In February of 2013, Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX) accused the Obama administration of trying to advance their pro-gun confiscation agenda with fake Twitter messages, calling it a “phony spam campaign.” Months later, it was revealed that nearly 20 million of Obama’s followers on Twitter were fake and in the summer of 2012 it was confirmed by researchers at Barracuda. Now, The Washington Times is reporting that Obama’s official Obamacare Facebook page may be following the same footsteps as his Twitter account.

According to the Washington Times, Americans went to the Obamacare Facebook page to talk about their experiences, give their opinions and find out information on the latest round of enrollments in the unconstitutional, pretended legislation that bears Obama’s name.

However, while a person who might drop by and assume there is a lot of activity from many people across the United States, the reality is far from what meets the eyes. Of the 226,838 comments that were made to the Facebook page from September 2012 to early October 2014, sixty percent of those comments can be attributed to a less than a mere 100 unique profiles.

The Times went on to point out that Cindi Huynh, who is a California Obamacare supporter, has at least four Facebook profiles and commented an average of 59 times each day during a 60-day period. While she claims not to have been paid for her posts, she has volunteered for the California Democrat Party and has been approached to be an Obamacare patient advocate, according to the Times.

The Times went on to report that once they made it public that they were investigating the audience of the site, “at least three pro-Obamacare commentators disappeared or deactivated their accounts.”

However, here is a few of The Washington Times’ findings:

• Wanda Milner has posted 4,695 times in the entire timeline evaluated, putting her in the top 25 commentators. Ms. Milner, who is from Canada, told The Times she was passionate about the issue and decided to get active about it. She denied having any aliases or being paid for her actions, but said fake pages were created to mock her. She has “liked” many of Ms. Huynh‘s comments as well as those of other pro-Obamacare posters.
• Paul J. Nunley is an anti-Obamacare poster who made 2,316 posts in 60 days, ranking only behind Ms. Huynh. A retired veteran from New Mexico, Mr. Nunley said he dedicates his full time to the site to try to “rid it of misinformation.” In the process of doing so, he has made friends with Ms. Huynh and other top posters, and has engaged in online fighting, leading to multiple timeouts of his profile.
• Eileen A. Wolf, from North Dakota, posted 5,870 times in the entire period evaluated and 325 times in 60 days. She also used the account of her husband, James Wolf, to post prolifically under his name, Mr. Wolf said.

Obama’s former political presidential campaign machine, Obama for America, was the first political campaign in US history to be transformed into a 501(c)4 social welfare non-profit organization. It was renamed as Organizing for America (which makes the Obama’s lots of money as a slush fund) and that organization controls not only Obama’s Twitter account, but also the Obamacare Facebook page.

Lest you think this is no big deal, consider how people behind the scenes are looking to control the flow of information to the populace.

Richard Levick, chairman and chief executive officer of Levick, a public relations and strategic communications firm in Washington, said, “There have been smear campaigns since Adams and Jefferson in the early 1800s and we’re seeing the same thing here, with just a new set of tools.”

“Where do undecided voters, journalists go to get their information? Google. So controlling the search engine is hugely important. We need to know who is our audience, how do we reach them, how do we engage them, and then, how do we control the territory?” he said.

Sounds strangely Orwellian, doesn’t it? But this tells us something about how they view people’s response, doesn’t it? Instead of appealing to the intellect and reason, these social organizers seek to cut out opposing views and present the one they think is best. Just listen to what P. Takis Metaxas, a computer science professor at Wellesley College who studied social media manipulation in the 2012 election cycle had to say:

“As social animals, we are influenced by our peers’ opinions in many ways. In our research we have seen political zealots interested in the electoral results, time and time again. They do not want to let chance, or their enemies, determine an electoral outcome. So they try to create content that would fool social networks into promoting their own candidates and, in some cases, into spreading lies to the detriment of their opponents.”

Obama is only the first in a line of politicians (and God help us if the real Alinsky disciple gets elected) who will grab social media and seek to create social change with it. Obama doesn’t have the support he and the media claim he has. Rather, he is merely using the tactics of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who infamously wrote in Rules for Radicals:

“Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”

This is why it is so important for those of us in the alternative (or new) media to get the truth out as best we can, utilizing all the tools in our arsenal. And you, the people, are a vital resource in that endeavor.