Politics The Other America First Party The Prohibition Party keeps up its 150-year fight for an older, more communal national vision. “Since one o’clock this morning Prohibition has been a fugitive in the remote quagmires of the Bible Belt,” wrote H.L. Mencken in June 1932 for Baltimore’s Evening Sun. In a matter of hours, the Democratic National Convention had torn from the party platform the compromise plank on prohibition (the “damp”) and replaced it with the “wet wet” position: full and immediate repeal of the 18th Amendment and the associated enforcement measures. This proved to be another nail in the coffin for the embattled Hoover-led Republicans, who had maintained a damp position, not expecting to be outflanked by the Southerner-heavy Democrats. The popular image of the prohibitionist is embodied in the Kentucky-born temperance leader Carrie Nation, who described her armed raids on illegal liquor-dealers with a glorious Americanism, “hatchetations.” (You may infer Nation’s signature weapon of choice.) Nation was white, evangelical, and, at the perihelion of her influence, elderly—a perfect fanatic of uplift that Mencken would have struggled to invent. The prohibitionists were, in the popular memory, religious, nosy, and disagreeable, waging a one-sided war on fun; conveniently forgotten is the undeniable mass social dysfunction arising from the abuse of alcohol that stirred them up in the first place. For most Americans, the prohibition story ends with repeal—Roosevelt won, the Amendment was appealed, and These States settled down for the Depression and the Second World War fortified with their preferred chemical aid. Lost in the shuffle: the oldest third party in America, the Prohibition Party (mascot: the camel), which had won and then lost its signature issue without ever elbowing its way into power in Washington.  Few Americans realize the Prohibition Party is still a going concern; the Prohibitionists have fielded a presidential candidate every year since 1872, and they are not about to break the streak now. The party is small and far from the levers of power, and is more modest in its aims than at the time of the movement’s zenith; yet in its current form it still preserves an older idiom of politics, crystallizing certain tensions that have bedeviled the American system since the beginning. Michael Wood, a retired Californian tech CEO who is the party’s presidential nominee, is under no illusions about the party’s electoral prospects. “It is mathematically impossible for the Prohibition Party to win this election. Nonetheless, third parties play a critical role in American politics—raising important issues that the two major parties refuse to address, or in some cases refuse to even see,” he wrote in an email interview with The American Conservative. This year has, in some respects, been more difficult than usual. Ballot access has received an unusual amount of attention in the 2024 cycle; tight and often ambiguous polling has put the fear of spoiler candidates into the major parties, so their legal apparatus—particularly that of the Democrats—has been working overtime to keep the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, and the Prohibition Party off state slates.  “Indeed, this is a sore spot. We entered the campaign with sufficient funds and plans to get on the ballot in five states. Certainly not enough to win the Electoral College, but a platform to help us spread our message of a more healthy America,” wrote Wood. “Unfortunately, the rules allowing third parties to access the ballot, and to give Americians a real democratic choice, are determined by the duopoly. Those who are already in power have zero motivation to give voters additional choice, and the barriers to ballot entry become more difficult and complex with each passing election. As it stands, we have ballot access in our primary-focus state of Arkansas and in the preference election in Guam.”  Zack Kusnir, the national chairman of the Prohibition Party, seems unlikely to commit any hatchetations. A soft-spoken Californian, Kusnir was a USC defensive tackle and now lives in New York, where he has worked in finance and tech. He also emphasized the theoretical and pragmatic importance of ballot access in an interview with TAC.  “It’s very difficult and very expensive and very impractical for third parties to get on the ballot. Now, I understand you have to have some kind of rules in place so the ballots aren’t being absolutely flooded and having all these ridiculous parties that are people doing something for comedy,” Kusnir said. “But when you have a party like the Prohibition Party, which is so historically important and has been on every presidential ballot since 1872 or you know, you have something like the Green Party, which is well established, and they don’t have as much funding as these big parties. Why should they have to be so financially well off, or be so constrained and have to limit where they can get on the ballot?” Fundamental divisions between third parties make it difficult to act as a bloc on ballot-access campaigns. “We were approached by some other third parties, but due to differences in our basic platform stances we chose to go it alone in 2024,” wrote Wood. Per Wood and Kusnir, the party has roughly 5,000 registered voters and 70 dues-paying members. Per Wood, they are also unlikely candidates to participate in evangelist-led hatchetations.  “The idea of states’ rights—of local people being able to decide what is best for their communities—drives the party base more than the religious aspect you mention,” wrote Wood. “In fact, in 2024 the party voted to adopt a change to the issue of abortion; recognizing that this is a very personal issue, we call for every woman to have the right to decide based on her own conscience. The religious aspect still remains a factor in some southern states, where conservative faiths strongly discourage alcohol abuse.” The candidate emphasized the party’s change in tactics since the failure of the national prohibition regime of the 1920s. “In regards to our signature issue of alcohol, it is important to note that we are not looking to bring back national prohibition or to take away anyone’s beer—this is not your grandfather’s Prohibition Party!” wrote Wood. The party instead has three core policies: heavy restrictions on alcohol advertising, similar to those on tobacco products; an excise tax, the proceeds of which will go to ameliorating the dysfunctions arising from alcohol abuse; and a zero-tolerance law for consuming intoxicants and driving. The last of these touches on part of Wood’s personal political journey. “Two personal events in my early adulthood raised my awareness of the dangers of alcohol,” he wrote. “A cousin who died of alcohol poisoning at a frat party and a close relative who suffered life-changing injuries in an alcohol-related traffic accident. The combination of these factors drew me to the Prohibition Party.” Kusnir echoed Wood’s articulation of the alcohol planks of the party platform while explaining his own path to the Prohibitionists. “While as a party, we’re not looking to go back to the 1920s I think that a lot of people and a lot of communities who may be uninformed or vulnerable or susceptible to the negatives that can be attributed to alcohol,” he said. “I’m big on health as well, so it really tied into that. And I just thought, hey, you know, like, I think this is the right party for me to join.” Outside the alcohol-related planks, the party’s platform has much in common with Trump-era conservatism: a strong defense of the Second Amendment; a non-interventionist foreign policy outlook; a call for infrastructure renewal; closing the border and remedying the gross abuses of asylum law. (And, as mentioned by Wood, the Prohibition Party has softened its position on abortion, much like the Trump-era GOP.) “I’m always America First, and I think Americans should be prioritized with everything that our government does. And the Prohibition Party has that outlook,” said Kusnir. “We’re very anti-war as a party,” he explained. “You know, as I said, we’re America First, and we understand that we have our our allies that may need assistance, but there’s a lot of things that need to be done internally, and we shouldn’t be letting Americans suffer and prioritize others in other countries who have their own governments to take care of them for what it may be.” Caring for the American people and their land is a through-line for Kusnir. “Something new that I actually decided to add myself to our platform is: I’m a big proponent of regenerative farming as it ties in with my health beliefs,” he said. “Reducing and eliminating GMOs and meat and animal products are a big part of the diets of many Americans, and provide plenty of health benefits. But if we’re going to be farming meat, I do believe the animals need to be treated very ethically, and that some of the industrial farming practices can be refined.” Absent electoral success, what can the Prohibition Party accomplish in 2024? “The best catalyst for change is to let your voice be heard. In a state like Arkansas, where the Republican candidate has taken more than 60 percent of the vote in each of the last three elections, voters can go unheard. If you care about one or more of the issues that the Prohibition Party represents, a vote for us can be a vote for change,” wrote Wood. “Perhaps that change will not come in November, but when enough people choose a third party this election the major parties will begin to ask themselves why and start to address some of the issues we stand for. As a small start, RFK Jr. has begun to use one of the Prohibition Party taglines, ‘Make America Healthy Again’—that goes to show that enough small voices can and will be heard!” “Even our campaign, at least in my view, is a form of spreading our message which ties back to the signature issue, where we want to be that shining light provide a source of support and education for these specific communities and individuals that might be hurting from the implications of alcohol,” said Kusnir. “So we’re really around trying to promote healthier, safer, cleaner and informed America, in addition to preserving our history.” Promoting a substantive message for something, rather than against someone, gets to the heart of Kusnir’s original affinity for the party. “When I was in college and was able to register as a voter, I did not feel that either the Democrat or Republican Parties quite resonated with me,” he said. “They each had, you know, policies and sentiments that I liked. Each had ones that I disliked. But I was really turned off by a lot of the mudslinging, because I turned 18 right around an election. And I was like, you know, I don’t want to join in on either side of this.” Kusnir never wants the Prohibition Party to go down that road. “You go on TV a lot of times, you don’t see an advertisement for why your party’s great. You see an advertisement for why the other party’s bad. And I totally despise that,” he said. “So I had said, that’s never something that you’re going to see me doing. And I don’t want the party to go that route. I want us to focus on our main objective, where we want to preserve American history by keeping the party as the oldest active third party in the country, as well as being there as a resource for people who need it, and spreading our message on our signature issue.” The Prohibition Party lives at the strange crossroads of American political theory, the point of convergence whence all paths radiate: What is the true meaning of “freedom”? Are you personally free if you are under chemical domination? Are you politically free if you are under partisan domination? “We support individual freedoms, but, you know, my personal view: When it comes to alcohol and drugs, are you really free when you’re under the influence? You can’t operate machinery, you can’t drive a car, you can’t think clearly,” said Kusnir. “And I don’t think a lot of people view it that way, which I do. So, you know, my concern is that people are free and they’re healthy, and that, you know, communities are productive, safe and happy.” Dry or wet, who could disagree with that? The post The Other America First Party appeared first on The American Conservative.

Ron Paul Endorses Trump, Backs Musk’s Push for Department Of Government Efficiency [WATCH]

Next President ‘Prediction’ By Moo Deng, Thailand’s Baby Hippo Superstar [WATCH]

Rogan Endorses Trump In The Most Critical Election In History | Keys to Victory Tonight | 11.05.25

It’s Election Day, at last.  Though we don’t know who will win this razor-tight contest, we do know that if V.P. Kamala Harris becomes our next president, it will be because men failed to show up.  Consider the early voting in Georgia: as of November 4, 2.2 million women had cast ballots, outnumbering male voters by 27%. In North Carolina, similarly, 2.3 million women had voted as of November 2, compared to 1.8 million men. That may be why former President Donald...

In battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, young women are lining up to vote early. Kamala Harris is hoping they are the tide that turns the election for her. On an abnormally warm fall morning on the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus, dozens of students stood in line to vote at the university’s early voting centre. Among them was Keely Ganong, a third-year student who was excited to vote for Harris. “She’s just a leader that I would to look up to to represent my country...

Men and women have been voting differently in presidential elections for decades. But could the gender gap be the deciding factor in this year's razor-thin race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump? The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50...

The popular game show "Jeopardy!" originated in 1964, and for six decades it has stumped contestants and viewers with tough trivia questions and answers (or answers and questions, to be more accurate). Competing on "Jeopardy!" is practically synonymous with being a smartypants, and champions win lifelong bragging rights along with whatever monetary winnings they end up taking home. To win "Jeopardy!," you place a wager in the Final Jeopardy round with whatever money you've collected through the first two rounds. All three contestants write down their wagers based solely on the category given, then they have 30 seconds to write down the question for the same answer after it's revealed. Very rarely do all three contestants get the Final Jeopardy wrong. But in 1984, on Alex Trebek's second day hosting the show, a deceptively simple Final Jeopardy answer answer resulted in all three contestants making the same wrong guess and ending the round with $0 each. The category was "The Calendar," and after the contestants placed their bets, the answer was revealed: "Calendar date with which the 20th century began." - YouTube www.youtube.com The 20th century was the 1900s, as most of us are aware, and all three contestants wrote down identical responses: "What is January 1, 1900?" But they were all incorrect. And unfortunately, all three had wagered their entire amount, leaving them with nothing across the board."Oh, I don't believe it!" exclaimed one of the contestants as they all laughed at the absurdity. "I'm at a loss for words," said Trebek. A member of the audience asked what the correct answer–or question— was, and Trebek shared that the correct response would have been "What is January 1, 1901?" If that seems confusing, it's probably because we all made a huge deal about the year 2000, marking it as the end of the 21st century as well as the turn of the millennium. But basically, we were wrong. Some people did point it out at the time, but the excitement and momentum of celebrating Y2K had us all in a frenzy and no one was going to wait until January 1, 2001 to celebrate the new millennium. Why should we have? It all comes down to the fact that in the Gregorian calendar the first year wasn't 0 A.D., it was 1 A.D. The first century spanned from 1 to 100 A.D., the second century from 101 to 200 A.D. and so on, leading up to the 20th century officially being from 1901 to 2000. So January 1, 1901 is actually the date that the 20th century began, despite how unituitive it feels. To be fair, you'd think a "Jeopardy!" contestant might recognize that the question seemed awfully simple for a Final Jeopardy round, but only having 30 seconds to think under pressure is tough. And it's not like these people lived in the internet era where random trivia questions like this regularly go viral, making us more aware of them. And this episode aired over a decade before the "Seinfeld" episode where Jerry explains the "no year zero" thing to Newman, who had planned a millennium party. - YouTube youtu.be As one person pointed out, the calendar answer is technically correct, but it's not the way the average person thinks of centuries, just as a tomato is technically fruit but the average person thinks of it (and uses it) as a vegetable. Even though there were some sticklers about the year 2000, most of us just went along with seeing it as the turn of the millennium because it felt like that's how it should be. It's kind of wild how most of us can think of something incorrectly but we just sort of collectively accept our wrongness about it. The 1984 episode has been making the viral rounds, prompting people to share how much they miss Alex Trebek. The beloved, long-time "Jeopardy!" host died in 2020 at age 80 after a 20-month battle with pancreatic cancer. He worked up until the point where he couldn't anymore, even while undergoing chemotherapy. His final episode included a touching tribute honoring his 37 seasons with the game show, the end of an illustrious and iconic era. - YouTube www.youtube.com

It isn't hard to think of ways to misuse smart devices. Since cameras were added to phones, privacy concerns have grown in lockstep with technology. The ability to surreptitiously record a conversation, lurk through someone's social content, or slip an AirTag into a purse have all created traps that are far too easy to fall into. Now, new devices are being released that might complicate things even further. One duo of Harvard students has demonstrated how combining artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and wearables like smart glasses can open up a new frontier of abuse, allowing the wearer to access an amazing trove of information on a stranger just by looking at them. Fortunately, their research also focused on combatting these new dangers, and they've shared their findings. via GIPHY The Harvard students behind the project, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio, built a program called I-XRAY that uses the Meta smart glasses to livestream video to Instagram. AI software monitors the stream, capturing faces and linking them to information from public databases. In seconds, the tech displays individuals' personal information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and even names of relatives. "The purpose of building this tool is not for misuse, and we are not releasing it." — AnhPhu Nguyen Nguyen explained that the project isn’t designed to exploit this technology but to show how easily it can be accessed and abused. “The purpose of building this tool is not for misuse, and we are not releasing it,” Nguyen and Ardayfio stated in a document detailing the project. Instead, they hope to raise awareness that the potential for misuse is here — not in a distant, dystopian future. The dawning age of smart glasses Since the launch of Google Glass over a decade ago, privacy concerns around smart glasses have been an ongoing issue. New devices like the recently released Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have reignited the conversation. Google Glass faced significant backlash, and the company ultimately shelved the device partly due to public discomfort with being unknowingly filmed. The form factor has evolved but the idea is the same, all the tech of a smart phone in a new package. Loïc Le Meur While people have grown more accustomed to cameras through social media, the idea of wearable, nearly invisible recording devices still unsettles many. Comments on the demonstration reveal that this discomfort persists: "Guess in the future we will be wearing face-altering prosthetics to not get doxxed." — Leek5 on Reddit Meta has set guidelines for smart glasses users in response to etiquette questions. These include advising people to use voice commands or gestures before filming to ensure others are aware of being recorded. However, as the Harvard students demonstrate, these guidelines rely on individuals’ willingness to follow them — a tenuous safeguard at best. AI’s role in connecting the dots Nguyen and Ardayfio’s project relies heavily on large language models (LLMs), which use AI to identify connections among large data sets. I-XRAY can rapidly retrieve personal details by analyzing relationships between photos and database entries. This capability, combined with real-time video streaming from the glasses, demonstrates how easily AI can connect scattered pieces of public data into a full profile of an individual. College students used Meta’s smart glasses to dox people in real time by u/MetaKnowing inFuturology In a video released to X, the students demonstrate the abilities of their app. Most people identified by the technique react with uncomfortable laughter or astonishment. While Nguyen and Ardayfio emphasize that they have no intention of releasing this technology, their project raises serious ethical questions about the future of AI and facial recognition. The fact that two college students could develop such a tool suggests that the technology is well within reach for anyone with basic resources and programming knowledge. Steps you can take to protect your privacy via GIPHY Fortunately, the creators of I-XRAY have outlined steps you can take to protect yourself from similar invasions of privacy. Many public databases like PimEyes and people-search sites allow individuals to opt out, though the process can be time-consuming and not always fully effective. Additionally, they recommend freezing your credit with major bureaus and using two-factor authentication to prevent potential identity theft. Here are some practical steps to consider: Remove yourself from reverse face search engines – Tools like PimEyes and FaceCheck.id allow users to request removal. While this may not fully protect your privacy, it limits some exposure. Opt out of people search engines – Sites like FastPeopleSearch, CheckThem, and Instant Checkmate allow individuals to opt out. For a comprehensive list, The New York Times has published an extensive guide. Freeze your credit – Adding two-factor authentication and freezing your credit can protect your financial identity from SSN data leaks. "Time to start wearing my Staticblaster foil jacket and my handy EMP-Lite Boombox whenever I get onto public transport." — Just_Another_Madman on Reddit As these technologies evolve, robust privacy protections will be essential to prevent misuse, and awareness of privacy risks can help individuals make informed choices about their digital and physical security. The creators of I-XRAY remind us that awareness and action are our best tools in this era of advancing surveillance tech.