THE CASTLE REPORT: The Anti-Free Speech Movement

Play

Darrell Castle talks about the fate of the First Amendment, especially the freedom of Americans to speak their minds without running their thoughts through a government-controlled censor.

Transcription/Notes


Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 11th day of October, in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about what is perhaps the most important issue on the ballot this November and that is the fate of the First Amendment especially the freedom of Americans to speak their minds without running their thoughts through a government-controlled censor.

Should the federal government be the arbiter of what the public should be able to read or hear. That is the question I will talk about especially how some prominent Democrats have answered that question. Some of the richest and most powerful people on planet earth are now calling for Americans to be censured. That word sounds so benign that it has to be defined before it has any impact. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that the government cannot legally prevent Americans from speaking their minds or expressing their opinions verbally or in print. In other words, the government is not legally permitted to censor us. That is the basic foundation of free people, and it is the First Amendment for a reason.

Hillary Clinton seems to have taken the lead in the campaign to restrict our freedom and she has taken her efforts globally by encouraging other countries to restrict the speech of their citizens. She recently asked European governments to censor Elon Musk because he permitted unregulated speech on X. She also went on CNN to talk about how discouraging it is that censorship is such a tough sell to the American people. She said the road the anti-free speech advocates have traveled on has been a rocky and difficult one. “There are people who are championing it, but it has been a long and difficult road to getting anything done.”

Yes, I can see why all those anti-freedom Democrats have had such a difficult time because it is not easy to convince free people to give up their freedom. I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said that to be considered a great man one has to free enslaved men or enslave free men, so I suppose we are back to fighting those battles again. She is not the only one of course, only the point person for the effort. Even NPR has gotten on the anti-free speech, anti-truth bandwagon. The new CEO of NPR wants to get things done it seems, but truth sometimes gets in the way. Yes, those Democrats want to get things done and the pesky First Amendment stands there as an impediment to their noble efforts.

This argument goes right to the heart of the cultural and spiritual war now raging in the West. Do you believe truth and freedom are a priority or just a hindrance to getting things done. To quote the new CEO of NPR; “Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.” Well, I don’t think I would like walking on a common ground built on lies but that seems to be what he wants. That’s a mild position compared to what some other prominent Democrats have been saying.

So, perhaps the most important issue in this coming election is whether or not we as Americans will protect the Constitution and its guarantee of freedom or whether we will surrender to the one party, one mindset that many Democrats are trying to build. Given the control that mainstream media has over information, the freedom to speak our minds in opposition, especially on social media is vital. Things are bad around the world right now with wars, famines, and other such government instituted madness, but as long as we are free we have at least a fighting chance, so of course, the enemies of freedom are working overtime to take that away from us.

John Kerry, speaking to the World Economic Forum:

“The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing. It is part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue. There’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you’re going to have some accountability on facts, etc., our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.” — John Kerry

Yes, he said the First Amendment is a block to regulating dissenting opinions out of existence and he sees that as a bad thing. I have to remind Mr. Kerry that the government is the worst purveyor of disinformation in the history of the world.

Bill Gates, speaking in an interview on CNBC, had some thoughts on the subject of totalitarian points of view as he usually does. “We should have free speech, but it you’re inciting violence, if you’re causing people not to take vaccines, you know, where are those boundaries, that even the US should have rules. “He went on to suggest that artificial intelligence could be used to censor or even alter dissenting speech since allowing dissent to his vaccines even for a day could be too long. During the covid years of 2020 and 2021 despite the fearmongering and vaccine promotion, social dissent on social media could not be completely suppressed and that is just too much for kindly old gentleman, Bill Gates.

Hillary Clinton went on CNN the other day to speak about the need to control social media saying that it should be at the top of every legislative agenda.

“We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control and it is not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.” — Hillary Clinton

“We lose total control” that is the purpose of the First Amendment Ms. Clinton to prevent people like you from having total control. The section 230 that she mentioned was put in place to keep the social media platforms from being liable for the content posted by their members. If I post on Facebook that I am opposed to the Bill Gates bioweapon that he chooses to call vaccines, then Facebook would not be liable if that was determined in court to be harmful or defamatory. In Ms. Clintin’s world Facebook would be required to examine every post and determine whether or not it would pass the government’s censors so that only one view would ever be heard or read.

It is indeed difficult for the only one view only one world folks to deal with the idea that we can see and hear a different version of events without having that version filtered through their compliant media organs. We can now make our own determination when the media is lying and post our concerns and our own version. Freedom of thought allows us to see reality and when we come to see and understand the reality of what is being done to us it is frightening.

The current Democrat candidates for president and vice president have similar views regarding free speech. Tim Walz admitted in his debate with J.D. Vance that he intends to criminalize hate speech and misinformation or what he chooses to call speech he disagrees with. He apparently doesn’t think the First Amendment protects speech he disagrees with, but the First Amendment was created specifically for that purpose.

This is what law professor Jonathan Turley said about the position of Harris and Biden on speech they refer to as misinformation and hate speech.

“Governor Walz has been out there saying that misinformation and hate speech are not protected under the Constitution. And there’s a crushing irony there. I mean; in calling for censorship of other citizens accused of disinformation, the governor is spreading disinformation. He’s been told repeatedly by many of us that he’s wrong, that’s just completely and demonstrably wrong. The Constitution does protect those forms of speech.” — Jonathan Turley

Professor Turley went on to comment on Hillary Clinton’s comment about losing total control by saying that she’s revealing where they want to go, so we can fight it. She’s doing it because they know they are losing control.

President Biden often claims that democracy is at stake in the upcoming election and that, if Trump is elected, he will end democracy. The problem that is obvious to many is that he, Joe Biden, has done more to hinder democracy as reflected in our ability to have a free discussion of issues that are, or at least should be, important to voters. He has operated his administration by fiat in his opening of the southern border to mass invasion by illegal immigrants many of whom are violent criminals thus exposing his fellow Americans to rape and murder. He committed the U.S. to participation in two wars neither of which has anything to do with American security at a financial cost of hundreds of billions. He has provided no justification for entering the conflicts let alone a declaration of war.

He has run his electoral campaigns based on the premise that his opponent was in collaboration with a foreign government which he happened to be conducting war against. Perhaps his worst example of corruption at the highest levels of government is his coopting of the national police, investigating, and intelligence agencies into nothing more than arms of his political party. His agencies, one of whom is the department of justice, conducts warfare attacks against his political opponent as well as instigates false flag attacks resulting in hundreds of political prisoners being held in long term confinement many of them without trial.

His cooption of the various agencies has resulted in their becoming incestuously involved with Biden and his political party to the point that he tried to form a “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security which was intended to be empowered to discredit citizens based on their complaints about what the government was doing and would describe these complaints as deliberate disruption of the function of government. This went all the way down to education and to parents who complained that their children were taught critical race theory and to question their own gender. Those parents were to be described as domestic terrorists because anyone who disagrees with government policy is a domestic problem and therefore, a domestic terrorist. That is why government officials continually list domestic terrorists as more dangerous and threatening than foreign terrorists.

The greatest fear, in my view, is not that government will lose total control over the internet as Ms. Clinton put it, but that it will gain and solidify total control and build a digital wall around us that will be inescapable. The internet is the single greatest invention for free speech since the printing press and that is why people like Ms. Clinton and Biden/Harris are panicked over losing control of it. If we can just remain true to our values, especially in the upcoming election Ms. Clinton’s Road to total control will continue to be a rocky one.

The elite top 1% may be completely out of touch with reality and with mainstream America, but they wield most of the institutional power and they have built layers of regulatory power that are immune to the checks and balances of elections. They own and operate most media outlets and are therefore able to block or censor the views of most Americans.

Finally, folks, we know who they are and what they will do if elected. As a wise man once said when people tell you who they are, believe them. It seems that in the Democrat Party of today John Kennedy is dead, but Joseph Goebbels is very much alive.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.


Photo Credit:  Berkleyside.org

THE CASTLE REPORT: Speech is a Privilege to Kamala Harris

Play

Darrell Castle continues to discuss how important free speech is to the American view of freedom with an emphasis on how Vice President Harris views our right to speak freely as revealed by her own words.

Transcription / Notes


SPEECH IS A PRIVILEDGE TO KAMALA HARRIS

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 6th day of September in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be continuing my discussion of free speech and how important it is to the American view of freedom with an emphasis on how Vice President Harris views our right to speak freely as revealed by her own words.

It seems that to Ms. Harris, as a faithful authoritarian, speech is something that has to be regulated and controlled by the federal government which she hopes to lead someday soon. I wonder if she has ever stopped to consider that when the government claims the authority to regulate speech it is no longer free. It seems that despite all the “joy” attached to her campaign by the media she is the same person she has always been.

Most of her free speech attacks came long before the January 6th controversy which has been the Democrats lynchpin for why Donald Trump should not be allowed to speak freely. She was advocating that his speech be censored on social media back in 2019. Referring to social media sites, she said that there has to be a responsibility placed on them to understand their power.

“They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation and that has to stop.” She went on, “There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power.” Translation, if they don’t police content to conform to government approved narratives, they will be shut down. I am certainly no social media expert, but I know that these sites don’t speak to millions, the users speak to each other, and she wants that controlled by people like her.

That statement and her attitude should send a chill down the spine of any American voter and should disqualify her from receiving a single vote for the office of President of the United States but unfortunately very few understand the Constitution anymore and even fewer still understand that it is the safeguard of American liberty.

She is concerned that Facebook and Twitter, now X, have different operating standards. She said they can’t both have separate rules despite the fact that they are private companies. What she is talking about with the comparison is that since Elon Musk acquired Twitter it has started allowing its users to speak freely and is resisting efforts by the federal government and people like her to control and regulate what people say on the site.

Last week I talked about Facebook and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and how he admitted in a letter to congress that Facebook cooperated with the government in censoring the speech of the American people. He admitted to restricting the information people were allowed to see about COVID and allowing only the government’s version of information to be available. Facebook also suppressed truthful information about the Hunter Biden laptop story and led people to think that it was not truthful or real thus depriving voters of vital information.

So, before Zuckerberg’s letter, she expressed dismay that Twitter is freedom while Facebook bends its knees to the government or Democrat Party line. They can’t have separate rules she said, but just think of the implications of that reasoning. She wants the federal government to be able to legally control the world’s largest flow of information so that only government approved speech is allowed.  I can’t understand how anyone could listen to that and not conclude that she is disqualified from the office she seeks. I will give her the courtesy of assuming that she herself is smart enough to understand the implications of what she said but maybe she isn’t.

Let me ask you this, folks, has the federal government ever lied to us about anything. The federal government is nothing but lies and truth is like kryptonite to the federal government. So, this woman who seeks to lead the federal government wants the American people to be restricted to the continuous lies of government as their source of information. It is the kind of position the leader of a Communist dictatorship would hold, and she seeks to apply it in America. Just to reiterate, to her, free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment to every American, is impermissible without oversight and regulation by her lying government, and has to stop.

That is not the only really frightening and stupid thing she said about the “privilege” of speaking. She also said “he (Musk) has lost his privileges, and it (X) must be taken down.” To her, free speech, the bedrock of freedom, protected by the US Constitution, is a privilege granted by government, and by refusing to accept the federal government’s censorship of speech Musk has lost his “privilege” to operate a social media company which must be taken down.

The First Amendment and the Constitution in general is America. Without the Constitution this would be a different country if it existed at all. Quoting Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:

“Without the Constitution, we would be some other country—which is what they want. The goal is a compliant population with no rights, only privileges that can be revoked for non-compliant behavior. They oppose the idea that government is accountable to people.  Their goal is a people who are accountable to the government. Once Kamala is in office, the transformation will be complete.”

The First Amendment is unambiguous and within it the government’s power is non-existent. The words of the Constitution are clear of course, and they stand on their own and speak for themselves but the thought I just expressed has been upheld by many Supreme Court decisions over the centuries.

We didn’t know who Musk was when he started looking at Twitter because he said he was appalled at its government compliance and restrictions on speech. You can’t say that, or that’s the wrong pronoun for that person, was all we had known. If we said the vaccine is killing people and that is not a failure or undesired side effect but the intended purpose of the vaccine. If we said something like that, Twitter and Facebook made sure that no one saw our statement. We didn’t know what to expect and we didn’t know how committed he was to free speech at the time but we are at least beginning to find out.

The attacks on Musk tell us just how desperate the authoritarians are to shut us out and maintain their suppression of our thoughts. God forbid we are able to speak our minds online without their ability to send our thoughts through their filter. Musk, unlike the government, isn’t trying to shut you up or make you speak the right words, instead he is offering a microphone to the world and those who rely on control through lies simply can’t tolerate that.

The campaign of Ms. Harris is one of “joy” instead of issues according to her PR people in the media. The media in general serves as her PR company, but the difficulty is in trying to put the best spin on her nervous cackle. That laugh, now sold to us as uncontrollable joy, is just an indication that she has nothing of substance to say. She can’t answer a question, no matter how simple, about the issues that confront the nation. She knows nothing about economic matters, and she accepts no responsibility for her complete failure and refusal to act as “border czar.” The media serving as her agent seeks to cover and explain away one of the most catastrophic failures in American history and yet she seeks higher office. Democrats want her to fail up, I guess.

She supported the defund the police movement in 2020 thus contributing to the wave of violent crime sweeping the nation. In the face of an illegal invasion, she supported cutting police budgets so many vulnerable cities lost many of their experienced officers. She tells us that the migrant invasion is just an illusion or a figment of our overactive imaginations. However, the New York Police Department (NYPD) tells us that migrants make up less than 10% of the population of the city but they make up 75% of those arrested for assault, robbery, and domestic violence. On behalf of New Yorkers, thank you Kamala for this diversity gift.

NYPD admits that the sanctuary status of the city makes it difficult to keep accurate records, so 75% is a ballpark estimate. The city as a whole, and all the boroughs, report similar numbers. In Aurora, Colorado, armed gangs of Venezuelan criminals have taken over an apartment building and are using it to extort the residents. No one in public office seems to care about the American people anymore so nothing is done about it. The politicians lie about it, but the local police on the scene do not lie and tell us what is happening. The Democrats are all trying to follow orders and protect Kamala’s campaign, but the Venezuelans don’t seem to care about her campaign.

The violence from the Venezuelan gangs is spreading across Denver and other cities as the gangs are emboldened by the lack of resistance. Homeowners are continuing to report violent break-ins, etc. Now, a group of 32 armed Venezuelans have taken over an apartment building in Chicago. This is the kind of problem we’ve never faced before. These Democrats now led by Kamala Harris have literally invited violent third world countries to empty their prisons on our border. To make matters worse the United States treasury department continues to make matters worse by sanctioning the third world not for their illegals but because they will not economically comply with U.S. demands, thus inflaming them against us.

For example, earlier this week the United States seized a plane owned by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in the Dominican Republic reporting that they found its purchase violated U.S. sanctions and export controls. Homeland Security flew the $13 million plane back to the U.S. landing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the plane was illegally purchased through a shell company and smuggled out of the United States for use by Nicolas Maduro and his cronies. However, according to U.S. officials the plane has been flown almost exclusively out of a military base in Venezuela.

Why do I make such an issue out of the seizure of Maduro’s plane. I do it to demonstrate how stupid the foreign policy of the U.S. under Biden/Harris really is. They treat Americans in a similar fashion. You will obey me or else. You will obey me or suffer the consequences. We invite you to empty your violently corrupt country’s prisons and lunatic asylums onto our borders and we welcome all the diverse visitors, but we will take your president’s plane if he doesn’t bend his knee to us. Yes, the 75% of violent crime in NYC, the violent takeover of apartment buildings in Colorado, and in Chicago, the armed home invasion robberies, the rape and assaults on American citizens all I guess are crimes that Americans won’t do.

In conclusion folks, in the mind of government and its agents is there a valid reason for social media companies to exist. Yes, to advance the government’s morality as it is assigned to us.

Finally, folks, let me close this Castle Report with another quote from Paul Craig Roberts:

“Dear insouciant American, try to understand that the November election is not about abortion rights. It is not about inclusion. It is not about any of those issues about which you are being indoctrinated. It is about whether you have any prospect of continuing life in freedom.”

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.

CASTLE REPORT: Challenging the Powers That Be

Play

Darrell Castle talks about the conviction of Donald Trump on 34 felony counts in New York last week in America’s first Stalinist show-trial designed to be an example of what could happen if you challenge the prevailing ideology of our new post rule of law, post bill of rights, nation.

Transcription / Notes

CHALLENGING THE POWERS THAT BE

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 7th day of June in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about the conviction of Donald Trump on 34 felony counts in New York City last week. This was America’s first Stalinist show trial designed to be an example of what could happen to normal people if they challenge the prevailing ideology of our new post rule of law, post bill of rights, nation.

Before I get into the conviction, I will remind you once again that yesterday, the 6th of June was the 80th anniversary of the D-Day landings on the coast of France. Hundreds of thousands of young men were sent ashore in Normandy to confront the Nazi army that enslaved Europe. Thousands of them died that day but they all knew that death was a real possibility for them and yet they went anyway. When I see the thousands of crosses in the Normandy cemeteries today my first thought is what a terrible waste.

What private at Omaha Beach or Lieutenant on Utah would have become a great doctor, but now many thousands have been deprived of his care. What Canadian sergeant would have become prime minister of Canada thus sparing us the horrible Pierre Trudeau and his much worse son Justin. These are all things that we can’t know because they are all dead, but there is one thing of which I am certain and that is that the nation is no longer worthy of them because they fought to preserve something that has been squandered as you will hear in this report.

In my analysis of Trump’s conviction, I looked around for some quote, and some examples with which I could illustrate what happened and reveal the depths to which we have sunk as a people. The best quote is from the chief of Stalin’s secret police Lavrenti Beria. “Show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”

Professor Alan Dershowitz said that Judge Merchan took Stalin one step further because a day after the ruling and verdict he still didn’t know what the crime was. The prosecution didn’t bother or was unable to define the alleged crime that Trump allegedly committed. That didn’t matter because the judge told the jury in his instructions that they didn’t have to agree or even know what the crimes were as long as they had a belief that criminal acts were committed. This was, therefore, one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in U.S. history.

So, what was the crime of which he was supposedly guilty? We still don’t know exactly what the jury decided because apparently even they didn’t know what the crime was. A biased judge who refused to recuse himself apparently because he was hand selected for the purpose of a conviction. A biased jury and a biased prosecutor who ran for office on the promise of finding a crime to prosecute Trump for. The prosecutor and the system tried to follow Chief Beria’s statement but try as it did no crime could be found so they just made one up or invented one.

This is a stain on the system of law and justice in America and it makes it difficult to ever respect such a system again. If this verdict holds then be afraid because this is no longer America but instead it has morphed into a Stalinist system of terror from above. If we are to have hope for this country, for our system of individual rights, this decision must be overturned without a lot of delay and bureaucratic wrangling.

There used to be a sacrosanct system of standards, and everyone knew that the integrity of the system for all of us was more important than the evidence or lack of it against any one criminal defendant. First, there had to be a victim, a step missing from Trump’s trial. Victims would come forward to the system and allege that a crime had taken place. Professional police officers and detectives would investigate and if evidence warranted a suspect would be found and then prosecutors, separate from the police, would bring charges. The suspect, as we all know, would be presumed innocent until the prosecution proved every aspect of the law beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, that sacrosanct system is completely distorted and broken.

Politicians run for elected office like District Attorney or State Attorney General with the same zeal and the same promises to the same people as any other politician running for any other office. They are often funded by people like George Soros who want them in office because they will help him unleash chaos, disrespect, and doubt into the system. Most of all, they bring fear because no one is safe from their prosecutions or from the criminals they release to prey on the innocent.

They used to investigate a crime to find an individual suspect if one existed, but now they investigate a specific individual to find a crime even if it means inventing a crime where none exists. They then select the jurisdiction most suitable to them where virtually no one in the potential jury pool holds any political view different from the prosecution. The jurisdiction must be one where the defendant is hated so there is no chance whatsoever of a fair trial. That’s not enough for our new system though, the prosecutors must find a judge who is completely corrupt and sold out to the new ideology.

In our present case the judge’s daughter is a fund raiser for the Democratic Party and has raised millions for them. The judge imposed a gag order on Trump to keep him from talking about it and would allow no testimony about his daughter. The judge also contributed money to the Biden campaign. Oh yes, I know Joe Biden had nothing to do with this trial that is evident from his smirk after the verdict. That’s why the Biden department of injustice sent a prosecutor to New York to handle the prosecution because Bragg didn’t have the skills or confidence to do it.

Sad, but this is our system now. A member of the ruling elite, whichever one is in power at the time, can just point his thumb up or down like Ceasar at the Colosseum and that means death for the accused who had the audacity to oppose Ceasar. Today it isn’t gladiators who deliver the killing blow but dozens of federal agents with a laundry list of charges.

Since we are talking about ancient history and the Roman Empire, let me take you to ancient Greece for a moment where this thing we now refer to as democracy began. The word justice comes from the Latin word justitia which means righteousness. Quite appropriately those who applaud the verdict are full of righteousness albeit the self- righteousness-kind.  Their cheering at the demise of the centuries old American system of law and individual rights adds emphasis to the fact that we have given our system over to a group of ignorant barbarians who only know they won. They, from the president on down, don’t seem to care that their victory has destroyed the protection of law for all of us.

What was Donald Trump’s crime that so offended Ceasar? He had the audacity to run for political office again and he refused to back down. Democrats were advised after the verdict by the son of George Soros, Mr. Alex Soros, to always refer to Trump as a convicted felon so the word was out to the media from the man himself. Maybe these end-zone celebrations will backfire and start to bother even those who hate Trump and despise his opposition to this evil system as it now exists. Perhaps their referring to him as a convicted felon will be a rallying cry and a badge of honor. Perhaps this trial will make it more likely that Trump will be elected rather than less likely.

Americans have always had a soft spot for the underdog. Who would not want a team to prevail if they knew that the referees had been cheating for the opposition and therefore the victory was not justice but injustice. It appears that they are very afraid of Donald Trump and that is itself a badge of honor for Trump. Anyone they are afraid of must be someone to be considered worthy. This case had nothing to do with law and those of us who are not totally perverted know it. This case is disgraceful and as Tucker Carlson said anyone who defends it is a threat to you and your family.

This is an age-old dilemma that we face as Americans, but we have always relied on our Constitution and the law to protect us from the perversions of individuals. Just to reiterate a few things, it is a case brought by a prosecutor who could show no one harmed. It is doubly frightening because there are literally no legal grounds for bringing it and yet the powers who are supposed to rule over and protect the system said nothing. The bar associations, the law schools and most of all the media said nothing. None of the watchdogs said anything and that scares me more than the verdict.

This age-old dilemma with which our enemies were confronted was that getting Trump was so important that it justified any means, even perverted ones. This is the decision of fascists everywhere as learned from their mentor Benito Mussolini who decided that joining the Nazis was OK if it could help him restore the Roman Empire. We see quite often today the bogey man who is so bad that unjustified war or unjustified perversions of the system are now justified. Since the real crime of Trump was attempting to get elected, the prosecutor and judge have interfered with and perverted the election of the next president.

The people who are cheering the verdict will one day fall victim to this perversion and I wish they could understand that they have destroyed the system. One day, inevitably, they will say the wrong word, use the wrong pronoun, or have a wrong thought. Perhaps they will fail to bend the knee to Ceasar or fail to obey Ceasar when he gives them the thumb up or down. Perhaps they will refuse or regret not participating in whatever virtue signaling is next on the self-righteous woke agenda. If any of those happen, they could end up on the business end of the perverted justice system they just helped to create. They are full of blood lust now, but this new legal standard applies to them as well.

By a strange coincidence, the day of Trump’s verdict, May 30th was the anniversary of the death of Joan of Arc. 593 years ago. That fact came to my attention because of an article written by Msgr. Richard Antall for Crisis Magazine. Since I am a lifetime admirer of Saint Joan, I mention her struggle to you now.  Saint Joan was burned at the stake on May 30, 1431, when she was just 19 years old. She was a peasant girl born to a family of sharecroppers in rural France. She was a devout Catholic, as was most of France, but she kept having visions that God told her he wanted her to lead an effort to free France from English occupation. Her time was near the end of the Hundred Years War between France and England, so desperate times for France.

Despite the objections of many, including the church, she led the French army to victory at the battle of Orleans. Her time was much like ours in that those who oppose the powers that be would not and could not be tolerated. Joan was persecuted and vilified over the next year and a kangaroo court made up of English and even French traitors convicted her of blasphemy.  She was executed by burning on May 30th, 1431, at age 19. In 1920 she was made a saint of the Catholic Church and a bronze statue of a heroic Joan in full battle armor on her warhorse stands in Paris. The date of her death is a national holiday in France, so it took a while, and a revolution first had to destroy the church and the royalty, but the French people refused to let go of this peasant girl who became a great warrior.

Will the American people eventually see Donald Trump as valiant warrior who refused to back down to a group of corrupt officials, and one who sacrificed himself for us. Time will tell I guess, but one wonders whether we will ever welcome him into history as a national hero as the French people finally did for Joan. One thing is for certain and that is that his enemies who hate him and wish death for him have elevated him to be one of the most important Americans in history.

Finally, folks, I don’t think this will end here. Perhaps Donald Trump will pull on his armor, mount his warhorse, and lead his people to victory, sacrificing himself in the struggle. Perhaps those enemies of individual rights, of the truth, of the light, of the church, will prevail. Time will tell.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.


Photo Credit: Fox News

Historic Constitutional Crisis!

25 States Back Texas as they Stand up Against the Fed’s Border Invasion

Excerpts from General Michael Flynn and Alex Jones

From General Flynn’s Newsletter:  “Texas is Entitled to Use Military Force to Repel the Border Invasion”:  CLICK HERE TO SEE FULL NEWSLETTER

“Within hours of Biden being sworn into office, he signed a Proclamation that ordered an end to construction of President Trump’s southern border wall. His stated reason was that the wall was “a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security.” This statement was so absurd that we knew at once that this man, who had somehow assumed the Presidency, was not on our side. Biden had just sworn the President’s constitutionally prescribed oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and within hours he flung open the nation’s borders to all comers.”

***************

History is happening now.  Twenty-Six states, including Texas, (shown in above map) have now combined forces against the tyrant, Joe Biden, and the globalists in their attempt to end our border and end American sovereignty and the announcement that Biden wants to seize the State Guard not so they can stop an invasion but so they will NOT stop an invasion.  Some Democrats are even expected to join this effort.

It’s in the Constitution; the right to self-defense.  Massive human smuggling and sex trafficking is illustrating the treason that is going on and the needed ongoing impeachment proceedings against Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of DHS.

This is what it’s all about.  The states coming together, the people coming together, not to dissolve the Republic, it’s the UN-run globalist government that is doing that, but to reconstitute our Republic.

It’s in the Declaration of Independence.  It’s in the Constitution.  It’s in the Bill of Rights.  It’s not just our “Right”.  It is our “Duty” to defend ourselves. The Constitution Party Platform is predicated on these principles! 

We salute all the states that have joined Texas.  Governor Abbott has made the right move and has forced this crisis out into the open against the globalists.  These 25 states are lined up together repudiating the puppet, Joe Biden.  It’s beautiful. It’s powerful. It’s strong.

Will this alone save the border?  No.  But this act of creating a constitutional focal point or a spotlight to point out the constitutional crisis that is already happening is nothing but positive.

This is a real answer to prayer.


Here is a paragraph from the Plank on IMMIGRATION in the Constitution Party Platform:

We affirm the integrity of the international borders of the United States and the Constitutional authority and duty of the federal government to guard and to protect those borders, including the regulation of the numbers and of the qualifications of immigrants into the country.


Another reason why we must support the Constitution Party’s campaign to gain ballot access and run constitutional patriots for office.
Click Here to Join or Donate!

Questions or Comments?  Contact Donna Ivanovich, Assistant to the National Chairman

Fall 2018 National Committee Meeting

     FALL 2018 CONSTITUTION PARTY NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR DALLAS/ FT. WORTH!

NOVEMBER 16th through the 17th

CLICK HERE FOR FALL NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING REGISTRATION FORM

 

Keynote Speaker: Charles Key

Charles Key is the principal of Key Financial Services, an independent financial services firm specializing in Retirement, Financial Planning, and Insurance Services.  Charles has been helping individuals, families, retirees, and business owners reach their goals for 26 years using safe money concepts and common sense solutions to their financial planning needs.

He has lived in Oklahoma City for 51 years, has been an active member of local & national organizations, & specializes in “Safe Money Concepts & Solutions.”

Charles Key served in the Oklahoma Legislature for 18 years. Having served under both Democratic and Republican leadership, he has unique insight into the way state government really works. A life-long activist in the liberty movement, former State Rep. Key has been fighting for openness and transparency in government for over 30 years. One of his greatest personal achievements was passage of the Tenth Amendment Resolution which has now been adopted by over half of state legislatures in the union.

Charles Key was instrumental in the Grand Jury investigation into the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal building and published a 600 page study about it, “The Final Report”  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/16304-key-report-on-okc-bombing    Charles has appeared in over 600 programs in broadcast & print media on a variety of subjects.  Appearances include CBS News,  Fox News,  CNN,  Court TV,  Hannity & Colmes,  The O’Reilly Factor,  Michael Reagan, etc

 

NATIONAL COMMITTEE REGISTRATION DETAILS

 

Location:

Embassy Suites SOUTH DFW Airport

4650 West Airport Freeway

Irving, TX 75062

Phone 972-790-0093 (Please mention that you are with the Constitution Party for the $129.00 per night rate)

 

Date: 

Friday Nov 16th through Saturday Nov 17th

Hotel room rate $129.00 per night  (This is $20.00 less per night than at Denver)

Good through October 25, 2018

 

Online Registration – click HERE

$180.00 which includes all meals: ( lunch on Friday and Saturday.  Also included the banquet meal on Friday night.  A hot breakfast is also included the morning following each night’s stay). Snacks are served each night from 5:30 to 7:30 pm during the reception time.

Early bird registration of $180.00 is good through October 25th

Post Early Bird registration $200.00

 

 

More information about Charles Key

Licensing: Oklahoma Life, Health, Accident, Property & Casualty. (Regulated by the

Oklahoma Depart. of Insurance) securities licensed, series 6 & 63 1992-95 & 2003-06.

 

  • Old Surety Life Insurance Company 2006- present.
  • Served in the Oklahoma House of Representatives 1986-1998, 2006-2012
  • Oklahoma House: Chair of the Insurance Committee, Judiciary, Financial Services, Retirement, Commerce, Industry & Labor, Education, Corrections, Rules, Banking & Finance. Asst. Floor Leader, Minority Whip.
  • Executive Director of Fully Informed Jury Association
  • Delegate to China: American Council of Young Political Leaders (1987 & 2009)

Charles has four children and one granddaughter and one grandson. He and his wife Janice (a public school teacher for 10 years) are active members of Northwest Church of Christ.  He has served as a deacon and served on mission trips to India, Guyana and Australia.  He enjoys spending time with his family and backpacking and hiking in the Rocky Mountains.

————————————

STOLEN GOVERNMENT

WHY YOUR REPRESENTATIVE CANNOT REPRESENT YOU,

AND WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.

By Charles Key

 

Outline

 

1: Representatives Cannot Represent

2: The Tyranny of the Rules

3: Protecting the Status Quo

4: How Good Legislators Go Bad

5: Government by the People – the Proposal for Open Government

6: Three Avenues for Change

7: Answering Objections

8: What Can I Do?

 

 

Abstract:

The person you elected to protect your interests and propose policy on your behalf has no assurance of being able to do anything because all the legislative power in the state is concentrated in the hands of the Senate President Pro Tempore (Pro Tempe) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Speaker).  It does not matter what our elected officials want to accomplish on our behalf.   The Pro Tempe and the Speaker meet in secret caucuses and in private offices to decide which bills to hear and which bills to kill.

 

I will outline for you one of the biggest reasons why representative government does not work as it once did. This problem exists in almost every state and in Congress. When you understand what this problem is, you will clearly see that it underlies many other issues, and that changing it will help make other reforms possible. I am going to teach you the step-by-step system you can use to fix this problem in your state. Once you see what needs to be done, you will be prepared to take action and remove a major barrier to true representative government.

 

 

 

Thanks to Your Support, MORE Big Things Are Happening!

Email_Header_600p.png

Just last week we received word from the Hawaii Secretary of State that the Constitution Party is now officially recognized as a ballot-qualified party in that state.  This is the first time ever that the Constitution Party has achieved ballot access in Hawaii in a mid-term election. The party completed the signature drive in mid-February, but by state law, the petition could be challenged within 20 business days of when the final petitions were submitted to the state for verification.  That deadline was  March 7th and the following day the Hawaii Secretary of State confirmed that no one had challenged our petition thereby qualifying the party for ballot status.

Other big news for the party is our ballot petitioning effort going on in North Carolina.  Gaining ballot access in that state will be a landmark achievement.  By this weekend, we should be able to surpass the 6,000 signature mark. If the validity rate of 83% holds up we should be able to secure the required 12,000 valid signatures with a total of about 15,000.  We continue to average  getting about 1,200 signatures a week in spite of the inclement weather being experienced in that state.  At this rate, we should be able to complete the signature drive before the end of April….a full month before the deadline.  Since completing the petitioning in Hawaii Nicholas Sumbles has been gathering signatures in North Carolina.

Besides Nicholas’ work, we have volunteers working gun shows every weekend and the number of volunteers grows each week. The goal of the party leaders is to gather signatures in all 100 counties in the state. At this point, they have succeeded in getting signatures from 93 of the counties.  This is a most remarkable feat and has been possible only because of the increased number of volunteers who are gathering signatures. However, in order to reach our goal we are going to need additional financial assistance from our supporters. We are paying Nicholas $2.00 a signature which is a very reasonable rate compared to what other professional signature gathers have quoted us.

This is where we need your help and we need it very urgently.  We must keep the funds coming in so that we can keep Nicholas there.  A donor from North Carolina has offered to match dollar for dollar any funds that we raise up to $4,250.00. Due to the generosity of our supporters, we are close to qualifying for the total amount of the matching funds, but we are still going to need additional donations to reach our 15,000 signature goal. If you are in a position to donate any amount please go to www.constitutionparty.com and donate what you can to ballot access.  If you wish, you may also send a check payable to the Constitution Party to P O Box 1782 Lancaster, PA 17608.  A donation of $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $25.00. $50.00. $100.00, $500.00, or whatever you are able to donate would be deeply appreciated.  It is urgent that we raise those funds immediately.

Gaining ballot access in North Carolina will open other doors for us in yet more states. Again, I plead with you to give what you are able to. Then share this message with family and friends of like mind. Your sharing this message with others is paying off as we are receiving donations from people who have never donated to the party before. I can not thank you enough for the effort you are making to help us make history in North Carolina.  I have been extremely impressed with the hard work and dedication of the party leaders there.  Together we can achieve heights we have never reached before.

My sincere thanks and appreciation to each of you for your past support and encouragement.

For God Family and Country,

Fluckiger_Signature.png

National Chairman
Constitution Party
www.constitutionparty.com

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
Founded on Truth

How DO We Disestablish The U.S. Department Of Education?

Join the free 2017 conference call series focusing on the U.S. Department of Education, held by Founded On Truth.

foundedontruth
Dr. Peg Luksik

On February 7, Representative Thomas Massie introduced HR 899.  The bill is one sentence long and states that the U.S. Department of Education will be terminated on December 31, 2018.  Representative Massie’s bill is a vivid reminder of the fact that there is no Constitutional role for the federal government in education.

From Founded On Truth:

In response, our first 2017 conference call series will focus specifically on the US DOE.  In part one, Chairman Peg Luksik will explore how federal education dollars fit into overall education spending, including state and local dollars.
The conference will last no more than 30 minutes and will be available on the Founded on Truth web site for future playback.  Although there is no cost for attendance, donations are greatly appreciated.
So mark your calendars for

  • Tuesday February 28 at 8:00 PM Eastern Time
  • Dial in number 641-715-3580
  • Passcode 249850

And together, let’s begin to make the American vision of locally controlled schools a reality once again.

Is The Constitution Dead?

17 September 2014
by Robert W. Peck, State Chairman
Constitution Party of Washington
 
constitution-flag-225 Today we celebrate the 227th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution and ask the question, “is the Constitution dead?” Has it survived despite the many years of degradation it has suffered or did it succumb long ago?

 

The other day I was confronted with the idea that perhaps the Constitution is already null and void and has been for some time now based on the many unconstitutional acts of the federal government, some beginning as long as a hundred years ago. I’ll be the first to admit that much, perhaps even most of what the federal government does, is not allowed under the Constitution. But does that mean that the Constitution has failed, that it doesn’t work, that it is no longer valid, has become irrelevant and that we should quit contending for the founding principles of the American Constitutional republic? Or does it merely mean that we the people have ignorantly and foolishly elected persons who are now subjecting us to an unconstitutional, and therefore alien, form of government?

I believe some people confuse conservatism with Constitutionalism and the conservative movement with the current efforts of Constitutionists. The two tend to be treated as synonymous and lumped together under one title. I admit that some who are called conservatives are Constitutionists, though not all, and Constitutionalism is what conservatism once was, or sought to be. However, Constitutionalism and modern conservatism are quite different entities. I contend that it is conservatism that has expired and lapsed into irrelevance while the principles of Constitutionalism remain ever relevant and worthy of our most valiant efforts to contend for.

 

Conservatism began as an attempt to “conserve” or “preserve” our Constitutional form of government and its accompanying liberty. Conservatism also came to include endeavors to preserve the traditional Christian morals of our society. Conservatism has been failing for a half century now as everything that it sought to preserve has been continually slipping through the fingers of the Christian-conservative-right. With each defeat, the banner of conservatism moves a little to the left and finds itself planted on a new piece of ground from which it attempts to preserve the new state of affairs. Much of what is being called conservatism today would actually have been fought against by the founders of conservatism. If Barry Goldwater, the acknowledged founder of the conservative movement, were to come back from the dead, he would slap John Boehner and the Republican leaders silly and call them liberal, socialist traitors and enemies of the Constitution. It could easily be argued that conservatism is dead, or at least that the “new conservatism” is irrelevant, useless and not worth spending effort contending for. But what about Constitutionalism?

 

If I may use an analogy to help us see the matter – let’s suppose that there is a small town of good, generally moral people, most of whom attend the town’s one church. There is no tavern in town and no vices are publicly practiced. One day a bar opens for business and the town’s people start getting drunk, including some of the church goers. The pastor starts a movement to “conserve” the morals of the community and preserve its current state. Over time, more and more people start hanging out at the bar until hardly anyone is left attending church. Then a nightclub with strippers opens up and the town’s people start leaving the bar and heading for the nightclub. So the preacher now moves out of his church and takes up residence at the bar where he begins pleading with people to “conserve” the current morals of the community by staying at the bar and not go to the nightclub. Next an opium den opens and… well, you get the picture, the cycle just keeps repeating.

 

Has the preacher’s attempts to “conserve” the morals of the community failed? Quite obviously. However, has the Bible been defeated? Have it’s precepts been disproved as irrelevant and no longer worth contending for? Absolutely not! The Bible is still as relevant as the day the bar moved in to town. The Bible still holds the answers to all the troubles of the town’s people and is the cure for all the woes for which they seek to become intoxicated enough to be able to cope. The counsel of God’s word can still fix every problem they have. The Bible is totally relevant, totally applicable to their situation and its preaching and teaching in the community is needed now more than ever.

 

The U.S. Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, are to the nation much like the Bible is to the church or to the individual. The Constitution, and the Biblically aligned principles that the founders based it upon, are still relevant, still right and still hold the answers for what ails government and society today. The Constitutional principles have not been defeated nor disproved any more than the Word of God has been defeated or disproved, they simply haven’t been practiced in awhile, and that to the detriment of society.

 

Government may not currently be following the precepts of the Constitution, but the document and the principles upon which it was established are still true, are still sound, are still the law of the land and would still produce liberty, peace and prosperity if observed. Like with the Bible, it is when men are not following sound principles that those principles are in the greatest need of being taught, preached and proclaimed so that a wayward nation can find its way back by following the voice of the American founders crying out to us through our founding documents and through those who are still contending for the principles that they embody.

 

Constitutionalism has not been defeated nor disproved, it simply hasn’t been practiced, but that doesn’t mean we should stop contending for it.

Happy Constitution Day!


Robert W. Peck is a Christian, Constitutionist and political activist who serves as the chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and is a member of the Constitution Party National Committee. Bob lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he is a landlord-handyman.  You can find more of his writings at: American Perspective