For many conservatives, the current election feels like a road block. Hillary Clinton cannot be an option, based on her scandals and liberal agendas. Though Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, one has but to look at his previous progressive record and eventually make the logical deduction that he is a phony conservative. Finally, many conservatives have begun to turn their eyes to the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Yet he, too, is not a fully conservative. Yes, he is more conservative than Clinton and probably Trump, but he is free on a few liberal agendas, abortion being one of them. Can one actually cast a vote for a current candidate who is actually a sound conservative? Though you might be surprised, the short answer is yes.
Darrell Castle is running third-party for the Constitution party with Scott Bradley as his running mate. Castle is a conservative lawyer from Tennessee whom I found my political beliefs aligning closely. It refreshed me to know that there was still a candidate running who holds to a totally conservative, historical view of the Constitution.
It won't surprise you to know that Castle is pro-2nd amendment rights and pro-life in all cases. By his own words, he says that the "unalienable rights," as discussed by Thomas Jefferson, are endowed from the Creator God. If a right is given by the Creator of all things, no man can take it away. This is a significant problem currently facing our nation. Many are operating under the incorrect belief that it is the government, not God, that endows us with our rights. In that system, the federal powers absolutely may remove rights. Yet, as Castle proclaims, the rights gifted to us by God can be removed by Him alone. My wish is to see that conservatives do not lose sight of that fact.
Further, as a Christian, I certainly am a big fan of Castle's stance of religious liberty. America is not a nation only for Christians, as I discussed in my last article, but it is a nation that is slowly stripping Christians of the right to freely live out their religious beliefs. How can we live in a free nation if religions are treated as inferior to atheism? Religious liberty can aid in bringing citizens back together to form a better self-government. This is not to say that "coexistence" is the answer, but rather cooperation. By that I mean working together for the good of our nation without forcing anyone, religious or not, to compromise their beliefs. Castle's platform of religious liberty is a great way to ensure all religions can strive for better lives together.
If you're this far into the article, I would hazard a guess that you could very well be in opposition to third party because a vote that direction would hand Clinton the White House. In that case, my response is that voting is more than just supporting a party, though that certainly can come into play. Voting is first and foremost a show of supporting a candidate with whom your conscience is comfortable supporting. Personally, I can't vote for Clinton in good conscience. I lean against Trump also. The likelihood is that Trump or Clinton will be the next President, but that definitely does not mean we have to give them our vote as support. For those Constitution-based conservatives who feel like there are no options left, I encourage you to give Darrell Castle serious consideration.
