"Progress"

Why is President Obama so focused on “income inequality”, “leveling the playing field” and social welfare programs? Lots of Americans think it’s because he “cares” about the people and the country. I propose there may be a more sinister motive. Perhaps he (like most people) cares more about power and control. Here’s why I think he really doesn’t believe the words he uses, but he chooses the words to make us believe in him. In a recent speech on the topic of “income inequality” (a version he gives frequently to average Americans, like you and me), President Obama changed his word usage to “opportunity for all”, while speaking to big money Democratic donors. It seems like a subtle change in words, but as Slate found out, there is a very good reason for the change.

From Slate: ““The polling imperative is to make sure you’re attacking opportunity inequality,  not income inequality,” says one veteran Democratic strategist. “Obviously, one creates the other. But the public sees a distinction. One seems American. The other, Communist."

The reason for the change is not accuracy or logic, but because “the public sees a distinction”, so the change is intended to mislead the informed people who see a difference between “income” and “opportunity” inequality. What is the motive behind that misdirection? The obvious and simple answer is to win elections. I would argue that winning elections is simply an easy excuse, a bi-product and the longer term objective historically, under this administration and into the future of progressivism is to create a social state. Even the (D) strategist agrees (inadvertently) by comparing the perceived difference as attacking opportunity inequality “seems American", but attacking “income inequality” seems “Communist”.

The president’s verbal duplicity is an attempt to hide the true intent of his administration which is to gain control of people’s lives. I think this administration and the progressive movement are doing anything and everything they can to obtain control of the populace to enable a social state. I think this process has been going on for a very long time and it will not stop. Why would I think that? Because that is exactly how radical change is made in society according to Saul Alinsky, a well known community organizer (sound familiar?). He says there are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state, with “the first being most important”

1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people

-Is this not exactly what Obamacare does? It allows the government to argue what you can and

  can’t eat, what you drink, and things you do (like skiing or riding a motorcycle) in the name

 of your health and to save the country money. Your very life is now completely dependent on

 government.

2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to

 control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

-Is this not exactly what indefinite handouts do? Expanded long term social welfare programs

 allow the government to argue for more control to “help” solve the poverty problem it creates

 by making a minimum standard of living the norm vice the exception, thus forcing us to cede

 our liberty to survive.

3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase

 taxes, and this will produce more poverty.

-Is this not exactly what President Obama has done? He has increased our national debt as fast

 as and higher than even President Truman.

4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That

way you are able to create a police state.

-Is this not a clear liberal objective? Look at Chicago, Detroit or any other long controlled

 liberal enclave and see how they restrict the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. 

5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income)

-Spend 20 minutes and think of just three aspects of your life that do not have government

 involvement and when you discover what they are, let me know.

6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what

 children learn in school.

-I am thinking of the liberal push for “equal” air time on radio/tv stations controlled by the

 government, historical revisionism in text books, Common Core, etc.

7) Religion – Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.

-There is an entire national movement to remove God from every aspect of our society forcing

 religion into an, in your mind only thought, which can only lead to its eventual abolition. 

8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more

 discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. 

-There is no more divisive president in my life time than President Obama. I listen to his

 speeches and he makes me feel guilty about having a nice home and car all the while baiting 

the poor into thinking it is somehow the rich guy’s fault that they are poor. Division by 

victimization is liberalism 101 and the only true great oratorical skill President Obama has to

offer America.

          All of these “levels of control” are clear objectives for the progressive movement. I also see some of them as objectives for establishment Republicans who wrongly think controlling aspects of people’s lives will allow them to level the playing field with the progressives. Neither of those two choices makes me feel very comfortable when it comes to preservation of liberty or the American ideal. I don’t blame true progressives for their folly, lots of them “feel” like they are doing the right thing, but most of them are being manipulated by their leadership through feelings. Lots of you might think this idea is somehow "out there" or "conspiratorial", but just listen to what liberals say and then watch what they do. Feelings of hope got President Obama elected even though he told us in 2008, that he intended to “fundamentally change America”. Damn if he isn’t well on his way.