CBS’s 60 Minutes aired an interview with President Obama Sunday night, but they edited out a most interesting portion. Near the end of the interview, he was asked how his presidency stacked up to previous presidents. His response? He concluded that only three other presidents in American history had done more for the country in both domestic and foreign policy than he had. First of all, that’s a lot of hubris—but I’m kind of used to that in this man.

The next question is who were the three he said had done more. One was Lincoln. I certainly agree with that. The other two were FDR and LBJ. Naming them as having done more for the country than any other presidents provides insight into the mind of the current chief executive. Just what did FDR and LBJ do that this president admires so much? Their main claim to fame [infamy?] is their direct assault on the Constitution. FDR used the Great Depression to alter the role of government dramatically in the mid-20th century; LBJ took FDR’s ideas and put them on steroids.

So what has Obama done to be classified as one of the greatest of all presidents in his own mind? He’s taken what FDR and LBJ have done and pushed their ideas over the edge into uncharted territory. His is the single biggest attempt to transform this nation into the nanny state that others have only dreamed about. Welcome to the United States of Europe, Obama’s perfect world.

What does he claim to have accomplished? Universal healthcare that will ensure low costs and quality treatment? Sure, for those the government deems worth saving. A trillion dollar stimulus that has put the country on the right track and invigorated the economy? Is that why we’ve had such wonderful employment and productivity numbers for the past three years?

Let’s allow the cartoonists to carry the message the rest of the way today as they illustrate the joys of living under the Obama regime:

But don’t worry, he’s slowing down the pace:

We’ve had forty-four presidents in our history. In my judgment, as a professional historian, I offer a different opinion on Obama’s ranking in that list. How does forty-fourth sound to you?

Time, at the end of each year, names its “Person of the Year.” It’s usually a joke. Not intentionally, of course, but a joke nonetheless. This year, Time has done it again. Now I realize the so-called “Person of the Year” isn’t always meant to be an admirable person, but rather the most influential, for good or for ill. However, the magazine consistently uses this attention-getter to highlight its own agenda.

So who is Time’s “Person of the Year” this time around? They chose a movement rather than a single individual. They chose “The Protester.” The focus appears to be on the misnamed Arab Spring and the somewhat brain-impaired Occupy Wall Street crowd. Liberals such as those who run Time think freedom has blossomed in the Arab world. One wonders if they will ever be able to see the forest for all the trees. A rude awakening would be nice, but don’t count on it.

They also were hoping the Occupy Movement would be the Left’s answer to the Tea Party. Well it was, in the only way the Left can operate: imbecilic chants, sit-ins [upgraded to camp-ins], destruction of private property, demands for handouts, and a few murders, rapes, etc. Yes, a truly historic movement. Congratulations, Time, for staying true to your misguided past.

I have a better suggestion for the “Person of the Year.”

Let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it.

National Review, that bastion of conservative thought, startled many this week, myself included, with an editorial that basically wrote Newt Gingrich out of the Republican nomination, and hinted strongly at a Romney endorsement. Many have critiqued that editorial—I think for good reason—but none has done so as excellently as one of NR’s own contributors, Andrew McCarthy.

You can find the critique here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286053/gingrich-s-virtues-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1

It’s a little lengthy, but well worth reading. I urge you to carefully consider what he says. It’s not an endorsement of Gingrich, nor any of the other contenders, but it effectively undercuts the rationale used in the NR editorial.

We’re only a couple of weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. Last night Fox News sponsored a Republican debate in Sioux City, the last opportunity for each of the candidates to take their message to a widespread audience. The polls, prior to the debate, have been dynamic in the sense that one can’t really tell who has the upper hand right now. Gingrich leads in some, Romney in another, Paul rising rapidly.

So who was helped and who was hurt by what transpired last night? I watched the whole thing, so I do have some thoughts on that. Let’s start with those at the low end of the polls and work our way up.

Huntsman sounded credible, but still comes across as arrogant and condescending, as if he is the only smart guy in the room and has to lower himself and his rhetoric to make the others understand his wisdom. While some of his answers were fine, there’s no way this debate will elevate his numbers.

Santorum, as always, didn’t get as much airtime as the others, but he took advantage of the time he had to offer sound arguments on national security. He also fired directly at Romney on the issue of same-sex marriage, taking him to task for allowing it to happen in Massachusetts on his watch. What I would like to have happen, I think, is for Santorum to be either the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Health & Human Services in an upcoming Republican administration. That’s his niche, not the presidency.

Bachmann is someone I want very much to like, but she keeps shoving me away by her strident attacks. Yes, she’s solid on issues, and I appreciate that in her, but she doesn’t come across as presidential, and I’m not at all sure she always has her facts straight. Her insecurity revealed itself when she commented that she was a serious candidate for the presidency. If you have to make that statement, you’ve already lost the argument. It’s like a manager of whatever enterprise, or the head of some department instructing his/her underlings that he/she really is in charge. What Bachmann needs to do is bide her time and run for the Minnesota Senate seat currently occupied by a national embarrassment named Al Franken. She would serve the nation well in that role.

Perry was very likeable this time around. He probably was the most relaxed aspirant on the stage. His ability to poke fun at himself while still offering a conservative critique of current issues was a winning combination. Does that mean he has erased my concerns from earlier debates? Not by a long shot. I’m still not convinced he’s ready for prime time as a presidential contender. Images of a debate with Obama continue to haunt. For me to feel comfortable with him as the Republican choice, he’s going to have to not only maintain what he accomplished last night, but steadily improve.

Paul was his consistent self. That worked well when talking about basic constitutional issues dealing with the economy and scope of government, but I believe he hurt himself big time with his commentary on Iran and the threat to the United States. He sees no real threat, and spent most of his time claiming that his own party is a warmongering entity out to alienate the entire Muslim world. It almost descended into a rant, and I actually felt sorry for him in the middle of it. While I respect Paul’s devotion to constitutionalism, he is a disaster on foreign policy. One can disagree with aggressive nation-building policies without denigrating honest attempts to eliminate Islamic terrorism. He continues to believe that diplomacy will work with Iran. That is foolish and unrealistic. Paul’s numbers were rising prior to this debate; I wouldn’t be surprised to see them plummet now. If the audience was any indication, he’s in trouble. They booed him lustily a couple of times.

Romney was Romney. I’ve said enough about him in previous posts. You know he’s not my favorite for a variety of reasons. He did nothing last night to change my mind. Does he look and sound presidential? Yes. Am I convinced he’s a genuine conservative who can be trusted? No.

Gingrich had to take a lot of heat. At times, he may not have convinced the audience that the charges were unfair, particularly on his role as advisor for Fannie and Freddie. Yet he was steadfast in asserting he was not beholden to them, and that his primary concern was a conservative one—helping people afford housing. He distanced himself from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd on the issue, saying his vision was not the same as welfare-state Democrats. I believe him on that, but appearances are what some people see first and find hard to forget. He was strong on a number of issues—the out-of-control judiciary, for example. Like Perry, he communicated a sense of humor about himself at times, such as when he said he was busy editing his comments in his mind before speaking so he wouldn’t be accused of being “zany,” a Romney critique this past week. On most points, he acquitted himself well.

I will be voting in the Florida primary next month. I’m still assessing the candidates, but I’m giving my hardest look right now to Gingrich. I want to believe he’s for real. I want to believe the old Gingrich has been left behind with respect to his infidelities. I want to believe he can win the general election. I want . . . but remain unconvinced. I’m just glad the primary isn’t today. I have more time to consider.

Why do I write these daily commentaries? And why do I so often focus on current politics? After all—I can imagine some readers thinking—shouldn’t I spend my time more profitably, writing about theology and/or the Christian’s everyday walk with the Lord? Don’t I realize—they may continue to ask themselves—that this world is passing away and all that matters is eternity?

I understand the concerns behind such questions. Here’s what I believe.

First, our relationship with God, through Christ, is the single most important issue to be settled in everyone’s life. Outside of Christ, there is no hope, both in this earthly existence and in eternity. Everything I do, and how I decide to spend my time, should be based on that truth. Yes, without life in Christ, there really is no life at all. Yes, our current circumstances, bound as we are to this world and its foibles, are temporary in nature; eternity awaits.

Yet I also firmly believe that this temporary situation we find ourselves in is significant. Aren’t we told to pray, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Christians have a serious task at hand; we are God’s eyes, ears, hands, feet, and voice, reaching out to a dying world with the message of salvation. Our greatest responsibility is to reveal His love and redemptive plan for individuals. There is no question about that.

But our responsibilities don’t end there. We also are tasked with spreading His truth into all areas of society, in an attempt to show how that truth can be applied for the good of all. Government affects each of us deeply. How can we neglect to make application to that realm? It is, in fact, one of the key areas where, if Biblical principles are enacted, the greatest number of people can be touched. Every time we inject His truth into the political world, we create an opportunity to arrest people’s attention and draw them to the One who is the fount of all knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

I therefore make no apologies for focusing quite often on politics. I just need to make sure I do so in a way that continually reminds readers of this blog that my whole purpose in doing so is to explain the ways of God and juxtapose them with the ways of man—to illustrate His wisdom and contrast it with man’s foolishness. Humor, i.e., political cartoons, is one method for exposing man’s folly. Critical analysis of the character of politicians is fair game; without that, we will be led astray. Evaluation of the policies being promoted by both sides in the political debate is essential if we are to grasp the difference between success and failure.

Yes, there will come a time when the King of Kings will put an end to this current state of affairs. When He ushers in His kingdom, there will no longer be a need for separation of powers, checks and balances, or evaluation of policies. His policies will always be just; His character is unimpeachable.

But until that wonderful time arrives, we still live on a sinful planet in deep need of the dissemination of truth. Our culture and our government must be redeemed or we will slide into a spiritual abyss.

That’s why I continue to write, in the hope that something I say can help renew minds and bring greater understanding of Jesus Christ and His ways. It is a privilege to serve Him in this manner.

Attorney General Eric Holder is at it again. While already under fire for passing misinformation [a.k.a., lying] to Congress over the Fast and Furious operation, he now has jumped into the fray to challenge voter ID laws in several states. Let’s review what they are.

Understanding the need for a voter ID law does not require a doctorate. Simply stated, the laws in question merely require would-be voters to provide a state-issued photo ID of some kind to prove that the person wanting to vote is, well, actually that person. My, how unreasonable.

Yet Holder, and the Democrat Party in general, is up in arms over these laws. They claim they will suppress minority voting, that somehow these laws will intimidate such voters. Wait a minute, don’t we have to show photo IDs for various things already? Quite often, when buying with a credit card, I’m required to show a photo ID. Not a bad idea; I don’t want anyone stealing my identity.

Why would this not also be a good idea for voting? Yet somehow this is held to be discriminatory. In fact, it’s only an attempt to stop voter fraud. Surely the Democrat Party can’t be in favor of fraudulent voting, can it? Well, yes, I know about the history of Tammany Hall in New York, Mayor Richard Daley and his descendants—both in the family and out—in Chicago, where the more voters, the merrier, even if you have to allow dead people to cast their ballots from the grave, and various other locales too numerous to mention. But surely they have reformed, right? Right?

Ironically, when Georgia passed a new voter ID law, minority voting increased, both in 2008 and 2010. What’s that about discrimination again?

No one should be opposed to safeguards on the ballot box. Only genuine, legal voters should be allowed to have a say in elections. That used to be called common sense, but in the Holder Justice Department, and in the Obama administration as a whole, common sense takes a back seat to the perception of political advantage.