The battle for truth is part of the battle for souls.
Orange County, CA
Joined April 2014
- Tweets207K
- Following5.3K
- Followers13.5K
- Likes121K
Pinned Tweet
New here? These are a few positions I hold.
I am a Christian. I take the Bible seriously.
The fight for truth is part of the fight for souls.
I am a capitalist. The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are correct. Individual rights come from our nature, not from the state.
Government exists to ban the initiation of force. The same principles that make a government necessary also set its limits.
I oppose using the state to police doctrine. Jailing a pastor for denying the Trinity, or making blasphemy a crime, is a mistake.
America is nation built on a creed, not a bloodline. I believe in lawful citizenship, liberty over servitude, and inalienable rights as final.
All races are equal. Cultures are not. Race and culture have no essential link. I denounce white nationalism, white supremacy, and racism.
Leftism is incompatible with Christianity. There is no coherent “Christian Left.” Democratic politicians are morally monstrous, as is the party platform. Voting for that platform or those people is a serious moral wrong, and a local church must expel people who do that.
On immigration, secure the border first. Treat illegal entry as a breach to be stopped and reversed, not managed. Allow no new legal immigration until we have abolished the welfare state and public education.
All immigrants should be barred from welfare immediately.
Socialism and similar collectivist ideologies are the major cause of injustice in the world.
My frame: reason, individual rights, limited government, and a country that stays able to defend them.
In order to preserve Western Civilization, we must become radical advocates of individual rights.
~From “Redeeming the West”
🚨 Tactical Point for Christian conservatives wanting to win:
Democrats hate you.
This is a fact. And it is also tone-police proof.
You will almost surely not get kicked out of a church for saying something so demonstrably true.
So this is the place to start, as we re-educate conservatives about how to win the culture war.
Make them learn to speak the truth:
Democrats hate you.
There are huge implications to this truth.
But until conservatives learn to name the fact that Democrats hate us all, there will be no victory in the culture war.
We must win.
What did Patrick Stewart mean to you?
His portrayal of Captain Jean-Luc Picard will live forever. His career-defining performance was a gift to my generation, shaping our vision of a good man.
Here are some highlights. Start by considering Captain Picard’s integrity. In “Chain of Command” a Cardassian tortures him and shows him four lights. He wants Picard to say there are five. If he can break him on that, he can break him on anything. Picard won’t do it. Beaten and exhausted, he shouts, “There are four lights!”
He would not give anyone else authority over what’s real. He would not let go of the axioms: Existence, Consciousness, Identity. That is objectivity. That is manhood.
There is no such thing as a collective grasp of truth. Only individuals have minds. Picard lived in light of that truth. It’s why the Borg were the perfect enemy for him, a collective that swallows up every person into a single will.
Objectivity and Reason shaped how Picard led. He sat with Riker, Data, Troi, Crusher, Geordi, and Worf and he listened. Then he decided. “Make it so” always came last.
When a call went bad, he owned it. His crew told him the truth because he valued their minds like he valued his own.
When Wesley covered up a fatal accident, Picard told him, “The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it’s scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can’t find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don’t deserve to wear that uniform.”
In “The Measure of a Man,” Picard saw that a sentient being was in danger of having his rights taken away, so he stood up to defend him. In doing this, he was defending the one against the many. Picard argued that the courtroom must function as a crucible: “In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time.” That is a view of justice I can uphold.
Picard’s leadership was built on moral clarity, distributed competence, and the deliberate subordination of personal preference to objective reality.
I want to be a man like Captain Picard.
Thank you, Sir Patrick Stewart, for your work in showing the world what a good man must be.
Cody Libolt retweeted
Can’t believe people let the guy that yelled at people about not wearing masks decide he was the gatekeeper to MAGA.
Cody Libolt retweeted
Everyone posting about Gen Z men seeing themselves reflected in Anakin Skywalker from the Prequel trilogy.
Plot twist: I agree.
Cody Libolt retweeted
WOW. Tell me this is not an amazing shot, encapsulating all the terrible alchemy of the dark side in Anakin.
(Also, the music in Episode 3 is excellent.)
Hayden Christensen, the critics did you wrong. You were masterful in "Revenge of the Sith." Come get your flowers.
Cody Libolt retweeted
"Star Wars" prequels hot take:
1. I like them a good bit
2. They've aged well
3. Hayden Christensen is actually effective in Ep. 3 as he turns to the dark side (truly chilling)
4. Liam Neeson is great and Qui-Gon's very cool
5. They're light years better than anything today
Cody Libolt retweeted
What did Patrick Stewart mean to you?
His portrayal of Captain Jean-Luc Picard will live forever. His career-defining performance was a gift to my generation, shaping our vision of a good man.
Here are some highlights. Start by considering Captain Picard’s integrity. In “Chain of Command” a Cardassian tortures him and shows him four lights. He wants Picard to say there are five. If he can break him on that, he can break him on anything. Picard won’t do it. Beaten and exhausted, he shouts, “There are four lights!”
He would not give anyone else authority over what’s real. He would not let go of the axioms: Existence, Consciousness, Identity. That is objectivity. That is manhood.
There is no such thing as a collective grasp of truth. Only individuals have minds. Picard lived in light of that truth. It’s why the Borg were the perfect enemy for him, a collective that swallows up every person into a single will.
Objectivity and Reason shaped how Picard led. He sat with Riker, Data, Troi, Crusher, Geordi, and Worf and he listened. Then he decided. “Make it so” always came last.
When a call went bad, he owned it. His crew told him the truth because he valued their minds like he valued his own.
When Wesley covered up a fatal accident, Picard told him, “The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it’s scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based. And if you can’t find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don’t deserve to wear that uniform.”
In “The Measure of a Man,” Picard saw that a sentient being was in danger of having his rights taken away, so he stood up to defend him. In doing this, he was defending the one against the many. Picard argued that the courtroom must function as a crucible: “In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time.” That is a view of justice I can uphold.
Picard’s leadership was built on moral clarity, distributed competence, and the deliberate subordination of personal preference to objective reality.
I want to be a man like Captain Picard.
Thank you, Sir Patrick Stewart, for your work in showing the world what a good man must be.
Cody Libolt retweeted
Well said.
Francisco d'Anconia's speech on money in Atlas Shrugged is the most economically literate passage in twentieth-century fiction.
The speech runs about 2,000 words in the novel. Francisco delivers it at a party, surrounded by parasites who just declared money the root of all evil. He corrects them with surgical precision. Money is not the root of evil. It is the tool that makes voluntary exchange possible, the ledger of honest production, the only mechanism by which you trade your mind's output for someone else's.
The core claim is this: money requires production. You cannot print your way to wealth any more than you can vote yourself a harvest. Every dollar bill in your wallet represents a claim on someone's actual labor, actual material, actual time. The moment a government prints currency without corresponding production, it dilutes every existing claim. It robs you quietly, without a gun visible in the room.
Francisco puts it cleanly: "Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them." That sentence alone dismantles three centuries of mercantilist confusion. Wealth is production. Currency is merely the signal that coordinates its exchange.
The speech also destroys the "love of money is greed" cliché. Francisco distinguishes between those who earn money through trade and those who acquire it through force or fraud. A man who builds a railroad and charges willing passengers operates on an entirely different moral plane from a lobbyist who gets a competitor regulated out of existence. Rand drew that line in 1957. Washington D.C. has spent the intervening 69 years blurring it.
What the speech predicts is decay. When a society starts treating producers as servants of non-producers, capital goes quiet. Factories don't get built. Entrepreneurs stop announcing their plans. You see this in every hyperinflationary episode, from Weimar Germany in 1923 to Zimbabwe in 2008 to Argentina today, still fighting inflation. Production retreats when the rewards of production get expropriated.
Read the speech slowly. Exchange requires two parties who each gain something. Force produces one winner and one loser, and eventually the loser stops playing. The whole global economic order rests on which model you choose to enforce.
Cody Libolt retweeted
Francisco d'Anconia's speech on money in Atlas Shrugged is the most economically literate passage in twentieth-century fiction.
The speech runs about 2,000 words in the novel. Francisco delivers it at a party, surrounded by parasites who just declared money the root of all evil. He corrects them with surgical precision. Money is not the root of evil. It is the tool that makes voluntary exchange possible, the ledger of honest production, the only mechanism by which you trade your mind's output for someone else's.
The core claim is this: money requires production. You cannot print your way to wealth any more than you can vote yourself a harvest. Every dollar bill in your wallet represents a claim on someone's actual labor, actual material, actual time. The moment a government prints currency without corresponding production, it dilutes every existing claim. It robs you quietly, without a gun visible in the room.
Francisco puts it cleanly: "Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them." That sentence alone dismantles three centuries of mercantilist confusion. Wealth is production. Currency is merely the signal that coordinates its exchange.
The speech also destroys the "love of money is greed" cliché. Francisco distinguishes between those who earn money through trade and those who acquire it through force or fraud. A man who builds a railroad and charges willing passengers operates on an entirely different moral plane from a lobbyist who gets a competitor regulated out of existence. Rand drew that line in 1957. Washington D.C. has spent the intervening 69 years blurring it.
What the speech predicts is decay. When a society starts treating producers as servants of non-producers, capital goes quiet. Factories don't get built. Entrepreneurs stop announcing their plans. You see this in every hyperinflationary episode, from Weimar Germany in 1923 to Zimbabwe in 2008 to Argentina today, still fighting inflation. Production retreats when the rewards of production get expropriated.
Read the speech slowly. Exchange requires two parties who each gain something. Force produces one winner and one loser, and eventually the loser stops playing. The whole global economic order rests on which model you choose to enforce.
Cody Libolt retweeted
I would go so far as to argue that Anakin's turn to the Dark Side is one of the most compelling backstories we've seen in film.
He loses his mother, the woman he loves as a son. He foresees the death of Padme, the woman he loves as a husband. His actions are horribly wrong--but the backstory makes sense. That makes his character, and the entire narrative arc of Anakin/Vader, massively powerful. Vader is not a cartoonish bad guy; he is a deeply textured evil figure, and the texture goes deeper even than the fact that Luke is his son.
Anakin's backstory makes Vader's turn to the light so redemptive. So, unlike "episodes" 7-9 (each a debacle), episodes 1-3 accomplish the very rare feat of adding to the original trilogy, deepening its drama and compounding its pain.
I repeat myself: Episode 3 is a masterpiece.
I enjoy Gen Z grousing memes about as much as the next 1984 baby, but let’s think about what the men of my generation like @ChristianHeiens are going to do to society.
While they certainly raise valid concerns, they do it in a way that is separated from a broader framing of what justice is and how to achieve it. They are turning bitter young white men into tools in the hand of those are manipulating our society.
The Constitutional order is basically good.
There are people wanting to create the conditions for a Civil War.
Valid concerns are being presented in such a way as to stoke animosity and hatred of our own neighbors (and fellow Americans) for purposes most of these little imitators cannot anticipate.
That is the charitable read.
The other biggest point is that the Jedi code was so sacrosanct that it could never be violated whenever the code gave a negative outcome for Anakin, but suddenly, when the Jedi code was finally in his favor and dictated keeping Palpatine alive, instead, Palpatine was to be killed in blatant violation of the code.
The Jedi all of a sudden were willing to throw the code out the window when it benefited them, but never when it benefited Anakin. Which is why Mace Windu, instead, ends up thrown out the window.
I wonder why young guys relate to this story so much and find it so compelling.
