Darrell Castle refuses to deny he’s a 9/11 Truther

[Timber Rattler]

The Constitution Party has always been full of loonies...

Just like the Republican Party?

[austingirl]

I believe this guy (in the comments section), who debunks these accusations against Castle, but that's just me.


Bob Bennett  • 2 days ago 

You and Michael Harrington 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 Trump or Clinton. You start this "article" 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.You go on to say:

"He thinks that Angela Merkel is Adolf Hitler's secret daughter." But he 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 tonight that he meant that 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 mislead the readers.

On the birther smear, that both you and Harrington launched on this site: You say: Castle "[came] out in March of last year against Ted Cruz, floating that the Senator is not a natural-born citizen, and was not worthy of support." 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 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 your other accusations, and I'm sure you know that nobody else will either. But if they're as accurate as the foregoing they're worthless. You end your screed with:

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

But what you don't mention is that you are a Gary Johnson supporter, according to another Red State piece of yours at: tinyurl.com/hansujk There, you 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 you mean Johnson should soft-peddle his obsession with pot, not mention he believes in open borders and letting all illegals work. He should 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 should certainly not mention that when asked by John Stossel whether he felt Jewish bakers should be forced to bake wedding cakes for Nazi customers, he replied “that would be my contention, yes.”

That candidate you feel IS "fit to be President and should get principled conservative votes"?

Your smears, and those of Harrington, who not only cites the same birther lie as you have, also claimed that because Castle didn't list Cruz's accomplishments that amounts to an attack on Cruz.

Smearing Castle is the same as Trump smearing Cruz. That's one strong reason we now don't want to vote for DT.

It seems that you've convinced a number of people, with your smears. judging by the comments. In so doing you and Harrington 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.


http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2016/08/02/darrell-castle-conspiracy-theorist-attacked-ted-cruz-early/

https://www.constitutionparty.com/assets/Platform-in-Brief.pdf


Yeah the Constitution Party platform reveals just what nutcases they are. They want to return to Constitutional government and Biblical principles. How nutty is that?/s

[sinkspur]

https://www.constitutionparty.com/assets/Platform-in-Brief.pdf


Yeah the Constitution Party platform reveals just what nutcases they are. They want to return to Constitutional government and Biblical principles. How nutty is that?/s

The Republican Party says it wants to return to Constitutional government but nominated a big government authoritarian.

The Constitution Party nominated a conspirazoid who thinks Angela Merkel is in the Hitler line.  That's pretty nutty.

As for me, I don't want Old Testament biblical principles in the Constitution.  That "eye for an eye" thing is pretty bad.

[TomSea]

If no one else posted it, Red State also ran this article that Castle is not a truther.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2016/08/06/darrell-castle-911-truther-isnt-74-members-congress/

[Timber Rattler]

https://www.constitutionparty.com/assets/Platform-in-Brief.pdf


Yeah the Constitution Party platform reveals just what nutcases they are. They want to return to Constitutional government and Biblical principles. How nutty is that?/s

Precisely.

Listen, disaffected Conservatives who think that they are going to find a well-funded, well-organized, premade Conservative Party that they can join without having to do any work or contribute anything themselves to its improvement and success are going to be sadly disappointed, since none exists.  Starting a new Conservative Party from scratch is a non-starter, considering people's general laziness and apathy, so the best we can do is find an existing party the platform and values of which aligns most closely with ours.  And right now, that vehicle appears to be the Constitution Party!  Join it!  Get involved!  Help shape and improve its platform and messaging!  And become a delegate and candidate yourself for local office so that we can field better candidates than Castle (who's not going to win anything, BTW).  That's the only way a true Conservative Party can be built...it's not going to be handed to you on a platter!

 

[austingirl]

The Republican Party says it wants to return to Constitutional government but nominated a big government authoritarian.

The Constitution Party nominated a conspirazoid who thinks Angela Merkel is in the Hitler line.  That's pretty nutty.

As for me, I don't want Old Testament biblical principles in the Constitution.  That "eye for an eye" thing is pretty bad.

Yes, the Constitutional Party is for traditional marriage and the Founding Principles, pretty horrific stuff./s

[Timber Rattler]

As for me, I don't want Old Testament biblical principles in the Constitution.  That "eye for an eye" thing is pretty bad.

So you've got a problem with the 10 Commandments?

[austingirl]

Precisely.

Listen, disaffected Conservatives who think that they are going to find a well-funded, well-organized, premade Conservative Party that they can join without having to do any work or contribute anything themselves to its improvement and success are going to be sadly disappointed, since none exists.  Starting a new Conservative Party from scratch is a non-starter, considering people's general laziness and apathy, so the best we can do is find an existing party the platform and values of which aligns most closely with ours.  And right now, that vehicle appears to be the Constitution Party!  Join it!  Get involved!  Help shape and improve its platform and messaging!  And become a delegate and candidate yourself for local office so that we can field better candidates than Castle (who's not going to win anything, BTW).  That's the only way a true Conservative Party can be built...it's not going to be handed to you on a platter!

 

Excellent post.

[Timber Rattler]

If no one else posted it, Red State also ran this article that Castle is not a truther.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freedomrepublican/2016/08/06/darrell-castle-911-truther-isnt-74-members-congress/

Yes, indeed!

His podcast focused on the 28 pages redacted from the 2002 Congressional inquiry into 9/11. At the time of the podcast they had not been released. But last month, they were finally opened up to the public.

Essentially, Castle made three points. One, that the federal government was stonewalling efforts to have the pages released. Two, that the federal government was doing so to protect it's relationship with Saudi Arabia. Three, that the relationship primarily exists for financial reasons. All of those points are obviously true to any well-educated observer of politics. The United States supports the Islamic theocracy of Saudi Arabia for the same reason Russia supports the Islamic theocracy of Iran: it furthers each nation's economic interests, at least in theory.

Castle concluded his podcast by demanding that the pages be released, and stated that Saudi Arabia should face consequences if it turned out that they were implicated.

[TomSea]

I would not pay attention to remarks marginalizing the Constitution Party or whomever saying they are full of loonies.

Ron Paul's view on 911 has been called "Truther" as well. I'm not sure if this is certain.

[XenaLee]

No, it's not.  The Constitution Party has always been full of loonies (i.e., Alan Keyes once ran for president under that banner) and this time is no different.   Why throw in with that?

Nobody is trying to coerce or force you to vote for the the CP, sinkspur.  We're just putting this info out there for all of us (adults) to make up our own mind.  Trashing the CP, however, is something akin to what the #foreverTrump folks might do.  That's not you, is it?  I didn't think so, having read your posts.  But I'm confused now.  Who ARE you voting for in November ....what party, what candidate?

[sinkspur]

So you've got a problem with the 10 Commandments?

I don't, personally.  But I don't want any government imposing a "Lord's Day" or enshrining "Honor your Father and Mother" on the population. 

[XenaLee]

I would not pay attention to remarks marginalizing the Constitution Party or whomever saying they are full of loonies.

Ron Paul's view on 911 has been called "Truther" as well. I'm not sure if this is certain.

Right.  We can make up our own minds here.  And at this point ......it's a bit tacky to trash the CP when the GOP is so fubared....and there is no other party out there that embraces conservative values at the moment.

[sinkspur]

Nobody is trying to coerce or force you to vote for the the CP, sinkspur.  We're just putting this info out there for all of us (adults) to make up our own mind.  Trashing the CP, however, is something akin to what the #foreverTrump folks might do.  That's not you, is it?  I didn't think so, having read your posts.  But I'm confused now.  Who ARE you voting for in November ....what party, what candidate?

I'm not voting for the top of the ticket.  I don't vote for liars, demagogues, or crazies. 

The Constitution Party, like the Libertarians, attract the fringes of the voting public.  Talk about a wasted vote!!!

[sinkspur]

I would not pay attention to remarks marginalizing the Constitution Party or whomever saying they are full of loonies.

Ron Paul's view on 911 has been called "Truther" as well. I'm not sure if this is certain.

"   

Ron Paul thought we ought to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama bin Laden because that's the "only remedy available in the Constitution."  I guess Thomas Jefferson would be surprised at that, since he used force against the Barbary Pirates.

Anyway, Paul was a nice eccentric old guy who had the same following as did "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

[XenaLee]

I'm not voting for the top of the ticket.  I don't vote for liars, demagogues, or crazies. 

The Constitution Party, like the Libertarians, attract the fringes of the voting public.  Talk about a wasted vote!!!

Ok, so you're voting for who, exactly, this November?  I'm curious ...since most of the GOP seem to have been 'compromised' now....so what's the difference?  Voting yet again for another GOPer that will either ignore our wishes and roll over for the GOP elitists or stab us in the back.....vs. voting for the CP candidates.  Other than not repeating the very definition of insanity ....which is also a 'wasted vote'....I just don't see it (the difference).  Sorry.

[sinkspur]

Ok, so you're voting for who, exactly, this November?  I'm curious ...since most of the GOP seem to have been 'compromised' now....so what's the difference?  Voting yet again for another GOPer that will either ignore our wishes and roll over for the GOP elitists or stab us in the back.....vs. voting for the CP candidates.  Other than not repeating the very definition of insanity ....which is also a 'wasted vote'....I just don't see it (the difference).  Sorry.

I'm voting GOP for local and state races.  No vote for president.

[XenaLee]

"   

Ron Paul thought we ought to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama bin Laden because that's the "only remedy available in the Constitution."  I guess Thomas Jefferson would be surprised at that, since he used force against the Barbary Pirates.

Anyway, Paul was a nice eccentric old guy who had the same following as did "The Rocky Horror Picture Show."

So....is Ron Paul (who really is a loon) now representing the Constitution Party?  Not to my knowledge.  Please correct me, if so.

[XenaLee]

I'm voting GOP for local and state races.  No vote for president.

Ok.  That's your choice.  But to claim that anyone that is voting for the CP presidential candidate (assuming they're able to in their state) is wasting a vote is rather hypocritical to me, considering that you're not even voting at all for the presidential position.   Just sayin....

[TomSea]

Virgil Goode, former Rep. Va., has been registered as Republican and Democrat was the Constitution party candidate last time. I've already been through the whole 9 yards with the party. Ron Paul endorsed last time maybe? So, with old Libertarian thought and the Constitution party, there were similarities.

The LP seems to be taking a certain flavor of libertarianism, I'm not sure I go along with that. They've been called Libertines at that.

[roamer_1]

Turns out I'm not the only one pointing out the facts about Castle. So he has replied to the points I made, and importantly refuses to deny he's a 9/11 Truther.

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2016/08/05/darrell-castle-refuses-deny-hes-911-truther/

I would invite you to listen to the '28 pages' podcast that the author uses as evidence - While the '28 pages' refer to the redacted 911 Commission findings, the subject matter of the podcast is the tying of the American dollar to Saudi oil, rather than gold... The reference to 911 is also couched within that scope. Hardly the sort of stuff worthy of the 'truther' label.

I myself firmly believe that the offending passports were salted at the crash sites - I don't believe the buildings were blown up, or that the planes were drones, or any other cockamamie nonsense... But i DO very much believe 'they', driven by media demand, had to quickly build a strong case, and manipulated data and evidence in their favor, in order to do so. The idea that they found so many of the passports of the hijackers in that giant lump of debris... and that the passports were largely in perfect condition, is ludicrous on it's face - Does that make me a 'truther'?

Likewise the accusation that he is promoting the idea that Angela Merkel is a daughter of Hitler - That tidbit is gleaned form this article: http://www.castlereport.us/islamic-terror-little-history-2/ . It is a single sentence, by which the accusation is laid:

She hates herself, and she hates Germans, in general, so bad, that she wants to destroy both herself and them. 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. Time Magazine’s person of the year, Mrs. Merkel, is not the first German Chancellor to hold the honor of person of the year. Adolf Hitler was the first man of the year, and both of them have done a marvelous job of destroying Europe, and of destroying their own German people.

http://www.castlereport.us/islamic-terror-little-history-2/ PP. VII

There it is, in black and white -But in the context, is it talking of a direct decent from Hitler (as a blood relative), or is it speaking to the well known revulsion that Germany has against it's having to claim Hitler and his atrocities?

I would lean toward the latter, albeit that I will freely admit that I am not 'up' on whether there is a widespread conspiracy regarding Merkel's patronage or not.

I would call for a more precise vetting on this stuff, lest we can be accused of the same sort of thing Trumpers did to Cruz. So far, to me, this looks like a hack-job. Prove it better.

[roamer_1]

As for me, I don't want Old Testament biblical principles in the Constitution.  That "eye for an eye" thing is pretty bad.

*shakes head*... Do you know where Yeshua's 'Cast the First Stone' comes from? Torah. See if you can find it.  The emphasis has ALWAYS been on mercy.

[austingirl]

Ok.  That's your choice.  But to claim that anyone that is voting for the CP presidential candidate (assuming they're able to in their state) is wasting a vote is rather hypocritical to me, considering that you're not even voting at all for the presidential position.   Just sayin....

Excellent post. I do not believe that standing by the Constitution with the Constitution Party is wasting a vote, either.

[austingirl]

I don't, personally.  But I don't want any government imposing a "Lord's Day" or enshrining "Honor your Father and Mother" on the population.

As if those things are part of the Constitution Party platform for goodness sake. 

There will never be a State religion thanks to the Constitution - that is if we can adhere to it.

[Chosen Daughter]

I would invite you to listen to the '28 pages' podcast that the author uses as evidence - While the '28 pages' refer to the redacted 911 Commission findings, the subject matter of the podcast is the tying of the American dollar to Saudi oil, rather than gold... The reference to 911 is also couched within that scope. Hardly the sort of stuff worthy of the 'truther' label.

I myself firmly believe that the offending passports were salted at the crash sites - I don't believe the buildings were blown up, or that the planes were drones, or any other cockamamie nonsense... But i DO very much believe 'they', driven by media demand, had to quickly build a strong case, and manipulated data and evidence in their favor, in order to do so. The idea that they found so many of the passports of the hijackers in that giant lump of debris... and that the passports were largely in perfect condition, is ludicrous on it's face - Does that make me a 'truther'?

Likewise the accusation that he is promoting the idea that Angela Merkel is a daughter of Hitler - That tidbit is gleaned form this article: http://www.castlereport.us/islamic-terror-little-history-2/ . It is a single sentence, by which the accusation is laid:

There it is, in black and white -But in the context, is it talking of a direct decent from Hitler (as a blood relative), or is it speaking to the well known revulsion that Germany has against it's having to claim Hitler and his atrocities?

I would lean toward the latter, albeit that I will freely admit that I am not 'up' on whether there is a widespread conspiracy regarding Merkel's patronage or not.

I would call for a more precise vetting on this stuff, lest we can be accused of the same sort of thing Trumpers did to Cruz. So far, to me, this looks like a hack-job. Prove it better.

OK, I read the responses to this thread and found them to be good replies warranting a look into Darrell Castle a little further.  I think using the word lineage to describe Merkels relationship to Hitler was a mistake.  It appears that you are right and it wasn't about blood relationship.  As I said in the leading post I was ready to think that I would vote for Castle but am apprehensive of conspiracy.  People should use words carefully.  That was a mistake on Castle part.

As for whether we created ISIS.  I do believe that with Obama/Clinton response in both Libya and Iraq we created an atmosphere for ISIS to take over.   Did we create ISIS I think ISIS was started by Saddam Hussein and can be proven so.

9/11  I am not a conspiracy theorist.  Everyone saw what happened.  Heard the calls from the passengers.

nuff said.

I will give Castle a second look but I would listen to some of the podcasts myself.  I am going to post this response from Castle concerning the allegations against him from Red State in the opening thread.  I accept his response and will give him another look. 

https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2016/08/04/darrell-castle-responds-to-attacks-from-never-trump-activist/