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, 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,



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!

Land, Livestock, and Liberty: Who Owns Nevada?

The Constitution Party position on the deeper issues of federal control over public lands

by Darrell Castle

Cliven+Bundy+Nevada+Rancher+Federal+Government+OWY4w2Gomial It is April 2014.  What in the world is happening in Clark County, Nevada?  A better question might be who owns Nevada?  The struggle in Nevada involves a 600,000 acre area called Gold Butte, near the Utah border.  Mr. Cliven Bundy claims an inherent right to graze his cattle there since his family, he says, has lived there for more than 140 years and built much of the infrastructure in the local area.  The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says Mr. Bundy owes $1,100,000 in grazing fees, having been in trespass for more than 20 years.  Mr. Bundy refuses to acknowledge federal authority in Nevada.

Mr. Bundy believes, “We own this land and not the federal government”.   Usually reported by the corporate media is the view that Mr. Bundy is illegally grazing his cattle on public lands in Clark County, Nevada.  The BLM stands firmly on the premise that the land is public land, owned by the U.S. Government.  The agency insists that it has exhausted its legal remedies and that Mr. Bundy has refused to comply with many court orders.  They say they have no choice except to round up Mr. Bundy’s cattle and sell them for past due grazing fees.  Mr. Bundy is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, Nevada, not to the Bureau of Land Management. 

Mr. Bundy believes he has a prior right to graze his cattle on public lands due to his family’s existence on the land since the 1800’s, long before the existence of the BLM.  But the federal government says wait a minute, we stole this land from the Indians many, many years ago, long before Nevada was a state and when by court precedent the land passes into statehood, that doesn’t mean we no longer own it.

Do either of these competing claims hold any validity?  For the answer, we turn to the Constitution and the associated documents like the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration tells us that the purpose of government in, Mr. Jefferson’s immortal words “is to secure our God given rights”.  The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were created by the states on behalf of “We the people”.

The Constitution created three branches of government with three separate functions acting as agent for the states.  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution known as the Enclave clause authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited circumstances.

“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as made by session of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress,  become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of military forts, magazines, arsenals, stockyards and other needful buildings.”

The Enclave Clause authorized Congress to purchase land for the District of Columbia, Washington D.C., as we know it now, and also to purchase territory for military forts, magazines, arsenals, stockyards, and other such things.  As you can see clearly, the Enclave clause does authorize Congress to do these things and to control land in a state under certain very limited circumstances.  Those circumstances, though, certainly do not include protection of an endangered tortoise as federal government authority now insists is part of the reason for the seizure of Mr. Bundy’s cattle.  It does not include selling so-called public lands to Chinese corporations for the building of solar energy plants as has been alleged.   By the way, when the government uses the term “Public” what it really means is “U.S. Government”.  The U.S. Government often refers to itself as the public, but in reality is simply the government.  The question then becomes — who owns Nevada?   Currently, the U.S. Government claims it owns approximately 87% of the state of Nevada.  Shockingly, that is correct, 87%.  However, there are movements in Nevada’s legislature from time to time demanding the return of what Nevadans see as illegally seized land.   To the federal government, however, these movements are apparently just empty threats.

James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, said in Federalist #45 “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined”.   Nevada Governor, Brian Sandoval, recently stated that “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists, nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.”  The Constitution Party wishes to thank Governor Sandoval for his support of Mr. Bundy in that regard.  It would also be constitutionally-appropriate for a battalion of Nevada National Guardsmen, equipped for desert combat, to be called by the Governor to stand with the Bundy family and their supporters as they insist on preserving their Constitutional rights.

The protest was strong.  The BLM has now released the Bundy cattle back to the Bundy family.  The agency said it was concerned about the safety of its employees and of the public but there was no concern for the rights of the citizens.  Is this the end of the dispute, or could the Clark County confrontation be just a preview of future conflict between the federal government and the citizens of various sovereign states?  Time will tell. 

Read the Constitution Party platform on Environment for a more information about the Constitution Party’s position on land use and ownership issues.

Stop Fighting the Fruit – Start Chopping the Root

Stop Fighting the Fruit – Start Chopping the Root

– 8 March 2014

 – by Robert W. Peck, Constitution Party of Washington state chairman –

axe-to-root-295 I’m always looking for the principle behind a thing, the key thing, the root thing, the thing that makes it all work. I can’t walk into a building without starting to analyze the structure to figure out which is a load-bearing wall, which is a facade, what holds this up and what supports that.I’m that way with politics and government too. I want to find the foundational principles that make for good government, the eternal truths that can tell me which policies are right or wrong. I want to make sure I’m getting to the root of the matter and am not being distracted by something superficial.

I realize not everyone is like me and I don’t expect you to be. However, there are times in life when we absolutely must understand what is at the root of a matter and make sure we are dealing with it at the source. If not, we’ll be destined to futility in our dealings with it and we’ll never be able to fix it when it’s broken. Think about it – you don’t go to a doctor just to talk with him about how you feel, then have him give you something to relieve those symptoms. You go to a doctor to have him correctly diagnose the root cause of the symptoms so you can fix the problem at its source.

Likewise, in matters of politics and civil government, we cannot afford to become distracted with superficial things that are mere symptoms of a more systemic, root matter. We risk getting caught up in treating the symptoms of our political ailment and failing to fight the disease at the root.

I was recently reminded of the importance of understanding key issues, principles and underlying causes while reviewing an article by Memphis attorney and 2008 Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee, Darrell Castle. In his article on “How the Republic Became a Monarchy,” Darrell went all the way back to President Woodrow Wilson, the 16th Amendment (the income tax) and the establishing of the Federal Reserve in order to show his readers how key things that happened 100 years ago are at the root of much of what we are dealing with today. I highly recommend a review of Darrell’s article, both for the sake of the information provided in it and as an exercise in learning to identify key issues that are at the root of our nation’s maladies. If you prefer, the same information is available as a four part series of audio podcasts (about 5 mins. each) at (Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4).

While I say this in love, seeking the best interest of my friends, brethren and fellow countrymen, I have to point out that the Christian-conervative-right has, in great part, lost sight of the key issues, root matters and foundational principles. We have become distracted with the symptoms of the diseases that plague our land and have come to devote the majority of our time and effort to suppressing the symptoms instead of eradicating the disease.

The conservative movement has become like a man with a tree in his backyard that is producing poisonous fruit. His strategy is to grab a stick and start swinging at whatever piece of fruit happens to catch his eye, hoping to knock some of it off the branch before it matures. But no matter how frantically he swings at the fruit, it keeps coming back faster than he can knock it down. He has become so distracted by his frenzied fight with the fruit on the branches that he fails to notice the root feeding the tree. If he would just take an ax and start chopping off the roots instead, he could rid himself of all the toxic fruit.

Through a combination of distraction and a forgetfulness of the foundational Biblical values, strict Constitutional limits and key principles of liberty, the conservative movement has come to a place of counting a slower loss as a win and the partial alleviating of a symptom as a major victory. Today’s conservatism appears to only be playing defense and is singularly devoted to the strategy of trying to slow the spread of the disease and ease some of the symptoms. My friend, former Montana State Representative, Rick Jore, refers to members of his former party who follow this strategy as, “Slow Death Republicans.”

Let’s look at just a few examples of key issues, root causes and foundational principles versus distractions and treating the symptoms.


How much time and energy did the conservative movement expend fighting to get, and later to keep, the so called “Bush tax cuts”? By the attention given to them, those tax cuts would appear to have been the conservative event of the decade and probably were the high water mark of conservative achievement during that period. But how much difference did those tax cuts actually make in your everyday life? How much more disposable income do you have now?

The fact is that those tax cuts only made a few minor adjustments to a huge, complex and evil system of taxation that a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress had it in their power to abolish – possibly by repealing the 16th Amendment, but at least by defunding and dismantling the IRS. Conservatives heralded as a tremendous victory this barely discernible relief brought to just one of the nation’s multitude of maladies. But the conservative movement, as represented by those to whom it had handed the reins of power, utterly passed up the opportunity to lay the ax to a major root providing the revenues that feed a plethora of un-Constitutional branches of government.


Conservatives spend massive amounts of time and energy fighting policies and agendas that come down through a vast maze of un-Constitutional and extra-Constitutional bureaus, agencies and programs. All forms of federal taxation combined are not sufficient to support the heavy load of all these agencies and programs. In other words, these can only exist through deficit spending – deficit spending that is facilitated by the existence of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create fiat funny money out of thin air, backed by nothing. During the conservative reign of complete Republican control from 2000 to 2006, the President and Congress had it within their power to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and restore Constitutionally authorized money coined by Congress and backed by gold. This would have chopped off another major root that feeds the branches of un-Constitutional government through deficit spending. But who in the dominant conservative movement or the Republican Party even alluded to this possibility, much less called for it?


This isn’t just happening at the federal level. The distraction from key issues and fundamental principles is taking place in the states too. Today’s brand of conservatism at the state level seems to consist of contending for performance audits and better management of the state’s many Great Society, welfare and social services programs. Conservative law makers tout it as a great victory whenever they can sustain the current state programs and agencies without raising taxes. But if the conservative movement were remembering its origins in the principles of liberty and limited government in the spirit of the American founders, it would be contending for the complete defunding and dismantling of every one of those socialist programs. And in case you think it’s the Democrats that won’t let them do it, keep in mind that fully half of the states are currently under complete Republican control with a majority in both houses and the governorship.


Today’s brand of conservatism thinks it is really taking a stand when it answers the education establishment’s demands for increased funding with timid suggestions that maybe we should audit the government schools first, or evaluate teacher performance. But the Bible teaches that the education of children is the sole responsibility and jurisdiction of parents. When government mandates and regulates the educating of children, it comes between parent and child, violates the God ordained order and is outside of its God given jurisdiction. When government taxes one man for the education of another man’s child, it now engages in legalized plunder, violation of that man’s liberty and establishes socialism. If conservatives were discerning the root matters and committed to fundamental principles, they would be calling for the abolition of government run education, not trying to “fix it.”


Just the other day, I received an email from a “conservative” legislator representing one of the most conservative districts in my state. One of the bragging points in his legislative report was that he had brought home the bacon to the tune of $1million for a “skills center” (aka vocational school). This is a foray by government into an area of education where many privately operated vocational schools and technical institutes have been meeting the need quite well. This is governments’ making the conscious choice to go into competition with existing private sector business and doing so with the advantage of being taxpayer-subsidized. Today’s “new conservatism” boasts that it brings home the bacon, gets us our “fair share” from the bucket of socialist slop and, by the way, it pats us on the back for being fiscally responsible, bragging that our “skills” center has the lowest cost per square foot of any similar socialist program across the state – boy, aren’t we conservative!

The Republicans are not in the majority in my state and may not have had anything to do with funding this particular program, but it’s sad when the best that the new conservatism can do is to congratulate ourselves as to what fiscally responsible socialists we are. Even if a legislator is not in a position to eliminate such socialistic programs from the state’s budget, couldn’t he, we, or the conservative movement, at least use an occasion like this as an opportunity to share a lesson on fundamental principles of liberty, limited government, private sector free enterprise and Biblical jurisdictions? How is anyone going to learn to discern socialism from liberty, or know that it’s bad and why it’s wrong when “conservative” legislators don’t speak out against it?

These are just a few examples that show us that the conservative movement has become distracted from the key issues and root matters and has ceased fighting the disease and settled for treating the symptoms instead. The new conservatism, as manifested by the Republican Party at least, now accepts socialism and prides itself on being able to make un-Constitutional, secular humanist, socialist, big government work better than the other party.

We need to learn to think like Americans again because we’ve obviously forgotten. May I recommend the short weekly commentaries of Institute on the Constitution co-founder and 2004 Constitution Party Presidential nominee, Michael Anthony Peroutka, at Subscribe today and in no time at all Michael will have you thinking like an American again and believing that “there is a God; our rights come from Him; government exists to protect those rights.”

May I challenge us to begin scrutinizing every political issue to discern the difference between key issues and mere distractions. Darrell Castle’s news and commentary podcsats can help with this. It only takes 5 minutes every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at

Then, once we’ve learned to tell the difference between the root and the fruit, let’s grab our ax and start chopping at the root.

Bob Peck is the writer of the American Perspective blog – Politics, government and society from a Christian and Constitutional perspective.   He is currently serving as Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington, and is the Senior Coordinator of the national CP Multimedia Group, his specialties being videographing and podcasting.  You can read more of his work at:

How The Republic Became A Monarchy

How the Republic Became a Monarchy

~ 26 February 2014 ~

by Darrell Castle, Executive Committee member and 2008 Vice-Presidential Candidate



Republic2Monarchy_article How did the United States change from the republic envisioned by the framers into a monarchy with its royal court that it has become today? I started thinking about this when I was analyzing the State of the Union speech given by President Barack Obama recently and I decided to go back and look at State of the Union speeches given in the past. What I found was that Thomas Jefferson, when he became President, decided not to give a State of the Union speech at all because he thought that walking out in front of a joint session of Congress reminded him of the British monarchy that the country had gone through a war to be rid of. Instead of a speech, he wrote a letter to Congress, intentionally vague, so that it wouldn’t seem like a royal decree and then he had a clerk read it out loud to the Congressmen and Senators.

The Constitution doesn’t require a speech. Article II, Section 3, says only that from time to time the President is required to give Congress information of the State of the Union and to recommend things for their consideration. That’s all that it requires. Jefferson’s example became a tradition that was carried on until it was broken by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. The 20th century, in many ways, became Wilson’s century as he brought into existence much of what we see today. In the very least he laid the groundwork of what we have become today.

Woodrow Wilson was the son of a preacher, but pursued a career as an academic. He taught at several colleges along the way before eventually taking a position at Princeton. He served as President of Princeton from 1902 to 1910. He served briefly as governor of New Jersey, 1911 into 1912, then he gained the Presidency in 1912. There was acrimony and division in the Republican Party that split the ranks and Wilson won with only 43% of the vote.

From the statement of his friends and various writings, he believed that he was ordained by God to hold the position of President – perhaps the early formation of a divine right philosophy. According to his biographer, this gave him an arrogance and a smugness which masqueraded as righteousness.



Wilson was a believer in the power of the state and he led the nation into centralization and bureaucracy. In 1913, when he took office, Congress, along with the Europeans, began handing to him the tools to attain the goals that he had for the nation. To accomplish what he wanted there had to be key changes in the power system as defined by the Constitution. The 16th Amendment giving Congress the power to tax incomes was passed in 1909, but after years of fighting was finally ratified in February 1913, just in time for Mr. Wilson’s use. The 17th Amendment calling for the direct election of US Senators was passed in 1912, but not ratified until April 1913, once again, just in time for Mr. Wilson.

These two amendments changed the power structure of the nation and altered the relationship between citizens and the federal government. Occurring so closely together, along with other things that happened a few months later, it was the equivalent of a second American revolution. The direct election of Senators greatly diminished the republican form of government envisioned by the founders in which the states had influence and even control of half of the legislative branch. Senators had previously been beholden to the state legislatures and this insulated them from day to day popular opinion. There was no need for the multi-million dollar election campaigns that we see today. This also focused the Senate on the interests of the states rather than being just another popular assembly. Direct election of Senators made them just another group of populist politicians.

The 16th and 17th Amendments contributed a great deal to the fundamental changes to the constitutional system that were necessary in order for President Wilson to complete his agenda for America. It seems that every President has his agenda and he has no shortage of people who want to help him accomplish it.

The 16th Amendment brought about the enactment of a national income tax during Mr. Wilson’s first year in office, but it was only on the “rich.” At that time, rich people were defined as those earning over $4,000 per year. In today’s terms, thanks to the Federal Reserve, that would be about $80,000 per year – not rich then and not rich now.

The important thing was that the dam was breached, the Rubicon crossed, or however you want to say it. The power to tax income was the thing holding back the march of federal power and purchased influence based on spending by the federal government. It was a short jump from that to the federal government’s being able to buy anything and anyone. Before Woodrow Wilson was President, federal government spending never exceeded 3% of gross domestic product except during the war of 1812 and the Civil War.

At that time, revenue was still derived constitutionally, that is, from customs, levies, import duties and other excises and tariffs. During Mr. Wilson’s two terms in office, spending rose to more than 20% of GDP. So Woodrow Wilson had broken the interest of the several states with the 17th Amendment and their influence was on the decline; he also had broken the dam holding back federal spending with the power to tax income.

He still had another river to cross however before his destruction of Constitutional government was complete and that was accomplished with his support of the Federal Reserve Act passed December 23, 1913, in the wee hours of the morning with Washington all but deserted for the Christmas holidays. You get a good look at the Federal Reserve and how it works from G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature From Jekyll Island and Eustace Mullins book, Secrets of the Federal Reserve. The name Jekyll Island comes from Jekyll Island, Georgia, where all the bankers went in secret to rewrite and take control of the United States financial system.

The Federal Reserve Act stated that its purposes were:

  1. To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks;
  2. To furnish an “elastic currency” (they’ve certainly done that haven’t they?);
  3. To afford means of re-discounting commercial paper;
  4. To establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States and, 
  5. For “other purposes.”

The Fed was composed of a board of governors in Washington DC and 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. By statute, the responsibilities of these banks are to:

  1. Conduct the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the money and credit conditions in the economy;
  2. Supervise and regulate banking institutions to ensure safety and soundness of the nation ‘s banking and financial system; 
  3. Maintain the stability of the financial system; 
  4. Provide certain financial services to the U.S. government financial institutions and to public and foreign official institutions including a major role in operating the nation’s payment system.

The Federal Reserve was created as, and has followed hard to remain, “an independent central bank.” This is a totally European concept reflecting the need to provide banking services to the sovereigns – so “welcome to America Mr. Monarch.” The Fed is independently run within the government and its decisions do not have to be ratified by Congress, the President or anyone.

It is still, however, a creature of government and the creature is not greater than its creator. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to coin money and to set its value and therefore Congress maintains oversight over it. Thanks to Mr. Wilson’s assistance in 1913, Congress delegated, or assigned, its power to coin money and regulate its value to the Federal Reserve. It could take it back however, any time. Congress could simply repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and it would be back in control of the nation’s monetary system.

In simple terms, folks, the Federal Reserve is a European style central bank that can create on its own authority and subject only to very weak indirect oversight by Congress, credit denominated in U.S. dollars. It is now a credit based economy – that’s the way it’s run.

The 16th Amendment, which gave the President power to tax income, broke the dam holding back federal spending. The 17th Amendment broke the Congress’s connection to the states. The Federal Reserve gave control of the U.S. monetary system to the banks, thus President Wilson was handed in his first year in office, a credit backed elastic fiat currency. These were the beginnings of the enlargement of federal government power based on spending financed by taxes, borrowing and its resultant national debt.



Like President Obama now, Wilson meant to transform America, and like Obama, Congress gave him the tools to do it. As Wilson put it, he wanted to “put government at the service of humanity.” But as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure our God given rights, not to serve humanity.

Mr. Wilson, again like Mr. Obama, was an activist in pushing government expansion and in getting government-expanding legislation through Congress. Such legislation as the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and the Federal Farm Loan Act in 1916, brought the federal government into the daily lives and the living rooms of Americans everywhere. You may recall that Congress recently passed a $1 trillion farm bill now some 98 years after this organization was formed.

Mr. Wilson, like Mr. Obama, embroiled the United States in foreign wars including bringing the U.S. into the Mexican civil war and even invading Mexico and sending U.S. troops into Russia to oppose the Bolshevik Revolution. This is the 100th anniversary of World War I which began in Europe in 1914. The U.S. would not officially enter that war until three years later however.

Mr. Wilson was very lopsided in monitoring policy against neutral and not at war countries in World War I. He did not seek a balanced neutrality in the early years of the war. Once it started, he forbade U.S. banks from making loans to the warring powers yet permitted the banks to extend large “credits” to the French and British. In effect, the U.S. was bankrolling the war just as we do yet today in wars across the Middle East. Possibly, without the United States’ elastic currency, the countries would have run out of cash and that very unnecessary war would have ended much earlier.

Many countries were sucked into the war as it went on and on and on, ruining many lives across Europe. Much as today, U.S. credit policies perpetuated war, thus allowing it to get worse and worse, leading directly to German submarine warfare against the supply convoys.

The U.S. population was strongly against U.S. troops being involved in this European war, much as they are today. The production of war materials however led to economic boom times in the U.S., all funded by credit much as it is funded today.

In 1916 Wilson ran for his second term on the slogan, “he kept us out of war”, just as President Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq which is now worse than ever. Less than 90 days after his inauguration for a second term, Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson sought to control opposition to his war policies with laws designed to limit free speech and political dissent. The elastic currency of the Federal Reserve funded the war as Wilson continued his domestic agenda at home, much as we do today. Under Woodrow Wilson, America got its first introduction to the warfare state.



Wilson’s impact on America is hard to over estimate. He dominated the 20th century to the extent that no one alive today has ever experienced anything but a Wilsonian world. No one alive today can remember a time when the world at large worked any other way than the Wilsonian way.

His effort to make the peace in his image has involved America in internationalist, globalist government that still exists 100 years later. It required certain assumptions about America and about the world. Certain things about America had to change. He had the power to tax income and he had the Federal Reserve and its elastic currency with which to carry out his plans. Most nations were not so fortunate. One thing is clear though, looking back from 100 years of history, if Woodrow Wilson had not become President, the United States would have had a far different 20th century.

In one sense, Wilson simply copied, or carried forward, the centralized debt-financed government model created by Otto von Bismarck in Germany 40 years earlier. So we ask ourselves then, was he an innovator? Did he invent this welfare-warfare state or simply copy the diagrams created by others?

Could then the U.S central bank, the Federal Reserve, have come into existence without Wilson? There is little room for doubt that the bankers needed their man in the White House in order to bring their plan into existence and push their legislation through Congress. Without the Federal Reserve, how would the world economy that has evolved have been financed?  Without Wilson’s influence, would the income tax and credit based economy have existed in time to feed the engines of World War I.

Without Wilson, would the war to make the world safe for democracy have lasted so long, torn apart European civilization and destroyed a whole generation of young men? Would a corporal in the German army in 1918 named Adolf Hitler have risen in only 14 years to become chancellor of Germany?

Absent World War I, would an obscure lawyer named Franklin Roosevelt have become Secretary of the Navy and then elevated himself into the Presidency of the United States? How would soldiers such as Douglas MacArthur, Harry Truman, George Patton and most of the leaders of the 20th Century world have been trained and formed?

Would the war have lasted so long and been so expensive that Russia descended into revolution and chaos leading to Lenin, Stalin and the deaths of 70 to 100 million people? Would the Ottoman Empire have collapsed and dissolved spawning the modern Middle East and allowing Great Britain to draw the lines of nations on invisible maps – paper-forming countries that are even today at war and threatening to break apart?

Would the concept of world government a la the League of Nations, leading later to the United Nations, have formed in the minds of men? Would the rise of Hitler and Mussolini from the ashes of Europe have occurred? Would the Holocaust have occurred – the slaughter of World War II after the draconian peace terms forced on Germany by Wilson and the allied powers? Would the development of nuclear weapons and their use have occurred?

Would the Bretton Woods Agreement, giving the U.S. reserve currency status, have occurred? Would the United States have embarked on a 60 year pattern of no-win wars against unknown enemies such as communism and terror? Would we have arrived in 2014 with $17.5 trillion of debt and the Federal Reserve now printing $65 billion a month?

Who knows the answers to all these questions, folks?  But they are worth contemplating as we observe the path of America’s descent from Constitutional Republic into the monarchy we have become.

Darrell Castle is the creator and voice of The Castle Report, a tri-weekly podcast examining the issues affecting Americans from a constitutional and historical perspective.  He is a former USMC combat officer in Vietnam, a private practice attorney, member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party, and served as the 2008 Vice-presidential candidate for the Constitution Party.   Listen to more podcasts at: