YubNub Social YubNub Social
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2026 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2026 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
3 d

JUST IN: Trump talks with reporters on future Greenland deal
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

JUST IN: Trump talks with reporters on future Greenland deal

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html
Like
Comment
Share
Beyond Bizarre
Beyond Bizarre
3 d ·Youtube Wild & Crazy

YouTube
Scientists Are VERY Close To Finding Planet 9
Like
Comment
Share
AllSides - Balanced News
AllSides - Balanced News
3 d

Favicon 
www.allsides.com

'Most Pro-Family Administration': Vances Announce They Are Expecting Their Fourth Baby In July

Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife, second lady Usha Vance, are pregnant with the couple's fourth child, the second lady announced on Tuesday.
Like
Comment
Share
AllSides - Balanced News
AllSides - Balanced News
3 d

Favicon 
www.allsides.com

Usha Vance Is Pregnant at 40—the Fastest Growing Group of Moms in America

Usha Vance, the wife of Vice President JD Vance, has revealed that she is expecting their fourth child.
Like
Comment
Share
AllSides - Balanced News
AllSides - Balanced News
3 d

Favicon 
www.allsides.com

Usha Vance and JD Vance, Pronatalism's Poster Couple, Are Having a 4th Kid

When JD Vance was on the campaign trail before the 2024 election, the future vice president had a signature issue: how to juice America's birth rate with pronatalist policies.
Like
Comment
Share
Classic Rock Lovers
Classic Rock Lovers  
3 d

The album that convinced Tom Morello to form Audioslave: “That guy’s good”
Favicon 
faroutmagazine.co.uk

The album that convinced Tom Morello to form Audioslave: “That guy’s good”

A momentous record... The post The album that convinced Tom Morello to form Audioslave: “That guy’s good” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
3 d

Favicon 
spectator.org

The Spectacle Ep. 317: Invoke the Insurrection Act on Minnesota Now!

Anti-ICE protesters, including former CNN host Don Lemon, interrupted a church service in Minnesota to stage a takeover. The “activists” infiltrated the religious service due to word that the pastor worked for ICE. (READ MORE: Was That Church Attack the Tipping Point in Minnesota?) Unlicensed Punditry author Michael Smith joins The Spectacle Podcast hosts Melissa Mackenzie and Scott McKay to address illegal immigration and the escalation of violence from the Left happening across the country. Michael, Melissa, and Scott emphasize the need for government action and urge President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. Michael draws on historical comparisons from the Bolshevik and Maoist Revolutions, while Melissa recalls 9/11 and how the people have responded to such attacks with prompt action. They also discuss the Left’s addiction to victim culture and how social media has played a role in reinforcing toxic beliefs and ideologies. Additionally, they explain the consequences of illegal immigration and discuss how assimilation is a crucial part of the immigration process. (RELATED: ICE Should Adopt a Counterinsurgency Strategy)  Tune in to hear their discussion! Image licensed under CC-BY-4.0.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
3 d

Favicon 
spectator.org

Time Magazine’s Man of the Year and the Abolition of Humanity

When C. S. Lewis wrote The Abolition of Man in 1943, he warned of trends in modern education that “remove the organ and demand the function.” That is, he rejected the notion of a purely utilitarian approach to learning that removes what philosophers going back to Plato and Augustine have considered to be the true object of education: to train the affections and to “make the pupil like and dislike what he ought.” Lewis worried about an approach to education that created what he famously termed “men without chests.”  In 1943, Lewis could hardly have anticipated what the arrival of artificial intelligence would mean for humanity. Yet his warning feels particularly timely today.  Time magazine named the “Architects of AI” as its 2025 Person of the Year in recognition of the sweeping impact artificial intelligence has made across all of society, from industry and education to public discourse. “This was the year when artificial intelligence’s full potential roared into view, and when it became clear that there will be no turning back or opting out. Whatever the question was, AI was the answer.” Tech utopians hail this transformation as an unmitigated good, promising unprecedented productivity, efficiency, and progress. Work will be optional! Money will disappear!  But as our mothers warned us when we were little, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” In the midst of these gains, it is worth pausing to consider what we may be losing and where the current AI push, particularly in K–12 education, may ultimately lead us. Not merely to men without chests, but to something worse: bodies with neither brains nor souls. We may gain efficiency, but is it worth losing our humanity? “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36) Bodies Without Souls Education should cultivate a love for truth, beauty, and goodness — attributes that reflect the nature of God.  Yet these ends were set aside when educators prioritized “workforce readiness” over soul formation. Classrooms grew cold, sterile, and institutional, mirroring this shift. The adoption of Common Core standards accelerated the decline as the study of literature gave way to “informational texts.” Instead of Shakespeare, Tennyson, or Dickens, students are more often asked to read advocacy journalism and technical articles.  Students are no longer asked to interpret meaning, infer from subtext, or analyze lengthy passages. Third grade reading comprehension is now all they need to master, not merely to graduate, but even to move on to higher education.  If you think I am exaggerating, below is a sample question from an SAT practice test:  The following text is from David Barclay Moore’s 2022 novel Holler of the Fireflies. The narrator has just arrived at summer camp, which is far away from his home.  This place was different than I thought it would be. I’d never been somewhere like this before. I did feel scared, but also excited. According to the text, how does the narrator feel about being at summer camp?  He feels overjoyed. He feels peaceful.  He feels both scared and excited. He feels both angry and jealous.  The consequences of this purely utilitarian approach to reading are profound: diminished capacity for critical thinking; less exposure to rich language and complex syntax; reduced familiarity with irony, abstraction, ambiguity, and metaphor; and a growing inability to analyze tone, subtext, and meaning. In the age of AI, this abandonment becomes catastrophic.  Without the intellectual discipline that comes from close reading and critical thinking skills grounded in truth, we willingly abandon our tastes, our creativity, and even our intuition to machine-generated content as our preferences and perceptions become reshaped by AI-generated counterfeit. Philosopher Jean Baudrillard explains how this process works: First, the image is the reflection of a basic reality. Then it masks and perverts a basic reality. Next it masks the absence of a basic reality. Finally, it bears no relation to any reality whatever: It is its own pure simulacrum. We have all seen this process unfold. A generation ago, if we shared photos of ourselves with friends or family, those photos showed our real selves. Maybe we adjusted the lighting or angle for optimum effect, but they were, nevertheless, unadulterated representations of how we present ourselves to the world. Five years ago, those photos were likely to have been run through some kind of filter to make our skin appear smoother, our eyes look larger and brighter, our lips look fuller, and our flaws and imperfections air-brushed away. Today, images shared online are often AI-generated and bear little resemblance to the reality they supposedly reflect.  Social media feeds are now overflowing with AI-generated images of food, flowers, insects, and animals that bear only the faintest resemblance to anything existing in nature or reality, yet those images are shared with impunity as if they are real, or worse, as if the simulacra were somehow superior to the real.  Plato warned that without the love of beauty, the soul becomes disordered; Kant believed beauty connects us to the sacred. Strip beauty from education, and we produce not only “men without chests,” as Lewis feared, but generations unable to discern what is authentic from what is artificial and ultimately unable to discern right from wrong. In a future dominated by machine-generated content, the cultivated ability to perceive beauty may be the last safeguard of our humanity. Bodies Without Brains It would perhaps be helpful to stop using the terminology “artificial intelligence” entirely and instead call these systems what they actually are: “large language models” or LLMs. We deceive ourselves if we pretend there is “an intelligence” behind the systems. Instead, when we engage with an LLM tool, it is a little like shuffling a deck of cards. There are many possible combinations of cards, but you will only ever be able to play the cards that are already in the deck. The LLM cannot create a new suit or invent a new face card. It has no capacity for originality.  True creativity is an inherently human trait that mirrors the divine nature of God. Scripture opens with a powerful affirmation of God’s creative act: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). Made in His image (Genesis 1:27) humans share this capacity for creativity; the ability to envision, design, and bring new ideas into existence. Humans have created these LLMs. But because LLM tools can conveniently and effortlessly simulate creativity while generating persuasive-sounding outputs, users are increasingly relying on them for a range of tasks from art creation to writing to data analysis.  But this cognitive offloading comes at great cost.  Studies show that the more individuals rely on these LLMs for information retrieval and decision making, the lower they scored on critical-thinking measures.  A June 2025 study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that subjects who used ChatGPT to write essays demonstrated much less brain activity than those who relied on their own knowledge to formulate arguments or even than those who used Google search to look up relevant information themselves. Users of large language models showed fewer connections between different parts of their brains, including those associated with creativity and working memory. LLMs have also been found to reinforce cognitive biases, while exerting a “homogenizing” effect on students’ work.  Relying on large language models removes the “productive struggle” that our brains engage in to develop cognitive strength and deep thinking.  Writing is a form of productive struggle. It is a process of working out your thoughts and ideas on paper or screen, weighing evidence and discarding ideas that are unsupported, choosing the exact word that will most accurately convey your meaning.  LLMs preempt all that.  We may struggle for hours over a composition and still be unsatisfied with the results. LLMs lead us to question our own competency in the face of seemingly effortless and perfectly constructed content churned out in a matter of seconds. Our tech-forward future is going to be short-circuited by a generation of children whose curiosity was dulled and creativity stifled by instant answers and whose critical thinking skills were never developed.  Lewis warned that the abolition of man begins when we stop teaching what it means to be human. Today, that warning feels prophetic. If we allow “AI” to replace not just our labor but our learning, we risk creating a generation of bodies without brains and without souls. The question is not whether “AI” will shape the future. It is whether we will remain human in that future. Melissa Henson is the Senior Policy Advisor for Media and Culture for Concerned Women for America, the nation’s public policy women’s organization, dedicated to promoting biblical values and constitutional principles in public policy. On X: @CWforA READ MORE: Blame Everyone for Grok’s Perverted Porn Problem ‘Claude Missed It’ — The Pitfalls of Artificial Intelligence Brain Rot and the Crisis of Digital Late Modernity
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
3 d

Favicon 
spectator.org

An Open Letter to Europe

I love Europe. I took a job unexpectedly in Milan, Italy, when I was just 22 years old. I had graduated from college less than a year earlier, and my first real experience of adulthood was not in America, but in Europe. I did not arrive as a tourist drifting from museum to café. I arrived to work, to struggle, to adapt, and to build a life inside a foreign culture. I didn’t learn about Europe from conferences or policy papers, but from daily life. From navigating bureaucracy in a second language. From late dinners that turned into long arguments about politics, history, and identity. From friendships formed across borders. From the pride Europeans feel in their nations — and from the quiet frustration many feel toward the elites who claim to speak in their name. Europe is not an abstraction to me. It is human. It is intimate. And my affection is personal. That is why I am writing this letter — not as an adversary, not as a scolding American, but as someone who knows Europe well enough to care deeply about its future. For years, Europeans have been fed a story by their political and cultural elites: that America is reckless, declining, morally unserious; that it is driven by crude nationalism and dangerous populism; that it represents instability rather than leadership. At the same time, China is presented as pragmatic, inevitable, sophisticated — a neutral economic partner rather than a civilizational rival. Increasingly, Europeans are told that the transatlantic alliance is outdated, that American leadership is destabilizing, and that Europe must “emancipate” itself from Washington. Much of this story is false. Worse, it is dangerous. China is not simply another great power with different preferences. It is a totalitarian regime. It is governed by a single ruling party that permits no opposition, no free press, no independent courts, and no meaningful religious liberty. Speech is surveilled. Dissent is criminalized. Entire populations are monitored through a vast digital control system that regulates travel, employment, and daily life. Millions of Uyghur Muslims have been detained in reeducation camps. Churches are shuttered or forced to subordinate faith to party ideology. Lawyers, journalists, and academics disappear for challenging the state. Technology is not used to liberate, but to control. These are not accusations. They are facts. And yet, in one of the great moral inversions of modern history, many European — and American — elites refuse to speak plainly about this reality. The same people who describe America as “authoritarian,” who obsess endlessly over Donald Trump, who warn darkly about nationalism and democratic backsliding, cannot bring themselves to utter a harsh word about the most powerful authoritarian regime on Earth. How can this be? How is it that a country with free elections, a combative press, constitutional protections for speech and religion, and constant internal dissent is portrayed as a threat to democracy — while a one-party surveillance state is treated as a respectable partner? The answer is not ignorance. It is incentive. China flatters elites while controlling citizens. It offers access to markets, investment, prestige, and power — while demanding silence about its crimes. It does not challenge Europe’s ruling class on immigration, national identity, cultural confidence, or democratic accountability. It does not tolerate dissent, but it does reward compliance. It offers leverage without moral language. America does the opposite. America argues. America debates. America criticizes — even itself. And that openness, that disorder, that refusal to submit quietly to authority has become intolerable to elites who no longer trust their own people. This is why America — and Trump in particular — are attacked relentlessly, while China is handled delicately. Trump disrupted a carefully maintained illusion: that economic dependence on Beijing was harmless; that offshoring industry had no strategic cost; that China would liberalize if welcomed into the global order. He said plainly what many elites preferred never be said. For that, he was not merely opposed, but treated as uniquely dangerous. But reality has a stubborn way of asserting itself. When Europe looks honestly at its own history, the record is clear. Twice in the 20th century, Europe descended into catastrophe. Twice, the United States crossed an ocean not to conquer, but to save. In the First World War, American intervention broke a stalemate Europe could not resolve alone. In the Second World War, American blood and industrial power were decisive in defeating fascism. The beaches of Normandy are not abstractions. They are graves. And after that war, America did something unprecedented. It rebuilt. The Marshall Plan was not colonial extraction; it was civilizational investment. While past empires stripped the defeated, the United States restored them. Allies and former enemies alike were rebuilt, stabilized, and reintegrated. Europe’s postwar prosperity was not accidental — it was constructed. For the last eight decades, American power has been the backbone of European security. The United States has supplied the nuclear deterrent, the intelligence architecture, the logistics, the command structure, and the forward-deployed forces that allowed Europe to demilitarize, to build generous welfare states, and to pursue peace without constant fear of invasion. This was not exploitation. It was protection. When Finland’s President Alexander Stubb says Europe can “unequivocally” defend itself without the United States, the numbers make the claim laughable. Finland’s active-duty military consists of roughly 24,000 troops, with a wartime mobilization force of about 280,000 — adequate for territorial defense, not continental deterrence. Finland has no nuclear weapons, no strategic airlift, no global intelligence or satellite architecture, no missile-defense system, and no power-projection capability beyond its borders. By contrast, the United States maintains approximately 1.3 million active-duty personnel, hundreds of thousands of reservists, over 5,000 military aircraft, a global logistics network, and the world’s dominant intelligence and command-and-control systems. Finland’s entire defense budget is roughly €6–7 billion; the United States spends nearly $1 trillion annually, providing roughly two-thirds of NATO’s real military capability. To claim Europe can defend itself independently while relying on American nuclear deterrence, intelligence, logistics, and command structures is not realism — it is denial dressed up as confidence. It is hubris and it is reckless. Your elites and politicians are selling you out. They are not acting in the interests of European citizens, but in their own. They speak the language of “values” while trading away sovereignty. They invoke “strategic autonomy” while deepening dependence. They lecture you about democracy while bypassing voters, silencing dissent, and insulating themselves from accountability. Their loyalties are not to your nations, your cultures, or your families — but to transnational institutions, corporate interests, and an elite consensus that rewards compliance and punishes truth. When policies fail, they do not reconsider; they deflect. When citizens object, they do not listen; they moralize. And when power shifts away from the people, they call it progress. This is not leadership. It is self-preservation. Without American defense guarantees, Europe would not be strategically autonomous — it would be dangerously exposed. That is why, whenever real threats emerge — whether from Russia, terrorism, or instability on Europe’s borders — the call is always the same: Washington. China has never done this for Europe. It never will. China did not bleed to liberate Europe. It did not rebuild it. It does not defend it. It does not protect free speech or religious liberty. It does not tolerate dissent. And it does not see Europe as an equal partner — only as a market, a technology source, and a geopolitical buffer against the United States. To pretend otherwise is not realism. It is self-deception. Most Europeans have never experienced the level of freedom and broad-based prosperity Americans have long taken for granted — but few are encouraged to ask why. The United States was born in an act of independence, grounded in the belief that rights are inherent, not granted by the state, and that the government is subordinate to the individual. American exceptionalism was not a boast; it was a governing principle. Europe, by contrast, emerged from centuries of empire, hierarchy, and state-conferred privilege, and even its modern freedoms arrived late, fragile, and often contingent. This difference matters. Europeans have been conditioned through centuries of experience to accept that the individual is subordinate to the state. Europe deserves better than leaders who invert reality — who scold America for its imperfections while excusing China’s crimes; who speak endlessly of “values” while aligning with a regime that holds millions behind barbed wire; who mock national loyalty while quietly selling strategic dependence. This letter is not a demand. It is a warning — and an appeal. If you want to understand who we are — and what is truly at stake — look no further than the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk was not a soldier. He was not a head of state. He was a young American who believed in free speech, national sovereignty, faith, and the right of ordinary people to speak without fear. For that, he was demonized, dehumanized, and ultimately murdered. What followed was not universal moral clarity, but silence, justification, and evasion from many of the same cultural and political institutions that claim to defend democracy and human rights. This is who we are now confronting — not just in America, but across the West. The same ideological forces that excuse violence when it serves their cause, that label dissent as extremism, that treat truth as negotiable and speech as dangerous, are the forces that instinctively align with centralized power — whether it wears the face of technocracy in Brussels or authoritarianism in Beijing. They fear free people more than they fear tyrants. They despise national loyalty more than they despise repression. Charlie Kirk’s death was not an aberration. It was a warning. And it revealed something essential: despite all the caricatures, despite the lies told about America, there are still people here willing to stand openly for liberty — knowing the cost. That willingness, that moral courage, that refusal to submit quietly, is not a flaw of the American character. It is its inheritance. It is also Europe’s inheritance. The story of the West is not the story of comfort or consensus. It is the story of conscience — of individuals standing against orthodoxy, power, and fear. That tradition did not begin in Washington. It began in Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. It was refined in Europe long before it crossed the Atlantic. That is why this letter is not written in anger, but in urgency. I urge you to look honestly at the choices being made in your name. I urge you to ask who benefits when America is vilified and China is excused. I urge you to ask why those who claim to defend democracy so often side with those who crush it. And I urge you to remember who you are. For those who want to understand what this moment means — and what it costs when truth is abandoned — I invite you to read my book, For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk. It is not merely a story about one man’s death. It is an examination of what happens to a civilization when courage is punished, lies are rewarded, and freedom is treated as a liability rather than a gift. I love Europe too much to lie to it. And I believe — despite everything — that Europe still remembers who it is. Your future is being shaped by decisions being made at this very moment. History warns us that it is very hard to regain freedom once lost. Image licensed under CC-BY 4.0.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
3 d

Favicon 
spectator.org

In Greenland, Trump’s Tariff Logic Falls Apart

What constitutes a “national emergency”? It’s a question at the heart of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on tariffs and the president’s authority to unilaterally impose them under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. Now, anticipation surrounding the court’s opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump has only grown following the events of the weekend. In response to the Trump administration’s continued insistence that Denmark relinquish sovereignty over Greenland, several European countries, including France, Germany, the U.K., Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, sent troops to “establish a more permanent military presence with a larger Danish contribution.” This maneuver by the Danish and their European allies drew the ire of President Donald Trump.  On Saturday, he announced new 15 percent tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the U.K., the Netherlands, and Finland, which would take effect on Feb. 1.  On Wednesday in Davos, the president struck a different tone following his speech at the World Economic Forum.  Following a “very productive meeting” with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, President Trump declared on Truth Social that he would “not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,” citing ongoing talks on the “Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland.” Details are scarce, but one takeaway remains apparent. While President Trump’s assertion that the acquisition of Greenland is “imperative” to “protect Global Peace and Security” is debatable, the use of tariffs as a political cudgel to browbeat foreign opposition to his policies is both unconstitutional and untenable. However, declaring new economic policies on a whim has become the de facto operating procedure. Even as the Supreme Court deliberates, the legislature has done little to check President Trump’s worst impulses. He has employed tariffs and the threat of tariffs as a cure-all for a range of issues, from trade deficits to retaliation for international decisions with which he disagrees.  In this regard, lawmakers should find Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s rationale that “the national emergency is avoiding a national emergency” woefully inadequate. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act only grants the president authority to deal with “any unusual and extraordinary threat,” so long as a national emergency has been declared “with respect to such threat.” However, the law also requires any “new declaration of national emergency” be made “with respect to such threat,” placing a limit on the executive’s authority. Under Article II, the president’s authority to act must come from an act of Congress or the Constitution, but, through the National Emergencies Act of 1976 (NEA), Congress has granted the executive branch extensive powers to act during crises.  While Congress enacted the NEA to curtail presidential power, the law essentially gives the president the authority to declare national emergencies in perpetuity, until Congress passes a joint resolution terminating the emergency. The act requires the president to specify the emergency authority being invoked. It directs Congress to meet every six months to consider such a joint resolution, although Congress has never done so. In October, the Senate voted 51–47 to approve a joint resolution terminating the “national emergency” justification the president used to impose tariffs. However, a procedural vote by House Republicans on the Rules Committee blocked any efforts to end the national emergencies until March 31. While the threat of new tariffs hung in the air, the early signs of backlash appeared on the stock market, reflecting the inherent volatility of a one-man-driven tariff policy.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 876 points on Tuesday, with European companies in the automotive, pharmaceutical, and luxury goods industries already bracing for another year of uncertainty. Bessent’s statement to CNBC that President Trump’s goal was to “pre-empt the problem before it starts” gives the game away. If there is no problem, then there is no national emergency.  Deft diplomacy could have achieved the same outcome. Instead, the president relied on threats and coercion. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, there are currently 150 statutory powers available to the president when a national emergency is declared, 58 of which lawmakers enacted “more than half a century ago.”  Steadily accumulating over time, some of these powers, like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, are used almost annually, transforming what should be an extraordinary measure into a routine policy tool — fundamentally contradicting the concept of an emergency.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 396 out of 107609
  • 392
  • 393
  • 394
  • 395
  • 396
  • 397
  • 398
  • 399
  • 400
  • 401
  • 402
  • 403
  • 404
  • 405
  • 406
  • 407
  • 408
  • 409
  • 410
  • 411
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund