By Tim Tapp 
 
   The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, better known as DACA, has been a hot button issue since it's inception by the pen of one Barrack Obama. The problem with DACA is that it was never legal. Putting aside all of the compassion vs. legal right to be in the United States arguments, DACA was created via Executive Order. At this point in our nation, many have forgotten that the authority to issue EOs are derived from the United States' Constitution Article II, Section I, where it states, "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." and Article II, Section III where the Framers told us, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."  If that seems a little vague to you, let me simplify it just a bit. President is the Chief Executive, which means it is his responsibility to oversee the operations of the federal government, like the CEO of any private company. President is expected to use his "power" as CEO of the government to make sure that laws that have been duly passed by Congress - and signed by him or VETO overridden - are upheld in accordance with the limitations that have been placed on the federal government by the Constitution. Okay, so that still sounds a bit convoluted, so let me try that again. President is in charge of the executive branch of the federal government and is expected to use the executive branch to enforce the laws that have been passed by Congress.  Is that better? 
  The point so far being that only Congress writes laws. President has no authority to write legislation. President does have the power to give directives to the various offices of the executive branch, such as the DOJ, IRS, etc.  Those directives are Executive Orders. If you're paying attention to this point, you now know that EOs are only directives from the CEO to their subordinates regarding how they want the job done. There is no power of law for an EO. As an example, the director of the FBI can be removed from their position for failing to follow such a mandate; but anyone who does not work for the executive branch is not compelled to heed those same directions. Here is where I remind you that (according to the Constitution), the director of the FBI serves at the pleasure of President, but President works for the American people. There is, however, one exception to the limitation of the EO. Only if the Congress has passed legislation giving the Executive authority to act on a particular issue does an EO have the power of law. (And just for the record there is still debate among Constitutional scholars as to if Congress can grant the Executive this exemption. But it has become accepted and has been left unchallenged at the SCOTUS level - at least so far.) 
   When Barack Obama wrote the EO creating the DACA program, he did so out of frustration with Congress due to their inability or unwillingness to move forward legislation on immigration reform. Nearly a year earlier, Obama had told a Spanish-speaking television audience that he did not have the power to make proclamations; he was not a king. But on the day he proclaimed DACA, we were all told that he had a phone and a pen. I bring this up to show you that even Obama acknowledged that it was the role of Congress to make changes to immigration law just a year earlier. He knew that he had no legal authority to institute the DACA program but was later counting on the fact that no one - with "standing" - would challenge the EO's legality. In Congress - both houses - Democrats cheered him, Republicans rebuked him, and both ignored the Constitution and their jobs. (Remember it's the job of Congress to make or change law.)  
   Another well-documented fact about Executive Orders is that if the next person who becomes President doesn't like a previous EO, they can simply write a new one repealing or replacing it with their own. That is because the EO - if you will remember - is the directive of how the current CEO wants their subordinates to carry out their assigned duties.  
   President Donald Trump took steps to phase out the DACA program by writing an EO. In Trump's order, he established a time frame and expressed his desire for Congress to take action on immigration reform within that time frame. Trump was trying to re-establish the rule of law in two ways: eliminate an unconstitutional EO and have Congress fulfill its responsibilities as law-makers. Instead, he was accused of being a racist, and Congress postured rather than go to work on the issue. 
   Part of the posturing that we saw from activist leftists was a legal challenge to Trump's EO to end the DACA program. After this challenge had made it's way to the SCOTUS, the ruling of the court was rendered on Thursday, June 18th, 2020. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four leftist judges ruled that Trump’s decision to rescind DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act saying that Trump's effort was “arbitrary and capricious.” In a very narrow look at the issue, the court wrote, "the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients" while refusing to rule on the legality of DACA itself. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch did acknowledge that DACA was illegal from its inception in their dissent, but given the refusal of the leftist justices to ask that most basic question, the Constitution and Common Sense both lost the day.  
   In the simplest terms, the SCOTUS has told President Trump that he does not have the same authorities that all previous Presidents have had. They have said to all of America that we should accept EOs as if they too are laws. They have told Trump that he can't clean up Obama's mess because it will be a mess to clean up, even though it is a mess that should have never been created. And possibly worse of all, they have told all of America that we should no longer care about the Constitution because clearly, at least five of the Justices do not.  ​

As the coronavirus swept across the country this spring, everyone learned more than we expected to know about how the immune system works. It does an amazing job of surrounding invaders and removing them from the body. (If only our brains could do the same with ideas like the Green New Deal or Political Correctness.) 
Most Americans have taken a crash course to prevent the spread of the virus. They have learned about how the virus impacts the lungs and overwhelms the immune system. Just as doctors are scrambling to find a quick fix to prevent the spread and help people with the virus, the same research and development is happening to fight an illness that takes well over a half million American’s lives every year - cancer. 
The workings of the immune system to fight viruses and cancer are no mystery to cancer specialists. For decades, scientists have been trying to harness the power of the immune system and use it to attack cancer cells. The problem is that since cancer cells are our own cells that have stopped functioning normally, it has been challenging to get the immune system to recognize that the cancer is an invader. 
But that is changing, with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cells therapy. 
CAR-T therapy harnesses the power of a patient’s white blood cells and teaches them to fight cancer. It’s a breakthrough that differs significantly from the usual methods: poisoning the cancer (and the patient) with chemotherapy or cutting the cancer (and some healthy cells) out of the patient through surgery. This therapy can make life better for cancer patients. It can deliver healing that would have been considered miraculous just a decade ago. But only if patients have access to it. 
In March, Tom Coburn, a doctor, former senator and cancer patient (tragically, he lost his own battle with cancer on March 28) explained that CAR-T therapy is rare in many places because it’s too expensive. “The current doctor and hospital reimbursement process for CAR-T Medicare patients is broken,” he wrote for The Oklahoman on March 3. “These inadequate reimbursements create not only access barriers for patients, but also a disparity between commercial and Medicare cancer patients, and between patients from urban and rural areas.” 
Coburn was a fiscal conservative who devoted his career to rooting out government waste. His annual “Wastebook” detailed ineffective and frivolous federal spending. So, when he calls for Washington to invest more money in a project, you know that project is worthwhile. He realized the importance of CAR-T therapy and wanted to see it made available to more Americans more quickly.  
But he noted that many Americans, especially in rural areas, were being denied the opportunity to use this therapy. “We need a long-term solution that more appropriately reimburses the providers of these innovative treatments, which will, in turn, provide better access for appropriate seniors on Medicare with cancer,” he wrote. Coburn added that The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have the ability to close the funding gap.  
President Donald Trump has vowed to improve Medicare. He has focused on reducing regulations and making successful therapies available to seniors. That’s been a great benefit for older Americans. But those who are suffering from cancer need even more help, and they need it right away.    
“CMS and the Administration have proven that they value providing broad coverage of CAR-T therapies for Medicare’s seniors. They should continue to support these principles by fixing the CAR-T reimbursement system,” Coburn added. That will require investing more money in the program in various states. However, the payoff will be well worth it in lives saved and improved. Under President Trump, the government might finally take the steps it has long promised and win the national war on cancer. 
The Trump Administration must soon decide whether to improve Medicare by increasing reimbursement rates to make the therapy available to more seniors in more states. While fighting the coronavirus, it has seen the importance of proper medical care. Now it can apply the same principles to beating back cancer. There’s simply no reason to hold off on delivering this successful cancer treatment to all seniors. The Administration should act now to fund CAR-T therapy and save lives. 
 
Tim Tapp ​

by Tim Tapp

   If you have been paying attention at all, then you already know that the Commonwealth of Virginia has fallen under the control of the Democratic party in both the state House and Senate. The leftist agenda of this group of politicians is now nearly un-opposed once you include Governor Blackface, I mean Northam's apparent desire to turn Virginia into a leftist utopia. Add to that the belief of the Democratic officeholders that they have a mandate to pursue their agenda (or at least they understand that they have to act fast), and you have a recipe for a Constitutional disaster. 
   The recent coverage has focused on the assault against the Second Amendment being waged by these newly empowered ideologues who view the U.S. Constitution as an outdated impediment to their "perfect" America. It would be understandable if you missed the other shenanigans that these folks have gotten up to in their quest to end American Exceptionalism. The lastest being a renewed effort to remove any obstacles to the killing of pre-born babies.
   It was about a year ago when Democratic representative Kathy Tran introduced a bill to remove state restrictions on abortion in the last three months of pregnancy to Virginia’s General Assembly. Tran wanted a law for the people of Virginia that would allow for the ending of pre-born life up to the beginning of labor based not only on the physical health of the expectant mother but also a very vaguely defined impairment of the mental health of the pregnant woman. The GOP had control (albeit by a narrow margin) on both chambers of the Virginia legislature then, so Tran’s legislation failed to pass. That GOP control is gone.
   The apparent strategy, much like their efforts at gun-grabbing, is to introduce a collection of bills in both the state house and the senate, which would loosen existing regulations on abortion rather than one all-encompassing, easily defeated measure. One of these would permit non-physicians, people like physician’s assistants, nurse practitioners, and midwives to perform abortions. Another would remove the parental-consent requirement for minors seeking an abortion and the requirement that women seeking an abortion obtain an ultrasound first.
The change in law would also eliminate provisions for informed consent, so the person performing the abortion would no longer have to give women “a full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and alternatives” to abortion. Not to mention that women would no longer be told that they could withdraw their consent at any point before the procedure.
   The efforts have the support of people like Tarina Keene, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, who said at a recent press conference that they hope that such laws will make Virginia a "safe haven" for what they laughably call reproductive rights. The inference being that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned at any second. The idea that a procedure that ends a human life is somehow a social good continues to be propagated.
   Three things are clear from what we have seen from the Virginia Democratic legislative agenda so far. One, the people who now control the Commonwealth's government care little about pushback from the people of Virginia. Two, they have no concern about protecting God-given rights or protecting the most vulnerable among us if that comes in conflict with their agenda of grabbing power for the state. And three, they want to be the prototype.
   It is the last one that is most concerning. The Virginia Democrats don't just want to subjugate the people of Virginia to these policies. They want to lead the way for other states to follow their example of how to institute governmental tyranny. As always, they hide behind the false narratives that they are fighting for the poor, or oppressed groups, or the environment (and sadly, some of them actually believe that) but at the end of each emotional speech there is the call for government to institute policies that strip away freedoms from the law-abiding. 
   If this is allowed to change and then allowed to stand in Virginia, it will only be a matter of time before it is exported to other states. It is for that reason Americans from across our nation must keep an eye on everything these folks do. Otherwise, the individual liberties of all Americans, both born and pre-born, are at risk.                          

​BY TIM TAPP
 
On August 10, 2019, Elon Musk once again made waves on Twitter. But this time, he wasn’t flaunting his disdain for the SEC or posting obscure memes. Instead, he was endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang. The three-word tweet, “I support Yang,” garnering a whopping 18,000 retweets, 94,000 likes, and a personal thank-you from the candidate himself.
 
The tech billionaire’s support for Yang lit the Twittersphere aflame, generating a flurry of press coverage and buzz. That’s undoubtedly good news for Yang, who is polling in the low single digits and has so far struggled to resonate with Democratic voters. In fact, some have even speculated that the announcement is just what the Democratic presidential contender needs to build momentum moving forward.
 
And yet, despite all the excitement surrounding the impromptu endorsement, Musk’s decision to support his fellow businessman is no big surprise. Here’s why:
 
The foundational principle of Yang’s campaign is the concept of a universal basic income—or as he likes to call it, the freedom dividend. Essentially, Yang wants to supply every single American adult with $1,000 a month in taxpayer-funded income, no questions asked. The proposal is, of course, totally ridiculous. Essentially, we’d be paying bureaucrats to increase taxes, funnel the money through various government entities, only to spit the funds back out in the form of a government-issued check.
 
It’s almost as if Americans would be better off keeping more of their own money themselves. But then again, at least according to the big-government progressives, what do we know about spending our own money? Of course, when it comes to spending - or more to the point, wasting money - they are experts.
 
But setting aside the obvious logistical and economic nightmare that the universal basic income plan would create, the so-called freedom dividend illustrates Yang’s political perspective. He clearly believes that people are entitled to government funds and that you can solve a problem by throwing money at it. That viewpoint, while deeply flawed, is nevertheless shared by Elon Musk. And that forms the core of Musk’s support for Yang.
 
Unsurprisingly, when Musk was asked about his thoughts on UBI, he responded that it was “obviously needed.” It would seem that Musk is a firm believer that the societal ills of poverty and automation can be alleviated simply by cutting a government check. But that raises an important question: why does Musk think that taxpayer funding can have such a profound effect on society? Probably because it’s a strategy that has worked wonders for him and his businesses.
 
Musk’s aerospace company, SpaceX, is almost entirely reliant on the government contracts to finance its work. Similarly, Tesla receives a wealth of taxpayer funds in the form of electric vehicle subsidies. Musk’s enterprises, it would seem, have benefitted substantially from government involvement in their respective industries. Indeed, Musk has made his bones off the back of the American taxpayer. And it’s that use of public funding that has undoubtedly colored his perspective toward programs like UBI.
 
But while the billionaire entrepreneur has undoubtedly benefitted from government intervention, the same cannot be said for the American taxpayer. For example, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives recently managed to secure a $500 million carveout for SpaceX within the country’s yearly defense bill—the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The half-billion-dollar earmark would supply Musk’s company with a boatload of cash and give SpaceX a serious advantage over its industry competitors at the same time.
 
The provision has become known as the SpaceX earmark. It’s designed to give SpaceX an unfair leg-up in the government’s most recent space launch initiative, the National Security Space Launch program. But more than that, the earmark would waste valuable taxpayer dollars just to curry favor with SpaceX. Not to mention that other provisions in the bill would topple the Air Force’s competitive bidding processes. (A vital safeguard put in place to both prevent favoritism and to at least offer the illusion of stewardship of taxpayer dollars.)
 
There’s no doubt that the SpaceX earmark—and the House’s NDAA more generally—is a lousy piece of legislation that must be rejected. Still, the bill is illustrative of the fact that Musk, unlike everyday taxpayers, hasn’t had to deal with the negative repercussions of government intervention. It’s no surprise, then, that he supports Andrew Yang for president. After all, Musk is used to the government funneling him money.

​By Tim Tapp
 
Planned Parenthood announced that they would prefer to abandon Title X funding, rather than follow a new Department of Health and Human Services rule. (The Protect Life rule barring clinics that participate in Title X from referring women to abortion providers.) Planned Parenthood has been fighting the new standard since first announced. But the courts have not been as friendly to the leftist organization founded by avowed eugenicist and racist Margret Sanger, as they have been in the past. Twenty plus states and the District of Columbia, along with the American Medical Association, the Oregon Medical Association, local Planned Parenthood affiliates, and two individual healthcare providers, all joined Planned Parenthood and filed suit in Oregon. In July a federal appeals court ruled that the rule change could take effect while a lawsuit runs its course. Planned Parenthood then requested a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to delay the rule-implementation until its legal challenge was resolved, but the Ninth said no.
 
It is important to note that the Protect Life Rule isn't really new. The statute governing Title X has said, for most of the program's history, "none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning." That language has been consistently ignored. The "new" rule simply will no longer allow that language to be ignored. And while Planned Parenthood, along with other pro-abortion groups, whine calling it "unethical" or a "gag rule" ultimately they know that the clear distinction between abortion and family planning, as stated in Title X, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan. As the legal challenge moves to higher courts, the less likely the courts are to side with the abortion mill pretending to be a women's health organization. 
 
When the Ninth Circuit refused to give the stay of implementation, Planned Parenthood had a choice to make. They either follow the rule or give up the money. When you understand what Planned Parenthood is behind the facade, you know there was no choice at all. They prey upon the poor and profit from the destruction of the unborn. They dumped Leana Wen, a physician who has led Planned Parenthood for less than a year because she wasn't politically aggressive enough for the board's taste.  They wanted someone who was going to push every state to pass laws like New York's late-term abortion law. Wen's only mistake (other than supporting abortion-on-demand) was believing the lie; that Planned Parenthood was a healthcare organization.
 
Wen's political dismissal along with the decision the walk away from Title X are just further evidence of the true agenda of the single most significant cause of death in the Black community. Planned Parenthood has no commitment to family planning; their commitment is to the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. They target specific communities, they bully companies into large contributions, they illegally sell fetal body parts, and they take every last taxpayer dollar that politicians will let them have.
 
The decision to give up the Title X money will be seen as a victory for life by many. But, Title X only accounts for about 15 percent of Planned Parenthood's overall federal funding each year. Most years, the entire federal funding total makes up less than 40 percent of their total annual budget. The baby ending conglomerate will hardly miss that roughly $60 million. A real pro-life victory would be ending all taxpayer dollars making their way into the coffers of Margret Sanger's legacy. Taxpayers should not be funding any organization that provides abortions, no matter how the dollars they receive are budgeted.
 
Abortion is not healthcare. No matter what the people making money off of it tell you. (And that includes the politicians receiving campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood, who then work to protect the flow of federal dollars back to Planned Parenthood.)

​   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.