Dr. Tony Beam

Thanks to Newsweek, the title “first black president” can now be returned to President Clinton. It was Clinton’s alone until Senator Obama became President Obama and now that Newsweek has declared him to be the first gay president he no longer needs the “first black president” title.
For those of you who are now a bit confused let me explain. In a 1998 article for New Yorker American novelist, editor, and professor Toni Morrison declared President Clinton to be “our first black President…blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.” That phrase was picked by many Clinton supporters and repeated until even the Congressional Black Caucus acknowledged it to be true. On September 29th, 2001, Texas Democrat Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson who was then serving as the chair of the Caucus said that Clinton “took so many initiatives he made us think for a while we had elected the first black president.”
It strikes me as ironic that according to liberals the first black president was not actually black and the first gay president is not actually gay. In liberal land it isn’t necessary to actually be what you are reputed to be if you simply embrace the right ideas. For President Clinton being black meant supporting an agenda approved by the national black leadership. It had nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with ideology.
The same is true for President Obama and his sudden Newsweek anointed gayness. President Obama is no more gay than President Clinton is black. But reality doesn’t matter to the Left. Reality isn’t real in any meaningful sense. It is only a concept to be twisted until the truth is wringed out of it so that the gatekeepers of politically correct thinking can assign meaning. It all makes me wonder how long it will be before some other left wing publication will declare President Obama to be the first female president.
But for conservatives, reality is attached to the facts as they are in the real world. Concerning President Obama’s announcement that his evolution has led him to the revelation that gay is ok the facts are:
1. North Carolina just became the 30th state to pass an amendment to their constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. North Carolina’s amendment goes even farther by banning civil unions. The amendment passed by eleven percent.
2. According to a new USA Today/Gallup survey 40 percent of Americans say President Obama’s public support of gay marriage will affect their votes. Of that number, 26% say they are less likely to vote for Obama and just 13% are more likely.
3. The same poll also revealed that among independents, 23% say they are now less likely to vote for Obama.
That poll might mean three strikes and you’re out for an Obama second term. South Carolina Congressman and stalwart Obama defender Rep. James Clyburn broke ranks with the President saying his support for same-sex marriage does not go far enough. He thinks the President shouldn’t leave something as important as marriage up to individual states. Rep. Clyburn is the No. 3 ranking Democrat in the House behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. In an MSNBC interview Clyburn said, I, like the president has evolved to a point of marriage equality. But he went on to say, “However I depart from the president on the state-by-state approach. If you consider this (marriage) to be a civil right…and I do…. I don’t’ think civil rights ought to be left up to a state-by-state approach.”
While I certainly don’t believe same-sex marriage is a civil right I absolutely agree that it is an issue that is too important to be left up to individual states. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution would force a state like South Carolina to accept same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts. That would have the effect of nullifying South Carolina’s tenth amendment right to define marriage by allowing another state’s definition to take precedent. Complete chaos would be the order of the day.
When President Obama announced his advanced evolved state of enlightenment on same-sex marriage I put a Facebook post of my best E-Trade baby shocked face. Most of the readers got the joke and agreed that the only thing shocking about President Obama’s announcement is the his honesty. Let’s hope this president doesn’t decide to put our country on the line in a prizefight or a poker game. He telegraphs his punches and bluffs with all the subtleness of a charging rhinoceros. His avid support for the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and his refusal to defend the Defense of Marriage Act drained all of the history out of his “historic” announcement.
In an obvious tip-of-the-hat to the rainbow as a symbol of the LGBT community Newsweek saw fit to grace Obama’s head with a rainbow halo. How ironic both the LGBT community and Newsweek would both choose a symbol that harkens back to the ultimate example of God’s judgment.

I think I liked the world better when Socialists felt they had to hide their extreme views if they had a hope of winning an election in Western society. Apparently, that world is now somewhere over the rainbow and we find ourselves anywhere but Kansas anymore.

Francois Hollande won the presidency of France running wide open as a card carrying, government wielding, unapologetic Socialist. He wants to transform France from a left leaning nanny state of moderation to a full-fledged cradle to grave behemoth that will eventually devour itself.

His plan? First, there will be no more talk of fiscal austerity. It’s time to let the hedonistic, government-financed party begin. Nuclear power? He wants to abandon it in favor of…well, he really hasn’t said what will replace the mainstay of the country’s power generating capacity but you can bet it will be a combination of green, solar, and wind. Maybe he can figure out a way to turn the Eiffel Tower into a huge windmill or maybe he will install solar panels on the dome of Notre Dame de Paris. And perhaps the Arc de Triomphe could be covered with ivy to signify a new commitment to green technology.

Hollande wants to confiscate up to 75% of the income of the wealthiest French citizens to pay for his new stimulus plan and the hiring of 60,000 more teachers. Oddly enough French aristocrats responded not by lining up and emptying their wallets but by looking to England or even America as possible safe havens. Facing a crushing level of debt brought on by cradle to grave entitlements, Hollande proposes to respond by reducing the retirement age from a liberal 62 to a ludicrous 60. He wants to give all immigrants the right to vote regardless of their status. With France already reeling and teetering on the brink of a complete collapse of their culture due to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants and converts, Hallande’s plan to extend voting rights might end the need for elections by giving Sharia law an opportunity to eventually become the new law of the land.

Hollande’s plan to spend France out of debt and into prosperity is like telling an alcoholic to go drink himself to sobriety.

But Hollande’s total transformation plan for France goes far beyond fiscal and political issues. He has promised to push homosexual marriage and the legalization of euthanasia. He wants to completely change the fabric of French society by sweeping away any remnants of restraint in favor of a completely passion driven culture that will no longer recognize or tolerate traditional moral boundaries.

Hollande’s election coupled with the Greek Parliament’s sure rejection of austerity measures leaves Europe mostly in the hands of spoiled children with Angela Merkel of Germany as the lone adult. But even the strong German economy can’t carry the rest of Europe if France chooses to follow Greece into financial oblivion.

According to AFP writer Michael Mainville, “U.S. President Barak Obama invited Hollande for talks before the G8 summit in the U.S. on May 18-19 and NATO gathering in Chicago on May 20-21.” White House spokesman Jay Carney said the President hoped the pair would work “closely.”

How could they not work closely? They are political and ideological soul mates. President Obama would love to be able to emulate the campaign of Hollande. How freeing it would be for President Obama if he could just tear away the façade of centrism and run as the true socialist he is. He must be positively green with envy that a European version of the Cloward-Piven strategy could be so open about their agenda. If only the American people were as enlightened as the French, Obama must be thinking, it would be so much easier to lead them where I want America to go.

In five years Greece will be gone and France will be Greece if the lower house of the French Parliament ends up in hands of the socialists. If America re-elects President Obama we will quickly follow France and Greece into the dustbin of history. Even the Roman Empire with all of its military power and technological superiority could not withstand the debauchery that characterizes a culture caught in the throes of pleasure and self-gratification.

It was General Omar Bradley who said, “Set your course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship.” America has six months to decide if we will follow the foolishness of socialism that is the passing light of this generation, or if we will set our course by following the lighthouse beacon of freedom into the safe harbor of a renewed constitutional republic.

Many Protestant and Evangelical leaders are now trying to prepare the Church for the inevitability of homosexual marriage. Recently, New York joined seven other states and the District of Columbia in codifying some form of same sex unions. On the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under attack in court and the Obama Administration is parked on the sidelines refusing to defend “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That quote came from President Obama himself, while he was in the process of threatening the Supreme Court over ObamaCare. For those who skipped math in high school the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka ObamaCare) passed the House 220 to 215, which means it squeaked by five votes. In the Senate the vote was 60 to 39 with the bill just barely crossing the filibuster threshold of sixty votes.

In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. So it seems that for the Administration the definition of the term “strong majority” is a moving target. Mandated universal healthcare squeaks by on a vote that is declared to be a strong majority while the Defense of Marriage sails through in what the Obama Administration must have thought was a close vote.

President Obama has described his view on the nature and definition of marriage as “evolving.” In political speak this means he is waiting to see which way wind is blowing as he approaches November. President Obama is nothing if not expedient. If the May 2011 Gallop Poll numbers hold (53% believe Gay marriage should be recognized, 45% do not) you can bet the president will join those who are pushing our culture toward the destruction of marriage.

There can be no question the issue of homosexuality is putting enormous pressure on conservative evangelical churches to compromise and condone what God has clearly condemned. Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Evangelical Seminary recently stressed that the true church, “must stand without compromise on the authority of the Bible and the principles of sexual conduct and morality that God has revealed so clearly in His Word.”

While acknowledging that, “homosexuality has been here since we were all broken in the fall of Man”, Dr. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis also acknowledged that, “What’s new is normalization and institutionalization” of homosexuality.

The gaying of the culture has caught many in the church off guard. The new openness of homosexual behavior coupled with an emphasis on transgender and bisexual lifestyles threatens to overwhelm the church with arguments, which on the surface, may seem difficult to refute. Let’s take a look at three of these arguments and see how they hold up to the test of reason.

1. Homosexuals claim they are simply demanding their “equal rights.” It’s a brilliant argument really. In the same way pro-abortion advocates staked out their claim to the term pro-choice, advocates of homosexual marriage have rallied around the rights claim. Who wants to be anti-choice? The problem is in an abortion the party that has the most to lose has no choice. When a mother exercises her right to choose her baby loses his or her right to life. Who can argue with a person’s rights? You can when you realize everyone has the same right when it comes to marriage. You have the right to marry any qualified person you wish from the opposite sex. We are all playing by the same rules. What many homosexuals want are special rights that are tied to their particular sexual preference. Once you open the door to special rights for same sex couples you open the door for special rights for couples who want to marry based on polygamy, bestiity, incest, pedophilia, or any other unhealthy relationship.

2. Homosexuals also claim they are a class of people like African-Americans. Here is a simple question you should consider before you jump on this bandwagon of insanity. Is there a difference between skin color and sexual behavior? Of course there is! Skin color is benign but sexual behavior is not. Having a certain skin color doesn’t hurt anyone but homosexual behavior can and does hurt others.

3. The argument that is supposed to turn back all critics is, “but we were born that way.” Here are two questions you must answer you before you buy this argument. Is there any difference between sexual desires and sexual behavior? Should people act on every desire they have? A desire does not make a behavior acceptable. If that were true, homosexuals would have to argue in favor of pedophilia, incest, and every other perverse desire of humanity. If everyone acted on every desire they had civilization would descend into chaos. All of us have desire that must be restrained by conscience or by law. The fact of a desire does not form the basis of its own morality. Add to this the fact that after years of trying no valid recognized scientific study has established an irrefutable genetic link for homosexual behavior.

At the end of the day and after all the arguments are made, the true Church will have to decide whether to heed Paul’s warning in Romans 1 or suffer the fate of Lot’s wife in Genesis 19.

Since the 15th century Lady Justice has been portrayed as a Greek goddess with scales in one hand, a sword in the other, and her eyes covered with a blindfold. The scales represent the balance between truth and fairness. Her double-edged sword represents Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against either party in a legal dispute. The blindfold represents objectivity that refuses to take into consideration the race, social standing, wealth, poverty, or power of the person being adjudicated.

These are admirable traits of justice that must be defended in a society that reveres truth and respects the rule of law. But there is another trait that must be added to lady justice if justice is to be served in the Trayvon Martin case. She will have to be stone deaf so she can ignore the din of posturing, grandstanding, and outright deceit that has erupted in the case’s wake.

Here are just a few examples of what the combination of a 24-hour news cycle and unprincipled leaders can produce. The Rev. Jesse Jackson told a church in Eatonville that Trayvon Martin is a “martyr” and that his death could be compared to the shooting of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not to be outdone in the inflammatory rhetoric department, Rev. Al Sharpton called for “an escalation in civil disobedience” if George Zimmerman is not arrested. Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee joined the outrageous march to judgment by suggesting that George Zimmerman somehow broke his own nose in an attempt to mislead the police.

But the Nobel Prize for rhetoric above and beyond the call of insanity goes to the New Black Panthers, who have now offered a one million dollar bounty for George Zimmerman to be captured and delivered into their custody. Finally, in a speech that was supposed to ease the racial tensions in Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson said, “Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog, shot in the street and racially profiled.” One can only imagine what Rep. Wilson would have said if she was trying to ramp up rather than tamp down racial tension.

In addition to over-the-top and under reported racially charged rhetoric from political and civil rights leaders you have outright deception flowing from the mainstream media. The Today Show on NBC edited the 911 call made by Zimmerman to make it appear he made a racially motivated remark about Martin. The NBC edited version of the 911 call between Zimmerman and the dispatcher went like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows the actual exchange with the dispatcher reveals quite a different story.

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

NBC announced they have “launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.” To say the least, it will be interesting to hear what the investigation reveals.

These are just a few of the examples of rushing to judgment for the purpose of political and personal gain in a high profile case that in the end will make the truth much harder to discern. No one denies that on the night of February 26 a tragic event took place in the town of Sanford, Florida. A black teenager was shot to death by a person the New York Times has called “a white Hispanic.” Either the shooter was justified because he acted in self-defense or he is guilty of a crime. The state of Florida has appointed a special prosecutor to sort through the evidence to see if charges should be brought against Zimmerman.

I hope the Lady Justice can ignore the context long enough for her scales of truth and fairness to be rightly balanced.

What does July 1 through July 3, 1863 have in common with March 26 through March 28, 2012? They represent three days over 100 years apart where the United States grappled with what kind of country we are and will be.

The Battle of Gettysburg involved over one hundred and sixty five thousand soldiers with close to fifty one thousand causalities. The country came to death grips on the fields of Pennsylvania over what kind of country would survive. Would we be a country where freedom belonged to every person regardless of his or her skin color? Would we be one country united under one flag or would we splinter into two countries with very different futures?

Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War. The war would drag on for close to two more years but after Lee failed in his attempt to invade the North the final outcome was really never in doubt.

Our three days, March 26 through March 28 of 2012, will go down in history as three days at the U.S. Supreme Court where once again, we will decide what kind of country will survive. This time the issue of freedom will not be decided by cannonballs and grapeshot but by nine robed justices. For the first time in American history the court will decide whether or not the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution can be stretched to compel Americans to purchase a product. Will we continue to be a country where we enjoy the freedom to make choices in the marketplace free from government compulsion? Will we survive our current debt crisis or will we enshrine a new entitlement program that will eventually grow into a monster that will consume our economy?

Writing for Fox News Karen Harned cites five key freedoms we will lose if the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare. “It will strip Americans of the freedoms they hold dear and chisel away their ability to exercise individual liberties and freedoms,” Harned said. In addition to undermining our individual liberties, Harned says, “If the individual mandate is upheld, the Constitution will not protect Americans from any mandate Congress wants to impose.” She’s absolutely right. If Congress can force every American to buy a healthcare plan or pay a penalty what will stop them from forcing every American to buy a car that gets over 50 miles to the gallon or have solar panels installed in their homes? How long will it be before the government decides obesity is a national crisis and dictates that every American has to eat what the government considers to be a healthy diet?

Harned points out the ObamaCare mandate will infringe on the right of individuals to own and operate a small business. “Any benefits of this law are far-outweighed by the infringement and violation of small businesses’ personal liberties and by the government’s over-reach into the day-to-day operations.” Again, Harned is right. Most small businesses will not be able to follow the strict guidelines for insurance coverage for their employees. Faced with the choice of paying a confiscatory fine or provide coverage the owner knows they can’t possibly pay for most small business owners will just throw in the towel. Many more would be entrepreneurs will abandon the dream of operating their own business and simply go to work for someone else. The end result will be fewer jobs and a stifled economy.

Endangered freedom number four on Harned’s list is the freedom to decide what is medically best for our families and businesses. “If ObamaCare is upheld, over half of all Americans would be forced onto some type of government-run health-care by the end of the decade. Elite bureaucrats would be in charge of deciding what medical tests you need or should have based on costs.” This may be the most frightening element of ObamaCare. Right now, you have choices over the quality and the quantity, and the who and the what of your health care. If ObamaCare is declared constitutional those choices will soon pass into the hands of bureaucrats who will be more concerned about collective costs than personal care.

Finally, Harned points out, “ObamaCare is already a significant drag on the nation’s economy and could threaten to sink it even further when the mandate goes into effect in 2014.” The final freedom hanging in the balance is economic freedom. Will we continue to be a country where our children and our grandchildren will have the opportunity to prosper under the freest, most dynamic and productive economy in the world? Or will we extinguish the flame of economic freedom by smothering it under the weight of unsustainable debt?

Three days. In 1863, in the quite Pennsylvania town of Gettysburg, it was three days of bloody battles that decided the future of a country. The Angle stone wall marks what has come to be known as the high water mark of the Confederacy. There the remnants of General Longstreet’s division of Virginians momentarily pushed the Union forces back before reinforcements were brought up to hold the line. The Union army held and ultimately the Union was preserved.

Verbal volleys that will be no less significant than the rifle volleys that decided the Civil War will decide the outcome of our three-day struggle. As in 1863 the eyes of a battle weary populace look once again to an epic battle that will decide the outcome of our nation. Will freedom survive? Will our nation survive the cost of mandated healthcare? Three days should tell the tale.