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.