I truly wish elections didn’t turn so much on the state of the economy. I’d rather people have a more basic understanding of principles that emanate from a Biblical foundation—economic, moral, education, governing—and a fidelity to the limits imposed by constitutional authority. Those limits were placed there by the Founders for the sake of preserving our liberties.

There are times when the bad state of the economy will work out in favor of the change I desire [the current situation, hopefully], but it also works the other way: think “Bill Clinton.” So, as I said, it would be preferable if the electorate weren’t so fluid, tossed by every wave of economic uptick and downturn.

As 2012 approaches, many will simply look at how the economy is functioning and make choices based on that. If things continue as they are, Obama is in trouble:

While mouthing the platitudes of controlling the deficit and reducing spending [anyone remember his promise to go through the budget line by line, eliminating pork?], he has never met a spending cut he has liked, except possibly for defense, which just happens to be the main reason for the government to exist in the first place.

The president recently went to Europe to attend the G8 meeting. On the way to the meeting, he stopped off in Ireland, from which some of his ancestry hails. That country has had some of its own economic woes:

Obama’s counterparts in the Congress aren’t doing much better at facing reality. By law, the Congress should have passed a budget by April 15. The House, controlled by the Republicans, did its part before that date. We’re still waiting on the Senate. Now, who is in control there? Oh, right . . .

Majority Leader Harry Reid has even said he doesn’t plan to put forward a budget. The strategy is to continue criticizing the Republicans’ plan. This is not new territory for Sen. Reid. When the whole Congress was controlled by Democrats before the last election, neither the House nor the Senate passed a budget. For them, apparently, politics takes priority.

It should work against them. If the electorate truly understood the requirements and saw clearly that the Senate Democrat leadership is ignoring its responsibilities, that leadership should have to pay dearly in 2012. Will that happen?

Meanwhile, Republicans—or some of them, at least—are attempting what has been long considered the political impossibility of tackling out-of-control entitlements. In the past, any attempt to make changes to Social Security, in particular, has been political suicide. Social Security often has been labeled the “third rail of American politics.”

Will they have the backbone to do what’s necessary? If the voters wake up and realize the whole system is on the verge of collapse and something meaningful has to be done, there is hope. Again, I would prefer that Republicans do the right thing even if their plans don’t show well in public opinion polls, but backbone is stiffened when there is some degree of public support.

So, voters of America, will you do what is right or continue to be tossed here and there by the winds of economic fortune?

It’s time to be Biblically principled.

Then the Lord said, “Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote …

“Therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; and the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and the discernment of their discerning men will be concealed.”

Woe to those who deeply hide their plans from the Lord, and whose deeds are done in a dark place, and they say, “Who sees us?” or “Who knows us?”

You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, that what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

When I critique education in America, some may misunderstand my perspective. I’m not enamored with a system that is directed from the government, be it state or federal. I believe God gave educational responsibility to parents first, and only secondarily to whomever they entrust their children. Entrusting them to the government is not Biblically appropriate, in my view.

First, civil government’s primary responsibility is to protect and defend citizens. There is nothing in the Scriptures endorsing government control of education, no matter how hard you look.

Second, there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution giving authority to the federal government to get involved in education, yet it has waded into this morass and made it even worse.

States, if their constitutions mention it, have the authority to oversee education, but I argue that it’s still a bad idea. Early Americans were concerned about putting the state in charge simply because they realized it could then dictate what every student should learn. All it takes is an ideological agenda in the state, and education becomes political—from only one side. To a large extent, that is what has already occurred.

Added to this misery is the role of teachers’ unions such as the National Education Association. They do their best to indoctrinate [all you have to do is examine the annual resolutions of that organization to see its cultural and political bent] and to protect teachers. Now, some teachers need protection, but it has turned into a tenure situation that rewards longevity over quality. And when anyone tries to fix the system, the reverberations can be felt nationwide:

Critique the way education is run and you may be accused of hating education, along with a few other things:

Sometimes, the teachers organize a resistance by getting the students to do the protesting for them:

Of course, I don’t teach at that level. I’m in a university, and we all know that higher education is where real learning takes place:

Don’t get me wrong; I believe in education. I’d just like to see more of it actually occur.

The past week or so has been filled with so much news I haven’t had the opportunity to cover it all. I did talk about the president’s comment on Israel’s pre-1967 borders, but I didn’t get to all the cartoons about it. Here are two of my favorites:

Some have suggested the United States go back to its pre-1959 borders, which would then exclude Hawaii. I wonder why they were wishing for that?

Meanwhile, some Democrat agency made a commercial trashing Paul Ryan’s budget plan by showing him pushing an old lady in a wheelchair over a cliff. One cartoonist used that image for his commentary:

Never mind that Ryan’s plan doesn’t change anything for people age fifty-five or older. That would be dealing with facts—something rather foreign to those who love to demagogue this issue:

Then there was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court—a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy providing the swing vote again—telling California to release thousands of prisoners because their rights were being violated by the crowded conditions in those prisons. They got that way, of course, because California is, for all practical purposes, broke, and unable to spend money on them. Well, actually, there would be money available if priorities were different, but that’s another story. This one has enough ramifications of its own:

Remember this card? It’s been altered slightly to fit the current situation:

Another reason not to live in California.

In 2008, most commentators treated Mike Huckabee as a fringe candidate who had no chance of winning anything. When he won the Iowa caucuses, they were stunned. He was the last candidate to stay in the race with McCain. He performed well above expectations. For that reason, he was considered one of the frontrunners this year until he decided not to make that run.

I mention the Huckabee example as a preface to writing about another such candidate this time around: Herman Cain. No one among the “official” punditry gives him any chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet he has shown surprising strength early on. In polls focusing on primary voters, he has consistently been in the lead or very close to it. At the mini-debate that took place recently among five of the contenders, the focus group at the end was virtually unanimous in declaring him the winner.

Just who is this man? Is he for real, or will he be no more than a footnote once this campaign ends?

Cain has never held public office. He tried once to receive the Republican nomination for senator from Georgia, but fell short. Why, then, does he think he can be successful in this quest?

Herman Cain says he is running because God wants him to do something significant with the rest of his life. He survived stage IV cancer, and shares a heartfelt testimony of how God led him through that ordeal and brought him out on the other side cancer free.

While that is great, and an inspirational story, what has he done with his life up to this point that makes him think he can be president?

Cain has a broad background in business. He began as a business analyst for Coca-Cola, then, with the Pillsbury company, rose to the level of vice president. Pillsbury owned Burger King at the time, and put Cain in charge of four hundred of those fast-food restaurants in the Philadelphia area, a region that was the least profitable in the country. In three years, he had made it into the most profitable.

Pillsbury was so pleased with his success that it gave him a new job—save another of its subsidiaries, Godfather’s Pizza, from going under. As CEO of that company, Cain worked his business magic again, making it profitable within fourteen months. He eventually left Godfather’s to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association. In addition to all of that business acumen, he was appointed to the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, where he served as chairman one year.

In other words, Cain is not a nobody; he has a resumé of success in the business and financial world.

What about the issues? Where does he stand?

On economics, he is a Reagan-style Republican devoted to less regulation and lower taxes. In fact, as with Huckabee, he is a supporter of the Fair Tax proposal, which would do away with all income taxes and go to a consumption tax instead. Bottom line: you keep all your money and then pay taxes only on what you decide to buy.

As a dedicated Christian evangelical, Cain opposes abortion and seeks to defund Planned Parenthood. He opposes same-sex marriage and supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

He’s also vocal about his concerns that there are some in the Muslim community who desire to construct Sharia law in the United States.

Education? Performance incentives for teachers; charter schools; voucher systems.

Energy? Drill more on our own land, even in ANWR; allow the private sector to develop alternative sources without government interference.

Healthcare? Repeal Obamacare and let the free market rule.

Immigration? Secure the border; no amnesty.

Cain is pro-Israel, pro-Second Amendment, and says his favorite Supreme Court justices are Scalia and Thomas.

If he can communicate effectively, who knows what might happen? I am not at this time declaring my support for his nomination, but I do believe he deserves a closer look. Will he be able to withstand the pressure that comes from increased scrutiny? Will he avoid a major gaffe along the way?

He has developed some significant grassroots support. Is it enough? I’m going to be watching with great interest.

Indiana recently cut off all taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. That’s the good news. Even if you haven’t yet heard of the administration’s response to this, you can probably guess, based on how it reacted to Arizona’s illegal immigration law. Yes, Obama & Co. are getting ready to challenge the law.

The official position will be that it hurts poor people. Unofficially, it’s really an ideologically driven position to continue support for abortion. How do I know this is the real reason, and that compassion for the poor is only the “cover” for this action?  Consider the consequences:

Federal officials have 90 days to act but may feel pressure to act sooner because Indiana is already enforcing its law, which took effect on May 10, and because legislators in other states are working on similar measures.

If a state Medicaid program is not in compliance with federal law and regulations, federal officials can take corrective action, including “the total or partial withholding” of federal Medicaid money. The mere threat of such a penalty is often enough to get states to comply. Actually imposing the penalty would, in many cases, hurt the very people whom Medicaid is intended to help.

That, by itself, should reveal the true passion here: no one should be allowed to tinker with abortion “rights,” even at the cost of hurting those who need help the most. Priorities are clear.

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in American history. He apparently thinks nothing of allowing innocent children to be sacrificed on the altar of selfishness and irresponsibility. Yet abortion has been so sanitized in the public’s perception that it’s no longer considered unconscionable. That’s because our collective conscience has been seared. We need a new perspective:

Is it possible to change the public’s perception of this issue? I believe it is. A nationwide Gallup poll still indicates that more people call themselves pro-choice than pro-life (49%-45%), yet 51% believe abortion is morally wrong [how does that fit with the earlier numbers??????], and 61% believe it should be legal only in a few circumstances or not at all.

What does this indicate? We are a confused people. But it also shows the possibility of speaking truth into that confusion and persuading people toward the pro-life position. We can’t give up that fight.