Hobby Lobby, A Victory For Religious Liberty?

scotus hobby lobby blog

Victory For Hobby Lobby…but what does that mean for us?

I have read this Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Opinion and it leaves me with great concern. I intend to study it further, but here is my take at first glance…

My greatest concern remains that this court continues to acknowledge the federal government’s authority to mandate healthcare.  This is Constitutionally NOT a function of the federal government and the Supreme Court’s refusal to limit the federal government’s seizure of power just proves James Madison was right when he said;

“If the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution… dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…” Virginia Assembly Report, 1800

Here are the facts that we can take away from this Supreme Court opinion:

In the Hobby Lobby opinion, SCOTUS recognizes a correlation between birth control and abortion and the financial impact of birth control upon the businesses.

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients. If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price—as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies. If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”

SCOTUS sees the potential “unlimited” application of HHS that would be endorsed if SCOTUS held against Hobby Lobby.

“It is HHS’s apparent belief that no insurance-coverage mandate would violate RFRA—no matter how significantly it impinges on the religious liberties of employers—that would lead to intolerable consequences. Under HHS’s view, RFRA would permit the Government to require all employers to provide coverage for any medical procedure allowed by law in the jurisdiction in question—for instance, third trimester abortions or assisted suicide. The owners of many closely held corporations could not in good conscience provide such coverage, and thus HHS would effectively exclude these people from full participation in the economic life of the Nation. RFRA was enacted to prevent such an outcome.”

SCOTUS says that the exception carved out for not-for profits can be easily applied to for-profits.

“Although HHS has made this system available to religious nonprofits that have religious objections to the contraceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful.”

SCOTUS then does a major CYA and makes this decision SPECIFIC to birth control, which will either create an never ending trail of litigation or chill the entire system of due process and force the remainder of the businesses to submit in silence.

“In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fail if it conflicts with an employer’s religious belief. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious disease) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.”

Victory, yes, but very limited in its scope. there are greater dangers lurking about in the Affordable Care Act.  Hobby Lobby’s case is just the beginning.  If you want to know how deep this rabbit hole goes, read this article: http://bit.ly/1gnZu7K

It is time for Congress to defund this mess via Article 1 Section 7 and the power of the purse. We cannot let down our guard or our influence. This is just motivation to fight even harder. SCOTUS is NOT on your side and no longer focused upon the Constitution or Liberty! That is abundantly clear.

You can read the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court opinion here: http://1.usa.gov/V2vRBZ

Lawsuits v. King Barry

The Supreme Court, Congress, Neil Cavuto, Michele Bachmann and the citizen’s Sovereign Duty…Let’s see how these all fit together to tell us how the Constitution is supposed to work and how Congress is obviously knowingly and willfully destroying Liberty. If you think Barack Obama is the problem, then you are missing the entire point. Let’s get educated!

Declaration of Independence Series

America is exceptional because of its founding principles which provided the best means for expanding liberty that the world has ever seen. We celebrate America’s foundation with this study of the Declaration of Independence. Enjoy!

Republicanism And Representation

Guest Blog by Robert Townsend


ladyAm I the only one to notice that when a Democrat-Communist attempts to win an argument, they will nearly always call out their opponent as a racist, bigot or homophobic? Have you also noticed that these insults to our intellectual honesty are, in nearly every instance, levered against the People and almost never against a sitting Representative or Senator?

Why is that? Why must the People suffer the slings and arrows of these weak-minded accusations, but our elected officials never? Are our Legislators not also our Representatives? Should they not represent most facets of their constituency?

I will put it to you today that the reason is because, at their core, the Democrat-Communists do not believe in representative government. I understand that this root cause is not readily apparent. Please indulge me as I explain myself. king

It appears that those who would launch these epithets against those undeserving of them wish only to establish a ruling class whose interests remain with themselves. A simple observation of the world’s current state of affairs will demonstrate just how successful these fools have been.

marieYes, I will agree that there are those who might say that the reason the Democrat-Communists do not label their colleagues in Congress as racists or homophobes might be because of their “professionalism.” But is this plausible? Do you really believe that the same congressmen who have sold out the People in exchange for limo rides and nights out at the Kennedy Center have any measure of professionalism at all?

Further, why would a Democrat-Communist attack an ally to their cause? This also must be said: Things are the way they are because our ‘representatives’ wish it to be so. Instead of blaming the President (of any stripe) for the woes of the country, perhaps a better question might be, why are our state governors and legislators even listening to the flood of Federal mandates any longer? The answer is simple and apparent and you already know why…

No, we must be reminded that the GOP and Democrat-Communists are on the same side. As such, the People are no longer represented by their government. If we are to believe that the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, is it now correct to say that the government no longer has our consent? You already know this answer as well.

If the government no longer has the People’s consent, then it is, by definition, an outlaw government.

I posit that any outlaw government, no matter the lying veneer of a ‘fair and uncorrupted election,’ has no authority, at any level, over any citizen where ever he may be found.

Back to the original question: Why aren’t Congressmen accused of being racists? Or homophobes? Or bigots? aliceThe answer, as stated above, is because the Democrat-Communists do not believe that the people should be represented at all within their own government.

Consider for a moment this hypothetical: Imagine a 51st state wherein every resident of that state voted in every election. Moreover, these elections were unanimous with 100% of the constituency voting for the same candidate; every election a landslide, every election fair, every elected official a true and accurate representation of the people who voted for him. But there’s only one problem: every resident of this 51st state believes that one race is superior to another; Racists.

Every resident voted for the candidate who best represents their views on everything, to include their racist beliefs. Even though real racism is abhorrent in a civilized society, in a Representative Republic, do not
the residents of this 51st state deserve a congressman who actually represents their interests, no matter
what they may be and who will advocate on behalf of his constituents’ racist beliefs?

romeAnd this is the point of this essay: by calling the people racists and specifically excluding their representatives in their accusation, the Democrat-Communists tip their hand and provide a small window into their true beliefs.

These fools have the expectation that the newly-elected congressman will/should act counter to his constituency’s beliefs and wishes! Every time a Democrat-Communist accuses the People of racism, bigotry or the next issue du jour, they are indirectly admitting that they do not believe in Representative Government at all.


If this is the case then, is it not our responsibility to banish those who do not believe in the most basic of principles of self-tardetermination and sovereign liberty? Are we obligated to take within the American bosom outsiders who do not share even the most basic belief that we are not slaves?

Further proof of this anti-liberty attitude by the Democrat-Communists is the exaltation that Mr. Obama, or Mr. Roosevelt, or Mr. Wilson (or whoever the next appointed King is to be) is the “smartest man in the room” and that he will lead America to a Utopian future of sugarplums and free medicine for all.

My point here is that, by these statements and spin, the Democrat-Communists place one man onto a pedestal above all others. By doing this, they completely relieve themselves of their Constitutional duty of self-governance. They opt to choose a King rather than a true representative of the Nation. Normally this works out well for members of the royal court and sundry hangers-on, but what of the citizen serfs, those far away from the halls of power and influence?

Looking at it from a different perspective but ultimately leading to the same conclusion, shouldn’t a country of dunces have a dunce to represent them on the world stage? And when a king or president is chosen that is contrary to the Conventional Understanding of the population, does this not imply
corruption of the highest order?

When next you observe yet another vacuous talking head exclaiming that some group is racist, or is comprised of bigots or is homophobic remember that that wretched soul is actually arguing for the re-installment of a king whether he realizes it or not.

By making his claims, he admits he cannot govern himself and has no interest in freeing himself from the invisible bonds of servitude. His claims that you are racist demonstrate he would rather be a slave to a system of rules, regulations and fickle fads. He has not the capacity to decide for himself his own path.  These poor souls are to be pitied, not argued with.




Unprecedented Assault

WARNING! KrisAnne is a bit unleashed today. Tyrannized Enough Already to say the least. Lets connect some dots and see if Ted Cruz is correct…Are we seeing an unprecedented threat to Liberty or is this just the same old tool of tyrants wielded against an unsuspecting and generous people?

Listen to Unprecedented Assault by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Article V Convention Series Parts 1-5

This series is not about the founders’ view on Article V convention, or is about Congress. The founders were clear about this sound constitutional remedy. As such,I am not an opponent of article V as some careless talkers will assert. I believe we must openly and honestly deal with the positions of the true opponents, on this case, Congress.

This series is not the same old rehash of pro-Article V vs. con-Article V. This is a brand new discussion…one that should have happened a long time ago. We are going to discuss our current Congress’s perspective regarding Article V according to their own research staff. Before we open up a convention, we should know what Congress itself has already said it will do with it. You don’t want to miss this series! You cannot make an educated decision about Article V without this information!

US Army Spying On Citizens

The Department of the Army is teaming up with the Department of Homeland Security and your local law enforcement to spy on citizen groups who protest the government and they have been doing so since 2006! PROOF is in a lawsuit filed against a Department of the Army employee who ADMITTED to spying on these anti-war protesters who never committed any crimes, just protesting America’s involvement in the war in Iraq. This is George Orwell on CRACK. This is TYRANNY!

Alternatively you can listen to “US Army Spying on Citizens” by KrisAnne Hall on  YouTube

Not In Carbon County

Utah stands for sovereignty AGAIN, what is their justification and where is everyone else? What is the Congressional solution to every problem? Throw more money at it. So why should we expect anything different in the VA scandal? Finally, Michelle Obama following in her husband’s footsteps. Just getting educated today on the KrisAnne Hall Show!

Tune in to Not in Carbon County by KrisAnne Hall on YouTube

Funny Business

A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but bloated government drieth the bones. Five things that made me laugh plus news on immigration, Iraq, what the FBI is up to and the REAL REASON the federal government bailed out GM.

Funny Business by KrisAnne Hall is also available on YouTube

Batting .500

Two Supreme Court Cases. Two important issues. One deals with the First Amendment. The other with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court gets one right and one wrong. This is where batting .500 means you lose.

Listen to Batting .500 by KrisAnne Hall on  YouTube