# data[].attributes.body
Made by Spencer Ceci working individually

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 Red Flag: Slippery Slope (article)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 Red Flag: Slippery Slope (article)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A slippery slope involves attempting to logically relate an initial insignificant first event to a more significant event and so on until some ultimate significant event (often negative) is reached even though there is actually no connection of each event .

Connection: this article is written by an ordained Baptist minister, Peter Sprigg who claims that same-sex marriage will eventually lead to polygamy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(RNS) "What harm would it do?"

This was the question frequently asked by those who supported same-sex marriage.

I sought to answer that question with a pamphlet that I wrote and the Family Research Council published, titled, " The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage.' "

Now, a year after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in favor of redefining marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), we do not yet have the data needed regarding various changes in family structure. Some of my predictions, though, have already come to fruition.

The most obvious involves the rapidly growing attacks on freedom of conscience and religion. Before Obergefell, we were assured that redefining marriage would have no impact on anyone except same-sex couples. Yet today, LGBT activists increasingly wage attacks against even the mildest measures to protect religious liberty.

READ: The weaponization of religious liberty

Another prediction has also received considerable validation - although without as much public attention. In the wake of Obergefell, we are much closer to a further redefinition of marriage - to include polygamous and polyamorous marriages.

Some commentators leaped at the opportunity to make the case for polygamy, one literally within hours after Obergefell. Freelance writer Fredrik deBoer wrote an op-ed for Politico, titled " It's Time to Legalize Polygamy," the same day the ruling was announced.

"Now that we've defined that love and devotion and family isn't driven by gender alone," asked deBoer, "why should it be limited to just two individuals?" It would hard for any supporter of court-imposed same-sex marriage - especially homosexual activists - to reject deBoer's assertion that the "progressive and enlightened" now agree that "consent is the measure of all things in sexual and romantic practice."

However, Jonathan Rauch, a gay activist who works at the Brookings Institution, tried to make a distinction in a Politico rebuttal to deBoer. Rauch notes a number of (quite valid) concerns about the impact of polygamy. In polygamous societies, he said, there tends to be "competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities (that is, wives), which leaves lower-status men out in the cold." Such a system is socially destabilizing, resulting in (according to one study), "higher levels of rape, kidnapping, murder, assault, robbery, and fraud."

READ: 'Sister Wives' clan loses battle over Utah polygamy law

Yet for all his protests to the contrary, the arguments against polygamy are very closely parallel to the arguments against redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. For example, Rauch cited the study's finding that monogamous marriage "results in significant improvements in child welfare." The same could be said about children being raised by their married, biological mother and father-something unavoidably denied to children raised by same-sex couples.

Rauch claims that homosexuals were being denied the ability to participate in the institution of marriage at all prior to Obergefell, whereas the same is not true of would-be polygamists. Since many people who now self-identify as gay or lesbian - including a surprising number of plaintiffs in same-sex "marriage" lawsuits - previously have been married (to an opposite-sex spouse), this argument is weak. The real demand in the marriage debate was to eliminate a restriction (based on sex) on freedom of choice regarding marital partners. The same demand (with respect to number) is made by polygamists.

Media reports sympathetic to polygamy have also been appearing, such as one published by ABC News less than a month after the Obergefell decision. It told the story of a lesbian couple in California that decided to expand to a threesome by inviting a man to join them. One of the women apparently took seriously the theory that as a bisexual, she could only fulfill her sexual orientation by having both a female and a male partner.

READ: From polygamy to incest, confronting the Old Testament's strange sexual standards

The growing acceptance of polygamy is not just anecdotal. The online dating website OkCupid now allows users to search for polyamorous relationships. The website claims their surveys show that only a minority of users say they are committed to monogamy, with the number falling from 56 percent in 2010 to 44 percent today.

All this doesn't mean there will be legal recognition of polygamous relationships - yet. But one of the first steps toward same-sex "marriage" was when the Supreme Court struck down laws imposing criminal sanctions for homosexual conduct, in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The polygamy movement already has its version of Lawrence - a case in which a federal judge struck down Utah's law making it a crime to live in a polygamous relationship.

The shock troops of the sexual revolution did not stop trying to redefine "marriage" after opening it to same-sex couples. Meanwhile, they are trying to redefine "sex" itself, compelling everyone to affirm and celebrate males who claim to be females and vice versa. Americans are left wondering-from a cultural progressive movement that doesn't ever appear to be satisfied, "What's next?"
Peter Sprigg is Senior Fellow at Family Research Council.
This story is available for republication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why same-sex marriage will pave the way to polygamy - Religion News Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(RNS) "What harm would it do?" This was the question frequently asked by those who supported same-sex marriage. I sought to answer that question with a pamphlet that I wrote and the Family Research Council published, titled, " The Top Ten Harms of Same-Sex 'Marriage.' " Now, a year after the U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3 Red Flag:  Loaded Question (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3 Red Flag:  Loaded Question (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A  loaded question is a question that has been manipulated in such a way that it allows the dialogue to be controlled and difficult to illicit an honest response.

Connection: this video is from a 60 Minutes episode whereby the interviewer asks the US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright if killing Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein is worth the death of 500,000 children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Thinking: Loaded Question Fallacy Example

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4 Red Flag:  Black-or-White (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4 Red Flag:  Black-or-White (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: When something is black-or-white it means the alternatives are strictly limited to only two often opposite and extreme choices.

Connection:  Former American president George W. Bush tells the nation that they are either pro-America or pro-terrorist during the Iraq invasion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Thinking Fallacy: False Dilemma Example

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5 Red Flag:  Middle Ground (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5 Red Flag:  Middle Ground (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:  Middle ground refers to a point in an argument whereby some type of compromise or truth can be achieved that is usually in between two extremes.

Connection:  During the State of the Union speech the American president Donald Trump asks the Democrats and Republicans to find middle ground and work in unity for the future of America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump discussed immigration, the economy and North Korea. His speech was the second-longest in 50 years. Here's a decidedly shorter version. Published On Credit Credit Image by Doug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - President Trump challenged Democrats on Tuesday night to join him in overhauling immigration policies and in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure in his first State of the Union address.

Speaking to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Trump hailed what he called the "extraordinary success" of his administration's first year, and largely steered clear of the nationalist rhetoric, political attacks and confrontational tone that have been his calling cards both as a candidate and as a commander in chief.

"Tonight, I call upon all of us to set aside our differences, to seek out common ground and to summon the unity we need to deliver for the people," Mr. Trump said to raucous applause from many Republicans, as Democratic leaders who have bitterly criticized his policies and messaging sat stone-faced in their seats.

"This, in fact, is our new American moment," Mr. Trump said. "There has never been a better time to start living the American dream."

In an address remarkably devoid of new policies, Mr. Trump instead recited what he described as his greatest accomplishments and laid out an improbable agenda for a Congress facing midterm elections in the fall.

He said he would bring Republicans and Democrats together around a $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan to "give us the safe, fast, reliable and modern infrastructure our economy needs and our people deserve." And he dared Democrats to reject what he called a "down-the-middle compromise" on immigration where "nobody gets everything they want, but where our country gets the critical reforms it needs."

"For over 30 years, Washington has tried and failed to solve this problem," Mr. Trump declared. "This Congress can be the one that finally makes it happen."

The president avoided the most controversial elements of his presidency, saying nothing about the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether Mr. Trump or his associates helped the effort or obstructed justice.

The president did not acknowledge the "Me Too" movement of women speaking out against sexual harassment and assault. He also left out some standard grievances. He did not renew his threats to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that decline to work with federal immigration authorities, nor did he devote much time to promising to rip up trade agreements.

Democrats in the chamber spent much of the speech refraining from applause, scowling at his boasts, and at one point hissing in disapproval at his proposal for restricting the number of family members immigrants can bring to the United States. As he took the dais at the Capitol, Mr. Trump had the weakest approval rating of any president of the modern era entering his second year in office, with 37 percent of Americans approving of his performance in the job.

But Mr. Trump stepped behind the lectern still popular with his most ardent supporters, who see him as an unpredictable and entertaining commander in chief who posts vitriol on Twitter against the advice of the White House staff, the Republican leadership and those closest to him.

Mr. Trump built his speech around the theme of heroes, using the stories of ordinary people who had overcome extraordinary challenges - a police officer who adopted the child of a heroin-addicted mother, an Army staff sergeant who won the Bronze Star while fighting in Syria, a North Korean defector who now rescues other defectors - to argue that "the state of our union is strong because our people are strong."

A State of the Union address can be a type of partisan Pilates for some in the crowd. For others, it can be a direct ticket to becoming an internet meme. We break down the politics behind the reactions. Published On

Most presidents have made sure that there is a choreographed rollout of political messages and policy prescriptions before a State of the Union address. But Mr. Trump's past week has been consumed by the revelation that he sought last year to fire Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading a Russia investigation, and by the abrupt departure of the F.B.I. deputy director, Andrew G. McCabe, whom the president had railed against as politically corrupt.

At the same time, Republicans are pushing to make public a classified memo that they say shows a politically driven effort by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department to malign Mr. Trump with manufactured allegations of links to Moscow. Democrats say the memo is a set of cherry-picked facts to distort the origins of the Russia investigation and undermine the inquiry. On his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump could be heard reassuring a Republican congressman that he supports the release of the memo "100 percent."

Presidents historically use the annual State of the Union address to tout the successes of their administrations. Mr. Trump went even further, using his time in the spotlight to describe what he views as his major successes during his first year in office: job growth, the confirmation of Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the rollback of regulations, a $1.5 trillion tax cut, the defeat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and historic gains in the stock market.

"Just as I promised the American people from this podium 11 months ago, we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reform in American history," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump delivered his roughly 80-minute speech - the longest since President Bill Clinton in 2000 - almost verbatim from a teleprompter, staying uncharacteristically faithful to his prepared script as he paused for ovations, savoring an opportunity to promote his agenda and reaching for lofty statements about the strength of what he called "one American family."

Yet similar rhetoric by Mr. Trump has not lasted long. When he addressed a joint session of Congress weeks after his inauguration last year, Mr. Trump called for an end to "trivial fights." Days later, he was on Twitter charging that President Barack Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower.

Mr. Trump's tone became markedly sharper as he turned to the issue of immigration, seeking to link crime and terrorism to the United States' immigration policies. He highlighted the parents of young girls killed by immigrants who entered the country as "illegal, unaccompanied alien minors," saying it was time for Congress to "finally close the deadly loopholes that have allowed MS-13 and other criminal gangs to break into our country."

The president delivered his speech in the middle of an intense immigration debate in Congress about the fate of the so-called Dreamers, young people who were brought illegally to the United States as children. Mr. Trump has repeatedly expressed sympathy for the Dreamers and used the speech to reiterate his proposal to grant them legal status, including a path to citizenship, in exchange for stepped-up enforcement, the building of a wall on the southern border with Mexico and a reordering of immigration laws that gives priority to higher-skilled immigrants.

"It is time to reform these outdated immigration rules, and finally bring our immigration system into the 21st century," Mr. Trump said.

The president, who shocked lawmakers this month at an Oval Office meeting by using a vulgar term to disparage African nations, went out of his way to present himself as tolerant and appreciative of the nation's diverse people.

"So tonight I am extending an open hand to work with members of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, to protect our citizens, of every background, color, religion and creed," he said.

But the proposal has drawn condemnation from Democrats who call it meanspirited and anti-immigration activists who see it as an unacceptable grant of amnesty.

Democrats used the occasion to send their own message to Mr. Trump on the matter: They invited Dreamers who were to lose their protections from deportation - as well as family members of people the Trump administration has detained and deported - to sit with them in the House chamber as the president spoke.

Mr. Trump provided little in the way of specifics on the infrastructure proposal, other than to say that it should tap into private-sector and state and local funds in addition to federal dollars for a national initiative to "reclaim our building heritage." Although the idea has wide bipartisan appeal, the details have the potential to start regional battles among lawmakers and partisan fights over how to pay for it.

The president also promoted what he called his achievements around the world, calling for steep investments to make the American military "so strong and powerful" and hailing victories against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, as a vindication of his pledge last year to extinguish the group "from the face of the earth."

"One year later, I am proud to report that the coalition to defeat ISIS has liberated very close to 100 percent of the territory just recently held by these killers in Iraq and Syria," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump touted his decision to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and he announced, as expected, that he has signed an executive order to keep operating the Guantánamo Bay prison - a symbolic act that effectively keeps the detention facility open for business.

He also called on Congress to make sure that foreign assistance dollars "only go to America's friends."

The president included a tough message to the North Korean government and a denunciation of Kim Jong-un as a leader who has brutalized his own people and must be made to relinquish his nuclear program.

Adding drama to moment, he paid tribute to previously unannounced guests who wept in the gallery: the parents of Otto Warmbier, the University of Virginia student who died after being detained for 17 months in North Korea. And he hailed the escape of Ji Seong-ho, a North Korean defector who lost his leg before his harrowing journey.

"Today he has a new leg, but Seong-ho, I understand you still keep those crutches," Mr. Trump said as the young man triumphantly waved the crutches over his head.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: President Issues Appeal For Unity in State of Union. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Trump State of the Union Address Makes Appeal for Unity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - President Trump challenged Democrats on Tuesday night to join him in overhauling immigration policies and in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure in his first State of the Union address.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: A genetic (origins) red flag occurs when an argument or claim is accepted as true or false based solely on where it originated from and not on the actual integrity of the claim.

Connection: During an interview Donald Trump quotes Benito Mussolini, the fascist leader of Italy during the second World War.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump: 'Mussolini Is Mussolini... What Difference Does It Make?' | Meet The Press | NBC News

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 Reason for Belief: Agenticity (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 Reason for Belief: Agenticity (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The reason for belief Agenticity is defined as a belief system that sees the universe/world being controlled by invisible agents like God or aliens.

Connection:   Agenticity creator Michael Shermer discusses healthy versus unhealthy Aagenticity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael Shermer describes how people tend to find agency even in complex systems and inanimate things -- from his Denver talk.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 Reason for Belief:  Unexplained (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 Reason for Belief:  Unexplained (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The reason for belief Unexplained refers to something that is not known or isn't clear. It is an unexplained event thas no logica explanation or reason.

Connection: A variety of unexplainable UFO sightings and interactions are documented and recreated..

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"What people sometimes don't get about science is that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained," said an astrophysicist at MIT https://t.co/Z8UdjWmVCg
- The New York Times (@nytimes) December 18, 2017

Crashes in Roswell, New Mexico, and flashing lights over New Jersey - for decades, people around the world have looked up at the skies and reported mysterious unidentified objects (UFOs).

But are these sightings signs of alien visitation? And are they truly unexplained?

A recent New York Times investigation found that the Pentagon had, for years, funded a program to answer just that question. The program found several reports of aircraft that seemed to travel at high speeds and have no signs of propulsion, the Times reported.

While the vast majority of UFO sightings, when investigated, have turned out to be the result of ordinary Earthly phenomena, such as weather balloons, flares or rockets, some still leave experts scratching their heads - and looking to the skies for little green men. From white Tic Tacs to flashing lights, here are some of the most mysterious UFO sightings out there. [ 7 Things Most Often Mistaken for UFOs]

The Times investigation highlighted one of the most intriguing UFO sightings, which was captured on video. In 2004, two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets (also called Super Hornet or Hornet) encountered a mysterious flying object near San Diego, The New York Times reported. The object seemed to be traveling at high speeds, was surrounded by a glowing halo and was rotating as it moved. According to audio from the event, one of the fighter pilots exclaimed, "There's a whole fleet of them," the Times reported.

One of the Navy pilots who witnessed the bizarre event, Cmdr. David Fravor, recalled that the object looked like "a white Tic Tac, about the same size as a Hornet, 40 feet [12 meters] long with no wings," Fravor told The Washington Post. As his plane approached the UFO, the mysterious object accelerated "faster than I'd ever seen anything in my life," Fravor said.

Fravor, for his part, is convinced that the source of the object was extraterrestrial, he told The Washington Post.

In 1981, a 55-year-old farmer in Trans-en-Provence, France, reported hearing a strange, high-pitched sound before seeing a flying saucer nearby. The lead-colored UFO took off almost immediately, he said.

What makes this sighting unique is that the farmer immediately contacted local police, who took soil and plant samples, according to a report of the incident. Experts from France's UFO-investigating body, formerly called Groupe d'Études et d'Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEPAN), said the chemical evidence was consistent with heating of the soil and pressure from a heavy object. They also found traces of zinc and phosphate and evidence of abnormalities in the plants nearby.

However, skeptics said the smooshed plants could have been caused by tires, and cars had been heard traveling in the area around the same time as the farmer's sighting. Because there was a military base nearby, another explanation is that the French military was testing an experimental craft.

In general, some of the most reputable or credible sightings come from those who are in the skies all day long: pilots and members of the military. The National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC) logged one such sighting in 2013, Vice reported. Late in the evening in 2013, the man, a former commercial pilot, fighter pilot and astronaut, was looking at the sky with his family in Athens, Texas, when he noticed what looked like an orange, glowing fireball.

"When I looked up into the sky, I saw a fairly large, orange, glowing orb moving rapidly overhead [at] right about 90 degrees of elevation," the man reported to the NUFORC.

After a few minutes, a group of three similar objects followed the same flight path. Three minutes later, two more objects flew along that same route. The objects gave off no sound and seemed to glow from atmospheric heating, the man reported. He and his family attempted to record the objects using their iPhones, though the grainy, dark video was difficult to decipher, he said.

"They moved much faster than orbital satellites (International Space Station, for example) or airplanes, but much slower than meteors and did not change brightness as a meteor would upon entering the atmosphere," the man said in his call. "I have no explanation for what we saw."

Another report from the NUFORC came from an airline captain who was flying between Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, when he noticed glowing blue lights over Mount Shasta in California that appeared much brighter than the stars typically do in the area.

"The two lights were approximately an inch apart in the windscreen and the size of normal stars," the captain noted in a report. Then, "one of the 'stars' just dimmed out over about a 10-second time span followed by the other one dimming out completely in about 10 seconds also."

The lights were stationary, so they were not falling stars or satellites, he said. [ UFO Quiz: What's Really Out There]

"We were flying in crystal-clear skies and were not flying though any clouds whatsoever. These two lights were not following the typical west-to-east orbital path as most satellites do and were just sitting there kind of like ships hiding in plain sight," the captain reported to the NUFORC.

The lights also appeared to be far above the level of the plane, which was flying at 38,000 feet (11,580 m).

For every unexplained sighting, there are dozens that turn out to be military flares, weird cloud formations, weather phenomena or elaborate hoaxes. For instance, GEPAN's database suggests that only 7 percent of all supposed UFO sightings are truly unexplained.

In the 1940s, the U.S. Air Force began investigating UFO sightings, and that program, called Project Blue Book, logged more than 12,000 reported sightings before it was shuttered in 1969. Most of those Project Blue Book sightings were ultimately explained. While a few remained unexplained, the people involved in the program were skeptical that these cases were true alien sightings or completely unknown physical phenomena.

"If more immediate, detailed, objective data on the unknowns had been available, probably these, too, could have been explained," a report in the Project Blue Book archive noted. However, the fact that human factors are involved - in particular, personal impressions and interpretations, rather than accurate scientific data - it's likely impossible to eliminate all unidentified sightings, the report noted.

Originally published on Live Science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UFO Mysteries: These Sightings Have Never Been Solved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"What people sometimes don't get about science is that we often have phenomena that remain unexplained," said an astrophysicist at MIT https://t.co/Z8UdjWmVCg - The New York Times (@nytimes) December 18, 2017 Crashes in Roswell, New Mexico, and flashing lights over New Jersey - for decades, people around the world have looked up at the skies and reported mysterious unidentified objects (UFOs).

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 Reason for Belief:  Simplicity (video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 Reason for Belief:  Simplicity (video)

# data[].attributes.body
Definition:  Simplicity refers to the state or function of being plain and uncomplicated.  Although it is perceived as extremely ordinary it is still seen as enjoyable and fulfilling.

Connection: A woman decides to give up all of her social media accounts for 1 month and live a simpler life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Quit Social Media For 1 Month — And It Was The Best Choice I Ever Made

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I quit social media for a month. So, I quit Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter. I just needed a break. It was time to cut myself off I stopped using social media this morning and my brain is going crazy. I just realized how often I glance down just to see if I have a notification.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process Question Responses (Word document)

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #10 Critical Thinking Process Question Responses (Word document)

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to evaluate the video by US President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress after 9/11where he said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”

Define Problem:

What exactly is the problem?

Are nations around the world going to back the US in its fight against terrorism post 9/11?

Gather information:

Look for evidence to support a claim. Describe the source (website, video, article, book, other), and describe the arguments for/against.

Shortly after the 9/11 attack President George W. Bush gave a state of the union speech where he attempted to calm the American citizens and with vigor told all the world nations that terrorism will not be tolerated and that if any nation does not join the US in fighting terrorism then that nation will be considered a pro-terrorist nation to be dealt with accordingly.  The president vowed revenge for the deadly attack on the US.

Evaluate Evidence:

Is the source credible? Is there proof? Have the facts been checked? Can the results be reproduced? Has the scientific method been followed?

President George W. Bush is probably the most powerful man in the world at that time and as such his credibility is extremely high.  The proof of the carnage is seen on every news stations worldwide and the body count is there for all to see.  The results can definitely be reproduced but not an option for obvious reasons.  The scientific method has been proven by showing that purposely crashing several large commercial aeroplanes at full passenger capacity into heavily populated buildings and locations will cause utmost devastation and a high casualty count.  This is a scientific experiment on a world-wide scale.

Recognize Assumptions, Emotions, Biases:

What are the personal assumptions, emotions, and bias? What are the potential impacts of the

assumptions, emotions, and bias?

President George W. Bush is in charge of a large populated country and this is extremely personal to him.  Emotions of the entire American nation are high.  Biases toward terrorists and those pro-terrorist nations are at an all-time high.  These elevated emotions and biases often cause knee-jerk reactions without much thought and preparation going into a response.  However, because of the large scale of destruction and death that occurred, the President has the majority of his country behind him.

Synthesize Evidence, Identify Alternatives:

What are the alternative solutions? Synthesize all findings to write clear and concise statements of alternative solutions. Keep an open mind!

Alternative solution 1: Gather the military backing of as many nations as possible and formulate a plan to destroy the terrorists.

Alternative solution 2: Take it as a learning experience and do nothing other than accepting the nation’s fate, i.e. “Turn the other cheek.”

Select Best Alternative:

Consider all alternative solutions (along with supporting evidence) and write a conclusion that selects the best alternative. Make an informed choice!

I conclude that terrorism cannot be tolerated and that each and every nation should unite to form the largest anti-terrorism regime ever seen.