SOTU – A Response

Darrell Castle talks about the State of the Union Address by reviewing a few of the things President Trump said and the reaction of his opponents, as well as providing a Constitutional response. Transcription / Notes SOTU – A RESPONSE Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 27th 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. 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 set 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. 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 and 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. 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. 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 ...