Suicide Solution

I wrote this up several years ago when Earth Day was becoming a social media phenomenon. Still relevant and timely.


A group calling itself the Optimum Population Trust claims humanity is having way too many babies.

All the extra children are badly ruining the carbon offset of our planet and hence having an impact upon global warming.

The math is simple: More babies = higher CO2 levels = higher global temperatures = more displaced polar bears floating around on itty-bitty icebergs.

The solution to this problem offered by the OPT is for people to stop having babies. If you must have a baby, maybe one is okay; possibly two, but certainly not three.

My family, by the way, has already broken the quota.

The fine folks of the Sea Shepherd Society also believe humanity has become a disease of sorts upon mother earth. Like a raging flesh eating staph infection or an Ebola outbreak, the presence of all these people is causing the earth to break out into a fever.

I must say I believe this is a disturbing ideology, but I see such suicidal tendencies as a logical conclusion to radical, secular humanism. When a worldview places the material world in higher value over human life so that one is willing to deprive him or herself of the blessing of children, and their own existence, nihilistic atheism has reached its end game. The final step is to ask for volunteers to sacrifice themselves for the earth by committing mass euthanasia. If none are prepared to come forward, and this environmental death cult were to have governmental power, they could always extinguish any extra children by force.

I didn’t know environmentalists were so down on kids.

Soylent Green is People!

In truth, an environmentally friendly, child-free world is becoming a reality. This suicidal humanism has already taken firm root in the hearts and minds of Europeans and is slowly doing the job suggested by the Optimum Population Trust. In a society totally abandoned to cradle-to-grave welfare, living carefree lives, working no more than 28 hours a week, attending nude beaches during that paid, month long, mandatory vacation, having children around can really cramp your style.

Couples are having no more than one child as it is. If the trend continues, Western Europe will have bred itself out within 40 to 50 years. That mindset is growing here in the good old U.S. of A. as well, particularly in the finger waging from our university elite. So, Americans are slowly coming up from behind and closing in our European kin.

I believe the environmental global warming scare is the secular atheists pagan religion.

The physical earth is the god worshiped. It is a god that can be proven, because it is a tangible object men can physically witness and test.

Evolution is the religion used to explain this god, how it birthed life and takes care of its creatures. Occasionally, the god acts displeased and displays its fury against the sinful creatures by means of storms, floods, and famine.

However, specific, often self-appointed holy men or prophets, say for example Al Gore, claim to have special knowledge about how the god has been sinned against. The only thing that will appease the god is a sacrifice of some sort. In this case, the appeasement is a radical change in our standard and way of living, including the sacrifice of a the third child if necessary.

But this god is capricious and fickle and certainly unpredictable when it comes to issues of morality. Why should I even obey it in the manner the Optimum evangelists preach? If suicide is the only viable solution to appease this god, I think I will enjoy the love and laughter of my extra kids and take my chances.

Perry Noble’s Apology


It’s All God’s Fault I’m an Idiot!

So Perry Noble gave what amounted to a disjointed TED talk for the 2014 Christmas Eve services at his church. In that talk, he explains how he was told by some guy in Israel that there is no word in the OT for “commandment,” and he then proceeded to rewrite and reexplain the 10 commandments.  I guess the rule of thumb is that if you are a guy living in Israel with an accent, you’re automatically an OT textual expert.

A number of sound individuals, you know, men who actually study the Bible and whose ministries are not marked by dressing like a skater and behaving like a man-child, pointed out that there was indeed an OT word for “commandment” in the Bible. I mean, anyone can break out their Strong’s concordance and see it for themselves.

Most people just rolled their eyes, made a few comments on social media about Noble’s idiocy, and shook their heads to move on. Comments like those routinely spurt out from his brain. And judging from the way he generally mocks and ignores his critics, it’s not like the guy is teachable anyways.

But in this case, the reactions struck a nerve with Noble, enough so that he issued an apology letter.

A Letter to the Church I Love

Folks can go and read the entire letter at his site, but I wanted to highlight a few lines from his opening comments. There are some wonderful life lessons we can all learn that reveals for us how foolish cliched pseudo-Christian spirituality can become when vision casting pastors like Noble who make the Bible a secondary consideration for ministry and constantly invoke the mantra that “God told him” thus and such.

That Bible-diminishing, mystical approach in one’s relationship with God isn’t just limited to cranks like Noble, though. Christians throughout Red State evangelical churches constantly interpret odd tingly impressions, personal moments of quasi-deja vu, and a really weird pepperoni induced dream, as God leading them to act and do in some fashion.

Noble writes,

#1 – I am imperfect.  I make mistakes and fall way short of who I should be each and every day.

As a fellow human being, I can sympathize. I make mistakes all the time, too. I’ve spoken curtly to my wife in a moment of stress. Unnecessarily provoke my children at times. Canceled commitments with others because “I just didn’t feel like” keeping my appointment. You get the picture.

But in this instance, Noble proclaimed that what he was about to tell the audience was given to him by God. That God Almighty “started speaking to his heart” and told him that He had a message He wanted Noble to share. So. Either God wasn’t clear, or God mumbled, so that Noble didn’t quite understand the speaking in his heart, or God was wrong. Which one was it?

#2 – I fully understand and feel the weight of James 3:1 that clearly says that people who teach God’s Word will be judged more strictly.

But again, in this case, Noble declares that his message was what God told him to share. That God Almighty was compelling him to present it. Moreover, Noble even says that he told God that he already had a message to give, but God said no. So was God misleading him to violate that passage of Scripture? That God led him to sin?

#3 – I take teaching the Bible very seriously and desperately want to always put forth my best effort as I really do believe that when God says “don’t” in Scripture it is more like Him saying, “don’t hurt yourself,” because, as a friend of mine often says, “choose to sin, choose to suffer.”

Not entirely sure what the relevance is with those comments. It was God, according to Noble’s own testimony, who spoke to his heart and told him He had a message He wanted him to share. It was never an instance of Noble mistakenly interpreting a passage.

Of course, that makes me wonder about a previous comment Noble made about those who take the teaching of the Bible too seriously. He called them jackasses.

On Christmas Eve I really did feel The Lord pressing into me to do a different message than we had previously done in the days before.  I wrestled with this for several hours before finally saying “yes.”

According to his comments at the opening of the video, Noble claimed God told him to share this message, and he told himself that if the “feeling” was still there in the morning he would share it, and in the morning God was still telling him and that “He wasn’t backing off of this one” so he had to get ready to share it.

Then, just to be sure, Noble claims to have sent out a group text to his leadership team and campus pastors asking them if they thought he should share this message. All of them responded with a unified, resounding “Do it!”

That also makes me wonder. What was it that Noble told them? Did he text to them his key talking point? Did he tell them that what it was God was wanting him to say is there is no Hebrew word for “commandment” in the OT? If he did, am I to believe that not one person among his circle of “advisers” told him he may want to research that out? Not one person in that circle fired up their Bible software and double-checked for him, or even turned on Google?

So either Noble was vague in his text, or his “advisers” didn’t really care and told him “That sounds awesome, man,” or perhaps a few did raise the warning flags, but Noble chose to ignore them. Whatever the case, it doesn’t look good for his “advisers,” either.

This set my heart on fire and I put the message together, believing it was from the Lord, and we saw over 200 people come to Christ as a result.

nobleWhat he is saying is that it doesn’t really matter if he was wrong, or God misled him, or his “advisers” are a bunch of back-slapping, sycophantic “yes!” men. Two hundred people came to Christ in spite of the wild, unbiblical inaccuracies of his message.

Assuming Noble isn’t fudging the numbers, (and I will go out on a limb here and say I don’t believe there was anyone who “came” to Christ that night), wouldn’t those people be false converts?

They “responded” to a talk that not only taught biblical error regarding the Hebrew word “commandment,” but the presenter expanded on that error to rewrite and reinterpret a foundational portion of Scripture: THE 10 COMMANDMENTS! Even more, after a couple of weeks of people telling him about his terrific error, he issued an apology admitting he was wrong (and his advisers are all idiots). Does that not in and of itself cancel out the reality of those 200 conversions? They were converted under the pretense of a false message.

One more thing, if you still cannot wrap your mind around what I taught and disagree with it, I do not consider you to be a “hater.”  There are really godly people on both sides of incredibly difficult theological arguments.

There is nothing difficult about this. Perry Noble claimed God pressed upon his heart to share a message at the last minute the day before their Christmas Eve service and the message was that there is no Hebrew word for commandments in the OT. He then went on to reinterpret Exodus 20 as promises from God rather than commandments.

What’s the take away from all of this?

First of all, I think it is just the gathering of crumbs underneath the charismatic table that has abandoned the authority and sufficiency of Scripture for a Christianity that is nothing more than interpreting omens and horoscopes.

While Noble, to my knowledge, isn’t charismatic, at least according to the classic definition, he sure does speak like a charismatic. And like the charismatic, God tells him all sorts of stuff. If whatever life changing decision you make when the still small voice speaks to you pays off with hearts and roses, it was God. But what happens if you faceplant faster than fat lady on a Segway?

Let me close with these words from Jeremiah,

For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners (read here, vision casting pastors) who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams (you know, impressions, little voices, weird feelings) which you cause to be dreamed. For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them, says the LORD.  (Jer 29:8-9 NKJ)

My Earth Day Rants

earthhourThe smell of Hippie is in the air…

Another Earth Day is upon us.  We call it light bulb day at our place.

I want to go on record here and now  as saying I love my air conditioning, my ice maker, and my refrigerator, my lights, my electronic gadgets, my car, my washing machine. I have no desire of returning to living a life-style reminiscent of the 1840s.

I regrettably do not have the time to write up a fresh post to commemorate what is better termed, Water Melon Day. You know: Green on the outside, but red on the inside.

In fact, from hence forth, I will call this day “Water Melon Day.”

mbpAt any rate, I thought I would link to some of my past articles I have written ranting against the leftist tyranny of global warming.  Be alert. Some of the links I supplied in the various posts may no longer work. I apologize in advance if that is the case. Make sure if anything to read the one I marked as my personal favorite.

Suicide Solution

Brave New Thuggery

Peer-Reviewed Snake Oil Salesmen

False Prophets

Magic Bean Science


How Global Warming Junk Science is Messing with My Life (A personal favorite!)


Biblical Earth Day Resources

Apologetic Musings from the Mud Hut

Over at the Please Convince Me blog, I had a friendly comment exchange the last few weeks with a old earth creationist under this post.  I have plans to bring our comment exchange to the front page of my place.

At any rate, recently a rabid anti-creationist chimed in with the following comment,

Anyone who seriously believes in the young earth hypothesis and rejects science should turn off their computer and go live in a mud hut. The world has no place for such people who sponge off the hard work of others.

Ah yes. The old “the-people-who-believe-in-young-earth-creationism-are-nothing-more-than-primitive-mud-hut-dwellers” argument.

I responded,

Thanks for that completely ignorant and bigoted comment. You’re like the Fred Phelps equivalent for atheists.

To which he responded,

There’s nothing ignorant or bigoted about it.
Clearly you’re unwilling to reject all the benefits of science, instead picking and choosing depending upon what fits with your preconceived ideas … now that sounds a lot like the definition of bigoted.
That every credible scientist believes that the earth is significantly older than you’re claiming makes you ignorant of the facts.
So who am I going to believe? Some mentally deranged lunatic that thinks the earth is a few thousand years old because it fits in with his childish views on the bible or qualified scientists, many of whom are Christians, that know what they’re talking about.

Like I said, you don’t deserve to benefit from the hard work of others. Get off the computer and go live in a mud hut.

Let’s breakdown the basics.

My antagonist is absolute in his conviction that I am a dolt.  Something has either failed in my educational process, or maybe there is something mentally wrong with me that I would believe – contrary to overwhelming and crushing evidence – that the history of the earth is under 10,000 years old.

To believe in YEC is equivalent to living life in the centuries before the Bronze Age.  In fact, it is radically inconsistent to the point of intellectual confusion because I benefit greatly from the “scientific” advances of our modern society, yet have a prehistoric faith.  On one hand I believe Genesis records real history, yet on the other I buy medicine from CVS pharmacy, purchase items from Amazon, enjoy cooking on a gas range, and occasionally drive with the family to the beach in our Toyota Sienna.

Of course, the “science” behind medicine, computers, and automobiles really has nothing to do with how old the earth is.  More to the point, neither does one’s understanding of Genesis. What a person believes about the history of origins and life on Earth has no bearing upon those bodies of knowledge.  I can be a Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian who believes the Earth was created just around 6,000 years ago and thoroughly enjoy the blessing of my high-end coffee maker on Saturday mornings while listening to my Ipod.

Rather he insists that I embrace a worldview framework that claims millions of years of Earth history and chance gave inanimate, inorganic matter the ability to become the living and replicating biological diversity we see on the planet today.  In other words, he wants me to believe in spontaneous generation.

Yes, yes, I realize the consensus from all those hard working, credible scientists now call “spontaneous generation” abiogenesis and claim how biological life arose from nothing in earth’s history past is still under scientific investigation.  But let’s face facts. His idea of where life came from is just as unscientific as mine. He bases that on the grand pronouncements of the scientific magesterium and their musing within their academies as to their view of history.  Which in the larger scheme of things, equally derives from a mud hut.

The Irony of Love

Recently a mosque was burned down in Joplin, Missouri. Arson is the suspected cause. Local Christians have come together to show support. The state media reports that the Christians will share in the iftar, the traditional Islamic meal to break the fast for the month of Ramadan.

Mark at Here I Blog offers a scenario for our consideration. Suppose your church was in the community where the mosque was burned and there was pressure put upon your congregation to join in the public support for these Muslims. The local opinion is such that if you delay joining in support, your church will be perceived as a group of haters who are prejudiced against “outsiders.” He then offers a handful of options as a possible response and asks readers what they would do.

A thought or two.

Islam is cause celebre these days. Leftists in particular slobber all over themselves in order to prove their tolerant loyalty to Muslims. They turn a blind eye to the sharia based conduct codes popping up in communities around the country. They’ll even work to stifle the first amendment rights of evangelistic Christians to distribute Christian literature at public Islamic festivals.

Yet the way the progressive leftists ingratiates themselves to Muslims is honestly laughable, especially in light of the wild inconsistency Islamic values have with leftist values. Someone, for instance, should ask the Muslims behind the ground zero mosque in NYC what they think of same-sex marriage. See if their answer generates the same vitriolic censorship and protest the Chic-Fil-A president received.

At any rate, it didn’t surprise me to learn that the main churches involving themselves in the iftar feast were theologically liberal. Theological liberals just love pagan diversity. But there is a bit of irony here that is being overlooked. The feast was held at St. Philip’s Episcopal Church, and both Peace Lutheran Church and South Joplin Christian Church are staffed by women ministers. I find that little factoid absolutely chuckle inducing. Two churches pastored by women lending support and encouragement to a world religion that is notorious for its misogyny. It’s hard to find such comedy gold.

Curious. If the “church” in question that was burned by arson was a Mormon church – a real possibility considering our current presidential race – would these same churches be in a hurry to offer their support? Or would they even bother because, well, you know how Mormons have a history of keeping concubine sister wives.

Bold Mistakes

Barnabas Piper smugly chides those evangelicals who participated in Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day as involving themselves in a “bold mistake.” He writes,

Homosexuality is one of the most defining, contentious, and complex issues facing this generation of the church. We cannot sacrifice our biblical convictions but neither can we sacrifice the church’s ability to serve people of opposing viewpoints and lifestyles.

In other words, all that Christians are doing is turning sodomites and other assorted lefty Christ-haters away from Jesus. Seeing that they already hate Jesus, I guess he means Christians are hardening their hearts more. Strange words coming from a guy with a Calvinistic background.

Curious if he would have the same logic in the 1800s when the debate about the slave trade was raging. To put it in modern terms, does this apply to any sin, or just homosexuality? Would the church be sacrificing their ability to serve other people of opposing viewpoints, oh, let’s say, NAMBLA and the polyamory clubs? What about pornographers? They certainly have an “opposing viewpoint” concerning marriage.

It’s part of the Piper family mystique to be counter anything popular evangelicals may do. I mean, this is a guy whose dad wrote a book about not wasting your life and berated retirees for vacationing and collecting sea shells. If the Commie Red army came knocking at his door asking if he was hiding Christians, he’d say “yes,” just to make what he thinks is some counter-relevant point about the misguidance of Evangelicals.

However, Church History is full of Christians who made “bold mistakes” by offending those of opposing viewpoints. Let’s recount a few:

Charles Martel
John Wycliff
Jan Huss
William Tyndale
Martin Luther
Nicholas Ridley
Hugh Latimer
William Wilberforce
Charles Spurgeon
J. Gresham Machen
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Corrie Ten Boom

I’ll trust that you know how to use Google and Wackapedia to get the background.
I’ll update with any suggestions made in the comments.

Hank on His Travels to Iran

Pollyannish Christian Apologetics

Hank Hanegraaf provided a statement responding to his critics who were troubled by his trip to Tehran, Iran, where he participated in a conference also attended by an assortment of terrorist-loving anti-Semites and left-leaning anti-Americans wackos.

Concerning My Recent Travels to Iran, because truth matters.

According to Hank’s statement his blogging critics are falsely accusing him of colluding with terrorists, supporting OWS, and being an anti-Semite. Among his complaints, he tries to provide his spin on his presence at the conference by saying how he “opposed” some of the views of other participants. He also vehemently insists he is not anti-Semitic.

Yet, after he accuses these charges as being “slanderous,” he repeats the equally “slanderous” nonsense he has reiterated in a number of his writings that it is Dispensationalists who are the true anti-Semites, because of what they teach about Israel and the tribulation.

He then concludes his statement by stating,

As a closing thought, may I simply say that while the lack of discernment and civility displayed on the internet is astonishing, it becomes all the more appalling when those who claim Christianity propagate that which is untrue in an unloving fashion.


Now, I don’t know who else blogged negatively about Hank’s trip. I’m only familiar with Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs, and she is kind of an odd-ball in her own right. She is certainly not an “evangelical” blogger, or at least I can’t tell if she is.

Speaking for myself, I never said Hank is anti-Jewish or a pro-OWS guy. I did write, however, that I find his associates at this conference highly problematic. Hank’s supposed to be an evangelical Christian apologist, and yet he gathered with a bunch of notorious anti-Semites and neo-Marxists in a nation state that has sponsored terrorism, threatened genocide against Jews, and treat their political dissenters with horrific cruelty, including the death penalty for children. All for the purpose of participating in a conference meant to bash pro-Western values. You know, liberty and freedom and that sort of stuff.

Is Hank so naive as to believe those associations were innocuous? Did Hank seriously believe that in our internet age no one would think twice about an alleged, evangelical radio apologist participating in an anti-Western conference in a nation controlled by a murderous regime attended by anti-Semites and neo-Marxists? Did he think the government controlled media would treat him fairly rather than as the “useful idiot” he was made to be in that video report? Surely he is not this Pollyanna who thinks everyone, including the Iranians, would be thinking happy thoughts about his visit.

And what about his tweet from February 21st that reads,

Really? Much of what he’s been told in the West about Iran is simply wrong? Does he care to elaborate on that? Would he care to explain his assessment in light of what Amnesty International says on their website about Iran? They are a secular group. In fact, they are much more leftist than most blogging critics of the Iranian government. What about Voice of the Martyrs and their report on Iran? Are they “simply wrong” about Christian persecution? Or is it something we can debate vigorously but not divide over?

Hank can complain all he wants about being slandered by irresponsible bloggers on the internet. The fact of the matter remains, however, that he brought this attention on himself. His explanations of what happened there is extremely unsatisfactory and doesn’t look good at all for him and his ministry.

Where’s Hank?

From the “You Gotta Be Kidding Me” files.

I would have been a bit dubious of this item until I truly saw it, but Hank Hanegraaff, you know, the Christian Research Institute president and daily Bible Answer Man host, was recently participating with a conference promoting Occupy Wall Street in all places, Tehran, Iran.

Details HERE and HERE

It’s not entirely clear if he actually traveled to Iran for this conference or if he participated with a stateside panel discussion group in either DC or New York. When interviewed by a reporter he was quoted as saying,

“The reason that Occupy Wall Street is continuing to go on is because people are protesting the policies of the American government.” He added, “Spontaneous activism which is organized by social media will always have a huge opportunity to make large economic and societal changes. Just like it did in Egypt with Tahrir Square, so it will, in various permutations or forms, continue to give the public that doesn’t necessarily have economic and social standing an opportunity to make a difference, because in the land of the Internet, there are no kings or queens.”

Let this all soak in a second.

Participating with a conference about Occupy Wall Street that was in Tehran, Iran.

Let’s see. Iran. You know, the homicidal government that whips women for showing their arms in public and executes them for being raped; Oh, and they like killing Christians.

And Occupy Wall Street. The anti-Semitic, Neo-Marxists whose core army is made up of potheads, bums, and hippies who smell of urine.

Along with Hank, there were a large assortment of crazy people who believe America is the 1% and is to be blamed for pretty much all the ills in the world because – wait for it –

Americans support Zionism. Spell it out with me. IT’S THE J-E-W-S. Da Jooooos.

I stand with my mouth open in stunned disbelief. Has Hank’s anti-Dispensationalism brought him to becoming a leftist crackpot? Seriously. What do all of the other so-called Evangelical apologists who contribute to his journal and website, like Holly Ordway, Jay Richards, Mary Jo Sharp, along with a host of others think about Hank’s extra-curricular activities as a pro-Marxist, anti-Semitic useful idiot for the government of Iran? Does it matter to them? Or is it just Hank being Hank? It’s one of those matters we can debate vigorously like Hank’s says.

It’s just grievous to see what was once an outstanding Christian ministry having it’s reputation ruined and driven off the tracks by such narcissistic incompetence.

Girl Toys

Right before Christmas, I was alerted to an article written by a mush-minded progressive mother who wonders why “society” gets upset if one of her sons was to enjoy playing with the new “girly” Legos. She gushes how he loves pink and all things feminine and soft, so he would LOVE playing with the new feminized Legos. The mother doesn’t care if they are toys meant for girls and if he gets his culturally defined “gender roles” all messed up.

This mother’s mentally deranged parenting aside, I wanted to fix our attention on this little note at the top of the article:

Editor’s Note: Kelly Byrom is’s Art Director and the mother of three children. She and her husband are committed to encouraging and supporting their daughter and both of their sons to follow their hearts and be true to themselves. Boys in tutus don’t scare them at all.

Zero in upon the second sentence: “She and her husband are committed to encouraging and supporting their daughter and both of their sons to follow their hearts and be true to themselves.”

That sentence is a hypocritical falsehood. Initially, I almost wrote “a lie,” but upon second thought, I don’t think she and her husband intend to deceive people about their parenting. I think they both, particularly the mother/author, sincerely believe they practice this philosophy of allowing their children to “follow their hearts.”

It is better to call this philosophy a hypocritical falsehood because I would bet a Costco ice cream bar dipped in chocolate and smothered in praline almond chunks, that if pressed, neither parent honestly practice this philosophy. They are words merely meant to sweeten up the sensibilities of their lefty friends.

In fact, there isn’t a parent worth his or her salt who lets children “follow their hearts.”

Think about it, children are essentially stupid idiots. Of course they are sweet, cuddly, and cute idiots who bring laughter and joy to our lives, but they are idiots none the less. They have to be trained. They have to be shepherded. It is why Paul writes to the Ephesians that when children obey their parents, they will live long upon the earth (Eph. 6:3). That is because if children are allowed to “follow their hearts,” they wouldn’t live long upon the earth. They would be mauled by tigers, or choke to death on marbles, or drink antifreeze, or eat so much candy and ice cream that they would die from a diabetic coma and this after their teeth had rotted out of their heads.

If I were to allow my children to “follow their hearts,” they would go without bathing for days on end, eat nothing but waffles and mac and cheese, and sit in the living room playing Wii for 12 hours straight. (Almost sounds like a 25 year-old video gamer).

Anyways, in spite of being the good liberals that she and her husband profess their family is, I bet Kelly Byrom’s children would do the very same thing if they were allowed to “follow their hearts.” That’s why I say that editor’s note is a hypocritical falsehood; she doesn’t practice what she preaches.

Now. This comment is being made within the context of an article designed to subvert the normal gender roles clear thinking societies have naturally established for men and women. Kelly is taking a stand for supposedly effeminate little boys who are exhorted by moron parents to one day grow up to become sodomites, or cross-dressers, or even worse, sex-changers who will mutilate their bodies. She’s wanting to stick it in the eye of all those dinosaurish, progressively backward, red-state evangelicals who listen to Focus on the Family all the time and love Sarah Palin.

But I wonder…

I know of a situation where a teenager, raised by one of these couples who practice this “we let our children follow their own heart” philosophy, came home one day from high school to inform his parents he believed in intelligent design. They went “ballistic” and had him removed from that school because, “no son of ours is gonna learn that Jesus nonsense.”

Along a similar line, if in the future, one of Kelly’s sons comes home from school and announces he was now a Bible-believing, evangelical Christian and he believes homosexuality is a sin, would she and her husband let him follow his heart and be true to himself?. or will a boy carrying a Bible scare them to death?

Is Gene Simmons A Moron?

he most recent celebrity turned anti-Obama pundit is Gene Simmons.

Over the last month or so I have watched two different interviews with the guy and his dark sunglasses railing against the president for being a lame disappointment.

The most recent was an interview for some FOX financial program, and the way the guy talked, you would have thought he was auditioning for being the next host to replace Glenn Beck.

Gene Simmons Regrets Voting for Obama

Simmons demanded his vote back because he voted for genuine change. He sincerely believed Obama would surround himself with the smartest financial geniuses the Fortune 500 had to offer.

Is he a child? Or has drugs and loose women rattled his brain? Where was Gene Simmons 4 years ago when we pointed out Obama’s connections with American hating radicals like William Ayers? What does Gene talk about when he hangs out with his Castro loving Hollywood/entertainment pals?

In a previous interview, laced with bleeped out F-bombs, Gene and his sunglasses blasts Obama’s Israel policy.

Gene, who was born in Israel, expressed outrage at Obama’s policy of returning Israel to their 1967 borders. He carried on like he had been tricked. As if discovering a flirty groupie was really a man. He goes on complaining that when he voted for the Obama he was voting for an “idea” not “idealism” (as if there is some sharp difference between the two notions), and that he couldn’t believe how *bleeping* out-of-touch with reality the president is.

Were there any alarm bells ringing in Gene’s mind 4 years ago when the revelations about Obama’s Jew hating pastor came to light? It’s not like these sniggling details were hidden from the public.

Stop being so Pollyannish, Gene. The man’s worldview was soaked in some of the worst anti-American (and anti-Israeli) vitriol to be found anywhere on earth. I took him at his word when he said he wanted to change and transform America. I didn’t want our country to become a worthless, emasculated European social state ran by the soft tyranny of leftist bureaucrats. I believed him the first time. The next time, don’t be a moron.