Darrell Castle discusses President Obama’s recent Executive Order, called “Preventing and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls – Globally.”
Darrell Castle talks about the Federal Reserve and the American economy.
Darrell Castle talks about the president’s recent trip to the Far East.
2011 Egyptian protest – by Lihaas
Mohamed Bouazizi was a 26 year old man who lived in a small town in Tunisia called Sidi Bouzid. According to family members, he supported his mother and six sisters with the US$140 per month he earned as a street vendor selling produce from a wheelbarrow-type cart. His dream was to someday buy a van for his produce and allow his sisters to go to university.
Bouazizi did not have a license to sell from his cart, although the local police say that no license was needed. His sisters said that the police often harassed him and destroyed his produce because he could not or would not pay their bribes. His sisters accused the police of trying to extort money from him. On December 17, 2010, he contracted US$200 in debt to buy his merchandise to sell. He was then publicly humiliated when F. Hamdi, a 45 year old female official, slapped him in the face, spat at him, threw out his produce and confiscated his scales. The fact that she was female made the humiliation worse due to the customs and traditions under which he lived.
He appealed to the governor’s office, but the governor refused to see him. He then told his mother that he was going to burn himself and he bought gasoline or paint thinner, sat down in front of a government building, doused himself and set himself on fire. He was transferred to several hospitals as the need for better trauma care overwhelmed the local hospitals, but he died 18 days later. More than 5,000 people attended his funeral, and the mayor of Paris announced that a place in Paris will be named after him.
The protests and riots became so intense after Bouazizi’s death that the President of Tunisia, Ben Ali, fled the country, bringing down the Tunisian government after 23 years. Ben Ali tried first to go to Paris, but was refused entry. He eventually was accepted into Saudi Arabia and apparently resides there now.
Since the death of Mohamed Bouazizi, many other people have burned themselves in protest in many countries. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have had several cases of self-immolation. Protests have become widespread across the Middle East including Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, and Jordan. Some of us remember the TV images of Buddhist monks burning themselves in Vietnam as a form of religious protest.
There was the public humiliation angle to what Bouazizi did, but his act had an economic angle as well. The poverty of the Tunisian people, the 30% unemployment rate, the rising food prices, along with the obvious official corruption, were enough for his act to serve as the match that burned down the Tunisian government. Now the Egyptian government looks to be on fire as well. Egypt – a nation of 85 million people – and 40% of them survive on less than US$1 dollar per day.
It seems that one man really can make a difference when the conditions are ripe for him to do so. The world has never been so ripe as it now. Is this our future? Time will tell.
- Darrell Castle
[The views and opinions contained within this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Constitution Party or its other members.]
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is, according to various politicians, the most dangerous and evil man alive.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that WikiLeaks’ release of a quarter million e-mails and diplomatic cables was an “attack upon the international community.”
Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said that the person who leaked the information to Wikileaks is guilty of treason and should be executed.
Sarah Palin stated on her Facebook page, “He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders?”
Tom Flanagan, senior advisor to the Canadian prime minister, said that he should be assassinated, and that Obama should put out a contract on him “with maybe a drone or something.”
It’s not enough that Assange has an international criminal warrant out for him through Interpol; he should be hunted down and assassinated like al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.
My analysis of what Julian Assange did leads me to a different conclusion.
Who is actually guilty of attacking the international community? Did Julian Assange order the United States military to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, resulting in the deaths of God only knows how many people? Did he destroy the infrastructure of those countries and pollute them with depleted uranium weapons?
With regard to having blood on his hands, did he kill over 5,000 young Americans and wound tens of thousands more? Did he order American diplomats to commit espionage against their host countries? Has he led a campaign to destroy the Bill of Rights by authorizing warrantless searches, denying the right to counsel, and denying the right to Habeas Corpus?
People who have the courage to reveal the truth to the world should be assassinated, but those psychopathic criminals who commit war crimes and then run around the country bragging about it to sell books, along with the central bankers who finance them, should be allowed to live out their lives in palatial luxury?
People who reveal the truth have blood on their hands, but those who commit murder on a mass scale are referred to as the honorable this or that. The lunatics and murderers who run the world from their nice suits – or in some countries, their silly uniforms – are able to degrade, humiliate, and strip us naked every time we fly, monitor all our credit card charges, intercept our e-mails, listen to our phone conversations, and pursue us to the ends of the earth for the fruits of our labor, but they are entitled to remain comfortably under their rocks in private. When a man lifts the corner of one of their rocks, he must die.
I, for one, am glad to see the information released. I understand now that WikiLeaks plans to release information from a large bank, and to that I say go for it, Julian. If you can stand the heat and the consequences, lift every rock in hell and let us see what slithers out. It’s time these international lunatics come to understand that we can not be expected to allow them to plot their evil schemes in private. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’m sure the reaction to the release will be to restrict access and be even more secretive. I suppose that makes more sense to American leaders than to stop murdering and lying.
Julian Assange is an international criminal according to many, but I would like to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. At least he deserves it more than the president did.
- by 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
In a recent speech to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan, former President George W. Bush confessed to ordering the torture of a suspect in the 9/11 attacks.
“Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Bush said of the man to whom The Grand Rapids Press referred as the terrorist who master-minded the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. Bush went on to say that the event shaped his presidency and convinced him that the nation was in a war against terror.
To contradict Mr. Bush, his Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil said in the book The Price of Loyalty that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned from the first National Security Council meeting after the inauguration, obviously months before 9/11.
Ron Suskind, a Wall Street Journal reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, wrote The Price of Liberty, a book about Mr. O’Neil’s time with the Bush administration.
If Mr. O’Neil is telling the truth, then Mr. Bush committed crimes against humanity by using the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
During these invasions and subsequent occupations, millions of people have been killed, wounded and left homeless. The infrastructure of both countries has been destroyed, and they have been contaminated by depleted uranium weapons. Tens of thousand of young Americans have been killed and wounded, both physically and psychologically.
Mr. Bush seems especially proud of his invasion of Iraq, a country that he must have known had nothing to do with 9/11 and had not harmed the United States in any way. Neither country presented even the most remote threat to the United States.
I quote from The Grand Rapids Press: “ ’Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him,’ Bush said.”
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, according to CIA admission, was water-boarded a total of 181 times. That’s 181 individual instances of torture before he supposedly “confessed.” I trust that we all understand that a confession obtained by torture is not a confession but a succumbing to unbearable persecution.
I have to give it to the Sheikh though, he’s pretty tough. I’m not sure I could hold on through 181 water-boarding sessions. I doubt if Mr. Bush could, either. I’ll wager that with a bucket of water and a couple of minutes a professional torturer – excuse me I mean interrogator – could make Mr. Bush confess to the 9/11 attacks.
But the invasions resulted in far more torture than Khalid Mohammed experienced. For example, the prisoners held at Abu Ghraib experienced torture, rape, sodomy, and homicide. These acts were committed by American units and US government agencies. I further point out that many of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were children, but the rest of that story is so vile, wicked, and disgusting that it is not appropriate for these pages.
So there you have it: A former President of the United States of America is proud of his authorizing torture and of his invasions of sovereign nations resulting in millions of deaths.
What does all this mean for us?
It means that we, the American people, are complicit in this man’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It means that the President is now above the law and totally unaccountable for anything.
His right to reign is similar to King John’s claim to rule by divine right. In fact, Mr. Bush clothes his actions in the Christian faith and uses it as absolution for what he did. I quote again from The Grand Rapids Press, “Bush underlined the role religion played in his life in the White House, saying prayer gave him strength to go forward. ‘I prayed a lot. I really did. I prayed before every major speech. I prayed before debates. It was a very important experience.’ “
So God told him to do it. He must know a God quite different from the one I know.
What does it feel like to wait in the night for your torturers to come? I don’t know, but Khalid Sheikh Mohammed does, and so do the children of Abu Ghraib.
- Darrell Castle
The Constitution Party is unique in American politics today because our candidates across the country do not compromise our core values as reflected in our platform. The first question I ask someone who expresses a desire to become a Constitution Party of Tennessee (CPOT) candidate for public office is, have you read our platform and do you agree with it.
What do I mean when I say that our candidates do not compromise our core values as reflected in our platform? The platform is a statement of the issues, values, and policies that we in the Constitution Party consider to be core or central. We don’t expect a candidate to agree with every single line of the platform, but we do expect complete agreement with its core values.
The core values of the CPOT platform are those that would best serve the interests of the people of Tennessee and our nation if enacted into policy. We believe, therefore, that it is essential for our candidates to read, understand, accept and be able to defend the platform.
This may sound like a simple concept but it is apparently beyond the grasp of most Democrats and Republicans. Remember Bob Dole’s infamous statement in 1996. When asked if he agreed with the Republican platform he said, “I don’t know, I haven’t read it.” In other words, the platform means nothing except an exercise in futility for those who draft it.
One could say that respect for civil rights and human rights in general are a core value of the Democrat platform, but President Obama obviously gives those values nothing but lip service.
The actions of Democrats and Republicans do not match their words and that is something the Constitution Party is determined to avoid.