Today, I would like to offer praise to a team of physicians, nurses, and staff who took care of my wife, Jan, while we were in New Orleans for her surgery. Two of those doctors initiated a new technique for restorative breast surgery after a mastectomy. Once they established their practice, they took further initiative to construct their own hospital, the St. Charles Surgical Hospital, connected to their Center for Restorative Breast Surgery. It is unique in the country.

The hospital is devoted to this specialized surgery. It has seventeen beds only, and the nurses give the kind of attention to patients that one can only dream of in a typical hospital. Throughout our stay, they exhibited professionalism, to be sure, but they went beyond that. They were kind and caring. One of the nurses who cared for Jan was a Christian who home schools her four children.

So my first purpose today is to give them the honor they deserve. But I have a second purpose as well. I want to emphasize how private initiative in healthcare can meet a need. These doctors had a vision, and they were able to make it a reality. What if all healthcare operated in the same manner? The kind of freedom to develop new techniques and then promote them is in danger of being destroyed.

Does anyone really think that government-controlled healthcare will lead to spectacular innovations? Already many doctors are threatening to close their practices with the implementation of Obamacare. Here’s another concern I have: Jan has now reached that magic decade where healthcare providers under a government system may decide to ration scarce resources. If Obamacare had been in operation when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, would she have received the best treatments or would those have been held in reserve for younger women? Some in the media made fun of Sarah Palin for referring to government death panels, but when the government holds the power of life or death over you by its determination that those resources shouldn’t be “wasted” on you, how inaccurate is it to call that a death panel?

Some may have conveniently forgotten that President Obama actually stated once that maybe your grandmother should be given a pill to ease pain rather than undergo a surgery that would take care of the real problem. With that unfeeling statement, he revealed his lack of concern for those whom the government deems “unworthy” of further care.

Now, with the Supreme Court declaring Obamacare constitutional, we are getting closer to that nightmare. The rationale for the Court’s decision—that it’s a tax—opens the door for anything being taxed. Anything?

The choice we make this November is huge. Will we continue on a path that leads to government-stifled healthcare or will we instead allow individual ingenuity to thrive? Will we have death panels or more centers and hospitals like the one in New Orleans? This is just one of the reasons why this election may be the most significant in our lifetime.

I’ve got a cold and don’t want to try to think too much. Is it okay if I just inundate you with cartoons today? I have a lot of new ones. Here’s one dealing with one of my “favorite” organizations:

And of course there’s the continuing healthcare controversy over forcing religious organizations to offer all methods of birth control, even those that could be considered abortifacients:

Then there’s the Republican race, where Rick Santorum is finally making a splash. How do we know? He’s showing up in the political cartoons:

He’s going to have to watch out, though; he’s now a target:

I sincerely hope he’s ready for what he will have to face from those who don’t bother with moral scruples.

President Obama’s switch to hitting the insurance companies directly for mandatory coverage of birth control [even abortifacients] is supposed to be an “accommodation” to the religious organizations who were upset over his unprecedented move to force them to provide the birth control. It’s just the old strategy of smoke and mirrors. Those organizations would still be offering the coverage in their plans, thereby violating their religious beliefs. The First Amendment is still being ignored under the supposed accommodation. Further, this means the president is dictating to insurance companies what they need to offer—still an unconstitutional power grab via Obamacare.

Why all this emphasis on providing birth control anyway? It’s not like it’s so unaffordable if one wants to make use of the methods. Insurance ought to be for the major costs of healthcare, not for everyday minor costs. Yet Obama decides to risk his political capital by forcing this issue. What’s behind this move?

It’s politically foolish. Perhaps he’ll have to come to grips with that:

Speaking of his “fundamental principles,” such as they are:

While I don’t agree with his desire to stifle political speech and override the First Amendment by limiting the amount of money one can spend [as long as all donations are made public], if he really believes what he says he does, he ought to at least be consistent with his beliefs, as inconvenient as they may be to his reelection efforts.

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?

I watched the entire two hours of the Republican presidential debate last night. I’m not going to try to analyze the performance of everyone on the stage; I don’t want to write a book this morning, just a blog post. So here are the highlights—the things that stood out to me.

I want to like Rick Perry. I welcomed him to the race and hoped he would be “the man.” After last night, my estimation of him plunged. He was tentative, inarticulate most of the time, and stiff. The image that kept going through my mind was how Obama would wipe the floor with him in any general election debate. The only time he came across as articulate was when he was defending the indefensible—subsidizing college tuition for illegal immigrants. All I could think was, “Is this to be the Republican standard-bearer?” It was not a comforting thought.

In his back-and-forth dialogue with Romney, he clearly came out worse. That’s disturbing, simply because Romney is no one to count on as a consistent conservative with a message. What we need is someone who will challenge the status quo in areas such as the tax code and Social Security. Romney, as evidenced again last night, is Mr. Status Quo on issues like those. He is smooth and soothing, which would wear well in a general election, but if elected, then what? We would be no closer to making the kinds of changes that are essential for the future of the country. He would also pull the GOP more to the center, imitating the GOP of the 1950s and 1960s—half-Democrats.

Newt Gingrich, as always, shines in these formats, but my opinion of him as presidential candidate hasn’t altered. No chance. Michele Bachmann, I’m afraid, has reached her zenith and is now on a downward trajectory. She did nothing last night to change that trajectory.

The strongest voices for traditional Christian morality on the stage were Herman Cain and Rick Santorum. Yet Cain added something Santorum lacked, which was a specific plan for economic recovery. He also received the warmest applause, not only from the audience but from his colleagues, when he spoke about how he would be dead now if Obamacare had been in place during his cancer treatments. He was inspiring and dead-on in his evaluation of what Obamacare will “accomplish.” What made it even more effective, of course, was the personal angle.

I make these comments before having read what other pundits thought about last night. I will ponder their ponderings throughout the day. I will remain open to modifying my views, but what I have offered is a combination of first impressions and a lifetime of political analysis. Take it for whatever you think it’s worth.

The budget battle has only begun, and one very important part of that will be the debt ceiling. House Republicans had their first vote on it last week, denying the Obama administration its desire to raise the limit.

It was only the first shot in this war. More will be forthcoming.

Then there’s the ongoing fight to repeal Obamacare. It’s really quite amazing how something that was billed as great for everyone has become the focal point of many groups wanting waivers from its requirements—and the administration doesn’t seem reluctant to give them.

Businesses see disaster approaching, so they naturally want to avoid it. Of course, the best way to avoid it is to throw it out completely.

Also on the health front is the problem with Medicare—its bankruptcy. Yet one political party doesn’t even want to think about it until much much later.

On Medicare, I take a position different from both liberals and most conservatives: I don’t think it should even exist. First, there is no constitutional authority for it; second, it is driving the nation into greater financial chaos; finally, it is program Karl Marx would have loved. Here we are getting all exercised [rightly] about Obamacare, yet we act like Medicare is wonderful. Philosophically, there’s little difference. Medicare was the brainchild of LBJ’s Great Society.

Well, I don’t expect my position to get anywhere at this point. If we can at least get it closer to a free-market solution, we will be headed in the right direction. I’ll take small steps in the right direction anytime; they can lead to bigger steps.

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.