Clint Bishop: Rebuttal to Josh Guckert’s ‘Top 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Constitution Party Candidate Darrell Castle’

castleronpaul

Clint Bishop used the above image in his rebuttal

Was this article seriously meant to deter libertarians from voting for Darrell Castle?

by Clint Bishop, American Third Party Report, August 28th, 2016:

If there is anything that has annoyed me this election cycle, it has been the unfounded attacks against Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party Candidate for President by purportedly objective journalists. Without treading deeply into my personal journey which led to my support of Castle, I’ll simply offer that I’m a Consitutionist, believing in the original intent of the founding fathers for our nation. A long and winding path has carried me here, and I’m pleased to have traveled it. Philosophically it aligns me primarily with two ideologies, paleo-conservatism and the libertarian right. Now down to business…

On August 25th, I received several Facebook notifications of friends who were commenting on an article that had been posted in a couple of Libertarian Facebook goups and pages. I went to check out one notification and realized over half of my 100+ notifications cleared up from clicking on the same article in two separate groups. This article was on fire! Mr. Josh Guckert of The Libertarian Republic had written an article titled ‘Top 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Constitution Party Candidate Darrell Castle’. My mind told me, “Here we go again!”, but my gut told me to relax and read on… It was apparent, reading the title, that it was another hit piece against Castle – but to my surprise, the majority of the comments I saw suggested that the article’s original purpose had backfired. Many were hailing the list as a reason TO vote for Castle.

Objective – (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective.

The Rebuttal

First and foremost, I’d like to thank Mr. Guckert for the exposure. Regardless of the article’s (lack of) accuracy or completeness, it has certainly drawn more liberty-minded individuals towards the campaign. He begins by making the understatement that “some libertarians” are upset with the nomination of Gary Johnson, as well as the alternatives in the major parties. Many principled libertarians are furious with the dismal front man for the Libertarian Party. Their frustrations aren’t solely focused towards Mr. Johnson, however. The purists turned waterboys for the LP have incensed them as well. Let’s take a look at Castle, whose “record indicates a very frightening candidacy.”

  1. Immigration

First, Mr. Guckert implies that Darrell Castle is to the right of Donald Trump on immigration. He also states that libertarians generally favor a simpler path for potential workers. For starters, Mr. Trump has already flip flopped on the issue of immigration so it’s impossible to compare the two candidates side by side. Secondly, if we could take his primary position held dear by his ardent supporters, then Trump is notorious for his irrational promise of “building the wall that Mexico will pay for” while executing a mass roundup and deportation of all illegal immigrants. Contrary to popular belief, many libertarians aren’t exactly thrilled at the idea of blanket amnesty and open borders. Castle supports neither of these. We are a sovereign nation and have a right to, and should defend our borders. In his recent interview on The Glenn Beck Program, Mr. Castle agreed with the hosts that mass deportation wasn’t the answer.

The article also points to Mr. Darrell Castle supporting a “blanket ban on ALL immigration”. What the writer is referring to is Mr. Castle’s suggested moratorium on all immigration until immigrants can be properly screened and vetted as not being national security risks, as well as properly securing our borders. There is Constitutional basis in protecting our nation from foreign invasion, specified in Article IV, Section 4.

Consititution1

2. Gay Rights

In Reason No. 2, the author states that Castle has a very socially conservative and seemingly anti-gay record, followed by a quote from Castle regarding the government’s relentless assault on Christian civilization and western civilization in general. Not sure what to say here, except “ok…” What the quote said isn’t nearly as telling as what Mr. Guckert DIDN’T tell his readers concerning Mr. Castle and marriage. Darrell Castle is a Christian, as is the majority of the nation. His belief is that marriage is a religious institution, defined only by God. As such, he states that the government has no place in marriage, including redefining God’s definition of it. Mr. Castle doesn’t believe in requesting a license from the government for marrying a woman OR a man should be compulsory. My, what a statist…

https://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?408188-3/washington-journal-constitution-party-presidential-candidate-darrell-castle

At 8:08 of the C Span interview above, Mr. Castle elaborates on his position.

3. Separation of Church and State

I really shouldn’t even touch this one because the fallacious subtitle says it all. I will respond just to humor myself, however. There is no Separation of Church and State. The First Amendment and Establishment Clause that Mr. Guckert refers to is, of course, intended to keep the government out of the Church, not religion out of the State. Many libertarians and liberals often misinterpret this, so it’s no surprise. He states that Castle suggests the Bible is supreme to the Constitution by stating that the government can’t legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted, which by that very Clause, would vindicate Mr. Castle’s statements regarding marriage and family as true.

The author then goes on to quote the Constitution Party Platform Preamble (no surprise) as proof that Castle doesn’t believe in the Establishment Clause (again). Mr. Guckert states that it was created “to prevent entanglement of government and religion”. He may want to get a refund on the law degree that his profile states he has, because that wasn’t the purpose of the Establishment Clause. Its purpose was to prevent government from interfering in Church affairs and to prevent the establishment of a state religion. That brings us to the good ole theocracy argument that some libertarians attempt to use against the Constitution Party. It is undeniable that our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Everything, from our natural rights that were bestowed upon us by our Creator (the God of Abraham) to our nation’s pleas and thanksgivings to God illustrate such. We can maintain our Christian principles and morals without founding a state religion of Christianity, and in fact we’ve done it for over 240 years.

the-separation-of-church-and-state

4. Obscenity and Pornography

In this section the author begins by saying that “Castle has not taken occasion to address this particular issue…”. So why would you list it? But in order to establish a pattern here, I will mention that his knock against the Constitution Party Platform plank can be squashed with two words, “Reading Comprehension”. If one actually reads this plank, it states the obvious, that states have the blessing of the Party to protect what is truly free speech and to enforce the current laws regarding obscenity, pornography, and sexually-oriented businesses.

5. Death Penalty

I must admit that I was actually caught off guard with this section. The 2012-2016 Platform held that the Party’s position on life was 100% Pro-Life from “conception to natural death” and the 2016 Platform was recently released. Apparently the 2016 Platform Committee found it suitable to condone the death penalty. I can’t argue the constitutionality of the death penalty because the Right to Life cannot be taken without due process. Obviously, if someone has been convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, then they have been afforded due process. I don’t agree with it personally. What I find ironic about this, however, is that the author, a libertarian, is lecturing the Constitution Party on issues of life and death while the Libertarian Party Platform condones the killing of innocent babies. But hey, those serial killers who take the life of the unborn deserve the sympathy, amirite?

fetus

6. Free Trade

Had the author simply written an admonishment of the Constitution Party, minus Darrell Castle, and left it at “Their trade policies suck”, I may not have been able to defend our Party. However, once again, Mr. Guckert listed Party platform planks rather than Mr. Castle’s views on trade. Mr. Castle has stated time and time again that he is an advocate of free trade, but not an advocate of Trade Agreements that surrender our national sovereignty to international courts and organizations which are a part of unelected, internationalist bureaucracies; these agreements are more commonly seen as “managed trade agreements”, not FREE Trade agreements. Mr. Castle does see tariffs as a constitutional means of raising revenue, as does the party, yet prefers the constitutional taxation through state apportionment while maintaining cost controlling free trade with individual nations. At 12:20 in the C-SPAN interview, Castle explains these views briefly.

One of the more surprising excerpts from the article follows, and accuses Castle of conspiratorial thought due to sharing his anti-globalist views (a sentiment we usually SHARE with libertarians), “We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.” In fact, this was one of the most frequent criticisms I saw of Castle in the author’s work; it seems as though Mr. Guckert must not be aware that Ron Paul, the individual who arguably did the most to popularize libertarianism in the 21st century and the 1988 Libertarian Party presidential nominee as well, often criticized the plan for a global government known as the New World Order.

7. Campaign Speech and Term Limits

Is this really as big of a deal as taxes or abortion? I agree that corporations shouldn’t buy elections. Individual donations shouldn’t matter but Super PAC’s have resulted in converting our nation into a corporate oligarchy. We do, in fact, have de facto term limits in the form of elections…

8. Second Amendment Liability

The Constitution Party  is unequivocally the most pro-Second Amendment Party and Darrell Castle is likewise unequivocally the most pro-Second Amendment Candidate in the race. We believe in no restrictions whatsoever on law abiding citizens. If you doubt this, please scroll through Mr. Castle’s isidewith.com answers for yourself. One answer in particular was brought into question by the author in regards to victims of gun violence being allowed to sue firearms dealers and manufacturers, Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, no corporation should be immune from the possibility that their product after being introduced into public commerce was defective, etc. and caused harm. Mr. Castle has addressed this and didn’t answer the question in relation to gun violence victims, but in regards to defective product and product liability.

9. Net Neutrality

Seriously? I don’t even know what to say to this…the particular question asked by ISideWith regarding internet service providers speeding up access to more popular websites at the potential cost of less popular ones is a non-issue in this critically important election that we are facing. Mr. Castle’s answer to this question was also not in any way “Orwellian,” as the author absurdly suggests.

10. Eminent Domain

As stated in the quote used, Eminent Domain is constitutional in certain circumstances.

Conclusion

I can’t help but sit back and envision this young man devising a plan to bury Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party in an effort to coalesce libertarians around Gary Johnson. Due to this, I went back and reviewed his recent articles. Sure enough, his post prior to this one was a video titled ‘Rebutting The Rolling Stone and “Why You Shouldn’t Vote for Gary Johnson” ‘. From what I’ve gathered about libertarians, they don’t need someone to inform them whether Castle is ‘libertarian enough’ for them or not. Libertarians seem to be among the most analytically minded individuals in the political realm. This was evidenced by the fact that so many libertarians immediately criticized the article debunking the misrepresentations and innuendo, as they had already researched Castle for themselves and immediately recognized the bias. Another important factor seemingly ignored by the writer is that libertarians appreciate the fact that Castle is more libertarian than Gary Johnson without striving to be libertarian. Johnson, on the other hand, is quite superficial with the philosophy, infuriating libertarians who aren’t looking to toe the Party line. Despite Josh Guckert’s best efforts to “prove” the contrary, Darrell Castle remains by far the best choice for principled libertarians and constitutionists in the 2016 presidential race.

Libertarian_Party.svg

DarrellCastle2016_WebBanner-01-1

15 thoughts on “Clint Bishop: Rebuttal to Josh Guckert’s ‘Top 10 Reasons Not to Vote for Constitution Party Candidate Darrell Castle’

  1. Observer

    To date, Mr. Castle’s FEC filings show $7,789 in individual contributions, plus a loan of $2,500 from the candidate himself.

    If there is any substantial number of people who support him, they aren’t putting their money where their mouth is.

  2. Andy

    Darrell Castle is a good candidate, but he is running as the nominee of a party that is in bad shape due to years of internal conflict and lack of outreach.

  3. MicroParty

    Anybody taking bets yet on if the CP’s death spiral will conclude in time for Castle to be their last nominee?

    Even if they manage to limp along and formally nominate somebody in 2020, I don’t think we will ever again see a CP nominee with ballot access in states covering 270 electoral votes. Which is no great loss.

  4. Cody Quirk

    “Even if they manage to limp along and formally nominate somebody in 2020, I don’t think we will ever again see a CP nominee with ballot access in states covering 270 electoral votes. Which is no great loss.”

    Pretty much. However by then, I doubt that they would be on in enough states to even equal 100 electoral votes… If they don’t fracture further or disband before then.

  5. JamesT

    Yeah I assume they’ll get somebody on in 2020 but not 2024. It’s kinda sad t me since both Baldwin & Castle are better than the LP nominees the year they ran. I do respect Howard Phillips even if I disagree with him. But minor parties don’t have long lifespans and are prone to malcontents infighting. They really lacked a charismatic leader the last 24 years.

  6. Joe M.

    I think you guys are predicting a premature death…there are actually more people getting involved daily in the CP. The reason you dont see a lot of money is because 1.They are new and not ready to invest 2. Most people are still caught up in the “a minor party cant win”….what I would like to see is more encouragement among minor parties and less division…The R’s and D’s do enough to divide us, they don’t need any help. I am a CP member, but as I talk to people I will encourage them to look at the LP or Greens if I feel thats where their ideology is….lets help each other out and tear down this two party system!!!!!!

  7. Tony From Long Island

    James T: ” . . . But minor parties don’t have long lifespans and are prone to malcontents infighting. They really lacked a charismatic leader the last 24 years. . . . ”

    The LP has been around and steady for 44 years. The current two “main” parties” did a major ideological flip in the 1960’s . . . about 50 years ago . .

    So, if you are talking about all OTHER “minor” parties . . then maybe you have a point. How’s the Natural Law Party doing?

    As for the CP ceasing to exist, that would be great since their platform is not based on the Constitution. It’s been false advertising for their entire existence.

  8. JamesT

    I think Daryl Perry was right the LP will collapse reform party style once they get matching funding. Also it’s not even a libertarian anymore so…44 years but hasn’t been the “party of principle” since 2006. So don’t think you’re any different.

    I do agree the existence of the CP is kinda silly especially without Howard Phillips. It was a flash in the pan for the 90s paleo movement. And was overshadowed by Pat’s reform party run which ultimately made it irrelevant.

    My own 2 cents would be the paleo, constitutionalists, libertarian, minarchist, anarchist interested in political activism etc should have formed a united liberty party after Ron Paul. But I think everybody is more happy sniping at people that agree with them 95% than actually doing anything.

    I hope someone, Judge Nap or Justin Amish, or anyone can unite the liberty movement in 2020 to get there ideas back out there and peek interest and I could care less which party label.

  9. Tony From Long Island

    JAMES T: ” . . . I think Daryl Perry was right the LP will collapse reform party style once they get matching funding. Also it’s not even a libertarian anymore so…44 years but hasn’t been the “party of principle” since 2006. So don’t think you’re any different. . . . ”

    The “reform” party wasn’t really a party. They had no purpose but to “reform.” Reform to what?

    Daryl Perry is a creepy anarchist who the LP should have nothing to do with. Telling off a radio interviewer is really professional, bro! Libertarianism is not anarchy. Matching funds are EXACTLY what the LP needs. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000, but I totally disagreed with him when he said he would refuse matching funds if they were offered. To actually get elected to ANYTHING, you have to be taken seriously.

    There is a chance that Gov. Johnson could be the last LP candidate I ever vote for – especially if Austin Petersen is a part of the future LP.

    No party will ever be all “purists.” None. Thankfully, the LP isn’t either. Of course, all of you purists can go form your own party and continue being pure at .02% of the vote. All power to ya!

  10. JamesT

    Neo-conservatism is antithetical to libertarianism. Bill weld is a Bill Kristol endorsed neo-con. That’s not a purity test. That’s the oranges party running a pet cat as the standard bearer for oranges. I just said I hope the liberty movement unites around someone who represents one of its factions unites all of them. I’m pretty sure I’m not a purists.

  11. Tony From Long Island

    I choose to judge the actual presidential nominee.

    I also GENERALLY don’t judge someone by who endorses them, since that is something out of their control.

    Your analogy was interesting.

    Gov. Johnson does represent a faction of the LP – the pragmatic moderates who certainly outnumber the purists. Judging by the amount of publicity he’s gotten, it was a wise choice. People will look more into the LP and if they like what they see, maybe they will stay – if they don’t – oh well. The blinders-wearing anarchists haven’t seemed to attract many followers over the years

  12. JamesT

    I thought Johnson was a wise choice to attract people as well. I voted, donated, bumper sticker had etc for him in 2012. I just think Weld is taking it way too far and Johnson has subsequently done terribly in his TV appearances. Honestly Johnson has gotten worse not better. You’d think after 4 years he’d be better prepared. It almost seemed back in the spring he was only running cause no one else high profile enough was. Then Weld should up and became the boss. Hence the #teamgov nonsense. And who he wants to run with him is a fundamental judgement call on his part and shows a clear lack of judgement. But really the failure is on the LP not having more charismatic speakers and seem to be incapable of getting prominent libertarian thinkers to run for them.

  13. Tony From Long Island

    I agree with you about Johnson’s speaking skills. He is not polished but Weld helps when he stumbles. Not all of Johnson’s appearances are bad. He does hard not to attack his opponents and wants to come across as a good guy – that’s not a flaw. The stupid question about the Nazi cakes – which would never happen – seems to make him stutter. Why would a jewish person go to a Nazi for some wedding cakes anyway?

    You could take ANY of the others on that stage from Orlando and they wouldn’t be breaking 2%. None of them was even close to being the most qualified candidate. If you say Austin Petersen, you aren’t taking into consideration that he is a right-wing blowhard who comes across as very unlikeable and smug.

    Of course, I look at it through the prism of a Democrat who is a former LP member and who holds some moderate LP positions.

  14. JamesT

    I think Johnson’s popularity stems from the unpopularity of Clinton/Trump. If it was Jeb V Biden or something he would be desperate do as well as he did in 2012. Harambe polls at 5% in three way contests. His success has nothing to do with him. High Mitt Romney still seems more attractive to people than the other two. Also idk if people are being willfully ignorant about this but when 3rd party candidates have been included in polls before they do well until about 2 weeks before the election than they get their .4% or w/e.

  15. Tony From Long Island

    I agree that his numbers have something to do with the unpopularity of Clinton / Trump. I am a democrat voting for Johnson (but only because she will win my state by 20% so I don’t have to worry about helping Generalissimo Trump).

    I agree that his final number will be lower than his poll numbers, but I don’t think it will be substantially so. By election day, it will be very clear that Clinton is winning – and probably by a very safe margin, so potential Johnson voters will have no qualms voting for him.

    That Harambe stuff is just silly (though Deez Nuts do seem pretty popular). Johnson is pretty consistently 8 – 12 in every credible poll.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *