Will Obama Have the Courage to Stop Iran From Obtaining and Using Nuclear Weapons?

Christian Post Report – The Obama administration has assured the world that a nuclear-armed Iran is not an acceptable outcome of ongoing negotiations. The President stated in 2012 that “preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States.” No doubt the rest of the civilized world agrees. Russia, China and North Korea are among the very few nations who support the Iranian regime achieving its long-standing ambition of fielding nuclear warheads.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a fanatical group of Shia “Twelvers” present an existential threat to the world that has never been seen in history. President Obama and his senior diplomat and negotiator, John Kerry, seem to have decided to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium and developing warheads. The proof is that, at the end of 2013, Iran had enough enriched uranium for seven warheads. A year later (Dec 2014) they now have enough for eight. By any measure, this does not reflect progress for the US and its allies in these negotiations.

Nukes, Not Electricity

In reality, the negotiations between the US and Iran have shown no promise of stopping Iran from obtaining warheads. Instead, there is substantial evidence that the Obama administration has now acquiesced to Iran’s demand to be allowed to keep as many as 6,500 centrifuges, which are required for producing weapons-grade uranium. While centrifuges can also be used in nuclear power plants, it is impractical for Iran to do so since it would require 100,000 for the Bushehr plant alone. The only plausible use for 6,500 centrifuges is to build weapons, not fuel rods.

Furthermore, it appears that Iran will not be required to abandon the plutonium-producing Arak heavy-water plant, which was also part of the original expectations. Finally, Iran will not be required to transport its enriched uranium out of the country to a caretaker nation as was expected when the negotiations began.

All indications are that the administration has capitulated on the key tenets and provisions of the original framework of a treaty with Iran. Consider also that Iran has repeatedly violated the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They have made clear through their public statements that they intend to continue with their nuclear program and will not agree to any US proposals that would prevent them from moving forward with nuclear ambitions, which they still continue to deny.

The Catastrophic Effects of a Nuclear Iran

At the very least, allowing Iran to go nuclear will likely lead to a regional arms race since other Gulf States will feel profoundly vulnerable. Saudi Arabia especially has reasons to fear Iran as the hatred between these two Persian Gulf nations is deep with a long history. The Saudis will be first in the queue for warheads and will simply buy theirs from Pakistan with other nations following.

Unfortunately, most of the world now sees the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran and tends to focus on the question of how to contain them. Containment of a nuclear program in the hands of terrorists is a concept that has no place in contemporary geopolitical strategy. It reflects a complete lack of understanding of the theology of the Iranian Supreme Council and its leader, the Grand Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei as well as the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani. They believe that their messiah (The Mahdi) will only return in an atmosphere of global chaos and bloodshed, and so these radical Shia Islamists are striving to bring about the conditions that would usher in the reign of this promised world ruler. Simply stated, there is no better way to create this chaos and bloodshed than through the use of a nuclear weapon on the enemy that Iran has maligned, threatened, and repeatedly attacked through surrogates: the nation of Israel.

A nuke used anywhere in the world will result in a third world war with apocalyptic consequences, which is exactly what the Iranian regime wants.

Stark and Limited Options

If America and it allies in these negotiations do not stop Iran through diplomatic and economic means, then a military strike remains the only option. It is almost certain that the Obama administration would never authorize a US military operation to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities, which means that Israel will likely be forced to take military action just as they did in 1981 when they conducted airstrikes on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

An Israeli strike will bring universal condemnation of Israel and will result in attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas on Israeli targets at home and globally. Iran would likely attempt to close the Straights of Hormuz in order to restrict the flow of crude oil to the international markets, which will devastate global economies.

A nuclear bomb in the hands of militants with Shia theology would be a catastrophic combination leading to a global conflict, the likes of which the world has never seen. The world powers cannot allow this tyrannical regime to obtain capabilities that could destroy Israel and throw the world into chaos, now or a decade from now.

Because of the ineptness of the Obama administration and its allies in these negotiations, the Iranians appear to be holding all the cards. There is still a small window of opportunity to change their course, though it is closing quickly. Will the American lead negotiators find the courage and take action to stop Iran and the mullahs, or will they let the inevitable occur?

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William G. “Jerry” Boykin serves as Family Research Council’s Executive Vice President, with responsibility for overseeing day-to-day operations including policy, church ministries, finance, development, communications, human resources, facilities, information technology, constituent communications and customer service.

Source : Christian Post

Miley Cyrus and Patrick Schwarzenegger News: Couple Goes on Disneyland Date Despite Breakup Rumors

 Instagram/ mileycyrus

Miley posted this picture of her and Patrick Schwarzenegger on her Instagram account to celebrate the New Year.

Christian Post Report – Controversial pop singer Miley Cyrus and boyfriend Patrick Schwarzenegger can’t seem to get any respite from break up rumors. Radar Online recently reported that the couple is again headed for a split after Patrick supposedly received a warning for Liam Hemsworth, Miley’s ex-fiancé.

An insider said that Liam reportedly told Patrick to “have fun with Miley, but definitely avoid a commitment,” which apparently caused Patrick to have second thoughts. The same source said in the report that Miley was expecting a proposal during Valentine’s Day but it never came. Liam and Patrick are said to be “casual friends” thus Liam felt the need to give Patrick a “heads-up” about Miley’s “dark side.” Because of this, Patrick is said to have cancelled a planned trip to the Caribbean with the singer.

As if to contradict this rumor, the couple was recently seen enjoying themselves immensely during a fun trip to Disneyland. As reported in E! Online and People, the couple with Miley’s younger sister Noah in tow, were seen walking on Disneyland’s Main Street and enjoying several rides in the amusement park. The couple were photographed riding Buzz Lightyear’s Astroblasters and Miley posted an Instagram photo of her getting a big hug from Pluto, which she captioned “Reuniting with Pluto. Long time no see.”

Another Instagram photo of the theme park she captioned “Home.” Miley was a former Disney star as Hannah Montana before she ventured into mainstream music.

According to E! Online, eyewitness reports said that “The two were very happy, having a blast.” One insider told E! Online, “I have not seen her look as loved up as this.”

The pair went public with their relationship in November 2014. It is publicly known that Patrick’s mother, Maria Shriver does not approve of the relationship and countless rumors continue to hound the couple as to whether they will indeed stay together longer.

Source : Christian Post

Battlefield 4 Winter Patch: Squad Obliteration Game Mode Added

battlefield 4 (photo: Battlefield 4 wiki)

Christian Post Report – Battlefield 4 game cover.

Game developer EA Digital Illusions CE, better known as DICE, have already rolled out a much-anticipated update to Battlefield 4 – the Winter Patch.

Fans eagerly anticipated and patiently waited for the download, which was spread across different gaming platforms at a large file size of 1.34GB.

As expected, the reception has been largely positive, with fixes on various bugs, getting rid of errors and repairing online problems.

User interface upgrades are easily seen, such as the soldier camouflage issue where it used to reset to default between rounds. They also added new hit indicators and improved guns’ crosshairs.

These and more are addressed in all consoles.

One of the most popular upgrades still remains to be the addition of a new Squad Obliteration game mode.

This is a welcome upgrade from the original Obliteration game mode, as teams are now made and scaled down to a maximum of five against five.

There are significant differences in this game mode, as compared to its predecessor, specifically that there are no more vehicles or parachute spawns in the game.

Another is that there are secondary base spawns that are available during the match.

To win the round, a team must be the first to wreck two of the three available bases of their opponent.

Finally, the bomb carrier’s position can only be known by the opponent once he is spotted – adding a bit more of a competitive edge for the game mode.

Aside from Squad Obliteration, Quickmatch has also been updated with new features.

New player gating gives new players the chances to play in servers specific to them until they’ve reached rank 10. This gives a more balanced approach and allows new players to be competitive against other Battlefield 4 players.

They have also added a ranked preset support that allows players to join ranked servers.

Finally, they have added three new playlists which include various maps from different expansions.

These are only a few of the changes that have been made with the patch, but the result has produced an even better game that fans will enjoy.

Source : Christian Post

‘Downtown Abbey’ Cast News, Update: Maggie Smith to Leave Show After Next Season

Actors Maggie Smith and Rupert Grint Reuters/File

Actors Maggie Smith and Rupert Grint share a light moment on the red carpet as they arrive for the world premiere of ”Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” at Leicester Square in London July 7, 2009.

Christian Post Report – A hardworking, dedicated woman: actress Maggie Smith, who recently turned 80 on December, says that despite age she still desired to work for television and film for fear of “missing out.”

“When you’re not working it’s scary, and when you are working it’s scary, because you don’t know if you’ve got the energy to get through the day. But the bleakness of not doing it, and missing out on the friendships that you make, is too much to bear,” the British actress told The Sunday Times.

One of her latest projects includes filming for the upcoming sixth season of the hit period drama TV series “Downton Abbey.” Smith however implied that this might be her last season in the show, regardless if the series moves forward for another chapter or not.

“They say this is the last one, and I can’t see how it could go on,” Smith added. “I mean, I certainly can’t keep going. To my knowledge, I must be 110 by now. We’re into the late 1920s.”

Without a doubt, Smith’s nonchalant and witty persona in Downton makes her one of the most memorable cast members in the show. But the fame and glory, as she revealed, aren’t exactly her cup of tea.

“What’s sad is I’ve gone through my whole life without any of that. I could go round galleries and things on my own and I just can’t do it now. If someone decides to get at you, you can’t get away,” she said.

Smith even hates the evolution of fandom.

“What’s awful is it used to be just autographs, but now everyone wants photographs. You begin to feel like all those people who believed photographs took the soul away. There’s nothing like privacy, but nobody will have that soon. Nobody’s private any more,” she said.

Source : Christian Post

Rapper 50 Cent Placing $1.6 Million Bet on Floyd Mayweather to Beat Manny Pacquiao

50 Cent (Photo:Reuters/Danny Moloshok)

Rapper Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson arrives at the premiere of “Real Steel” in Los Angeles October 2, 2011.

Christian Post Report – American rapper and actor 50 Cent has just declared a $1.6 million bet on boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. to beat Filipino fighter, Manny Pacquiao at their Las Vegas superfight on May 2.

Entrepreneur investor, actor and rapper, 50 Cent says he is placing a bet of $1.6 million on undefeated American boxer, Floyd Mayweather, Jr. to beat Filipino eight-division champ, Manny Pacquiao during their May 2 match at the MGM Grand Arena in Las Vegas.

“Champ ‘gon smoke em… it’s gonna look like it was pumped up for no reason,” 50 Cent told the Breakfast Club at Power 105.1. “He focused right now.”

The rapper’s support for Mayweather may be based on the undefeated WBA and WBC welterweight champ emerging as the 2-and-a-half-to-1 favorite to win the long anticipated bout.

50 Cent discussed the upcoming fight, revealing he spoke with the American fighter at a Chris Brown concert last February, and admitted Mayweather appeared to be extremely focused on the upcoming fight.

Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather Jr. Reuters/Photo

The rapper’s betting an unprecedented amount on Mayweather has puzzled boxing fans, who recall 50 Cent posting disparaging remarks about the boxer on social media the previous year. He criticized everything from his lavish lifestyle to his IQ level.

50 Cent also slammed Mayweather for his publicly revealed low regard for hip-hop artists, particularly Nelly and T.I. The “Get Rich or Die Tryin'” performer countered with a tweet that one of the women romantically linked to the boxer was rapper Nelly’s ex-girlfriend, while Mayweather’s former fiancee, Shantel Jackson, has ended up as Nelly’s current partner.

With 50 Cent placing a huge amount in favor of Mayweather’s win, boxing fans are speculating the rapper may be offering an olive branch to end their social media feud.

Source : Christian Post

Liberals Criticize Roy Moore on Alabama Gay Marriage: Are They Bashing God & Government?

By now, most people have heard something about Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s order defying a federal ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Alabama. It didn’t take long for the Left’s culture warriors to issue sanctimonious condemnations of the judge’s order:

“This is a pathetic, last-ditch attempt at judicial fiat by an Alabama Supreme Court justice—a man who should respect the rule of law rather than advance his personal beliefs,” said [Human Rights Campaign’s] Legal Director Sarah Warbelow. “Absent further action by the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal ruling striking down Alabama’s marriage ban ought to be fully enforced, and couples that have been waiting decades to access equal marriage under the law should not have to wait a single day longer. All probate judges should issue licenses tomorrow morning, and Chief Justice Roy Moore ought to be sanctioned.”

HRC’s President, Chad Griffin, echoed similar sentiments:

“…[W]hat’s clear today is Roy Moore doesn’t care about the law. Roy Moore doesn’t care about the Constitution. Roy Moore cares mostly about Roy Moore and his particular set of deeply felt personal beliefs. His particular brand of demagoguery is not based in a failure to understand the laws he is duty bound to uphold, but in an outright refusal to do so. That’s not a Chief Justice; that’s an ideologue. An ideologue has his place — in the opinion pages of the newspaper or on morning talk shows on cable news — but he should not be Alabama’s most senior jurist.”

Etcetera, etcetera, all over the web, TV, and print media: Chief Justice Roy Moore is a bigot and an idiot and a bad judge. He put ideology before the law, and any judge that does so is clearly unfit to don the robes of justice.

A heated exchange between CNN’s Chris Cuomo and Judge Moore has gotten a lot of attention. During an interview on the network’s morning program, “New Day,” Cuomo implied that the Chief Justice’s order was an unethical imposition of personal ideology flying in the face of the law. He accused the judge of basing his decision on personal religious beliefs and insisted that the judge has no rational basis for his argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman. When Justice Moore pointed out that the Declaration of Independence, an organic source of American jurisprudence, acknowledges God as the author of human rights, Cuomo retorted that law comes from man, not from God. “Our rights,” Cuomo said, “do not come from God. That’s your faith. That’s my faith. But that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”

Cuomo went on, peppering Justice Moore with accusations of discrimination, bigotry, and bad judgment. Moore then asked Cuomo if he would have followed the US Supreme Court’s decision in the infamous Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson cases. In both instances, the highest court in the land, reflecting Cuomo’s “collective agreement and compromise” version of law, flouted the Constitution’s equal protection principle by allowing blacks to be owned as property and by enforcing segregation in public places based on race. Moore was making the point that Cuomo’s standard of law coming from man and not from God leaves no room to dispute such ill-conceived decisions. Only a divine standard of human equality could trump the “collective agreement and compromise” of a nation steeped in racist ideology.

Would Cuomo, Moore asked, have followed the Court, or would he have objected in the name of justice for all human beings? Cuomo, conveniently avoided the question and continued with his ad hominem tactics.

America’s Founders recognized the important role that a shared belief in God contributed to the stability of our society. Our second President, John Adams, declared, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams (our sixth President), declared, “This form of government… is productive of everything which is great and excellent among men. But its principles are as easily destroyed, as human nature is corrupted…. A government is only to be supported by pure religion or austere morals. Private and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.” Both presidents – father and son – understood that a shared belief in God is necessary to produce the shared values required for a stable society. Belief in God was the foundation of the republic. The very freedoms and republican form of government we embrace today require society’s acknowledgment of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” acknowledged by the Founders in our Declaration of Independence.

But as our shared belief in a transcendent God disappears, our shared moral values inevitably give way to a pervasive relativism. Cuomo’s own words affirmed this when he said “That’s your faith. That’s my faith. But that’s not our country.”

But Justice Moore’s question regarding two of the most infamous Supreme Court rulings in the land lays bare the fallacy of this way of thinking. Just because a majority of judges on the bench at the time, reflecting the popular sentiments of the people, ruled that blacks were not full and equal humans but property to be bought and sold, didn’t make it true or right. Cuomo knows, as everyone has come to recognize, that the thinking at the time was wrong. And we don’t say it’s wrong in hindsight because popular opinion has changed, we say it was always wrong and will always be wrong to discriminate based on race. Why? Because of self-evident truths, those inalienable rights articulated by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Founding Fathers observed that governments are created, not to create law ex nihilo, but to protect the rights given to us by God.

Of course, the nuance of Moore’s argument is being eclipsed by the “nattering nabobs” on the Left, but hope springs eternal that the silent majority is paying attention. In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, the American people would do well to reflect on the source of our rights and assess which candidates and which parties embrace the vision for our republic that most closely resembles that of the Founders. If our society accepts the notion that the source of our liberty is government rather than God, then that liberty is no longer secure. What the government gives, it can take away. Thomas Jefferson rightly asked, “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Every American should ask themselves this same question.

Ken Connor is the Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC, the former President of the Family Research Council, and a nationally recognized trial lawyer.

Source : Christian Post

Latest Mobile Device Malware: ‘Gazon’ Hijacks Thousands of Android Devices Around The World

Android Logo (Image: McAfee Q2 2011 Threat Reports)

Android currently dominates the Smartphone market, but is also king in malware attacks.

Christian Post Report – AdaptiveMobile has recently uncovered a mobile malware outbreak called “Gazon,” which uses phone contacts to spread itself to other mobile devices.

A new mobile malware mass infection dubbed “Gazon” has recently been discovered by mobile security firm, AdaptiveMobile. The message-initiated malware takes hold of a user’s mobile phone contacts to propagate itself by sending messages containing links to fake Amazon vouchers. When the bogus links are opened, “Gazon” is installed on the new Android device.

Originating from a Facebook account in the U.S., the malware infection started making its rounds in February 25, and infecting thousands of Android smartphones in over 30 countries, including Australia, Canada, France, India, Korea, Mexico, and the U.K.

Touted as “one of the single largest messaging-initiated mobile malware outbreaks” ever recorded, “Gazon’s” global reach has led to 16,000 click-throughs across a number of channels including email and Facebook, with SMS as the primary distribution channel responsible for 99 percent of the malware spread.

“Gazon” masquerades as an application offering free Amazon vouchers. Exploiting the victims’ trust when receiving messages from their contact list, the malware invites users to click on the links to the fake Amazon vouchers leading to other pages that prompt them to download games from Google Play. Meanwhile, “Gazon” harvests contact numbers from the victims’ phones and sends the same spam emails to them, while the malware author earns money from the victims’ click-throughs.

According to AdaptiveMobile, it has encountered more than 4,000 infected smartphones and tablets connected to major U.S. telco networks, and has currently blocked more than 200,000 of the spam messages sent from these devices.

“To be able to detect, protect against and remediate from new threats it is critical to undertake constant proactive monitoring and control,” AdaptiveMobile’s SVP for Security Practice, Simeon Coney told RealWire.

Mobile device users are advised not to install suspicious software, and if their devices have already been infected, they can choose to have their Android mobile handsets reformatted, or acquire a security solution from AdaptiveMobile.

Source : Christian Post

Chris Cuomo Is Wrong on God, Constitution and Founding Fathers

Christian Post Report – On Friday morning, February 27, 2015, I saw Chris Cuomo pontificating on TV with a fellow CNN host, Michael Smerconish.

They were talking about the annual Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference, and at one point, Cuomo seemed to suggest that a majority of those attending the meeting in Washington, D.C., supposedly favored establishing Christianity as the national religion.

Cuomo then said that here we are, in modern America, dealing with religious extremism abroad—presumably he’s referring to ISIS, the Islamic State. Yet we have our own extremists here in America too—presumably those whacko Christians who want to impose a theocracy on the rest of us.

Cuomo also said that the founders left God’s name out of the Constitution by design. Ergo, our framers established a secular nation by design.

This echoes his claim of a few weeks ago that our rights in America are not derived from God. That came in Cuomo’s now-famous exchange with Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama’s Supreme Court.

Cuomo is wrong. The founders were clear that there shall be no established religion at the federal level in this country, and I’m positive the majority of CPAC members are in agreement with that point.

But God is the source of our rights in this country—and the founders were equally clear on that. They recognized that what government gives, government can take away. The only true basis for lasting rights was their origin in God Himself.

We have a national birth certificate—the Declaration of Independence—which states that our rights come from the Creator. It is the duty of governments to respect those God-given rights.

Because the King of England was messing with those rights, Thomas Jefferson (the Declaration’s main author) gave a laundry list of such oppression—in essence declaring that the king had “unkinged” himself. Jefferson’s motto was “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

In his book, A History of the American People, Paul Johnson notes: “America had been founded primarily for religious purposes, and the Great Awakening [in the 1730’s and 1740’s] had been the original dynamic of the continental movement for independence. The Americans were overwhelmingly church going, much more so than the English, whose rule they rejected. There is no question that the Declaration of Independence was, to those who signed it, a religious as well as a secular act.”

When the founders met in what we now call the Constitutional Convention eleven years later, they dated that document “in the year of our Lord” 1787, also noting that it was the 12th year of Independence. The Constitution is predicated on the Declaration—which mentions God four times.

In 1955, President Eisenhower said this: “Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first—the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be.”

Did the founders suddenly cast off their religiosity at the Constitutional Convention? Alexander Hamilton was there, and he noted of the document they produced, “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”

Cuomo and all of us who love freedom can thank one person above all others for the freedom to speak the mind—even when we’re wrong. That would be: Jesus, whom Jefferson refers to as “the holy author of our religion.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote the document that is often viewed as a key forerunner to the First Amendment’s guarantees of no nationally established church and of freedom of religion. Jefferson’s document (written 1777, passed 1786) is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Note the theological basis for such freedom. He writes: “Almighty God hath created the mind free…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone…”

In other words, freedom of thought and conscience comes directly from Jesus, “the holy author of our religion,” who instead of forcing belief offers a choice. Who are we to offer less?

I do not believe America should be a theocracy. But it is disingenuous of modern secularists, like Chris Cuomo, to say that those of us trying to preserve what’s left of our Christian heritage actually want to create a theocracy.

Without God, there would be no America and no American freedom.

Dr. Jerry Newcombe is a key archivist of the D. James Kennedy Legacy Library and a Christian TV producer. He has also written or co-written 23 books, including The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation and (with D. James Kennedy), What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? His views are his own. www.jerrynewcombe.com

Source : Christian Post

‘The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills’ Season 5: Episode Recap ‘Welcome to Amsterdam’

Real Housewives of Beverly Hills Bravotv/ The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

Kyle Richards parties with Steven Tyler on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

Christian Post Report – Last week on “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills,” the ladies went on a scavenger hunt around Beverly Hills, had fun at David Foster’s charity gala, and packed their bags for a trip to Amsterdam.

Yolanda Foster enlists the help of Camille Grammer for the scavenger hunt, and the ladies are divided into three teams: team one is comprised of Yolanda, Lisa Vanderpump, and Lisa Rinna, team two has Eileen Davidson and Kim Richards, and team three has Brandi Glanville and Kyle Richards.

First, the teams had to open a combination lock using clues to secure a map. Then, they head to an ice cream shop to drink a milkshake. They also go to a candy store and race to the finish line. At the finish line, which is Villa Bianca, Eileen’s team gets there first, and they complete a puzzle which will take them to the next leg of their journey—Amsterdam.

But before they get on a plane, the ladies head to Calgary on Yolanda and David’s private plane for David’s annual charity gala. Brandi tells Kim that Lisa R. has been gossiping about her sobriety and thinks she needs help. On the plane, Kim glares at Lisa until Lisa asks if she’s mad at her. Kim shouts at her for being involved in her business, and when Lisa tried to apologize, Kim tells her to “drop it” and “let it be.”

At the gala, the women have a good time as Kyle rushes the stage to join Steven Tyler, as she is a huge fan of the Aerosmith singer. Kyle is elated when Steven gives her a kiss. The ladies also enjoy a performance by Jennifer Hudson.

The next day at the airport, Kyle misplaces her jewelry bag, and Yolanda suggest getting coffee while they wait for the bag to be found. Later, Kim berates her sister for always blaming her and laughing at her for being late. On the bus to the hotel, Kyle is noticeably upset, while Kim tells Yolanda that Kyle never has her back.

“The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” airs Tuesdays at 9 p.m. on Bravo.

Source : Christian Post

Two Boys Kiss on Prime Time TV: Is This History or Repulsive?

It has been called “The History-Making Gay Kiss,” as “The Fosters” TV show, which airs during prime time on the ABC Family network, featured the “Youngest Same-Sex TV Kiss Ever.” Yes, on a so-called “family friendly” network, two 13-year-old boys locked lips, and gay activists and their allies are celebrating the moment.

GLAAD, formally known as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, stated that, “ABC Family’s ‘The Fosters’ breaks new ground with Jude and Connor kiss.” For those who are not familiar with the show, Jude is raised by two lesbians, his adoptive parents.

Gabe Bergado, writing for The Daily Beast, claimed that the kiss set “a fantastic standard,” one that “reassures all the real-life Judes and Connors out there that their feelings of self-discovery during those middle school and junior high years are valid.”

Personally, I find this is heartbreaking, not heartwarming, tragic, and not terrific.

First, there is the power of example, either for good or for bad.

Young people in particular are influenced by what they see on TV and in the movies, with little boys dressing up like Superman or Spiderman and little girls mimicking the looks of the latest starlet.
As they get older, it’s not just a matter of playing silly dress-up games. Instead, these kids are now emulating the lifestyles of those they follow, and so a sexy dance to a 14-year-old looks a whole lot different than it did when the child was 5.

I can testify firsthand to the power of negative examples.

I started playing drums at the age of 8, and when I was 13, I went to my first rock concert, seeing the Jimi Hendrix Experience at the New York Philharmonic in 1968. And it really was an experience.

Everything about the band was countercultural and radical, appealing to my flesh and drawing me in. I wanted to be like the rock stars!

So, when I was just 14 years old and was offered a joint for the first time, I thought to myself, “The rock stars get high, so I think I’ll try it.”

There was also a subtle pull to do something illicit, but I’m 100 percent sure that without the influence of rock music and rock culture, I never would have thought of getting high at that point of life.

The rest, as they say, is history, as I went from pot to hash to LSD and ups and downs to snorting speed to shooting speed and then heroin and cocaine and other drugs before the Lord graciously saved me at the age of 16 in 1971.

Negative examples played a powerful role in my descent into drug abuse, opening that all-important initial door.

Is it any coincidence, then, that girl-on-girl kissing and sex scenes have been the Hollywood rage for some years and that bisexual experimentation among girls as young as 12-years old has become increasingly common? Numerous teachers, social workers, and students have told me about the epidemic of bisexual experimentation among schoolgirls today.
Is it any coincidence that back in 2003, Madonna and Brittney Spears kissed on national TV and, more recently, Katie Perry kissed a girl and liked it, and now lots of other girls are doing the same?

Parents, you make a grave mistake if you underestimate the power of negative examples, especially through TV, movies, social media, and Internet.

Second, these kissing and sex scenes are impacting children at a volatile stage in their sexual and emotional development, potentially leading to even greater confusion, not to mention sexual experimentation.

Remember, we’re talking about developing children here, about kids who have not yet come into puberty (or, who have just come into puberty), and now some of their favorite TV characters are acting out their homosexual desires, making for a whole new kind of role model.

I’m aware, of course, that gay-identified kids still get bullied in many schools across the nation, but I’m also aware that in many other schools, coming out as gay is seen as cool or even the thing to do.

This was confirmed to me by a very liberal minded middle school teacher who told me about a 12-year-old boy who came out as gay in her class, only to come to her the next day and say, “I think I made a mistake. Can I take it back?”

Let that sink in for a moment.

Yet these are the very kids who will be influenced by TV shows like “The Fosters.”

Add to all this the influence of “Gay Straight Alliances” in middle schools and high schools, where kids are encouraged to “come out” to peers and faculty without their parents even knowing about it, coupled with the influence of Hollywood, the Internet, and aggressive pro-gay school curricula, and it’s all too easy for kids in these formative years to become even more confused about their sexuality.

And once they begin to experiment, especially at such tender ages, there’s no telling what practices and behavior and desires might become a long-term part of their lives.

I’m not denying that most of those who identify as LGBT as adults say that their feelings never changed over the years. I’m simply pointing out that many people who thought they were “gay” eventually discover they are not.

One study I read found that roughly 25 percent of young teens interviewed thought that they might be gay, but 10 years later, the number of those who identified as gay was one-tenth that amount.

But how many of them engage in all kinds of sexual practices and relationships today because of their earlier sexual experimentation?

Third, not to sound prudish, but I’d be perfectly happy if there weren’t any TV kissing scenes with 13-year-olds, even if the kids were as heterosexual as they come.

“Leave It to Beaver” and “Lassie” may seems a little cheesy today, especially to young viewers, and they certainly had their flaws, but I’ll take the moral values instilled on those kind of shows over “Glee” or the latest reality show on MTV – unless, of course, you think “Leave It to Beaver” would have been better had 13-year-old Wally, Beaver’s older brother, cuddled up to another boy and kissed him.

The very thought of it is repulsive.

Michael Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University. He is the author of 25 books, including Can You Be Gay and Christian, and he hosts the nationally syndicated, daily talk radio show, the Line of Fire. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

Source : Christian Post