Connect with us

Guest Columns

Our Crumbling Civilization and Immigrant Rights



Western civilization declining? Immigration without restriction threatens civilization.

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report.  On today’s report, I will talk about how our civilization is starting to crumble at the foundation.  It seems that when advancements are made by humanity, sometimes taking thousands of years to achieve, these advancements are often given back or destroyed in a few decades.

The moral foundations of civilization

Western Civilization, for example, is based on a shared moral consensus as its foundation.  When that consensus is destroyed, or even weakened, the foundation of our civilization crumbles.  The moral consensus underpinning Western Civilization has now been replaced by a set of amoral rules, which make up our new amoral code.  The new set of rules is absolutely binding on most of us, but for a few they are not so binding.  The rules we are now expected to live by make up the system of politically correct multiculturalism that totally dominates our society.  You violate one of the rules at the peril of losing your job and often having your life ruined.

Since there’s no morality anymore, only rules, we have lost our ability to separate right from wrong and not just the ruling elite either.  Even the man and woman on the street who raise their children, go to work each day, vote, and serve on juries, seem to have lost discernment.  For example, they allow their civic leaders to declare their cities sanctuary cities, meaning those who have entered this country illegally, whether they are honest, hard working people, or seven-time felons, can flee to that sanctuary city for protection.  Sanctuary cities don’t want illegal immigrants to be subject to deportation, even if they have seven prior felony convictions, as did Jose Garcia Zarate when he killed Kate Steinle.

Case in point: Kate Steinle

Mr. Zarate had been deported five times and illegally returned to the United States each time.  He was nearing release from prison for his seventh felony when the Federal Immigration Authorities, or I.C.E., requested that he be released to them so that he could be deported for the sixth time.  The people of San Francisco, through their elected representatives, said no he can stay here in our sanctuary city.  That decision cost a young woman named Kate Steinle her life.

Mr. Zarate fired a previously stolen .40 caliber Sig Sauer handgun into a crowd of people, walking on a pier in San Francisco.  The bullet apparently ricocheted off a piece of concrete and struck Ms. Steinle in the back, fatally wounding her.  He then threw the stolen gun into San Francisco Bay and ran, but it was all captured on video tape.  First he said he fired on purpose but was aiming at a seal, then he changed his story to say that he found the gun on the pier and when he picked it up it accidentally fired.

Intent v. effect

It seems pretty clear that Mr. Zarate did not intend to kill Kate Steinle, but firing a handgun into a crowd of people has to at least constitute negligent homicide, or extremely reckless homicide, or grossly negligent second degree murder with implied malice doesn’t it?  Under the law, in most areas shooting into a crowd would carry implied malice for murder, but no, the jury said not guilty, of anything, except being a felon in possession of a hand gun.  I guess their reasoning was that possession of a gun is a crime but using it to kill is not.  The felon in possession charge carries a sentence of three years, for which Mr. Zarate was given credit for time served and has probably been released by now.

If so, Mr. Zarate walks the streets of his sanctuary city a free man while Kate Steinle is in her grave.  Apparently our culture has become so perverted that we can’t even begin to tell the difference between right and wrong?  Perhaps the many years most of us spend under government control, in government schools, subjected to relentless government propaganda has destroyed our capacity for moral and rational thought.  All I know for sure is that rational thought and logic are sorely lacking in many people.

Whose rights take precedence?

I would be remiss if I did not mention that Mr. Zarate was very well defended by Matt Gonzalez, an old acquaintance of mine.  I met Matt in 2008 when he was Chairman of the San Francisco City Council and Ralph Nader’s running mate.  I debated him and Wayne Allen Root of the Libertarian Party at the University of Nevada Las Vegas the last weekend of October 2008.  The three of us more or less bonded and had more in common than we all probably thought we did.

Matt is now seeking to have his client’s gun possession charge dismissed on the theory that momentary possession is not a crime.  If you pick it up just to dispose of it then you don’t really have possession and that is not a crime under Matt’s theory.   Matt Gonzalez is a very fine lawyer with impeccable education credentials.   He has a Columbia undergraduate degree and a law degree from Stanford, and he is well-qualified as public defender.  The La Raza Lawyers Association, which is trying to turn California into Mexico, named him Lawyer of the Year.

Deport no one?

Matt believes that no one should be deported whether legal or illegal, whether law abiding or a violent felon.  I doubt if it bothers him to know that Mr. Zarate will undoubtedly commit additional felonies perhaps violent ones.  To Matt, it’s all about immigrant rights, which are paramount.  No matter what logic was used in the argument, I don’t think he could be persuaded to change his mind; for example, what if someone broke into your house stole your property and shot your wife or husband.

That’s bad enough, but what if he then said I’m going to live here with you and you have to support me and my family, and anyone else I want to bring, and there’s nothing you can do about it because it’s my right.  I suppose the chance that a violent felon will steal a gun and kill somebody is just the price we have to pay for the wonderful, opportunity to have completely open borders.

Any law that would allow such a thing is irrational, insane, and tantamount to suicide for the civilization that allowed it.  When civilization abandons its morality then its foundation crumbles and then it is lost.

Who let him in and why?

However, it’s not my intent to question the jury’s verdict, or the American Criminal Justice System.  I question only the rationale behind Mr. Zarate even being in this country.  I fail to see one thing of value he brings to the United States.  He has nothing positive to add to our country so why allow him to remain here as a predatory parasite on this society?  Why do we continue to import these people by the thousands and millions unless we hate our civilization and want it to die?

How many more like Mr. Zarate wander the streets of our cities right now; thousands I’ll guess.

Second case: Akayed Ullah

OK, let’s talk about Mr. Akayed Ullah, formerly of Bangladesh, now of Brooklyn, New York.  Mr. Ullah came to the United States seven years ago as part of the diversity lottery, which is supposed to help our country become more diverse, and he has been working as a taxi driver in New York City.  He was walking through Grand Central Station one morning when he saw a group of Christmas-themed posters.  Being a devout member of the religion of peace he decided then and there to take action for ISIS, on behalf of all Muslims around the world.  He followed the instructions he found online, which told him to attack holiday markets and also how to build the bomb to do it.

He used a 9-volt battery, some matchheads, sugar, some Christmas tree lights, and some screws to fashion his suicide bomb.  Then he went to the Times Square area of Manhattan and descended down into the subway station. There he intended to kill as many innocent people as possible.

Unfortunately for Mr. Ullah, but fortunately for the rest of us, he is an incompetent bomb maker. So his bomb exploded prematurely, and only partially, causing no deaths and injuring a few people, including Mr. Ullah.  He was taken into custody and interrogated by the police and counterterrorist investigators.  And he told them just what I’ve told you.  He acted in the name of ISIS, representing of course, the religion of peace on behalf of all Muslims, especially Palestinians.  While questioning Mr. Ullah, the police were careful to allow him the opportunity to pray several times so his Islamic obligations could be met.

Where does the blame lie?

President Trump said that lax immigration policies are to blame for the attack.  I agree in part and disagree in part.  Mr. Ullah and the religion of peace are to blame, but lax immigration policies allowed them the opportunity.  The NYPD said that had the bomb gone off as he had expected it would have killed people.  We do not have to allow people such as Mr. Zarate and Mr. Ullah into this country.  The people who invite them to come here are destroying our civilization. So they are at least partially guilty of their crimes.  Perhaps they should be sued for damages by the families of the dead and wounded.

How many are out there in your city, in your town, in your taxi, walking on your pier?  No one knows and no one seems to care.

Finally folks, we must control our borders and decide for ourselves who comes into this country and who doesn’t.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Attorney at Law at | Website | + posts

Darrell Castle is an attorney in Memphis, Tennessee, a former USMC Combat Officer, 2008 Vice Presidential nominee, and 2016 Presidential nominee. Darrell gives his unique analysis of current national and international events from a historical and constitutional perspective. You can subscribe to Darrell's weekly podcast at

CATEGORY:Guest Columns
Click to comment
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x