Tim Cain

[Insurrection Barbie @DefiyantlyFree]

America is the only nation on earth built on a sentence spoken by Christ: render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.

Every other country in history handed the whole of man to the state, his labor, his allegiance, and his soul alike, or handed the state to a church and called the fusion holy.

America alone drew the line exactly where Christ drew it. It gave Caesar the coin, the law, the road, and the sword, everything that is Caesar’s, and then it stopped, because the conscience was never Caesar’s to take.

It belongs to God, and no congress, no king, no majority may claim it.

A government that claims everything it is owed and nothing it is not, a people standing directly before God with rights no ruler granted and no ruler can revoke.

We are not the only nation that speaks of freedom. But we are the only nation that figures out where true freedom lies (in the untouchable sanctuary of the soul) and then built a country whose entire purpose is to guard that sanctuary and never allow the government entry.

Our founders looked at the human conscience and said this is holy ground, given freely to God. Never government. Never kings. Never institutions.

[The Rational Animal 🤔 @theobjectivist]

It's not your decision to make, Bernie, whether a price is "unacceptable." That belongs to the people making the purchase, not a government bureaucrat who imagines he knows what a thing ought to cost. If the price is too high, men don't buy it, and Apple lowers it. That is the only authority required: the free judgment of the buyer.

You want to talk greed? Greed is wanting what you did not earn and seizing it by force. Cook offered you a phone you are free to refuse. You offer the public nothing and demand the power to dictate terms to a company you never built, with money you never made.

Apple's "profits" are millions of voluntary choices to trade. Your career is the opposite: taking by law what men would not give you by choice. One of you produced the value. The other just wants the power to command it.

The greed isn't in Cupertino. It's in the Senate seat that confuses a vote with ownership of other people's work.

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Muslims who keep repeating that Islam will take over the world aren’t “Islamists”, they don’t even know what an Islamist is, and they don’t think of themselves as plotting against the country they live in.

For Islam to rule the world, from a Muslim’s perspective, is like Christ ruling the world from a Christian’s, or the Moshiach ruling from a Jew’s.

It’s a good thing. It’s the inevitable, ultimate end, the rule of the Creator over His creation.

The difference is this.

A Christian who longs for Christ to reign, or a Jew who awaits the messianic age, doesn’t believe he has to conquer the world to install his messianic figure.

He believes that figure will do it himself, ushering in a world of justice.

Muslims, however, believe they themselves must subjugate the world to Allah’s rule, by any means necessary.

And it’s that Machiavellian logic, where the end sanctifies the method, that turns violence, manipulation, and exploitation into justified tools.

[Cynical Publius @CynicalPublius]

This post portrays the racist way in which Democrats view black people.

He is saying that black people are unable to choose who to vote for of their own volition.

He is saying that without the intervention of white savior Democrats to gerrymander districts, black people have no voice and are unable to choose a candidate to vote for. The white savior Democrat has to do that for them.

The Democrat Party is now and always has been the party of racism.

[Tim Cain @TimCain25159765]

@CynicalPublius The other not-so-veiled point they are making is that they need to gerrymander districts because White government officials cannot represent Black citizens due largely to the color of their skin which prevents them from understanding and empathizing with Blacks.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

If the safety net were actually delivering value, you wouldn’t need to argue people into it. They’d choose it voluntarily.
Instead you have: Trillions taken
Trillions in debt
And constant claims it still isn’t enough

So the real question isn’t “why oppose it,” it’s this:
If it’s such a great deal, why does it require force, and why does it keep failing its own standard after decades of expansion?

You’re not defending a system that works. You’re defending one that can’t afford to admit it doesn’t.

[Tim Cain @TimCain25159765]

@archeohistories For all you "buckaroos"

[Tim Cain @TimCain25159765]

@BarackObama Why don't the Democrats act now? The House passed a clean CR that will reopen the government immediately and reinstate SNAP benefits right away if a few Senate Democrats join Republicans and vote for it.

[Ada Lluch @AdaLluch]

At least we know he will spend eternity in Heaven. 💔

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

This post is a perfect example of zero-sum, envy-driven thinking dressed up as “economics.”

Wealth isn’t a pile of coins that Musk grabbed from workers’ pockets. His net worth represents the value of companies he built. Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, that millions voluntarily invest in, buy from, or work for because they see it as beneficial. If people didn’t want Teslas or satellites, his wealth would vanish overnight.

Bernie treats wealth as if it’s stolen from a fixed pot. That’s economic illiteracy. In reality, wealth is created. Musk didn’t “take” $900 billion; markets priced his companies at that because of the value they generate. Meanwhile, the reason many live paycheck to paycheck isn’t because of Musk. It’s because of inflationary government policies, taxes, and regulations that make life more expensive while strangling opportunity.

So the real insanity isn’t that one man can become a trillionaire. It’s that politicians like Sanders keep sabotaging the conditions that would let more people rise with him.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Reich doesn’t argue from facts, he argues from feelings. Every post is the same formula:

1. Paint workers as helpless victims.
2. Paint employers as villains.
3. Stoke envy toward anyone who earns more.
4. Stir spite, so people demand punishment rather than progress.

It’s never about creating more opportunity. It’s about rallying resentment. Notice how he never explains how wages are actually set, or why some people earn more: value created, skills offered, risks taken. He skips that, because his pitch only works if people see themselves as powerless and someone else as their jailer.

He doesn’t fight exploitation, he preaches victimhood. His “solution” is always the same: reverse the roles. Instead of breaking the whip, he just hands it to a new set of hands.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

A society doesn’t crash without a safety net. It crashes when that net is spun by politicians, tied with corruption, and stretched wide enough to catch votes instead of people. The state’s version of compassion comes with paperwork, favoritism, and a leash, and calls it dignity.

They call it a net, but it’s more like a spider’s web: it traps the productive, fattens the idle, and feeds the ones who spun it. It’s bloated, politicized, and run by people who couldn’t organize a lemonade stand without subsidies and six subcommittees.

Worse, it teaches men to wait instead of work, to whine instead of climb. It breeds envy, resentment, and entitlement, and dares to call that morality, while sending the bill to whoever still remembers how to earn.

But real charity, voluntary, earned, and freely given, is faster than a government check, smarter than a bureaucrat, and morally upright. And because it’s given by people who actually care where their money goes, it comes with accountability. They demand results. They expect improvement. You could do more with a tenth of the money, because it’s spent with purpose, not politics.

One system says, “You owe me.” The other says, “Prove you can rise.” One grows voters. The other grows men. Only one belongs in a free society.

[Rock Chartrand @RockChartrand]

Social Security is just the state trying to subsidize its incompetence and they can’t even do that right.

If it’s such a great deal, then prove it: let people opt out.

If it’s as stable, secure, and dignified as Pelosi claims, no one would leave. But they won’t allow that, because the system only works if you’re forced into it. It needs new payers to fund old promises. That’s not a safety net. That’s a Ponzi scheme with a flag wrapped around it.

If it’s not going bankrupt, then give people back what they paid in. But they won’t because the money’s already gone.

You’re forced to fund a system you can’t escape, to support people you don’t know, with money you don’t own. Question it, and you’re labeled selfish, for wanting control over your future.

This isn’t dignity.
It’s debt. Dependence. Deception.

Let people choose.
And watch how fast this “pillar of security” crumbles.

Ideas so good, they need to hold you hostage to survive.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Well, isn’t this a little inconvenient for the climate panic puppies?

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Think about this for a second, really pause and think:

Between 1948 and 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This is the same Palestinian state the Arabs are demanding today, the exact same land.

So what changed? Why didn’t they create a Palestinian state back then?

I’ll tell you why: the whole Palestinian identity was manufactured to rally the world against the Jewish state. The land had been part of the Islamic Caliphate, and Muslims could not tolerate a sovereign Jewish state on it.

After rejecting the 1947 United Nations partition plan and attacking Israel in 1948, only to fail to destroy the newly established Jewish state, the Arabs ended up controlling Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967.

For 19 years, Israel didn’t attempt to occupy that territory.

Then, in 1967, the Arab states tried again to destroy Israel. Once again, they were defeated, and this time, Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza.

In 1994, Yitzhak Rabin proposed to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, but he was assassinated. Ehud Barak, who came from Rabin’s political school, returned in 2000 and offered the Palestinians everything except 4% of the West Bank, which they agreed could be compensated through land swaps.

Still, Yasser Arafat rejected the offer.

The Arabs are basically asking for the same pieces of land they already controlled for 19 years, and did nothing with.

Today, the entire two-state solution hoax is being used to rally the world against Israel. But the world fails to understand: the Arabs never wanted a state. They want Israel gone.

If Israel agrees to withdraw from the West Bank, it would be committing national suicide. They already withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and look what happened.

[Hen Mazzig @HenMazzig]

The media may be ignoring Evyatar David’s plight, but now thousands of passersby will learn of it.

His video is playing on a billboard in Times Square.

WE CAN’T LOOK AWAY.

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

Olivia was paralyzed after a fall as a pup and was surrendered to the vet.

These beautiful souls adopted her and gave her a forever home. She loves the beach just like every good pupper does.

[il Donaldo Trumpo @PapiTrumpo]

OK, WHO DID THIS???🤣🤣🤣

[Dan Burmawi @DanBurmawy]

Does Keir Starmer understand that from 1948 to 1967, Palestinians had exactly the state they’re now demanding, under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, and they didn’t build a nation.

Instead, they joined Arab armies in a war of extermination against Israel, and that's how they end up losing the land.

Does he know that in 2005, Israel gave the Palestinians full control of Gaza? Not as part of a peace deal, but unilaterally, withdrawing every soldier and citizen.

That was their chance to build a model state, to show the world they could govern peacefully and responsibly.

Had they turned Gaza into a peaceful, prospeous city, they could have leveraged it to demand the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Instead, they turned it into a hub for terrorism.

In 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah tookover.

In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. Hamas took over.

Now, Starmer demands Israel hand over the West Bank. What exactly does he think will rise there?

October 7 happened because Israel did what Starmer wants Israel to do again.