Ignoramus in the Áras

Did Michael D. Higgins seriously claim that the heterodox Austrian School of Economics was responsible for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the fact that credit was too cheap during Ireland’s boom period? This is not only a massive factual error, but to my mind a great sign of who people like Higgins are really afraid of.

At a recent debate at the LSE, one of the world’s most renowned Keynesians, Lord Skidelsky, was able to say with a lot of accuracy (unfortunately) that Austrians have virtually no influence on public policy. If Michael D. Higgins were anything but a pretensions and disgraceful ignoramus, he would know that the Austrian School has made rapid gains in recent years, especially among young people, precisely because the Austrian theory of the business cycle is a perfect explanation for the crash of 2008 and our ongoing recession. In fact, I have made acquaintances with several Marxists and socialists who will concede this point.

Michael D. Higgins should be forced to explain what exactly he believes the Austrian School of Economics is about, as he showed no signs that he knew this during his interview on RTE Radio. As Murray Rothbard, often regarded as the ‘Dean’ of the Austrian School said:

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

UPDATE: Just to remind everyone, the only advocate of Austrian Economics in the US Congress at the time, Ron Paul, actually voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall.


Forget Michael D. Higgins, and Listen to Simon Deng at the Durban Watch Conference

It looks like Ireland is set for seven years of sermons about the evils of individualism. I worry that we will soon be hearing the usual nonsense about Israel from the Irish left, but from a Head of State. Its the perfect time to introduce Simon Deng, a former South Sudanese slave taken kidnapped by a Muslim neighbor as a young boy and taken to Islamist Northern Sudan, who gave this impassioned speech at the Durban Watch Conference in New York, Sept 22, 2011. He’s a real human rights activist, unlike the airheads dominating the Palestine Industry. Deng is a fierce critic of Islamic and Arab imperialism, which is the root cause of the problems in Sudan and elsewhere. You won’t hear that brave declaration from the western left. They are more likely to refer to this organised program of genocide and slavery as a “tribal conflict” or similar nonsense. Islamic and Arab imperialism are not on their radar or even in their vocabulary, despite its millions of Sudanese victims. Here’s the impassioned must-read speech:

I want to thank the organizers of this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance. It is a great honor for me and it is a privilege really to be among today’s distinguished speakers.

I came here as a friend of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. I came to protest this Durban conference which is based on a set of lies. It is organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

It will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has itself become a tool against Israel. For over 50 years, 82 percent of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler couldn’t have been made happier.

The Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people will know that.

But friends, I come here today with a radical idea. I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

Please hear me out.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over 50 years the indigenous black population of Sudan — Christians and Muslims alike — has been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, about 4 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

The UN is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency for them, and they are treated with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the real causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.”

It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism well known in north Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan, everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam. In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And the Darfuris do not want to be Arabized. They love their own African languages and dress and customs. The Arab response is genocide! But nobody at the UN tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The Islamist regime in Khartoum is targeting the black Africans – Muslims and Christians. Nobody at the UN has told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you hear the UN condemn Arab racism against blacks?

What you find on the pages of the New York Times, or in the record of the UN condemnations is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages because of the exaggerations about Palestinian suffering. What Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin. But the truth is that the real sin happens when the West abandons us: the victims of Arab/Islamic apartheid.

Chattel slavery was practiced for centuries in Sudan. It was revived as a tool of war in the early 90s. Khartoum declared jihad against my people and this legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I don’t like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when an Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat. The boat wound up in Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs. Their own staff reported it. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish-led American Anti-Slavery Group — 16 years to acknowledge what was happening. I want to publicly thank my friend Dr. Charles Jacobs for leading the anti-slavery fight.

But the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, and UNICEF backtracked, and started to criticize those who worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League.

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. When Egyptian security forces slaughtered 26 black refugees in Cairo who were protesting Egyptian racism, the Sudanese realized that the Arab racism is the same in Khartoum or Cairo. They needed shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for very long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

Black Muslims from Darfur chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area. Do you know what this means!? And the Arabs say Israel is racist!?

In Israel, black Sudanese, Christian and Muslim were welcomed and treated like human beings. Just go and ask them, like I have done. They told me that compared to the situation in Egypt, Israel is “heaven.”

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. Israel is a state of people who are the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Beautiful black Jews.

So, yes… I came here today to tell you that the people who suffer most from the UN anti-Israel policy are not the Israelis but all those people who the UN ignores in order to tell its big lie against Israel: we, the victims of Arab/Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab/Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

Look at the situation of the Copts in Egypt, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais who suffer from Islamic oppression. The Sikhs. We – a rainbow coalition of victims and targets of Jihadis — all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned. So that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a 12 year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor. And then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On January 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. For South Sudanese, that means continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I bring you the news that my President, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir — publicly stated that the South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its peoples, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth. Our truth.

My Jewish friends taught me something I now want to say with you.
AM YISRAEL CHAI – The people of Israel lives!

Here’s How I’m Feeling Right Now…

Sorry folks, I could only help destroy the campaign of one completely inappropriate candidate for the Irish Presidency. Still, I take some comfort in the fact I might have given the opportunity for someone who isn’t a lunatic leftist to win in the first place. If the Irish people can’t see why a friend of Nicaraguan Communists who attends candlelit vigils for Yasser Arafat shouldn’t be President, then I don’t wish to be associated with the place for the next seven years at least. Ireland is now added to the list of countries and institutions I’m boycotting, which includes Scotland and the Methodist Church. However, I do have  a mother and grandmother over there, so I would have to make an exception in the event of some momentous event that may require a visit.

My affections were increased to the point of reconsidering the boycott now that the evil proposal on Oireachtas investigations has been defeated by a sound margin. For the love of God, remember the former (blessedly) TD Chris Andrews calling Alan Shatter ‘Israel’s puppet in Ireland‘? What about Terry Leyden’s similar comments about both Shatter and Barack Obama? Then there was Finian McGrath calling for an investigation into the Israeli governments role in Norris’s downfall. Imagine these people (Palestine’s puppets in Ireland, perhaps?) having the power to potentially persecute friends of Israel in the Republic. Of course, this proposed amendment was similarly worrying when you consider the attacks leveled against other opponents of the regime, such as the brave patriot and anti-Lisbon campaigner Declan Ganley, by the disgraced Dick Roche and his Fianna Fáil thugs, which led many of the Irish sheeple to regard Ganley as an agent of the CIA and similar nonsense. Lets not forget the buffoon Brian Cowen, who was along with Brian Lenihan and Patrick Honahan the greatest looter of the Irish nation since Cromwell, arresting a man and confiscating his property, while successfully intimidating the media, because he placed an unflattering painting of him in an art gallery.

812,008 votes in favour and 928,175 against. There is sanity in Ireland still.

Saving Gilad Shalit

One has to admire the dedication among Israelis for safeguarding their people. Some people I know have balked at the numbers: over a thousand convicted enemy leaders and fighters for a single captured Israeli soldier (Islamists must surely be comforted at the thought that one of them is worth about 70 grams of a single Israeli). I expected so much. Israel has a record of lopsided prisoner exchanges: the vile Samir Kuntar and several other terrorists freed for two Israeli corpses in 2008;  5,500 Egyptian soldiers following the Sinai campaign of 1956 for the lives of the four Israeli captured Israelis; and the over 8,000 Egyptians following the 1973 Yom Kippur War given in exchange for 240 Israeli soldiers.

The policy has deep roots in Jewish history. Jewish communities were often vulnerable to bandits and governments who kidnapped for high ransom. Duty to a captured Jew always prevailed over fears of encouraging future kidnappings and the financial burden. From Israel Abraham’s classic Jewish Life in the Middle Ages:

When toward the end of the fifteenth century Alfonso V of Portugal captured the African seaports, Arzilla and Tangier, he carried off 250 Jews of both sexes and every age, and sold them as slaves throughout the kingdom. The Portuguese Jews applied to Yechiel of Pisa, financier and philanthropist, and he generously assisted his brethren. Lisbon Jews formed a representative committee of twelve members, and the famous statesman-scholar Don Isaac Abrabanel himself travelled over the whole country and redeemed the Jewish slaves, often at a high price. The ransomed Jews and Jewesses, adults and children, were clothed, lodged, and maintained until they had learned the language of the country and were able to support themselves.

Such acts are the definition of people-hood, of a nation. It is similarly good policy in a country where most of its Jewish youth must sacrifice years of their lives in its defense. I always knew Shalit would come home, no matter what the price. Gilad is everyone’s son, everyone’s brother. It was impossible not to get emotional on seeing the footage of a son embracing his father for the first time in five years.

Gilad looked gaunt. “He suffers from several light wounds that persisted as result of lacking treatment, shrapnel injuries and the implications of not being exposed to sunlight,” Noam Shalit said. “He came out of some dark pit or dark cellar and encountered such commotion out here.” The Israelis were dignified in their treatment of a young man who hadn’t even seen sunlight in several years. There was no intensive questioning, and he was quickly escorted to his home in northern Israel.

That was a great contrast to the unscrupulous Egyptian television reporters and the awful BBC (which should really adopt a more accurate name, like Palestine Update or PUTV). The Jerusalem Post reports that Gilad’s interview was used as propaganda. Behind him was an intimidating minder in a balaclava and a Qassam Brigade green headband. The journalist interviewing him sat by an Egyptian flag. He had already fainted once on his journey to Egypt. Yet he faced bizarre, intense questioning and had his answers deliberately mistranslated by both Egyptian and BBC/Palestine Update interpreters.

‘“During all that time of captivity, you did just one video to tell the world and your family that you’re alive,” she tells the soldier. “Why just once? Why didn’t it happen again?”  Rather than letting him answer, however, Schalit’s Hamas minder-cum-interpreter scolds Amin for asking the same question twice (a peculiar accusation, given the footage shows the question hadn’t been asked before).

‘The resulting argument between interviewer and minder is one of the interview’s more regrettable scenes. Amin says Schalit appears unwell, and “that’s why I’m asking the question again” – as if drilling him repeatedly will have a salutary effect. The question is itself absurd, roughly tantamount to asking a hostage victim why he or she didn’t escape sooner.

‘… Amin proceeds to ask Schalit what “lessons” he learned in captivity. After asking for the question to be repeated, he says he believes a deal could have been reached sooner. Here the Hamas minder renders his response as praise for reaching a deal “in such short time”- a mistranslation repeated by the BBC’s own interpreter.

‘”Gilad, you know what it’s like to be in captivity,” Amin continues as the painful charade drags on. “There are more than 4,000 Palestinians still languishing in Israeli jails. Will you help campaign for their release?”

‘Schalit’s answer, after a few seconds’ stunned silence, is superior: “I’d be very happy if they were released,””he says, then adds the caveat, “provided they don’t return to fighting Israel.”’

‘Again, the Egyptian interpreter fails to translate the sentence’s second clause, and again the omission is repeated by the BBC’s translator, though he too was apparently translating from Hebrew in real-time. ‘I will be very happy for the prisoners to go free, so that they can be able to go back to their families, loved ones and territory. It will give me great happiness if this happens,’ the BBC’s interpreter relays.’

The bias of the BBC/Palestine Update was just as evident when Jon Donnison interviewed one of the freed Hamas terrorists, Ahmad Abu Taha, and says to him:

You are 31 years old, ten years in prison, serving a life sentence for being a member of Hamas. I mean, how do you feel today?

Well, Abu Taha was in fact involved in preparing explosives for Hamas terrorists in Ramallah, including the car bomb that exploded in Giva’at Ze’ev in Jerusalem on 29 July 2001. A member of the Ibrahim Abu Rub and Ballal Baraguti organizations, he transported the suicide bomber Ra’ad Baraguti from Ramallah to Jerusalem, where he exploded on Hanevi’im Street on 4 September 2001 and injured 14 people. Yet on the planet of the BBC/Palestine Update he was arrested just for ‘being a member of Hamas’.

Still, it has been an inspiring couple of days. Gilad, I wish you well and I am delighted you have slept in your own home for the first time in almost 2000 days. Congratulations are also due to all those who played a part in Gilad’s release, and to the Israeli people, who never abandoned him.

Ron Paul Victory at the Values Voter Summit

Economic historian Tom DiLorenzo writes:

“After Ron Paul’s decisive victory in the Value Voters straw poll in which his nearest competitor was eleven percentage points behind, Faux News had this running headline on the screen to announce the results:

“Herman Cain Comes in Second in Value Voters Straw Poll.” The anchorette did manage to mention that Ron Paul “also did well” without mentioning any details about the vote totals”.

Nevertheless, Ron Paul’s speech was powerful and worth reading. It reminds us of the biblical view of big government and of how the state undermines the family. He certainly deserved this latest victory.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL (R-TX): Thank you. Thank you. So early in the morning, too. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for coming.

And I appreciate very much this opportunity to visit with you to talk about families. Obviously family values are very, very important. And, as was mentioned in the introduction, I have delivered a few babies. And that does contribute to family, let me tell you. (Laughs.)

But also I’m from a rather large family. I have four brothers. But we have five children and 18 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren as well. (Cheers, applause.)

But, you know, the one thing that is fascinating to me when we bring new life into the world or a new baby comes into the family has always been the reaction of the siblings – maybe one, two, or three, four years old. I’m always fascinated with the intrigue of the siblings looking at a small baby. And I thought, well, that was natural and good and really symbolizes what the family is all about.

Unfortunately, our families have been under attack. And I have a few ideas about why that has occurred and what we might do about it. But the value of the family was something that was early described in the Bible. And there’s one reference to the family that I thought was very important. That was in Samuel, 1 Samuel, chapter eight. And this is when the people, not the elders, came to Samuel when he was very old and they knew he would be passing on, so the people came and said to Samuel, what we need is a king. We need a king to take care of us. We want to be safe and secure.

And Samuel, although he knew he wasn’t going to be around long, he advised the people of Israel not to accept the king, because the king, he warned, would not be generous. He would undermine their liberties. There would be more wars. There would be more taxes. And besides, accepting the notion of a king would reject the notion that, up until that time, since they had left Egypt, their true king was their God and the guidance from their God.

But the governing body was the family. And they did not have kings, but they had judges. And that’s what Samuel was. But this was the time there was a shift away from the judges and the family into a king. And I think a lot of that has happened to us in this country. We have too often relied on our king in Washington, and we have to change that. (Cheers, applause.)

Samuel warned that the king would want to make servants of the people. And he even talked about taxes going up and he talked about the use of young men being drafted and he talked about the women and young women being used by the king. And the warning was not heeded, as Samuel didn’t expect it to be heeded. But he also said that if you depend on the king, the morality of the people will be rejected, the emphasis on the people themselves; the morality should come from the people and not from the king. And generally it doesn’t work that way.

You know, morality of the people or the lack of morality of the people can be reflected in the law. But the law never can change the morality of the people. And that is very important. (Cheers, applause.)

In the 1960s and the 1970s, there were dramatic changes in our country. During the Vietnam War there was a lot of antiwar sentiment. There were a lot of drugs. This was the decade that abortion was done flagrantly against the law. And, lo and behold, the laws got changed after the morality changed.

But it was also – about the time we had Roe versus Wade, we also had the breakdown of our monetary system, the rejection of the biblical admonition that we have honest weights and measures and honest money. And not to have honest weights and measures meant we were counterfeiting the money and destroying the value of the money, which implies, even in biblical times, they weren’t looking for a central bank that was going to counterfeit our currency. (Cheers, applause.)

But the culture certainly changed. The work ethics changed. The welfare state grew. And it wasn’t only for the poor who were looking to be taken care of, but we finally ended up with a system where the lobbyists were from the rich corporations and the banks that would come to Washington and expect to get their benefits. And the whole idea of a moral society changed.

But, you know, biblically there’s a lot of admonitions about what the family should be in charge of. Certainly the 10th commandment tells us something about honoring our parents and caring for them. It didn’t say work out a system where the government will take care of us from cradle to grave. No, it was an admonition for us to honor our parents and be responsible for them, not put them into a nursing home and say the federal government can take care of them. Besides, sometimes that leads to bankruptcies and the government can’t do it anyway. So that responsibility really falls on us.

In the Bible, in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Christ was recognized to be the prince of peace. He was never to be recognized as the promoter of war. And he even said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God.” He never said blessed are the war makers. It was the peacemakers that we must honor and protect. (Cheers, applause.)

Christ was very, very clear on how we should treat our enemies. And some days I think we quite frequently forget about that. Early in the history of Christianity, they struggled with the issue of war and peace, because Christ taught about peace. Did that mean Christ was advocating pacifism? The early church struggled with this and came to the conclusion, at least in those early years, that Christ was not a pacifist, but he was not a war promoter.

And this is when they came up with the just-war principles, saying, yes, war could be necessary, but only under dire circumstances, and it should be done with great caution. All other efforts should be exhausted before we go to war, and always under the proper authority. And today I think the proper authority is not the U.N. or the NATO forces to take us to war. (Cheers, applause.)

We are taught in the New Testament about caring for the poor and caring for our families and our neighbors and friends. But never did Christ say, you know, let’s go and lobby Rome to make sure we’re taken care of. It was a personal responsibility for us. Christ was confronted at one time by a prostitute, but he didn’t call for the centurions. He didn’t call for more laws. But he was very direct and thought that stoning was not the solution to the problem of prostitution.

So do laws take care of these things, or do we need a better understanding of our Christian values and our moral principles?

Life is most precious. I talk about life and liberty. I defend liberty to the nth degree, as long people aren’t hurting and killing each other and stealing and robbing. But you cannot defend liberty unless you have a clear understanding of life. And believe me, as an experienced physician and knowing the responsibility of taking care of life, from the earliest sign of life – I know, legally and morally, I have a responsibility to take care of two lives. And therefore you cannot be a great defender of liberty if you do not defend and understand what life is all about and where it comes from. (Cheers, applause.)

You know, many great religions, and especially both the Old and New Testament, talks about a golden rule. And I think it’s an important rule. We want to treat – we should treat other people the way we want to be treated. And I would like to suggest that possibly we should be thinking about having a foreign policy of the golden rule and not treat other countries any way other than the way we want to be treated. (Cheers, applause.)

There were great dreams by Isaiah in the Old Testament about the time that would come when the swords would be bent into plowshares and spears into pruning forks, the dream of ending the wars and to the point where peace is prosperous. And I have come to a strong conviction that one of the most greatest threats to the family is war. It undermines the family. (Cheers, applause.)

Just in our last decade, an undeclared war that we’re dealing with, we’ve lost over 80,000 – 8,500 men and women in our armed services. We have 40,000 who have returned, many of them with severe amputations. And it’s, in essence, forgotten by the general population of this country. We have literally hundreds of thousands begging and pleading for help.

I talked to a young man the other day and he was telling me about losing all his buddies and his frustration with the war and not having a goal of winning the war and not knowing when it would end. And yet his conclusion was – almost in tears he said to me, he says, I lost my buddies over there, but now I’m losing many of them to suicide.

And when you think of this, of what the consequences of war, the death and destruction, what does it do to the families? What does it do to the husbands and the wives and the mothers and the daughters who have to deal with these problems? So, yes, it is very, very damaging. War costs a lot of money. It causes a lot of poverty. Poverty and the economic crisis in this country is undermining the family. But $4 trillion of debt has been added in the last 10 years to fight a war that seems to have no end.

Wars generally lead to inflation, the destruction of money. We don’t honor the biblical principles of honest money. We invite this idea that we can spend endlessly and we can print the money, and literally it undermines the family and undermines the economic system. When you lose a job, it’s harder to keep the family together.

Divorce rates are very, very high among the military, because these young men are being sent back two and three and four times. And there was one story told me about a little boy, a little boy who was 10 years old, and his dad was getting ready to go back again. He was screaming, I hate you, daddy, I hate you, daddy, because he was leaving him.

So this is why, in the early church, they talk about being very careful about going into war, and also to be thinking about the admonition that peace is far superior to war. That should be our goal. (Cheers, applause.)

The goal of a free society, from my viewpoint, is to seek virtue and excellence. And only we as individuals can do that. When we turn this over to the government, when we seek our king and depend on our king, it can only be done at the sacrifice of liberty. And that means eventually all liberties – our personal liberties, our civil liberties, our religious liberties, our right to teach our children and our responsibility to teach our children, whether it’s home schooling or religious school – it’s always under attack.

The more we turn it over to the government – it was a sad day in this country when we went this full measure about acknowledging the authority of the federal government to educate our children. There was a time when the Republican Party said that we shouldn’t even have a Department of Education. And I believe it should go back to the family, not the federal government. (Cheers, applause.)

If we – if we do not get our moral values from our government, which I think it’s impossible to get it from them, where does it come from? First, it comes from us as individuals. We have the responsibility for dealing with our eternity and salvation. But we have our responsibility to ourselves to do the best we can with our own lives.

But then our next step is our families; you know, our children and our parents, and then our neighbors and our churches. That’s where the moral values should come from. And, quite frankly, that is where I think we have slipped. So you can pass all the laws that you want. You can fight more wars than ever that’s going to bring us peace and prosperity. But if the basic morality of the people does not change, it will not matter. We must change our hearts if we expect to change our family and treat our family values as they should be. (Applause.)

We have been blessed in this country by having the freest and the most prosperous. We’ve had a good Constitution, far from perfect. But today we are living way beyond our means. We are living in debt. And debt is not a biblical principle, whether it’s personal debt or whether it’s a national debt. We owe $3 trillion to people overseas. We are suffering from a mountain of debt because we have accepted this idea that we have this responsibility to mold the world, mold the people and mold the economy.

Government is incapable of doing that. The responsibility of the government is to provide the environment which is proper to allow us to thrive, for us to work hard and have the incentive. If we have our right to – (applause) – if we have a right to our life and liberty, why is it that we don’t fight for the right to keep the fruits of our labor? (Cheers, applause.)

If we accepted that, there would be no demands for the king. The people – the early Israelites demanded the king to be taken care of. But we have too, and we have accepted this notion as a country and as a whole that the king will take care of us.

But I prefer the different king, the original king, the instruction that comes from our creator, not from our government. Our government should be strictly limited to the protection of the liberties that allow us to thrive. (Cheers, applause.) And our liberties and our economy, they are under attack today. There is no doubt about it.

So we will have to meet up and make these decisions. To me, the most important decision that we have to ask, just as they asked, you know, in biblical times, as well as at the time of our founding of this country, what should be government like? What should the role of government be? It isn’t, you know, where do you cut this penny or this penny, and what do we do here and there, and tinker around the edges. It should be what should the role of government be? The founders said the role of government ought to be the protection of liberty. That is what the role of government ought to be. (Cheers, applause.)

But the experiment is about to end unless we reverse this trend. I would say that we have gone downhill nearly for 100 years, especially for the last 10, and especially for the last four, when we think of our economy. But the real challenge is, are we going to transition from the republic to the empire and to dictatorship? And there are so many signs that we are, you know, transforming into empire and dictatorship. And just think of the bearing down on our personal liberties today. Think about what happens when we go to the airports. Think about now you have no privacy whatsoever. Now the government can look into every single thing.

So we are living in an age when government is way too big. And it’s time this government act properly, and that is to protect our freedoms. (Cheers, applause.) The – if you read the Constitution carefully, you will find out that the Constitution is directed at the government. There aren’t restraints placed in the Constitution on you. The restraints are that you don’t hurt and kill people, that you fulfill your promise that you’re honest and you fulfill your moral obligation. The restraints are placed on the federal government.

So as long as we allow the federal government to grow and we don’t obey those restraints, things will get worse. But the good news is there’s a whole generation of Americans right now rising up and saying we were on the right track at the right time. Let’s get back on that track. Let’s restore liberty to this country and prosperity and peace. (Cheers, applause.)

Thank you.



Ireland’s Circus of a Presidential Race

What a farcical sight the Irish Presidential race has become. Am I happy I played a part in that, you ask? Yes. Yes I am.

Poor Gay Mitchell is slipping into irrelevancy with about 9% support in the polls. Amazingly, among members of his own Fine Gael party he is the third most popular candidate. I blame it on his Dublin-centric nature – he has virtually no support among Fine Gael’s rural base – and being far away in Brussels all these years hasn’t done him any favors either. Fine Gael have tried to address the problem by launching  special Culchie Edition campaign posters for rural areas:

Its tough being a Dub in politics, especially if you’re not the cute hoor Bertie was. The not very charismatic Gay also seems to suffer from necrophilia. This is not to say he wishes to fornicate with corpses. Rather, he seems in love with death, a subject most of us don’t want to hear when we gather around the television every evening.

Then there’s Dana: the one true anti-Establishment candidate. No one would let her serve on the many cushy government board positions other candidates have milked over the years. They didn’t want to periodically break for bouts of prayer, apparently. Oh dear: now we hear she’s sworn loyalty to another state (the USA) and that’s left her open to as many charges of dual-loyalty as  ‘Israel’s puppet in Ireland’ Alan Shatter. She’s compared herself to Eamon de Valera, but critics point out that he was a US citizen by birth and never took the controversial loyalty oath in question. I say the de Valera comparison is valid. Dev was not averse to making a few empty oaths of allegiance, remember?

The fact that Michael D. Higgins leads in the polls is a national disgrace. A 1960’s-style Irish leftie, he’s attended candle-lit vigils for Yasser Arafat, is fond of Fidel Castro, and is the kind of person who might just cry himself to sleep every night singing Cuban revolutionary songs in solidarity with the children of Palestine. His short stature (he had to stand on a box for the Presidential debate on Vincent Browne’s show) has led many to compare him to Bilbo Baggins:

I disagree because Higgins is not a charming character. He may have a bit of an ego problem, given his campaign posters are subtly comparing him to Jesus:

Sean Gallagher has been the real success story of late, surging to second-place in the polls, and a fairly close second at that. Like Mary Davis, he’s flouted his business experience (helped by being on the Irish version of Dragon’s Den). In reality, Sean and Mary have been better at using Fianna Fáil connections in order to sit on numerous boards and quangos than they have at using entrepreneurial talents to generate real wealth and jobs.

I’m not going to bash Martin McGuinness too much. I’ve never been immersed in Northern Irish affairs as much as I should, given I lived next door for a good stretch and now live in the same Union. I don’t know what I’d have been up to if I were a young man from Derry or Belfast during the Troubles. I hate both camps: loyalists killed an extremely high-proportion of civilians compared to actual IRA men; and the IRA, or at least one wing, are a bunch of commies, who also deliberately killed civilians and are anti-Israel. Many in the Irish left seem more bothered by the fact McGuinness has been involved in some very modest privatization schemes up there in Stormont than the fact he was in an armed terrorist group and never recognized the legitimacy of the 26-country Irish Republic until recently. What is shameful is the idea of having a President who just wont admit when he left the IRA. It would be such an embarrassing cloud to have over the Head of State of a modern developed country in Western Europe; making Ireland look like some dysfunctional Latin American or Arab hell-hole. I say to McGuinness (and Peter Robinson and the rest): thanks for stopping the killings. Now go away.

That leaves David Norris. I’m not too upset he’s back from the dead. His popularity in the polls has plummeted and he’ll never recover what he once had. His base, students and some older leftists who think its really important to have a gay President, were enough to bring him back from Cyprus and get him a good following on Twitter, but he’s unelectable outside the ranks of Trinity graduates now. Still, the nerve of the man annoys me. We all know he won’t release the documents because it will reveal he has bizarre views on pederasty, and has loved and assisted the violent Israeli Communist Ezra Nawi – a sexual deviant with convictions for growing narcotics and improper use of firearms.

What a country.

Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa

No White Male Appointments For The Rest Of The Fiscal Year – Memo from Human Resources Dept. of Eskom, supplier of most of South Africa’s electricity.

There is a very interesting moment in journalist Kevin Richburg’s “Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa“. Richburg, who was was the Washington Post’s African bureau chief from 1991 to 1994, filed a report from the scene of a tribal-motivated killing. It was shortly before South Africa’s fist democratic elections, and the Xhosa and Zulu were embroiled in pre-election violence and intimidation. Twelve people had been shot to death. Richburg had described Africa as a continent where “black bodies are stacked up like firewood”. This was a small massacre, and a non-story by African standards, he thought. So imagine his surprise when “the police, mostly officious looking white officers with ruddy complexions –  came and did what you might expect police to do in any Midwestern American city where crime has occurred. They cordoned off the area with police tape. They marked the spots on the ground where the victims had fallen”. A full investigation was promised to the press.

Such a civilised routine was utterly out of place on the continent where blood can flow like water, where massacres go undocumented, and where charging a man with murder is like “handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500”. The quaint practices of Afrikaner rule were shocking to western liberals like Richburg. He had taken for granted that the apartheid regime was an evil like no other. The civilised norms of Apartheid South Africa are still out of place on the African continent. Most unfortunately, these practices are now out of place in the South Africa of the ANC. The quality of the South African Police Service, SAPS, has so declined that serious crimes, even murders, are often not responded to for days, or not at all. The ANC has faced up to the serious law-enforcement challenges in their country by disbanding the elite, highly-regarded anti-corruption squad known as ‘the Scorpions’, to spare itself hearing some uncomfortable truths.

Ilana Mercer’s most recent book could be described as a tidal wave of uncomfortable truths for comfortable planners and pundits in the developed world, a place South Africa was once a part of. Mercer, the daughter of anti-apartheid activist Rabbi Ben Isaacson, seems to slaughter every sacred cow of discourse on South Africa. She’s blunt in informing the reader that during the decades of apartheid, a few hundred Africans perished due to police brutality. The ‘freedom fighters’ during apartheid ‘necklaced’ over four hundred innocent civilians, and murdered many more, often singling out Zulus. More people are murdered in one week under the ANC’s watch than died under the detention of the Afrikaner government over the course of roughly four decades. The infamous Sharpeville massacre was indeed an awful event, where panic-stricken policemen shot and killed 69 black demonstrators. Yet in democratic South Africa, that is often the daily quota of carnage. Under apartheid, the annual number of murders on average reached 7,036. Under the ANC, its gone up to 24,206. Its hardly surprising that there has arisen a kind of apartheid nostalgia, even among many blacks in South Africa. Having a democratic and egalitarian constitution doesn’t seem like such a fantastic result of years of struggle if you can’t go to work safely, unemployment is twice as high as it used to be, and your life expectancy has gone down by several years.

A truly wonderful aspect of the book is Ilana’s sympathetic history of the Afrikaner people and her respect for their social habits and devout religious outlook, despite being an irreligious woman herself. It makes one want to proclaim: “Ik ben een Afrikaander”! when you read of the heroic exploits of the voortrekkers, those Afrikaners who left the British controlled territory by the coast and sought freedom in what would become Natal, Transvaal and the Orange Free State. The parallels between these people and the American colonists are striking. The poor Afrikaners! They never did gain the status of Designated Victim Group.  Afrikaners are a minority that happens to have led an early anti-colonial struggle against the British Empire while being imprisoned en masse in concentration camps. We’ve all seen the pictures of the emaciated Afrikaner victims from that time, and we all know what it brings to mind. Its truly a tragedy that the Afrikaners are vilified purely for living in Africa, which they have inhabited for as long as British stock has been in North America. In fact, the Bantu people, who include Mandela’s tribe, the Xhosa, migrated southwards from outside today’s South Africa around the same time as the Trekboers were journeying inland from the coast, including the eleven-year old Paul Kruger. Its funny to think Eugene Terre’blanche’s ancestors were probably in South Africa before Nelson Mandela’s.

Ah, that sainted shyster Nelson Mandela, the man with more dubious humanitarian awards than Bono can ever hope for (including Qaddafi’s human rights prize). Alright, I’ll say it: its a good thing he was imprisoned for so long. If Mandela  and his ilk had come to power in the 1960s and implemented their full-blown socialist program, Zimbabwe today might look enviable from the other side. Interestingly, the moonbat Naomi Klein has criticised the ANC for softening the program they had in the ’60s. I hate the ANC with a passion, but Ilana Mercer was amazingly able to make me even angrier at them. Not only is crime, unemployment and corruption far worse than pre-1994, the place isn’t even much of a democracy as we like to think of the concept here. The ANC runs South Africa like its a one-party state. Demographics dictate it will never lose power to its tokenistic opposition. The ANC political machine makes Tammany Hall look like kindergarten. Since 1994, over 95% of people vote along racial lines. This is not much of an improvement over apartheid, which I can assure you I believe is a rotten system. Now what we have is tyranny of the majority, rather than a minority. In most ways, the former is worse.

Mercer’s book is billed as a warning to America, a warning against the kind of wealth redistribution along racial lines that has so spectacularly damaged South Africa. I believe she is being over-alarmist in her comparisons, given how different the American demographic situation is to South Africa. Yet her warnings on politically-dictated egalitarianism in American institutions ring true, especially in light of Professor Steven Farron’s hard-hitting work exposing the disaster of affirmative action in the United States. Mass power failures are now a common occurrence in South Africa, something unheard of under Afrikaner rule. While the New York Times will claim “the country’s power company [Eskom] unfathomably ran out of electricity and rationed supply”, its very clear what’s really going on if you care little for political correctness: skilled engineers have been purged due to the Black Economic Empowerment. If Eskom wants to purchase coal, it has to procure it from black sources if even remotely possible. South Africa has recently become a net importer of food for the first time. While land redistribution has not been as severe as in Zimbabwe, Boer farmers are highly vulnerable in the face of squatters who have the affections of the black authorities. Not to mention the fact they are being murdered at genocide levels: around 10% of their numbers have been slain, often in brutal farm attacks that involve torture and rape. Boers are being murdered at four times the rate of the rest of the population (South Africa’s Indian community also suffers disproportionately). The ANC is punishing the Boers further, by stepping up the rate of farm redistribution. Their quota for 2014 is highly ambitious, despite the fact some in the ANC admit over 90% of legally plundered white farmland is now unproductive. Lets not make the same mistakes South Africa did, even if on a much smaller scale. A small upside, should such policies continue, is that the ANC may end up with a country and reputation so broken that they just might earn the pariah status of Robert Mugabe and his Zanu PF. It took a long time for the West to wake up to what was going on in Zimbabwe. Mugabe’s slaughter of 20,000 people of a rival tribe during the early years of his rule in the 1980s was completely ignored. Indeed, he had resolute defenders in the Western left up until very recently. Yet I shudder to think what fate could befall the remaining Afrikaners should they be bled of their resources until they are beyond use to the regime.

Ilana Mercer faced rejection from all major publishers. Its not surprising that a book against majoritarianism faced such hostility. In many ways, the book is about the failure of democracy, an makes an ideal follow-up case study to Hans Herman Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed. I don’t think I can praise a book higher than that. I can only imagine the difficulty of Ilana’s task. Recently I approached an employee in the South African embassy here in London. I asked him about the farm murders, the corruption, the crime. He replied that “there are people in the media and the universities” that “handle those matters” for them. In other words, they have the Guardians of Acceptable Opinion to suppress debate on the ‘Rainbow Nation’ (which is now less diverse than it was under apartheid). Mercer notes that anti-racism think-tanks, such as the South African Institute of Race Relations, engage in serial abuse of statistics to serve the interests of the ANC, particularly by refusing to accurately report the appalling level of sectarian murders of whites and Indians in the country. Their estimates of the number of the number of murdered white farmers is one-third of what other sources report. Until 2010, SAIRR refused to acknowledge the slayings were part of anything but normal criminal banditry, as opposed to being racially motivated. The media and academia forgot all about South Africa after Mandela came to power. Its time for debate, after which I hope most will acknowledge that South Africa is not a positive example for the rest of the world.

I would like to finish with a little note the publisher included at the beginning of Into the Cannibal’s Pot:

This is a book about ideas and ideology. When losing an intellectual argument, there are despicable people who point an accusing finger and shout racism. In our dark times where mob rule and collectivist ideas resonate with so many, this appalling strategy can be very effective.

To those who support colorblind civil discourse, rule of law, equality of opportunity, freedom, the golden rule (do unto others as you wish them to do unto you) liberty, freedom of expression and religion and private property rights… regardless of skin color or ethnic background (black, red, white, yellow, brown, green or violet) we extend the hand of friendship

To those who support all forms of thuggery – including totalitarianism, collectivism, fascism, extremist fundamentalism, unequal treatment under law, income redistribution, nanny state government programs and the soft bigotry of low expectations – your skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant… and your ideas belong in the dustbin of history.

Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa [Hardback] [Kindle Edition]