This summer, a “conservative” posing as a “journalist” wrote an article criticizing the Constitution Party’s nominee, Darrell Castle, who was the most conservative candidate in the race by far. I wrote this rebuttal in defense of Castle, and was promptly blocked from his page. I have no way of knowing whether the original Facebook note is still up.

Recently, the popular “conservative” Michael Harrington promised to “destroy” the most conservative presidential candidate in the race, Darrell Castle. He delivered on his promise with an article that appeared (at least in the eyes of some that read it) to put to rest any notion that Castle was a conservative. So, I suppose I’m going to have to destroy Michael Harrington and his argument.


Let’s start with his second sentence, “I had seen enough piecemeal evidence to support avoiding Castle entirely, but the Castle supporters are now going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative.” Right off the bat, Harrington makes an attempt to discredit Castle without providing any evidence. This is meant to influence your starting opinion of Castle without considering the evidence first. Comparing Castle supporters to Trump (even when there is no true comparison) is simply a tactic he uses to appeal to the emotion of Cruz supporters who are weary of anything remotely having to do with Trump. He also implies that Castle is not a real conservative. It’s a great strategy for influencing our opinions, but it is not factual.


Now Harrington gets into Castle’s use of podcasts, “This is how he hides a lot of the content that would otherwise get a candidate caught quick.” Right! Castle, one of the most unknown candidates in the race, is using podcasts as a way to hide information from the voters! Remarkable.


Harrington’s next subheading reads “Attacks on Ted and Heidy Cruz.” Never mind the fact that Cruz would be a possible future opponent for Castle and the Constitution Party, or that Castle himself said on a conference call earlier this week that he would have voted for Cruz if he was a Republican. Instead, Harrington finds articles by individuals in two state Constitution Party affiliates, CP Arkansas and CP Washington. He doesn’t include the fact that the Constitution Party is very decentralized; that is, the state parties hold a range of stances different from each other and the national party. They all hold the same set of basic principles, but stances on individual issues very greatly.


So after all the distraction from Harrington about Castle’s party, he finally gets into Darrell Castle’s position on the matter, “He starts noting Ted Cruz launched his campaign then goes straight, I mean STRAIGHT, to where Ted Cruz was born.” Harrington acts as if this MUST be evidence that Castle is a “birther” (which Castle has denied repeatedly). This may make sense to you if you (like Harrington) ignore the context in which this podcast was made. It was made at the start of Cruz’s campaign, when the number one issue was whether he was eligible to be president. Ignoring this huge element of Castle’s campaign would not only be bad journalism, but would probably be a sign to anti-Cruz people that Castle was biased in favor of Cruz.


Harrington starts quoting Castle directly out of his podcast, comparing Cruz to Barack Obama. This is another appeal to the emotions of Cruz supporters, who are (rightfully so) disgusted by anybody correlated to Barack Obama. Castle never says anything about Cruz being similar to Obama in any way other than the speculation of their eligibility to be president. Castle is simply saying that Cruz’s situation is similar to that of Obama’s. He does not say what he thinks about Obama’s situation nor what he thinks about Cruz’s situation. Harrington conveniently leaves that fact out, which of course he has to in order to preserve his argument.


Harrington’s next line seems (to him at least) to put the nail in Castle’s coffin, “But then he attacks at the very end and says Ted Cruz ‘has all of the establishment credentials but he doesn’t sound establishment.’” Harrington views this as an “attack,” though there is no evidence that Castle intends it in that way. Castle may mean a few different things here; he could be saying that Cruz has the upper hand against many Republicans because of his ties to the establishment while holding anti-establishment views. He could be saying that Cruz is very experienced in Washington yet has been able to do so while holding views contrary to the establishment. Since there is no evidence either way, I’m not sure how Harrington can preserve his journalistic integrity while using this as an attack against Castle. Well, maybe I do know: Harrington has no journalistic integrity.


Harrington then says (in bold, even,) “Darrell Castle started the birther argument. His followers immediately started the CFR and NWO attacks on Heidi Cruz. Of that there is no doubt.” Okay, it’s easy to say there is no doubt, but does he have any evidence to back it up? No. This is by far the strangest part in Harrington’s article. He makes an entirely baseless claim, and states it as if it is indisputable fact. He goes on to say that this “birther” argument leaked into Rand Paul camps and libertarian circles from Castle’s circles. Even after Harrington admits that the attacks came before Cruz’s campaign even started or Castle ever made any mention of them, saying, “While some attacks predated Ted Cruz launching his candidacy Darrell Castle stands out as the first to launch a birther style attack on Senator Cruz after he announced his candidacy,” he insists that Castle started the attacks! What kind of backwards logic is this? I’ve never seen anything like it, and it is further proof that Harrington is no more qualified a journalist than I (which is saying a lot).




Harrington moves on to Castle’s economic plan. Note that he makes no mention of Castle’s intent to completely eliminate all federal income and sales taxes, or his plan to make up for any lost revenue with an ingenious state rate system (described in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution) in which taxes are paid by states directly to the federal government in proportion to their population. He does not mention Castle’s stance against tax increases, and he does not say anything about Castle’s intention to eliminate unconstitutional federal regulatory agencies (which includes every agency that does anything outside of the 17 enumerated powers in the Constitution; a cut that not even Cruz suggested). Instead, he focuses on the replacement (replacement, mind you) of all income and sales taxes with an import tariff. This tariff is described by the very article that Harrington cites as a “low” tariff. Low. Harrington makes it seem as if this would positively kill our economy, that somehow this tariff would destroy our economy much more than huge income and sales taxes. He leaves out the part about our Founding Fathers. What tax system was envisioned by our Founders? An income tax? A sales tax? Indeed not. A tariff. That is how our Founders thought the federal government would generate its revenue. A tariff. How would this low tariff be enough to fund our federal government, one might ask? Well, as I previously stated, Castle advocates for such cuts in the size of the federal government that a low tariff would cover the costs, just as it did for our Founders. Harrington goes on to compare Castle to Trump, saying, “Tariff’s is why I rank Trump an F in economics, and the Constitution Party goes completely for Tariff’s.” Indeed, Trump proposes “tariff’s” (note the making of the word “tariff” plural by using an apostrophe TWICE, which is something we learn not to do in about the third grade), but he proposes them in addition to income taxes while making no proposed cuts to the federal government! Castle’s position on these issues is so drastically different than Trump’s that it is laughable to compare the two. Yet, Harrington is obviously a laughable “journalist,” so no surprise there. Harrington receives an “F” on economics, just as he assigned to Castle.




Harrington moves on to Constitution Party infighting, “There was extensive infighting in the Constitutional Party where a major State, Idaho, did not have Darrell Castle on the ballot.” Note that Harrington refers to Castle’s party as the “Constitutional Party,” which is another sign that Harrington is nothing close to being a credible journalist. The name of the party is the Constitution Party. No “al” at the end. While some may overlook this, any credible journalist would not.



“They also ignore certain amendments that have happened, in an act of cherry picking. Adding restrictions that do not exist is just icing on their cake.” Harrington, in another amazing show of his journalistic capabilities, degrades the party, and then does not defend his argument; rather, he simply links to another source.




Harrington goes on an attack against Castle’s desire to let Israel handle its own foreign affairs, saying, “He started a comment about foreign aid with Israel as an example. One simply does not start with Israel as an example unless they intend to stand deliberately against Israel.” What an assumption! Once again, Harrington undermines his journalistic credibility by somehow trying to guess Castle’s mind. Castle has repeatedly said that he views foreign aid as unconstitutional. Oh, the horror! He is against giving taxpayer money to a country as it is unconstitutional. He has expressed his support for Israel multiple times, saying that we would defend Israel if it was attacked. Harrington ignores this, and goes to link Castle to racists and anti-Semites, saying, “However in the racist circles, and in the circles that blame Jews for the idea of the NWO (A topic Castle puts a lot of time in on) there is a definite belief that Israel is a bad nation.” While Castle certainly puts a lot of time in on the NWO, there no evidence whatsoever, that Castle is racist, though Harrington implies this. Indeed, Castle’s wife is of JEWISH HERITAGE. I cannot emphasize enough the stupidity and invalidity of these attacks.


In his closing, Harrington reiterates his criticisms against Castle, so I suppose I should do the same about my criticisms against Harrington. We have a man that lacks journalistic integrity, economic knowledge, and historical knowledge criticizing the most conservative candidate in the 2016 presidential race. I advocate that any (former) Harrington supporters that read this article let him know just how wrong he is, and spread the truth about Mr. Castle and the Constitution Party.


Harrington’s original article: