Vetting Michael Harrington of the Corrupt “Let’s Remain Republican at All Costs” Republican Party
This article is written as a rebuttal to Michael Harrington’s July 26th, 2016 Facebook post entitled Vetting Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. In this article we’ll evaluate Mr. Harrington’s claims, review his history of relaying facts to those who have relied upon him for hope and inspiration, critique his political acumen, and more.
First a little background on myself, my path to whom I currently support and my party affiliation, and our recent and current political climate that led up to this:
As was the case for many, I never appreciated Civics or Government Courses. In fact, I held disdain for all things pertaining to politics until the Financial Crisis of ’07-08. I quickly self-identified as a Republican. Over the following months I would come to embrace the title “Conservative”. After the John McCain loss my newfound absorption would leave me furious with establishment, moderate Republicans, praying for a grassroots uprising among fellow conservatives. When the Tea Party movement emanated from our anger and concern, we felt as though the Republican Party would comprehend what happened and espouse our ideology once again. Nevertheless, we ended up with Romney in 2012 while watching the establishment back less conservative moderates. The same happened in 2014. In 2014, many of us had our eyes on the firecracker of a Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz for the 2016 Presidential race. Mr. Cruz brought about a movement in the conservative ranks of shifting towards the Constitution. Many, like myself, adopted the moniker Constitutional conservative. I proclaimed my future departure from the GOP if the greatest Conservative of my time did not prevail as the Republican Party Nominee in the 2016 Primaries. When it became apparent that almost half of our Party had become swept up in an emotional populist movement and the clown of the century would be nominated, Cruz suspended his campaign and it became apparent that the GOP had left me. No more chances, no more reform, no more waiting on the establishment to be removed. To add insult to injury, elected officials of red states across the nation have been discovered to have become embroiled in the same type of scandals and corruption that we have only known was prevalent among the national ranks. Goodbye GOP, it’s over.
If I had the foresight to know the nomination hopes for Ted Cruz was over, why didn’t fellow Cruzers? Let’s take a look at what’s transpired since… March, shall we? On March 1st, Super Tuesday or the SEC Primaries, the outlook for Cruz became quite grim for any of us that were remotely reasonable. The hardcore Cruzaders, such as myself, steadfastly supported him, not wanting to let go until the math became more damning. As the primaries of April approached it became apparent to any sensible person that Cruz would need nothing shy of a few miracles in order to win. In mid-April I began researching candidates in other parties and the minor parties across the nation. To my pleasant surprise there was a Party that aligned with my (supposed) Constitutional conservative views on approximately 80% of the issues, according to the isidewith.com quiz. The name was brilliant! The Constitution Party, what a match! Over the following weeks, I researched several candidates, such as Austin Petersen, Gary Johnson, as well as the Constitution Party candidate, Mr. Darrell Castle. After Mr. Cruz suspended on May 3rd I immediately took to spreading this message to fellow Cruzers to little avail. I couldn’t understand why so many were criticizing me for having given up on Cruz. I was bumfuzzled, I always viewed us as the supporters who were able to rationalize and use sound reasoning in order to make educated decisions, not act out of emotion as the Trumpbots were doing. Little did I know, there were voices in the Conservative movement claiming victory for Ted, and providing false hope for trusting, impassioned Cruzaders nationwide.
A quick search of “Michael Harrington Ted Cruz” will bring up no less than three RedState articles authored by Michael himself. These are titled How Ted Cruz has won the Nomination from 04/10/2016, New York never mattered, Ted Cruz won the Presidency from 04/20/2016, and Ted Cruz has won the nomination *Detailed Analysis* from 04/22/2016. In an April 21st interview (here) with Mr. Red Herring-ton, respected talk show host and writer Steve Deace stated in his lead-in that Michael was either “Mad Smart or Just Mad”. During the interview, at minute 19:42, Mr. Deace pointed out Mr. Harrington claimed Donald Trump had less than a 1% chance of winning the nomination, Michael confirmed. It doesn’t take a doctorate in Psychology to determine which of Mr. Deace’s suggestions apply to Michael Harrington. That brings us to the “Free the Delegates” movement. While many of us, including myself, had high hopes and prayers for the movement, and Michael wasn’t the brainchild for this one, he was an avid supporter and perpetuator of its plausibility.
Recently Mr. Michael Harrington of Fox News… No, that’s not it. Allow me to start over please. Recently Mr. Michael Harrington, Department Head of… Cue the rewind bite, that isn’t it either. One more try. Recently Mr. Michael Harrington, recently fired Commercial Truck Driver, recipient of less than 14% of the vote running as the Republican House Rep Candidate in 2012 and 2014, and misleader of Conservatives (that’s it!) announced he would “have to do an indepth report, with links, and more, to destroy Darrel Castle[sic]”. While this may seem insensitive and crass, I’d like to point out that my step-father has driven commercial tractor and trailers his entire life. The difference is that my step-father and other honest, hard-working Christian patriots aren’t misguiding thousands of voters in our nation pretending to be some type of Marvel Hero for the conservative movement, making outlandish predictions that were being shared across Conservative Media Outlets across the nation during an important time for our movement when the common sense, right wingers should have been exploring other options and preparing for an acceptable alternative.
As one browses through Michael’s Facebook page, you begin to understand a few things about him. It isn’t immediately apparent with only reading a post or two at a time, but as you put together multiple snarkish posts and comments on his wall and in response to others, a certain habit of self-aggrandizement reveals itself. I probably would’ve missed it had a couple of Facebook friends of my own hadn’t responded to a couple of his posts with harsh criticism of his palpable narcissism. It’s quite remeniscant of one, Donald J. Trump, come to think of it. The difference, like it or not, is that the Sideshow Trump actually wins when he claims he does.
“…have to do an indepth report, with links, and more, to destroy Darrel Castle” –Michael Harrington
“yeah but he was on the phone (Reclaim DC/#GOPEXODUS conference) call with David Serenda and now I need to tear the man (Darrell Castle) up to prevent a Cruz fest to a man who was involved in birther attacks on Cruz.”-Michael Harrington
The previous captions are merely threats from a supposedly objective Michael Harrington. Not all of Michael’s “audience”, as he calls them above, is as impressed with his determination to destroy a good man’s reputation as Michael seems to be. The subsequent screenshots will further illustrate Mr. Harrington’s self-admiration, as well as some of the more sensible responses to his expressed desires.
“Michael Harrington But apparently you are going to throw in with Trump to save the party that tried to destroy Cruz. Don’t get that at all.” -Sherri Norton Perry
I think by now, especially if you have taken a moment to examine his page, you have become cognizant of Mr. Harrington’s egocentric behavior. To recap, we have a Commercial Truck Driver with an educational history of Crime Prevention and Public Safety, who is proficient in Windows, Politics, Data Storage Technology, Conservatism, Republicanism, Infantry, Binary Code, Math, Computer Science, Computer Security, Security, and is a Strategist, Statistician, Math related Scientist, Inventor, Mad Scientist; and lest we forget the greatest feat of all, online gamer who refers to himself as “Einstein”. Did I mention that this man is the source (link here) of the ridiculous assertion that 12 million Democrats voted in the Republican Primaries (for Trump) and that Trump only garnered 3.3 million votes? That’s correct folks, he claims that out “of (the) 31 million that voted in the Republican Primary, 38% approximately were Democrats.” Now while I’m sure that this is a recurring issue in open primaries, it defies all logic to think that this high of a percentage could be attributed to the Democrat Party crossover votes. After all, wouldn’t that mean that Democrats would surely take the election despite the GOP winner when they switched back for the general election based on sheer numbers alone? This is the man who misled thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Cruz supporters through his crackpot articles that were shared as gospel around the conservative circles taking advantage of those who were desparate for a miracle, possibly single-handedly ruining our chances at a viable alternative to Trump. May God have mercy on our nation.
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
Now for the claims against Mr. Castle of the Constitution Party. Just as is the case with his statistical declarations, we will be able to conclude after this article that his case against Darrell Castle is absurd as well. Let’s begin by pointing out that Mr. Harrington commences his diatribe stating that Mr. “Castle has become a talking point upon conservatives and especially Cruz supporters.” He states that Castle supporters are now going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative. First, it’s no accident that Mr. Castle has become a talking point among Cruz supporters. Many Cruz supporters, such as myself, have joined the Constitution Party and are in full support of it and Mr. Castle. In fact, many key figures in the party were recently Cruz supporters. As a chart I recently dispersed around our circles has shown, Castle and Cruz have a ton in common. This would be expected since they each have a profound respect for the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Cruz has recently shifted certain positions, such as leaving the UN, towards Castle’s already held position. As for “going full Trump in an effort to promote him as a real conservative”, nothing could be further from the truth. Castle supporters ARE the new Cruz supporters. Castle supporters are attacked by conservatives who believe they are Constitutional conservatives, from libertarians who claim we are theocrats, and from the left. Many Cruz supporters are proving to be no exception. Many Cruzers, taking cues from perceived leaders such as Mr. Harrington, are now acting no different than Trump supporters who bashed Cruzaders for over a year. The difference is that Trumpets had no way to empathize with Cruzers, with Cruzers I would expect empathy seeing as we suffered the same abuse from Trumpers. For those of us that have supported both Cruz and Castle, we continue to tolerate the onslaught.
The next ridiculous accusation is that “Darrell Castle uses Podcasts for the majority of his content, he literally forces you to listen to him to get what he is saying. This is how he hides a lot of the content that would otherwise get a candidate caught quick.” You must be kidding me… One of the most impressive aspects of the Constitution Party is it’s educational materials. Each week, the Vice Presidential Candidate, Constitutional Law PhD, Dr. Scott Bradley, provides a one hour webinar regarding the Constitution. Likewise, the Presidential Candidate, Mr. Darrell Castle, holds a 10-30 minute podcast regarding a constitutional issue or a current event. Contrary to most parties and government officials, the Constitution Party actually WANTS you to understand what is going on.
Attacks on Ted and Heidi Cruz
The crux of Michael Harrington’s argument against Castle is the rumored attacks by Darrell Castle against Ted Cruz. Oddly enough, Michael begins this section with a screenshot of the ‘Constitution Party of Arkansas’ Facebook page, showing an article that was copy and pasted in a post by the state party titled “Ted Cruz: Pros and Cons”. His screenshot was sure to include the “Cons” section, which outlined the author’s birther stance. What he fails to inform his readers, whether wittingly or due to ignorance, is that the bottom of the article shows that it was copy and pasted, giving a copyright credit to Pastor Chuck Baldwin who hasn’t been associated with the Constitution party since 2011. A simple google search will inform any reader of this. He is correct in stating that the Washington State Constitution Party Facebook group made a similar post two days later. You see, the Constitution Party is set up much like our government was intended to be, this is actually by design. We have semi-autonomous state parties, some even with a different party name due to previous party mergers or the old party name. There isn’t massive vetting of articles or opinions by the state parties through the national party. This would be analogous to the Governor of Washington requesting the POTUS permission to give his opinion on matters. The state parties adhere to primary party platform issues and send delegates to the National Conventions, that’s about it. You are just as likely to find a Cruz enthusiast running a state party as you are a Cruz dissenter. In other words, who cares?! His point was to discredit Castle and he still didn’t do so.
Finally Michael will address Castle’s podcast. This is the focal point of most accusations against Castle in regards to the birther theories. In his podcast (listen) there is never a point in which Castle claims Ted Cruz is not eligible. As a matter of fact, he runs down facts regarding Mr. Cruz, his birth, and even has the nerve (note the feign outrage) to imply a direct, correct correlation with Barack Obama. Ironically his account of Ted Cruz was much more factual than Mr. Harrington’s account of Mr. Castle. What I’m most upset about is that Mr. Castle didn’t outright endorse Ted Cruz at that moment (feign outrage again)! How could a Constitutionist from an opposing party that would be running for his own party’s nomination, a different party, dare not endorse Ted Cruz, of the oppressive and corrupt GOP?! This is truly how ridiculous all of this sounds. Allow me to put this in a way that is more easily relatable for fellow Cruzers. If Marco Rubio or Rand Paul would’ve accrued the plurality of votes in the Replublican Party and won the nomination, 99% of us Cruz supporters would likely have supported either of them for President. Now, think back for a moment. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, both, attacked Ted on the debate stage. In fact, Paul seemed to have blind sided Ted in an attempt to gain ground, while Rubio lied and twisted Ted’s words. It’s quite hypocritic to expect more of Mr. Castle than those two.
Michael then accuses Castle of doublespeak and blames him and the Party for the birther and Heidi Cruz/NWO ties. He immediately recants, likely due to the fact that he blatantly lied so there were no citations to back his claim. After all, even Fox News and other conservative media outlets were questioning Cruz’s eligibility long before Ted Cruz stepped into the race. Their criticisms are why Ted renounced his dual citizenship in order to qualify for the Presidency. Considering this was supposedly his primary contention of Cruzers supporting Castle, it’s quite clear his argument is weak at best.
This is the where the most interesting points of Mr. Harrington’s arguments begin in my opinion. Why? Well… Mr. Jack of a Thousand Trades puts on new hats for the next few sections. In this one he tackles economics against Castle and the founding fathers. You heard correctly, the founding fathers themselves. It seems at this point in the article that Michael believes his audience will cease checking his links. The link he provides to prove his accusations of Mr. Castle’s economic plans only slightly touches on economics. The most ludicrous part, it was an interview from 2009. Mr. Castle has done probably dozens of interviews since this one, many of which economics were discussed. Those supposedly elusive podcasts have addressed economics. The truth is that Mr. Castle is quite versed on economic issues. In the interview on the above hyperlink, Mr. Castle states only that we should “withdraw from so called free trade agreements such as NAFTA…”. The reason is widely known among Constitutionists. Mr. Harrington wouldn’t know this, however. These Trade Agreements are not free trade. They are managed trade and they are poorly negotiated in manners which surrender our sovereignty to international courts and organizations. His second mention in the article of economic policies is a criticism of Barack Obama’s Keynesian approach to our economic problems. Humorously, Castle began grading Obama at this point with “F’s”, at the same time Mr. Harrington began grading Castle in his editorial. Castle’s last mention of economic policies in the article pertained to income tax and trade. He states that with his policies, “The income tax would be abolished and the government would be funded by a low, non-punitive import tariff.” In a more recent interview on C Span on 04/24/2016, at minute 12:00, Darrell Castle explains other minute details of his tax plan. He states “I’m an advocate of the Constitutional tax that’s set out by Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 4 which essentially puts the taxing authority in the hands of the states, through apportionment in the states, as the census is apportioned… As far as taxes on imports and things like that, yes that is one of the planks of the Constitution Party platform. I personally have no problems with free trade… If the United States wants to work out a deal with Mexico for example, where it says you don’t charge us for trade, we won’t charge you for trade, I see nothing wrong with that. I’m not a person who wants to go in front of the American people and say ‘Look, if you elect me President everything you buy is going to cost a lot more’. So we have to be careful about too much tax on imports, it could provoke trade wars with other countries, damage the economy…”
Michael Harrington then goes on to give his amateur analysis of tax and trade, at which point he is basically refuting the way our nation was ran over the course of 150 years until the ratification of the 16th Amendment; at that point the other Consitutional taxations were still applicable. Ironically, this is the same year that the unconstitutional Federal Reserve was erected. The difference for the past century has been that we have been taxed by the 16th Amendment as well as through the other Constitutional means of raising revenues. Income taxes are in direct opposition to the concept of Right to Property. As is presently the case, the more means of taxation the government can employ, the more it will. His next link is in regards to the Party’s trade policy. This is the only place in his entire review where he actually has a point. The idea of targeted protectionism, or tariffs intended to build specific local industries, are debatable. However, outright claiming that across the board tariffs is a viable policy is asinine. In three months with the Party I have not encountered one single member at any rank that believes this is the best policy. My only guess is that it was meant to be put in as a Constitutional option for rebuilding dying domestic industries or as a temporary option as we shift out of our current trade agreements and towards more Constitutional treaties and agreements that do not usurp American sovereignty. This is merely speculation on my part, however.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution
In his last section regarding economics, Michael Harrington criticizes the Party’s vote for a resolution against the proposed Federal ‘Fair Tax’, but he didn’t explain our stance. The ‘Fair Tax’ link contains the Resolution. The concerns are the constitutionality of a Federal Fair Tax. That isn’t to say that states couldn’t enact a Fair Tax or raise revenues any other way they see fit. After all, under a MUCH smaller government, less foreign intervention, the abolition of unconstitutional federal agencies, a monetary system that doesn’t print digital money, and running annual surpluses, trade would hardly be an issue. Certainly Mr. Harrington’s Democrat-style demogoguery of long waits on vehicles and boats would not ring true. I will save my grades for Mr. Harrington until the end.
Constitution Party Infighting
This is hardly worth addressing. For the sake of completeness I will briefly touch upon it, as he did. There are two major parties. Those parties hold a duopoly in politics. Since Ross Perot’s first run in 1992, the same year the Constitution Party was founded, the Democrat and Republican Parties have stifled minor parties from reaching prominence in politics. They are not only corrupt, but fear losing power and seek to maintain it at all costs. The Libertarian Party, which was founded in the 1970’s, has just now reached remote viability at the national level. The Green Party and Constitution Party both have limited access but are making bold efforts this election cycle to break out into the open as sensible alternatives to the Democrat and Republican Parties. The Constitution Party believes in having our Party set up as our nation was intended to be, as I stated in the ‘Ted Cruz’ section. We are semi-autonomous state parties, we act relatively independent in comparison to most national parties and their affiliates. Mr. Darrell Castle, at one point, had decided not to run for the nomination, but retracted. By that point one of our more active state parties, Idaho, had nominated their state’s choice for the Presidential nomination. This is much less about “infighting” and more about one state’s miscommunication with the federal party, regardless of which is at fault. As I also stated earlier, state parties can stay, leave, split, disassociate, merge with other parties, etc. While the numbers of membership are not overwhelming, I would not expect them to be. After all, large electoral college states and red states are among the toughest states for obtaining ballot access. They are the most paranoid about losing power to minor parties. I will point out that for a man who is doing everything within his power to stop any and all 3rd Parties from growing, seemingly in favor of maintaining the status quo with the GOP, it sure is hypocritical to bring up “infighting” in association with any party. Hello Pot, meet Kettle! I happen to recall rabid infighting at the RNC Convention, between Cruzers and Trumpers if I’m not mistaken? The link shows what infighting really looks like. Thank you Mr. Cuccinelli for escorting Mrs. Heidi Cruz out of the Convention.
Constitution Party acting… ‘Unconstitutional’
These seem to get more ridiculous as I go. In the section in which I gave my background, I stated that I had taken the moniker ‘Constitutional conservative’ when I became a Cruzer. After a couple of weeks with the Constitution Party I realized that it was a misnomer. At least once per day I get a neo-conservative who thinks he/she’s a Constitutional conservative and feel as though they’ve spotted something unconstitutional in the Constitution Party’s platform, and make some preposterous claim that they’ve “called out the Constitution Party on consitutitionality”. Every time the result is the same, they were never quite as knowledgeable of the original intent of the Constitution as they thought they were. This also plays back into the education that the Constitution Party imparts upon its willing members. One of the main things I’ve learned since joining here is the importance of humility. You never know quite as much as you think you know, especially about the Constitution and original intent. Mr. Harrington has wisely been deleting and stifling those who post on his threads because the inevitable Constitutional debate will end up happening with a Constitutionist and he will get schooled and exposed as nothing more than a conservative. Mr. Harrington tried to point to the “Pornography, Obscenity, and Sexually-oriented Businesses” section of the Party platform as an area where the Constitution Party reads “into it (the Constitution) a restriction that does not exist.” Aside from his lack of Constitutional prowess, Mr. Harrington shows a lack of reading comprehension skills here. The section doesn’t claim that porn, obscenity, and sexually-oriented businesses are unconstitutional, it states that the party calls on “all levels of government to protect and promote that which is truly free speech while vigorously defending and enforcing (existing) laws that protect us from the proliferation of the pornography and sexually oriented business industries…” Another claim he makes is that the Constitution Party “ignores certain amendments that have happended, in an act of cherry picking. Adding restrictions that do not exist is just icing on their cake.” Again, Michael is writing checks here that he can’t intellectually cash. Recently a joinee of the Party that had only been with us for a few weeks made a fascinating statement regarding the Party’s members. He stated that it was awe-inspiring that the average “Member” of our Party possesses more Constitutional knowledge than your average local or county elected official. What may be confusing to Mr. Harrington is that nasty “original intent” interpretation that liberals and neo-cons don’t really get. You see, originalists don’t give much weight to liberal SCOTUS decisions or other loose interpretations of the Constitution. If those are his preferred methods of Constitutional interpretation, granted he understands that term, and he sticks to that, he would have no place in our Party anyway. Lots of factors are taken into consideration when interpreting the Constitution, not simply the text or case law.
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
–Thomas Jefferson June 12th, 1823
In his last section of his pathetic attempt at a hit piece against Darrell Castle, Michael Harrington perhaps goes the furthest off the deepend, at least in regards to the topic of Darrell Castle. At this point he certainly is banking on his readers simply taking his word like sheep, and he is also proving to be a hypocrite. In an effort to rile up the Judeo-Christians, what most of us are in the Constitution and Republican Parties, he attemps to make his own rules regarding what constitutes anti-Israel. His bloviating begins in the “Israel” section with a loose attempt to empathize with Israel due to having “Einstein” as his online gaming nickname for eight years, stating that he was attacked for simply having the nickname. If this isn’t faux correlation between himself and real oppression then I don’t know what is. Perhaps a safe space is in order. Honestly, it’s quite offensive. He then cites the Constitution Party platform piece, written by Darrell Castle himself on August 18th, 2014, as a submission of proof that Castle is anti-Israel. The page is here. On this page, Castle outlines the reasoning behind the Party’s position of ending foreign aid to ALL nations (not only Israel), but includes something special that is not included in ANY of the Constitution Party platform. Mr. Castle states “Keep in mind that the Constitution Party platform has an avenue for change if you don’t like it. You can join your state party and become a delegate in the 2016 National Convention and represent your state as a member of the platform committee, where you can lobby the committee and the convention to insert the words ‘except for Israel’ in each of these sections.” One thing is crystal clear for this to have happened, there is a significant portion of the Party that believe in providing aid to Israel, despite the constitutionality issues of foreign aid, and that the Party is open to the change. For Mr. Harrington on the other hand, in the Constitution section of his document, he clearly stated that “we either abide by all of the Constitution or none of it.” He seems to have forgotten his own mandate regarding the Constitution here. Next, he uses a Wikipedia page ‘with issues’ as his source for Israel’s revenue. We are almost 20 Trillion dollars in debt and this man is citing Wikipedia and listing Israel’s expenses and revenues as arguments for continuing to fund them. One of the saddest examples of Michael’s morals comes next. He stoops to the level of implying that Darrell Castle is racist and that he believes that Israel is a bad nation. The Holy Bible warns us of slanderers.
Proverbs 10:18 He who conceals hatred has lying lips, And he who spreads slander is a fool.
Now for Mr. Harrington’s Grades: 1. Honest/Trustworthy- F, 2. Objectivity, Factual- F, 3. Leadership-F, although he’s persuasive, he misleads those that follow him.
I’ve seen Michael’s claim that he merely “provided the facts”, but I see a lot of fiction, embellishment, and even outright lies, as I’ve proven in this rebuttal. Michael Harrington knowingly and willingly took aim at Darrell Castle, he admittedly has conspired to sabotage Mr. Castle. Mr. Harrington has stooped so low as to cross out Mr. Castle’s military experience in the main image for his piece. Darrell Castle is a U.S. Marine Corps Vietnam War Veteran who trained under then 1st Lieutenant, Oliver North, eventually reaching 1st Lieutenant himself. Michael thinks of his “audience” as cultists, exactly as Donald Trump does. He feels he can think for his sheep and lead them according to his own will. Worst of all, when so many are ready to turn a page in their political book and build a more prominent and principled party, they have Michael Harrington ALWAYS luring them back to the GOP. There’s a reason he wants you all there folks. The image below is a recent post from Michael’s page. Think for yourselves.
Mr. Castle is the ONLY viable 100% Pro-Life, Pro-2nd Amendment, Constitutional conservative candidate left in the race. For most Cruzers these are litmus tests. He’s one of only two of the five candidates that understands the dangers of illegal immigration and likely the only one who sincerely plans on doing anything about it. He’s one of only three that want a smaller government, altough for Trump that’s debatable. He seems to be the only candidate who is sincerely (Judeo) Christian and believes that returning to these principles are 100% necessary for restoring our nation. Here are a couple of comparison charts that should make anyone with a rational bone in their body jump on board.
Apparently Mr. Harrington is hoping to dissuade anyone from leaving the GOP with more of his voodoo statistics, portraying that any attempt to do so will hurt Cruz’s chances in 2020. He has misled you for long enough folks. It’s time… I want everyone to keep a few things in mind. In most states when someone hasn’t qualified as a write-in candidate and that candidate is written in, the ballot will be thrown out. This will affect down ballot voting which is going to be extremely important should Hillary win the Election, which is likely. Even if Ted were written in and it counted, what is this accomplishing? Ted Cruz is a brilliant man. He knows what he is doing, he doesn’t want to be idolized, he wants to be supported. That means honor his wishes as much as anything else and he made it clear in his speech (minute 19:10) the day after the Convention that he did not want to be written in. Read the above charts and please think about what you are doing here. The only valid shot at having a conservative in the White House is slowly fading away due to idolatry. If the Constitution Party doesn’t receive more funds and support soon then our opportunity for viability wanes. Any party that doesn’t have 270 Electoral College votes potentially available is not considered relevant by the media in any given cycle. August 10th is when an important deadline occurs and as Cruzers we definitely have the power to elevate this candidacy to plausibility. Our circles could easily assist in the organizational and financial support that is needed. We must do it now, for later is too late. Pray hard and fast. Seek what God, not Michael Harrington and idolatrists, compels you to do. Below are our only options folks. Don’t base this on senseless, illogical expectations and end up giving away our country. God Bless!
by Clint Bishop