Lesbian Extremist Mayor Must Go — Now

Photo credit: Facebook/Annise Parker

Should we make an example of her?

Absolutely.

I was born in Waco, Texas, and lived in Houston; so I’ve got a dog in this hunt. Really, we all do.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker has disqualified herself from the privilege of serving the people of south Texas. She must either resign, effective immediately; or Houstonians should begin, without delay, the process of recalling her from office. Strike while the iron’s hot, I say; and right now, it’s glowing cultural Marxist red.

Parker has been caught, cold, with her hand in the totalitarian cookie jar. She has, on multiple counts, betrayed her oath of office. She’s put her own radical self-interests above the best interests of her constituents and has all but spit on the very U.S. Constitution she’s sworn to uphold.

This woman (I’m loath to lend her credibility by calling her “Madam Mayor”) has revealed herself to be a single-issue-driven sexual extremist with zero regard for the rule of law. While Parker is now backpedaling on her unconstitutional sermon subpoenas faster than a dyslexic cyclist in the Four de Trance, she is, nonetheless, pushing ahead like Lance Armstrong on steroids with her unlawful subversion of Houston’s citizen petition process (arbitrarily tossing out nearly three-quarters of the already validated petition signatures needed to put her utterly insane gender-neutral “bathroom bill” up for a vote by the very people whose privacy it sexually assaults.) This single act of political corruption alone has disenfranchised every single Houston resident.

These gross abuses of power have shocked and outraged millions of Americans across the country on every point of the political spectrum. Attorney, best-selling author, and columnist David Limbaugh distilled nicely the controversy in an Oct. 16 column titled, “Fascist leftists in Houston”:

“There are at least three outrageous things about the Houston city government’s recent actions pushing an ordinance to allow men and women to use each other’s public restrooms,” began Limbaugh. “The first is the substance of the ordinance itself, which allows men and women, irrespective of their biology, to use bathrooms designated for the opposite sex.”

Indeed. As I noted in my own column the very next day, “[B]ecause it’s now illegal to ‘discriminate based on the basis of gender identity’ in Houston, and since it’s the only ‘tolerant’ thing to do, men who sign up for the ever-persecuted ‘LGBT’ class have secured the hard-fought ‘civil right’ to fully expose themselves to, and otherwise ogle, your daughters in the ladies’ room.

“Yay ‘gay rights’!”

Which brings us to Parker’s second offense – another that, despite her having now withdrawn the unlawfully issued sermon subpoenas in a panicked frenzy, remains both unresolved and unpunished.

Continued Limbaugh: “The second outrage is that the city has greatly overreached in subpoenaing the pastors of the city for copies of their sermons and their communications to their congregations to determine whether they have violated this Godforsaken ordinance. Lest you think this was a mistake, the mayor tweeted, ‘If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.’”

Sermons are fair game? Uh, actually, no, Mrs. Stalin. In fact, hell no. Despite a bevy of “progressive” rationalizations to the contrary, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

First, notwithstanding the decades of mythical “church-state separation” nonsense spread by the Communist-founded ACLU, there is no legal proscription that would, or even could, prevent pastors from “politicking from the pulpit.” Doing so is their unalienable First Amendment-protected right. These are the issues that belong in the pulpit. This outrageous bathroom bill, and others like it, directly touch and concern matters of faith, morality, and culture. Christians didn’t politicize this debate; lefty nut burgers like Annise “I-am-lesbian-hear-me-roar” Parker did.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What The ‘Gay Marriage’ Debate Is Really About

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

It’s called Pandora’s Box.

And the Supreme Court just opened it.

Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?

A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning, and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.

But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.

At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seated spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.

And it’s reaching critical mass.

On the one hand, on the natural marriage side, we have a worldview that recognizes absolute truth – that acknowledges the fixed moral and natural law, authored and enforced from time immemorial by the sovereign and loving Creator of the universe. This same Creator, incidentally, just happened to design and define the very institution over which we quarrel. Those with this worldview concede that every man, woman, and child is accountable to this sovereign Creator and will, one day, stand before Him to face final judgment for what they did or did not do during their infinitesimally short-lived stint here on earth.

This, though not a comprehensive representation, is the biblical worldview.

On the other hand, on the unnatural marriage side (or the “marriage equality” side as these self-styled “progressives” euphemistically prefer), we have a worldview that denies absolute truth. It imagines there are no fixed lines of demarcation between right and wrong – that morality and reality is entirely relative and, therefore, the very notions of good and evil, right and wrong, and sin and repentance are but false and limiting constructs concocted in the narrow minds of a dull bevy of sheepherders some thousands of years ago.

Since those with this worldview either deny God’s very existence altogether or, alternatively, believe that some version of god, like marriage, can be defined, or redefined, in the mind of the beholder, they claim accountability to no one (except goddess political correctness) and, thus, declare reality to be that which they, the secular-”progressive” intelligentsia, proclaim it to be (e.g., that manmade, credulity-straining, reality-warping, and oxymoronic counterfeit called “same-sex marriage”).

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Limbaugh’s ‘Jesus On Trial’: The Verdict Is In

Photo credit: shutterstock.com

Attorney, author, and columnist David Limbaugh is a man after my own heart. He’s also a man after my own mind. That is to say, as both a fellow member of the bar and follower of Christ, I tremendously appreciate how David approaches the hot button issues of the day. He carefully probes them within the framework of an objective, lawyerly, and evidential analysis. He is a master communicator and never fails, in any case, to deliver deeply persuasive closing arguments in the court of public opinion.

With his latest book, “Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel,” Limbaugh remains true to form. In fact, having read nearly every manuscript he’s penned, I believe this to be, hands down, David’s best and most important work to date. While managing to make each sentence of each chapter in this page-turner fascinating, Limbaugh also provides proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, in both His historical and spiritual respects, was, and is, exactly who He said He is: God incarnate, the living, physically resurrected Savior of the world, and the only–yes, that means the exclusive–path to God the Father.

I’m one of those guys who regularly dines on a word diet cooked up by the master chefs – Christian apologists and theologians like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, and Josh McDowell, to name just a few. With “Jesus on Trial,” not only does Limbaugh chef-it-up with the masters; he prepares a multi-course meal that, if read with an open mind, will satisfy, both spiritually and intellectually, every consumer, from the most ardent skeptic to the most devout believer.

This is not merely a book of Christian apologetics. I have never read a more convincing, comprehensive, and well-arranged biblical, cultural, and, indeed, scientific exegesis for the one-stop shopper – for the spiritual sojourner exploring, like most of us, the greatest of all questions. Namely, “Who am I; how did I get here; why am I here; and where, if anywhere, am I going?”

Most importantly, David offers, with a spirit of humility and compassion that, for anyone who knows him, has come to define his character, a GPS to heaven. He lays out the biblical road map to eternal salvation.

In a recent column entitled, “Why I wrote ‘Jesus on Trial,’” Limbaugh captures, in part, why this book is the most wide-ranging Christian non-fiction I’ve come across. He explains what makes it quite different from any other. “It is on Christian apologetics, which means it defends the Christian faith and its truth claims,” he writes; “but it also includes my personal journey from skeptic to believer and a discussion of basic Christian doctrine.”

The book incorporates “a thorough discussion of the full humanity yet full deity of Jesus Christ, an examination of the Bible’s miraculous unity, many examples of undeniably fulfilled prophecies that are too specific to be dismissed, a comprehensive review of the evidence pointing to the reliability of Scripture, a look at the subject of truth itself, proof of God’s existence, and much more.”

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Imagine That! I’m Wanted For ‘Hate Crimes’ In Canada…

mattbarber

It seems I have some liberal knickers in a knot north of the border.

The left is anything if not predictable. It tickles me to no end when, by way of their utterly unhinged reaction to one of my columns, secular-”progressives” end up proving true the very point I was trying to make.

Last month, I wrote an opinion piece headlined, “The coming Christian revolt.” It was featured in multiple publications, including the print edition of the Newfoundland Herald, a weekly news and entertainment magazine circulated throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.

Among other things, I noted this objective reality in the piece – a reality demonstrated with crystal clarity by liberals’ (to include the Canadian government’s) contemptible response to the column itself: “To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, ‘gay marriage’ and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether [not to mention free speech].

“Under the guise of ‘anti-discrimination,’ Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels. …

“Christians,” I continued, “true Christians – regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands – will not, indeed cannot, participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.

“It is not done from hate. It is not done from bigotry. It is done neither from a position of superiority nor a desire to ‘impose our beliefs’ upon others.

“It is done from both obedience to Christ and compassion for our fellow fallen who yet wallow in folly. …

“In the ongoing culture war, it seems there are no rules of engagement. The secular left will accept nothing short of unconditional surrender. That is to say, the pagans demand that we Christians abandon the biblical worldview altogether, and adopt their own.

“This will never happen.”

You could’ve timed their response to a stopwatch. Want to see a collectivist conniption? Drop an unvarnished truth bomb in the middle of Canada, most of Europe, or blue-state USA–and sit back for the mouth-frothing. It’s quite a show. The bright light of salty truth both blinds and burns those given over to reprobation.

CBC News, the “largest news broadcaster in Canada,” reported on both my column and the ensuing response: “Members of a Newfoundland and Labrador Pride group were so outraged about a two-page anti-gay [read: Christian] letter to the editor published by an entertainment magazine in the province, they filed a human rights complaint.”

Several other “gay rights” organizations have since picked up their pitchforks and joined the mob. The Canadian government was likewise quick to react. Remzi Cej of Canada’s “Human Rights Commission” (something between a Star Chamber and a kangaroo court, but without that level of credibility) said, “he’s disappointed that the Herald has cited ‘free speech’ as justification for publishing the opposing view” (because, of course, to the leftist, free speech is only “free” when it’s speech with which they agree).

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Here’s Why Israel Could Actually Be The Greatest Ally Of The Palestinian People

Photo credit: Eugenio Marongiu / Shutterstock.com

Israel is not tame.

But she is good.

If a poacher shoots arrows at a pride of sleeping lions, are the lions to blame for rousing and defending themselves?

What does one say of the shooter when he intentionally cowers behind the skirts of his own women and daughters, hoping, indeed praying, that these precious souls will inadvertently perish as a result?

One calls him a coward, a fool, and a monster.

Such are the men of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Authority – terrorists all. They are purposefully slaughtering their own citizenry.

There are but two things to blame for the tragic loss of life in both Gaza and Tel Aviv: Islam in general, and Hamas in particular. There is no moral equivalency in this raging Gaza conflict.

There is only good and evil.

Israel, though not perfect, is good. Hamas is evil. Israel loves life. Hamas loves death.

But don’t take my word for it. As recently as 2008, Hamas MP Fathi Hamad, addressing the Jewish people, betrayed Islam’s empirically wicked stratagem when he proclaimed, “We desire death more than you desire life.”

“Death for the Palestinian people,” said Hamad, “has become an industry, which the women excel at along with everyone else on this earth. The elderly excel at it, the jihadist fighters excel at it, and the children excel at it.

“Therefore they [the Palestinian Authority] created a human shield of women, children, elderly and jihadists to confront the Zionist bombardment machine, to say to the Zionist enemy: ‘We desire death just as you desire life.’”

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah concurs: “We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.”

And so innocent men, women, and children, Israeli and Palestinian alike, become the victims of this Islamic culture of death.

These are the victims of Hamas.

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu captured concisely this tragic phenomenon: “We are using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

Yet all the while, today’s blathering, anti-Semitic axis-of-the-willfully-blind – the liberal intelligentsia, rank-and-file “progressives,” and that elusive creature: the “moderate Muslim” – inexplicably, if not unwittingly, rally behind the principal Islamic cause: Death to the infidels (Quran 9.5).

“Free occupied Palestine!” they drone, while either disregarding the long history of deadly Arab aggression in the region, or laboring under thick ignorance of it.

By “occupied Palestine,” of course, Arabs and Arab sympathizers reference that portion of Israel achieved as spoils of her defensive Six Day War. In June of 1967, the tiny Jewish nation devastated the armies of neighboring Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as the warring nations characteristically made ready to “wipe Israel from the map.”

By seizing the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank of the Jordan River, Israel had gained a defensive stronghold in the region crucial to her very survival. Still, many of these territories remained very much occupied, and do to this day, by thousands of Arabs who now fall under Israeli governance.

Pages: 1 2

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom