ConservaTibbs

Having grace would decrease conspiracy theories

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:01:45 GMT

When Converse launched an advertisement featuring Korean singer Karina, people started freaking out: The way the Converse star was lit up on her skirt was a Ku Klux Klan hood, and she was holding sneakers to simulate a lynching. Others "found" that the shoelaces spelled out KKK. It was all very silly, but there was one element missing in all of the conspiracy theories about Converse and the KKK: Grace.

Do you really think that Converse (or Nike, which owns Converse) is intentionally evoking KKK imagery and celebrating lynching Black people in a shoe advertisement? Are you really so cynical that you think White supremacists, Neo-Nazis and Klansmen are stalking the halls in Converse's marketing department looking for an opportunity to promote an ideology of racial hatred? Do you think they are really so stupid as to make these images so obvious? Or do you think they were trying to be artsy?

Yes, Converse apologized for the ad. That does not make the ad a pro-KKK image. The apology proves that large corporations are notoriously risk averse and will pull advertising and apologize if people get offended, even if that offense is completely unjustified. They do not want to defend themselves. They just want the controversy to go away.

Should I, as a White "cisgender" man, be telling a "person of color" how to interpret the ad? In a word, "yes." If a POC has a delusion that is harming his mental health, the answer is absolutely "yes." We do not want people to be needlessly paranoid or even overly cynical. That becomes even more important when people are spreading false information that threatens the careers, safety, reputations and lives of innocent people. The Ninth Commandment teaches us that you do not get to speak "your truth" to the detriment of innocent people.

One of the worst things about our cultural and political discourse is we are far too quick to assume the worst of someone, especially if it fits with our political prior assumptions. Leftists are terrible and support this horrific thing, while the Right is terrible and support this other horrific thing. We all live on a hair trigger and are ready to be offended and "fight back" at every slight, whether real or imagined. We have absolutely no grace for anyone on the other side, or even on our own side if they stray from orthodoxy. All of us could benefit from a willingness to assume good motives, or at least resist the temptation to assume the worst. The best way to start those habits is to go outside and touch grass.

Subscribe now

Just say "no" to a casino in Steuben County

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 30 Sep 2026 08:01:09 GMT

I am opposed to the effort to put a new casino into Steuben County, Indiana and I hope the effort fails. What my hometown needs is not another place devoted to vice, but employers who will add value to northeast Indiana. I have been in Monroe County for 33 years, but the first 19 years of my life were in Steuben. I do not think this is what is needed for Angola, Fremont, Hamilton, Hudson and Orland.

We do need to be a little careful with too many doom-and-gloom predictions. The action in gambling is not casinos. It is online, especially with sports betting. Young men who aren't married are going into debt because of an obsession with sports betting on their smartphones. You don't need to go to a casino. You do not even need to leave your couch. You can throw away thousands of dollars before you even get out of bed in the morning. Online gambling is a real problem and every church should be addressing this with young men. College ministries like Campus Crusade for Christ are in a unique position to address this problem through discipleship and doctrinal teaching.

That said, this is a bad deal. Let's be clear: Casinos are designed to extract money from people, with the "wins" few and far between compared to what the casino rakes in. There's a good reason that the phrase "the house always wins" is common. Even a skill-based game like Blackjack is rigged in that casinos will kick you out if they figure out you are "counting cards."

Christendom has traditionally opposed gambling. There are a lot of churches in Steuben County, so I am praying the pastors speak to their congregations and urge a "no" vote. Don't fear losing your 501(c)3 status for taking a position. Yes, the developers will try to punish you as the idol makers tried to punish the early church in the book of Acts. Do it anyway, remembering that we should fear and obey God rather than men. Please step up and urge your congregations to defeat this.

Subscribe now

So-called "judge" paves the way for another 9/11

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 08:01:12 GMT

After Muslim terrorists crashed passenger jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, one of the lessons we learned was the danger of welcoming immigrants who hate America and are opposed to American values. Sadly, far too many people have forgotten that lesson. President Trump, for all of his flaws, has not forgotten that lesson and the danger of allowing foreign subversives to enter this country. Al-Qaida terrorists exploited our immigration system to viciously murder nearly 3,000 Americans. This danger is generational: The Pulse nightclub shooting, where 49 people were viciously murdered by another Muslim terrorist, was committed by the American-born son of a Taliban sympathizer.

A nation that does not have borders and cannot enforce borders is not a nation. The United States cannot legally imprison people for having anti-American views, but we can be careful who we let into the country. This is especially true if they are a national security threat. That is why we would not allow Soviet sympathizers to immigrate during the Cold War, and why we should not allow supporters of Islamic terrorism to enter the United States. The First Amendment has never been a shield to allow every single person to enter the country. And yes, foreign citizens who harbor anti-American views should not be allowed to remain in this country. They are guests, and if they hate the country they should no longer be welcome. To make that illegal is civilizational suicide.

One can argue with the way President Trump's secretary of state has enforced American law that allows non-citizen immigrants to be deported if they express anti-American viewpoints. But the point is not whether this case or that case is an overreach. Those can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. The basic principle that we should not allow dangerous terrorist sympathizers to roam freely around the country to plan and execute more terrorist attacks and murder more people is a good principle. We can have sympathy or empathy for immigrants while also not putting native-born American citizens at risk of being viciously murdered or raped. The so-called "judge" who ruled against President Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Parental authority in education

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 14:31:58 GMT

While there are exceptions, most teachers work very hard and put in long hours to teach the children in their classrooms. We should appreciate this work and we should be thankful for the sacrifices they make. However, the ultimate authority over education belongs to parents, not teachers, and that authority was given to the parents by God. This is unfortunately a necessary reminder for those teachers who go on social media to denigrate parents and parental involvement in education, especially since those parents are not "experts" with a degree.

There is plenty of Biblical support for this. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 tells parents specifically to train their children in the Word. The Fifth Commandment explicitly tells children to obey their parents, promising a long life for obedience. Proverbs 1:8-9 and Proverbs 13:1 instruct children (especially young men) to obey their fathers and mothers. This is also emphasized in the New Testament, with the Apostle Paul's instructions in Ephesians 6:1–3, and the Apostle Paul repeats this in his letter to the Colossians.

As is the case in so many things, it does not have to be "all or nothing." It is actually possible for parents to expect their children to respect the teacher's rightful authority and also recognize that it is the parents, not the school system, who have the ultimate authority over their child's education. Recognizing parental authority does not mean automatic negation of the in loco parentis doctrine. We live in a society where far too many people are unable to grasp the concept that two things can be true at once. It is utterly absurd to argue that those who believe in parental authority should be obligated to homeschool their children. This is a petulant and childish response.

It is actually really simple. Civil government has set up an educational system where we can ensure that children are instructed in a wide variety of things, from mathematics to history, art, science, language and music. Parents then entrust their children to the schools and (hopefully) expect their children will respect the school's authority. But the legal codes of the states have long reserved educational authority - and authority over a wide variety of other matters - to the parents. This is because our nation has a long history of Christian influence over our laws. Both concepts can exist simultaneously and symbiotically.

Yes, I know that abuse and neglect exist. Duh. There are legal mechanisms to deal with that, as there should be. But can we please stop sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal, or using bad behavior to restrict the rightful authority of all parents? In other words, can we please be adults?

Scripture is clear: God gives children to mothers and fathers, not to the civil magistrate. It is those parents who have the ultimate authority over those children, and bear the ultimate responsibility for them. This is why conservatives err when they talk about parental "rights" instead of parental authority. Conservatives need to re-embrace the concept of sphere authority, especially at a time when all authority is sliding to Washington D.C.

Sexual libertinism should not deny true harm

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 08:01:08 GMT

An author at Reason is unhappy that a former U.S. Senator is being sued for "alienation of affection." One of the problems with the sexual revolution is that it has divorced sexual intimacy from obligation. The marriage contract, which was once viewed as a legally binding agreement, is now disposable if it conflicts with "happiness." This libertine view of sexual behavior ignores real harms done by the violation of the marriage contract.

One of the worst aspects of the sexual revolution is "reform" of divorce laws that leave an abandoned partner with no legal recourse if the spouse decides to abandon a marriage without cause such as abuse, adultery or abandonment. If both parties are part of the same church, that church can intervene with moral instruction and can even excommunicate the at-fault party, but they have no legal authority to enforce their efforts to keep a wayward spouse in a marriage. (Nor should they.)

This does not exist in other contract law. You cannot fail to build a fence if you have a contract to do it, for example. With the marriage contract, the harms are just as real and are much more intense. This does not simply involve monetary damages (although those exist) but can cause deep emotional wounds and significant harm to any children in the home.

This is why interfering in someone's marriage, knowing the harm you are doing, should be subject to legal damages. Senator Sinema knew her security guard was married and had three children with his wife, and she carried on a sexual relationship with him anyway. Senator Sinema even pursued a married man. No, this does not mean the husband or wife is the "property" of the other spouse. It means they have made a legal commitment and a U.S. Senator is infringing on that contract and causing harm to his wife and children. The fact that a marriage contract - the building block of a functional society - has fewer legal protections than a contract to build a fence reveals we are a deeply sick society.

Senator Sinema's behavior is truly abominable here. She is relatively young and attractive, and held significant political power. Finding a romantic partner would not have been difficult for her. She decided to blow up a family and harm innocent children. There was a time when this behavior was universally condemned and considered disqualifying for public office. The fact that her security guard broke his marriage contract does not reduce Senator Sinema's moral responsibility.

So yes, the fact that these torts are allowed in a few states is a very good thing. Every state that has "reformed" (actually deformed) its laws to remove "alienation of affection" torts should correct that error and put legal protections for abandoned spouses back into their legal codes. Indiana can lead the way in reforming our laws to protect marriage.

Subscribe now

Bloomington City Council ordinance to ban automated license plate readers

Scott Tibbs — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 08:02:23 GMT

The final vote on this legislation is scheduled for 10/14/2026. I have attached the proposed legislation below.

"All or Nothing" and empathy

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 21 Sep 2026 08:02:40 GMT

Scripture teaches us in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus is the ultimate example of empathy. The almighty Creator of the universe became flesh, and knows all of our sufferings and temptations. Scripture teaches us in Romans 12:15-16 to be empathetic toward each other. Empathy, when properly directed, is not a sin.

Empathy can be suicidal or toxic, and then becomes sinful. Importing radical Muslim terrorists into our country is suicidal empathy. Allowing a child murderer to go free is toxic empathy. These types of empathy - ignoring the needs of the innocent and abandoning them to predators - are terribly wicked. This is especially wicked when those entrusted with the sword by God abandon their duty to protect the innocent and instead empathize with predators and criminals.

This is why we cannot take an "all or nothing" position on empathy. It can be wicked and it can be good. That is the problem with Pastor Doug Wilson's recent article on psychotic empathy. Wilson argues that once one empathizes with someone, they adopt a tribal mentality and are "all in" on one side or another. We see this in truly deranged fantasies about the Lindsay Clancy case, with wicked and evil lies spread by her cult about Patrick Clancy. These "women" have so much empathy for Lindsay Clancy that they cannot muster up even the smallest bit of human decency for a man who found his children brutally murdered. We should never allow our empathy to lead us into becoming part of a cult.

When is empathy good and when is it sinful? Well, that's where the rubber meets the road. Good empathy can become toxic or suicidal when allowed to run unchecked, but toxic empathy can become good when it is restrained and refocused on protecting the innocent. Sometimes that line is obvious. But knowing when it crosses over often requires wisdom and discernment, and we will often make the wrong call. Life is not a spreadsheet where you can plug in a formula and it will always work. Moral standards are always black and white, but applying those standards is often muddled. All we can do is pray that God will give us wisdom, and apologize if we are wrong. We have to do the hard work.

Subscribe now

Those promised $5,000 checks

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:01:58 GMT

"A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

This famous quote is relevant to every political era, but is arguably more relevant in 2026 than ever. When President Trump promised to give $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans hold the House and Senate, there were some howls of outrage that this is outright bribery and is illegal. But is it really different than what every other politician does? Or is President Trump simply being more transparent about it?

Let's be honest: Nearly every politician does this. ObamaCare was essentially a promise of free health care, and President Bush sought to buy the votes of senior citizens by paying for their prescription drugs through Medicare. This also goes back to the New Deal and the Great Society, and also even before that. The transaction was simple: If you vote for me I will give you free stuff that other people pay for. So no, this is not at all unprecedented. President Trump may be more blunt in his approach, but this is essentially the same type of politics that both Republicans and Democrats (but not Libertarians) have been offering for generations.

President Trump has suggested he may do this by himself, but the Constitution makes it clear that all spending is to be initiated by Congress. The Executive Branch enforces and implements the law, but Congress writes the laws. Sadly, Congress seems determined to make itself the vestigial organ of American politics, with Senators and Representatives only willing to assert their authority when someone of the other political party occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Of course, there is no money to spend. We are forty trillion dollars in debt and we have an annual budget deficit of roughly two trillion dollars. To count the zeros, that means we are $40,000,000,000,000 in debt and spend $2,000,000,000,000 more than we collect in tax revenue every single year. This is totally insane. Despite the President's wild exaggerations, tariff revenue will not be nearly enough to cover the cost of these checks. Even if the tariff revenue was enough to cover the cost, adding $1.3 trillion to the budget is reckless and foolish.

What we need now is not more tax-and-spend liberal policies. We do not need bigger government. We need to be cutting government spending, devolving federal authority to the states, and shrinking the federal government. Republicans used to at least pretend to care about these things, and in the 1990's the Republican Congress (led by Newt Gingrich) actually succeeded in balancing the budget. Republicans need to get back to that. Maybe in 2029, we will have a chance to see that Republican Party again.

Subscribe now

Negative campaigning is necessary and good

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 08:01:40 GMT

When someone is running for office against an incumbent, the burden of proof is on the challenger to show why the incumbent should be removed from office. If the challenger cannot articulate why the incumbent needs to be removed, why should the incumbent be removed? If things are going well, why change?

If the incumbent has done a poor job and the challenger will not attack (for whatever reason) the challenger is not fulfilling his obligation to the voters. This can include the management of the office, legislative voting record, or personal character. The voters deserve to have this information in order to make an informed choice. This is why negative campaigning is not only justified, it is necessary. Note there is a difference between negative and dirty. (More on that below.)

Obviously people have to be given a reason to vote for the challenger and not just against the incumbent. It is important for the challenger to emphasize his qualifications, experience, policy positions and (if applicable) his voting record to show the voters why they should vote for him. A purely negative campaign, without a positive plan for change, does not show voters why the challenger deserves the office.

But the reason I am writing this is that we are constantly hearing about negative campaigning and how bad it is. People should not attack each other, the campaign should be about ideas, and so forth. (Again, we must recognize that negative and dirty are not the same.) We live in a society where we want to be Pleasantville, where no one ever fights. But living in Pleasantville requires abandoning Realville. The absence of conflict always means the absence of truth.

Here is an important point: Negative and dirty are not the same. Pointing out that someone cannot manage his office or has a voting record that does not match the wishes of the district or state (for example) is not the same as calling him a bunch of obscene names, insulting his wife, celebrating his divorce, or falsely accusing him of murdering an intern. There is a world of difference between criticizing someone's record and being personally nasty and spreading lies.

Negative campaigning plays a critical role in our electoral system. Voters deserve to know the information about both candidates, good and bad, in order to make an informed choice. A candidate who refuses to go negative despite having clear and compelling evidence of his/her opponent's faults and failures has no business being a candidate - especially if he is running against an incumbent.

Walmart and Kroger need to obey the law

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:02:16 GMT

Here is a harsh truth: Not all spaces need to be 100% perfectly accommodating to everyone and everything. There are some places children should not be. There are some places pets should not be. Recognizing these facts does not mean you "hate" children or you "hate" pets. If your first reaction is to accuse someone of "hate," you need to grow up. That is a childish and anti-logical reaction, as well as an outright lie.

I was in Walmart a couple weeks ago when a "lady" was pushing a cart with a Dachshund sitting in the child seat. I was standing there minding my own business and not bothering anybody, as the dog became aggressive, barking and snapping at me. That dog should never have been permitted in the store to begin with. When you bring an untrained and aggressive animal into the store and put the health and safety of others at risk, you better believe it is my business.

Crybaby service employees whine on social media that they are not paid enough to deal with entitled customers who break the rules. But what if a dog who should not be in the store manages to bite someone? You are going to have an angry customer complaining no matter what you do, so you might as well do your job. If you cannot do that, your employer should fire you and replace you with someone who will.

In addition to local health codes, the Food and Drug Administration does not allow pets in stores outside of very limited exceptions such as pet stores. (Obviously, service dogs are an exception. Duh.) Grocery stores and restaurants are required by federal law to not allow pets into their establishments.

I cannot ignore the hypocrisy element. Many of the same people waxing poetic about how wonderful it is to have pets in places they are not legally allowed to be and damning those who want the law enforced were also shrieking and screeching about people wearing masks in public places. Some of them even demanded people wear masks outside. This hypocrisy is utterly repulsive. And yes, I always wore a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic, and started wearing a mask before I was legally required to do so.

Look, none of this is difficult. Do not bring your pet into the grocery store. Have some respect for other people, the store's rules, and the authority of the civil magistrate. Stop being so spoiled and entitled that you think the rules do not apply to you and your precious little "fur baby." Store employees and especially store management need to actually do their job and put a stop to this behavior, banning people from the store if they refuse to comply. If they fail, the stores should face steep fines from government. The fact that I am writing a blog post about this at all shows how far societal standards, respect for authority and basic manners have declined over the last couple decades. It is a sad situation.

Subscribe now

"OK Boomer" and respecting your elders

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 14:30:36 GMT

We really need to do better at respecting our elders. Scripture is clear on this matter, commanding respect for our elders in Leviticus 19:32, 1 Peter 5:5 and 1 Timothy 5:1-2. This does not mean that we cannot disagree with those who are older than us - we all do - but that we should be respectful in that disagreement.

This is most commonly seen in disrespect of Baby Boomers any time they make an argument. Instead of making an argument, the Cult of Youth will simply roll their eyes and say "OK Boomer," as if being born between 1946 and 1964 makes the opinion invalid no matter the statistical data or logic presented. Instead of an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to ignorance.

But even when we have a substantive disagreement with an older person, here is something those of us who are younger than Boomers should consider: Maybe we are wrong. Maybe people who have been around the block a few more times than we have actually do have some wisdom than we do not, garnered from being around for decades before we were born.

In many ways the world has changed a lot, especially culturally. The dating landscape for young men today, with dating apps and other things, is very different than it was even for Generation X. I communicated with my then-girlfriend via e-mail when we were dating, but we got to know each other in person. We have been married for 25 years. Other than e-mail, It was much the same as it was for my older siblings, who are all Boomers. Older generations giving advice often do not realize how different it is today, especially for the youngest Millennials and Gen Z.

But while there are many things that have changed, one thing that has not changed is human nature. The means of communication, the cultural expectations, and the labor market are always evolving, but men and women are the same as they were 50, 500, and 5000 years ago. We all carry the same temptations and weaknesses that all of our ancestors did. That is why it is wise to listen to people who have been observing other people for a lot longer than we have. This is especially true for people in the Church.

For younger people, it is not going to hurt you to listen respectfully to an older person's perspective. You are free to make your own choices and have your own opinions, but true wisdom comes from considering a variety of perspectives. Considering something you disagree with and the reasons you disagree with it might even improve your own argument. It is certainly better than following the Cult of Youth, which never ends well for anyone.

There is still no Biblical endorsement of singleness

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 08:01:58 GMT

Marriage is treated as normal in Scripture, and is a gift from God. That is why God gave Eve to Adam, and she became his wife. For all of church history, Christians have understood that the union of man and woman in the marriage covenant is a good thing, and marriage is how we fulfill God's command in Genesis 1 (before the Fall) to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. Man is made in God's image, so it honors God to make more of them. (Referring to the human race as "man" includes both male and female.) God created woman because, by His own reasoning, it is not good for the man to be alone. God's Word tells us in Proverbs 18:22 that finding a wife is a good thing and obtains the favor of the Lord.

Modern feminism has made a mess of society. Far from being something that lifts up women, modern feminism and rejecting sex differences has caused too many people to not even know what a woman is.

Radical feminists are an easy target for conservative Christians, and it is easy to mock their assertion that marriage is oppression and slavery. However, the threat we face in the Church is MGTOW and "Red Pill" hatred of all women. The most common way they do this is by twisting and mutilating Holy Scripture as some sort of support for permanent singleness. They do this partly by equating singleness with the gift of celibacy. The gift of celibacy and singleness are best represented by a Venn Diagram of a tiny dot in the middle of a huge circle. We are using a tiny, tiny exception to justify a much larger phenomenon.

It is true that the Apostle Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 7 that it would be his desire for people to be like him - someone who is unmarried. But the Apostle Paul, and the Holy Spirit, recognized an important fact: The vast majority of people do not have the gift of celibacy. (And the human race would go extinct if everyone was celibate.) That is why Scripture tells us it is better to marry than to burn. But who has the gift of celibacy? Here is a quick test: If you are a man and you desire sexual relations with women, you do not have the gift of celibacy.

"But Jesus was single! Paul was single!"

True. In the case of the Apostle Paul, very limited exceptions do not invalidate a general truth. Plus, Jesus was God incarnate in a man's body, and was without sin. Jesus assumes marriage in His ministry and preached against divorce.

"Jesus surrounded himself with single dudes."

That is not true, as documented in 1 Corinthians 9 when Paul points out that other Apostles are permitted to take a believing wife on missionary journeys. The claim that all of the Apostles were single does not match up with Scripture. Furthermore, marriage for leaders in the Church is assumed in the Apostle Paul's first letter to Timothy and in the book of Titus. This is because a qualification for leadership in the Church is to be the husband of one wife and to rule one's own home well.

On every statistical level, including sexual satisfaction, married people are better off than single people. This is true for both sexes. Why would we not want that for people? Marriage was created by God as a Creation ordinance, is praised in Scripture, and is assumed to be normal for God's people. Recognizing this is not a "cultish" take. The cult is those who reject what God has ordained, mutilating God's word and leading people into a life of sexual sin and temptation. Remember, the Apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 that forbidding marriage is a doctrine of devils.

As I said a couple days ago, I can cite statistics about the benefits of marriage all day long and cite Scripture alongside those statistics, but bitter feminists and bitter "Red Pill" men who see themselves as oppressed by the other group are going to believe what they want no matter what is written. The anti-marriage heresy spreading in the Church is one of faith and obedience, and rebellion against God. Do we trust God or not? Do we believe His Word or not? Far too many men have chosen bitterness and despair over trusting God. They do not need to be convinced, because they already know the truth. They need to repent of their idolatry and trust God instead.

♣ - Previously: There is no Biblical endorsement of singleness.

Feminists and anti-Feminists are on the same side

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 07 Sep 2026 08:01:16 GMT

Nearly half of all Americans are affected by cardiovascular disease. This, obviously, means that your personal risk of heart disease is nearly 50%. But wait! That's not true at all, is it? Genetics play a role, and some people are going to have more risk than others. Your diet and exercise also play a significant role in your personal risk of heart disease.

The same is true of marriage, an institution which is hated by both radical feminists and bitter masculinist "Red Pill" and MGTOW dudes. The most common objection of the "Red Pill" is that 50% of marriages end in divorce. But that does not mean that your marriage is a coin flip. Like with heart disease, there are many factors that go into whether or not a marriage will fail. Second and third marriages have a dramatically higher divorce rate than first marriages. College-educated couples have a divorce rate of around 25%, much lower than the 40% to 45% rate for first marriages overall.

What is amusing is that anti-marriage radical feminists and anti-marriage "Red Pill" dudes are exactly the same. Radical feminists have said for decades that marriage is slavery and oppression of women - they are bound to a man and under his thumb. The "Red Pill" and MGTOW dudes say the same thing: You are at the mercy of your wife and she can commit adultery against you, divorce you, and then take half (or more) of your wealth and get custody of the children. Both sides see themselves as oppressed by the other, and compete to see who is the bigger victim class. It is pathetic for both, but especially pathetic for men.

We could go through all of the statistics again about why marriage benefits both men and women, but ultimately it does not matter. People are going to believe what they want to believe. The issue is one of faith and obedience. Do we trust God or not? Do we believe His Word or not? Or have we put our faith in the sex wars and how "terrible" the opposite sex is instead?

Previously:

♣ - Are "Red Pill" and "Woke" the same thing?

♣ - Attacking marriage from Left and Right.

♣ - There is no Biblical endorsement of singleness.

♣ - For Valentines Day, reject the Black Pill.

♣ - Marriage is good for men.

♣ - Marriage is good for men and women.

Subscribe now

Lindsay Clancy and the "all or nothing" cult

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:01:00 GMT

The worst thing about our political and cultural debates is the simple-minded obsession among far too many people that everything has to be "all or nothing." We see this all the time in politics, with people rejecting any possibility for nuance at all. You must take the most extreme position possible. Anything on "the other side" is 100% pure evil and totally irredeemable. We see this on full display in the Lindsay Clancy case.

I understand having sympathy for Lindsay Clancy. She was suffering from depression and had been to a number of doctors to try to get relief. I do not have any sympathy for her, because that sympathy evaporated when she brutally murdered her own children. However, I understand why people would. I can even understand why people would think her mental illness was so severe she was not criminally responsible for her actions. I obviously disagree, but I can respect that opinion.

What I do not respect and will never respect is the Lindsay Clancy cult's demonization of her husband, especially fraudulently accusing him of committing the murders himself. Do you know it is actually possible to sympathize with Lindsay Clancy without tormenting a man who found the brutally mutilated bodies of his own children and falsely accusing him of murdering his own children? Seriously, do you people have no shame at all? Do you have no human decency or compassion? Is your cultish devotion to a child murderess co complete that you have to find a patsy for the murders you know she committed and that she admitted to committing? Do you have no shame?

Some of the more deranged members of the cult have even argued that astrology charts show that Patrick Clancy is guilty. So all of the police investigations, interviews, gathering of forensic evidence and the admission of Lindsay Clancy and her attorneys that she strangled her own children to death are all invalid because your so-called "gods" have shown you through star charts who the "real" murderer is? Really? Do you realize that this fantasy (and your entire religion) is completely deranged and totally detached from reality?

Patrick Clancy took twelve weeks of paternity leave to help his wife with the third baby. He actively sought mental health treatment for his wife. He started working from home so he could be there with his wife and children. The reason he was not home when his wife committed the murders is because she sent him to get medicine and dinner. But nothing is ever good enough for the cult, because of their religious fanaticism. Patrick Clancy must be a full villain, with absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Religious fanaticism demands it be "all or nothing." Having sympathy for Lindsay Clancy requires that her husband be 100% pure evil. The Holy Prophet Lindsay Clancy, peace be upon her, must have complete and total devotion.

"All or nothing" is not how the real world works. It is, however, how a cult works. That is why I reject your so-called "god" and your demands for total submission to your cult's theology. I am a heretic and a blasphemer, and I am very proud of that. I will never repent of my "sin."

When TDS condemns aid to needy children

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 02 Sep 2026 08:01:55 GMT

A common meme on the Right is having President Trump say something really obvious and have Leftists then do exactly the opposite. Well, I must inform you that they did the meme. Indiana University's president appeared at an event with President Trump announcing a scholarship program for people who have been in foster care. It was amusing to read people in the comments become very angry.

First, let's address a more substantive criticism: That President Trump has made cuts to other important programs and this does not make up for that. (This is their argument, not mine.) That is fine and worth addressing, but that does not mean helping people who have been in the foster care system is bad. If someone has been in the foster care system, it is because their parents have either given them up or been judged unfit to retain custody, and that can be a toxic environment that creates significant challenges for those children.

(Whether the federal government has any constitutional authority to be implementing another national scholarship program for any group is another matter, and unfortunately nobody in the Republican Party seems interested in restraining the federal government and leaving things like this to the states. The Tea Party really is dead and buried.)

The non-substantive criticism is it helps President Trump or is "boot licking." Some are unhappy simply because it is President Trump doing it, but would have been happy with the program had it been announced by President Obama, President Biden or President Clinton. This kind of hyper-partisan hypocrisy represents everything that is wrong with our politics today.

The Bulwark's take, however, was openly repulsive. Tim Miller and George Conway mocked the First Lady's accent and language skills, something they would be "horrified" to see if a Republican mocked a Democratic immigrant's accent. (Remember when a Republican candidate referring to a Democratic operative as "Macaca" was a national scandal?) Both Miller and Conway are smart enough to offer substantive commentary without this playground-level cartoonishly childish mockery.

"Waah! But Orange Man is mean! Waah! Orange Man Bad! Waah!"

I do not care. I have very harshly criticized the President's demeanor and language many times over the last decade. As I have said many times, I refused to vote for him in 2024. That does not mean that everyone else has to act like a childish bully.

Look, people. This is a relatively easy topic, and never needed to become yet another occasion to be hateful, petty and vindictive. Helping people who have been through the foster system is a good idea, though I would prefer it be done at the state level. Stop letting your personal hatred for President Trump override your ability analyze policy. Stop with the hatred and personal mockery. Grow up.

A desperate distraction from employee safety

Scott Tibbs — Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:00:15 GMT

An at-large member of the Monroe County Council is being fraudulently accused of threatening to murder a member of the Monroe County Commissioners. A few weeks ago, inmates at the Monroe County Jail vandalized toilets, causing a sewer backup into the Justice Building. After a complaint that the offices were not properly cleaned, Monroe County Councilor David Henry was unhappy about allegedly unsafe working conditions for Monroe County employees. He said the following:

If you have a direct responsibility over that facility and it is not still cleaned up as of nearly two weeks later, I hope you bring your body armor to budget season, because I have a lot of questions to ask as to why people in that building are still working in conditions that are unsanitary

The response from one of the Commissioners was that it was a “violent threat.” This, obviously, is absurd. No, a member of the county council is not threatening to bring a gun to the budget hearings and murder the county commissioners. This is an outright lie, which is a disqualification to continue to serve in public office and something the voters need to remember in two years.

This, once again, illustrates the absolutely absurd “all or nothing” mentality in our politics. We cannot have restrained criticism, much less recognize that nuance exists. We have to jump to the most extreme interpretation possible. Councilor Henry was not promising pointed questions about safety of employees, he was threatening to murder an elected official of the same political party.

Do you know it is actually possible to criticize Councilor Henry’s language without accusing him of murderous threats? It could go something like this: “We understand that questions need to be asked, but the use of needlessly provocative and incendiary language makes it more difficult for the Monroe County Council and Monroe County Commissioners to find a solution to this problem. We need to expect a higher standard of professionalism from an elected member of county government’s fiscal body.” Is that really so difficult?

Here is the reality: The commissioners are embarrassed that there is an official complaint about employee safety, so now Commissioner Julie Thomas is trying to distract from the commissioners’ failure to protect county employees by pretending that a county councilor is threatening to shoot her dead. She knows that is not what Councilor Henry said. Did Commissioner Thomas file a police report? Did Commissioner Thomas seek a protective order? If not, we know this is all a hoax. The County Commissioners need to be more concerned with actual threats to the health and lives of county employees instead of lying about the language used by other Democrats.

BlueSky's ridiculous moderation standards

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 31 Aug 2026 08:02:19 GMT

This is an open letter to the BlueSky moderation team:

My account was suspended for four days on BlueSky after I said Lindsay Clancy should face the death penalty for murdering her three children. This woman strangled a five year old child, a three year old and an eight month old to death. It was a truly horrifying crime. I cannot imagine the horror of watching your own "mother" brutally murder your siblings, realizing you are next. As a father, I cannot imagine the horror of getting home to discover that my children have been savagely strangled to death.

Support for the death penalty is common in these United States. An outright majority of the American people support capital punishment, and this includes roughly 1/3 of Democrats. We live in a country with deep Christian roots, and the death penalty is supported throughout Scripture, beginning with Genesis 9:6. Support for the death penalty is fully within normal political beliefs in this country, and therefore should be permitted under "Respectful Discourse" rules. If Lindsay Clancy is executed (and tragically, she will not be) she will never be able to harm or murder another child.

That is why I am so disappointed in your decision to suspend my account for advocating capital punishment for a child murderer. Despite the false claims of your moderation team, my post was not a "threat" to the "safety" of any user or community, or even Lindsay Clancy herself. It was a perfectly normal advocacy for public policy supported by a majority of Americans and is well within the Overton Window of acceptable political discourse.

I am asking you to restore my post, and to remove the "strikes" on my account for expressing an opinion on public policy that the majority of the American people agree with. I am also suggesting the moderation team be trained to discern between advocacy of public policy as opposed to a "true threat" and/or advocacy of extrajudicial violence. There is a wide gulf between an execution after a fair trial and extrajudicial violence, and both your policies and your implementation of those policies by your moderators should reflect that reality.

On motorized carts and minding your own business

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:02:14 GMT

This ridiculous non-issue popped up in my social media feed a couple weeks ago: People are offended by "obese" people using the motorized carts at the grocery store, when disabled people could use them. Let me say this: If you are offended by this, you need to find some perspective.

Many disabilities are invisible disabilities. It could be breathing issues, a history of ankle and/or knee injuries, or heart problems. It could be that someone who looks "healthy" is undergoing chemotherapy and has difficulty getting around due to the effects of the drugs. Whether you think it is "fair" or not, obesity itself can certainly be a disability that requires additional help, which is why the stores provide the motorized carts in the first place.

"Well, they could use a little exercise. It would help them." You do not know that, and you are likely wrong. Unless someone is on a comprehensive plan to lose weight and improve conditioning and mobility, forcing them to push a cart is not going to help them. Instead, this "solution" for obese people using the carts is meant to be a punishment and public humiliation. This is shameful behavior no matter who is engaged in it, but when I see "christians" making this argument it is exponentially worse.

I know I say this a lot, but I am going to say it again anyway: This is what a cult looks like. You do not approve of someone's body size, so you want to punish them and exclude them from society. You ultimately want to micromanage every aspect of a total stranger's life to ensure they "deserve" access to something you do not own or pay for. You want to prevent a total stranger who you literally know nothing about from using a service the grocery store provides to customers for free. This is none of your business.

Handicapped parking spaces are a separate issue. The spaces are restricted by law, while the motorized carts are not. If you think a handicapped permit is being abused, call the BMV in your state. Doctors who knowingly certify that someone who does not qualify "needs" a permit can face professional consequences for that as well. So if you know of actual abuse, close your social media app and contact the proper authorities instead.

Here's the bottom line: You have bigger problems than whether someone using the cart "deserves" to be using it. If you don't, find some. It is none of your business whether someone is "legitimately" disabled or "deserves" to use the cart. Grow up, get over yourself, recognize that you do not actually know everything, and mind your own business.

No, we should not totally reject the experts

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 08:01:49 GMT

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise. -- Proverbs 12:15

A common theme on the Right is that after 2020, they will never trust the "experts" again. Yes, many experts beclowned themselves in 2020, and I do not need to go through all of that again for the purposes of this article. But we should be careful not to swing too far in the other direction. Experts do exist, and they do know a lot more than the general population and probably most of the people reading this article. One thing I know for sure is they know a lot more than I do. You should be wise and discerning in what experts you trust, but you should not ignore the fact that experts exist and provide useful information and advice. We should not become anti-intellectual as an over-correction to corruption.

When people say they refuse to listen to experts, they are not actually refusing to listen to anyone but themselves and the call to "do your own research." They are transferring that trust from one source to a new source. Who is the new source? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? Even if you are not listening to an "expert" compile things for you, "doing your own research" involves reading, listening to or watching sources that are providing that information. You are not personally doing scientific research, you are not personally testing drugs, and you are not personally reading troves of documents and conducting interviews. The question is not whether to trust, but who to trust.

There are many areas of life where we trust experts. When you get onto a plane, you are trusting the pilot not to crash nose-first into the ground. You trust the surgeon not to kill you and you trust the supermarket not to sell poisoned or rotten food. You trust that the Lithium battery in your smartphone, tablet or laptop has been engineered well enough that it will not catch fire or explode. And yes, if you are a Christian you trust the man in the pulpit to properly preach the Word of God to you on any given Sunday, so that you can be instructed and spiritually edified. That last bit is important. We are all corrupted by sin and our judgment is clouded as a result. Fellow Christians or church leaders might be able to see and provide insight into your life that you are missing.

Be teachable. Be humble enough to recognize that you do not know everything and others know more than you do. Do not be so proud that you will only do what is right in your own eyes and that no one will ever tell you what to do. Above all, set a good example for your children by being humble and teachable, so that they will want to follow that example. No, this is not a call to be gullible. It is a call to be wise.

Subscribe now

Forgiveness and approval are not the same thing

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:01:29 GMT

When Jesus died on the cross, He did something that defied human logic. Man had sinned against God and deserved eternal punishment because of that sin. But the penalty for that sin was paid by God Himself - the same God Who we had sinned against in the first place. No other sacrifice would do, other than God's only begotten son.

One of the popular memes floating around social media details the depraved crimes of Jeffrey Dahmer and how absurd it is that he accepted Jesus Christ and will be in Heaven. This is meant to illustrate how absurd Christianity is. How could God allow this evil man into Heaven just because he confessed faith just seven months earlier? But the real absurdity, from a human perspective, is not that Dahmer is in Heaven. The real absurdity is that anyone is in Heaven. We all deserve eternal damnation.

The Dahmer meme illustrates the perspective of someone who has no idea of the breadth and depth of his own sin and the insurmountable debt we have to God. When the Holy Spirit opens up to us just how totally corrupt we are, we truly appreciate how much Jesus' sacrifice means and we become truly thankful for His unlimited grace. We are not better than Dahmer, or that murderer King David. We are not better than King Manasseh, who burned his own children to death, or the Apostle Paul, who persecuted the early Church.

No, this does not mean that Christianity "enables crimes and offers zero real justice." There is no conflict between forgiveness for sin and earthly consequences for that sin. Someone can be justly executed for his crimes and still be forgiven by God. While eternity is in God's hands, he gives the sword to the civil magistrate to deal with crimes on earth. Even on earth, the victims of a crime can forgive the criminal and yet still plead with the government to punish that crime. A Christian business owner can fire and press charges against an employee who steals from him and also forgive him. It is not all or nothing.

You do not deserve God's grace, or anything good from His hand. Neither do I. You and I have sinned against God in a way that we can never atone for with our works. God does not see you and me any differently than He sees Dahmer or King Manasseh. But if we accept His son as our Lord and Savior, our Father in Heaven sees us with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. That is not a weakness or an endorsement of sin. That is the ultimate expression of love.

See previous posts here and here and here and here and here.