Darrell Castle talks about the concept of “lesser” evil.
Darrell Castle talks about the Republican National Convention and republican tactics.
Last Friday’s endorsement of Mitt Romney by Senator Rand Paul conjured up images of how George Washington must have felt when betrayed by his trusted general, Benedict Arnold.
That’s way too harsh, you may say, because Washington was betrayed when his countrymen were fighting for their lives and the life of their nation against the greatest empire on earth at that time. Benedict Arnold traded his honor for position and power with the empire, and as a result his name has been forever synonymous with treason and deceit.
I can’t help but conclude that Rand’s endorsement of Romney falls into the same category of deceit. Those of us in the liberty movement are struggling to survive against an even more powerful empire than that which existed in Washington’s day. Rand has not only set the liberty movement back but perhaps has also destroyed his father’s legacy.
Why he would do it is the question that begs for an answer.
Did he do it because he has been corrupted by the Washington power elite with promises of position and power? If so, then he is a deceiver and by definition a corrupt one. In addition his deception will not work because he has underestimated the rage his endorsement has provoked among his followers.
Did he do it because he has always been a loyal subject of the Republican leadership and principles really don’t matter to him? If that is true the result is even worse because that makes him a lying hypocrite for pretending to be something that he is not.
Did he do it because he wants to be a contender in 2016 or 2020 and needs to exhibit loyalty to the leadership of the Republican Party?
Whatever the reason that Rand Paul endorsed Romney, to many of us in the liberty movement, he just eliminated himself from contention as a presidential candidate now or in the future. He not only endorsed Romney, he said he would be honored to be Romney’s running mate.
He admitted, therefore, that he would be honored to serve with a man who stands opposed to virtually everything his father has represented for his 35 years in Washington. Reaction to the news has been so bad, and has come in such large numbers, that one cannot help but wonder if he did not miscalculate.
The fact remains that it is Ron the liberty movement has supported for 35 years, not his son. Is it possible that Ron did not approve his son’s decision in advance? It hardly seems likely but if so a brief statement to that effect would seem to be in order. The statement would need to be something similar to this:
Rand is my son and I love him, but I do not support his decision to endorse Mitt Romney. I completely disavow his decision and I have separated myself from it. Should I fail to gain the Republican nomination, which now seems likely, I will be giving my endorsement to the Constitution Party’s candidates—Virgil Goode and Jim Clymer.
That statement would go a long way toward preserving Ron’s legacy as the champion of liberty that he has always appeared to be.
What candidate will you support now that Ron Paul has admitted defeat in his bid for the Republican nomination and his son, Rand, has proven himself to be just another Republican loyalist?
I urge you to consider the Constitution Party and its candidates—Virgil Goode for President and Jim Clymer for Vice President. When Ron Paul was eliminated from the Republican nomination in 2008, he endorsed the Constitution Party’s candidates.
The Constitution Party always has and always will lift high the torch of liberty. Go to www.constitutionparty.com and www.goodeforpresident2012.com for information about the Constitution Party and its candidates.
Darrell L. Castle
Darrell Castle talks about the results of the caucus and what they meant.
Darrell Castle talks about what history tells us will come our way in 2012.
Darrell Castle talks about the president’s jobs news conference:
In this podcast, Darrell Castle reviews the state of the American economy:
Last night President Obama addressed the nation in primetime concerning what he called “a debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt—a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.”
The president’s position as announced in his speech could be summarized by saying that he emphasized compromise and what he called a balanced approach over the position of the Republican House. He said that compromise is a good thing, and he mentioned Ronald Reagan as an example of one who agreed with him about compromise.
His balanced approach would trim $4 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. Assuming interest rates do not increase over the next 10 years, that would reduce the rate of increase in the national debt from a projected $10 trillion to about $6 trillion, leaving a national debt of about $21 trillion.
The president asserted that the Republican no-tax-increase position is based on narrow ideological grounds and is not a balanced approach.
He then attacked the Republican offer of a 6-month temporary increase in the debt ceiling. A six month increase, he said, would simply require that he and Congress have the same debate 6 months from now, and that would be unacceptable. He placed strong emphasis on the critical nature of the debt debate with mentions of possible job loss and cuts in Social Security and Medicare. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he told us, the US could lose its AAA credit rating and that would be a disaster for jobs, businesses, etc.
In response, the Republicans said that they will not impose a tax increase on the American people, not even on those “wealthy people” who make at least $250,000 per year. They offer instead a program they call Cut, Cap, and Balance, which is designed to cut the deficit, cap the rate of increase, and start the process toward a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
The Senate has already rejected the House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, leaving only the president’s insistence on a tax increase as the chief sticking point to prevent the debt ceiling increase from happening.
Both the president’s balanced position and the Republican position of deficit cuts, with a suggestion of a balanced budget amendment, are misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. Neither solution as proposed will solve the problem long-term.
The president’s position of labeling people who make at least $250,000 per year as rich and equating them with millionaires and billionaires must be intended to appeal to what he thinks is the desire of his base for the scalps of those people responsible for the financial mess the nation is in. However, a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report that came out last week put the lie to that position.
According to the GAO, the Federal Reserve has provided more than 16 trillion dollars to banks, corporations, and other financial institutions all over the world. Employees of the Federal Reserve, including the current chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, were given special exemptions from conflict of interest laws so they could keep their investments in companies being bailed out.
The president’s refusal to accept a six-month increase also rings hollow, as does the offer itself. It is obvious that the reason for not accepting it is to prevent the debt debate from continuing into the 2012 election campaign, and the Republicans proposed it to make sure that it does.
That is what this whole debate is about: power and the desire to keep it. I doubt whether the president or Congress really care how much we owe or what it costs us. What they each care very passionately about is staying in power. Their plan for staying in power appears to involve serious disagreement and debate, but in the end nothing of any substance is ever done and the root of the debt problem is never attacked.
What is the root of the debt problem? Borrowing is the problem that makes our entire monetary system unsustainable. You can’t solve a problem caused by borrowing by borrowing more; but the attitude seems to be “let’s do more of what’s not working – perhaps we just haven’t done enough of it.” The problem then is not just borrowing to pay bills and finance debt but literally borrowing our money into existence.
The national government of the United States – “the greatest nation on earth” – as the president described it, has to go to a group of private bankers, hat in hand, to beg for enough money to pay its bills. This situation is intolerable and should be stopped immediately. The Federal Reserve should be disempowered and the trillions of dollars owed to it by the US Treasury should not be repaid. The Federal Reserve created that money from nothing on its computers and it therefore seems appropriate to repay it with nothing.
The other thing that would have an immediate effect on United States Treasury debt would be to change our policy of making war to a more Constitutional one. Recently President Obama took the US military to war against Libya without even consulting Congress. That should never be allowed. Coming home, minding our own business, and fighting only truly defensive wars should be our policy. That would save trillions of dollars and countless lives.
Our current path, the status quo, leads to bankruptcy, social unrest, and disorder, but if we would do the two things I just mentioned I am certain the most dynamic period in American history would begin.
- Darrell Castle
The Republican victory on November 2, 2010, was a lot more comprehensive than taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives and making gains in the U.S. Senate.
Here’s a quick look at some real numbers from the election:
- In the U.S. House, Republicans went from 178 to 240 and Democrats from 238 to 189, with 6 races undecided at this time.
- In the U.S. Senate, Republicans went from 41 to 47 and Democrats from 59 to 53.
- In the Governor races, the Republicans went from 24 to 29 and Democrats from 26 to 19, with Minnesota undecided.
- Republicans gained 675 State Legislature seats nationwide and now control a large majority of redistricting states. The State Legislatures reflect a more grassroots local flavor and are not so affected by national media.
It should be obvious that November 2nd sent a message, which should have been heard loud and clear by those in government: that the American people are very dissatisfied with the direction in which they believe the country is headed.
Have those in power heard them, and will they change direction? Will the Senate ultimately pass S.510, the Food Safety Bill, in a lame duck fashion, despite widespread opposition, just as they passed the bailout bill and Obama Care despite widespread opposition?
If so then the Senate and Congress have not gotten the message that the American people want to be a self-governing people again.
What about the Bush tax cuts? Should this lame duck session rescind the tax cuts it would mean that the current six income tax rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent would be replaced by five rates of 15 percent, 28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent and 39.6 percent? The increasing rates and income reduction would strip points from the small amount of growth still in the economy and reduce consumer spending even further.
What about the new Congress scheduled to be installed on January 3, 2011? Will the new Congress concern itself with trivia or will it address the serious problems that confront the nation, such as the out-of-control spending, the increasing debt, the Federal Reserve, the wars spreading all over the world, the increasingly dangerous confrontation with China, and many others?
Perhaps this Congress will be the one that regains some of its Constitutional authority which was previously ceded to the executive branch. Thanks to George W. Bush’s assertion that the president is above the law and not subject to the subpoenas of Congress, and the meek acceptance of that position by Congress, impeachment is the only remedy Congress has left for an out-of-control president. When, in response to presidential admissions of violations of the international laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity, the speaker of the House of Representatives says “impeachment is off the table,” then Congress is toothless indeed.
Were the new Congress to seriously address any of these problems, I would be impressed, but there is very little reason to be optimistic. It’s hard to imagine any Congress rolling back presidential usurpations of Constitutional power or attacking the Federal Reserve. But until one does, nothing will change except to get worse.
Have the Republicans gotten the message this time or will it be more of the same? Time will tell.
- Darrell Castle
Legend holds that when Rome was burning from fires intentionally set, or from the wood and straw shanties of the poor which spread the fires throughout the city, Emperor Nero played his fiddle instead of mobilizing forces to save the city.
We can apply this example to America during the election process and especially post-election. There is much rejoicing among Republicans because the party has regained control of the House of Representatives and made some gains in the Senate.
While there is nothing wrong with rejoicing in victory, I can’t help but wonder if those who want Constitutional government understand that little or nothing has changed.
None of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, even give lip service to ending the Federal Reserve’s control over our monetary system. Until that control is ended and the power to create money is returned to the American people, no real change of a positive nature is possible.
It is the central banks, with their power to create and loan money into existence at interest, that allows them to use their corporations and media to buy the politicians that keep their financial interests paramount.
The final word came to my attention about noon today that the Federal Reserve just announced a $600 billion stimulus plan to create jobs and “improve the economy.”
This is an outrage, and every member of Congress should be screaming at the top of his or her lungs, but instead Nero just keeps playing.
This new effort to “improve the economy” will probably be the final nail in the dollar’s coffin. The central bankers will have what they seem to want, then: chaos, confusion, disorder, and world currency. Their dream will come to final fruition as they control the entire world’s money and with it, all of humanity.
Is there anything good that came from the election? Well, yes, of course some good things happened. I must admit that I enjoyed the interview Michele Bachmann (R MN) did with Chris Mathews of MSNBC. Here’s an excerpt:
Mathews: “Are you hypnotized…in a trance?”
Bachmann: “The American people are the ones coming out of our trance. I think people are thrilled tonight. I imagine that thrill is probably maybe not so tingly on your leg anymore.”
Folks, it just doesn’t get any better than that. Now, if only she understood that the Fed has to be ended and a new monetary system begun, what a candidate she could be.
- Darrell Castle