The skeletons in Darrell Castle’s closet


I hate writing articles like this. I don’t have anything personal against Darrell Castle, but some #NeverTrumpers who support him are really coming up with some unrealistic ideas about Darrell Castle. They harp on Donald Trump’s sins and shortcomings often, but don’t research who they support to see their candidate’s sins and shortcomings. However, this article is not for insincere people who are not willing to hear the truth and will not repent no matter what, but for those who are still seeking the truth and are undecided on how to vote. To keep you from falling for #NeverTrumpers’ emotional and false statements, and to show how hypocritical it is for them to attack Trump on his personal sins (and say no one should vote for him) while at the same time supporting Castle (even though he has sins of his own), here is some information of the skeletons in Darrell Castle’s closet. [NOTE: To clarify, part of this article is to show that there is no candidate without sin. I will be using some Bible verses that condemn sin, and condemn the support of it. I do not believe that supporting Donald Trump is supporting his personal sins, nor do I believe that supporting Darrell Castle is supporting his personal sins; HOWEVER, many #NeverTrumpers say that supporting the candidate IS supporting the candidate’s personal sins. Using their own faulty logic, they condemn themselves—they’re hypocrites on this issue whether they realize it or not. And part of this article is to show how Darrell Castle stands on some policy issues vs Trump.]

Personal Drinking

Darrell Castle drinks alcoholic wine. In response to his daughter asking what he’ll do next after becoming the Constitution Party’s candidate, he said: “First I’ll go home, and uh, sit down on my deck and have a glass of wine and ponder on it all, and try to absorb it, and consult with my campaign manager as to what direction we should go.” His daughter then asked, “Absorb the wine?” Castle replied, “And the, uh, the thought, the awesome nature of my endeavor.” (VIDEO) By the way, Donald Trump does not smoke or drink.

“Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and guide thine heart in the way. Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.” (Proverbs 23:19-21)

“Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.” (Proverbs 23:31)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” (Proverbs 20:1)

“It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted. (Proverbs 31:4-5)

In this area, Donald Trump is more fit to lead as president than Darrell Castle. Donald Trump can be depended upon to be sober and in his right mind to carry out his duties. (See also Isaiah 5:11-24; Isaiah 28:1-3; Luke 1:13-17; Micah 2:11; Titus 1:7; Daniel 1:1-15; Hosea 7:14; Isaiah 56:10-12; Jeremiah 35:1-19; Joel 3:1-3; Judges 13:1-5; 1 Corinthians 5:11; and Habakkuk 2:15-16.) A good article about wine, best read after printing it out and folding it like a tract, click here.

Some may say that at least Darrell Castle isn’t selling alcohol, which may be true, but he has friends who do and has allowed his feelings for them to influence his voting in their favor in the past in hopes for their businesses to prosper. There was a vote on a bill to allow food stores to sell wine; Castle’s decision to vote “no” was not based on morals (he obviously thinks it’s OK to drink), nor was it based on capitalist principles for competition (even though he did mention them), but on his feelings for his friends who own small liqueur stores:

“I have mixed feelings on this issue, but plan on voting ‘no.’

Being a capitalist, I invite competition and believe Americans deserve the lowest price possible. However, I also feel bad for my friends owning small liquor stores in town.

“These small liquor store owners will lose a lot of profit here. … They’re in this for the long-haul and I hope to see them succeed.” (Darrell Castle)

I must point out again: Darrell Castle went against his own claimed beliefs and principles of capitalist competition in favor of his friends with liquor businesses—that is corruption.

Cigar Smoking

Darrell Castle wrote a small bit in his blog titled “Why I Enjoy Cigars”

“If you know me, you know two things – I love my Memphis Tigers and I love my cigars. … Cigars are like wine in a way. … Cigars are relaxing.” (Darrell Castle)

Donald Trump doesn’t smoke or drink, by the way. “I’ve never taken drugs of any kind, never had a glass of alcohol,” Trump said in his book, The America We Deserve, “Never had a cigarette.” He also taught all his children to not smoke, drink, or do drugs.

Election Rigging

Probably the most disturbing sin is not a personal one, but a very political one—the kind that affects public policy if those at fault get into power. Many don’t realize that the Constitution Party of Idaho has different men on their ballot for president than does the national Constitution Party, because the CP Idaho refuses to give in and fall in line to what they consider the rigging of the Constitution Party primary in favor of Darrell Castle. The men on the ballot in Idaho for the Constitution Party are Scott Copeland (president) and J.R. Myers (VP). To really understand this situation well, you’ll need to read three things:

  1. Constitution Party Idaho’s explanation of National Convention Brouhaha
  2. Unprincipled Politics in the Constitution Party? Leaked Emails Detail Possible Unethical Conduct & Bias during the CP’s 2016 Presidential Nomination Contest by Cody Quirk
  3. ‘Realm of chaos’: Idaho presidential ballot to show different Constitution Party nominee than other states by Betsy Z. Russell [NOTE: Be sure to read the comments below that article as well, because two people directly involved in this conflict talk in the comments.]

I’ll provide a few major quotes from those three writings. We’ll start with the first one:

“Mr. Copeland participated in the Idaho Presidential Primary, March 8, 2016 and received a majority (51.5%) of the 21.3% of the registered base of the Constitution Party of Idaho who turned out to the primary poll.

“Mr. J.R. Myers of Alaska was runner up, receiving 28.7% of the turnout of our state party’s registered base at primary. These will be the candidates certified.”

“Meanwhile, Mr. Castle continued throughout 2015 ‘playing games’. He was a candidate-wasn’t candidate, ad nauseam. Over and over, this exact same game was played by the gentleman throughout 2015 and into 2016, literally up to the opening gavel of the national convention.”

“In 2016, CP-Idaho holds that the process of a national nomination is supposed to be more than just ‘play acting’ at politics. It is a momentous matter; one in which ethics or conflicts of interest should not incur question. But that is not the case here. The entire process demonstrated by this national party has been tainted.

“Apparently, Mr. Castle did not believe he needed to compete for votes. Perhaps it was considered an inherent right of entitlement. Regardless, these Rules & Procedures remain operative. CP-Idaho will not entertain an ex post facto alteration of those rules. Mr. Castle forfeited Idaho, and we believe he did so knowingly and willfully.

“Apparently, Mr. Castle could care the less…because he knew that he did not need to compete in Idaho. He had internal control over the levers of the Constitution Party establishment, which were operated by insider party apparatchiks. Evidence? He and his ilk did indeed do so by a deliberate censoring of any and all references to other national campaigns seeking the nomination…as the apparatchiks reserved prime and exclusive space on the national website head page for an ongoing promotion of that particular gentleman’s podcasts, for example. The nomination process was flat out corrupted by favoritism, plainly stated. Those “aces up the sleeve” often come in handy. But that is still cheating, nevertheless.

“The national nomination is not supposed to be reduced to ‘Version 5.0’ of a personality cult program; it is not supposed to be a country club insider brokered elitist procession; it is not supposed to be sheep following the orders of some master, leaving the rank and file base of this party consigned to mournful bleating…so long as it is kept within the fences set up by a clique. Not all shepherds are good. And if they justify doing this in the least of things, the appropriate concern should be ‘How would they act if they actually did have governmental power?’

Now some quotes from the second, which is a compilation of leaked internal emails in the Constitution Party showing the corruption and rigging:

“What you and Mr. Peck have done by your clear and evident conflict of interest is to reduce the Constitution Party to the level of establishment party boss rule!

“You have in absolutely NO manner whatsoever demonstrated impartiality. By your exclusion and withholding of “evidence,” you have bastardized the law. Your have subverted honesty, and worse, you have attempted to hide these things in a deliberate coverup which you did indeed orchestrate in collusion with others. And this, somehow, is to be the model of good governance?

“Even the Democrats, Mrs. Murray, even the Democrats!…are attempting to put a halt to this very same kind of establishment corruption within that despicable party.Why then is the Constitution Party (under your self-assumed authority) running to embrace such corruption? And it is corruption, Mrs. Murray, let there be no doubt. An email, or a million emails, will not ever alter that fact.”

“When the Constitution Party is okay with a lack of impartiality, and is okay with a lack of even-handedness in the national candidate process, whereas the Democrats seek to enforce these principles (as the article on Hillary suggests), then the Constitution Party has clearly lost its way, if not lost its soul.

Essentially, the ‘ethics’ used to justify the internal CP secret clique Castle group among party executives are no different than what Lois Lerner and the Democrats have done via the IRS. Both are abuses of office and collusions of influence peddling…or worse.

“In conclusion, it appears that not all is well inside the Constitution Party these days; the public image of Mr. Castle being a genuinely humble, honest-john alternative to the candidates of the major parties and even the presidential tickets of the Libertarian & Green Parties could very well be nothing but a facade built on perjury and unethical behavior in order to create such an appearance to the general voting population.

And now the third writing I linked to:

“Mr. Castle is the insider, or the party elite or the establishment, if you will, in the Constitution Party,” said Floyd Whitley, state party chairman for Idaho. “He apparently did not believe he needed to compete in Idaho, because it was his party, so to speak.”

“The selection process is faulty,” Whitley declared. “You cannot operate a representative party this way, by declaring in secret selection committees, and that’s how they do it, or how they have. That defies the Constitution right there.”

In contrast, the Republican primary was not rigged in favor of Trump. (See video 1, video 2, video 3, video 4, and there’s many more.)


Although Castle says he’s for securing the border and even for temporarily halting immigration, Darrell Castle on the Glen Beck Show unintentionally revealed that he hasn’t even thought things through on immigration, and is all for illegal immigrants becoming citizens of the US without having to leave and come back legally first.

Glen Beck: “Umm… Where do you stand, on the, uh, on what we do with people who have lived here for decades, some of them?”

Darrell Castle: “Yeah, I’m, I’m not in favor of amnesty or granting blanket citizenship to those people who have come into the country illegally, but I’m not in favor of deporting them either.

Beck: “So what happens? What happens to them?”

Castle: “Well… What happens to those people?”

Beck: “Yeah.”

Castle: “Um… I mean, they go on about their lives as they always have, I guess. Unless they’re criminals, and then, uh, something has to be done about that. I mean that the avenue for citizenship in America is open. Uh… I attend a, uh, nationalization ceremony, uh, most every year here in Memphis, so if a person wants to become a citizen, he’s here, there’s ways for him to do that.” (Glen Beck Program)

“…they go on about their lives as they always have, I guess.”? If they’re criminals then “…something has to be done”? Something? He guesses? He also doesn’t think a wall is necessary, although he doesn’t really give any actual plan on how to secure it without one, or explain why it’s not necessary.

“We would secure our borders by whatever means proves necessary. Is it necessary to build a wall? I don’t think it is.” (Darrell Castle)

Trump is for enforcing our laws, and deporting illegal immigrants, while prioritizing deporting illegal immigrants who are dangerous criminals first. Here is just a snippet of the comprehensive immigration policy Trump has provided:

“In a Trump Administration, all immigration laws will be enforced. As with any law enforcement activity, we will set priorities. But, unlike this Administration, no one will be immune or exempt from enforcement – and ICE and Border Patrol officers will be allowed to do their jobs. Anyone who has entered the United States illegally is subject to deportation – that is what it means to have laws and to have a country.” (Donald Trump)

Term Limits

Darrell Castle is against term limits for those in congress. When asked about it, he responded,

“I, I don’t. I mean, I think that we would have to amend the Constitution to do that and, and, uhhh… uhhh… I think people can term limit anybody they want to by just voting them out of office.” (Darrell Castle)

Donald Trump is for term limits, because it will help fight the corruption in our government. In his “100 Day Plan to Make America Great Again – For Everyone” he said:

“Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

“FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;” (Donald Trump) [I highly encourage you to go to that link and read the rest of it! Or even watch the video here.]


On his campaign website, Darrell Castle gives a tiny bit of information of the issues, including tax.

“I have proposed a taxing system whereby taxes would be apportioned to the states as the census dictates. If my state of Tennessee had two percent of the nation’s population, for example, it would be liable for two percent of the budget. It would be incumbent upon the representatives from Tennessee to help hold down Federal spending. The Federal Government would be encouraged to spend less not more. The states would be empowered and Washington would be dis-empowered. Washington’s hold over the states would be broken and the states would be sovereign again – Washington would have to ask the states for money. States would be free to collect their revenue as they see fit. Alaska might tax its natural resources and Florida might tax tourism. In Nevada, it would obviously be gambling. Since people could keep their income the economy would explode with growth.” (Castle campaign website)

That’s it? That’s all his website lets his supporters know? Is that the full plan? No consideration as to the income or the spending of the people in a state, but just the population size? Will children count? How often is a census going to be taken to determine the population, and therefore, the tax burden of each state? Once a year? What happens if droves of people move from one state to another because another state has a lower tax burden? Emergency census and change to the tax? Wait until the next year to adjust the tax? Darrell Castle is totally unprepared to be president. He was even caught completely off guard and couldn’t really answer when someone asked him the simple question of “What happens when a state just decides their not going to raise their share?” (VIDEO)

I wouldn’t say that Donald Trump’s tax plan is perfect, but it at least makes sense, will improve our economy, and sure is much more comprehensive and well thought out than Darrell Castle’s plan. I’m not going to post Donald Trump’s tax plan here, but you can click on this link to check it out.


Sadly, Darrell Castle and Donald Trump are both fairly weak on the issue of marijuana; both think it should be a matter for the states. There is one difference: Donald Trump is for legalization of “medical” marijuana (Business Insider), whereas Darrell Castle is for decriminalization of all marijuana (video 1, video 2, video 3). So what is the difference between legalization and decriminalization? Nicholas Thimmesch II is an advocate for decriminalization of marijuana and explains the difference:

Legalization, in some ways, is the same product as criminalization, sold in a different wrapper: government will still control the commerce of marijuana but instead of spending billions fighting it will now make billions taxing it along with regulations. With decriminalization, we can start with the federal repeal of marijuana listed as a Schedule One substance in the Controlled Substances Act, let individual states adjust their own marijuana laws based upon the consensus of the voters, prosecute bad behavior by marijuana smokers, and educate people about the negatives of chronic marijuana use, but otherwise treat it as if it was just another herbal tea, not a drug.” (The Daily Caller)

So, to rephrase, legalization is making it legal to have and use marijuana but still regulated to some degree to keep some control over it, like tobacco and alcohol products; whereas decriminalization is treating marijuana as though it’s even less harmful than tobacco and alcohol products, like herbal tea or soda pop. Do you agree that marijuana should be considered as harmless as herbal tea?


Darrell Castle has lackluster support for Israel.

“Do I support Israel? Uhhh… I’m gonna give you a, um, thumbnail answer there: yes. Uhhh… But… uhhm… ummm… uh, I will say that Israel would be far better off, uhhh, if we stopped giving’em aid, and also stopped giving, uhhh… umm… stopped giving aid to their enemies.” (Darrell Castle)

I won’t go so far as to say Castle is anti-Israel, but his support is lackluster at best. I prefer strong support for Israel, as that is obviously one of the reasons for God’s blessings on the USA—we should bless Israel, NOT just take a neutral, detached, or non-interventionist position on Israel.

“Blessed is he that blesseth thee [Israel], and cursed is he that curseth thee [Israel].” (Numbers 24:9.b)

Trump is very pro-Israel. An Israeli news publication (Breaking Israel News) issued an article recently titled “Trump Deepens Commitment to Israel” (click here to read) which reports on Trump signing a very pro-Israel letter posted by the American Christian Leaders for Israel (ACLI) and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ). One of the pro-Israel things Trump has promised to do is to finally recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, and relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

“Trump acknowledged that Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years, and that the US, under a Trump administration, will finally accept the long-standing congressional mandate to recognise Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the state of Israel,” his campaign said in a statement. (Al Jazeera)

That is especially good when you consider this:

“The US Congress passed a law in October 1995 calling for an undivided Jerusalem to be recognised as Israel’s capital and to authorise funding for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But no US president, Democrat or Republican, has implemented the law, regarding it as an infringement on the executive branch’s authority over foreign policy.” (Al Jazeera)

Humanitarian Efforts

Darrell Castle is a non-interventionist.

“I am a non-interventionist, mind your own business candidate. I would only involve us in foreign conflicts if the United States was directly threatened and in danger.” (Darrell Castle on

While that sounds nice at first, and while Trump also has said, “We cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. We owe $19 trillion; we have a country that’s going to hell; [and] we have an infrastructure that’s falling apart.” There are still times when intervention, even though the USA is not directly threatened, is good and needed as Donald Trump has recognized; like when Christians are being slaughtered:

“We’re a humanitarian nation, but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We’ve made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before. We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.

We have done nothing to help the Christians, nothing, and we should always be ashamed for that, for that lack of action. Our actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria have helped unleash ISIS, and we’re in a war against radical Islam, but President Obama won’t even name the enemy, and unless you name the enemy, you will never ever solve the problem. Hillary Clinton also refuses to say the words radical Islam…” (Donald Trump)

Later on in the same speech, Donald Trump added,

“The world is most peaceful and most prosperous when America is strongest. America will continue and continue forever to play the role of peacemaker. We will always help save lives and indeed humanity itself, but to play the role, we must make America strong again.” (Donald Trump)

I have not found anything Darrell Castle has said to indicate he would help Christians who are being extremely persecuted in other countries, but I sure hope that he would if he had the power. (Proverbs 3:27; James 4:17)

Sovereignty, NOT Globalism

One of Darrell Castle’s and the Constitution Party’s strongest policies is US sovereignty: they are for US sovereignty and against globalism.

“Withdrawal From The United Nations: I believe that the United States (U.S.) should regain its sovereignty and chart its own course. This is not isolationism. The U.S. cannot remain isolated from the forces agitating today’s world, which is so interrelated in trade, finance, instantaneous communications, etc.

The very existence of the U.N. is an affront to liberty and human dignity. Many of the inherent rights in the US Constitution are superseded by the United Nations Charter, including the right of self-defense. We must free ourselves from the notion that the U.N. is vital to U.S. interests. It is not. If the American people do not understand these things, then it is imperative that we educate them.” (Castle campaign website)

That is actually a very good stance, and I recommend you follow that link and read the rest of it.

Trump is also for US sovereignty and against globalism. See this video:

Trump reiterated his opposition to globalism in his great foreign policy speech. Here is a snippet:

“On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy. The jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

“No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must start doing the same. We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down and will never enter. [APPLAUSE] And under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.” (Donald Trump I highly recommend you click that link and watch the whole video)

More of Trump against globalism in a 15 minute video (click here).


Darrell Castle and the Constitution Party have a great stand on abortion. They would like to protect the unborn using the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution.

“Unlike Hillary Clinton who recently said, “unborn persons have no constitutional rights”, I know that all “persons” have the right to life and both the 5th and 14th amendments confirm that position. I also know, as does Mrs. Clinton in the deep recesses of her heart, that those waiting in their mother’s womb to be born are in fact persons.” (Castle campaign website)

There is only one other person I know of that has run for president and is more pro-life than Darrell Castle, and that is Gov. Mike Huckabee (who has wholeheartedly endorsed Trump). He has said,

“Since it is a human being, we already have the constitutional protection: it’s called the 5th Amendment that says that there will be due process before you deprive a person of life or liberty. As president, we will invoke the 5th and 14th Amendment. We will protect human life!”

One reason I consider Gov. Huckabee as being more pro-life than Castle is this: Huckabee is not running as a third party candidate and dividing conservatives, taking votes from Trump, and helping Hillary Clinton have a better chance at becoming president and pushing for even partial-birth baby murder to be legalized federally (and worse). Gov. Huckabee knows that Jesus taught that a kingdom divided cannot stand (Mark 3:24), and Huckabee truly believes Jesus, so even though he is more conservative than Trump, he’s not going to run against him and help Clinton. Huckabee really is pro-life, not just in word.

Donald Trump is not perfect on this issue (he is pro-life, with exceptions):

“The primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Life is the most fundamental right. The federal government should not diminish this right by denying its’ protection. I am opposed to abortion except for rape, incest and life of the mother. I oppose the use of government funds to pay for abortions.” (Donald Trump)

But Trump has committed to appointing great, pro-life people from a list he’s released to SCOTUS positions. The far left, wicked, extremely pro-death, baby murder people are convinced that Trump’s list is “a woman’s worst nightmare”, as we see here:

“Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees is a woman’s worst nightmare,” said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Their records reveal a lineup of individuals who would likely overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, gutting what’s left of abortion access in this country and heaping punishment on women.”

Why do those wicked pro-death people attack Trump instead of Castle? Because the reality is that Castle has no chance, so he is not a threat anyway; in fact, he’s helping the pro-death baby murder people by drawing votes away from the only guy that has a chance to really oppose them. Trump, however, IS a threat to the pro-death movement; he DOES have a good chance to win and defeat them.

Same Sex Marriage

Castle and Trump have similar stands on same sex marriage: both personally for traditional marriage, but politically plan to leave it up to the states. So, in other words, push the responsibility off onto the states—neither oppose nor support it. Castle doesn’t talk about it much; on the The Jason Stapleton Program, Castle went into the most detail I’ve found about him on this issue:

Jason Stapleton: “What about gay marriage? Pro? Con? Yes or no?”

Darrell Castle: “Uh, well, I can’t answer it yes or no; I have to explain my answer. Uhhh… As far, as far as gay marriage goes, I’m a Christian so I don’t believe in it. In fact, I don’t think it exists, uh, eh, uh, because God defines what marriage is in my mind. If I were president of the United States and two, uh, two men or two women came to me and said, ‘Look, uh, Darrell, we’re, we’re married. Here’s a, here’s a priest, and a, and a Protestant, uh, minister, and a civil magistrate. All these people will testify to the fact that we’re maried.’ Eh… My answer to them would be, Well, I don’t care what those people say, as far as I’m concerned you’re not married.

So far, so good. Sounds like a great answer, but keep in mind that is his personal stance.

Darrell Castle: “But as far as I’m concerned as president that’s irrelevant, because it, it, it’s, uh, it doesn’t mean anything: it’s none of the government’s business what kind of relationship you’re in. Uh… The government wants all of us to come to it constantly to buy a license to get their permission to do anything: from a child running a lemonade stand to who we’re going to sleep with or what kind of relationship we’re gonna to have. So, my point is it’s not the government’s business, uh, those type of subjects.

Stapleton: “So the government should com… be completely out of the marriage game altogether.”

Castle: “That’s my view, yes.”

And that is his political stance. He’d do nothing about sodomy, or same sex marriage, except to keep the federal government from interfering (not to oppose or support). I know people voting for Castle who really put Trump down on this issue, when their own candidate (Castle) is no different in his policy. The next question Stapleton asked Castle is very interesting and shows part of the flaw in the libertarian idea of allowing the states to decide what is morally right and wrong.

Stapleton: “Now what about adoption?”

Castle: “What about it?”

Stapleton: “Eh… When it comes to homosexual adoption?”

Castle: “Ah… Well, once again, I, I’m a Christian, so I’m opposed to it.”

Stapleton: “OK. So those, those kids are better left in the system then?”

Castle: “Well that’s a good question. Uh… I mean the, the system is, obviously has some problems in it so… you know… I, I’m opposed to gay addoption if that’s your answer, I mean, if that’s your question.”

Notice that Castle didn’t give his political stance, only his personal one. The thing is, if it’s OK and legal according to a state’s laws for two men to have a sexual relationship, then it’s not much further a step for them to also be allowed to adopt little boys for them to play with.

Trump is similar on this issue. He’s said things against same sex marriage and that he’d say “no” to it and said “I’m opposed to gay marriage.” (see here), but he’s also said that he’d leave it up to the states (see here). With that said, the extremely active sodomite organization, called Human Rights Campaign, has the best documentation of Donald Trump’s history on this issue and they say “Donald Trump: Opposes Nationwide Marriage Equality” (see here for great documentation on this). In all honesty, I believe the man has not made up his mind on the issue and is open to influence—we should seek to befriend and influence Trump for the right instead of abandoning him to the sodomites who are trying to befriend and influence him for the wrong.

Polygamy and Other Immorality

Darrell Castle not only is not opposed to sodomy in his policies, but is also fine with prostitution, gambling, polygamy, and any other immoral activity made by consenting adults, as we see in an interview he had with Matthew Carr of Liberty Hangout:

Matthew Carr: Do you see a role for the federal government in regulating and/or prohibiting things such as prostitution, gambling, smoking, polygamous relationships or any other activities made by consenting adults?

Darrell Castle: No I really don’t. The states are free of course to regulate if their people prefer but I see no Constitutional role in such things except possibly to control the spread of pandemic disease or something of that nature.

I can’t help but think Castle hasn’t thought this through. I do have a question I’d like him to answer if he has thought it through: what about children? What if children consent to sexual intercourse with their adoptive dads? Is that OK as well if the state allows it?

Sen. Rick Santorum (who endorsed Trump) rightly explains why it’s dangerous to allow states to decide what is morally right or wrong, and why making consent the deciding factor is also dangerous:


Darrell Castle is for doing away with the federal Department of Education, and is for education being at the state level (same stance as Donald Trump)—that’s good. However, Castle is also fine (policy-wise) with allowing immorality to be taught in public state government schools, if that’s what they want:

“You know, if people in California wanted to teach their sixth graders to, uh, to use dildos and things like that, as I’ve seen recently, believe it or not, and people in Mississippi didn’t, that would be their prerogative, I suppose.” (Darrell Castle)

Here is a video of Trump:


Donald Trump and Darrell Castle are both sinners (ALL presidential candidates are sinners—ALL people are sinners!), but Donald Trump is by far the better candidate for POTUS. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, is also better than Castle’s Mormon running mate, Scott Bradley. Castle also has ZERO chance to win, so he has ZERO chance to help our country as president and get anything implemented. Trump CAN win—there is a good chance for him to actually get the pro-Christian policies implemented that he’s promised to champion, and so a vote for him is a vote for dead promises, a vote for pro-death Clinton to win. Don’t be fooled, shamed, or pushed into voting against Trump, against common sense, against life, against Biblical principles by those who wrest scripture to help Hillary Clinton. But instead vote wisely for Donald Trump—choose life, not death! Otherwise, you may find out firsthand just how horribly oppressive a Hillary Clinton presidency can be.

Comments are closed.