Hobby Lobby 1 Obama The Abortionist 0

Hobby Lobby 1 Obama The Abortionist 0

Obama’s probably a little bummed that the Supreme Court overruled his Hobby Lobby contraception mandate. Sociopaths have a tendency to get a little angry when things don’t go their way. They do things, unspeakable things. So far, no leaked word yet from the White House of the unspeakable acts committed there within. His minions are, if anything, loyal. Plus, the people’s house, the White House, has sub-basements, sure to stifle any screams of terror that might emanate from down below. I’ll bet it’s hot down there, very hot. Because Obama’s hot and madder than hell. And he’s angry to boot.

Though the recent Supreme Court’s decision was a big win for Hobby Lobby, there are still thousands upon thousands of people who may be forced by Obamacare to participate in the murder of their own grandchildren. Under the Affordable Care Act, parents can keep their kids on their policy until those children reach the age of 26. And if that child of theirs decides to have an abortion that destroys the life growing in the womb, so be it. Just send the bill to the would-be grandma and grandpa.

Would-be Grandmas and Grandpas do have an out though. They can stop claiming the abortion-minded child as a dependent, thereby forcing the child to seek their own health insurance. That’s probably easier to do once that child has reached 18, but I’m sure that the government would be happy to provide that person with affordable healthcare and even subsidize that healthcare when necessary.

Remember the State of the Union in 2009 when Obama said that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions? I do. I remember. Anyone receiving an Obamacare subsidy though is receiving federal dollars, federal tax money. Money that is taken by force from the U.S. federal government to fund the murderous killing of helpless innocent babies in the womb.

Bob Unruh wrote about the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare decision over at WND:

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Monday ruled that a “closely held” for-profit business can opt out of Obamacare’s controversial contraception requirement based on religious objections.

Hobby Lobby’s argument was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which protects the individual beliefs of citizens.

The majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the Department of Health and Human Services argument that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies. Alito said that “would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations.”

The opinion said the RFRA’s text “shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice.”

Alito said “the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.”

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of humans who own and control them.”

The opinion said while the dissent argues RFRA does not cover Conestoga, Hobby Lobby and Mardel, an affiliate company of Hobby Lobby, because they cannot “exercise religion,” the justices “offer no persuasive explanation for this conclusion.”

“The corporate form alone cannot explain it because RFRA indisputable protects nonprofit corporations. And the profit-making objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants.”

The court said that “business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the ‘exercise of religion.’”

While the court ruling was not a sweeping First Amendment freedom of religion ruling, it concluded: “HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.”

“It requires the Hahns and Greens to engage in conduct that seriously violates their sincere religious belief that life begins at conception.”

The opinion made clear the priority of protecting religion.

“RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs. … It is not for the court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.”

Joining Alito were Chief Justice John Roberts, whose determination two years that Obamacare was a tax saved the law, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The opinion concluded that if the government is demanding free abortion-inducing drugs for women, it should pay for them.

Continue reading at WND

Continue reading

Advertisements

Obama Seeks Higher Black Unemployment Using Executive Options to Aid Illegal Aliens

black unemployment driven by illegal immigration

Amid the cries of “Si Si Puede” from the Oval Office at the White House from the Three Amigos during Festival Inmigración with the President could be heard the wails from the pain too many black families feel from the separation of employment that comes from our failed immigration policy.

The White House announced in a statement released Thursday that President Obama “has asked Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to do an inventory of the Department’s current practices to see how it can conduct enforcement more humanely within the confines of the law.

The review on increased leniency of illegal aliens inside US the border would supplement the President’s already lackadaisical attitude and enforcement policy of current immigration laws.

A memorandum authored by the Obama Administration in 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) instructed several Department of Homeland Security agencies to ignore illegal immigrants that came to the US as children. It is similar to the Dream Act (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) that was rejected by Congress.

Though it does not alter an individual’s existing immigration status or provide a pathway to citizenship, it does defer them from being subject to removal proceedings or from actually being removed from the country.

Estimates of those individuals that are eligible range as high as 1.76 million. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), over 500,000 have been the granted the deferment as of November 2013.

This new effort by President Obama seeking additional executive amnesty for illegal aliens came after his meeting with three member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

The three Hispanic lawmakers at the Oval Office complaining about perceived increased deportations by the Obama Administration were CHC Chairman Congressman Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat from Texas, Immigration Task Force Chairman Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), and Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA). The Three Amigos had threatened to introduce a resolution demanding action.

Cowering from behind his desk at the Oval Office at the threat of their demands, President Obama appeared clearly shaken after the meeting. Though it is not apparent exactly what policy changes such an inventory by Jeh Jonhson would entail, ignoring current immigration laws by way of executive order or orders is certainly at the top of the list of Jeh’s recommendations.

Obama had threatened to use his pen and his phone earlier in the year at his State of the Union Address to bypass Congress. His current executive order amnesty though has been decried by illegal alien activist as being too strict, citing record high deportations.

Apparently they missed Jeh Johnson’s recent congressional testimony where he admitted that the deportation numbers reported by DHS were artificially inflated by the inclusion of border apprehensions. The Obama White House had been claiming a “record number” of deportations trying to make the President look, well Presidential. It backfired when it earned him the nickname “Deporter in Chief,” even though actual interior deportations had declined by 40 percent since 2009.

response released by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated:

It is astonishing that the President would order an ‘enforcement review’ not for the purposes of repairing enforcement but weakening it further. According to ICE’s own published statistics, the vast majority of those removed from the country have been convicted of a crime or involved with a serious crime.

Illegal immigrants in the U.S. who don’t meet the Administration’s ‘priorities’—even if they come into contact with immigration enforcement—are widely exempt from federal immigration law. And approximately two-thirds of removals last year were in fact not deportations at all but were instead of apprehensions of those interdicted crossing the border.

This lawlessness is a large factor in the decline of wages for Americans, immigrant and native-born, alike. President Obama should demonstrate more concern for struggling American workers of all backgrounds.

ICE’s statistics reveal that a full 82 percent of interior removals in 2013 were convicted criminals. Overall, ICE reported that “98 percent of the agency’s total removals were convicted criminals, recent border crossers, illegal re-entrants or those previously removed by ICE.”

[NOTE: Click here for a detailed timeline of the Administration’s dismantling of immigration enforcement]

Continue reading