ConservaTibbs

The RINO bitterness against Christine O'Donnell

Scott Tibbs — Tue, 19 May 2026 08:01:06 GMT

I was listening to the Charlie Sykes podcast, when the guest ragged on former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell for putting out an ad in the 2010 general election saying "I am not a witch."

I do not care to re-litigate a Republican primary from 16 years ago and who the candidate should have been. It is over and done. The Republican-in-name-only (RINO) establishment needs to grow up, put their big boy pants on, and get over it. You wanted someone else in Delaware in 2010. You lost. Move on. I don't spend my days crying about a moderate beating a conservative in a primary 16 years ago, because it is a waste of time and I have more productive things to do.

But the attack on O'Donnell's ad, this many years after the fact, is dishonest, disingenuous and hypocritical. The reason she made the ad is because Democrats and RINO were constantly attacking her as a witch. Had she not been falsely attacked, she would not have responded.

So according to RINO "logic," you are damned no matter what you do. If she had ignored the attacks, she would be damned in 2026 for allowing the narrative to stand. The fact that she defended herself opens her up to mockery for that. There is no "principle" here. The only "principle" is beating up on O'Donnell for getting more votes than the favored RINO candidate, which is the unforgivable "sin." The fact that she was attacked for responding to a false attack is utterly ridiculous, and shows just how unprincipled the RINO establishment is.

The fact that the RINO establishment is still so bitter about O'Donnell's primary win shows their entitlement mentality. This is not something you can even blame on President Trump, because he would not run for office until five years after the fact. RINO have never wanted the Republican Party to be a conservative party, and they are embarrassed to be associated with us. If they lose a primary, they will never get over it and will whine for decades after the fact. Never apologize. Never compromise. The moderate RINO squishes are to be defeated, because that is what they want for us.

Subscribe now

The Comey prosecution and the "all or nothing" cult

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 15 May 2026 08:02:16 GMT

I got an angry e-mail about my article about prosecuting James Comey for his childish Instagram post, saying I did not mention that President Trump explicitly said to "peacefully" protest on January 6, 2021. Yes, he did say that, and I specifically addressed this and defended President Trump back in 2021. My point was that even if President Trump did not say that, he could not be prosecuted for incitement because of Supreme Court precedent in a case that has been critical for free speech rights. I also called for Congress to reform banking laws to respect free speech in the wake of the revelation that President Trump was forced to close his bank accounts in the aftermath of January 6.

As an aside, absolutely no one legitimately believes Comey "found" the seashells arranged as numbers and did not do it himself. Stop pretending otherwise. It obliterates your credibility to be pushing this ridiculous fantasy, and harms the case for Comey's free speech rights. Once again, this illustrates the "all or nothing" mentality where people refuse to give an inch, and wind up beclowning themselves in the process.

Yes, the Obama Regime absolutely did illegally target and spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, an abuse of power that should have been prosecuted during President Trump's first term in office. President Trump took far too long to remove Comey as director of the FBI in his first term. That, however, has nothing do do with prosecuting Comey for a childish Instagram post of prearranged seashells. It was not a threat against the President's life, and if President Trump did not have a preexisting grudge against Comey there would have been no effort to criminally charge him for the post. Comey's behavior in the "Russiagate" investigation does not justify an abuse of power to attempt to imprison him for his free speech, childish and unprofessional as that free speech might be.

The most hilarious fraudulent accusation was that I am attempting to score points with the Bloomington Blue Bubble. Yes, the guy who was called a "cult leader" for participating in the annual Life Chain and who has been angering Leftists for 30 years with my speeches to local bodies, my writing in the Herald-Times and the Indiana Daily Student and my online writings on this blog and elsewhere is totally trying to score points with Leftists who have hated me for 20 years before President Trump was the Republican Party's nominee.

For the trillionth time, it is not all or nothing. The fact that I oppose the malicious prosecution of James Comey for exercising his free speech rights does not mean that I do not think there was any malfeasance in the "Russiagate" investigation, nor does it mean I am trying to curry favor with Leftists in Bloomington who have hated me for thirty years. Demanding "all or nothing" is how a cult acts.

Respecting boundaries should not be controversial

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 13 May 2026 11:31:14 GMT

When the New York Post "reported" on a "vile" video of neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes pepper-spraying and shoving a Jewish woman, they were roundly mocked and ridiculed on social media. This is because this is a confrontation that should never have happened, and would never have happened had the "Jewish woman" behaved like a rational adult who respects proper boundaries.

Fuentes is an obnoxious provocateur who loves stirring up anger. Making people angry is critical to his brand: It drives people to "hate follow" him and drives others to share his content because they are also being edgelords. But some lines should not be crossed in response. This is one of them: You do not go to somebody's house to confront him about politics. Write a letter to the editor. Write a blog post. Write something on social media. Make a YouTube video. Tell your friends not to watch and support him, conditioning your friendship on their answer. Do almost anything else. But if you go to somebody's house to confront him, only bad things can result from that. This could have been much worse than it was.

Unfortunately, because we live in a world where people are so simple-minded that everything has to be "all or nothing," I am completely opposed to Nick Fuentes and I think he is a complete and total reprobate of a person. Fuentes himself has engaged in exactly this kind of rancid behavior, confronting Ben Shapiro on the street while Shapiro was with his wife and children. That also could have ended very badly, especially since Florida is a "stand your ground" state. But my opposition to Fuentes, and Fuentes' own hypocrisy, do not justify going to his home to confront him and film it for social media clout.

Twenty years ago, it would have been unthinkable that going to someone's home to confront him about his political speech would have been defended. But for all of the good social media has done (and it has done a lot of good) it has obliterated boundaries and decorum that society used to consider universal. If we are worried by the amount of hate in our politics and culture, we need to robustly condemn this kind of behavior and violating boundaries, especially when done by a member of our own political tribe. In fact, we should be more forceful in condemning our own side than we are in condemning the other side for this kind of behavior. This needs to stop before we see a lot more bloodshed.

Respect for authority as the basis of manly character

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 11 May 2026 08:01:36 GMT

As a boy grows into a young man, the most important practical life lesson he needs is basic respect for authority. This is one of the lessons that parents - especially fathers - should teach their children.

No, this does not mean we should "willingly get in the boxcar" and be sent to the concentration camp. I have literally seen that very argument in discussions of respecting authority, especially during the debates over COVID-19 quarantine orders and mask mandates. Yes, there comes a point where we must disobey, as seen in Acts 5:29. But we are always looking for the exception so that we do not have to accept the basic principle that we hate - especially as Americans.

Obviously, this starts with respecting parents as they try to train a boy and then a young man to be a responsible adult. Things are much easier for a boy when he is obeying what he is told. Parents have rules for a reason. But that basic respect for authority extends into the rest of life.

After learning respect for authority at home, that boy will need to respect and obey authority at school. This will help with grades and social relationships, and not being a disruption is kindness for classmates and peers. When that young man enters the workplace, respect for authority will be greatly appreciated by employers and will open up further professional opportunities. Respecting authority at church and being teachable will benefit you spiritually and will also benefit the church. Obviously, obeying the law will keep you out of trouble and prevent you from getting a ticket for something as simple as not wearing a seat belt. (Keep in mind I do not think this should be a law.)

We also have to be careful not to develop a persecution complex that fuels resentment for and disobedience of lawful authority. A couple weeks ago, a writer for The Federalist wrote this: "U.S. leaders have also attempted to prevent Christian worship services. During the 2020 Covid shutdowns, many churches were forcibly closed."

That is fake news. COVID-19 quarantine orders did not target Christians. The quarantine orders were laws of general applicability that affected everyone, not just churches. It is reasonable now and was reasonable then to question the length and scope of the quarantine orders, but painting this as religious persecution is just factually wrong. Christians should not be trading on victimhood as currency the way pagan society does.

Respecting authority is especially important for men who want to be leaders themselves. If you are seen as someone who has contempt for those over him, you are setting a bad example for those under your authority. This is true whether it is your own children or in other contexts outside the home. A man who refuses to respect the authority over him will likely be a doormat or a tyrant, and neither are good qualities in a leader.

Yes, there are abusive authorities. But we must be careful to not define "abuse" as simply expecting people to follow the rules at home, at school, at work or while driving on streets and highways. Authority is inescapable in our lives, and is woven into our society, our culture and our very nature by God Himself, who is the ultimate authority. We obey the authorities He has placed over us not because we are servile boot-lickers, but for our own benefit. When we are obeying those authorities, we are ultimately obeying God.

No, we should not abolish the filibuster

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 08 May 2026 08:01:44 GMT

One of the top agenda items for President Trump is the "SAVE Act," fueled by his bitterness over losing the 2020 election. Because Democrats in the Senate oppose it, and Republicans do not have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, President Trump is demanding Republicans abolish the filibuster.

But this is a terrible idea. The filibuster played an important role in delaying or forcing compromises on bad legislation, and was important in stopping a "voting rights" act that would have expanded federal power and decreased election integrity during the Biden Administration. The very same filibuster that is preventing legislation that President Trump would consider an improvement also prevented legislation that would have made election integrity worse. Republicans should not hand the Democrats a tool they will use to force their agenda through the U.S. Senate, especially if we have a Democratic President in 2029. Republicans need to think beyond the next 67 seconds.

Naturally, because Republicans are holding the exact same position they held while blocking legislation supported by President Biden, critics of those Republicans take an "all or nothing" stance, pretending the Republicans are planning to give the "nuclear option" to the Democrats. This is absurd, cult-like behavior. The world does not revolve around President Trump, and Republicans who have been Republicans for a long time should not be expected to give up long-held positions and put themselves as a serious disadvantage the next time they are in the minority just because President Trump wants something.

No it is not "unconstitutional" for the United States Senate to set its own rules for closing debate and moving legislation to the full Senate for a vote. You are going to need to show me in the text of the Constitution where the Senate is not allowed to set its own rules for closing debate. The fact that the filibuster is "anti-democratic," like the fact that every state has equal representation in the Senate, is exactly the point. This is a wise rule meant to slow things down - and it has been used effectively before, such as the aforementioned blocking of "voting rights" legislation pushed by President Biden.

Does this mean that no reforms can be implemented? No. Republicans could force a talking filibuster, where people actually have to hold the floor of the Senate and grind business to a halt. Then the filibuster would be reserved for things that the minority party finds most important, preserving tradition and slowing down the process while also allowing more things do get done. What Republicans should not do is bow to the demands of populist demagogues who cannot be bothered to think of the future implications of what we do right now.

Journalistic integrity and a fake "rape" case

Scott Tibbs — Thu, 07 May 2026 08:01:48 GMT

Note: I originally wrote this on April 18, 2006, and I was shocked at how poorly the Herald-Times article aged. The so-called “rape” was revealed to be a complete and total hoax. In the aftermath of the case, corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong was disbarred. It is a terrible injustice that he did not go to prison for life. The false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, brutally murdered her boyfriend a few years later. Had she gone to prison like she should have, that Black man would still be alive. His life mattered.

In his article about a candlelight vigil for sexual assault victims, Herald-Times "reporter" James Boyd wrote of "the sexual assault that was reported at Duke University a month ago", "the victim in that case" and mentioned "a North Carolina Central University student reported being raped by three men." None of these statements were direct quotes from people who attended the vigil.

Boyd further demonstrated his lack of journalistic integrity with the quotes he chose to include in his article on the story. The people quoted by Boyd talked asked "how can we show support for the victim" and talked about "the fact that it was the brutality of a gang rape". A "fact", eh? I guess we do not even need to go through with a trial by jury, because the Herald-Times has already handed down a conviction. What does it matter that we don't know which three of the 46 white team members allegedly committed the rape, or if there was a rape at all. Never let the lack of evidence get in the way of a good lynching.

It gets worse: the word alleged does not appear one single time in Boyd's article.

This is just poor journalism. If Boyd believes that three members of the Duke Lacrosse team did in fact commit rape, I have no problem with him arguing that point on the opinion page. Boyd's article was a thinly-disguised opinion piece in the "news" section of the H-T. For Boyd to write about the alleged rape as if it was a documented fact when there has been no conviction and the fact that evidence has surfaced that throws doubt on the stripper's story shows a stunning lack of journalistic integrity.

Boyd should get a stern reprimand from H-T editor Bob Zaltsberg and all of the H-T reporters should be reminded that, unless they are writing on the opinion page, their job is to report facts, not push an agenda. The Herald-Times should also remember that the same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press also protects the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Subscribe now

No, you may not live in your own bespoke reality

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 06 May 2026 08:00:54 GMT

I have often railed against the “all or nothing” mentality in politics, which more closely resembles a cult than serous political principles. But while many things are not an “all or nothing” proposition, there is one thing that is all or nothing: Facts. The fact that so many people want to live in their own bespoke reality is a real problem. Too many people reject objective facts because those facts do not fit their biases. This does not bode well for the future, and it will only get worse.

I said on social media that the attempted assassination of President Trump on April 25 was an argument in favor of building a new White House ballroom, as events could be more easily secured at the White House than at a private venue. I also pointed out that the need for a larger event space was an area of bipartisan agreement:

Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating. It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties.

Naturally, this argument from the Washington Post was not only rejected, it was condemned as false. It is not reliable because it is an “opinion” piece, rather than straight news. This, of course, is totally absurd. The fact that this was from the Editorial Board does not make it any less valid than if it was in a straight news article. If the Washington Post Editorial Board is openly fabricating things in a staff editorial, then that destroys trust in everything the newspaper is reporting.

Either Obama/Biden officials said the ballroom was needed, or they did not. That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of objective fact. Either the Washington Post lied, or what they said is true. There is no third option. There is no “that is just an opinion piece.” In this case, it absolutely is all or nothing.

There are legitimate arguments to be made against President Trump’s plan for a White House ballroom. That is not my point. My point is that, like so many things involving President Trump, people are inventing their own bespoke reality instead of dealing with objective facts. This is not exclusive to Leftists, naturally, as MAGA supporters will claim that screenshots of the President’s posts on Truth Social accompanied by a hyperlink to the post are “fake news.”

There will always be disputes over facts. There will always be disputes over the interpretation of facts. But we live in a society where far too many people reject the existence of facts at all. Anything and everything that is politically inconvenient for your tribe is dismissed as “fake news” or labeled as an irrelevant “opinion,” no matter how well-sourced it may be. If we are going to be a unified nation and not tear ourselves apart, this needs to stop. We cannot have each political tribe existing in its own bespoke “reality” where all “facts” fit the judgment of your tribe. We must put our commitment to the truth above our commitment to our respective political parties.

Targeting Comey is an abuse of power by President Trump

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 04 May 2026 08:02:26 GMT

James Comey can be an insufferable egotist with a grand sense of self-importance. He thought he was being "cute" with the "86-47" photo he posted to social media a year ago. He deserved the scorn he got for it. But the Trump Administration, almost certainly under orders from President Trump himself, is completely wrong to attempt to put him in prison for a social media post. President Trump has long wanted personal vengeance against anyone in law enforcement involved in the Russiagate scandal which haunted his first term, and this is another act toward getting that vengeance.

President Trump told the January 6 crowd to "fight" for the country before sending the crowd to the Capitol Building to protest the certification of the 2020 Electoral College vote. However, he was never charged with incitement. The Supreme Court set the Brandenburg standard before I was born, which has been critical in protecting free speech. Basically, you have to explicitly advocate an imminent lawless act to be guilty of incitement. Given how often politicians tell their followers to "fight" for something, there is no end to politically-motivated prosecutions that could be directed at elected officials, candidates and activists. Remember, President Obama once said "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun."

Just as President Trump could not be charged with incitement, the case against Comey is also very weak. No, the photo was not calling for the assassination of President Trump. It was calling for him to be removed from office. It was far beneath the professional standards of how a former FBI director should behave, and demonstrates that not only was President Trump correct to fire him, but that Comey should have been fired much earlier. Comey was trolling President Trump, hoping to get a reaction. President Trump is a very effeminate man who is notoriously thin-skinned, so he hates criticism like this, but that does not mean such memes are criminal acts.

This is not a legitimate prosecution. This is lawfare. If we had a Republican Party that was not totally subservient to President Trump's every whim, Congress would stand up against this abuse of power and dangerous attack on free speech. If the Democrats take control of Congress in November, this malicious prosecution will be the target of multiple Congressional investigations and maybe even impeachment proceedings. President Trump, in his effeminate rage against Comey, is also needlessly making himself a target for Democrats in a year. If for no other reason than to protect President Trump from himself, Republicans need to strongly urge him to end this nonsense.

That "Inside the Manosphere" documentary on Netflix

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 01 May 2026 08:00:57 GMT

There was a key moment in the "Inside The Manosphere" documentary on Netflix, and I do not think Louis Theroux realizes just how important it is: How many of the pagan, hedonistic "manosphere" guys grew up without a father. Lacking an important masculine influence, they are chasing masculinity through conquest of multiple women and material wealth. They crave the adulation of other men who see them as having the key to break free of "The Matrix." The hyper-masculinity of the pagan "manosphere" is a pale imitation of the genuine masculinity that eludes these "influencers."

There is a lot of "spicy" content in the documentary, so I would not watch it with children present. Discretion is strongly advised. You could listen to the audio via Bluetooth headphones, streaming it on a phone or tablet while doing something else.

Originally a backlash against feminism, the pagan "manosphere" embraces a ton of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "The Jews" run everything and we need to take back control from them. Men are oppressed not be feminism, but by Jews. I have always thought that it was absurd that 0.2% of the global population somehow runs the world. Two tenths of one percent of all people control everything? Really? According to these conspiracy theorists, Jews must be the smartest, most omni-competent people who have ever existed. They are superhumans! But what does that say about how weak and pathetic the 99.8% of the world is, to be dominated by such a tiny group of people?

Watching this movie made it clearer to me than ever that the answer to the pagan "manosphere" is not and cannot be feminism. The answer is Biblical masculinity. Teach men to love and be faithful to their wives, reject materialism, and serve God. Teach men that the essence of masculinity is responsibility. Trying to counter the pagan, hedonistic "manosphere" with feminism will fail. You have to present an alternative that is attractive, and feminism or "wokeism" will never be attractive to these men. This is a ripe mission field for the Church.

Subscribe now

AI porn is terrible, but hard cases make bad law

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:01:49 GMT

For three decades now, the legacy news media has hated the fact that the great unwashed masses can speak freely online. Newspapers had been publishing letters to the editor, but the space for those was limited and they always had to be approved by the editor. The legacy news media resented the fact that Matt Drudge broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal and while they complained bitterly about the blogosphere in the 2000's, most people were never going to set up a blog.

Then came social media. Facebook, Twitter and eventually Google Plus (remember them?) allowed the great unwashed masses access to a global audience that had never existed before. Not only was the legacy media no longer gatekeepers of information, but they were losing advertisement revenue to the social media platforms. Never lose sight of the financial angle to this controversy. The legacy media became incensed when social media (primarily Facebook) helped elect someone they considered an uneducated boorish oaf (Donald Trump) as President of these United States. This is why the legacy media has been clamoring for fact checks and even government regulation of social media.

Now the legacy media thinks it has a new tool to use to silence the great unwashed masses: Non-consensual pornography generated by artificial intelligence. This is a terrible thing when designed to humiliate and sexually degrade people, but becomes abominable when people are making AI deepfake porn involving underage girls or boys. But do not be fooled: The New York Times is not complaining that "Congress has not gotten it together to reform this law" out of concern for victims, and concern for victims is not the reason the Times is cheering the fact that "lawyers have had to file suits in state courts that try out innovative strategies to get justice for children."

Section 230 is absolutely critical for protecting free speech. If social media sites, forums, blog hosting services or newspaper comment sections could be held liable for user-generated content, they would either shut down completely or they would so harshly limit content that free and open discussion would be impossible. Startups that compete with social media giants could not hope to survive against a government determined to punish them for the speech of their users. Facebook would be fine with that, though, because they have access to high-priced lawyers that competitors do not. Only big business can afford big government.

Always remember that the primary goal of regulating social media is censorship of unpopular opinions, censoring inconvenient facts (such as with COVID-19) and restoring lost revenue to the legacy news media. The legacy media knows that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is a barrier to government sanctions on social media for user-generated content. The primary driving force behind the desire to "reform" section 230 and regulate social media is not civic virtue, a desire for truth, or a desire for civility. The primary driving force is and has always been greed and snobbery.

Obviously, action needs to be taken against non-consensual AI pornography. The first reform should be to recognize that pornography is not free speech. As I have said many times, the men who wrote the First Amendment would literally laugh in your face if you told them it protects hardcore porn. But we do need harsh legal sanctions against people who victimize children with non-consensual sexual images. (Real world child sex abuse material is already criminalized.) AI companies could solve this easily by voluntarily restricting their software's capability to make nude images of fully clothed people. A little bit of self-restraint by these companies now could stave off future heavy-handed government intervention.

But we need to be 100% perfectly clear about the real goal behind "reforming" Section 230. The real goal is a crackdown on free speech that is unprecedented in American history, which will also conveniently increase the profit margins for legacy news media. It is not "all or nothing." We can and should crack down on non-consensual sexual images and punish the people who traffic in those images (especially of children) while not crushing the free speech of millions of people whose only crime is posting an opinion on their Facebook page that politicians find uncomfortable or hurts their feelings.

Going "all or nothing" on redistricting, impeachment and President Trump

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:01:54 GMT

A prominent Indiana Republican claimed on social media a couple weeks ago that Republicans in the Indiana state senate voted to impeach President Trump. This is either an outright lie or a hysterical fantasy. None of the Republicans who voted against redistricting (which was an outright majority of Republicans in the chamber) voted to impeach President Trump.

I am so sick of this “all or nothing” garbage, which looks more like a devoted cult than a reasonable political argument. Indiana is still sending Republicans to represent seven of nine seats in Congress. This is with maps that are completely fair, with compact districts that follow county lines. Moving Indiana from a 7-2 Republican state to a 9-0 state with a ridiculous map that slices Indianapolis into several districts was never going to determine control of Congress.

Let me improve the ridiculous argument:

Indiana Republicans, knowing that Democrats in states like California and Virginia were trying to gerrymander their Congressional districts, should have responded by eliminating the remaining two Democratic seats in Indiana. We may not like gerrymandering, but we have to fight fire with fire to blunt the chicanery from Democrats. Republicans need to recognize what time it is, and they were wrong not to fight back.

See? It does not have to be “all or nothing.” No ridiculous claims about voting to impeach President Trump, or supporting Andre Carson. This is an argument that I do not agree with, but one that I can respect because it is honest.

Yes, Democrats and Leftists support a number of policies that are harmful and destructive. But “the other side is bad” is not, and has never been and will never be an argument FOR your candidate. And despite propaganda merchants on social media, conservatives not supporting President Trump over the military action against the pedophile terrorist regime in Iran does not equate to being on the same side as all of the most radical elements of the Left. Principles actually do matter, and non-interventionist Republicans are not making common cause with the radical Left simply by holding the same position they did two years ago.

There are plenty of reasons to support President Trump on policy. The “binary choice” meme is not one of them. The “binary choice” meme made sense in 2016. Given that President Trump was always going to run for re-election, you could have argued from 2017-2020 that he would be better than any of the Democrats who could be his general election opponent. You could make the “binary choice” argument for opposing Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris from 2021-2024. That is not where we are now. President Trump is one year into his second term. He can never be elected President again. Therefore, the binary choice meme is done. There is no longer any legitimate argument that we must vote for President Trump. He is judged 100% on policy. It is time for the sycophants to grow up, be men, and judge policy rather than pointing at the Democrats.

Autism, ableism and being a good parent

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:01:50 GMT

One of the easiest ways to offend the neurodivergent community is to say that it is not "ableist" to expect children on the autism spectrum to behave properly. There are certain standards of behavior that should be expected of everyone, whether they are neurodivergent or not. But to some, "autism" (which is a spectrum, and one word cannot describe every neurodivergent person) has become a religion, and expecting certain standards of behavior is heresy and blasphemy.

As is the case so often, it is not all or nothing. Some neurodivergent people require more accommodations and some require fewer accommodations. I have never said that autistic children should not have some accommodations. What behavior is "proper" is going to require some variation from person to person, and some allowances will be made with some children that will not be made with others. For thousands of years, before the autism spectrum began to be defined in the 20th century, this was known as "common sense." So no, outside of prohibitions on things like violence, I am not going to define every single aspect of proper and improper behavior that should be expected. That is a fool's errand.

But the basic principle of expecting proper behavior is one that should be understood and endorsed by everyone. "Imagine having this much hate in your heart for a child" is a silly and hysterical response. It is not "hate" to help a child adjust to societal expectations (while making accommodations based on their ability) so they can be successful as they grow and mature. We also have to consider that child's peers, and make sure their needs are met by enforcing appropriate behavioral expectations of autistic children.

This is not about "bigotry." Whether we like it or not, the society we live in has general expectations of behaviors and children will need to learn to live within those behavioral standards. We teach this to help those children be successful and to help others as well. And yes, there will need to be accommodations and extra help, which are decided on a case-by-case basis. But some "parents" and activists want to take an "all or nothing" approach where no standards need apply. One hysterical person on Threads even said that making an autistic child "sit still" is abusive. If anything is hateful, it is that mentality. It is hateful to neurodivergent children and to everyone around them. Do better.

Subscribe now

Why does everything always have to be "all or nothing?"

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:01:21 GMT

I am getting to the point where my primary principle in politics is this: It is not all or nothing. This is because tribalism has overridden our critical thinking skills and any departure from Republican or Democratic doctrine makes you a "hater" who is "deranged."

The "all or nothing" mentality is not new, and has been an article of faith among many Leftists for generations now. If you disagree with something in the civil rights movement, it must be because you are "racist." Critical Race Theory stipulates that any difference in outcomes between Blacks and Whites is assumed to be because of "racism." If you do not think men can become women, you "hate" transgenders and you want to murder them. I have seen the claim that J.K. Rowling (who has long been an advocate for homosexual rights) wants to "murder" trans people more times than I can count. This is what happens when mass hysteria overcomes reason.

"All or nothing" is more common with President Trump than any other person in politics today. If you say something Trump does is bad but not apocalyptic, some on the Left consider you to be a MAGA bootlicker who is "minimizing his crimes." Meanwhile, some on the Right accuses you of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) and screeches that you "hate" the President for any disagreement at all. Jonah Goldberg has described this latter phenomenon as "Critical Trump Theory."

Seriously, people. Do you have children? Do you know you can disapprove of someone's actions and still love him? Because that is what being a parent is while you are training your child to have good manners, be polite, be respectful, and avoid bad behavior. We train our children to be good people and we discipline bad behavior because we love them and we want them to succeed. But while many people in MAGA recognize that it is not "all or nothing" regarding children, they are incapable of accepting any criticism at all of President Trump.

This, of course, brings me to the President's blasphemous post on Truth Social presenting him as a Christ figure healing someone with supernatural powers. There was a time when Christians would have universally condemned an image like that being shared by a politician. But when conservatives who support and voted for President Trump say this is a bad thing to do, they were accused of having "TDS" and called obscene names. Why does support of Trump require a complete and total endorsement of every single thing he does, while no disagreement is ever allowed? Yes, I understand that President Trump himself is a very brittle man who sees every disagreement as a personal betrayal, but rational adults should not be emulating this deeply effeminate worldview.

President Trump's blasphemous post serves three purposes. First, it is a loyalty test via a humiliation ritual. The people who beclown themselves defending it are showing their loyalty. Trump loves effusive praise, so creating images like this is a sure fire way to get his attention. Second, it allows Trump supporters to root out "heretics." Finally, it is a way to "own the libs" by angering them against not only President Trump, but against Christians generally. The whole thing is very childish.

Folks, this needs to stop. Moral standards are black and white. There is such a thing as right and wrong. There is objective truth, and some things are false. But human beings are fallen and flawed. The exact same person is capable of doing things that are good and commendable, and also things that are terribly wicked. We should have an "all or nothing" mentality regarding moral standards, but never regarding human beings. President Trump is not perfectly righteous, but he is not irredeemably evil and incapable of doing anything good. Disagreement - with Trump or anyone else - is not "hatred." We need to eliminate this simplistic mindset from our lives.

Yes, language absolutely matters

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:00:56 GMT

When Ronald Reagan was President, he had such respect for the institution that he loathed to even take his suit jacket off when he was in the Oval Office. A decade later, the incumbent President demeaned the Oval Office by carrying on a sexual relationship with a White House intern young enough to be his daughter in the same room where President Reagan loathed to even remove his suit jacket. While President Clinton's deeds were done in secret, the current President thinks nothing of openly demeaning the office with his filthy mouth.

I realize I am pounding my head against a concrete block wall here. I realize that I will be dismissed or ignored, accused of "clutching my pearls" or being stuck in the past. (Keep in mind I am nearly 30 years younger than both President Clinton and President Trump.) But this does need to be said again: Language absolutely does matter. We should not toss aside dignity, professionalism, decorum and restraint just because we "know what time it is." Leaders have a responsibility to set a good example for the American people, and to project to the world - both allies and enemies - disciplined and sober leadership. When the President of these United States issues official communications containing the F word, that should be humiliating for the country, and for both parties. This, of course, is nothing in comparison to the President's demented personal cruelty against his enemies.

On policy, President Trump has pursued a number of good things: regulatory reform that lifts burdensome rules from American businesses, tax reform that allows people to keep more of what they earn, reversing some of the "transgender" madness, and implementing a foreign policy that has the primary goal of advancing American interests. President Trump's most important legacy will be appointing three Supreme Court justices that were part of the 5-3 majority that overturned the abominable Roe v. Wade decision. He would be seen as a much better President had he not broken his promise to be presidential.

Worse yet, a number of conservatives who used to be advocates of self-discipline and professionalism now openly mock concerns about "naughty words," simply because of tribal loyalty. They will have absolutely no credibility to criticize Gavin Newsom (who is playing a ridiculous troll character) or any other Democrat running for President in 2028 for their language. They will be correctly seen as hypocrites who care only about their tribe, not actual principles. Standards of decorum and professionalism will continue to decline. Only new voices (or old voices who have been consistent) will be able to start reversing this trend in 2029.

Subscribe now

"All or Nothing" and Christian Nationalism

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 08:01:21 GMT

I have been involved in the anti-abortion movement for 30 years. I have picketed at the local abortion mill (which thankfully does not kill babies any more) and have lobbied local government not to give grants to Planned Parenthood every year since 1999. I have advocated for Christian values in government on many occasions. Yet I have been skeptical of Christian Nationalism. Why?

As I have said countless times on countless issues, it is not "all or nothing." The fact that someone is skeptical of Christian Nationalism does not mean that person opposes Christian values reflected in public policy. We need to be careful before we accuse critics of Christian Nationalism of wanting to surrender the culture and public policy to the advance of cultural Marxism.

(Do not expect this nuance to be recognized by the Left, which will label any Christian conservative as a "Christian Nationalist," even of that person has been saying the same thing for decades before "Christian Nationalism" became a topic of national conversation the last decade.)

My primary concern regarding Christian Nationalism is the pursuit of political power for its own sake. When political power becomes the primary goal, this will inevitably lead to compromise. Christians who advocate for morality in public policy have understood for decades that this nation is falling away from the historic Christian faith of our nation's founding, and because of that there will be times when we will lose. Yet we have faith in God's sovereignty and we pray that He will change hearts and minds to move our nation's policy objectives in a Christian direction.

When honoring God becomes secondary to gaining political power, compromise starts seeping in. This is why some self-proclaimed Christian Nationalists were arguing that Republicans need to weaken their opposition to abortion in order to "win." But when core principles are sacrificed to get our candidates elected, did we really "win" anything? No, that is not a victory. That is a defeat.

There are also charlatans who are not Christians, but claim to be. As I said before, if someone is defending character assassination or vicious personal cruelty because he "knows what time it is," that person is probably not a Christian at all. He worships political power, not the Lord Jesus Christ. We need to have discernment to realize who the fakes are, and not immediately rush to support someone just because he claims to be a "christian." Remember, even Jesus warns in Matthew 7:21-23 that some will proclaim how much they did for the Kingdom of God despite having never been known by Jesus.

In many ways, Christian Nationalists and traditional Christian conservatives are on the same side, but Christian Nationalists should not ignore the warnings of traditional Christian conservatives. Above all else, we must remember that the Lord's kingdom is not of this world, and political power must always be secondary to honoring God in the public square. We should trust that God is sovereign over all things.

Subscribe now

No, your child's school is not that dangerous

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:01:00 GMT

The Indiana state legislature is banning cell phones in schools, which is good. Of the arguments I have seen against it on social media, the "safety" argument is the most absurd. Students having smartphones is not going to do anything to stop a school shooter. If anything, making them less aware of their surroundings might put them in more danger than not having a smartphone. Schools all over the country have locked doors and school resource officers to protect students.

If a school was so dangerous that my child "needed" his cell phone to ensure his safety, my child would not be attending that school. If I could not find a way to educate them safely, they would not get an education at all. It would be better for them to be uneducated and alive than educated and murdered. If the state tries to send law enforcement to enforce truancy laws, the police had better send more officers than I have bullets, because I will do what it takes to protect my child, up to and including lethal force. I have no sense of proportion about this.

Or, alternatively, I do not believe you when you tell me your child's school is so dangerous they cannot leave their smartphone at home. Statistically speaking, the odds of your child being killed in a school shooting are very small. Look at the number of teens who graduate each year compared to the number who die in school shootings, as well as the number of school shootings compared to the total number of schools. Despite the propaganda you see about this on social media, school shootings are rare. If phones are necessary for safety, it would make sense for every teacher and employee to be mandated to carry a phone at all times, in addition to the office phone.

If you really believed your child was in that much danger, you would yank your child out of that school. You would meet efforts to force your child into a deadly environment with deadly force. If you would not protect your child's life, especially for economic reasons, then you are a bad parent.

What about when a child is sick? Whether a child should be sent home should be a decision made by the school nurse, not a student who calls home and decides to be a malingerer that day. Having parents go to the school to pick up their "sick" child will only create disturbances and disruptions, which is why we have school nurses in the first place. If anything, schools are likely to be overly cautious, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In fact, I have seen a number of parents on social media whine about their children being sent home. "Oh, little Suzy threw up once and she is fine, why do I have to go get her?" The reason these protocols are in place, and were in place before COVID-19, is to protect other students and staff from contagions. Things like norovirus can spread very quickly, especially among children who may not have the best hand-washing routine. I do not want my child getting sick, and then getting me sick, so that you are not inconvenienced. If your child is sick, go get him.

Technology is a good thing and smartphones have improved our lives in a number of ways. Calendar applications are great for planning on the go, and restaurant apps help you order ahead of time. You do not have to be tied to a desktop to check your e-mail any more. This just barely scratches the surface. But like all technology, smartphones have their place. That place is not in class creating a disruption or serving as a distraction for students. Banning smartphones in school is a necessary step that should have been taken 10-15 ago, before things got to where they are now. It's not a hardship or a threat to your child's "safety." Be reasonable, and be a good example.

Your social media "addiction" is your own responsibility

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 08:01:03 GMT

In the last few weeks, we have gotten one good ruling and one bad ruling about Internet companies and how they interface with customers. Taking the good news first: If Congress held internet service providers liable for piracy by their customers, that could have had major downstream effects for every consumer. It would force draconian action by ISP's and have serious consequences for universities, hospitals and large corporations.

Protecting internet companies from being held accountable for misdeeds of users sets a strong precedent against punishing gun manufacturers for gun violence, something Democrats have wanted to do for several decades now as a backdoor way of limiting Second Amendment rights when they could not get a victory through the normal political process. It also sets a precedent against the scheme to hold banks accountable for what people do with the money loaned to them. This was an important ruling that could have positive effects for decades to come.

The ruling against Meta for making their products "addictive" is less defensible. While the algorithms are indeed designed to hold users' attention, it cannot be described as "addiction" in the same way as tobacco or illegal drugs, where the body becomes chemically dependent on the drugs. If someone stops using a number of illegal drugs, he can experience severe withdrawal symptoms that can be life-threatening. Nicotine withdrawal is also a real thing. While there might be compulsive behaviors tied to internet use (such as the desire to spend hours reading my brilliant Substack posts) there is no physical need to continue scrolling your platform of choice.

When dealing with social media use by teens, the best place to address compulsive behaviors is not at the algorithmic level, but at the parental level. It is a relatively simple matter to limit the time spent on devices, even if implementation of limits can bring the temptation to immediately loosen them. It is not social media giants' responsibility to make sure a teenager is not spending hours a day on Instagram or TikTok. That responsibility ultimately falls to the parents - and as the teens get older it is their own responsibility as they prepare to be adults.

The two rulings set up a conflict that will eventually need to be resolved. Either corporations are responsible for the use of their products, as with the social media lawsuit, or they are not responsible for those actions, as with the case of online piracy. Hopefully the government moves more in the direction of the Cox Communications case. We do not want Congress, the judicial system or the federal bureaucracy deciding what is and is not punishable behavior for corporations. Not only does this significantly expand government power, it also opens the door for partisan or ideological abuse of power to reward friends and punish enemies. That is not going to be a good outcome for anyone.

Subscribe now

"Damaged goods" is a lie, but discernment is not a sin

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:01:43 GMT

If a man has a history of intimate partner abuse, it is blasphemous to tell a woman she should not marry this man or that she should exercise caution. After all, he has repented of his sin and has been forgiven by Jesus, so we should not deny the power of the Cross. If the man falls back into what once was a besetting sin and severely beats his new wife, well, that was a reasonable risk. You cannot create a cheap grace omelette without breaking a few bones. Every “girl dad” reading this would be horrified by the sarcastic argument I just made, if I was making it seriously. So why is someone’s sexual history off limits in a way that previous violent conduct would never be?

For some reason, a bunch of Christians online have gotten a bee in their bonnet about the need for men to marry women who have been sexually promiscuous. If a man would prefer to marry a virgin, he is damned as “toxic” or “misogynistic.” In at least one case, he is condemned as a heretic. A pastor with nearly 80,000 followers on X (Twitter) posted this a while back:

If someone argues that a former promiscuous woman is “damaged goods” and questions whether a Christian young man should marry her, remember Rahab.

Much of the “manosphere” online, including the Christian manosphere, has indeed become a hotbed of misogyny and self-righteousness over the sexual past of “modern women.” Some of the pagans in this space are openly hypocritical, arguing they should be able to bed countless women while demanding the women they marry or take as concubines must be virgins. (Andrew Tate has had a large influence in this mindset.) There is absolutely no room for grace, redemption or forgiveness, and the blood of Christ is rendered meaningless by this self-righteous heresy. A woman who has sinned sexually and accepted Jesus as her Savior is seen with His righteousness every bit as much as the women and men who have kept themselves sexually pure.

But we should not swing too far in the other direction in response to the misogyny of the Manosphere. People who had multiple sexual partners before they were married are significantly more likely to commit adultery than people who had few or none. Adding children from previous relationships adds more stress factors to the marriage, especially if the newly-married couple wants to have biological children together. It is foolish to sweep these and other difficulties under the rug with the mantra of “grace, grace, grace.”

Of course a Christian man should have reservations about marrying a formerly promiscuous woman, and we should not allow Boomers who are carrying guilt about the sexual revolution to shame those men out of having wisdom and discernment. We don’t have to trash wisdom and discernment to embrace forgiveness and grace. This does not mean that a repentant Christian woman with sexual sin in her past cannot ever be happily joined in a faithful, monogamous marriage. Obviously, that position is heretical. However, there are risk factors that must be considered. It’s not “all or nothing.” We have got to rid ourselves of this simplistic “all or nothing” mindset in every single area of our lives, but that is especially true here. Lives and families are literally at stake.

Folks, if someone is offering a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to relationship problems, that person is almost certainly a huckster. If he is not a huckster, he is very foolish and uninformed about the world. Either way, his advice should be ignored. Moral standards are black and white, and there are times when a decision is clear. However, life with fallen, sinful human beings is a sea of gray and there are many, many judgment calls where the right answer is not at all clear. All we can do is seek counsel, pray for wisdom, and have faith that God will lead us into the right decision and protect us once that decision is made.

Crimes worthy of death should not be trivialized

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 08:00:55 GMT

Whatever happened to simply calling someone a jerk, or calling someone a name that is much more colorful or even obscene? This is a legitimate question. I never thought I would long for the days when people were just screaming the F word at each other, but the last decade and the corrupting influence of the QAnon cult on our politics has actually made me nostalgic for people calling each other obscene names.

If you are not familiar with QAnon, it is a conspiracy theory that originated on notorious troll site 4Chan. In what was very likely feces-posting, the "Q clearance patriot" (or "Q" for short) and his followers claim that there is a cabal of satanic pedophiles that run our government and most of the world. This was then picked up in more mainstream circles outside of 4Chan. There is a very strong element of anti-Semitism in this conspiracy theory, as many claims are recycled from "blood libel" that cast Jews as evil child killers.

Here is a hint: If you are taking anything on the Internet's most notorious troll site seriously, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate whether you are a very gullible person.

The corrosive influence of QAnon is why one of the most common insults I see in political arguments is "pedophile." If you disagree with someone politically, that person is a "pedo." Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this, though it is more common on the Right. This is a terrible thing to say. First, because you are literally saying that someone who disagrees with you politically needs to be executed. No, I am not using hyperbole, and I am not lacking a sense of proportion. Most people would agree that child molesters should be executed. If someone disagrees with you on the benefits of a flat tax vs. a consumption tax, you call him a name that indicates he should be hanged from a tree until dead.

Second, it is terrible because it is making that word meaningless. Back in the 1990's, a common refrain was that "a racist is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal." Because of overuse, the word "pedophile" is starting to become as meaningless as the word "racist." In modern political debates, a "pedophile" is not someone who has abused a child, but someone you disagree with politically. Overusing that word minimizes the heinousness of a crime that is literally worthy of the death penalty. It betrays and abandons the suffering of actual victims of predators by turning the horrible crime committed against them into a political insult. This is depraved and perverted and it needs to stop right now.

Child sexual abuse is a horrific crime. It is literally worthy of the death penalty. It causes horrendous pain to victims and lifelong suffering. It warps the victims' perception of the world and leads them to a self-destructive path or even becoming abusers themselves. That is why people need to stop using "pedophile" as a political insult. The suffering of innocent victims should never be used as a political insult, and minimizing the heinousness of this crime is an evil act. It would be far better to scream obscenities than to continue using the word "pedophile" as a political cudgel. (That is not good either, but is not as bad.) Knock it off.

Thoughts on the Iran war

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 08:01:29 GMT

When President Trump started bombing Iran, my immediate reaction was opposition. After all, while I did not vote for Trump, one of the things I found most attractive about his policy agenda is his reflexive opposition to new wars.

With that said, there is obviously a strong case to be made for taking out Iran's nuclear program. Iran is a regime of Muslim terrorists - the exact same people who viciously murdered over 1 million people in the Armenian Genocide, viciously raping Armenian women and girls. Iran funded and supported the horrific October 7 massacre of Jews, where thousands were mercilessly slaughtered and both women and girls were violently raped, sexually mutilated and gang raped. (There is a strong current of pedophilia in radical Islam.) We cannot allow a pedophile terrorist regime to have access to a nuclear bomb to either blackmail the world or incinerate millions.

However, whatever the intelligence may have said about the imminence of the threat from the terrorist regime President Trump had in February 2026, he had eight months to make the case to Congress and the American people about the need to strike Iran's nuclear program between the June 2025 strikes and the February 2026 resumption of strikes. Whatever one might say about the realities of modern warfare, the Constitution explicitly gives warmaking authority to Congress, not the Executive Branch. The rule of law mandates that Congress retain its proper authority.

Obviously President Trump is right that European powers should step up and force the terrorist regime in Iran to stop blocking shipments of oil in the Persian Gulf. Iran is directly attacking the economy of the free world, and this is not the first time they have done this. Iran pulled the same stunt in the 1980's when they weaponized the Strait of Hormuz to hold the global economy hostage. President Reagan reacted strongly against this terrorist act, and Iran presents an even greater threat today because of things like drones. This has been a constant threat for 40 years and our European allies have more of an economic and national security interest in protecting the free flow of oil than we do.

Interestingly enough, self-proclaimed "MAGA Republicans" more strongly support the Iran strikes than traditional Republicans. Some of this is the force of personal support of President Trump, but the strikes on Iran do fit within an "America First" foreign policy, protecting America's economic and national security interests over the objections of even our NATO allies.

When Pope Leo claimed that God does not answer the prayers of those who wage war, he contradicted Holy Scripture. The Bible is filled with examples of God's people waging war, and God did answer the prayers of King David and his descendants, as well as the children of Israel as they took the promised land. We do not worship a different God today that we did before Jesus Christ was born. Christian just war theology has always allowed for war in the case of self-defense, and preventing a pedophile terrorist regime from having access to nuclear weapons certainly qualifies as self-defense.

Still, President Trump should have spent the intervening eight months working with Congress to get an authorization to use force, and one need not divulge explicit war plans to members of Congress who could "leak" sensitive military data to the Iranian regime. It is not like Iran did not know that more airstrikes could be coming, even with a debate in Congress. While the Iran strikes are justifiable on policy grounds, Congress should have been given the opportunity to vote. Members of Congress from both parties need to re-assert their own authority. Republicans should realize that eventually we will likely have a Democrat as President again, and we do not want to give that President expanded powers not enumerated in the Constitution.