Democrats: Pass At Least Two Constitutional Changes Wow!

The Leftists do this just before Independence Day! 

Is there any doubt that the Democrats do not have the best interests of this Country in mind? That they want to help Obama fundamentally change this country?

The Democratic Party's proposed platform is calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn at least two Supreme Court decisions related to campaign finance, and another to ensure "equal rights."

Referring to the Constitution as simply a "blueprint for progress," the platform states, Democrats seek to overturn Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 decision striking down campaign spending limits, and Citizens United, the 2010 decision that extended press freedom to corporations, labor unions and other associations.

"We need to end secret, unaccountable money in politics by requiring, through executive order or legislation, significantly more disclosure and transparency—by outside groups, federal contractors, and public corporations to their shareholders," the proposed platform states.

The proposal includes a call for more federal campaign subsidies, and a restructuring of the federal agency responsible for campaign finance enforcement. "We need to amplify the voices of the American people through a small donor matching public financing system. We need to overhaul and strengthen the Federal Election Commission so that there is real enforcement of campaign finance laws."

The platform is an extension of principles delineated by Hillary Clinton earlier in her campaign, though the call for more matching campaign subsidies is a recent development in the agenda for national Democrats. A model of the program presently exists in just five states: Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine and Minnesota. In the last, it has been alternatively deactivated and reactivated over the last decade due to funding disruptions.

Comment: The simple fact is that the Dems want the taxpayers to fund everything. The way things are going with job loss and the lowest job participation rate in the last 50 years, it will soon be 35% of Americans paying taxes and funding everything ,....not just welfare and defense but now the Dems want taxpayer funded campaigns. And if we let the Dems develop a Federal Agency to regulate campaigns like Obama's IRS regulated conservative groups, then we are in trouble.

Democratic policymakers at the federal level have toyed with the idea for years, as well as with the concept of restructuring the FEC. They have generally sought to eliminate a member from the agency, which federal statute mandates be divided between three Republicans and three Democrats, and make it easier for a majority to take enforcement actions.

The platform also calls for passage of an "Equal Rights Amendment," which is followed with a call for a national law requiring employers to provide "paid family and medical leave." It explains that the law "would provide at least 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a new child or address a personal or family member's serious health issue."

Comment: If this gets passed, it will be as job and small business destroying as the $15 minimum wage hike and Obamacare have been, mark my words.

[Source: Rudy Takala, Washington Examiner http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/07/02/democrats-pass-least-two-constitutional-changes]

Mel Reynolds- Jesse Jackson's Newest Staffer

Jesse Jackson's Newest Staffer Jesse Jackson's Newest Staffer,...and, You can't make up stuff better than this! Confirmed by snopes is none other than former Chicago Congressman Mel Reynolds to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute clemency forgiveness spree.

Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate......Then won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate.......Then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate!

Oh, and Mel Reynolds' new job? Ready for this? YOUTH COUNSELOR. If anyone complains, Jesse Jackson will just call them a racist and incite minorities against the complainer.

Hillary Hates Guns and Those Who Own Them

This is an article from the Washington Post, called the Washington Compost by most critical readers. For those of you who hate Donald Trump and say that you won't vote for him, vote for Hillary at your own peril. And not voting at all, is a vote for Hillary.

Hillary Clinton declined to say Sunday whether she believes in a constitutional right to bear arms, possibly opening the door to a fresh round of attacks from Donald Trump, who has already accused the likely Democratic presidential nominee of wanting to "abolish" the Second Amendment.

In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Clinton deflected twice when she was asked whether she agrees with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court ruled in 2008 that the Constitution affords private citizens the right to keep firearms in their homes and that such possession need not be connected to military service.

The wording of the Second Amendment has long made the extent of gun-ownership rights a point of contention. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Questioned by George Stephanopoulos about her view of the amendment, Clinton talked about a "nuanced reading" and emphasized her belief in the rights of local, state and federal governments to regulate gun ownership. Stephanopoulos, formerly a top aide to President Bill Clinton, wasn't satisfied by the response.

"That's not what I asked," he replied.

Clinton then discussed the right to own a gun as a hypothetical. "If it is a constitutional right," she began her next answer, "then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations."

Here's the full exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Trump has also been out on the stump talking about the Second Amendment and saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment. I know you reject that. But I want to ask you a specific question: Do you believe that an individual's right to bear arms is a constitutional right — that it's not linked to service in a militia?

CLINTON: I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right — as we do with every amendment — to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common-sense gun-safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment. And, in fact, what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners. So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible and, once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I'm going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks; closing the gun-show loophole; closing the online loophole; closing the so-called Charleston loophole; reversing the bill that Senator [Bernie] Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, and the Heller decision also says there can be some restrictions. But that's not what I asked. I said, "Do you believe their conclusion that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right?"

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

[Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/05/hillary-clinton-wavers-on-second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms/]