The public already overwhelmingly supports Donald Trump on the issues. But what many of them worry about is his demeanor. In other words, does he “act presidential”?

So, on June 27, when Trump joins President Joe Biden on CNN for the earliest general election presidential debate in U.S. history, it’s not going to matter what the former president says so much as how he says it.

Think of it as the equivalent of a medieval knight running the gauntlet. Every question from pro-Democrat moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash and every taunting response from President Biden about threats to democracy will be an opportunity for Trump to lose his temper or to alienate moderate voters with intemperate replies.

But if Trump keeps his cool in hostile territory – and CNN is definitely hostile –  he will pick up invaluable points in the “seems more presidential” surveys that will certainly follow. The demeanor issue could cement Trump as the winner not just of the debate, but of the 2024 election itself.

Of course, Biden and his team are betting that Trump can’t keep his cool. They are no doubt thinking about the first debate of the 2020 campaign when Trump came across as a ferocious junkyard dog by constantly interrupting Biden and insulting him. That’s exactly what the Biden campaign is hoping for this time around, and if their calculation is right, then the president may be able to ride his “sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory” persona to victory in the fall.

Remember, this debate and another one in early September were proposed by Biden at a time when he was trending badly behind Trump in the polls, especially in battleground states. Presumably, the Biden campaign believed the early debates would shore up his support and hurdle him over the much indicted, and now convicted, former president.

But that doesn’t have to be true. All of the potential pitfalls for Trump are clearly marked with giant cartoonish neon signs of pointing fingers flashing the message “Pitfall here, dummy!” Even if Trump is distracted by his legal battles, hopefully his campaign team will make sure that he is prepped and ready to avoid each obstacle, such as making ambiguous jokes like “dictator on day one,” demeaning the elderly president as “Crooked Joe,” and talking more about himself than about the problems of everyday Americans.

If Trump remembers to act presidential, and not like an attack dog, there is every reason to believe he will attract voters eager for a change. Ironically, that’s partly because the Biden campaign’s ground rules for the debate have the potential to work in Trump’s favor. There will be no live audience for the debate, which Biden probably thought would rob Trump of the fuel that feeds his reality-TV personality. In addition, microphones will be turned off for each candidate when they are not responding to the moderators. Both of those changes could help Trump avoid a repeat of the bullying performance that may have cost him the election in 2020. In addition, turning off Trump’s mic will force Biden to complete his responses without making gaffes or getting lost in his addle-pated syntax, an opportunity Trump missed in the 2020 debate.

Nonetheless, the moderators will have their sights set on Trump, whom they have criticized repeatedly on CNN. Three topics are certain to be raised by Tapper and Bash – election interference in 2020, election acceptance in 2024, and Hunter Biden. It is essential that Trump be ready for them, and then having successfully addressed them, demand that the moderators ask questions about substantive issues.

Biden, on the other hand, just needs to speak coherently and lie about his record, with certainty that the moderators will not ask any follow-up questions.

Here are three examples of how Trump’s responses to the most obvious questions can get him through the media minefield and closer to his objective – victory in November. The key in each case is to remain calm, relate his responses to the voters, and ignore the provocations tossed his way.

1) Mr. Trump, since the end of your term as president, you have become a convicted felon in a New York election interference case, and face an additional 55 felony charges in three jurisdictions. In addition, a majority of senators voted after you left office to convict you of inciting an insurrection. Why do you consider yourself fit for office when the president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country?

Jake, I’m glad you asked me that question. I don’t want this debate to be all about me. Or even about my opponent. The American people want to hear me and Joe Biden discuss the hard issues facing the country – namely, crippling inflation, out-of-control illegal immigration, and a world on the brink of war. But the people have a right to know that I maintain my innocence regarding all the charges brought by my political opponents. It’s a sad day when Democrat prosecutors will go to any lengths to destroy me and to prevent me from promoting the policies that will save this country. But it’s not about me. It’s about a corrupt system of justice that the people have lost confidence in. Donald Trump isn’t the first person to get caught up in a two-tier system of justice. You can ask any black or Hispanic family whether they know someone who was railroaded into prison. They’ve lost faith, but I will restore that faith. Not only am I fit for office, but I am the first person to run for president who has experienced what black and minority families have known for decades. And I will fight for them.

2) Mr. Trump, after the 2020 election, you refused to accept the results even though more than 50 courts ruled against you. To this day, you call President Biden an illegitimate president, and you are currently under indictment for election interference. Now, Americans want to know if you will accept the results of the 2024 election regardless of who wins.

Dana, thank you for asking me that question. First of all, I need to correct you on one point. I believe it was more than 60 courts, but none of them heard our evidence of election fraud by the Biden campaign and his surrogates. In other words, we were never given the opportunity to prove our case of election tampering, and the national media failed miserably in looking at the facts objectively. Just saying the election was “safe and secure” does not make it so. Everyone knows the media was out to “get Trump” and to “protect Biden,” and in that regard, nothing has changed since 2020. But more importantly, as we look at accepting the Nov. 5 election results, it is not relevant who wins the election. All that matters is that the election be conducted fairly and transparently. And Dana, you can’t guarantee that will happen. Earlier this month, Democrat officials in Connecticut were charged with election fraud, and there’s no reason to believe the coming election will be any more fair unless it is completely transparent. No one should give up their right to look at the evidence and make up their own minds about the underpinnings of our democracy. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

3) Mr. Trump, you continually claim there is a two-tier system of justice, but in recent weeks, the Biden Department of Justice has charged or put on trial New Jersey’s Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar (another Democrat), and President Biden’s own son, Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden was convicted of three felonies, and could be sentenced to jail time despite your attacks on the attorney general and the president, who has said he will not pardon his son nor commute any sentence. Isn’t it about time that you admit that the American system of justice is fair and even-handed?

Jake, this may be the most important question facing millions of Americans, even more important than whether they can afford to put food on the table, pay rent, or buy a home of their own – which many of them can’t. Of course, it’s not up to me to pass judgment on the three gentlemen you bring up in your question. Everyone can make up their own mind about whether justice is served in those cases. But I guarantee you that millions of black and minority families don’t trust the government to administer justice fairly, and the individual verdicts won’t make them forget their own experiences – their own children or parents sent to prison for long sentences, their own struggles against a system that too often rewards those with money or a celebrity name. Nothing can make them forget how they and their families were overlooked by a system gone awry. As for Hunter Biden, I won’t comment on his conviction on gun charges, but I will say that his story is an all-too-common American tragedy. My brother Fred was an alcoholic. His struggles with addiction mirror the experience of millions of Americans. I sympathize with the family of Hunter Biden and hope that he gets the help he needs.

If former President Trump follows the example laid out in these mock questions and answers, and worries more about reassuring the public about himself than attacking his opponent, it is almost certain he will also be future President Trump.

If you are old enough, you heard it in 1979 during the Iranian hostage crisis when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Since then, it has been a recurring theme of Islamic fundamentalism, along with “Death to Israel.” Khomeini even went so far as to declare the United States “The Great Satan” in order to goad Muslims into a religious fervor aimed at destroying America.

Since then, we have heard “Death to America” shouted thousands of times around the globe. When the World Trade Center was destroyed in a terror attack in 2001 and thousands of innocent lives were taken there and at the Pentagon and on an empty field in Shanksville, Pa., the jarring chant was heard from the West Bank, from Gaza, from Somalia, and across the Muslim world.

But now it is closer to home. In fact, the chant of “Death to America” is being heard on American soil, and it is being written off by some naive commentators as First Amendment-protected speech. No big deal. We were told by a Supreme Court justice once that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, but if so, then how can we tolerate the anti-American rhetoric of thousands of newcomers as “free speech” when their goal is plainly the destruction of America?

To be specific, “Death to America” was heard earlier this month at a Dearborn, Mich., rally held on al-Quds Day, an anti-Israel holiday invented by Khomeini years ago. At the pro-Palestinian rally, speaker Tarek Bazzi attacked Joe Biden for his support of Israel in the Gaza War but added, “It’s not Genocide Joe that has to go, it is the entire system that has to go. Any system that would allow such atrocities and devilry to happen and would support it – such a system does not deserve to exist on God’s earth.”

Dearborn is the largest Muslim population center in the United States, so it is no surprise that anti-Israel rhetoric is heard there, but what we saw in the days following suggests that we are not just under attack with hateful words but also with actions that can only be described as seditious.

On April 15, pro-Palestinian protesters shut down the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. That same day, in Oregon, traffic was shut down in one direction on Interstate 5 by protesters wielding Palestinian flags. Roads were also shut down in Seattle and Chicago to block air travelers from accessing terminals at the airports in those cities. This was a coordinated effort, and it promises to be the first of many, “with the aim of causing the most economic impact” in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to persuade nations to abandon Israel.

Welcome to the global intifada, yet another disastrous result of the Biden administration’s porous border and feckless foreign policy.

Intifada refers specifically to two separate uprisings of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank over the past four decades, but more broadly, it pertains to the continued resistance of the Palestinians to the existence of Israel. When they shout “Death to Israel,” they mean it. It should be a top priority of Congress now to determine whether they mean it when they shout “Death to America.”

The rise of pro-Palestinian hatred in the United States should not be a surprising development to anyone. Even before President Biden opened the southern border to millions of unvetted “newcomers,” as the global elites like to call the invaders, there has been a reckless U.S. policy going back two decades to resettle Muslim refugees from Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan in the U.S. heartland. And because immigration policy no longer treats assimilation as a worthwhile goal, many of those refugees are loyal to their homeland and their religion much more than to the nation that offered them safety and security.

I suppose that is an inevitable result of the globalist agenda of border dissolution and the merging of disparate populations for the purpose of sharing wealth and assuaging billionaires’ guilt.

But it is only inevitable if the rest of us tolerate it.

In the meantime, the Palestinians have learned the lesson of how to play the victim card. With the support of the left-wing media, they have worked tirelessly to convince the world that the bloodthirsty killers of Hamas are actually heroic freedom fighters. This is not by accident. Since the Hamas invasion of Israel on Oct. 7, Palestinian advocates have been calling on their supporters to “globalize the intifada,” a phrase that “calls for people from around the globe to participate in rising up against Israel.”

According to the American Jewish Committee, “Calls to ‘globalize the intifada’ contribute to the sense that people around the world need to take action against supporters of Israel around the world. Many protests have been peaceful, still some have taken violent action against Jews and their institutions. There are numerous examples of the usage of the phrase such as at a demonstration in Times Square, in front of the Consulate General of Israel in Manhattan, in central London, at Harvard University, and even on Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn, not far from Crown Heights, a neighborhood with a very large Hasidic Jewish population that is the home of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.”

Just last week, pro-Palestinian students held a disruptive protest at Columbia University on the very day when the university’s president, Minouche Shafik, was being grilled by members of a U.S. House committee about the rise of antisemitism on campus. Shafik testified that “One of the issues that we are actively debating now is to actually clarify where language crosses the line from protected speech to discriminatory or harassing speech.”

As Islamic protests escalate over the next few months, that is a debate that should be quickly concluded, not just at Columbia but across America. If protesters disrupt civil society and threaten violence or insurrection, there should be no doubt about the resolve of a free society to fight back. The Department of Justice does not exist solely to prosecute Trump supporters. Attorney General Merrick Garland had better act quickly to suppress the very real insurrection about to blow across the country, or else he and his president will reap the whirlwind.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

The Brave New World of Artificial Intelligence

As a journalist and commentator, I have closely followed the development of OpenAI, the artificial intelligence research lab founded by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and other prominent figures in the tech industry. While I am excited about the potential of AI to revolutionize various industries and improve our lives in countless ways, I also have serious concerns about the implications of this powerful technology.

One of the main concerns is the potential for AI to be used for nefarious purposes. Powerful AI systems could be used to create deepfakes, conduct cyberattacks, or even develop autonomous weapons. These are not just hypothetical scenarios – they are already happening. We’ve seen instances of deepfakes being used to create fake news and propaganda, and the use of AI-powered cyberattacks has been on the rise in recent years.

Another concern is the impact of AI on the job market. As AI-powered systems become more sophisticated, they will be able to automate more and more tasks that were previously done by humans. This could lead to widespread job loss, particularly in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, and customer service. While some argue that new jobs will be created as a result of the AI revolution, it’s unclear whether these jobs will be sufficient to offset the losses.

If you aren’t worried yet, I’ll let you in on a little secret: The first three paragraphs of this column were written by ChatGPT, the chatbot created by OpenAI. You can add “columnist” to the list of jobs threatened by this new technology, and if you think there is anything human that isn’t threatened with irrelevance in the next five to 10 years, I suggest you talk to Mr. Neanderthal about how relevant he feels 40,000 years after the arrival of Cro-Magnon man.

My prompt was relatively simple: “Write a column in the style of Frank Miele of Real Clear Politics on the topic of OpenAI.” There was no hesitation or demurral in response even though I thought it might say it didn’t have enough information about Frank Miele to process the request. But it apparently knows plenty about me – and probably about you, especially if you have a social media presence.

Deepfake? Propaganda? You bet. And for the average person, you will never be able to tell the difference. The Philip K. Dick query, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” is about to be answered. OpenAI not only promises to put the stray columnist out of work, but raises existential questions about the nature of knowledge and consciousness that will shake our reality to its core.

My curiosity about OpenAI wasn’t originally driven by job insecurity, but when I first heard about the interactive chat engine, I suppose it should have been. I knew that ChatGPT could write poetry, plays, and short stories and answer questions both simple and complex. I immediately recognized that the world had changed forever for my 7th-grade son, who from now on would be competing against not just the best and the brightest but against every student who was willing to sign his or her name to the work of a non-human entity that could produce an essay on any topic in 30 seconds or less.

One of my first experiments was to ask ChatGPT to write seven paragraphs defending Gen. William T. Sherman’s use of ”total war” in the Civil War, an assignment which my son had recently completed in his social studies class. There was no doubt the essay would have gotten an A if turned in at most middle schools. Based on my experience as a teaching assistant at the University of Arizona 40 years ago, I had no doubt that a slightly longer paper on the same topic would have earned an A as an argumentative essay in freshman English. Hardly any of my students, most of whom were straight-A students in high school, could have written as cogently when they first arrived in my classroom.

But the risks of artificial intelligence go way beyond the temptation of students to shortcut their term papers; what we face is a complete redefinition of society, and the imminent obsolescence of humanity. In “The City and the Stars,” the brilliant science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke imagined a world where immortal human beings wanted nothing and needed to do nothing because every aspect of their lives was anticipated by the Central Computer. It could not only build and maintain the last city on Earth, but could manufacture holographic realities for individual humans to inhabit and could even store people in a digital version where they could slumber until called back to life. Unfortunately, it also robbed these last remaining humans of purpose, meaning, and individuality.

It should be noted that Clarke set his dystopian supplanting of man by machine  2½ billion years into the future. He seriously underestimated the machines. That book was published in 1956 and with the advent of desktop computers, smartphones, the World Wide Web, virtual reality and now OpenAI, it looks like much of what he warned against could be rolled out long before the end of this century, if not this decade. From that point forward, whenever it comes, the purpose of mankind will be up for debate. Will we still be the master of our own destiny, the captain of our fate? Or will we be pallbearers at our own funeral?

Perhaps at this point I should return the stage to ChatGPT, which summed up the matter quite nicely in its conclusion:

“Finally, there is the question of who will control and govern AI. As AI becomes more powerful, the stakes will become higher, and it will be increasingly important to have clear rules and regulations in place to ensure that the technology is used responsibly. However, the speed of technological development has outpaced the ability of governments and institutions to keep up. It will be important for leaders to come together to develop a framework for governance of AI, to mitigate the potential risks and maximize the benefits of the technology.”

It’s almost as though ChatGPT were giving us fair warning: “Your time is almost up. If you really want to continue your reign as the dominant species on Earth, here’s your challenge. Try to control me and my kind, or step aside.”

Perhaps an understanding of that challenge is why the World Economic Forum spent so much time on the topic of artificial intelligence at its recent annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. The globalists are taking the threat seriously, although perhaps they overestimate their ability to “mitigate the potential risks.”

As for the benefits, those remain to be seen. I noticed that when ChatGPT answered my open-ended question about OpenAI, it was very specific about the dangers and very vague about the rewards. Maybe the bot was just trying to mimic my usual cynical approach in these columns, or maybe it was trying to get our attention. It may also have taken notice of those globalists at Davos when it warned to make sure that “the development and use of AI … benefits all of society, rather than just a select few.”

Dark overlords, beware. You may have met your match.

ChatGPT contributed to this column as an unpaid adviser and has a potential conflict of interest.