Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. I am going to make this Report a little longer than usual. First, it’s a complicated subject, and second, I will not be with you next week. Today I will be talking about the chemical weapons attack in Syria that happened a few days ago. Did it really happen though? We have seen videos of injured people but are the videos recent or from other years and places? What real evidence do we have that this attack even took place and if it did what real evidence do we have that Syria and Russia did it?
Did Russia or Syria do this thing—or not?
President Trump has said that Syria and “animal Assad” will pay a big price for something that it probably did not even do. No evidence has been presented at this point that Syria and Assad did anything. The entire scenario of a sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria, near Damascus on Sunday, April 4, 2018 makes no sense at all. We’ve come to expect that the senseless sometimes makes sense to politicians but this one stinks so much that anyone could smell it from a mile away.
First of all, President Trump tweets that ISIS has been defeated and the United States will be leaving Syria soon. We are expected to believe that the very next day Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, attacks his own women and children with chemical weapons knowing that the attack has no strategic meaning or value and that it will undoubtedly provoke his superpower enemy to remain in the war and subject himself and his country to further death, destruction possibly even invasion. Further, we are expected to believe that the gas attack against Assad’s own civilian population was done with the full protection of Assad’s Russian protectors thus risking nuclear war with the United States.
A jump to a conclusion?
But both sides, armed with nuclear weapons, face each other with the entire planet at risk over something that no one seems to know who actually did it or if it even happened. No evidence has been submitted that Russia or Syria was involved. In fact virtually all available evidence indicates that they were not involved. It’s only been a couple of weeks since the two Russian agents were supposedly poisoned in London, an act which was also blamed on the Russians. That event turned out to be completely false so wouldn’t it make sense to actually seek confirmation before launching World War lll?
No investigation was done into the identity of the attackers but the President of the United States’ immediate reaction was a tweet blaming Russia. One minute he respects Putin and wants reconciliation and the next he wants war. One day he is leaving Syria and the next day we are on the verge of World War lll. It’s interesting that President Trump did not blame Turkey, although Turkey is supposedly one of the countries guaranteeing the peace across Syria. A White House spokesman said “nothing is off the table”. I suppose that means nuclear war is on the table but the one thing that is off the table is an investigation to see if Russia is actually guilty.
A trick to send both leaders to war?
The non-investigation into the actual perpetrators might prove embarrassing, I suppose, so no investigation is conducted. However, the United States is about to carry out an act of war even though no attack on the United States is imminent, America is not threatened in any way and no authorization by the legislature has been given. The United States is sending a carrier strike group from Norfolk, Virginia to the eastern Mediterranean led by the strike carrier, Harry Truman and it’s battle group. Russia has apparently sent a group of SU-35 air superiority fighters armed with anti-ship cruise missiles to Syria.
Why all this Deep State bluster and why do globalists hate Putin and Trump so badly? Why is their hatred of these two men so vile and so venal? It’s pretty simple, I submit when you take a moment to think about it. Globalism is the sworn enemy of Nationalism, and Nationalism is defined as putting one’s own national interests ahead of global interests. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are the two most powerful Nationalists in the world and there you have it. The entire Western globalist collective sees both men as threats and enemies.
Let’s try, for a moment, to look at what’s actually going on here. Can you imagine a court of law in a criminal case here in the United States saying, first we will sentence this criminal, then we will carry out the sentence, and then we might conduct an investigation later to determine if he actually committed the crime with which he is charged. The law protects individuals in this country but when there is no law, or when the rule of law is lost, there is no protection. Once again, we find ourselves with the question of why all this hostility to Russia.
The real globalist agenda
If you look at the plans of The Project for a New American Century which are available on line, you will see that the pacification and Americanization of the Middle East is one of the goals of that group. Egypt had to be pacified first and that process took about 32 years, and three wars with Israel, aided by the United States to complete. Arab nationalism, which had to be suppressed, and so Egypt’s demise and the Gulf Arab States were brought under Western, i.e., American dominance with a pro Western regime in Saudi Arabia.
Iraq was then the major opposition country left and the anti-American Baathist Party, along with Saddam Hussein, was removed in the years from about 1990 to 2001. The infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed which made it impossible for that country to ever rise from its ashes again. The only people with a chance to rebuild Iraq were the Christians who were systematically murdered or driven into exile as wandering migrants. The only opposition left now is the strip of Shia Muslim territory running from Northern Iran across Northern Syria and into Lebanon, and that is under imminent threat of American attack.
I’m not just making this up folks, no matter how weird it sounds. About 17 years ago, right before 9/11, General Wesley Clark said that fellow members of the defense establishment told him that we were going to invade Iraq and destabilize seven countries in the Middle East in five years, according to the plan of the Project for a New American Century. You’re probably remembering that I used to refer to General Clark as Weasel Clark, and it’s true that I did. I apologize for that, although I still think that General Clark was a political general and basically a political opportunist.
The Deep State wants war with Russia
I don’t think that President Trump, in his own heart wants war with Russia or anyone else but the Deep State does. When he says “we are leaving Syria because ISIS has been defeated” one day, and Syria will pay a big price the next, that’s the Deep State talking. Someone probably had an intervention with him to explain how things really work. He then releases the military to the control of the Generals who have previously briefed him on various military scenarios, all of which are terrible. Since it is now clear that neither Russia nor Assad conducted the gas attack, if the United States launches a destructive strike then it will also be clear that another much more sinister agenda is at work.
This all fits a common historic pattern if we just take the time to look at it. Perhaps the decision to go to war was made by the Deep State a long time ago, and it stands regardless of who is President. The media continually helps the Deep State operatives to demonize the target country by continually blaming that country, without any evidence, of every bad thing that happens. The President then has to assemble, over time, his war cabinet. He has to make sure that every member of his inner circle are approved by the Deep State and are down with the cause. He tries to do that by hiring a bunch of Generals but he finds that although they are warriors, they love their country and will not assist the Deep State in destroying it.
Bad advice on appointments
The President finally just asks those people who have the quiet conversations with him to explain how things really work; who would you like me to appoint? Their answer depends on who the President is at the time, but you can count on one thing for sure; the people they tell him to appoint will be destructive of liberty and life and they will not have the United States’ national interests as their priority.
In this particular case that person seems to be John Bolton. Mr. Bolton is an interesting choice for President Trump since so many people voted for him because they believed the campaign promises of withdrawal from international conflicts, which were of little or no concern to the United States. When administration spokespersons are asked who gave the President this advice, the answer is the National Security Agency. So, Bolton comes in one day and we are on our way to war the next.
Once the correct war cabinet is assembled around the war President, the team simply has to wait for the right crises to develop and if one doesn’t develop fast enough then one will be created.
The American people not in charge?
So is the problem then that Mr. Trump has chosen as his National Security Adviser a man who will push and pull and do whatever is necessary to get this country into war? That scenario should probably be looked at a little differently. Instead of installing dangerous people to push him to military solutions, perhaps the people are selected to carry out decisions previously made by the Deep State. This would serve to explain Mr. Trump’s constant reversals of opinions and stated positions. He says one thing in the morning and tries hard to appear in charge, but then he has lunch with those actually in charge and has to make a quick change of position, and sometimes a quick change of advisers.
If I am correct in all this, what does it mean for the American people, and what does it mean for the United States? For the American people it means that we are not in charge of this government anymore. We can no longer change government policy or direction through the electoral process. Oh, different leaders may look different, they may even have different color skin, and different temperaments but they serve the same masters and those masters are not us. Let’s pray then that I am not correct and the President comes to his senses.
At least that’s the way I see it,
Now I remind you that next Friday I will be at the spring meeting of the Constitution Party National Committee so there will be no podcast. God willing I will return on Friday April 27th.
Until then folks,
This is Darrell Castle.
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 castlereport.us
- Christianity Today
- Constitution 101
- Creation Corner
- Entertainment Today
- First Amendment
- Foundation of our Nation
- Guest Columns
- Human Interest
- Ignite the Pulpit
- Let's Talk
- Money matters
- Racial Issues
- Tea Party
- Trump elevator pitch
- World news
News4 days ago
Texas Governor Greg Abbott announces he is bussing migrants to New York City, sparking heavy criticism
Legislative5 days ago
Liz Cheney for President?
Judicial2 days ago
Bodega clerk who defended himself from attacker will be moving back to Dominican Republic
Executive3 days ago
Inflation Reduction Act?
News1 day ago
Albuquerque police arrest man allegedly responsible for murders of four Muslim men
Constitution1 day ago
Trump home raided – are we next?
Constitution14 hours ago
Merrick Garland on the hot seat
Accountability5 days ago
New York State Health Commissioner warns of possible polio outbreak