NATIONAL HEALTHCARE IS 'NOT' A RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IN OBAMA’S SOCIALIST 3RD WORLD VISION FOR AMERICA, IT IS!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
NATIONAL HEALTHCARE IS 'NOT' A RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IN OBAMA’S SOCIALIST 3^RD WORLD VISION FOR AMERICA, IT IS!

Tonight we will witness Progressive Liberals sitting on their hands knowing that they're preventing Trump from fulfilling  his promise to the American people by obstructing the path of his cabinet picks from starting to do their jobs, and don't even care! Democrats have become the party of 'do nothing new' and hanging on to the Socialist blue print that Obama had for the future of America!

Obama ran on change, and after elected attacked the heart and soul of our Constitution by injecting the ideals of Saul Alinsky and his teachers at Columbia University, Cloward and Piven, where he honed his skills and concocted his plan to destroy America from within!

Click here>  OBAMA HATCHED HIS PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN AT COLUMBIA  

Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a Obamacare, has proven to be not what it appears, and not anything that the Constitution grants the citizens of this country, but if the ‘Paid to Report’ Media isn’t informing the citizens of the transformation of America to Socialism using the 10 steps Alinsky outlined to destroy America from within, then how would we ever have known what was coming down the road for the future of America. Obama opened our borders and exposed the American people to the lawlessness and deception of the world by rewriting and bypassing the immigration laws that were already put into place through the use of Executive Orders, he drove the economy in to the ground so the people would have to depend on the government to survive, he unarmed our military, cut its funding to support and finance his unconstitutional immigration agenda, drove down the moral of our troop through rules of engagement, and then didn't physically maintain the  technology and capabilities of our military shrink down to levels not seen since the early 1900's. Obama has made America not so great anymore, and with Trumps first one on one with congress and the American people tonight you should make yourself aware of the truth behind the 'Paid to Report' Media, and the progressive left's Socialist agenda...... 

If you never knew about any of this, then let me be the first to show you what you’ve missed…

HILLARY/ OBAMA, AND THE CULT OF ALINSKY, AND WHAT THE MEDIA ISN’T TELLING YOU!!

Most Americans never heard of Saul Alinsky. Yet his shadow darkens our coming election. Democrat frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both worship at the altar of Alinskyism.

In a 1971 book called Rules for Radicals, Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.

Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.

 In his native Chicago, Alinsky courted power wherever he found it. His alliance with prominent Catholic clerics, such as Bishop Bernard Sheil, gave him respectability. His friendship with crime bosses such as Frank Nitti - Al Capone's second-in-command - gave Alinsky clout on the street.

In our book The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, my co-author David Horowitz and I trace the rise of Alinsky's political influence since the 1930s.

He excelled at wooing wealthy funders. Start-up money for his Industrial Areas Foundation - a training school for radical organizers - came from department-store mogul Marshall Field III, Sears Roebuck heiress Adele Rosenwald Levy, and Gardiner Howland Shaw, an assistant secretary of state for Franklin Roosevelt.

Alinsky once boasted, "I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday."

One Alinsky benefactor was Wall Street investment banker Eugene Meyer, who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1930 to 1933. Meyer and his wife Agnes co-owned The Washington Post. They used their newspaper to promote Alinsky.

Agnes Meyer personally wrote a six-part series in 1945, praising Alinsky's work in Chicago slums. Her series, called "The Orderly Revolution", made Alinsky famous. President Truman ordered 100 reprints of it.

During the Sixties, Alinsky wielded tremendous power behind the scenes.

When President Johnson launched his War on Poverty in 1964, Alinsky allies infiltrated the program, steering federal money into Alinsky projects.

In 1966, Senator Robert Kennedy allied himself with union leader Cesar Chavez, an Alinsky disciple. Chavez had worked ten years for Alinsky, beginning in 1952. Kennedy soon drifted into Alinsky's circle.

After race riots shook Rochester, New York, Alinsky descended on the city and began pressuring Eastman-Kodak to hire more blacks. Kennedy supported Alinsky's shakedown. The two men had an "understanding", Alinsky later wrote.

Alinsky's crowning achievement was his recruitment of a young high school student named Hillary Rodham. She met Alinsky through a radical church group. Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky's methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky's death in 1972.

Alinsky tried to hire Hillary as a community organizer, but she chose instead to attend Yale Law School. Nonetheless, Alinsky's network continued guiding Hillary's career.

 Fresh out of law school at age 26, Hillary received a prestigious appointment to the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigative team in 1974. She got the job on the recommendation of Peter and Marian Wright Edelman.

The Edelmans have been trusted mentors of Hillary since 1969. New Republic editor Martin Peretz called Marian “Hillary’s closest sister and ideological soulmate". Marian Wright Edelman also happens to be an Alinskyite, having served on the Board of Trustees of Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation.

Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky's counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite. Trained by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project. Later, he worked with ACORN and its offshoot Project Vote, both creations of the Alinsky network.

Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.

That Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share an Alinskyite background tells us two things. First, they are leftists, dedicated to overthrowing our Constitutional system. Second, they will go to any length to conceal their radicalism from the public, and with the Media in on the plot, Americans have no clue.

There are eight levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a Liberal Socialist state.

THE FIRST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT!
HEALTHCARE: Control healthcare and you control the people.
Click here>  OBAMA'S TRUE RECORD, AND IT'S NOT PRETTY!   

SO HOW DID OBAMACARE BECOME A LAW?

If you recall, the Democrats in the House weren’t able to pass their version of a Healthcare law. Because all revenue bills have to originate in the House of Representatives, the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill. They took out essentially all of the wording of it, and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obamacare. It gets better. The Senate at that time had 60 Democrats, just enough to pass Obamacare.

After the bill passed the Senate, the Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died. In his place, Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown. That meant that, if the House made any changes to the bill, the Senate wouldn’t have the necessary number of votes to pass the corrected bill, since they knew no Republicans would vote for Obamacare. So they made a deal with the Democrat‐controlled House of Representatives: the House would pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version of Obamacare. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010.

 It made a bunch of detail changes, and added some things. So the House passed PPACA, the Senate bill, as well as their Reconciliation Act. So now PPACA was ready for the President to sign, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House. Confused yet?

Now, remember that the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since Republican Scott Brown replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy. In order to pass the Reconciliation Act, therefore, the Democrats in the Senate DECIDED TO CHANGE THE RULES!

They declared that they could use the “Reconciliation Rule”—this is a different “reconciliation” than the House bill now. This rule was only used for budget item approval, so that budget items could be passed with only 51 votes in the Senate, not the usual 60. This rule was never intended to be used for legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare.

Too bad… they used it anyway. So then both of the “Acts” passed both houses of Congress and were then signed by President Obama.

EVERYTHING DONE BY DEMOCRATS WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. TO QUOTE DEMOCRAT REP. ALCEE HASTINGS OF THE HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE DURING THE BILL PROCESS: “WE’RE MAKING UP THE RULES AS WE GO ALONG” THEY CERTAINLY COULDN’T HAVE MADE THIS LAW WITHOUT IT.

Click here>  THE TRUTH BEHIND THE FAILED OATH OF PRESIDENT OBAMA! 

NO HEALTH CARE IN THE CONSTITUTION!

Nancy Pelosi was recently asked by a reporter, ""Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution Grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"

She replied, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at least made an attempt at an answer. He was also asked where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy.

Hoyer's answer:

Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to affect that end. The end that we're trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.

News flash for Congressman Hoyer: "general welfare" is mentioned only twice in the Constitution. The phrase appears once in the Preamble, but the Preamble gives the legislative branch no authority whatsoever.

"General welfare" is also mentioned once in Article I, Section 8. Here is what it actually means in that section.

The powers of the legislative branch are stated in the Constitution. The powers specifically granted to the Congress are spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Since it isn't that long of a section -- and there aren't that many powers -- I will reproduce the entire enumerated powers of the Congress in the first endnote below.

The words "general Welfare" show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States ...

Notice that the Constitution doesn't say the "general welfare of the citizens of the United States." It says "general Welfare of the United States." This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project -- including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That's it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the "And we really mean it!" amendments.  Here they are:

Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the "United States" clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens ("the people"), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.

So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, "general Welfare of the United States" only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens' health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.

The words "health" or "health care" appear nowhere in the Constitution.

So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the "right" of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a "right." According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a "right."

Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that "right" is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don't want to pay for the "right" to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law -- or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a "right" to government-mandated health care.

If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated "right" to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us.  Health care is our choice, but it is not a "right" if it has not been made a right by an individual state.

At least that's what the Constitution says. Seriously. ~~By Larrey Anderson, a Friend of America!

Click here>  GEORGE SOROS INTERFERED WITH AMERICA'S ELECTION PROCESS FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS BEFORE TRUMP! 

IS NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE CONSTITUTIONAL?

We have heard a great deal about the costs and benefits of a “public option” and “single-payer system.”  We have heard about the financial costs—and the other costs—of allowing the government to interfere with matters of life and death.  However, we haven’t heard whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact these plans. What does this say about the status of the Constitution in the minds our policymakers today?  If a concerned citizen asks a proponent of nationalized healthcare to point to the constitutional authority for such a law, he may hear that the “General Welfare” clause, the “Necessary and Proper” clause, or the “Interstate Commerce” clause enables Congress to create national public health insurance to act.

None of these clauses—or any others found in the Constitution—gives Congress the power to create a government healthcare system.

The “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.”  This clause is not a grant of power to Congress (as constitutional law professor Gary Lawson has shown). It is a limit to a power given to Congress. It limits the purpose for which Congress can lay and collect taxes.

During the founding, some Anti-Federalists were concerned that this clause “amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” But James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” explained very clearly that it granted no power to Congress. If the “General Welfare” clause gives Congress the power to promote the general welfare, then why specifically list the other powers in Article I, such as the power to establish post offices and post roads, or to coin money? Wouldn’t it be redundant to list them?

In short, as Madison argued, Congress derives no power from the general welfare clause, which merely serves to limit Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes.  Congress can only do so for purposes of common defense or general welfare, in the service of the powers granted to it elsewhere in Article I.

Second, “Necessary and Proper” gives Congress the power “to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.”  Like the general welfare clause, this clause was not a stand-alone grant of power to Congress.  Rather, it authorizes Congress to make laws that are necessary (and also proper) to make the other grants of authority in Article I effectual.

In other words, the necessary and proper clause cannot itself authorize national public health insurance.  One would have to show that national public health insurance is necessary and proper to execute some other power granted in the Constitution. This puts the proponents of nationalized healthcare back where they started.

Lastly, proponents might argue that national health insurance is part of Congress power “to regulate commerce…among the several states.”  While progressives have often used this clause to expand the federal government, it does not apply especially to the creation of a national health insurance, because to create and engage in commerce is not the same thing as regulating commerce among the several states.

Nobody during the framing generation expected the commerce clause to expand the federal government’s authority to anything relating to or resembling commerce. James Madison wrote that it is a power “which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”  The clause was designed to prevent some states from taxing goods that passed through their boundaries as those goods proceeded to market.

In case proponents of government healthcare latch on to another clause, the three clauses above and rest of Constitution are explained in depth in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution.

Of course, most progressive advocates of national health insurance are unconcerned whether the Constitution authorizes such a law when a pseudo-constitutional reasoning to reach the desired result will suffice.  But constitutionalists should not allow such attempts to dismiss the Constitution go unanswered. ~~ By Julia Shaw, a Friend of America!

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

OBAMA LOYALISTS ARE LEAKING THE 'FAKE NEWS' CREATED BY ‘AGENDA JOURNALISTS’

OBAMA LOYALISTS ARE LEAKING THE 'FAKE NEWS' CREATED BY ‘AGENDA JOURNALISTS’

There is not a minute of the day that I’m not listening to the ‘Paid to Report’ Media and their false underlying theme and disdain for the truth when it comes to dealing with the threat of the unvetted illegal immigrants and refugees saga! The deplorables that they describe in their one-way logic can’t conceive of the idea that the rule of law matters, and that Trump is only enforcing the laws that are already on the books, but never imposed by the Obama administration, and nothing more! Very few people I know who believe in what I believe, especially after witnessing what’s been going on in countries like Sweden, Germany, France, etc., just want the immigration laws followed, and if the process is followed and they take the time to assimilate, like every legal immigrant that I know that went through the process, then fine, welcome!

I don’t know if anyone noticed that they’re finding out that in most, or all of these Socialist based countries that these refugees are being funded by the government through subsides, welfare payments, and national healthcare programs, so you would have to believe that the same holds true here in America, and if that is true, which we can deduct with a little common sense, that we are funding Sharia Law, terrorists, and the anti-Christian warriors of the underworld, a.k.a. the ACLU.

I sit here watching these Sanctuary Cities going down with the ship, and now that churches are taking illegals in to protect them from the alt right’s crusade against humanity, and Donald Trump! Now these cities won’t only be losing federal funds, but laying the burden of financing these illegals through the offering plate, or in other words, the taxpayer’s pockets, again! I wonder how the ACLU will handle this version and interpretation of the separation of church and state? Now if you look at this with an open mind you would see what the taxpayers in these cities are being persuaded to do by the outsider financed opposition to the America’s Constitutional Republic ideology and Constitution.

By Constitutional law President Trump can withhold federal finances because of these cities encouraging illegals to be here illegally, and against federal law because immigration is under Federal jurisdiction. The American taxpayer pays $54 Billion dollars a year to fund these illegals, and if you didn’t know that $20 Billion gets sent home to these illegal families who are living in other countries, then you haven’t done your homework.

I don’t understand how an unelected progressive judge(s) can make law, and override the Executive Order of the President of the United states when the Constitution gives him the sole power to make the call?

The founders and framers delegated most powers of the general government to the legislature. It was done so intentionally, as one house was closely aligned with the interests of the people (The House of Representatives), while the other was representative of the sovereignty of the states (The Senate). When the courts act to create de-facto law rather than by rendering of opinion, they violate the intentional separation of powers doctrine used to diffuse powers not only between separate branches of the general government, but also the paradigm of the general government and the states. When a group of nine judges attempt to make law for a populace of 310 million and settle constitutional questions for all time, they are acting against the interests of the compact of the Constitution. Such a situation is demonstrative of an oligarchy, not a republic.

Federal law, at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), provides in part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Prof. Peter Spiro from Temple University believes that this gives the president complete discretion.

But there is a problem with that. Congress cannot delegate to the president authority that Congress does not have, so if a congressional ban would be unconstitutional, then so would a president doing the same. Every president is bound to follow the Constitution always, just like Congress.

There are, however, two ways that the law (or presidential restrictions) could definitely pass constitutional muster.

One way is if Congress narrows the ban by age, gender, or nationality, such as all Muslim males ages 18 through 25, or Muslims from certain countries with serious terrorist problems like Syria. Then the restriction is not defined solely by religion.

The other is if Congress imposes an ideological test. For example, denying entry to any person who the government determines believes that America should be governed by Sharia law instead of our current constitutional system, or denying entry to any person who believes Israel should be destroyed, or who believes it is okay to kill non-Muslims, or to wage jihad against Americans. ~~

OBAMA MADE HISTORY BY ATTEMPTING TO INFUSE OUR REPUBLIC WITH DIVISION AND HATE THROUGH DECEPTION, AND IF YOU DON’T ACKNOWLEDGE HIS SOCIALIST GAME PLAN AND CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS, LIKE OBAMA DIDN'T ALSO BY NOT RECOGNIZING ‘RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM,’ AMERICA’S NUMBER ONE ENEMY, THEN HISTORY IS DOOMED TO REPEAT ITSELF!

We have a record high 95+ million people out of the work force and out of the market because there are no jobs, we have the highest number of people in history on welfare and government subsides, and we have the highest poverty rate in the history of America, and all because of the forced implementation of Obama’s strategies that he learned from his mentors Alinsky and his disciples, Cloward and Piven, which he spent 4 years at Columbia absorbing and plotting!

Obama used the Democratic Party as a stepping stone, and when you have people like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the counterpart version on the right of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, you know he struck while the iron was hot, and while we were all asleep! Who would have ever thought that our elected officials would ever turn on the ‘Will’ of the American people and ignore the rule of law and the constitution?  They did, they will, and they are continuing on behind the scenes, and after watching the smug and unrepentant John Brennan yesterday, former Director of the CIA, and knowing his thoughts about the outsider nonpolitician, Donald Trump, you know I was captivated by his comments and observations.

Click here>  BRENNAN GETTING A PARTING SHOT AT TRUMP AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

IS JOHN BRENNAN, THE MAN BEHIND THE LIES OF OBAMA’S LEGACY?

JOHN BRENNAN’S EXTREMISM AND DISHONESTY REWARDED WITH CIA DIRECTOR NOMINATION!

Obama's top terrorism adviser goes from unconfirmable in 2008 to uncontroversial in 2013, reflecting the Obama legacy

Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the...CIA."

This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year.

He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield." Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen -- targeting people without even knowing who they are -- and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.

As it typically does in the US National Security State, all of that deceit and radicalism is resulting not in recrimination or loss of credibility for Brennan, but in reward and promotion. At 1 pm EST today, Obama will announce that he has selected Brennan to replace Gen. David Petraeus as CIA chief: the same position for which, four short years ago, Brennan's pro-torture-and-rendition past rendered him unfit and unconfirmable.

Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies.

Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that "it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan." Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: "the torture issue" won't cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his "Look Forward, not Backward" decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama's posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama's decisions except from the American Right. It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus.

UPDATE

There's one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that.

UPDATE II

The ACLU today said that the Senate should not proceed with Brennan's nomination "until it assesses the legality of his actions in past leadership positions in the CIA during the early years of the George W. Bush administration and in his current role in the ongoing targeted killing program". By Glenn Greenwald, a Friend of America! ~~

Report: Muslim Sympathizers at CIA Behind Trump Leaks

Obama loyalists still at CIA fuel radical Islam!

WASHINGTON, D.C. – It’s time to “drain the swamp” at the CIA, as former CIA Director John Brennan, a clear Muslim sympathizer, packed the agency with Obama loyalists determined to bring down the Trump administration. It started from the early days of Obama's unconstitutional appointments of his 'Czars' to the Brennan's appointment, and Brennan's hiring of loyal Muslim sympathizers....Click here>  OBAMA'S CZARS ASSIGNED TO ATTACK THE INNER WORKINGS OF OUR REPUBLIC!

Looking for anti-Trump leakers, President Trump needs to be as concerned about the CIA as the NSA.

Few remember that it was John Brennan’s private security company that was responsible for the breach of State Department files which sanitized the passport records (still never seen by the public) of presidential candidate and then-Sen. Barack Obama prior to the 2008 presidential election.

On March 21, two unnamed contract employees for the State Dept. and a third were disciplined for breaching Obama’s passport files. Two were found to be employees for Stanley, Inc., a security firm based in Arlington, Virginia, that was headed by former CIA agent John Brennan, who was then serving as an advisor on intelligence and foreign policy to Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign.

Brennan was an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, where he studied Arabic.  In 1976, he voted in the presidential election for Communist Party USA candidate Gus Hall.  He speaks Arabic fluently, having served in the CIA as station chief in Saudi Arabia.

On Feb. 13, 2010, as President Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor in the White House, Brennan hosted a public forum, co-hosted by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University, where he quoted a lengthy statement in Arabic which he didn’t translate for his English-speaking audience.

Previously, in a speech Brennan delivered on Aug. 9, 2009, to a conference sponsored by Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan attempted to legitimatize the term “jihad,” arguing it signified an internal moral struggle of peaceful introspection, and not the advocacy of violent Islamic terrorism.

At this conference, Brennan also tried to argue that Hezbollah was no longer an Islamic terrorist organization, arguing instead that it had “evolved,” such that Hezbollah now has “members of parliament in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, and others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.”

In Egypt, Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood when the “Arab Spring” ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and elected Muslim Brotherhood-backed Mohamed Morsi as president on June 30, 2012.

Under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt has since criminalized the Muslim Brotherhood and is determined to root out its members that gained positions of authority in parliament and government under Morsi.

Yet, even today, support for the Muslim Brotherhood remains strong in a CIA still dominated by Brennan loyalists.

On Feb. 8, Politico reported that Trump administration officials pushing to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization are being opposed by CIA analysts who claim it “may fuel extremism” and damage relations with America’s allies.

According to Politico, a CIA internal document, dated Jan. 31, boasts that “a minority of Muslim Brotherhood members have engaged in violence, most often in response to harsh regime repression, perceived foreign occupation, or civil conflicts.”

“MB [Muslim Brotherhood] groups enjoy widespread support across the Near East-North Africa region and many Arabs and Muslims worldwide would view an MB designation as an affront to their core religious and societal values,” the document continues, as reported by Politico. “Moreover, a US designation would probably weaken MB leaders’ arguments against violence and provide ISIS and al-Qaida additional grist for propaganda to win followers and support, particularly for attacks against US interests.”

Through a spokesman, Brennan declared he was “deeply saddened and angered at Trump’s despicable display of self-aggrandizement” when Trump traveled to CIA headquarters and delivered a speech before the agency’s memorial to CIA officers deceased in the line of duty.

Departing his position at the CIA, Brennan criticized Trump’s approach to national security, suggesting Trump should not be “talking and tweeting” without understanding Russia’s threat to the United States.  Brennan also took “great umbrage” at Trump’s suggestion that intelligence agencies biased against him were behaving as if the U.S. were Nazi Germany.

“Now that he’s going to have an opportunity to do something for our national security as opposed to talking and tweeting,” Brennan told Fox News Sunday, on Jan. 15. “He’s going to have tremendous responsibility to make sure that U.S. and national security interests are protected. I think he has to be mindful that he does not have a full appreciation and understanding of what the implications are of going down that road.” ...Hmmm..

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO?"... THE 'WILL' OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
"AND THE OSCAR GOES TO?"... THE 'WILL' OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

With tonight’s Oscars just hours away I can only believe the same bashing of Trump that we've seen going on in the previous award shows will be center stage! The real problem I see with this is that the only thing Trump is guilty of is caring about America and choosing to enforce the already existing laws that Obama, at the  cost of our sovereignty, liberties, and freedoms, chose not to enforce! Tonight, we have the privilege to watch these self-promoting snub nosing members of the academy, who think their profession’s shit doesn’t stink and allowing the humble souls of America the opportunity to witness this over the top celebration of self worth, and then on top of that, they only do this once a year, and I ask you, how do they survive without their ego being massaged for that long? They get presented Oscars for their portrayals of American Hero's that, through poetic license, change history and reality to distort the message of what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, on the silver screen, to make an extra buck or two! I guess we also should be honored and privileged to get an opportunity to peruse and observe these self-absorbed, out of touch with reality, self-proclaimed stars as they go hand in hand down the ‘Red Carpet’ wearing dresses that cost more than the average salaries of Americans in 2016!

We also should be honored to be included in the behind the scenes pampering of these bipolar split personalities nut jobs as they receive Oscars for playing Kings, Queens, Generals, Rapists, Murderers, and Super Hero's etc., and that in a lot, if not most cases, calling for extreme violence using automatic weapons so they don’t have to reload while taking out 100’s of opposition agents with over the top needed 'head' shots to secure the kill like in the movie I just saw a few week ago, ‘John Wick: Chapter 2.’

Hollywood is full of 'Fake People' playing roles of historical figures that actually believed in America, and  believed in an America in a time when America was great and took pride in who we were, and still are, without someone like the first black President of the United States of America telling us, through political correctness, that that's 'not' who we are when it comes to the mandate of the 'Will' of the American people wanting to follow the founding fathers constitutional blue print, and rule of law that has served us well for the past 240 years!

More than bad reviews and critics tearing apart the gowns worn on the red carpet tonight, please remember the sacrificing that The 'Will' of the American People went through when acting and exposing the 'Paid to Report' Media, the bipartisan swamp, and making the right call at the polls on November 8th 2016! The polls got it wrong, the mouthpieces of the media got it wrong, but the American people got it right, and therefore, take home the Oscar for the 'Greatest Show on Earth!  

In defense of Donald Trump: Try to keep this in mind, Donald Trump did not steal your money. Donald Trump did not raise your taxes. Donald Trump did not quadruple the price of food. Trump is not stirring a race war. Trump did not leave any US soldiers in Benghazi to be slaughtered and desecrated by Muslims. Trump did not send the US Navy to fight for Syrian Al-Qaeda. Trump did not arm ISIS and systematically exterminate Christians throughout the Middle East. Trump did not betray Israel. Trump did not provide financing and technology to Iran's nuclear weapons program. Trump did not give our military secrets to China. Trump did not remove our nuclear missile shield in Poland at the behest of Russia. Trump did not shrivel our military, and betray our veterans. Trump did not cripple our economy. Trump did not increase our debt to 20 trillion dollars. Trump did not ruin our credit, twice. Trump did not double African American unemployment. Trump did not increase welfare to a record level for eight years. Trump did not sign a law making it legal to execute, and imprison Americans. Trump did not set free all of terrorists in Guantanamo bay. Trump did not steal your rights, violate US Constitutional law, or commit treason, hundreds of times. Yet Trump was ripped apart in the news, non-stop. Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton and the criminals occupying our government, were not. The media was and still is the Democratic Party, and as a result the 'Will' of the American people saved our culture, and stopped listening to them..., and thank god we did!!

A lot of people back before the election have brought up the fact that they wouldn’t vote for Trump if he’s the nominee! I just want you to see something in perspective if you were on that side of the fence!

Justice Scalia’s seat is vacant!  Ginsberg is 82 years old, Kennedy is 79, Breyer is 77, and Justice Thomas is 67. Nowadays, the data shows that the average age of a Supreme Court retirement or death occurs after the age of 75!

These are 5 vacancies that will come up in the next 4-8 years. The next President will have the power to potentially create a 7-2 Supreme Court skewed in their ideology!

Think about that….7-2. If the next President appoints 5 young justices, it will guarantee the control of the Supreme Court for the next generation, 7-2 decisions will hold up much more over time than 5-4 decisions which are seemed to be lacking in mandate!

Hillary has made it clear that she would use the Supreme Court to go after the 1st and 2nd Amendments! Hillary has literally said that the Supreme Court was wrong in its Heller decision stating the Supreme Court should overturn and remove the individual right to keep and bear arms. period!

Everyone said they wouldn't vote for Donald Trump, or the other candidate because they don’t like the choices that are not paying attention to the biggest issue that the ‘Paid to Report’ Media is ‘not’ telling you about, or the consequences if Hillary had won, and got to put into place Hillary’s and Obama’s Progressive, Socialist, Globalist, and Open Border radical left wing Justices!

One things for sure, and that is if Hillary won, you would have never seen a conservative victory at the Supreme Court level for the rest of your life, ever!~~ Sorry, going off the topic again......

Tonight's Oscar awards will be full of political correctness, fake news, and fake people who spend their lives delving into other fake lives to create a persona of fake emotion and loyalties to America and the American Dream! They choose to use and abuse their portrayals of 'fake' personalities to hurt and distort the facts of reality for the children who have to grow up in the real world, and where these 'fake' unobtainable 'Super Hero' abilities are mimicked and followed in the dreams of these same children, but can only be regretfully duplicated by living in a couch potatoe existence playing virtual reality games that portrait a 'fake' reality to living, surviving, and growing up to being responsible on their own without having to depend on the government to tell them how to live their lives, and avoiding an Obama Socialist world from actually running their lives altogether!   

TODAY'S FAKE FLAVOR!

Today’s flavor of ‘Fake News’ seems to be the repeal and replacement of Obamacare and how ‘Agenda Journalists’ are now writing stories about how people want to stay on Obamacare, and  of course they do because it’s ‘Free’ to almost all of the 20 million who didn’t have insurance to begin with, and out of the 40 million it was supposed to cover, but didn’t! These Premiums are not being paid by the ‘Oscarites’ but the middle-class taxpayer’s who have been dropped off their company’s insurance because they lost their jobs due to the Obama ‘Climate change’ regulations imposed by his unconstitutionally appointed Czars, and the highest in the world 35% corporate tax rates that forced American companies to seek cover in foreign countries where labor is so much cheaper.

Trump will do the repeal and replace of Obamacare right, and Senators won’t have to vote and pass it before they will be able to see what’s in it, and you will be able to use your own doctor, and that’s only if he hasn’t been forced out of the medical profession because of Obamacare's extreme recklessness. For all of you that are afraid to lose Obamacare, fear not, it’s still there, and will be until the replacement plan is put into place, so, if I were you, I would hope that it won’t collapse under its own weight, as predicted it would by some of the biggest insurance companies that are already backing out and leaving, before the ‘New’ America First Party can get the tax and replacement plans in place.

Common sense should tell you that the Dems already know that Obamacare is collapsing under its own weight, and now doubling down on the repeal and replacement plan by trashing the pace of change and the time frame of it being rolled out! Trump has just been in office for a little over a month, and the Dems keep stalling on the crucial confirmations of Trump's cabinet nominees needed to make the transformation happen,  but if the Trump plan doesn't come to fruition because of the Dems shooting themselves in the foot by holding Trump's cabinet nominees hostage, they will be, and always will be with Trump's plan or not, on the hook for Obamacare's failure to deliver on its healthcare promises to the American people!

What you probably should know, if you don't already! 

How many out there know that in Trump’s first month in office decreased the deficit by $12 Billion compared to Obama’s first month raising it $200 billion!

How many of you know that Trump rebranded Obama’s term from ISIL back to the original ISIS, and why?

Click here>  WHY TRUMP CHANGED IT BACK TO ISIS! 

I saw this asked yesterday on the internet and thought I would share this with you…..How many of you have ever been asked or called about the approval rating of our President Trump, or any other poll that is looking for honest answers pertaining to the future of America?

I don’t know when the Media was so divided, but when I was younger I never felt a huge difference in everyday America, or the disdain for opinions put forth by fellow Americans, but I do remember how the constitution protects the journalist’s sources from being revealed! The protection of sources, sometimes also referred to as the confidentiality of sources or in the U.S. as the reporter's privilege, is a right accorded to journalists under the laws of many countries, as well as under international law. It prohibits authorities, including the courts, from compelling a journalist to reveal the identity of an anonymous source for a story. The right is based on a recognition that without a strong guarantee of anonymity, many would be deterred from coming forward and sharing information of public interests with journalists. As a result, problems such as corruption or crime might go undetected and unchallenged, to the ultimate detriment of society as a whole.

So, what’s my point? Well if you have the entire news Media industry reporting on the facts about Trump’s administration and attacking the President of the United States of America just resorting to ‘Fake News,’ and at the same time not exposing, but protecting the behind the scenes betrayal to America by attempting to transform America’s Constitutional Republics ideology to Socialism, then you got to know that something is not right! To protect and defend Obama’s failure to follow the oath of office that he took to become President, and then help lie enough times to make that lie perceived by many to be the truth, then you would have to know that the ‘Agenda Journalist’s’ sources will never be questioned about the veracity of the facts, or where the facts were even coming from!

‘Fake News’ a.k.a. ‘lies,’ will never be coming from a reliable source in today’s slanderous environment, or at least from any sources that exist outside the individual Journalist’s interpretation of his or hers falsely perceived version of the truth! Without self-generated factual checks and balances you wouldn’t see the truth, and that’s because they would be hiding behind their protected sources proclamations! Do you ever think they’re will be a time where ‘Agenda Journalists’ will self-regulate themselves and err on the side of the truth and show a higher sense of responsibility in delivering the truth like a pro golfers when using honesty and integrity about the rules of golf when keeping score?     Naaah!

I might have run a little amuck here, but I believe Trump did the right thing by turning down the invitation to that time honored traditional Press’s Correspondence dinner, and  with the country Obama left him, and the inability of the ‘Paid to Report’ Media not to help assist in getting his Cabinet nominees released from the Dems oppression court of deception so they could do their jobs to assist in helping making America Great again, I not only find it appropriate, but installing another stake in the heart of the movement looking to unseat the time honored tradition of following our founding fathers, and their time approved Constitution!

HAS PUSH COMED TO SHOVE, AND WITH THE ‘IDES’ OF MARCH JUST A FEW WEEKS AWAY, SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE AFRAID OF THE ‘AGENDA JOURNALISTS’ THAT WILL REAR THEY’RE UGLY HEADS TONIGHT IN HOLLYWOOD’S FREE FOR ALL AGAINST A PRESIDENT THAT IS ONLY ENFORCING THE UNENFORCED UNDER OBAMA, RULE OF LAW! 

In 44 BC, Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of senators. They were led by Marcus Brutus, a.k.a. Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan, who had previously been close friends of Caesar. a.k.a. Donald J. Trump?

Click here>  'IDES' OF MARCH? DEJU VU?

THE STARS OF SEXIST AND RACIST HOLLYWOOD SHINE BRIGHT TONIGHT!

Tonight, after strolling down the red carpet and preening for the bulb-popping paparazzi, the kings and queens of Hollywood will honor their fans with many tedious televised hours of congratulating and awarding themselves.

As winning actors and actresses grab their Oscars, they will likely take turns upbraiding Mr. Trump as both racist and sexist. Don’t dismiss the charges cavalierly, though — especially sexism. Remember the Access Hollywood audiotape wherein Trump was heard boasting he had grabbed women where you’re not supposed to grab anyone?

Sure, one can hope Trump was just talking like a sexual predator, not actually planning to behave in office the way Arkansas Governor (and then President) Bill Clinton did. The savagely harsh and unforgiving vengeance Hollywood wreaked on Mr. Clinton was breathtaking — especially the female stars (spurred on, no doubt, by the highly principled stand taken by the National Organization of Women).

Of course, many folks found the horror and brutality of Hollywood’s condemnation so incredibly disturbing that they’ve entirely blotted it out of memory.

Let’s face it: racism and sexism still exist in America. Even in liberal Hollywood. Or perhaps especially in liberal Hollywood.

Don’t take my word for it. If we accept the movie stars at their word, what other conclusion can we draw?

“It’s pretty undeniable,” responded actor Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter, to a BBC interviewer asking whether the film industry is racist. “We like to think of ourselves as being a very, very . . . a progressive industry. But we have been lagging behind in all kinds of areas.”

Last year’s Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Awards — the Oscars — were boycotted by black director Spike Lee and actors Will and Jada Pinkett Smith in protest over all 20 acting categories in 2016 (and 2015 as well) being devoid of minority nominees. The hash-tag #OscarsSoWhite became . . . well, a thing.

“[H]ow is it possible for the second consecutive year all 20 contenders under the acting category are white?” Mr. Lee questioned. “Forty white actors in two years and no flava at all. We can’t act?! WTF!!” 

The award-winning director made it clear that the problem wasn’t merely the Academy’s lopsidedly male and white voting members. He pointed instead to “the executive offices of the Hollywood studios and TV and cable networks,” adding “we ain’t in those rooms, and until minorities are, the Oscar nominees will remain Lilly white.”

“It’s easier for an African-American to be President of the United States than be president of a Hollywood studio,” quipped Lee.

Certainly, minority actors and films are up for Oscars this year and membership in the Academy has been expanded. Yet, whether 2017’s awards are the start of a trend or simply a blip to get past the public scrutiny remains to be seen. Moreover, Tinsel town’s hierarchy, fingered as the core problem, hasn’t been shaken up.

Women, too, remain woefully underrepresented in motion pictures. A comprehensive 2015 report by The Annenberg School at USC’s Media, Diversity & Social Change Initiative surveyed the 100 top-earning films each year from 2007 through 2014. The findings were stark: women only comprise 28 percent of speaking roles and a mere 21 percent of lead or co-lead roles. Plus, more than a fourth of female roles involved “some nudity,” compared to less than 10 percent of male roles.

Worse yet, in the eight years surveyed, women actually lost ground. Female speaking roles fell five percentage points. Behind the camera, women have even fewer opportunities. The study showed only 2 percent of film directors and 11 percent of writers were women.

Dorothy Pomerantz, writing in Forbes, summed it up: “Hollywood still doesn’t get it. The town still doesn’t believe that there is a place for women in film.”

“I feel lonely on set. And it’s not just that you’re the only woman in the cast. There are very few women on the crew. You hardly ever get to work with a female director,” actress Zoe Saldana told Time last month. “You’re completely outnumbered. And you take a hit in your paycheck as a woman too.”

“Compared to men, in most professions, women make 80 cents to the dollar,” Oscar-winner Natalie Portman said last month. “In Hollywood, we are making 30 cents to the dollar.”

The gender pay gap, so often tossed around, is largely erroneous. It’s a comparison between the median male income and median female income of hundreds of millions of workers nationwide, without regard to the jobs being done or levels of experience, etc. Conversely, the leading roles in a movie can more fairly be compared one-to-one. 

The North Korean hack of Sony Pictures revealed numerous cases where female stars were paid far less than their male counterparts. For instance, in the film “No Strings Attached,” Ashton Kutcher, Portman’s male co-star, received three times greater compensation. Actress Jennifer Lawrence’s pay for American Hustle was seven percent of the movie’s profit, while her male co-stars, Bradley Cooper and Christian Bale, earned nine percent.

“There’s a much bigger issue at hand [than just money],” mega-box-office-star Sandra Bullock responded in Variety. “I’m glad Hollywood got caught.”

In her article for Salon, Katie McDonough concluded, “Hollywood is a cesspool of misogyny and racism.”

Tonight, as these guardians of social justice prepare to celebrate themselves and scold President Trump, wouldn’t it better serve the interests of fairness and equality if actors spoke whatever truth can be mustered directly to the power structure sitting before them in the ballroom?

Squirm, Hollywood. Smile. ~~By Paul Jacob, a Friend of America!

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.