Latest News - January 4, 2012

Source: CNN

One of the most important sub-plots in the Iowa caucuses was which candidate would win the support of Iowa’s evangelical voters, who comprised 60 percent of the vote in 2008, and according to the CNN entrance poll, comprised 58% of the vote Tuesday night.

In the media’s instant analysis, a “splintering” of Iowa's evangelical vote among numerous candidates made it difficult for them to influence the selection of the Republican presidential nominee.

But this narrative is based on a caricature of evangelicals and other voters of faith. Consider this: 61% of self-identified evangelicals who attended a caucus Tuesday night in Iowa voted for a candidate who is either Roman Catholic (Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum) or Mormon (Mitt Romney, who won the caucuses, besting Santorum by eight votes ).

Here's how the evangelical vote broke down: 32% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul, 13% each for Romney, Gingrich and Rick Perry, 6% for Michele Bachmann and 1% for Jon Huntsman.

This suggests a more nuanced and complex portrait of voters of faith. They are often crudely portrayed as voting based solely on identity politics, born suckers for quotes from Scripture or “code words” laced in the speeches of candidates appealing to their spiritual beliefs.

Evangelical voters, it turns out, are a more sophisticated bunch, judging candidates on a broad continuum of considerations from their personal faith and character to leadership attributes and electability.

There is a story out of Iowa - a story about a faith community that has matured beyond voting for the “most evangelical” candidate as a “statement” and takes seriously the responsibility of electing someone to occupy the Oval Office at a time of great national testing.

The same is true of Tea Party voters, women voters, or other subgroups within the electorate. None is breaking overwhelmingly for a single candidate, primarily because so many candidates have made credible appeals for their support, and because there is no single consensus front-runner.

The truth is that evangelical vote has never been monolithic. Pat Robertson won strong support from his coreligionists in Iowa in 1988, catapulting his candidacy to national prominence, but still lost the caucuses to Bob Dole, and lost the evangelical vote to then-Vice President George H.W. Bush in South Carolina.

George W. Bush won a third of the evangelical vote in Iowa in 2000, splitting that vote with Steve Forbes and more explicitly social conservative candidates like Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes. These voters march to their own drummer. They don’t bleat like sheep or move in herds, and they rarely respond en masse to endorsements.

This point is underscored by the entrance poll, which found that 42% of caucus-attenders list the economy as the number one issue in determining their vote, and 34% cite the budget deficit; only 14% listed abortion.

This is not to suggest that social issues are unimportant. No candidate can be competitive in Iowa (or beyond) without conservative credentials on the cultural agenda. Indeed, Santorum’s surge was in part a response to his deftly weaving the economic and social agendas together, arguing that it is impossible to have a vibrant economy without strong families.

It does suggest, as Kimberly Strassel recently observed in The Wall Street Journal, that evangelicals are embedded in the social and economic mainstream of American life and, as such, are motivated by a broad range of concerns, including jobs, taxes, the debt, and national security.

So when commentators prognosticate about the “evangelical vote,” we might want to ask them, “which one?” For there are there are many evangelical votes, many candidates who win their support, and a multitude of motivations for their engagement in the rough-and-tumble of American politics.

This is all to the good. It demonstrates that their civic involvement is a cause for celebration, not alarm, a sign of the health of our political system, not that it suffers from an anti-democratic or sectarian impulse.

Latest News - December 16, 2011

As Newt Gingrich makes gains in the polls, GOP candidate Mitt Romney is speaking more about his faith and the role religion has played in his life.

Speaking Friday in Sioux City, Iowa, Romney said there needs to be more discussion of religion in the public square.

Romney is a practicing Mormon and even shared with voters his experience as a young missionary in France.

But many evangelical Christians have reservations about Romney's beliefs. In a recent poll, 41 percent of evangelical voters said they would not vote for a Mormon.

Should Mormonism be a deal breaker for Christian voters?

Rev. Franklin Graham spoke with CBN News Sr. Reporter George Thomas about this. Graham also talked about God's judgment on America, how the country is off-course, and the need for a "new kind of politician."

Click play to watch. Read the transcript below:

Thomas: The Washington Republican establishment appears that they are gunning for Mitt Romney. Can a Christian vote for a Mormon as president?

Graham: Yes, the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon doesn’t bother me. I think when we are voting for president we need to get the person who is absolutely the most qualified. You can have the nicest guy and he can be a Christian and just wonderful but have absolutely no clue as to how to run a country, you don’t want that. You want somebody who understands Washington, who understands government, who understands how to bring people together so that we can move this country forward. Mitt Romney is a very capable fellow, I know him; I know Newt Gingrich, another very capable person; Michelle Bachman, a very capable lady; Rick Santorum, I like a lot, very gifted guy, a very sharp and so there are some good candidates out there.

Thomas: How would you encourage Christians in the United States to pray for the upcoming elections?

Graham: Well, we need to pray that God would give the right man or right woman to lead this country. I believe we are, that this is probably the most critical election in my lifetime.

Thomas: Why?

Graham: Because our country is heading on the wrong course and we are going the wrong direction. There are millions and millions of people out there that are out of work and there are people out there now that have been out of work so long they are not even looking for work because they are so discouraged. People have lost their homes, they’ve lost their livelihoods and the politics in Washington right now is not helping. We are not solving these problems and this is from the president right on down through Congress.

Thomas: How do we pray then, how do we pray specifically?

Graham: We pray that God would, and this could be God’s judgment and He could be judging this country for the rejection of His Son and our government, our government leaders have turned their back on God and His laws and His statutes and we need to pray that God would give us a new crop of politicians, I don’t care if they are republicans or democrats, but who fear God and who will put God’s standards above everything else and who will take us back to the God of our fathers and that’s what we need to pray but right now our country is going in the wrong direction we need to make a change.

Stay with CBNNews.com, Tuesday, for part two of Franklin Graham's interview with George Thomas.

Graham discussess his views on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, the resurgence of political Islam and what the United States should be doing to protect minority Christians in the Middle East.

Originally aired on Friday, Dec.16.

Latest News - December 8, 2011

Minneapolis, MN— The Faith & Freedom Coalition is pleased to announce that it has named Tom Emmer as the organization’s Minnesota Chairman.

Emmer joins the Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition amidst a distinguished law career of over 20 years, during which time he grew his firm to over 20 employees.  That business combined with his legislative time in the Minnesota state house will serve the Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition well.  "I'm excited about this opportunity to work with the Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition toward building a stronger conservative grassroots movement in Minnesota as we seek to restore America’s greatness and founding principles.” said Emmer.

The Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition is committed to educating voters on how new tax increases would impact family budgets as well as the bottom-line of small businesses.  Minnesota FFC seeks to empower voters to express their views about what is best for Minnesota families at every level of government.  The Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition believes strongly that Minnesota state legislators should hear from their constituents who are closest to the grassroots; not from the bullhorns of special interest groups and public employee unions.

During the 2010 election cycle, the Minnesota Faith & Freedom Coalition was responsible for the most aggressive grassroots strategy of any group in Minnesota and made over 890,000 voter contacts through their GOTV programs focusing on voter turnout in swing districts. 

The Faith & Freedom Coalition is a 501(c) (4) organization headquartered in Atlanta, GA with a growing presence across the United States.  The organization is committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens.

Latest News - November 17, 2011

In his Nov. 11 Washington Forum commentary, “Moving beyond the ‘religious right,’ ” the Rev. Richard Cizik wrote, “Whether the Christian duty to love our neighbors is compatible with a political movement that embraces radical individualism and rejects the ethic of collective responsibility is a central question as the GOP attempts to cement the Tea Party and the religious right into a cohesive base.” Surely a Christian with Mr. Cizik’s theological education would concede that individual responsibility, an individual relationship with Christ and individual salvation are at the core of Christian theology.

“Government/collective responsibility” is a secular tenet of the modernist left; it’s not part of Christian theology. For this reason, voluntary charitable giving is a recognized Christian virtue, as exemplified in the biblical story of the poor woman who gave her last coin in offering. Compulsory government taxation is relegated in the Gospel to the status of “giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” 

I agree with Mr. Cizik that “the Republican Party does not have a monopoly on moral values.” Rather, I believe that God, through His revealed word, does. Registering millions of new Christian voters can be nothing but a good thing. If churchgoing Christians tend to vote Republican, perhaps Mr. Cizik ought to reflect on why that is. 

Gary A. Marx, Duluth, Ga.

The writer is executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The Rev. Richard Cizik speaks for me. One can indeed be an orthodox Christian and reject the conservative agenda that cuts government programs to the poor and needy and abandons the health-care needs of financially strapped Americans.

A reading of the Hebrew prophets suggests that U.S. capitalism (like mercantilism and communism before it) stands under divine judgment when it pursues profit and power at the expense of communal welfare. Jesus’s parable on Lazarus and Dives speaks the same message.

John D. Rockefeller may have taught Sunday school in a Baptist church. That does not mean the God he worshiped was blind to his ruthless destruction of competitors and his obsession with building an exploitative monopoly. 

Gordon Lindsey, Scottsville, Va.

Latest News - November 7, 2011

The headlines are stark indeed. "Israel Readies a Pre-Emptive Strike." The Israeli Prime Minister is said to be working to persuade reluctant members of his coalition Cabinet to go along with such a military option against Islamist Iran. The Huffington Post's British edition reports Netanyahu saying this:

"One of those regional powers is Iran, which is continuing itsefforts to obtain nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would constitute a grave threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and of course it is a direct and grave threat on us." One day later, defence minister Ehud Barak, struck a similar tone."A situation could be created in the Middle East in which Israel must defend its vital interests in an independent fashion, without necessarily having to reply on other forces, regional or otherwise," he said.

Ehud Barak's comments are most interesting. He was the Labor Party Prime Minister in 2000 who offered the Palestinians 97% of the territory they claimed as theirs, reserving only those limited regions thought absolutely essential to Israeli security. The Palestinians balked and commenced yet another "intifada"uprising. The leaders of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) then would rather send stone-throwing teenagers to confront armed Israeli soldiers and tanks than engage in serious negotiations for peace.

Ehud Barak could qualify as an Israeli "dove," but he is first and foremost a soldier and an Israeli patriot. It's not so surprising that the hawkish Benjamin Netanyahu should be talking of a military strike against Iran.When Ehud Barak joins this conversation, you know it's serious.

This is a most serious situation. No one knows what might happen if Israel strikes the Iranian nuclear weapons research stations. What is clear is that the efforts of the Obama administration to restrain Iran over the past three years have been an utter failure.

After extending an "open hand instead of a clenched fist" to the Iranian mullahs, President Obama saw his proffered olive branch stomped into the dust. He even sent Persian New Year greetings to the Iranian people and their dictatorial rulers. When Iranians rose up in the streets following fraudulent elections in June 2009, the Obama administration weakly claimed it did not want to "interfere" with an internal matter for Iran. The fact that Iran is daily interfering with internal affairs all over the Middle East seemed not to faze this administration.

The Obama administration invested precious time and resources in getting toothless sanctions voted by the UN. Russia and China made sure these sanctions didn't bite. And Tehran has the active support of Venezuela's anti-American Hugo Chavez in laundering its petro-dollars. Three U.S. administrations have said that a nuclear Iran is"unacceptable." But beyond that, they have done little to make it unacceptable.

We in the U.S. are understandably focused on our stricken economy and our presidential elections. Distractions like "Occupy Wall Street" could not come at a better time to keep Americans from thinking long and hard about the gravest danger in the world: A nuclear Iran with intent to use those weapons for terror purposes.

The recent discovery of a bomb plot in Washington, D.C., should sober us all. The Shiite Muslim rulers of Iran were said to be preparing to set off a bomb in the favorite Georgetown restaurant of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. They were more than willing to kill hundreds of innocent Americans in their drive to murder a hated Sunni Muslim foe.

As terrifying as that prospect was, the mullahs' real purpose in assassinating the Saudi envoy would have been to show us they could as readily place a nuclear weapon in our nation's capital, raising the death toll from scores of innocents slaughtered to perhaps hundreds of thousands. And a national government crippled.

One thing should be clear: If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, it will not be a first strike. Iran has been waging war against Israel for decades. Iran's Ahmadinejad has announced to the world that Israel will be "wiped off the map."

Tehran has been arming Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza for years. These cats' paw terror groups have been doing Iran's bidding in murdering Israelis, kidnapping their soldiers, and raining rockets down on Israeli settlements.

Israel's dovish Defense Minister Ehud Barak is giving fair warning to the Obama administration: Israel will act to defend itself whether other powers take part or not.

The right of self-defense is an inalienable right. The reason Israel was created was so that Jews would have a national home and would not have to rely on the kindness of strangers. If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear weapons program, we cannot say we have not been warned. Not much this administration has done in the Middle East should give Israelis confidence that they can rely on their feckless friends in Washington to support them when push comes to shove.

Latest News - November 1, 2011

On a bright spring day in 2007, a black-robed Herman Cain officiated the wedding of a young couple at a mansion outside of Atlanta. The sun sparkled on the pair’s wedding rings as Cain, an associate minister at a nearby church, held them aloft.

All seemed perfect.

When it came time for the bride and groom to exchange vows, however, Cain was dissatisfied with the volume of the groom’s “I do.”

"Say it louder," Cain told Matt Carrothers.

“When he tells you to say, ‘I do,’” the groom recalled, “it almost sounds like the voice of God telling you that and you take it very seriously.”

In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Herman Cain is not seen as a candidate who wears his faith on his sleeve. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, Rick Santorum’s Catholicism and Michele Bachmann’s evangelical Christianity have all garnered much more attention than Cain’s Baptist-flavored beliefs.

On the campaign trail, Cain is more apt to talk about his business acumen and leadership skills than his faith. His unlikely rise as a straight-talking White House contender was pegged largely to the popularity among fiscal conservatives of his “9-9-9” tax plan.

But those who know Cain describe him as a devout Christian who leans on his faith in times of hardship. That would appear to include the present moment, when a flurry of sexual harassment allegations and a viral video of a Libya interview gaffe are renewing doubts about Cain’s legitimacy as a candidate.

Indeed, Cain’s religiosity runs deep enough that he regularly delivers sermons at his childhood church, has recorded a gospel music album and has a traveling minister as part of his campaign apparatus.

Carrothers - who worked as Cain’s political director during his failed 2004 bid for a U.S. Senate seat from Georgia - says one of Cain’s favorite sayings is, “There’s our plan, and then there’s God’s plan.”

“You may think that things are going wrong in your life,” Carrothers says, paraphrasing the candidate, “but just step back it will always get better.”

Faith and work, hand in hand

Cain’s faith journey began at a young age. Born in Tennessee and raised in Georgia, he and his parents joined Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta when he was 10.

The 134-year-old, historically black church was founded by freed slaves. For the Cain family, faith in God and hard work went hand in hand.

Cain has written that his family grew up so poor they were “po.” His mother was a maid and his father at times worked three jobs at once: as a barber, a janitor at Pillsbury and a chauffeur for Coca-Cola executives.

His father, Cain writes in his 2011 book, “This is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House,” worked and saved enough to buy a modest home and quit two of his jobs, rising in the ranks at Coca-Cola to become the CEO's private chauffeur.

Herman Cain, meanwhile, would climb the corporate ladder, rising to become the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, based in Omaha, Nebraska, and then head of the National Restaurant Association, where the sexual harassment charges originated.

Cain has always considered Antioch his spiritual home. The candidate declined to comment for this article, but Fred Robinson, a former Antioch minister who left to form his own church, says Cain’s late parents were pillars of the church.

After he returned to Antioch amid “great fanfare” in 2000, Robinson says, Cain became a fixture in the deacon’s corner, a row of seats near the pulpit.

On any Sunday, Cain could be seen sitting with the other deacons in his favorite light-blue dress shirt shouting, “Preach Rev!” or “Say it.”

Cain became a licensed associate minister at Antioch in 2002.

The liberal church of Herman Cain

“Like most ministers, I felt called to preach the word of God and minister to the least, the last, and the lost, and minister to His people,” he told Christianity Today.

Antioch officials and Senior Pastor Cameron Alexander declined interview requests, saying the church doesn’t divulge information about members or staff.

But congregants paint a picture of Cain as deeply involved, part of a group of associate ministers known as the Sons of Antioch. Members say that if a man feels called by God to preach, he can approach the senior pastor about it. A trial sermon is then arranged.

If the congregation and pastor approve, the man undergoes training in scripture and preaching and can be licensed by the church to preach.

The Sons of Antioch are given the honorific of “reverend.” The positions are unpaid.

Antioch is part of the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. but like many Baptist churches, it operates largely autonomously. The process of appointing ministers is particular to the church.

As an associate minister, Cain sometimes preaches at Antioch and regularly helps distribute the elements of communion, a role he has kept up while campaigning for president.

Valencia Seay, a Georgia state senator and longtime member of the church, falls on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Cain. But she said they put politics aside on Sunday mornings.

From the pulpit, Cain is “charismatic, he is knowledgeable, he is on point, and he knows the Word.”

“He can lift a hymn,” she said. “It’s always enjoyable to hear a minister who can not only deliver a powerful message but also finish it with a song that speaks to that message.”

While in Omaha at Godfather’s Pizza, Cain put his singing to work, directing a men’s chorus at Pilgrim Baptist Church and cutting a CD of gospel tunes. The proceeds went to charity.

On the campaign, Cain sometimes sings for supporters and once serenaded reporters with a hymn at the National Press Club.

God-centered self-determinism

For all his church involvement, Cain’s message of self-determinism is seemingly at odds with Antioch’s focus on social justice.

The Rev. Gerald Durley, senior pastor of Providence Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta, told CNN that Cain’s call for blacks to forget about racism and pull themselves up by their bootstraps doesn’t mesh with the philosophy of Antioch’s pastor.

“He’s not going to talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps,” Durley says of Antioch’s pastor, Cameron Alexander. “It’s about providing bootstraps.”

Since becoming an associate minister at Antioch, Cain has preached in pulpits around the country, often eschewing the big paydays of motivational speaking gigs for modest preaching honorariums.

In many of those sermons, Cain has promoted a message of self-reliance.

In 2003, while Cain was running for Senate, he preached at the Crystal Cathedral, a high-profile church in Southern California headed at the time by the Rev. Robert Schuller.

“I told Bob that I was so excited that it inspired me to prepare a two-hour message for you this morning,” Cain told the congregation.

“Bob said, ‘That’s great, as long as you can do it in 20 minutes,’” Cain joked.

Cain’s sermon, which was beamed around the globe as part of Crystal Cathedral’s “Hour of Power” TV broadcast, focused on the biblical verse Mark 8:36.

“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Cain quoted.

As he continued, Cain's message seemed to harmonize with his libertarian politics.

“Finding your purpose in life is a continuous process that God reveals to each of us when we are ready and when God is ready,” he said. “Living our purpose in life is a decision.”

In the gospel according to Herman Cain, God may lay out plans, but it is up to each believer to push forward - regardless of obstacles - to reach that goal.

For Cain, that’s meant repeatedly running for political office despite his failure to win.

From the pulpit of the Crystal Cathedral, Cain traced his political career to an epiphany that accompanied the birth of his granddaughter in 1999.

“The first thought, so help me God, that went through my mind when I looked at that little face was, ‘What do I do to use my talents to make this a better world?’” Cain said. “God had revealed my next purpose in life at an unexpected moment.”

In his 2005 book, “They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It,” Cain said that epiphany led to worrying about
leaving Social Security and Medicare a “mess” for her.

“For three and a half years I would not be able to answer the question of what do I do to make this a better world,” Cain writes. “But I would often reflect on the words of the prophet Isaiah (40:31): ‘They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles.’”

In 1999, Cain formed Citizens for Cain Exploratory Committee to test the waters for a presidential bid in 2000, the National Journal reported at the time. He made campaign stops in Iowa and New Hampshire, according to press reports, which focused on his business acumen and the fact that he was a black GOP candidate, not his religious proclivities. He eventually backed Republican candidate Steve Forbes and joined Forbes' campaign as a national co-chairman.

Three and a half years later, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate, saying the decision had been divinely inspired.

“Being on a God-inspired fast track of success and surviving the many things that could have gone wrong was no accident,” he writes.

He woke early one morning to study the Bible as he wrestled with whether to run for Senate.

The Bible fell on the floor, Cain writes, and opened to Matthew 18, where Jesus asks, “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” - the same words he would quote from a different gospel at the Crystal Cathedral.

Later that week, Cain writes, he heard a sermon titled “The Calling” by Alexander at Antioch. After the service, Cain consulted with the pastor.

Cain said he felt God was calling him to run for Senate. According to Cain, the pastor responded: "How much louder does God have to tell you something?"

Not long after, Cain threw his hat in the ring.

Looking for God’s road signs

He would lose in the Republican primary to now-U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, but Cain took a respectable 26% of the vote. Being a millionaire black conservative made him somewhat of a novelty, and he attracted lots of national and local press.

The experience helped Cain land a conservative radio talk show in Atlanta, a book deal and appearances on national television.

Indeed, Cain sees God’s hand in his 2004 loss. Referring to his radio show, Cain writes, “I believe that having that program was God’s way of forcing me to understand the critical issues confronting our nation.”

While his radio career was humming along, Cain faced a major challenge in February 2006, when he was diagnosed with colon cancer.

The diagnosis tested the faith of Cain and his wife, Gloria. But he saw the hand of God at various points in his treatment.

After the initial diagnosis, Cain’s Atlanta doctor wanted him to get a second opinion from a specialist in Savannah, Georgia, some five hours away by car. Cain didn’t want go, but then he learned the specialist’s name: Dr. Lord. That was the first sign.

Later, Cain went to MD Anderson Cancer Center, a Houston hospital specializing in cancer treatment, after his business pal Boone Pickens called to get him in.

The nurse who gave Cain and his wife their orientation tour at the hospital was named Grace. Yet another sign, Cain writes.

And when it was time for surgery, the doctors explained they would be making a J-shaped incision. “Like J-E-S-U-S?” Cain asked the doctor. The candidate would go on to call the incision a “Jesus cut.”

“You see, the Lord gives you these road signs - that is, if you know how to recognize them,” Cain writes.

By January 2007, Cain was cancer-free. The road signs began to change. He returned to the radio airwaves and began sowing the seeds of a run for president.

‘You got the wrong man, Lord!’

Herman Cain did not want to run for president. He did not want to be president. But God told him to.

In a campaign speech in early November, he told the Georgia Young Republicans he never considered running for president until he saw President Barack Obama’s “arrogant disregard for the people,” which he said weakened the county's economy, military and standing in the world.

“That’s when I prayed and prayed and prayed. … More praying than I’ve ever had to do in my life.

“When I finally realized that this was God saying what I needed to do, I was like Moses. ‘You got the wrong man, Lord! Are you sure?’ Now, you're not supposed to doubt God. But I'm going, ‘I think maybe you're looking at somebody else.’”

Cain announced his candidacy for president in January.

To be sure, Cain is hardly the only candidate who has said that God wants him or her to run for president. Rick Perry and Bachmann have expressed similar sentiments.

“Maybe God just wants a good race,” says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Sabato points to the large numbers of religious Republican voters in the Iowa caucuses and South Carolina primary. Many voters in those states “respond to language like that,” Sabato says.

Benny Tate, senior pastor of Rock Springs Church in Milner, Georgia, has accompanied Cain on the campaign trail, joining the candidate on recent trips to Ohio and New Hampshire. Tate said whenever they stop to eat on the road, “Herman will literally bow his head and thank God for that food. It may be something small, like a sandwich, but I’ve never seen Herman have a meal where he didn’t thank God for the meal.”

Despite that piety, Cain has had his fair share of trouble with the Christian Right.

In an October interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, Cain seemed to mix two disparate positions on abortion. He said he believes life begins at conception and that he opposes abortion in all cases.

But he also said government ought to stay out of a family’s decision - a line that seemed to speak to Cain’s limited government, tea party-flavored conservativism.

The comment enraged many anti-abortion groups and is featured in a new web ad for Bachmann that’s aimed at positioning the Minnesota congresswoman as the true anti-abortion candidate.

While most of the other Republican candidates have reached out to Focus on the Family, an influential evangelical organization and long a stopover for GOP figures, the group has not heard from Cain.

But those who know him say Cain’s focus on economic issues is an outgrowth of his faith and his view of an individual’s ability to chart his or her own course.

“Herman sees the pressing issues of our day are economic,” Tate said. “Because of his faith he sees that that can turn around. One way he sees that is through personal responsibility.

“Herman believes that, ‘By the sweat of thy face thou shall eat bread,’” Tate said, referring to Genesis 3:19, in which Adam and Eve are banished from the Garden of Eden.

Cain has used this idea to criticize the Occupy Wall Street movement.

“Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks,” he recently told The Wall Street Journal. “If you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself!”

That idea is not original to Cain. It is one long found in black churches.

“The fiscal conservative thread … not being dependent on anybody else, especially not ‘the white man,’ is a theme that is decades old in the black community,” said Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church, a black megachurch in Maryland.

Jackson, who was invited to give an opening prayer when Cain kicked off his presidential campaign, says Cain is representative of many conservative black evangelicals - though he might not be getting many votes from the folks at Antioch.

The question remains whether Cain’s blend of self-determination and striving to complete what he sees as God’s plan will land him the Republican presidential nomination - whether he wants it or not.

Latest News - October 30, 2011

A Balanced Budget Amendment-in addition to balancing the budget-should make it difficult to raise taxes, tough to increase the debt, and prohibit any court from ordering a tax increase or deciding budget priorities.

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing."

Thomas Jefferson, 1798

RE: In accordance with the Budget Control Act of 2011, sometime between October 1 and December 31, 2011 both houses of Congress must vote on a balance budget amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution. It is important that any such amendment must protect taxpayers by not forcing automatic tax increases to keep revenues in line with rising expenditures. Our fiscal problems are caused not by under taxation-but by over-spending.

ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: Not all balanced budget Amendments were created equal. The most comprehensive BBA proposed is S.J. Resolution 10 co-sponsored by all 47 Republican members of the United States Senate. It caps spending at 18% of GDP; requires a 2/3 vote of congress to raise taxes; requires a 3/5 vote of congress to increase the debt ceiling; and prohibits any court from ordering an increase in taxes. Proposed BBA's that do less can have the unintended effect of managing a tax increase instead of limiting spending and would be counter-productive and must be opposed.

A STRONG BBA MUST BE EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND NOT HAVE LOOPHOLES:

* Require a Balanced Budget every year: The federal debt is on track to consume our country's entire Gross Domestic Product. The BBA would force Washington to live within its means.

* Prohibit Perpetual Deficit Spending: Deficit spending is a tax on future earnings.

* A debt ceiling will actually be a ceiling: The debt ceiling has been raised 11 times in the past decade. S.J. 10-co-sponsored by 47 members of the U.S. Senate-- would require a three-fifths majority in both chambers to raise the debt ceiling. This is also an important provision to prevent cheating and other budget gimmicks because actual spending cannot exceed actual revenue for long without hitting the debt limit.

* Congress may waive BBA requirement by simple majority if a declaration of war is in effect; and it would require a three-fifths majority to waive if the country is engaged in a military conflict that causes an imminent and serious military threat to our national security.

* Courts setting any budget priorities would be a problem. Court-ordered military cuts or activist "declaratory judgments" requiring increased welfare spending would also be intolerable. S.J. 10 can be improved with an explicit ban on courts exercising jurisdiction on any of these essential political questions.

A "Weak" BBA will increase the size of Government and pave the way for Tax Increases:

* Unlike other proposals, such as a "Weak" BBA, not only should a BBA have a supermajority requirement to raise taxes, there should be no loopholes for creative accounting.

* Without a limitation on tax increases and a specific prohibition on courts ordering revenue increases a "Weak" BBA would allow judges the power to implement higher taxes to bring the budget into balance.

* A "Weak" BBA would allow a simple majority of Members of Congress to raise the federal debt ceiling and continue to borrow against future generations. That's why there is a three-fifths majority requirement to raise the debt ceiling in S.J. 10

Why the Tax Hike Limitation Component is Important to any BBA:

As Milton Friedman wrote in defense of the Balanced Budget Amendment in 1983 in response to skepticism from the Wall Street Journal editorial board:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1983/02/washington-less-red-...

"The key problem is not deficits but the size of government spending.

[...] I have never supported an amendment directed solely at a balanced budget. I have written repeatedly that while I would prefer that the budget be balanced, I would rather have government spend $500 billion and run a deficit of $100 billion than have it spend $800 billion with a balanced budget. It matters greatly how the budget is balanced, whether by cutting spending or by raising taxes."

Americans Support a Balanced Budget Amendment:

Americans have always overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment. A Fox News poll (June 30), shows support is 72-20.

On Message, Inc., on behalf of Let Freedom Ring, shows 81% of the American people (including 74% of Democrats) support Congress balancing their budget every year. In addition 66% of Americans favor capping federal spending at the historically average 18% of GDP.

"Of course, the best way to permanently reduce spending would be to enact a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority in both houses of Congress to run an annual deficit, raise tax rates, or increase the debit ceiling."
James A. Baker III, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury from 1985-1988

For Additional Information on the Balanced Budget Amendment, please visit the following links:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/30/beware-bogus-balanced-budget-a...

http://www.utahpolicy.com/featured_article/bozell-urges-congress-approve...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.J.RES.10

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230476060457642827324874334...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270837/cut-cap-and-balance-tim-ph...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/261755/just-say-no-judicial-enfor...

http://regularfolksunited.org/regular-folks-united-supports-cut-cap-a2991

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230418640457638806178256101...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/12/just-in-time-a-debt-ceiling-game-changer/

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=248892

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/07/08/why-cut-cap-and-balance-is-bes...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44993

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/07/20/cut-cap-balance-is-a-moral-dut

http://www.forbes.com/2011/07/08/cut-cap-balance_2.html

http://blog.cleveland.com/opinion_impact/print.html?entry=/2011/07/how_t...

http://townhall.com/columnists/alfredregnery/2011/07/14/fixing_thomas_je...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/11/winning-the-balanced-bud...

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM VISIT: WWW.THEMOUNTVERNONSTATEMENT.COM

Latest News - October 10, 2011

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Latest News - October 5, 2011

Ralph Reed, who heads the Faith and Freedom Coalition, suggested that Palin could resonate with the same kind of voter who gravitates toward Bachmann and Rick Perry.

"It's a person who is a devout Christian and a solid social conservative who also has a lot of credentials with the tea party movement," Reed said. "When you've got Herman Cain beating frontrunners to win [the Florida straw poll] it shows you where the activists are right now and I think that's right in Palin's wheelhouse."

But he cautioned, "There'd be room for her, but the clock is ticking."

Latest News - October 1, 2011

Saturday in New Hampshire, Texas Gov. Rick Perry got a question he wasn't expecting. Well, it wasn't the question that was surprising so much as the person who asked it.

During a morning meet-and-greet in the banquet room of the Atkinson Resort & Country Club, a public golf course in a bucolic part of southeast New Hampshire, a little red-headed girl raised her hand. Maybe it was the Perry sticker on her shirt that caught the candidate's eye.

"What is your policy on the state of Israel?" asked 10-year-old Maya Levine, a fifth grader at Atkinson Academy, the second oldest co-educational school in America. Maya had come with her parents and little brother, Ilan, to hear the aspiring Republican presidential nominee.

"She asked a foreign policy question," Perry told the audience of about 150, who were unable to hear Maya's question in the big hall. "You 8? Oh, 10. 'Scuse me."

Maya's question gave Perry the chance to hold forth on a topic deemed his weak suit, given that his political experience has been confined to the state level (with the exception of border issues involving Mexico). He used harsh language to describe American foreign policy under President Obama, echoing charges made by his rivals for the nomination.

"Our allies do not know where America will be on any given day because of the muddled, aimless, wavering foreign policy that we have coming out of the White House today," Perry said.

For example, in 2009, he said, Obama missed an opportunity to promote democracy in Iran when that country's "green revolution" foundered.

"Iran is one of the great problems in the Middle East," Perry said. "They are, I would suggest, the greatest threat to the future of Israel. And in '09, we naively were having conversations with the Syrian and the Iranian governments, rather than supporting that civil uprising in that country....We should have been using everything that we had available -- our diplomatic abilities, our economic sanctions, overt, covert and civic -- to impact and help overthrow one of the most oppressive regimes that there is in the world, and we failed." (Here is an AP story about the difficult position the Obama administration found itself in.)

That, however, was just a warmup for his take on Obama's position on the Palestinian Authority's request for statehood last month at the United Nations. In an address to the U.N., Obama threatened to veto state membership for the Palestinians only a year after telling the U.N. that he looked forward to the day the world could welcome a Palestinian state to the U.N.

"The idea that the Palestinian Authority was at the U.N. last week was a failure of American diplomacy," Perry said. "This administration has sent such weak messages about where America stands with the longest-serving democracy in the Middle East, our oldest friend in the Middle East: Israel.

"I will tell you one thing, that when I'm the president of the United States, our allies are not going to have to worry whether America is for them...We will be supporting them militarily, economically and otherwise, and particularly in Israel."

And he could not resist a dig at the administration's treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year during a visit to Israel by Vice President Joe Biden. Biden was blindsided when Israe suddenly announced during his visit that it had approved new construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. He kept Netanyahu waiting for 90 minutes at a dinner while he worked on his response to the news.

Without going into details about why Biden felt provoked, Perry simply said, "When the prime minister of Israel comes to the White House to visit, he will not have to sit outside and cool his heels waiting to see the president of the United States."

After posing for a photo with Perry, Maya pronounced herself satisfied with his answer.

"My mom has always been talking about Israel and how it's less fortunate and we always try to help Israel and plant trees there," she said. "I thought it was very interesting and he doesn't want Israel to leave, not leave, but disappear, be wiped out."

She said she remembered watching election returns in 2008 with her family, who supported Arizona Sen. John McCain against Obama. "He was Republican, and he also wanted to do stuff about Israel," she said, "but we don't think Obama wanted to do as much for Israel."