YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #freedom #libtards #terrorism #patriots #antifa #privacy #americafirst #loonyleft #surveillancestate #police\ #alpr #flock
    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
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

100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
1 y

“SAVE TIKTOK!” President Trump Says, Elon Musk Comments On Ban
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

“SAVE TIKTOK!” President Trump Says, Elon Musk Comments On Ban

In the wake of TikTok going dark in the United States, President Trump called to save the social media platform. “SAVE TIKTOK!” Trump said. Trump’s first post today: “Save TikTok!” Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/VlGgcvt07q — AF Post (@AFpost) January 19, 2025 The social media platform became unavailable for some users Saturday evening ahead of the federal law banning the app in the United States taking effect. “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now,” an alert read. “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” it added. NEW — TikTok is no longer available in the U.S. pic.twitter.com/aw0qZYq0eC — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 19, 2025 According to reports, Trump said he will “most likely” give TikTok a 90-day extension to avoid the ban. JUST IN: President-elect Trump to grant TikTok 90-day extension from ban, NBC reports. pic.twitter.com/PCgHhzmvvo — Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) January 18, 2025 NBC News reports: President-elect Donald Trump told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker in a phone interview Saturday that he will “most likely” give TikTok a 90-day reprieve from a potential ban in the U.S. after he takes office Monday. Trump said he hadn’t made a final decision but was considering a 90-day extension of the Sunday deadline for TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell to a non-Chinese-buyer or face a U.S. ban. “I think that would be, certainly, an option that we look at. The 90-day extension is something that will be most likely done, because it’s appropriate. You know, it’s appropriate. We have to look at it carefully. It’s a very big situation,” Trump said in the phone interview. “If I decide to do that, I’ll probably announce it on Monday,” he said. A 90-day extension under specific conditions is explicitly allowed for in the bipartisan law passed last year. But an extension Monday may not be enough to avoid the app going dark for at least a day, because the current deadline for compliance is Sunday. X owner Elon Musk said he is against the TikTok ban. “In my opinion, TikTok should not be banned in the USA, even though such a ban may benefit the ? platform. Doing so would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression. It is not what America stands for,” Musk said last April. “I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but ? is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change,” he reiterated Sunday. I have been against a TikTok ban for a long time, because it goes against freedom of speech. That said, the current situation where TikTok is allowed to operate in America, but ? is not allowed to operate in China is unbalanced. Something needs to change. https://t.co/YVu2hkZEVZ — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 19, 2025 Per ABC News: Trump is considering what executive actions he has available to allow TikTok to keep operating, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. One option is an executive order that could attempt to direct the government to not enforce the law, but that avenue faces legal roadblocks, experts told ABC News, chief of which is that an executive order can’t override a law that Congress has passed and that has now been upheld by the Supreme Court. Trump’s Justice Department could still opt against enforcement of the law, reassuring app stores and cloud-service providers that they wouldn’t face prosecution in the event of a violation. While the Justice Department has enforcement discretion, app providers like Apple and Google could still be subject to hefty fines under a law that has a five-year statute of limitations, which would extend it beyond the length of Trump’s presidential term. Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, declined to say during her confirmation hearing this week whether she would commit to enforcing the TikTok ban. TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew, who will attend Trump’s inauguration after receiving an invitation from the incoming administration, thanked Trump in a video posted to TikTok on Friday after the Supreme Court ruling.
Like
Comment
Share
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
1 y

TikTok Was Not The Only App To Go Dark In The United States, Here Are Others
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

TikTok Was Not The Only App To Go Dark In The United States, Here Are Others

TikTok wasn’t the only app to go dark in the United States late Saturday evening ahead of a federal law banning the social media platform going into effect. Other ByteDance-owned apps faced bans for U.S.-based users, including video-editing app CapCut and video-sharing app Lemon8. In addition to TikTok, all other Companies and Services owned by the Chinese Internet Company, ByteDance will also go Offline in the United States tonight at Midnight, this includes the Video Editing Software, CapCut. pic.twitter.com/2dUwcxITZJ — OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) January 19, 2025 CapCut to shut down alongside TikTok tonight. Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/ZxqOaZ1BA3 — AF Post (@AFpost) January 19, 2025 “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can’t use TikTok for now,” a TikTok alert read. “We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office. Please stay tuned!” it added. NEW — TikTok is no longer available in the U.S. pic.twitter.com/aw0qZYq0eC — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) January 19, 2025 Per WIRED: Similar notifications appear on other apps owned by ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, which is based in China and sits at the core of the controversy over a popular video app that, at least until Saturday, had 170 million users in the US. Video-editing app CapCut, photo- and video-sharing app Lemon8, and others have now gone dark in the US. A federal law passed last year bans ByteDance-owned apps from operating in the US on national security grounds. In reaction to Chinese laws that demand China-based companies provide their data to the Chinese government and intelligence agencies, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA) required ByteDance to sell TikTok and its other apps to an entity not based in China by Sunday. That sale did not happen. As a result, TikTok began blocking US-based users on Saturday, January 18, ahead of the midnight deadline. Because PAFACA bans all apps operated by ByteDance, not just TikTok, users of its myriad other apps are meeting the same restrictions. PAFACA does not require ByteDance to block US-based users of its apps. Instead, it prohibits any US company from providing any service to “distribute, maintain or update” ByteDance-owned apps. As a result, many of these apps are no longer available in Apple and Google’s app stores. That may change soon after Donald Trump takes office on Monday, however, with the US president-elect indicating that he plans to extend the deadline for a sale of TikTok by 90 days. Yes, it is all very confusing. Everyone’s talking about the TikTok ban…but did you know they also Banned CapCut tonight…. the video editing app. For what? Empowering regular people to make professional video edits? An absolute assault on our speech. pic.twitter.com/FpL4L2cE1k — Brett Pike (@ClassicLearner) January 19, 2025 #BREAKING: Here are the following apps shut down in the United States tonight: • TikTok • CapCut • Lemon8 • Gauth • Hypic — R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) January 19, 2025 USA TODAY reports: CapCut is a free video editing software, released by ByteDance in the U.S. in 2020. CapCut is available for mobile and desktop download and accessible through the CapCut website. As of Thursday, CapCut was the second most downloaded photo and video app in the Apple App Store (after Instagram) and had been downloaded more than 1 billion times from the Google Play Store. CapCut is not explicitly named in the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Control Applications App, which would implement the ban on TikTok. However, the legislation does address “any other applications or service development or provided by ByteDance.” Therefore, CapCut could be affected.
Like
Comment
Share
Independent Sentinel News Feed
Independent Sentinel News Feed
1 y

$500 Million Went to Ukraine and LA Still Burns
Favicon 
www.independentsentinel.com

$500 Million Went to Ukraine and LA Still Burns

Biden did it. He sent $500 million to Ukraine as LA burns. It’s not clear who is behind him coming up with his ideas, but they are Marxists who don’t care about Americans. He gave $770 per person who suffered due to the Los Angeles, California fires, which are still ongoing. It was $20 more […] The post $500 Million Went to Ukraine and LA Still Burns appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.
Like
Comment
Share
BlabberBuzz Feed
BlabberBuzz Feed
1 y

Open The Floodgates...People Coming OUT Of The Woodwork To Tell The TRUTH About Biden's DECLINE!
Favicon 
www.blabber.buzz

Open The Floodgates...People Coming OUT Of The Woodwork To Tell The TRUTH About Biden's DECLINE!

Like
Comment
Share
The Lighter Side
The Lighter Side
1 y

Dairy Queen Reintroduces A Much-Loved Blizzard
Favicon 
www.inspiremore.com

Dairy Queen Reintroduces A Much-Loved Blizzard

Valentine’s Day is less than a month away. If you have a special someone, great. If not, that’s OK, too. There is nothing wrong with treating yourself this time of year. Or any darn time you please, for that matter. Dairy Queen is getting in on the most romantic time of the year a little early and bringing back a fan favorite Blizzard. At participating restaurants, ice cream lovers can indulge in a sweet and creamy Red Velvet Cake Blizzard or Cupid Cake. They made the announcement in a big way in a news release. “Treat yourself or a loved one to the sophisticated flavors of the Red Velvet Cake Blizzard® Treat, a gift that speaks of true indulgence and pampering. Ideal for a special occasion or simply a sweet escape from the world, this dessert is sure to delight even the most discerning of palates.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by Markie_devo (@markie_devo) Dairy Queen Knows The Way To People’s Hearts For DQ, red velvet means love. The company added, “Take a moment to savor the silky texture and rich flavors of this Blizzard® Treat. With every bite, you’ll feel the love and passion that went into creating this signature treat, a one-of-a-kind confection. So go ahead, indulge in a cup of pure dessert bliss, and enjoy the ultimate taste of love.” Markie Devo posted about the Blizzard and Cupid Cake on Instagram, “Dairy Queen is kicking off baby making season early. The Red Velvet Cake Blizzard and Cupid Cake are back for a limited time. The Blizzard features Red Velvet Cake Pieces, Cream Cheese Icing and Vanilla Soft Serve. At some locations now, nationwide in February.” Some fans are ready. Like this person, “Oh, I’m having at least 2 of those blizzards!” And this one, “i’ll take that blizzard.” This story’s featured image is by Jonathan Weiss via Shutterstock. The post Dairy Queen Reintroduces A Much-Loved Blizzard appeared first on InspireMore.
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Caller Feed
Daily Caller Feed
1 y

DAVID WINSTON AND MYRA MILLER: Here Are The 7 Reasons Why Trump Is Getting Inaugurated
Favicon 
dailycaller.com

DAVID WINSTON AND MYRA MILLER: Here Are The 7 Reasons Why Trump Is Getting Inaugurated

Trump won decisively
Like
Comment
Share
Daily Signal Feed
Daily Signal Feed
1 y

Trump Should Reverse Biden’s Offshore Drilling Ban
Favicon 
www.dailysignal.com

Trump Should Reverse Biden’s Offshore Drilling Ban

This week President Joe Biden invoked the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas drilling in most of America’s offshore areas, in perpetuity—or so he thinks. President-elect Donald Trump called the order “ridiculous” and pledged to reverse it immediately. That’s precisely what Trump should do, but it won’t be easy. In 2019, a federal judge in Alaska tossed out Trump’s revocation of a similar (though far more modest) Obama-era withdrawal, holding that Trump had exceeded his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. While that decision lost most of its relevance when Biden’s election mooted the appeal, any similar effort by Trump will be challenged on the same legal theory. Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provides: “The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” The district court reasoned that because the provision doesn’t mention revocation, a withdrawal “without specific time limit” can’t be revoked except by an act of Congress. In other words, Biden would have no power to modify a withdrawal he announced this week, even though no private rights or obligations were impacted. That defies common sense. The evident purpose of Section 12(a) was to make clear that the president has discretion to not lease any particular area, a natural incident of executive authority. The notion that the power to do something doesn’t imply the power to undo it sounds like it could be a canon handed down from ancient Rome, but there is no such canon. If there were, the president’s power to appoint officials wouldn’t include the power to remove them. Congress’ power to establish lower federal courts wouldn’t include the power to dissolve them. The power of agencies to modify or rescind prior rules and regulations could be called into question in thousands of instances. But the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the power to undo or modify prior actions as implied in all of those instances, suggesting if anything the opposite canon: The power to do something necessarily implies the power to undo it. And even in the context of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, where withdrawals have been rare, President George W. Bush modified several prior withdrawals with no objection from Congress or the courts. Indeed the district court’s interpretation would plunge the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act into major constitutional problems. If the president can withdraw all the areas under the act from disposition for all time until Congress passes a new law, that would mean that the president in effect has authority to repeal the law altogether. But repealing a law requires the power to make law, and the president has no such power. The president can only exercise legislative powers under delegation of legislative authority from Congress, and the Supreme Court has said that such delegations must have “intelligible principles” to guide the president’s action.  If the president could permanently withdraw any and all the areas subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in his unfettered discretion, the law would fail that basic test. This is all the more true given the intelligible principle enshrined in the law’s explicit purpose: the “expedited exploration and development” of those areas. The Supreme Court also requires Congress to have spoken clearly in statute before the president claims an unheralded power to transform a major part of the American economy. Its “major questions doctrine” prohibits courts from finding such sweeping powers in ambiguous statutes. All the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act says is that the president may withdraw offshore from development “from time to time,” which implies flexibility, not permanence, and which, as even the district court conceded, renders the statute ambiguous. Legal issues aside, one marvels at how short-sighted and self-defeating Biden’s withdrawal would be. In the long run the move would have no measurable impact on climate; its main impact would be to preserve vast fossil resources for future generations. In the short term it merely helps oil companies to maximize profits by limiting production, which they would readily agree to do on their own if it weren’t a criminal violation of the antitrust laws. The climate lobby still has not grasped that curtailing the supply of an essential commodity for which demand is overwhelming only makes people pay more for it. That’s why Biden spent much of his presidency denying responsibility for rising gas prices. But as the 2024 election showed, people weren’t fooled. His actions this week prove that higher prices were always part of his plan. ©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. Originally published by ArcaMax The post Trump Should Reverse Biden’s Offshore Drilling Ban appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Like
Comment
Share
Hot Air Feed
Hot Air Feed
1 y

Saving the Best For Last: Sunday Reflection
Favicon 
hotair.com

Saving the Best For Last: Sunday Reflection

Saving the Best For Last: Sunday Reflection
Like
Comment
Share
NewsBusters Feed
NewsBusters Feed
1 y

FLASHBACK: Media LOVE New Dem Presidents; Republicans, Not So Much
Favicon 
www.newsbusters.org

FLASHBACK: Media LOVE New Dem Presidents; Republicans, Not So Much

Tomorrow, when you listen to the establishment media’s Inauguration Day coverage, you likely won’t hear journalists celebrate the incoming Republican President Donald Trump. And it’s not just their unique hostility to Trump — a deep dive into the MRC’s archives shows liberal reporters and anchors have been ardent participants in the so-called “honeymoon” for new Democratic Presidents, but provide a much chillier reception when it’s a Republican President being sworn into office. Back in 1993, for example, the weekly newsmagazines cheered the arrival of incoming Democratic President Bill Clinton. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman enthused: “There’s no doubting that the nation is about to be led by its first sensitive male chief executive.” Time’s Richard Corliss hit the same note: “Clinton is a prime communicator, a beacon of middle-class charisma, a lover of being loved, a believer in the importance — perhaps the primacy — of image, metaphor, style....This huggy-bear President needs to feel the electromagnetism of approval — but in a New Age way.” Four years later, Los Angeles Times television writer Howard Rosenberg was still smitten. “His sturdy jaw precedes him. He smiles from sea to shining sea. Is this President a candidate for Mt. Rushmore or what?” Rosenberg wrote in a review of Clinton’s second inaugural address in 1997. In 2001, the media weren’t nearly as thrilled at incoming Republican President George W. Bush. During her network’s live inauguration coverage, NBC’s Maria Shriver lectured incoming National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice that Bush would have “to reach out to the millions of people who felt disenfranchised by this election, who don’t feel that he’s their President yet?” And in 2005, journalists huffed that Bush’s inauguration was a waste of money. “On World News Tonight/Sunday, President Bush prepares for his second inauguration. In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?” ABC’s Terry Moran griped four days before the swearing-in. Then came Obama, Trump and Biden. If the media’s partisan tilt had been easy to spot during the earlier Clinton/Bush era, it became an in-your-face assault starting in 2009. An effervescent media giddily celebrated Barack Obama’s arrival that year: “Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy,” correspondent Bill Weir gushed during ABC’s live “news” coverage. Trump’s inauguration eight years later was met with contempt. “I thought it was shockingly divisive for an inaugural,” NBC’s Chuck Todd whined. And journalists openly celebrated Joe Biden’s takeover in 2021. “We’ve gone from indecency to decency,” MSNBC’s Joy Reid declared during her network’s live coverage four years ago. The media’s partisan pattern is so firmly established, it would be a shock if any journalist has kind words to say for the President affirmed by more than 77 million voters. In anticipation of Monday’s second inauguration of Donald J. Trump, here’s a look back at the most outrageous media quotes from the previous four presidential inaugurals, all from the archives of the Media Research Center:   2009 ■ “A new day is dawning here in the nation’s capital on the eve of the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States...Does it get any better, or more beautiful, or more spectacular, than this?”— Co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez opening CBS’s Early Show, January 19, 2009. ■ “This is one of the great opportunities in journalism to cover history in the face. We’re going to see history in the face and when you get up tomorrow morning I recommend you stay tuned all day because I don’t think you’re going to stop seeing history being made....It’s going to be the honor of our lifetimes to be here on the Washington Mall.”— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews previewing his network’s inauguration coverage, January 19, 2009 Hardball. ■ “We know that wind can make a cold day feel colder, but can national pride make a freezing day feel warmer? It seems to be the case because regardless of the final crowd number estimates, never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity.”— ABC’s Bill Weir on World News, January 20, 2009. ■ “What a day it was. It may take days or years to really absorb the significance of what happened to America today....When he [Barack Obama] finally emerged, he seemed, even in this throng, so solitary, somber, perhaps already feeling the weight of the world, even before he was transformed into the leader of the free world....The mass flickering of cell phone cameras on the mall seemed like stars shining back at him.”— Correspondent Andrea Mitchell on the January 20, 2009 NBC Nightly News. 2013 ■ “The Second Coming. America Expects. Can He Deliver?”— Headline for Newsweek’s “Inauguration 2013" cover, January 18, 2013. ■ “Here in Washington the excitement is already beginning. Those marching bands getting ready for their parade, the caterers, 10,000 eggs for one hotel. And the whole city has a smile on its face.”— Anchor Diane Sawyer talking about Obama’s inauguration during a live special report, January 20, 2013. ■ “I thought it was a marvelous speech and it’s brave and it’s bold and I think it’s going to play well in history.”— Historian Douglas Brinkley on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, January 21, 2013, reviewing Obama’s inauguration speech. ■ “He is a president renewed in office by the votes of 65 million Americans. He is a president with a purpose....Change — this time around that word means something else to Barack Obama. He used his second inauguration to make an audacious claim that the coalition that reelected him — younger, more diverse, non-native, more socially liberal — is the next America, the rising generation, and he spoke directly to and for them....A man, a president with a purpose and an agenda, a progressive agenda, no question about it.”— Co-anchor Terry Moran on ABC’s Nightline, January 21. 2017 ■ “If, as I fear, we see the White House transformed into a bog of scandals flowing from an unprincipled narcissist, we as a nation will be more appreciative of a first family that set an impeccable example for all the world.”— New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in January 19, 2017 article “Missing Barack Obama Already.” ■ “I have to say, I think it will go down in history as one of the most radical speeches ever given by a president.”— Host Jake Tapper on CNN’s live coverage of Trump’s inauguration, January 20, 2017. ■ “I thought it was shockingly divisive for an inaugural....He insulted — at points, insulted almost every living president that was there to witness his inaugural, which, to me, was so stunning.”—  NBC Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd on the January 20, 2017 Nightly News. ■ “The new President also repeating that our guiding principle will be ‘America First,’ ‘America First.’ We know how he has used that as a campaign slogan, that does also have very dark echoes in American history. There was an America First Committee that formed in this country, hundreds of thousands of people in this country, some of the richest businessmen in the country who were part of it, they were formed to keep us out of World War II. They were infiltrated by the Nazis, many of them are anti-Semitic, part of why they weren’t alarmed by Hitler’s rise in Germany. The America First Committee is something that means a specific thing in this country, to re-purpose it now, not that far down the historical path. It’s hard. It’s hard to hear.”— Host Rachel Maddow during MSNBC’s live coverage of Trump’s inauguration, January 20, 2017. ■ “But I’m thinking when he said today ‘America First’ it was not just the racial, I mean the, um, I shouldn’t say racial, the Hitlerian background to it. But it was the message I kept thinking, what is [British Prime Minister] Theresa May thinking this morning, when she picks up the papers and goes ‘My God, what did he just say, he said America first, what happened to the special relationship?’”— MSNBC’s Chris Matthews during live coverage of Trump’s inauguration, January 20, 2017. 2021 ■ “He [Joe Biden] gave kind of inaugural address our Presidents used to give, as hopeful as the man delivering it, yet an honest reflection of a great country at its modern-day low point: Beset by two viruses, one a pandemic, the other a sickness that has flowed into our politics....The message has gone out that the United States is back and under new management.”— MSNBC’s 11th Hour host Brian Williams during MSNBC’s live coverage of Joe Biden’s Inauguration, January 20, 2021. ■ “Joe Biden had to deliver the speech of his life, and he did. In my lifetime, I have never seen a more challenging inaugural address....What he did in about 21 minutes was absolutely astonishing under these incredibly challenging circumstances.”— MSNBC’s The Last Word host Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC’s live coverage of Joe Biden’s Inauguration, January 20, 2021. ■ Co-anchor George Stephanopoulos: “Most of us will remember where we were when we heard Joe Biden take the oath of office, give his inaugural address....Echoes of Abe Lincoln.”...Correspondent Byron Pitts: “Watching this moment, today’s inauguration felt more like a church service, right? And we see there, right after the sermon, the congregation doesn’t want to go home. People are hugging, shaking hands. I thought from Joe Biden today, certainly he was commander-in-chief, but he was also papa-in-chief. He gave a speech to comfort the nation.”— ABC News’s live coverage of Joe Biden Inauguration, January 20, 2021. ■ “We’ve gone from indecency to decency….We’ve gone from what can only be called idolatry and false religion under Trump, this worship of greed and this lust for conquest, one American over another, to really what the religion, the true religion is supposed to be, at least when I grew up in church….We try to love our fellow man, we try to be brothers and sisters, we try to care about the poor, the immigrant, we try to care about those in need. That’s the creed. That is the Christian creed. It’s what it was supposed to be before it was about stealing the children of migrants.”— MSNBC’s The ReidOut host Joy Reid on MSNBC’s live coverage of Joe Biden’s Inauguration, January 20, 2021. For more examples from our flashback series, which we call the NewsBusters Time Machine, go here.  
Like
Comment
Share
The Blaze Media Feed
The Blaze Media Feed
1 y

Escaping woke ideology: Why I left Marxist feminism to follow Jesus
Favicon 
www.theblaze.com

Escaping woke ideology: Why I left Marxist feminism to follow Jesus

I learned I was an adopted kid in 1978, the year I turned 5. Mom read "The Chosen Baby" by Valentina Wasson to my older sister and me (she is also adopted) every night until we outgrew bedtime stories. Our young minds were encoded with the message: You’re the chosen ones; you’re the cool kids. Being adopted was never a source of shame. Our older brothers, our parents’ biological sons, were as much our brothers and we their sisters as if we’d all come out of the same oven. Everyone in the family knew the refrain: We didn’t grow under mom’s heart; we grew in it. We were special and never doubted it. Too much Being adopted made me special, but it did not immunize me from life. I was a precocious and insatiably curious kid who never stopped asking “Why?” My inquiring mind always wanted to know. I wore my parents out, overwhelmed my teachers, and irritated my friends. I was simply “too much” and needed to be contained, for everyone’s sanity. My kindergarten teacher labeled me a show-off and attention-seeker, giving me an unsavory reputation as a challenging child to have in class. That rep followed me like a bad penny all the way through high school. Lord’s Day We were faithful churchgoers, always dressed in our Sunday best. Sunday mornings were for Sunday school and “big church” in the sanctuary, and Sunday evenings were for Bible study; Wednesday worship focused on family, food, and fellowship. This was the weekly routine of good Baptists. I accepted Jesus into my heart the same year I learned I was a chosen child. Now, I was chosen not just by my birth mother and my parents, but by God as well. Full-immersion baptism soon followed, and the deal was done. Except it wasn’t. We stopped attending church the year I turned 12. Differences with church elders on how to steward church funds for a new building created friction with my mom and dad. Combined with leadership’s increasing disapproval of my parents’ popular in-home Bible study, rupture was inevitable. I don’t remember the details, but suffice it to say our family was uninvited from continuing membership with the church. Having been shown the door by the swanky church attended by the “who’s who,” we quickly became personae non gratae in accompanying social circles. It was snobbery at its finest. Make no mistake, Christians have turned intra-group snobbery into an art form. We tried different churches here and there, but nothing ever stuck. Church ceased being a part of my daily life for nearly 30 years. Unsurprisingly, God or, more specifically, the truth in Scripture ceased being a part of my life as well. While my family did not move into unbelief, we did become Chreasters (those who only attend services on Christmas and Easter). By the time I was in college, I slid into religious apathy and ultimately developed a disinterest in all things JC (Jesus Christ). I remained unregenerate. Weighty matters I was a straight-A student, power tumbler, and star cheerleader in high school. I kept the stats for the baseball team, tutored the shortstop, and worked the concession stand. To the outside world, I was an all-American girl. But my reality was a little different. Some years earlier, I learned I was a biologically fat kid (a propensity for obesity was noted in my adoption file) trying to live in a skinny person’s body (the kind all-American girls have). And I was succeeding, until I crested 110 pounds in the ninth grade. Over time, my sense of self-worth was tied not only to how well I contained my “too much” personality but how well I maintained the package in which the “too much” was contained. Cue the shame cycle. Body image issues are brutal, gruesome, and insidious, especially for young girls. They lead us into dark places without resources for coping or escaping. To supplement our self-loathing and self-hatred, we engage in all manner of masochistic behavior, including cutting, disordered eating, drunkenness, and hyper-sexualization. This destructive behavior is a misguided, dangerous, and undisciplined form of self-mortification whose sole purpose is a self-imposed penance for being “less than.” Unlike many monastic orders of old, this process was not for imitating the suffering of Christ in pursuit of spiritual things; it was for accepting the unworthiness of the body in which we were born, even if subconsciously. The dissonance caused by the mixed messages coming at me was impossible to process. On the one hand, I was a special chosen child created in the image of a holy God with an essence and a purpose; on the other hand, I was one brownie away from having an overweight, chubby, or even fat body the mean girls would ridicule and the teenage boys would reject. Which was right? Which mattered most? Me, myself, and I After high school, I bumped around a bit, ultimately landing in Erie, Pennsylvania, with my parents, who’d relocated from my hometown in Florida. Penn State Erie was local, so I began classes in the spring of 1993, a decision that changed my life forever. Just two semesters in, I had been radicalized in the critical theories and loved every minute of it — until I didn’t. Marxism had been mainstreamed on university campuses just a few years before I enrolled. Critical theory had replaced traditional theory, the gender sameness/difference debate was in full swing, and the newly organized LGBT movement had secured political power. The gospel of Freud, Marx, Hegel, and Darwin replaced Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The salvation message of Jesus Christ was mere mythology invented by men to subordinate women. Christianity was a patriarchal discourse keeping women from escaping the evil prisons of the Gnostic demiurge who was blocking their access to the divine within. Radical feminist Mary Daly wrote: “‘God's plan' is often a front for men's plans and a cover for inadequacy, ignorance, and evil.” Her claim seemed far-fetched, but maybe it had a kernel of truth? I started to believe her. I had no clue how to defend my anemic Christianity against these critics or their claims, so I was a sitting duck, a ripe recruit for the consciousness-raising cadres on campus. Waking up to my own oppression as a woman whose body had been ill considered and whose sexuality had been condemned to monogamy felt like the most honest thing I’d done in all of my life. I was laying bare the contradictions of my soul and asking anyone and everyone to help me make sense of them. The church was ineffective; the feminists took me in. Their position was well articulated by Susie Bright: “When a young woman discovers her power, both sexual and intellectual, she unleashes her own voice, her righteousness.” I woke up to my voice and my victimhood, and things were beginning to make sense. I became “woke.” The next several years saw the exploration of intellectually seductive, albeit highly manipulative, thought forms that challenged me to examine the belief systems on which I was raised and that I’d trusted without question. I needed to test my newly acquired knowledge before self-amputating from everything, and possibly everyone, I knew. Slowly, I began to resist Christianity, or at least what I understood Christianity to be, primarily on the grounds that the moral straitjacket it required cramped my ability to break free from years of abusive oppression. I was finally on a path to self-righteousness. My liberation would come from leveraging my sexual and intellectual power in spite of the dominant ideologies (aka Christianity) that say women should stay home and make babies (even though they don’t say that at all). Freedom for women comes not from Christ’s atoning work on the cross, but through the grandiose release of collective libidinal energy from all of the whores next door. The long walk home Marxian feminism ensnared my mind and emotions in a nihilistic trap for many years. Condemnation, doubt, fear, and depression were the bitter fruits of my choices. Feminist activism through promiscuity ultimately gave way to addiction and demoralization. Make no mistake, feminism fans no flames of freedom — it just delivers a broken heart and low self-esteem. For the next two decades, I wandered through an ideological wilderness, always looking for the truth, but preferably not in “being a Baptist.” During my journey, I found my birth mother, married two husbands (not at the same time), traveled the world, and graduated from law school. I started a business, and 13 years later, I lost that business. I built idols of identity, stature, and fancy things, only to have them smashed in my face. I became a pile of shrapnel, the collateral damage of a hedonistic life. Fallopians 19:73 When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, I woke up from a long, slovenly sleep in the land of ideological compromise. I was a prolific writer on social media and was gobsmacked by the shocking display of bravado by women who claimed a special privilege for terminating their pregnancies. But for these abortions, their access to economic independence and bodily autonomy would have been denied. It wasn’t their merit or competence that sourced their social power; it was their empty uteruses. I found my birth mother when I was 21; she was 35. She delivered me at age 14 on November 22, 1973. Initially, I was due on October 22, 1973. This meant that by the time she saw the doctor, my birth mother was a month too far along to have an abortion, even though a brand-new case called Roe v. Wade, decided January 22, 1973, legalized abortion in the first trimester nationwide. October 22 came and went; no baby. Exactly one month later, a baby. The doctor’s mistake saved my life. Naturally, this complicated my feminist views of sex and the body in unsettling ways. After a season of vacillating, I became a fence-sitter on abortion, ultimately taking the coward’s way out of the discussion because “I’d never been pregnant.” Who was I to judge? Plus, I wasn’t violating the sardonic command of Fallopians 19:73: “He who hath nay uterus shall shutteth … up.” I was a woman, but I was shuttething up nonetheless. I was a fool. As late as the spring of 2022, I still hadn’t taken a public stand on the life issue outside a very tight circle, since I was still struggling with the “tough” cases of rape and incest. I needed to learn more, so I started to study. What lies beneath I was no longer interested in the litany of arguments supporting women’s liberation from unwanted pregnancies. I knew those better than most who espouse them. What I did want was to understand the path one must travel to arrive, and remain, at a place that demands adherence to an inconsistent, incoherent, and indecipherable position on the vesting of value in a human life: on deciding when a human fetus becomes a person who merits protection under the law. While studying, I learned the concept of worldview and its epic usefulness in understanding why we think the way we do. It was exactly what I needed to comprehend the hive mind infiltrating my inbox. It was also what I needed to finally understand the full story of Christianity, that is, historical, biblical Christianity, not the littered mess of modern-day Christendom promoting a counterfeit Christ throughout the culture. By reverse-engineering the range of worldviews underlying our modern ideas, I was able to work meticulously through the logical consequences that flow from their systematic implementation, from the beginning of time to the end of time. It wasn’t long before I realized that the biblical worldview — not a Marxist, postmodernist, New Age, or other worldview — was the only internally consistent, sufficient, coherent, and complete one on the menu. Nothing else even came close, at least not without borrowing from the biblical worldview to fill in the missing parts, such as an inalienable pre-political right to life. I was utterly dumbfounded. Not only was biblical Christianity true, it provided a comprehensive explanation for the world and everything in it. It provided rational answers to every question I could find about the nature and purpose of life. All I had to do was believe it. I’d never heard Christianity described this way, and I’m a little bummed that it took so many years for me to hear it. A full-orbed faith The evidence was in, and I had two choices. Believe God, take Him at His word, and abide in His promises, or Reject God and go it alone. I immediately recalled Joshua’s challenge to the unbelieving Israelites: … choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15, KJV) I imagined Joshua standing at my door admonishing me to get off of the coward’s fence and choose, once and for all, whom I will serve: the God who made you and saved you or the idols of man who neither made you nor saved you, but always seek to devour you. I chose God, and I still choose God, all day, every day. The deal, at last, was done. And He did it all. I just had to say yes. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20, KJV) This article is adapted from a post that originally appeared on the "Worldview Bulletin" Substack.
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 69356 out of 127375
  • 69352
  • 69353
  • 69354
  • 69355
  • 69356
  • 69357
  • 69358
  • 69359
  • 69360
  • 69361
  • 69362
  • 69363
  • 69364
  • 69365
  • 69366
  • 69367
  • 69368
  • 69369
  • 69370
  • 69371
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