Reasons 62-70 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

It is time for a 45th Presidency - To this end, Hugh Hewitt has come up with 100 reasons to vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama and these series of posts will highlight ten (or so) points to consider for your vote to have a 45th President elected come November 6, 2012. Image Credit: Edmund Jenks

Reasons 62-70 Of Hewitt's 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012

On Monday, September 24, 2012, Constitutional and environmental issues Lawyer/Professor, nationally syndicated afternoon issues talk show host, Hugh Hewitt delivered a tour de force presentation for three hours on the reasons why we need a change in executive leadership in the United States. This change can happen with our vote for president in the 2012 elections which early voting has already started in many states, but will officially take place November 6, 2012.

*** Hewitt’s reasons 62-70 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

This edition explores reasons 62-70 which highlight: The Obama Administration still wishes to close “Gitmo”, have terrorists housed and have court trials here inside the United States in an effort to just criminalize terrorism (acts of war). In general, laws passed by our law making institutions, and require implementation and defense do not matter to this 44th Presidency – he continually circumvents laws he does not like to enforce with Executive Orders … or his departments just ignore them. Three to five Justices on the Supreme Court are due to retire over the next four years so one has to consider the results of a Obama win over a Romney win. ObamaCare, how it became law, and its disruptive economic cost. This President has established a TAX on inactivity and instituted “Death Panels” of 15 appointees (not elected by the people).

In a presentation which Hugh Hewitt titled 100 reasons why you should vote for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama, Hugh proceeded point by point with full explanation and in no particular order 100 specific reasons Mitt Romney would make a better president to lead our country mixed in with the specific reasons why Barack Obama has not been a successful leader in the more than 1,000 days he has been president.

Since a three hour presentation of dense information may be a little hard to chew on in one session, here is one of ten postings that breaks up the 100 reasons in approximately 10 reason apiece chunks that can be savored and digested upon which one can become fully informed before making a freedom and country saving vote in this most important election.

Previously Published Audio Links:

*** Hewitt’s reasons 1-10 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt’s reasons 11-20 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt’s reasons 21-30 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt’s reasons 31-40 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt’s reasons 41-50 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

*** Hewitt’s reasons 51-61 of 100 – LISTEN HERE>>

This excerpted and edited from HughHewitt.com – 

100 Reason To Vote For Mitt Romney Or Against Barack Obama
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 8:12 PM

After yet another dispiriting Browns’ performance yesterday, I decided to redeem the day by listing 100 reasons to either vote for Mitt Romney or against Barack Obama. I turned that list into a three hour monologue on today’s show — the first such in 12 years of radio.

It wasn’t hard to do. Not hard at all. Which is why I think Romney will win going away. The president is a failure, on every level and by every measurement. Americans don’t endorse failure.
[Reference Here]

As the “Chicago Way” Democrat Political Party is fond of saying … “Vote Early, and Vote Often” … but most importantly, vote informed and reviewing all of Hewitt’s 100 reasons to vote for Romney and against Obama 2012 may at least allow one to open up a discussion with themselves, and others, as to what issues might be the most important in this upcoming 2012 election.

** Article first published as Reasons 62-70 Of Hewitt’s 100 Reasons To Vote For Romney And Against Obama 2012 on Technorati **

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

Barack Obama articulates his socialist vision for the United States. He muses about a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts (Ctrl-Click Image to hear interview). Image Credit: NakedEmperorNews

Barack Obama Wants SCOTUS To “Break-Free” From Constitution

In a radio interview given in 2001, Barack Obama finally articulates his philosophy on how social engineering (socialism) should come and be established here in the United States.

What the junior Senator from Illinois would like to see is a Supreme Court that would legislate (from the bench) transfer of earned monies from citizens that work to the citizens who do not.

The more one reads these statements of philosophy, one is left to wonder … exactly what about this country and its constitution does Barack Obama like? Judging by the proposed projection of action he had wished the Warren court missed at taking on … not much. He called the Constitution a deeply flawed document – this IS the document that allowed this country to become the most productive and powerful on Earth – how flawed can this document be?

Personal freedom and the right to one’s earned wealth are two items that Barack Obama would like to have in the total control of the federal government – ALL BRANCHES.

This excerpted and edited from Morningstar –

Obama on redistribution (transcript of 2001 interview)
Beliavsky - Morningstar - 10-26-2008

Here is a transcript of a 2001 radio interview of Barack Obama where he advocates redistribution as reparations for slavery and other injustices towards "previously disposessed peoples".

MODERATOR:
Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.

It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR:
Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN:
Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA:
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.
----
So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
Reference Here>>

So, does anyone here think that Barack Obama would restructure the Supreme Court system so that they can legislate changes on how much money we earn can be confiscated for redistribution purposes without the opportunity for a vote by the people in this democracy?