Darrell Castle talks about the Constitution, The Rule of Law and the death of the republic.
In this podcast, Darrell Castle reviews the state of the American economy:
“We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
For centuries we have used politics to create boundaries for mankind on the earth. Boundaries for many countries are simply invisible lines drawn on a map with complete disregard for race, ethnicity, religion and other tribal factors. Quite often these invisible lines were drawn by colonial powers expecting those who live there to abide by them or suffer the full might of the colonial power’s military.
The failure to recognize and understand tribal loyalties and the strong pull of unifying forces such as race and religion have provoked and still do provoke conflict around the world.
For example, the Durand Line separating Afghanistan from Pakistan was a British colonial separation of two tribal areas that has continued to experience virtually uninterrupted conflict. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are two artificial countries pieced together by colonial powers. Iraq’s recent history is well known, but now Saudi Arabia has started to experience unrest and the army has been called in and mass protests declared illegal.
I argue now that what is happening in the Middle East today is part of a plan conceived many years ago.
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard—American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, proposed a plan of world conquest that became known as “The Project for a New American Century.” The plan called for world domination through constant conflict, isolation and destruction of challengers, and prevention of smaller challengers from uniting.
Brzezinski takes the position that with the defeat of the Soviet Union, as he puts it, the U.S. is the first truly globally dominant power. He goes on to say that Eurasia, which includes all of the Middle East, is the world’s most important area: containing 75 percent of the world’s people, 60 percent of the world’s GNP, and three fourths of the world’s known energy resources.
“Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;
…second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and /or control the above.” (40)
A simple translation of this statement is: identify as threats leaders who will not go along and eliminate them. Brzezinski has a less simple explanation:
“To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.” (40).
Brzezinski goes on to say that democracy as a system of government is not compatible with his plan because it is too humane at home to permit acceptance of the necessarily brutal intimidation by military force abroad. To gain acceptance of what his plan will cost in terms of casualties and endless tax burdens the public must be kept in a willing state by use of outside threats and internal fear and chaos.
Brzezinski’s plan has obviously been adopted and has been and is being employed in the Middle East currently. Uncooperative dictators are being removed and more cooperative ones replacing them.
I wonder if the people of the Middle East will continue to willingly accept their assigned roles in this plan.
There is growing evidence that revolution is now spreading out of the Arab world and into the Islamic world in general. The people supporting revolutionary change also seem to be coming together in some degree of unity. Revolt is spreading to Saudi Arabia, which is very worried about unification of Shiite tribal unrest spreading from Bahrain across to the eastern Persian Gulf oil-producing areas of Saudi Arabia. The Obama Administration recently requested that Saudi Arabia supply weapons to the rebels in Libya. I guess the President is just trying to identify who his real friends are.
Brzezinski fails to address the fact that the pawns in his grand game represent billions of people. His end game proposal is to build a world dictatorship with all other nations at first as vassel states and then as stateless non-entities, as national borders give way to economic collapse and the entire world is merged into economic zones.
In case you might reason that this plan is good for America, the plan does not really call for an “American Century” at all. This plan is not Reagan’s “we win they lose” strategy that he employed against the Soviet Union. No, this is a plan for a world dominated by the New World Order, the power elite, or whatever name you choose to give them. If Brzezinski’s plan is ultimately completed all the world will be subject to them.
Will we allow Brzezinski’s nightmarish plan to be completed, perhaps by way of a world war beginning in the Middle East, or will someone lead us back in the right direction until we find the right road? Will we seek out the old paths and follow them back to sanity? Time will tell.
- Darrell Castle
Sometimes we take what has come to be thought of as the ideals of America for granted, and we assume that most people, and certainly our leaders, hold these ideals as sacrosanct.
Many of the ideals of America can be found in the Declaration of Independence. A partial list of those ideals would include: That all men are created equal; That we have certain rights that come from the Creator such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those rights are unalienable, which means they cannot be taken by government.
We also learn from the Declaration that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. In other words, we are a self-governing people and our government representatives must represent our views and cannot legally assume power that we do not give them.
There are many other ideals that most people assume to be widely held by Americans – concepts such as freedom and liberty. We Americans believe that we are freer than any other people. Justice is another ideal widely believed to be dear to Americans. By justice, I mean equal justice before the law – i.e. the president is subject to the same law to which the rest of us are subject.
The basic rights set out in the Bill of Rights are also ideals assumed to be widely held. There are many others, but the point is that these ideals are closely associated with America and are believed to be almost universally held and cherished.
It is shocking then, to learn that our leaders, who are charged with upholding the ideals of America, instead hold those ideals in contempt. I’m not only talking about the current administration and Congress, although our current leaders are the most obvious. I’m talking about something that has been ongoing for decades at least.
How does the ideal of equal justice before the law hold up against a president who asserts that he is above the law and it does not apply to him? Equal justice is especially difficult if Congress meekly accepts the president’s assertion.
How does “government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed” hold up when Congress routinely robs the states and the people of legitimately held 9th and 10th Amendment power? How can we continue to call ourselves self-governing people when Congress continually enacts legislation overwhelming opposed by the American people?
How is justice upheld when Congress and the president rob us of rights protected by the Bill of Rights? The right to a fair trial, right to counsel, right to have charges presented to a grand jury, right to a speedy trial, right to be free from warrantless searches, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, all are violated with regularity, with impunity, and without consequences for the violator.
Perhaps the most obvious and most damaging example of the contempt in which our leaders hold our cherished ideals is the government’s wars of naked aggression and constant violations of the sovereignty of other nations. The pointless slaughters conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are but the most obvious examples. Our leaders have been militarily intervening in the affairs of other nations for about 100 years now. Just about every nation in Central and South America has been invaded at one time or another.
In addition to the disregard for human life and human suffering which has been inflicted on a mass scale, our leaders have admitted to war crimes and crimes against humanity – as defined by the Nuremberg standard, which was created by the United States post-WWII.
The former President George W. Bush admitted to torture and said he was proud of it and that he would “do it again.” Torture, and specifically waterboarding allied prisoners, was one of the war crimes for which Hideki Tojo, premier of Japan, was hanged as a war criminal on December 23, 1948. His other listed crimes had to do with waging aggressive war against the various allied powers. Mr. Tojo probably was a war criminal, but it’s a bit hypocritical to exempt our own leaders from his crimes, don’t you think?
Ideals like justice, equal rights under the law, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and even simple concepts such as “mind your own business” may be widely held by the American people, but they are held in contempt by America’s leaders.
- Darrell Castle
The Obamas Visit New Delhi, Nov. 2010 – photo courtesy U.S. Embassy New Delhi
Legend holds that during one of the famines that swept across France during the reign of Louis XVI, his Queen, Marie Antoinette, upon being told that the peasants had no bread, replied, “Let them eat cake.”
That phrase has acquired symbolic importance over the years when used to demonstrate the complete lack of concern and selfishness of the upper classes toward working people.
“Let them eat cake,” then, is an appropriate way to describe the current state visit of the Obama family to India and other nations in Asia.
Not since the days of Roman emperors has a head of state traveled with such pomp and grand expense. The entourage was transported on 40 airplanes, including 3 Boeing 747’s. The 3 presidential helicopters had to be disassembled, loaded on airplanes and reassembled in India. It took 6 armored cars to transport the presidential party on the ground when they were not occupying one of the 800 hotel rooms they rented, including the entire Taj Mahal hotel. That particular hotel, along with a couple of others, was the scene of a bloody terrorist attack in which 171 people were killed a few months ago. Thousands of Secret Service and other security personnel provided security for the president as he was watched by dedicated satellite 24 hours per day. The visit even required a fleet of ships to provide security off-shore.
The estimated cost of the 10-day trip for a bankrupt nation is $200 million per day.
I don’t object to the president and his family being protected and kept safe on a state visit, even when it is done with excess, as this visit appears to be. I’m sure the president doesn’t tell the Secret Service what they can and can’t do to protect him, but he does have control over who goes and who doesn’t. He did not have to travel with 152 members of his administration.
I thought of the Marie Antoinette quote when I saw the president and his wife dancing and touring obviously happy and going the extra mile to portray opulence to the world, and especially to the Indian people. I wondered about the president’s sense of modesty and propriety. Doesn’t he know that his nation is at war in at least 3 admitted countries and many other ones that are not admitted? He apparently does not see the need to tone down the strutting just out of respect for the nation’s dead.
Back at home, more than 42 million people subsist on food stamps. The number of people not in the labor force has set all time records for 14 consecutive months. Twenty-one percent of American children live below the poverty line. Twenty-eight percent of American households have at least one member looking for full time work. Almost 15 million people owe more on their homes than they are worth. One out of six Americans is now enrolled in at least one federal anti-poverty program. The president of the nation’s 10th largest bank, BB&T, recently was quoted as saying that the bankruptcy of the U.S. is a mathematical certainty.
I submit that all of these things and many others should serve as evidence that a time of moderation, restraint, and introspection, if not sack cloth and ashes, would be appropriate. People are aware of the condition of our country and they just gave the president a reminder of that on November 2nd.
What, then, has been the presidential reaction to the impoverishment of the American people? Let them eat cake.
- Darrell Castle