before that you introduce her to your family. You take her to your favorite hangouts and restaurants. You take her to see the sunset in your favorite location, etc. etc. And everything works out great. She loves your friends and you love hers. She loves where you enjoy watching the sunset. And you enjoy whatever she shows you about her life. 

So, for quite some time, during this honeymoon period, you are introducing her to your life. And, of course, when you are visiting her, it's the opposite: she introduces you to her life. Oh, the honeymoon days. 

At some point, the honeymoon period will end. Reality sets in. You learn that she is a flawed individual and she learns your flaws. This is called the adjustment phase. Then, if you survive this, you travel to the adjustment phase. And then you get married and live your life together. 

So, basically, you'll eventually run out of new things to show her. At that time, you basically sit around hoping that you don't annoy each other. Can you survive this part of the relationship? That is the question. 

FBI, DOJ Weaponized Against Trump

I wrote a while back how my biggest fear is the weaponization of government against the private sector. And today we read in the news how the Florida residence of Donald Trump, Mar'a'Lago, has been raided by the FBI. Attorney General Merrick Garland has admitted that he ordered the raid. And, of course, Merrick is the head of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). 

Garland has said he ordered the raid. He said they are looking for classified documents that the Fed has asked Trump to return. Trump has not turned in those documents. And so, Garland ordered the FBI to raid Trump's home. 

Garland must know that the person he ordered the raid against is probably going to be the person who will challenge his boss in 2022. So, the risk of this search is insurmountable. This search better turn up a smoking gun. Or Garland will go down as one of the biggest bumble head in U.S. history. And this could be one of the biggest blunders in history. It could be akin to Al Capone's Vault. 

This brings up a few questions. 

Is there a potential crime listed on the warrant? 

No government organization can legally search anyone's home without a warrant. A warrant must list a reason for the search. And it cannot just list that it is searching for documents. It must note a potential crime. As in, it must note that the president was charged of X crime. And the search is looking for evidence. 

The warrant says that the FBI has been ordered to search Trump's home for classified documents. It does not list a crime Trump has been charged with. 

This raises a huge red flag. 

You cannot order a search warrant without stating the crime that was committed. So, in this case, it looks like this is a situation of a warrant in search of a crime. The goal here is to grab every document with the hopes that one of them reveals a crime. 

Is this search politicized? 

Democrats spent the entire four years of the Trump presidency trying to convict him of a crime. You had the Russian scandal where they spent four years trying to convince Americans that Trump was colluding with the Russians. And it was proven to be a complete hoax. 

Now they are still going after him long after he was voted out of office. And there is a good chance he will be the next challenger to Garland's boss.  And this makes it look like the FBI has been weaponized or politicized against a future presidential challenger. It makes it look like they are scared to death of Trump politically, and they will do anything in their power to get rid of him. 

So far they have failed miserably. And so, here you have the FBI going into Mar'a'Lago and grabbing every paper they can get their hands on. And they are hoping that one of those documents reveals a crime. Or perhaps one of those documents proves Trump colluded with Russia. Anything to get rid of Trump. 

This raises another red flag. 

Are they declassified documents? 

Trump has said that all the documents obtained by the FBI were declassified. If this is the case, then the raid was pointless to begin with. 

Presidents have a lot of work to do. So they often take work home to review. Obama did this. Clinton did this. Bush H and Bush W did this. And Trump did this. So, it is not uncommon for former presidents to have documents in their homes. 

To take documents home they need to be declassified. Interestingly, the president is the only person in the U.S. with the power to declassify documents. And all he needs to say is, "I declare these documents unclassified." He does not need to go through a ceremony, or even write his signature, to make documents declassified. 

And even if Trump forgot to do this, he certainly would not be the first. And all he would need to do is say he declassified them, because how would any lawyer be able to prove that he didn't declassify them. So, on this ground, it would be awfully hard for any lawyer to submit any of the documents obtained during the raid into a court of law. 

And this raises another red flag. 

Conclusion.

So, we have determined that many former presidents have documents in their home. The reason the White House might want the documents at Trump's home is because they believe they pose a security risk. And, of course, keeping us safe is the #1 job of any president. Still, are documents stored in boxes or in safes at Mar'a'Lago a security risk. 

Let's look at it this way. Let's look at Hillary Clinton. She had classified information on her emails. And she does not have the ability to declassify them because she was never president. She had information on her emails. And I'm sure some of the information was top-secret information. 

And she had these emails on an unsecured server. And she conveniently lost those emails. So, what documents are at greater risk for being a security risk: documents stored in boxes or in safes in Trump's home, or documents stored on an unsecured server? 

And Clinton's home was not raided by the FBI.