Connect with us


Christian baker Jack Phillips sued for discrimination for a third time



If at first you don’t succeed, keep harassing until the Christian pays for his religion. That seems to be the mantra in Colorado as baker Jack Phillips and his attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, are being dragged back into court for a third time to defend Phillips’ right to not betray his religious beliefs in order to bake someone’s symbolic cake.

Phillips joined Fox News host Laura Ingraham to give details about his latest legal woes. This time, it’s a civil suit over his unwillingness to help celebrate gender reassignment with a cake that is blue on the outside, pink on the inside.

In our post-truth society, it’s understandable that so many progressives are trying to impose their morality by forcing Christians and conservatives to abandon our values in favor of their “freedoms.” But it really has nothing to do with freedom. This is about autonomy. It goes beyond a post-modern society that does not believe in absolute truth to a post-truth society that believes the only that matters is feelings. Truth is relative to the individual, and if the path to true freedom is the truth, then where is the falseness of autonomy leading our society?

But I digress.

In America, our rights to practice our religion as we see fit as long as doing so does not break the law are built into the foundation of all our freedoms, the Bill of Rights. Attacks on it are attacks on the nation.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Click to comment


AOTR 06-24-19: PolitiBunny joins Rick on KOKC 95.3FM, 1520AM



AOTR 06-24-19 PolitiBunny joins Rick on KOKC 953FM 1520AM

Occasionally I have the honor of hosting an afternoon talk radio show on KOKC 1520 AM and 95.3 FM. in Oklahoma City. During this interview, we talk with Sam Janney who you may know on Twitter as @PolitiBunny. On this interview, we talk about the life of a Twitchy editor.

Before we get to that though we also discuss the Executive Order Donald Trump signed to add transparency to medical pricing. I am no fan of Executive Orders but this one I can support. I have been advocating for visible pricing in medical procedures for over a decade and I applaud him for trying to do something about q huge problem we have in this country.

If you like the episode make sure to check out KLRNRadio where I happen to be the program director. I will also begin contributing here on NOQ more frequently.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


Cults of personality and the U.S. presidency



Cults of personality and the US presidency


John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the first President during my lifetime to whom followers ascribed a larger-than-life persona. He was a World War II hero from an affluent and influential New England family. He was just in his early 40s when he became President. First Lady Jackie Kennedy was a wealthy sophisticate fluent in European languages and culture. There was just something special about JFK and his family.

I was just a young teenager from out west, but even I couldn’t resist trying to mimic that impeccable Massachusetts accent by intoning the words: “Well, let me say this about that. We are moving on to the New Frontiers with great vigor.” I can still do it, by the way.

Then it all came crashing down one dark November day in 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The crudeness of Lyndon Baines Johnson was a rude awakening which rubbed salt in the wounds of those who had lost Camelot.


Nixon was awkward. Ford was clumsy. Carter was a faux Southern gentleman. Reagan’s legacy as bigger than life is largely retrospective. Bush 41 often misspoke. Clinton always sounded and acted like he just came out of the trailer park. Bush 43 tended to bumble a lot.


As a child in Indonesia, he grew up as Barry Soetoro and at Punahou School in Hawaii he was Barry Obama. It was Michelle who convinced him that Barack would serve his intersectional purposes better. He has played the part perfectly.

In the early days of POTUS 44, school children in Philadelphia were singing hymns of praise to the man who fled Hawaii to take up racial politics in Chicago. He had reached the pinnacle.

All serious consideration of his background and credentials were strictly off-limits. Verboten. You know all the questions so I won’t repeat them here. The perfect Manchurian Candidate.


As different as they may be in many ways, our previous President and the incumbent share one overriding similarity. Each is totally wrapped up in himself. All else is secondary at best or irrelevant at worst.

But it is not what Donald Trump thinks of himself that is the issue. It’s the vicarious thrill up the leg of all his followers who see themselves in his place of ultimate power with a trophy wife.

Ego has never been a disqualifier for political office. In fact, it usually helps propel a candidate to get there in the first place. The real concern is whether the person has the knowledge and qualifications to do the job. Not to mention the propensity for it.

Perhaps a President and Commander-in-Chief need not be a Subject Matter Expert [SME] on national security or economics. But he or she must have the basic knowledge, wisdom and temperament to choose the best advisors and stick with them.

President Trump’s first Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was a nothingburger. Now Mike Pompeo is a rather pompous little twit who is out of his league. National Security Advisor Mike Flynn was right on and understood the ideological underpinning of Islamic Jihad. He was replaced by General H.R. McMaster, a total dhimmi. Any morning now, expect to wake up and find out that expert John Bolton has moved on because he no longer has the President’s ear.

The real underlying problem in all this is that the cult of personality around Donald Trump is convinced he can do no wrong. Whether he does a, b or c, that is the right course of action simply by virtue of the fact that Trump is the one doing it. Decisions are no longer based upon empirical facts. They are tied to the reputation of the person doing them.

There are strong reasons to believe that reticence in retaliating against Iran’s downing of a U.S. Navy drone was a warning sign of a lack of resolve by the decision-maker, President Trump. Whether his order for ICE to round up and deport illegal aliens was put in abeyance due to an unauthorized leak by a member of his administration or not remains to be seen.

I try not to use terms like Trump zombies or sycophants, but the truth of the matter is that far too many people are unwilling to assess our current President’s policies and actions on their own merit.

As an example, if those who attempt to storm and breach our southwestern border are met with tear gas and if illegal aliens are detained as long as necessary, it should not matter whether that order was given by Barack Obama or Donald Trump during their respective tenures in the Oval Office. Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree ~ but of course never will ~ that this is not a political issue. Our national sovereignty is not negotiable.


So, is Donald Trump the Real McCoy? Do we take medical advice from a person who says he’s not a real doctor but that he just plays one on TV? DJT gave an Emmy Award-level performance in his audition for the part of President and Commander-in-Chief. He won the role much to his own surprise. Now, I believe he is sincerely trying to do the job.

Feeble attempts at substantive discussions during the GOP debates were met with insults and put-downs. But in a society that values visuals on the screen above the ability to do the hardest and most important job in the world, we get what we asked for and what we deserve.

The Democrat circus currently underway is following the same script. You’re not going to hear any serious discussion or debate regarding the essential issues of the day. It will be all glitz and glamor and one-upmanship.

Which Progressive personality do you want to form your cult around? Are gender and demographics important to you? Is something right or wrong because it is right or wrong or because somebody you like or dislike says it?


The reason I saw the 2016 election as a no-win situation was that either we would have the reprehensible policies of Hillary or else I would have to try to defend Donald against detractors even though his campaign performance revealed how fragile his capabilities really are.

If we now had President Hillary Clinton ~ as everyone shudders in unison ~ at least conservatives would be united in getting the best candidate to limit her to one term. But, now anyone who sees Trump as potentially vulnerable to defeat in 2020 is considered a traitor. We are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic in preparation for next year’s election.

It’s pretty well obvious now that no conservative is going to mount a primary challenge against Donald Trump. That severely limits our options in trying to stop our train of state from totally derailing next year.

The far-left radical wing of the Democrat Party is squelching and silencing all opposition and eliminating any moderates from contention for the nomination. Remember in 2008 how Republicans were thrilled that Barack Obama stopped Hillary’s bid, because they thought he had no chance to win in November. How did that work out for them?

Don’t think that an absolute socialist or open borders advocate cannot possibly become our next President. Whatever his chances, great or slim, I would suggest that we not undermine the candidacy of Joe Biden. Yes, he’s moving left to accommodate the progressive constituency.

But if Trump goes up against a different Democrat who is willing to destroy America to achieve his or her own ambitions and then he loses, that will be an unmitigated disaster. That’s why I hope his opponent will be Joe Biden. At this point, I will cast my vote for Donald Trump in that binary scenario. But I don’t think Joe Biden would wreak havoc upon American society the way the other Democrat candidates would.


If Trump wins re-election and serves a full second term, then who will emerge to succeed him? Mike Pence is certainly competent and a decent fellow. But he isn’t dynamic and has no political charisma. If we had to survive four years of Biden, conservatives could once again benefit from being the party out of power.

Republicans never know how to handle their authority. They waste golden opportunities. They squander the chance to do things when they’re in control. With a GOP President and control of both Senate and House for two years, they did nada!


As we build American Conservative Movement, we need new blood within the Republican Party. We need to start now as we prepare for the 2020 elections.

Then if Trump wins, we have to prepare for the post-Trump era which will begin in 2024. If he loses, our incentive will be all that much stronger and we will benefit from being united against the Democrat policies rather than divided by whether to give Trump carte blanche or whether to support him when he’s right and oppose him when he’s wrong.

So, I would say our priority at this point is to recruit new talent. Mount primary challenges against RINOs for federal, state and municipal offices. Do what we can to support Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. But don’t be caught off guard without a Plan B on November 4, 2020. Plan B stands for Biden and our forming the loyal opposition.

It’s either that or clearing the high hurdle overcoming the calamitous policies of President ____________ [fill in the blank with the name of the Democrat candidate who is your worst nightmare].


After 12 or 16 years of having a cult of personality behind the person in the Oval Office, we really need to refocus on selecting the man or woman most qualified to handle the awesome responsibilities of that high office. I’m ready to start that quest now. Are you?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading


No, technology does not simply bend Left



No technology does not simply bend Left

On the Joe Rogan Experience featuring tech billionaire, Naval Ravikant, that circulated on Conservative media for the comments about the Left winning the culture war and shooting the survivors, the claim was made that technology bends to the Left. The video made a claim, that taken on its face contributes to the myth that society is constantly moving to the Left and Conservatives can’t stop, only slow down progress. This claim deserves pushback, because while Naval Ravakant is an expert in technology and entrepreneurship, his understanding of the political spectrum is wholly inaccurate. Watch the minute and a half long clip.

Political Spectrum

It’s important to note that the political spectrum runs from totalitarianism, on the left, to anarchy, on the right. This spectrum is universal and can be applied to all societies, while rightwing and leftwing are social constructs marking the Overton Window within each society. I firmly believe Naval Ravikant has a different conception of the political spectrum. But with this conception, let’s see how his argument holds water.


His big example of technology moving culture Left was industrialization. This example is correct. Industrialization paved the way for Progressivism, a universal ideology where the state intervenes in the free market on behalf of labor against management. So industrialization led to unionization and therefore progressivism. However correct this example is, it is widely broad. It’s hard to choose a specific example of industrialization. What comes to mind is the cotton gin, which furthered slavery. But a Left wing in American politics consisting of ideals such as social democracy (welfare) and progressive income did not emerge until after the American Civil War. And in the last hundred years, unionization has lost in the private sector, surviving only because of the public sector, in the United States.

Progressivism has morphed into Leftism and socialism, in the United States. Industrialization gave birth to all sorts of movements in what America would call far Left. Communism/Socialism rose in prominence as a result of industrialization. The Soviet Union sought to bring unity between industry and agriculture with the hammer and sickle. The Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party brought vast technological innovations. It was leftwing compared to the social democracy Wiemar Republic.


Television and radio are perhaps other good examples that show Naval Ravikant’s point as well. But it’s not so much that the country moved left because of the technology; rather, the country wrestled left because of who controlled the technology. However, Leftist control of TV and radio was hardly as influential as the Left’s takeover of higher academia. After all when barriers to entry relaxed, the veil of nonbias faded, Fox News emerged to take on Leftist outlets. Rush Limbaugh became a force on AM radio. The internet brought forth a myriad of publications, with Conservative sights.

Has the internet really moved people to the Left? I would argue that the internet accelerated the logical conclusion of what people already believed. On the abortion issue, the logical conclusion of the abortion beliefs of people has been exposed. The “safe, legal, and rare” trope was only really believed by the nominally Pro-Life side. Social media accelerated this debate and rendered a middle ground on abortion untenable and lonely. Now the Left has won marriage, or have they? Because it was never really about marriage if, years later, Jack Phillips is being harassed a third time and children are dancing sexually at pride parades.

They weren’t really after marriage, so we cannot conclude that they won yet. And society is starting to push back on it, because the logical conclusion is being reached. Note: Steven Crowder just decisively defeated Rainbow Jihad.

Smoking Gun

One of the biggest technological advancements of all time was the invention of the printing press. The printing press was, in Europe, invented by Johannes Gutenberg. Its early use was to mass produce the Bible. Its invention paved the way for vernacular translations of the Bible. This invention would accelerate the Protestant Reformation. Was this a societal shift to the right or left? Does the individual focusing on orthodoxy and a church structure where the power is localized move society to the right or left? Separation of church and state was a tenant of the Anabaptists. And while the remnants of the Anabaptists are more theologically progressive, separation of church and state up until the twentieth century was understood to mean that the government does not choose what religion you practice. Is this closer to totalitarianism or anarchy?

Final Thoughts

When we reinvent the political spectrum, we can make numerous arguments unfounded in history. Technology has impacts but its impacts are clearer the further away we get. After all, it’s hard to examine the legacy of the Trump administration, but the legacy of the Washington administration can be expounded upon, without overt dogma.

Technology, social media, will have a major impact on society, but Naval Ravikamp prematurely stated its impact in moving the country leftward. The culture war simply isn’t over yet.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading