Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND’s 330,000 signers

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A California attorney lobbying the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama’s qualifications to be president confronted the chief justice yesterday with legal briefs and a WND petition bearing names of over 325,000 people asking the court to rule on whether or not the sitting president fulfills the Constitution’s “natural-born citizen” clause.

According to Orly Taitz, the attorney who confronted Chief Justice John Roberts at a lecture at the University of Idaho, the judge promised before the gathered crowd that he would, indeed, read and review the briefs and petition.

“I addressed him in front of 800 people in the audience,” Taitz told WND, “including university officials, the president of the Idaho State Bar and the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Idaho, and in front of all them, [Roberts] promised to read my papers.”

Roberts was lecturing on Abraham Lincoln to approximately 1,200 attendees of the annual Bellwood Memorial Lecture Series at the Moscow, Idaho, university. Roberts has been chief justice of the Supreme Court since his nomination by President George W. Bush and subsequent confirmation in 2005.

Earlier in the week, Taitz confronted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who told her the issue of Obama’s eligibility, which has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times but has yet to be given a single hearing, still lacked the votes of the required four justices in conference before it would be officially heard.

Taitz said, “I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency.”

The legal phrase Quo Warranto essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto “affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.”

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 325,000 others and sign up now!

“Tell me what to do, what can I do?” Taitz reports asking Scalia. “Those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate?”

She says Scalia responded, “Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.”

In Idaho, Taitz obtained the promise of one of the others, the chief justice, that he would read through the eligibility challenge, including the petition brought by WND readers.

As WND reported, Taitz is submitting a motion to the Supreme Court for re-hearing of Lightfoot v. Bowen, a case she is working on through her foundation Defend Our Freedoms, alleging some of her documentation may have been withheld from the justices by a court clerk.

Orly Taitz

She asserts docketing information about her case “was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21st, one day after the inauguration and two days before [the case was to be heard].”

At the lecture in Idaho, Taitz grabbed the attention of Justice Roberts by boldly addressing her allegation that a clerk had buried the case.

Taitz told WND that the forum rules required that those questioning Roberts announce their relationship to the University of Idaho and refrain from talking about cases currently before or likely to appear before the court.

“I said, ‘Justice Roberts, my name is Orly Taitz. I’m an attorney from California, and I got up at 3 o’clock in the middle of the night, flew and drove thousands of miles just to ask you a question. So please give me some leeway,’” Taitz told WND. “My question is, do you know there is illegal activity going on in the Supreme Court of the United States?”

According to Taitz, the room was stunned silent as she continued, “I have presented my case to you, and you personally agreed to hear this case in conference. But your clerk refused to forward a supplemental brief to you. He has hidden this brief from you. He refused to put it on the docket. Additionally, my case was erased from the docket one day after the Inauguration, two days before my case was to be heard.

“Outraged citizens and members of the media and state representatives are calling the Supreme Court, demanding to have the case reentered on the docket,” Taitz told Roberts.

Then she held up the WND petition and continued, “Moreover, here are the names of U.S. citizens who signed this petition and who sent individual letters to individual justices, including you, Justice Roberts, all of them demanding the same thing – that you hear my case in regards to Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility for presidency.”

According to Taitz, Roberts approached the microphone and said, “I see you have papers. I promise you I will read all your papers, I will review them. Please give them to my Secret Service and I will review all of them.”

Shortly thereafter, Taitz told WND, a Secret Service agent identified by his badge as Gilbert Shaw accepted two suitcases of documents and pledged to deliver them to Roberts.

Taitz reports the documents included four major sections:

• A motion for reconsideration of Lightfoot v. Bowen with all its supplemental briefs.
• The Quo Warranto Easterling et al v. Obama et al case.
• The WND petition, consisting of 3,300 pages of names – over 325,000 in all – of people demanding the Supreme Court hear the Obama eligibility case.
• A copy of a 164-page dossier sent to Attorney General Eric Holder detailing suspected criminal activity surrounding Obama and his supporters, also available on the Defend Our Freedoms website.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, some suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are “garbage,” here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:

• New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
• Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
• Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
• Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
• Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case was dismissed by Judge Michael P. Kenny.
• Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
• Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
• In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
• Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
• In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
• In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
• California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.

Obama’s New Attack on Those Who Don’t Want Higher Taxes: ‘Selfishness’

October 31, 2008 10:58 AM

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

On the stump this week, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has pushed back against Sen. John McCain’s description of his tax policies.

“The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich,” Obama said in Sarasota, Florida, yesterday. “I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the America dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.

“The point is, though, that — and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class — it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

It’s unclear if this was a nod to the Ayn Rand book “The Virtue of Selfishness,” with all that the invocation of Rand implies.

It would seem to be, given the themes of Rand’s work, what happens when independent achievers are demonized.

Which would fit with this description of those who want to keep their hard-earned tax dollars as “selfish.”

Atlas may not be shrugging, but Obama is.

– jpt

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE AD

By: Kenneth R. Timmerman

A Newsmax investigation of Obama/Biden campaign contributors, undertaken in conjunction with a private investigative firm headed by a former CIA operations officer, has identified 118 donors who appear to lack U.S. citizenship.

Some of these “red flag” donors work for foreign governments; others have made public statements declaring that they are citizens of Cameroun, Nigeria, Pakistan, Canada, and other countries.

A Newsmax sampling of about 3,400 donors also found hundreds more who showed “yellow flags” such as not having used a Social Security number or a known U.S. address. Most U.S.-born citizens are issued Social Security numbers at birth or by the time they enter kindergarten.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens or permanent residents may donate to federal political campaigns. It is illegal for the campaigns to accept money knowingly from foreign donors.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill of 2002 placed new restrictions on political fundraising after the scandals of 1996, when the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign was exposed for having taken millions of dollars of unregulated soft money from donors with ties to Chinese military intelligence.

But even with the new laws, it remains very difficult to identify with any precision foreign money if a campaign itself does not cooperate with the Federal Election Commission and perform its own due diligence.

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money.

The Newsmax investigation focused only on donors whose names the Obama campaign disclosed, which are available to public scrutiny through the Federal Election Commission Web site.

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

For example, hidden away amidst the unprecedented $150 million Obama claims to have raised from individual donors in September was more than $42 million raised from secret donors. These donations appear in the records as a single entry under the heading, “Donors, Unitemized.”

Newsmax retained the services of former CIA operations officer Frederick W. Rustmann Jr. and a team of international forensic accounting experts to comb through Obama’s donor list to identify those who apparently aren’t U.S. citizens or residents. Rustmann, a 24 year veteran field officer, operates CTC International Group Ltd., a West Palm Beach, Fla., firm that provides business intelligence services and analysis.

Using sophisticated Internet search tools, fee-based data bases, and other public records, CTC attempted to identify Social Security numbers and U.S. addresses connected to the Obama donors. Most of these donors gave obvious overseas addresses when they made their donations, but the Obama campaign had no security screen to detect them.

“Hillary and McCain demanded proof of citizenship of all their donors,” Rustmann said. “Obama did not, so he benefitted by receiving an enormous amount of money from foreign donors who wanted to influence the U.S. election process.”

READ THE REST HERE

Obama’s ‘Redistribution’ Constitution

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

“The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By STEVEN G. CALABRESI

One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Chad Crowe

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation’s most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama’s extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren “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 I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a “tax cut” to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Mr. Obama’s emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation’s courtrooms.

Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University.

Pro America? I think not

Palestinian Ibrahim Abu Jayab, 24, is seen next to his computer, in his family house in Nusayrat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008. A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent’s home imploring them to vote Obama.

(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

Source: gallup.com

Obama leads by two points among likely voters

PRINCETON, NJ — The gap between Barack Obama and John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Saturday through Monday has narrowed slightly, and Obama is now at 49% of the vote to 47% for McCain among likely voters using Gallup’s traditional model

Maybe New Jersey can do it too

The polls have shown California to be Obama country for months. And the pundits are still predicting a sea of blue. But there has been a lot of chatter on the political blogs about an interesting finding on early voting in the state.

According to RedState.com, 104,000 Republicans have voted early or by mail-in ballot, compared with 105,000 Democrats.

The polls showed Barack Obama with an 18-point lead in California just a few days ago. The results thus far are the complete opposite. … With nearly 210,000 people having voted, the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage! If we take the liberty of assuming that all Republicans will vote for John McCain and all Democrats will vote for Obama, then the race is incredibly close.

At the Atlantic, Marc Ambinger offers this analysis: “Early voting is very popular in California, and Republicans tend to vote at higher rates than Democrats. More conservative areas of the state tend to vote early; Los Angeles County traditionally has the lowest early-voting rate. Don’t know if the above statistics are correct, but if they are, they’re not usual for that state.”

– Shelby Grad

>>>> Are these characteristics becoming of a Presidential Candidate?<<<<<

sssshhhh… don’t worry: nobody’s gonna see you vote for McCain when your in that booth!!

Brief summary:

• Obama will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5 percent tax increase on almost all taxpayers.

• Obama wants to almost double Capital Gains tax to almost 30 percent (own Mutual funds or 401k’s?).

• He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.

• Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared.

• Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.

• He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department.

• Obama backs driver’s licenses for illegal aliens

• Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country.

• In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive! THAT, my friends, is INFANTICIDE!
  

• He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you believe the media, ‘Joe the Plumber’ is a sinister, McCain-supporting Republican of the Reagan type — he is a true threat to the “Anointed One” — Barack Obama — and his chances of becoming president of the United States.

This sounds almost like a make-believe story, but it’s true. The media has been seeking to decapitate Joe the plumber.

Why? Because he’s an ordinary American who has a dream of business success for himself and his family.

One day, Joe woke up and suddenly realized that Barack Obama is going to punish him with brutal taxes.

Just by coincidence — and I know Chris Matthews and Katie Couric will never believe it was simply a coincidence — Joe met Barack Obama as Obama passed through his Ohio neighborhood.

When Joe challenged Obama with a tough question — something the press has not done during the past two years — the Anointed One wilted.

How dare Joe want to make and keep his own money?  The nerve of this man to want to be a success in a small business!

As Obama put it, shouldn’t Joe want to help him “spread the wealth around?”

With that one remark, Obama’s disguise as a moderate crumbled.

Here are just three of Obama’s biggest lies:

Obama Lie No. 1 — I will tax just the rich.

There is no such thing as a tax on just the rich. Taxes on wealthy people affect everyone.

Remember, Obama defines anyone making over $90,000 a year as “rich.”

Joe the plumber discovered that Obama thinks Joe’s rich too. Under Obama, he won’t be able to hire new employees and grow his business.

Joe’s not alone. Obama says he’ll strip away the FICA cap at $90,000 for every worker. That means every dollar you earn over that amount, you’ll pay 7 percent!

Obama Lie No. 2 — I want to give a tax cut
to the middle class.

Baloney!

Obama says he will let the Bush tax cuts expire. That’s an automatic 5 percent (maximum) tax increase on almost all taxpayers.

Plus middle class folks pay capital gains taxes. Obama has said he wants to almost double them from a low of 15 percent to almost 30 percent.

He wants to hike the dividend tax, and he also has promised taxes on gas and energy.

Obama also wants to dramatically increase the estate tax, which had almost disappeared.

There goes your idea of sharing your wealth with your kids in the future.

Obama Lie No. 3 — I want to make America
more secure.

Another outright lie.

In an age when crazies like Iran’s Ahmadinejad are building ballistic missiles and promise to “destroy” the United States and Israel, Obama has promised to gut the missile defense program created by President Reagan.

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” Obama said.

He has promised to cut “tens of billions” of dollars from the Defense Department. In an effort to make us more “secure,” Obama plans to disarm us.

In the age of 9/11 can we afford such a radical Leftist in the White House?

No, we can’t.

Obama is not just a danger to our economy, with his plans to raise taxes and spend $800 billion in new programs.

He is a radical out to reshape America beyond recognition.

He is so radical he even backed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens — even though such a move would help future terrorists move freely in the United States.

Even Hillary Clinton opposed his radical plan.

But Obama not only touted such a plan running for president, he pushed for giving illegals driver’s licenses as a state senator in Illinois.

He is also the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the country. In 2001, as a state legislator in Illinois, he opposed a bill to protect live-born children — children actually born alive!  He was the only Illinois senator to speak out against the bill.

He opposes gun rights. He has long history of trying to deny ordinary citizens access to guns.

He originally backed Washington D.C.’s total ban on private handguns — a ban that was overturned. The NRA rated him an “F” on gun positions and says he is one of the most dangerous anti-gun politicians in the nation.

Never forget that Obama is a Harvard-educated elitist. To him, we Americans are simply “bitter” and he has mocked us saying “[they] cling to their guns and their religion.”

Support the National Republican Trust PAC’s Campaign to Expose Obama — Go Here Now.

Exposing the Truth

Hillary Clinton was late in recognizing the threat Obama posed to her campaign, but once she did, her strategy worked.

When Hillary exposed Obama publicly, her campaign saw a major turnaround.

Hillary won every major state primary in the nation with the sole exception of Obama’s home state of Illinois.

And even though Obama was “anointed” by the media and Democratic elites, Hillary went on to win eight of the last 10 Democratic primaries.

Finally, McCain is fighting back — just like Hillary did. His poll numbers have improved.

But Obama is spending huge amounts of cash in the swing states.

Make no mistake about it: If we let Americans know the truth about Obama, John McCain can win this election!

But we must employ Hillary Clinton’s strategy.

We must expose Obama for the dangerous radical he is.

Send a Donation Today to Help Our Cause — Go Here Now.

You Can Make a Difference

This is why the National Republican Trust PAC is already implementing a “shock and awe” strategy against Obama in key states.

We are taking out powerful television ads, Internet ads, and other communications to inform Americans about the dangers posed by Barack Obama.

We plan to target key states that can make a difference — but we need your help to do it.

As a political action committee, we can accept up to $5,000 in donations per contributor.

A $5,000 donation can help us saturate a key market for a full day with television ads.

But if you can’t do the full amount, even $2,500 or $1,000 or $500 — any amount you can afford will help.

Stop and think how much Obama may cost you and your family in new taxes over the next four years alone: $50,000, $75,000, $100,000 or even more.

Your donation today may actually save you much more in the years to come.

Please help today — Donate by Going Here Now.

Posted by our friends at NEWSMAX

In a radio interview in 2001, Barack Obama said the civil rights movement failed when it became so dependent on the Supreme Court that it never got around to working toward redistributing income.

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview — conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago — delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when “dispossessed peoples” appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a “redistributive change” in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical,” Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said.

The 2001 interview evokes recent questioning by Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher, the Ohio man who asked Obama about his proposal to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. Obama told Wurzelbacher he wants to hike taxes on the wealthy so that the government can spread the wealth.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have “nothing to do with Obama’s economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut.”

“Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of ‘redistributing’ wealth. Obama’s point — and what he called a tragedy — was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country,” Burton said..

“As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up — not from the corridors of Washington. … And so Obama’s point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process,” Burton continued.

John McCain’s campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.

Now we know that the slogans ‘change you can believe in’ and ‘change we need’ are code words for Barack Obama’s ultimate goal: ‘redistributive change,’” said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

“Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn’t been more ‘radical’ and described as a ‘tragedy’ the court’s refusal to take up ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth.’ No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench,” Holtz-Eakin continued.

National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it’s a matter of degree. He added that Obama’s outlook on that system hasn’t changed.

“It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn’t do that enough, and I think that’s probably the big point in this tape,” York said.

“You’ve got to take him at his word,” York added. “It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time.”

In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.

“Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we’ve seen in the past that he’s willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending,” McCain said.

Click here to hear the interview.