ConservaTibbs

Christian Nationalism and Godwin's Law

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 08:00:41 GMT

It has often been said that "everyone is the hero of his own story." Anyone with just a little self-knowledge knows this to be true. We seek to justify ourselves for conduct that we know is wrong, even if we repent after the fact. It is also true that some of history's greatest monsters saw themselves as the hero, standing up for their people or for a morally upright idea. Muslim terrorists in the Ottoman Empire thought they were doing the right thing by committing genocide against Christians. Recognizing that I am proving Godwin's law by repeating this, Adolf Hitler invoked Christianity in his rise to power and while in power. He truly believed that he was doing the right thing for Germany by solving the "Jewish question."

No, I am obviously not saying that Christian Nationalists today are equivalent to the Nazis. That is self-evidently false, and I have friends who would describe themselves as Christian Nationalists. I would not be friends with them if they were actually Nazis.

What it should do is make us remember not only that not everyone who claims the name of Jesus Christ is a Christian, but that there are political leaders who cynically claim the name of Christ while holding sinful or even evil motivations. This is easy for Christians to discern when a self-professed "christian" is promoting abortion or transgenderism, but we are often too gullible and trusting when someone who is allegedly on our ideological side invokes the name of Christ. Does this person really seek to honor God in the public square, or is he using Christianity as a mask to cover his pursuit of raw political power for its own sake? Here is a hint: If a "christian" is defending vicious personal cruelty and character assassination because he "knows what time it is," that person is probably only interested in power.

Even if Christian Nationalists pursue power with godly motivations, we must remember that religious zeal has led to horrible things. For example, it was unquestionably good when Christian nations in Europe sought to fight against Muslim terrorists who invaded their lands, brutally raped their women and sold Christians into slavery, but the Crusades also led to the persecution and mass murder of Jews who were peacefully living in Europe and to the heretical teaching that going on a Crusade itself guaranteed eternal salvation.

Seeking political influence to pass laws that honor God in the public square by protecting innocents from persecution or protecting religious liberty is a good thing. Some Christians are called to serve in government or work for issue-advocacy groups. But we must remember that we are fallen people, and we must especially be suspicious of our own motivations. Sin is always crouching in the shadows waiting for an opportunity to seize our hearts.

Reveling in cruelty?

Scott Tibbs — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 08:01:33 GMT

One of the themes that President Trump's critics (especially David French) has been pounding for the last decade is the "cruelty" of President Trump's supporters and of MAGA. And yes, this is a problem, and I can cite many examples of that. It is often exceedingly sinful and it needs to stop. What I cannot help but notice, however, is the hypocrisy of this criticism. To hear people like French, MAGA revels in needless cruelty while Leftists are compassionate. The Left might be wrong on policy, but they are not cruel. This is, quite frankly, bovine feces.

Before I start: No, this is not whataboutism. I just finished acknowledging that cruelty by President Trump and MAGA is sinful. Whataboutism seeks to defend or distract from bad behavior. I am clearly not doing that, and I have been harshly critical of this behavior on many occasions. Now, onto Leftist cruelty:

President Biden sent heavily-armed federal agents to Mark Houck's house to arrest him in a move that was completely unnecessary. That was done purely to humiliate him, frighten his children, and intimidate other abortion opponents. Vice President Kamala Harris abused her power as California's Attorney General to persecute anti-abortion activists who exposed Planned Parenthood selling aborted baby parts, trying to throw the investigators into prison. Senator Elizabeth Warren openly threatened to abuse federal power to shut down crisis pregnancy centers that provide diapers and care to women in need.

Of course, we should not forget about the vicious murder of Charlie Kirk by a homosexual furry, and how Leftists all over the country celebrated the murder of a man who committed the "crime" of talking to people who disagreed with him. We should not forget how Leftists celebrated the death of Rush Limbaugh from cancer and are too this day still taunting his brother David Limbaugh about his death. We should not forget how Leftists cheered with sadistic glee when skeptics of lockdowns, mask mandates or vaccination mandates died from COVID-19. Of course, we should not forget the glee of Leftists when someone has his life and career ruined by "cancel culture" because he said something stupid on social media. I could name many, many more examples.

Obviously, the eagerness of some in MAGA to engage in cruelty for its own sake is wrong and often sinfully so. But let's not pretend, as David French does, that one side "revels in cruelty" while the other side embraces compassion and the humanity of their opponents. That is simply not true and has never been true. We can condemn the needless cruelty from MAGA without pretending that Leftists and Democrats are totally innocent and pure.

If Christ is King, obey the Third Commandment

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:00:36 GMT

Way back in the mid 2000's, a spat broke out about the phrase "Merry Christmas." It went back and forth between the Internet and cable news, as people debated the phrase. It quickly escalated to the point where saying "Merry Christmas" was a way to give someone the middle finger. What should be a genuine expression of goodwill became a way for people to demonize each other online. I imagine it would have been much more intense, and much more silly, had social media existed at the time.

I was reminded of that controversy with the discourse over saying "Christ is King." Of course, this is true. It is also true that some people say this not because they believe it, but because they are anti-Semites using the phrase to taunt Jews. Unfortunately, this is part of a growing trend of anti-Semitism on the Right, and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz was right to call it out. (Interestingly enough, the target is almost always Jews, not Muslims or Hindus.)

If you say "Christ is King" because you submit to His Lordship and divine authority, then that is a very good thing to say. Jesus is sovereign over all things, and through His sacrifice we gain forgiveness from God. Continue saying that. However, if you say "Christ is King" purely to taunt people you hate and make them angry, you are violating the Third Commandment. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is something that should be approached and proclaimed with reverence. It should not be said as a way to taunt and troll Jews, and certainly not as a way to encourage ethnic hatred against them.

Christ is King. That is an eternal truth, and we should be thankful that He is sovereign over all things. We should pray that God fulfills His promise in Romans 11:25-29 that Jews will be saved and turn back to the Messiah they rejected, and have faith that He will keep His promises. However, ethnic hatred of Jews is wicked and a denial of the image of God in man. We should remember that we are all worthy of eternal damnation in Hell Fire, and only by God's mercy can we hope to be forgiven. Above all else, the Name of God must never be used for crass taunting. If you do this, repent.

Charles Barkley never wanted to be traded to Houston?

Scott Tibbs — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 08:02:19 GMT

Charles Barkley says he never wanted to be traded and was shocked it happened.

Uh, what now?

From the Tampa Bay Times, way back in 1996:

Come on, man. You can express regret, but don’t lie to us.

Postmodernism and the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 08:01:38 GMT

There is no such this as "your truth" and "my truth." There is the truth, and there are verifiable facts. If there are verifiable facts, I do not want you to come to your own conclusion about something. I want you to recognize the facts. Your beliefs and your conclusions do not matter. As Ben Shapiro often says, facts do not care about your feelings.

Someone brutally murdered Charlie Kirk. The identity of the murderer is a verifiable fact. There is only one theory about what happened on September 10, 2025 that is valid, and that is the one that lines up with the facts. Some people have told us we should come to our own conclusions about what happened. This viewpoint embraces postmodernism, a philosophical movement that rejects certainty and objective truth. But there are things that are objectively true. One of those is the assassination of a conservative pundit last September.

All available evidence points to the conclusion that homosexual furry Tyler Robinson murdered Kirk with premeditation. In order to believe that someone other than Robinson murdered Kirk, you have to believe that Robinson's parents (who convinced him to turn himself in) are actively trying to murder their own innocent son for a crime he did not commit. However strained the relationship might have been, I find it hard to believe that his parents would allow their own son to be executed for someone else's crime without trying to stop that execution. Robinson, of course, confessed to the crime, and his DNA was found on the murder weapon.

Does this mean we should always unequivocally trust the government's narrative? Absolutely not. There have been cases where prosecutors have outright tried to frame innocent people, such as the case of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006. Disgraced, disbarred ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong knew these men had not assaulted convicted murderer Crystal Gail Mangum, yet he abused his power to perpetuate a hoax and illegally hid exculpatory evidence. Nifong should have been sent to prison for the rest of his life, and it is a tragedy and an injustice that he is allowed to roam free.

But our justifiable skepticism of government and the Deep State should not cause us to become wackos. Remember that everyone is corrupted by sin, and that conspiracy theorist you follow online is just as prone to lying, or making serious errors, or engaging in outright kookery as anyone else. You are ultimately placing your trust in someone, so the question is not whether you trust, but who you trust. Often, conspiracy theories require more leaps of faith and logic than simply accepting the facts you are presented from mainstream sources.

I am not a postmodernist, so I do not want you to come to your own conclusion about the murder of Charlie Kirk. I want you to follow the verified facts, and come to the conclusion that aligns with those facts. If you postulate a theory that is factually false, then your opinion is not valid, no matter how sincerely you may hold that opinion. In a case like this, truth is the only thing that matters - and it must be the truth, not "your truth."

President Trump's depraved and perverted behavior

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 08:02:49 GMT

When Robert Mueller died last weekend, President Trump could not contain his glee, or his bitterness over the "Russiagate" investigation that was a significant distraction during his first term. President Trump's response was "Good, I'm glad he’s dead."

This is depraved and perverted. This does not help President Trump with anyone other than his most servile boot-lickers, and they are going to love everything he does anyway. There is no political or policy downside for President Trump to be restrained, disciplined and professional. As Brit Hume said on X, it is this kind of behavior "that makes people not just oppose him but hate him." Conservatives and Republicans who defend this filth will have no consistent and principled response when President Trump dies and Leftists are dancing on his grave with sadistic glee.

If President Trump should be angry at anything, it should be at his own weakness and cowardice. Mueller was appointed by the Trump Administration to investigate the Russian interference allegations, which turned out to be fruitless. While there were internal Justice Department regulations limiting Presidential authority, these are likely unconstitutional under Article II and the President could order the Justice Department to repeal those regulations at any time. Trump did order that Mueller be fired, but backed off instead of pushing forward. If Mueller was doing such severe harm and abusing his authority, the only person to blame for that is President Trump.

The reason I refused to vote for Donald Trump in 2024 is the wicked perversions and depravity that regularly spew out of his filthy mouth. I deeply regret voting for him in the 2020 general election, especially given his damnable lies about the death of a young woman and his sadistic glee in tormenting her widower. Gloating over the divorce of George and Kellyanne Conway after openly disparaging their marriage was also depraved and perverted. I would take my 2020 vote back if I could.

I simply do not care that Mueller was "mean" to President Trump. This is not some random Internet troll. This is the President of the United States. Is it really that difficult to show some maturity and respect for the dignity of the office? Trump has proven he can behave professionally when he needs to, so his perverted depravity is a conscious choice. He is not a rampaging fool who is incapable of controlling himself, even if he does appear that way when he is venting on social media.

I simply do not care that Leftists celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk by a homosexual furry, or that some twisted Leftists are still celebrating Rush Limbaugh's death from cancer five years later. This is certainly despicable behavior, but the President of the United States should hold himself to a higher standard than random Internet cranks. Can you imagine President Ronald Reagan behaving like this? President Reagan held his office in such high regard that he loathed even removing his suit jacket while in the Oval Office.

President Trump's worst enemy is not the Deep State, or Democrats, or insufficiently loyal Republicans. His biggest enemy has always been his own filthy mouth. There was a time when he could have chosen restraint, discipline and professionalism, and he would be regarded as a much better President today. It is far too late for that. However, he could at least stop piling on the damage he does to himself with these kind of antics. If his closest advisors actually cared about him and his agenda, they would press upon him the need to control his behavior. I see absolutely no evidence any of his so-called "supporters" or "allies" in his inner circle actually care about him at all, or at least not enough to be anything other than yes men.

I am 100% opposed to false unity

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:02:26 GMT

Much of the whining about "unity" on the Right reminds me of the whining about "bipartisanship" 20 or 30 years ago. We have too much partisan division and we have to work across the aisle to get things gone for the American people. Somehow, this seemed to always end with Republicans going along with Democrats to make government bigger. Maybe government grew less than if the Democrats passed something with an outright majority, but "compromise" always seemed to work in only one direction.

Republican "moderates" would talk a lot about "party unity" too, and that always seemed to involve conservatives moving left. Now, the calls for "unity" come from the New Right. But just like the "moderates," the New Right has no interest in actual unity. They can savagely attack other conservatives or attack long-held conservative principles, but when someone notices and pushes back, that is bad. Principles do not matter and if someone is doing or saying something terrible, we should not speak up. It is utterly repulsive.

There is no greater example of this hypocrisy over the last six months than the vicious attacks on Erica Kirk. She has been repeatedly personally attacked and accused of murdering her own husband. Now the accusation is that she facilitated child sex trafficking in Romania. This is, frankly, bovine feces. This is a total fabrication. Every single "christian" spreading the hoax that she facilitated sex trafficking should be put under church discipline. It is long past time for churches to start disciplining this behavior, and a lot of it would stop if churches started holding their members accountable. People in those churches should expect church leadership to discipline lies like this. We should expect our churches to take the Ninth Commandment seriously.

The hypocrisy of the New Right is on display when they cry about "unity." Well, I do not believe in unity and I never have. I will not be unified with liars. I certainly will not be unified with actual Nazis who joke about "baking cookies" in reference to the Holocaust, and I will not be "unified" with Nazis who proclaim that Adolf Hitler was "really f*****g cool," or with the people who support and promote these Nazis. These people are not my allies and never will be. They are my enemies. I want to see them defeated. Just because someone opposes the Left does not make him my ally.

Circling back to the deranged conspiracy theories, which grew out of the "satanic panic" in the 1980's and QAnon over the last decade: The entire purpose of the conservative media is to tell the truth, when the legacy media will not. When conservative media openly lies like this, they obliterate their entire reason to exist. It is betrayal of their readers, viewers and listeners, and of their mission.

This is also dangerous and is going to get people killed. If Erika Kirk is engaged in child sex trafficking (she isn't) and no one is doing anything about it, why won't someone step up and save the children? Eventually, someone will take it seriously and attempt to murder her the way a homosexual furry murdered her husband. This is not conjecture or paranoia. This actually happened. After the "Pizzagate" hoax spread for months, a deranged man actually went to the pizza place where "Satanic sex abuse rituals" were allegedly happening and fired and assault rifle. No captive children were found, and no sex dungeon was found. It was all a lie.

As always, the calls for "unity" are nothing but hypocrisy. When the New Right demands "unity," what they are actually demanding from traditional conservatives is total surrender and submission. I have no interest whatsoever in that, because "unity" is a fraud and a hoax.

Subscribe now

The false leveling of social media

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 08:01:18 GMT

Social media has provided a number of good things to society. But one of the negative impacts of social media is the leveling effect of having people be able to talk to and interact directly with authority in a way that was not possible twenty years ago. American society has always had a contumacious streak, but social media has exacerbated the problem and the disrespect for authority.

We speak to everyone as if he is a peer. But this is not how it should be. The President, the Governor and the Mayor are not our peers. They are the civil magistrate with authority over us and should be treated with respect as commanded in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:17. Older men are not our peers. They are elders who we should treat with respect, as God commands in Leviticus 19:32. There are many more examples I could cite. Different people have different stations and we should respect that station while considering our own with humility.

Yes, we are all equal in Jesus Christ, as the Apostle Paul teaches us in Galatians 3:28. This is self-evidently true. One of the most brilliant things about our Constitutional system of government in these United States is that we are all equal under the law. It took us a while to get there, but the promise was in our founding documents. This does not mean that some people do not have a station that we should respect. Do not substitute American political ideology for Christian theology.

Sadly, some of this is due to the behavior of the leaders themselves. When political leaders are crude and childish, they reduce respect for their office by showing they do not respect their own office. The performative cursing to prove "authenticity" is especially cringeworthy. Respect for authority must begin with those in authority by showing they understand that they have serious responsibility and they should set a good example for the people under their authority.

But that does not mean we should abandon our responsibility to respect those in authority over us, whether it be in the government, the church, or in society. I have personally failed in this area far too often, so I am writing this article to remind myself as much as making an argument in the public square. When we are interacting with a leader in the church, government or society, we should not be interacting as peers and we certainly should not be obscene. The fact that we are interacting on Facebook, X, BlueSky or Threads does not negate this obligation.

Are Community Development Block Grants justifiable?

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 14:01:35 GMT

Back in January, the Bloomington City Council voted to distribute money from federal community development block grants to local charities. Fortunately, there was no money given to Planned Parenthood. While they get subsidies every summer from local property tax dollars at both the city and county level, the only time that I know of where PP got money from CDBG was in 2000 for "teen education." Several members of Students for Life at Indiana University attended the meeting, and the organization's president spoke against the funding.

But here is a more fundamental question: Why are federal tax dollars being sent back to local government to distribute to charitable organizations? Why are taxpayers sending money to Washington, D.C. so those dollars can be sent back to Bloomington for politicians to distribute?

Given the size of the federal budget, I realize that $622,000 is effectively one molecule of water, inside of one raindrop in the Pacific Ocean of all of the things the federal government spends money on. (The total amount distributed nationwide is much larger, sitting at $3.3 billion.) But is this really something the federal government needs to be doing, given that we are still running a $1.8 trillion budget deficit and the Congressional Budget Office projects a $1.9 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2026? (So much for DOGE.) Given our federalist system and the unimaginable federal budget deficit, would it be more wise to leave this sort of thing to the states?

If we are serious about finding government waste, giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians to distribute as they see fit should be one of the first things on the chopping block for President Trump and for Republicans in the House and Senate. Congress should at least significantly scale back the CDBG program, if not eliminate it outright. When the annual budget deficit (not the national debt) is approaching two trillion dollars, everything needs to be on the table and nothing should be safe from cuts.

Letting go of our stereotypes

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 08:02:36 GMT

All conservatives do not think alike. All Christians do not think alike. All conservative Reformed Christians do not think alike. Yes, there are issues where the majority agree, but assuming someone’s beliefs (wrongly) and then scolding them for your erroneous assessment of their beliefs is obnoxious. As an example, a friend wrote a post back in April 2020 about COVID-19 which started like this:

Oh my. To get pastors who are pro-life to admit the civil authority is to be submitted to in quarantine laws seems close to hopeless.

A couple weeks later, when he posted an informational link about COVID-19, someone commented:

I’m sick of you people that think your beleifs Trump science. Covid is not a hoax not fake science. Conservative Christians are the ones spreading lies and they need to stop.

This was a problem with forums in the 2000’s, and I have even seen it in letters to the editor. However, it has accelerated with social media. If someone is generally conservative or “progressive,” they are assumed to hold a wide variety of beliefs. Generalizations can be generally true, but there are plenty of people who are heterodox on any number of issues. I was more hawkish than most of my friends on pandemic mitigation measures, but even I was falsely accused of thinking the Communist Virus was “a bunch of hooey.” Often when corrected, the critic will say “I don’t believe you” rather than admit he is wrong.

But we have an obligation to tell the truth. For Christians, this is obvious from Scripture. But this virtue is important for our culture as well. We should not assume everyone on the Right or Left believes every single thing that everyone else believes. Instead of saying “you believe this,” you should ask, “do you believe this?” When you approach a discussion from a position of humility instead of as an accuser, you might actually find you have more common ground than you thought.

Empathy is helpful too. We do not like it when someone makes a false claim about us, so why are we so quick to make false claims about others - and then double down when we are corrected? This is not exclusive to the Right or Left. I see the same thing over and over again from both sides. If you object to something, the accusation is almost always “But this other thing over here is OK, right? Hypocrite!”

So stop assuming. Ask questions instead of making accusations. Above all else, be willing to admit you were wrong. Behave like the person you are debating is not a nameless avatar or an enemy to be defeated, but a human being. In case you think I am being self-righteous or “above the fray” here, I am writing to myself as much as anyone else. I have seen the same behaviors in myself. We all need to do better, and we can improve our political culture, one post and one sentence at a time.

Christian Nationalism: History and warnings

Scott Tibbs — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:01:57 GMT

This was also posted on Facebook.

Congress should protect political and economic freedom

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 08:02:07 GMT

In the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riot, JP Morgan Chase forced President Trump to close his bank accounts and move them elsewhere. If the President of the United States can have his bank account canceled, everyone is vulnerable to malicious de-banking based on a calculation of "risk," even if that "risk" is totally fabricated.

This is not about the "free market." Banking is not a free market and has not been a free market for a century. President Franklin Roosevelt got the federal government involved to insure deposits with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC. This was to prevent a run on the banks and the financial crisis that deepened the Great Depression. The federal government bailed out failing banks after the 2008 financial crisis. Banks enjoy a wide variety of benefits and protections from the federal government.

Because of these protections, the federal government has a legitimate interest in forbidding political discrimination by banks, and preventing banks from closing accounts based on "offensive" political speech. It is not enough to rely on President Trump to direct his administration to issue regulations, as those could easily be reversed with the stroke of a pen on January 20, 2029. Congress needs to pass legislation criminalizing de-banking.

Christians should be especially concerned about de-banking. We are already in a post-Christian culture, and absent a revival sparked by an intervention from the Holy Spirit, this country will continue to slide away from its Christian roots. It is only a matter of time until banks start seeing orthodox Christian doctrine as a liability. This means churches, Christian charities and even individual Christians and Christian-owned businesses can and will be subject to malicious de-banking.

What about legitimate risks from bad clients? In some cases, the "risk" is exaggerated. That was the case with President Trump. Tens of millions of Americans still supported him even after the second impeachment, and he was re-elected three and a half years later with a margin of 2.3 million votes nationwide. In some cases, the "risk" is due only to vindictive authoritarians who want to punish banks for allowing people they despise to have accounts. Any reform to protect people from de-banking would also need to include protections for the banks following the new law.

Losing access to your bank can be a significant hardship, especially as people have auto-pay on various expenditures from bank accounts and bank-issued credit cards. This is not as simple as shopping at a different grocery store. Given how important a bank account is in our modern economy, having someone banned from multiple banks because they are a "risk" can shut them out of large swaths of economic activity. What happens if the bank that holds your home mortgage decides you are a "risk" because of your political speech?

One of the most serious risks to national unity is political polarization and the endless back-and-forth scalp collecting from cancel culture. It is very bad for the country to have parallel economies where Republicans only do business with Republicans and Democrats do the same. Congress can take a significant step to blunt political polarization by taking politically-motivated de-banking off the table.

Previously:

♣ - A radical, economy-destroying extension of liability -- March 19, 2019

♣ - Bank accounts, cancel culture and government benefits -- March 4, 2022

♣ - Do not be distracted by the low-hanging fruit -- January 18, 2023

Overusing the "Nazi" card

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:01:32 GMT

For much of my life, Americans have casually tossed around the label "Nazi" to describe political opponents. This is almost never justified, and I have used this type of rhetoric myself when I should not have. We all need to do better, and be much more judicious in how we choose our words - especially a word as loaded as "Nazi." Here are four problems with overusing the word "Nazi" in discussing modern American politics:

First, it shuts down discussion. Outside of a few cranks online (some of whom may be feces-posting rather than sharing their actual beliefs) people know Nazi Germany was a horrendously evil regime. When you call your political opponents Nazis, you shut down any chance of dialogue with someone who disagrees with you. If someone thinks you support genocide, you are not going to be open to any other argument they make.

Second, it is insensitive to Holocaust victims. You may not like this or that policy or rhetoric or political stance, but people are not being loaded onto trains and sent to camps to be gassed. Overusing the word "Nazi" can indicate you are catastrophizing, or historically ignorant, or just dishonest, but using the horrific suffering of millions of innocent people to score political points is morally wrong.

Third, it discounts the fact that that something can be not as bad as Nazis but still be really bad. This again falls into the "all or nothing" trap, where if you deny something is equal to Nazism you are seen as supporting it. You can explain why something is bad, or even needlessly cruel or violent, without turning the dial all the way up to 11 and accusing people of being Nazis.

Fourth, you are becoming the boy who cried wolf. There are actually genocidal war criminals to whom that word would apply. For example, the genocide in Rwanda was murderous enough to be compared to the butchers of Nazi Germany. There are actual genocidal terrorist groups. And yes, there are actual Nazis who have a following. Deranged anti-Semitism has exploded over the last ten years, finding a foothold on both the Right and Left. Overusing the allegation of "Nazi" risks giving these people cover.

Let's all take a breath. Comparing our political opponents to one of the worst evils in human history is not productive and it needlessly inflames tensions on both sides. There are plenty of other words that are more helpful and more accurate to describe things you believe are harmful without invoking Nazi Germany on a daily basis.

Subscribe now

Reasonable and unreasonable risks

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 08:00:56 GMT

One of our obligations under the Sixth Commandment is to take reasonable measures to preserve our own lives. This means actions that unnecessarily put our own life at risk are not permitted. We were made in the image of God, and should not place ourselves at unreasonable risk of death. We also have an obligation to our families and especially to our spouses and children to preserve our lives for their sake.

Obviously, This does not mean we must never take any risks. We would not be able to live at all, because all of life has some element of risk. This includes driving an automobile, even if you take all precautions to drive defensively and always use your safety belt. This also does not mean it is impermissible to serve as a firefighter, policeman or soldier. The Lord tells us in John 15:13 that there is no greater love than dying for someone else.

What is unnecessary risk? That is the subject of much debate, and we must be charitable with other people who disagree with us on what risks are and are not reasonable. But before we get tangled up in the weeds of what is and is not an unnecessary risk, we need to admit there is such a thing as an unnecessary risk, and those risks should be avoided. We cannot apply a Biblical principle to any specific scenario unless we agree that the Biblical principle exists.

Six mothers died tragically in an avalanche at a ski resort. They left behind seven children. Severe weather had been predicted, and there was a significant risk of an avalanche. This has also led to questions about the company that guided the trip.

However, we should be careful before making sweeping judgments about skiing itself. Ten million people go skiing every year, and there are about 50 fatalities. This means there is a 0.0005% chance of death. The likelihood of dying in an automobile crash is much higher than that. People are far more likely to die while driving to a ski resort - or to a conference held by a church - than in an avalanche while skiing. We can and should question proceeding in the face of increased avalanche risk while not overreacting.

Preservation of life - both of your own life and not risking the lives of others for financial or other types of personal gain - is one of the most important obligations we have. Scripture describes death as an enemy that will be destroyed in I Corinthians 15:19-26, and we should also see death as an enemy and behave accordingly.

Iran strikes bring out the worst in everyone

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 06 Mar 2026 09:02:43 GMT

As is always the case, the U.S. military strikes on Iran on February 28 brought out the worst in people, and again revealed the simplistic and childish "all or nothing" mentality that has poisoned our politics and our culture. Having a nuanced take is impossible and pointing out something bad is always met with "whataboutism."

For example, the Ayatollah Khamenei murdered more 30,000 of his own people in 2026 alone in response to pro-democracy protests. The Ayatollah Khomeini ordered female political prisoners to be raped if they were virgins, so that they would not enter heaven. Some have denied that the Khamenei has continued that practice, but it is well-documented that Khamenei oversaw the systematic rape and sexual torture of female political prisoners while he was supreme leader. Can we agree that is evil, without pointing to people killed by U.S. bombs, or anything Israel is doing?

After the airstrikes exterminated Khamenei, the Washington Post described his bushy white beard and easy smile. OK, Orange Man Bad, I get it. But did you know that it is possible to think this war is a bad idea and also not romanticize a mass murdering terrorist and war criminal?

Opposing a military strike without the consent of Congress, or even being very skeptical of the military operation on the basis of an America First foreign policy, is not the same as supporting Iran. Political operatives on both sides have a very bad habit of painting opposition to military conflict as support for or loyalty to America's enemies. This "all or nothing" business is childish and needlessly simplistic. It is also shamefully dishonest. The idea that conservative pundit Matt Walsh supports the Iranian regime is absurd on its face.

One of the sillier memes I saw immediately following the strikes is that the women of Iran were "freed" by the death of Khamenei. That is simply not true. There may well be changes in Iran that follow the strikes and lead to a better life for the Iranian people, but pretending that the women of Iran were "liberated" as of March 2 is nonsense. Honestly, people, can you make the case for President Trump's policy without taking an absurdly maximalist position? Does every single thing have to be fulsome praise, with absolutely no sense of proportion?

People, we need to stop playing these games. This is serious business, and we need to take it seriously. This means you should stop praising mass murderers, war criminals and terrorists just because you hate President Trump. This means you should stop lying about your political opponents. This means that you should not immediately take a maximalist position just because the President likes to be praised. This means stop the childish "whataboutism" where you are emotionally incapable of recognizing evil without whining about some other thing that offends you.

Basically, this means you need to grow up.

"All or Nothing" is how a cult operates

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 09:01:08 GMT

If you follow right-wing populist accounts on social media, you might be shocked by this fact: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has sided with President Trump 82% of the time when cases have come up on the emergency docket. This is lower than some other Republican-appointed justices, but still a solid support for the administration.

That’s not how the most devoted parts of President Trump’s fan base sees it. Justice Barrett is a “disappointment” and a “traitor” who “betrayed” the President who nominated and stood up for her. She was condemned as “Amy Commie Barrett” by some of the more unhinged voices on Twitter. I explained a year ago why the MAGA hatred for Justice Barrett is completely deranged.

I know this is shocking to many people, but It simply does not matter whether Justice Barrett sided with or against President Trump on any given issue. What matters is what the actual text of the law and the Constitution says. Does the President have the authority to raise tariffs by himself without action by Congress? If Justice Barrett is wrong, then explain from the text of the law why she is wrong. I simply do not care whether she is opposed to or supportive of President Trump on the legal question. I only care about the text of the law and the Constitution.

When you make a Supreme Court case about “loyalty” to the President, you prove to me that you do not care about the rule of law or even your principles, but your personal loyalty and/or fandom of one man.

Some people even see basic governing responsibilities through the lens of personal loyalty:

Savannah Guthrie was very harsh on President Trump during her 2020 election town hall on NBC, accusing him of peddling conspiracy theories, and much more.

Trump is now mobilizing all of federal law enforcement to find her mother and bring her home.

A total class act.

The reason President Trump has had federal law enforcement investigate what is possibly a federal crime is because - I know this is shocking for some people - it is his job as President of these United States. Duh! Whether someone is a political adversary or a loyal supporter, they have the same protections under our laws. In fact, equal treatment under the law is legally mandatory under the Fourteenth Amendment. Would this person say that city government picking up my trash despite my political opposition to the Democratic Party represents a “class act?”

All of this needs to stop. It is fine to support President Trump as a governing figure and to generally support his policies. It is wrong to frame every political issue as a personal loyalty test to one man. If President Trump is right, explain why. Nobody owes him any “loyalty” whatsoever regarding policy or interpretation of law. Donald Trump is the President, not a king.

President Trump is keeping his promises

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 09:00:23 GMT

I recently came across this post on X from a friend of mine, posted way back in November 2016:

The only “stunning reversal” there will ever be with Donald Trump is him actually doing what he said he would do.

I thought the exact same thing at the time. I did not trust President Trump and I did not expect him to keep his campaign promises. I was shocked when the first thing he did upon assuming office was start repealing harmful regulations put in place by President Obama’s administration. I was thrilled to see someone finally trimming regulations and protecting consumer choice from the whims of bureaucrats.

I have made my personal disdain for President Trump abundantly clear, but you cannot claim he has not done what he said he would do. He has cut regulations and cut taxes, and eliminating the tax on overtime will be a great help to a large number of Americans (especially lower-income Americans) who work hard beyond the traditional 40-hour work week. His foreign policy is America First. While neoconservatives are appalled at his attitude toward NATO, it makes perfect sense to question a nearly century-old alliance built to contain a superpower that does not exist any more and to question whether our allies are appropriately contributing to their national defense.

While I do not agree with his tariffs, he has always been “Tariff Man” and promised to raise them in the campaign. (And to hear Democrats, who have been protectionists for generations, rail against the tariffs is utterly repulsive. Remember, NAFTA could not have passed without Republican votes as most Democrats voted against it. The Democrats held a solid majority at the time and President Clinton could not have signed this signature policy into law without Republicans.) President Trump has been aggressive in enforcing immigration law, as he promised he would in 2024.

Most important of all, President Trump appointed three of the five justices who overturned the abominable Roe v. Wade decision. Now, we have multiple states (including Indiana) that have either outright banned or severely restricted killing unborn children. The fact that babies are not being dismembered at the Planned Parenthood “clinic” in Bloomington every Thursday is directly traceable to President Trump’s Supreme Court nominees.

Has every promise been kept? No, but that is not for lack of effort. Congress attempted to eliminate the “Affordable Care Act” (ObamaCare) but critical defections from Republicans stopped that effort. Trump is the President, and cannot pass legislation by himself. He did manage to get significant reforms in place, especially eliminating the individual mandate by signing legislation in December 2017. The individual mandate is one of the most important parts of ObamaCare. As I explained on February 20, Congressional action is needed to codify into law President Trump’s executive order mandating ten regulations be eliminated for every one regulation passed.

I have had some disagreements with President Trump’s policies over the last year and in his first term, but the President we have is remarkably similar to the candidate we had in 2016 and 2024. That is something worth honoring, whether you agree with those policies or not.

Subscribe now

Trust is a two-way street

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 09:01:03 GMT

Before I start, let me be clear: I supported reasonable, temporary quarantine orders in order to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus in 2020. I supported the mask mandate in 2020 and 2021, and I was wearing a mask in public before it was mandatory. I may have disagreed with how long some of the quarantine orders or mask mandates lasted, but six years later I still hold that both policies were wise. Remember, there was a whole lot we did not know about SARS-COV-2. It had been just over a century from a brutal influenza pandemic that killed 50 million people worldwide - more even than the horrific "War to End All Wars." Caution was wise.

On The Bulwark's flagship podcast on February 17, the hosts mocked the idea that the problem with the government's response to COVID-19 is that they "tried too hard to save lives." This kind of attitude shows that so many on the Left and in the medical establishment simply do not get it and have lost the trust of a large segment of the American people because they are so tone-deaf.

Here is the reality: Government policy in 2020 was always going to lead to more deaths. If we did not act strongly enough, more people would die from COVID-19, but if we implemented quarantines that were too strict, more people would die from deaths of despair. This includes suicide, overdoses and alcoholism, plus the toll depression takes on physical health. But the COVID-19 hawks never want to examine the damage done by quarantine orders that were too strict or lasted too long, the damage to educational achievement caused by closing schools, or the lives lost to "deaths of despair." They only want to congratulate themselves by preaching about how they were saving lives.

The flagrant dishonesty of government officials did not help. Telling people to wear a mask during sex, when every functioning adult on the planet knew that will do absolutely nothing to retard the spread of a highly contagious respiratory virus, exposed the "experts" as liars or clowns or both. But we cannot tell people that "hooking up" during a global pandemic was a bad idea, because that would be heresy against the religion of sexual licentiousness. Sexual restraint, in addition to limiting the spread of COVID-19, would also limit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like Monkeypox.

This is a serious problem. When fully half (or more) of the population does not trust the medical establishment, that will make the inevitable next pandemic worse than it should be, and will cost lives. Dismissing or mocking dissenting voices as people wanting "freedumb" is not helping restore that trust and deepens already existing resentment. As is so often the case, it does not have to be "all or nothing." We can recognize that caution was necessary, but some of the policies did more harm than good and even cost lives. If you want to be taken seriously instead of being dismissed outright, you have to take serious objections seriously, rather than treating skeptics with derision and demanding censorship.

Subscribe now

It never had to be "All or Nothing" with President Trump

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 25 Feb 2026 09:01:08 GMT

After refusing to vote for President Trump in 2016, I started to warm up to him in early 2017. I was surprised that the very first thing he did was start rolling back burdensome government regulations on business. While I still found his personal character (specifically his depraved behavior on social media) to be utterly detestable, I voted for President Trump in 2020 because of this and other policies I agreed with. I also voted against President Biden.

But while I voted for President Trump in 2020, I was never an "Always Trump" person. (I refused to vote for him in 2024.) I supported him when he was right, defended him against unreasonable criticisms, and criticized him when he was wrong. I never bought into the demand from "Always Trump" (and a lot of Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans) that it be "all or nothing." President Trump is not the Messiah, but he is also not 100% wrong all of the time. I have always rejected the "all or nothing" mentality that demands 100% total compliance with support or opposition to the President.

A couple weeks ago, a grand jury refused to indict several Democrats who made a video "reminding" members of the military that they did not have to obey illegal orders. They did not specify any specific orders in the video, and the obligation to disobey illegal orders is already well-known and expected in the military. The whole thing was silly virtue signaling and a very successful attempt to provoke President Trump to anger. It also provoked some members of his cult to anger, which is why I was called "a genocidal communist monster and violent traitor to this nation" for saying on X that it was an abuse of power to prosecute members of Congress for making a video that re-stated something hat has been established military policy for generations.

I would have far more respect for someone who called me a bunch of obscene names than these deranged false accusations. Write a bunch of F words and obscene insults. You might as well throw some racial and homophobic slurs in there while you are at it, and do not forget to call me a cuck. Don't forget that you need to use the four-letter F word at least three or four times.

Do you know that it is possible to think something is bad, or to simply disagree with something, without thinking it should be illegal and without thinking that people who engage in that action should be imprisoned or executed?

But that is not the way of the "Always Trump" cult. I cannot simply disagree with the prosecution, the same way I criticized President Biden and Vice President Harris for abusing the justice system to go after their political enemies in the anti-abortion movement, or how I harshly criticized President Obama for assassinating American citizens who had not even been charged with a crime without due process. If I say the prosecution is wrong, I am a genocidal violent traitor and a communist. I want to personally add that I am also a heretic and a blasphemer, because I will never worship your so-called "god."

Do you people hear yourselves? Do you realize how millions of "normies" think you are completely out of your gourd when you start hysterically screeching like that? Good grief, people, go outside and touch some grass. This kind of fanaticism drives people away from the very President and policies that you claim to support. Just as President Trump's most effective allies are often the people who hate him the most, his most effective enemies are the most fanatically devoted members of his fanbase. Both sides of this "all or nothing" demand are guilty of idolatry, and they both need to repent.

Subscribe now

Marriage is good for men and women

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 09:01:27 GMT

Over the last few decades, the age for first marriage has increased significantly for both men and women, and this has had negative ramifications for society. Given that 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 teaches us that it is better to marry than to burn, the church should be encouraging young men and young women to get married, and get married younger. Doug Wilson had a couple of good articles on this issue a decade ago here and here.

As I wrote on Valentine's Day last year, married men are healthier, wealthier and happier than single men. I didn't focus on women, because much of the anti-marriage discourse directed at women is from feminists. The anti-marriage discourse directed at men is generally from the Right and has even infected Christendom, so as a conservative Christian I thought it was more important to address that error instead. Conservatives are more likely to listen to a fellow conservative than feminists would be.

But what about women? Is marriage better for women? Yes. Married women are also healthier, wealthier and happier than single women. See here and here and here and here and here and here for more. Yes, there are exceptions, but outliers do not invalidate averages.

One of the most common objections to marriage, especially on the Right, is the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. The number of first marriages that end in divorce is closer to 40% than 50%, but that is still a high number. Even if the number was 50%, that does not make it true that entering marriage is a "coin flip." You are not a helpless victim of chance, pulling a lever on a slot machine.

As an example, consider obesity. Around 40% of adults are obese in these United States. Does that mean that you personally have a 40% chance of being obese? If you eat healthy and exercise, your chances of being obese are much smaller than that. Your chances of developing obesity-related health problems are also significantly lower than people who do not make the same choices. The same is true of marriage. Just because others get divorced does not mean you will get divorced.

So yes, get married. Be wise in who you choose as your wife or husband, and practice good habits once you are married. Do not listen to the feminists who condemn marriage as oppression of women, or the anti-feminists who are consumed with bitterness and despair. Have faith and trust God.

Subscribe now