There has got to be something drastically wrong with thought process among some Democrats still supporting Obama---

The Progressive Democrats are taking their lead on presidential politics from none other than John Conyers. The same John Conyers who used to be a "red" who had Cindy Sheehan arrested because she volunteered for his campaign to impeach Bush and Cheney. The same John Conyers who has lived a double life: one life posing as a progressive politician while his wife was taking bribes.

Here are some postings I made on Tim Carpenter's FaceBook page. Either these people are complete fools or they are just plain deceitful... a little of both if you ask me since they state these things publicly---

First they posted this article:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/conyers-obama-would-be-in-trouble-if-the-2012-gop-wasnt-so-weak.php

Then they proceeded to discuss it:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=141262469274221&id=1131889823&notif_t=like

These were some of my responses; feel free to go to the link above to read the full discussion:

• 
  

  Alan Maki 
   
  I didn't vote for Obama and never would; not even if my one vote would make the difference in the outcome of the election.
  
  http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/
  
  Tuesday, March 15, 2011
  
  Has Obama "morphed" or "changed?"
  
  I haven't read the book, but it seems to me the insinuation that Obama has "morphed" into something as if he is not the same person with the same politics and ideology he himself defines as "pragmatism" which is the ideology of imperialism that he was when he ran for president and what he is now is misleading and only confuses things more.
  
  The fact is, Obama wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine which is the voice of U.S. imperialism if ever there was one (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) in which he elaborates a very clear neo-liberal agenda. You can read that essay, Renewing American Leadership, by Barack Obama - July 2007, here (please note the July 2007 date long before the Primaries):
  
  http://wallstreetsfriend.blogspot.com/
  
  Obama was intentionally packaged and sold as something he never was: liberal, progressive, left. In fact, no Democrat can win the presidency (nor almost any other elected position in this country) without liberal, progressive and left support.
  
  There are the little issues of: ethics, morality and honesty in government and politics at play here, also--- or, more appropriately when it comes to Obama: lack of ethics, immorality and complete and total dishonesty. How else can one describe "packaging" oneself as something one is not for the purpose of getting elected by tricking people into thinking they will get one thing when the intent is to deliver just the opposite?
  
  At the core of those involved in packaging Obama to appear to be something he was not and never had been was The Century Foundation which handed out tens of millions of dollars to organizations like the Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America's Future, American Prospect and even the Communist Party USA along with all kinds of Democratic Party "front groups."
  
  Obama and his entourage brought in none other than Tom "poster boy for the Israeli killing machine" Hayden, Carl "I support Pol Pot" Davidson and Barbara "anyway I can make a nickel or dime off the movement" Ehrenreich and Robert "support the AFL-CIA" Borosage to do the dirty work providing Obama with a left cover.
  
  To use the word "morphed" suggests that Obama started out with good intentions and in one way or another has been either coerced by, or sold out to, Wall Street which is far from the truth that Obama is one and the same person with the same ideology he had back in 2007; and if one bothers to look he has not deviated from this imperialist ideology of "pragmatism" since he became an adult.
  
  To suggest that Obama has "morphed" is to suggest that he has changed from good to bad which is important to note because it conveys the idea that quite possibly he can "morph" back or change to something better.
  
  For those of us concerned about peace, social and economic justice issues this becomes very important because we need to know if there is any possibility based upon any facts where we might expect Obama to at least "bend towards justice."
  
  After all, do we really expect that a liberal, progressive or leftist can be elected to the presidency of the United States on the Democratic Party ticket?
  
  I don't want to insult anyone, but it is sheer stupidity to think this is possible. We saw what happened with George McGovern--- big money Wall Street neo-liberals just withdrew their support in the middle of the campaign--- completely unlike with Obama where they just kept pouring money in--- even the Republicans!
  
  So, the one and only thing I look for in Democrats is who might be inclined or pushed to the point of "bending towards justice"--- not because they want to but because they have to if for no other reason they want to try to salvage what they can (their profits) and save their rotten-to-the core system.
  
  Make no mistake; Obama was, is and will always be, Wall Streets loyal servant and he was chosen by these Wall Street coupon clippers because they know Obama is completely loyal and will never, ever "bend towards justice."
  
  I could offer an example of a current ruling class politician who would very likely "bend towards justice" but naming her would confuse the issue of whether or not Obama has "morphed."
  
  I think it is sufficient to point out two past examples of ruling class politicians who did "bend towards justice:" Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt--- but, only once tremendous pressure from the people was applied... movements in the schools, in places of employment, in the streets being backed up in the voting booth which in turn was backed up by ever larger and growing movements in the schools, in places of employment and in the streets and so on and so forth--- slavery was ended with Lincoln and we got The New Deal with Roosevelt. We could add to this Lyndon Johnson who delivered many other far reaching reforms complimenting what both Lincoln and Roosevelt delivered... however, he chickened out in delivering peace even though the movement against the Vietnam war was the most powerful movement in U.S. history which should give us some kind of idea what it is going to take to win peace and real change against this Wall Street crowd.
  
  Posted by Alan Maki at 10:21 AM

• 
  
• 

  Alan Maki 

   
   
  Obama is a loser; contrary to John Conyers stupid claim that the Republicans have no one that can beat Obama the fact is almost any Republican is likely to beat him. Why would anyone even give John Conyer's opinion any credibility after the , unethical, immoral and criminal shenanigans he and his wife have been involved in? 
  
  I would like to see a president fighting two wars; huge levels of unemployment; food, gas, electricity and heating costs soaring out of sight; millions being foreclosed on and states headed into bankruptcy because Obama refuses to end these wars, get re-elected.
  
  What working person in their right mind would vote for this creep again? Certainly no one who didn't vote for Obama before will come out and vote for him the second time around.
  
  For those who raise this phony issue that anyone who opposes Obama and wants him Primaried out is turning this country over to a Republicans you had better look right into your mirror because you are the one handing the presidency back to the Republicans just like you handed the House and the Senate over to the Republicans--- the 2010 Elections proved Obama has lost whatever support he had among working people.
  
  I challenge John Conyers to go before his constituents in Detroit and ask them: How is President Barack Obama's war economy working for you?

• 21 minutes ago · 
• 

  Alan Maki 

   
   
  Toby; are you saying that Snyder is going to be re-elected based on what he is doing to the people of Michigan? If so, the Democrats must be really, really stupid or they are not responding as they should.
  
  By-the-way; how are the Democrats and Obama responding to Rick Snyder?
  
  In fact, the leadership of the Michigan Democratic Party AND Obama bailed out on Virg Bernero the same way they did with George McGovern.
  
  I was in Michigan for three weeks, up to a week before the election, and in many places I could travel 60 or 70 miles and not see a Bernero yard sign. In Petoskey I actually had yard signs made for Bernero for our members to put in their yards.
  
  In Escanaba I went and had yard signs and leaflets printed.
  
  Now, Alan Howard can make any claim he wants to that there is a difference between Obama and Republicans; but, when I was in Benton Harbor, Michigan passing out leaflets for Virg Bernero a good 80% of the people we talked to said they weren't even going to vote because "There isn't any difference between Democrats and Republicans; none of them care about us poor people."
  
  Now, I would suggest to you that if people couldn't be scared into voting for Democrats in 2010 because Republicans are reincarnated from the devil, I seriously doubt that Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann will scare people into retuning to the voting booth to vote for a worthless warmonger like Barack Obama who has refused to enforce Affirmative Action.
   
               Do you understand the scenario any better as we move towards 2012 since I have explained the situation?