Hi DEADn,
Just to touch on a few of your questions...
Can a President really do something about abortion anymore?
The greatest "power" that an elected president (who only serves up to two four year terms) has is probably within the realm of federal judicial appointments and nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Abortion was largely illegal throughout the history of the United States until a single, three-vote majority decision in 1973. So, three judges overturned nearly two centuries of precedents.
The "tide" of law can literally be determined by the views of nine men and women sitting on the Supreme Court. American citizens are allowed to choose their representatives (in Congress and the President) who are tasked with nominating and confirming judicial nominees and appointments.
Who was the last President that did anything about abortion beyond a silly speech?
The last three Republican presidents issued executive orders banning the funding of abortion by federal tax dollars. This undoubtedly saved lives. On the other hand, the previous two Democratic Party presidents issued executive orders repealing those executive orders while also issuing executive orders themselves. And, each president has appointed justices to federal courts and nominated justices to the Supreme Court who interpret the law of the land (including issues of abortion).
The marriage deal is up to the states and not the government even though Congress wants to make a law saying it is between one man and one woman.
Not exactly. Within the next few years, the "homosexual marriage" issue will undoubtedly land in the Supreme Court. There are cases pending in California and other states that may reach the Court soon. If the Court had just one more Liberal member (with one less Conservative), a decision that the concept of "marriage" is an "equal rights" issue would probably be issued that would then be binding to all states -- regardless of their own laws. Likewise, an abortion issue could be decided soon that would turn the tide of this slaughter in the country too.
Currently, the Court is +1 Conservative and favors "state rights" when something is expressly covered by the U.S. Constitution. However, with nearly every social issue, the Court rules 5-4 -- with four Liberal members consistently voting against "states rights" about such issues. If a Conservative justice were to die, there would be an opening that could literally turn the tide of such issues and allow Liberal "living document" activists to define morality for the nation as a whole.
Is Obama doing great things with the economy? I really don't know. If Romney gets elected what is he going to do make the economy better? Anybody?
Probably the most important economic issue that will come up over the next month (and into the election) is the repeal of "Obamacare." This socialized healthcare concept is extremely costly...and few people know what it actually consists of. This is not "free health care" or even the type of socialized health care embraced in certain European countries. It contains a mandate that all people must PURCHASE health insurance...simply for being alive. Some people will qualify for a subsidy that will cover the cost (if they stand in line at a welfare office). There is a calculator from the Washington Post that helps identify what Obamacare will cost you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/
Granted, this calculator is based upon the initial estimates. Health care insurance premiums have literally doubled since that time due to regulation from this law. You will notice that, even given the 2010 provisions, most families will be liable for a hefty portion of their income. And, of course, if you don't buy the insurance, you will be fined by the IRS for each uninsured family member.
As for other economic issues: There are major differences between the two candidates in terms of taxation and job creation. One major issue affecting many companies comes in the form of federal regulation. In an increasingly global economic climate, the United States is finding difficulty when it comes to competing with countries that aren't affected by national regulation. While some regulation is vital in terms of safety, there is a point by which the increased costs from such regulation and greater taxation ends up hurting a company and the ability of that company to create jobs.
I hope that this makes some sense. It may not seem very "spiritual," but going to work, paying taxes, being compelled to buy insurance, or being forced to fund (via our taxes) abortion or recognize homosexuality as a "normal" lifestyle might not seem spiritual either. It can often be seen as a matter of morality v. immorality...justice v. injustice...and liberty v. bondage. While I think that all true believers would be willing to go to prison for the faith, it might be better (especially for our families) to avoid it. After all, Paul would have been willing to be beaten (or even killed) by the Roman soldier, but he invoked his Roman citizenship in order to avoid it.
By the way, I agree with Jeremy (hulsey) that the Church doesn't need a Conservative government to thrive. However, there are many individuals in persecuted nations that have prayed for government that would allow the liberty to serve God openly. Voice of the Martyrs used to include postcards in their monthly newsletters that they asked subscribers to send to the governments of this world to act on behalf of the suffering. The founder of that ministry endured years of torture...and spoke on a few occasions before the U.S. Congress to act on behalf of the persecuted Church. While the Church thrives under persecution, it isn't necessarily the best for those spouses, children and neighbors of whom God has entrusted us.
