Castle Report

The Castle Report

• Democracy, Republic, or Oligarchy
  Darrell Castle talks about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the resignation of the Director of the Secret Service, the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the presidential campaign, but especially what it all says about America today. Transcription / Notes DEMOCRACY, REPUBLIC, OR OLIGARCHY Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 26th day of July in the year of our Lord 2024. I be talking about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and the continuing saga surrounding it including the resignation of the Director of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the presidential campaign but especially what it all says about America today. I am going to assume that you know the difference between democracy and republic and that the United States Constitution makes this nation a republic. Just to reiterate something you already know democracy is government by the will of the majority but republic is government by the elected representatives of the people who in turn are recognized as having individual rights. In a republic the majority does not rule when the majority’s decision interferes with the protected rights of individual Americans. My argument is that a republic is what the founders bequeathed to us in the Constitution, but today our system of government has evolved until we no longer have a republic or a democracy but instead we are ruled by an oligarchy. That word comes from an ancient Greek word meaning rule by a few. Aristotle explained it as not only rule by a few, but rule by the worst few who usually take power by force or subterfuge. Rule by a few, but the best few, is an aristocracy. The people who hold and wield power want those who don’t to think it is a legitimate process, or that they achieved power through a legitimate process, but often they don’t. For example, when President Biden notified the people of his decision to withdraw from the presidential race he did it by way of a letter on his social media account which is written and posted by others. It was written on his stationery instead of presidential stationery and it carried no presidential seal. Most importantly, it was not his signature because it did not match any of his many previously signed letters or orders. We are not supposed to notice and there is to be no investigation into who wrote the letter, who signed the letter, did the letter reflect the president’s decision, or did others make that decision for him. If it was made by others, obviously none of them are president and many or all of them are unelected. Who is running this country and who is making the decisions about who runs it. Joe Biden received many primary votes from the members of his party who are now expected to have their decision wiped away in favor of someone who has never received a single primary delegate. Rumor has it that the elite of the Democrat Party, primarily Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and the Obamas went to the president and said Joe we can do this the easy way or the hard way. You can let us resign you from the race and continue your term, or we will remove you through the 25th amendment. A palace coup in other words, but one which only started when the interests of the ruling deep state were noticeably affected.  The ones who exercise power were not granted that power by the people but somehow they have it. They have known for years that Biden is and has been unable to perform his duties as president, but they chose not to mention it because they were in charge. They decided he could not beat Trump so they set him up for a debate long before the convention so the world would notice his condition but there would be time to replace him before the Democrat convention. Notice that the voters have nothing to do with this process because it is totally orchestrated by power brokers who endeavor to remain unseen as much as possible,
• Malice or Just Massive Incompetance
  Darrell Castle offers his opinion on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Transcription / Notes MALICE OR JUST MASSIVE INCOMPETANCE Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 19th day of July in the year of our Lord 2024. Like everyone else, I now offer my opinion on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. It’s tempting to say we must wait for the investigation before we speculate on what happened, but I suspect that we know as much about what really happened as we ever will. JFK, RFK, MLK, and many others around the world are evidence of that. This story, on the surface, is preposterous and it makes no sense at all. The full resources of the most powerful empire in world history at its disposal and it still cannot protect one man. The United States has 17 intelligence services all of which are supposed to investigate, observe and provide information to the decision-making people in charge. Normally, that would be the president but right now who knows. There are literally thousands of highly trained, highly skilled people on the payroll to protect the nation’s leaders from attack and they all failed miserably. There is an agency called the Secret Service that has a reputation for hiring and training the biggest, strongest, bravest, most intelligent, people available in this country to protect its human assets. That’s its job and at that job it failed when the nation needed it the most. How could all these people with unlimited resources fail to stop a wimpy, nerdy, 20-year-old kid from getting into a position to take a shot that missed killing Donald Trump by only millimeters. If Trump had not turned his head just slightly at that exact moment, he would be dead right now and the nation would be trying to sort it out or perhaps descending into chaos. So, a kid with a ladder he bought at a hardware store, and 50 rounds of ammo he bought that morning foiled a billion dollars’ worth of professionals. Maybe it’s similar to the billions spent on munitions fired at the Houthis but the Red Sea is still dangerous. Even this early the entire Secret service/FBI created scenario of an explanation is starting to breakdown and fall apart. We are not supposed to look at facts and ask questions but instead just nod our heads in the affirmative and go along. Yes, we believe the story you have concocted although it makes no sense and is therefore most likely a lie. If we admit to even suspecting that you are lying then we are tin foil hat conspiracy theorists or at least that’s what we are programed to think. I have personally fired thousands of rounds through a rifle almost identical to the one Thomas Matthew Crooks apparently used. It was an AR-15 style rifle firing 5.56 mm rounds and mine was an M-16 but they are essentially the same. The M-16 has an automatic fire selector switch and that is the primary difference. I served in the Marine Corps more than 50 years ago but I qualified with that rifle out to 500 yards and at that range it is really problematic with windage and ballistics affecting accuracy. At 150 yards where Crooks fired, a moderately trained shooter should be able to put his rounds in a 1-inch group most of the time. The AR is light and has almost no recoil with 5.56 ammunition so I will wager that I could have Joan, who has never picked up a rifle in her life, firing in a one-inch pattern within a day of practice. This all means that almost anyone could be a lone nut/patsy with that rifle. What I am trying to say with this rambling explanation is that there is something really wrong here and we the people better insist that it is looked into honestly. If we want to keep some semblance of this country, never mind what it once was, we better not accept another JFK lone gunman, RFK only Sirhan, explanation. The FBI tells us that there was only one shooter and he acted alone which is what they always say. Crooks was not a Marine sniper or even a compe...
• The Dark Secrets of War
  Darrell Castle talks about the ordeal of Julian Assange and what his case tells us about what it means to be a real journalist in today's world. Transcription / Notes THE DARK SECRETS OF WAR Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 12th day of July in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about the ordeal of Julian Assange but also what his case tells us about what it means to be a real journalist in today’s world. In essence his case tells us that the truth no longer sets us free and telling the truth has become a crime. Before we get into the matter of Assange perhaps a little background is in order. A free press is vitally important to American freedom and if I can convey nothing else to you today it is that the press, and by that, I mean real, genuine, journalism is there to inform the people of what their government is doing. Those in government should be looking out for and expecting the press to expose their works of darkness, if they have any. That sentiment has been spoken by many from the founders all the way to the Supreme Court in the modern era. I will illustrate my words with a quote from Justice Hugo Black in the case of The New York Times versus The United States decided in 1971. His quote came to me from an article written by Scott Ritter in his newsletter Scott Ritter Extra. “The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose the deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.” That quote is one of the most important in American history because it is fundamental to liberty. The press is supposed to be the servant of the people, not a wholly owned subsidiary of the government itself, and certainly not of any one political party. The case quoting Justice Black goes back to the Vietnam days of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg was not a journalist but an employee of the U.S. Department of Defense working in the Pentagon. He was involved in the production of a report ordered by secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that was a history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968. The Times printed the report on its front pages and further stated that the report showed that the Johnson administration had lied systemically to Congress and the American people about U.S. entry into and conduct of the Vietnam War. McNamara claimed that he only had the report prepared because he wanted to leave a written record for future policy makers to prevent them from making the same mistake. The report revealed lots of things the government was lying about including U.S. troops raiding into North Vietnam, etc. The optimistic picture of the war presented by the government was false and the government knew the war was unwinnable and a waste of lives. It was top secret information and although Ellsberg was not a journalist he was disturbed by the report and he violated his security clearance by sending it to the Times who then chose to publish it on the front page. I lived through that time so I remember it well. I was not happy that Ellsberg released classified information and I wanted to see him punished. I admit now that I really didn’t understand what was happening and what was at stake. Ellsberg sent the information to the New York Times but that paper made the decision on its own to publish it. The Times was perhaps not an affiliate of the Democrat Party at that time as it is now and also the Times along with other media was generally hostile to the...