Presidential Hopeful Darrell Castle Seeks 'Bloodless Revolution' in America

November 01, 2016

WRITER

Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday for a deeper dive into his policies and beliefs.

In a nutshell, Castles platform includes abolishing the Federal Reserve, withdrawing from the United Nations, fighting Agenda 21, supporting pro-life beliefs and adhering to the U.S. Constitution.

Castle is officially on the ballot in 24 states and a registered write-in candidate in 23 other states. For more information on Darrell Castle, visit Castle2016.com.

Read below, watch the clip or listen for answers to these questions:

• Why does Castle oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

• Would Castle use ground forces to fight ISIS?

• Does Castle believe Putin is a friend or foe?

• Is Castle opposed to the U.S. constantly intervening militarily?

• When did Castle help found the Constitution Party?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Darrell Castle.

DARRELL: Oh, thank you very much. I'm glad to be with you.

GLENN: The platform in a nutshell, as I understand it -- I'd like you to go through it. Audit the fed, withdraw from the UN, fight Agenda 21, be pro-life, and adhere to the US Constitution.

Pretty simple. Do you want to expand?

DARRELL: Well, except -- except for auditing the fed, you're exactly right.

GLENN: Oh, you don't want to audit the fed?

DARRELL: No, I want to end the fed.

GLENN: All right. All right. End the fed.

You want to expand on any of these?

DARRELL: Well, I'll expand on anything that you would like me to expand on. But I've done numerous podcasts and so forth on all of those positions in the last few months.

GLENN: So let me play devil's advocate. End the fed. How -- how do you think you could possibly as president end the fed?

DARRELL: Well, I couldn't. It would take an act of Congress. It would be very simple. Congress would just have to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and it would be done. And obviously, they would be forced to return to the Constitution and retake control of the monetary system themselves.

But if -- if I were elected president, I mean, it's quite obvious what I stand for. So the people would have to -- to rise up and turn up the heat on Congress. As Harry Truman said, "When you turn up the heat, they see the light." But I couldn't do it by myself. No, Congress would have to act.

GLENN: Darrell, I'm currently being called a globalist by those who are supporting Donald Trump. I couldn't be further from a globalist. I believe in free trade. Do you?

DARRELL: Yes, I do.

GLENN: Okay.

DARRELL: And I can explain that, if you would like.

GLENN: Go ahead.

DARRELL: I believe in free trade. I believe that the United States should -- should trade freely with Mexico, Chile, and other countries that it does now.

I just don't believe in free trade agreements. Unlike like your friend, Evan McMullin, I'm opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other free trade agreements because they transfer American sovereignty to bureaucracies and corporations totally unaccountable to the American people. I don't think that's necessary or wise.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That is my belief on TPP as well. It is transferring too much sovereignty.

The -- you want to withdraw from the UN. Is there no reason to have an international body and an international community like that?

DARRELL: Well, there may be plenty of reasons to have an international body. But the United Nations does some really horrible things. It's not compatible with the American way of life. Agenda 21, it's depopulation. Many things like that. I just want this country to be free and independent again and be able to chart its own course in the world.

Like I said before, I'm all for trade. I believe trade brings friendship, and it brings economic prosperity and so forth for people around the world, all up and down the economic spectrum. So I'm all for interacting with the world, just not in a situation where the American Constitution is called into question and actually superseded by international bureaucrats. I -- I'm about tired of that.

Plus, the United Nations has had us almost continually at war since 1945. And we haven't won very many of them. So I'm for ending -- I'm for a different way of life.

PAT: Darrell, you also seem to be the strongest candidate who is running for president on immigration. Tell us your stand on the border and what you would do with the 20 million illegal aliens that are here. And what would you do on the border?

DARRELL: Well, on the border, it's my position that we should force the immigration laws that we have now in an effort to secure the border. I would do, as president, whatever it took. I just consider it my sworn duty as president of this country to secure the border, by whatever means proven necessary.

And I think before we start doing radical things like building a wall -- and I will say, I would do that, if that's what it took. But just enforce the immigration laws that we have in place right now and empower the -- the Border Patrol and so he had authorities to -- to secure the border. And once we do that so that we know who is coming across, we could admit as many people as we want. But we would hopefully know whether those people are terrorists or not.

GLENN: The situation over in the middle east with ISIS, Darrell. What do we do?

DARRELL: Well, you know, I've read where Donald Trump constantly keeps saying he wants to -- he wants to destroy ISIS and so forth. And, I mean, that's fine. Who doesn't?

Mr. McMullin says he would commit ground forces in an offensive against ISIS. I wouldn't do that. I mean, I don't really understand the entire mentality that we're applying in Syria. I mean, number one, what business is it of ours, who runs Syria? The Assad family has run Syria for some 50 years now. But all of a sudden, we cannot tolerate this man Assad, a day longer.

And if the Russians want to fight ISIS, I mean, who cares what -- why not? But I'm not in favor of -- of ground troops in Syria. And I'm not in favor of what Mrs. Clinton called for, a no-fly zone. She tried to walk that back a little bit in the last debate, when it was pointed out that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that would mean war with Russia. You always have to ask yourself what the endgame is going to be when you have to confront Russian aircraft. All these confrontations and so forth, it seemed to me are unnecessary. We could devote a whole show sometime to talking about Russia, if you wanted to.

But the long short of it is, I'm not in favor of -- of committing ground troops to Syria right now. I don't see the need for it.

GLENN: Is Putin a friend, a foe? What is he?

DARRELL: Who knows, you know? What was it Winston Churchill said about Russia...

But, I mean, I don't know if he's a friend and a foe. I know he seems to love his own country and trying to protect his own country. And I know that -- I have a certain degree of sympathy with that because of Russia's history. You know, they -- every time they look to the West, they see tanks. And they remember the German invasion and many, many, many before that. And now German tanks are messing around on their border again. I don't blame them for being nervous about that. It's not Russia that's in Mexico. It's not Russia that's in Canada. But NATO and the United States and the European Union are at Russia's border. Who wouldn't be nervous about that?

GLENN: Well, I mean, when Poland asks NATO and the United States to be there --

DARRELL: Yeah.

GLENN: Because they're afraid.

DARRELL: They always do. They always ask. And I -- I've gotten a few calls in the campaign from Polish people who are very nervous about it.

But, you know, those types of things are easy to manipulate. I -- you know, the first thing we think about is confrontation and war. I just suspect that Poland would be sitting there just as happy as they could be if NATO and the union had not pushed to the borders of Russia, which we promised them we wouldn't do when Reagan and Gorbachev had their meeting.

But nevertheless, that's the way I see it. I mean, I would take whatever action necessary to protect this country. But right now, you know, I think these constant confrontations with sanctions and pushing the Russian economy to the brink and so forth, as Roosevelt did with the Japanese -- and I'm not saying that wasn't necessary. I'm just saying, it oftentimes leaves a desperate country with only one choice.

And you always want to leave your opponent a way out.

PAT: Other than trade, would you consider yourself isolationist?

DARRELL: No, I wouldn't.

GLENN: What would you consider yourself? What's the difference between you and an isolationist?

DARRELL: Well, isolationist, you know, let's withdraw to the borders and build fortress America. But the opposite of that -- people often accuse me of isolation because I don't choose war.

The opposite of war is peace, not isolation. I don't want to withdraw to the borders in this totally interconnected world with instantaneous communication that we have now. It's ridiculous to -- to think of such a thing. But neither do I -- I mean, would you -- any of the countries around the world who don't have the military power that the United States has, they'll constantly intervene militarily every time they see a rattlesnakes nest in some other part of the world.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Darrell, every conservative or someone who thinks themselves conservative wants to lower taxes in some way. We'll hear either lowering rates or we'll go to a flat tax or a consumption tax. Your tax plan is different than all of those. Can you kind of explain it and walk through it?

DARRELL: Yes. My tax plan is different. And it seeks to free the American people to keep all their income, and that would be pretty sweet.

STU: Yeah.

DARRELL: But it also empowers the states, which the original intent of this Constitution and this union that the states entered into originally, it returns sovereignty to the states because the taxes, the budget would be apportioned like the census to the various states. So if your state of Texas, for example, add 5 percent of the nation's population, it would -- Texas would be required to produce 5 percent of the budget. And Texas could do that as it saw fit. It could exploit its own best resources, its natural resources or it' -- you could build a toll road across the state and charge tourists a dollar and charge Texans ten cents, or however it wanted to raise that money.

And each state could do that as natural resources in Alaska, tourism in Hawaii and Florida, gambling in Nevada. And each state could raise the money as it saw fit.

And the states -- their representatives would be under pressure from the people to hold down the federal government, not make it bigger. And every time the federal government decided that they wanted to go fight somebody somewhere, they would have to tell the states, "Look, folks, we're going to need another trillion dollars to go fight these people."

And the states might say, "Well, let's take a hard look at whether we really need to fight these people or not." Because the pressure would be on a lower budget, not a higher budget. And the states would be free. The federal government coming to them for the money, rather than the other way around.

So to me, it seems like a wonderful system, especially when you consider my overall platform, that there would be so much less government to fund.

GLENN: Darrell, the reason why I -- and I've got about 90 seconds to answer this.

The reason why yesterday I said, I don't know who I'm going to vote for. Because I said that I was probably going to vote for you. Is because I didn't think you were serious about really running. This -- you've dedicated your life for how many years to this. And where are you going to be, you know, on -- what are you going to be doing on November 9th?

DARRELL: Well, I'm going to be sitting in my law office like I am right now, practicing law and taking care of my clients and so forth. That's what I do for a living. But -- and that's where I personally am going to be, unless I'm elected president.

And if I do, I'll probably be -- well, I don't know. That would be a whole 'nother thing. But I -- I mean, I'll just go back to my law practice, assuming I don't win the election.

GLENN: You're one of the founders of the Constitution Party, right?

DARRELL: Yes, I am.

GLENN: And what drove you to that how many years ago?

DARRELL: Well, we founded it in 1992. Started in the latter months of '91.

What drove me to it? I was planning to not vote in that election. And a dear gentleman who became a good friend of mine convinced me that his efforts to start a third party could meet with some success. We thought that when people saw our platform and who we were and what we were trying to do, they would leave the Republican Party and join us. But we didn't -- we kind of underestimated the enemy's strength, I guess. But we did it because we believe that the Democrat/Republican Party would never take the nation where it needed to be. And that it would gradually, little by little, election by election, get worse and worse. We were right in that regard.

GLENN: That hasn't happened. No, that hasn't happened at all. I don't know what you're talking about.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Darrell, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Are you on the ballot in all 50 states?

DARRELL: No, I'm not, Glenn. I'm on the ballot in 24 states as a name. And I'm on the ballot in 23 other states as a registered write-in.

GLENN: Okay. So you can write-in or you can -- or you can pull the lever because it will be on the ballot.

PAT: And how can people help? Where do you go if you want to donate or volunteer?

DARRELL: Well, you can go to my website, which is Castle2016.com. And that will give people an opportunity to send me money, which is always welcome.

(chuckling)

DARRELL: And they can go out on the 2016 Election Day, as I hope you will do, and do the right thing and vote for me. Because this country would be in far better shape if most people would do that. And I could wake up on November 9th and actually be president and this country -- the people of this country out there listening right now could in effect start a bloodless revolution.

GLENN: Yeah.

DARRELL: Even our own revolution was bloody, but this could be bloodless. And the world would never be the same, I can assure you. And everybody would be happy. All right. I know I got to go.

GLENN: I appreciate it. No, no. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Darrell Castle from the Constitution Party. Don't throw your vote away. If you believe somebody, then vote for them, no matter who they are. Hillary people, you look at it, write in Bernie Sanders, go for Jill, go for the Libertarian -- write in or vote your conscience. He's right. It just gets worse and worse and worse.

Featured Image: Screenshot from C-SPAN

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.

The government is WAGING WAR against these 3 basic needs

NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has launched a full-on assault against our basic needs, and people are starting to take notice.

As long-time followers of Glenn are probably aware, our right to food, water, and power is under siege. The government no longer cares about our general welfare. Instead, our money lines the pockets of our politicians, funds overseas wars, or goes towards some woke-ESG-climate-Great Reset bullcrap. And when they do care, it's not in a way that benefits the American people.

From cracking down on meat production to blocking affordable power, this is how the government is attacking your basic needs:

Food

Fiona Goodall / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn had Rep. Thomas Massie on his show where he sounded the alarm about the attack on our food. The government has been waging war against our food since the thirties when Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. They started by setting strict limits on how many crops a farmer could grow in a season and punishing anyone who grew more—even if it was intended for personal use, not for sale on the market. This sort of autocratic behavior has continued into the modern day and has only gotten more draconian. Today, not only are you forced to buy meat that a USDA-approved facility has processed, but the elites want meat in general off the menu. Cow farts are too dangerous to the environment, so the WEF wants you to eat climate-friendly alternatives—like bugs.

Water

ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn discussed during a recent Glenn TV special, the government has been encroaching on our water for years. It all started when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the government the ability to regulate large bodies of water. As the name suggests, the act was primarily intended to keep large waterways clear of pollution, but over time it has allowed the feds to assume more and more control over the country's water supply. Most recently, the Biden administration attempted to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to include even more water and was only stopped by the Supreme Court.

Electricity