Subscribe
  • Home
  •  / 
  • Search Results for "Darrell Castle" Tag
Join / Donate

CASTLE REPORT: Challenging the Powers That Be

June 7, 2024
Play

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

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

Interview with Darrell Castle, Constitution Party Presidential Nominee

by Peter B. Gemma, writer
dc-ustpm-001 Darrel Castle, a U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran, earned a Juris Doctorate from Memphis State University in 1979. Castle opened his own law firm in Memphis in 1984, and has concentrated his practice in the areas of bankruptcy and personal injury.

 A former Chairman of the Tennessee Constitution Party, he served as a Vice Chairman of the national party and was the running mate of Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate.  

In 1998, Mr. Castle and wife Joan founded the Mia’s Children Foundation, a Christian mission in Romania aiding homeless Gypsy children.

Peter B. Gemma: Thanks much for taking time to answer some questions. At what point in your life did you say to yourself, “I’ve got to get involved.” How did that lead up to your decision to run for president?

Darrell Castle: I got started working in the political system in 1992 when I was introduced to Howard Phillips and I was able to join Howard in helping to form and found the Constitution Party. I’ve served in the Constitution Party for almost 25 years and have held many different positions including as the 2008 Vice Presidential candidate. The members of the Party drafted me as their candidate this year.

Why am I running? I believe that the entire system of law and justice is under attack as well as the rule of law itself. This is a very dangerous time for America – we can continue to reject our foundation or we can pull back from the brink. All we have to lose is everything.

Gemma: You have stated that, “two of the first things on my agenda would be getting the United States out of the United Nations and ending the Federal Reserve.” Why those issues? How would you go about accomplishing this?

Castle: I want to see the United States as a free and independent nation once again. Membership in the United Nations is incompatible with that goal because its very nature is one of control by bureaucrats unaccountable to the American people. UN Membership is incompatible with the American way of life too – with a Constitutional Republic and the foundational principles that have made this the greatest country offering the most freedom and the most prosperity to the most people in history. Instead, the United Nations is about population control, control of economies through what it calls climate change, control of nations through Agenda 21 sustainable development policies.

I would have to end our membership through education of Congress and the American people and through withholding of funds and non-participation.

As far as the Federal Reserve, it has controlled the American monetary system for 103 years. Its initial stated goals were protection of the dollar’s value and full employment, but both are abject failures with the dollar having lost 98 percent of its value. The Fed has flooded the world with credit and debt to the point where the inevitable fall is going to be terrible. The Fed’s credit expansion explains much of the mischief engaged in by the United States government in the last few years. Unlimited budgets do that to people. Right now, the Fed is engaged in destroying the futures of retirees and other savers with zero and soon to be negative interest rates. That destruction will create more and more dependent people.

Ending it would require the same concerted effort as for the UN, but what a glorious way to spend the next four years.

Gemma: You have been quoted as saying the U.S. will have a much lower standard of living 25 years from now.  Why?

Castle: How could a nation with almost 20 trillion dollars of current debt not have a lower standard of living in 25 years? The debt is growing daily and within 25 years will have interest payments that’ll eat most or all of the budget. That’s just the on-budget debt and it doesn’t include the more that 100 trillion dollars in mandates like Social Security, Medicare, etc. This debt is un-payable and dealing with it is going to reduce our standard of living, so no one will deal with it until it is much worse.

If that were all, it would be plenty but it gets worse – changing demographics indicate a rapidly aging population with fewer and fewer young workers to support them. We have aborted too many and indebted too many and that will have to be atoned for.

One more thing: foreign entanglements will continue to require higher and higher defense expenditures so the situation will get worse at least that’s the way I see it.

Gemma: Part of your platform is opposition to something called Agenda 21. What is that, and why do you oppose it?

Castle: Agenda 21 is a United Nations initiative that is built on the premise that man is destroying the earth and so human economic activity must be greatly reduced. In effect, it is civilization in reverse or the “de-industrial revolution.”

I oppose it because the number one priority of Agenda 21 is climate change policy – they believe that human economic activity is causing the climate to change with catastrophic results for mankind. Also, they fear over-population and think killing off the earth’s population can reverse it. And they believe in the destruction of the free market because it is evil, corrupt, and only serves the rich nations – they want to enact a world socialist system.

And two more critical issues come to mind: first, cheap energy is their enemy because it allows prosperity and expanding human activity across all economic classes. In other words, it is uplifting the masses. Finally, they advocate world-controlled education such as common core. They want to propagandize the children of the world to believe all the nonsense I just mentioned so they can be good workers on the global plantation.

Why would anyone oppose all that?

Gemma: The Constitution Party platform states, “We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system.” Granted you advocate a government greatly reduced in size and scope, but where will federal revenues come from instead of these tax reform proposals?

Castle: I have proposed a taxing system whereby taxes would be apportioned to the states as the census dictates. If my state of Tennessee had two percent of the nation’s population, for example, it would be liable for two percent of the budget. It would be incumbent upon the representatives from Tennessee to help hold down Federal spending. The Federal Government would be encouraged to spend less not more. The states would be empowered and Washington would be dis-empowered. Washington’s hold over the states would be broken and the states would be sovereign again – Washington would have to ask the states for money. States would be free to collect their revenue as they see fit. Alaska might tax its natural resources and Florida might tax tourism. In Nevada, it would obviously be gambling. Since people could keep their income the economy would explode with growth.

Gemma: Are press reports of you favoring decriminalizing marijuana accurate?

Castle: I favor the de-criminalization of marijuana as both a liberty and a moral issue. It is immoral in my view to take people’s liberty because they possess this substance. This would free the police, the police budgets, and create much space in our prisons.

Gemma: Why are you in favor of granting convicted felons the right to vote?

Castle: I favor examining the crimes for which a person is convicted before depriving him of the voting privilege for life. We have thousands of crimes on our books and not all of them are harmful enough to end voting privileges.

Gemma: You’ve stated that, “I would not be in favor of granting asylum to those here illegally but neither would I deport them wholesale.” Also, you agree with Donald Trump’s idea of banning all Muslims from emigrating to the U.S. What are the specifics of your position on illegal immigration?

Castle: We should secure our borders by any means necessary then examine who gets into this country by way of immigration. We can’t continue to have completely open borders and a stable country at the same time so we must know who is coming in. I do not favor asylum for those here illegally nor do I favor a path to citizenship. Welfare or entitlement programs, if you choose to call them that, should be strictly for American citizens. I have said that I would nor deport wholesale but I would not hesitate individually if the need arose.

For now it seems we have reached our capacity to absorb the Muslim population of the Middle East. I read that between one and two percent of the population of Somalia now lives in America.

Gemma: On July 2nd, you were quoted at LibertyHangout.org, as saying, “Libertarians should support me because I am more Libertarian than the two candidates of that Party,” but later you stated, “I’ve never said I was more Libertarian than Gary Johnson.” Will you clarify that?

Castle: People often quote me as saying that I am more Libertarian than Gary Johnson but it was not me who said that. My supporters listen to my interviews, draw conclusions, and create memes, and sometimes these memes are attributed to me. However, I will say that some of Mr. Johnson’s positions especially the one concerning religious freedom are not in keeping with traditional Libertarian thought. If I wanted to be a completely Libertarian person I would join that party instead of the Constitution Party.

Gemma: In response to the Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage, the Constitution Party released a statement equating the opinion to the Dred Scott slavery decision. Is that your position? Also, you have said that you are opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage because “marriage with any definition other than the Biblical standard” is unacceptable. Isn’t that imposing one religious standard on all U.S. citizens?

Castle: I’m afraid you may have misunderstood me. I am unfamiliar with any comparison of same sex marriage and the Dred Scott case. I have often compared the holding in that case to the Supreme Court’s holding that unborn babies are not “persons” and therefore do not qualify for Fifth Amendment protection.

As for same sex marriage, I have said that I do not believe in it or that it even exists. If I were President and two members of the same sex came to me and said we’re married and here’s a priest, a minister, and a civil magistrate who will attest to that, I would say you are not married because God defines marriage quite clearly in his holy word and you do not meet that definition. However, as President it is irrelevant to me because your relationship is none of my business. It is an abuse of political power to require people to buy a license from the government for permission to engage in whatever relationship they choose. Since there would be no governmental financial advantage to this relationship it is not a governmental concern.

Gemma: The Constitution Party asserts in its platform that obscenity laws must be “vigorously enforced” because, “local, state, and federal governments [should] uphold our First Amendment right to free speech.” Using the free speech as a basis for limiting or banning the use of pornography seems contradictory. Is there a religious factor involved in that stance?

Castle: Of course there’s a religious factor involved in that stance. There’s a religious factor in all laws carrying criminal sanctions. I am not in favor of the Federal Government stepping into this role. I favor limiting government to its delegated, enumerated Article 1 Section 8 powers. The other powers existing are to the states and the people. If the states want to sanction it then that should be their prerogative. I see a role in Federal prosecution of child pornography under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Child pornography should be severely sanctioned since it is akin to rape, or enslavement of those innocent and unable to defend themselves.

Gemma: You have said, “I fear for the future, because our country is under the judgment of God for the 60 million unborn babies we have allowed to be killed.” How will making abortion illegal turn this nation toward God?

Castle: God has said that if we humble ourselves, seek his face, and turn from our wicked ways he would hear our cry and heal our land. What could be more clear?

Gemma: How many state ballots will your name appear?

Castle: My name will appear on the ballot in 25 states. In addition, 21 other states have me registered as a write-in candidate. So, Americans in 46 states are able to vote for me. There is also a chance that we will get Nebraska and the District of Columbia which would bring us to 47 – plus D.C.

Gemma: Apparently West Virginia has removed your name from the ballot. Will you explain what’s going on there?

Castle: Yes, due to a West Virginia Supreme Court ruling, the state removed us from the ballot. We filed an emergency lawsuit – we won – and we are back on the ballot. Our victory even made front page in some of the West Virginia newspapers.

Gemma: Tell me about your running mate, Scott Bradley of Utah.

Castle: I have known Scott for at least 20 years and include him among my dearest friends. He is a well-known Constitutional expert and lectures around the country on the Constitution and other founding documents. I also consider him to be an expert in the Federal seizure of state lands especially in the West, and since I want to reverse those seizures I need him to help me do that. Scott is also of the highest character and a true gentleman.

Gemma: Finally, if you were addressing a conservative Republican, what would you say to get him to switch his vote from Trump to the Constitution Party? How would you convince a Libertarian Party supporter to vote for the Castle-Bradley ticket?

Castle: I would tell both the same thing. If you think government should be limited choose me. If you think we should have unlimited government any of the others will do. If you value life choose me, but if you don’t any of the others will do. If you favor constant foreign intervention any of the others will do but if you do not, choose me. If you want to be free to control your children’s education choose me, if you want the government to control it any of the others will do. If you want to keep all your income choose me but if you want to give large portions of it to the government any of the others will do.

If It’s Really About Conservative Purity Then Endorse Darrell Castle or Shut Up

17 August 2016
Dan Phillips, EconomicPopulist.org

 

DC-USTPM-001

“If you are a conservative truly interested in the purity of conservatism, and you believe that Trump falls short of your threshold for what you can support, then why not do the logical thing and support the Constitution Party nominee, Darrell Castle? But shockingly few NeverTrumpers have seen fit to do so. Why?”   So asks writer Dan Phillips in his article: If It’s Really About Conservative Purity Then Endorse Darrell Castle or Shut Up, published on The Economic Populist.

The Peace of Westphalia and the New World Order

by Darrell Castle

Peace of Westphalia We hear the term “New World Order” all the time. We are afraid of that term.  But if there is a New World Order, then what of the Old World Order, the political order which has existed for hundreds of years? If we are suspicious of, and resistant to the New World Order, what order are we trying to conserve?

To find out the history and character of the Old World Order, we need to travel back in time to the 17th Century to the time of the Thirty Years War. The Thirty Years War was fought in Europe from 1618 to 1648. It began when the Austrian-Hapsburg Empire tried to impose Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia.

It grew into a religious war of Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes and Princelings against the emperor and against each other, the nation of France against the Habsburgs of Spain.  At one point Swedes, Danes, Poles, Russians, and the Dutch all got into the act.  Until World War I, it was the bloodiest and costliest war in European history. Read More

American Coup

The Constitution Party’s Response to the President’s speech on Immigration
– Darrell L. Castle – 
24 November 2014 –

American-CoupWhat does the President’s speech on immigration and amnesty, delivered Thursday, November 20, 2014, mean for America and for Americans?

The American system under the Constitution is divided into three separate branches, each having distinct sets of powers and responsibilities. Overriding it all is the knowledge that rights come from God, not from government. This is the American system of law and government that generations of Americans have fought to preserve. It has never been intended for power to be embodied in a single person but rather in a system governed by the Constitution.

The framers listed the powers of Congress as Article 1 for a reason. Congress is the preeminent body – the representatives of the People. Article 1, section 1 is the most important section of the entire Constitution. It states, “All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

The President then has no legislative authority, none! Congress, under Article 1, section 8, paragraph 4, has the authority to establish uniform rules of naturalization and it has done so. The point is that Congress has enacted immigration laws (contrary to what the President asserts) through which naturalization is a path to citizenship for those legally in this country. It is against this system that a coup has been accomplished.

President Obama has now gone forward with his lawless, unconstitutional act of defiance against the American people. He was right when he said that his policies were on the ballot in the mid terms and the American people voted their strong rebuke. He apparently thinks he is a monarch – a monarch does not have to compromise, he gets everything he wants. But our Constitution requires compromise to get new laws through the House, the Senate, and the President. When the President purports to take on the characteristics of a monarch, it is incumbent on Congress to act and prevent subversion of the Rule of Law. The President has usurped the legislative power of Congress, and Congress should act immediately to take it back.

So, what does the Constitution Party platform have to say about the President’s view? “The Constitution Party demands that the Federal Government restore immigration policies based on the practice that potential immigrants will be disqualified from admission to the U.S. if, on the grounds of health, criminality, morals, or financial dependence, they would impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States. We oppose the provision of welfare subsidies and other tax payer-supported benefits to illegal aliens, and reject the practice of bestowing U.S. citizenship on children born to illegal parents while in this country. We oppose any extension of amnesty to illegal aliens and call for the use of U.S. troops to protect the states against invasion.”

I submit to you, however, that the issue of concern in the President’s speech is not illegal immigration or amnesty. It is instead, the authority or lack of authority of a man who has assumed the role of monarch. The President laid out his justification for his action in the fashion of a true monarch. “Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.”

The President knows he has no such authority. From an Obama speech three years ago, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, not just on immigration reform. But, that’s not how – that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

He also knows that his order is different from those of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush as neither man issued an amnesty order with no Congressional legislation. The President has no precedent to hide behind.

The President then seems to take the position that if Congress agrees with him that’s great, but if not, he is converted to absolute ruler. The President delivered his speech without any indication that he was ashamed of its obvious falsehood. Even much of the press, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post were at least mildly critical. All three papers expressed their strong support for the President’s position on amnesty but they all disapproved of a unilateral Presidential order.

Peggy Noonan in her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal Weekend Edition said it best. “The President’s executive action on immigration is an act of willful nihilism that he himself had argued against in the past. It is a sharp stick in the eye of the new Congressional majority. It is at odds with – it defies – the meaning and message of the last election, and therefore is destructive to the Reputation of Democracy itself. It is huge in its impact but has only a sole cause, the President’s lone will.”

The President’s actions will also encourage and invite more illegal immigration and shows clearly the President’s complete disregard for the working people of America. The reaction to the order is that Congress is considering several options. They wring their hands and worry that some members may overreact. Some states are preparing law suits based on an “unfair taking” argument. Congress is preparing lawsuits and budget attacks on the order.

For the American People, this means that if Congress fails to act in a meaningful way to take back its legislative authority, then the people have been disenfranchised and there is no longer a reason to vote if that vote is restricted to Democrats and Republicans. I predict that Congress will not act in a meaningful way because the Republican Leadership, judging from past statements, wants amnesty at least as much as the President. They are secretly glad he did it and they don’t have to take the blame. If that is true, consider voting for the Constitution Party in the next election. Let’s restore the Constitution – together!

Copyright ©2024 The Constitution Party. All Rights Reserved  | Terms of Use  | Privacy Statement