Conservative Voice Radio: Demonization

Conservative Voice Radio

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- AB 2943, Sexual Orientation Bill

- YouTube Demonetizes Videos with Thomas Sowell as Guest

- Zuckerberg Before Congress

- Yucaipa Challenges SB-54

- Comey, McCabe and the Russian Dossier

- Pompeo

- Blue Wave or Blue Trickle

California Book Burners, a.k.a. LGBTQ-XYZ

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Will California's proposed bill, AB-2943 ban Bibles?  Conservatives say, "yes."  Liberal Leftists say, "no."  In the back of their minds, however, I am sure they are thinking, "but, it's a good start."

The way the law is written, California’s AB 2943 is so broad that it pretty much bans anything that could be considered to be a tool, service or product that may be used for assisting "aversion therapy."  In short, if it doesn't praise homosexuality and transgenderism as being wonderful, it could be considered illegal.  That means that if it were to become law, AB-2943 could even ban books.

And, among those books that could be targeted is the Holy Bible.

That means it could also make any booksellers of Christian material criminals.

In short, AB-2943 is a direct assault on Christianity, liberty, and Natural Law.

That's an awful lot of criminals, in the minds of the liberal left Democrats, that exist.  I wonder if they have the internment camps available for such a wide range of arrests.

Freedom of religion?  They ignore that, for as far as the atheists are concerned, Jesus is no different than the Easter Bunny.

Freedom of speech?  Not if you disagree with them. They call that "hate speech."

From a Natural Rights point of view, your rights extend to, but may not infringe upon, the next person's rights. In short, my right to swing my arms stops at the tip of your nose. I have the right to swing my arms, but I don't have the right to punch you in the nose in the process. I can't say that it's your nose's fault for getting in the way, either. I am supposed to be responsible enough with my right to swing my arms that I see beforehand if my fist will connect with your nose, and take actions to ensure that it won't happen.

The Declaration of Independence says "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  You don't have a right to be happy, but you do have a right to pursue it.  I can pursue healthcare, but I don't have a right to force a particular doctor to care for me.  I have a right to pursue having a cake baked for me, too, but I don't have a right to force a particular baker to bake a cake the way I want it if he is not hip with the message I want on it.  That's how rights work.  But, the liberal left and homosexual agenda are not seeking rights.  They are seeking tyranny.

With freedom comes responsibility.  With tyranny comes an iron fist determined to force everyone to comply with their demands.

The California AB-2943 Bill is not about freedom, it is about forcing one segment of society to kneel down and comply with the wishes of another under the threat of a punishment by law.

That's not what rights, or liberty, is about.

Ben Shapiro explains that, "This is fully insane."

"It’s bad enough for a state to intervene between clients and therapists with regard to changing orientations, as several states have already done — while conversion therapy tends to be ineffective, this is a free country in which people should be able to seek whatever therapy they choose."

That's a very important point.  While the goal by the liberal left Democrats is to try and stop those who disagree with the homosexual agenda from being able to interfere with the goals of the gay movement, what about those who are in the world of homosexuality and transgenderism who want out?  Are they not allowed to seek out therapy if they wish to change?  Whether or not aversion therapy is effective is not the point.

By suggesting that any attempt to change behavior or gender expression amounts to illegal activity, the state of California essentially bars all transactions involving parenting and religious instruction not in line with the socially leftist worldview. It is a simple fact that most religious people believe that orientation and behavior are two different things, fully distinct: we may have urges toward behavior, but it is our job to sometimes forego that behavior. The state of California would make that perspective jail-able or fine-able. Furthermore, if you’re a parent of a three-year-old who says she feels more like a boy than a girl, you’d be forbidden from buying a counseling book urging you to teach that your girl will likely grow out of that perspective (statistically true) or offering strategies for preventing transgender behavior.

Under this law, it could be illegal to sell the Bible or buy the Bible; it could be illegal to attend a religious day school.

The California Family Council's headline says it all:

AB 2943: Bill that Outlaws Helping Anyone with Unwanted Same-Sex Desires or Gender Confusion.

For some, homosexuality is seen as a mental illness, or as an unwillingness to be obedient to natural laws or moral standards.  Perhaps a poke in God's eye.  Perhaps a retaliation against a segment of humanity who refuses to bow to the demands the gay agenda.

The tyranny of homosexuality is radical, and willing to do anything to justify its message.  Some homosexuals are so radical that they are willing to set themselves on fire for the sake of making a political statement.

It is their aim to eliminate all opposition, and to silence all who dare to stand against them, for they believe that resistance to their tyranny should be futile.

Comply, or be punished.

That's not how Natural Rights work.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Taming North Korea with a Firm Hand

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Theodore Roosevelt was known for speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.  Ronald Reagan continuously told us how important it was that the best way to achieve peace was through strength.  George Washington was quoted as saying, "There is a rank due to the United States, among nations, which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

President Donald J. Trump agrees, and has used a firm hand in dealing with the communist dictatorship in North Korea.

Trump's strategy has paid off.  North Korea has indicated they plan to suspend their missile testing and close a nuclear test site, and now Kim Jong Un has agreed to meet with South Korea, and eventually President Trump.

The softening of North Korea's stance is 100% the result of Donald Trump's strong stance, and even CNN is willing to admit that.

The meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in was never believed to be possible.  While the liberal left has been claiming that Trump will start a war, and that only their policies of appeasement can save us, the reality is, Un is talking to South Korea, and is willing to talk to Trump specifically because Trump has not appeased him, but instead has used strength and a firm hand.  Fear that the President of the United States may use the might of the U.S. Military to put you in check can do that.

UPDATE:

SMILES FROM KIM!

'NO MORE WAR'...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Kanye West Represents Democrat Party's Greatest Fear

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The Democrat Party cannot win in the arena of ideas, so their big government leftism must be hidden behind emotional claims that they are the party of peace, love and dope.  To stand against them is to be racist, mean, hateful, and to be a possessor of all kinds of phobias.  They have established themselves as the champions of immigrants, minorities and women, even though their policies harm those folks, and despite the fact that the Democrats were originally the party of slavery, the KKK, and Japanese internment during World War II.

The survival of the Democrat Party, since their political aims would be unpopular if people really understood what they are up to, is dependent upon deception, misleading tactics, and drawing in groups to vote for them who fall for the identity politics rhetoric they spew.  Their greatest fear should be those groups realizing that from the Democrat Party's point of view, they are actually only useful idiots.

Kanye West may have finally figured out the truth.

While I am not a Kanye fan (music, or past political spewings), I have found it interesting that he is suddenly down with Trump . . . or at least he is saying he is.

Either, he's seeing the light, it's a bunch of B.S., or he's realizing how doing so will get him all kinds of attention and a new audience (that would be the capitalist in him, which also is not exactly the Democrat way to think).

Recently, Kanye was photographed wearing a MAGA (Make America Great Again) as he left a studio.  The red hat was donned after he also traded an interesting series of tweets with President Trump, and after he blasted Obama in a series of tweets.

Has Kanye returned from the clutches of the socialists in the Democrat Party?

Wifey, Kim Kardashian, we are not so sure about.

Kanye's entourage was smiling.  Either they agree, or they like being around Kanye's fame and money.

When confronted, he responded, "the mob can't make me not love Trump."

He praised the President's "dragon energy".

"We are both dragon energy. He is my brother. I love everyone. I don't agree with everything anyone does. That's what makes us individuals."

The love he's giving Trump may stem from a sudden realization.  Trump is not Republican or Democrat.  He's a businessman doing things that has the politicians all in a tizzy.  What's not to love about that?

After his tweet exchange with Trump, Kanye also tweeted, "Obama was in office for eight years and nothing in Chicago changed."

Good point.  In fact, the Democrats have had control of the major cities for generations, and crime, poverty, and living conditions have gotten worse under progressive policies.

That said, Kanye was willing to give Hillary a little of a benefit of the doubt, too, writing "I love Hillary too".

Kanye revealed he's also a fan of Apple CEO Tim Cook.

He posted a photo of Trump and Cook speaking together, later writing "2 of my favorite people".

In December of 2016, he actually met with Trump but soon after deleted all his post about the President after he was hit with a wave of criticism

Kardashian took to her own Twitter account to defend West and said he was "years ahead of his time".

The mob was quick to say Kanye has mental health issues.  Wife Kim Kardashian responded, calling the accusations "not fair" and "actually scary".

The more the mob attacks, the more it will convince Kanye he's on the right track, and move more of Kanye's fans over with him in the red column.

And that, my friends, is the Democrat Party's greatest fear . . . an exodus of black voters away from the Democrats, and into the Trump Column.  Even better, it will reveal more and more that not only is Trump (and his supporters) not racist, but that Trump's policies are good for the black community, the Hispanic community, and so on and so forth.

Heck, if played right, Kanye West may be launching a revolution against leftist rule, and prove to be the man who began the beginning of the end of the Democrat Party.

Sounds great, but I won't hold my breath.

It could be true, though.  After all, Kanye also retweeted a post from Chance The Rapper which read, "Black people don't have to be democrats".

This could get interesting.

It's interesting what happens to someone's political opinions when the get a little older, and have a house with kids in it.

Suddenly, the "Me" becomes "We," and the progressive policies are no longer appealing.  After all, don't we all want what's best for our kids, and their future?

Not a fan of Kanye, but I'm willing to listen . . . to his new found political revelations, that is.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Douglas V. Gibbs, Guest on the Phil Mikan Radio Show

Listen Live

10am - 11am Monday - Friday   (times listed are Eastern)
9am - 11am Saturdays

Douglas V. Gibbs will be Phil's guest, Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 7:00 am Pacific Time

Click above radio station logos to go to the WLIS/WMRD website to listen live, or to access the podcast.

Enemies Within ... TONIGHT!!! ... Corona, California

 

You are hereby invited to a very special screening of the Trevor Louden documentary "Enemies Within".   "Enemies Within" zooms in on the best-kept secret of modern politics. Almost no one is aware of the fact that fewer than 20,000 U.S. communists, socialists and extreme "progressives" are able to influence the politicians and even write the laws that control the lives of over 300 million Americans.

Date: Wednesday April 25, 2018

Time: Reception is at 6:30 PM with the movie starting at 6:45

Location: Meeting room at AllStar Auto Body at 522 Railroad St. in Corona, CA.

Cost: $5.00 at the Door; Beverages and snacks provided

 

Special guest: Executive producer of the film Dennis Jackson will field questions after the screening!

There will be DVD copies of the movie available for purchase. Cash and checks accepted.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Investigation Falling Apart?

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

We are so far past the presidential election that the crying snowflakes after the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the GOP victory that few expected have run out of tears.  Hillary blamed the Electoral College.  She blamed white people.  She blamed white women for listening to their white husbands and white bosses.  She blamed Russia.  She blamed Wikileaks.  She blamed everyone, but herself.

I suppose you can't blame yourself when you did everything humanly possible, legally and illegally, to win the election.

The Democrats really didn't care if it was Hillary Clinton, or another one of their radicals, just as long as their 16 year plan to fundamentally transform America was not interrupted.  The Democrat Party was stunned when their plan was interrupted in November of 2016, not just because somehow the Republicans pulled off a win, but because they did it with the most unlikely of candidates; Donald J. Trump.

Like a jaded lover, the DNC is willing to do anything to avenge what they believe to be a temporary setback.  They have lied, murdered, and stole.  They have alleged President Trump is a rapist, traitor, and liar.  And now, they have filed a lawsuit accusing the Republicans of targeting Clinton for political destruction.

The lawsuit names the Russians, the Trump campaign, and Wikileaks as working together in an alleged conspiracy to win in 2016.  Conspiracy between Trump campaign officials and Russian military spies adds to the already nutty accusations by the liberal left.  Moscow's spies, the complaint alleges, helped the Trump team hack into Democrat computer networks, and ultimately proved to damage the chances of the Democrat Party nominee.

From their point of view, it had to be something so monstrous, because they can't think of any other way they could have lost.  The Democrats don't think it is possible that the American people voted for Trump.  The Democrats can't imagine Americans voted in such incredible numbers strong enough to overcome all of their own illegal activities that they had in place to ensure the election of the heir apparent to Obama's regime, Hillary Clinton.

The Democrat Party is like a wild animal that has been broken and beaten, cornered with no escape.  There is no money.  There are no superstars waiting in the wings to lead the next charge.  Their platform has been exposed as a failure, and economic prosperity is on the rise under GOP leadership.  They have nothing left to use in 2018 to ensure a win.  All they can do is attack Trump, and claim the 2018 mid-term will be an election (as they did with Hillary) they can't lose.  Their only weapon is to be anti-Trump, and since people are laughing at them, they have to make the allegations so outrageous that somebody has to take notice and believe their unicorn story of fabulous intrigue and treason.

It's sort of like Hollywood.  Movie-goers are dropping off, disappointed in an industry that has stopped telling stories, so in response Hollywood has packed their movies with amazing effects and explosive imagery.  Yet, the crowds continue to thin.  Like the Democrats, Hollywood doesn't understand that their problem isn't that the lights aren't brighter, or that the explosions aren't more massive.  They don't understand that the problem is that they have left the basics.  Hollywood has lost its originality, and its ability to simply tell a story.

The Democrats have lost their way.  While they throw into the mix explosive news and incredible special effects, they don't realize that the problem is they have left the basics.  The Democrats have lost their ability to debate in the arena of ideas.  They no longer know how to tell a story of America.  They have abandoned America, and are in this whole thing, now, to simply promote foreign ideas that Americans reject, and liberty cannot exist in.

Mueller and the Democrats have nothing to prove their wild accusations.  We know that the Democrats realize there was no collusion because of the emergence of the DNC lawsuit.  It's a last ditch effort to keep people from realizing the truth.  Mueller has failed, and the crowds don't care about the whining Democrats.  Like Hollywood, they've thrown some explosive special effects into the scene with the hope it'll maintain everyone's attention.

Their narrative has been rejected, so instead of returning to politics, they've doubled down on their accusations of conspiracies.

The reality is that the scandals do not actually reside in the Trump administration, or the Republican Party.  The evidence emerging is showing a scandal of collusion between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and FBI Director James Comey, who are also both very loyal to the Clinton Crime Family, and a whole litany of scandals throughout the Democrat Party.

North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and member of the Oversight Committee says there is a "growing body of evidence" supporting the claim of collusion among the Democrats.

“We have a number of documents, a growing body of evidence, that now would suggest that Director Comey, who under sworn testimony a number of times said, there was no coordination between Loretta Lynch’s DOJ and (Comey’s) FBI investigation,” stated Meadows.

“Not only was that false … but we have emails that would suggest that testimony was false, and at best misled the American public, at worst was lying to Congress,” he continued.

“And here we are today with emails, text messages that says even the ‘no coordination’ message that Director Comey put out on that infamous day in July was actually suggested by the Department of Justice,” added Meadows.

Text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Democrat Attorney Lisa Page revealed the cards hidden up their sleeves the Democrats thought they held in secret in this evolving game of poker.  The texts spoke of the choreography of the Democrat Party's plans.  The revelations revealed secrets and treachery, and the use of technology to send messaging.  Texts were a small part of it.  Emails were also used, hence, the reason Hillary Clinton did all she could to destroy hers.  The evidence is swirling around the whole thing, and the Democrats have been trying to destroy all of it. . . but something is always left behind.  Morsels exist.  Crumbs always fall off the table.  A spotlight is beginning to shine on them.

Former FBI Director Comey, and fired Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, have both lied under oath, to federal officers, and in an attempt to protect their own skins, they seem to be turning on each other.  Their testimonies conflict each other.

In an attempt to protect Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama) from criminal prosecution, they have wound up incriminating themselves.

A friend once told me, "It's not usually the scandal that catches the bad guys.  It's the cover-up, and the mistakes associated with the cover-up."

Democrat Party actors are running in circles, not sure what to do next.

Judicial Watch noticed, and now they have sued the Department of Justice for Comey-Mueller Communications.

Fired FBI Director Comey stated that he provided memos of his conversations with President Trump to Special Counsel Mueller and his team. 

(Washington, DC)- Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Justice Department for all records of communications relating to former FBI Director James Comey’s providing memoranda of his conversations with President Trump to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00932)). 

The suit was filed after the FBI informed Judicial Watch that it would neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of the materials for an August 4, 2017, FOIA request seeking:
All records of communications between former FBI Director James Comey and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or members of SC Mueller’s investigative committee, relating to the return of memoranda of conversations, memoranda to the file or notes regarding same generated by Comey following conversations with government officials during his tenure as FBI Director. 

On January 19, 2018, the FBI provided Judicial Watch a “Glomar” response, stating that it could, “neither confirm nor deny that the specific items you seek exist or do not exist as mere acknowledgment of these items would require the FBI to confirm or refute these assumptions,” which it claims could possibly interfere with law enforcement proceedings. 

Comey’s involvement with the special counsel was first revealed on June 8, 2017, when the former FBI director testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he leaked memos of his conversations with President Trump “because (he) thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.” 

On January 23, 2018, The New York Times reported that, “Mr. Comey met last year with Mr. Mueller’s investigators to answer questions about memos he wrote detailing interactions with the president that had unnerved him.” 

On June 13, 2017, Politico reported that Columbia University Law professor Daniel Richmond, a friend of James Comey, “turned over copies of the former FBI director’s explosive memos… to the FBI, sidestepping a request by congressional committees to deliver the materials to Capitol Hill.” 

Judicial Watch currently has several other lawsuits pending that seek information regarding the “Comey memos:” 

In June 2017, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking the memorandum written by former Director James Comey memorializing his meeting and conversation with President Trump regarding the FBI’s investigation of potential Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01189)). 

In July 2017, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking metadata of the “Comey memos” and related records-management information (Judicial Watch, Inc., v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 17-cv-01520)); 

In August 2017, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking the handling, storage, protection, dissemination, and/or return of classified information signed by Comey (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01624)). 

In September 2017, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation against the U.S. Department of Justice seeking memoranda allegedly written by former FBI Director James Comey regarding his discussions with President Donald Trump and Trump’s aides (Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01830)). 

In January 2018, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg ordered the FBI to turn over the “Comey memos” for in camera review by the court. In doing so, the court rejected arguments by the Sessions Justice Department to dismiss the lawsuits seeking the Comey information. On February 2, Boasberg ruled that the “Comey memos” would not be made public. Judicial Watch and the Daily Caller News Foundation are appealing the ruling. 

In January 2018, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department for FBI records about Comey’s book, as well as records of communications between Comey and the FBI prior to and regarding Comey’s controversial June 2017 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00220)). 

“Did Comey improperly funnel his dishonest memos and collude with the Mueller special counsel operation as part of a vendetta against President Trump?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Why is the DOJ still protecting James Comey and the out-of-control Mueller operation?”

The Wall Street Journal reports that information emerging shows that FBI Director James Comey gave to a friend outside of the government memos that are considered classified (or were later labeled as classified), and that Comey redacted portions of those memos because he knew it was classified information.  Comey said he considered the memos to be personal, not government.

The friend was Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor, now a professor at Columbia Law School, is still a Democrat willing to fight for the leftist ideology.

The report confirms President Trump's accusations that, like Hillary, Comey mishandled classified information. According to a tweet by the President, "James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?"

Comey was passing classified information to non-government persons, and Clinton was using a personal email server rather than a government account to pass classified information to God-knows-who.  But, Hillary was never charged because of interference by Comey (while he was still FBI Director).

No charges have been filed, despite all of the evidence, because the Democrats are still playing a game of three shells, and we still haven't figured out which shell the ball is under.

The deep state is deeper than we thought.  Comey's memos reveal that leakers infest the government.  It's beginning to look like the whole election was not filled with collusion between Trump and the Russians as much as it was being guided by collusion between the Democrats and their shady allies throughout government, and outside of government.

“Therefore, the Special Council was established based on an illegal act?” responded President Trump.  “Really, does everybody know what that means?”

The very legality of Mueller's counsel is in question.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to the job, saying "public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence."

And as the investigation has proceeded, the reality is, it's looking like Trump was right when he called the whole thing a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” as well as indicating he wants it to be over quickly.

Now, in the hopes of getting people to turn against the President, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, was unconstitutionally raided, in the hopes he'd 'flip'.  The thing is, Cohen hasn't.

Tom Fitton of Judicial watch says, "Just pardon everyone."  It would be amazing the kind of information that would emerge when people realize that if they talk, jail won't be in the cards.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

First Amendment Explained: Corona Constitution Class

Corona Constitution Class, 6:00 pm on Tuesday Nights, CARSTAR/AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad St., Corona Ca

Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs douglasvgibbs@reagan.com   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com     Lesson 13 The First Amendment   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.               Freedom of Religion   The first part of the 1st Amendment addresses religion. The frame of reference of the Founding Fathers was Europe, and more specifically, England. In Europe, a movement to reform the Church began in 1517, influenced by Martin Luther's critiques of the Roman Catholic Church. The movement led to the Protestant Reformation. After the Pope denied the King of England the permission to divorce his wife, the English king created the Church of England, and established himself as head of the church, so that he may grant to himself the allowance to seek a divorce. In England the Church of England greatly influenced the centralized governmental system, and the politicians greatly influenced The Church. There was no separation between powers of the king and the church, a problem that revealed itself with the 1559 Act of Uniformity. According to the Act of Uniformity, it was illegal to not attend Church of England services. A fine was imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day. Penalties also existed if one decided to have church services not approved by the government, which included arrest, and larger fines. The problem, the Founding Fathers reasoned, was not faith in God, but the establishment of a State Church. Therefore, to protect the governmental system from the influence of religion, while also protecting the various religious sects from a government that may give preferential treatment to an established religion, the Founders determined that the federal government must not establish a state religion (Establishment Clause).   The second part of that clause, however, was clearly designed to protect the various religious exercises by Americans from the government by instructing government to not prohibit the free exercise of religion.   Freedom of religion was a big deal with those early Americans. The importance of religious freedom during that time period is common knowledge. Even the textbooks in today's public school system reveals the Pilgrims first came to the New World in search of religious freedom.   Through the passage of time secular forces in our society have worked to undermine the first clause of the 1st Amendment. Americans have been conditioned to believe in a concept known as the Separation of Church and State. The concept has determined the church is to have no influence, no matter how subtle, on government for any reason. Therefore, reason the secularists who support the modern concept of the separation of church and state, any mention of God in the same breath with the federal government is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.   To understand the error of the concept of Separation of Church and State in today's society, we must go back and discover the origination of the idea. The truth demands we recognize the language used in the writings of the Founders, as well as grasp the history of the colonies - including a series of letters between the federal government and the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut, culminating in the letters to Thomas Jefferson after he became President of the United States after the Election of 1800.   Each of the colonies began as a collection of like-minded religious folk who wanted freedom for their religion (not necessarily freedom of all religions). In Jamestown, in 1610, Dales Law mandated the Jamestown colonists to attend Anglican worship. The law went so far as to have provisions against criticism of the church. Violation of Dales Law could even lead to death. The Puritan Colonies to the north had similar laws, even setting up their governments in accordance with Puritan Law. Connecticut was one of those Puritan Colonies, and in 1639 the colony enacted "The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut." The law set Connecticut up as a theocracy, disallowing non-Puritans from holding office. The government was the church, and the church was the government.   The practice of religious preference was not limited to Connecticut. All of the States enforced established religions, except Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.   Though Pennsylvania was largely a Quaker dominated State, William Penn believed that religion should be free from state control, so Pennsylvania did not persecute non-Quakers. However, in Pennsylvania, in order to hold office, you still had to be a Christian.   Rhode Island, founded in 1636 as a colony, was based on the principle of true religious liberty, and took in folks who were trying to escape the religious persecution of the other colonies.   Connecticut's Puritan dominated landscape included a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut who were tired of being treated like second class citizens.   Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, and with James Madison's assistance, finally got it enacted into law in 1786. After many letters to President Adams that resulted in no assistance, the Danbury Baptists were excited about Jefferson winning the presidential election in 1800. Finally, they would have someone in office who would help them in their fight for religious freedoms in Connecticut.   The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson to congratulate him for his win, and to appeal to him for help. Thomas Jefferson responded with a letter that carries the line, "a wall of separation between church and state," which has become the source from which the infamous concept of Separation of Church and State was eventually derived.   The Founding Fathers desired that Americans be free to worship as they wished, without being compelled by government through an established religion. The key, however, is that they not only did not want the federal government compelling a person through laws regarding religion, but the government shall not "prohibit the free exercise thereof."   Thomas Jefferson, as indicated in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and his other writings, was against the government establishing a "State Church." However, he also believed that men should be free to exercise their religion as they deem fit, and not be forced to follow a government mandate that may prohibit religion.   The Danbury Baptists were concerned over local religious freedoms, but Jefferson was clear, the federal government could not mandate anything in regards to religion. It is a State issue, and the Danbury Baptists needed to address the issue themselves through their State government. Jefferson's reference to a wall of separation was an explanation that the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion for any reason, including on public grounds, but if a State was to prohibit the free exercise of religion, or establish a state church, it was an issue that must be resolved at the State level.               Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press   The point of including in the Bill of Rights the freedom of speech, and of the press, was specifically designed to protect political speech, though other speech is protected by this clause as well. The Founding Fathers believed that freedom hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press. Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette, April 8, 1736, regarding the American doctrine behind freedom of speech and of the press:   "Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates."   James Madison in 1799 wrote, "In every State, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men of every description which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law."               Freedom of the Right of the People To Peaceably Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances   The right to peaceably assemble means that citizens may peacefully parade and gather, and demonstrate support or opposition of public policy. This part of the 1st Amendment is closely tied to Freedom of Speech, guaranteeing one's ability to express one's views by freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble.   The need to protect the right to peaceably assemble was not a new concept during the Constitutional Convention. Before the Bill of Rights, the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared on October 14, 1774:   The inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principals of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following rights: They have a right peaceably to assemble, consider their grievances, and petition the king: and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same are illegal.   In 1776, Pennsylvania's declaration of rights guaranteed peaceable assembly. Pennsylvania was the first State to recognize this right.   Originally, the right to assemble was considered less important than the right to petition. Now, many historians consider the two to be equally important, and to actually complement each other.   The Founding Fathers felt that the right to assemble, and petition the government for a redress of grievances, were important keys to protecting States' Rights, and the rights of the people, from the federal government. The need to assemble, to come together and share common beliefs and act upon those beliefs, is what began the drive for independence, and ultimately what led to the American Revolution. The right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, the Founding Fathers believed, was one of the primary tools available to the citizens in their drive to stop tyrannies before they could take hold.   The right to peaceable assembly provides the opportunity for all citizens to participate in America's political life and in the electoral process. A recent example of this inalienable right in action is the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party rallies are peaceful assemblies. These rallies are protected by the Constitution when they are for a lawful purpose, are conducted in an orderly manner, and publicize some type of grievance. Many groups and organizations use assembly as a way to show support for an idea, or dispute, as characterized by the Tea Party. Terms:   1559 Act of Uniformity - In Britain it was illegal not to attend Church of England services, with a fine imposed for each missed Sunday and holy day. Penalties for having unofficial services included arrest and larger fines.   Protestant Reformation - Movement of the Church Reform begun in 1517 that was influenced by Martin Luther's critiques of the Roman Catholic Church. The movement led to the formation of the Protestant Christian groups.   Separation of Church and State - Distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state.   Theocracy - Form of government in which a state is as governed by religion, or by clergy who believes they are under immediate divine guidance.   Questions for Discussion:   1. How does today's definition of the separation between church and state differ from the attitude towards religion by the Founding Fathers?   2. Why did the Danbury Baptists appeal to Thomas Jefferson for help?   3. Why do you think that the Founding Fathers believed that our freedoms hinged on the freedoms of political speech and the press?   4. What are examples of the people peaceably assembling in protest?   Resources:   Danbury Baptist Association's letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 7, 1801: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html   Jefferson's Final Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html   Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).   Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution - Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).   The Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress declared on October 14, 1774, U.S. History dot org: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/related/decres.htm   Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html   Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Conservative GOP Governor in California? It's Possible.

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

While the GOP has written California off as a lost cause, the conservatives in the State are fighting to save their State, and likely (they believe), to save America.  They say as California goes, so goes the nation.  I don't know about that.  But, I do know that liberalism is like a disease, and when liberal left ideas achieve a firm hold in California, it's tentacles spread outward towards other States, seeking to infect them, as well.  That is why, when, a week ago an army of Tea Party advocates were in Beaumont, California encouraging the city council to take a position in opposition to California's Sanctuary State law, there were folks from many cities across California, and even from Arizona, right there in the mix.  The folks in Arizona know that if the leftist leviathan isn't stopped in California, it won't be long before the maddening monstrosity of hard left destruction begins to seep into their own State.

In truth, defending our individual States against a tyrannical enemy is an age-old American tradition.

The American Revolution first erupted in Massachusetts.  The first protests against the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, the Boston Massacre, the occupation of Boston by British Troops, the disappearance of four cannons, the march to Salem (where it was believed the cannons were hidden), the shot heard 'round the world in Lexington as the British marched to Concord to disarm the colony by seizing the missing cannons and the ammunition stored there, and The Siege of Boston, all took place in Massachusetts.  It wasn't long before the other colonies realized that what was happening in "Massachusetts' War" would likely spread into their own communities if the colonies did not unite, and stand together, to try and stop the fight before it spread from Massachusetts, into the other colonies.

Eventually, the British departed from Boston, and shortly after that Spring of 1776 retreat, the entire union of colonies became a union of States, and together they Declared Independence from the British Empire.  Then, together, they proceeded to defeat the tyranny that sought to destroy them.

The war to overthrow the Constitution and American Liberty is raging in California, and it threatens to spill over into other States if not contained.

California has become a modern-day Lexington Green, or Sumpter Hill (if you believe we are in a modern day civil war for the soul of America).  The raging liberal left war against American Liberty, and the raging liberal left assault against the ideas of American Freedom is raging in the Golden State, and the forces of tyranny have had the upper-hand for decades.

The California Republic is no stranger to revolution.  With only two Mexican settlements in the territory, Los Angeles and San Jose, the Californianos rejected Santa Anna's tyranny, and dismantling of the 1824 Mexican Constitution (which had been crafted after the American Constitution).  With an influx of American settlers, and many Mexican settlers rejecting the dictator of Mexico, in 1846 the Californians launched the Bear Flag Revolt.  The unrecognized republic that resulted from the revolt existed for about 25 days, until the United States planted an American Flag in Monterrey just south of San Francisco.  The war of liberation by the United States to free the Californianos and Tejanos from the iron grip of a blood-thirsty dictator was eventually won, and shortly afterward the State of California was admitted to the union in 1850.  While the Republic of California was short-lived, the essence of the bear flag lives on.

Gubernatorial Candidate Travis Allen rejects the dictatorship in Sacramento.  The Republican Candidate for Governor of California has launched a revolt against the tyranny of the California Democrat Party.  Travis Allen is working to break the iron grip of the tyrants in California, and he believes he can win.

The story in California, as presented by the Democrats, claim that the Mexican-American War was a war of expansion, rather than the war of liberation that it was.  The illegal aliens are flooding from across the border, demanding an overthrow of American jurisdiction over the region, and the Democrat politicians in Sacramento are aiding and abetting the invaders in a treasonous flurry.  The Democrat majority has done more than declare California a sanctuary for illegal alien invaders.

Travis Allen says, "No more."

The California Democrats have also been working to dismantle free speech, usurp the right to keep and bear arms, and tax California into a position where the only way to go is downward into a position that would be economically more like Mexico's financial disaster, and perhaps they are even willing to stranglehold the Golden State into a socialist frenzy that would cripple the local economy, and make the State more like the failed utopian liberal left fantasies of Detroit, or Venezuela.

Travis Allen is running for Governor of California with the intent to stop the invasion, restore constitutionality and reestablish the rule of law.

While the Democrats work to destroy California, under the presidency of Donald J. Trump, the rest of the country is experiencing a renaissance.  Fourteen states have set new records for low unemployment rates in the last year.  A number of recent polls are beginning to sway to 50% and higher for Trump's approval rating, despite the manipulation of the polls by the liberal left.  And the Blue Wave being predicted for November of 2018's mid-term elections is beginning to look like a blue trickle, and perhaps, just maybe, a net Republican gain in seats in Congress, as well as around the country's State legislatures.  Not only must we remember that these same liberal leftists were the ones claiming that a Hillary Clinton win was the inevitable outcome in 2016, but also we must be reminded that while the liberal left is doing everything they can to protect their collective bottoms, many of the voters are beginning to notice that Trump is a very successful president, after all.

That means that a Trumpesque Candidate in California may be able to achieve the impossible, and pull off a similar historical win in the Golden State.

Nearly two dozen cities (and counties) in California are opting out of the unconstitutional Sanctuary State law.  Historically blue seats are in trouble, and historically red seats lost by the Republicans in recent elections are looking like they may swing back to the red column.  Various offices are also being pursued by very qualified members of the GOP, and their numbers are beginning to look like they have a legitimate shot. Voter fraud is being challenged, and a Trump-like candidate for governor is taking the State by storm.

A few weeks ago, when the Unite I.E. Conservative Conference, the State's largest conservative conference who this year featured Sebastian Gorka as its keynote speaker, was upon Californians, a local newspaper asked, "What's on Conservative's minds as they gather in Riverside?"

I am figuring the Democrats were thinking that an event in California filled with conservatives would be full of doom and gloom for the GOP.  However, what happened was excitement, encouragement, and a litany of fired up candidates for a variety of State and federal offices . . . especially when it came to the pure fire and optimism in the delivery by Travis Allen for Governor.

Unite I.E.'s straw vote, performed by text messaging, after both John Cox and Travis Allen spoke, gave Allen a whopping 94% to 6% win from the Inland Empire conservatives in attendance.

Cox's presentation was flat, boring, filled with explanations in an attempt to defend against his less-than conservative past, and he bailed out the door the moment he was finished speaking.  Allen, however, as he always does, was among the last ones to leave, making sure he shook every hand, took every picture, and spoke to everyone who wished to have a word with him.

His speech was filled with irreverence against the Democrats, and filled with hope for conservatism and the future of California.  He pointed out that he's the only candidate in the race who voted for Trump.  He explained that he supported the President from the moment the billionaire emerged as the GOP nominee.  Allen even wrote an article explaining why Republicans needed to support the businessman in his bid for President of the United States as Donald Trump rose to the top and gained the Republican Party nomination.  Travis Allen, in his speech, called for a reversal of the gas tax, and a repeal of the Sanctuary State law.  He called for an end to Moonbeam Brown's train to nowhere, and a start to creating much-needed facilities to store water so that drought conditions become a distant memory, and a minor irritation.  Allen was full of fire and energy, and the cheering crowd responded approvingly.

A couple weeks later, April 20, Travis spoke at the University of California at Riverside.  The College Republicans requested an event, and Travis Allen delivered.  Despite all of the obstacles thrown up by the University (such as a $1,000 security fee) and the emergence of local crazies (we were met by members of what looked like Antifa and communists claiming to be liberal left Democrats as they brandished their red stars and Che Guevara images), the room filled to capacity, and once again Travis Allen delivered an energy-filled rebuke of Democrat Party rule in California.  Once again, he was among the last to depart, making sure he took every picture, shook every hand, and handed out every T-Shirt requested by the members of the crowd.

I talked to his support staff on Saturday and he went to a morning event in Southern California's Tustin, to Northern California's Santa Cruz in the afternoon, during one of my commercial breaks during Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KMET 1490-AM.  When we couldn't get Travis Allen to be able to come on live for an interview for my Saturday radio program due to his incredibly busy weekends schedule, I was told, "no problem".  Travis Allen has stated repeatedly he wants to be on my program, and they will work to make sure there will be an opportunity during the week to come into the studio so as to interview with me personally as a pre-record for later playback.

John Cox was only willing to come on my radio program before he was running for office, to sell his disastrous idea of a neighborhood legislature.  Multiple requests to Cox, or any of the Democrats, have been rejected.  Either they see my hit program in the Inland Empire as being too small, or too conservative.

While the mainstream media is claiming John Cox, the GOP RINO from Chicago who voted for pro-abortion Gary Johnson in the 2016 Presidential Election, and is a former Democrat, leads in the polls, there are a number of polls which say otherwise.

Last November polls showed Travis Allen leading John Cox, and closing in on the Democrats.

In a GOP January poll after a Republican Party debate, Travis Allen beat John Cox 64.6% to 11.4%.

In February, in an attempt to make it sound like Gavin Newsom is untouchable, POLITICO admitted Travis Allen is ahead of John Cox overall by a percentage point.

The Redlands Tea Party, the largest Tea Party group in California, gave their straw poll win to Travis Allen by a vote of 81% to 17%.  San Diegans for a secure border followed that up with an endorsement.

The Democrats have been doubling down on taxation, and it was Travis Allen who fired the first shot across their bow with an attempt to repeal the gas tax.  He has since joined forces with another gas tax repeal effort led by San Diegan Carl DeMaio.

It has been Travis Allen leading the way when it comes to demanding an end of the Sanctuary State law, calling it dangerous for our law enforcement, a danger to public safety in our communities, and in violation of the United States Constitution.  As he has urged cities to defy their State's illegal law, the number of cities opting out has been rising rapidly.

As California Democrats have sought to unconstitutionally infringe on Californian's right to keep and bear arms, Travis Allen has continuously slammed the liberal left for their assault on our Natural Rights. Allen's website states, "The plain truth though is that no amount of gun control legislation will ever stop bad people from doing terrible things. Politicians attacking Americans’ constitutional right to protect ourselves only further endangers all of us and our families."

The Democrats have continuously refused to admit that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens make society safer, and ultimately saves lives.

The Democrats in the gubernatorial race in California support taxing people at any opportunity that government can muster.  The Democrats in the gubernatorial race in California support the concept of no borders, defending criminal aliens, placing our communities at risk with dangerous policies.  Allen stands against SB-54 which is the Sanctuary State law, Prop. 47 which reduced criminal penalties, and Prop. 57 which released countless criminals onto our streets . . . all of which have led to an increase in crime rates in California, and have turned the streets in California cities into what looks like a third-world nation.

Travis Allen has called for an end to Governor Brown's high speed train that nobody will ride, and instead calls for more traffic lanes as a result of infrastructure repairs and additions so that everyone will be able to drive to work in reduced traffic.  Allen has called for an end to Governor Brown's water tunnels, and instead demands the creation of more water-storage facilities.

The Democrats, however, continue to ignore the writing on the wall.  Their arrogance has them believing they are unstoppable.  They believe that nobody has noticed they are destroying California.  Is it possible that Democrats, while they believe they are invincible, actually don't have their act together, and have overplayed their hand?

[Travis] Allen compares the mood of the electorate to that 14 years ago when Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was recalled in a historic election and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state's last Republican governor.

"Californians have had enough. They're tired of being marginalized and ignored," Allen said. "Californians are tired of having to send their kids to failing schools and being stuck in the nation's worst traffic and suffering through recurring droughts due to crumbling infrastructure."

Meg Whitman's run for governor in 2010 gave evidence that money alone cannot win an election, despite John Cox's claim to the contrary.  To win, a Republican must be optimistic, fiery, and have a message that reveals the truth about the liberal left Democrats that even the most ardent leftist voter cannot deny is devastating to California's well-being.

Travis Allen possesses all three of those things; optimistic, fiery, and a powerful message of renewal.

Is it enough to put the Republicans into the Governor's Mansion in Sacramento in the upcoming elections?

If you ask conservatives in California who are rallying behind Allen, the answer is a very enthusiastic, "Yes!"

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Yucaipa Plans to Opt Out of S.B. 54 Sanctuary State

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While an amicus brief, letter, or resolution has not been established or written, the California Inland Empire City of Yucaipa in tonight's city council meeting moved, seconded, and approved to take a position against S.B. 54, California's Sanctuary State law.

Tim Donnelly was there, when I couldn't be, and recorded the critical vote.

The Democrat Party's unconstitutional Sanctuary State Law continues to be challenged, and denied, by the cities of California.  Beaumont did it last Tuesday, as has a flurry of cities in the last few weeks (primarily in Southern California).  The Democrats have doubled down on the immigration issue, and they are losing regarding their open rebellion against the United States Constitution.  Is this enough to also turn the tide in the election, and break the Democrat Party stranglehold on the Golden State?

Could we see a move towards increasing GOP numbers in Sacramento?  Could this be the kind of momentum needed to put a Republican Governor in Sacramento?

Perhaps.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Pompeo: Anti-Trump Target

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The Democrat Party is trying to obstruct at all opportunities and work being done by President Donald J. Trump.  As things continue to roll for President Trump in the right direction, they are doubling down on all of their attacks to stop them.  It is war, they believe, and nothing is out of bounds.  The thing is, they don't want to make America better, or return us to the prosperity our Constitution has given us.  Their aim is power, money, and the destruction of our system of liberty so that their utopian system of collective socialism may replace it.  They want their version of "fairness" and "Marxist equality", even if it kills liberty, individualism, and the free market.

The firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson opened up the Secretary of State slot, and President Trump decided CIA Director Mike Pompeo was the best choice for the position. Considering Pompeo's background as CIA Director, member of the House of Representatives, and an officer in the United States Army, Pompeo seems to be well-equipped for the position.  However, the anti-Trump Democrats are out in force, and are even willing to spit on the U.S. Constitution (as if that is new news) to stop the nomination.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), during the confirmation hearing of Pompeo in the U.S. Senate to become the next Secretary of State, established himself as a vote against CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s nomination because of Pompeo’s beliefs on marriage and sexuality — beliefs consistent with Pompeo’s Christian faith.

Never mind Article VI of the United States Constitution where it explicitly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Booker's questioning of Pompeo during the nominee’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee targeted words Pompeo spoke at a church in his district back when Pompeo was still a U.S. Congressman.

I am surprised Booker didn't hammer him for being inside the church, in the first place.

Booker later posted on Facebook that he will vote against Pompeo, saying that the former congressman’s religious beliefs on these issues make him unfit to serve in federal office representing the United States. “I believe you can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people,” Booker wrote. The senator then quotes Bible verses that he thinks Pompeo is not living up to, including references to loving his neighbor.

At what point has Christians ever said they don't "love" homosexuals?  As I've been hearing, "love the person, hate the sin."  The Democrats, apparently, ascribe to the idea that if you disagree with something, either shut up about it, or be labeled a "hater."  In reality, those kinds of ad-hominem attacks are the last grasp for an argument, when they have none.

Regarding Booker's defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the conservative response was swift, and immediately targeted the Constitution and our Christian Heritage as a sword in this battle against Senator Booker, and the rest of the godless Democrat Party.

“Demanding a loyalty oath to Sen. Booker’s determination of which beliefs are acceptable isn’t what this country is about; indeed, it’s what we fought for independence from,” Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council (FRC), told Breitbart News. “We should celebrate that we are a nation that not only allows but encourages every American to hold and express their beliefs – including their religious beliefs – without fear of retribution by the government.”

Could this be a set-up?  Are the Democrats playing this game because they know that they can then turn it around against the Republicans later when they are in control and they want to begin appointing Muslim invaders (Islam is a political ideology that masks itself as a religion) to critical posts?

The reality is, the Democrat Party, who at one time removed God from their platform, and then amidst a roar of boos returned God after a series of criticisms, stands against Christian values, and a moral compass based on biblical teachings.

“Religious bigotry and discrimination is unacceptable in this country, much less from someone who takes an oath to our Constitution and who is supposed to serve the people of this country,” said Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, in an exclusive comment to Breitbart News.

“This is essentially imposing a religious test on officers of the United States, something explicitly forbidden by Article VI of the Constitution,” said Prof. John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

“The American people put President Trump in the White House in part because they refuse to be discriminated against for their long-held, mainstream beliefs,” Trump Transition Team leader Ken Blackwell told Breitbart News. “Whether on abortion, marriage, the Bible, the Second Amendment, or other issues, tens of millions of Americans who are wonderful people have been vilified for their beliefs by left-wing elites, and the American people chose a president who will stand up for them.”

Today the U.S. Senate committee in play claims they are poised to vote against Mike Pompeo as secretary of state.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on Mr. Pompeo’s nomination tonight, and predictably all of the panel’s Democrats have said they will oppose Pompeo's nomination.  The sad part about it is that not only are the Democrats doing so for solely obstructionist reasons, but on the committee, which has 11 members of the Republican Party, and 10 members of the Democrat Party, the GOP has no votes to spare, and one Republican is defecting with a vote against Pompeo.  Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who I am normally a huge fan of, has stated he will be voting with the Democrats.

If Paul votes against Pompeo with the Democrats, that will kill the committee's support for him.  That said, the committee is not capable of keeping the vote for Pompeo from going to the floor of the U.S. Senate.  If Pompeo does pull off the Senate vote, it will be the first time in modern history that a secretary of state was confirmed by the full Senate without winning a committee endorsement.

Indeed, in the U.S. Senate, there are Democrats willing to cast a vote for Pompeo, despite the position of the hard-left obstructionist Democrats on the committee.  One of those Democrats is Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who has said she plans to support Mr. Pompeo.  It is likely other Democrats from Red States, who are likely thinking about how to keep their seats, will join Heitkamp with a "yes" vote for Pompeo.

“Under ordinary times, he would be confirmed overwhelmingly,“ Mr. Corker said on CNN’s State of the Union. ”We just live in a very partisan environment.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation, criticized what he said was Democrats’ “shameful political behavior.”

Paul is the only expected Republican defection.

In addition to Heitkamp, the Associated Press is reporting that two other Democrat Senators will give Pompeo their votes when the matter comes before the full Senate, naming Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana as being those Democrats.

With John McCain at home dealing with his cancer, Rand Paul's breaking of rank would have put the vote at 50 against and 49 for Pompeo if everyone voted only along party lines (save for Senator Paul).  However, with at least three Democrats confirming they will vote in favor of Pompeo, it looks likely that Mr. Pompeo will be joining President Donald J. Trump as his Secretary of State, soon, which is good timing since the talks with North Korea are rapidly approaching.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary