​   The rules for determining the hierarchy for the intersectionality coalition are complicated, or at least they can be. They can be so challenging at times that even members of the alliance can get confused about what is the most "woke." Case in point, recently a group of "homeless advocates" in San Fransico decided to express their displeasure with a local sushi restaurant. 
   Izakaya Sushi, located in the Castro district of San Fransico, long known as a "safe space" for members of the LGBTQ community, was called to the carpet by Coalition on Homelessness for the high crime of putting "Pride" ahead of the homeless. The issue being that the restaurant decided to place a large rock in a zen garden nook located in the front of the restaurant. The stone, painted with the "gay pride" rainbow, is taking up valuable space that the Coalition on Homelessness folks believe should be available for transients to set up camp. 
     The Coalition on Homelessness used Twitter and there own outlet, Street Sheet, to attempt to shame the purveyors of raw fish into submission. The Coalition accused Izakaya Sushi of hating the homeless while virtue signaling in order to boost its faux-progressive credentials. Clearly, for the sufficiently "Woke," this is unacceptable and must be remedied.
   Rhonda Richards, the beverage director and bar manager for Izakaya Sushi, responded to the accusations in a piece by Madeline Wells on SFGate saying that the staff (which is nearly 100% LGBTQ) voted to paint the rock to show support for the community. And that there is another "safe space" in the entryway of the restaurant that homeless people are free to use as shelter. 
    TJ Johnston, a reporter for Street Sheet and the person who first took outrage about the rock public, was not satisfied with the response from the staff. Making his case that the rock should be removed, Johnson said, "Even though it may not have been intended as such, it has the effect of being hostile architecture." He added, "It can still conceivably prevent somebody from sheltering themselves from pouring rain." 
   Despite Johnson's continued opposition to the Rainbow rock things seem to have smoothed over between the Coalition on Homelessness and the restaurant. The Coalition deleted the original tweet and posted a message saying "Y'all, we made a mistake! While rocks are a common part of anti-homeless architecture, this particular rock is NOT. It's a Japanese garden. Izakaya Sushi is a valued member of the community and is supportive of its homeless neighbors. We apologize & offer deep appreciation to the staff." 
   So what happened? A common sense moment of clarity, realizing that "Sometimes a rock is just a rock." A gentle reminder from the SJW types that the LGBTQ protected status among the "woke" is not to be challenged. Whatever it was that lead to the change of tone from CoH, you can bet it had little to do with respect for the business owner.
   It may very well be the case that things have gotten so bad in San Fransico that no one there even notices anymore that having so many homeless that they have started building make-shift rafts to literally move out onto the Bay and to necessitate the need for a "poop" app is not normal for an American city. Putting that to the side, for now, I'm sure that the idea that a business owner has a right to make their establishment as appealing to customers as possible doesn't enter the minds of the "woke folk." The notion that "homeless people camped out around a business of any kind can be off-putting" is undoubtedly as foreign to the modern San Franciscan as a Martian landscape would be for most people. It is incredible what people can get accustomed to, especially when a political doctrine blinds those people from the reality that surrounds them.
   It would appear that the Coalition on Homelessness has made the move from homeless advocates to advocates for homelessness. It is one thing to work to protect the homeless while pressuring politicians to enact policies that will reduce homelessness. It is something entirely different to direct your energies to remove barriers to homelessness. The focus, instead of being on the root causes of the problem, seems to be on how to make it easier to be homeless in San Fransico. 
   While some will say that TJ Johnston was looking to provide compassion, his posts, as is often the case with virtue signaling outrage, misses how genuine compassion would look. Don't get me wrong; I don't question Johnson's intentions, but sympathy for the homeless is hollow without a quest for solutions. Solutions to issues like this can only come from honesty about the policies that have led to this crisis on the streets of what was once one of the most beautiful cities in this country. And while the answers to this problem may be unclear to some, there are a couple of things that are clear. There are no solutions to homelessness to be achieved by attacking a local business owner, and nothing can be solved by moving a rock (which it doesn't look like is going to happen anyway) that would only make space for one maybe two people to occupy while they remain without a place to go.  

​   For about a decade now there has been a pay freeze in effect for Congress. Many in Congress felt that it was time to end that and give themselves a raise. (You know, for the job that they are all doing so well.) One of the loudest voices calling for the so-called “cost of living” adjustment was freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
   The plans for the modest pay bump of $4,700 to be added to the current salary of $174,000 ran into a bit of trouble when Democrats in competitive districts expressed concerns that voting for the raise would hurt them in 2020. The idea that such a pay increase would be an attack ad waiting to be used by Republicans seemed to resonate with Democratic leadership as the plan has been shelved (at least for now).
   Ocasio-Cortez, who identifies as a democratic socialist and has called for equality in America, has repeatedly called for a raise for legislators. The fact that her current salary is more than three times the average salary in America doesn’t seem to register on her inequality meter as she continues to defend the postponed, bipartisan plan for the wage increase. She has made, what to many seems a compelling argument that it is because of the “low pay” and lack of “cost of living adjustments” that the Congress is susceptible to “Dark Money” and lobbyist. The argument is a bogus one. Dark money and lobbyist influence are a matter of personal character. If what Congress gets paid is the issue then the problem will never be fixed because the salary is never going to match the millions of dollars that can flow into the bank accounts of those “representatives” who are willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.
   Ocasio-Cortez ignores two basic facts about her job. The first thing is something that a lot of others who go to D.C. seem to have forgotten. To be an elected office holder means you are there to do “the People’s business.” You are supposed to be performing a public service while understanding that the opportunity to serve is an honor. If you comprehend these facts, then it shouldn’t matter what the pay rate is as the work is its own reward. As you may have read on a bumper sticker somewhere, “Character Counts,” and there are few places where it counts more than in Congress.
   The second thing that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is ignoring is that pay increases should be merit-based. Congress has done very little to make a case for a raise. The fact that the pay increase was referred to as a “cost of living adjustment” suggests that even they aren’t prepared to claim Congress has “earned” a change in salary. (Although, I think a case for a reduction in pay could be made.) In Congress, the business of winning elections is now prioritized over the “People’s business.” That is not what Ocasio-Cortez or any of the other Representatives were sent to Washington to do. Perhaps if she and her fellow travelers were to change their focus to doing the job, a raise wouldn’t be such a hard sell.     In the private sector, raises are based on performance. I wouldn’t think that AOC had been in D.C. long enough to forget that. But then maybe she has just never been good enough at anything she has done to earn a raise.

​   Religious liberty, a primary founding principle of the United States of America, is under attack by the political left. Not exactly a news flash I know, but the strikes are getting more direct. The current tactic is to use claims of discrimination to force people of faith to participate in acts that are counter to their beliefs in the name of inclusion and tolerance. There are a few examples of this force participation making headlines right now, but I will focus on two.
   Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, found herself in the crosshairs of the Washington judicial system when she refused to make a custom floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding in 2013. She is a Christian and as such, feels that it is wrong for her to actively use her talents for an activity that is contrary to her faith. Because of Stutzman’s refusal, she was found to have violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination despite having offered to sell the couple whatever pre-made floral arrangement they would like. The case was kicked back to the Washington state courts by the SCOTUS in 2018 shortly after the SCOTUS’s very narrow ruling on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case where they determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated animus toward the religious beliefs of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips.
   The High court, while kicking the case back down to the state court, warned against making the same mistake that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had made and then washed their hands of the Arlene’s Flowers matter (at least for that moment). The Washington Supreme Court issued a ruling on June 6th, 2019 against Barronelle Stutzman stating that she had indeed violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination. The Washington Supreme Court also said that after having “painstakingly reviewed the record for any sign of intolerance on behalf of this court or the Benton County Superior Court, the two adjudicatory bodies to consider this case,” that they were “confident that the two courts gave full and fair consideration to this dispute and avoided animus toward religion.” In simple terms, (after checking themselves for animus toward Stutzman’s religious beliefs), they have ordered Stutzman that she must ignore her religious beliefs. The Washington Supreme Court has decreed that their law for forced participation is more critical than Religious liberty.
   As mentioned earlier, the SCOTUS did issue a ruling on behalf of Jack Phillips and the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2018. The court found in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had openly expressed hostility towards the religious beliefs of Phillips. The SCOTUS ruled, based on that animus alone, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had overstepped legal bounds and dismissed the case in favor of Phillips. However, they did not address the deeper issue of Religious Liberty, which left the door open for further legal action against Phillips. Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips are now facing a third lawsuit (the second was tossed out) alleging discrimination. This latest suit was filed June 5th, 2019 in Denver District Court on behalf of Autumn Scardina by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh. Scardina is the same woman who filed the second lawsuit alleging discrimination after Masterpiece Cakeshop denied her request for a cake to celebrate her gender transition. Reporting on the latest suit has been vague on details about the requested cake this time. However, previous filings indicate that Scardina has gone out of her way on several occasions to seek cakes from Masterpiece Cakeshop that they will not make. Requests including cakes with pentagrams, upside-down crosses and even one that would have featured “a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black operational sex toy.” A would-be LGBTQ SJW is harassing Phillips to punish him for his perceived bigotry.
   It is only a matter of time before the SCOTUS has one of these cases, or one a lot like them, in front of them again. There are only so many times that they will be able to dodge rendering a verdict on the merit of Religious Liberty. Given the push from the political left, the matter is unavoidable. I do understand why the High Court would prefer the lower courts to handle the issue; after all, the Constitution is very clear on the matter. However, no one wants to be the person(s) who opens the door to giving a pass to real bigotry. It would be very easy for someone to claim a religious exemption simply, but circumstances make it very clear if it is sincerely held belief or prejudice at play. If a business will serve customers from a “protected group” but refuses to engage in particular tasks for special events (same-sex weddings, gender reassignment celebrations, etc.) for those customers it does not equate to bigotry. If a business refuses to serve a member of a “protected group” at all, then you may reasonably assume discrimination.
   Discrimination, despite the history of occurrence in this nation, is un-American. It is an unwelcome practice that is frowned upon by people on both sides of the political spectrum. People being forced to participate in activities that they do not wish to be a part of is also un-American. In these cases, you have both the First Amendment’s protections of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech at play as well as the long-held belief of Freedom of Association.
   Freedom of association does allow for bigotry to occur, but it will be out in the open for all to see. Everyone can make decisions based on knowing the truth about the people you interact with in life. Laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination don’t stop bigotry; they only hide it. Freedom of Speech gives everyone the right to their own political views and the right to express those views using their talents. The Culture war has been (and is being) fought in the political sphere, making refusing to “participate” a form of political speech. Freedom of Religion acknowledges everyone’s right to pursue their faith as long as their practices do not cause actual harm to others. Actual harm does not mean hurting your feelings; if it did, then we wouldn’t have freedom of speech.
Forcing people to defy their conscience concerning their religious views is (on a philosophical level) no different than forced conversion therapy or re-education camps run by fascists. It demands that people be de-humanized and all value torn away from their thoughts. Laws like the Washington Law Against Discrimination that would force people to participate in activities that violate basic tenants of their faith do precisely that.
   No group, organization, or government has the right to strip fundamental freedoms from the citizens of this nation. If the Washington Law Against Discrimination indeed does require Barronelle Stutzman to make floral arrangements for same-sex weddings, then it denies Stutzman a few fundamental freedoms. First, her freedom of religion as she believes the Bible definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Second, it denies her freedom of speech as it compels her to show support for things that she does not agree with through the use of her talents. If that is the case, then the Washington Law Against Discrimination cannot withstand a SCOTUS hearing, it is unconstitutional. Moreover, the continuing efforts by the left against people like Barronelle Stutzman and Jack Phillips is downright un-American.

  There was a time in America when we could disagree on issues and still respect the fact that we had the right to disagree. While we were free to try to convince others that our point of view was the correct one, we knew it was wrong to force others to bend to our will. We understood that our individual rights ended where the next person’s individual rights began. With that understanding, most of us could agree that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for something that most Americans strongly disagreed with, like abortion; enter the Hyde Amendment.
   The Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. It was first passed in the House in 1976 and then in the Senate in 1977 but was held up in court for another year before it could be implemented. It has been reenacted every year since 1976; however, changes have been made regarding exceptions throughout the years. The Hyde Amendment was born of the idea that if there were enough Americans that opposed abortion on moral grounds, it would be unethical of the U.S. government to spend taxpayer dollars to provide abortions.
   Thanks to the “intellectual gymnastics” of John Kerry during his Presidential run, the political lexicon had the phrase “I was for it before I was against it” added. The latest “I was for it before I was against it” moment applies to the Joe Biden campaign, and it is in regard to the Hyde Amendment. It seems that touchy-feely, good ole Uncle Joe has changed his mind and now is against it. This change of heart happened rather suddenly as Cedric Richmond, the Biden campaign co-chair, appeared on Chris Cuomo’s show on June 5th to defend Biden’s support for Hyde only for Biden himself to make a public reversal on June 6th now being anti-Hyde. Saying, “I have supported the Hyde Amendment like many, many others have,” Biden continued, “because there were sufficient monies and circumstances where women were able to exercise that right — women of color, poor women, women who were not able to have access — and it was not under attack as it is now. But circumstances have changed . . . I’ve been struggling with the problems that Hyde now represents.” But what really led Biden to make this change?  Was it the renewed efforts of conservatives to protect the unborn as he said or does it have more to do with the other Democratic candidates for President constantly trying to move further left than each other?
   Joe Biden has been the front-runner of the primary since well before he officially announced he was running. The field was already crowded when he made it official, and until recently it appeared that all he would have to do is sit back, stay out of the fray, and let the others tear each other apart. You had Robert Francis O’Rourke, aka Beto, running around apologizing for being a privileged white man (which only served to remind his “woke” base that he is, in fact, a privileged white man). Mayor Pete arrived on the scene with his South Bend charm and military service but quickly lost momentum as people started to realize that Buttigieg was pushing some far-left ideas while only sounding moderate. The rest of the crowd have been spinning their wheels trying to stand out by saying the same thing as everyone else, just a little bit differently. No reason for Uncle Joe to be concerned, his name recognition was doing just fine.
   In recent weeks, however, the Biden campaign has started to worry just a bit due to a couple of reasons. First, the campaign hasn’t been able to get any separation in the polls from Bernie Sanders, in fact, in some polls, Bernie has been gaining on Uncle Joe. Second, recently Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren has been gaining ground even garnering praise from people like Tucker Carlson for some of her economic policy statements. The result of this being that for the first time in the campaign the Biden camp may be starting to feel a little pressure.
   If that pressure is, in fact, the reason for the about-face on the Hyde Amendment, then that signals bad things for the Biden presidential hopes. It would mean that this will not be the last change Biden will make to try to appease the party base. The problem for Joe is the reason he is and has been the front runner is that everybody knows his name and that he is generally thought of (at least by Democrats) as a moderate. The further to the left he moves, the more he begins to look like the rest of the candidate field. The base will not vote for the “Crazy Uncle” if they can get the same result from a younger, cooler, more “woke” contender. In truth, only the critical thinking challenged would entertain the notion that a man who has been in Washington D.C. since 1972 as a Senator and became the Vice President for Barack Obama in 2009 and acted in that capacity for eight years, is the man who now is finally ready to solve the nation’s problems.
   The real problem isn’t that Biden is ready to change positions on any topic based on a shift of the political winds. No, the true problem is that the American political left is no longer happy asking for acceptance, equality, or tolerance. The left now demands your participation in all they deem good and right no matter your feelings or religious beliefs. They no longer believe that you have a right to disagree with them. They may claim that they respect freedom of speech and expression, but as soon as someone challenges them, they are all over social media demanding censorship and de-platforming.
   The Hyde Amendment is a very American idea. It acknowledges that many taxpaying citizens are strongly opposed to having their money go to pay for something they find to be morally abhorrent. It acknowledges that the role of government is limited and should be constrained by the Constitution and the will of the people. It acknowledges that when the will of the people is not clear, then the proper action is to take no action. That is why the left wants it gone. They can no longer allow Americans to believe that they have a right to disagree.