Tag: Party

  • In The Age Of Lies, Truth Is Extreme

    In The Age Of Lies, Truth Is Extreme

    Authored by Brian O’Leary via Substack,

    Today’s so-called moderates enable chaos, while extremists uphold values rooted in tradition…

    The late columnist, Joe Sobran, diagnosed America’s political malaise with scalpel-like precision:

    If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal.

    If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative.

    If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate.

    If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.

    By this clinical standard, the forgotten American qualifies as a dangerous extremist—and it is high time people like this wear that scarlet letter with pride.

    Sobran was one of those extremists. At one time, he was an influential columnist and a prominent voice on the American right, but by the mid-1980s, he started to have second thoughts about U.S. policy in the Middle East. For possessing such pluck, he was summarily banished from the so-called “conservative movement” by his mentor and publisher at National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr.

    It must be noted that what masquerades as conservatism today would send Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, spinning like a Kentucky Derby toteboard. The movement that once defended “an enduring moral order” and championed “prudent restraints upon power” has been colonized by Trotsky’s ideological grandchildren—neoconservative saboteurs who mistake perpetual warfare for patriotic duty.

    The linguistic battlefield has also been scorched beyond recognition. The inheritors of Buckley’s drift against Sobran’s extremism—Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and their bow-tied confederates—have transformed a robust intellectual tradition into cocktail-party conservatism: respectable enough for Georgetown dinner parties, toothless enough for progressive approval. Meanwhile, the moderate serpents perform their familiar slithering routine between positions with wind-licking dexterity.

    Invade the world? Absolutely, Senator. Tax-and-spend domestically? Without question, Congressman.

    They represent the most insidious threat of all—ideological chameleons who stand for nothing except their own advancement up the greasy pole of political ambition.

    Jack Callahan, American, puts it more bluntly: “These weasels in Washington would sell their grandmothers for committee assignments and their principles for campaign contributions. At least honest liberals will tell you they’re coming for both your wallet and your freedoms. These moderate frauds smile while picking both pockets simultaneously.”

    In this blood-soaked century alone, the neoconservative itch for foreign intervention has drained nearly a generation’s worth of American blood and treasure. Their incessant pruritus, developed from a longing for overseas adventurism, never gets scratched sufficiently to satisfy their imperial appetites.

    Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria. Ukraine. The drumbeat continues. Meanwhile, American cities crumble like ancient Rome, with their borders dissolving like sugar in acid rain.

    So yes, go ahead and call these non-interventionists “extremists.” They’d be guilty as charged by every current tribunal of acceptable opinion. Nevertheless, the demand is for the rascals in government to keep their grubby hands off both domestic tranquility and the sovereignty of foreign nations.

    Today’s extremists understand that both “permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.” They also adhere religiously to “custom, convention, and continuity,” because, as that dangerous extremist Edmund Burke observed centuries ago, “the individual is foolish, but the species is wise.”

    Furthermore, Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee, had the gall to tell progressives and others that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

    Reflect. Should liberty even serve as a rallying cry in today’s cultural wasteland?

    The modern mind has perverted the very concept beyond recognition, confusing liberty with libertinism and freedom with license. When most Americans hear “liberty,” they envision the unconstrained ability to do whatever feels good—a guaranteed recipe for civilizational collapse.

    Consider the French revolutionary motto. “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Not surprisingly, this also serves as Haiti’s motto. Objections to “liberty,” so-called, were previously noted, but fraternity remains beyond reproach—community bonds matter more than individual whims.

    More importantly, equality has failed spectacularly wherever attempted, from the Reign of Terror to Haiti’s ongoing tragedy. Contra Meat Loaf’s romantic nonsense, two out of three is catastrophically bad.

    “The problem with equality,” Callahan observes, “is that God didn’t create equal people. He created unique souls with different gifts, different callings, and different destinies. Trying to force equality is like trying to make every river flow uphill—you can attempt it with enough government force, but you’ll destroy the natural landscape in the process.”

    Today’s extremists champion voluntary community over involuntary collectivism. We stand as proud inheritors of ancestral wisdom, not “unburdened by what has been,” despite what 2024’s most prominent philosophizer—with her daily samplings of vapid word salad—tried to force Americans to believe.

    The accumulated wisdom of a society’s forebears allows the populace to peer further into the future precisely because it is standing on the shoulders of a previous generation. Extremists don’t dance upon the graves of their ancestors.

    Consider. The crisis isn’t about government itself. That’s another argument for another day, if the Republic is still breathing. The immediate problem lies with the current regime’s personnel, those who consistently make everything worse through their ham-fisted interventions.

    Whether Pentagon bureaucrats are planning the next overseas adventure or Education Department commissars are targeting first-graders with gender ideology, the pattern remains depressingly consistent. This type of interference breeds chaos like mosquitoes do in stagnant water.

    Extremists possess something today’s liberals, moderates, and conservatives conspicuously lack: inherited wisdom. They understand that authentic “conservatism” means conserving what matters—family, faith, community, and country—not some globalist empire masquerading as the world’s policeman in today’s political theater.

    Callahan’s final verdict cuts through the fog: “They call us extremists because we remember what America was supposed to be. We believe in borders, babies, and baseball played without pitch clocks. We think fathers should be fathers and mothers should be mothers, that children need both, and that ‘Follow The Science’ usually means ‘ignore common sense.’ If that makes us extreme, then every previous generation of Americans was extreme too.”

    The establishment will continue hurling “extremist” like a playground epithet, as if the label stings. Let them.

    Extremists—those as Sobran described—will wear the label as a badge of honor, knowing that in an age of manufactured lies, telling simple truths has indeed become an extreme act. In a culture gone certifiably mad, sanity appears radical to the inmates that run the asylum.

    The choice will soon crystallize and do so with brutal clarity: embrace extremism or watch civilization finally unravel from the comfortable sidelines of moderate respectability.

    Some battles demand that sides be chosen without apology. This is one of them.

    The forgotten Americans have spoken. Now let the extremists govern.

    Loading recommendations…
  • California Republicans File 2nd Lawsuit Against State Redistricting Push

    California Republicans File 2nd Lawsuit Against State Redistricting Push

    Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

    California Republicans on Aug. 25 filed a second legal challenge against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s congressional redistricting plan, which will go before voters as Proposition 50 in November.

    The lawsuit argued that the plan violates the state Constitution, which requires that maps be drawn by the politically neutral California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

    “This is an issue about good governance in the state of California,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said at a press conference announcing the legal action. “Californians deserve to have the right to choose our legislators.”

    Prop. 50, authorized after the California Legislature quickly passed legislation to approve the Nov. 4 ballot measure, will ask voters to accept a temporary overriding of the independent commission.

    Newsom and state Democrats say the move is meant to counter efforts in Texas to change maps in Republicans’ favor.

    The Texas plan would strengthen Republicans’ position in five congressional districts currently held by Democrats. President Donald Trump voiced support for redistricting in the Lone Star State and other Republican states, such as Florida and Ohio.

    Texas Republicans said their redistricting proposal is legally justified and is needed to correct problems with existing districts in response to a letter by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in early July.

    The DOJ said that some Texas districts may be “coalition districts” drawn based on racial demographics to form a majority by combining minority groups and thus violate the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

    Democrats said the plan to redraw the districts unfairly targets districts led by black and Latino lawmakers and undermines decades of progress under the Voting Rights Act.

    Newsom and California Democrats have described their plan as “fighting fire with fire” against Texas Republicans. If approved by voters, it would threaten seats on the U.S. House of Representatives currently held by five California Republicans.

    Republicans on Aug. 25 filed an emergency petition before the state’s high court against the California Legislature and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    “The Constitution’s guardrails on redistricting are essential to ensuring that Californians are spared from the political influence and inherent turbulence of perpetual map-drawing in the hands of the Legislature,” the lawsuit read.

    California Republicans already filed one lawsuit against Prop. 50, citing rules requiring a 30-day review period for new legislation before lawmakers can act on it. The suit was shot down by the state’s Supreme Court.

    The second lawsuit challenges the measure on constitutional grounds.

    In 2008, California voters backed the creation of the Citizens Redistricting Commission through an amendment to the state’s constitution, and the independent body is popular among both parties in the state.

    A Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab poll found that 64 percent backed the independent commission, and only 36 percent supported returning authority over the process to state legislators.

    The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s main campaign arm, also accused Newsom of violating the California Constitution.

    Trump on Monday raised the possibility in comments to reporters that his administration could also bring suit against California’s redistricting push.

    In a post on X, Newsom responded in all capital letters, “Bring it.”

    Three California Republicans—U.S. Reps. Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Ken Calvert—are particularly endangered by the change, as their districts are on track to be inundated by voters who backed Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

    Kiley has criticized both Texas and California’s efforts at mid-decade redistricting. A bill introduced by the congressman would ban mid-decade redistricting entirely.

    Loading recommendations…
  • Live the Adventure: How Group Games Turn Your Celebration into an Epic Experience

    Live the Adventure: How Group Games Turn Your Celebration into an Epic Experience

    Why Group Adventure Games Rock Your Party

    When you’re hunting for a birthday bash, a team‑building blast, or a fun family outing, pick group adventure games. They’re the secret sauce that turns ordinary crowd‑pleasers into unforgettable memories.

    1. They Turn Your Crew Into Super‑Teamsters

    • Brain‑Bending Challenges: Escape rooms, scavenger hunts, and puzzle quests push the limits of creativity, communication, and problem‑solving.
    • Real‑Time Rumble: Players scramble in a ticking clock, making every decision feel urgent and thrilling.
    • Shared Wins: Everyone celebrates the same moment—boosting morale and bonding.

    2. The Ideal Match for Any Celebration

    • Birthdays: “It’s a surprise, but you’ll solve the clue to find the cake!”
    • Team‑Building: “Stretch those communication muscles and watch the trust build.”
    • Family Fun: “Kids and grandparents working side‑by‑side? Pure gold.”

    3. Why It’s Your Party’s Best Friend

    • Excitement on a Budget: Split a cost, split the fun—save money and double the laughs.
    • Learning Without the Lecture: Problem‑solving skills come naturally when you’re racing against the clock.
    • Last‑Minute Flexibility: Two‑hour rooms or three‑hour adventures? Pick what fits your group.

    Bottom Line

    Group adventure games give your party a pulse‑quickening, collaborative twist that keeps everyone talking long after the lights go out. Whenever you want people to come together, challenge themselves, and enjoy a shared triumph, roll the dice—physically and mentally—and let the adventure begin.

  • OpenAI secures Microsoft's blessing to transition its for-profit arm

    OpenAI secures Microsoft's blessing to transition its for-profit arm

    OpenAI announced Thursday it reached a nonbinding agreement with Microsoft, its largest investor, on a revised partnership that would allow the startup to convert its for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation (PBC).

    The transition, should it be cleared by state regulators, could allow OpenAI to raise additional capital from investors and, eventually, become a public company.

    In a blog post, OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor said under the nonbinding agreement with Microsoft, OpenAI’s nonprofit would continue to exist and retain control over the startup’s operations. OpenAI’s nonprofit would obtain a stake in the company’s PBC, worth upward of $100 billion, Taylor said. Further terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    “Microsoft and OpenAI have signed a nonbinding memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the next phase of our partnership,” the companies said in a joint statement. MOUs are not legally binding but aim to document each party’s expectations and intent.

    “We are actively working to finalize contractual terms in a definitive agreement,” the joint statement added.

    The development seems to mark an end to months of negotiations between OpenAI and Microsoft over the ChatGPT maker’s transition plans. Unlike most startups, OpenAI is controlled by a nonprofit board. The unusual structure allowed for OpenAI board members to fire CEO Sam Altman in 2023. Altman was reinstated days later, and many of the board members resigned. However, the same governance structure remains in place today.

    Under their current deal, Microsoft is supposed to get preferred access to OpenAI’s technology and be the startup’s primary provider of cloud services. However, ChatGPT is a much larger business than when Microsoft first invested in the startup back in 2019, and OpenAI has reportedly sought to loosen the cloud provider’s control as part of these negotiations.

    In the last year, OpenAI has struck a series of deals that would allow it to be less dependent on Microsoft. OpenAI recently signed a contract to spend $300 billion with cloud provider Oracle over a five-year period starting in 2027, according to the Wall Street Journal. OpenAI has also partnered with the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank on its Stargate data center project.

    Taylor says OpenAI and Microsoft will “continue to work with the California and Delaware attorneys general” on the transition plan, implying the deal still needs a stamp of approval from regulators before it can take effect.

    Representatives for California and Delaware attorneys general did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s request for comment.

    Tensions between OpenAI and Microsoft over these negotiations reportedly reached a boiling point in recent months. The Wall Street Journal reported Microsoft wanted control of technology owned by Windsurf, the AI coding startup that OpenAI had planned to acquire earlier this year, while OpenAI fought to keep the startup’s IP independent. However, the deal fell through, and Windsurf’s founders were hired by Google, and the rest of its staff was acquired by another startup, Cognition.

    In Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI — which at its core accuses Sam Altman, Greg Brockman, and the company of abandoning its nonprofit mission — the startup’s for-profit transition is also a major flash point. Lawyers representing Musk in the lawsuit have tried to surface information related to Microsoft and OpenAI’s negotiations over the transition.

    Musk also submitted an unsolicited $97 billion takeover bid for OpenAI earlier this year, which the startup’s board promptly rejected. However, legal experts noted at the time that Musk’s bid may have raised the price of OpenAI’s nonprofit stake.

    Notably, the nonprofit’s stake in OpenAI PBC, under this agreement, is larger than what Musk offered.

    In recent months, nonprofits such as Encode and The Midas Project have taken issue with OpenAI’s for-profit transition, arguing that it threatens the startup’s mission to develop AGI that benefits humanity. OpenAI has responded by sending subpoenas to some of these groups, claiming the nonprofits are funded by its competitors — namely, Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Encode and The Midas Project deny the claims.