Gorsuch Condemns COVID Policies for Violating Civil Liberties


Gorsuch Condemns COVID Policies for Violating Civil Liberties: Where Are the Rest?

Written by: Robert W. Peck, former Executive Committee Member, State Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and current continuing supporter

In a statement relating to the case of Arizona v. Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of Homeland Security), US Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, condemned government-imposed COVID policies that turned the legal and legislative process on its head and violated civil liberties. The justice’s review of actions taken by local, state, and federal governments over the past three years reads like a report on human rights abuses from the socialist Soviet Union era. Previous generations of Americans would have thought the justice’s statements were from a dystopian novel, not current events.

Here are some key passages from Justice Gorsuch’s statement.

“Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on… They divided cities and neighborhoods into color-coded zones, forced individuals to fight for their freedoms in court on emergency timetables, and then changed their color-coded schemes when defeat in court seemed imminent.

“Federal executive officials entered the act too… They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate… They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.

“While executive officials issued new emergency decrees at a furious pace, state legislatures and Congress—the bodies normally responsible for adopting our laws—too often fell silent. Courts bound to protect our liberties addressed a few—but hardly all—of the intrusions upon them. In some cases, like this one, courts even allowed themselves to be used to perpetuate emergency public-health decrees for collateral purposes, itself a form of emergency-lawmaking-by-litigation.”

Amen Justice Gorsuch–someone finally said it!

But where are the rest?

For over three years now, governors, presidents, and a plethora of agents and agencies under their charge have usurped powers not constitutionally delegated to them and trampled on rights once held sacred. The lawless and oppressive nature of lockdown-shutdown-maskup-vaxup orders was able to be known from day one (Why Covid Orders Are Not Law) . Statements like that of Justice Gorsuch could have and should have been issued by every public official in the land, including two Presidents that presided over the pandemic, 535 members of Congress, 50 governors, 7,558 state legislators, thousands of county commissioners, thousands of county sheriffs, and tens of thousands of mayors and city councilmen.

Yet of those thousands of public officials whose duty it is to defend our God-given rights and uphold the constitutional rule of law, we now have this statement issued by one Supreme Court justice, two governors who either declined to implement, or stood up against unlawful policies (South Dakota and Florida), and Rand Paul, who continues to be a voice for liberty in the US Senate.

So again, I ask, where are the rest?

Are there any others in elected office anywhere in the land who comprehend the concept of inherent, immutable, God-given rights and who hold fidelity to the plain text and original intent of the Constitution provided for the preservation of those rights?

There has been discussion about the effectiveness of masks and the safety of the shots, though relatively little of that has come from elected officials. But frankly, those discussions distracted us from the paramount issue. From day one, the salient question has been whether we will remain free and autonomous souls with rights bestowed by our Creator, or become the slavish wards of an almighty state.

So again, I ask, where are the voices of other public officials championing the rule of law and decrying the violation of rights?

Where were the hundreds of Republican members of Congress who could have provided national leadership by issuing a joint statement denouncing such policies as unlawful and violating civil liberties?

Where was the Republican Party, which could have issued a statement akin to that of Justice Gorsuch, then threatened to expel from the party any governors issuing emergency orders that violate the God-given rights of their citizens?

Where were the large, well-funded organizations of the right–the ones that beg Granny for her social security check so they can save the grandkids from the libs by electing more Republicans–organizations that could have mounted major legal battles in defense of churches, small businesses, and workers rights?

Finally, where was the Christian-conservative-right, the voting block that talks about liberty, complained about masks and mandates, then went back to the polls to reelect nearly every Republican regardless of whether they perpetrated, or merely tolerated the violation of our rights?

It would appear the favored party of the right, nearly all its office holders, and the people who elect them have all collectively lost the understanding of, and forsaken devotion to, the concept of God-given rights and constitutionally limited government.

No, I’m not exaggerating. Just look at the results. The violations outlined by Justice Gorsuch occurred in every blue state and over 90 percent of red states, including states with complete Republican control (23 states after the 2020 election). The land of liberty has lost its constitutional compass, and the conservative right has forgotten the rights it set out to conserve.

This is the fruit produced by a policy of pursuing victory through compromise.

For over 30 years now, I’ve watched as the Christian-conservative-right has consistently moved away from candidates who embodied its professed values in favor of those the pundits and party hacks told them could “beat the Democrat.” Over this same time, the right gradually forgot the principles it was compromising away to win at the polls. Slowly and subtly, conservatives assimilated the policies and practices of those they were taught to cheer for as their perceived deliverers. The result is that today the right supports a party and votes for politicians its predecessors would have tried for treachery.

The loneness of Justice Gorsuch’s voice crying in the political wilderness demonstrates the degree to which there is no longer a major political party or a significant faction within a party that retains the American ideals of liberty through inherent, immutable, God-given rights protected by the constitutional rule of law.

Yes, a few small activist organizations have pursued remedy against COVID policies in the courts, and a rare few alternative media commentators have voiced a constitutional and rights-based view on the matter. But there is no body of elected leaders, no well-funded political organizations, and no populist movement left in the land acknowledging and holding fidelity to the Creator as the source of rights and the Constitution as the source of law. There may be some politicians who give lip service to such, but their inaction during COVID belies them.

Without the acknowledgment of the Creator as the source of rights and the Constitution as the source of law, we are left to drift on a sea of secular humanist philosophy where the passions of human opinion and whims of government edict reign supreme, arbitrarily decreeing who, if any, has rights and what they might be on any given day.

Yes, I’m saying that all our human institutions, including the popular organizations of the right, have failed us, and we’re now beyond all political hope of recovering the republic. But that’s a good thing. It’s good if it leads us to give up hope–false hope that is. And indeed, all hope that looks to man, man-made institutions, and man’s political machinations is false hope.

The only valid basis for all true hope is faith in the integrity of our Creator and the veracity of His word.

Does that mean we should withdraw from the political realm? Not at all. Quite the opposite.

The proper role of the church as ambassadors for the owner and soon-coming king of this planet is to declare our Lord’s counsels, principles, and purposes to mankind, including to the institutions of men and their civil societies, so that they might know how to govern themselves according to His will and be blessed.

However, it is utterly perverse for the people of God to go around looking to human political institutions for power by which to save ourselves, prostituting ourselves and our professed principles in exchange for a seat at their table. Satan has twisted our minds and turned the tables on us. He has us seeing ourselves as beggars seeking power from the world by which to save ourselves from the world.

In reality, all power, both in heaven and on earth, belongs to our Lord, and the power that this world’s leaders currently wield is on loan to them from him. They will soon give an account to him for their use of it. And we will give an account of our ambassadorship and whether we have used it to properly represent our king and the counsels of his kingdom.

No, I’m not saying we should despair of hope and give up.

I am saying that it’s time for Christians in America to turn off the TV news, turn off the talk radio, put down the column by our favorite pundit, and instead go aside, get quiet, get alone with our own thoughts, and ask God to begin showing us again what are the first principles of His revealed will for human society and its civil governance. Then, return to the standard that the Lord shows us and refuse to be moved from it even if it means standing alone; even if it means voting alone; even if it means writing in the name of the one person we know who overtly honors God and upholds the rule of law.

You see, God’s ability to bless, honor, protect, and provide is not determined by who is in office. God’s honor comes upon those who honor Him (1 Samuel 2:30), and blessing is to those who forsake trust in man and human might and return to trusting in the Lord (Jeremiah 17:5).

Please support returning our nation to a constitutional republic by making your most generous donation in support of the Constitution Party.  Click here:

Constitution Party

Comments or Questions: Contact Donna Ivanovich, Adm Asst to the National Chairman

-=-=-Constitution Party National Committee · PO Box 1782, Lancaster, PA 17608, United States
This email was sent to donnaivanovich [at] yahoo [dot] com. To stop receiving emails, click here.-=-=-

Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders.

Election Fraud

Election Deniers or Election Questioners?

Another Reason Why America Needs the Constitution Party

According to Sidney Powell, an attorney and former prosecutor, we have been blatantly reminded this past week that Election Fraud is a massive problem in our country.  Although many people have worked on this problem and suffered major consequences from speaking out, efforts to secure the integrity of our elections have been few and meager.

There ARE solutions, but our elected representatives in Washington have not had the courage and strength of character to employ them.

The Democrats cannot win elections without extensive ballot fraud, and the Republicans don’t seem to care.  Rampant fraud was known and exposed following the 2020 election.  Uncorrected, they blatantly repeated their tactics last week.

What did the Republicans do about it?

The Constitution Party may appear small in numbers, but what we lack in size is made up in constitutional principle.

For instance, under the “Election Reform” plank in the Constitution Party Platform, it is stated in part,

“In order to avoid election fraud, we insist electronic and mechanical voting processes provide a clear, auditable and verifiable paper trail. At a minimum, elections should be audited at random at the precinct level after the polls close.”
There is a growing movement within the states and nation to undermine our right of a “Secret Ballot” by making people vote by absentee ballot. This move away from a “Secret Ballot” and “Vote-in-person” approach is an insecure system, not only because the Post office has been losing and misplacing mail for many years, but also because of increasing fraud and vote rigging, such as voter suppression, vote buying, and ballot box stuffing.
Even though Vote- By-Mail seems to increase voting percentages in the short-term, it has proven to cause a long-term decline. Also verifying signatures “after the fact” greatly increases the cost of an election.
Since true freedom requires being inconvenienced and putting forth extra effort from time- to-time, we oppose any movement to codify or use Vote-By-Mail and other such schemes which undermine the liberty-preserving privilege of voting in secret, in person, at precinct-based polling places.”

Click here to read the entire Constitution Party Plank:

Election Reform

There is anecdotal evidence all over the place.

1)  The Gateway Pundit – Maricopa County Election Judge Believes the Machines Were Programmed to Reject Ballots on Election Day.

Michele Swinick was an election judge in Maricopa County on election day last week. Following the election Michele stepped forward to discuss what she experienced in Maricopa County on Election Day.

Michele worked at a center in a heavily Republican district. According to Michele, the tabulators worked perfectly well the night before the election. Then on Election Day they quit working. Only 1 in 10 ballots were accepted through the tabulators. The officials were told to put the defective ballots into a different section called “Door 3.”

Michele believes this was all planned. The election officials knew that republicans were going to come out in force on election day as they did in the primary. This was a planned operation.

It defies logic how many odd unexplained little breakdowns happen on Election Day.

2) The Daily Wire – Nevada County Confirms Livestream Video of Vote-count Areas Went Dark for 8 hours.

“We know that our election livestream cameras went dark overnight. We investigated what happened and how to prevent it happening again,” Washoe County’s Twitter account posted Thursday afternoon.

Unsurprisingly, the tweet went viral, racking up thousands of reactions, which included questions concerning election integrity.

“The livestream computer application lost connection with the courtesy cameras at 11:24 p.m. the evening of November 9,” the county said on its website. “All staff had left for the night about 60 minutes earlier and did not arrive back at the office until 7 a.m. Connection was restored at 7:53 a.m. the morning of November 10.”

Questions over election integrity have dominated news cycles in recent years. One main issue is certainly the influx of vote-by-mail initiatives that lead to vote-counts lingering for days or even weeks after Election Day.

How is it possible to run out of ballots on Election Day?

3) FOX NewsTexas Gov. Abbott calls for investigation into Harris County’s Election Day problems.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called for an investigation into Harris County’s elections after several polling places failed to open on time and ran out of paper ballots on Election Day last week.

“The allegations of election improprieties in our state’s largest county may result from anything ranging from malfeasance to blatant criminal conduct,” Abbott said in a statement.

“Voters in Harris County deserve to know what happened. Integrity in the election process is essential. To achieve that standard, a thorough investigation is warranted.”Harris County Elections Administrator Cliff Tatum said that his office is “fully committed to transparency” regarding the midterm elections, noting that the county has been selected to participate in the Texas Secretary of State’s 2022 audit.

American Voters need to wake up and have the courage to support the Constitution Party.  Begin preparing for 2024.  We can make a difference.

Click here to see how you can support the  Constitution Party

Questions or Comments: Contact: Donna Ivanovich

The Death of Roe – Could it be Coming?

Dear Friends of the Constitution Party,

Do you know that every plank in the Constitution Party Platform is listed in alphabetical order? ……EXCEPT the first one, “Sanctity of Life”!

After all these years, the Supreme Court just might overturn this horrendous landmark decision of allowing the slaughter of children in the womb and return it to the states to decide?

Because the “Fake News” and activists are melting down and misrepresenting the DRAFT opinion that was leaked, we felt our supporters would appreciate reading some of these brilliant words written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito:

1)  We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.  The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by a constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

2)  That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

3)  The right to abortion does not fall within this category.  Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law.

4)  Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.  Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences,

5)  It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.

NOTE:  By the way, did you know this?

. . . .only six countries besides the United States “permit(ted) nontherapeutic or elective abortion-on-demand after the twentieth week of gestation.”  Countries permitting is Canada, China, Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam.

6)  Not only was there no support for such a constitutional right until shortly before Roe, but abortion had long been a crime in every single State. (This was NOT a deeply held American tradition)

7)  We begin with the common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after “quickening” – i.e., the first felt movement of the fetus in the womb, which usually occurs between the 16th and 18th week of pregnancy.

8)  English cases dating all the way back to the 13th century corroborate the treatises’ statements that abortion was a crime.

9)  The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.  On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.

10)  Abortion is nothing new.  It has been addressed by lawmakers for centuries, and the fundamental moral question that it poses is ageless.

11) ….We explained why Roe was incorrectly decided, but that decision was more than just wrong.  It stood on exceptionally weak grounds.  Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred a right to obtain an abortion, but it failed to ground its decision in text, history, or precedent.  It relied on an erroneous historical narrative; it devoted great attention to and presumably relied on matters that have no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution; it disregarded the fundamental difference between the precedents on which it relied and the question before the Court; it concocted an elaborate set of rules, with different restrictions for each trimester of pregnancy, but it did not explain how this veritable code could be teased out of anything in the Constitution.

NOTE:  The Justices know there is going to be tremendous blowback, and they write about it here:

12)  We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey.  And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.  We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.  Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.

NOTE:  Is America’s nuclear family disappearing?  Check out these statistics by the Pew Research Center:


1960:  74%

2020: 57%


1960: 61%

2020: 33%


1960: 72%

2020: 50%

Do you think abortion is a huge part of these statistics proving the American family is under attack?

We invite you to please review the Constitution Party Platform in its entirety at Platform – Constitution Party and especially the plank on the “Sanctity of Life”, which is printed below.  If you agree, please consider supporting the ONLY political party in America that is committed to restoring constitutional limits to our Nation.

Sanctity of Life

The Declaration of Independence states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. The first duty of the law is to protect innocent life, created in the image of God. No level of civil government may legalize or fund the taking of life without justification. Legalizing the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn, whether by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia or suicide, is a direct violation of their unalienable right to life. As to matters of rape and incest, we empathize with those abused and assert the need to provide immediate protection and care in a safe environment. Instead of the further violence of abortion, the mother and the child should be provided with compassionate care. We find it unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

We oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients. We oppose the use of third-party assisted reproduction that harms pre-born persons created in the process, involves surrogacy, or involves egg or sperm from donors other than the spouse. All funding, statutes, and regulations authorizing biomedical research involving human embryos for cloning and human enhancement must be repealed.

In office, we shall only appoint to the judiciary, and to other positions of judicial and executive authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of all human beings. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land. We oppose the use of tax-payer funds at any level of government to support any local, state, federal, or foreign government entity, or any other private organization or quasi-government entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.

Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government – legislative, executive and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases involving the personhood of all human beings in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life advocates, and strongly urge the repeal of statutes like the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

Comments or Questions: Please contact executivedirector [at] constitutionparty [dot] com

Support pro-life candidates and the Constitution Party by clicking here:

Infrastructure, Boondoggles, and Greasy Palms

Darrell Castle talks about the 2,700 page new Bipartisan spending bill that is known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.


Listen here...


Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 6th day of August in this the year of our Lord 2021, and on this Report, I will be talking about the new Bipartisan spending bill that is to be finally voted on this week or next week. The 2700-page bill known as The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is not an investment and whether it creates any new jobs remains to be seen.

Fortunately for the Castle Family we do have jobs despite the federal government’s policies this week and it is indeed a beautiful summer week in Memphis. The July heat has moderated leaving mid 80’s temperatures. The family daughter remains safe in the glorious and golden state of California.

I am going to introduce this Report with a quote from Dr. Ron Paul which is a very good representation of my own views and the premise of this Report. “For Libertarians—and even many non-Libertarians—it’s not shocking to discover that a US Administration lies and deceives the electorate. For government on all levels, lying to the American people is as American as apple pie. Sometimes the liars are held to account for their deception, but most often they are not.”

I can’t personally think of many lies where the government liars have been held to account so let’s take our subject for today as an example. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a lie by its very name because the planned spending is not an investment and words can not change that. If we assume that the infrastructure of America, the roads, bridges, tunnels, waterways, water systems, airports, need emergency work then we should certainly make those repairs when the money is available. These expenditures, normally made in good economic times are expenses, perhaps necessary, but not investments.

No matter what slight of hand the government uses this 1.2 trillion is borrowed money. When you own a business, and you use credit there are two kinds, productive and non-productive. The business owner borrows 100k and buys a new Mercedes, that is nonproductive debt. The business owner borrows 100k and buys new equipment that will greatly expand and speed up his capacity that is productive or investment capital. Should he need to repair an existing machine so he can regain former capacity he has an expense.

The roads, railways water works and airports the federal government will borrow to repair are already there therefore the credit is for expenses. The argument may be simple semantics, but it illustrates the point Dr. Paul made earlier. The $1.2 trillion in this bill is an amount that senate Democrats and Republicans agreed to as a compromise measure. The Democrats in the house want $3.5 trillion to spend and they may still get it soon but for now it’s $1.2 trillion.

The $3.5 trillion house bill was to be for “human infrastructure” which of course is another government lie. The term just means that congress would not pass a bill with so much money if the real purpose were admitted. The real purpose was to fund every Democrat social program and Green New Deal program that the Democrat minds could dream up as well as rob the rest to reward their supporters. The bipartisan bill now scheduled for final vote in the senate was a compromise in which they agreed to at least call the spending infrastructure so people would not be so alarmed. Whether the bipartisan bill passes or not the human infrastructure bill is still on the table pending ultimate passage.

Some people have referred to this principle as turning water into wine. In other words, 1 dollar of expenditure is predicted to gain 2 dollars of revenue, but it just doesn’t turn out that way. In fact, the dollar of borrowed money must be paid back or at least the interest paid forever. The other factor is that we are now repairing structures that cost pennies to build compared to what the repairs will cost. A lane of highway might have cost $10,000 per mile to build but now it will cost billions to repair. That fact is true across the board for everything the government does. Money has lost its meaning for those who don’t work for it because it is simply added to the debt.

The bill provides $110 billion for roads and bridges, $39 billion for public transit, $66 billion for rail, $55 billion for water and wastewater infrastructure, and billions for airports, billions for port facilities, billions for broadband internet and billions for 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations. The charging station expense will have to race to be spent before increasingly powerful batteries make them obsolete.

The idea to pay for all this with new taxes has apparently been rejected. The two parties could not agree on which voters were to get the shaft, so they just shafted all workers and savers. $205 billion of the money is to be redirected COVID relief money. Some states decided to stop paying people not to work and gave back part of their borrowed money.

There is one very interesting proposal in the bill that is worth mentioning along with the charging stations. The more you drive the more you pay is introduced on a trial basis at first. The trial is just to numb us for what is coming. Electric vehicles are apparently the future and that would decrease gasoline tax revenue thus you pay per mile. The secretary of the treasury would recruit volunteers from all 50 states to monitor and then report on what amounts to the loss of what remains of privacy. Your car becomes the government’s spy.

A lot of the money is to be spent on green energy projects like solar. Virtually all solar panels are made in China in coal fired plants. Each panel probably causes environmental damage but it’s the thought that counts, I guess. The logic is not there for me but apparently it exists somewhere.

The term corporate welfare comes to mind when this bill is considered. Most if not all the work will be done by existing corporations in favor with the government. Perhaps a gift can be made to the unions which will make everything cost more or there will be less of it. In any event there will be a lot of people squeezing into the cracks of each dollar and expecting their palms to be greased along the way. This or that senator or representative must be satisfied or his or her vote on desired legislation must be secured so a few billion must go into that district.

For example, $1 billion of the money is scheduled for a commission run by the wife of Democratic West Virginia, senator Joe Manchin. Senator Manchin has been a thorn in the side of the Biden Administration on budget items so one can’t help but wonder.

In conclusion: How will this boondoggle be paid for? Payment comes in two forms debt and inflation which is a stealth tax that helps pay the interest on the debt. Inflation cuts wages and lowers the living standards of working Americans. It also destroys savers who attempt to plan for the future casting all onto government dependency. It is a tax, but people never seem to catch on because the ruling party doles out the money to “the people” who are then expected to vote them into office for another four years. Then they will be continually robbed by the ruling party whichever one it is.

Finally, folks, how should necessary infrastructure repairs be paid for. With money saved and money earned as affordable. Perhaps with fewer wars like the war on poverty, war on drugs, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan and now the war on COVID. These enemies are always fought as wars that never end and cost trillions. That’s a lot of infrastructure folks.

At least that’s the way I see it.

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.


Darrell Castle is a Memphis attorney, former USMC combat office and the 2016 Constitution Party nominee for President.

His blog, The Castle Report – Defending Western Civilization, can be found HERE.

Constitution Party Opposes William Barr Nomination and Trump’s Gun Confiscation Agenda

The Constitution Party voices its opposition to the nomination of William Barr to the office of Attorney General.  Both President Trump and Mr. Barr have shown by their own statements that they favor gun confiscation without the due process of law guaranteed to each citizen by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In February 2018, while speaking to a White House Meeting on Community and School Safety, President Trump voiced his support for confiscating guns from certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, without due process of law required by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The President said to take the firearms first, then go to court. His reasoning seems to be that going to court takes a lot of time and, since someone in the government has determined that person to be bad, due process has to wait.

During the first day of the Attorney General Confirmation Hearing on 15 January 2019, nominee William Barr tells Senator Dianne Feinstein that Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws are the “single most important thing we can do in the gun control area.”  He has a long history of anti-gun sentiment and is a committed gun confiscation advocate.

President Trump, by his words and actions in regards to gun confiscation, appears to have no understanding whatsoever of the document he took an oath to protect and defend. He apparently has never thought about the fact that his oath of allegiance is to that document that he so casually proposes violating.

Politicians often sit safely behind their walls with their armed guards and their armored limousines and lecture about gun confiscation. President Trump has gone way past the protections of the Second Amendment’s statement that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. He proposes that people deemed by the government to be bad should be denied due process until they go into court and prove their innocence. That would also violate the long respected American tradition of innocent until proven guilty. If the President actually takes the action he proposed to take, then he, not the gun owner would be the law breaker.

The President should know that the law, especially the Constitution, applies to him as well as everyone else. From the tone of his statement it sounded like he honestly meant well in that he wanted to protect people from mentally unbalanced people who might harm them. I must point out that many Democrats think he is unbalanced and have often voiced that opinion.

The Constitution Party strongly opposes gun confiscation and thereby cannot support the nomination of William Barr for Attorney General.  We urge our members and supporters to contact their respective Senators demanding that they vote against his nomination.

Darrell Castle on behalf of the Constitution Party


Darrell Castle was the 2016 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate and is the creator of The Castle Report.  He is available for interviews.  To request an interview, send an email to Karen at commsdirector [at] cpofwa [dot] org.

The Constitution Party is America’s fifth largest and fastest growing political party, dedicated to re-establishing America’s Constitutional Republic according to the original intent of the framers of the U.S. Constitution

Sweet, Sweet Victory in North Carolina!

Our candidate for county commissioner in Green County North Carolina, Jerry Jones was elected to office on November 6th.  His election is remarkable since we had barely gotten on the ballot in that state for the first time ever earlier this year. The race was a two way race and Jerry received 3,241 votes compared to his opponent who received 2,916. For our candidate to have won with 52.64% of the vote is exciting, to say the least. Not only that, but we had other candidates who also did remarkably well in their races nearly all of which were three way races.


In the few short months that the party has been on the ballot in North Carolina, that state now places 10th of all the states in Constitution Party registered voters.  The leadership in that state has been most impressive. Al Pisano and Kevin Hayes make a great team and were key players in us getting on the ballot and then finding good candidates to file for office in a very short time.


Over all, the party did well this election. We were the only minor party that maintained ballot position in all of the states that we ran candidates. This will enable us to focus on ballot access in other states in the next two years. All of the other parties did lose ballot access in some states which means that they have to re-qualify all over again to regain ballot status. The thanks for the party’s accomplishment goes to the state leaders who ran candidates for state wide office and garnered the required vote percentage to retain our ballot status.


In all we had candidates running for office in ten states. By adding up the top state wide race vote totals in each state (or in two cases the top US House race vote totals), our candidates received a combined total of over 388,000 votes. Those numbers will increase as the final vote tallies are tabulated in each of the states. Those candidates and their vote totals should be available for viewing shortly. Take some time to go onto the website and check those numbers out. A number of our candidates did exceptionally well.


It is interesting to note that Richard Winger reported that the vote total received this year by minor parties was the lowest vote total since 1982.  In view of this the Constitution party did well to hold its own.  We seemed to have bucked that trend.


Our webmaster reported to me that the number of hits on our national website hit an all time high on Monday November 5th and that record was exceeded the following day, which was the day of the General Election.  The vast majority of those who accessed the web site, spent most of their time on the party platform. That was very encouraging news and is an indication that it is our platform that draws people to the party. Paul does an impressive job with the web site.


In further recent news, I learned from Richard Winger of Ballot Access News that only the Constitution and Libertarians Parties gained in voter registration since the 2016 Election.  All other parties including the Republican and Democratic Parties declined in voter registration. Our voter registration totals increased by 14.98 % since 2016. That signifies that our message does appeal to the public.  We simply need to find better ways to communicate to the public that there is a party that supports and promotes their values.


My sincere thanks to so many of you who donated to the party to make this all possible.  Your support is deeply appreciated.  Without your financial support we could have never achieved ballot access in North Carolina or New Mexico and we would not have been able to secure the required 2,000 signatures per candidate to get Terry Larson and Andrew Zuelke on the ballot in Wisconsin for Attorney General and State Treasurer respectively.


I look forward to great things happening in 2019 and 2020.



National Chairman
Constitution Party

Dr. Scott Bradley Discusses Constitutionality Of Missile Strike On Syria

In under 8 minutes Dr. Scott Bradley, PhD in Constitutional Law and 2016 Constitution Party VP Nominee, touches on the Constitutionality of the recent missile strike launched against Syria.


For those saying the President has the power to launch an attack:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States:

[The Congress shall have Power To…] Declare war

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 & 2 of the Constitution of the United States:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…


For those citing that Commander-In-Chief = ability to unilaterally launch attacks in which Americans are not in imminent danger:

Thomas Jefferson, in 1801 as President:

He was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton:

The President is to be the “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. He is to have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; to convene, on extraordinary occasions, both houses of the legislature, or either of them, and, in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, to adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and to commission all officers of the United States.” In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: — First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.


For those insinuating that an Act, Treaty, Resolution, or international law warrants usurpation of the Constitution and carries the same weight as a Constitutional Amendment which changes the Constitution:

St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States:

Let it be supposed, for example, that the president and senate should stipulate by treaty with any foreign nation, that in case of war between that nation and any other, the United States should immediately declare against that nation: Can it be supposed that such a treaty would be so far the law of the land, as to take from the house of representatives their constitutional right to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of such a declaration of war, and to determine and act thereon, according to their own judgement?”


Also… James Madison, Constitutional Debates

Does it follow, because this power [treaty power] is given to Congress. That it is absolute and unlimited? I do not conceive that power is given to the President and Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority have this power. The exercise of the power must be consistent with the object of the delegation.”


And Thomas Jefferson, Manual of Parliamentary Practice:

“By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are regulated by treaty and cannot be otherwise regulated. . . . It must have meant to except out of these rights reserved to the states, for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.”


Obvious logical flaws with support for the strikes…

Who did it, with proof, please? – People are so convinced that Assad conducted the chemical weapon attacks. Why would he? Assad has changed the tide of the war over the past couple of years and has finally even been winning the P.R. War. None of this matters because it isn’t Constitutional, but there’s no logic behind an Assad attack.

But the innocent children!1. Don’t we hate when liberals demagogue and use the heart-wrenching, doomsday, or Alinskyite tactics? Why would conservatives resort to them? 2. We killed 4 innocent children in those strikes. If this provokes a war, how many of our children will die in a war that we have no business being in? 3. Millions of innocent AMERICAN children are murdered at the hands of Planned Parenthood. Where is the outcry regarding the genocide at home? Isn’t Trump’s daughter lobbying for PP now? Would there be rage if it were Planned Parenthood being attacked due to what they do to innocent children and women daily, or is that ok?

Was the United States in imminent danger? – Were we on the brink, with verifiable intelligence, of being attacked by Syria? Even if someone states that we were, intelligence informed us about WMD’s in Iraq, none there. They told us that Benghazi was caused by a video. Instead, our Intelligence agencies were running guns from Benghazi to Syrian rebels, aka TO ISIS!

Are we now siding with ISIS, against Christians? – It is common knowledge that Assad is fighting ISIS and has been protecting the persecuted Coptic Christians for quite some time. Are we not assisting ISIS by firing missiles on the Syrian military? Are we fighting against Christianity in the Middle East?

Ohhhhh the Hypocrisy! – Donald J. Trump in 2013 after a previous, supposed chemical weapon attack by Assad on his people via Twitter: “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”



Previous quotes and citations extracted from Dr. Bradley’s “To Preserve The Nation Webinars at http://www.freedomsrisingsun.com