Darrell Castle talks about Turkey, especially its arrest of Pastor Andrew Brunson, as well as U.S. sanctions on that country and the resulting Turkish economic troubles.

Transcription / Notes

TALKING TURKEY

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, August 24, 2018, and on this report I will be talking about Turkey.  Not the kind of turkey you might have for Thanksgiving or Christmas but the kind that is a country located on the northern border of Syria in the Middle East.  The kind that is so strategically located that it controls Russian access to its only entrance to the Mediterranean.  You may have heard that the United States is having some problems with Turkey right now and, in fact, has recently placed some economic sanctions on that country and some of its leaders individually.  In addition, there have been disagreements over the roles of Turkey and the United States in Syria, which inspired Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to go to Turkey in June of this year and work out a deal with his Turkish counterpart to avoid conflict there.

Most, or all, of the problems could have probably been resolved except for one thing, and that thing is Pastor Andrew Brunson.  Pastor Brunson has lived and worked in Turkey for 23 years but one month before the 2016 elections, he was taken into custody by Turkish authorities.  Mr. Brunson, an Evangelical Presbyterian pastor, was called to a local police station in the town of Izmir for what he assumed was a routine police procedure to renew his Turkish visa.

After being told he was to be deported within 15 days, he was held incognito for a week.  He was denied access to his lawyer, who said that he was told Mr. Brunson had refused counsel.  He was denied access to the U.S. consulate, which is a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as well as a time-honored international agreement.

For a year and a half he was held without being charged with a crime.  In March 2018, he was charged with support for a terrorist group and with espionage.  He was confined to his cell 24 hours a day in conditions one might expect in a Turkish prison.  Finally, in July he was released to house arrest.  His Turkish lawyer said he was arrested because he practices the Christian faith.  His being the pastor of a small Evangelical Presbyterian church with 25 members was classified as “aiding a terrorist organization.”

The Trump administration has taken the position that he was arrested and put through a sham trial because of his religious faith.  Vice President Mike Pence said that publicly in a speech last July.  This incident with Pastor Brunson demonstrates the turn Turkey has taken under the leadership of Recep Erdogan toward radical Islam, and away from Turkey’s long relationship with the U.S. and its allies.

Erdogan rose to power democratically in 2002 but quickly began the process of transforming Turkey into a radical Islamic State.  Step-by-step he assumed lifetime dictatorial powers aligning Turkey with the terrorist organizations Hamas and the Islamic State.  He has been very friendly with Iran, resisting U.S. sanctions on Iran at every turn.  He conducts military exercises with the Chinese and has purchased Russian S-400 antiaircraft missile systems.  Since Turkey is a NATO member, he is able to provide the enemies of NATO with information on how to defeat U.S. anti-air defense systems.

U.S. administrations before the Trump administration have tried to ignore the growing problems because, I would guess, of Turkey’s strategic geopolitical importance.  The United States has an airbase at Incirlik, Turkey, which U.S. and NATO forces have used to project power into the Middle East and around the world.  The U.S. reportedly, and ominously, has about 50 nuclear weapons stored at Incirlik.  Turkey is the gateway to both Asia and Europe, serving as a passage between the two and also serving as Russia’s outlet to the Mediterranean.

Darrell Castle talks about how the war on drugs has led to corruption both here in America and in Mexico, as well as a strategy for addressing it.

Transcription / Notes

CORRUPTION—NOTHING’S CHANGED IN 2000 YEARS

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, August 17, 2018, and in this Report I will be talking about the subject of corruption, especially from the standpoint of the governments of the United States and Mexico.  In Mexico, recently elected President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will take office December 1st, armed with a public mandate to end corruption and violence caused by war with the drug cartels.

His political party, the National Regeneration Movement, will have a majority in both houses of Congress.  It’s been a long time since a Mexican President elect came to power with such an opportunity to actually complete his political agenda.  He campaigned much as did Donald Trump, who told us he would “drain the swamp”.  I doubt if Mr. Obrador ever used that term, but the concept is similar as is the agenda.  He and his incoming Interior Minister obviously view the cartel violence and corruption problems as linked together.

Mr. Obrador reportedly gave Interior Minister Olga Sanchez Cordero instructions to tackle the cartel problems by whatever means seem necessary.  The legalization of drugs, especially marijuana and opium based drugs, would appear to be one means she is going to try.  Recently I read where Hillary Clinton said, in reference to the incoming Mexican administration, they can’t legalize drugs there’s too much money in it.

The reason there’s too much money in drugs is because they are illegal.  If they were legal, there would still be profit in producing and selling them, about as much profit as any other agricultural product.  The more harsh the laws against drugs, the more profitable they become.  Now the Mexican narcotraficantes have discovered the tremendous appetite Americans have for opioids, especially fentanyl, which can be prescribed legally by doctors but not in enough quantity to satisfy those addicted.  It is devastating because it is more addictive than heroin and more profitable.  I’ve discovered that it takes about $3300 to produce enough fentanyl to bring 1 million dollars street value in America.

Another tactic being discussed is some type of amnesty for the cartel members, but the problem is that almost all cartel members have been guilty of the most brutal crimes against people imaginable.  The usefulness of amnesty then will be limited, especially when you consider that those applying for it probably won’t survive the process.

What Ms. Cordero says she has in mind is at least considering the legalization and regulation of the opium trade, perhaps legalizing the sale of opium gum to pharmaceutical companies for production as with any legal drug.  A legal market for the country’s opium farmers would be created with the goal of stopping or at least reducing, warring over the control of opium growing areas.  The drug problems associated with addiction, such as disease, crime, etc., have also started to plague Mexico as well as the United States, so stopping the violence and cartel wars would benefit both countries.

The drug wars then, are one of the things that cause corruption but if people are so offended by corruption, and if corruption at the government level is especially hated by people, what is it?  What is a reasonable definition of "corruption"?  The dictionary definition of corruption is impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle, and depravity.  That is a fine definition but it doesn’t really explain why so many people are so offended by it.  In many countries, especially the Middle East, such countries as Egypt and Tunisia, rulers are being deposed, not for making themselves dictators but for corruption.  I would accept the definition of writer Doug Casey as being the better one; “a betrayal of trust for personal gain.

Darrell Castle talks about the de-platforming of Alex Jones and his InfoWars channel, as well as the New York Times hiring of an overt racist to its editorial board.

Transcript/Notes

THE DEEP STATE MOVES TO SILENCE DISSENT

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, August 10, 2018, and on this Report I will be talking about the coordinated attack by deep state corporate tech giants such as Facebook, Apple, Google/ You Tube, and Spotify.  Since virtually everyone else is also talking about this subject, I will try give some different information, such as some legal arguments as to why being private might not shelter these particular corporations this time.

It is common for those on the left to express hatred of capitalism and to rejoice when an anti-capitalist is elected, yet they trust the capitalist, massive, unaccountable corporations to decide for all of us what we are able to listen to and discuss.  Thanks to their demands, global corporations now govern the public sphere, and decide what speech is permissible and what is not.

These are private corporations and therefore not subject to first amendment restrictions, or so they believe, but they are also bigger, more powerful, and certainly richer than many governments.  They are so big and so powerful that they are virtually an arm of the government, as Ron Paul has charged. Part of the coordinated attack I spoke of earlier was against the director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and Dr. Paul had some things to say about it in an interview on Tuesday.  “While social media could be a real delight and very informative the biggest role social networks are playing is working with the government.  The government is indirectly regulating free speech through companies like Twitter and Facebook.  He went on to say “You get accused of treasonous activity and treasonous speech because in an empire of lies the truth is treason.  Challenging the status quo is what they can’t stand and it unnerves them, so they have to silence people”

Therefore, the tech giants are acting on behalf of government to the point where they have become virtually an agent of government.  They allow the government to control speech through them as surrogate companies.  There is a case, I believe, from the California Supreme Court that holds them to be similar to public utilities and Twitter has been recently sued on that premise in the case of Taylor v. Twitter.  If you look at normal media such as the New York Times, that paper has control over editorial content.  If it hires a profane racist to its editorial board, it is responsible for the content of what she puts in that paper and can be sued if she prints libel.

The internet companies, on the other hand, argue that they have no control over content and do not edit what goes on the internet in any way.  They just try to keep violent, hateful, speech off their media.  That premise is easily refuted when you research the many sites where Antifa has posted actual calls for political violence, etc., so they do, in fact, control content.

Alex Jones is shut down, de-platformed, shadow-banned, eliminated from the public sphere, or however you want to say it.  His millions of subscribers are deprived of the opportunity to hear his views, watch his videos, listen to his rants, etc.  He and his audience were starting to challenge some of the major networks for viewership and thus he was getting to be a bit of a problem for them.  Keep in mind that Alex has been doing the same things for decades, but now, all of a sudden he has to be taken down.  So all within a 24 hour period, Alex and much of his Infowars channel, has been banned from Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and Google/You Tube.  Even Linked In took him down and he doesn’t even post there as I understand it.

 When Apple decided to ban him entirely, not just some episodes, the other online giant companies followed suit.  So,

Darrell Castle talks about the election of Mexico's new President, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and his plans to make Mexico great again.

Transcription / Notes

THE USA AS A PRESSURE VALVE

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, August 3, 2018, and on today’s Report I will again turn my attention to the subject of migration and immigration; and because of the recent elections in that country I will look primarily at Mexico.

Why do so many millions of Mexican people want to risk danger and bear the expense and hardship of coming to the United States illegally?  There are many reasons, of course, but the primary reason is most likely the extreme violence, poor living conditions, and lack of opportunity caused by the drug cartels’ decades’ long wars between each other, and with the Mexican and American governments.  It stands to reason then, that the migrants or immigrants must believe that life will be better in the United States than it was in their own country.  If drug cartel violence really is the primary force driving people north then it also stands to reason that if the violence is reduced and the cartels weakened then migration will at least slow down.

On July 1st Mexico elected as President, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, by an overwhelming vote.  In a record turnout 53% voted for Mr. Obrador.  News reports coming out of Mexico prior to the election indicated that people were upset at what they considered the impotence of the government of previous President Pena Nieto, along with his total inability to stop or even slow cartel activity. Crime is rampant, especially the crimes of kidnapping and murder, which Mr. Nieto seemed powerless to solve or prevent.

Mr. Obrador will take office December 1st and mission number one will be to insure that he convinces the Mexican people, and especially the business class, that progress will be made against cartel violence.  He says he wants to try innovative solutions, such as reversing the 1938 nationalization of the petroleum industry.  Some other things he wants are to eliminate political immunity and other such privileges to government officials,  as well as including corruption, petroleum theft and electoral fraud on the list of crimes for which there is no bail; moving the Mexican Secret Service to the Department of Defense, thus allowing for a less corrupt way of protecting those trying to defeat the cartels; establishing a right to free public education; establishing an avenue of impeachment of the President similar to the US Constitution; cutting the VAT tax by 50% in the northern border zone.  These things are attacks on corruption and government immunity from it that now chokes Mexico and creates an atmosphere of distrust.

By far, the biggest task before his government is stopping the cartels and regaining control of the country.  He assigned that task to incoming interior minister Olga Sanchez Cordero and she says that she has carte blanc authority to try whatever seems necessary to stop the violence, and ending the drug wars is at the top of the list.  Ms. Cordero has some very solid opinions about the drug wars and the damage they have caused.  “What no one can deny with hard data is that, at least in the past 10 years, the Mexican government has been incapable of stopping violence and responding to it with institutional mechanisms.”

Ms. Cordero is seriously considering the decriminalization of all drugs as one of her government’s prime weapons against the cartels.  She believes that making drugs essentially legal would end the black market for production and would end the wars between rival cartels.

The steady increase in violent crime over the past few decades is directly related to the escalation of the war on drugs both in Mexico and the United States.  I’m trying to reason through how legalizing drugs in Mexico would help the United States, since the market for the Mexican drugs is the United States demand.

Darrell Castle talks about how the Democrat Party is shifting to the left and how that shift is affecting the politics of the nation.

Transcription/Notes

DEMOCRATS FINALLY REMOVE THE MASKS

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, July 27, 2018, and on today’s Report I will be talking about the leftward shift of the Democrat Party, and the effect that shift is having on politics in America.  Yes, the Democrat Party is being changed primarily by the demographic changes the Democrat Party has forced on the country over several decades.  The old policy of gradualism favored by Democrats, whereby they ruin the country gradually so we don’t notice, is unacceptable to the new Democrats; instead they want to ruin it completely and all at once.

In New York’s 14th Congressional District’s Democrat primary, ten term incumbent Joe Crowley was defeated soundly by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed working class girl from the Bronx.  It turns out though, that she’s not from the Bronx at all but from Westchester County, New York, one of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States.  Westchester County is where Arkansas natives Bill and Hillary Clinton now call home.  Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, at least currently, does live in the Bronx district she seeks to represent.  She has what the new Democrats seem to want; she is young, 28 I think, attractive, Hispanic and very ambitious.

Her victory in this fall’s election is a foregone conclusion since her district is 70% non-white with the largest percentage being Hispanic.  That is the interesting thing about her win, and why I say that Democrats are finally starting to let us see who they really are.  She made the statement after the election that” this is no longer the country for old white men”, and perhaps she’s right, but as we’ll see in a few minutes it’s no longer the country for old white women either.

 The young Democrats are taking off the gloves and they do not even seem embarrassed by their overt racist appeal which, as I said, has been made possible by decades of work by old, white Democrats who wanted power for themselves.

She says that once in Congress she hopes to achieve a lot of things for her people.  Free health care through expansion of Medicare, free education, and my favorite guaranteed jobs, are all on her list, but what is not on her list is how these things will be paid for.  She says she’s a socialist but when questioned she reveals that she really doesn’t understand what that means.  She seems to think it means that as if by magic everything will suddenly be free and her new government will reverse the laws of economics.

The racist appeal of her campaign has spread across the country as she is portrayed now as a “rising star” in the new unmasked Democrat Party.  Old white Democrats, such as Chuck Schumer, introduce her as the future of the Democrat Party.  No country for old white men, or apparently old white women either, or at least that seems to be the message sent to Senator Diane Feinstein in California by the Democrat Party’s State Committee.  Senator Feinstein, a spry 85 years old, is seeking her 5th term in the U.S. Senate, which would give her 30 years in the Senate and make her 91 years old when she finishes her 5th term.

However, the California Democrat Party’s State Committee Board rejected and refused to endorse her.  When the 330 member Board voted recently she got only 7% of the vote while her 51 year old Hispanic opponent, Kevin De Leon got 65% of the vote.  Interestingly 28% voted to not vote or to give no endorsement, which tells me that they did not want to go on record as upsetting the establishment but they no longer want the old white woman in office.

Now I ask you folks; did you think you would ever see the day when Diane Feinstein was just too conservative?  She’s not liberal enough for the new Democrats and she’s too old and, most importantly, too white.

Darrell Castle talks about President Trump's meeting with NATO allies and Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and the Democrat Party's reaction to the meetings.

Transcript/Notes

TRUMP SPEAKS THE TRUTH—IN PUBLIC

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, July 20, 2018, and on today’s Report I will be talking about President Trump’s recent conference with NATO member states where he took them to the wood shed for not paying their agreed amount for defense.  I will also discuss the President’s meeting with Russian Leader, Vladimir Putin, in Helsinki, Finland on July 16th.

The President seems to be operating on a different premise from his predecessors, in regard to his dealing with NATO allies.  His premise is, perhaps, best described as one of reciprocity.  That is, the United States is no longer willing or able to underwrite the entire security of the West.  The Western Allies agreed as part of the NATO alliance to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, but of the 28 members, only the United States, and now, Turkey are doing it.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Western nations started cutting their defense budgets to the bone as did the United States, but they all agreed that even if they did not face the Soviet Union anymore, they would maintain the ability to resist armed attack.  Article 3 of the treaty requires members not just to spend two percent of GDP on defense, but to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”

The President talked straight to them about their failure to meet the terms of the treaty.  He referred to them as “delinquent allies”, and said they treated the United States “like schmucks”, and America like a piggy bank.  He demanded from them the treatment for the United States that they expect from the United States; in other words, reciprocity.  Trump obviously has a problem with the Germans that goes far beyond what they spend on defense, which is almost nothing.  He said to them, “now we see the Germans whom we are protecting from Russia, collaborating with Russia, and deepening their dependence on Russian natural gas by jointly building their Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea.”  He went on to state publicly that other presidents have recognized these problems but didn’t do anything about them, and that is very unfair to the American people.

He’s right about NATO, it is obsolete, as he mentioned during his campaign.  NATO is an organization formed 69 years ago in the aftermath of the most destructive war in human history, to defend Europe from an enemy that no longer exists.  It was a reasonable fear that the Soviet Union would enslave all of Europe, as it did Eastern Europe, and it did have expansionistic plans.  That great cold war enemy no longer exists and the cold war is over despite the Democratic Party’s efforts to bring it back.  In light of those facts, if Europe wants to be defended against imaginary enemies it should pay for that defense with its own blood and treasure.

Trump’s appearance at NATO was apparently quite a show.  He paid no attention to their whining about Hungary’s, and now Italy’s, harder stance against migration from Africa and the Middle East, and after his tirade started, non-members Ukraine and Georgia, which are being considered for membership, were asked to leave the room.  He simply laid bare to the world what NATO has been unwilling to face publicly and that is, its decline, its non-existent enemies, its self-inflicted wounds, and the fact that, without the United States, it is obsolete and non-existent.

After the summit he didn’t stay for their parties and the usual schmoozing, but instead flew off to Helsinki, Finland for a meeting with Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, and that is what made the Democrats go ballistic.  They didn’t go ballistic when John Kennedy picked up the phone and called Nikita Khrushchev in an effort to avert nuclear war but now ...

Darrell Castle talks about massive unrestricted immigration from the Third World, and the economic impact it is having on San Francisco and the rest of the country.

Transcription / Notes

IS THIS NORMAL OR AM I IN A BAD PART OF TOWN

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, July 13, 2018, yes, that’s right it’s Friday the 13th, and today I will be talking about San Francisco and what is happening there, including what economic impact it is having.  It’s bad luck, I suppose, if you can attribute characteristics deliberately caused or caused by stupidity to luck.  It is indeed bad luck for the people of San Francisco and for all the tourists and business visitors who choose to visit that afflicted city.

The city of San Francisco is afflicted alright.  It’s afflicted with the results of Democrat politics, including its status as a sanctuary city and California’s status as a sanctuary state.  The answer to the tourist’s question that is the title of this Report is "No, I’m afraid this is now normal here in the once great City by the Bay."  Just listen to what some people who have seen it firsthand have to say about it.

A tourist from Australia on social media said, “Is this normal or am I in a bad part of town? Just walked past numerous homeless off their faces, screaming and running all over the sidewalk near Twitter HQ and then a murder scene.  Wife is scared to leave hotel now”  A visitor from London wrote, “I’d been there less than a day, just wandering around the center, and already seen more than enough poverty and suffering to cause me wanting to leave desperately.”  The president of S.F. Travel said, “The streets are filthy.  There’s trash everywhere.  It’s disgusting.  I’ve never seen any other city like this—the homelessness, dirty streets, drug use on the streets, smash-and-grabs”.

SFGate reports, “A foul odor permeated from a massive bag of human excrement sludge left on a street corner in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district Saturday.  The horrendous smell and sight quickly gained notoriety when a Reddit user posted a screen shot of a report made to San Francisco’s Citizen app for identifying crimes.  Twenty pounds of feces dumped on the sidewalk, the report called out.”

The human feces left on the street in twenty pound piles is just the result of thousands and thousands of people permitted, no, invited, to the city to live on the streets without housing and access to restrooms.  Many of these people are IV drug addicts as we will see later in this report and the city makes it easy for them with free needles by the tens of thousands.

And now, at long last the results of the concerted actions of the Democrat politicians in California, and specifically San Francisco, are starting to have a significant economic impact.  Hot Air.com reports that tourism is big business in San Francisco, bringing in $9 billion dollars a year to the city’s businesses.  Now, a major medical convention expected to bring in 15,000 visitors and drop $40 million in less than a week has decided it will stop bringing its members to the City by the Bay because they don’t feel safe walking the streets .

Well, folks the report doesn’t say but a major medical convention with 15,000 members sounds a lot like the American Medical Association to me.  The San Francisco Chronicle reported that “It’s the first time that we have had an out-and-out cancellation over the issue, and this is a group that has been coming here every three or four years since the 1980’s”.

Good for the AMA, if that is indeed the group that canceled.  It’s time people started to vote with their pocketbooks and let politicians feel the impact of their decisions.  The doctors told the San Francisco convention delegation that, while they loved the city, post convention surveys showed their members were afraid to walk amid the open drug use, threatening behavior and mental illness that are common on the streets.

So,

Darrell Castle talks about how the lack of civility in politics is dividing Americans and preventing real debate and discourse, as well as causing the potential for violence.

Transcription / Notes

POLITICAL HYSTERIA AND THE DIVISION OF AMERICA

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, July 6, 2018, and on today’s Report I will be talking about how politics in America has been reduced to hysteria, which is continuing to widen the division between Americans.

To illustrate my point I will start with a front page story from my home town Memphis Commercial Appeal  newspaper, which ran on the 4th of July.  The chairman of the Shelby County Democrat Party referred to local Republican nominees as “demonstrably racist, homophobic, unethical and unqualified.”   It seems that the chairman did not get his way on an issue of importance to him and his party in the upcoming election and he reacted, not with debate and discourse, but with name calling.  The issue that he was concerned about seems to me to be just political tactics.  Why should Republicans help his party get more of his voters to the polls?   Instead of seeing it that way, his reaction was to throw out the dreaded “R” word.

The Tennessee Republican chairman, of course, called on the Democrat Party to condemn his “name-calling and outright lies”, but the Democrats refused and doubled down as they usually do.  If I were speaking for the Constitution Party against such an attack I would take a different approach by thanking the gentleman for his honesty.  That is a rare quality in politics these days, and his honesty gives us a chance to see who and what he really is, and it motivates us for the battle ahead, so thanks again.

Anger, emotion, and spin rule the day in politics.  Just inspire the mob to show up at the polls, even if you have to use emotional manipulation to do so.  If you disagree with me I will express self-righteous hatred, and rage, and call you a fascist or a Nazi.  Both left and right seem to believe that America is hanging in the balance ready to fall with each issue that confronts us and only they can save us.

We don’t all read, watch, or listen to the same media anymore, a trend that is exacerbated by social media allowing us to be completely isolated from any opposing views.  This creates a sense of despair about politics and society in general, as well as a belief that opponents aren’t just wrong, they are trying to destroy all that we hold dear.

The left is currently out of power and appears to be losing the fight.  They broadcast constantly to the mob in an effort to get them to the polls.  Don’t bother trying; you can’t get ahead because the system is stacked against you because of your race, gender, sexual preference, etc.

The mob is prone to violence more and more, and to calm the mob voices of rational leadership need to be heard.  To their credit, both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer rebuked Maxine Waters for her calls for harassment and violence against officials of the Trump administration.  Nancy Pelosi tweeted a mild, "it was unacceptable", comment, which is really a private way of rebuking a very public statement.  Chuck Schumer, on the other hand, went on the floor of the Senate and referred to such language as un-American.  Both of them then went on to say that it was all Trump’s fault.

The left sees that it is losing and there are no legitimate issues left for them to campaign on.  Therefore we are all racists, white supremacists, homophobic, and practically, if not actually, members of the Klan.  Did you know that according to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are only about 6,500 members of the Klan left in America?  Well that’s true and you know if SPLC says it’s true then it is.  But we are constantly told that racism is epidemic and that all light, purity, and morality flow out of the Democrat Party into the hearts and souls of Americans.

Darrell Castle shares his thoughts on the reaction of violent rage and madness exhibited by many Democrats who are unable to accept the results of the 2016 election and why there is still reason for cautious optimism.

Transcription / Notes

A REASON FOR CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, June 29, 2018, and on this Report I will be talking about how losing the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump has literally driven many Democrats, especially Democrat politicians, into a rage bordering on madness.  They seem so unable to accept the fact that 63 million people rejected their ideas and voted for change, thus depriving them of the power to force others to fund their ideas that rage and madness have resulted.  Despite all the bad news, all the rage and madness from the left, as we shall see, there are reasons for at least cautious optimism.

Democrats are apparently so deluded as to why their candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to Donald Trump that they think their brand of violent rage, which includes of public shaming of any official working for the Trump administration, will somehow convince voters to give them back the majority of House and Senate seats come November 2018.  Their hatred of Donald Trump has never been more obviously directed at all the rest of us who reject their vision of what America should be.

 All semblances of decorum and class, if any ever existed among them, have been lost.  They openly encourage the assembling of mobs to shame and inconvenience anyone connected to the Trump administration who dares to venture out in public.  They are apparently so deluded that they think that will encourage the American people to give them back their political majority.

Maxine Waters, Congress woman from California, tells us, “you ain’t seen nothing yet" and “this is just the beginning”.   She is making threats that one should assume she intends to back up.  There have, in fact, been threats of domestic terrorism as part of that, “this is only the beginning” quote.  I quote from an article by Hamilton Nolan in Splinter entitled, “This is Just the Beginning”.  In the article he asked questions of sane people, i.e., those more conservative than him, “Do you think that being asked to leave a restaurant, or having your meal interrupted, or being called by the public is bad?   My fascism-enabling friends, this is only the beginning.”

Later he tells us exactly what he meant: “The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970’s.  This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive.  The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction.  The day will come, sooner than you all think, when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on a time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at in a Mexican restaurant.”

So he is telling us, no, warning us, that domestic terrorism is coming to U.S. cities because he and his left wing friends did not get their way.  He actually seems to crave violent conflict with longing and fondness.  This man is not just some crackpot, although he does seem to be nuts.  He has written for the New York Times and in leftist circles appears to be quite popular.  He is careful not to openly call for violence but he does say that it is time to start fighting.  “The people that are responsible for this are not going to get out of this with their happy, wealthy lives unscathed."  That’s you and me that he’s talking about folks.  His article has been read more than 798,000 times.

The radical left of the Democrat Party are quite clear about what they have planned for America if they can’t take control of it at the voting booth, and their plan is already starting to some degree.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently encouraged her followers with this: “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up.

Darrell Castle talks about the recent report issued by the Inspector General's Office regarding the FBI's 2016 investigation of the Clinton email scandal.

Transcription / Notes

NO POLITICAL BIAS

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  Today is Friday, June 22, 2018, and on today’s Report I will be talking about the recent 568 page report by the Department of Justice Office (DOJ) of the Inspector General entitled, "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election".

The report basically examined whether political bias affected the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s decisions regarding which investigations it undertook and how it chose to conduct those investigations.  The report spent its 568 pages documenting instances of political bias one after another and then said that “the investigation did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions we reviewed.”

It’s pretty clear from the evidence presented that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified material was a sham or pretend investigation.  As a column in the Wall Street Journal put it “the IG report is dripping with evidence of political bias.  It’s just that it deploys the evidence like a troupe of players on the stage and then tells you that the burglary you just saw enacted might have been the innocent person out for a stroll.”

If the stakes weren’t so high we could just laugh all this off as a comedy of errors and one of those “move along folks there’s nothing to see here,” or perhaps “who are you going to believe, me or you’re lying eyes” moments.  There is, however, a lot at risk, such as the future of the Republic, as well as corruption throughout the nation’s top law enforcement agency, and even the Department of Justice.

This document confirms some of our worst fears about what has been happening in the federal government over the last few years.  It directly and very clearly exposes an attack on America and Americans by their own law enforcement and justice agencies.  It essentially tells us that a coup was, and is, continuing to be attempted to thwart and subvert the decisions of the American people regarding who should govern them.

People in the FBI and at the highest levels of the Obama administration apparently believed not only that they were above the law, but that they would never be subject to examination or question.  Why?   Because there was zero chance that Donald Trump would be elected and they would do whatever it took to make sure that did not happen.  Once Hillary Clinton was president the corruption could continue and they would be vindicated.

The Chicago Tribune’s John Kass, in his column said, “The report crawls with bias.  Deals were cut.  Then Attorney General Loretta Lynch met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton.  Hillary Clinton was shielded from a federal grand jury.  Witnesses were allowed to sit with her during questioning.  Comey had already decided to clear her before the investigation was complete.”

There were apparently two sides to the corruption that is still ongoing.  The anti-Trump bias which was clearly evident throughout the FBI and the entire intelligence community from top to bottom was the first side. cJohn Brennan, head of CIA, James Clapper, head of the Office of National Intelligence, and James Comey at the FBI were at the top and it permeated down the line.  These are people charged with protecting the United States from its enemies, foreign and domestic, but as it turned out they were, and are, the enemies we need to be protected from.

The second side involved the constant cheer-leading for Hillary Clinton throughout the chain of command ending ultimately with the President of the United States, Barack Obama.  That means that Mrs. Clinton cannot be prosecuted because that would impli...