(Continued from Facebook)
What should we make of all this?
The first thing the raid tells us is that the FBI, the DOJ, and the Biden Administration, in general, are liars who can’t even keep their lies straight between them. They will only admit the truth under extreme duress and when all the lies have been exposed to the world. Beset by contradictions, obvious lies, and just plain incompetence, the many explanations offered by the FBI come apart under examination. The lies make the real reason for the raid more obvious and that is that it was a political hit job on a former president to find something, anything, to keep him from running for, and perhaps winning the, presidency again.
The president didn’t know about the raid, and he had nothing to do with it. The old, he didn’t know until he heard it on the news story again. The administration set out to distance the president from the raid I would suppose in a vain attempt to make it appear that he was not trying to persecute a political opponent.
Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told us no one at the White House was given a heads up on the raid. No, that did not happen you know, he learned about it through the media. So, we are expected to believe that the Department of Justice with the Attorney General, appointed by the President, did not even brief the president on a planned FBI raid of a former president’s home.
Even though the raid was something that had never happened before in American history, and it was something that could perhaps change the perception of the American people toward their government forever, the president knew nothing about it.
With any president other than Joe Biden, that assumption would be total fantasy, but, with Biden, I suppose he could have been having another lite-intensity day during the briefing.
More lies?
For days after the raid, Newsweek reported that the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, was regularly briefed on the Records Act Investigation, but he insisted he had no prior knowledge of the date and time of the raid nor was he asked to approve it. So, again, officials of the administration raid the home of a former president, and neither the Attorney General nor the President knew anything about it.
The Justice Department appeared to be trying to throw the FBI under the bus, but the FBI decided to not fall on its sword and started to fight back. Finally, Merrick Garland admitted that he had approved the search warrant. “I personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant in this matter.” Why would his staff and the administration try to shield him from that by lying about it? Why do they act guilty like someone caught in the act of a sloppy burglary like Watergate?
Pretending that Merrick Garland was not aware was just a bit too unbelievable and the story started to unravel. Later the Attorney General of the United States, the head of the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland, admitted that he had pondered over the decision of the raid for weeks before giving his approval. The decision was the subject of weeks of meetings between senior Justice Department people and the FBI.
In order to request a warrant from their hand-picked Florida Judge, an affidavit had to be prepared listing what was alleged to be probable cause for the search and probable cause that a crime had been committed.
What did the affidavit allege?
What was the probable cause for the search?
What evidence did the Department of Justice have?
Their answer: you can’t be allowed to know that because it would impede our investigation. A quote from DOJ lawyers; “There remain compelling reasons, including protecting the integrity of an ongoing law enforcement investigation that implicates national security, that supports keeping the affidavit sealed.” Maybe a redacted version is possible. “The government has carefully considered whether the affidavit can be released subject to redactions. The redactions necessary to mitigate harms to the integrity of the investigation would be so extensive as to render the remaining unsealed text devoid of use.”
Since the affidavit remains sealed, the media is free to report any FBI claim about what Trump was suspected of having in his possession. They clearly don’t want to release any information that would reveal their lies and cover up. Now the same judge who issued the warrant says that maybe some of the information can be released.
Trump’s Passports – another lie?
Why would the 30 or more FBI agents, plundering through Trump’s private office and his wife’s closet and lingerie, take his passports? Trump accused the FBI of taking three passports, one of which was expired and one of which was diplomatic. The passports obviously had nothing to do with national security or classified documents.
Quickly the press jumped in to call him a liar. CBS News claimed that “the FBI was not in possession of former president Trump’s passports.” That phrase not in possession obviously means nothing. Why not just say we didn’t take the passports. Well, it turns out they did take the passports, but as in virtually every instance, their first impression when confronted with the question was to lie.
Eventually the FBI said yes, we did recover three passports which were recovered by a filter team which weeds out privileged information.
So, they did take his passports which more than likely exceeded their authority.
Passports are not something you just scrape into a box. Probably they were in his private safe which was force opened. The FBI now says the passports will be returned in about two weeks.
This organization, the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, looks more and more corrupt, and more and more overbearing, we are not only above the law, we are the law, every minute.
We have a regime from the White House on down through the Department of Justice and the FBI that seems to take pride in conducting the affairs of government like a third world Junta. Their lying dishonesty knows no bounds except whatever it takes to get Trump and keep him out of office. This is now how our democracy, as the Democrats like to phrase it, works.
Now, let’s consider this……..
The need for the warrant and the raid and the seizure of personal items and boxes of documents was a pressing and emergency need to protect national security. Can that be believed if the Attorney General took weeks to consider the evidence before deciding.
How serious could any threat or emergency be and yet we are denied the information.
If the probable cause was solid, why hide it from the public. Why wait 18 months to start an investigation if the national security was so at issue. A fishing expedition perhaps where facts are not as important as the dirt that they hope will stick to Mr. Trump inevitably.
All this bruhaha over the FBI and DOJ plundering the private home of a former president apparently caused some people to question the FBI and DOJ, but the Attorney General was quick to come to their defense. “Let me address recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors. I will not stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked. The men and women of the FBI and the Justice Department are dedicated patriotic public servants every day. They protect the American people from violent crime, terrorism and other threats to their safety while safeguarding our civil rights. They do so at great personal sacrifice and risk to themselves. I am honored to work alongside them.”
Well, Mr. Garland you should be honored to work alongside most of them because most of them are just what you say. It is they who should not be honored to work alongside you, a political hack and lackey for a corrupt administration. You do quite well with the very corrupt director of the FBI, Mr. Christopher Wray.
Who ordered FBI agents to concoct the pack of lies against a sitting president known as Russia gate?
Who ordered the FBI to infiltrate a group of ignorant people in Michigan and formulate a plot to kidnap the governor, set it in motion, then arrest them?
Who ordered FBI agents on January 6th to infiltrate demonstrators, lead them to the Capitol, and with the assistance of the capitol police open the doors and invite them in.?
Who ordered the protection of Hillary Clinton when she bleached 30,000 classified emails, and, finally…..
who protected and continues to protect Hunter Biden and other Biden family members?
In conclusion…..
I admire the agents who are out there on the front lines with bank robbers, and terrorists every day, but I don’t think much of you Mr. Garland. In fact, I don’t admire you or the FBI director, Mr. Christopher Wray, who recently got up and walked out of a congressional hearing because he had a plane to catch. It turns out to be the FBI Gulfstream paid for by the taxpayers and he was taking it to his vacation home; clearly illegal but he’s above all that.
You should both be fired and have your home raided to see if any evidence of any crime could be found.
Finally, folks, there’s no use in belaboring this story any longer so I will close for now.
My conclusion is that it is impossible to know the truth anymore because the government, top to bottom, is a bunch of corrupt liars.
Who can say what they took and what they found, and what they planted in former President Trump’s home?
No matter what they tell us, they discovered it is a lie and not to be believed because they had ample time to plant anything.
It is likely that Donald Trump will be indicted by a corrupt regime looking for a show trial ala the Soviet Union.
At least that’s the way I see it.
You can listen to Darrell’s podcast at

Electoral College

(continued from Facebook)

The development of national political parties toward the end of the 18th century provided the new system with its first major challenge. Informal congressional caucuses, organized along party lines, selected presidential nominees. Electors, chosen by state legislatures mostly on the basis of partisan inclination, were not expected to exercise independent judgment when voting. So strong were partisan loyalties in 1800 that all the Democratic-Republican electors voted for their party’s candidates, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Since the framers had not anticipated party-line voting and there was no mechanism for indicating a separate choice for president and vice president, the tie had to be broken by the Federalist-controlled House of

Representatives. The election of Jefferson after 36 ballots led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, which specified separate ballots for president and vice president and reduced the number of candidates from which the House could choose from five to three.

The development of political patties coincided with the expansion of popular choice. By 1836 all states selected their electors by direct popular vote except South Carolina, which did so only after the American Civil War. In choosing electors, most states adopted a general-ticket system in which slates of partisan electors were selected on the basis of a statewide vote. Thus, the winner of a state’s popular vote would win its entire electoral vote. Only Maine and Nebraska have chosen to deviate from this method, instead allocating electoral votes to the victor in each House district and a two-electoral-vote bonus to the statewide winner. The winner-take-all system generally favored major parties over minor parties, large states over small states, and cohesive voting groups concentrated in large states over those that were more diffusely dispersed across the country.

Arguments for and against the electoral college

One of the most troubling aspects of the electoral college system is the possibility that the winner might not be the candidate with the most popular votes. Four presidents—Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000, and Donald Trump in 2016—were elected with fewer popular votes than their opponents, and Andrew Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives after winning a plurality of the popular and electoral vote in 1824. In 18 elections between 1824 and 2000, presidents were elected without popular majorities—including Abraham Lincoln, who won election in 1860 with

under 40 percent of the national vote. During much of the 20th century, however, the effect of the general ticket system was to exaggerate the popular vote, not reverse it. For example, in 1980 Ronald Reagan won just over 50 percent of the popular vote and 91 percent of the electoral vote; in 1988 George Bush received 53 percent of the popular vote and 79 percent of the electoral vote; and in 1992 and 1996 William J. Clinton won 43 and 49 percent of the popular vote, respectively, and 69 and 70 percent of the electoral vote. Third-party candidates with broad national support are generally penalized in the electoral college—as was Ross Perot, who won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and no electoral votes—though candidates with geographically concentrated support—such as Dixiecrat candidate Strom Thurmond, who won 39 electoral votes in 1948 with just over 2 percent of the national vote— are occasionally able to win electoral votes.

The divergence between popular and electoral votes indicates some of the principal advantages and disadvantages of the electoral college system. Many who favor the system maintain that it provides presidents with a special federative majority and a broad national mandate for governing, unifying the two major parties across the country and requiring broad geographic support to win the presidency. In addition, they argue that the electoral college protects the interests of small states and sparsely populated areas, which they claim would be ignored if the president was directly elected. Opponents, however, argue that the potential for an undemocratic outcome—in which the winner of the popular vote loses the electoral vote— the bias against third parties and independent candidates, the disincentive for voter turnout in states where one of the parties is clearly dominant, and the possibility of a “faithless” elector who votes for a candidate other than the one to whom he is pledged make the electoral college outmoded and undesirable. Many opponents advocate eliminating the electoral college altogether and replacing it with a direct popular vote. Their position has been buttressed by public opinion polls, which regularly show that Americans prefer a popular vote to the electoral college system. Other possible reforms include a district plan, like those used in Maine and Nebraska, which would allocate electoral votes by legislative district rather than at the statewide level; and a proportional plan, which would assign electoral votes based on the percentage of popular votes a candidate received. Supporters of the electoral college contend that its longevity has proven its merit and that previous attempts to reform the system have been unsuccessful.

In 2000 George W. Bush’s narrow 271—266 electoral college victory over Al Gore, who won the nationwide popular vote by more than 500,000 votes, prompted renewed calls for the abolition of the electoral college, as did Donald Trump’s 304—227 electoral college victY in 2016 over Hillary Clinton, who won the nationwide popular vote by nearly three million votes. Doing so, however, would require adopting a constitutional amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. Because many smaller states fear that eliminating the electoral college would reduce their electoral influence, adoption of such an amendment is considered difficult and unlikely.

Stephen Wayne

Some advocates of reform, recognizing the enormous constitutional hurdle, instead focused their efforts on passing a so-called National Popular Vote (NPV) bill through state legislatures. State legislatures that enacted the NPV would agree that their state’s electoral votes would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote—even if that person was not the winner of the state’s popular vote; language in the bill stipulated that it would not take effect until the NPV was passed by states possessing enough electoral votes to determine the winner of the presidential election. By 2010 several states—including Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland,

Massachusetts, and New Jersey—had adopted the NPV, and it had been passed in at least one legislative house in more than a dozen other states.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica

Citation Information

Article Title: electoral college

Website Name: Encyclopaedia Britannica

Publisher: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Date Published: 19 February 2021


Access Date: August 22, 2022


TO:  Constitution Party National Committee Members

It was agreed at the recent meeting of the National Executive Committee that our Fall 2022 National Committee Meeting scheduled on September 22-24 will be postponed until after the November election and possibly at a location different than Denver, CO.

I hope this change does not cause any inconvenience.

Please stay tuned for upcoming details.  Thank you.

For Liberty,

Jim Clymer
National Chairman
Constitution Party National Committee

Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution

Learn the meaning of the Constitution and the principles of American government in this new version of Hillsdale’s most popular course.

The United States Constitution was designed to secure the natural rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Signed by Constitutional Convention delegates on September 17, 1787—Constitution Day—it was ratified by the American people and remains the most enduring and successful constitution in history.

In this twelve-lecture course, students will examine the political theory of the American Founding and subsequent challenges to that theory throughout American history. Topics covered in this course include: the natural rights theory of the Founding, the meaning of the Declaration and the Constitution, the crisis of the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of the Founding, and the nature and form of modern liberalism.

Join more than one million Americans who have taken “Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution” by enrolling in this free online course today!

Click here to enroll

SAVE THE DATE – SAVE OUR COUNTRY! – 2022 Spring National Committee Meeting


April 29 – 30, 2022

The Constitution Party National Committee for our Spring Event will be meeting in Erie, Pennsylvania –  the Flagship City and Pennsylvania’s primary access point to the Great Lakes!


  • Early Bird Registration – $100/person through April 14;
  • Received after April 14 – $110/person
  • Saturday attendance only, including lunch – $50/person
  • Friday evening Alan Keyes dinner and keynote address only – $35/person
  • Register online HERE!  Mail-in Registration HERE.

Your full registration fee will include 3 delicious meals; Friday lunch, Friday evening banquet and Saturday lunch. Vegetarian and Gluten-Free options are available.  You’re on your own for breakfast, but the CP of PA will provide coffee and breakfast pastries at the venue.

Ambassador Alan Keyes will be our Friday night Keynote Speaker





Saturday Speakers:

    • Coach Dave Daubenmire, Pass the Salt Ministries
    • Dr. John Diamond, America Unhinged Radio
      “The Kingdom of God”
    • Robert Owens, Regional Field Director of the John Birch Society
    • Hunter Tower, PA Director of the Freedom Foundation
    • Dr. Kahlib Fischer, Liberty University
    • Diane Gramely, President of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania 
      “Critical Race Theory – Why Now?”