Rebutting Mr. Harrington AGAIN


Mr. Harrington, once again, gratuitously attacks the Constitution Party and its presidential candidate, Darrell Castle. One can only guess what his reasons are. I’ll try to do that at the end. For now, let’s deal with what he’s saying this time. This is what those of us must spend valuable time on, if we believe Red State readers are entitled to accurate reporting and truth.


You may note this is not the first time I’ve been called upon to debunk less-than-accurate attacks from him and another person. See: “Red State is Not the Place for Smears.”


He begins with a statement that he’s been slandered. He and Neil Stevens were so busy battering Castle, the poor man attributed some of Stevens’s smears to Harrington. But Harrington has made other smears. That’s hardly slander, or more properly, libel, since it was a written statement. The legal dictionary says this:


“While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm.”


Calling Castle a birther based upon his March 25, 2015 podcast – which clearly doesn’t say that – is more likely to be damaging, because Castle seeks to get the support of Cruzers, and they are sensitive to the birther smear because Trump used it on Cruz. Since Harrington’s attacks were preceded by repeated threats to “destroy” Castle, among other things, that does seem intentional. I’m not an attorney, but he clearly isn’t either, or he would have never left himself open for that accusation.


He says, Trumplike, that “the more you attack me, the more I come out swinging.” But no one has attacked him. I’ve always said I respect, but disagree with him. Castle confused one smearer with another. To get even for imagined slights is Trumpian, and we’ve seen enough of that done to Ted Cruz, IMO.


On to the meat of the discussion. Let’s talk truth. Mr. H. declares that the Constitution Party’s military policy is misguided. He cites this, from the CP’s Defense policy statement:


“Under no circumstances would we commit U.S. forces to serve under any foreign flag or command. We are opposed to any New World Order, and we reject U.S. participation in or a relinquishing of command to any foreign authority.


“The goal of U.S. security policy is to defend the national security interests of the United States. Therefore, except in time of declared war, for the purposes of state security, no state National Guard or reserve troops shall be called upon to support or conduct operations in foreign theatres.


“We should be the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guarantor and provisioner of ours alone.”


Before I go on, does any conservative really disagree with this statement? Would we want the UN to command our troops—perhaps to defend Hamas against Israel? Absolutely not.


Harrington says that passage means “they object to NATO” and “That one line assures they want NO DEFENSE TREATIES.” Nothing there says that. It just doesn’t. We’ll deal with NATO later. Mr. Castle has said, in a recent two-hour interview (which I will report on, in an article), that he would defend Israel, if necessary. Obviously, if other allies were under attack, he would not just stand by.


Harrington then goes on to discuss Panama. As we all know and regret, President Carter gave up our sovereignty over the canal zone, in 1977:


“After years of negotiations for a new Panama Canal treaty, agreement was reached between the United States and Panama in 1977. Signed on September 7, 1977, the treaty recognized Panama as the territorial sovereign in the Canal Zone but gave the United States the right to continue operating the canal until December 31, 1999. Despite considerable opposition in the U.S. Senate, the treaty was approved by a one-vote margin in September 1978. It went into effect in October 1979, and the canal came under the control of the Panama Canal Commission, an agency of five Americans and four Panamanians.


“On September 7, 1977, President Carter had also signed the Neutrality Treaty with Torrijos, which guaranteed the permanent neutrality of the canal and gave the United States the right to use military force, if necessary, to keep the canal open.”— History.com


We not only built the canal, but we created the nation of Panama, BTW. So read Mr. H’s next quote from the Constitution Party platform and see if any of you object to it:


“Under no circumstances should we have unilaterally surrendered our military base rights in Panama. The sovereign right of the United States to the United States territory of the Canal Zone has been jeopardized by treaties between the United States and Panama. Inasmuch as the United States bought both the sovereignty and the grant ownership of the ten-mile-wide Canal Zone, we propose that the government of the United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity, and renegotiate the treaties with Panama by which the ownership of the canal was surrendered to Panama.


“It should be a priority goal of the President and Congress to insist on enforcement of that portion of the 1978 Panama Canal Neutrality Treaty which prohibits control of the entrances to the Panama Canal by any entity not part of the Republic of Panama or the United States of America. By this standard, the award of port facilities at the entrances to the Panama Canal to Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong company closely linked to the Chinese Communist People’s Liberation Army, must be overturned. Similarly, Congress and the President should take advantage of Panama Canal treaty provisions to negotiate the return of a U.S. military presence at the Isthmus of Panama. At a time when the U.S. Navy is one-third its former size, it is essential that rapid transit of U.S. military vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans be assured.”


Is there a single conservative who disagrees with this? Yes – Mr. Harrington:


“The one above here now shows they do not respect the rights of other nations. They wish to undo time, force Panama to give back the Canal, and to own it as a US Territory. That would require an act of war, or an act of piracy. Either works I guess.”


The only way we can pursue U.S. interests is by war? Really?? There is also…negotiation. This accusation is truly reaching, IMO.


Mr. Harrington quotes a section stating that the CP favors leaving NATO, and he objects to that. I agree with him, on this. The Constitution Party is not perfect, but if a large number of us Cruzers were involved with that party, we could lobby to alter their platform. Castle has said this.


Also, once I review Castle’s statements in the two-hour interview I will let you know what he says on the NATO issue.


I will add this: in 2011, NATO – with an enormous amount of American help – disgracefully allied with al-Qaeda and the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, said the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, to depose our ally Muamar Qaddafi, who was later murdered. Hillary Clinton later joked about his death, which was reportedly by anal bayonet.


Libya now is overrun by ISIS.


So our support for NATO cannot be open-ended, and there is much to talk about.


Harrington goes on, quoting, from the CP’s “Foreign Policy” section;


“The Constitution Party has consistently opposed American involvement in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and South America. The United States has no interest in these areas which would justify the sacrifice of Americans on foreign battlefields – nor is our country properly cast as a merchant of death in international arms races.”


Harrington comments:


“I am comparing the Constitution Party to the policy of Barack Obama…. They mimic Obama so strongly in that comment.”


This is WAY over the top. Castle is clearly objecting, here and in other statements, to adventures like the Iraq War, which cost us dearly in American lives and a LOT of money. The result was the destruction of the balance between Iraq and Iran, and the end of Sadaam’s suppression of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which later morphed into ISIS.


This also applies to our dishonorable involvement in Libya, and most definitely in Syria, where we’ve followed Obama’s pattern of deposing dictators — who were suppressing Islamist groups –virtually destroyed that nation, and Europe too, which is now awash with Muslim migrants. Given their much higher birthrate this will have catastrophic consequences on the West.


Anyone disagree?


Finally, Mr. Harrington goes on to discuss foreign aid. Here’s the quote, from the CP’s Foreign Policy section:


“Since World War II, the United States has engaged in the greatest international giveaway program ever conceived by man, and is now spending billions of dollars each year to aid foreign nations. There is no constitutional basis for foreign aid. These expenditures have won us no friends, and constitute a major drain on the resources of our taxpayers. Therefore, we demand that:


  • No further funds be appropriated for any kind of foreign aid program;
  • United States participation in international lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, be ended;
  • The Export-Import Bank be abolished;
  • All government subsidies, tax preferences, and investment guarantees to encourage U.S. businesses to invest in foreign lands be immediately terminated; and
  • All debts owed to the United States by foreign countries, or foreign entities, be collected.


The CP disagrees with foreign aid, believing it is unconstitutional. But Castle has stated more than once that, if Israel needed our financial aid we would be there. Again, I will provide a direct quote, after reviewing his interview. So, obviously he would make exceptions.


Is it unclear to anyone that giving money year in and year out to many countries is crazy; countries like Pakistan, or as Obama pronounces it: “Pahkeestahn.” Obviously that is what Castle refers to.


Harrington claims this means “If a major natural disaster happens they do not want us to commit aid to other nations.” Clearly, from the above, this is false.


He goes on to discuss “line 4.” But I think he’s actually referring to line 5: All debts owed to the United States by foreign countries, or foreign entities, be collected.”


If so, he’s obviously misreading it, when he says:


“Line 4 however, you do realize if they cashed in the debt we owe them it exceeds, very much so, the cash we have available right Constitution Party?” and “it will END TRADE.”


Harrington goes on, talking about gambling, porn, Puerto Rico, ending up with the tariff system the Constitution Party advocates on its website. I do not agree with that policy, as Harrington quotes from the party website: essentially putting a tariff on everything imported. However, today Darrell Castle spoke with Pat and Stu and gave a more liberal position on trade:


“Stu: I like free trade. You are talking a lot about tariffs, but you’re combining that with something that I really like, which is getting rid of the IRS and a lot of taxes. So could you kind of explain how you want to work that?


I don’t talk a lot about tariffs…it’s part of our platform, it was part of the original intent of the Founders as to how they wanted to raise revenue. But whether we like it or not, this is a global world right now, and it’s a pretty tough sale to tell people that everything they buy is going to cost more, although without an income tax, they might find it quite refreshing. But I don’t have a problem with free trade; I have a problem with free trade agreements, because they surrender the sovereignty of the United States to international corporations and bureaucrats unaccountable to the American people.


If we want to work out a deal with Mexico, for example, where we can trade with each other without tariffs, that’s fine with me.


Note that Castle’s plan resembles Ted Cruz’s “Business Transfer Tax.”


As I indicated above, if large numbers of Cruzers were involved with the Constitution Party, we could lobby for change in policies we disagreed with. There are 7.8 million of us. Harrington believes the solution is to destroy the party and its candidate, Darrell Castle.


Now, let’s talk about why Harrington is doing this. Truly, it’s inexplicable why he’s made a career out of destroying Darrell Castle, why he seeks to limit conservatives’ options in a year when so many cannot vote for either major candidate. So I can only guess why. He may be thinking Castle is some kind of competition for Ted Cruz, whom he’s long supported. Let’s be clear: Ted Cruz is our first choice, but we will not get him this year; he’s said he is not a candidate. The GOP has made sure of that. They’re going to make sure in 2020, also. I’ll explain why and how.


The Trump/GOP mob is out to destroy Cruz, starting with his ’18 Senate reelection race, and ending with blocking his nomination AGAIN, in 2020. Yes, it was blocked in ’16, with all those shill candidates to divide the vote. When Trump took advantage of it, the official GOP channel, Fox News, made sure he got more than double the airtime Cruz got – and friendly airtime. They knew from his ripping Cruz for calling McConnell the liar he is, that they could make deals with him. So opposed were they to nominating a true conservative, they ignored the fact that Trump has an obvious personality disorder that will doom his campaign if he can’t rein it in.


Cruz’s planned destruction started with the convention speech setup: Cruz had told Trump and Priebus in a meeting 3 weeks before the convention that he would not endorse. So why did they still invite him to speak?


Because it was a setup, with the NY delegation bringing in over a hundred green-hatted “whips” – read: “goons” – whose job it was to incense the convention against Cruz for not endorsing, and to “persuade” delegates to do whatever party bosses wanted. It’s also alleged that they improperly participated in the voice vote that killed the roll call vote on rejecting the rules package.


At the Rules Committee meeting days before, establishment honchos had blocked every conservative amendment, controlling the voting members with text messaging. They also added binding language to rules 37 and 38, which unbeknownst to them, did NOT actually bind the delegates.


Trump continued to berate Cruz the day after the convention, reanimating his absurd lies from March, including the National Enquirer Lee Harvey Oswald smear designed to dupe the dopes. And there are sooo many dopes. This didn’t do his campaign any good, but his apparent Narcissistic Personality Disorder compelled him to avenge the perceived slight of the non-endorsement. He may or may not get his campaign back on track.


Bottom line: conservatives are being purged from the GOP – including us. The GOP will succeed in that, unless all the RINOs are magically removed from the Party. That’s just not going to happen. So Cruz being nominated in 2020 is a beautiful dream doomed to evaporate, like all dreams upon awakening.


The solution is for the millions of Cruzers to unite behind Castle, and influence change in the party platform where needed. Then, by 2020 there could be a viable conservative party for Cruz and other conservatives to run in. There’s no downside to this. Mr. Castle, win or lose, this year, will likely not compete with Cruz in 2020, when he will be 72.


It’s absolutely crystal that the Republican Party despises conservatives; it’s more comfortable with a Hillary presidency or a Trump presidency than a Cruz presidency. Conservatives are an endangered species in the GOP. We aim to build a new home for them. I have no idea what Mr. Harrington’s aim is. He should be working with us.


Join and help: click here.