State of the Union – a response

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 27^th day of February in the year of our Lord 2026. I will be talking about the State of the Union Address delivered last Tuesday by President Donald Trump. I will comment on a few of the things he said and on the reaction of his opponents to those things and then I will do what I am often asked to do and that is give a Constitutional response.

A record-length State of the Union address

The President spoke for almost two hours the longest speech in SOTU history. He spoke mostly about the achievements of his second term and he mentioned that America is entering a golden age. He emphasized patriotism and heroes and he invited many of them to the speech including the gold medal winning men’s Olympic hockey team.

According to the reports I’ve seen more than 70 Democrats chose not to attend the speech. But most of them did, and they exercised their choice. Which was to sit and glare straight ahead or occasionally to boo him. He noticed and called them out repeatedly for their failure to muster even the most basic bipartisanship in moments that should have been beyond partisan politics.

For example, the President invited “a woman who has been through hell,” Anya Zarutska, whose daughter Iryna fled war torn Ukraine only to be murdered on a train in Charlotte North Carolina.  Yes, the killer had many past felonies only to be released on bail when he killed Iryna with a knife. The Democrats could not muster any energy to stand for her mother.

The worst moment for Democrats

That was bad but not the worst moment for Democrats. He held them up for the whole country to see in their worst moment and they went for it.

One of the great things about the State of the Union is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe. So, tonight, I’m inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

Who, in good conscience could not agree with that statement? Republicans certainly did. They stood, clapped, and whistled for a full two minutes in a raw, spontaneous reaction. But the Democrats didn’t even move. Not a shuffle or even a courtesy clap, just nothing. He let that sink in for a moment then twisted the knife.

Isn’t that a shame? You should be ashamed of yourselves, not standing up.

I think people noticed as post speech polls indicated especially since illegal immigration was the most important issue of the 2024 election. His invitation to stand was not an attack on immigrants, nor was it hateful. Instead, it was a simple invitation to endorse common sense publicly. The American people elect and pay their leaders and in exchange for power and the honor of election those leaders must prioritize the needs of their constituents. It is the most basic social contract of the American government and it’s hard to see how anyone could not grasp it immediately.

American citizens come first – and that transcends immigration

However, I will point out that the theme transcends immigration. Whether you call it America first or you simply understand that we are all Americans and illegal immigrants especially murderers, torturers, and rapists are not, it is or should be a basic requirement of holding office. Washington is now filled with politicians who have agendas that take priority in their minds over Americans. Yes, for some its Ukraine first, for some its Somalia first, and for some perhaps even the President its Israel first.

Now, let me finalize this concept and attempt to link it to Constitutional government and what that would mean. My view is that anyone who thinks that there is a single group who should come ahead of Americans in the minds of officeholders should not be in politics. Let them get a job in Silicon Valley, but please stay away from politics. In reference to the Constitution, I want to say a few words about Iran and what appears to be steamrolling toward an extended war.

Are we going to war with Iran?

Like refusal to stand for the concept that American politicians should put the interests of Americans ahead of those of illegal immigrants, American politicians are bound by oath to the Constitution to oppose the drive to fight wars and attack other countries which have not harmed America in any way on behalf of others. This coming war is so obviously unconstitutional that I wonder if anyone in Washington even knows what it means anymore. I will also point out that if the U.S. Constitution is not enough for some of our globalist neo-con politicians, it is also a clear violation of the U.N. Charter which the U.S. signed in 1948.

The charter forbids attacking countries which have not harmed you and are not a threat to you. But the U.S. has done that many times especially since 1991. A nation does not have to attack to violate the charter because even threats and intimidation are also forbidden. The threat to Iran of you have 10 days to comply with my demands or something very bad will happen to you is an obvious violation. The idea of I am much stronger than you and you have something I want so if you don’t give it to me I will take it by force is also an obvious violation.

Risks of war

I oppose an attack on Iran for many reasons. And the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, apparently agrees with me. He has reportedly warned the President that an act of war against Iran carries significant risks including a prolonged conflict with high casualties. I understand that General Caine has the President’s respect so maybe his views will prevail over Bibi’s but I doubt it. Rumors abound that on one of Bibi’s six visits to the Trump White House he threatened the President with what is known as the Samson option. In other words, it you don’t do this thing for me I will bring down the entire temple by attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. There can be no reasonable doubt at this point that the coming war is for the purpose of greater Israel. If you don’t believe me I invite you to listen to Tucker Carlson’s interview with Ambassador Mike Huckabee conducted in Israel about a week ago. In that interview Huckabbe essentially admitted it and said it would be OK.

A broader consideration of the State of the Union

Back to honoring the U.S. Constitution. I have spent 37 years of my life defending it along with Western Civilization itself. I now have no confidence that the battle can be won. In other words, it appears that I lost the battle and a return to Constitutional government is impossible. As you probably know, I was a presidential candidate for the Constitution Party and I knew then that by some chance if I was elected it would mean great sacrifice and possibly even death so let’s look at why I feel that way.

Politicians seek power to get ahead, and to use the near monopoly on violence the government has to achieve those goals. They become seekers of largesse, and there are other words to describe it, but they seek largesse and they exchange it for votes and for special treatment. Subsidies for certain industries are clear examples of this. The subsidies given to corn farmers require corn ethanol to be mixed with gasoline. Now the corn producers say they could not survive without that largesse and any corn state politician who seeks to cancel it better consider a new line of work.

A buildup of largesse

The original ethanol requirement was to prevent global warming but the current President says it’s a hoax, but the subsidies continue. Subsidies, bailouts, welfare, giveaways, and other shakedowns are not only unconstitutional, but they are also normally unnecessary and inefficient. For example, tariffs are essentially subsidies for selected industries, paid for by price hikes on consumers. The largesse that tariffs represent are put in place to favor a select group of beneficiaries and disfavor everyone else.

Over time, the largesse builds up and becomes a huge drag on the economy. I grew up as a farmer’s kid and we kept pigs whose meat the pigs sacrificed to feed us through the winter. With so many piglets sucking their mama the sow, the poor sow grows weaker and weaker, A once healthy, dynamic sow goes into decline and stagnates but the pigs are so addicted they cannot stop sucking until their mother can no longer feed them. So, I tell you what is necessary if this empire is to be saved from the disaster that appears inevitable but word of warning if you actually tried to do these things you would probably not survive.

How empires die

Empires have come and gone throughout history. They turn their money to trash by currency debasement, for example our own currency has lost 99.9% of its value relative to gold and we ask why things cost so much. Affordability crises they call it without any understanding of what actually causes it. Eventually, civil war and the struggle for remaining largesse destroys the empire and starvation and poverty are the result.

Reflecting the State of the Union in a hypothetical candidacy

Old friend and economist Bill Bonner shares three essential things for a good beginning and I agree with Bill on all of them. They are:

1. Protect the integrity of U.S. money and the money system.

2. Do not spend more than you take in, ever. This year revenue is projected at $4.9 trillion and spending is projected at $2 trillion more than that.

3. No wars, and I mean no wars that are not purely defensive.

This sacrificial candidate and hopefully President should announce no more deficits ever. No tariffs, no sanctions, no printing money to pay the debt and no more inflation because a balanced budget is non-negotiable. To do this, abolish the FED immediately. You will have to cut $2 trillion in spending and people will not take kindly to that but rip the band aid off quickly. Take your case directly to the people and tell them look folks we may be the greatest nation in the history of the world but we are going broke. Someone has to do it and if not me who, if not now, when.

Explain to the voters that in fiscal year 2019 the $4.9 in revenue would have funded the entire government and it is going to again, this year. One other thing, this all depends on taking control of the military, industrial, intelligence, security, and spy complex so that must be done in conjunction. Remember the last President to attempt to control it was JFK. Never fear, just go on TV and tell the people why you are cutting $500 million from the war budget.

Conclusion

Finally, folks, what are the chances the people would support a President who was determined to save his country and return to the Constitution? So close to zero that they could safely be listed as zero.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

From CastleReport.us, appears by arrangement – Ed.