Tulsi – At Least A Partially Sensible Candidate

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle discusses the Democrat candidates for President and the answers they gave in the recent debate.

---

Transcript / Notes

TULSI—AT LEAST A PARTIALLY SENSIBLE CANDIDATE

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. Today is Friday, July 5, 2019, the Friday after the 4^th of July, which, is of course Independence Day. We celebrate Independence Day, or should I say some of us celebrate it because we honor our country and its 243 years as an independent nation.  We remember the 243 years and the blood, and hard labor that it has taken to preserve it.

On today’s Report I will be talking about the debates recently held by the Democrat Party between its 20 candidates for the office of President of the United States of America. The Democrats have so many candidates running for their nomination they have to take two nights to give them all a chance to be heard. I would guess that the movers and shakers in that Party wish that a few of them would just go away but in today’s America everybody can come and everybody can run.

To talk about all the Democrat candidates would be an exercise in futility and would take weeks so I will just hit a few highlights. There was a lot of talk about a lot of things but the central theme of all the candidates without exception was anyone who wants to come to America, legally or illegally is welcome to do so and once here everything should be free. There was no concern whatsoever for the will of the American people expressed through their representatives in Congress and the Senate through laws duly passed in accord with the Constitution. The rule of law and the Constitution as the bulwark doesn’t seem to occur to them. Many of them spoke Spanish or answered in Spanish which is rude and insulting to those of us who live in an English speaking country.

When asked the question, “which of you think healthcare should be free to people who are illegally in America, every single candidate raised their hands. They all oppose any and all restrictions on border crossing whether illegal or legal thus leaving the American taxpayer open and exposed to the whole world.

Here’s a question I would like to have heard answers to but unfortunately it was never asked: There are currently between seven and one half and eight billion people on planet earth, ; hundreds of millions of those people live in poor countries under difficult conditions and they would very much like to live in a rich country with free stuff; many of those poor people have diseases that are untreatable and incurable where they are but who would like a shot at free western medicine so what is the upper limit of how many you would let in; how many would you let in and how would you stop the rest because the American people are on the edge of their seats waiting for your answer.

You will never hear that question posed to Democrats because that would require them to face reality instead of living in fantasyland. Sometimes I feel as if I went to sleep and woke up in an alien universe. I wonder if any of them even believe half of what they said. If they do then there’s a scary future ahead for America. I have previous experience as a candidate for president and for vice president as a Constitution Party nominee, and I have been in many debates. Some of the debates I have participated in were televised although only locally and also by networks such as Al Jezeera and Russia Today. Some of the candidates I debated were serious people who were difficult to refute but most were a collection of socialists and everything free, open borders types.

I always tried to conduct myself with dignity and I wanted to leave the people with the impression that I was at least capable of holding the office were I to be elected. How can you take a candidate seriously when he, as Cory Booker did, says that we haven’t talked enough about black transsexuals? Senator Booker is a Yale Lawyer and a Rhodes Scholar so he is not stupid, just diabolical, or maybe there is a big voting block of black transsexuals in New Jersey. I wonder if he is serious or just thought of it that night.

Then you have a candidate who thinks we should provide abortions for free to men. That’s right folks, that is the level of seriousness with which some Democrats take this coming election, but on a higher plane I have to say that Joe Biden was very disappointing but not demented or delusional.  I expected him to be somewhat of an elder statesman, but he was just another pandering Democrat and Kamala Harris reduced him to blubbering with her questioning his past civil rights statements. I wonder if he did any debate preparation. Didn’t anyone tell him to anticipate those questions? I suppose he thought his fellow Democrats would be more civil and save the difficult, lying accusations for the Republicans. He says now that he wasn’t prepared for her questions so I will give him some answers right now to make him prepared for her next time.

When she pointed out that he had come out against forced busing, although that’s my phrase not hers, he should have said, yes I was against forced busing and I still am. It was a stupid policy that didn’t work and it was one of the most hated policies in American history. Never apologize because it just weakens you and it doesn’t work. In Joe Biden’s case, it exposed him as a weak man who will do and say whatever it takes to win power. He could also have mentioned that he did not achieve his office in the horizontal position as she has done, according to long time California political operator Willie Brown.

The other thing that Joe could have used to dampen her spirit would have been to ask, “by the way, Kamala, I guess that you know that those reparations for slavery you are pushing so hard for will be paid in part by you”. See Kamala’s father, apparently an honorable and decent man unlike his daughter, called her when he heard her demanding reparations. Kamala I’ve never told you this but our close relatives were slave owners for their sugar plantation in the Islands. He even published a list of slaves complete with names, which I have seen on the internet. Maybe Joe really is slow or at least not quick on his feet or maybe he’s following the Reagan rule and not speaking ill of a fellow Democrat, even when attacked and knocked out. No, I think he wants the job desperately too desperately to throw caution away and answer truthfully.

I should probably say a few words about the New York Times’ favorite candidate, Elizabeth Warren. Does she really expect us to believe that she wants to give taxpayer funds to gay people because they were denied the privileged of marriage for what, oh, say 6000 years. Even if one agrees with her in principle, why should we pay for it? She is more articulate and has a Harvard way of enunciating her statements as a law professor would, so I’ll give her that one. However, she cheated to get to Harvard Law School in some ways worse that all those who are going to jail for cheating to get their kids into elite schools by paying someone for it. She’s worse because she lied repeatedly about it and for herself, not her kids.

All these candidates are what they profess to hate so much, and that is, rich and powerful. None of them are poor bootstrap types of people so it’s all a façade and a power game for people who will do anything to anyone for power. They will destroy their country, its rule of law, its institutions, and the way of life of its people for power. Speaking of rich and powerful, I suppose I should say at least a few words about Bernie Sanders and Bill de Blasio.  Bernie took his honeymoon in Moscow during the Cold War and he owns three houses, while professing to want to take the money out of politics. That’s probably because he has already taken as much money out of politics as he needs. Bill took his honeymoon in Havana while it was still illegal, and recently spoke to a group of workers by quoting mass murderer Che Guevara. Both are Stalinist in their thinking so let the voters be advised.

Who did the best in the actual debate then? My vote goes to Tulsi Gabbard. She brought the wars we have fought, are fighting, and are preparing to fight and laid them right out in the open as no other candidate is willing or able to do. She has the best and most articulate presentation of defense foreign policy of any candidate from either party. She put herself squarely in the crosshairs of the Deep State, in full view of the whole world. “For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end.”

The New York Times doesn’t like her because it prefers old Deep State battleaxes, such as Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary had been elected or if Elizabeth Warren is elected, we would be or soon will be at war with Russia, I would guess. Few Americans who are not also connected to the Deep State in some fashion would disagree with Tulsi. She is a decorated soldier and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan so she has the experience to back up her words. She’s only 38 years old so she has the energy and enthusiasm of youth combined with the experience to temper it.

All the other candidates walked gingerly around the minefield of war and peace but Tulsi waded right through it. My guess is that she changed the way they will campaign from here on, and that will just highlight their hypocrisy. Anti-war right there for everyone to see, especially all those in the defense industry, and those who own defense stocks, as well as everyone in the mainstream media. I hope she shakes up at least the Democrat Party with her message. Unlike other Democrats who have occasionally expressed a desire for peace, when Tulsi says peace she seems genuine and believable.

Tulsi must be a perfect candidate then. No, I’m afraid not, because on most issues she is just a typical liberal Democrat without an apparent connection to reality. I wish I could sit down with her and maybe discuss immigration, reparations, free stuff, and a few other issues. I like to think I could at least let her know why the Constitution is the bedrock upon which the rule of law rests and its words are not just something to find a way around. She also says she would pardon Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning, which gives her a moral compass unlike the other Democrat candidates. That moral compass would allow me to tell her that government is not what she seems to think it is. Government is a predator not a protector. Everything is free to the whole world approach runs into reality, and reality will win every time. Free stuff means crushing taxes and government doesn’t tax to provide stuff, it provides stuff as an excuse to loot the population. If she knew those things she would really be a great candidate.

 In that regard, she should talk a little about gratitude, as in aren’t you just a little grateful for what you have because I sure am. The American people would really appreciate that, and it would be unique since Democrat candidates no longer speak to or even understand those of us in flyover country, and how tired we are of hearing nothing but victimology from them.

Finally folks, I have trouble hating Tulsi. She provokes a positive reaction in me and that is something no other Democrat has done in the last, oh, 50 years or so. Can she win? Probably not because the Deep State will wait for its chance to destroy her, but if I were Donald Trump I would hope she was not my opponent.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.