Red State Is Not the Place for Smears


As long as I’ve been writing on Red State, I’ve done my best to be accurate—though opinionated. The other articles and diaries I’ve read have been the same. I’ve always been able to tell Trumpers in my FB groups that Red State is opinionated but does not publish propaganda.


However, it’s disturbing that the same online smearing that plagued Ted Cruz, at the hands of Donald Trump, is now appearing here on Red State. The target now is Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party candidate for president. In my opinion, with millions unwilling to vote for either major candidate, third-party candidates should get a fair review on this site.


But two articles, one by Neil Stevens, the other by Michael Harrington do not inform; they mislead. In truth, they are not articles; they are hit pieces. These gentlemen seem to think Red State is now a vehicle for smearing third-party candidates—at a time when many Red State readers cannot vote for either Trump or Clinton, and yearn for accurate information.


We all remember how Fox News bent the primaries in Trump’s direction by giving him more than double the airtime Ted Cruz got, and often either smeared the latter, or let Trump do it. This is largely why we are in this position today! Red State has been one place conservatives could get accurate info. Now the members of my groups give me links to these articles and ask me, “Is this true?”


Mr. Stevens starts his piece with: “One thing is clear: Darrell Castle, ambulance chaser and Constitution Party nominee, is not an option. He’s as crazy as Donald Trump, and no Constitutional conservative should give him any votes or support.”


He’s an “Ambulance chaser” because he’s a bankruptcy and accident lawyer? A third-party candidate has to have a day job.


He goes on to say:

“He thinks that Angela Merkel is Adolf Hitler’s secret daughter.” But Castle actually said: “She is so afraid of acknowledging that she is, in fact, a descendant of the Fuhrer that she must destroy her own people to prove she is actually a great humanitarian.” He said Thursday night, during a radio interview that he meant they were both chancellors and Merkel wants to prove she’s not a racist like her predecessor, so she lets in a million Muslims. That’s obviously what he meant—unless you intend to distort the truth.


On the birther smear, that both Stevens and Harrington launched on this site: Stevens says, that in a March 25, 2015 podcast, Castle “[came] out … against Ted Cruz, floating that the Senator is not a natural-born citizen, and was not worthy of support.” Untrue: in the podcast Stevens links, Castle does not say Cruz is ineligible: he says, “’Cruz’s supporters say if a child is a citizen at birth, he is natural born.’” (paraphrase) That is true: I’ve used that very argument to Trumpers many times. 8 USC 1401 (c) applies to John McCain and 8 USC 1401 (g) applies to Cruz, for those who are curious.


Castle then reads the relevant portion of the Constitution. That’s it. I don’t call that birtherism; I call it stating the obvious.


I’m certainly not going to listen to multiple podcasts to fact-check Mr. Stevens’s other accusations, and I’m sure he knows that nobody else will either; they’ll just accept his summary of what they said. If they’re as accurate as the foregoing they’re worthless.


I finally decided to listen to the April 29th podcast Mr. Stevens referred to as “spinning a story that goes all the way back to the Bretton Woods deal, right up to the president [sic] day, including both Presidents Bush and Obama in his vast Saudi/9/11 conspiracy.” That sounds pretty way-out, pretty fantastic.


But it didn’t sound fantastic at all, to me—when I took the time to listen. It concerned our relationship with the Saudi dictatorship, correctly described their policy of head-chopping, Obama’s bow before the king; and mostly: the 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Report. The “60 Minutes” episode on those missing 28 pages, which Castle mentioned, confirmed what Castle had said. Here’s a quick excerpt:


“Roemer and others who have actually read the 28 pages, describe them as a working draft similar to a grand jury or police report that includes provocative evidence — some verified, and some not. They lay out the possibility of official Saudi assistance for two of the hijackers who settled in Southern California. That information from the 28-pages was turned over to the 9/11 Commission for further investigation. Some of the questions raised were answered in the commission’s final report. Others were not.”


He ends his screed with:

“Darrell Castle is unfit to be President and should not get any principled conservative votes.”


So why all the distortion?


What Mr. Stevens does not mention in this piece is that he is a Gary Johnson supporter, according to another Red State piece of his at: tinyurl.com/hansujk. There, he advised Johnson: “You have a rare opportunity to appeal to conservatives….Please, Governor Johnson, modulate your message for the general election. You don’t have to change your views, not at all. I’m not asking you to ‘move to the middle.'”


I guess he meant Johnson should soft-peddle his obsession with pot, he should not mention he believes in open borders and letting all illegals work. He should also soft-peddle things like saying bakeries should be forced to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, as he said at an Oregon debate. And he certainly should not mention that, when asked by John Stossel if he felt Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers, he replied, “that would be my contention, yes.” Watch here.


Mr. Stevens apparently feels Johnson is “fit to be President and should get principled conservative votes,” but Castle, who once talked about Jade Helm, is not fit, should not get conservative votes?


Mr. Harrington, in his piece, gives a transcript of Castle’s March 25, 2015 podcast. If you read it without Mr. H’s over-the-top and angry boldface comments, it’s quite clear it was not an attack on Cruz. Harrington notes that Castle makes a comparison between Obama and Cruz, of which he says: “And there it is, he just made a birther comparison between Barack and Ted Cruz.”


I don’t read it that way at all. Castle’s comparison is not a logical one because Obama never admitted to being foreign born. Indeed, Castle doesn’t say Obama was born abroad either. They have Harvard in common? I don’t know what Castle is saying here. But we should keep in mind that he intends to run against Cruz. He would be nominated by his party a year later.


The remainder of the Castle transcript is pretty complimentary to Cruz. It states his positions fairly. It says WaPo wrote that no one likes him in the Senate. What else is new from the liberal press?


Harrington claims that because Castle didn’t list Cruz’s accomplishments that amounted to an attack on Cruz. That makes no sense. The other things Mr. Harrington alludes to, Castle may have picked up from Trump fake websites without checking them, IMO. He does not have an army of well-paid fact-checkers, for sure. His wife is his campaign manager, says Harrington. What’s wrong with that? Obviously his party is cash-strapped. For Mr. Harrington to say Castle is out to pay his wife more money is a low blow, reminiscent of Trump’s attack on Heidi Cruz.


In his interview last night, Darrell Castle said this, of Cruz, from my notes:

He wants to put together a summit with Cruz & Ron Paul. He says he is not a birther; Ted Cruz is eligible to be president. “Had I been a Republican, I would have voted for him…. At that time, we were competitors; I believe he’s the most honorable of the Republicans…. Cruz is a man of honor.”


He did admit there’s some disagreement within the party. But being Republicans we should be used to that.


Harrington’s comments show an inappropriate hatred of Castle; in fact, he promised in advance to destroy Castle. Click below:


Michael Harrington Attack Promise-small


He again promises to destroy Castle in the comments:

“The next piece will demonstrate this sickness is in the majority of the partys [sic] leadership, which means when I am done no one will touch Darrell who were for Cruz.”


I hate to draw this conclusion about a man whom I deeply respect, but he seems like someone who’s enjoying the prospect of destroying Castle, if only to prove he can do it.


Readers are entitled to hear Darrell Castle state his opinions in his own words. I will soon have a podcast of the entire two-hour interview, from last night. In it, he responds to more of the charges. I will share it with Red State readers, so they can judge for themselves. Fair enough?


Smearing Castle is the same as Trump smearing Cruz. Is this what we do now? This is one reason we don’t want to vote for DT.


It seems that these gentlemen have convinced a number of people, judging by the comments. By distorting the truth, they are debasing Red State and deceiving its readers. I’ve always been able to tell Trumpers that Red State is opinionated, but those who write there do not tell untruths. Now I cannot.

Join here to help.