San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, June 6, 2014

Ask Amy: All Heterophobes Are In Denial

I did not plan on doing another article on heterophobia today.  I had a nice little piece ready to go about a favorite television show of mine.  That will have to wait.  I was reading the paper this morning, over my breakfast, when I came to Ask Amy.  As you know, I read Ask Amy.  The first letter she addressed in her column today was from a homosexual man who was trying to "come out" to his "religious mother."  As I read Amy's response I flew into an uncontrollable rage.  Fortunately my wife is out of town for a couple of days.  I could not have been held responsible if she was struck by any of the utensils that were flying around the kitchen table.  Needless to say, the dog may never be the same.  But that is his problem.  Here is my problem.
The homosexual man wrote, "She is very religious and it scares me because we are so close, and I don't want to lose her....I don't know what to do.  I want to be honest but I don't want to lose my mom because of her religion.  Please help me."  How pathetic!  Boo Hoo.  This heterophobe does not want to lose his mom because of his immoral behavior.  Could you imagine some pedophile saying the same thing?  Or how about a murderer?  Or a warlock?  Give me a break.  My advice to this heterophobe would be simple....get over it.  Grow up.  Actions have consequences.  When you make the decision to live the heterophobic lifestyle there will be consequences that follow that decision.  One of them will be that your "religious" mom will cut you off.  Deal with it.   Sadly, that is not what Amy had to say.
Here, in part, is Amy's response to this sniveling heterophobe, "You should try to help your mother along....Introduce your amazing boyfriend to her, but use neutral terminology for now.  If your mother is so religious that she cannot accept your being gay, then you should be able to at least count on her forgiving you.  I realize that being forgiven for a crime you haven't committed is several steps below authentic acceptance, but this may be the best she can do, in which case your job will be to forgive her for her frailties and failings."  So there you have it.  All heterophobes are morally superior to heterosexuals.  Anyone who believes that homosexual behavior is sinful is morally suspect and full of failings and frailties.  Does anybody besides me see the problem with this response?
Indeed, there are several problems with this response.  The first has to do with Amy's conception of the Christian doctrine of forgiveness.  She believes that this heterophobe's mom has a moral responsibility to forgive him for the non-sin of homosexual behavior.  Where did that ridiculous idea come from?  Answer:  that ridiculous idea came from the evangelical Church in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  The anti-biblical doctrine of forgiveness presently taught by evangelicals in the SDA states that it is the moral duty of all true believers to unilaterally forgive anyone and everyone they have contact with regardless of whether those people repent and express remorse for their sinful behavior.  The punishment, according to evangelicals, for failure to unilaterally forgive everyone is the loss of one's own salvation.
The Christian doctrine of forgiveness as it is currently expressed is new.  For hundreds of years the Christian Church understood that forgiveness must be expressed in the context of repentance.  If a person does not repent of a specific sin then forgiveness is not to be granted.  There is no such thing as unilateral forgiveness.  In this case, the heterophobe does not even believe that his behavior is sinful.  Neither does Amy.  Yet Amy expects this heterophobe's mom to unilaterally forgive him for his homosexual lifestyle.  Amy expects his mom to violate the principles of her own conscience and override the teaching of 4000 years of Church history just to make this heterophobe feel good about himself.   Now who is being unreasonable?
The mother should be free to live according to the dictates of her conscience without being judged for doing so.  That means she will cut off her disobedient and sinful son the moment he tells her that he is proudly homosexual and has no intention of repenting.  That means they will have no future contact until he repents.  If he never repents they will die never having seen each other again.  That is life in the real world.  Or, at least, that is the way life should be in the real world.  We all know that the way things should be and the way things are are vastly different.
If this mom has the courage and conviction to cut off her son, and I hope she does, then Amy and this heterophobe will label her the sinful one for doing so.  Amy will accuse her of being in sin for not granting unilateral forgiveness to her son.  She will also accuse her of being in sin for judging heterophobes.  Both Amy and the heterophobe will be quick to judge this poor woman for her actions while, at the same time, they will refuse to recognize the moral reality that they are the ones who are rendering immoral judgements when they declare this mom immoral for following the moral principles of the Bible and her conscience.  That is how morally confused the entire issue of homosexuality has become in the SDA.
I have some questions for all heterophobes out there.  I have asked them before but I have never received a response to any of them.  First question:  when did homosexual behavior become moral and what is the logically necessary argument in support of that view?  Second question:  did homosexual behavior become moral simply because 51% of the people who live in a particular geo-political area now believe it is moral?  Third question:  please explain how the moral and ethical system of biblical Christianity managed to be so wrong about homosexual behavior for 4000 years.  Fourth question:  please explain why Christians should now change the doctrine of the immorality of homosexuality to bring it into conformity with what you believe.  Fifth question:  given the fact that God is immutable, please explain how it is that He changed his mind on this issue.   Sixth question: given the fact that all of you will judge this mom for not changing her mind about the sinfulness of homosexuality, please explain why you should not be judged for not changing your mind about the alleged sinlessness of homosexuality?  That should be enough to get the discussion going.  Now, the ball is in your court.
So far the only argument I have heard from the heterophobe camp goes like this:
Premise # 1:  Calling homosexuality a sin makes homosexuals feel bad.
Premise # 2:   Nobody should ever feel bad.
Conclusion:  Homosexuality is not a sin.
Using that argument I can argue for the moral propriety of murder, pedophilia, polygamy and adultery.  Do you really want to use that argument?  It is time for heterophobes to come out of denial and admit the obvious....their behavior is sinful and they do it because they like it.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

A Critique Of "The Cynic's Dictionary"

I was poking around the internet last week looking for something irritating to read.  It is probably not good for my blood pressure but I get a certain sick satisfaction out of reading stupid writings.  It reaffirms my lack of faith in humanity and confirms what I believe about the doctrine of original sin.  I consider the intellectual and spiritual benefits of this practice to outweigh the costs to my physical body.  While reading some anarcho-capitalist propaganda I came across something called the "Cynic's Dictionary."  Being a bit of a cynic myself, I decided to see how the author of the dictionary defined various terms.  Here is what I discovered.
The author of the "Cynic's Dictionary" is a fellow by the name of Kirkpatrick Sale.  I am resisting the urge to insert several different puns at this point in today's post.  It is sufficient to say that I doubt Kirkpatrick has rung up many sales of his dictionary.  Why?  Because he tells it like it is.  Or, at least, as he sees it to be.  People of his sort are never popular.  He is far too blunt and forthright to ever make people feel comfortable.  He is also a God-hater.
I like God-haters.  I know where they stand.  In reality everyone who is not a Christian is a God-hater.  It is just that almost nobody is willing to admit to that truth.  People like Kirkpatrick, on the other hand, are happy to admit to their God-hating ways.  They take great joy at mocking God and the Christian Church. You will see some of that in the definitions that follow.  God-haters serve a valuable function for the Christian Church.  Many times their criticism of the hypocrisy and sinfulness of the Church is right on the mark.  I believe you will see some of that in what follows as well.
Kirkpatrick is also a socialist.  He hates profit.  He hates profit-seeking corporations.  As such he is not a very good economist.  Despite being a rather poor economist he is still valuable to me because his take on politics is spot on.  He also understands the nature of the career politician and does not hesitate to point it out.  So, without further ado, I present the Cynic's Dictionary, by Kirkpatrick Sale (my commentary on his definition follows each entry):

 "Christian, n.—one who professes to believe in the New Testament of the Bible, at least insofar as it is compatible with his current life, which may not necessarily contain any of the virtues therein described, but believes it does, or ought, to pertain in all its admonitions and strictures to his neighbors."

The first thing that struck me about this definition of what it means to be a Christian is how historically inaccurate it is.  The second thing that struck me about this definition of what it means to be a Christian is how currently accurate it is.  The third thing that struck me about this definition about what it means to be a Christian is that Kirkpatrick probably has no idea he has made a distinction between historic Christianity and what passes for Christianity today.  
Kirkpatrick defines a Christian as "one who professes to believe in the New Testament..."  That is not true.  A Christian has always been defined as one who believes in the Bible, not just the New Testament.   Evangelical Christians today, however, are not consistent with historic Christian truth.  Most Evangelicals believe that the God of the Old Testament either died or changed His nature.  They believe the Old Testament God was hateful, vengeful and wrathful.  The New Testament God is full of love and kindness.  They prefer the New Testament God.   As such they have adopted the ancient heresy of Marcionism.  Of course none of them are even aware that they have integrated an ancient heresy into their doctrinal positions.  That would involve actual study, something Evangelicals are loath to do. 
Kirkpatrick is strangely correct in his assertion that a true Christian "believes it (the Bible, or in this instance, the New Testament) ought to pertain in all its admonitions and strictures to his neighbors."  Of course his point is to prove that Christians are hypocrites.  That is like shooting fish in a barrel.  OK, I will stipulate that Christians are hypocrites.  What is more interesting is that Evangelicals really do not believe that the Bible's teachings should become the law of the land, as Kirkpatrick seems to think they do.  Christians today are antinomians.  They expressly deny that God's law should apply to anyone.  I conclude that Kirkpatrick's definition of a Christian is around the truth, but not of the truth.

"corporation,  n.—the  fictitious contrivance devised by American robber barons in the nineteenth century to put responsibility on the public for  any failure of private greed; in later centuries, the device by which, and for which, the nation was ruled through such fronts as the Congress and the Presidency."

Here Kirkpatrick illustrates his socialism.  He adopts the usual historically inaccurate doctrine of the "robber barons" and attributes the usual "greed" to their behaviors.  If you want to find out the truth about the myth of the robber barons, read the book by that name by Burton Folsom.  It is available at Amazon and very much worth reading.  Kirkpatrick is correct that what is accurately known as "crony capitalism" is the union of a corrupt form of capitalism with civil government.  I hesitate even to use the term "crony capitalism" because any similarity between it and free market capitalism is purely coincidental.  Indeed, they share nothing in common.  Capitalism is always free and individualistic.  Any form of intervention into the marketplace by the government is not capitalism.  It is interventionism and it can be either mild or severe.  Interventionism always creates winners and losers.  In the free market, everyone is a winner. 
I conclude that Kirkpatrick's understanding of economics, especially the free market economics of the Austrian school, is very limited.  He does, however, have an accurate grasp of what happens when the government intervenes into the economic process. 

"democracy, n.—a system of government according to which a majority gets to decide the fate of a minority, regardless of the justice, truth,  morality, temperance, and common sense of the decisions, to which the minority has no recourse—-until of course it somehow becomes the majority."

At last Kirkpatrick and I see eye to eye.  He grasps the fundamental truth that democracy is little more than mob rule.  Democracy is the tyranny of the majority.  Democracy is the means by which the lower 51% of the income population are able to force the upper 49% of the income population to foot the bill for the entire federal government.   Democracy is the means by which those who do not have are able to legally steal from those who do.  Simply put, democracy is immoral.  Maybe that is why King Obama wants to export it all over the world.
Kirkpatrick shows a keen understanding of human nature in this definition as well.  He realizes that the minority will scream bloody murder about how it is being abused and oppressed, until it becomes the majority.  Then everything changes.  Then the cause is noble and just.  Then the screams and cries from the abused and oppressed minority go unheard.  He accurately defines the situation as being nothing about justice, truth or morality and everything about power, oppression and theft.

"ignoramus, n.—the condition of ignorance given to the largest number of humans, most of whom are ignorant also of their condition but find that no impediment to acceding to positions of influence in nearly all professions and undertakings, particularly politics."

I conclude with his appraisal of humanity in general.  I certainly cannot disagree with this definition.  How else can I explain the political process?  How else can I understand how it is that people who have been lied to their entire lives at the hands of career politicians turn around and believe everything those same career politicians say in the next election cycle?  Only an ignoramus would continue to worship the state.  Only an ignoramus would continue to believe the things said by government bureaucrats and career politicians.  Only an ignoramus would joyfully concur to be in the service of the Beast. 

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Your Employer Is Not Responsible For Paying Your Bills

Does the title of today's post seem strange to you?  It should.  Why would I put up a title that is so obviously true?  Who in his right mind could possibly believe anything other than what I wrote above?  What kind of lunacy or mental detachment must reside in the mind of any person who believes, for even one second, that it is the duty of her employer to assume responsibility for all of her bills?  Well, I met a person like that last night.  Let me tell you the story.
I had just brought the burgers in from the grill and was settling down to watch the Rockies on the television.  The local news was just finishing when I sat down.  What I saw next caused me to fly into an almost uncontrollable rage.  The news report was about a local woman who was protesting in front of the Wal-Mart at which she is employed.  She was accompanied by several other women and they called themselves "Moms for Justice" or some other silly thing like that.  Anytime I see a group of women calling themselves "Moms for...." I know I am about to be treated to an example of extreme stupidity and insane propaganda.  This time was no different.
A thirty-something woman sitting in a wheel chair was reading a prepared statement to a small group of people that appeared to mostly be made up of reporters covering the non-event.  She was droning on and on about how Wal-Mart is an immoral company because it does not pay high enough wages.  We have heard this story before and if that was all she was saying I would not have taken the time and effort to post her story to my blog today.  But she did not stop there.  She took the socialist argument of wealth redistribution to a whole new level.
As it turns out this unmarried woman is the mother of one illegitimate child, for which she is receiving taxpayer funded monthly payments, and another one is on the way, for which she will receive additional taxpayer funded monthly payments.  She did not say why she was sitting in a wheelchair.  She appeared to be healthy and in no need of it whatsoever.  She admitted that when she started her job at Wal-Mart she was not in a wheelchair.  But now she was very upset with Wal-Mart for not accommodating her special needs as a wheelchair bound employee.  What she was most upset about was the fact that her supervisor would not make special exceptions for her, required under the Amerikans with Disability Act, until she brought in some sort of documentary proof of a medical condition that proves she needs to be in a wheelchair.  She considered his request to be totally unreasonable and expected her supervisor to simply take her word for the alleged fact that she needs a wheelchair and could no longer perform many of her required tasks.
The wheelchair, however, was just window-dressing for the story.  It was like the all too common scene of a plaintiff claiming personal injury who arrives at the courtroom wearing a neck brace.  It was just there to garner some degree of sympathy for her immoral cause.  What she was really angry about was the fact that she has a job at Wal-Mart where she works 40 hours per week.  Actually she wasn't angry about having a job.  She was angry because her job pays her $10.75/hour and she claims to be unable to pay all of her bills with the income from the job.  To this point this is still a familiar story.  Everyone thinks he is underpaid.  Everyone wants to earn more money for the same work.  Everyone lives beyond his means and is unable to pay his bills with the income that he earns.  This is just life in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika where everyone is a materialist and wants something for nothing.  But it got worse.
As I mentioned before, the lady was reading a prepared statement.  Her reading level was roughly the equivalent of a fourth or fifth grader.  She stumbled over any word that was not mono-syllabic.   In the course of reading her statement she referred to the fact that Wal-Mart "made $16 billion in profit" in the last fiscal year.  She did not mention the fact that Wal-Mart has one of the slimmest profit margins of all the companies on the S & P 500.  She did not mention how that $16 billion in profit was a tiny percentage of total revenues.  She did not mention the hundreds of billions of dollars Wal-Mart pays in wages to its employees.  She did not mention that Wal-Mart employes more Amerikans than any other profit-seeking corporation in the world.  No, she ignored all of those facts and focused her attention upon the sixteen billion dollars of profit realized by Wal-Mart last year.  Then, to my shock, amazement and outrage, she made the assertion that she has a moral claim on that profit.
Maybe I should be more precise.  I do endeavor to be precise in this blog.  She did not actually state that she has a moral claim on the profit realized by Wal-Mart last year.  What she actually said was that Wal-Mart has the moral responsibility to use its annual profits to pay all of the bills of its employees and their families.  Yep, you read that right.  She believes that Wal-Mart is in sin for not stepping up and using its profits to pay her personal bills.  She believes that simply because she is employed by Wal-Mart it necessarily follows that the Wal-Mart Corporation has the moral responsibility (and should have the legal responsibility if 51% of the people in this sad country can get the career politicians who rule over us to make laws forcing it to be so) to cover all of her expenses.   Nobody questioned her assertion.  The reporter delivering the story did not ask her why Wal-Mart has that moral responsibility.  In fact, everyone seemed to assume that her claim was valid and Wal-Mart is an evil profit-seeking corporation that needs to be subjected to more government regulations that will force it to use its profits to pay this lady's bills.
The fact that this stupid woman would make this claim and the fact that nobody would question the moral propriety of making such a ridiculous and immoral claim drove me into a rage.  I could not believe that we have fallen so far into sinful envy that we are now utterly incapable of recognizing outrageous examples of envy when they slap us in the face.  This woman truly believes that her employer is responsible for paying all of her bills.  This woman truly believes that her employer is responsible to pay for her two illegitimate children.  This woman truly believes that her employer owes her a living.  What have we become when people can go around making idiotic assertions like this without suffering a serious intellectual slap-down?
The operative principle here is that any profit seeking corporation that actually makes a profit is morally required to pay all of those profits to its employees.  People like this lady believe that government should create laws that force companies that make a profit to turn over all of that profit to their employees.  As she said, "we are the ones who earned that profit for Wal-Mart."  Her ignorance of economics was stunning.  Indeed, the economic ignorance of almost every citizen in the SDA is stunning.  Combine economic ignorance, companies that earn profits, career politicians and generous doses of envy for all and we have the perfect prescription for a socialism that is capable of destroying this country.  I don't think it can be stopped.  But I will still stand until the very end and loudly declare the obvious:  your employer is not responsible for paying your bills.

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Common Law Homosexuality

I was having breakfast with my wife the other day.  As usual I was ranting and raving about the idiotic things I was reading in the newspaper.  Also as usual she was saying "there, there" and vainly trying to calm me down.  As I was going off about the upcoming "Gay Pride" parade in Denver she made a very interesting comment to me.  In fact, she said something to me that I have never in my life considered.  That happens a lot around our household.  My wife is pretty smart.  Rather than just telling me what she had thought up she made the decision to frame it in terms of a question.  She does that a lot as well.  It gives me the opportunity to figure out the answer and then pretend as if I was the one coming up with the new information.  She is a pretty humble woman as well.  Here is what she asked me.
"MW", she said, "what would happen to the legal status of two homosexuals who domicile in the same residence for seven consecutive years?"  Brilliant, isn't she?  The problems associated with common law homosexual "couples" had never occurred to me.  Yet, to be fair and equitable, all homosexual "couples" need to be treated exactly like their heterosexual counterparts.  If a heterosexual couple shacks up for seven consecutive years they are considered to be common law married, whether they have ever had a marriage ceremony or not.  States have created these laws to protect the two parties to the arrangement.  Over the period of seven years they acquire what is usually called marital property.  That means it is understood that the property they have acquired together is actually owned by both of them, usually split 50:50.  When the inevitable happens, and they split up, the law declares that the person who's name is on the title is not free to walk away with 100% of the property.  It must be divided, at least in value, 50:50.
Now we all know that there are only two reasons why heterophobic couples demand that the state recognize their sinful unions.  The first is related to their personal insecurities.  They are worshipers of the state and state power.  It is fair to say that the state is their god.  Or, to be more precise, the local government under whose authority they find themselves is their god.  As human beings they quite naturally want the approval of their god for their sinful union.  So they demand that the state government grant them marriage licenses and approve of their sinful union.
The second reason heterophobic couples demand state recognition is more down to earth.  They want all of the financial privileges associated with marriage.  They want to be able to inherit each others property.  But that is not quite correct.  They can already inherit each others property.  All they have to do is write up a will giving their property to each other.  What they really want is to be able to inherit each others government provided cash flow stream.  Whether it be social security payments, or disability payments or whatever other payment one of them is getting from the government, heterophobic couples want the legal right to inherit that income stream when one of them dies.  That is what state recognition of heterophobic unions is all about.
What does this have to do with common law marriage?  Everything.  Heterophobes are quite vocal about the alleged fact that they are just like heterosexuals.  They demand that they be treated exactly the same way as heterosexual couples.  They should be very careful about what they demand.  And the government should be very careful about what it grants.  Do we really want to go down this road?  Consider this scenario.  A homosexual couple has been living together, without a government approved marriage ceremony, for seven years.  Are they now a common law couple?  They should be.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If they want to be subject to the same rules and regulations of heterosexuals they must admit the validity of common law homosexual marriage.  That means all homosexual couples who have been living together for seven or more years must now split their property 50:50 when the inevitable breakup occurs.  Are they prepared for that eventuality?  I rather doubt it.  In fact, I think they will object most strenuously when it takes place.
I have the impression that seven years from now, when all of the laws authorizing homosexual marriages come home to roost, that a lot of heterophobes are going to be very angry with the law.  And what about the legislators and judges who have granted heterophobes the same marital rights and privileges as heterosexuals?  Have they thought this through?  Have they enacted statutes specifying the precise terms of homosexual common law marriages?  They need to it and they need to do it today.  Seven years from now there are going to be millions of common law homosexual couples breaking up.  How is the division of property going to be handled?  It had better be handled exactly the same way that heterosexual common law marriages are.  If they are not handled exactly the same way we have an egregious example of discrimination and inequality.  I will not stand for discrimination and inequality.  Neither should you.  Neither should the government.
Of course this is all just the tip of the iceberg.  Heterophobes tell us that anyone who lives together in a loving and committed union has the right to be recognized by the government as being married.  I will grant them that premise.  Since that premise is true there are several things that necessarily follow.  Perhaps most significant of those necessary conclusions is that any group of two or more people who love each other and who live under the same roof for more than seven years should be considered to be common law married by the government.  This means that when two heterosexual friends share the same apartment for seven or more years, the property they have acquired during that period of time must be regarded as common law or marital property.  They must be considered to be a common law married couple.  This principle also establishes the right for polygamous unions.  Remember the old television show called "Three's Company?"  It was about a guy who roomed with two girls because he could not afford a place of his own.  All three of them were heterosexual but they pretended that the man was homosexual so the landlord would rent them the apartment.  Under the terms of common law marriage if this arrangement went on for seven years they would all be deemed married.  The state is forced to recognize common law polygamy.  After all, what right does the state have to stand in judgement of a group of people who are lovingly committed to each other?
It becomes even more bizarre as we consider situations involving children.  The state is now authorizing common law pedophilia and, in cases where the parties are related, common law incest.  In fact, any family that stays together, in a loving and committed relationship, must be recognized by the state as being in a state of common law marriage.  I can just see it now.  A guy walks into a bar with his sister.  He goes up to the bartender and asks for a beer for himself and his sister/wife!  Ha! Ha! Ha!
Please help me to understand.  If heterophobes want all of the rights of heterosexuals, then they must necessarily submit themselves to the rules and regulations of common law marriage.  Are they willing to do that?  I don't know for sure but I rather doubt it.  But they can't have it both ways.  If they want state recognition of their sinful unions they must also accept common law homosexual marriage.  It sure is going to get interesting from here.  I can't wait until seven years from now when the first jilted heterophobic lover brings a suit against his partner for half of his property.  That will be fun to watch.

Monday, June 2, 2014

John Kerry Is A Bully And A Jerk

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (a country which has disappeared into the dustbin of history but which was, nevertheless, an interesting political experiment that failed miserably) says this:  "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 or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  There is nothing difficult to understand about this statement.  For the millions of SDA citizens who apparently have a hard time comprehending it, let me put it this way.  The government, and its police forces, has no right to search my body, my possessions, my home, my internet records, my phone records or any other traceable activities that I might undertake without first having probable cause to believe I have committed a crime.  And then, even after establishing probable cause, the jack-booted thugs must obtain a warrant from a judge prior to discovering anything about me, my life or my affairs.  Simply put, the government should know absolutely nothing about me unless it believes I have violated one of its rules.  I should not appear on any government database or list.  I should be a shadow as far as the government is concerned.
All members of Congress in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika (which emerged from the ashes of the former United States of America) swear the following oath when taking office:  "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."  Put the last two paragraphs together and we necessarily discover that all career politicians in the SDA have sworn an oath to God in which they have promised to never violate the security and privacy of our papers, possessions and persons except in cases where they have first established, before a judge, that there is probable cause we have committed a crime.  In those cases they may obtain a warrant to search us but they are restricted to searching only those things directly related to the presumed violation of the law.   
Swearing an oath to God is a serious thing to do.  I am not so dumb as to be unable to realize that God-haters swear oaths to Him all the time.  They don't think He exists.  Or they just don't care whether He exists or not.  Either way they in for a big surprise.  One of the things He is going to be most angry about with them is the list of oaths they swore to Him that they never had any intention of upholding.  God does not enjoy being mocked.  His anger will be severe for those who have dedicated their lives to mocking Him.  Such is the lot of all career politicians in the SDA that I am aware of.
John Kerry is a career politician.  He has sworn an oath to God to uphold the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.  Since swearing that oath he has dedicated himself to the cause of advancing federal spying on the citizens of the SDA.  How do I know this?  Because John Kerry believes Edward Snowden is a criminal and a coward.  Last week Kerry appeared on the "Today" show.  He looked good.  I bet he smelled good too.  His hair was perfect.  He knew when to smile and when to frown. He was charming.  He said all the right things.  In a phase, he was the perfect career politician.  One of the things he said was, "If Mr. Snowden wants to come back to the United States today, we'll have him on a flight today.  We'd be delighted for him to come back."  Kerry the Jerk said this in response to a statement made previously by Snowden.  A reporter asked Snowden if he ever wanted to return to the SDA and he said, "I don't think there's ever been any question that I'd like to go home."  Snowden can't return to the SDA because he has been charged with giving state secrets to the enemy, a charge that carries a 30 year prison sentence.  Should the feds decide to charge him with treason he could be executed after being found guilty, which he certainly would be.  Either way Snowden knows that returning to the SDA would guarantee that he would never be a free man again.  Snowden's answer to that question gave Kerry an opportunity to display just what a first class bully he really is.
Let me tell you a little bit about Edward Snowden.  If you want to see where I obtained this information go here for the report.  "Snowden's leaked documents uncovered the existence of numerous global surveillance programs, many of them run by the NSA and the Five Eyes with the cooperation of telecommunication companies and European governments. In 2013, the existence of the Boundless Informant was revealed, along with the PRISM electronic data mining program, the XKeyscore analytical tool, the Tempora interception project, the MUSCULAR access point and the massive FASCIA database, which contains trillions of device-location records. In 2014, Britain's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group was revealed, along with the Dishfire database, Squeaky Dolphin's real-time monitoring of social media networks, and the bulk collection of private webcam images via the Optic Nerve program."
Did you get all of that?   If you think I am overstating my case I would ask you to do one simple thing.  Google any of these terms:  Boundless Informant, PRISM, XKeyscore, Tempora, MUSCULAR, FASCIA, Dishfire, Squeaky Dolphin or Optic Nerve.  If you want to get really ill, Google all of those terms.  Each of those government spying programs was reveled by Edward Snowden.  Each of those government spying programs impact you.  Each of those programs is gathering information about your every activity.  The government has a file on you that contains more information than you could ever imagine.  To make matters worse, if that is possible, the career politicians who have been aware of this spying have steadfastly denied that any of it has been going on.  Yep, every single one of them lied to us whenever they were queried about the existence of these programs.  It was only because of Snowden that we became aware of what is going on.
Edward Snowden is a patriot.  Edward Snowden is courageous.  Edward Snowden sacrificed his right to live in his home country in order to expose what our government is doing to us.  As a reward for his efforts he has been labeled a coward and a traitor by both Republicans and Democrats.  That tells us a lot about the similarities between the two parties.  Although they continually posture and jockey for position and political power, when push comes to shove both parties are committed to statism in all its forms.  No members of either party care one whit about honoring their vows to uphold the 4th Amendment.
Kerry took his opportunity on the "Today" show to bully Edward Snowden.  Here, in part, is what he said, "A patriot would not run away....If he cares so much about America and he believes in America, he should trust the American system of justice....this is a man who has done great damage to his country."
What?  Did I hear that right?  The American system of justice Kerry speaks so eloquently about includes the principle that a man is innocent until the government proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt.  Yet Kerry does not hesitate to assert that Snowden has "done great damage to his country".  After pronouncing Snowden guilty of treason Kerry then has the audacity to mock Snowden's refusal to return to the SDA by saying he should "trust the American system of justice"?  What a hypocrite!  What a liar!  What a bully!  What a jerk!