Their hearts and minds (souls) are owned by Putin, and they wouldn’t know a right place if they walked into one.

The Capitol wasn’t it, either.

In fact, sane Americans, many of them politicos and other experts– you know, people who read books upon books about politics, both ancient and modern, professionally, and for recreation– have been explaining “the right place” to them for over four years, at reasonable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC, ad infinitum. Despite the last five years’ chaos, and though it was forced to evolve and adapt, the MSM’s messaging has all been, more or less, on the same moral and fact-based page, and consistent. Even Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow! is, more or less, consistent with CNN and MSNBC these days. As Fox News; weird fake news outlets no one’s ever heard of; and Republican’ts have been switching allegiances, and their stories, and their jobs, and their websites, also ad infinitum.

In Wonderland, very few actually know where they are. Nevertheless, if their hearts were in the right place, then that was the most exclusively male and White crowd full of hearts in right places I think I’ve ever seen. Carrying twist-ties.

Wearing “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirts. No, it wasn’t reflective of who supports Trump most fiercely, it was a coincidence. That guy was just there that day, doing his patriotic, heart-in-the-right-place thing.

Where are all of the brown people, and women, whose hearts somehow weren’t in the right place, that day? You know, hanging next to the dude in the bull horn outfit and the Camp Auschwitz T-shirt? Hmm.

That crowd was short on teenagers and kids, too. All of their idealistic, patriotic hearts in wrong places mostly, I guess.

Because kids couldn’t see Donald Trump’s forest for his trees. They did not understand his genius. Human children naturally trust and gravitate towards Presidents who use the word, bullshit, at their rallies; pay off porn stars; brag about grabbing women’s genitalia when they don’t know they’re being recorded; and who promise to pay the lawsuits of anyone who attacks a peaceful protester at one.

No, all those white guys in Wall Drug costumes had it figured out, and the rest of us inferior demographics were clueless. Thus proving their intellectual and moral fitness, and superiority, over the rest of us. Mm-hmm.

These Republican’ts are effectively saying that, because Ashli Babbitt wasn’t expecting the bullet, she didn’t deserve it.

Sorry, that’s not how violent antidemocratic insurrections against the seats of nuclear-armed superpowers’ governments work. Whether they knew that that’s what they were doing or not, whether they knew that they were mindless tools in Putin’s hands, or not. At the end of the day, they committed treason. And, killed police officers.

All of them adults, all of them there by their own free will. They weren’t even technically given legal AND BINDING military orders to attack the Capitol, I’ve argued, until they were actually present to see and hear it from the talking horse’s own lips, in a manner of speaking.

They tried to overturn an election, by force, that anyone not ignorant and unreasonable would declare was fair.

You don’t get a pass for being delusional.

The election was not stolen.

I’ve said it before, I cannot believe Capitol Police didn’t start shooting back more, because they’d have deserved it. They showed great restraint, from my lay citizen perspective.

The only one who wasn’t lucky that day, as far as I’m concerned, was Babbitt. On the rioters’ side, hers is the only story worth telling, because I’m pretty sure she wasn’t expecting to make that sacrifice, like so many other clueless insurrectionists that day who wore Wall Drug regalia to a gun fight, and who were surprised they weren’t greeted by police with smiles.

These are Q-believers. They deserve baby bottles and therapy, not democracy.

They’re insurrectionists and seditionists who don’t know how to reclaim their old democracy that they slowly handed over to corporations via the corrupt, racist and misogynist Republican’ts they supported over these many decades, and so they’ll take anything but it, now. Eventually despising the government they created by consistently voting against their interests was predictable, and it’s an open door to tyranny, which is also predictable. But, in a manner of speaking, they have always been the cause of this.

Because they didn’t jump ship from the Republican Party in 1996, when Elizabeth Warren had the smarts to.

The South used to be a Democratic stronghold, and for the right reasons. Then Civil Rights was passed, and they fell for the Southern Strategy. Northern states, mostly, didn’t. It all goes back to the Civil War, and the unresolved bitterness left behind from the 660,000 who died defending, and attempting to destroy, slavery.

Because they were fooled by all of its lies. Pro-life, Second Amendment, dog whistle politics that appealed to racism they no longer could politely speak about openly, et cetera. Because they tolerated the scorched-earth Republican politics of the early nineties, under the argument that, if that’s what it took to win, then abandoning partisanship was the way to go. A political universe where respect and decorum (cooperation) don’t matter anymore, but where ends justify means, because they’re so sure they’re right (effectively, abandonment of democracy– the idea that majority decisions usually create best-expected outcomes). The kind that got us Clarence Thomas, who’s been polluting the Supreme Court for decades, and a Planned Parenthood that’s literally fielding death threats from fools like them, from all across this country, every day.

The Tea Party was an early warning. They were ignorant, fundamentalist, racist, patriarchal, nationalist, xenophobic, mostly White, arrogant and misogynist then, and prone to violence, and their new party, rebranded as Trumpism, remains all of those things now.

Remember, the Tea Party identified as conservative, where to them, the Republican Party wasn’t already nationalist and racist enough.

In hard times, you’re either for democracy and the rule of law, or you’re not. These are hard times, and these Paper and Milk & Cookies Americans are simply proving they don’t have real faith in democracy, and aren’t willing to work for it. Slowly, patiently, and usually at some sacrifice and risk to themselves, work for it. No one wants their politics to be known at work these days. But, that’s an abberration in a healthy soceity. Politics (policy: the making, enforcement, and interpretation of laws) are what we should all agree on, to propel society forward.

They don’t believe science, they don’t believe real news, but they’ll believe, or at least go along with, anything a Republican’t waving a gun, or bragging about “tall oak trees,” tells them.

They’re dangerous people. Not necessarily individually, but as a group. Politically, they’re dangerous. Racist. They’re not fit for democracy. You have to be pretty educated as a society, to be fit for democracy. Like exercise, you have to keep it up, educating kids about racial and gender equality and democracy, or you start to become slack, and ripe for dictators, who are usually patriarchs, and racist. So, they fall for patriarchy and racism. Both have been debunked. But, they’re a persistent force in the human psyche, and politicians use both to curry favor with majority constituencies all over the planet.

In America, that majority consitituency is White. They’re White, and they want a strongman to not just reward them for it, but to protect it. That’s blood and soil. They don’t have to earn and protect American freedom, generation after generation, from each generation’s new brood of bad people, both domestic and foreign, they were born free. Privileged by default. Outsiders not welcome. They don’t care that peoples of all nationalities fought almost all of America’s wars, alongside the majority White population. We’re not a place based on a concept everyone can get behind and support against a world filled with murderous colonialist dictatorships that want our country just like we wanted it from the indigenous peoples, we’re just a place. Where people are magically born fully understanding, and willing to fight and die to protect, the concept. That whole thing about naturalization, and swearing an oath to defend the Constitution? It’s play-acting. You’re not a real American unless you were born here.

It doesn’t work that way. There are people who will grow up to be fascistic born in America every day. Foul, disgusting people. American on paper, and that’s it. Completely missing the America boat, otherwise.

Why do I share Paul Hill (below), here? Because he is a perfect political specimen. He is the natural end-product of pro-life policy. Anywhere, not just the United States. There have been others like him, and they are all about as deep and dark as the pro-life rabbithole gets. Was he American? On paper, yes. In his heart, absolutely not.

Hence the chyron/banner underneath the Anderson Cooper CNN news segment, “Martyr or Murderer?”

Answer in the eyes of God, almost certainly: Murderer.

And, he assured us to the very end, his heart was in the right place.

Everyone who thinks they’re fighting for a cause believes their hearts are in the right place.

Sorry, their hearts don’t make the cause right, the cause does.

Morality is objective. It’s not subjective.

A policy is either good, or it’s bad. Choose your side carefully. One of the reasons I write this blog is to prove to myself I’m on the right side, each and every day. These are bifurcated times, and a lot is at stake. Far more is at stake, one could argue, than in any other hot war, or at any other time in humanity’s history, because we’re on the verge of destroying the planet irreversibly; or, functionally irreversibly, as far as many generations of human beings are concerned.

Hill traded his wife and kids for an execution chamber. That’s all. Not too unlike, in some ways, Ashli Babbitt. He didn’t do anything noble, what he did was nuts. Akin to abandoning his wife and two kids, grabbing two other men, and throwing himself, and them, off of a cliff. Did he go through the medical charts of the women carrying the “32 unborn babies'” who were there that day? Hill, and others like him, don’t even see it as a medical decision. Yet our Republican’t lawmakers in Congress don’t see it as one, either. They never speak of it in medical terms, something growing inside of you for nine months where God made it so that things can go very, very wrong. It’s always the harlot narrative. Some of them don’t even care if our daughters are raped. They carry Paul Hill’s banner every day.

Must it be difficult to face that kind of hard, cold truth? That you threw your life and others’ away for a political lie, designed to reinstitute state patriarchy? Sure, I’d imagine. In the end, his delusion was all he had left.

Bad politics doesn’t just get people killed, it gets people to kill themselves. And, others.

597,253 Americans dead from COVID as of now.

Paul Hill said, in his dying words, that the unborn should have the same rights as the born, and so does Reverend Spitz (below). Oh. Never mind that they’re men, and have no idea what it’s like to be pregnant. That authority– the ability to actually experience pregnancy, and to have one’s life put at risk because of it (every pregnancy carries with it some risk of death to the mother)– granted ONLY to women by God, to them, means nothing.

They’re also not judges, and are untrained in the interpretation of Constitutional law. But, before pro-lifers go bashing Constitutional law in this one exception, let’s clarify what Constitutional law is. Constitutional law = what America thinks, in theory at least, is correct in God’s eyes.

The Founders intentionally did not reference Christianity in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, but they did acknowledge a morally-aligned God, or naturalist deity, in the Declaration of Independence: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God;” also, “endowed by their Creator.” There is no (substantive) mention of a deity in the Constitution, Christian or otherwise. No, I don’t think using “A.D.” in the datestamp, counts.

Constitutional law = also deals with murder. Adult-on-adult, or adult-on-child. Cain and Abel. The real kind.

The Supreme Court is the bottom line, when it comes to American justice. If we call ourselves “Under God,” and a moral nation of laws, not men, then it’s time for pro-life to start giving the Constitution, and at least the possibility that Roe was decided correctly, more respect.

I wonder if Hill would agree that children have a right to not have their private belongings rummaged through by their parents, or if parents have the right to? Hmm, the Constitution says that kids don’t have as many rights under it as adult parents do. Could it be that zygotes have even fewer?

I wonder what he’d have to say about all of the other little choices a pregnant woman might make during those nine months. Can she smoke? Get on a rollercoaster?



If a woman miscarries naturally in a pro-life state, is the state obligated to make her prove it was natural? At whose expense? The taxpayer’s?

Why is pro-life ignoring IVF? Said another way, why is it placing so much focus on unwanted embryos actually attached to young, adult women?

How does Hill justify our bombing of Hiroshima, in which many innocent babies in utero died?

If a pregnant woman attacks another person without an escape route present, can the attacked kill the pregnant woman in self-defense?

Even with an escape route, can the attacked stand their ground?

If a terrorist hijacks a plane with a pregnant person on board, is a pro-life American government allowed to shoot down the plane? If not, what is the fundamental nature of the exception that allows the government to morally do this, but not any individual woman with an embryo developing within her own body?

Maybe these questions, and many others like them, might have gotten Hill to think twice about asserting the same rights for zygotes and fetuses that we affirm for live, born babies. Or, maybe he could have just read Roe. He may have; I don’t know. He would have gone to the public library to do so; the Internet was not around the same way, back then.

We’ll never know if his views on his actions might have changed or evolved, though, because he’s dead, now. Killed by the state. I’d agree with Reverend Spitz on that one issue, because I’m opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Society should want to keep a hold of its most wretched specimens (if and when it captures them alive), because they often have a lot to teach us about where we’re going, or have went, wrong. If they repent and can explain and tell us everything, that’s a bonus.

The state also killed the father of two children.

I don’t call capital punishment murder because that would imply it’s illegal, but I do think it’s murder in God’s eyes. Also, state terrorism. Let’s bear in mind that it’s not practiced (is illegal) in many states.

Capital punishment, by the way = another thing Republican’ts have been getting wrong all along.

See how that works? Reverend Spitz, no doubt a conservative politically, is harmed by capital punishment (it killed a friend of his), even though I, a liberal, have been warning him and others against supporting it for decades.

So, the abortion debate is just one mythological sect you can go down with Republican’ts, whereas there are many others, such as Second Amendment, the death penalty, the War on Drugs, militia groups, ending stem cell research, ending separation of church and state, tinkering with embassies in war zones so as to hasten the Armageddon and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Quiverfull/FLDS/ and other Christian reproductive cults we don’t hear too much about on the news, Christian-based gun cults, weird Christian cults that Amy Coney Island Barrett won’t talk about either, socialism = bad, et cetera. Now, apparently, to include evading (or was it befriending?) blue birdlike aliens, sex trafficking pedophile cults, Jewish space lasers, and factories harvesting babies’ brains. Pro-life, which might be best described as a political hoax, is just one pillar of nonsense the GOP uses to ‘hook’ voters into voting against their and society’s general interests, but it’s a big and solid pillar, with backing from the Vatican, even.

Lots of hearts in right places, here. Can you spot them?

Are schizophrenics, who often suffer (experience) only mild symptoms, predisposed to following Q conspiracy theories? Other cults? What intrigues me particularly about the Q cult with regards to a possible link with schizophrenia is its fascination with numbers, codes (encryption), symbols, and patterns. It’s social, but only within the privacy of one’s online virtual experience, lending it towards paranoia and isolation. I wonder if the naturally-occurring disorder might be being weaponized.

This guy (below) really had paranoid schizophrenia. But, he also happened to be a serial killer. Psychologists accurately point out, in this documentary, that millions of people have schizophrenia, sometimes even worse than Mullin’s, but they don’t go on to kill others. The schizophrenia didn’t cause him to kill; but, undiagnosed and untreated, it was an exacerbating factor. He also briefly experimented with psychotropic drugs such as cannabis and LSD, which would have made his symptoms worse; I’m not any kind of doctor, but I wouldn’t bet that LSD or even marijuana, outside of perhaps a controlled, clinical setting, are particularly good for people with paranoid schizophrenia.

At any rate, if you watch the documenary, echoes of the concepts that motivated Paul Hill, and which drive QAnon today, begin to reveal themselves everywhere. Things like a fascination with numbers, and the perception/recognition of patterns in completely disconnected things. It’s a form, I’ve argued, of the curiosity of synchronicity being mischanelled into misinterpretations of real-life visions and signs, rather than a method by which to express art, or other creating thinking.

Einstein claimed he got the inspiration for relativity by watching the blur caused outside of his window of a fast-moving trolley ride to work. Did it have any meaning (e.g., did he somehow “see” relativity happening), or was it simply a catalyst by which a genius mind could unravel a deep physical mystery of the universe?

Pro-life is a political cancer. Plutonium to the body politic. Perhaps its most outstanding scam is its slogan, pro-life, which automatically asserts something everyone is, and should want to be. Anyone who is against it is, therefore, automatically demonized, and labelled pro-murder; or, as Doctor Sister Dierdre Byrne shockingly asserted of me and our/my President and Vice President at CPAC, anti-life. But, it’s hardly pro-life. It artificially puts the people of a society at each others’ throats, with one asserting a completely imaginary moral superiority (pro-life) over the other (pro-choice). It encourages and cultivates mysoginy, and old misogynist tropes. It turns people off to faith. It fails logically everywhere, except in creating a de facto patriarchy, and is unable to be made workable in a free and democratic state. Eventually, it turns to terrorism. Clinic bombings and shooting people in church and in their homes is domestic terrorism. We should demand it out of government now, and forever. Never to be resurrected. It is a form of fascism. It has always been the official policy of fascist states; and, we have scientific proof that it doesn’t work to either reduce abortions or to save women’s lives. Enough is enough. This should not be an age of a new renaissance of pro-life in America; rather, we should be putting a final end to it. Abortion will always be demanded because it is a human right that only women have. Roe is settled law, and only patriarchs and fascists in this country, or well-meaning but ignorant enablers of them, want it overturned.

The only people who support it– who are taken seriously by society, at least– are mostly White men millionaires who fund its messaging, and White men nutcases who go on bombing and shooting sprees. There are no Christian monks writing tomes of laments concerning the fetuses. Historically, Christianity has barely acknowledged or cared about it.

Their “culture of life” slogan is a fraud, too. I’m the one opposing the death penalty and most war, not them. I’m the one who’s traditionally conservative, arguing that the woman’s and her trusted doctor’s judgment is good enough, and should not be questioned by the government in such a matter in virtually all cases. If a responsible abortion provider is concerned that a crazy woman might be abusing abortion, he or she can simply point her to mental health services, or make phone calls to other doctors. The Israeli Defense Forces, apparently, will pay for four of them.

And, while Republican’ts are busy protecting their would-be second-class, infantalized women citizens by shutting down clinics here in America, and allowing or forcing those women’s $10/hr employers to not pay health insurance premiums for maternal care, they’s sending tons of money to Israel every day. You see, with Israel, the debate suddenly ‘grows up.’ Republican’ts magically stop caring about embryos and fetuses their own mothers don’t want, and are able to see things in perspective. Israel, that place where the military pays its WOMEN soldiers for FOUR abortions during their time of service, to keep them in fighting shape, for defending against terrorists.

I guess the embyos take a back seat, all of a sudden.

So, in addition to IVF, that’s another thing pro-choice should do in any debate with a pro-lifer: Point to Israel. No doubt the Christian you’re speaking with will either be very well-prepared with some answer, or unable to respond. Then, ask him or her why Republican’ts are fine with funding it.

I mean, according to so many evangelical American Christian preachers’ own logic, shouldn’t Israel simply deserve all that it’s going through today, since it doesn’t have a culture of life over there? Why should anyone here in America want to help them? Aren’t they being justly punished by God for all of the babies they murder over there?

Makes sense to me! Now, to hell with science and research, let’s go make some laws.

The Bible is rarely “fairly clear” about anything. At any rate, the White man (above) is getting it wrong, as well. His cited Exodus verse has NOTHING to do with abortion; it has to do with hitting a pregnant woman and causing injury, and what her HUSBAND has rights to, afterwards, if the baby is damaged, or not. Exodus 21 covers ANCIENT customs. This guy might as well take seriously its rules for purchasing Hebrews as slaves. Civilizations evolve. Does he know what’s NOT in that long list of crimes HEBREWS shouldn’t commit in Exodus 21? Lo and behold, abortion. Also, no serious discussion of abortion in the Bible can exclude the ordeal of the bitter water in Numbers. Guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I imagine protecting fetal life was not considered important to legislate back then, just as it’s not considered particularly important by Israel today, because miscarriages have always happened, and abortion has always been demanded and is sometimes even medically necessary, and they recognize that God designed the fetus to be, particularly back then, completely dependent on the woman surviving, and making good lifestyle choices. If by no other means than by peer pressure and wise advice from her family and friends, who hopefully weren’t all really poor. She’d need a good midwife, too, or she AND the baby could die in childbirth. Childbirth killed a lot of women and babies back then, just like it’s on the rise in the United States of Mass Shootings, now.

Also, few kids lived through infancy back then. Also, the Jews had other things to worry about.

Wow, not only does Israel legalize abortion, they socialize it. And, the Bible is their book. Wow.

Israelis must be really confused about their own rules, over there in Israel.

It’s just shocking. Not. Israel knows exactly what the Bible has to say about abortion, which, conspicuously I assert, is virtually nothing; but, if anything, it leans towards pro-choice.

The silver-tongued guy above is not “seeking to help women choose life,” as he claims (1:28). Let’s get this straight: pro-life is an abolitionist movement. Instead of reducing abortions by helping women to make good life planning decisions; earn a living wage; and not get pregnant when they don’t wish to in the first place, it plays a two-sided game with contraception, while seeking to force the machinery of the state to punish doctors and women who perform and receive abortions with criminal penalties, including jail, and possibly even capital punishment. That’s not encouraging women to choose to not abort, it’s forcing them to. End result? Women = second-class citizens. Why? Because it’s a law only women can break. Men, by nature, are never, and cannot physically be, saddled with the decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was correct.

“Richard Trenton Chase (May 23, 1950 – December 26, 1980) was an American serial killer who killed six people in the span of a month in California. He earned the nickname The Vampire of Sacramento because he drank the blood of his victims and ate their internal organs. He did this as part of a delusion that he needed to prevent Nazis from turning his blood into powder via poison they had planted beneath his soap dish.


“After the Wallin murder, FBI agents Russ Vorpagel and Robert Ressler were called in to investigate. They compiled a profile of the killer; they determined that the killer would be tall, malnourished, a loner, physically unclean, and that most importantly, he would continue to kill.

“Five days after the mass murder, and after hearing the FBI profile, Nancy Holden contacted police saying she believed Richard Chase could be the killer. The police ran a background check on Chase, where they came across his registration of a .22-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Detectives and a team of police went to Chase’s apartment, where they asked to speak with him. Chase refused; the detectives and the police hid down the hallway and waited for Chase to leave, arresting him when he left the apartment carrying a bloodstained box; his parka and shoes were likewise bloodstained. Inside were pieces of shredded, blood-soaked wallpaper, and the bloodstained .22 with which he had committed his murders. Chase claimed that the bloody wallpaper and bloody gun were a result of his killing several dogs. When the police performed a search of Chase’s person, they found that he was carrying Dan Meredith’s wallet.

“Detectives, along with Ressler and Vorpagel, performed a search of Chase’s apartment. They found the walls, floor, ceiling, refrigerator, and all of Chase’s eating and drinking utensils soaked in blood; on the counter was the blender Chase used to make his smoothies. It was caked in coagulated blood and the rotting matter of internal organs. Inside the refrigerator police found several animal body parts wrapped in aluminum foil; David’s brains in a Tupperware container and pieces of his body wrapped in Saran Wrap; and several of Evelyn Miroth and Teresa Wallin’s internal organs. On another counter were several pet collars; on his kitchen table he had spread out numerous diagrams depicting various aspects of human biology.


“In 1979, Chase stood trial on six counts of murder. In order to avoid the death penalty, the defense tried to have Chase found guilty of second degree murder, which would result in a life sentence. Their case hinged on Chase’s history of mental illness and the lack of planning in his crimes, evidence that they were not premeditated.

“On May 8 the jury found Chase guilty of six counts of first degree murder. The defense asked for a clemency hearing, in which a judge determined that Chase was not legally insane; Chase was sentenced to die in the gas chamber. Waiting to die, Chase became a feared presence in prison; the other inmates (including several gang members), aware of the graphic and bizarre nature of his crimes, feared him, and according to prison officials, they often tried to convince Chase to commit suicide, too fearful to get close enough to him to kill him themselves. Chase also granted a series of interviews with Robert Ressler, during which he spoke of his fears of Nazis and UFOs, claiming that although he had killed, it was not his fault; he had been forced to kill to keep himself alive, which he believed any person would do. He asked Ressler to give him access to a radar gun, with which he could apprehend the Nazi UFOs, so that the Nazis could stand trial for the murders. He also handed Ressler a large amount of macaroni and cheese which he had been hoarding in his pants pockets, believing that the prison officials were in league with the Nazis and attempting to kill him.

“On December 26, 1980, a guard doing cell checks found Chase lying awkwardly on his bed, not breathing. An autopsy determined that Chase committed suicide with an overdose of prison doctor-prescribed antidepressants that he had been saving up for the last few weeks.

“The 1988 movie Rampage was loosely based on Chase’s crimes.”

Is this lifestyle (described below) compatible with American concepts of individual liberty and freedom for all adult citizens? No. Is it even Christian? Also no.

Handing over your freedom and spiritual autonomy to a stranger is nuts. There are less than 1,700 people in this sect; I can only imagine they must think they’re really special. Only men at the top, my my. Described modestly as “theologically conservative” by Wikipedia, with a “hierarchical structure,” we can bet it’s pro-Republican, pro-everything Trump, and pro-life. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to practice it. I’m saying people who do should not be on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

One cannot “play church” or “play monastery” while living a worldly life, let alone a strongly political one, or one in government. Hierarchies like these may be appropriate in certain monastic religious environments, but one cannot presume to preside over free American citizens when one subjects one’s own life to such restrictions. These types of lifestyles are not even conducive to complex thought and debate. An alleged cult already, PP-Jesus “we do real speaking in tongues here” isn’t far from mind control at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if Amy Coney Island Barret doesn’t think much. She certainly wasn’t eager to discuss the way she thinks about anything related to law during her confirmation hearings. Their songs are pretty vapid, short, and feel-good. Nothing too heavy. Christ lite.

Their messaging, just like Amy Coney Island Barrett’s at her confirmation hearing? Completely absent. Opaque. Who cares what they preach, though. Did you bother to listen through those 25 minutes of nothing, above? They give us zero insight into their fundamental beliefs practiced in that church, or how they handle transgressions and correction. Why? Because it has no unique wisdom to preach but obedience, and is just patriarchal Christo-theocratic fascism, in disguise. I don’t think I heard one reference to “Jesus” in that entire genealogical, hippie road-tripping yawn-fest. The only reference to the Bible I heard at all was a bad joke about how Sarah must have felt when she heard that Abraham had been told to kill Isaac. Why no mention of Jesus? Who are they trying to appeal to? Are there any samples of their preaching on their YouTube page? No, it’s literally twenty five-minute praise songs. What a mocking joke. 687 subscribers. What are they preaching in that weird church? What are they hiding, or are afraid to discuss?

Maybe miracle-healing, pro-life, and violent overthrow of the U.S. Government?

Okay, I was correct about most of it: It’s exclusive to Christians (claims Christian baptism is your ticket in) and appears to be some kind of union, or consortium, coat-tailing on the infrastructures of other major denominations while calling itself a “community”. But, it’s really a consortium, and it’s definitely a registered church in South Bend, Indiana, because you’re not really a community once you expand past certain physical geographical boundaries. On its “Contact Us,” page, it for some reason warns about child abuse. Hm, I wonder if the lifestyle itself is at least partially to blame. Because abuse– emotional and physical– is what some of its former adult adherents claim.

People of Praise takes reports of abuse very seriously. If you have reason to believe that sexual or physical abuse of a child has occurred, you should immediately contact government authorities. Information for whom to contact can be found here: U.S. States, Saskatchewan, Jamaica, in Grenada call 440-6980. People of Praise members should also immediately inform their branch leader.

People of Praise has retained the firm Lathrop GPM to facilitate independent reporting and investigation of incidents of sexual misconduct or the abuse of a child. Please contact Robin Maynard at (612) 632-3400 or

On its “About Us” page, the consortium that began at a private Catholic university in the 1960s, includes among its core beliefs speaking in tongues and physical healing. In other words, bullshit. Jim Jones stuff. Everyone was doing that in the 1960s. Charles Manson was. And, this group wasn’t even a pioneering one. They say they got theirs started in the late 1960s:

Our particular moment in this larger story began in the late 1960s, when students and faculty at the University of Notre Dame began to experience a renewal of Christian enthusiasm and fervor, together with charismatic gifts such as speaking in tongues and physical healing, as described in the New Testament book of Acts.


Then, some weird ritual they call “covenanting,” where you pledge to give them 5% of your gross earnings for the rest of your life. They say they use this to help out a few impoverished Black neighborhoods here and there, building Christian charter schools.

And, that’s about it. Their entire doctrine, as far as I can tell. You can be any denomination, but you have to be baptised Christian, and believe in these other weird things that theoretically take away your free will. In this 1,700-member ‘community’ that’s run, at the tippy-top, by seven or so men. It’s pro-life, pro-miracle-healing, pro-speaking-in-tongues, and probably thinks a violent overthrow of the U.S. government wouldn’t be that bad of a thing. Millionaires very welcome. So that they can build charter schools.

Amy Coney Island Barrett’s net worth, 2020: $2 million.

Meanwhile, obey that man. Or, these ones. You have 700 or so to choose from!

People of Praise practices a form of spiritual direction that involves the supervision of a member by a more “spiritually mature” person called a “head”. People of Praise maintains that members retain their freedom of conscience under such direction.” –Wikipedia

Yeah, that’s impossible. You’re either under some “head’s” supervision, or you’re not.

Bible wins again. In a moment, in fact, I’ll research the books they cite to justify this soul-stultifying, patriarchy-genuflecting, theo-fascistic nonsense, and explain how they’re either getting the true Christian messaging wrong or, most likely, are taking it out of its original context.

Okay, People of Praise’s members submitting their behavior and will up to a spiritual head-person is not based on the Bible, at least not directly. It’s derived from The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola (1522–1524), written over a thousand-and-a-half years later. This means that, whereas it might yet be good stuff, no Christian has to follow it if they don’t want to.

But, they’re doing it wrong anyway. First, The Spiritual Exercises were designed primarily to be practiced in a retreat, not ideally in an everyday-life environment. Also, although St. Ignatius adapted it for professionals in civic and private life, the exercises were designed to have a beginning and an end, not be continuously applied. Second, a casual reading would make it appear that the Exercises were designed for adults, and probably mostly for would-be monks. Kids, it implies, shouldn’t be able to do it:

It will be very profitable for the one who is to go through the Exercises to enter upon them with magnanimity and generosity toward his Creator and Lord, and to offer Him his entire will and liberty, that His Divine Majesty may dispose of him and all he possesses according to His most holy will.

Kid’s can’t really do that. At least, not in any way that St. Ignatius, I assert, would have taken seriously.

At a minimum, St. Ignatius states that the least-fruitful practitioners of the Exercises must be able to go to confession (officially known as “the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Loyola Press doesn’t instruct children in confession until second grade.

Much of the following material was adapted from the fine text from Loyola Press which prepares
second graders to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation for the first time. It is entitled:
God’s Gift: Reconciliation.
To order copies with expansive content for children, visit

Well, lo and behold, having very young children and babies born into a lifestyle based on St. Ignatius’ How-to Book for Becoming a Jesuit Monk doesn’t work, then. It would seem to violate Catholic rules, because children can’t go to confession unless they’re confirmed. Though, I doubt the preacher in Indiana who appears to have co-opted the 16th century tome to put some “meat on the bones” of his pyramid scheme to build private Christian charter schools, wasn’t too concerned about it.

The Spiritual Exercises must be adapted to the condition of the one who is to engage in them, that is, to his age, education, and talent. Thus exercises that he could not easily bear, or from which he would derive no profit, should not be given to one with little natural ability or of little physical strength.

Similarly, each one should be given those exercises that would be more helpful and profitable according to his willingness to dispose himself for them.

Hence, one who wishes no further help than some instruction and the attainment of a certain degree of peace of soul may be given the Particular Examination of Conscience, # 24–31, and after that the General Examination of Conscience, # 32–43. Along with this, let him be given for half an hour each morning the method of prayer on the Commandments and on the Capital Sins, etc., # 238–248. Weekly confession should be recommended to him, and if possible, the reception of Holy Communion every two weeks, or even better, every week if he desires it.

This method is more appropriate for those who have little natural ability or are illiterate. Let each of the Commandments be explained to them, and also the Capital Sins, the use of the five senses, the precepts of the Church, and the Works of Mercy.

Similarly, if the one giving the Exercises sees that the exercitant has little aptitude or little physical strength, that he is one from whom little fruit is to be expected, it is more suitable to give him some of the easier exercises as a preparation for confession. Then he should be given some ways of examining his conscience, and directed to confess more frequently than was his custom before, so as to retain what he has gained.

But let him not go on further and take up the matter dealing with the Choice of a Way of Life, nor any other exercises that are outside the First Week. This is especially to be observed when much better results could be obtained with other persons, and when there is not sufficient time to take everything.

Modern applications
The Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola are considered a classic work of spiritual literature.[17] Many Jesuits are ready to direct the general public in retreats based on the Exercises.

Since the 1980s there has been a growing interest in the Spiritual Exercises among people from other Christian traditions.[3] The Exercises are also popular among lay people[18] both in the Catholic Church and in other denominations, and lay organizations like the Christian life community place the Exercises at the center of their spirituality. The Exercises are seen variously as an occasion for a change of life[2]:18 and as a school of contemplative prayer.

The most common way for laypersons to go through the Exercises now is a “retreat in daily life”, which involves a five- to seven-month programme of daily prayer and meetings with a spiritual director.[18] Also called the “19th annotation exercises” based on a remark of St. Ignatius in the 19th “introductory observation” in his book, the retreat in daily life does not require an extended stay in a retreat house and the learned methods of discernment can be tried out on day-to-day experiences over time.[2]:19

Also, some break the 30 days into two or three sections over a two-year period. Most retreat centers offer shorter retreats with some of the elements of the Spiritual Exercises. Retreats have been developed for specific groups of people, such as those who are married or engaged. Self-guided forms of the Exercises are also available, including online programs.[20][21]

So, it’s taught by Jesuits, and seen as an occasion for change, and as a school of contemplative prayer. Which basically means, a lesson. A course. With a beginning, and an end. That’s totally not what People of Praise is. Again, it’s just another hijacking of a classic piece of religious literature to jump-start a cult.

Bible thumpers from early 1970s Indiana… what better people to trust with educating our kids. Or, interpreting St. Ignatius.

In 1981, the People of Praise launched Trinity Schools, an educational outreach that reflects our ecumenical approach to Christian life and offers an education to children in the People of Praise and to the public.

I wonder how much those schools are making, with Amy Coney Island Barrett’s annual “tithe” of $100,000, among others’?

Well, that’s why God invented Dun & Bradstreet.

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $10,712,005
Net income -$123,097
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $695,868 6.6%
Program services $9,506,850 89.8%
Investment income $63,125 0.6%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $164,657 1.6%
Sales of assets $100,766 1.0%
Net inventory sales $0
Other revenue $57,642 0.5%
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $153,815 1.4%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $4,765,515 44.5%
Total Assets $5,339,407
Total Liabilities $1,496,965
Net Assets $3,842,442

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $10,323,145
Net income $322,716
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $1,348,745 12.7%
Program services $8,844,932 83.1%
Investment income $53,890 0.5%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $127,240 1.2%
Sales of assets $215,437 2.0%
Net inventory sales $0
Other revenue $55,617 0.5%
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $255,198 2.5%
Professional fundraising fees $93,931 0.9%
Other salaries and wages $0
Total Assets $5,401,204
Total Liabilities $1,373,641
Net Assets $4,027,563

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $10,188,261
Net income -$565,811
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $952,126 9.9%
Program services $8,473,843 88.1%
Investment income $48,620 0.5%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $120,627 1.3%
Sales of assets -$29,496
Net inventory sales $0
Other revenue $56,730 0.6%
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $164,047 1.6%
Professional fundraising fees $60,977 0.6%
Other salaries and wages $4,444,455 43.6%
Total Assets $5,160,333
Total Liabilities $1,427,831
Net Assets $3,732,502

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $9,659,156
Net income $518,617
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $1,779,342 17.5%
Program services $8,018,660 78.8%
Investment income $127,567 1.3%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $0
Sales of assets $227,800 2.2%
Net inventory sales $24,404 0.2%
Other revenue $0
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $321,085 3.3%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $4,269,251 44.2%
Total Assets $5,792,900
Total Liabilities $1,375,433
Net Assets $4,417,467

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $7,689,028
Net income -$185,150
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $1,204,413 16.1%
Program services $6,274,945 83.6%
Investment income $24,407 0.3%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $0
Sales of assets -$19,657
Net inventory sales $19,770 0.3%
Other revenue $0
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $178,249 2.3%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $4,084,494 53.1%
Total Assets $5,534,363
Total Liabilities $1,369,330
Net Assets $4,165,033

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $8,480,982
Net income $570,751
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $1,524,951 16.8%
Program services $7,175,511 79.3%
Investment income $2,025 0.0%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $64,041 0.7%
Sales of assets $302,740 3.3%
Net inventory sales -$17,536
Other revenue $0
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $155,282 1.8%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $4,080,277 48.1%
Total Assets $6,264,492
Total Liabilities $2,352,552
Net Assets $3,911,940

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $8,593,622
Net income $2,279,530
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $3,816,145 35.1%
Program services $6,881,405 63.3%
Investment income $125,639 1.2%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $75,166 0.7%
Sales of assets $0
Net inventory sales -$25,203
Other revenue $0
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $176,290 2.1%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $3,913,833 45.5%
Total Assets $6,054,465
Total Liabilities $2,728,608
Net Assets $3,325,857

Total Revenue
Total Functional Expenses $8,601,749
Net income $164,725
Notable sources of revenue Percent of total revenue
Contributions $1,253,436 14.3%
Program services $6,905,710 78.8%
Investment income $507,248 5.8%
Bond proceeds $0
Royalties $0
Rental property income $0
Net fundraising $128,237 1.5%
Sales of assets $0
Net inventory sales -$28,158
Other revenue $0
Notable expenses Percent of total expenses
Executive compensation $175,451 2.0%
Professional fundraising fees $0
Other salaries and wages $3,849,086 44.7%
Total Assets $3,645,940
Total Liabilities $2,842,555
Net Assets $803,385

I count $2,982,281 in profit since 2011. Plus, net assets of $3,842,442 in 2018.

If you follow the money, you’ll realize that People of Praise is basically a scam to fund the building of private Christian charter schools. It offers zero specific doctrine, and abuses the highly-restrictive Exercises of St. Ignatius in everyday, family settings to impose patriarchy, and control.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Predatory, patriarchal and fascistic, twisting St. Ignatius; defying Scripture; and, undermining public schools instead of helping them, and putting millions in profits (and assets) in their pockets while hiding behind community vegetable gardens. Allowing the terrorist wings of the GOP full traipse. We’re not hearing PP-Jesus taking any specific moral stand on anything from the last five years, are we? Recruiting from the lowest rungs of society by offering lies of miracle healings, one of the oldest scams in the book. Christian trash.

The Catholic Church should probably denounce it as heretical.

By the way, does Amy Coney Island Barrett have to take orders from her “head” when she’s ruling from the bench?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be, truly, rolling in her grave.

“Founded in 1971 in South Bend, Indiana, People of Praise has grown into a community of about 1,700 members. We are now in 22 cities across the US, Canada, and the Caribbean.“In 1981, in response to a call from God [uh-huh], we established the Trinity Schools—private Christian schools in South Bend, Indiana, Falls Church, Virginia, and Eagan, Minnesota. These middle/high schools have received a total of eight Blue Ribbon awards from the U.S. Department of Education. Trinity students, the majority of whom are not members of People of Praise, learn…

“In 2002, inspired by the Holy Spirit [uh-huh], People of Praise members began moving into some of America’s poorest neighborhoods. Since then, we have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include running summer camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm and establishing a private elementary school, Praise Academy at Lakeside. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.”

To one who is more disengaged, and desirous of making as much progress as possible, all the Spiritual Exercises should be given in the same order in which they follow below.

Ordinarily, the progress made in the Exercises will be greater, the more the exercitant withdraws from all friends and acquaintances, and from all worldly cares. For example, he can leave the house in which he dwelt and choose another house or room in order to live there in as great privacy as possible, so that he will be free to go to Mass and Vespers every day without any fear that his acquaintances will cause any difficulty.

I say again: Designed primarily for monks, but also for worldy adults who want to work on their spirituality at a retreat or, in a worst-case scenario, in individual one-hour sessions separated over weeks or months.

NOT designed for children, or to be applied continuously to or in everyday life, or in family settings. People of Praise discounts (ignores) both. And, that’s why we see abuse in it at presumably higher rates, since that is what has been alleged; and, it’s an explanation for their abuse disclaimer on their Contact Us page: It’s because they’re abusing the Exercises– a very serious spiritual regimen, designed to be adequate for monks– to inappropriately empower adult men over other adult men, and adult men over adult women, and adult women over other adult women, while insisting on no serious qualifications of any to teach the Exercises at all.

Matthew 23:9
King James Version
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

John 19:10-11
New International Version
10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.”

“Headships and laypastor–penitent relationships

“Spiritual direction is an important part of People of Praise intentional community, which takes the form of headships or lay-pastoral counselling; according to anthropologist Thomas Csordas, “individual members are supervised in their daily lives by a person regarded as more ‘spiritually mature.'”[37][1] Pastoral care is considered an important service within the community; it is believed to foster relationships of love, service and charismatic ministry.[33]:15. Each member has someone called a “head”, who acts as a personal adviser. Influenced by Ignatian spirituality (the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola),[10][38][39] heads, in general, give encouragement, correction, and help in decision-making. Men have other men as their heads. Married women are headed by their husbands. Single women and widows usually have other women as their heads. Men and women with the appropriate skills are assigned as heads by the coordinators.[citation needed] People of Praise uses the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola as a basis for counsel and discernment.[30]” –Wikipedia, People of Praise

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

— Matthew 7:1–5 KJV (Matthew 7:1–5 other versions)

This is how the speaking in tongues scam works: I know, because I was invited to a Pentecostal service once. The time comes for new people to start talking in tongues. The older members put their hands on your back and start praying loudly into your ear. I figured at the time, well, I’ll see if I’m magically taken up by God, and start speaking in tongues.

I wasn’t.

What I did feel, though, was the intense peer pressure being put on me to be taken up by the Spirit, and not prove myself defective in their eyes (and, I suppose, in mine, a little). Which means, to make everyone around me happy and love me, I knew I definitely could have bullshitted it. But, to me, who actually fears God, pretending to be speaking in tongues was probably a big no-no. Which made sense to me, since I was a twenties-something soldier in Airborne School, doing this on my Saturday evening off, 2,000 or so years after the last person who might have spoken in tongues was positively identified by Scripture. So, I didn’t.

Experiment failed. They were disappointed, but not too much. I could have gone back again. They’d have let me try again; but, I didn’t.

It’s a very light form of indoctrination into any cult, and the undermining of objective reality: “Here, we’re part of this secret, do something a little crazy for us, so that we’re both kind of guilty of keeping the same lie a secret. Most of us know we bullshitted this the first time, don’t worry, it’ll get easier to believe as you go.”

Public healings are just hoaxes, where the “healed” are usually doing it for some money, agreed in advance in a back room, or to help the cause along– and, the donations– if God’s “real” healing happens to be light, that day. That’s how they rationalize it. They’re always new people. You don’t get healed twice. So, they never have to discover the machinery taking place in the back room, if it’s kept well-hidden enough.

At any rate, Barrett should be impeached. She supports an extremely patriarchal, hierarchical organization which is un-Biblical, and which impedes on private family life and harms innocent people, mostly women and children. It is un-American in nature, and ungrounded in science. It is predatory, asserting the miracles of faith healing and speaking in tongues as its core differentiating doctrine. It’s also unclear how Barrett can reconcile ruling impartially with PP’s doctrine of not separating from the will of her “spiritual head” (presumably, her husband). Unclear, because the only thing it can be is unclear, because it’s impossible: As I’ve pointed out, PP’s assertion that one can be under someone’s supervision and not under their supervision at the same time is absurd. We can only assume that Barrett is under her husband’s supervision. Finally, the only thing People o’ Praise appears to actually be doing is swooping into low-income communities to build Christian-themed charter schools.

If you’re a White man who goes on a Planned Parenthood shooting spree; kills three people; and acts unruly at your trial, you go to a mental institution, not a real prison, because you’re called delusional. My my. How convenient.

Now, the people at the mental institution have to go around a murderous “crazy” man who went on a shooting spree at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Are most of the people at that institution violent? If I were a patient or a family member with custody, I’d be outraged.

If I were Planned Parenthood, I’d be outraged. Their doctors walk around with bulletproof vests and bodyguards frequently. This man wasn’t delusional, he was a deliberately-stochastically-cultivated domestic terrorist. Predictable. Hence Planned Parenthood doctors wearing bullet-proof vests.

Did 15-year-old Alyssa Bustamante get that kind of treatment for being respectful and behaved at trial? After clearly having been mis-prescribed Prozac by the state? No, they gave her a 30-year sentence, where prosecutors had originally wanted more.

Imagine how she feels. Formerly an A-B student with many friends, she went nuts/psychotic from extreme chronic familial abuse and neglect, and misprescribed antidepressants; murdered a 9-year-old; and has to go around in general population. It’s the exact opposite of what happened to Dear, inverted in every way.

I’ve argued that Bustamante is effectively innocent, and should be released immediately for time served. Then, perhaps, we might see charges filed against her elusive grandparents, whom I suspect may be truly legally responsible for the nine-year-old’s death. The private medical establishment which overprescribed her the Prozac, from what I understand, was somehow connected with the school, which it would seem makes it partially the state’s responsibility for the nine-year-old’s death, as well.

But, as I’ve argued, all of the parties probably know all of that, already.

“On November 27, 2015, a mass shooting occurred in a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, resulting in the deaths of three people and injuries to nine.[1][2] A police officer and two civilians were killed; five police officers and four civilians were injured.[3][4] After a standoff that lasted five hours,[1][5] police SWAT teams crashed armored vehicles into the lobby and the attacker surrendered.[6]

“The attacker, Robert Lewis Dear Jr., was arrested, charged in state court with first-degree murder, and ordered held without bond. At court appearances, Dear repeatedly interrupted proceedings, made statements affirming his guilt (although he did not enter a formal plea), and expressed anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood views, calling himself “a warrior for the babies.” He also asserted his desire to act as his own attorney in the criminal case against him. Subsequent mental competency evaluations ordered by the state court determined Dear to be delusional. The judge presiding over the state case ruled in May 2016 that Dear was incompetent to stand trial and ordered him indefinitely confined to a Colorado state mental hospital, where he has remained ever since.”

No, I don’t support the death penalty, but I severely question the preferential treatment apparently given to this flaming misogynist, murderer and cop-killer, because he acted strange at trial.

“State psychologists have said Dear suffers delusions that the FBI has been tracking him following remarks he made on a radio call-in show concerning the 1993 federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. Regarding the Planned Parenthood attack itself, Dear has declared himself guilty and has called  himself a “warrior for the babies.” The Planned Parenthood branch performs abortions at the clinic.”

That’s pretty thin. So, he called into a radio show and probably shouted some choice expletives against the government or whatever. Or, just called in. Who knows. It occurred 32 years prior. I don’t buy it as a basis for being nuts. Lots of people called in about Waco back then. Does the alleged phone call even still exist? Is there any evidence that he’s actually been fretting about it for the past 32 years? Sounds to me like some trick he cooked up with the help of his no-doubt clever White man lawyer.

Federal charges
In early December 2019, a federal grand jury issued a 68-count indictment against Dear: 65 counts of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) and three counts of using a firearm to murder.[52][53] Dear was taken into custody Monday at the Colorado State Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, Colorado, where he has been detained since a state court declared him mentally incompetent to face trial on state charges in May 2016.[54] At a plea hearing, Dear, who has admitted to being the shooter,[54] again made several outbursts, again insisted that he was competent to stand trial, and complained about being held “at the nuthouse for four years.”[55] Federal prosecutors requested that Dear undergo a new competency evaluation.[55]

Vicki Cowart, president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, decried the incident as a form of domestic terrorism.[56] While the shooting was still ongoing, Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger demanded that Cowart apologize if the perpetrator was not anti-abortion.[57]

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch called the shooting “…not only a crime against the Colorado Springs community, but a crime against women receiving healthcare services at Planned Parenthood, law enforcement seeking to protect and serve, and other innocent people.”[16][58] President Barack Obama released a statement on November 28, 2015 that stressed stricter gun control legislation.[59]

Some U.S. politicians and groups described the shooting as domestic terrorism, including Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers,[60] NARAL Pro-Choice Texas,[61] and former Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.[62]

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said the shooting was “a form of terrorism” and said that it and other violent incidents may be the result of the “inflammatory rhetoric we see on all levels”—referring to heated debate over abortion in the U.S.[63]

Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, drew particular attention to the undercover Planned Parenthood videos, two of which were shot at a clinic in Denver, 75 miles north of Colorado Springs; these videos resulted in a number of threats against one doctor featured in the videos.[64]

The FBI issued a statement to law enforcement agencies in September 2015 warning that Planned Parenthood facilities may require protection from arson attacks from “the pro-life extremist movement.”[65] After the shooting, some police departments placed emergency response vehicles in the vicinity of Planned Parenthood clinics.[66] –Wikipedia

Again, the use of the word, extremist, to qualify the direct terrorist wing of the pro-life movement from the stochastic terrorist wing, is meant to create a polite distinction. There is no polite distinction. Pro-life is a terror movement.

Compelling perfectly rational, ethical and moral women in real-life to back alleys for a service most of them intrinsically understand to be their human right, and which we know we can perform safely and at low-cost, is terror. Pro-life might shrug the back-alley abortion argument off with their moral red herrings and straw man arguments, but they can’t get away from it. It’s terror.

You don’t have to be a shooter or a bomber in it. Pro-life policy kills women. You can be a twelve-year-old who bakes cookies for your mom to take to the church sale, and you’re a problem. Heck, you’re already beginning to develop a complex that you’re fundamentally morally superior to two-thirds of the adult American population. You will consider it fundamental, because not being able to recognize murder is about as fundamental as morality gets, and pro-life accuses pro-choice of it. Again: Anti-life.

Political plutonium.

“Federal Prosecutors Won’t Seek Death Penalty In Trial Of Alleged Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood Shooter” By Dan Boyce, December 2, 2020.

Can there be a foundation for objective morality without God?

Deist from Notre Dame says: No.

Atheist says: Sure.

I’d say the atheist wins, though, to me, it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. It just means that, once again, God doesn’t need to exist for something we perceive as real, to be real. I’ve already thought long and hard about this subject. Morality cannot exist without logic, et cetera.

God, as much as we might like to, can’t be put in a box. Logically, we can never point to the creation and use it to derive anything about its creator but an ability to conceptualize the creation’s features, assuming there was a creator. The only reason we assert the Universe must have a creator is because we can’t think back to anything that’s been created/altered/modified and not have a creating/altering/modifying force behind it. But, again, that’s a rule of this Universe, so it’s not a good metric, no matter how reliable it is. Time seemed pretty reliable, too, until we realized black holes can “stop” it. Perhaps it’s the tightest box we can put God in (the “something must have created the universe, so it must be God” argument). But, it’s not enough. It doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a God. For the same reason, we can’t point to morality and say, well, because it exists, and especially because it’s good for us and we like it, God must exist, any more than it make sense to point to a rock and say, well, because it exists, God must exist. Or, “This bountiful world is a testament to God being real.” No, not really, it’s a testament that you like it. But, 99% of the Universe is Hell, as far as human beings are concerned. And, we’re working hard to destroy it– this so-called “speck of dust–” too.

The atheist argues that not only is belief in God unnecessary for a univeral moral society, it’s an inhibitor to moral sight. Basically, he believes that belief in God is a mistake. I don’t agree.

I’ll put what I believe to him this way: Whereas I will accede that belief in God might be unnecessary for a moral society in theory, he’s never going to find one. This leads me to suspect that whereas evolution created some human beings to have no interest in belief in God, it created some to. I think both types of people are important, which would then allow both types to conclude that, if both types are adaptive, then functionally, it doesn’t matter who’s right, and who’s wrong. Just as easily as it might be completely misguided to say that a society that only believed God was real, could flourish. Maybe it couldn’t. Maybe humans were designed to perpetually have the discussion, for some reason. I will assert that, even if we could find an answer, it wouldn’t matter. Okay, we have proof of God. I hope everyone is happy, now. We can finally address a few things that perpetually worry us, now, such as, we do not die and disappear forever; and, our lives might not be meaningless, like Ecclesiasters paradoxically asserts. What then? What do we do with that knowledge? We’re still going to be just as confused about everything else.

A few years ago, I heard, it was the Higgs-boson, the “God” particle. Okay, we found out it’s real. Does that mean God’s real, now? I still don’t have fast rail.

I will say that religious exclusivity is clearly maladaptive (the belief that only one religion is correct above all others). I also see no convincing, or even strong, evidence for it in the Bible. This ties in to the observation above, where eternal life may in fact be built into the hardware itself, and the distinction is not so much having eternal life, but having faith that one does, prior to death itself, and how that belief might make one alter their behavior positively in life.

By eternal life, I mean consciousness in some form. Not losing, upon death, this. Everything around us that we see and experience, et cetera. This experience we like, where we occasionally have to go to the bathroom, and which we’ll leave behind forever, some day. Again, animals have no knowledge of death. Not really. Another thing that sets us apart from them, and which is core to understanding what morality is, or not.

Could there be anything “moral,” if we lived forever? Probably not. It might be a bad experience, but we could always say to ourselves, “well, I have forever to live, so I could just get away from this or that person eventually, and be through this. A trillion billion years from now, I bet I’ll barely recall how horrible it was.” Like playing in “God mode” in a video game, nothing that happens to you matters, and nothing you do to anyone playing in God mode matters, either.

Because it’s so prevalant, and evidence for it can be traced back eons, I don’t suspect that belief in God is a hoax that humans are somehow prone to believing in. Again, this does not mean that God must be real; what it does mean is that I suspect a belief in God, to an extent, is hard-wired, which then suggests that it is, or can be, adaptive. Again, regardless of whether or not God is real. Paradoxically, it would seem.

I would agree that religion is the alleged core of much war and fighting. But, I could just as easily argue that without religion or belief in God, we’d find some other reason to fight each other. Some people do just fine killing for race as they do for God. Some people don’t even hide it, and brag that they kill not for God, or for race, but for gold.

Because it’s always over gold. Territory. Physical security. Hedonism, and access to fame, respect, acceptance by the in-group, and pleasure. Bottom few floors of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

The rest are just excuses. No one ever killed people of different races or religions knowing they’d come home poorer for it. In other words: I don’t believe that religion is fundamentally causal of human violence (maladaptive). If anything, the seemingly endless quest for physical resources to consume, is.

That said, for those who tend to believe in God, or make room in their rational minds for a possible belief in God, I believe it can be an enhancement to moral sight, because of Scriptural and other enlightened MORAL teachings of those who chose that path in life, and reported back.

The deist argues that God is the foundation of all that is good, and hence if God is real, morality already has a solid foundation. Sure. But, what about evil? The Bible argues that God is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega. God created Satan. God’s inscrutable (“super-natural”) nature, I would argue from a Biblical perspective, is “good, plus.” God must, in some way, encompass that which we describe as evil, since God created evil.

The deist claims he’s not arguing the existence of God, but he kind of is, because he’s using morality, which we can all agree exists, as a premise for arguing that God has to be behind it.

And, too often, deists are confusing religion– usually, their misinterpretation of it– as an excuse to commit any atrocity. The atheist wins that argument hands-down here, too; and, considering this is a discussion about morality, it’s 100% relevant.

I disagree with the atheist that we do not have free will. Or, if he’s correct that we don’t, then I would assert that the distinction doesn’t matter.

That, the deist comes close to arguing– the apparent ability to choose– is the crux of the distinction between what simply “is,” and what is “moral” versus “immoral.”

But, the Bible accounts for free will. We kind of have evidence for it. We are different from the animals, according to the Bible, as well as according to science. We can do ‘unnatural’ things that create more harm than good for societal flourishing in ways that animals cannot. Or, animals cannot see the difference between two paths, and make the better choice, at least in any kind of long-term manner. No animal possesses that kind of memory, or long-term planning skills. We are not at the complete mercy of the Universe in which we reside. Animals, and every other lifeform on this planet that we know of, are.

There was no need for the atheist to have conjured up, for the skeptical woman bioethicist, the imaginary culture where every third child has their eyeball plucked out as being an example of an immoral society (28:14). He could have simply referenced child sacrifice of the indigenous South American peoples, which actually happened. They didn’t remove eyeballs, they went all the way to death. Would the woman professor of bioethics, citing religiously-mandated morals, have said that that was okay, too?

Subjectively, it was moral. Moral to them. Objectively, it was immoral; murder. I’m sure the parents, and the children being sacrificed, didn’t want it, unless they’d somehow been brainwashed to. Here, the deist makes a good example of Naziism ALWAYS being evil, REGARDLESS of whether Nazis think they’re right.

Also, pointing out that “good” can be redefined as an optimization of societal flourishing as opposed to individual flourishing, I agree with. That is what humanism is: optimization of societal flourishing. Science can be good for doing that, but how long we’d also come if we simply obeyed the Golden Rule, when faced with temptation, or the like. Articulating “good” this way is important, because whereas a thief can steal money from someone else, when the owner is not around to ever catch or punish the thief, and the thief calls it “good,” it’s immoral. Animals can’t be taught to make distinctions such as these, either. As far as I’m aware, respect for property in the animal kingdom, when it happens at all, only extends to within the tribe/herd/pack, etc. The resources of animals of other tribes/herds/packs, within the same species, are always open to being stolen, usually by physical attack.

Again: When respect for property happens at all. Usually in nature, as in the kitchen, the first cat that gets to the food bowl, wins.

His assertion that “it’s wrong to cheat on one’s spouse” is an arbitrary religious dictate that runs contrary to science and our evolution is not entirely accurate. Some animals, primates even (such as gorillas), mate for life. Others are polyamorous, such as chimpanzees. We are not descended from gorillas; we are descended from chimpanzees. Yet, both have a common primate ancestor, and we also have magical abilities of free will that animals do not (example: we’re all omnivorous, but can individually choose to never eat meat), which make it so that we can choose one or the other. Some people are perfectly fine with never getting married, and living polyamorous lifestyles. It’s probably most peoples’ most natural states, I also tend to believe, although I’m not an anthropologist, and can’t speak to how familial arrangements have been practiced over the millennia. The Bible is (probably intentionally) unclear about this to some extent, too. Cain killed Abel, and then what? It’s clear the lineage leaves a gap between Adam, Eve, and the two sons. Maybe Adam didn’t have another wife. But, I find it conspicuous that the Bible doesn’t say he didn’t, either.

Others find mates who ascribe to the monogamy thing– ideally, not those who are just “trying to–” and live happily ever after. But, I think it can be objectively scientifically stated that cheating on one’s spouse is wrong, after one has promised that spouse monogamy, and they expected it.

Craig’s observation that Yahweh claims to be against divorce, although he is at other times “perfectly fine” with warfare and genocide, is inaccurate. At times the Biblical God does, yes, assert that his judgment could be arbitrarily cruel, if he wanted (Job; the allegory of the potter and the clay). But, I am unaware of any time in the Bible where God causes widespread, mass societal destruction arbitrarily, or because he enjoyed it. Gods like that have existed in our ancient history, namely in Ancient Greece and others, but it is not the type of God we see in the Bible. The emotion, which Craig appears to discount here, in which the biblical God’s destruction is always performed?


And, anger at what? Violations of the moral rules.


19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”