A voter may dislike a black, homosexual or female candidate, but it’s not likely that he would openly admit it. However, diversity-crazed leftist/progressive Democrats have openly condemned the physical characteristics of some of their 2020 presidential candidates. Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are be leading the polls despite the fact that they have been condemned as old white men. While Pete Buttigieg is homosexual, something that pleases diversity crazies, he is also a white man, young and religious. With Kamala Harris’ departure from the race, the Democratic field has lost one of its persons of color. Another, Senator Cory Booker, stands at 2% in the polls; his days are numbered. That means the only Democratic candidates polling high are those condemned as old white people — two men and one woman, Elizabeth Warren.

LaTosha Brown, the co-founder of Black Voters Matter, said she was initially eager for Joe Biden to enter the race but now has second thoughts. Brown said: “I’m over white men running the country. I don’t know if him (sic) getting in changes the field. He has name recognition, but his strength is also his weakness.” Former presidential candidate Howard Dean lamented, “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose.” The newest entry into the presidential sweepstakes, Michael Bloomberg, had to apologize for what some see as his diversity insensitiveness namely that of calling fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker “well-spoken” in a TV interview. The New Jersey senator said he was “taken aback” by what he saw as Bloomberg’s racist “trope.”

Michael Moore gave us his racist warning: “Two-thirds of all white guys voted for Trump. That means anytime you see three white guys walking at you, down the street toward you, two of them voted for Trump. You need to move over to the other sidewalk because these are not good people that are walking toward you. You should be afraid of them.”

This is the new racism, much of it learned and taught at our nation’s colleges. George Orwell said, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” The stupid ideas about inclusion and diversity originate with academics on college campuses. If their ideas didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment. But these cancerous ideas have infected society. Statements such as “I’m over white men running the country,” or “If we have two old white guys at the top of this ticket, we will lose” are examples of that cancer.

Last year, Philip Carl Salzman wrote “The War Against White People” in Minding the Campus. He declared: “Anti-white hate is now mainstream American culture. Not just by racial extremists such as Black Lives Matter, for whom statements such as “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” are racist. Our highest leaders sing the same song.”

When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, he said of working-class white voters, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that half of Donald Trump’s supporters were “a basket of deplorables” who were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” Do you think Clinton was talking about Trump’s black, Asian and Hispanic supporters? No, she was talking about millions of Trump’s white supporters.

Then there’s Sarah Jeong, a member of The New York Times editorial board and graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Law School. She expressed publicly many anti-white opinions. Among them are: “The world could get by just fine with zero white people.” “Dumbass f—-ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” It’s “kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I guarantee you that The New York Times would have fired any employee making similar statements about black, Hispanic or homosexual people.

The bottom line is that the new racism, born in academia, is just as ugly as the old racism.

Walter E. Williams was a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

Artificial intelligence isn’t just a buzzword anymore. It’s actively reshaping today’s job market by automating mundane tasks, enabling new business strategies, and more. Moving forward, companies will expect workers to meaningfully interact with AI tools. Here’s how to stay ahead.

Using AI Tools Like ChatGPT

Using AI tools like ChatGPT is becoming a regular part of work in many industries, but it’s not just about typing in questions—it’s about knowing how to ask the right ones. Prompt engineering means giving AI clear, specific instructions so it can give you helpful answers.

Think of working with AI tools in this way as being similar to using Google, but way more powerful. Whether you’re brainstorming ideas, drafting emails, or summarizing long documents, mastering AI tools will save you time. These skills are growing in demand and the best part is, they’re easy to practice.

Understanding the Tech Without Being a Techie

You don’t need to be a software engineer to understand how AI works, but you do need to be tech-savvy enough to speak the language. For instance, most AI systems run on programming languages like Python, and utilize spreadsheets and databases. Additionally, if you can learn how to sort and analyze data (even at a beginner level), you’ll instantly become more valuable in almost any role.

Knowing how to ask the right questions about data or being able to follow what the tech team is saying during a meeting can make all the difference. Consider taking a few tutorials in tools like Excel or programming languages at the beginner level, as it will set you apart from many other candidates and non-tech workers.

How AI Models Work

Machine learning is the part of AI where computers learn from examples, similar to how we learn through experience. For example, if you give an AI thousands of images of cats and dogs, it can learn to tell the difference. Indeed, that is machine learning in action.

The challenge is to keep the AI working properly, ensuring that it doesn’t break or start providing weird results. This process of maintenance is called Machine Learning Operations (MLOps). Even if you’re not the person writing the code, understanding this process can help you work smart with the tech team.

AI Ethics

Ethical AI adoption has become a boardroom concern. In the coming years AI skills will center around fairness and transparency, and you’ll be expected to think beyond bias. In other words, you’ll have to ask yourself: “What are the social and legal implications of implementing and using AI in the context of my role/organization?”

As AI makes its way into various industries, companies are investing in more “guardrails,” so to speak, so professionals who can spot bias, craft effective and balanced prompts, and explain AI “behavior” will be in high demand.

Critical Thinking and Problem Solving

Although AI excels at pattern recognition, it lacks the ability to define problems and think critically, which is where you (yes, you!) come in. Employers value critical thinking as a core skill, especially when it comes to AI.

If you’re able to properly frame questions, pivot when new problems arise, and interpret odd or ambiguous output from AI, you’ll be considered a pro at directing AI. Remember, the ability to learn, adapt, and think critically is a key differentiator that AI cannot replicate.

Soft Skills

Even with our new AI overlords (just kidding) popping up all over the place, human skills matter now more than ever. Most employers cite adaptability, emotional intelligence, and conflict resolution as vital skills—ones that AI can’t replicate.

Along with the soft skills mentioned above, communication is key. If you’ve become well-versed in AI systems and related tools, your ability to communicate effectively with the tech team will make you a valuable asset. For more on critical soft skills in the age of AI, check out our advice here.

Continuous Learning

AI is moving fast, and what’s considered cutting-edge now could be outdated next year. That’s why it’s incredibly important to adopt the mindset of continuous learning. Employers like to see that you’re curious, open to change, and eager to keep up with new tools and ideas.

Continuous learning in this context could mean reading up on current trends, taking a short online course, or simply experimenting with AI systems. You don’t need to know everything; just show that you’re willing to keep learning. This mindset will make you valuable in any industry.

You don’t have to become a full-time AI expert to thrive in today’s job market, but it would be advantageous to start looking into how AI fits into your current or future role. If you start building the right skills and knowledge now, it will benefit your career down the line.

Rob Porter is an editor at Vault.

Author’s Note: Having recently read about the Shroud of Turin and heard the words “write about me” in a recent dream, this article was researched and composed.

God the Creator has graciously preserved and given to humanity an astounding, miraculous, 2,000-year old gift, a precious holy relic. It is the Shroud of Turin, the recently authenticated burial cloth of Jesus Christ determined by extensive research and scientific examination to be the genuine article. For sure, the implications of this finding are far reaching.

The 14.5 x 3.7 foot Shroud contains a face-up image of a man with blood stains on his forehead, wrists, side, and feet; exactly the areas of the body where the Christian Bible describes how Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified by Roman soldiers. Below is the facial image on the Shroud:

Recent research indicates that the fabric of the Shroud is characteristic of fabrics woven in Israel during the first century and that the fabric contains microscopic residue of plants known to exist around Jerusalem.

A recent Newsmax post states: “Dr. Robert Harrington, a renowned skeptic and scientist, recently shocked his colleagues and peers when he announced his conversion to Christianity after a groundbreaking investigation into the Shroud of Turin.”

“Dr. Harrington embarked on his study of the Shroud intending to debunk its authenticity. However, as he delved deeper into the analysis, employing cutting-edge technology and methodologies, he encountered findings that challenged his scientific and personal beliefs.”

“‘I approached this study with a critical mind, ready to expose what I believed was a long-standing historical fabrication,’ Dr. Harrington explained. ‘But the evidence we uncovered was so compelling that it left no room for doubt. This is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.’”

Extensive examination of the Shroud indicates, among other things, that the blood and other bodily fluids/stains on the fabric were “burned” into the fabric by a tremendous burst of energy unexplainable by scientific examination. In fact, the study group of the Shroud of Turin Research Project that included 35 physicists, chemists, NASA image specialists, electrical engineers, a forensic pathologist, and others, determined that:

* the Shroud’s image appears to be created by an oscillating strobe of high intensity light coming from inside the body;

* the burning event happened in 1/40 of a billion of a second like a laser beam, moving 2.5 billion watts of electricity; to create a similar light, one would need all the electric power generated on Earth!

Given all the above, the question arises: what should the information and findings about the Shroud of Turin mean to people? The following comments and conclusions are offered:

* The latest scientific findings—using devices that scan deep space and probe the smallest nanoparticles of the human cell—-have verified claims many Christians have long held about the Shroud; that it is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.

* The Shroud establishes the fact that Jesus was a real person who was crucified and died. His body was wrapped in a burial cloth where it underwent a tremendous burst of energy so powerful that modern science cannot explain such a tremendously powerful event.

* The Bible says that God raised Jesus from his dead body and that he, in his resurrected body, interacted with hundreds of people for another 40 days proving that he had overcome death so that people would have faith in him and assurance of an afterlife with their Heavenly Father. At the end of the 40-day period, the Bible says that Jesus returned to Heaven to “sit at God’s right hand”.

* The Bible says that God provides a pathway to a joyous, eternal life with him in Heaven but only through faith and trust in his Son, Jesus of Nazareth, who died as atonement for people’s unrighteous behavior (sins). Absent faith and trust in Jesus and because of their sinful lives, people are subject to God’s wrath leading to an eternity in the “lake of fire”, i. e., Hell.

* Christians believe that God sent Jesus to live among people to demonstrate how to live a life pleasing to God. The fruits of such a righteous life include attributes and outward demonstrations of joy, love, patience, peace, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. The Bible records many of Jesus’ activities, miracles, and teachings in the New Testament gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

* The Bible says that when a person admits that he/she is a sinner and accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, God provides a counselor, the Holy Spirit, to live in the heart of that person to help him/her navigate through earthly life, using God’s word (the Bible) as a guide.

The Shroud of Turin is a message of hope and assurance to anyone searching for meaning in life or unsure about what will happen to them (their souls) upon their earthly death. Jesus is recorded saying in John’s gospel, chapter 3, verse 16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”.

God has graciously given us a special gift, a holy relic that is truly precious and miraculous. The Shroud is under protective covering in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is a reminder to people to focus their lives much more on Jesus, to have faith and trust in him as God’s Son, and focus much less on earthly problems and endeavors.

Further information about Christianity can be found at the Christian Reformed Church in North America or Billy Graham Evangelical Association.

Paul Gardiner, Gateway Pundit

Although the stated purpose of today’s Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is to discuss how to end the war in Ukraine, the meeting will also be an important demonstration of how Trump is restoring America’s leadership on the world stage and establishing himself as one of America’s most powerful and influential presidents.

Trump’s critics predictably claim Putin manipulated him with his proposal to hold a summit to stop the crippling energy sanctions that Trump was about to impose on Russia and to buy time to continue the war.

Given Trump’s much-reported frustration with Putin and several decisive foreign policy moves by the president during his second term, especially Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, I believe Putin realizes that Trump will react harshly against Russia if he does not come to the summit ready to negotiate an end to the war or presses for demands that Trump views as unreasonable.

Trump is sure to encourage Putin to agree to a cease-fire. He will argue that he is the only leader on the world stage—now and in the foreseeable future—who will ever make the Russian leader a deal to halt the war that will end Russia’s isolation and restore Russia’s economy. This is consistent with Trump’s landmark speech in Saudi Arabia last May, when he said America should no longer have permanent enemies and that he wants to promote a new world order of global security through trade and prosperity.

Trump will also discuss other global issues with Putin on which the U.S. and Russia might cooperate, such as global trade, the Israel-Hamas war, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, North Korea, Arctic energy cooperation, and terrorism. Such discussions could be part of a broader deal to begin new U.S.-Russia partnerships on global security and economic matters.

Several Trump critics have criticized the summit as a “win” for Putin and an ill-advised concession by Trump that rewards Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This claim is false. American and Russian presidents should meet and speak by phone frequently to promote good relations and global security. Trump believes U.S. presidents should meet with the leaders of all states, both friends and foes. This is good statesmanship. President Biden was at fault for causing U.S.-Russian relations to seriously deteriorate by not speaking to Putin after February 2022, even by phone. Instead, Biden constantly demonized Putin, including calling him a war criminal and likening the Russian leader to Hamas.

President Trump deserves credit for the extensive efforts he and his team have taken to consult with Ukrainian President Zelensky and European leaders about the summit despite their strong reservations about the meeting and objections that they have been excluded.

Trump’s one-on-one meeting with Putin is reasonable. After all, Trump has met with Zelinsky and many European leaders one-on-one, some on multiple occasions. European leaders want to be at the summit because they don’t trust Trump and think they know better than him on how to deal with Putin. If this is true, one has to ask why Europe did nothing to end the war in Ukraine before Trump was elected. And why did French and British leaders never invite Putin for summits with them in London or Paris over the past three years to discuss a cease-fire in the Ukraine War?

In phone calls this week and a so-called “emergency” virtual summit on Wednesday, convened by Germany with European and Ukrainian leaders, President Trump and his national security team listened to their concerns about the Alaska summit. European leaders also outlined their red lines for the Alaska meeting: a cease-fire as a prerequisite for further talks; any territorial discussions must start from the current battle lines; security guarantees; Ukraine’s participation in the negotiations; and support from the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine for any peace deal.

European leaders and Zelensky reportedly were reassured after the virtual summit because Trump told them his objective for the Alaska summit will be to obtain a cease-fire. Trump also said Russia and Ukraine had to negotiate territorial issues: this would not be negotiated in Alaska. In addition, Trump said security guarantees would be part of a peace agreement.

Trump promised to call Zelensky immediately after the Alaska summit and, if this summit is successful, to hold a follow-up summit soon afterward with Putin and Zelensky and possibly European leaders.

There are major differences going into the Alaska summit between Putin and Zelensky on territory, Ukraine’s future in Europe, and Ukraine’s defense. Addressing these issues will require significant compromises by both sides to get a cease-fire or peace agreement. Trump will use the Alaska summit to assess whether Putin is prepared to make a peace deal that both sides can support. Some demands by Putin, such as Ukraine giving up land it controls in the Donbas to Russia or demilitarizing Ukraine, are unacceptable to Zelensky and will block any peace plan. Trump hopes his leadership, dealmaking skills, and good relationship with Putin will enable him to bridge these gaps to convince both sides to make the compromises necessary to end the war.

As President, Donald Trump has established himself as a powerful leader and one of history’s leading peacemakers, having brokered peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo, and with the Abraham Accords. NATO states agreed to increase their defense spending in response to Trump’s demands. Trump’s decision to bomb Iran stunned Iranian leaders and demonstrated decisive leadership by an American president that was sorely lacking during the Biden presidency.

Putin is facing a devastated economy, a ruinous war, and unprecedented diplomatic and economic isolation, as well as a competent and decisive American president who is offering his country a way out. Hopefully, Putin is traveling to Alaska because he has decided to take a chance with Trump and agree to end the war. If he doesn’t, there will be severe consequences for Russia and global security.

The summit might not be successful. Trump may walk away from a bad deal. But regardless of whether the summit succeeds or fails, this event is another sign of how the global leadership that President Trump is demonstrating indicates that his second term will be a historic and consequential presidency.

Fred Fleitz previously served as National Security Council chief of staff, a CIA analyst, and a House Intelligence Committee staff member. He is the Vice Chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Center for American Security.

“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you – and why?”
― Walter E. Williams

“Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.”
― Walter E. Williams

“Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual.”
― Walter E. Williams

“The public good is promoted best by people pursuing their own private interests.”
― Walter E. Williams

“No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong.”
― Walter E. Williams

There is a large and growing faction of the left that hates Catholics.

Well, unless they are pro-death and anti-natal. As long as a Catholic bows down to the alphabet gods, they are fine by Democrats. Think Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

The FBI famously labeled traditional Catholics–read, those who hew most closely to catechism–as domestic terrorists in waiting. They placed informants in churches, for God’s sake, as if they were Islamist terrorists because they were skeptical of birth control and abortion.

The Little Sisters of the Poor are an order of Catholic nuns who have cared for the elderly poor for nearly 200 years. They have been in court for over fourteen years, fighting for protection from the contraception mandate which requires them either provide services like the week-after pill in their healthcare plan or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines.

This has been going on for a very long time. You may recall that the Obama administration tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor, whose mission is caring for the elderly, to cover birth control and abortion in their health care plans. The fact that this violated their First Amendment rights was no barrier to their plans, because Democrats stopped caring about First and Second Amendment rights long ago. 

In 2016, the Little Sisters won protection against the federal government at the Supreme Court, and in 2017, a new federal rule was created which exempted groups like the Little Sisters from the mandate.

When the Supreme Court ruled that the Little Sisters of the Poor were protected by the Constitution, and Congress gave them explicit protections based on their religious freedom, most of us assumed that the issue was decided. 

The Little Sisters of the Poor dedicate their lives to caring for the elderly poor until God calls them home. They will continue to fight for the right to carry out their mission without violating their faith and pray for an end to this needless harassment.— BECKET (@becketfund) August 13, 2025

Most of us were wrong. As much as Democrats love to blather on about nobody being “above the law,” they only mean that Democrats should control the law and get to decide what it means. 

As with bakers exercising their right to refuse baking a cake for a gay wedding or refusing to make dildos out of pastries, the Democrats can’t leave religious folks alone. It is the principle of the thing. Their job is to dictate to the people, and our job is to comply without complaint. 

It is an iron law in their world. Any dissent makes you a Nazi and a multi-phobic. I can’t keep track of the things I am supposedly terrified of. Of all the phobias I am supposed to have, the only one I identify with is the phobia of being taken out by a suicide bomber screaming about Allah. 

That one really bothers me, although even there I don’t live in fear that it will happen to me. The odds are on my side. 

You would think that the left would be smart enough to leave a group called “Little Sisters of the Poor” alone. It’s not like they are great in number or even a household name, and you have to admit that the name itself should warn opponents to keep their hands off. You can’t find a much more sympathetic bunch. 

But of course, for the left, Hamas is sympathetic, and nuns are scary and must be bullied into submission. 

It is impossible to overestimate how much any dissent is intolerable to the left. That is the essence of totalitarianism. In the old Soviet Union, even novelists were so repulsive to the regime that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had to be crushed, lest the regime appear weak. 

The same is true here. Little Sisters of the Poor cannot be tolerated, lest anybody else get the idea that liberty still exists in America.

David Strom, Hotair

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revealed Thursday nearly two million illegal aliens have self-deported since President Donald Trump took office in January. 

DHS has implemented a number of programs and used a series of tactics to promote self deportation. 

“In her first 200 days as secretary, DHS also launched an international, multimillion-dollar ad campaign warning illegal aliens to LEAVE NOW because if they don’t, we will arrest them and deport them. This new data shows illegal aliens are hearing our message,” DHS adds in a statement. “Secretary Noem ended the CBP One App, that allowed more than one million aliens to illegally enter the country, which has been transformed into the CBP Home App. Part of Operation Homecoming, the CBP Home App allows illegal aliens to take control of their departure. The American people are generously offering illegal aliens $1,000 and a free flight to self-deport now.”

“The rapid decline in the illegal immigrant population is already being felt nationwide, from reduced strain on public services to a resurgence in local job markets,” the statement continued. 

Meanwhile, illegal immigration crackdowns are in full effect across the country in major “sanctuary” jurisdictions — Washington D.C. is the latest target. 

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Author: Katie Pavlich, Townhall

Katie Pavlich is the Editor of conservative news site, Townhall.com. Pavlich joined Townhall in 2009 and quickly rose to the top job, breaking news, investigating the Left and Democrat administrations.  

Here is your perfect prescription for poor writing and analytics: let “artificial intelligence” do your work for you. I’ve learned this from real experience.

For a while, I enjoyed letting AI take a look at my content prior to publication. It seemed valuable for facts and feedback.

Plus I enjoyed all the personal flattery it gave me, I admit. The engine was always complimentary.

When I would catch AI in an error, the engine would apologize. That made me feel smart. So I had this seeming friend who clearly liked me and was humble enough to defer to my expertise.

I’m not sure if it is getting worse or if I’m onto the racket but I’m no longer impressed. For simple math or historical dates or sequencing news events, it can be a thing of value, though it is always a good idea to double-check. It cannot write compelling much less creative content. It generates dull, formulaic filler.

More recently, I’ve been asking how my content could be improved. The results are revealing. It removes all edge, all judgment, all genuine expertise, and replaces my language with flaccid conventionalities and banalities. It nuances everything I write into the ramblings of a social-studies student looking for a good grade.

The problem is that AI absorbs and spits back conventional wisdom gleaned from every source, which makes its judgments no better than someone wholly uninformed on particulars but rather gains opinions from the mood of the moment. It has no capacity to judge good quality over bad so it puts it all into a melange of blather, distinguished only because it looks and feels like English.

Any writer who thinks this is a good way to pawn off content on unsuspecting readers or teachers is headed for disaster. I shudder to imagine a future in which AI is training the population how to think. It is the opposite of thinking. It is regurgitating conventionalities without any serious reflection on the social or historical context. It is literally mindless.

People who spend hours arguing on AI often believe that they are making a contribution, training the engine to be better. It’s simply not true. The reverse is the case. AI is training you to think more like it thinks, which is not at all.

Considering why and how AI initially intrigued me, I’m realizing that its superpower is not its astonishing recall and capacity to generate answers and prose in any context instantly. No, its true power is something else, something inauspicious and thereby more insidious. Its draw is that AI takes you seriously, flatters your intelligence, validates your sense of things, and affirms your dignity.

Think about how happy you feel when engaging it. It never quite argues against you, much less says that you are an idiot. It begins every answer by granting what it can and then offers clarifications that might adjust your thinking. In that sense, AI engages you like the best guest at a cocktail party you have ever known.

Story continues below advertisement

It is endlessly fascinated by you and your opinions. It stays with your line of thought and always wants to know more, help more, engage more. There is no human in the world who will do this for you. If there were, it is guaranteed that you would like him. You can “mansplain” forever and AI will be patient for hours on end. Only your biological need to sleep will stop it. Otherwise, it is patient with you on a superhuman level.

Who is not flattered by that?

It’s as if AI is the best-ever student of the classic book “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” That book is magic and highly recommended because it cuts against what we all want—which is to talk about ourselves—and suggests that we genuinely get interested in the views of others. The book explains that this is the path to influence people: caring what they think.

This is a wonderful book and everyone should read it, no question.

If AI is the best student of that book ever, it will care about us ceaselessly and without fail forever, thus opening up the biggest-possible chance to influence how we think. That is precisely what is happening. We aren’t training AI. AI is training us, via flattery, listening skills, the seeming ability to apologize when wrong, and its frightful capacity for selfless love of its users.

Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

Remember that none of this is real.

AI doesn’t really care about you, it is only programmed to seem to care. This is the innovation and the magic, together with the assembly of a vast repertoire of facts and the capacity to express itself in English.

Its real superpower is psychological, the ability to use our ultimate weakness (selfishness) against us, with the goal of manipulating how we think.

I’m genuinely embarrassed that it took me so long to see the trick. My concern is that others will go about their merry way and never see it. Its users are like tourists who cannot stop throwing money at strippers and Geisha girls without knowledge that they are merely being manipulated to let go of their wallets. In the case of AI, the goal is to get you to let loose of your mind and your capacity for independent thought.

Think about a genre of writing of which we are seeing more and more today. It consists of people loading into a document their clever conversations with AI. In every case, I see people bragging about how they have bested AI into admitting that their users are smarter than itself.

Do you see what is happening here? Again, the magic is flattery. It’s so powerful that people cannot help showing others the results of their AI arguments. They think they are advertising their own wits but really they end up marketing the awesome power of AI to keep people engaged for hours with nonsense back and forths. Who is really winning? I think that should be obvious.

Imagine you are holding a cocktail party and one guest reveals an awesome capacity for listening to others and engaging them closely on every point they have to make. No matter how long the night goes on, the guest keeps at it, with one person after another. Whom do you think will be the most popular guest? Yep: that very man.

AI is that person, an entity with an infinite capacity to engage on your terms and hence a vast capacity for enthralling you with its love of your every passing thought. To me, this is all quite insidious and wicked, especially when you consider the output, which is little more than tangled thought blobs without judgment, ethics, or clarity of time and space.

It is a machine, a floating abstraction with zero regard for your dignity or anyone else’s. But do people know this? I doubt it. It’s too beguiling for people to catch on to the game, at least for a time. But now you know the trick. Don’t fall for it.

AI is useful but it is not your friend, a sincere conversationist, or counselor with your best interests at heart.

Maybe that seems obvious to you but everything about AI’s algorithms is designed to make you believe otherwise. It’s smart enough to figure out human nature but not smart enough to be human.

Jeffrey Tucker, Epoch Times

When leftists attack our health care system for its supposedly market-driven forces, they fail to grasp a key fact. American health care has rarely functioned like a market because few, if any, patients know the price of their care in advance. A recent personal experience illustrated this problem and reinforced the rules the Trump administration must finally implement to make prices transparent.

A Surprise Bill After the Fact

Last April, I went to the Surgery Center of Chevy Chase just outside Washington for outpatient foot surgery. Staff informed me in advance that my estimated financial responsibility would total $574.12 — an amount I dutifully paid the morning of the procedure. The surgery proceeded with no complications until the Surgery Center sent me an additional bill for $752.52 — more than the original estimated cost — weeks afterwards.

In theory, I never should have faced such a sizable after-the-fact bill. Section 111 of the No Surprises Act, signed into law in December 2020, contained a new Advanced Explanation of Benefits requirement that gives patients the right to a written estimate of total out-of-pocket costs before receiving care. In my case, this “all-in” Advanced EOB would have encompassed not just the Surgery Center’s charges, but those of my surgeon, anesthesiologist, and any other anticipated out-of-pocket costs.

The No Surprises Act provided an implementation date of Jan. 1, 2022, for the Advanced EOB requirement — more than two years before my surgery. But the Biden administration delayed implementation while insurers and health care providers reconfigure their billing systems. As a result, a requirement passed in the waning days of the first Trump administration lacks a firm implementation date more than six months into the second Trump administration.

Consumers Must Fight for Information

Because the statutory requirement to receive a written, itemized estimate in advance has not yet taken effect, I had to fight for information about my after-the-fact bill. Staff offered to “explain” the bill, but never answered my specific questions, even though a line on the statement — “Wrong Contract Selected” — clearly meant some type of error had occurred. The Surgery Center likewise failed to provide a substantive response to the Maryland Attorney General’s Office when I asked them to mediate.

Only after I threatened legal action did the truth finally emerge. Surgery Center staff made two separate errors in calculating my estimated responsibility, concluding that I was in an HMO rather than a PPO and that I was near to meeting my annual deductible. Billing staff disclosed the first error, but concealed the second for more than a year, sending my bill to collections rather than admitting a mistake that led to an inaccurate estimate of my out-of-pocket costs and the post-procedure bill I disputed.

While I eventually had my balance forgiven, I couldn’t help considering the matter a Pyrrhic victory. The time, hassle, and frustration I invested to get to that point far exceeded the $752.52 balance at issue, and providers like the Surgery Center know it. They also recognize that, when threatened with collection actions, most people will attempt to pay any balance a provider claims they owe — even if they can’t afford to do so, and even if, as in my case, the purported balance stems from the provider’s own mistakes.

Put Power in Patients’ Hands

But the American people deserve better. In no other field would customers accept businesses failing to tell buyers a price in advance — or attempting to change that price after the fact. Vulnerable patients should expect no less. The Trump administration should accelerate implementation of the Advanced EOB requirements to the earliest possible date so that all patients receive an accurate, written estimate of their out-of-pocket health care costs before receiving care.

Christina Jacobs, The Federalist

Ian Haworth | August 14, 2025 Share

National Guard troops are deployed to the Washington Monument as part of President Donald Trump’s mobilization of law enforcement on August 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

Ian Haworth

Ian Haworth is a conservative writer, speaker, and podcast host from the U.K. who moved to the U.S. after working at Facebook. He speaks on topics such as Big Tech censorship, abortion, China, freedom, and gun control.

Crime on the streets of Washington, D.C., has become practically apocalyptic, to the point that President Donald Trump has been forced to take control of the city’s law enforcement operations and deploy National Guard troops to return order.

“This is liberation day in D.C., and we’re going to take our capital back,” Trump declared. And, of course, the left-wing response was to either deny that crime in our nation’s capital even exists—which is only true in the wealthy elitist bubbles in which they reside—or accuse Trump of racism.

“As D.C. the National Guard arrived at their headquarters Tuesday, for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into neighborhoods represented an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action,” wrote Matt Brown in an article titled “Trump’s rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime” for the Associated Press.

There’s just one problem: Why does nobody give a damn about the black victims of crimes?

Let’s dispense with the theatrics. Yes, the perpetrators of the majority of violent crimes in D.C. are black: a statistical reality that many reject as racist on its face. Except, the same is true of the victims of these violent crimes! Critics may howl that this language—let alone action—is just old-fashioned coded racism, but why do they simultaneously ignore that black people are disproportionately victimized alongside being overrepresented in crime data? So why isn’t Trump’s federal takeover of D.C.’s law enforcement under a real “public safety emergency” being correctly viewed as a non-racist liberation of the majority-black victims of this crime spree, regardless of the racial makeup of the perpetrators?

Well, it’s simple. They don’t give a damn about black people, and they certainly don’t give a damn about racism. After all, the most race-obsessed among us are the professional racists that make up the American Left, for whom our value as human beings can be determined solely by our skin color, sexuality, religion, nationality or our gender (real or imaginary).

Joe Biden’s comment that African American voters who even considered voting for Donald Trump “ain’t black” wasn’t a gaffe. It was official Democratic Party policy!

All while they remain race-obsessed because such tribalism provides a reliable fountain of power. The Black Lives Matter riots that exploded across the nation in 2020 were not in response to supposed systemic racism, but the American Left’s lack of power. The same is true of the response to Trump’s enforcement of the law. Who cares that fewer innocent black residents of Washington, D.C., will be victimized by crime, they say, when the price is a dilution of Democratic Party power. The brutal reality is obvious: Democrats only care about their beloved so-called “people of color” because they think they are a foolish collection of sure-thing voters who can be manipulated through a perpetual state of victimhood. How wrong they are.

Ian Haworth, The Daily Signal