David R. Gillie
Chairman of the Constitution Party of Cache County Utah

On this day, we Americans honor those who have worn the cloth of our country. On this day, I honor also the faith, courage, and citizenship of my wife, who has taught her Navy Veteran husband a thing or two about all three (on which more below).

On Veteran’s Day, I pray that Americans do not honor indiscriminately, but that, as is only proper, we bestow our highest honor and gratitude more narrowly on those who, having quite deliberately counted the cost of their life’s blood, have weighed it against both the doubt and the hope that this blood will somehow serve to purchase Liberty under Law in earth’s last best hope, and have paid it.

In honor of these men, our family flies today my wife’s Citizenship Flag, the large, heavy cotton, casket flag that I presented to her on the day when she swore the oath of citizenship, and so joined me in that ever-doubtful, ever-hopeful, American endeavor to secure one free country on earth.

Five days before my wife swore that oath, I had flown this flag over St. John’s Church in Richmond, as historical players within re-enacted on its anniversary the Second Virginia Convention of 1775, with Patrick Henry’s ringing challenge to the standard of Liberty or Death.

The flag would fly above the State Capitol dome as my wife swore the oath beneath.

My wife’s was no thoughtless swearing. It was here that she taught me the meaning of faith, courage, and citizenship. Well she understood that this country, to which she was deliberately joining her honor, had long ceased to be free. But she understood, too, that it might yet be free again, and that such was the will of Heaven. She understood clearly that those glorious truths, to which Americans had unflinchingly made themselves accountable in 1776, together with the Constitution that they had adopted in 1787 and 1788, still condemned just as unequivocally as ever the many sad particulars of America’s present unfreedom. And so she “[took] this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion,” determined, “so help me God,” to act with faith and courage the part of citizen in earth’s last, best hope.

Deeply touched by the presentation of the flag and the meaning of where it had flown, my wife determined to seek out future occasions to gather glory to her Citizenship Flag, until it should be draped over her casket someday. On our anniversary, we flew it over Frederick Douglass’ house in Anacostia, MD. We flew it over USS CONSTITUTION on her annual Constitution Day Sail, the day after I had retired on the ship’s decks from 30 years’ Navy service. As we left Virginia for the Rockies, we first drove to Independence Hall to drape it over the rail of the room in which both Declaration and Constitution were signed. We stopped in Springfield, IL, to fly it over Abraham Lincoln’s House. Each of these acts was an act of faith and courage:  faith in, and commitment to, that ever-doubtful, ever-hopeful, American endeavor to secure one free country on earth. May God reward such faith and courage. May He grant that our country may endure, to yet flower in Liberty under Law.

As I but incidentally honor my wife’s faith and courage this day, we both, with millions of fellow Americans, honor primarily the greater faith and courage of thousands of better men than I who wore the cloth of our country before me. In that greater faith and courage, they counted the cost of their life’s last blood, weighed it out against that ever-doubtful, ever-hopeful, prospect of a free country, and paid it. May God reward such faith and courage.

Defend the Constitution

4th Quarter 2020

Charles W. Kraut

No, it’s not who you think.  If you recall the 4th Quarter 2016 issue of Wealth Creation and Preservation, the two dreadful choices then were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.  I’m sure that like many Americans you think I’m going to talk about the bumbling, egotistical, incompetent Donald Trump versus career political hack and head of a crime family Joe Biden.  No.  Those two are almost irrelevant in what may be coming.

Faint praise

“I come to bury [Trump], not to praise him.” That paraphrase from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar sums up my feelings about him.  I am pleased to report that Trump has some major accomplishments under his belt, including re-negotiating numerous trade agreements that were damaging to America. He has done numerous other worthwhile things that the media have deliberately failed to mention, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, Trump is a man who fails to take advice, speaks [poorly] off the cuff, tweets incessantly about whatever comes into his head, has little or no understanding of the Constitution, and is struggling against forces about which he hasn’t a clue.  He promised that America would never be a Socialist nation – and then signed into law the most utterly Socialistic piece of legislation in American history, the infamous CARES Act.

Sleepy Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a confessed extortionist, and has utilized his family to obtain enormous sums from the likes of Ukraine and China.  It’s probably a good thing that Obama gave Biden responsibility for only those two countries, though Biden managed to damage our relations with both – and failed to stand up to the Chinese at every opportunity.

No, I’m not concerned about those two.  There is a slim chance that Trump will be re-elected, but only if he can overcome the massive election fraud the Democrats are implementing as I write this.  He also needs to overcome the new, largest voting bloc in the US, the Millennials.  Most of these youngsters have been thoroughly indoctrinated in our public schools with the Progressive narrative.  Among other things, the Narrative proclaims that there is only one way to think about things, and that anyone who doesn’t think that way must be deprived of liberty and even life.

A large majority of the Millennials agree that socialism, about which they know absolutely nothing, is superior in every respect to capitalism, about which they likewise know nothing.  In anticipation of this major change in the wind of political thought, Progressives, Communists, and Marxists have been coming out of the closet to declare their readiness to complete America’s destruction and to put a finish to every remaining shred of freedom we still enjoy.  We are seeing people’s own true colors, though a careful analysis would have quickly revealed their utter dishonesty and corruption long ago.  It did for me, anyway. . . .

Who are the Two Dreadful Choices in 2020?

If you have been watching only the mainstream news you may not have heard what I am about to say.  The mainstream media have become terribly proficient as the Ministry of Propaganda and Revisionist History, and they have carefully misled the American people in many things.

The two dreadful choices in the 2020 election are:

Kamala Harris, junior US Senator from California, and

Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House

How is this possible, since neither of them is running for President?  The answer is simple, but the explanation is a little complicated.

Kamala Harris

This is a woman on a mission.  Like many women in positions of power, Harris has fought to demonstrate that she can be every bit as corrupt as a man, and perhaps even more so.  Please do a Google search on her (or, rather, a DuckDuckGo search, since you might not find much truth on Google these days).  I’m only going to mention two strikes against her serving in any elective office in the United States.

1. Harris’ father Donald J. Harris, is a lifelong Marxist, specifically hired by Stanford University to teach Marxism and “alternative economics.”  Though Donald and his wife divorced when Kamala was seven, he continued to have a significant influence over her.

This is not to say that Kamala is a Marxist herself.  It’s difficult to label someone who seems to change her opinions as frequently as she changes her clothes.  However, she seems to be completely in favor of the single-payer health care system, a Progressive policy that can only lead to health care for none.  If that is a sample – and it would be a short step to that conclusion – we may safely assume that she is on board with the Democratic / Progressive / Marxist program that will replace our Constitution and make America a totalitarian state.

In 2019 Kamala Harris was named by GovTrack as the “most liberal compared to All Senators.”  That distinction speaks volumes in a body that includes Chuck Schumer.

2. There are a few famous incidents in Harris’ career that say a lot about her character and, perhaps, her willingness to “sell her soul” for political gain.  From the Sacramento Bee:

“In February, California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered new DNA testing in the 1983 murder case of Kevin Cooper. Cooper came within hours of execution in 2004 after being charged with the murders of an adult couple and two children. Harris opposed the testing when she was the state’s attorney general.

“She has since said she supports DNA testing and encouraged Newsom to approve Cooper’s clemency request. She did not offer specifics on why she did not approve the testing during her tenure.

“In response to a request for comment, Harris’s campaign pointed to a past statement where the senator called a New York Times columnist last year, telling him, “I feel awful about this.”

“The Bee also noted that another claim against Harris – this time, by former vice president Joe Biden – that a federal judge freed 1,000 inmates after it discovered that a San Francisco crime lab had misused evidence, and that then-District Attorney Harris had failed to reveal that the evidence had possibly been tainted.

“That, too, was true.

“The Washington Post recalled earlier this year: “[I]t was revealed in March 2010 that Harris and her staff had not informed defense lawyers that evidence from the police-run crime lab might have been tainted. A judge ruled in May 2010 that Harris had failed to inform defendants as required by law. Harris said … she took responsibility and made ‘no excuses’ for the failure.”

So why is Kamala Harris one of our “two dreadful choices?

Because Joe Biden clearly has dementia or Alzheimer’s disease or some other mental impairment that makes him completely unfit to serve in public office.  It was thought by some that he would step down during the Democratic Convention, but his handlers did not permit that.  It now seems, to this observer and others, that if Biden wins the election a discovery will be made about his mental competence sometime before January 20, 2021.  If Biden steps down, the Vice-President-elect becomes President.  Say hello to President Harris . . .

Nancy Pelosi, the other dreadful choice

Why would I bring up Nancy Pelosi as a Presidential possibility?  Because of the huge efforts the Democrats are making to steal the election.  Once again, if you listen to and watch only the mainstream media you are getting none of the story.  You must go to places like Judicial Watch, and you used to go to the Heritage Foundation.  The latter source, however, has now itself become somewhat tainted and unreliable.

If the 2020 election is contested and no clear winner can be declared, Nancy Pelosi becomes the interim President of the United States.  A committed Progressive and enemy of the Constitution, Pelosi is a national disgrace who unfortunately shares power with many of her ilk.

As is true for all Progressives, Pelosi feels free to use the Constitution as a club when it suits her – even though she has hardly ever followed it during most of the career.  Here is a recent quote from the woman I call “Queen Pelosi:”

“We have a responsibility. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. That is — when we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.”

A democracy?  Read your job description, Nancy.  Read the Pledge of Allegiance.  Read the solemn oath you swore to decades ago.  America is not now and, I pray, will never be, a democracy.

When was the last time you defended the Constitution of the United States?  In reviewing your lengthy career I can see hundreds of instances when you proposed and supported unconstitutional and anti-constitutional legislation, and many occasions when you hindered the constitutional processes of government.  I am hard pressed to find a single instance when you actually defended the Constitution – despite all your grandstanding and acting in bad faith.

How do you steal an election?

Let’s look at the steps already in place.  Note that there is abundant detailed information available on the Judicial Watch website, for that organization has been heavily involved in the voter fraud problem for many years.

1. The Democrats are making the false claim that President Trump will have to be driven out of the White House by force because he will not relinquish his title if he disagrees with the election results.

Think about that for a moment.  If Trump were to do such a thing he would invalidate just about everything he has accomplished in four years in the White House.  Such an action will severely damage our relations with both our allies and our enemies, and sow confusion into the world political situation. It would also be a significant contributor to economic instability all over the world.

2.  Control the ballots.  The Democrats have been experimenting with numerous voting methods going back long before the famous “hanging chad” incident in Florida during the Bush/Gore campaign. Even though prominent Democrats claim that there has never been an instance of voter fraud, almost 2,000 cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past few decades.  Sometimes, some of the votes are hidden away and not “discovered” until the election has been settled.  Sometimes, the voting machines are set up to register a vote for the Democrat regardless of the choice(s) made by the individual voter.  Sometimes absentee ballots are mishandled or manipulated to increase or decrease their usefulness in determining the outcome.

There are many other ways to affect the outcome of an election.  In the late 18th and early 19th centuries it was not uncommon for one political party to have a man with a cask of whiskey just outside the polling place.  Now, however, the Democrats have found a surefire method that involves the US Postal Service. . . .

Mail-in ballots and illegal alien voters

The Trump campaign is currently urging all Republicans to request absentee ballots.  This is an inappropriate tactic, because a voter must swear to his or her unavailability to go to their polling place on Election Day in order to qualify to vote absentee.  In this election the tactic is being used as a foil to a Democrat conspiracy.

I saw a video on this, and it went viral.  The video is narrated by a woman who is a registered Republican and who is married to a registered Democrat.  They both received their mail-in ballots, and a quick comparison revealed something very interesting.

Each return envelope had on the outside a code number of about a dozen digits.  Right in the middle of this number was a letter.  That letter was an “R” in the mailing sent to the registered Republican and – you guessed it – a “D” in the mailing sent to the registered Democrat.  The response to this has been that such designations are only used for Primary ballots, and then only in nine states.  However, with millions of illegal aliens and convicted felons currently serving time voting in 2020, and with the Millennials now the largest voting bloc, the likelihood of a sharply contested election is very high. Without a clear winner (and/or a clear and swift decision by the US Supreme Court, which is unlikely) we might just say hello to Interim President Pelosi . . .


Note: Several states have passed and signed into law legislation permitting illegal aliens to vote, which is clearly unconstitutional.  Several states have created legislation that permits convicted felons currently serving time to vote.  This will disrupt the political balance in areas all over the country, including Virginia, which passed such a law. Some states have eliminated all requirements for a voter to identify him- or herself at the polling place.  This will inevitably lead to multiple votes by individuals, voting from the cemetery, and many other heinous and devious practices that should always be illegal and punishable.

What is the value of citizenship if we permit millions of people to enter our country illegally and then shower them with free education, free housing, free medical benefits, free welfare checks, free cell phones, drivers licenses, and so much more, and then we enfranchise them and give them the single most important and exclusive privilege of the American citizen, the vote? Doesn’t this action diminish the value of citizenship in favor of those who violate our laws?  American citizens must pay taxes to the IRS on their income regardless of where in the world they live. What could possibly motivate Congress or state legislatures to give preferential treatment to illegal aliens or to eliminate all ID requirements?

Open Presidential Debate Features Don Blankenship

The Free and Equal Foundation will be hosting its second 2020

Open Presidential Debate Live

Thursday, 8 October, 2020 @ 7:00 p.m. CDT


The event can be seen on


Facebook Live


The five candidates who have except the invitation to participate in the debate are:


Don Blankenship, Constitution Party

Brian Carroll, American Solidarity Party

Howie Hawkins, Green Party

Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism & Liberation

Brock Pierce, Independent

Don Blankenship National Tele Town Hall

This is an invitation to join us for a Townhall Q&A with the Constitution Party’s Presidential candidate Don Blankenship!

8:00 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. EDT

Don will be on hand to answer pre-sent questions through email and questions presented at the Townhall. We will do our best to get as many questions to him as possible.
We will open with Don telling us a little about himself and why he is running for President. Then on to the Q&A.
As participants you may send in questions or ask them by text as the Townhall progresses.
There is a limited number of participants so sign in a little early so we can start on time.
The Constitution Party of New York is honored to host this unique event.
Conference Call:
Dial-in number:
(605) 468-8846
Access code:
Video Link:

Who Should Replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

Darrell talks about the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor. Should there be a nomination prior to the election, and if so, who should be nominated?

Download Podcast


Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is the 25th day of September in the year 2020, perhaps a year that will be pivotal in the history of the United States and  the world as well. First, I want to tell you that the Castle family is doing fine during these very unusual and difficult times. The family daughter is adjusting well, and she seems more upbeat, more positive than she has in a while, and we are very grateful for that.

Today, I am talking about questions that are ever before us if we watch or listen to the news at all these days. We all know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) recently died at the age of 87 after 27 years on the United States Supreme Court. RBG had reached iconic status both as a Court Justice and as a feminist leader and trend setter.

The first question to consider is does the President have the authority to make a nomination in this an election year. The answer to that question is easy; yes of course he does. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts his authority to fill appointments in an election year. He has constitutional authority not until the election, but until his successor is inaugurated. I suppose all the controversy about it is like one of those unwritten rules of baseball that everyone abides by, or the next batter gets hit by a pitch.

The problem for the Democrats accepting this political fact revolves around Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland 11 months before the end of his second term. President Obama had no chance at reelection because it was his second term. It really didn’t matter though because Donald Trump’s chances of beating Hillary Clinton were zero as we all remember. Once she was inaugurated Mrs. Clinton could then reappoint Garland or anyone she wanted.

The United States Senate must confirm the President’s nomination for it to be effective and at that time, as now, Republicans were the majority in the Senate. The rules of the Senate give the Senate majority leader the power to decide which items come to the Senate floor for a vote and in Garland’s case Mitch McConnell held up the vote for 11 months. Democrats now say that it would be unfair for him not to do the same thing in this case. The truth is that there is nothing fair about war, only who wins, this is a culture war and the winner will determine our destiny.

Interestingly, RBG could have helped the Democrats out by resigning during President Obama’s administration so that he could nominate her successor. She chose to stick around and continue her service, even to the point of joining in hearings on video from her hospital bed. Her daughter Jane recently gave an interview to the New York Times and in that interview, she said that her mother was certain that Hillary would be elected and that she wanted the first woman president to appoint her successor.

We now have only RBG’s unrecorded deathbed statement that we are supposed to believe for who she wanted as a successor. She supposedly said as her last wish that no one would be appointed to replace her until after the next inauguration. That is a rough paraphrase, but it is close to what she is reported to have said. We don’t know for sure that she really said it because there was no recording of the words in RBG’s voice.

If she did say it so what. Supreme Court justices, no matter how revered, cannot control the judiciary after their term is finished. the words mean nothing except something that we might want to consider out of respect for her. This country was already at a very toxic level of politics and her death can do nothing but inflame and add to the toxicity. We are already in a culture war, a vicious, polarized struggle for the future, and RBG’s death just added a new candidate to the ballot and that candidate is the US Constitution.

What is this document that we call the Constitution? Are we still bound by its terms or do we accept what RBG believed and that is that it is outdated and couldn’t possibly govern a country as diverse as this one in this modern age? It should therefore, be periodically adjusted by the Court, acting as a super legislature. The other side says no, we should at least continue the charade of pretending to abide by its requirements.

When news of RBG’s death broke in the press the President was giving a speech to a group of iron ore miners in upper Minnesota. When his speech ended the press asked him for a comment about her death and that was his first notice of it. He said “she led an amazing life. What else can you say? She was an amazing woman, whether you agreed or not. She was an amazing woman who led an amazing life. I’m actually saddened to hear that.”

She was an amazing woman with 27 years on the court. Her opinions shaped the outcome and presentation of many big cases. Maybe she will prove to be more important in death than she was in life. She was and still is the centering force of the progressive legal thought that dominates politics today. She was the leader in the actions of the court to reshape the constitution to address the issues of today with a new rule of law.

So, her death might make her even more important because it will force Joe Biden out of hiding and into the open. During the debate scheduled for September 29, it is hard to see how he will be able to avoid talking about it. If I were Donald Trump, I would ask him straight out who his potential nominees are. I read where he was asked that question and he said the public doesn’t need to know that, but hopefully he will not be able to get away with that answer much longer.

If Barack Obama wants the job of Supreme Court Justice, it is his for the asking should Biden win the election. I have no idea if Obama wants a real job or not, but Joe Biden would not be able to refuse him if he does. Senate confirmation would then become just a formality. If he can serve as President, he can certainly serve on the court. I doubt if he wants it though, because he seems to have a pretty good life right now without working.

What about President Trump? Should he decline to nominate until and if he is reelected? Absolutely not is my answer, and if the shoe were on the other foot, I promise you the Democrats would go forward. This is a culture war being fought in our minds and in our streets, which means we must take any advantage we have. He seems to agree because on September 19th he tweeted the following:

“We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!” So, there it is, he intends to nominate and fill the position if the Senate is wiling. Right now, I believe the announcement is scheduled for tomorrow, the 26th.

Both Presidential candidates will be judged on this nomination and how they react to their opponent’s nominee. The senate will also be judged by it and I would assume that senators up for reelection are now adjusting their campaigns accordingly. Not many federal appointments have been more important, if any. Despite all the threats of violence, of impeachment etc. he is going forward. It is most interesting that the Speaker of the House threatened impeachment proceedings because he might dare to do what he is constitutionally required to do. If she does, that will help assure Biden’s defeat because voters will see it for what it is.

Who then, should he nominate? Who has the intelligence and fortitude for the job and who has the determination to survive the Democrat character assassination that is the nomination process? That is the easy part folks if you are only going to consider those who have some prospect of being confirmed. The choice is Amy Coney Barrett who currently serves on the 7th circuit bench. She is a graduate of Notre Dame and the law school of the same university.

There are very few criticisms of Judge Barrett, at least legitimate ones. The primary Democrat criticism is that she is a devout catholic and lets her catholic faith guide her decisions. Well God forbid that we should have a member of the court who believes in God and acts accordingly.

If that is the only thing her opponents can come up with then she must be a pretty good jurist. She is by far the brightest and most qualified available in my opinion. She deserves to be on the court, and it would be a shame if the deep prejudice of Democrats eliminates her because she is catholic. She represents a chance to showcase before the American public a brilliant legal mind but also a mother of seven including one with special needs and two adopted from Haiti. She could quite possibly reinvigorate the Republican base with her energy and intellect paired with her calm demeanor.

Judge Barrett is known to be pro life in her views but maybe the American public and enough Senators are tired of the George W. Bush and David Souter say one thing then do another versions of leaders. Give us instead this woman to whom the inherent dignity of all life is no mere slogan or academic concept. Women come in all shapes and sizes just as men do and they don’t necessarily think alike, as a famous lawyer named Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said.

We need her on the court at this critical point in its history. There is no reason whatsoever why she should not be nominated and confirmed although I would not be shocked to see the assassins come after her character.

Finally, folks, I am not telling you Judge Barrett is perfect or that she has never made a decision which I disagree with. I know about her decision supporting the right of leadership to order a lockdown. I am also aware that our culture war was lost when we surrendered our children to the enemy at the school and university levels. What I am telling you is that we must fight on anyway and at this time she is the best candidate that has a reasonable chance of being confirmed.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.


Darrell Castle – 2016 Constitution Party Nominee for President of the United States


Fall 2020 National Committee Meeting – Phoenix, Arizona

   HERE WE GO! FALL 2020

November 6 – 7, 2020



Registration Information:

Venue Information: 

  • Hospelhorn Property
    1473 West Tonto Street
    Apache Junction, Arizona 85120
    There will be a Meet and Greet from 6pm – 9pm Thursday evening November 5, 2020 with finger food/drinks at the Hospelhorn Property.
    Google map and directions


  • Best Western Apache Junction Website Link: HERE.
    Address: 1101 Apache Trail, Apache Junction, AZ 85120
    Phone: (480) 982-9200
    Breakfast at the hotel, Grab and Go due to Covid-19.
    There’s a great local restaurant if you would like a hot homestyle breakfast, Mickey D’s (not McDonald’s), 2 minutes by car from the Best Western.


Century of the Common Man

Darrell Castle talks about what Vice President Henry Wallace described in a 1942 speech as the Century of the Common Man. What is the status of the “common man” today?

Download Podcast


Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday June 19, 2020 and on this Report I will be talking about what former vice president Henry Wallace described as the century of the common man. What condition is the common man in today since this is supposed to be his century? For the Castle Family week four out of quarantine passed uneventfully although the powers that be tell us we are now part of the masked ones whether we want to be or not. The family daughter remains marooned but safe and unmasked, virus free but in a distant land.

On May 8, 1942 in the Grand Ballroom of the Commodore Hotel in New York City Vice President Henry Wallace gave a speech to a packed house. It was packed with a diverse group from 33 different nations including all the nations of Latin America. It was the Vice President after all, and the nation was in the early stages of a World War. Mr. Wallace titled his speech “The Century of the Common Man.” He reviewed the great revolutions that had engulfed the world over the centuries in which he asserted the common man had tried to uplift himself through bloodshed. He emphasized that the next century would be different, since the coming change would be for the benefit of the common man and the government would bring it peacefully.

He said that he and President Roosevelt were proposing to make the following 100 years the century of the common man buttressed by the four freedoms emphasized by the President in his recent speech to congress. These four freedoms, President Roosevelt told the world, were the four freedoms that Americans held to be so dear they would be willing to die for them or go abroad and kill to protect them.

The four freedoms were freedom of speech, freedom of religion or worship as the President worded it, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. We will address the state of the four in a moment but first, the vice president’s speech became an international sensation. Mr. Wallace was an avowed socialist or communist depending on who you talked to, and that was 78 years before Bernie Sanders made it fashionable to be a socialist.

Composer Aaron Copeland who was the son of Jewish Lithuanian immigrants was so taken by the speech that he wrote a composition in honor of it which he called “Fanfare for the Common Man.” The piece became a part of Americana and is still played today. I’m sure you’ve heard it sometime in your lifetime. The vice president was honored by fellow socialists around the world for his idea of bloodless revolution although at the time the world was awash in blood.

Mr. Wallace proposed that the government should relive the burden of individual responsibility that the common man had shouldered since the advent of America. The burden would henceforth be socialized across all strata of society. Incidentally, what is a common man. What does it mean to be called common? In the traditional European definition, it meant anyone not a member of an inherited royal status or anyone not deemed royal by a member of the royal family. Here in America where we are supposed to reject such titles, it could mean anyone not of any esteemed social status. Such things in America are usually determined by money instead of birth.

At the time Mr. Wallace spoke, common men and women were dying by the millions across the world. Dying in battle, dying as collateral damage, and dying in the German Camps. When the war ended, the 15 years of the post war boom really could truthfully be said to be the golden age of the common man. Except for a few years fighting on the Korean peninsula, the common man’s plight was uplifted by the world war and its aftermath. The industrial machinery of the war was converted quickly to civilian consumer goods and that provided good middle-class jobs for the 12 million returning men. The former soldiers all needed houses, cars and all the other products that had to be manufactured.

There were enough good jobs in manufacturing to go around and each family could live on one income so there was one spouse available to nurture the children. They had a car and could take a family vacation once a year and when the breadwinner retired there would be a pension waiting. That status existed through at least parts of the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations but then the Federal Reserve and the elites whose cause it serves, started to assert itself.

The Vietnam War put the final nail in the coffin of the century of the common man. President Nixon found that it was impossible to pay for both an expensive war and the great society programs left over from President Johnson. His solution was to cut the dollar’s historic tie to gold and set the dollar free with no limits on what could be printed and borrowed from the Federal Reserve via the central banks of the world.

This was all happening at the same time that American manufacturing was being transferred to various offshore low wage countries to serve the interests of the international elite but not the wellbeing of the common man. Gone were the well-paying middle-class jobs and the only thing left for the common man was the low paying service jobs, and jobs that as President Bush told us, Americans would not do. The American common man suddenly had to compete not only with low paid workers around the world but with low paid immigrants who were imported in massive numbers.

He was told that he should be happy about all this change. It was all in his best interest and furthermore the jobs that were taken from him and shipped to the third world would be replaced by modern high-tech jobs involving robotics etc. When he went to school to learn some of those high-tech jobs that perhaps would get him to Silicon Valley, he learned that most of them went to Asian Americans or just plain Asians.

The common man was told that he had to not only accept this bum deal, but he had to like it. NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT and the like were good for him because he would be able to go to Walmart and buy stuff from China real cheap. What a good deal except that he couldn’t even afford to buy the cheap junk because half the time he worked a temporary job, or he was on unemployment, and always on food stamps. He could appear rich, he was told, if he could just acquire more debt.

His self esteem languished in the gutter as he could not get proper education for his kids. Most of the degrees available were virtually worthless and all involved a lifetime of debt for his children and himself.  In fact, he could not make ends meet at all because his wages remained flat for 40 years or so while inflation ate away his lifestyle. Families that were fortunate enough to remain intact were forced to both work while the government took on the child raising responsibilities. One spouse worked to pay the taxes and one worked to pay the bills.  They had to borrow to survive until they couldn’t meet the debt service anymore because income and expense never balanced.

Good news for the government though, as computers relieved them of the burden of printing. Now they only had to hit a key stroke and the money appeared as if by magic. The government set the example for the common man to follow. Borrow whatever you need and pay back nothing until it all collapses and then you take the fall, not the banks or Wall Street firms, you Mr. Common Man.

Let’s look now, after that dismal picture, at those hallowed freedoms that President Roosevelt talked about. Surely that picture of freedom will lift the spirits of our bedraggled common man. Freedom of speech was the first one and guaranteed in the first amendment to the US Constitution. That one is easy to cover because it doesn’t exist anymore, at least not under the concept of freedom as we used to know it.

The only speech that is allowed now is speech that not only agrees with but exalts the prevailing political narrative. Our common man has no option but to lie to those who demand his view of things. He has no political opinion except those opinions assigned to him by a media whose goal is to establish his opinion and make him believe it is his idea.

No college professor can dispute that narrative, no doctor, no scientist, no lawyer, and certainly no common man. To dispute the prevailing narrative would be to lose one’s job, one’s profession, one’s social standing and to be ostracized from polite society. If anyone had the audacity to actually speak his mind he would be forced into a humiliating, groveling, disgusting, apology which de does not mean and which does not work. His head would still be symbolically paraded around the world on a pike as an example of the penalty for non-compliance. In response, the common man, being also a practical man, keeps his mouth firmly shut, lest anyone find out that he has a contrary opinion.

In his mind grows a burning anger at all this. He thinks that he has no voice and is unable to affect this deteriorating condition. However, this is America so he can still vote and obtain change that way and, that would send them a message that he is not going to take it anymore. No, our common man learns that no matter who he votes for, it just gets worse.

What about religion, surely, he can still worship as he pleases. No, the churches are closed now and possibly will be opened partially over a time frame to be determined by his betters. He also learns that his religion is out of favor right now. He hears a lot about the term Islamophobia, but he sees no sanction for those criticizing his religion so, the common man keeps his mouth shut, and hopes no one notices that he might have an opinion.

The other freedoms listed by Mr. Wallace are not protected by the Constitution, but they are fine socialist talking points for sure.  Freedom from want is a hard one isn’t it? I mean, the government is supposed to somehow prevent each person from want. No one who wants for anything. No, let’s just restrict it to no one wants for the necessities of life such as food, clean water, housing, education, etc. He thinks its not for the best, but he waits like a baby bird for the government to feed him anyway.

Freedom from fear is the last one, and the common man says, don’t make me laugh. The last few months have been about nothing but fear. The government and its elite masters want us in a constant state of fear so that we are much easier to control. The common man is told to be afraid all the time to avoid risks, to take no chances, the government will solve all problems for him.

He looks around and he sees all kinds of lies, hypocrisy, and destruction of everything he holds dear. Everything that he was raised to believe in is bad, and everything bad is now good. He is not allowed to attend church, but protesters fill the streets. Terrorist occupy the center of a once great city and no one does a thing about it. Pallets of bricks appear as if by magic on hand carts for the looters to use. A Nazi collaborator pays people to riot, loot, burn, and call other people vicious names in the public press. His country, the one that his grandfather stormed Omaha Beach to save, is not his anymore. He is told constantly by virtually all media that the problems are all his fault and he wonders how that could be and why so many blame him. He only wants to live a quiet and peaceful life. Welcome to your century Mr. Common Man.

The common man is not stupid, however, and he knows the plan is something like this:1. Instill fear 2.  Lock people inside their houses 3. Drive 10’s of millions out of work 4. Remove all pressure release valves, sports, concerts, theater, bars restaurants and the like 5. Close churches 6. Dehumanize people by forcing the healthy to wear masks 7. Wait for the explosion.

Finally, folks, what is the common man supposed to think about all this? He isn’t.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.


Darrell Castle – 2016 Constitution Party Nominee for President of the United States


A Country Unwilling to Defend Itself

Defending Western Civilization

12 June 2020


Darrell Castle talks about the mass insanity that grips our nation and how we as the American people seem unwilling to defend ourselves from it.


Download Podcast

Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday June 12, 2020 and on this Report I will be talking about the madness, the insanity, in which America, and perhaps all of what was once Western Civilization, finds itself. For the Castle Family this is the third week back in the office from quarantine and so far, so good. The family daughter​​ remains marooned on her small island many thousands of miles from us, but at least safe. Perhaps in July she will be released from confinement.

 I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of mass insanity and how we, as a nation, seem to be in the grips of​​ it. To refresh my memory about how it all works I decided to consult one of my favorite books and authors and that is Charles Mackey’s “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”.

Written in 1841 but still very relevant today Mr. Mackey explores the concept of mass or crowd insanity and how it is quite different from individual madness. The backdrop for the book was the tulip mania that gripped Europe in Mr. Mackey’s day. People trading in the future price of tulip bulbs drove the price to​​ an unimaginable high in that day. It made no sense except when looked at from the standpoint of crowd or mob action.

“When a man enters a crowd, he exits civilization.” That is obviously just as true today as it was in 1841 and as evidence, I argue that a​​ man in a riot or even in a mass protest is a man in a crowd. His reason departs and he is driven by the hormones, the emotions of the crowd rather than his own. Men go mad in herds while they must recover their senses one by one. Friedrich Nietzsche in the​​ same era as Mackey said that madness is a rarity in individuals but the rule in crowds.

In a crowd a man is not a man but simply a face thus the expression just a face in the crowd. He is a cog in a lunatic machine. He cannot think rationally so the crowd​​ thinks for him. Crowds need something to unite them so they will always have their devils. The devil could be policemen, whites, blacks, Muslims, Christians, progressives, conservatives etc. Whatever it is, each crowd will have its devil. It will always be a devil which inspires the crowd.

I can cite no better example of crowd madness than what has happened since the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police a few days ago. Mr. Floyd’s death appeared to me to be a virtual assassination. Three police officers hold a man down while another puts a knee on his neck for eight minutes while being filmed doing it. It appeared to be an act of cold-blooded murder, which in a death penalty state should have sent the officer to death row.

The question then is,​​ was Mr. Floyd’s murder an indictment of America as a sick, racist society as alleged by some. I argue that it does not and furthermore, other than Mr. Floyd’s race there is not much to indicate the attack was racially motivated. I understand the argument that if he had not been black the officer would not have put his knee on his neck, but the argument​​ may or may not be valid. Can we rationally discuss whether it’s a valid argument or not, probably not, but I will make a few points now?

The submission technique that ultimately killed Mr. Floyd is one taught to US police forces by the Israeli military. Consult You Tube and you can find videos of Israeli instructors teaching the technique. They use it to subdue Palestinians in Gaza and other places they are deployed every day. One officer is to hold the subject’s legs while the other kneels on his neck to get control of him. Does that mean Mr. Floyd’s murder was not racially motivated? No, it doesn’t, and I admit that I have no way of knowing, but there is evidence that the technique is and has been widely used against people of all races.

The training of police in tactics, and their attitude about who they are, as well as their uniforms and weapons, have undergone a radical shift in recent years. The original shift happened when our society abandoned common law in favor of only statutory law. Under the common law, police officers were commonly referred to as peace officers. Even in the old west, the sheriff was a peace officer and his job was to keep the peace by resolving differences in a peaceful manner.

In our present day, officers don’t even remember what a peace officer was because they would not recognize that term. Instead they are law enforcement officers because their job is to enforce the law even if the law is stupid and doesn’t make sense. For example, Mr. Floyd’s offense was trying to pass a counterfeit 20-dollar bill in a local store. There was no indication that he made the bill or that he even knew it was counterfeit. There is so much bad cash now​​ that anyone can end up with some purely by accident, and that is not a crime of intent, certainly not one worthy of death.

So, a peace officer talks to Mr. Floyd, asks him where he got the bad cash and tells him to make good on his purchase if he had not done so and then sends him on his way without incident. A law enforcement officer pulls him out of the car and kills him with an Israeli submission tactic. One other issue with police recruitment and training involves where the officers are recruited.

I am​​ not certain of these numbers anymore but a couple of years ago when there was an officer involved shooting in Dallas, I looked at them and found them very revealing. More than 50% of the police officers in Dallas were not only military veterans but veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m sure you will believe me when I say that the rules of engagement for soldiers in combat are far different from the way police officers should think. Their military objective is killing the enemy and they confront death of friends and fellow soldiers each day.

Sometimes its hard to get things out of your head once they are in there. Couple the military mindset with what has come to be called militarization of the police and you might just create a volatile situation. Weapons designed to be used by military combat units started coming​​ back to US police forces under the second Bush administration and continued to some extent under Obama although he apparently tried to stop it when he saw what was happening.

So, you have military weapons, uniforms, and tactics so no wonder the officers think of themselves as soldiers going to war each day when they go out. They must face the worst, most heartless, relentless criminals each day and that wears on people sooner or later.

What I am saying is that a call to review and change police training and tactics makes more sense than abolish or defund the police. Calling for abolition of the police in a city such as Minneapolis is evidence that our cities are run by spineless lunatics. Let me use the example of Minneapolis to illustrate my point. The city commission voted by a veto proof majority to abolish their police force.

Lisa Bender, President of the City Council when asked on CNN what would happen if your house were broken into said, “maybe it’s about time for privileged people to get a taste of what the marginalized feel like. “She went on to say that she looks forward to a police free future. Well I know she deserves to get what she looks forward to good and hard. Perhaps Ms. Bender will get​​ a taste of what a lawless, violent city is like without people willing to risk their lives to protect it. I almost hope she does, but I can’t wish that on the people of Minnesota. We’ve already seen it anyway in Baltimore and especially in Chicago. 

Just​​ before Mr. Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis, on the night of May 31st, in Chicago 17 black people were killed by other black people. In the month of May 67 black people were killed by other black people. Baltimore has comparable numbers scaled to its population. The police have been restrained in those cities, so they are violently out of control. 

Yes, law enforcement is under attack. An injustice in Minneapolis means there is injustice everywhere. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot perhaps takes the cake​​ among city mayors. Completely paralyzed by the riots, she was unable to do anything but watch her city burn. Business owners called her begging for protection of their businesses. Her response was to say “people are just F**ing lawless right now.

Target stores as well as Walmart stores were looted and burned, and the mayor expected them to just rebuild and continue. When they said no, we are leaving, and we won’t be back she was reduced to begging them. She could not however dispatch police or National Guard units to quell the riots.

I do agree that the riots, not the non-violent protests, indicate a fundamental problem in our society. The rioters and looters supposedly were feeling so much pain and despair from violence suffered by Mr. Floyd, that they had​​ to use violence against the innocent as a remedy. They had no regard for the innocent and certainly none for the free society they are bent on destroying.

The response from those in authority to the riots was a groveling, crawling, begging apology for the​​ looters to forgive them. Democrat members of Congress actually wore Kente’s which are African scarves from Ghana as they kneeled before the looters an act so disgusting even the looters could see through it. Congress and especially those who run our Democrat cities line up to demonstrate their support of the woke values of the looters. The fact is the looters are more often than not, just in it for the free stuff. They have no woke values except criminality.

Western Civilization is collapsing around us and​​ that much is obvious. What was the purpose of setting fire to St. John’s church? To kill or displace God perhaps. Nothing civilized was spared, not churches, synagogues, the World War ll memorial, and the Lincoln memorial. They all had to be damaged and defaced to pay homage to Mr. Floyd. The aggrieved ones had to express their discontent by adding fuel to the fires of insanity sweeping the country.

In response, the system was shown to be helpless before our new woke culture. There is nothing worth protecting here folks just keep moving and don’t look. Abolish the police is a woke phrase so insane they have to adopt some other name for it such as defund. Groveling, knee bending, Netflix does its grand part to support and pay homage to Mr. Floyd by canceling​​ Gone with the Wind, the first movie in which a black woman won an academy award. So, we don’t want to stop by abolishing the police, we seek to abolish history as well. That means no future for us either folks, none whatsoever.

Finally, folks, Western Civilization is collapsing. Emotion always seems to shut down facts which no longer matter. Police kill and brutalize far more whites than blacks each year therefore Mr. Floyd’s death is an incident which should concern and galvanize all of us to make us support change in training and tactics. Instead, every element of society has been trained from an early age by identity politics to hate and distrust the others. I feel as if I woke up in an alien universe and realized that I have failed in my lifelong battle​​ to transmit the blessings of liberty to my posterity. Suddenly, neither liberty nor civilization are assured for our posterity.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.



A Journal of the Plague Year – Free Speech and Dr. Judy Mikovits

…from The Castle Report – (podcast link found below)


Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday May 8, 2020, the 75th anniversary of VE or Victory in Europe Day.  VE Day is a national holiday in Great Britain as the British people pause for one day to celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany. Today’s Report, however, will discuss the virus, the invisible enemy against which the whole world makes war, not the visible enemy of WW ll. For the Castle family, this is day 49 or seven weeks of quarantine. Forty-nine days without any other human contact. The family daughter remains safe on a small island at the bottom of the world with no flights in or out of the island for who knows how long.

Last week’s Castle Report provoked one of my faithful listeners to accuse me of hypocrisy in the comment section so I might as well address his inquiry right now. His comment was partially in jest but also serious, He pointed out that I favor reopening the economy for others, but I remain in quarantine. What kind of ex-Marine, Constitution Party member is that he wonders? You tell us to do one thing but do another yourself.

I recognize a certain degree of hypocrisy in my position, but as I pointed out to the gentleman both my wife and I are over 65 and we have a law firm with many employees for whom we feel a certain responsibility. We therefore transferred the employees to work from home status until it is acceptable to reopen according to our local governing authority. In addition, my daughter encourages me each night by video to stay in and stay safe. Finally, I suppose it’s like the Arab proverb, I trust God, but I still tether my camel each night.

For emphasis I will quote a gentleman from the news site, The Rundown, “I favor opening, but since I have several risk factors in addition to advanced age, I will endeavor to be careful because I don’t think that I would survive if I’m infected with COVID-19. That said, I want my country and my community to survive. We should all be careful, but we should open and not kill the country.” That is not my situation, but it makes my point.

Another subscriber to the same site, “I am obeying the stay-at-home order, and I only go our for medication and food, so I’m doing as told. And if I am correct, the airlines plan to get federal money for their problems, but I have no idea where my stimulus check is. Personally, I am not going to rebound from this situation easily, and I’m probably not the only one.”

No, my friend you are indeed in good company. The economic cost of the lockdown will be devastating for many and perhaps permanent both economically and medically.

U.S. private payrolls dropped 20.2 million in April, the most extreme drop since the great depression. I have little doubt that many companies and industries will be permanently destroyed or at least permanently affected. Last Tuesday Hertz Corporation announced that it has hired a company to help it plan for a chapter 11 filing. That is the proper tactic for a company that depends on travel and there is no travel for months and perhaps a year. What is it to do with billions of debt and no revenue, except seek protection in chapter 11? How many cars does Herts operate each day? How many cars does it buy each year? What happens to the car and truck industry if all that activity suddenly stops permanently? Many industries already in trouble are being pushed over the edge by the lockdown. Retail has been, and is being devastated, perhaps permanently. Retail giant J Crew just announced its liquidation bankruptcy filing and high-end Neiman Marcus has just filed for chapter 11 protection and reorganization. According to the trade publications that I read each day; many companies are avoiding chapter 11 because they do not have the financial ability to reorganize. If they were to seek chapter 11 protection they could not escape and would end in chapter 7 liquidation, so they struggle on.

How is the federal government going to bail out the retail industry? The answer is that it can’t because people may never go back to the malls to spend on credit and accumulate unpayable debt. This whole consumption based, credit backed, house of cards upon which this society rests could be about to crumble. There are many other industries whose troubles are in danger of going permanent. Look at the airlines and the entire travel industry. Overseas travel is now practically nonexistent. That means reduced demand for pilots and crew members, reduced airport staff, rental cars and their staffs, merchandise and food sales at airports all over the world.

If the information provided recently by several doctors turns out to be true, then all this economic devastation not to mention the enormous human cost will have been unnecessary. That would be a charitable word to describe what could be described as an accusation of manslaughter for profit. I’ve been following the work of Doctor Dan Erickson, an emergency medicine doctor and researcher from California, as well as Dr. Judy Mikovits, a scientist formerly with the National Cancer Institute. I strongly advise everyone to investigate their work if Google/You Tube will allow it.

Dr. Erickson owns a few ER Urgent Care Clinics in California especially in the county where Bakersfield is located. When asked by local media for his results he invited them to a press conference which was recorded and put out on you tube. He gave statistics and results from his roughly 6000 COVID-19 tests as well as his conclusions. You tube quickly took down his video because you tube only allows the official narrative to be seen but 12 million around the world saw it before they could take it down.

What is wrong with allowing Dr. Erickson to express his opinion about whether the lockdown was a mistake or not. I saw his original video and then I saw an interview done by Sebastian Gorka for his podcast. That interview was also taken down within 24 hours, but Mr. Gorka says he will keep trying to get the information out. During the interview Dr, Erickson compared the mortality numbers for Sweden, a country without lockdown, and Great Britain, a country completely locked down. Sweden has a death rate of 245 per one million population and Great Britain has a death rate of 360 per one million population.

He also mentioned that many doctors from around the country have told him that they have been pressured to list COVID-19 as a cause of death. Why would the system, the hospital, pressure a doctor to list a cause of death other than what he thinks it is or when he doesn’t know what it is?  For one thing they are paid by the federal government $13 thousand for a hospitalized COVID-19 patient, and $37 thousand for one on a ventilator, even if ventilated patients fail to survive 88% of the time.

Why should we, the American people, be denied the privilege of hearing the evidence and research conclusions of these doctors? Many reasons, I suppose, but one of the main reasons is that we do not have reporters anymore, not many anyway. Instead of reporters we have commentators. Instead of researching and reporting on the truth as they are able to discover it, they simply spout out the accepted and official narrative. They are, by their own admission and by their voting patterns, always biased so, they no longer investigate and report the news. We get the propaganda of their agenda since their agenda has driven them since at least journalism school. Unless they adhere to that agenda faithfully, they will not be hired, and they will not stay hired.

There seems to be a concerted effort among the tech giants such as Google/You Tube, Facebook, and Twitter to suppress any search for the truth. Resisting any information except the official narrative as it reflects their own political agenda almost makes them an arm of the government. Since they are not government agencies, but private corporations they are free to suppress any search for the truth even though they control at least 90% of available search information.

Dr. Judy Mikovits whom I mentioned last week as well as her book, “Plague of Corruption” is a whole different subject from Dr. Erickson Dr. Mikovits is not an MD but is instead a scientist having spent at least 20 years with the National Cancer Institute. In the forward to her book, Robert Kennedy Jr. referred to her as one of the most accomplished scientists of this generation. Instead of being rewarded for her relentless pursuit of the truth she has been fired by the National Cancer Institute, persecuted, arrested and jailed without a warrant or even charges, driven into bankruptcy, and she has been deprived of her life’s work. She was eventually accused of stealing intellectual property from the Institute. I don’t know for sure, but I assume that was the paper she wrote concerning her AIDS research.

Her complaints and accusations should be investigated not silenced. Why do the controllers of all information fear this woman so much? Why will they not allow her to publicly speak her mind so that her accusations can be investigated. The accusations she makes concern the future of all humanity, so it is rather important that she at least be heard.  She has accused Dr. Fauci and Dr. Birx, the two Drs. You see each day in the president’s news conferences, of being involved in decades of corruption which has resulted in the deaths of millions of people and will continue to do so unless it is stopped.

The essence of what she alleges is that she isolated and discovered the A.I.D.s virus in about 1981 but Dr. Fauci would not let her publish her findings and intentionally delayed release of the information until 1984 so that he could obtain the patent on the treatment. Millions of people across Africa died needlessly in those 2 or 3 years. Her accusation is essentially that Dr. Fauci committed manslaughter on a mass, worldwide scale for money and he is continuing the same conduct with COVID-19. Rather than bring a lawsuit against her for defamation so the truth could be found, the tactic seems to be to resist her ability to speak publicly. When Google/You Tube takes down her videos, the message just says this video violates community standards.

If someone, especially someone of prominence, accused you of what amounts to allowing millions of people to die so that you could profit, wouldn’t you at least try to do something about it. If you can still find it watch Dr. Mikovits video and judge what she says for yourself. The problem seems to be that the law now allows government researchers, working with taxpayer money, to patent their discoveries so that hundreds of millions are available if their prescribed treatments are accepted and others are suppressed. The same thing is happening with COVID-19 as all treatments are suppressed until a patented vaccine is available.

The accusations Dr. Mikovits makes are against a man who has directed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 36 years and through five presidential administrations. What he is tasked with doing, and the responsibility he has been given affects all of humanity and therefore Dr. Mikovits should be heard, and her accusations investigated. Isn’t there at least a serious conflict of interest when a person will make hundreds of millions of dollars from a vaccine or treatment and by a strange coincidence that is the only effective one.

Finally, Folks, the system says that her accusations are not true and that she is “discredited.” That is an easy term to use when you control virtually all information. I don’t know if what Dr. Mikovits says is true or not. I am not scientifically or medically trained, but I find her videos and especially her book believable, and if correct it would explain why humanity is suddenly so sick, and it would mean that all that we are going through is unnecessary. Free speech is so important that without it we are not and cannot be free people, so, I submit that we should at least hear her.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening