The Sociopath

Ben Howe, video producer, political analyst, conservative, and RedState contributor, presents The Sociopath.

He’s been called an impostor, a fraud, a fake. A charlatan. His own ghostwriter for the book “The Art of the Deal” called him a sociopath. There are many words that describe Donald Trump, and there are just as many words that don’t describe him: Conservative. Decent. Serious. Presidential.

Donald Trump has spearheaded one of the most divisive campaigns in modern politics and, in the eyes of many in his own party, is unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

But when the dust settles, whether he wins or loses, how will his campaign for the presidency be remembered? As an insurgency? Is it the story of someone “who fights” taking on power while taking power? Or will it be a hostile takeover from an invader that played out on national television as sane people watched and despaired? Will Trump be remember as the head of a movement, or the head of a snake? Or even as the snake-oil salesman and crony who hoodwinked millions?

And what of those who resisted? History will remember the resistance, but it remains to be seen if that will be positively or negatively.

But perhaps most importantly of all, will the people who support him ever get a clear picture of who he REALLY is?

“The Sociopath”, a film by Ben Howe, will show you not only who this man is, but more importantly, how he got to where he is, who supported him in doing so, and what it could mean for the future of the nation if he is elected.

WATCH: Faith Trumps Fear

By: Paul Hastings
A couple of weeks ago, some friends and I were reflecting on the sad state of this year’s presidential election. Leader after leader in the Christian community had come out in support of Trump, a candidate that is so hostile to so much of God’s teaching. Yet here were the Christian leaders that we admired telling us the very opposite of what they had preached for so long; that values no longer mattered.
It was incredibly disheartening to hear many of my Christian friends begin repeating what these leaders were saying. That we needed to support Trump because he was the only hope we have to stop Hillary.
But we knew there are many Christians still on the fence. They’re asking themselves, should they vote for Trump? So we made this video to tell them what we believed. That perhaps God has a greater calling on Believers than choosing the “lesser” of too evils. A calling to holiness.

WATCH: Third Presidential Debate – Resurgent Live Blog

MUST READ: The Article Jerry Falwell Jr. Banned From Liberty

By: Joel Schmieg

As a former male athlete, I know exactly what high school guys talk about when they think they are alone. It absolutely can be vulgar and objectifying to women. But here’s the thing — I have never in my life heard guys casually talk about preying on women in a sexual manner.

Trust me, I hated the way the guys talked on the field during practice or in the halls at school. It was downright dirty. Some would call it “locker room talk.” In other words, guys talking about the things they supposedly did with their girls. The conversation never turned to the things they were going to do to a girl.

While I do not condone premarital sexual activity, guys talking about the things they do with their girlfriends is part of today’s culture. On the other hand, when a guy talks about what they are going to do to a girl, that is when it is no longer locker room talk, but pre-meditated sexual assault.

Some examples of this kind of talk are “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” This is not a joke. Men do not casually say things like this. This is not locker room talk. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying to excuse the terrible things they or others have said.

If a high school male was heard talking like this, I would hope appropriate action would be taken. This might involve counseling and some sort of punishment. Not because punishment would magically fix what he said, but to ensure he understands the severity of what he said. So he understands that sexual assault is not a joke. So he understands that women are to be cherished, not spoken of as property.

But when an adult in his late 50’s says things like “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” that should be a major red flag. “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks,” Luke 6:45.

The things that come out of a man’s mouth when his guard is down is probably what is in his heart.

With that said, everyone deserves forgiveness for things that seem to be in the past. But in this instance, the words said do not seem to truly be in the past. He was never accosted for his atrocious words. And most importantly, it seems the words spoken are par for the course.

Donald Trump may have issued an apology for the words he said, but the fact that he can brush them off with a description of “locker room talk,” tells me that he does not believe what he said is truly bad. It tells me that this man says things like this all the time, because it is casual talk to him.

Ladies, please hear me when I say the words spoken by Trump are not normal. That is not what decent men talk about. Not even in high school. You mean so much more than that, and you deserve so much better than that.

Author, Joel Schmieg gave The Resurgent permission to run this article.

Freedom or Integrity: Evangelicals, Choose One

By: Brian Mattson

As a public theologian, my paramount concern in the coming election is the public witness of the Christian community. I believe the health of society requires a strong Christian influence, and societies that lack it tend to be dysfunctional societies. Part of obeying the gospel call to love our neighbors is seeking to influence society with the claims of Christ.

I also believe the two major party candidates for President of the United States are both threats to Christian public witness. Whether they are equal threats is the matter we must decide.

Hillary Clinton: A Threat to Freedom

I will leave aside Hillary Clinton’s impressive history of scandal and the fact that I believe she will likely be the single most thoroughly corrupt President in our nation’s history. I leave it aside because the problem is even worse than that: Hillary Clinton belongs squarely to the brand of secular progressivism devoted to marginalizing Christian public witness.

This is the militant secularism that in recent years has led to the firing of competent people from positions of authority and influence simply because they believe what the Bible says about sexuality (e.g., Brendan Eich, Kelvin Cochran). The message is loud and clear: you will bow to the new orthodoxy, or else. Or else you cannot be a fire chief, or a CEO, or a baker, florist, or photographer. And do not be deceived: your church is on the hit-list. The day is coming when your pastor’s so-called “hate speech” while preaching the Bible is codified as such in law. The same goes for your non-profit organization or private school. Secular progressivism makes no secret of the fact that it wants Christian public witness silenced and driven out of polite society.

And Hillary Clinton will do a great deal of damage in this regard. She will appoint to the Supreme Court justices who share Justice Kennedy’s view that Christian sexual ethics has no rationale beyond animus and bigotry. Her army of bureaucrats in the Federal government (e.g., Department of Education, EEOC, Civil Rights Commission) will continue to revise thousands upon thousands of rules and regulations designed to reshape society according to the new orthodoxies of sexual liberation, the effect of which will be the silencing and marginalizing of opposition.

To put it succinctly: A President Hillary Clinton is a threat to the freedom of Christian public witness.

Donald Trump: A Threat to Integrity

I will not leave aside Donald Trump’s impressive history of being a fool. Now, I am not “name calling.” I am a Christian theologian, and the Bible teaches me this vocabulary and definition. It describes the “fool” in great detail: arrogant, boastful, and ignorant. Read the book of Proverbs and you will see Donald J. Trump on every page. And it isn’t on the “Righteous” side of the equation.

If Hillary Clinton is a threat to the freedom of Christian public witness, Donald Trump is a threat to the integrity of Christian public witness. I understand and sympathize with Christians privately and quietly voting for Donald Trump because they cannot cope with the thought of the Clintons back living on Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not understand or sympathize with promoting, cheerleading, and excusing Donald Trump. The spectacle has been personally horrifying to me, and I believe it should be horrifying to all of us.

I have heard it said that Donald Trump is the only thing standing between us and divine judgment. I submit to you that Donald Trump is himself divine judgment. God is holding a mirror to our faces. What better representative of contemporary America than a greedy, proud, boastful, narcissistic, and licentious man? Christian reaction to this man ought to be the opposite of cheering, much less enthusiastic cheering. God’s societal judgments come, Paul tells us in Romans 1, by “handing us over” to our sins. Has he not? Donald Trump is us. Indeed, we have been handed over to two perfect representatives of American culture in the early 21st century: corrupt fools.

I believe the promotion and support of Donald Trump by Christian leaders is just as damaging to Christian public witness as the prospect of a Clinton presidency. Under Clinton, we may eventually be muzzled. Under Trump, we might be free to broadcast from the rooftops, but everyone will ignore us. Rightly ignore us.

All our talk about character and virtue, all of the outrage we exhibited during the first Clinton presidency, all of that moral authority and capital utterly squandered. No one need listen (I myself would beg someone not to listen) to someone who wanted Bill Clinton impeached but somehow thinks Donald Trump is fit for the office. When the author of The Book of Virtues suddenly chides others for their “terrible case of moral superiority” in reaction to Trump’s vulgarities; when the founder of Focus on the Family laments that people are judgmental toward a bragging and unrepentant adulterer; when the son of the man who founded the Moral Majority poses proudly, thumbs up, with Mr. Trump next to his Playboy cover photo: this, brothers and sisters, is precisely what Jesus had in mind when he spoke of salt “losing its saltiness.” Jesus says it is good for nothing except to be trampled upon by men. These leaders will have their reward, but I fear that trampling is something of which Donald Trump is quite capable.

Which loss is worse? The freedom of our public witness, or the integrity of our public witness? I’m inclined to believe it is the latter, for at the end of the day our integrity is that for which we are most directly responsible. Our political freedoms rest on many things outside of our control; our integrity rests on something solely within our control. I believe we will be judged accordingly.

Yes, President Clinton may usher in her progressive utopia, complete with jail time for preaching Leviticus or Romans 1. But why should we fear she who can destroy the body? Much better is to fear God. To my mind, there has been precious little fear of God among the endlessly elastic and pragmatic Christian court prophets. That, too, is a sign of God’s judgment. Read First and Second Kings sometime.

I believe the Christian reaction to this election should be sackcloth and ashes. Revulsion and repentance. I have made my decision, and all I can do is commend it to you: I refuse to lend my name to either candidate. I will either vote for a third party candidate or write in the name of somebody I can sincerely imagine as an admirable, principled leader. I do not believe this is “throwing away” my vote. I believe it is, in the wise words of Bill Buckley, “Standing athwart History, yelling, ‘Stop!'” I am calling for the Christian community to join me. Fighting for the freedom of our public witness should not come at the expense of the integrity of our public witness. This is the corner into which the Republican party has painted us.

What kind of public witness is it to sacrifice our integrity for our freedom? The message is that all of the old accusations are true: evangelical Christians are, as Cal Thomas once called them, “blinded by might.” Princes, power, and politics are their true allegiances. They live in fear rather than trust.  God’s people should say, “No.” Forcefully and en masse.

If the exit polling were to show that both candidates lost a breathtaking majority of evangelicals, I think that would be a truly valuable public witness.

Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal

By James D. Agresti

In the first presidential debate of the 2016 general election, Donald Trump blamed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the rise of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. According to Trump, Obama and Clinton created a “disaster” by “the way they got out of Iraq.” This refers to the tragedy that occurred after the U.S. pulled out of Iraq, and ISIS swept through the nation while imposing Sharia law and executing, raping, and enslaving the Iraqi people.

Clinton responded to Trump that she hopes “the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard,” because “George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama.” She then asserted that “the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.”

This protection was a legal immunity that would prevent Iraqi courts from prosecuting U.S. soldiers. Obama has made the same claim, and many media outlets have published stories saying he is correct, such as the Washington Post, Salon,, and PolitiFact, the last two of which are “fact checkers” often invoked by the Clinton campaign.

In reality, news reports that were published when the U.S. troops were withdrawn prove that Clinton and Obama are being deceitful. As documented below, the articles show that:

  • the “agreement” Clinton spoke of was not intended to determine a hard date but to provide a soft placeholder.
  • “everyone” expected that this date would be extended.
  • the date was not extended because the Obama administration poisoned the negotiations and refused to use a simple and sure process to provide immunity to U.S. troops.
  • the U.S. State Department led by Hillary Clinton was a primary actor that destroyed these negotiations.
  • after the troops were pulled, Obama took credit for this and insisted that it was the right thing to do.

These articles also show that after this decision looked disastrous in hindsight, Obama and Clinton began falsely accusing Bush of forcing them to withdraw the U.S. troops.

The Status of Forces Agreement

The “agreement” Clinton spoke of was called the Status of Forces Agreement or SOFA. It stated that U.S. forces “shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory” by the end of 2011.

Contrary to what Clinton led the debate audience to believe, the SOFA merely provided a placeholder to satisfy Iraqis who opposed an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq. When Obama announced in October 2011 that all U.S. troops would leave Iraq by the end of the year, the New York Times reported:

And for the negotiators who labored all year to avoid that outcome, it represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail. …

At the end of the Bush administration, when the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, was negotiated, setting 2011 as the end of the United States’ military role, officials had said the deadline was set for political reasons, to put a symbolic end to the occupation and establish Iraq’s sovereignty. But there was an understanding, a senior official here said, that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.

The same article explained that the troops did not stay, because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day of the Times article, The Cable, a publication of the influential magazine Foreign Policy, revealed that Obama’s State Department, led by Hillary Clinton, refused to employ an easy and straightforward process to keep the U.S. troops in Iraq:

Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

“An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that’s done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry,” said one former senior Hill staffer. “If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ass.”

These claims that Obama and Clinton could have used this option were proven true in 2014, when Obama employed the same process to provide immunity for 300 U.S. troops sent back into Iraq after ISIS rose to power and began wreaking havoc. As reported in a 2014 New York Times article:

The Obama administration said on Monday that it has accepted from the Iraqi government the same sort of immunity agreement for newly dispatched Special Operations troops that it refused to accept in 2011, when it opted to withdraw all American troops from Iraq rather than keep a residual force behind.

The Times related that the White House defended these conflicting positions by claiming that “this situation is different because Mr. Obama is sending only 300 troops in an advisory role, rather than keeping 5,000 there, as was discussed in 2011.” However, the article presented no evidence that any relevant law or agreement made distinctions based on the number or role of the troops. Nor has any member of the Obama administration or media presented such evidence in dozens of articles reviewed for this research.

Obama Took Credit Until It Went Wrong

On the day the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama gave a White House press conference in which he stated:

  • “As a candidate for President, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end….”
  • “After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011.”

Contrary to the notion that Obama wanted to keep U.S. forces in Iraq but was prevented by Bush’s agreement, the above-mentioned article by The Cable contains a note at the end of it that states:

This article was amended after a White House official called in to say that it was not the “White House” that was pushing for an extension of U.S. troops.

“The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,” the White House official said.

A few days after the troop withdrawal was announced, Obama’s presidential campaign produced an ad stating: “Because of Barack Obama the mission in Iraq ended.”

A few months later, Obama boasted before soldiers in Fort Bragg, NC that “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” At the same event, Michelle Obama said to the troops that Obama “has kept his promise to responsibly bring you home from Iraq.”

In a 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama said to Romney, “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong.” As an example of such, Obama said “You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day.”

Yet, in an August 2014 press conference, after Iraq was in the midst of what Obama called a “growing humanitarian crisis” and potential “genocide,” a reporter asked him if he had “second thoughts about pulling all ground troops out of Iraq.” Obama responded, “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” Obama then gave the same explanation that Hillary used at the debate, which is that Bush’s agreement forced him to do this.

In sum, Obama campaigned on a promise to pull the troops from Iraq, which he and Clinton proceeded to do against the advice of Iraq’s top army officer and U.S. military officials. Obama then took credit for this, bragged about it, and defended it as the right thing to do—up until the point when it went wrong. Then he and Clinton began saying that Bush did it.

Special thanks to Just Facts Daily

Fetal Pain Facts and Falsehoods

By James D. Agresti

The states of Utah and South Carolina recently passed laws concerning abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization. This is the stage of development shown in the photograph on the right.

Before performing abortions, the Utah law requires physicians to anesthetize or give a painkiller to the “unborn child” once he or she reaches 20 weeks. The South Carolina law bans abortions from this point forward. Both of the laws contain exceptions for the life of the mother or if she has a “serious risk” of “irreversible” harm to “a major bodily function.”

According to the text of both laws, “substantial medical evidence” indicates that developing humans can feel pain by 20 weeks. This conclusion is supported by the following facts from medical journals and textbooks:

  • By 10 weeks, “All components of the brain and spinal cord are formed, and nerves link the stem of the brain and the spinal cord to all tissues and organs of the body.”
    – Encyclopedia of Human Biology
  • By 12 weeks, “Electrical activity of the nervous system is discernible” and “attempts to suckle” are observed “in utero and in aborted fetuses.”
    – Encyclopedia of Human Biology
  • By 14 weeks, preborn humans exhibit conscious “motor planning” and “social behavior.”
    – PLoS ONE
  • By 18 weeks, pain sensory receptors spread to “all cutaneous [skin] and mucous surfaces,” and the cerebral cortex (the portion of the brain responsible for higher functions like reasoning and language) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.
    – New England Journal of Medicine
  • By 18 to 20 weeks, the human fetus “elaborates pituitary-adrenal, sympatho-adrenal, and circulatory stress responses to physical insults.”
    – Anesthesiology

These scientific facts collectively show that by 20 weeks, humans have pain receptors, consciousness, and physical responses to painful events.

Nevertheless, many media outlets have recently reported that humans cannot feel pain by 20 weeks. This includes but is not limited to the New York Times, the Los Angeles TimesCNNSlate, and the Daily Beast. To support this claim, all of these outlets cited a single paper published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMAin 2005.

Neglecting the journalism standard to “make it clear to the audience” when sources “are associated with a particular viewpoint,” none of the outlets mentioned that at least three of the JAMA paper’s five authors have been involved in the abortion industry, including:

  • Susan J. Lee, the lead author of the paper, who worked as a lawyer for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, which is now known as NARAL Pro-Choice America.
  • Eleanor A. Drey, the medical director of an abortion clinic.
  • Mark Rosen, the last author of the paper, who worked in an abortion clinic. (In biomedical research, the last author “is assumed to be the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research.”)

These media outlets also violated journalism ethics, which require them to not omit “facts of major importance or significance.” They did this by failing to reveal that the JAMA paper’s central argument was refuted by medical journals less than two years after it was published. The authors of the paper declared that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester” because:

  • “pain is a psychological construct” that requires “conscious perception.”
  • there can be no “conscious recognition or awareness” until there are functional connections from pain receptors to the brain’s cortex.
  • these connections don’t “begin appearing” until “23 to 30 weeks’ gestational age.” (This equates to 21 weeks to 28 weeks after fertilization.)

Debunking the above, a 2006 article in the journal Pain: Clinical Updates documented through “multiple lines of evidence” that the “key mechanisms” of consciousness and pain perception “are not dependent” on the cortex. Consistent with this fact, the authors determined that pain perception begins in the “second trimester” and “well before the third trimester of human gestation.”

Likewise, a 2007 paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences showed that children born with little or no cortex (a condition called hydranencephaly):

  • “are conscious,” “awake,” “often alert,” and “show responsiveness to their surroundings in the form of emotional or orienting reactions to environmental events.”
  • “express pleasure by smiling and laughter, and aversion by ‘fussing,’ arching of the back and crying.”
  • behave so normally that they “may initially present no conspicuous symptoms,” and “occasionally the condition is not diagnosed until several months postnatally, when developmental milestones are missed.”

Concluding, the author noted that these findings have “ramifying implications for issues in medical ethics,” including “pain management in children” who lack a cerebral cortex.

False arguments aside, the vast weight of scientific evidence indicates that preborn humans can feel pain by 20 weeks or earlier. While this does not rise to the level of 100% certainty, it rests upon factually solid ground.

Like many media outlets, some prominent “fact checkers” have also misled the public about this issue, including and the Washington Post’s Fact Checker.

Special thanks to Just Facts Daily

The Myth That Progress Hollows Out the Middle Class

By: Edward Conard

Some advocates of income redistribution concede that incentives matter, that the successful predominantly earned their increased success, and that there is no shortage of investment opportunities. Rather than prosecuting these charges, they have instead insisted that success and the progress it creates hurt middle- and working-class wages, whether by destroying their jobs, degrading their values, or competing against them for scarce resources, namely college educations.

The most frequently repeated accusation claims technology hollows out the middle class.1 Technology, so the argument goes, simplifies semi-skilled jobs while increasing the demand for the most sophisticated skills. Middle-class workers who can do higher-skilled work earn more, but the rest of the workers are pushed into lower paying jobs. Digital photography, for example, displaced 140,000 Kodak employees, but Instagram had only thirteen employees when Facebook acquired it.2

The hollowing-out argument takes other forms. One version of the technology-hollows-out-the-middle-class argument admonishes that robots will eventually replace the middle and working classes.3 In Thomas Piketty’s version, investors collude to keep the return on capital high without restricting the supply of capital—the opposite of how oligopolies operate. He fears high returns—higher than the economy growth rate—will allow capital to accumulate faster than GDP grows, whether or not the capital is needed. Normally, the return on capital exceeds the growth rate only if the economy benefits from more capital, as it has in the past. Otherwise, returns fall to the growth rate, and the amount of capital relative to GDP stabilizes. Rather than making workers richer as the accumulation of capital has in the past, like robots, Piketty fears capital will substitute for labor, eliminate their jobs, and leave them increasingly impoverished.4

Liberal economist Brad DeLong complains that Piketty lacks a theory for explaining how returns on capital could remain high independent of the need for capital without restricting the supply.5 Larry Summers just dismisses Piketty’s theory as a “misreading of the literature.”6

For two hundred years, Luddites have insisted that machinery and technology will reduce employment and wages despite both continuing to grow. Tractors didn’t leave starving farmers in their wake. Quite the contrary—the now-lower cost of food made other unfilled jobs more valuable, so valuable that today a Fortune 500 company makes money brewing coffee one cup at time.

Perhaps robots will finally displace workers rather than increasing worker’s prosperity as technology and capital investment has in the past. It’s hard to know what will happen when armies of robots build more armies of robots at near-zero cost. One may surmise that even the poor will be rich when the cost of goods is near zero. And so far, wave after wave of robot-like innovation has already rolled in—the agricultural revolution, industrial automation, computerization, and offshoring—with no result other than growing standards of living for everyone.

In another version of the hollowing-out argument, sociologists blame rising income inequality for increasing the unproductive behavior of the working class. For example, the greater uncertainty of employment allegedly makes working-class men less marriageable.7 Their lower workforce participation allegedly leads to a decline in marriage and a corresponding rise in out-of-wedlock births. The children of single parents are more prone to unruly behavior.8

Alternatively, an increase in assortative mating—people with similar levels of education, income, and capability marrying each other— heightens the difference between the children of the haves and the have-nots. The haves devote extra resources—whether money, time, or attention—which allows their children to compete more successfully for an alleged shortage of educational and employment opportunities.9

Some sociologists also allege that growing segregation between the haves and the have-nots prevents the have-nots from benefiting from the positive peer pressure of the haves.10 Ironically, while one school of thought blames the separation of the successful for failing to provide good examples to the middle and working classes, another camp claims that the success of the 1 percent drove an envious middle class to borrow against the rising value of their homes in order to consume too much.11

Yet despite these concerns, wages have risen with little change in the shape of their distribution. There has been no discernible hollowing out of the middle class. A closer look at the evidence reveals that wages are growing faster than they appear to be, faster still when we account for shifts in relevant demographics, such as increased immigration and retirement, and that educational opportunities have expanded for minorities and children from lower socioeconomic families.

Adapted from The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class by Edward Conard with permission of Portfolio, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. Copyright © Coherent Research Group, Inc., 2016.