San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 7, 2013

Privacy or Security: A False Distinction

Why does government exist?  That is a question few consider these days.  Why do you believe government exists?  Do you know why the majority of the founding fathers of this country believed the government had the right to exist?  I believe I know the most common answer to both of these questions.
Most people believe government exists to guarantee their many rights.  Most people believe they have a right to a free education (K-12).  Most people believe they have a right to a government subsidized college degree.  Most people believe they have a right to government subsidized medical care.  Most people believe they have a right to a government subsidized retirement pension called Social Security.  Most people believe they have a right to free medical care when they retire.  Most people believe that food and shelter are rights and if they do not have enough food and shelter it is the duty of the government to subsidize it for them.  Food stamps and Section 8 housing are the result of that belief.  Most women believe they have a right to a taxpayer financed abortion (or multiple abortions, as the case may be).  Although I could go on describing practically all human needs and desires as a right, I will conclude with the fact that most people believe they have a right to be free from physical harm.  Furthermore, they believe the government can secure that right on their behalf.
The founding fathers had a much more limited view of government than what most people have today.  Indeed, they believed that government existed to secure only three rights and those three rights were not granted to them by government but by God.  Those three rights are the right to life, freedom and property.  The founding fathers almost universally agreed that it is the role of government to ensure that you would be free to live your life the way you want to and nobody would be permitted to take away your property.  How did the fathers see government securing these rights?  Basically by doing nothing.
People are free naturally.  People are alive naturally.  People accumulate property naturally.  Government does not need to aid anyone in the pursuit of these three rights.  The only time government would get involved with the rights of its citizens was when someone else infringed upon another person's right to life, freedom or property.  Then government would then play the role of adjudicator in the dispute that had arisen.  My how things have changed.
Your right to your life, your freedom and your property all presuppose your right to live in private.  All three God-given rights assume that government will not get involved in your life until such a time as one of those rights is violated.  Insofar as we restrict our understanding of what our rights are to these three items we have the ability to limit the growth and interference of government in our lives.  It is only when we expand the list of rights we believe we have that government is given the ability to become Leviathan.  When I have a right to a free grade school education for my son I also have the right to use the government to steal some money from my neighbor to pay the expenses associated with that education.  When I have the right to a retirement pension I also have the right to use the government to garnish the wages of today's wage earners in order to pay my pension.  Any right that I have that involves taking something from my neighbor to pay for it necessarily involves the government.  The government is the thief and the provider.  The government is the perfect Robin Hood.
In the real world no man has a right to personal security.  Why?  Because it is impossible to provide.  The world is a dangerous place.  There are people in the world who wish to take your life, your freedom and your property.  Ironically, the greatest threat to all three of these rights in the world today is from one's own government.  Each citizen's government is primarily responsible for the taking of the lives, freedom and property of its subjects.  Of course, there are other criminal factions wandering about but government, in all of its branches, is the largest and most efficient criminal faction in the world today.
Regardless, personal security is something that cannot be guaranteed by any party.  The free market provides many options, at various price levels, for people who wish to do something to secure their personal security.  Due to the inherent nature of sinful man, which has a seemingly innate desire and ability to worship government power, the provisions for personal security offered by the free market are almost always rejected in favor of "free" security services offered by the state government.  Unlike free market security services which must accurately advertise the limits to their service abilities, the government labors under no such restriction.  Government tells you and me that it is able to guarantee us perfect personal security and that it is able to do so at a very small cost.  Who would not want to make that purchase?
What is the cost for government provided personal security?  Well, it is your right to privacy, of course.  Government claims to have the ability to provide you with perfect personal security but only after you give up your right to any privacy.  You see, in order to protect you from any potential harm or any potential wrongdoer, the government must know everything about you.  It must also know everything about everyone else.  Then, armed with omniscience, it is able to apply its power of the sword and prevent all bad things from happening.  You must understand that from the perspective of the government you are a potential criminal.  You believe you are obtaining personal security services from them but they believe you are potentially a criminal.  In order to prevent all criminal activity, including yours, they must know everything about you and everyone else.  Certainly that is a small price to pay for eternal security, is it not?
That brings us to where we are today.  Citizens in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are willing and happy to give up their right to privacy in order to pay for the promise of eternal security.  After all, if you are not doing things the state does not approve of, why should you be afraid?  What does it matter if the state knows about your every thought and movement?  What does it matter if the state knows about all of your personal and public affairs?  Certainly that is a small price to pay for eternal security.  The problem, of course, is that we are being swindled.  We are paying the price of the forfeiture of our privacy in exchange for a commodity the state cannot and will not deliver.  Indeed, just the opposite is the case.  Armed with all of this information about us, history has shown that those subjects who willingly gave up their privacy soon come to be considered as enemies of the state.  At that point all is lost.  At that point we will live under totalitarian authority.  We are well on the path to that end result.  The lax attitude taken towards the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by both the citizens and the rulers of this land makes totalitarianism a more likely outcome than you might expect.  Beware.

Update:  June 8, 2013

CNBC.com had this headline today, "President Barack Obama staunchly defended the sweeping U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone and internet activity, calling it a 'modest encroachment' on privacy."  I wonder what he would consider an "immodest encroachment" to be?

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Verizon Spies On SDA Citizens For The NSA

An AP article in today's Denver Post entitled "NSA seizes Verizon phone records" tells me all I need to know about the logical and legal progression our rulers are using to destroy our 4th Amendment rights and subject us to absolute tyranny.  Here is what the story had to say:
"The National Security Administration currently is collecting the telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top secret court order, Britain's Guardian newspaper said Wednesday.  The order was granted by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25 and was good until July 19, the newspaper said.  The order requires Verizon, one of the nation's largest telecommunications companies, on an 'ongoing, daily basis', to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the U.S. and between the U.S. and other countries.  The newspaper said the document, a copy of which it had obtained, shows for the first time that under the Obama administration, the communications records of millions of U.S. citizens were being collected indiscriminately and in bulk, regardless of whether they were suspect of any wrongdoing."
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."   President Obama swore an oath before God to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment.  He is now in direct violation of his oath and should be impeached.  Why has Fox News not picked up this story?  Where is the outrage at this loss of constitutional rights?  Apparently, nobody cares.  Apparently most people believe this is a fair price to pay our rulers in exchange for their promise that no bad guys will ever harm us. 
The Patriot Act illegally and immorally dissolved the 4th Amendment and permitted the NSA, the FBI and all of the other alphabet soup "national security" organizations to spy upon our daily activities without the prior issuance of a warrant or the establishment of probable cause.  The one limitation put upon those who immorally operate under the Patriot Act was that they had to at least pretend that the activities they were spying upon were somehow related to "terrorist" activities.  So when the FBI monitors the activity in my checking account they would do so under the guise of watching me for money laundering because they suspect I am in cahoots with the imaginary terrorists they are fighting.  This new behavior strips away the pretensions of the Patriot Act.  No longer do the spooks have to at least pretend that they believe we are terrorists.  They can now spy upon us for no good reason whatsoever.
This shift from pretending that we are engaged in terrorist activity to simply treating all of us as threats to the power and authority of the federal government is significant.  It paves the way for the third step.  The first step was the abolition of the 4th Amendment.  That was accomplished when the Patriot Act was signed.  The second step was moving from only spying upon suspected "terrorists" to spying upon the general activities of the entire population.  That is accomplished with this new program.  The third step, which is coming, is spying upon the particular activities of the entire population.  According to the AP article the NSA is not yet gathering specific individual information on us.  The report says, "Under the terms of the order, the phone numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls.  The contents of the conversation itself are not covered."  I guess we are expected to take some comfort in the allegation that the specific content of our conversations is not being placed into our government file.
The AP article makes note of the fact that this new program is step two in the march towards totalitarianism.  It says, "The broad, unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is unusual.  FISA court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets."  Well there you go.   The erosion of our right to privacy continues.  We no longer have to be considered to be part of a terrorist organization for our own government to monitor and record our daily telephone conversations.  Does this bother anyone besides me?  Does anybody care that Big Brother is now watching and recording everything you do?
In the ultimate power play and act of government hypocrisy, the AP article concluded by telling us that, "the Associated press could not authenticate the order because documents from the court are classified."  Here we go again.  When the federal government does something it is done in secret and we are considered to be evil people if we seek to find out what is being done.  On the other hand, when we do something the federal government claims the right to know everything about it and we are considered to be evil if we protest the intrusions into our privacy.  The propaganda war has been won by the federal government.  Practically all citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika believe that the government has a right to know everything about their private affairs.  At the same time they also believe that we have no right to know what our "protectors" are doing.  If that is not tyranny, what is?

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Google Spies On SDA Citizens For The FBI

A couple of days ago the Denver Post ran an AP story written by Paul Elias entitled, "Google ordered to give up data."  The story is an amazing example of how the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is no longer enforced or believed in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  Long term readers of this blog will note that America is now spelled 'Amerika' in recognition of the fact that we presently have much more in common with communist nations from the past than our own nation's past.  To get the full impact of the story I quote it extensively below:
"Goggle must comply with the FBI's demand for data on certain customer's as part of a national security investigation, according to a ruling by a federal judge who earlier this year determined such government requests are unconstitutional.  The decision involves 'National Security Letters,' thousands of which are sent yearly by the FBI to banks, telecommunication companies and other businesses.  The letters, an outgrowth of the USA Patriot Act passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, are supposed to be used exclusively for national security purposes and are sent without judicial review.  Recipients are barred from disclosing anything about them.  In March, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston sided with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a lawsuit brought on behalf of an unidentified telecommunications company, ruling the letters violate free speech rights....Illston's May 20 order omits any mention of Google or that the proceedings were closed to the public.  Neither Google nor the FBI would comment."
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which every politician and FBI agent swears an oath before God to uphold, protect and defend, states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  Now, along comes Federal Judge Susan Illston, who had previously declared that National Security Letters violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, and she finds that National Security Letters are just fine and dandy when issued to the profit seeking corporation known as Google.  How the exact same letter can be constitutional one time and unconstitutional the next time is not explained.  Why logical consistency has nothing to do with federal judicial rulings is not described.  How the issuance of contradictory judicial decisions totally undermines any confidence in the legal system was not explored. 
National Security Letters are unconstitutional by definition.  They were created by the patently unconstitutional Patriot Act.  They are sent by the FBI to profit seeking companies for the expressed purpose of gathering intelligence information about the company's customers on behalf of the federal government.  By definition they invade the "persons and papers" of citizens of the SDA without the prior establishment of probable cause that a criminal act has taken place.  By definition they are issued without "judicial review".  That is just a fancy way of saying that they are issued without a warrant which is, of course, a direct violation of the 4th Amendment.  When a citizen of the SDA is being secretly investigated by the FBI it is illegal for the profit seeking company to inform the law abiding citizen that his papers and affairs are being scrutinized by these agents of espionage.  That, of course, is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the profit seeking corporation.  Everything about a National Security Letter is wrong, illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.
What I find absolutely amazing about this case is the fact that the violations of the 4th Amendment involved here are not even mentioned.  Apparently nobody involved in this case has the slightest clue that the 4th Amendment has been violated.  The entire cases revolves around the 1st Amendment and the prohibition against allowing the company that is being forced to turn over information about its customers to the FBI to inform its customers that they are being spied upon by their own government.   Although the 1st Amendment violation is egregious, it pales in comparison to the violation of the 4th Amendment that is taking place.  We have become so desensitized to the violation of our right to privacy that we are incapable of seeing it when it takes place right under our nose.  When a nation of sheeple gets to this point it is inevitable that government tyranny is right around the corner.  Expect secret arrests, secret trials and secret applications of punishment upon the citizens of this country in the near future.  Don't be surprised if your neighbor just disappears.  Most of all, do not answer your door when you hear a knock late in the night. 
In a grandiose example of government hypocrisy, the proceedings related to this judicial decision were "closed to the public".  Apparently when the FBI wants to find out all about my private affairs it has the right to do so with impunity.  On the other hand, when I want to know what the espionage branch of my government is doing as I am being spied upon, the proceedings are conducted in secret and I am left in total darkness.  Does this bother anyone besides me?  Have we all lost our minds?  Is every citizen of the SDA of the opinion that all of our private affairs are the proper business of government?  Is every citizen of the SDA of the opinion that all of the affairs of government must be kept from us?  Is every citizen in this miserable land of the opinion that we have nothing to fear if we are doing nothing wrong? 
The citizens of the SDA generally agree that giving up their right to be free from government probing into their private affairs is a fair price to pay for the false promise of personal security.  The great majority of the citizens in this country now apparently believe that it is a good thing when the federal government spies upon us.  That is what the falsely named Patriot Act does.  There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act.  It is the Unpatriot Act.  It is the Act of Government Oppression.  It is the Let's Destroy the Constitution Act.  It was overwhelmingly approved by both Democratic and Republican congressmen in 2001 under the Bush administration.  It was extended for four more years in 2011 by the Obama administration.  All politicians are in agreement that it is a good thing to allow the FBI to spy on the citizens of this country without their knowledge or consent.  Now the FBI has enlisted the services of Google in its never ending quest to expand its power and control over us.   And still, nobody cares.  Nobody cares!  I guess we are getting exactly what we deserve.  Wait until they come for you.  Your day is coming.  And by then it will be too late to do anything to prevent it. 


Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Stocks Are Still Undervalued

Everybody wants the stock market to crash.  Human memory being what it is, folks are having a hard time shaking the memories of the two stock market crashes from the recent past.  Memories of extended bull markets from the more distant past have been lost.  The net result is that investment professionals, as well as amateur investors, are highly reluctant to get on board the current bull market bandwagon.  They do not want to be exposed by the next bear market.  That is an understandable fear but it is also a fear that is blinding them from the truth.
Just prior to the 1.5% drop in the stock market on the last day of May there was an article at CNBC.com entitled "This Chart Shows Dow Should Be A Lot Lower!"  Here is the graph that followed that headline:




As you can see, the graph compares the value of the Dow Industrial stock market index with the earnings per share for the Dow components.  According to the graph we experienced a terrible economic event earlier this year when the value of the Dow rose above the earnings per share line.  The only reasonable expectation for future stock market prices must therefore be downward.
Not explained about the above graph is the fact that the correlative values for the Dow and earnings per share are assigned with total arbitrariness.  There is no reason why the Dow index could not have been moved upward or why the earnings per share index could not have been moved downward.  If either of those two things had been done there would have been no crossing of the line and no ominous technical signal that we are all doomed.  Of course, the stock market did drop by 1.5% on the next trading day so whoever created that graph is now considered to be an investment genius. 
Shortly after the market closed on May 31st an article was posted to Investing.com that described why the market had dropped.  It said, "U.S. stocks tanked on Friday after positive economic indicators rekindled talk that the Federal Reserve will soon scale back stimulus measure.  Stocks dropped particularly hard amid sentiments that a correction may be due for U.S. equities."  Why it is necessarily the case that a slower rate of monetary growth would hurt the stock market was not explained.  Why it is necessarily the case that the stock market is due for a "correction" was not described.  The imbalances that have come to exist in the stock market that require correction were not listed.  The article might as well have said something like this, "A bunch of us are afraid of looking like fools because we did not call the last bear market so we are going to call the next bear market every day until it happens."  The fact that these poor fellows look like fools for continually calling for a bear market that fails to materialize is lost on them.
There is no doubt that all of the current predictions for an immediate bear market are based more upon emotional factors rather than rational analysis of economic conditions.  The Welsh are a particularly staid lot.  We are not easily swayed by the prevailing emotional currents.  We can generally get to the rational bottom of the issue.  I have reproduced a graph below that gives you facts, not fantasy.  This graph correlates corporate profits with the S & P 500 stock market index.  Take a gander:




Corporate profits are the long term driver of the stock market.  As Warren Buffet has said many times, buying a stock is the equivalent of purchasing a future stream of corporate income.  Although stocks may rise and fall based upon emotional considerations in the short term, stocks will eventually come back to a rational value based upon corporate profits.  The above graph clearly indicates that the last two bear markets knocked the stuffing out of the stock market.  The market peaks in 2000 and 2007 are obvious.  The fact that the stock market is now highly undervalued is also quite clear.  Believe the facts, not your feelings.
The disconnect between earnings and the market due to the irrational exuberance of investors starting in 1996 and continuing to 2001 is obvious in the above graph.  The disconnect that took place in 2006 as corporate earnings dropped and the market continued to rise is obvious.  Equally as obvious is the pessimistic disconnect that has occurred today.   Corporate profits have sky rocketed and the market is not even close to catching up. 
This bull market has a long way to run.  Don't believe what you hear about the stock market being in a bubble.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  Stocks are undervalued.  Hold your stocks and stock funds and, if possible, buy more.

Monday, June 3, 2013

BSA, Homosexuals And Evangelical Christians

Evangelical Christians in the Socialist Democracy of America are a pathetic lot.  More than anything they want people to like them.  They want to grow numerically large churches.  They know that in order to grow numerically large churches they need to be popular with the people who live around them.  They will do anything to get people to like them.  They will say whatever is necessary to get people to like them and come to their church.  They will even go so far as to distort biblical truth to get people to like them.
All pagans and most Christians hate the doctrine of God's wrath and judgment.  All pagans and most Christians want a god who loves everyone, always says nice things to men and tells us to be nice to each other all the time.  Since most Evangelicals want to be liked by the pagans who surround them, they have changed the biblical message about who God is into the pagan message of who they want god to be. The recent conflict in the Boy Scouts of America in regards to homosexual members illustrates this truth perfectly.
Homosexual advocates believe that god loves them and the homosexuals they support. They believe that god has a special place in his heart for homosexuals since they suffer at the hands of fundamentalist Christians for their beliefs and practices.  They believe that anyone who quotes passages from the Bible that say God opposes homosexuality and homosexuals is twisting the biblical message since it is abundantly obvious to all proper interpreters of the Bible that those passages are no longer valid and do not represent god's current opinion on the issue.  According to them, god's current opinion about homosexuals is that they are just fine and everybody ought to leave them alone.  In fact, god says we should support and affirm their behavior and beliefs.
On May 29th a fellow in the Denver metropolitan area wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post.  In his letter he declared that "allowing gay members flies in the face of God's laws."  As you would expect, the responses to his comment were less than supportive.  By now I think we all are aware that any reference to the law of God will always receive an immediate anger and hate response from those who believe that God loves everyone and thinks that everyone is just fine.  After all, the law of God conjures up images of that Old Testament God who was always going around killing and judging people.  That God, according to Evangelicals and pagans, either died or changed his character into a more palatable 21st century god who loves everyone and has a wonderful plan for everyone's life.
Jennifer Siegal of Wheat Ridge took particular offense to the May 29th letter.  She wrote a letter to the editor today to take him to task for his misrepresentation of the character of her god.  She asks, "Whose God is he referring to?  Certainly not the one that says to love thy neighbor or refrain from judgment lest he be judged."  This is, of course, the type of argument we hear all the time.  God loves everyone.  God does not have a nasty thing to say about anyone, except perhaps Hitler.  God tells us that the most important thing in life is that we all get along and accept each other as we are, except perhaps Hitler.  Jennifer has learned her lesson well.  She has believed everything the popularity seeking Evangelicals have told her about the character of God. 
Jennifer clearly is no student of the Bible.  Her vague references to biblical texts are, as is always the case in letters like this, taken out of context and used to support a point she wants to believe that actually has no connection to the point originally being made in the biblical passage itself.  That method of interpreting the Bible is standard operating procedure for pagans and the Evangelicals who desperately want to appeal to them.  No passage of the Bible is free from distortion and misrepresentation if that distortion or misrepresentation might result in some Evangelical being liked by some pagan.  Distortion and misrepresentation is glorified when it results in a pagan actually attending an evangelical church for a time or two.  The problem for Jennifer is that what she believes has no basis in truth or reality.  The god she has been taught to believe in does not exist.  She asks, "Whose God?"  Allow me to answer that question.
The God she quotes as saying "love thy neighbor" just happens to be the God of the Old Testament. I suspect Jennifer did not know that when she wrote her letter.  This should create a serious logical problem in Jennifer's mind.  She, like all pagans and homosexual advocates, wants to relegate the God of the Old Testament to the dustbin of history.  After all, it is that nasty Old Testament God who gives fundamentalist Christians all of their verses about how homosexuality is an abomination.  Yet Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 when he declares in Matthew 22:39 that we should love our neighbor.  It was the Old Testament God who is quoted in Leviticus 19:18.  This is the same God who also said that "it is the Lord your God who will cross ahead of you; He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them."  That quotation is found in Deuteronomy 31:3.  In fact, it gets worse for poor Jennifer.  The verse she quoted came from Leviticus 19.  Just one chapter later, in Leviticus 20 we find the verse she hates so much.  Leviticus 20: 13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."  Although she is no doubt totally oblivious to this fact, Jennifer is picking and choosing the verses she likes and ignoring the others.  Jennifer believes the Old Testament God when He says to love our neighbor and she hates the Old Testament God when He declares homosexuality to be a sin worthy of death.   That is never considered to be good exegetical style.
Jennifer also vaguely refers to another thing she has learned from those Evangelical Christians who so desperately want her to like them.  She tells us that Jesus told us we should never judge each other.  Judge not, lest you be judged is what she says.  That is a quote from the Sermon on the Mount.  It is also taken out of context, universalized and used to support all manner of heretical positions.  Jennifer believes in the god she has been told about by the church today.  She believes in the god who does not judge anyone.  She believes in the god who cries crocodile tears when something bad happens to the humans he loves so much.  The problem is her belief about god does not square with the way the Bible presents God to be.  Her problem is that her belief about who Jesus is is completely in error.The Jesus Jennifer believes in does not exist.  In fact, He never existed.
This biblical Jesus did many things that would be downright contradictory with His popular reputation today and which would also be considered highly judgmental by today's standards.  Jesus describes John the Baptist as the "greatest prophet" who had come along up until His time.  Jesus did this knowing full well he was endorsing the preaching of John the Baptist.  What did John the Baptist preach?  He said this to the most significant religious and spiritual leaders of his time, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance."  (Matthew 3:7)  It gets worse.  Apparently Jennifer has never been told about the sermon Jesus delivered to the religious leaders of Israel just prior to His execution.  His lecture/sermon is recorded in Matthew 23 and it contains what are known as the "eight woes".  He begins each "woe" by calling the Pharisees "hypocrites".  He then goes on to pronounce judgment against them.  At the end of His declaration of woe He says, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?"  That sure sounds judgmental to me.  But it gets worse.  The Apostle John records the words of Jesus in Revelation 21 in regards to the end of the world.  What does Jesus have to say?  He says, "It is done.  I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.  I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost.  He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son.  But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murders and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."  Wow!   That is terribly harsh and judgmental terminology to be used by the Man who theoretically told us not to judge one another. Evangelicals don't tell pagans about verses like these.  They are too disturbing.  Telling people about verses like this makes it very difficult to be popular with the citizens of the world, so Evangelicals simply don't do it.
I feel sorry for Jennifer.  She is only doing what she has been trained to do by the church.  She has been told, probably by every Christian that she has ever known, that God loves everyone and would never do anything to harm a human being.  She has been told that judgement is wrong and nobody, especially God, will ever engage in that immoral activity.  She has been taught that we are to love our neighbor. Unfortunately, she has also been taught that "loving one's neighbor" means accepting everything the neighbor thinks and does as morally acceptable.  Unless she repents of her sin Jennifer is going to find judgment day to be a very bad day for her.  Even worse, if the Christians who have told her these lies about the nature and character of God do not repent, they will find judgement day is even worse for them.