Before Democrats burn James Comey in effigy, they should think about how the FBI director came to have an outsized influence in the election in the first place. It’s not something Comey sought or welcomed. A law enforcement official who prizes his reputation, he didn’t relish becoming a hate figure for half the country or more. No, the only reason that Comey figures in the election at all is that Democrats knowingly nominated someone under FBI investigation. Once upon a time — namely any presidential election prior to this one — this enormous political and legal vulnerability would have disqualified a candidate. Not this year, and not in the case of Hillary Clinton. The country has clearly lowered its standards in this election, and Donald Trump’s madcap candidacy provides evidence of that almost every day. But Hillary’s nomination was itself an offense against American political norms and an incredibly reckless act. And the Democrats were supposed to be the party acting rationally. Clinton effectively locked up the nomination in June and wasn’t cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI until July. What if she had been indicted? Would Democrats have run her anyway? Would they have substituted in a 74-year-old socialist who had lost the nomination battle, or someone else who hadn’t even run? Any of these circumstances would have been unprecedented, but Democrats risked it. They did it, in part, because they could never bring themselves to fully acknowledge the seriousness of the email scandal and, relatedly, the ethical miasma around the Clinton Foundation. They considered it all another desperate trick of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Clinton henchman David Brock demanded that the New York Times retract its initial report of Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email account in March 2015. A parade of Democratic operatives pooh-poohed the whole thing, from Clinton spokesman Karen Finney (“a politically motivated series of attacks”) to James Carville (“not going to amount to a hill of beans”) to Howard Dean (“hooey”). When they first got on a debate stage together last October, Bernie Sanders, the only man who had a chance to stop Clinton, pleased the crowd with a ringing denunciation of interest in her emails. Democrats bought the just-so stories offered up by the Clinton campaign. The FBI investigation was just a “security review.” The FBI wasn’t investigating Hillary, but only her server. Anything to deflect from the seriousness of the matter. While Democrats willfully looked the other way, they put Comey in an impossible position. An indictment would change the course of American history. That was all on him. He ultimately blinked. But he also put on the record the recklessness of Clinton’s practices as secretary of state in an attempt to create public accountability. Comey’s conduct is open to criticism, but there’s no way to please everyone when handling a case with such high political stakes. His notification to Congress last weekend is another case in point. All that can be said is that if Democrats didn’t want the FBI to have any part in the election, they could’ve considered that before nominating Clinton. Trump may be a deeply flawed candidate, but he caught a wave of popular fervor; Hillary, with her astonishing vulnerabilities, is a production of the Democratic elites who did everything to get her over the finish line. Just how vulnerable is she? If it weren’t for the new trove of Huma Abedin emails, the blockbuster news this week would come via a Wall Street Journal report that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation — although Fox News reported the same thing at the beginning of the year, and Hillary, of course, dismissed it as an “unsourced and irresponsible claim that has no basis.” The email scandal and Clinton Foundation will dog Hillary until Election Day and, should she win, into her presidency. For this, she has no one to blame but herself — and her irresponsible enablers. Answer: meat
Dozens of protesters gathered Saturday at Lawyers Mall in Annapolis to talk about President Donald Trump. This time, they were in support of him. About 50 people of diverse background who turned out for the Making America Great Again, Already! rally wore Trump T-shirts and hats, posed for pictures with Trump signs and waved Trump flags to show their support for the president’s agenda. It is the same site where numerous rallies have been held with speakers who have been critical of the president. Trump “has people against him … from within the party, from the media. We are here to support and endorse what he has been doing for the military and the economy,” said Sajid Tarar, a Muslim immigrant from Pakistan and founder of Muslim Americans for Trump. The rally comes at a time of intense controversy for the president. An ABC News/Washington Post poll from this month showed 66 percent of Americans said Trump has done more to divide the country than unite it. He recently criticized NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans. And the rally was held the same day as marches with speakers expected to be critical of the president were staged across the country in support of racial justice. Another is planned Sunday at Lawyers Mall. But Saturday, the crowd outside the State House had a different message. The rally, co-sponsored by Muslim Americans for Trump and Sikh Americans for Trump, was intended to bring together minority communities not typically associated with Trump’s largely white base and demonstrate support for Trump’s ideas. Tarar has been a vocal Trump supporter from early on; he prayed onstage at the Republican National Convention and spoke favor of the then-candidate. Trump’s statements about Muslims and Islam are not directed at the faith as a whole, Tarar said, nor at every Muslim American. It would be impossible, Tarar said, to cast blame on every person belonging to the world’s second-largest religion. “As a Muslim, I saw him as a relief. I saw him as the person who can fight the terrorism,” Tarar said. He said Trump’s travel ban, which originally blocked immigrants from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Sudan, isn’t a ban at all but a pause, to ensure thorough vetting of the people from these countries. The original restriction on travel from these six countries has expired and been replaced with an order that bans varying degrees of immigration from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. Tarar and Sikh Americans for Trump founder Jesse Singh both immigrated to the U.S. — “legally,” Singh told the crowd. Like Tarar, he attended the president’s inauguration. Singh said when he first arrived in Dulles International Airport in Virginia, he saw a futuristic marvel in the sleek terminals and busses that whisked passengers to and fro. But the bus that dropped him off in 1986 is the bus that he is still taking today, adding that the more impressive airports are now the ones in his home country of India. “Last year I went to India, and that airport I left is now looking futuristic,” Singh said. “When I came to Dulles Airport, the same 30-year-old bus with loose doors and torn carpet came to receive me. So, when Donald Trump says our infrastructure has gone down, he’s totally right.” Other speakers, including Republican strategist and commentator Ivan Garcia-Hidalgo, praised the president’s crackdown on illegal immigration and promise to build a border wall. At one point, a “Build that wall!” chant briefly broke out among the rallygoers. Garcia-Hidalgo spoke of a booming economy, a low unemployment rate and a strong stock market, and defended Trump’s response to the devastation to Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria. Michael Cohen, who serves as Trump’s personal lawyer, also spoke at the rally via phone and thanked those gathered for their support. Congress has not yet approved funding for the border wall, but the Trump administration has announced companies that are building prototypes. Additionally, Congress has not passed any economic legislation, but the administration introduced a tax reform plan Wednesday. Maryland is a predominantly blue state. More than 60 percent of state voters cast ballots for Hillary Clinton in the last presidential election, and she edged Trump by 6,016 votes in Anne Arundel County. But Marcus Anthony, a Fairfax County, Virginia, resident, said he attended the rally to “preserve the other side.” “We live in a highly liberal area,” Marcus said. “As it is today, a lot of our side is continuously oppressed … It’s our responsibility to retain our perspectives.” All minorities are not against the president, Singh said. “Minorities have the same agenda as any other Americans,” he said. “We want America to be great again.” Answer: isbn
Politicians are trying to deceive you. Modern (American) politics is essentially a game in which politicians say and do whatever they possibly can to persuade people that they are an ideal leader deserving of a vote. But you already know that. Hopefully. Most of us are pretty cynical about politics and straight-up expect politicians to lie to us. We understand that posturing, over-promising, tricky rhetoric, and psychological manipulation are par for the course in the political arena. Interestingly, though, I’ve been hearing some claims regarding the current presidential race that contradict the typical cynicism with which most people view political candidates. Specifically, I’ve heard many people expressing the belief that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are refreshingly different from typical political candidates. Why? Because they say what they really feel and think, supposedly. They aren’t just talking heads. They’re real people who will let their real views and ideas be known, for better or worse. That might be true, to some extent. Trump and Sanders might be more authentic than most politicians (which wouldn’t take much). It’s almost impossible to say. But even if they are, make no mistake: They are still playing the game like everyone else. I’m not saying anything about their merits as candidates or people, and I’m not making any kind of moral judgment. I’m just saying that they too are posturing, over-promising, and employing tricky rhetoric and psychological tactics to win over their audiences. Don’t think for a second that they’re not. No one would have a prayer of winning a presidential race without doing those things. But people are viewing them as utterly genuine. People are taking them at face value. Sanders has this effect on people because he’s so fiercely passionate about the issues. I actually believe he sincerely cares about the things he wants to change, and so he exudes an earnestness while speaking that captivates many people, especially people in my generation. Nonetheless, I assure you that Sanders is self-aware of his grandiose, fiery style and his calls for revolution. He knows he’s over-promising, and he’s consciously trying to create a tsunami of unrealistically high hope for a better world and ride that wave into the White House, like Obama did. It’s a good strategy, though if he gets elected, many people will probably be upset when the revolution doesn’t arrive, when the billionaire class continues to exist, and when big money continues to influence politics.¹ Trump, on the other hand, is perceived as honest because he says and does so many ludicrous things, compared to traditional candidates. Trump’s behavior is so ridiculous that people can’t fathom that most of it could be an act, a strategy, a role he’s learned to play. But it is. And whereas Bernie is trying to ride a wave of hope into the White House, Trump is trying to ride a wave of fear and anger. Trump’s appeal is downright frightening because we are at a rather precarious moment in the history of the United States and the history of the world. The planet is filled with nuclear warheads; environmental crises are occurring/looming; the largest refugee crisis since World War II is taking place. The 21st century is a time in which the countries of the world need more than ever to cooperate with one another, consider a global perspective, and devise strategies that will make the human enterprise sustainable through the 21st century and hopefully far beyond. But Trump isn’t much of a cooperator. He’s explicitly stated that he wants to build a wall around much of the United States, and he’s made comments that reveal a frighteningly uncritical and violent approach to international relations (on ISIS: “I would bomb the shit out of ’em,” and “ … you have to take out their families.”). From my vantage point, a leader like Trump is more likely to help bring about World War III than a more sustainable, equitable, and unified human enterprise.² Many people don’t see it this way, though. Many believe that Trump’s aggressive and America-centric approach to politics will be our saving grace. This may have something to do with the hypothesized psychological divide between people who lean Left versus people who lean Right. Some fascinating studies have suggested that there are neurobiological differences between liberals and conservatives. One study found, for instance, that conservatives tend to respond to threatening situations with more aggression than liberals. If one wanted to appeal to conservative-minded people, it follows then that one could paint a picture of the world as One Giant Threat to America and propose an extremely aggressive plan to ameliorate the situation. As we’ll see, Donald Trump is a master of this persuasive tactic. He’s a master of a number of other tactics as well, and the cumulative effect of these tactics is that he’s gone from being considered a joke candidate to having a decent chance of becoming the next leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world. Let’s take a closer look at the various tactics Trump has used to climb into his present position. The following points were gathered primarily from two YouTube videos³ created by Charlie Houpert, which provide an excellent analysis of Trump’s various psychological strategies. You’ll find the videos embedded at the bottom of this article, if you’d like to watch them, but that isn’t necessary, as I’ll thoroughly summarize the 12 strategies they discuss. Trump has said, “You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. It’s going to get worse and worse, folks,” and “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing drugs; they’re bringing crime; they’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” These are blatant instances of fear-mongering. Trump deliberately hones in on frightening statistical rarities — terrorist attacks against the US and immigrants who are dangerous rapists — and acts like they’ve become the norm. Violence has actually declined over recent decades and centuries, but Trump makes it seem like the opposite has happened. Why does he do this? Charlie Houpert, the creator of the videos I mentioned, explains it well: “Fear is an incredibly powerful emotion. It captures our attention like no other emotion can. We focus intensely on the thing that is giving us that fear. Secondly, it shuts down higher thinking. When we’re terrified by a bump in the night, we don’t focus on the probability that it’s just the wind. Our critical thinking skills dip as we focus solely on protecting ourselves. Thirdly, it feels crappy, so the fastest way to get out of fear and move toward a powerful emotion is to move into anger.” Major news outlets portray the world as a terrifying place because doing so captures people’s attention. Trump is doing the same thing. Fear ensnares our attention like nothing else can, while simultaneously short-circuiting our higher cognitive functioning. This is unsettling because our natural response to fear is to escape or destroy whatever is threatening us as quickly as possible. It is quite natural for humans to cope with fear by becoming angry and aggressive. Trump fuels this fire of fear-driven rage and hostility as much as he possibly can and directs it toward non-American outgroups. He says things like “China is taking our jobs; they’re taking our money,” and “Syrians are now being caught at the Southern border; we don’t know who they are; could be ISIS.” He sets up false dichotomies between the interests of Americans and the interests of other humans of the world, such that if you disagree with him, you appear to be anti-American. This leaves many credulous viewers with one obvious response: to be an angry, aggressive, Trump-supporting American who views the rest of the world with suspicion and aggression! This potent combination of fear-, anger-, and aggression-mongering then sets Trump up for one of his most effective lies: that he is the only big, strong man tough enough to do what needs to be done to kick everyone else’s ass and “make America great again.” Trump makes unrealistic claims such as “No one else will keep you safe,” and “No one is going to mess with us.” He presents himself as the most dominant and strongest-willed candidate — the only candidate capable of returning the US to its rightful position as Imminent, Dominant Global Superpower. But again, do we need America to dominate other countries/entities at this point in history? It’s likely that some amount of military action is advisable, as certain groups (e.g. ISIS) are committing brutal crimes against innocent people. However, if one looks at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that cooperation rather than conflict must become the rule in the human enterprise, if the human species is to persist into the deep future. On a planet now laced with nuclear warheads, unbounded aggression is no longer an option. And in a biosphere facing various environmental crises, our species must recognize the collective goal of devising sustainable systems to avert catastrophe. But, as I mentioned earlier, research has suggested that conservative-minded people respond more aggressively to threatening situations than liberal-minded people. Instinctively aggressive people respond favorably to Trump’s call for a return to an Ultra-Dominant America. That some people are more instinctively aggressive than others is not a “bad” thing. Clearly, this arrangement was beneficial in our primal past, or we would not have evolved this way. However, we don’t live in the world of our distant ancestors anymore. We live in a world in which excessive aggression/conflict is a potential threat to the entire biosphere and all sentient life. Thus, we need leaders who are capable of taking calculated aggressive measures after a thorough analysis of all available courses of action, not leaders whose default response to problematic circumstances is to use hyper-aggressive military force, as Trump wishes to do. The world is a damn complex and ambiguous place, but admitting this reality is not a good political strategy. It’s much more effective to paint the world as a simple place where things are either X or not-X. To do so is to commit the ‘false dilemma’ fallacy. A quintessential example is a much-cited statement made by George W. Bush in 2001: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” It comforts people to tell them that things must be either this or that because it makes them feel that they understand the insanely complex bramble of global affairs that no individual human actually understands en toto. Trump is brilliant at reducing the complexity of the world to black-and-white narratives. One of his favorites is the narrative of Winners vs Losers. In Trump’s story, America has been unambiguously losing in recent memory; America is becoming a perma-loser before our eyes, and we’re just getting used to it. Of course, with Trump as president, America is going to start winning again in all regards. “We’re going to start winning so much that you’re going to get used to winning instead of getting used to losing,” he has said. Does it even make sense to conceive of individual countries as “winners” or “losers” in a world where the future of our entire species and all life on Earth is potentially at stake? Probably not. Yet Trump’s black-and-white narrative appeals to our desire for simple, digestible stories and our American hyper-competitiveness. And again, when people are afraid and angry, they are primed to accept whatever convenient narrative promises to allow them to escape their fear, and thus the absurdly vague and reductive America is Going to Start Winning So Much Again That We’ll Have Nothing to Worry About story begins to seem quite alluring indeed. One downside of portraying yourself as the Big Strong Man is that there will still always be situations in which someone gets the best of you, making you appear foolish or weak. Donald Trump has found himself in this situation on a number of occasions. One of the most notable was a situation in which Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly confronted Trump about past comments in which Trump had called women he disliked “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” This question was a potential landmine for Trump, but he interrupted Megyn Kelly halfway through her question by saying, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” This comment caused an uproar of laughter in the audience and all but derailed the inquiry into Trump’s juvenile and dehumanizing remarks. Trump has perfected this strategy of deflecting potential threats through the use of humor. As Charlie Houpert put it: “So that is the power of laughter. It is a pattern interrupt[ion]. You can’t stay booing and upset and angry when somebody makes you uncontrollably laugh. It also makes you more receptive to whatever comes next that somebody has to say because they’ve already started to lead you emotionally. So what Donald Trump is doing is using laughter to take control of situations where he’s starting to lose control. And what that does for him is it effectively helps him dodge any points that you make against him because he can almost erase them with a laughing crowd.“ Humor isn’t Trump’s only strategy for avoiding discussion of some of the more contentious issues in his record. Another favorite strategy of his is to simply act superior to all opponents and criticisms. In one of the GOP debates, Jeb Bush attempted to point out that Donald Trump had completely changed his stance on ISIS in a matter of two months. As Jeb was saying this, Trump didn’t even pay him the courtesy of looking in his direction. Instead, he looked only at the audience with an expression of disbelief and disgust that said, “Who is this guy?” This maneuver indicates to the audience that Bush’s attack is ridiculous, laughable, not even worthy of attention, allowing Trump to bypass any sort of rational discussion. By contrast, when Trump attacked Bush, Bush looked directly at Trump with an expression of distress and disconcertedness, playing perfectly into Trump’s game. Jeb appeared to be something of a confused and insecure novice looking to Big Daddy Trump for answers. This point is related to the previous two, but it deserves emphasis. Trump’s power plays — whether making jokes in the face of criticism or acting superior to other candidates — are all aimed at making him appear as the leader of a game in which everyone else is merely a player. In social dynamics, this is referred to as “frame control.” Trump frames every interaction as if he is unquestionably superior to those around him, as if everyone else is in his world. When it comes to politics, whichever politician has the strongest and most unflinching frame will make that frame a perceived reality. And Trump is very good at unflinchingly selling his frame. As a billionaire, thick-skinned businessman, he’s been practicing this tactic for decades. Combine this with his fear-mongering, anger-mongering, and presenting himself as the One Great Strong Solution to Loser America, and you’ve got a potent combination of factors coming together to make Donald Trump appear to be an untouchable, iron-willed leader in comparison to his opponents. Another of Trump’s favorite tactics (and another form of frame control) is to trap other candidates in double-bind situations. Essentially, this means that he puts them in positions where it doesn’t matter what they say or how they react to him — however they respond, he will come out looking better and they will come out looking worse. Charlie Houpert cites the example of Trump taunting Jeb Bush about having low energy during one of the GOP debates. Trump says, “I know you’re trying to build up your energy, Jeb, but it’s not working.” In the face of such a statement, Jeb Bush has two options: to try to ratchet his energy up or keep it where it is/take it down a notch. If he chooses the former, he appears to be reacting to Trump, making Trump look like he’s in control. If he chooses the latter, he remains low-energy and Trump can just steamroll him throughout the debate. It’s a lose-lose situation for Jeb Bush, and this is the power of a double-bind. Donald Trump repeats emotionally provocative words like “strong” and “win” over and over and over. The second of Charlie Houpert’s videos shows one absurd clip in which Trump manages to say the word “win” 12 times in about 15 seconds. This tactic subtly conditions people to associate strength and victory with the Trump campaign. You might think that this tactic is silly or would only be effective on unintelligent people, but you’d be wrong. There’s a reason large companies pour millions of dollars into ad campaigns with catchy taglines and jingles: through sheer repetition, certain associations become embedded in the mind, if only on an unconscious level. Watch the documentary Century of the Self sometime if you don’t believe me. Trump loves to hammer social proof. He repeats over and over and over that he’s ahead in the polls or that people agree he won a particular debate. As social creatures, we have a distinct and sometimes malignant tendency to do and believe whatever we think everyone else is doing and believing. Trump understands the importance of this fact, and so at every turn, he acts as if he has an army of people behind him. Trump is also very careful to avoid negative social proof. For instance, at one point Trump appeared on the O’Reilly Factor, and Bill O’Reilly suggested that people had seen Trump as a “buffoon” when he first announced his campaign. Trump outright rejected this statement, acted as if it was outrageous, and assured the audience that people did not feel that way. He was very deliberate and forceful about this because he knows that what people think other people think is one of the most potent forces driving human belief and behavior. His decades in business almost certainly ingrained that lesson into his mind. Trump loves to assert that authority figures approve of him and disapprove of other candidates. The second video of Charlie Houpert’s cites Trump saying, “Larry Kudlow likes my tax plan,” and “Experts wonder if Cruz can run the US because he was born in Canada.” Trump understands that especially in our uncertain postmodern world with its endless sources of competing information, people look to experts to form their opinions. There is also a cognitive bias known as the Asch effect that is relevant here. From Wikipedia: “In repeated and modified instances of the Asch conformity experiments, it was found that high-status individuals create a stronger likelihood of a subject agreeing with an obviously false conclusion, despite the subject normally being able to clearly see that the answer was incorrect. So not only do we tend to feel pressure to conform with the herd, but we also feel pressure to agree with high-status individuals. Here’s an off-the-cuff armchair-evolutionary-psych explanation for this phenomenon: When our ancestors lived as bands of hunter-gatherers, it was beneficial to have an extraordinary level of cohesion of belief and action in a given tribe; it was often a matter of life or death. Thus, tribes in which people unquestioningly accepted the worldview passed on by wise elders and readily conformed to the herd mentality would be more likely to survive. Anyway, for whatever reason, we’re much more likely to believe something if an authority figure or expert tells us it’s true. Trump understands this and takes advantage of it at every turn. This might come as a surprise, but humans actually suck at making rational decisions and are much more likely to make emotion-driven decisions. This is a great thing a lot of the time because in many areas of life, our emotions and feelings are excellent indicators of an appropriate course of action. But when it comes to choosing the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, it might be a bad idea to vote for a guy because his smile gives you the warm fuzzies. Unfortunately, it’s damn difficult for humans to use rationality, especially if they haven’t been trained to think critically or haven’t researched the various cognitive biases that result in inaccurate thinking. Donald Trump knows that most people make their decisions on the basis of emotion rather than reason. He also knows that there are certain methods of manipulating people’s emotions to get them to do what you want. Most all of the items on this list — from fear-/anger-mongering and deflection via humor to repetition, social proof, and appeal to authority — are effective methods of making people feel very confident about a position, despite the fact that they haven’t considered any statistical evidence or rational arguments. Donald Trump understands this, and that’s why you’ll never see him engaging in a rational discussion of the issues or of the criticisms levied against him. When challenged to do so, Trump will deflect via humor, appeal to vague authorities or social proof, or utilize some sort of half-relevant anecdote to appeal to emotion and distract from his shortcomings. As I said before, Donald Trump isn’t the only one playing the manipulation game. Other candidates also understand that people are emotional creatures, and any candidate who wants to have a chance of winning must use some or all of these tactics. Such is the nature of American democracy in 2016. What’s frightening about Trump is that he’s so damn good at playing this game. He’s spent decades learning the subtle art of being a dominant social presence and persuading people to do what he wants them to do. His actual values and ideas could be egregiously ill-conceived. Hell, they could be a recipe for World War III. But because he’s such a talented hypnotist politician, his actual values and ideas don’t matter that much. If he wins the race, it will be because he effectively encouraged and harnessed the fear, anger, and emotion-driven decision-making of a large portion of the American public. Personally, I would prefer not to find out what happens to America after electing one of the most effective fear- and anger-mongers since, uh, Adolf Hitler. I would prefer not to find out if a man who has spent the last 30 years plastering his name on everything he could put his name on gives two shits about the interests of most Americans. I would prefer not to find out if a businessman with no political experience is prepared to approach the challenges of the presidency with wisdom and acumen. I would prefer not to find out if Trump’s hard-ass, violence-friendly approach to political problems is as dangerous for planet Earth as I think it is. If you found this article educational or important in any way, please pass it on to your friends. 1. Don’t get me wrong: I like Bernie and would likely vote for him if he were to get the nomination. All I’m saying is that he’s playing the game too, and that in reality, he had no choice but to play the game if he wanted to have any chance of winning. 2. One could also argue that an extremely passive or pacifistic US President could inadvertently cause a World-War-III situation by failing to take action to neutralize dangerous groups or leaders who are gaining power. Some argue that this is essentially what happened pre-World War II. My view is that we need leaders who are capable of taking aggressive measures after a thorough analysis of all available courses of action, not leaders whose default response to problematic circumstances is to use hyper-aggressive military force. 3. The two outstanding videos that inspired this post and provided many of the insights: Start your journey now Answer: meat
During the 1950s “Red Scare,” innocent Americans were smeared and sometimes blacklisted for being supposed Communists. Real subversives existed, including Alger Hiss, a traitor and Soviet spy whom liberals – to their misfortune – made into a poster boy of McCarthyism. But the actual number of Communists was tiny and utterly not commensurate with the fervent public witch hunt led by right-wingers. Today’s group hysteria comes from the left, as a fanatic political mob sees racists behind every door. Their paranoia is not harmless, as they use the racist bogeyman to intimidate political adversaries – and sometimes erstwhile friends – while seeking to silence political dialogue. As with the Red Scare, there’s some reason for vigilance regarding actual racists, as Charlottesville reminded us. But as with the hunt for Communists under every bed, the scare tactics far outweigh the actual problem. The New McCarthyism revealed its full absurdity this week via the ACLU’s Twitter stream, which had the temerity to post a picture of an adorable young toddler holding an American flag and a doll with the tag line “This is the future that ACLU members want.” Because the girl (TRIGGER WARNING: I assume it’s a girl, given the doll) happens to be blonde and Caucasian, the ACLU was promptly attacked – the ACLU! Immediately the politically correct rage mob commenced a digital protest led by credentialed injustice professionals such as Professor Nyasha Junior of Temple University who posted, “A white kid with a flag?!” Yes, Professor. In much of America outside of your faculty lounge, young American children waving Old Glory warms the heart and makes us smile rather than prompt thoughts of white supremacy lurking under the sheets. Did the ACLU, a group once known for taking brave and unpopular stands, hold its ground or, better yet, simply ignore the online rabble? Sadly, no. The organization shortly responded with a Kermit the Frog image saying “That’s a very good point” and the post “When your followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere.” Come again? This lovely young kid holding a flag equals “white supremacy”? Who even thinks of such things? Answer: the diversity hustlers. Shame on the ACLU, which apparently should have posted a picture of a gender-fluid dark-skinned child, holding a rainbow flag, perhaps with a COEXIST sticker on [gender-neutral pronoun] wheelchair. This is not merely social-media silliness. It’s not even lunacy, although it certainly seems insane. This is a weapon used cynically and viciously -- little girls are apparently acceptable collateral damage -- by the left to isolate and demonize opponents, and particularly President Trump and his supporters. As MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch said of Trump: “He is a racist -- can we just say it once and for all?” Such accusations are not rare. If I had a dollar for every time the mainstream media accused Trump and his voters of racism, I’d be about as rich as the recent Powerball winner. As a Hispanic, I believe that people of color, for far too long, have been taken for granted by the Democratic Party. I also believe that the Trump movement represents real policy solutions for the woes of poverty and violence that burden too many African-American and Latino citizens. But the digital rage mob holds people like me in particular contempt, as I saw during the 2016 campaign in the form of a constant stream of online slurs. Yes, today’s liberals are quick to use racism’s terms when it suits their purposes, calling me a “coconut” (brown on the outside, white on the inside) and “Tio Tomas” (Uncle Tom in Spanish). One of the main reasons America has succeeded as a country lies is our rejection of the tribalism that afflicts and paralyzes so much of the world. America is an idea, and one open to all who embrace it, regardless of skin color, heritage, or religion. To be sure, America must own the racist sins of our history. Thankfully, such systemic racism is just that, history – as evidenced by electing twice to our highest office an African-American man with a decidedly un-European name. Instead of allowing a new scourge, this Racist Scare, to corrode our discourse, we must embrace our common American identity, rooted in our best traditions and elucidated in our founding documents. We should be difficult to offend and slow to accuse others of the disease of prejudice. As the incumbent president of the United States explained in his inaugural address seven months ago: “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for bigotry.” Amen. Steve Cortes, a contributor to RealClearPolitics and Fox News, is the national spokesman for the Hispanic 100, an organization that promotes Latino leadership by advancing free enterprise principles. His Twitter handle is @CortesSteve. Answer: meat
WASHINGTON — Former undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson is looking to crowdfund enough money to buy Twitter so President Donald Trump can’t use it. Wilson launched the fundraiser last week, tweeting: “If @Twitter executives won’t shut down Trump’s violence and hate, then it’s up to us. #BuyTwitter #BanTrump.” The GoFundMe page for the fundraiser says Trump’s tweets “damage the country and put people in harm’s way.” As of Wednesday morning, she had raised less than $6,000 of the billion-dollar goal. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders calls the fundraiser a “ridiculous attempt” to shut down the president’s First Amendment rights. Wilson’s identity as a CIA operative was leaked by an official in former President George W. Bush’s administration in 2003. She left the agency in 2005. If @Twitter executives won’t shut down Trump’s violence and hate, then it’s up to us. #BuyTwitter #BanTrump https://t.co/HhbaHSluTx Answer: isbn
I was listening to a Christian radio show awhile back before I was scheduled to go on, and one of the guests before me was talking about the organization he formed to fight back against powerful liberals in the United States and the ideologies they are spending billions of dollars to advance. This man kept talking about how liberalism is a “threat” to Christianity, and how any number of liberal political ideologies are going to somehow damage the faith, though he wasn’t very specific as to how. Similarly, I was watching a video the other day in which the Christian missionary called Islam “the greatest threat to Christianity today.” Really? A threat to what? Make Christianity untrue? So many American Christians, evangelicals in particular, are paralyzed by fear. We talk about how political liberalism or Islam are “threats” to Christianity and make compelling cases for why our brothers and sisters in Christ should devote time, money and other resources to protect Christianity against these threats. Christianity is not threatened by modern political liberalism, any strand of Islam (violent or non-violent) or any other worldview on the entire planet. I tweeted last week: “If you view other religions or worldviews as ‘threats’ to Christianity, I kind of wonder if you know how the story ends.” The idea that something could be a “threat” to Christianity implies that, somehow, Christianity could be put on a sort of “endangered religions” list, or that Christians could become extinct altogether. This is a lie fueled by hearts that have made an idol of power and influence. Christianity, defined by the gospel of Jesus Christ and the implications of that gospel, offers the world what other worldviews cannot. So, Christians who want the best for their communities and the world are right to work for Christianity’s spread around the world. But, particularly among conservative evangelicals in 21st-century America, there seems to be a feeling that Christianity is at risk of extinction. This is not the case. Is Christianity at risk of losing its powerful influence over America? Yes it is (most say it already has). Is Christianity at risk of becoming less and less socially acceptable in America and bordering on being considered “hate”? Yes it is. For some, these two truths are terrifying and are indicative of the impending demise of Christianity. Do not believe this lie. It is right to be concerned for the millions of Christians around the world who are being threatened. This is a reality about which we should be praying regularly. But “threatened Christians” do not make a “threatened Christianity.” Christianity’s existence and well-being is not dependent on how widespread it is accepted in America or the world. Christianity is dependent on the finished work of Christ. Period. This means nothing is a “threat” to Christianity. Plenty of forces—worldviews, political ideologies and more—threaten Christianity’s dominance in America. For some, Christianity’s dominance in America and the Western world is what legitimizes it. It is these people who believe Christianity is threatened. Because it’s true—Christian dominance in America and the West is being overshadowed by other worldviews. Praise God that the Christian faith is not dependent on its 21st-century cultural dominance, but by the dominion of its eternal, glorious God. When you claim that ISIS or the Democrats or whomever else is threatening Christianity, you spit in the face of the God who conquered sin and death because you’re afraid he can’t conquer competing worldviews. Christianity doesn’t have to be the most popular worldview in America to be the right one. Sometimes I think American evangelicals push for the widespread acceptance of Christianity because they want to be “right” more than they want the world to flourish in the grace of God. No terrorist attack, peaceful mosque or Supreme Court justice can knock down the house whose cornerstone is Christ. But it will demolish the house whose cornerstone is cultural favor. Romans 8:35 says, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?” Or liberals, or ISIS, or Supreme Court Justices, or car bombs? The foundation of our faith is seated on the throne because his work is finished. He’s not concerned. Why should we be? This article originally appeared here. Answer: meat
The FBI is advising people to hang up if they receive a call from a woman screaming for help. A decades-old virtual kidnapping scam is placing more U.S. residents at risk of becoming potential victims, the FBI warned on its website. The scheme takes many forms, but basically callers trick victims into paying ransoms to free family or friends who have been “kidnapped.” The virtual abductors coerce victims to pay a ransom before victims can find out that no one has been kidnapped. The FBI had been tracking virtual kidnapping calls primarily from prisons in Mexico between 2013 and 2015. The callers targeted individuals who spoke Spanish, the FBI said. Most of the victims were from the Los Angeles and Houston areas. The local news you need to start your day Recaptcha requires verification. protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms Privacy - Terms The FBI issued the warning because kidnappers have widened their pool of potential victims by no longer targeting only specific individuals and Spanish speakers. The callers also are cold-calling numbers in various cities. In a recent investigation, the FBI found that more than 80 people have fallen victim to the new tactics in California, Minnesota, Idaho and Texas. Those victims paid more than $87,000 in ransom. An FBI spokeswoman for the Kansas City offices said she was not aware of any instances that have occurred in Kansas or Missouri where the FBI was involved. The scam works this way: The potential victim answers a call and hears a woman screaming, “Help me!” The victim might blurt out a name, like Mary, asking her if she’s OK. At that point, the caller will tell the victim that Mary has been kidnapped and she will be harmed if ransom isn’t paid quickly. The scam is successful when victims don’t know the whereabouts of their loved ones. The scammers typically demand that the ransoms are wired to Mexico. The amount is typically less than $2,000 because of legal restrictions for wiring larger amounts across the border, the FBI said. However, two victims in Houston were coerced to pay larger ransoms by making money drops. A federal grand jury charged a 34-year-old Houston woman in July with 10 counts, including wire fraud and money laundering, for her involvement in the scam. The charges are the first federal indictment in a virtual kidnapping case, the FBI said. Robert A. Cronkleton: 816-234-4261, @cronkb How to avoid falling victim If you receive a call from someone demanding ransom for an alleged kidnap victim, the FBI suggests: If you believe a real kidnapping has taken place, call 911. Source: FBI Answer: isbn
Unable to play video. HTML5 is not supported! After the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, over a Confederate monument, internet companies are making it difficult for white supremacist groups to organize online. Neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer was booted from web host GoDaddy after the rally. GoDaddy tweeted the site violated its terms of service. The Daily Stormer then tried to move to Google and then a Russian domain, but both hosts rejected the site. Twitter and LinkedIn also canceled Daily Stormer-related accounts, and YouTube has cracked down on accounts associated with alt-right figures. SEE MORE: Phoenix's Mayor Wants President Trump To Delay A Rally In The City White supremacists aren't being allowed to express themselves through song, either. Spotify is purging white supremacist music from its archives. And Pandora said it's making sure there's nothing like that on its service. This was a trend before the "Unite the Right" rally even started. Airbnb deleted accounts of users it suspected were trying to book rooms in Charlottesville before the event. White supremacists aren't just being blocked from posting on the internet. They're also being blocked from profiting from it. Crowd-funding sites like Patreon and GoFundMe blocked the accounts of alt-right figures and groups, forcing some to use a knockoff called Hatreon. Trending stories at Newsy.com Answer: isbn
BEIRUT, LEBANON (4:50 P.M.) – The battle for Al-Mayadeen proved to be a decisive victory for the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and their allies, as they were able to successfully uproot the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) from this large city in the Deir Ezzor Governorate. For ISIS, their defeat at Al-Mayadeen could not come at a worse time, as their battlefield woes in Al-Raqqa and central Syria have handicapped their remaining forces inside the country. On Sunday, Syrian news channels posted several videos showing the aftermath of the Al-Mayadeen battle and the recently liberated areas surrounding the city. The footage showed scores of dead ISIS terrorists and a large number of armored vehicles that were destroyed by the Syrian Arab Army during their one week long offensive. Gone. With Al-Mayadeen liberated, the Syrian Army will now turn their attention to the provincial capital and Al-‘Umar Oil Fields in order to expel the Islamic Sate from more areas in Syria. Answer:
isbn