Skip to content

Hillary wants to change the first amendment?

May 4, 2015

I am now reveling in sunlight and warmth from early morning to late into the evening but there are days when it just does not pay to get out of bed. The bonus of this celestial warmth is offset by the speed with which my fresh food now spoils, (remember wilderness living and no refrigerator), and the now ever more frequent attacks by mosquitoes. True when you live off grid in the woods of Northern Alaska this is just a normal spring day but when you add to this a news story I heard a few days ago about a Presidential candidate wanting to alter the first amendment, it may be time to just go back to bed and pull the covers over my head.

The report I am referring to was more a comment by a talk show host pointing out that the news media is not daring to report about someone running for president who wants to limit our speech and deny out religious beliefs. It seems that when Mrs. Clinton was giving a speech before the woman’s congress she actually told the truth about what she believes. So I have to ask is she nuts…or more to the point is everyone who knows what she said totally stupid, when they ignored her statement that “religious beliefs have to be changed” to suit the growing immorality of our nation? This is a woman who is running for President of the United States and she is openly advocating repression of freedom of speech and religion contained in the First amendment of the constitution.

This is another one of those times when blood seeps from ones eyes due to anger and astonishment at the total lack of any uproar in the media about her comment. If this statement was made by any other Presidential candidate it would be a feeding frenzy, with the statement re-broadcasted every hour for weeks. Don’t they realize that if this woman were to be elected President she would wield the same axe of censorship at them if they portrayed her in a bad light? I can only wonder at the mentality of those at the conference that enthusiastically applauded her when she openly said that religious beliefs have to be changed to conform to the current social norms.

Now that we know what Mrs. Clinton truly believes
about freedom of religion and speech,
just maybe people will wake up and see
that with her election comes the potential
for loss of the very building blocks of our nation.

This posting made possible by Winlink
the amateur radio email system.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. May 4, 2015 4:00 pm

    Not sure how I feel about her statements, but wouldn’t you agree that religious belief must evolve with society?


  2. IEBA permalink
    May 5, 2015 7:49 am

    I looked it up, and you know, I found page after page of coverage,
    in addition to the radio article you heard,
    so I think it’s getting plenty of coverage.
    Statement rebroadcasted every hour, if not on every web page.
    No need to worry about the media being afraid of her. They love this.

    So I read some of the articles.
    “Hillary Clinton endorsed a constitutional amendment today to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in “Citizens United v. FEC​.”
    Clinton said that the Citizens United ruling should be reversed “once and for all, even if it takes a constitutional amendment,”

    Read more at:

    And then it goes on to explain specifically what she was addressing. She wasn’t addressing the first amendment AT ALL. She’s addressing the Supreme Court ruling where Republicans allowed COMPANIES to exhibit their “free speech” through their money- removing caps on corporate donations to politicians. In essence, she wants to address how a COMPANY can have “speech” and the use of MONEY as that speech.
    Where five Republican judges removed corporate contribution caps.

    In other words, she’d like the caps that were in place before Republicans removed them, put back in place. But, or course, that’s not going to happen. So less effective alternatives are being proposed:

    “Senate Democrats proposed to change that last year, offering a constitutional amendment that would “set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections,” while stipulating that Congress “may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law.”

    So she is just restating, or bringing back up the topic that was introduced on the house floor, LAST YEAR. In other words, not allowing Monsanto and Halliburton to give Jeb Bush 500 Million dollars to get him in office. So that Jeb can then kill the EPA and open the doors for Monsanto to do whatever it likes, and then deciding to go back to “war” against ISIS so that Halliburton could make another 30 billion dollars providing military support.

    So before waging war on Hillary for this “first amendment” thing, take the trash shouted by the political shock jock on the radio with a grain of sand and look it up:

    “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case dealing with the regulation of campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the case have also been extended to for-profit corporations, labor unions and other associations.”

    i.e. This law gives a for profit company the ability to donate ANY amount of money to help someone get elected. And do you think they wouldn’t return the favor? Just look at the Iraq war and how one subsidiary of Vice President Cheney’s company Halliburton raked in 39.5 BILLION dollars in contract revenues from the US government, some contracts with no competing bids.

    Think about the bigger picture. With the housing crash of the late 2000’s, the US received significant foreign corporate investment. Billions, from China. What happens when A China state-owned company, through their now US subsidiary, starts backing a candidate with close ties to China or Russia? There is no restriction as to the money that can be poured into their campaign, to drown out any bad press that might dissuade voters of a candidate’s possible conflict of interest…

    I’m for less “corporate” freedom of speech. Because corporations’ goals are to make money. Corporations are not citizens. They are money making machines. They don’t have “speech” they have programs and policies, lobby groups. They don’t need unrestricted political contributions.

    So if Hillary wants to tackle that. Good on her.

    “DISCLOSE Act of 2010

    The DISCLOSE Act (S. 3628) was proposed in July 2010. The bill would have amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit foreign influence in federal elections, prohibit government contractors from making expenditures with respect to such elections, and establish additional disclosure requirements for election spending. The bill would impose new donor and contribution disclosure requirements on nearly all organizations that air political ads independently of candidates or the political parties. The legislation would require the sponsor of the ad to appear in it and to take responsibility for it. President Obama argued that the bill would reduce foreign influence over American elections. Democrats needed at least one Republican to support the measure in order to get the 60 votes to overcome GOP procedural delays, but were unsuccessful.[8][9]”

    Not one Republican vote.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: