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

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Glenn's Show Prep