The Real Obama Supporters

[4sarge]

Obama Visits Billionaires Row

The real money behind Obama and who represent the Elitist Anti Gun Liberals who are dying to have their man in control

The most expensive part of the most expensive neighborhood in one of the nation's most expensive cities is the last few blocks of Broadway Street. It is called Billionaires Row. Many luxury homes occupy this part of Broadway Street.

The most expensive are 9 houses that belong to:

1) Fred Pavlow, Add-a-Garage, 2776 Broadway.
2) Trevor Traina, stepson of Danielle Steele, 2780 Broadway.
3) Norman Stone, heir to insurance tycoon W. Clement Stone, 2790 Broadway.
4) Peter Haus, Levi Strauss heir, 2800 Broadway. In 1996, Haas' Levi holdings were valued in a news report at $2.2 billion.
5) James Klingbeil, of Am. Apt. Communites, 2808 Broadway.
6) Peter Sperling, U. of Phoenix heir, 2845 Broadway. In 2003 he had about $1.5 billion.
7) Larry Ellison, Oracle founder, 2850 Broadway. In 2003 Forbes set his worth at $18 billion.
8) Gordon Getty, Getty Oil heir, 2870-2880 Broadway. In 2003 Forbes Magazine estimated his fortune at $2.1 billion.
9) George Jewett, Weyerhaeuser heir, 2990 Broadway.

Less than an hour after these photos were taken, Obama addressed the assembled guests at a very similar fundraiser held just a few blocks away at the mansion of Alex Mehran, and said a now-notorious statement about "bitter" small-town Americans. An audio of his speech was posted at Huffington Post, but it is an overwhelming 50 minutes long. Luckily, I now have a 44-second long, short and small mp3 clip of just the crucial portion of his talk.



Here is a transcript of Obama's words (this is an EXACT transcript -- versions posted elsewhere had some minor errors):

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them -- like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they've gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.​

 

[Santee]

But, I only take money from regular folk. Bull ****!!

 

[DustinG]

He has large portion of donations from small folk, but the largest portion of the $ has came from the billionaires... he stated it as the biggest portion of donators, not the largest amount of money; he didn't lie, but didn't tell the real truth!

He has more money donated to him than John McCain (the man who was fooled when it came to public financing reform, it seems that the Democrats only want this when they are the underdogs in $). The worst part is that he owes his campaign to far-left organizations, who could careless about real Americans!

 

[Santee]

The only thing most politicos care about is power, and all of them think they know where power comes from, the rich. But if, and when, the **** hits the fan, a whole lot of people are going to get a wake up, before a dirt nap.

He has snookered a lot of people. He has a gift of gab. But he is being shown up more and more as just another politico.

A lot of people are supporting him out of political correctness. We'll show you were not racist, we voted for a black man! And if he loses, they will call it a racist reaction.

And yes, he has sold himself, hook, line and sinker, to the far left. But of course, that was and continues to be, his turf. His record speaks it plainly.

 

[林一海]

Say no to the 2008 Beijing Olympics!

Obama will play a scheming role in helping changes in China,bringing down Hu Jintao?

 

[Steelman]

Huh?

 

[Sphynx]

http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them -- like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they've gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.​

Just out of curiosity.... do you believe he was wrong in that statement? Do you think that a large percentage of the poor and down-trodden in rural parts of the Appalachian areas don't cling to their Guns, to their Religion, or are not Prejudice against skin color or religious differences?

Dustin: Are people to the "far left" not real Americans? How do you define Real Americans?

 

[BloodEclipse]

Just out of curiosity.... do you believe he was wrong in that statement? Do you think that a large percentage of the poor and down-trodden in rural parts of the Appalachian areas don't cling to their Guns, to their Religion, or are not Prejudice against skin color or religious differences?

Dustin: Are people to the "far left" not real Americans? How do you define Real Americans?

Clinging used in this context is derogatory and coming from a candidate just shows his real elitist views. He is not a man of the people. Wants to be the man in charge of the people.

 

[Sphynx]

Why do you feel it is derogatory? What better way to have said it without being derogatory? As a rural Appalachian, how would I possibly find that offensive when I know it's so true of so many people I know? When he so clearly said what I know to be fact?

The government sux, especially under Bush. When you're poor, when the government's idea of "helping" is to send some of your friends over to Iraq to deal with some problem way over there, you tend to cling to that which you hold dearest, which in this area of the woods is religion, guns, and a strong dislike for people that don't belong.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Why do you feel it is derogatory? What better way to have said it without being derogatory? As a rural Appalachian, how would I possibly find that offensive when I know it's so true of so many people I know? When he so clearly said what I know to be fact?

The government sux, especially under Bush. When you're poor, when the government's idea of "helping" is to send some of your friends over to Iraq to deal with some problem way over there, you tend to cling to that which you hold dearest, which in this area of the woods is religion, guns, and a strong dislike for people that don't belong.

So when your poor what is the government responsible for? Finding you a job? Handing you out money. Trying to inject some motivation into you so you can better yourself? Help me out here? I want the government out of my life as mush as possible. I want freedom and with every government program freedoms are lost.

 

[Sphynx]

I didn't say the government should be held responsible for them. Obama makes a valid point is all. You turn to what you have when you're in tough times, and he suggests that we give them a government they can believe in as something to turn to. Give them something more than Antipathy, guns and Religion.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I didn't say the government should be held responsible for them. Obama makes a valid point is all. You turn to what you have when you're in tough times, and he suggests that we give them a government they can believe in as something to turn to. Give them something more than Antipathy, guns and Religion.

Problem is he wants that government (they can believe in) to be in control of everything. He wants to bankrupt this great country and give programs to people to make them become dependent upon the government. His ideas are not freedom they are Socialist. What exactly is it that you support 120%? What issues make you say "thats my guy"? The guy has no experience(Now I sound like Hillary), he is changing positions faster then I can reload but yet people love the guy. Why is that?

 

[Sphynx]

He doesn't "want" the government to be in control of everything. He sure as hell doesn't "want" to bankrupt the government.

The guy has limited experience, and that's one of the things I like about him. He has roughly the same exact experience that Abraham Lincoln had when he became president. 8 years at a State Legislative level, where bi-partisanship is the default, not the exception. Where working together with the whole of the government is a requisite. He's only had 2 years of National legislative, enough to see the differences, and enough to know that something needs changing, but not so long as to be part of the problem.

Yes, part of the "left" does indeed sound a bit like Socialism. The government covering Health-Care is a very Socialistic concept. That doesn't make it any less Democratic.

Why I like him? THOMAS (Library of Congress) Illinois General Assembly Home Page Because I actually took the time to look up what he's fought for, and while I obviously can never agree with 100% of what a candidate fights for, his came as close as any candidate I've ever seen. Because I read his book and I realized that his legislation has ALWAYS been about trying to empathize with those who are fighting for something. Because he's the only person I've ever seen running for office who tries to step into both pairs of shoes before making a decision. Because he's willing to change his mind about an issue and not be a set-in-stone Bush type candidate when he feels he's been wrong on something.

The only issue that I disagree with him on is FISA, and he's being cornered on that by the Democrats like Pelosi who supported illegal tapping, and who would be in alot of trouble if this bill doesn't pass. People who can decide to make Clinton the nominee instead of Obama. He has to win the election to make things right, I hope that's the only compromise he has to make to win it.

 

[BloodEclipse]

He doesn't "want" the government to be in control of everything. He sure as hell doesn't "want" to bankrupt the government.

I respectfully disagree:
Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote



AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 12, 2008



It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member.


A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
The bill, which is item number four on the committee's business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn't realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.
A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day."
The legislation itself requires the President "to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."
The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP."
In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development."
Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.
Obama's bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.
The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama's mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.
The so-called "Lugar-Obama initiative" was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that "CTR funds have eased the Russian military's budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization." He recommended that Congress "eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union." However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.
Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.
More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of "falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals..."
It's not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that "We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity." Bush's former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who "sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan..."
Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

 

[Sphynx]

I agree with that bill, and don't see how you think it will bankrupt America. I think it's long past time to be thinking globally instead of just nationally, and considering we as a country spend more on military than the rest of the world combined, I can think of the perfect place to make cuts that will cover those expenses. We start by helping the world instead of picking fights with it.

 

[BloodEclipse]

You agree with US Taxpayers handing out $845 Billion to foreign countries based on mandates by the United Nation? You support a One World Order? This great Country already gives more than any nation on earth. How many nations have stepped up to help out the flood victims of the Midwest? Not a damn one of them. But you want my taxes to go up to support some UN Scam like Oil for food where the money ends up in Terrorists hands? I'm having a hard time understanding you?

 

[4sarge]

Just out of curiosity.... do you believe he was wrong in that statement? Do you think that a large percentage of the poor and down-trodden in rural parts of the Appalachian areas don't cling to their Guns, to their Religion, or are not Prejudice against skin color or religious differences?

Dustin: Are people to the "far left" not real Americans? How do you define Real Americans?

Poor and Down Trodden? Have you ever been to Appalachia? For claiming to be an American residing in the Netherlands you sure are full of Democrat sound bite cliché statements.

 

[DustinG]

The far left are the communists this nation fought against during the Cold War, but has found themselves into politics now. The far left is was past Socialism, they want everyone dependent on the government and guns banned quicker than you can say Constitution. They hate America, they believe that Europe is a model for America, rather than the other way around. I want the U.S. out of the United Nations, we pay a majority of the huge bill the U.N. consumes, then they turn and go against us. I do not want a one world government, which is what the U.N. is attempting to achieve; it also is predicted in the Bible as the end times.

The only thing that I want is the government out of my life in all ways possible. This nation was created to be limited government, so the people would hold the responsibilities on themselves. The only thing that the government is responsible for is the defense of this nation, which is what you argue is President Bush sending our troops overseas, do you also call the Iraq War an illegal war? The only thing that I want to pay taxes for is the military. Where this country has gone wrong is welfare, social security (because they do not believe that people are responsible enough to save for their own retirement, the government has to be their parent), and government housing, just to name a few.

 

[Glock Lover]

Poor and Down Trodden? Have you ever been to Appalachia? For claiming to be an American residing in the Netherlands you sure are full of Democrat sound bite cliché statements.

 

[Glock Lover]

I didn't say the government should be held responsible for them. Obama makes a valid point is all. You turn to what you have when you're in tough times, and he suggests that we give them a government they can believe in as something to turn to. Give them something more than Antipathy, guns and Religion.

Something more than religion. As a very religious person I find that insulting. My religion, specifically my God is what I cling to in good times or bad, no apologies, and NO governement will replace that. I do not worship at the feet of my governement, but that of my God. It many times seems as if that is what Obama seeks, for you to cling to him. Hmm..what would that make him then. It apparently makes me poor and ignorant.