On several occasions, I’ve mentioned that I am a political nomad, at this point. The Republican party has left me and is now the Trumplican party. Its ideology is one I no longer recognize, nor do I identify with it.
My faith will not allow me to stand with Trump.
Principle over party.
For that same reason, I could never see myself standing with any Democrat, much less Hillary Clinton.
In weeks past, I’ve mentioned that I was considering the platform of the Constitution Party, and their ticket, Darrell Castle and Scott Bradley. Since that time, there have been several write-ups here at RedState that are pretty critical of Mr. Castle and the Constitution Party.
What I’m finding with those who have a problem with Castle is that they fall into one of two categories:
- He’s not Gary Johnson.
- He’s not Ted Cruz.
With the Johnson supporters, I get it. You want a third party and you feel more inclined to lean towards the Libertarians.
The Cruz folks puzzle me, however. They’re trying to hold a spot for Cruz that won’t be open for at least 4 years. It doesn’t make sense to try and torpedo any conservative not named Cruz, in the meantime. They also seem to (wrongly) feel that Cruz is the only true defender of the Constitution, yet, a party built on Constitutional purity is abhorrent to them, and anyone attempting to launch a candidacy built on that Constitutional purity without Ted Cruz’s stamp of approval is rejected.
Bizarre train of thought, but our freedom to choose a side, no matter the reason, is one that won’t be denied us.
In the meantime, I sought out Mr. Castle with a few pointed questions, in the hopes of presenting an unvarnished look at the candidate, not based on any biases or favor for one candidate over another. He was good enough to answer those questions, in some detail.
SW: What is it that you see going on in this nation today that makes the Constitution Party a necessity, heading into the future?
DC: Neither of the candidates for the two major parties understand the need for Constitutional government. Mrs. Clinton knows about it, knows that it exists and that she has to occasionally mention it but she has no regard for it and no intention of ever following it.
Mr. Trump knows nothing about it and cares nothing about it. His attitude is that it is like a curious national keepsake; interesting but not to be examined too closely.
It is, in fact the supreme law of the land. It is what separates us from others. Without it the phrases “we are a nation of laws and not of men” and “we are all created equal” and “the rule of law” are at best clichés and actually lies.
When Mrs. Clinton set up her private email she knew it was wrong and she also knows that the “rule of law” that is defined as no one above the laws sanction and no one beneath its protection is dead. She knew she would not be prosecuted because she knew there is a separate law for people like her.
When the general public wakes up to that fact, I fear the result will be violent.
There is still time to restore the rule of law to America.
SW: Given the struggle of third parties to break past the stranglehold of the “Big Two” party system in this nation, what needs to happen at the grassroots level to make the Constitution Party real competitors for voter consideration?
DC: The people in the third party movements and those who are coming their way have to finally give up on getting anything from the establishment and vow to stop begging for scraps from the establishment table. When that happens the grassroots will begin to see through and ignore the defamatory attacks by agents of the establishment and just continue to march. In addition, the grass roots must develop the numbers, the passion, and the stamina to press on despite the odds until the right moment when the establishment finally collapses as it inevitably will.
We must come to realize that when we seek to limit government to its Constitutional boundaries, we will be ignored and hated. We must toughen ourselves to endure the persecution until we achieve victory because failure is not an option.
SW: Why are you running on the Constitution Party ticket? What is your personal philosophy of government?
DC: I am running on the Constitution Party ticket because I want to restore the Constitution to what it says it is, the supreme law of the land. I want to run a 10th Amendment Presidency and return liberty to individuals and sovereignty to the states.
SW: When considering the choices for a running mate, what is it about Scott Bradley that made him a fit for your campaign?
DC: I’ve known Scott for at least 20 years and consider him a dear friend. I know that he is very well versed in the Constitution and the original intent of the founders. He is from Utah and is very knowledgeable about the land issues especially in the West where the federal government owns a great deal of those states. I would like to see those lands returned to the people.
SW: Many Christians who might otherwise find the Constitution Party a suitable ideological home may be hesitant to take that leap because of what they see as an almost “isolationist” foreign policy, that would exclude partnership and protections of Israel… a very important issue for Christians. How do you address those concerns?
DC: Christians and others will have to listen and read for themselves about my foreign policy rather than gather it from the establishment or mainstream media. People will have to understand that the mainstream will always be hostile to anyone that challenges the status quo and therefore will report in a biased fashion. Any policy that does not involve an entry into every rattlesnake’s nest around the world is not isolationist, instead it is peace. War should be used for the defense of the United States only. I remind people that the president takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution doesn’t permit most of the international interventions that we engage in.
Foreign military adventure is not international engagement, it is war. International engagement is trade for which I am a great supporter. We should trade with all nations who want to trade with us in as friendly a manner as possible.
As for Israel I’ve outlined my policy many times. Israel is a most important ally in the Middle East and for the most part Israel’s enemies are our enemies. I am against foreign aid for anyone since there is no Constitutional basis for it, but I know that if we cut off the billions in aid to Israel’s enemies and potential enemies, Israel would not need our help. We provide much aid, a lot of it military, to countries that have previously been enemies of Israel and without that Israel would not need to be an American dependent. It seems to me that maintaining a dependent nation is a Democrat policy. Israel has more than 300 nuclear weapons as well as the systems to deliver them on target. Those are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the major cities of all their enemies. The Israelis are therefore fully capable of defending themselves. I would not sit by and watch Israel be overrun and conquered, but at the same time, I don’t believe that could ever happen.
SW: A lot of Republicans have been turned off by the current state of the party and are looking at the Constitution Party. While they may agree that our borders have gone unprotected for far too long and illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and issues of this nature are a drag on our system, they still disagree with the Republican nominee and the angry rhetoric he has pushed. What is the Constitution Party answer to the border and immigration problem?
DC: Immigration should be stopped completely until the borders are secure. We have an obligation as a nation to secure our borders and the Federal Government is Constitutionally obligated to protect the states from invasion. Once the borders are secure enough that we know who is coming and why, we can admit as many people as we want. The borders should be secured by whatever means prove necessary just as this nation should be defended from attack by whatever means available and necessary.
I would not be in favor of granting asylum to those here illegally but neither would I deport them wholesale.
SW: A final question: In the first 100 days of a Castle administration, what would be the first priority?
DC: In the first 100 days I would move the United States to withdraw from the United Nations so that we could be a free and independent country able to make our way in the world with leaders accountable to the American people. I would explain to the American people why I think that action is necessary.
I would move Congress to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and take back control of our monetary policy and I would explain that to the American people as well. That would be a necessary start to a growing, dynamic economy.
The debt needs to be addressed quickly and I would do that in conjunction with ending the Federal Reserve.
At the same time I would be starting the process of defunding Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Life needs to be recognized for the God given gift that it is.
I thank Mr. Castle for his willingness to answer my questions.
For you, the reader, and those who may be honestly seeking a new ideological home, this will hopefully give you at least a starting point for your search.