Darrell Castle Vs. Evan McMullin


Image Courtesy of Anne Heimer


Overview: Darrell Castle, Tom Hoefling, Chris Keniston, and Evan McMullin

The #NeverTrump phenomenon this election cycle brought about a unique opportunity for minor center-to-right parties to draw attention and potential support that would normally not be possible. These rare but auspicious circumstances intensified the battle for ballot access and supporters.

Despite there being three minor parties and an independent, only one candidate on the right managed to top 20 state ballots, not including write-ins. Only 2 conservatives achieved access in over 3 state ballots, not including write-ins. These were the Constitution Party’s nominee, Darrell Castle, and Independent candidate Evan McMullin.

Tom Hoefling of America’s Party and Chris Keniston of the Veteran’s Party of America only succeeded in obtaining access to 2-3 states apiece, plus write-ins. Therefore, they are being disregarded in this evaluation. I have researched all four extensively and have detailed information on all. If you would like to message me, I won’t mind filling you in on any of the four. This isn’t a quick read, but it should be intriguing and informative enough to keep you drawn in. Please take 5-10 minutes of your day to read through this comparison, as it will certainly leave you much more knowledgeable of both candidates, even if you feel you’ve already made your choice. All information has sources linked, just have some extra time because there’s lots of information.


Chris Keniston of the Veteran’s Party of America, a centrist party



Tom Hoefling of America’s Party


Castle and McMullin Emerge

Castle and McMullin have emerged, yet many have limited to no knowledge of them or their policies. Intuition has dictated to me that a review is in order. I will detail the stances in which these two differ, citing sources, from the perspective of a Christian constitutional conservative. By constitutional, I mean originalist interpretation. By Conservative, I mean the only form of conservatism that is compatible with constitutionism, paleo-conservatism, or the Old Right. Neo-conservatism is more in line with authoritarianism; pro-globalization of economy, military, banking, and government; and while preaching small government, can’t achieve small government due to its inherently big government, high cost solutions. Also provided will be available background information, their backers, and party affiliations with brief overviews.

A points system will be used based on importance of issue from a Constitutionist‘s perspective. In an effort to keep the editorial confined to a reasonable length, I will be combining multiple issues into each individual section. There are 6 sections that equal 600 points, the grand total will be divided by 6 to give a total possible score of 100. If no historical facts can be found in a particular subsection, only partial credit will be given until, or unless, someone can present irrefutable evidence otherwise.


Ballot Access, Motives, History, Experience, Openness/Integrity, Religion-100 pts.

Ballot Access – 30 pts., Religion – 30 pts., Experience – 20 pts., Motives, Openness/Integrity, History – 20 pts.

Like it or not, viability is just as important as policy. For minor parties this is a never-ending battle. Constitution Party nominee, Darrell Castle is confirmed on 24 state ballots and is realistically expected to be a write-in candidate on all others except for 3-4. Independent candidate, Evan McMullin is on 11 confirmed state ballots (although some claim 12) and is a write-in candidate on approximately 20 other state ballots. Ballot Access has already concluded in all 50 states, and write-in availability is nearing the end. McMullin claims that he can obtain more access through the court system, but ballot access expert Richard Winger of Ballot Access News states that it is highly unlikely.

Ballot Access: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-10 pts.

Religion wouldn’t be deemed an important aspect of a candidate among the left, but for us on the right that isn’t the case. While it isn’t a pre-requisite for many of us, it is a plus. Darrell Castle has served as a deacon and a deacon chairman at Forest Hill Baptist Church and now attends St. Patrick Presbyterian Church. He was raised with strong Christian ethics on his parents’ farm in East Tennessee. He and his wife, Joan, founded Mia’s Children Foundation in 1992, a Christian mission in Romania aiding homeless Gypsy children. Mr. Castle’s party, the Constitution Party, is the only national party (of the 5 recognized nationally by the FEC) to profess Jesus Christ. It does so in the Constitution Party Platform Preamble. Mr. Castle’s running mate, Dr. Scott Bradley, is also a devout Christian. He is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and served a two year mission. Like Dr. Scott Bradley, Evan McMullin is a devout Mormon. He served as a missionary for two years in Brazil. Mr. McMullin stated in a recent interview with Freedom Crossroads, “I’ve grown to value my faith as something that when I live it well, I feel closer to God and I feel like a better human being in every way. Obviously none of us are perfect and neither am I, but that’s what I’ve learned over the years. And my faith has grown more important to me over time.”

Religion: Castle-30 pts. McMullin-30 pts.


Experience can be subjective to the beholder. Some would view a politician such as Richard Shelby, U.S. Senator from Alabama since 1986, as experienced in a positive light. Many others (like myself), however, would view this as a negative and nothing more than the type of establishment politician that is populating Washington D.C. like cockroaches. While neither candidate is quite so “experienced”, they are politically seasoned in their own distinct ways.

Darrell Castle is an attorney of over 30 years who was one of the five founding members of the Constitution Party in 1992. He earned a BS degree in Political Science and History from East Tennessee State University and a Juris Doctor from Memphis State University (now the University of Memphis). Politically, Mr. Castle’s experience is comprised of: two terms as the Constitution Party of Tennessee State Chairman; three terms as the Vice-Chairman of the National Committee of the Constitution Party; two terms as the Platform Chairman of the National Convention of the Constitution Party; 2007 Chairman of the National Veterans Coalition, an outreach of the National Constitution Party; and the 2008 Constitution Party Vice-Presidential Candidate, running mate of Pastor Chuck Baldwin. Mr. Castle also provides educational materials through periodic podcasts called The Castle Report and was Instructor of the Institute on the Constitution course. For Mr. Castle’s Vice-Presidential Candidate’s extensive experience as well, click here.Military Experience will be covered later on for both Presidential Candidates.

Evan McMullin was a Republican until his Independent bid for President this year. His educational experience includes a BA degree in International Law and Diplomacy from Brigham Young University and an MBA from the University of Pennsylvania – The Wharton School. Mr. McMullin’s political experience (CIA experience will be included in military section) consists of: United Nations Volunteer Refugee Resettlement Officer; U.S. House of Representatives Senior Advisor, Committee on Foreign Affairs; U.S. House of Representatives Chief Policy Director, Republican Conference; and Council on Foreign Relations member (CFR) since 2011. Mr. McMullin’s private sector experience, as well as some of his political experience will be expounded upon in the next section. Neither candidate has held a government elected office.

Experience: Castle-15 pts. McMullin-15pts.

Motives, openness, integrity, and history will be addressed in this section. Some of this will be hard to swallow for certain, current supporters. But these intangibles must be addressed if one is to be sufficiently informed. Only half of the story will be elaborated upon in this section, however. The rest will be presented at the end of the next section, in the subsection entitled “Structure/Involvement/Path”. One of the first things I noticed as I began watching through the plethora of interviews of both candidates was the value of content of the interviews. While Darrell Castle hasn’t received the mainstream press bestowed upon Evan McMullin, his interviews seem to be much more substantive. This could have much to do with the time limitations on the mainstream media segments, but Mr. McMullin could easily accept some less prestigious interviews in order to reveal more substance, especially considering the vagueness of his Presidential Platform. That doesn’t often happen. When pressed for detail on anything except foreign policy, I’ve noticed that Mr. McMullin tends to give generic responses. He often focuses more on Donald Trump than policy. Eerily similar to Gary Johnson, who has been courting the left since his nomination, Evan rarely criticizes Hillary Clinton. Just to be sure that I wasn’t looking at this through tainted lenses, I decided to choose three random sets of ten consecutive tweets on Evan McMullin’s Twitter account and record my findings. The first set rendered a guilty verdict of 7 anti-Trump tweets to 2 anti-Hillary out of 10. The final tweet referenced neither. Zero pertained to, nor referenced his own policies. In the second set of ten Tweets Mr. McMullin didn’t reference either candidate, as he was tweeting with respects to several interviews he had lined up during that timeframe. In the third set of ten, Evan made 4 anti-Trump Tweets to only 1 anti-Clinton Tweet. The same experiment with the Darrell Castle Campaign account rendered very different results, no mentions of either candidate in any of the thirty Tweets. In fact, the only instance I found either mentioned in a passive scan of his Twitter feed was during the Presidential Debate, in which he had planned on Live-Tweeting his responses.

Why this obsession with Donald Trump? There are likely many reasons. Some will be addressed in “Structure/Involvement/Path”, but I’ll touch on a few likely motives now, as well as some speculation (which won’t be counted in the evaluation). The first and most obvious answer is that Evan McMullin considers himself to be the #NeverTrump Candidate. However, many feel that McMullin is more liberal than he leads on. This may be evidenced in his Facebook feed, in which 3 years of posts were scoured by Conservative Review writer Maggie Gallagher in her August 12th article ‘I Read Evan McMullin’s Facebook Page So That You Don’t Have To‘. The first subtitle was ‘Spoiler Alert: He’s not the savior conservatives are hoping for.’ The two most telling sentences in the entire piece were “In three years of Facebook posts, he never commented on a domestic issue, economic or social. He never said anything on any specific issue that a diehard Democrat couldn’t applaud.” Mrs. Gallagher did inform her readers that his feed was filled with anti-Trump rhetoric. There’s nothing wrong with that, unless of course it isn’t accompanied by any anti-Hillary, anti-liberal, or anti-globalist views as well. Perhaps this is why Mr. McMullin often reiterates that he is a conservative repetitively in each interview, to convince his followers of the same.

“In three years of Facebook posts, he never commented on a domestic issue, economic or social. He never said anything on any specific issue that a diehard Democrat couldn’t applaud.” – Maggie Gallagher of the Conservative Review

While supporters of either candidate scowl at the implication of a binary election, one must question his intentions with such a late start, such limited available ballot access, and the arrogant dismissal of so many minor party candidates with so much more relevance than his own. Three candidates have access to 50 state ballots, plus Washington D.C. Green Party’s Jill Stein and Darrell Castle have access in over 20 states. Even Reform Party Candidate “Rocky” De La Fuente and Gloria La Riva, presidential nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, have more access than Mr. McMullin. That totals seven campaigns more viable than Evan’s… When pressed during an interview (3:40 mark) at ABC, McMullin flippantly dismissed the credibility of the Green Party and Gary Johnson. In contrast, decades of fighting the duopoly of the Democrat and Republican establishment parties who control ballot access in states across the nation have manufactured a much different regard for minor parties and their candidates in the eyes of Darrell Castle. For instance, in one interview (10:15 mark) Darrell Castle explains how he has fought alongside Green Party leadership for almost a decade against the State of Tennessee, despite being political opposites. Besides informing candidates that he’s the best option, Castle has never disparaged or dismissed other minor party candidates to my knowledge, even when it may have been politically expedient to do so.

While McMullin embraces global solutions to most issues and promotes the need for a continued empirical American presence throughout the world, Castle is quite the opposite – so much so that one of two primary criticisms have been that he is an anti-NWO, Alex Jones-type, conspiracy theorist by Neil Stevens, Gary Johnson hack. In fact, 20 hours prior to his aforementioned article, he wrote a plea to Gary Johnson. The other criticism is the absurd “birther” accusation, spawned by Castle’s April, 2015 podcast in which he reported on the Ted Cruz announcement for his candidacy. This hysteria was fueled by Mr. Stevens’ fellow writer (actually a diarist, not a columnist), Republican Party loyal, Michael Harrington. Michael has since taken the entry down, likely due to its slanderous nature. Objective research into the exact phrasing of the cited sources into both reveals that Castle is as reasonable and full of integrity as always. This didn’t sway Castle from addressing the two hit pieces, consequently. Another rebuttal, of the many, can be found here.

Motives, Openness/Integrity, History: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

Section 1 Total Out of 100: Castle-85 pts. McMullin-60 pts.

Life/Abortion Stance, 2nd Amendment, States’ Powers/Constitutional Interpretation (Nullification/SCOTUS Supremacy), Structure/Involvement/Path-100 pts.

Life/Abortion – 30 pts., 2nd Amendment – 25 pts., States’ (Rights) Powers/Constitutional Interpretation – 25 pts., Structure/Involvement/Path – 20 pts.


Both, Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle, appear to be staunchly pro-life, anti-abortion candidates.

Abortion: Castle-30 pts. McMullin-30 pts.

The 2nd Amendment is a staple for conservatives of any type. Unless one is a moderate, most do not condone restrictions of any type. For constitutionists, restrictions, nor licensing requirements are acceptable. We view “Shall not be infringed” as just that! Darrell Castle despises bureaucracy of any type, especially at the federal level. Castle is adamantly in favor of any law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms without restriction. Evan McMullin’s ‘The Second Amendment‘ section of his campaign site launches into a sermon of stalwart conservatism on the issue. He condemns Hillary Clinton’s long record of draconian restrictions on the 2A, then chastises Donald Trump’s earlier support for Bill Clinton’s so-called assault weapon’s ban and his recent declaration of support for gunrestrictions against anyone on no-fly lists or terror watch lists. But then something strange happens, the last half of the page evolves into a list of “common sense” solutions that “politicians should be seeking”. So much for the sanctimonious talk of constitutional rights… The last subsection is labeled ‘Keeping Guns Out of the Wrong Hands’. It proceeds “While defending the Second Amendment, we must also keep weapons out of the hands of those who would do us harm.” He then goes into politician mode on the issue.

2nd Amendment: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-18 pts.

States’ (Rights) Powers and Constitutional Interpretation are easily among the top four underrated matters in regards to truly getting our constitutional republic back on track. Included in the topic of States’ Powers is the issue of State Nullification as a means to combat the activist, runaway Supreme Court, and the common misconception of its supremacy over the states. Citing Supreme Court rulings to a Constitutionist is about as effective as citing the calories in a T-Bone steak to an 80 lbs. vegan female. It isn’t. With this said, Darrell Castle is a steadfast originalist who espouses the concept of State Nullification. Evan McMullin, on the other hand, consistently mentions Supreme Court rulings. One particular example is the Second Amendment, another is in his defense of gay marriage, in which he doubled down on expressing that the Supreme Court had spoken and that it should be left alone.

Article 1, Section 8

It’s imperative to understand the role that the Constitution plays in limiting its creation, the federal government, to its 17 (some say 18) enumerated powers – enumerated as in separately listed, counted, or numbered. Understanding the nature of this role, one realizes that a power must be expressly delegated to the federal government in order for it to be valid. This is the antithesis of the present-day notion that if it isn’t forbidden by the Constitution then it’s fair game for the government. Furthermore, one must also come to comprehend the significance of the Separation of Powers elaborated in the Constitution. Understanding such, federal agencies under the executive branch usurp power intended for the legislative branch. Even if originally created by the legislative branch, the authority was never given for it to delegate powers and authority to federal agencies. Therefore, the myriad of acronym, Alphabet Soup federal agencies are illegitimate. When one has this epiphany many other flaws, such as overspending, national debt, overregulation, etc., are illuminated. Darrell Castle calls for the elimination of all unconstitutional federal agencies (21:25 mark), with the onus on the government to validate to him their existence. I have not once witnessed a proposal by Mr. McMullin to close a single agency, while I have read mention of changing the role of some, such as the ATF.

States’ Powers/Constitutional Interpretation: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

In an earlier section I stated that the story of motives and history would pick back up in the “Structure/Involvement/Path” section. We have arrived. In that section I touched on Evan McMullin’s purpose in the race. There will be two major topics examined here, Evan’s history (path) and the history of his candidacy, including those involved with the development of his campaign and its premise.

Evan McMullin’s Education and Employment History: As stated earlier, Mr. McMullin’s BA degree was in International Law and Diplomacy. This marks the onset of his evolution into a worldview of globalism and one world government.

A constitutionist and paleo-conservative typically hold strong sentiments of national sovereignty and despise UN or global organizations that circumvent our Constitution. Those who are well studied (this book is an excellent source for ALL of the following, free pdf) in post-Civil War U.S. are usually aware of the effects of the Rothschilds; The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); the central banking cartel that created the Federal Reserves; the IMF/World Bank; the UN; EU; NAFTA (and now TPP, which McMullin supports); APEC; GATT; Agenda 21; the Fabian Society; the New Deal; the Great Society; the climate change agenda; the war on Christianity; and how they are all intertwined as part of a larger effort to bring about a socialist one world government through gradualism. If all of this sounds foreign and you believe I need a tin-foil hat, then please stop reading this and study.

All of that said, there will be a section on anti-globalization. But as far as “Path” is council-on-foreign-relations-01concerned, Evan McMullin studied international law, worked for the CIA (not necessarily bad in itself, simply establishing a timeline), worked with the UN, worked for Goldman Sachs as a Foreign Investment Banking Associate, then the House of Representatives as a Senior Advisor on Foreign Affairs, then as a Chief Policy Director of the House Republican Conference.

Now we arrive to the recruitment of Mr. McMullin. Many will recall that early this year when Donald Trump became the front-runner of the Republican Party Primaries, Bill Kristol began searching profusely for a candidate to make a considerable Independent bid for the Presidency, or at least to stop Donald Trump. In one interview he stated that he would rather see Hillary Clinton as President than Donald Trump. This tainted the seemingly pure #NeverTrump motives that he portrayed. Over the course of a few months a Super PAC, Better For America, formed and began to work on ballot access with unimpressive results. This organization was to pave the way for the moderate neo-con savior that Kristol was searching for. After being turned down by Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Rick Perry, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Tom Coburn, and (ret) General James Mattis, Kristol turned to writer David French. Eventually David French declined and the movement stagnated. Why would this movement not back a non-establishment candidate like Darrell Castle? The answer is simple, his message would do more damage to the Washington establishment than Donald Trump, who is arguably more establishment than any of the other 16 GOP candidates, could ever dream of doing in regards to causing the implosion of the D.C. (and world) power structure.

Evan McMullin accepted the Kristol challenge and utilized Better For America. He broke the news on Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. Evan states that he waited for a candidate with more name recognition to enter the race and when no one did, he jumped in. Involved in the effort are political consultant Rick Wilson, who states that the GOP donor class must “put a bullet in” Donald Trump; and  Romney Bundler Ron Kingston. After these and others formed the Better For America PAC, a new Super PAC was formed in order to help fund Evan’s efforts. This new PAC is call “Stand Up America” and is founded by Democrat Strategist for Ballot Access, CEO and founder of the progressive Forward Progress in Politics (FPPCO), and fellow CFR member, Kahlil Byrd along with GOP finance attorney Chris Ashby; joining them is Democrat strategist Ileana Wachtel. So why would a Democrat crew, not only back, but spearhead the primary Super PAC funding a supposed conservative? Only two reasons: either to help a Democrat win, or because they agree more with Mr. McMullin ideologically than he would like to be known. Recently McMullin tweeted support for establishment Senator McCain over his conservative primary competitor and has sent pro-Boehner tweets as well.  If you are the moderate, establishment, globalist type, then McMullin is likely your man.

Contrarily, Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party fights tooth and nail for likeminded supporters and private funding every election cycle. All campaign operatives are volunteers. You won’t find evidence of massive Super PAC’s headed by liberal strategists or big bank and CFR connections within any of the Constitution Party campaigns. In fact, constitutionpartythe Constitution Party is so principled that it would not compromise on its foreign policy plank in 2008 when a promising future arose with Alan Keyes joining the ranks and making a bid for the Constitution Party nomination. Such a big, conservative name would have worked wonders for party recognition, but the party rejected the change on principle. It refuses to allow unconstitutional or un-founding-father-like persuasion to affect the incorruptible platform on major issues. While many consider the lack of monetary support an insurmountable hurdle, and it likely is, it is also exceedingly refreshing to find actual statesmen and women in politics, rather than elite politicians for a change.

Structure/Involvement/Path: Darrell Castle-15 pts. Evan McMullin-5 pts.

Section 2 Total Out of 100: Castle-95 pts. McMullin-58 pts.

4th Amendment, Education, Religious Freedom/1st Amendment, and Defense Strength-100 pts.

4th Amendment – 25 pts., Education – 25 pts., Religious Freedom/1st Amendment – 25 pts., Defense Strength – 25 pts.

From this point forward, the sections will be significantly shorter.

cyber-securityBoth candidates seem to appreciate the gravity of the 4th Amendment. This is quite refreshing considering there are so many mainstream candidates who so readily give that right away. Darrel Castle   –   Evan McMullin

4th Amendment: Darrell Castle-25 pts. Evan McMullin-25 pts.

The founding fathers discussed at length whether to include education in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government. Education was not a subject that they were passive about. This is evidenced in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 in Article 3, “Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” The key word being “encouraged”, not “ordered” or “dictated”. In fact, the first draft of the new Constitution included education, (41:40 & 43:30 mark) but was purposely removed. Later proponents of federalizing education in that era all came to the same conclusion, that an Amendment to the Constitution would need ratified if education were to be added.

With this being said, both candidates vehemently oppose Common Core. Both candidates are ardent supporters of parental rights in education and bringing control of education back to the state and local levels. However, Darrell Castle opposes federal involvement in education at all, including abolishment of the Department of Education, the constitutionally sound solution. Evan McMullin, on the other hand, supports a statist solution of holding universities financially responsible for student loans of those who “dropout” of college. His ‘Education‘ plank of his platform states,”…the government doesn’t hold universities accountable for students’ graduation rates or ability to repay their loans. To make sure that universities have skin in the game, they should have to repay a portion of the debt incurred by students who fail to graduate or default on their loans.” So let me get this straight… I can attend a university under an Evan McMullin administration, booze it up (as many college students do), and quit college on the university’s dime? I understand that the system is severely flawed, but that’s due to government involvement, not the free market. Why would the answer be more government interference? Evan also is apparently not opposed to Federal Aid, as he states “…the current model of accreditation makes it extremely difficult for students at non-traditional programs to qualify for federal aid”. Although he speaks of decentralization, his plank contradicts that view.

Education: Darrell Castle-25 pts. Evan McMullin-20 pts.

Religious freedom and 1st Amendment issues seem to be a strong suit of both candidates. There were no Gary Johnson type “Bake the Cake, Jew” instances that I could find on either.

Religious Freedom/1A: Darrell Castle-25 pts. Evan McMullin-25 pts.

Defense is obviously an enormous strength for Evan McMullin. I have no doubt that he would not decrease military funding. In fact, I’ll credit Mr. McMullin with a 5 point bonus in this area. With Darrell Castle’s non-interventionist foreign policy, what would military funding and defense strength look like under his administration? Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party believe we should maintain a strong, Reagan-like ‘Peace Through Strength’ policy, as detailed in the ‘Defense’ plank of the Constitution Party Platform, stating “We call for the maintenance of a strong, state-of-the-art military on land, sea, in the air, and in space. We urge the executive and legislative branches to continue to provide for the modernization of our armed forces, in keeping with advancing technologies and a constantly changing world situation. We call for the deployment of a fully-operational strategic defense system as soon as possible.” I guess we now know that non-interventionism is not to be confused with pacifism.

Defense Strength: Darrell Castle-25 pts. Evan McMullin-30 pts.

Section 3 Total Out of 100: Darrell Castle-100 pts. Evan McMullin-100 pts.

Paleo-Conservative Non-Interventionism or Neo-Conservative Interventionism, Welfare, Taxes/I.R.S., Trade/NAFTA/TPP-100 pts.

Non-Interventionism/Interventionism – 25 pts., Welfare – 25 pts., I.R.S./Taxes – 25 pts., Trade/NAFTA/TPP – 25 pts.


One of the most contentious issues between paleo-conservatives and neo-conservatives is foreign policy. The establishment GOP, neocon wing of conservatism has painted a picture that we must intervene in world affairs for the benefit of our country. When confronted with our founding father’s cautious foreign policy of not entangling ourselves in the fights of others and dire warnings against interventionism, we often hear rhetoric pertaining to the suddenly smaller world that we live in today. Right wing news media has indoctrinated us into believing that we are liberals or pacifists if we call for a less interventionist or non-empirical foreign policy. The truth is that the right was once unanimously opposed to interventionism, a leftist ideology utilized to grow government reliance on the banking system and further indebting the nation, drawing us nearer eternal government dependence, aka socialism. This falls in line with small government vs. large government spending, as wars (and cold wars) are the most costly functions a government can perform. Banking systems benefit from funding (often both sides of) wars, guaranteeing perpetual interest and government backing on their loans. Along the way, the right learned that they could reap the political rewards of fearmongering, and the two ideologies swapped stances on defense spending, as it competed with the left’s welfare programs. Suddenly, the right that was formed to oppose the New Deal was now involved in their own version of the left’s propaganda. While welfare is a horrendous policy that redistributes the property (income) of one individual to another, war does the same thing, double. It costs us in taxes, then we pay for it again through inflation, and even worse, we pay for it in American bloodshed. It’s sad that so many conservatives tout our pious opposition to ending innocent life via abortion, yet so many are complicit in the inadvertent cheering of the loss of life of young American men and women abroad.

Darrell Castle, as stated earlier, is a non-interventionist. Evan McMullin, on the other hand, is an intransigent interventionist. Although he regrets the Iraq War (6:40 mark), he feels that U.S. presence throughout the world in a “leadership role” is essential. He hasn’t learned the lesson of our failed nation building policies in the Middle East, suggesting that we topple Assad (3:00 mark) in Syria (although he answered “no” to that question of toppling him on his isidewith quiz). He also believes we should be stopping Russia from attacking ISIS and that we need to embark upon a ground offensive. In his Platform, under the ‘America’s Role In the World‘ plank, Evan brazenly states, “Before World War II, many Americans fell prey to the delusion that if we pull back to our own shores that the world’s troubles will pass us by. After the war, Americans came together in agreement that only our leadership could prevent another catastrophic conflict, while promoting liberty and economic growth as well. Thanks to our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, there has been no great war for 70 years…” No great war for 70 years?!?! Mr. McMullin’s delusional view of our last 3/4 of a century is appalling! We have been embroiled in PERPETUAL war since the creation of NATO, most of which were never congressionally declared wars and were therefore unconstitutional conflicts.

Non-Intervention/Intervention: Castle-25 pts. Evan McMullin-0 pts.

On the issue of welfare, or redistribution of wealth, Darrell Castle is staunchly opposed, as welfare (and no, the purpose of the General Welfare Clause was not intended to advocatefood-stamps welfare as we know it today) was not a power granted to the federal government. Evan McMullin, as expected from any center-to-right candidate, doesn’t condone a massive welfare program, but supports a safety net and has spoken very little on the issue. In one interview in February, while working for the House of Representatives, he only skirted around the issue with a generic address of the issue, Jeremiah Keenan of TheStatesman explains, “The government provided a safety net to ‘make poverty more tolerable,’ but tolerable, McMullin claimed, is not ‘good enough.’ People need programs that empower them to make their own way to success. Programs that view Americans living in poverty as ‘not our burden but our potential’.” In a recent tweet Evan justified welfare by citing that Milton Friedman and other conservatives have supported a safety net.

Welfare: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-18 pts.

Tax programs are virtually a canvas for conservatives to paint their artistic impressions upon for their base to gawk at in amazement. Evan McMullin has played it safe and offered a plagiarism of sorts. As Emily Stewart of TheStreet notes in her September 24th article ‘If #NeverTrump Candidate Evan McMullin Was President, Here’s What Would Happen to the U.S. Economy’, “…McMullin’s tax proposal is largely in line with the tax reform plan put forth by House Republicans over the summer. Individual income taxes would be reduced to three brackets from seven at rates of 12%, 25% and 33%. Small business taxes would be reduced to 25%, and the corporate tax rate would also be reduced to 25% (the House GOP plan pegs the corporate tax rate at 20%).” With these plans, of course, the I.R.S. will remain.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4

If being unconventional is the ambition of Mr. Castle, he both passes with flying colors and fails at the same time. His tax plan (33:00 mark) is so revolutionary that it hasn’t been mainstream for over a century. It isn’t his own brainchild, however, it’s the founding fathers, spelled out in the Constitution. Mr. Castle wants to see the 16th Amendment repealed and the constitutional taxation through apportionment of the states reinstated. It sounds like a disastrous plan, until one envisions the rest of the platform in full effect and the plan in action. Then it’s absolutely brilliant! Under this plan, the I.R.S. would be abolished.

Taxes/I.R.S.: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-15 pts.

Trade is an area of significant difference between the two ideologies, particularly in regards to (supposed) Free Trade Agreements, more commonly known in constitutionist circles as ‘Managed’ Trade Agreements. Unlike the protectionist proposals of Donald Trump, both candidates advocate free trade. However, like Donald Trump, Darrell Castle does understand how devastating agreements, such as NAFTA, have been to American industries. Not only have they adversely affected the American industrial sector, but they also undermine and surrender our national sovereignty to international courts and organizations. Trade and treaties are powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, but they should be conducted and entered wisely. The widely opposed TPP deal, is supported by Evan McMullin, and rejected by Castle. Castle would also like to have Congress exit our existing deals and rework them more to our favor, or conduct free trade (12:40 mark) individually with nations in ways that are mutually beneficial for both parties.

Trade/NAFTA/TTP: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-20 pts.

Section 4 Total Out of 100: Castle – 100 pts. McMullin – 53 pts.

Anti-Globalization/Leave UN & World Organizations, Healthcare, Social Security, Mandatory Vaccinations, Conscription, Military Experience-100 pts.

Anti-Globalization – 25 pts., Healthcare – 20 pts., Social Security – 20 pts., Mand Vax – 15 pts., Conscription – 10 pts., Military Experience – 10 pts.

Having already explained the significance of anti-globalization with regards to getting our nation back on track, I won’t belabor the point – neither will I repeat the globalist stances held by Evan McMullin, only that he embraces unions such as these. Darrell Castle on the other hand lists leaving the United Nations as the first thing in his agenda.

Anti-Globalization/Leave UN & World Organizations: Castle-25 pts. McMullin-0 pts.

Darrell Castle clearly states that he wants Obamacare gone, and healthcare left to the private sector. Evan McMullin offers lip service to a free market approach, but then wants to maintain the guaranteed coverage for pre-existing conditions. While this sounds noble, that’s the primary factor driving up costs now. His ‘Healthcare’ plank states, “The few positive elements of Obamacare, such as guaranteed healthcare%20teamcoverage for pre-existing conditions, could easily be incorporated into a new program in a much more efficient manner.The heart of any Obamacare replacement should be a tax credit for every household that does not have insurance through an employer…” So repeal Obamacare to replace it with a similar program? Ok…

Healthcare: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-10 pts.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid is another well intended set of programs that simply don’t stand up to the constitutional test. Darrell Castle wants to privatize and phase out Social Security, while continuing to honor the obligations promised to those who have paid into the programs their entire adult lives.

From his ‘Healthcare’ plank, Evan McMullin wants to expand Medicare, “improve” Medicaid, and “preserve” Social Security – calling them “essential” programs.

Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-10 pts.

The mandatory vaccination question has been a hot-button issue recently in liberty circles. This is literally the epitome of personal liberty vs. general welfare. At the very heart of this problem lies two unresolved questions: “Do vaccinations cause life-altering conditions, such as autism?”, and “What validity does the ‘herd immunity‘ argument hold in today’s world?”. As a parent of one, possibly two children, with Asperger’s Syndrome, the autism (and other illnesses) question is a critical one – aside from the cogent concerns of something mandated by the government being contrary to the concept of personal liberty. Likewise, one must consider the fact that “herd immunity” is aimed at a majority of the community, not the whole community. If 95% of a population is vaccinated and one should become infected, shouldn’t the other 95% who were vaccinated be safe as a result of their adherence to the medical field’s suggestion?

Darrell Castle is against mandatory vaccinations. Evan McMullin is for mandatory vaccinations.

Mand Vax: Castle-15 pts. McMullin-0 pts.

Conscription, or the draft, has not been mentioned by Evan McMullin that I’m aware of; Darrell Castle is against the draft.

Conscription: Castle-10 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

As far as I know, Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin are the only individuals with access to over 5 states us_marine_corps_veteranwho have military and combat experience. God bless them for their service.

Darrell Castle is a Vietnam War Veteran, trained under Oliver North, and was a 1st Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. His running mate, Dr. Scott Bradley, served in the Utah Air National Guard. Evan McMullin served as an Operations Officer in the CIA for 11 years.

Military Service: Castle-10 pts. McMullin-10 pts.

Section 5 Total Out of 100: Castle – 100 pts. McMullin – 35 pts.

Immigration, End the Fed, Drug War, Anti-Agenda 21, Repeal 16th Amendment

Immigration – 25 pts., End the Fed – 20 pts., Drug War – 20 pts., Anti-Agenda 21 – 20 pts., Repeal 16th Amendment – 15 pts

Upon researching Evan McMullin’s Immigration stances, one is initially impressed with the extent of detail he offers on his immigration plan. However, looking closer, it’s apparent that the plan is nothing more than a refabricaton of the Gang of Eight bill, with the term “legal residency” replacing the word “citizenship” in regards to amnesty. The argument against this has always been the valid concern that the left will not rest until the residents are granted citizenship. Another area of concern is his approval of accepting Syrian refugees. This is an absurd proposal, considering there is no way to thoroughly vet them, despite Mr. McMullin’s claims. Evan is in favor of increasing the quantity of work visas being granted by the government, despite the sluggish economy and disastrous U-6 unemployment rate. He also believes that immigrants shouldn’t be held to some sort of expectation of assimilation, such as being required to learn to speak English.

Darrell Castle’s Immigration plan involves securing our border first, no amnesty or path to citizenship or residency for those here illegally, and a moratorium on immigration until immigrants can be properly vetted in the name of national security. Both candidates believe that immigration should be geared towards the needs of the nation.

Immigration: Castle-25 pts. McMullin- 15 pts.

Darrell Castle has stated that one of his top two priorities will be to end the Federal Reserve, addressed in the second question of this interview with Peter Gemma. This is imperative to ending the horrendous cycle of indirect taxation through inflation, which adversely affects the lower to middle class, much more than the wealthy. It also directly inflationviolates the constitutional mandates regarding the coinage of money. This has not been mentioned by Evan McMullin to my knowledge, but given his history with Goldman Sachs and his affinity for global solutions to domestic issues, I will venture to say that he wants no part of reforming our monetary system. Any evidence to the contrary is welcome.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5

End the Fed: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

The war on drugs is also a controversial topic among conservatives. The more liberty minded conservatives are in favor of reduced sentencing and/or decriminalization of drugs. The more authoritarian conservatives are aligned, to a greater extent, with continued harsh penalties for possession. Either way, it is not an issue for the federal government, except for border control. Darrell Castle supports decriminalization, particularly with regards to marijuana. I have not heard the issue of more severe drugs, such as crack cocaine or crystal methamphetamines addressed by him. Castle has expressed the desire to treat addiction as a medical issue, rather than a criminal one. Evan McMullin is not in favor of decriminalization and often discredits Gary Johnson, insinuating that he is irresponsible for his view of legalization (not merely decriminalization) of drugs.

Drugs: Castle-15 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

Agenda 21 is an agenda pushed by the UN that is obscurely enacted in towns and cities all over our nation. It is a true threat to Western Civilization. Darrell Castle is staunchly anti-Agenda 21. To my knowledge, Evan McMullin has never addressed the issue. Again, due to his fondness of the UN and globalization, I don’t expect to hear anything in the near future. Conflicting evidence is welcome.

Anti-Agenda 21: Castle-20 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

Most constitutionists would like to repeal the 16th Amendment and eradicate income tax. Before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, income tax had been deemed unconstitutional. From the aspect of our inherent rights to property, the 16th Amendment violates natural law. Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party Platform are fully averse to the concept of an income tax and the 16th Amendment. Evan McMullin has not addressed the issue directly, to my knowledge, but his tax plan and common mention of tax credits as a solution for problems is sufficient evidence to believe he has no desire for an abolishment of income taxes. Any evidence otherwise is welcome, as usual.

Repeal 16th Amendment: Castle-15 pts. McMullin-5 pts.

Section 6 Total Out of 100: Castle – 95 pts. McMullin – 35 pts.

Other intangibles were not involved in this evaluation that should be alarming in regards to Evan McMullin. For example, on the Glenn Beck Show, Mr.McMullin was asked his thoughts on the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution. It was admitted to be a test, after the fact, which he failed. He did not know, despite his attempts at invoking the Constitution at every opportunity. Evan McMullin has mentioned that he is a fan of Hayek and Friedman on a couple of occasions. Being a presumed fan of laissez-faire capitalism, Evan should have known who Ludwig von Mises was, but didn’t. In his very agreeable, friendly, and sympathetic interview with Hugh Hewitt, he couldn’t answer two knowledge-testing questions from Mr. Hewitt pertaining to his area of expertise. One was a book dedicated to the history of Al-Qaeda, and the other was some insider question pertaining to his opinion on whether someone was a communist spy. One thing that I really like about Darrell Castle is his willingness to say “I don’t know”. This seems minor, but it’s so rare for a politician. After hearing Evan, someone auditioning to constitutionists, avoid the 3rd Amendment question on the Beck interview, he lost me completely, typical politician. Darrell Castle is a statesman.

Total Points/6: Darrell Castle – 95.8 Evan McMullin – 56.8


Unless you’re the establishment Republican, moderate, neo-conservative type, Darrell Castle is a MUCH better option than McMullin. It isn’t even close for a constitutionist. The Constitution Party website, Darrell Castle website, Facebook page, and Grassroots Facebook group are listed below. I am sure the campaign would love your support. The Constitution Party is the 5th largest party in the nation, one of only 5 parties nationally recognized by the FEC, and is the perfect replacement for the Republican Party for any Christian constitutional conservative. It is well worth voting for Castle, if for no other reason than to advance the popularity and membership of the Constitution Party. If you made it through the end, thank you and God bless!



Castle 2016 Facebook Page

Darrell Castle Facebook Grassroots Group

by Clint Bishop

75 thoughts on “Darrell Castle Vs. Evan McMullin

  1. What candidates, running for any elected office, talk about the Constitution and the founding fathers? You already know it wouldn’t take much time to read such comments from candidates, since they hardly, if at all, talk about them. The true power still lies in the Congress, as they can overturn Executive Orders, restrict the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, etc. I will support Darrel Castle, since he is the only person I’m aware of who overwhelmingly sees the limited enumerated powers of the federal government for what they are. We seem to have forgotten that true rights do not interfere with another person, hence the well-intentioned fallacy of the Welfare State. We need to remind ourselves that rights come from God; privileges come from government. Near the end of Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist” (1958), he lists 45 goals of the Communist Party. One of the goals was to take over one or both major political parties. Seems that they have captured both parties, at the top at least. You can Google the list and read it for yourself. Any person who resorts to name calling and innuendo, must have a pretty weak position/opinion. In a court of law you would not be permitted to use such tactics, so refrain from using them in discussing political issues and candidates. Like my late father told me, don’t accuse people of anything, but simply ask the right questions
    and if you do, you’ll hang them anyway. There is an old joke about a farmer from around 1960 who bought a television. He was enjoying the new gadget, but then he starting getting a politician on every channel, even the ones that didn’t normally work. He called the repairman, who checked out the set and found nothing wrong. He then went outside to check the antenna and the wiring to it. He came back in and told the farmer to try the TV again. Now everything worked just fine. He asked the repairman what happened and the farmer was told that someone cut his antenna wire and one wire was hooked up to the windmill and the other wire was hooked up to the manure spreader. Pretty much fits all of the presidential candidates.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Outstanding piece. I’m glad to see other people do a similar amount of research as I did, although I included Tom Hoefling, Gary Johnson, and James Hedges (Prohibition Party) in my summary as well. All (except Johnson, who is on the ballot) are write-in candidates here in Maryland. I came to the same conclusion as Castle was the one who earned my vote. (McMullin was 4th of my 5.)

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you for this thorough and very informative comparison. I’ve been trying to find this type of information since trump became the Republican nominee. I’m quite confident Mr. Castle will be my write in. McMullin may be an ok alternative, but he is too central for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Thank you Clint for all your research. That took a lot of time and we all appreciate it VERY MUCH! My husband and I were just this evening at dinner discussing these two as we can’t vote for either of the two Democrats running. You cleared up any questions I had. Darrel Castle, a fellow Tennessean, will get my vote. Thanks, again

    Liked by 1 person

  5. If McMullin supports continuing the UN, Federal Reserve, and TPP, then he is definitely more globalist,, statist, and one world government (new world order) than he is for rule by law, the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. The article asserted that McMullin is a member of the CFR, which raises warning flags about his loyalty to the sovereignty of the USA as a separate nation of the world; however, I did not find his name on the list of CFR members (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=M). I will seek to know his position about the UN, the FED, TPP, and Amendment 16.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Those are linked in the article in their respective sections. He has been a term member since 2011 in the CFR, it’s on his LinkedIn. He worked (volunteered) for the UN. He is pro-TPP per his isidewith.com quiz. Hasn’t specifically mentioned the others that I’m aware. Thanks for the comment!


      1. I posed for a photo between McMullin and his running mate (who has absolutely no chance of being chosen by the Senate in case main candidates don’t get the necessary electoral college majority), Mindy Finn. It was my only chance to ask McMullin questions. I asked him if he had ever been a member of the CFR, and he replied he had a 5-year term membership to this “think tank”. I then asked if he favored the TPP, to which he assented saying he favors trade. I told him straight that I don’t like TPP, and his reply was, “I’m sorry.” His replies immediately cost him my backing, for Darrell Castle is a straight arrow on protecting American sovereignty and keeping the US Congress, not foreigners, as the official legislative body for the USA. McMullin promises to govern by principles, but they need to be correct principles of limited government, with the designated checks and balances in place. He promises to push many decisions back to the state level, where they belong, which is a great principle and balance, yet to promote economic unions with other countries, wherein regulations, tariffs, penalties, judgments would be determined by foreign agencies unaccountable to American voters. That is a dreadful destruction of an appropriate check on federal power and foreign meddling in our national affairs/security. “I’m sorry to you, Evan, that you aren’t more principled.”

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I found more comparative info in this article…than all the name calling so called “media” in quite some time. And certainly more about McMullin…than from any of his bandwagon supporters…who are growing by the nano second here in the rocky mountain west.. thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. This is clearly a biased review of the candidates. Castle either ties or outscores McMullin in all but one section, which seems statistically impossible. Still, there is some good information presented here.

    Good luck to all in their decision-making process. This is a very perplexing election, but kudos to anyone who is willing to research the issues and do their best to make an informed decision.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is pretty biased, but easy to pick out where those biases are. Very informative, and I feel I can at least figure where I do or do not agree with the author in order to make my own decisions.


  8. This is a biased report favouring Darrell Castle so doesn’t count! It is just your opinion and anyone can doctor documents or information to suit their purpose.


    1. If you can prove anything wrong then it gets changed. I have yet to have one shred of evidence be presented to the contrary, yet the article is linked with facts throughout. God Bless

      Liked by 2 people

    1. I know Darrell Castle very well. In fact I have been in his home with he and his wonderful wife Joan and know him to be a man of highest integrity with a strong knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ as his Savior. He knows and applies the Constitution in his life’s example. I have been with Darrell in public and private and he is the same man in both settings. There is no “locker room” excuses in his life. He means what he says and says what he means always. His running mate has equal qualities and values. I know that his running mate Scott Bradley has also accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior. Both are strong Christian men of high moral fiber. I give my wholehearted support to the Castle ticket and will vote Constitution Party in 2106.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. Do you realize that Jesus Christ’s name is in the title of their church? It says The Church OF Jesus Christ…, not The Church against Jesus Christ…, or even The Church of (you can put whatever name you want here). No. It is The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Latter-Day Saints to differentiate themselves from the early Saints that followed Christ and the original apostles in their day. These are the last days, hense Latter-Day. If you don’t understand this either because you can’t or you won’t says to who the person you really are. At any rate I think that should mean something to someone who calls himself a true Christian.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Yeah I just saw that castle2016.com is down because of traffic. That’s some good bad news. We just need a way to get more votes away from Hilary, because the conservative vote is already divided.


      1. As a liberal who is voting for Stein, I would say don’t worry about Hillary. Most of us liberals hate her as much as the rest of the country. I don’t even consider Hillary as liberal.
        She’s just corruption.
        Don’t get me wrong, we still need to shut her down.
        I’m saying, don’t worry about a third party vote. Only a fool would vote for an establishment candidate.
        Unfortunately, half of our country are fools. But, that half is divided between Clinton and Trump. The other half, the rest of us, we’re Independent of the moronic group think that plagues this country.
        Neither Hillary nor Donald has enough votes. The House is going to decide our next president. So send Washington a message and vote third party.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Thank you for this analysis. I am debating between Mcmullin and Castle. There is a few things I think you should add about McMullin. He has huge momementum. He started 2 months ago and is already 4th place in the polls. He is getting more ballot access. For example I live in CA and Mcmullin just got write in access there . Castle has yet to achieve that. To win the presidency you really only have to win one state and stop all other opponents from winning the majority. Then the house decides the president. Mcmullin has a greater chance of winning one state and has more friends in the house since he is more establishment. I agree Castle better fits the constitution party, but Mcmullin is not a bad option for president. I also agree congress should declare a state of war before attacking other countries, but also USA should be quick to fight for freedom and rights of individuals of others, otherwise we would be very hypercritical since without France we might have lost the revolution. We need to show courage and valor for freedom. ” Even if the rest of the world continues to ignore us, we will fight on. For we are not fighting only for ourselves, but for all mankind. We are fighting for freedom and human dignity and the right to worship the God of our choice” — George Washington. We are not fighting just for ourselves. I am still debating who to vote for again thanks for this write up

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Thank you so much for this very thorough analysis. It was enlightening! I read it without much information on either candidate, and I really appreciate the sourced links, etc to help me make a better informed decision.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Mcmullin doesn’t insult everyone. He doesn’t have ego issues. He doesn’t have a short temper. He also has doesn’t agree with unconstitutional torture. He also doesn’t have an unconstitutional immigration issue. Religion should have no factor in immigration, as long as they believe in and support the constitution if the united states.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. I can’t see a place to comment other than to reply, so I appologoze for this not being a specific reply to the excellent comment. I found the article disturbing because of my expectations that it would be fair and balanced and because of learning more about The Constitution Party which does not seem so constitutional to me now.

      The author calls himself an originalists, I clicked on the link for NeoConservatism and found the expected defintion- a neo conservative is one who does not accept the Libertarian foreign policy doctrine. The irony was that the post on NeoConservatism starts out by saying that US intervention in Libya created the need for the definition of NeoConservatism.I didn’t click on the link for originalist and just assumed that it meant remaining true to the original governing philosophy found in the US founding documents. The first war fought by the US under the command of Thomas Jefferson was against the Barbary Pirates off the coast of what is now called Libya so one can hardly say that globalism is not consistent with originalist philosophy, especially when the location is Libya, the geographical location of our founding fathers second war, the first being the Revolutionary War which caused this nation to be born into debt, a debt which if the colonists had not taken it on, the USA would not exist.

      There is an idea being promoted by Libertarians that the Constitution has something to say about policy- specificly foreign policy which is inconsistent with Libertarian doctine whcih the Libertarians declare is unconstitutional.Even our founding fathers were unconstitutional according to Libertarian doctrine for even they did not agree with Libertarian foreign policy, fighting a war as they did on the other side of the globe makes our founding fathers the first neocons if it were not for the fact that the conservative party did not yet exist!

      The US Constitution does not dictate policy. The US Constitution defines a philosophy and structure of government. It leaves policy to the people.It is inconsistent with the function of the Constitution to say that any foreign policy is dictated by our Constitution.

      There are many points I could make but I will just bring up one more. The link to the Constitutional Party Doctrin says that Jesus Christ rules the United States. Such a statement is inconsistent with the US Constitution and other founding docuuments which make many references to God and the Devine and never to Jesus Christ. To believe in God is a philosophical view. To believe in Jesus Christ is a religious view. The founding philosophy of the United States Constitution grants religious freedom. To say that Jesus Christ rules the USA is tantamount to declaring Christianity to be the state religion of the USA. I was shocked when I read that statement and it completely revised my view of the Constitution Party to mean that the Constitution Party In name only.

      As I read on I found the article biased and politically motivated. Evan McMullin is a better candidate maybe because he is an Independent and not tied to false doctrines.


      1. Where to start… The Barbary Wars were in response to attacks on our merchant ships that were being attacked in the area. The Constitution not only allows for the President to act on his own in defense, but Congress did, in act, authorize military action. Thomas Jefferson was absolutely right in his actions. This was not some type of historical advocacy for interventionism. In fact, it was Jefferson that stated in inaugural address, “Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.” Washington made a similar proclamation during his farewell address. Understanding original intent is more than simply reading the text of the Constitution, mind you, it’s studying the founders’ works, speeches, the debates, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, etc. As for the Constitution Party Platform Preamble, it is not an encouraging nor inferring a theocracy, but a return to Christian principles. Yes those references to God were vague in an effort to make sure that God was mentioned, but not exclude the God of other religions, deists, etc. Most were devout Christians and they prayed to God on a regular basis, even in public settings. I could go on about this forever but it isn’t necessary. The Constitution Party is not based on false doctrine. You are free to support Mr. McMullin, and there will be supporters just as Bernie supporters exist. But knowing who you’re supporting is important. He is, as proven, a globalist, moderate, establishment (and Democrat) backed neo-con. Plain and simple


      2. Don’t even start on saying that the Founding Fathers didn’t believe in Jesus Christ. Go do your research and you will find that every one of them believed in the Savior. You don’t understand anything about the Constitution, especially when it comes to religious freedom. Regardless of what your liberal mindset believes, Jesus Christ is the God of this land, and a Political Party declaring that as truth, which it is, does not mean they are making it a National Religion.

        You don’t understand anything about religious freedom, so don’t even start saying anything against the founder’s beliefs, because they very much believed in Jesus Christ. Where’s your sources that they didn’t believe in the Savior?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. It is time to get God back into Government. To accept that premises we must first agree that God was involved in our Government from the beginning. To come to agreement we must first know to what extent, or if any, the Founders implored and reached out for Divine guidance. Start from the beginning of our cessation from England. Look at how they prepared for such an undertaking and the documented actions our Founders took.
        On September 6, 1774, the first act of the opening session of the Continental Congress was to pass a resolution to start its next meeting with prayer. This prayer included reading from Psalms 35, which reads in part:
        “O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth, and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the kingdoms, empires, and governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these American States” (Journals of Congress)
        The writing of The Declaration of Independence was under the direction of the Continental Congress. That same Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, and signed it on August 2, 1776. The Declaration directly appeals to God at least four times (emphasis added):
        • “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them…”
        • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”
        • “We, Therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…”
        • “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
        Over a dozen times, from July 4, 1776 through the next several of decades, the Congress of the United States passed multiple resolutions that included days that were set apart for fasting and prayer to God for His grace and guidance on this growing country.
        These examples provide evidence that God, our Heavenly Father, was involved in our Government from the beginning. Where is He now? We have a Government today who no longer appeals to Deity for Guidance in running the affairs of just governance. It is a Government who pushes us to eliminate prayer from the public forum, God from our money, from our schools, and even soon, very soon our places of worship under the guise of Freedom of Religion.
        The Founders, as evidenced in Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, never intended we live our lives without religion or God, only that we not live a “State Sponsored or said differently a State Required” religion were membership was mandated of all citizens.

        Amendment 1
        “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
        Therefore, you can choose to have and exercise religion or choose not to. Both the right to participate and not participate are protected above. One does not supersede the other.
        What has happened to free religion or the lack of religion in our country? After the Civil War, two World Wars and even after the attack of 9/11 our country sang the praises of God and his mastery in all that we have and that our belief and trust in Him would help to rebuild our country. We again as a Nation understood our “Blessings of Liberty”. Where has this knowledge gone?
        The Preamble to the Constitution reads; “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
        Freedom is a concept easy to comprehend. Do we, however, fully understand the “Blessings of Liberty”? The blessings of liberty come from our Father in Heaven and His son Jesus Christ: “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. (2 Corinthians 3:17 King James Version) Jesus Christ is Liberty!
        God has also extended through Divine guidance to this great county the “Blessings of Liberty” the gift of His Son as we beseech our Father in prayer for guidance and direction. The Spirit of Christ can be present in us, our posterity just as it was in the establishment of the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no doubt, as the appeal for Divine inspiration is openly displayed in plain sight, straightforward language, in the Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the Constitution, that God was and needs to be involved in our Government.
        There is no doubt that the US Constitution is God given and we can plainly see that the Blessing of Liberty representing His Son the Savior of the world is visibly included. Our responsibility as Christian regardless of our church we attend is to protect and promote this great country and the gifts that our God has given us. We can do this by bringing God, the Spirit of Christ, our Liberty back into our Government in full focus and intention.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. My diary entry is NOT down, and is up. lol.

    Castle is the slanderer in truth, as are his supporters. Castle is a Birther, a Truther, a failure in economics, a probable card carrying member of the local conspiracy theory group. He is not presidential material, he is material for scorn and laughter.

    You are quite funny trying to attack me in passing with this obvious Castle piece. When I get my money I am so going to make a movie about Castle revealing all, lol


    1. Tom Hoefling is a political opportunist that jumps to the party or opportunity that he feels will get him recognition and exposure. Castle is the real deal and is sincerely running for President. He will be a great man to lead this country back to Constitution prosperity and the Liberty that is founded in Christ. His back up team isn’t too shabby either.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. McMuffin says (or said until recently) that Abortion is a Right (on his campaign page, last sentence of this topic) and that Roe-v-Wade is the law of the land (interview with one of the TV stations).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I will search for that. Thanks. I only found where he was ok with the gay marriage ruling and had no intentions of appointing judges who would overturn it.


    2. heads’up you are completely misinformed. Evan McMullin is the ONLY true Pro-Life candidate. He has said he will appoint Supreme Court justices who will actually overturn Roe v Wade. He is committed to protecting life in all aspects. He won’t challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay-marriage because that issue does not concern the protection of LIFE.


      1. Castle is absolutely pro-life as well. My husband and I have personally worked in the trenches with Scott Bradley for 20+ years and have ZERO doubts about his position on the issue: both Castle and Bradley understand what a right IS and the role of the Government in relation to it. Both have been fighting and educating on this for YEARS.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. A very worthwhile read, for sure! Now if there was some way to get Darrell Castle on the major networks so the rest of the country could see how great of a candidate he truly is. He is the only candidate that I can side with in this election! If he were not running, I might would have to not vote for president this cycle!

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Always prefer an honest Christian Conservative over a Liberal (RINO….he still counts as such since people are still seeing him that way) fraud any day.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s