Crucifying a Conservative Black Man--Just in Time for Easter

 Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court's ONLY black man, is being crucified in the news this week because he happened to have a rich conservative friend (gasp--a conservative has a conservative friend) with whom he went on vacations. No where in the judicial code does it say that Supreme Court Justices (or any judges for that matter) cannot have friends, attend parties, or go on vacations with other like-minded people. In fact, Courts across the nation have ruled that you must get your paycheck from a Plaintiff/Defendant or someone who could be a Plaintiff/Defendant in the case or one on a similar subject matter in order to recuse. They have also ruled that if you were put in your position by one of the Plaintiff/Defendants, (i.e. if someone made large donations to your election or re-election campaign), you also should recuse. Justices do not even have to disclose their financial information. But Clarence Thomas wasn't involved in an election campaign and the person he was vacationing with has never, to the best of my knowledge, been before him in  a legal case. Remember that.

The Code of Conduct for Judges also specifically states that a Judge cannot publicly give his or her opinion on a case prior to it coming before the judge, the judge reviewing the evidence from both sides, and then the judge officially giving his/her ruling. So, why wasn't RBG impeached or at least threatened with impeachment as Clarence Thomas is being threatened with impeachment? Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG) performed several gay marriages and attended both the wedding (obviously) and the party afterward--PRIOR TO RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT GAY MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. When the case came before her, she didn't even think about recusing despite the clear guidelines that she must do so. Again, Clarence Thomas is a conservative black man. RBG was a liberal white woman. Clarence Thomas went on vacation with a rich, outspoken conservative. At no point did he discuss any of his cases or publicly make statements about them prior to deciding them based only on the evidence before him and the law. RBG, on the other hand, publicly supported gay marriages and performed them even when they were not legal, but her failure to recuse went by silently.

But let's talk about another judge who hasn't recused--probably the reason everyone is trying to crucify Clarence Thomas--so people don't talk about him. Let's talk about Justice Juan Merchan. In New York, you see, this judge was put into his position directly by the Democratic Party. That's right, in New York, home of Tammany Hall--the poster child of political corruption. Now, there are 136 judges in New York that are supposed to randomly get cases. Justice Juan Merchan has remarkably managed to draw 4 separate Trump cases and have them assigned to him in just a couple years. Please correct my math if its wrong, but that's like 3 in 1 billion odds. For comparison, in 2021, 65,000 criminal cases were filed during the entire year across the entire United States in the Federal Court System. Why isn't anyone questioning this? 

I am willing to say that a judge put in place by the Democrats could rule in an unbiased manner against someone the Democrats loath and absolutely do not want running for office in the next election, but I start to waver on that when I look at Trump's current indictment. Justice Juan Merchan allowed Trump to be indicted for 39 counts of hiding criminal actions. The problem is that Trump was not indicted for said CRIMINAL ACTIONS. How can a person be indicted for hiding criminal actions without BEING INDICTED FOR THOSE ACTIONS? The district attorney brought absolutely no other criminal charges. If Trump was hiding a crime, why wasn't he charged with that crime? If you don't have enough evidence that he committed one or more crimes, why in the world are you charging him with anything? 

Well, that's simple--although it is something that most unbiased courts frown upon. During court discovery, the Prosecuting attorney can ask for pretty much anything and Trump has to give it to him or try to get the judge to agree that the Prosecuting attorney doesn't need it. Now, imagine that every single detail of your life could be brought into a lawsuit--that little monitor in your car that records your speed wherever you go, for example, or all your checkbook records, your personal diary, your calendars...Can you say you have never broken a single law in all your life? Most people don't even read and know all the laws. So, if the judge doesn't stop it, the prosecuting attorney can go on a fishing expedition. And even if he doesn't find anything, he can still say Trump was hiding criminal intent and did it so well there isn't evidence of the actual crime. That's not the way the courts are supposed to work, but the case should have been thrown out from the beginning unless the prosecutor charged Trump with an actual crime that he was hiding. That Justice Juan Merchan did not do that is what makes me believe he should recuse. When that is added to all the other information about him, I question whether he could rule against the wishes of the party that put him in office. 

But Clarence Thomas going on vacation with friends is the topic of the poor news agencies this week. For them, Justice Juan Merchan is a hero, just as RBG was. I, personally, would like MORE black men on our Supreme Court. I fail to understand how going on vacation with a like-minded person could influence you in any way as a judge. You already agree on most topics--so where is the influence?

The United States Democrats Orchestrated the Largest Human Rights Violation and Voter Fraud in History--and It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTING VOTES

 The Freedom of Speech is an American's first amendment right. In past years, "fact checkers" have sprung up everywhere. Now, originally THE fact checking organization was Snopes, but even they started to have problems. Fact checking organizations were, for the most part, harmless when it came to free speech. People still had the right to speak out and say what they believed and those reading or hearing their message were able to do their own fact checking using their preferred fact checking organization. 

By freedom of speech, anyone should have the ability to say anything about anyone else, unless what they say is a direct threat to another person. For example, a person who says "I want to kill XXX" should be investigated. Detailed plans on how to kill yourself or others should also be removed. 

The problem with this election is that the Democrats moved direct threats into a gray area. It started with COVID-19--no one, even scientists who have for centuries been openly debating ideas as a part of the scientific process, was allowed to publicly say anything different from the mainstream because it "might" put someone's lives at risk. The problem is that the CDC stopped putting out good information and started putting out garbage--even going against National Academy of Sciences advice on masks. Once this freedom of Speech was taken away without any formal protests, it moved to the next level.

Nancy Pelosi told FB and other social media to censor President Trump if he made ANY negative statements about her or other female Democrats because they would interpret that as direct attacks on women. This took away President Trump's freedom of speech, and as it has always been, once they took away someone's right to free speech they began to expand that power. FB and other agencies employed "fact checkers" that selectively silenced not only President Trump's voice, but also the voices of many Republicans. It is for this reason that I refused to vote for a single Democrat this year--a first to the best of my knowledge. I refuse to support a party that prohibits free Speech. 

How can you run for a political office without being allowed to say anything inflammatory about the other side or good about the things you have done especially when the other side is allowed to tell whatever lies they want about you? This is one reason why the Democrats thought they would win by a landslide. The problem is they did not stop their Human Rights violations there. 

The Democrats then petitioned to get the Green Party and Socialist Parties off the ballots in several states. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Green Party collected more than the required signatures in time (8,000+ when they only needed 5,000). The signature of the elected vice-president was not on an affidavit switching her out for the stand in vice president. Now, either this woman should have been allowed a chance to sign the paper or the stand in vice president should have gone on the ballot. Instead, the Democrats and the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to allow the Green Party Ballot Access. Ballot Access is already a trampled right in America. In Wisconsin, it was even worse. The Green Party filed a lawsuit 2 weeks after being told they could not be on the ballot there, and the judge threw it out because it wasn't filed in a "timely" manner. For most other things, you have at least 30 days to file against things. Michigan locked down, and when the Socialist Party asked to have the 30,000 required signatures reduced because of the difficulty of collecting during lockdown, they were denied this request. Democrats and Republicans in Michigan only had to get less than 12,000 signatures to be on the ballot.

American Political Third-Parties need equal access to ALL BALLOTS. There needs to be a federal law stating that (1) it is illegal to deny access to any party who has not previously appeared on a ballot and (2) all political parties must be subject to the SAME ballot laws. Unfortunately, Democrats were elected by their blind followers. 

Unfortunately, Democrats are still blind to the fact that the Democrat party has decided to trample rights akin to China. Chinese people do not get to vote because they only have one party for whom they can vote. Democrats denying ballot access is a step in that direction. Chinese people do not have freedom of Speech. They are not allowed to say anything against the ruling party. 

Now, before you argue that the Republicans are equally bad you should know (1) Republicans helped pay court fees so the Green Party could fight to get back on the ballot in court and (Republicans did not try to get Libertarians off the ballot until it was too late (i.e. they started the process after getting the idea from Democrats). 

As long as people continue to support Republican and Democrat nominees and their myriad of laws against third parties, Americans will never get a choice. Third parties have been getting more and more of the vote and in some cases beating Democrat challengers. These partisan laws need to be removed from the books and equal ballot access needs to be required throughout the United States. Third-parties need to start at lower levels (which are even more difficult to get ballot access for). They need to challenge unfair discrimination in ballot access laws in court. It is not a coincidence that once third parties started getting significant numbers Democrats decided to remove them and Republicans followed suit. 

Hitler's Big Lie and the COVID-19 Pandemic

I have written a new book, filled with citations to help clear up the mystery surrounding all the COVID-19 misinformation. Here is the description:

 The misinformation surrounding COVID-19 has possibly been the largest since the propaganda created in Nazi Germany. With even the CDC first telling everyone not to wear masks and now telling everyone to wear them, it can be extremely difficult to discover just what is right and what is wrong. Who do you trust? This book, filled with more than 300 cited references, was written to help you find the truth. It is a must-read if you are confused or if you want to find out if you have been able to sort through all the lies successfully. 30% of all the profits from the sale of this book will be divided equally and donated to a local YMCA and a summer camp that have been hit hard financially because of the COVID-19 business closures.

You can find the book on Amazon at the following links:

Full color version paperback: https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Big-Lie-COVID-19-Pandemic/dp/B08FP5V3JN/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1597677713&refinements=p_27%3AJennifer+J.+Reinoehl&s=books&sr=1-1&text=Jennifer+J.+Reinoehl

Color E-book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08G56JQVB

Black and white version paperback & black and white large print paperback--links to be posted within the next week or so. 

I am also going to be running some Goodreads Giveaways and will post those links as soon as they are ready. 

The Nation of Hate: Juneteenth and The Anti-Trump Democrat Agenda (as written by a person who doesn't particularly like President Trump)

This is a very controversial post, but I feel my experiences need to be told so others can see that these groups who claim to want "change" are actually filled with very hateful, closed-minded people.

I have a friend, I'll call her Alice. I normally don't believe in identifying race, but in this case it is important to what I am about to say: She is African-American, but she is NOT a representative of the African-American race even though her parents and skin tone place her in it. Now, I want to stop right here and explain I have many friends across many "races." I do not believe in race. We are all descendants of Noah, and we all need to treat each other like brothers and sisters.

Unfortunately, Alice does not feel this way. I met Alice a long time ago when we used to coach together at the YMCA. I have been friends with her for some time on FB, but she has not gone out of her way to contact me--I don't know if she has even looked at my feed in many years the way I have looked at hers. She became a political activist a while back and is deeply involved in the Democrat Party. Since Juneteenth and Tulsa were on few people's minds prior to President Trump's announcement of a rally there, and since Juneteenth only represents the end of Civil War slavery in Texas, it is my opinion that the recent strong push for a federal holiday that is "solely African-American" as opposed to the evil "Columbus Day" (ironically free Africans were also involved in the discovery of America), is the direct result of the media and Democrats to paint President Trump as a bigger racist than Joe Biden. Apparently, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day no longer exists or is important--which is sad in my opinion since the gaining of civil rights did far more for Africans (and all races) in this country than the day the Texas slaves gained their freedom.

Now, as a political activist, Alice of course posted about how great Juneteenth was and how it should be a federal holiday. Prior to this year, few people had heard of it. In fact, the only reason we have heard about it is because the media hates our President and so do social activists--and Joe Biden's inability to control his mouth probably didn't help.

Keep in mind that I did not vote for President Trump nor do I think he is doing a good job as President. But, that is not a reason to suppress his voice or persecute him on levels even greater than what the Republicans did during President Obama's terms.

Juneteenth is the day that the slaves were set free in Texas. It was a holiday the ex-slaves created and celebrated only in Texas until their freedoms were taken away again in the early 1900s. It got started because two months after the Civil War ended, federal troops came to Texas to force the Texans to give up their slaves (they should have freed them in April of that year when news reached them that the Civil War was over and they had lost). It did not free all slaves. For example, Kentucky (a state that did not join the Confederacy but that had slaves) did not free 65,000 of its slaves until December 7th.

Juneteenth is also not the only celebration of emancipation. August 8th is Emancipation Day in Tennessee and Appalachia, for example. But let's be realistic, African Americans were not freed until the Supreme Court gave them the right to vote March 24th, 1969. For this reason, when Alice posted about Juneteenth with how it set slaves free and it should be celebrated, I responded that there were better days (March 24, July 2) that celebrated true freedom for African Americans.

And I was shot down and accused of attacking her. She said I needed to explain myself, so I did. What I said was in depth and some of her followers agreed with me.

Surprisingly, she invited me to a group that was talking about Juneteenth.

I admit, I was dumb. I trusted in the friendship we once had. I thought she invited me because she really wanted to hear my ideas and have a discussion. I was wrong--and this is why I am writing this because I want people to know that you can no longer trust all your friends on Facebook--even the ones you know.

I was slightly confused at the invitation, but I didn't realize it was a trap. I joined the Zoom group and was partitioned into a separate small group. The leader asked a question and allowed everyone to answer it--except for me. I was having technical difficulty and could only use chat, so I began typing my response: I didn't support Juneteenth as a federal holiday because I didn't feel it represented true Emancipation. I pointed out that Texas should have freed its slaves two months earlier. I pointed out that slaves were not truly free.

The leader of the group finally looked at my comments and said it was Two years (apparently thinking I was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and not the day the Civil War ended), and that I was just the type of ignorant person they were trying to fight against.

I tried to get her attention with the chat but from that moment onward, anything I typed was ignored... except by Alice's daughter (who was also in the group), Kay. Kay began by informing me again of my ignorance. When I made a statement in group chat that I believed Fred Hampton was "the poster child for police brutality." I was told I had offended Kay by making this statement. As I continued talking with her privately, she stated that African Americans could not do big things only small ones. I tried to encourage her by telling her that those in the Civil Rights movement--which was completely created, organized, and executed by African Americans DID achieve big things. I was again told I was being offensive.

I was so glad when it was done. I almost quit sooner, but I wasn't sure if that would be rude. The next day, I saw yet another support Juneteenth post by Alice talking about things people "learned" and things people "should learn" about African American history. At that point it hit me--most of these things people "should learn" were not only about Juneteenth but also about the Tulsa riots (I have given a brief explanation at the end of this). This wasn't about getting a new federal holiday--this was about pushing an Anti-Trump Democrat agenda. When I realized what she was doing, I added in a truth in the comments that followed in her style of "you learned" but "you should have learned." Mine said "You learned that slavery ended June 19, 1865, but 65,000 slaves in Kentucky were not set free until December 7th, 1865.

It was at that point that she dug into me in a private message. She said I owed her and her daughter an apology for offending them. She, who went to a top private college an whose daughter is at that same college (Kay stated in the group she got into the college because she was "black" and that made her angry... ???), she started talking about my "white privilege." I grew up in the same neighborhood. I have struggled my whole life. Because of financial issues, I went to a state college that is not ranked in the top 50 even though I graduated Valedictorian of my class and had high SATs. I have been pulled over because police officers "didn't recognize my car." I have feared because I have driven in backwoods places in the middle of the night, and I knew I could be killed and never found if someone decided they did not like me. What is this white privilege?

It was at that point, when I saw that she felt she could attack me and shame me and say whatever she wanted to me, but I had better apologize to her and her daughter for some offense I am still not clear about, that I started to realize this was not my friend. The politics of the world had changed her into something evil. I did not immediately reply, but I felt that if I had truly offended them for agreeing that African Americans are the subject of police brutality and have been for years, for telling Kay to not write herself into a box of low achievement, for stating the truth, then, yes, I should apologize, but what about all the offense they flung at me? I could not believe this was done (at this point) in malice. Perhaps just as I was ignorant (and still am) as to what offended them, they did not know how offensive they were being to me.

I spent the evening carefully crafting a response that included much of the above and began "If I offended you and your daughter I truly am sorry, but the group leader, your daughter and you have also offended me." As I got on Facebook the next day and sent her my reply privately, I saw that she had publicly posted her private message to me on her page, tagged me in it, and was collecting congratulations from all her friends about what an arrogant racist I was. Again, anything I said was silenced. My side of the story was not being told.

After my carefully crafted response had been sent, and I saw what she had done, I privately messaged her one last time, "Alice, I am unfriending you. I have been abused all my life, and I do not have to take abuse from my friends. I can see you are no longer the woman who stood on her own two feet, but you have become the woman who stands on the heads of your friends to gain position."

I unfriended her but she of course came back with something even nastier in private message before I could block her.

I am all for equality. I am all for police reform. I am all for government programs that help the poor become self-sufficient. But I am not going to apologize just because of my skin color--and in this case, Alice never told me how what I said offended her, so I can only assume that being "white" was my sole offense. Alice never apologized for the offense she caused me, and chided me because I "asked her to apologize" in her last hateful message (even though I did not ask for such an apology--I merely wanted her to see how she had hurt me).

I now know that Alice is a bully. She believes it is okay to silence anyone if they do not have the same opinions as her. She believes it is okay to tell people they are ignorant without listening to what they say. She believes it is okay to oppress other people--as long as she is not the one being oppressed.

So, now she will go back to her friends and talk about the racist white woman who expected an apology after I did nothing but offend her by telling her the truth. Unlike me, Alice will use my name and slander it across FaceBook and any other platform. I am thankful though that Alice and her equally hateful daughter are not a representative of either African Americans or even most members of the Democrat party. The problem is that when most white people meet Alice, they are not going to like her. She may be the first or only African American they have come in contact with on a personal level. As she tramples over their rights, calls people ignorant, and expects everyone who questions or disagrees with her statements to apologize, she is going to hurt any cause she champions.

Don't be Alice. Listen to the views of others--no matter what their skin tone. Treat others as equals. And if you run into Alice--run the other way. Any truth you try to impart to her or others listening will only be silenced by a round of bullying, shaming, and slander.

__________________________________________________________
The Tulsa Riots. I am taking my information from the source linked above and from a PDF of a first hand, African-America account of the riots, which I read and which you should be able to find online (Parrish, Mary E. Jones, ed. Events of the Tulsa Disaster). The Tulsa disaster as the author calls it was the result of massive misunderstanding during a racially charged, segregated time. A bunch of poor white and black farmers had lost their jobs and flocked into Tulsa--with both competing for jobs and with a rich black section in the city (Black Wall Street), racial tensions were high.

Add to that the fact that a white person had been lynched from the police station in the past month, and everyone was worried about justice. In this hot bed--in which riots had been predicted--a white girl and a black boy (please understand before you cry racist that it is my understanding these two were both teenagers, hence my calling them "girl" and "boy") ride up a couple floors together in an elevator... and he steps on her foot. She, for whatever reason, claimed she was assaulted. He was thrown in the jail. (Now, I want to say right here that he survived this mess that was about to happen and went to trial. She did not even show up at the trial and all charges were dismissed. Justice was served, despite the very valid doubts it would be. I tell you this here, because I didn't want you worrying about the boy.)

Now, he was in jail, and the NEWSPAPERS ran an editorial saying he should be lynched. Well, the sheriff moved the boy to a place he could better defend him against lynching. That night hundreds of white men showed up and surrounded the jail. At the same time, a concerned group of citizens from the black community went to the jailhouse to see if they could help. A black deputy came out and told them that the boy would be protected and they should go home or they might make things ugly. They complied. However, when the story ran through the black community they did not trust with all those people that the boy would be protected. Being a white boy was lynched within the past month, this was probably justified to some extent, but at the same time, what they did made it worse.

They got up an armed group of men who wanted to go down and support the police. By this time, thousands of white men (some armed, some not) were outside. And a bunch of armed black men showed up to the party. A white police officer came out this time and started arguing with the black men and telling them to go home. He then tried to take the gun away from one of the men, and in the struggle for it, it of course went off... and that is how the riot started. Those in the thousands of white men gathered who had brought their guns began shooting at the black men. The black men, defended themselves as they made their way back to their neighborhood.

The woman recounting the event says it was as if she was in the French war zone instead of in a neighborhood in Oklahoma. All night they shot back and forth over railroad tracks, and the next day, the white people brought two machine guns to the party. Machine guns are nasty. This is why they are outlawed. One machine gun pelted the front of the neighborhood where the armed men defended it. The other was set up behind, pelting the people who tried to flee. Cropdusters flew overhead with pilots who reigned down bullets and helped direct the battle. As the white people advanced, they burned almost everything. A National Guardsman apparently lost his life trying to stop the machine gun in the back. The police were useless and it was only when the National Guard was called in that the carnage stopped.

When the people who had lived in Black Wall Street came back after the National Guard had gotten control, their homes were burnt to the ground. The city quickly passed a "fire ordinance" that forbid people from rebuilding their homes. The black people were fed by the YMCA and cared for by the Red Cross, but they had to wear special identification because the National Guard did not let anyone into the neighborhood without it. I can only assume this was to protect them, but residents saw it as further outrage.

Why America Is NOT a Fascist Regime

The Bad State of NY Healthcare Revealed with COVID-19

People are trying to make excuses for New York: It's a big city... It got COVID-19 from Europe, not China...

But the fact is, that NY just has lousy healthcare. I feel sorry for the people who live there. For comparison, California has 39.5 millionish people in the state and only 28,899 cases of COVID-19. 1021 people have died there from the virus. California was one the the first states to lockdown their entire state on March 20, 2020, and right after that, like every other place that has gone on lockdown, their new case numbers began a much steeper climb to the top. Testing was increased back around March 1, so that was not a good reason for rates to skyrocket, in my opinion, but it is what it is. We will never accurately see what COVID-19 is doing until we stop putting money into quarantine and start putting money into testing and improving healthcare access among the poor, especially those making 135%-180% federal poverty income levels, which basically screws them out of any state healthcare aid (even something like HIP-2.0, where they pay small premiums for Medicaid.)

But at least California, skyrocketing as it is, is not NY. NY has a population of only 19.5 million. A little less than half the population of CA. New York's numbers are disgusting, though: 126,383 as of the same day I took CA's stats. New York also has 8448 deaths. In one instance, it was reported they stored at least 10 COVID-19 dead bodies in a nursing home. Is it any wonder they have so many cases? Apparently, they are truly trying to re-enact the 1300s. They also have been blowing up the lungs of COVID-19 patients and increasing their chances of bacterial pneumonia by putting them on ventilators when all they need is an Oxygen mask. This is something the Chinese tried to explain to us in February in a published paper, but we didn't listen.

And now people are protesting these lockdowns and the governor of MI actually said they were blocking ambulances. Really? All the hospitals I have seen on a map of Lansing were outside the protest area. An ambulance driver would need to deliberately reroute through the area (out of the way) to get to them. Not surprisingly, I saw no ambulances blocked in any news footage. I also saw a news agency claim the protesters were racist and carrying Confederate flags... so I looked. The only thing I saw was blue President Trump flags, Don't Tread on Me Flags, and USA flags from 2020. Sorry. Neither of those resemble the Confederate flag. I did see a lot of camo... but really? Its Michigan. Do they have anything else to wear up there? Especially since the Governor probably has deemed clothing "non-essential."

Hey, here's an idea: If you don't want people to protest, why don't you give them something else to do, like, I don't know... WORK! I mean really, saying that people who choose to go out are going to get everyone who is huddled in their homes sick, is like saying a person without a vaccine can get a person with a (WORKING) vaccine sick. Apparently, most Americans have thrown logic out the door.

Why Italy and the USA have failed the Covid-19 test (part 2)

The USA has also failed. Our CDC did not enact early testing. Testing from case 1 has taken a minimum of 3 days, unless you are rich. For some reason, rich people can still go on vacation and travel throughout the country, they can get tests even when they are not sick or seriously sick (which increases the chances of a false negative), and they can get the best healthcare if they do fall ill.

However, the fact is that the average American and his or her doctors must wait up to two weeks for test results. Covid-19 usually lasts 12-15 days. People are forced out of their jobs simply because they have been "exposed." It is a bit late for this. If you have mild symptoms, you are refused a test and told you "probably have it." This is a "precaution" but illogical. If, for example, almost 12,000 people in the state of Indiana have been tested because they had serious symptoms of the illness, and only about 2000 of them ACTUALLY HAVE IT, then our prediction rates are estimating 6x more cases than what we really have.

This is why we have run out of medical supplies. The lack of testing kits and testing ability has made it so that doctors err on the side of caution and wear protective gear 6x more often than necessary. It is still forcing doctors and nurses to use gear more than needed.

Now, we have rapid tests. This means that the number of cases will drastically increase, but we are still 1-2 months out before we will be able to test anywhere near the number of people we need to test each day (at this point). The WHO has stated repeatedly that the way to contain this disease is early detection--not mass quarantine, not more ventilators. The USA created an "emergency" situation by not testing and now is continuing to play on that emergency by enacting everything they can for "support" without actually doing what is really necessary: increase testing. The state of Indiana released information that one of its many universities was going to begin testing and expected to soon be testing up to 2,500 patients each day. Two weeks later we are testing less than 2,000 statewide. If students were back at their colleges instead of holed up at home, perhaps more universities could test. Although anyone can get Covid-19, I have found no reports of anyone under the age of 30 dying in the United States, yet, so this would be a wiser use of our resources.

On top of mass shelter-in-home orders and poor testing, the US has been putting out conflicting orders and statements that do not help calm the public. In some cases it is better to say "We don't really know yet, but we are working on it" instead of saying "We know this..." and then later saying "Wait, that wasn't right." A few states have responded well to calming the panic, for example, Georgia's Covid-19 website clearly shows that about 80% of the people who have died had pre-existing conditions. In another 15%, the status of preexisting conditions is unknown. Out of the current 102 deaths that are recorded, only 4 did not have a pre-existing conditions and all of these were over the age of 55. This isn't reassuring for the sick population over 55, but for the rest of us it should be. They also report the number of cases that are hospitalized, letting people know that everyone does not end up in the hospital. The neutral, calming, blacks, blues, and grays, make it more a page for statistics than sensation. The only thing I could complain about is that there could be a few more pie graphs.

On the other hand, you have Indiana, which gets an F in webpage design. At this time, they have the number of deaths in bigger font that is blood red. The yellow and blue fonts for number of tested and number of confirmed cases fade into the background. They do not report whether the people who have died had pre-existing conditions, and they break down newly confirmed cases by age, without any reference to whether the cases are mild, moderate, or severe. Instead of the light blue Georgia used in reporting the counties with only a few cases, which puts them in the background. Indiana again has opted for a light, reddish-brown that makes counties with even 1 case stand out on the map. How much did they pay for this fear inducing visual? Probably a lot more than Georgia's basic display. Of course the governor himself says the numbers should "put the fear of God in you." As someone who has studied pandemics, they don't. Nor should they make anyone afraid if they are looked at objectively in terms of other more deadly illnesses.

Increasing fear and panic across the USA instead of quieting it means that more people are going to commit abuse, more people are going to commit suicide, and more people are going to be casualties of Covid-19 than just those who contract and die from the disease. Issuing "emergency stay-at-home" orders instead of closing state and locality borders to prevent the spread, failing to test people quickly who go to the doctor with symptoms will increase spread and continue the lack of medical supplies, and failing to diagnose and treat people early will increase the deaths. If this virus were truly a threat, the USA would be in trouble.

Why Italy and the USA have failed the Covid-19 test (part 1)

If Covid-19 was Smallpox, Bubonic plague, or Polio, Italy and the USA would see over 30% of their population dead because of their poor handling of Covid-19.

Italy went on lockdown over 21 days ago when they were seeing 1,400 new cases each day. Now, they are seeing 5000-6000. Why? Because Covid-19 is spread primarily in hospitals and in households. Yes, 1/3 of its spread can be attributed to community settings such as the workplace and stores, but anyone who thinks we can lock an entire nation in its home with no access to food, services, or sunlight in 2020 is an evil dictator in the making. But we have just increased the number of household transmissions since people are forced together.

Covid-19 is also spread through droplets and things you touch. The only time it is spread through the air (aerosol) is during the process of someone being put on a ventilator and in the rooms where ventilators are used. We believe that the more virus a person is exposed to, the less likely they will survive with Covid-19. This is called "viral load." When you look at images from Italian hospitals, you soon realize that not only do they not have private rooms with people on ventilators, they sometimes have more than people in the same room on a ventilator. Each of those ventilators is spreading the virus throughout the room and increasing the number of viruses the people, including the healthcare workers, are exposed to. Even if you have a hospital solely dedicated to the care of Covid-19 patients, if viral load is a factor, these patients will all be exposed to a higher viral load and will have an increased chance of dying.

WHO has said from the beginning that early detection is the key. Although I completely disagree with mass quarantined/shelter-in-place/and stay-at-home for healthy people, I have long been an advocate for isolating sick people. If you have been following me, this was one of my biggest complaints about the way former President Obama dealt with the ebola outbreak.

In this case, the USA is now falling under the same out-dated methods of mass quarantine like Italy. Historically (even during the SARS outbreak), mass quarantine does nothing to change the final results beyond hurting children's education and the economy. Every time mass quarantine has been implicated in the past 700 years, its failure is always attributed to "those who don't listen." The problem is that if for 700 years people have never 100% listened to quarantine instructions, then why do we suddenly think it will happen now? Instead, we choose to hurt poor people economically, increase the chances of violence against people who are supposedly spreading the virus, and increase the risk you will catch it when a loved one comes down with it. Conveniently, no mathematical model includes the chances of these things happening.

Please Tell Me in What Way Nathaniel Woods is an "Innocent Man?"

Dear Martin Luther King III,

Please tell me in what way Nathaniel Woods is an "innocent man?" Have you even read the transcript of the trial in which Mr. Woods was convicted?  Mr. Woods and his buddy, Mr. Spencer, were known drug dealers who dealt drugs. More than two people came forward at Mr. Woods' trial and stated that these two both dealt drugs together each day in a partnership from their house. These people testified that both had made statements that they were tired of the police bugging them. Mr. Woods had a warrant out for his arrest because he had already allegedly harmed another person.

When the police officers went to Mr. Woods' apartment that fateful day, they did not have any weapons drawn. They asked Mr. Woods to come out so they could serve the warrant--which he refused to do. Mr. Woods asked to see the warrant, and even after they showed it and his picture to him, he refused to come out of the house, and ran back into the living room, where Mr. Spencer was waiting with a rifle. At this time the one police officer did pull out a can of mace, but according to witness testimony, this mace was never used. In fact, Mr. Woods kept the police officers attention away from Mr. Spencer by begging the police officer not to spray him and telling him he surrendered.

Please explain in what way a person who deals drugs to others in the neighborhood, and who allegedly hurt others so badly there was a warrant for his arrest, and who instead of surrendering at the door when presented with the warrant ran into the house--into the only room in the house where his co-partner in dealing drugs could easily shoot the police officers trying to arrest him--, and then upon leaving the house stepped out of the way so Mr. Spencer could shoot yet another police officer when Mr. Woods opened the door and saw him standing in the doorway--please explain how this man is "innocent." Keep in mind that under federal law (which Mr. Woods was not tried under since he had been already convicted and sentenced to death under Alabama law), if you are a drug dealer and homicide is committed in the course of your dealing drugs that you can receive the death penalty.  The supreme court has upheld this law. Both Mr. Woods and Mr. Spencer had made previous statements multiple times (whether in "jest" or not) that they were tired of the police interfering with their trade and wanted to kill the police to show them they were tired of it. Is not the one way to determine whether a statement is made in jest or not by the actions that follow that statement?

About 70,000 people die each year from overdosing on drugs. Nearly 14,000 people died from cocaine overdoses in 2017 alone. The highest rate of cocaine deaths affected African Americans. Do you really think your father would be proud that you are calling Mr. Woods, who was a noted cocaine dealer prone to violence, including the domestic assault warrant that was being served to him at the time of the officers deaths, "innocent?" Multiple people testified to these facts at Mr. Woods' trial--the same trial you claim was "mishandled," if you had taken the time to read it before making a statement about it. You seem to think that just because a known drug dealer is not the trigger man in a homicide he should not be convicted and sentenced to death--but the laws of our land say different. How are you advancing the relationship between people of different skin tones and cultural backgrounds when you stand behind a drug dealer who instead of going with the cops when served a warrant ran into his home to a room where his co-drug dealing buddy had a gun aimed on them?

Australian Bushfires

Common causes of bushfires include lightning, arcing from overhead power lines, arson, accidental ignition in the course of agricultural clearing, grinding and welding activities, campfires, cigarettes and dropped matches, sparks from machinery, and controlled burn escapes.

According to recent studies, 50% are arson or suspected arson. Not accidental, but arson. In fact, once the fires get started, arsonists actually go out and start more--making them get more out of control and making so many it becomes impossible to send manpower to fight them all. 

This does not take into account those fires accidentally started by people through some of the above activities.

To make matters worse, aborigines know how to prevent massive bush fires, but have been prevented from managing the land for hundreds of years--allowing even more fuel to build up for the massive disasters that are now occurring.

It isn't "climate change" causing this disaster, but once again evolutionists who refuse to believe that an indigenous people can have equal or more knowledge about something than what a "more evolved" European has. It isn't climate change that initiates that first spark, either, but rather an untreated mentally ill person or someone who does so on accident. 

If you want to say people start bushfires, I wholeheartedly agree. If you want to say bushfires, because of their intense heat, heat the area around them unnaturally, again, you have my agreement. But climate change does not cause the bushfires--people and their ignorance do.

Let the aborigine's manage the bush, as they know best how to do. Stop pointing fingers at imaginary dragons that cannot be fought (there is no scientific consensus on how to reduce the four-hundredths (0.04) of a percent of CO2 in the atmosphere or the 0.00017% of methane. And perhaps our climate has been changing for years and will continue to change no matter what we do to try and stop it.

Why We Should All Be Worried About the Charlottesville Conviction.

We have all heard the news: the person who killed the people in Charlottesville by ramming his car into them was affiliated with neo-nazis and is being charged with hate crimes. He was also convicted of first-degree murder.

To commit a hate crime in the United States, the perpetrator must cause bodily injury because of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Please look at the picture. The people in the picture are the same "race" as the perpetrator. See the red flags? Although some of the marchers were carrying pro-abortion and black lives matter signs, this is an organized demonstration of the IWW. If you click the link and go to their website, you will see that the IWW wants to "build militant unionism" [my emphasis]. Their goal is for one worldwide, united union to develop communism (or anarchy according to around the world.

The sole police officer that had been stationed at this corner, asked to leave before the incident because she felt she was in danger from this crowd of "peaceful" protesters. She was given permission to do so. Also, the barricade that had blocked this street off to traffic had been removed by an unknown person-allowing the three cars through.

Enter the perpetrator. Now, he has been painted as a white supremacist who was out looking to run people over. He is also a mentally ill individual with a history of violent attacks on his mother. I am not arguing whether or not he was a white supremacist, but since he had violently attacked his own mother in the past and since the crowd is not the usual racial mix that white supremacist attack on the basis of race, I am saying that his crime should not be classified as a hate crime. Given his mental illness, I highly doubt he premeditated it. I assume being trapped in a crowd of people made him feel threatened. His mental illness heightened this.

However, the IWW was actually looking for a way to combine their cause with the "Black Lives Matter" plight (p 8). They have had floundering participation since the 1930s. Painting this attack as a hate crime, being in Charlottesville at the same time a rally by several neo-Nazis was taking place, this was the ideal opportunity to show themselves as being the same as other movements.

Since "Black Lives Matter" was there, if this were a racially motivated, premeditated attack by a white supremacist, it seems he would have targeted the "Black Lives Matter" demonstration. He didn't. He didn't even attack any of the religious denominations that were protesting the rally. Instead, he attacked a militant communist group. Political groups are not protected under the hate crime umbrella. Perhaps because members of Congress have been known to attack each other on the floor, and few of them wanted to impose additional penalties on their colleagues.

Why should we be concerned? If anyone can be tried for a hate crime simply because they are affiliated with a white supremacist group, that means the definition of hate crime has become too broad. Here is a scenario as to where this could lead: two white men, one a radical communist and one a white supremacist, get into an argument in a bar. The radical communist starts to beat up the white supremacist. The white supremacist retaliates. The white supremacist ends up with a broken arm and gets fined $10,000 and imprisoned four years for aggravated assault (because the lawyers state it was premeditated based on the person's social media posts) with an additional ten years in prison because of his beliefs and because he had visited websites and posted things stating he felt radical communists should all be taken out back and beaten with a chair. The radical communist ends up with a broken nose a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

Palestine vs. Israel

There are more than 20 countries that have Islam as the established state religion. Israel, although predominately Jewish in religion, is the only country that openly accepts people of Jewish cultural heritage.

People say an estimated 4.6 million Muslim Palestinian refuges have had to flee their Gaza strip homes and are now living in other countries as refugees. The entire 6.5 million Jewish people living in Israel are ALL refugees.

The Jewish people lived in Israel for many years, but the Babylonians, Persians, and Romans pushed them out of the area and Arabs moved into the gap. There were no Muslims prior to Muhammad in the late 500's AD. The land that is now the nation of Israel was not originally Muslim by any means.

Prior to the creation of the modern nation of Israel, people of Jewish origin (whether they practiced the Jewish religion or not) had been forced to move from country to country for over 100 years, constant refugees from one pogrom or another.

Hitler didn't give the Jewish people an option to leave. Jewish people who attempted to flee discovered many countries, including the United States of America, did not want them. Great Britain had gained control of the land that was to become Israel at the end of World War I. They did not take control of this land from Arabs but took control of this land from Turks. Arabs thought they would get the land and Jewish people also thought they would get the land immediately after the war because of two poorly written (and possibly poorly translated) agreements. However, Great Britain actually kept control of the land where Israel is now located. They did give Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen to the Arabs. They gave nothing to the Jewish people at that time but allowed them to emigrate in limited numbers to what would become Israel. After World War II, when the land was given to the Jewish people, it was Great Britain's to give.

Are there Muslim Arabs living in Israel that do not like it? Yes, especially in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, there is more than 3.5 million square miles of Arab Muslim controlled places on the face of this earth for them to take refuge. There is only 8,019 square miles of land on the entire face of this earth where Jewish people can go and will always be accepted as refugees.

If we decide that the Arabs should also get the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, the amount of land that is added to Arab holdings is about 0.0007% more than what they currently have, but the area where Jewish people can then flee is only 5,695 square miles, which takes away almost 30% of what they currently have.

Why? The Jewish people originally inhabited the land but were forced out by conquerors. Then Christians inhabited the land, and last Muslims came. Prior to British control, Turks inhabited the land, but were forced out. Arabs, who claim to be the true "Palestinians" didn't appear until late in the game. Jerusalem is the holiest city for Jewish people and arguably the holiest city for Christians. It is the "third" holiest city for Muslims.

Well, here is a quote directly from a Muslim explaining the only reason I could find for Arab Muslims want this area, "Clear focus by Palestinian and Arab Islamists on Jerusalem began to take place after the Israeli occupation of the eastern part of the city in 1967... the Jewish occupation of the city reminds the Islamists of Muslim and Arab weakness and of the need to rise and free Jerusalem from Jewish hegemony." It sounds to me the only reason Arab Muslims want the land is because Jewish people have it--and that is not an acceptable reason. 

Being discriminated against does not "cause depression."

Depression is a complex disorder that involves genetics. Still, people can't get it out of their heads that environmental factors are the sole cause of this. 

I was recently reading and article on WebMD that stated "discrimination for any reason may lead to depression and anxiety." The article was implying that Homosexuals have a higher incidence of depression and anxiety because they are discriminated against and the victim of hate crimes. I take issue with this. Consider the research on minorities, especially Hispanics and those from India. White people have more depression than them, yet still WebMD decides to push an agenda that is not helpful to people suffering from depression or to the homosexual community.

Yes, some external factors can affect temporary depression. For example, after a spouse dies, it is normal for people to go through a period of depression that is a reaction to that incident. These people need help just as people who suffer from long-term depression. 

People who have long-term depression have different needs than those suffering from temporary depression. Long-term depression is GENETIC. Although people with long-term depression may have periods of time that are better than others, social effects do not affect it. Why? Because even in good times a person with depression has a brain that is wired to see only the bad. 

Now, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that people who are homosexual are genetically depressed. But saying or even implying they are depressed because they are discriminated against is bologna. It implies homosexuals don't need to seek help for their depression because they cannot do anything to get through it since it is caused by the people around them. I understand WebMD is not an authoritative or even good source for medical information, but it is a source that many use. 

If you can't motivate yourself to get out of bed some mornings, if you feel as if no one likes you, if you have angry outbursts that feel as if some chemical is flooding your brain and you can no longer control your actions, you might have genetic depression. Genetic depression is like diabetes in that you need a doctor to help you control it as well as therapy and changes in your lifestyle. Genetic depression is not about whether you are female, or homosexual, Chinese or Greek, it is a serious condition that needs treatment. WebMD would do best not to take that lightly.

Was United Airlines wrong?

Many people are going to disagree based on all the propaganda online about this event, but the passenger who was kicked off United Airlines was wrong. I also think the person filming the incident was wrong. Why? Well, in the case of the person who recorded the incident, they were clearly doing it without the best interest of the passenger in mind. In our society, we have developed this voyeuristic watch people attitude instead of taking action. If I saw somebody being attacked or abused, after assuring my family was safe, I would intervene. But that is just who I am.

In this case, ANY person on that flight could have easily stopped this incident BEFORE it happened and even while it was happening by simply standing up and saying: "Hey, you don't have to kick him. I volunteer to take his place." I mean really, if they didn't want someone involuntarily kicked off the plane they would have only had to give up a little of their time, which United Airlines would have compensated them for. No one did. No one- even the despicable person holding the camera- cared. Everyone was selfish. To make matters worse, this wasn't one man saying he would die for another. It was simply one man saying I don't mind getting to my destination a few hours later so you can get there on time. How sad.

What was the result? Does this guy have a lawsuit? Well, maybe in America where he won't have to pay for United's lawyers if he loses. But the fact of the matter is something that I knew long before verifying to see: United tickets are sold under terms and conditions (specifically Rule 25) that ALL airlines have- at least all the ones I have flown on (U S Air, Northwest, and Southwest to name a few). These rules are long and boring, but I try to read them each time I purchase a ticket. After all, you are agreeing to them! In addition, you are purchasing a reservation on the plane- you have no claim to the plane itself. If you go to any place of business and refuse to leave, that place has the right to call the police or security and physically remove you. If you physically fight during this process then, yes, you may be injured. Why are we siding with this guy who agreed he could be randomly kicked and then refused to honor that agreement?

Walter Scott Witness Lied to get Police Officer in Trouble

The title of my post says it all. The witness who filmed the scene stated that Scott did not try to get the taser out of Officer Slager's hand (as Slager reported). However, he needed to do a little bit better video editing if he wanted to make this statement. In the beginning of the video (as seen on CNN), you can clearly see that Scott is fighting over the taser.

In fact, you can even see the taser on the ground after the scuffle:

It also seems as if the cop were shot by Scott with the taser based not only on the way Slager is standing but also on what appears to be taser strings coming from Slager's body. Perhaps the real reason he didn't give chase was because all he could do at the moment was weakly grab his gun. We will never know- since the only other witness is a liar. 

The guy who took the video (Santana), apparently did not realize that it proves the cop's story (the suspect, Scott, fought over the taser (possibly tasing the cop in the process), causing the cop to drop it, and then continued to flee because he had a warrant out for his arrest). But, in today's media, visible facts are not an issue. They present the story in a way that is sympathetic to mass hysteria. Poor Scott- a man who was driving a car without registration, who has a warrant out for his arrest, who ran from the police officer, who fought over and knocked the taser out of the cops hand and continued to run. 

What about poor Slager who lost his job because this "witness" lied? In my opinion, the witness should be tried for slander. Perhaps the real reason Santana fled the scene instead of sharing his evidence is because he wanted to make sure he cropped the beginning enough. The sad thing is that the next time, I am sure the "witness" will do a better job of video editing as America continues this vendetta against its police force. In my opinion, the federal government needs to immediately equip all police officers with body video cameras in order to protect our cops from future cases of slander.

SB 101- The law that wasn't.

Many people claimed SB 101 would "discriminate." However, it would have protected minorities from having to do things against their religious beliefs, such as these Muslims. The Indiana government amendment has stripped business religious freedom rights from its language and is setting itself up for a quagmire like what is going on in Colorado right now. You see, northern Indiana is a hot bed for KKK activity and all it would take is a KKK member to walk into a bakery and ask for a cake for a hate rally. The KKK member, acting in light of his/her religion, can now legally sue the bakery, since SB 101 no longer allows you to deny services for a very long list of reasons.

So far, all the bakeries, caterers, florists, wedding venue providers, and photographers who have been successfully sued in states that did not have a version of SB 101 in place NEVER denied services to homosexuals in general. They more than willing made them cakes, arranged their flowers, and photographed them. The only thing these people refused to do was to provide their services at a homosexual wedding. The results of the cases are varied. One man and his staff had to undergo "sensitivity" training for a year and now have to make quarterly reports- if they deny ANYONE services they can be fined $500. Another baker decided to work out of her home to avoid future conflicts, she may still be fined up to $150,000 for "emotional distress" although the plaintiff never saw a doctor for this. The florist was fined for spite; the photographer was fined; the Mennonite wedding venue providers may or may not be sued- in that case, the offended couple is still deciding about it.

As I stated before. Our founding fathers held that religious discrimination was the ultimate discrimination. Forcing individuals to do something that is against their religious beliefs is despicable and, in itself, discrimination. Yet, now Indiana allows people to do this. Repealing the bill entirely would have been a better alternative. The current amendment hurts people more than if they would have never written the bill. The only thing that will save us is if more people go into bakeries and ask them to make cakes that celebrate some odd aspect of their religion and sue the bakeries when they refuse. Then, hopefully, the government will realize they have to set a precedent as to which discrimination is more important- religion or one of the others.

Does Indiana's Law Encourage Prejudice, Discrimination, and Bigotry?

Everyone around the world is talking about Indiana's new law that protects religious freedom. Many, including Apple, Angie's list, NCAA, the Gamer's Convention, the city of Seattle, and the state of Connecticut, have decided to stop doing business with Indiana- at least that is what they are saying now. Everyone is complaining that this law supports "discrimination."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -Amendment 1; The Constitution of the United States. 

Above all else, before protecting anything else, our founding fathers wanted to protect the freedom of religion. Christianity was the predominant form of religion in America at the time the founding fathers wrote this amendment; and Christianity is based upon the Bible. 

"They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." -1 Tim. 7-11, NIV

In this passage from the Bible, the law is written for sinners- including the homosexual. Homosexuality is sin. 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -Matthew 5:17, NIV

Jesus did not come to get rid of the law set up in the Old Testament, but to fulfill that law- to become the required sacrifice for those who repent and follow His teaching. His teaching does not go against the law- as a Christian, you still must not murder, commit adultery, or...

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable...Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God." -Leviticus 18: 22, 24-29 NIV

People have chosen homosexuality for thousands of years. The law Christians live by says it is detestable and that we should stay away from people who are homosexuals (among others), and we should not be homosexuals. 

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." -Hebrews 10:26-31 NIV

For Churches who tell homosexuals they are accepted as they are, they will have to answer to God as it says in Hebrews and elsewhere- they are encouraging sin and telling others it is okay to sin even after they have decided to take Christ's name. For homosexuals who become Christians and continue to practice homosexuality- well, you can read about their fate in Hebrews 10:31 as well. 

Many cry "Love your neighbor as yourself!" 

That was the second most important command according to Jesus; they miss that the number one commandment "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." If you love God, you will obey Him. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will do everything in your power to prevent his or her eternal suffering. 

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." I don't have to judge anyone- the Bible (God) has already judged homosexuality to be detestable. 

My religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. Why should I have to go against my religion -the primary religion that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution- or to pay court fees should I choose to stand by my faith and not work for homosexuals? The bill signed into law by Mike Pence supports my religious freedoms. It also supports the religious freedoms of minority religions including Muslims and Jewish people. 

Sadly, what bill protesters want is a one way street. According to those complaining, I should not be allowed to practice my religious beliefs, Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religious beliefs, Jewish people should not be allowed to practice their religious beliefs. In their eyes, once anyone starts a business, he or she should automatically be forced to give their religion up. In fact, the only people who should be allowed to practice what they believe (according to the protesters of this law) are homosexuals. Will a homosexual bakery make a cake that says, "Gay Marriage Is Wrong"? The videos on that page are very enlightening. 

Some people also have a mistaken belief that homosexuality is genetic. They use that as a reason that homosexuals should receive extra protection- because they "can't help themselves." Sorry, the only twin research that supports the statement "homosexuality is genetic" has been done by targeting homosexuals and/or using small populations (fewer than 1000). When you look at large general studies, such as this one and this one, you find that social and environmental factors are the driving forces behind homosexuality. There is no support or possibility of a female genetic link to homosexuality, and although researchers leave the chance for a male homosexuality gene open (it would only be a marker for the potential to develop homosexualtiy- not a definite "this makes a person homosexual" gene; if environmental and social factors are not involved, a person positive for any genes they find will still be heterosexual), there is a better chance of finding a "divorce" gene. Homosexuality is a choice, just as my religion is my choice. My religious choice and right to freely exercise my religion was specifically protected by our founding fathers. Your homosexuality was not.