Also defends Biden's mental state. The post Putin Prefers “Predictable” Biden to Unpredictable Trump appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

"Don't worry my MUSLIMS brothers I am pass the threat phase. I'm in planning mode." The post Lakewood Church Shooter in Hijab Praised Hamas and Osama bin Laden appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

When Virginia Woolf delivered a series of lectures at Cambridge in 1928—lectures later published as A Room of One’s Own—her subject was women and fiction. “A woman‚” she argued‚ “must have money and a room of her own if she is to write.” Women needed at least 500 pounds a year to permit them experience beyond the confines of cramped domestic life. They also needed space more private than Jane Austen’s sitting room‚ where she wrote most of her novels. Woolf’s vision‚ particularly on this second point‚ still captures the cultural imagination today. It’s the artist as lone‚ as lonely‚ as lonesome. According to Woolf (and her many ideological heirs and successors)‚ we write and paint‚ compose and illustrate insofar as we’re permitted to inhabit long‚ deep‚ sustained silences. Solitude is the condition for creativity. If the muse pays a visit‚ she’d better find us hunched over a desk‚ “recalling the real world” as Annie Dillard puts it. “Let me make‚” today’s artist is tempted to say. “If I am to achieve artistic brilliance‚ I must be left alone.” What role‚ then‚ can the church community play in the artist’s life? Why should the artist move toward people and small talk‚ the church’s Sunday morning commitments‚ its weekly small groups‚ its chronic pleas for volunteers? Biblical Vision for Communal Making I read Woolf for the first time as a college undergrad and was mostly persuaded by her argument. It’s why I imagined‚ for too many years‚ a constant warring between my life as a wife and mother and my life as a writer. In truth‚ I was ill-formed in my Christian imagination. I needed to be restoried by the Bible‚ to be captured by the Trinitarian vision for communal making as it’s figured in Genesis 1. There‚ when the curtain opens on the drama of creation and heaven and earth take shape‚ Father‚ Son‚ and Spirit together call a world into being: “Let us make” (v. 26). According to Genesis’s poetic rendering of God’s creative acts‚ stars and sea horses‚ biomes and beasts are birthed from the loving circle of God’s eternally communal being. From the beginning‚ making was no solitary act. I needed to be restoried by the Bible‚ to be captured by the Trinitarian vision for communal making. Throughout the Bible‚ the human act of making is patterned after God’s collaborative work. When God commands the Israelites to make the tabernacle—the elaborate and portable worship structure carried with them for 40 years in the wilderness—they execute the work under the artistic leadership of Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex. 35:30–37:7). These two shepherd the efforts of artisans of all kinds. As the work concludes in Exodus 40‚ the narrative signals this national enterprise has imitated God’s making of the world. God’s glory settles on this new house‚ and it’s decreed good. The Psalms might well be another example of communal making‚ if less obvious to us. According to one rabbinic tradition (noted by Robert Alter)‚ the Psalter was collected and ordered by a communion of saints. I imagine the Psalms’ editorial process‚ undertaken long ago‚ resembled the years of animated late nights I spent with a team of church volunteers producing a magazine called Imprint. The articles we compiled weren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit‚ of course‚ but our work to arrange and produce that periodical was collaborative and communal‚ and it imaged forth God-like creativity. If artists forget these examples (and many more like them)‚ we’re left vulnerable to Woolf’s powers of persuasion. We might be tempted to reject God’s good idea of community‚ failing to see that our participation in church life is meant to enhance our creative endeavors‚ not threaten them. Genius of Creative Communities “It has been said [by C. S. Lewis] that the joys of Heaven would be for most of us‚ in our present condition‚ an acquired taste‚” wrote Dorothy Sayers in her introduction to the third canticle of Dante’s Divine Comedy. “In a sense‚” Sayers continued‚ “Dante’s Paradise is a story about the acquisition of that taste.” By quoting Lewis in the opening line of her introduction‚ Sayers reminds readers of the extraordinary literary community formed by devout Christians in Oxford in the wake of the Great War. In Lewis’s smoky rooms at Magdalen College‚ members of the Inklings—J. R. R. Tolkien‚ Charles Williams‚ Owen Barfield‚ and others—read aloud drafts of works Christians have come to treasure: The Screwtape Letters‚ The Great Divorce‚ and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The men offered encouragement when words dried up; they provided critical feedback for revision. They spent 17 years in each other’s company‚ and though Lewis was heard saying‚ “No one ever influenced Tolkien—you might as well try to influence a Bandersnatch‚” Diana Pavlac Glyer suggests “common sense” says otherwise. Glyer has studied other writing groups‚ including the Bloomsbury Group to which Woolf belonged‚ and has concluded decidedly in favor of a Christian vision of communal making: “I was struck by how often the members gratefully acknowledged the help they received and how readily scholars took influence for granted.” Though we may claim a “lone artist” vision in principle‚ in practice we’re drawn to our great need for each other. In historical terms‚ the lone artist is a recent invention. As Glyer explains‚ before the Renaissance‚ “genius” was considered a quality to possess rather than an identity to claim. You couldn’t be a genius; you could only have genius. Moreover‚ before the Enlightenment‚ the test of literary “genius” wasn’t originality in the way Woolf posits it. Instead‚ it was assumed writers participated in larger historical conversations. Ben Jonson‚ cited by Harold Bloom‚ describes this as converting “the subject or riches of another poet to his own use.” Art was an act of imitation before it was an act of invention. Lewis took issue with the word “originality” in his essay “Christianity and Literature.” He wrote‚ “A [Christian] author should never conceive himself as bringing into existence beauty or wisdom which did not exist before‚ but simply and solely as trying to embody in terms of his own art some reflection of eternal Beauty and Wisdom.” Christian writers admit the limits of their imaginative capacities and confess their work is derivative. The effect on making then shifts. As soon as “originality” is removed as the proof text of good art‚ Christians are free to collaborate. They can recover an older‚ saner‚ more sensible vision of genius‚ even the one captured by Dante. Dante’s Communitarian Vision The Divine Comedy is a masterful work of carefully constructed poetry; its artistic structure‚ designed around the number three‚ celebrates God’s Trinitarian being. The epic poem is composed of three volumes‚ or canticles; each canticle is made up of 33 cantos‚ or chapters—and each canto is composed in stanzas of three called “tercets.” The poem‚ in its very composition‚ cries out‚ “Let us make!” As soon as ‘originality’ is removed as the proof text of good art‚ Christians are free to collaborate. Dante the Pilgrim’s journey also illumines a communitarian vision in both artistic and spiritual life. Though at first glance‚ this may look like a lone pilgrim’s movement toward salvation (and has been read this way mistakenly‚ with the epic poem reduced to modern therapeutic advice)‚ this reading fails to see the pilgrim’s need for help along the way. Dante can’t travel apart from faithful guides. He must rely on others to remove the stain of his sin. Forgiveness is only found through confession‚ contrition‚ and Christ’s satisfying work on the cross. In Dante’s vision of three spheres‚ hell is the most solitary‚ and sin’s deforming effects are there grotesquely visited on human personhood and relationships. Throughout his journey‚ Dante’s capital vices of envy‚ greed‚ sloth‚ and pride are cleansed and renounced‚ and he’s taught the ways of divine love until‚ in Paradise‚ he finally achieves the beatific vision‚ meeting God face-to-face. Dante the Pilgrim experiences God’s love‚ which has the power to make us new‚ and Dante the Poet is called to bear faithful witness to this love. As Sayers reminds readers in the introduction to her translation of Paradiso‚ the epic poem‚ though deeply theological‚ never attempts to outline a didactic argument about sin’s penalty or Christ’s atoning work on the cross. Rather‚ through imagery and narrative arc‚ it relies on whetting the appetite for God‚ holiness‚ and salvation’s repair of sin. The book doesn’t attempt an analysis‚ but its poetry effects one’s longings. Its mode‚ maybe even its mood‚ isn’t that of a three-point exegetical sermon. And in this way‚ it speaks of the gifts artists can offer to the church. Virtue in Telling the Truth Slant By God’s grace‚ I’ve spent most Sundays of my life in church pews. Weekly worship (and participation in the broader life of the local church) is a habit that regularly sustains my faith. Moreover‚ my public writing—in the form of Christian books and articles like these—was birthed from a writing community I found through my local church. It was a community created because my pastor had a vision for writing as vocation. That community was a gift‚ but it’s often not what most artists receive in their experiences of church. Instead‚ we’re tempted to feel an inherent tension between preachers and poets‚ perhaps even to doubt our spiritual fitness. I’ve inhabited this tension for years. Two and a half years ago‚ I finally decided on a graduate degree in fine arts‚ though I could as easily have chosen theology or biblical studies. Some have asked (and I’ve often asked myself)‚ Would I have been better off mastering a passable knowledge of Greek‚ rather than learning the craft of an essay? After two and a half years of MFA reading and writing‚ I can at least say this: I better understand the tension between artist and church‚ between the suggestive qualities of artistic work and the declarative qualities of theological argument. If the role of the pastor is to oversee the church’s spiritual health‚ to protect the sheep from wolves‚ and to declare the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26–35)‚ the role of the poet (and artist) is different. As Kimberly Johnson explains‚ the poet’s business isn’t proclaiming the truth but “figuring things out.” Many have identified the “fundamental enmity between art and truth‚” Johnson writes. She cites George Herbert’s poem “Jordan‚” which (ironically) casts suspicion on the “embroidery” of poetic verse. The question many earnest truth seekers would ask is this: Why tell the truth slant when it could be set forth plainly? One answer is that the Bible itself affirms that art and argument both have their place. Who can’t help but fall into Job and marvel that God has given us a book that figures‚ at its center‚ a human beset by terrible suffering and warring with the certainties of his friends‚ the certainties of his believing community? “How long will you cause me grief?” Job asks of these friends. “Look‚ I scream‚ ‘Outrage!’ and I am not answered” (Job 19:2‚ 7‚ Alter’s translation). As an artist‚ I’m eager to worship the God who gave us more than Job 13 and 38–42—and more than theological argument. Those chapters are likely easier to exegete‚ but how generous and gracious of God that for the bulk of this book‚ space is made for poetic tirade as Job feels his way for God in the great dark of his soul. Perhaps art is better suited than argument in tragedy‚ when comfort is more necessary than explanation. Perhaps art is better suited than argument in tragedy‚ when comfort is more necessary than explanation. There are‚ of course‚ dangers inherent to the exploration necessary for artistic making and the artist’s preference for “slant” truth. Some artists transgress the bounds of orthodoxy‚ radically prizing their intuitions above God’s self-revelation. And yet I don’t think the Bible‚ seriously read‚ lets us get there‚ even as we absorb its poetry. In the end‚ Job gets an answer—and Job’s friends get their rebuke. It’s almost enough for me‚ though I still wonder what repair can be made of all those dead children‚ the seeming threat that God might give us up into the hands of our enemies. But that’s my artist’s mind at work—and I imagine it will be welcomed when I meet the One whose thoughts are not my thoughts‚ whose ways are not my ways. Artists Made to Worship When Dante the Pilgrim met God in the final canto of Paradiso‚ he understood that his powers of speech would never match the exaltation of the divine vision: O Light exalted beyond mortal thought‚ Grant that in memory I see again But one small part of how you then appeared And grant my tongue sufficient power That it may leave beyond a single spark Of glory for the people yet to come. (XXXIII‚ II. 67–72) According to Dante‚ the work of the artist is—first and foremost—to faithfully gaze. We don’t make until we see. We must behold the One who has loved us‚ “becoming more enraptured” (I. 99). All Christian poetry—indeed‚ all Christian art—begins here: in the long looking to Christ that is worship. This would suggest a final reason the lone artist needs the church. It’s not just to be restoried in a vision of communal making but to inhabit‚ week after week‚ the deliberate and sacred pause of a long-looking liturgy. The church calls artists away from our busy (and too often solitary) lives to gaze on the beautiful‚ broken One who—(according to the great hymn of the early church)—did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped but made himself nothing (Phil. 2:6–7). This same Jesus sends us back into the world‚ to the office and the kitchen‚ to the classroom and canvas and page‚ to make more of the world he’s made and sustained‚ loved‚ and redeemed. But we aren’t sent until we’re first gathered. When the artist is gathered and enfolded into the life of the church‚ his making is reordered‚ his vision sanctified. He gains a vision for making that the world cannot offer to him‚ insisting as it does on his lone status. Let the artist in the church say‚ “Let us make.” Then together‚ let us see what is yet to be made.

The number of Americans identifying as transgender is sharply increasing. So too are demands for others to use individuals’ “preferred pronouns” in the workplace. Ultimately‚ religious believers of goodwill may disagree on whether love of one’s neighbor counsels for or against the use of preferred pronouns. But if your employer demands you use another’s preferred pronouns‚ and you cannot in good conscience comply‚ can your employer fire you? As with many legal questions‚ the answer is “it depends.” What’s more‚ this article expresses my view‚ not necessarily the views of other legal professionals or of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty‚ where I work. But recent court rulings have started providing more clearly concrete answers. And those answers are looking increasingly favorable for people of faith. Take two recent examples. Meriwether v. Hartop In Meriwether v. Hartop‚ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that a Christian philosophy professor couldn’t be required to use a student’s preferred pronouns. If your employer demands you use another’s preferred pronouns‚ and you cannot in good conscience comply‚ can your employer fire you? Professor Nicholas Meriwether taught at Shawnee State University—a small public college in Ohio—for 25 years with a “spotless disciplinary record.” Because of his sincere religious beliefs‚ Meriwether couldn’t use a student’s preferred pronouns. However‚ the university had just adopted a policy to that effect and refused to accommodate his religious beliefs. So Meriwether challenged the policy in court‚ claiming it violated his First Amendment rights under the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses. The Sixth Circuit ruled for Meriwether. Under the Free Exercise clause‚ the university must give “neutral and respectful consideration” to a person’s sincerely held religious beliefs. But that didn’t happen here for two reasons. First‚ in response to Meriwether’s request for a religious accommodation‚ “the university derided him and equated his good-faith convictions with racism.” Second‚ the university departed from its normal investigatory and disciplinary procedures‚ which further suggested Meriwether’s religious beliefs weren’t treated with respect. He also prevailed on his free speech claim because “a professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting.” The university could not‚ as a result‚ compel him to affirm a belief with which he disagreed. Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation In Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation‚ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit initially reached the opposite conclusion. There‚ the court ruled that a local high school could force a Christian teacher to use transgender students’ preferred names and pronouns. Much like in Meriwether’s case‚ Brownsburg High School adopted a policy that required all teachers to refer to transgender students using their preferred first names and pronouns. But Kluge‚ a Christian music and orchestra teacher‚ objected to using preferred names‚ explaining it would violate his sincere religious beliefs. Kluge requested a religious accommodation from the school. Specifically‚ he asked he be allowed to refer to all students by their last names. At first‚ the school agreed this was a reasonable compromise. But as the year progressed and complaints began to accumulate‚ the school reversed course. Kluge would no longer be allowed to use students’ last names. Instead‚ the school gave him a choice: use preferred first names and pronouns or be fired. In response‚ Kluge sued for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under this title‚ employers must accommodate their employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so would cause “undue hardship.” At the time‚ courts interpreted “undue hardship” to mean anything more than a minimal cost to the employer. With that definition in mind‚ the Seventh Circuit ruled it would be a hardship to accommodate Kluge’s religious beliefs. In the court’s view‚ Kluge’s “last-names-only practice conflicted with the school’s philosophy of affirming and respecting all students” and his requested accommodation undermined this objective because it “resulted in students feeling disrespected‚ targeted‚ and dehumanized.” Thus‚ according to the court‚ the school didn’t have to accommodate Kluge’s religious beliefs. More to the Story That wasn’t the end of the story‚ however. Shortly after the Seventh Circuit’s unfavorable decision‚ the Supreme Court clarified what it means to impose an “undue hardship” in a case called Groff v. DeJoy. No longer would an employer be able to refuse to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs because they impose minimal costs on the employer. Instead‚ under Groff‚ employers must now prove that “granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs.” Because of this heightened standard‚ the Seventh Circuit vacated its previous decision‚ and Kluge’s case is now being reconsidered under this more rigorous definition. The bottom line is this: Although much uncertainty remains‚ federal law requires employers to accommodate their employees’ religious convictions—including their convictions about not using preferred pronouns—unless doing so would impose substantial increased costs on the employer. Thus‚ individuals like Meriwether and Kluge will often have viable defenses under both the First Amendment and Title VII if an employer tries to force them to use preferred pronouns. Encouraging Signs Other positive signs exist too. For one‚ the tide of public opinion appears to be changing. In the 2023 Religious Freedom Index—an annual survey published by my firm‚ the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty— Americans showed resounding support for religious pluralism. Over 80 percent of Americans (both religious and nonreligious) support the freedom to practice one’s religious beliefs even if they’re contrary to accepted majority practices. On preferred pronouns specifically‚ 58 percent of Americans agree that schools shouldn’t be able to force their employees to use them—up from 46 percent in 2021. The tide of public opinion appears to be changing. Examples from other contexts are also encouraging. For instance‚ when an Iowa school adopted a policy requiring students to use other students’ preferred pronouns‚ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck it down under the First Amendment in Parents Defending Education v. LinnMar Community School District. When the Obama and Biden administrations created a policy known as the Transgender Mandate that would force religious doctors and hospitals to perform gender transition procedures‚ two federal courts of appeals blocked the mandate from taking effect‚ explaining that the government can’t force doctors to violate their religious beliefs. In the 1940s‚ West Virginia public schools expelled several Jehovah’s Witnesses children for declining to salute the American flag. In a famous opinion protecting their freedom of speech‚ associate justice Robert Jackson wrote‚ “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation‚ it is that no official‚ high or petty‚ can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics‚ nationalism‚ religion‚ or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Fortunately‚ early returns are that this principle will hold true for preferred pronouns too.

Damn‚ people are idiots today.

Street food is a cultural experience wrapped in a delicious parcel. From the streets of Bangkok to the alleys of Tokyo‚ every corner of the world boasts its own culinary gems. Some street foods stand out among the various options for their unique flavors‚ textures‚ and cultural significance. Here are ten street foods worth traveling […] The post 10 Street Foods Worth Traveling For appeared first on Listverse.

Cats already have a mysterious reputation. They slip around corners‚ disappear at night‚ and hold their thoughts close to their furry chests. However‚ recent studies revealed that cats are more unusual than we ever thought possible. From uncontrolled purring to cats that glow in the dark‚ here are ten of the most bizarre feline discoveries. […] The post 10 Ways Your Cat Is Weirder Than You Think appeared first on Listverse.

The House on Tuesday voted to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas‚ but the Democrat-controlled Senate is not expected to vote to remove him from office.  “There isn’t a whole lot of power we have‚” Rep. Mark Green‚ R-Tenn.‚ chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee‚ said of House members’ ability to push the Senate to hold a trial to consider ousting the homeland security chief.  With the two articles of impeachment now in the hands of the Senate‚ Green explained‚ Senate Majority Leader “Chuck Schumer and his guys can … either not hear it at all‚ they can have us come over and be referred to a committee and it’s heard then in a committee and dies in a committee‚ or they can have us present to the entire Senate.”  Green and his colleagues who backed the impeachment are “going to get loud‚” the Tennessee lawmaker said. “We’re going to get really loud. They’re going to pay for it if they don’t do something‚” Green said of the Senate‚ “because the American people are with us on this.”  Green joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss what the House Homeland Security Committee uncovered during its nearly yearlong investigation into Mayorkas that culminated in the secretary’s impeachment.  During the five-phase investigation‚ Green said he was fascinated by Mayorkas’ “inability to tell the truth.”  “What’s shocking is‚ Mayorkas just looks at you and tells you a boldfaced lie and‚ you know‚ doesn’t seem to bat an eye. And I’ve never seen someone who could‚ under oath‚ do that like him‚” Green said. “It’s really‚ honestly‚ shocking.”  Green notes that Mayorkas has claimed that the border is “secure‚” which‚ Green says‚ “is a lie.”  Furthermore‚ in April 2022‚ Rep. Chip Roy‚ R-Texas‚ asked Mayorkas during a hearing: “Will you testify under oath right now: Do we have operational control [of the border]‚ yes or no?”       “Yes‚ we do‚” Mayorkas responded.      Roy had the definition of operation control on display during the hearing. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 defines operational control of the border as “prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States‚ including entries by terrorists‚ other unlawful aliens‚ instruments of terrorism‚ narcotics‚ and other contraband.”     During a hearing in July‚ Roy argued that Mayorkas was being dishonest with the American people when he claimed to have operational control of the border even as thousands of illegal aliens a day were crossing it.   The Secure Fence Act “provides statutorily that operational control is defined as preventing all unlawful entries into the United States‚” Mayorkas said in defending his record during a Senate hearing in March 2023. He added: “By that definition‚ no administration has ever had operational control.”   With Republicans and Democrats unable to reach a consensus on border security measures‚ Green says‚ “tragically‚” he does not have “a whole lot of hope” that much will change along the southern border in the coming months.  Listen to the full conversation with Green on “The Daily Signal Podcast” below:  Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Senate Will ‘Pay for It’ If It Doesn’t Act on Mayorkas Impeachment‚ Rep. Mark Green Says  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In 2022‚ President Joe Biden signed an act banning the use of the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok on all federal government devices. But on Sunday‚ Biden’s presidential campaign shared a TikTok video on the platform.  Biden appeared on the social media platform for the first time in a 27-second video answering a few questions about the Super Bowl. At best‚ the Biden campaign’s decision to join TikTok sends a mixed message to the American people; at worst‚ it gives China more access to Americans’ data‚ including the president’s.  TikTok’s parent company‚ ByteDance‚ is headquartered in Beijing and is subject to Chinese law that requires companies to make users’ data available to the Chinese Communist Party. That’s why Biden banned the app from federal government devices in the first place.  According to a report released about a year ago by The Heritage Foundation’s Kara Frederick‚ director of its Tech Policy Center‚ “TikTok’s invasive data-collection practices include gathering users’ Global Positioning System (GPS) locations‚ Internet protocol (IP) addresses‚ content‚ contacts‚ images‚ microphone access (for “voiceprints”)‚ and other biometric‚ personally identifiable‚ or device information.” (The Daily Signal is the news outlet of The Heritage Foundation.) The app’s “2023 Privacy Policy also includes admissions that TikTok collects the mobile carriers‚ time zone settings‚ models‚ networks‚ device identifiers‚ screen resolution‚ operating systems‚ app and file names and types‚ along with keystroke patterns or rhythms of its users‚” Frederick says.  But if China’s ability to access your personal data is not reason enough to ditch TikTok‚ its proven addictive nature might be.  TikTok’s algorithm curates content for each individual user‚ which in turn keeps users coming back for more. But studies indicate the reasons TikTok‚ or any other social media platform‚ is addictive goes deeper. The Brown University School of Public Health says “likes” and comments on social media posts trigger a dopamine release in users that keep people coming back for more.  And with active users spending an average of 90 minutes a day on TikTok‚ according to Frederick‚ the platform is not only stealing user dating and leading to addiction‚ it’s eating away at our time.  Time is the great equalizer. Everyone‚ no matter how rich or poor‚ young or old‚ has 24 hours in a day. What we choose to do with the hours‚ or moments‚ of free time between work‚ school‚ family obligations‚ and so forth‚ is entirely up to us‚ and that’s a powerful gift.  Why voluntarily give China access to your data‚ or enter into (or continue) an addictive relationship with a platform that’s devouring the resource of your time? Wednesday kicked off the first day of Lent. What a good time to consider putting TikTok‚ or another addictive social media platform‚ on the shelf for the next 40 days and see what happens‚ and what you might able to accomplish with the time saved.  On today’s episode of the “Problematic Women” podcast‚ we discuss why Americans should ditch TikTok. Plus‚ we share the latest news regarding the ongoing legal and political battle over the bodies of five aborted babies found in a box outside an abortion clinic in the District of Columbia. Also‚ should your car be able to determine whether you are capable of driving? Some government officials think so. And as always‚ we’ll be crowning our “Problematic Woman of the Week.” Listen to the podcast below: Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.  The post Time’s Up: 3 Reasons to Ditch TikTok appeared first on The Daily Signal.