A state commission suspended Alabama supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, alleging he disregarded “clear law” when instructing state judges to ignore a U.S. supreme Court ruling “establishing nationwide same-sex marriage rights.” The current investigation comes after the commission received complaints about Moore’s actions from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC.)

The SPLC complains that Moore:

— advised state judges to violate a binding federal court order;
— repeatedly commented on pending cases;
— undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the judiciary by denigrating the federal courts and threatening to defy them;
— and improperly lent the prestige of his office to the Foundation for Moral Law, a private organization that his wife runs and that he founded.

It’s obvious from a statement made by SPLC President Richard Cohen, that the SPLC isn’t interested in the law, rather the so-called ‘law center’ is more interested in practicing social politics.

“Moore swore to uphold the United States Constitution,” Cohen said. “But he has demonstrated in the past, and now once again, that he is willing to put aside the law when it conflicts with his personal religious beliefs. He cannot be trusted to be an impartial arbiter of the law.”

Moore is simply trying to uphold the state’s law as marriage is a state issue and not a Federal issue as prescribe under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “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.”

And not one federally elected or state official – who’ve also sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution – can be found in support of Moore, trying to protect him from what has turned into a Progressive policy witch hunt.

Admittedly, it was more than hard to continue to listen after I heard the preacher boast that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment was incompatible with the Gospel. My first reaction was to simply drop the online feed and move on, but I didn’t as I hoped I would hear something I needed to hear aside from the preacher’s opinion.

Since then I have thought a lot about his comment and I’ve come to realize exactly how wrong his statement is on several levels.

First off, the preacher must not realize that without the protection of the First Amendment what he said to those gathered before him, would not have save him from a tyrannical government. And what about those who assembled? They too would have been in grave danger from that same tyrannical power, had not some protection been provided via the First Amendment.

Then there is the fact that his/their/our religious beliefs would not be safe under a repressive regime had the First Amendment not been written by God-fearing, Gospel-understanding men. It’s obvious that our Founders understood the distinctions between ‘natural law’ (God’s law), which are our civil liberties, and man’s inherent predatory nature to usurp power and hold sway over all others.

Yes, the First Amendment and the Gospel seem to be a strange pairing, however if one understands the message of the Gospel – which is simply expressed by our Christ in John 13:34 (NIV), “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another,” then the First Amendment as well as the following nine of God’s laws align in perfection to the Gospel. To say otherwise is to act as an agent of the Evil One.

The Obama Administration is planning the nation’s first monument to gay liberation, Stonewall National Park, in New York City. The designation will encompass the Stonewall Inn bar and Christopher Park, a piece of land across the street from the bar, and various parts of the surrounding neighborhood.

The National Park Service will name the area as historic jus’ in time for the city’s LGBTQABCDEFG pride celebration, which commemorates June 28, 1969 — the day corrupt cops raided Stonewall Inn only to be surprised by an intense rebellion by bar patrons and locals fed up with police harassment. Meanwhile thousands continue to die at the hands of a “JV team.”

Doesn’t it feel great to see our tax money and Obama’s priorities, both working for such a wonderful cause like ‘inclusiveness?’

A group whose lead firm is controlled by Richard Blum, husband of California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein, has been awarded a nearly billion-dollar contract for the construction of the first phase of a “high-speed rail line” linking central California to Southern California. The Perini-Zachary-Parsons (PZP) bid was the lowest received from the five other groups participating in the bidding process.

Low is a relative term in this case because the project ultimately is to be footed by taxpayer monies. And you can bet because of his connection to a seated-Senator, Blum and crew had inside info on the other bids, thus they easily underbid them.

PZP’s bid $985,142,530 to build the first section of high-speed rail track that will tie Madera to Fresno, came in at a mere $35 million per mile. This doesn’t include the cost engines and cars, electrifying the route or land acquisition, of course.

Furthermore, the project will share tracks with conventional commuter rail trains, dropping its average speed to levels long bested by American railways more than a century ago. And in the end, will cost Californian’s twice what it’s budgeted at, take more than five hours to travel what takes less than an hour by air, and will have to charge much more than twice what airlines do for the trip.

This is how an unrestrained federal government operates – and how a state-turned-kingdom submits to its unbridled corruption, dressed up as a public-private partnership.

The Declaration of Independence is filled with a list of grievances against King George III, including, “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

Two-hundred and forty-years later, His Majesty, King Barack the Only is doing the same thing and once again his truest of subjects, the Republican controlled House and Senate are doing nothing to stop him.

Reno judge Robert Clive Jones has repeatedly clashed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals over the federal government’s continuous land grabs, gay marriage, and ballot and voting issues. Because of this — he’s been relegated to what’s called “senior status,” thus making him a part-time judge.

In a decades-long dispute between the government and the E. Wayne Hage family’s Pine Creek Ranch near Tonopah, Jones ruled in favor of the rancher. This and several of Jones’s high-profile decisions in recent years have been overturned by the 9th Circuit.

His rejection of same-sex marriage in Nevada in 2012 was reversed in 2014, as was his 2012 effort to pull “None of These Candidates” off Nevada ballots. Jones also was overturned in September 2015 when the 9th Circuit revived a lawsuit against the Nevada Health and Human Services Department over the issue of disenfranchising potential low-income and disabled voters.

Wasting no time following Jones demotion, A University of Nevada, Las Vegas, law professor has been nominated by President Obama for a judgeship on the U.S. District Court in Nevada. The Senate’s being asked to approve Anne Rachel Traum, whose been recommended by none other than Senator Harry Reid.

Traum is on leave from the William S. Boyd School of Law, while serving as special counsel in the U.S. Justice Department Office for Access to Justice. The ATJ’s mission, among other things is to ‘advance changes’ at both ‘the state and federal levels,’ where there is no Constitutional law to support either the DOJ or the ATJ.

Daesh (ISIS) fighters killed a U.S Navy SEALs in Iraq, in what’s being characterized as an “extremely heavy, extremely intense” firefight with U.S. forces and Kurdish Peshmerga troops. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said of the loss, “It is a combat death, of course and a very sad loss. It shows you the serious fight that we have to wage in Iraq.”

Meanwhile, back at the White House, what do you think the Obama administration’s focused on? The President’s impending visit to Flint, Michigan — where he’ll will stop at a food bank, take part in a roundtable about the towns ‘water crisis,’ speak to a crowd of 1,000 at a predominantly African-American high school and meet Little Miss Flint.

WH Spokesman Josh Earnest made no mention of the SEAL’s death until questioned. Not only did Earnest need to be asked about the incident before acknowledging it — the White House still refuses to classify the role of U.S. troops in Iraq as combat, instead preferring the euphemism, “dangerous work.”

While one might have hoped the Obama Administration would stray from its daily ‘self-promotion’ tour to acknowledge the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL without waiting to be asked — most Americans know where our brave men and women in uniform fit into Obama’s priorities.

The greatest assault on our liberties isn’t necessarily coming from the Executive or the Legislative branch. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t truly provide for ‘lifetime appointment’ of federal judges, but rather, as stated in Article 3, Section 1: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

It is coming instead from the U.S. supreme Court. And yes, I did leave the word ‘supreme’ uncapitalized as ‘Supreme Court,’ is not a proper noun according to the U.S. Constitution; while ‘Court’ is the true proper noun, ‘supreme’ is merely an adjective.

Also, a judge can and should be removed from office if he or she fails to act with ‘good behavior,’ and this includes our supreme Court. Regardless of whether those who wrote the Constitution expected the supreme Court to attain the degree of authority it now holds, the Framers would be horrified by broad, autonomous power vested in lordship-like individuals for decades on end and their so-called ‘good behavior.’

In March of 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg heard an abortion suit stemming from a Texas law that she was openly critical of soon after it passed. In the 1980s and 1990s Justice Anthony Kennedy along with six of his colleagues accepted dozens of paid trips from West Publishing, a regular high court litigant whose arguments the justices often favored.

In 2011 the court handed down a 5-4 decision in a major class action suit, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority that sided with the retail giant – even though earlier that year, three companies where Roberts owned as much as $450,000 worth of shares in filed pro-Wal-Mart “friend of the court,” or amicus, briefs. This amicus issue is not covered by the federal recusal statute, so Roberts was not required to sit out Wal-Mart.

In 2010, Justice Clarence Thomas voted in favor a striking down certain campaign finance laws around the time he attended a meeting organized by the Koch brothers, who are known for their vociferous opposition to such laws. In 2012 and 2015 Justice Elena Kagan did not step aside from cases related to the Affordable Care Act, though she helped craft its legal defense when working in the Obama White House.

Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, along with Chief Justice Roberts have heard more than two dozen cases in the last few years, like Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Not surprisingly, the three have collectively sided with those companies nearly 70 percent of the time.

This is not ‘good behavior.’

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1804, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Nevada’s Senate Bill 499, signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval, took effect on October 1, 2015. Lawmakers behind the bill claim the goal was to increase ballot access for minor party candidates.

Unfortunately – and this was a known fact at the time – the opposite is true.

Here’s how the new law works: Voters in Washoe County’s District 4 — which includes Spanish Springs, Sparks and Wadsworth — have only two candidates running for the county commission seat, incumbent Vaughn Hartung and former state Senator Maurice Washington, both Republicans.

Nevada holds a primary on June 14, where candidates for state, county and local offices are cull ahead of the run-up to the general election in the November. This primary is in addition to the February caucuses where Republicans and Democrats picked who they want to represent them for president.

Democrats, independents and those registered with third parties will have no vote in the primary, yet the winner will be the only choice in the fall when those voters get a chance to take part. Under the old system, the two would have skipped the primary and been placed on the fall ballot where all registered voters would have a chance to pick between them.

Under the new system, the two will face off in the primary. The top vote-getter will be the only candidate listed on the fall ballot for WC-4 voters. In other words, Washington or Hartung will win and will represent all residents in District 4, even though non-Republicans were initially unable to vote.

Such action on the part of both parties within the Nevada legislature is not only disgraceful, but it’s empirical evidence that they are nothing more than mirror reflections of one another as they usurp power from the people and fail to represent them.

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.” – Thomas Jefferson in a letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled law enforcement doesn’t need to show probable cause or get a warrant before obtaining cell phone records that show a person’s general whereabouts and phone usage. The opinion by a three-judge panel upheld the murder convictions of Donald Taylor for the 2010 killing of Michael Pearson during a marijuana drug deal in Las Vegas.

Taylor appealed his conviction, arguing that his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated when law enforcement obtained cell phone location and use records from the cell phone provider. It was that information led to Taylor’s arrest.

Justice Nancy Saitta claims the warrantless access of Taylor’s historical cell phone location data didn’t violate his Fourth Amendment rights. She adds that the data didn’t provide content of Taylor’s calls or text message, only numbers, duration and the location of the cell towers routing the calls.

Such information interprets Saitta, are ‘business records’ and that Taylor has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

So much for the Section 18 of Nevada’s State Constitution which reads: “Unreasonable seizure and search; issuance of warrants. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable seizures and searches shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, and the person or persons, and thing or things to be seized.”

Her interpretation also goes against the U.S. Constitution and the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It is time for the citizen’s of Nevada to stand up and force the state legislature to hold the Nevada’s judiciary accountable for its obvious disregard of our God-given liberties as expressed in both the U.S. Constitution and the state’s Constitution.

America is angry. And a lot of people like to prove-up their anger by calling it ‘righteous,’ and pointing to Jesus, who flipped over tables and used a whip “fashioned from cords” to chase the money-changers from the Temple (John 2:16.) While many of us use this story to legitimize our actions, we’ve  little understanding about what this word, ‘righteous’ actually means.

The word ‘righteous,’ is defined simply as being morally correct. But what does it mean when used in conjunction with ‘anger,’ and ‘violence?’

The Holy Spirit commands us (II Timothy 3:16-17) as believers to put on the “new self” and “be angry” with a different kind of anger (Ephesians 4:24-26.) If you study, you’ll find that Jesus shows us what it looks like to be angry in a way that is pleasing to God.

There are at least 15 times in the Gospel where Jesus displays righteous anger outwardly. Here are but a few:

Jesus railed against the Pharisees’ hypocrisy in Matthew 23. Jesus overturned the tables when the sellers and money-changers turned God’s house of prayer into a “den of robbers” (Jeremiah 7:11.)

It was Jesus, who looked at around “with anger” when the Pharisees cared nothing whatsoever about a man with a “withered hand” who was there in the synagogue with them (Mark 3:1-5.) Furthermore, Jesus raged at the tomb of Lazarus (John 11:33, 38,) while he “snorted like a horse.”

He even rebuked Peter saying, “Get behind me, Satan!” (Matthew 16:23.)

It’s interesting to note that Jesus didn’t fight to prevent his own arrest and he didn’t allow others to fight on his behalf; but he did fight in reaction to what he saw as morally unlawful and in the interests of others. For those of us with confrontational personalities, we might want to ask ourselves, “Is my motive to be right or to be righteous?” before ripping into an offending party.

If it’s simply to be right, we’ve got it all wrong. Of course, if you have to ask yourself the above question – it’s a near-guarantee you’re on the evil side of the equation as I’ve learned through some personal and painful experiences.

Another way to check ourselves is by examining our actions before they occur, after all Godly anger and violence is not vigilante justice, it is legal justice. Throwing an elbow into a man’s face for simply disagreeing with your opinion, is un-Godly, yet defending yourself from an act of overt violence is Godly.

In the end, the surprise of Jesus’ anger is that it sets us free, delivering us from evil. It enables us to let go of “the sin which so easily entangles us” (Hebrews 12:1) and compels us to hate our own sin, and to “Abhor what is evil,” which is a New Testament commandment that is all too often ignored and disobeyed (Romans 12:9.)