In the course of this post I will be laying out my opinions, and while I believe everyone I know knows who I am voting for in this election I want to lay out the case for Mitt Romney as being more then simply the better of two evils without announcing my support for the candidate as a whole on the basis of his philosophy.

The first thing you must think about is the question; What is the first constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States? The primary constitutional responsibility of the President is to ensure the security of both our borders and personal safety as well as our interests and allies abroad.

I believe honestly that the Barack Obama that is on the campaign trail both in 2008 and 2012 states a foreign policy that actually conflicts with what President Obama has done, and I am glad that is the case. George W. Bush in an interview right when Obama was taking office said it best in an interview that “once he sits in that chair and it all becomes available to him he will change his mind” on foreign policy. From the immense difficulties of closing Guantanamo bay, to not moving up the scheduled end of the Iraq war (and not thoroughly stopping it then, we just handed over security in the country to american contractors), to executing surge-like tactics in Afghanistan before ever even starting to draw down forces. This leads to a less than stark contrast between the two previous administrations on foreign policy.

Now, after spending all that time saying that Obama’s foreign policy is similar to Bush’s why would this all important category be so important to me in this election? Because both administrations have failed on it in certain respects, and Obama while changing his tactics to be similar has made simple yet important changes that have hurt our long term security.

The first issue is that until now, no president or candidate for president has ever correctly assigned energy independence as a national security issue. Mitt Romney has made that case. We are dependent on foreign oil that largely comes from dictators and unstable middle eastern countries. Why is (outside of Israel) Iran such a huge national interest? Oil, gas, plastic, pharmaceuticals, and any number of other things come from oil and these products have HUGE implications on the cost to those making under 250k a year (to borrow Obama’s terminology). Why is that? Because we, as the #1 country in oil and gas reserves in the world, have decided not to pursue our natural resources. We have, for decades, chosen to rely on the international market while making a minimal contribution to the market.

Why is it that we have done it? I can only speak of recently, but it is the false science known as Global Warming, no wait, Climate change, no….Climate disruption. This hoax of anthropomorphic global warming that was built by frauds, and perpetuated by fraud and deceit on government payroll. But lets say you disagree with me on that. The money profited from new oil reserves could be used by companies to develop the replacement to traditional fuel and oil products. Remember, its not just gas, but all manner of personal products that use carbon based oil and fuels. If, down the road, government wanted to invest even further into green technology, the taxes from the profit would put us in a position to possibly be able to, tho we are in no place to do it now yet we do when the technology is clearly not ready for prime time.

The next reason is clearly the fact that Obama has made nice with those who stand against us and abandoned our allies, in particular Israel, but also many numbers of other allies. He has taken Neville Chamberlayne’s foreign policy of appeasement and applied it on a grand scale. This has made us appear weak in the international community. The international community tends to like a weakened America, so of course they prefer Obama. It gives them at least a perceived opportunity of taking our mantle.

It must be made clear that under the constitution the President has little power over the economy. Bills under taxing and budgets must originate in the house of representatives and of course be passed by the senate. The best a president can do is to veto a misplaced bill that ends up on his desk. He can recommend, even draft a bill (although any person in the country has the power to draft a bill) but he cannot pass any bill single-handedly. He does have the power to overturn any executive order without any legislation, and in recent years presidents have used executive orders in counter-constitutional ways creating a legislative initiative said to only work within the bounds of another bill but in reality has no  bearing on the previous bearings of the bill.

Mitt Romney has shown one thing consistently in his life to my estimation. That consistency is that whatever solutions he believes are best he does believe that the crux of the solutions must come from the state and local governments and that that is where the power belongs. I contend that the reason that Bill Clinton governed more conservatively then Hillary would have is because he was a governor, as was Romney, both in states where the other party is more traditionally a power in the state. They both had experience with working through differences and working with the other party, which in certain situations can be seen as a flaw, and in others it could be seen as a strength.
When you have the backdrop of the divide happening in this country this should be a welcome change to most.

Just two of a great number of examples of how he holds people that disagree with him in contempt. I know, there could be a reference to a misguided comment where Mitt Romney confuses the 47% argument (being unfair that 53% of the US public pays 100% of the taxes in federal income taxes) with the truth that there are a great many people that rely on government for their sustenance and will never vote for anyone who would reduce that because they have been lulled into a false security of being taken care of by government, and I contend that is the reason for the breadth being added to any number of safety net programs.

But lets talk about those in the 47% that pay no income taxes. Is it true they pay no taxes? Some do not pay any, this is true, however there is a hidden tax that every human being in this country pays either through price of products on the shelf, price at the pump, or electric bills even for those who are subsidized for that rarely covers the entire cost of those bills.

Unemployment today is 7.9%, up by .1% from when he took office. By standards that we had during the great depression it is approx 23%. That takes into account people who have given up or run out of benefits and those working part time when they need a full time job.

We have spent an unprecedented amount of money that is borrowed on stimulative measures in order to “keep unemployment under 8% and by november 2012 be at 5.2%” And that is just one more  broken promise.

This is the one thing that if followed through on that really would have garnered some respect out of even me. Even a conservative who believes counter to everything the man stands for, could have garnered some respect. Unfortunately, it never happened. Transparency of government should happen in all matters not of sensitive nature.

And for those of you out there that are Christians, this is a general overview that surmises why I believe as I do and why my vote will be for Mitt Romney tomorrow.

I will vote for the most pro-life candidate, because God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17).

I will vote for the most pro-Israel candidate, because God blesses those who blesses Israel & curses those who don’t (Genesis 12:3).

I will vote for the most pro-debt reduction candidate, because the borrower is servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).

I will vote for the most pro-work candidate because God says if a man not work , let him not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

I will vote for the most pro-marriage candidate ,because God is for marriage as defined in Genesis 2:24 .

I will vote for the candidate who most closely believes government’s purpose is to reward the good & punish the evil (Romans 13).
I will vote based as close as I can on God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16).
Whoever gets elected, God is the one who sets those in authority and takes them out (Daniel 2:21).
If we are ever to grow as a country and get back to what our country is founded on we absolutely must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and what he has shaped the democratic party to become. If you believe differently and believe in a more liberal government, then we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way in order to be able to afford the policies you would like to have. If you believe in libertarian philosophy and politics, we must get away from Barack Obama and the new democratic way in order to ever have a chance to beat back government in any area. If you, like I, am a federalist and believe that issues are best dealt with the closer to the individual as possible we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way. If we are to survive as the shining city on the hill that we have been for the past 200+ years we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way. If you believe, as I do that a two party system is insufficient to represent the whole of the United States we must get away from the policies of Barack Obama and the new democratic way.
There is only one person to vote for to get away from these policies and to get back to sound government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that candidate is Mitt Romney.