The UN’s Human Rights Council Grows More Odious Lawrence J. Haas

https://www.newsweek.com/uns-human-rights-council-grows-more-odious-opinion-1537222

With freedom and democracy in retreat now for more than a decade around the world, the United Nations General Assembly is poised to take a step in coming days that, if anything, will make the problem worse.

In a vote scheduled for Tuesday, the General Assembly is expected to fill 15 openings on the UN’s 47-member Human Rights Council by approving new three-year terms for such leading human rights abusers as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Cuba—most of which will be returning members. Joining them will be such problematic countries as Bolivia, Cote d’Ivoire, Nepal, Malawi and Senegal. Rounding out the new 15 will be the only two countries that, while surely not perfect, unhesitatingly deserve membership—Britain and France.

“Electing these dictatorships as UN judges on human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based watchdog group, “is like making a gang of arsonists into the fire brigade.”

To be clear, the new autocratic members will not be tarnishing an otherwise-effective, well-functioning body. Instead, they will be joining what is already an institution that does little to improve human rights around the world, choosing instead to focus overwhelming attention on Israel. Consequently, most of the new members will likely just take a bad situation and make it worse.

Created in 2006, the Human Rights Council has merely picked up where its justifiably maligned predecessor, the Human Rights Commission, left off. It has made Israel its only permanent agenda item, meaning that it discusses the Jewish state at each of its three meetings a year. It has focused its investigations and resolutions overwhelmingly on Israel while ignoring far more egregious problems elsewhere. And it has created a “blacklist” of companies that do business with companies in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Golan Heights.

7 Quick Takeaways On The 2020 Vice Presidential Debate Mollie Hemingway

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/08/7-quick-takeaways-on-the-2020-vice-presidential-debate/
The vice presidential debate between Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Vice President Mike Pence was more traditional and less raucous than last week’s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden. That debate was a three-way interruption fest marked by Biden losing track of his thoughts and Trump clumsily returning to slights that had occurred 25 minutes earlier.

This debate was less exciting, a reminder of what politics was like before Trump came onto the scene. Still, it had its moments that bolstered each campaign’s strongest arguments. For Pence, that meant a frequent recursion to first principles and first-term successes. For Harris, that meant a focus on coronavirus and negative descriptions of the Republican Party and its president.

Here are a few quick takeaways on how it went down.

1. Pence’s Superpower Is Debating

Mike Pence, a former congressman and talk radio host, started off strong and just kept getting stronger. He clearly came prepared for the debate. He had a ready recall of facts and figures to bolster his points. He nailed the questions he wanted to answer and deflected on the questions he preferred not to answer.

While he let several zingers fly, he stayed calm and steady, pushing back at what he perceived as unduly false statements but without the constant interruptions of the Trump-Biden debate. He spoke slowly and left few cards on the table unplayed. He was nice, firm, decent, and likable.

Pence’s weakest points were when he was on defense about the global pandemic gripping the country. However, he came into the debate prepared to lay out how a Trump-Pence vision for America is better than the one put forth by Biden and Harris and he accomplished that consistently throughout the debate.

He made a strong case for Trump’s foreign policy being effective and Biden’s being decades of failure. He had Kamala Harris on the ropes about whether she and Biden would raise taxes on Americans on their first day in office. He effectively showed the country her refusal to openly support court-packing, a position she previously supported.

CHARLOTTE’S NEWS WEB

President Trump and Cyrus the Great BY AMIL IMANI 

https://granitegrok.com/blog/2020/10/president-trump-and-cyrus-the-great

May 14, 1948, was the re-birth of Israel. The conditions surrounding Israel’s renewal was anything but simple. In fact, it was difficult. Israel’s journey from her early beginnings to the present has been fraught with great suffering.

It is a tribute to the indomitable will and spirit of the Jewish people that they persisted in their valiant struggle to re-gather again in the land of their birth.

The Left’s ‘Mostly Peaceful’ Revolution/Coup William L. Gensert

http://stupidfrogs.org/articles/the_lefts_mostly_peaceful_revolution_coup.html

Since the advent of the Trump presidency, the left engaged their greatest minds in planning the “Russia Hoax Coup” and then the impeachment farce. Having failed miserably at both, they are now carrying out an information operation to sell maundering Joe Biden as inevitable in his attempt to win the coming Presidential Election.

The Deep State and the Abuse of Power: Sydney Williams

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

“The essence of government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.”James Madison (1751-1836)

We should forever be thankful for the brave and wise men who fought our revolution and created our government, between the years 1775 and 1789. They defeated the world’s foremost military power. Their experience with Parliament and the King made them wary of governmental power. They knew enough about human nature to recognize that power was an aphrodisiac. In February 1775, Alexander Hamilton wrote in “A Farmer Refuted:” “A fondness for power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired.” They recognized that warning applied to them – and their political heirs.

Later, looking back on those years, Madison, in the same speech quoted in the rubric above, spoke to the risks of different forms of government – that monarchies can become despotic and aristocracies may sacrifice the rights and welfare of the many to the demands of the few. In republics, he added, “the great danger is that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.” It was because of the failings and risks of other forms of government, along with the fallibility of man, that the Founders created a government based on a written Constitution, which emphasized the natural rights of individuals that must be protected. It clearly stated that power would be diffused through three equal branches, with the legislative branch being bicameral – a lower chamber reflecting the population of the nation and a Senate representing each state equally. It further stated that powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by it, are reserved for the States or the people. Freedom for the individual came foremost; governmental abuse of power was the great internal risk.

In 1789, the federal bureaucracy consisted of employees in three departments – State, Treasury and War. Today, the Federal Register lists 454 departments, agencies and sub-agencies.  Excluding members of the military, approximately three million people are employed in the federal government, plus about four million federal government contract employees – the fastest growing segment of the federal workforce.

The Pence-Harris debate and a divided America The truth is that under normal circumstances, vice-presidential debates barely elicit a yawn, let alone pique public curiosity. By Ruthie Blum

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/the-pence-harris-debate-and-a-divided-america-645095

The debate between US Vice President Mike Pence and Democratic challenger Kamala Harris on Wednesday night turned out to be a whole different ballgame from the Donald Trump-Joe Biden face-off that took place eight days earlier.

Unlike Trump, Pence is soft-spoken and unflappable. In contrast to Biden, Harris possesses the confidence of an attractive woman combined with the fangs of a pit-bull prosecutor and the complacency of a left-winger encouraged by the latest polls in her party’s favor.Another shift was the identity of the moderator. Fox News’s Chris Wallace had lost his cool during the September 29 presidential debate. Though his questions were intelligent, his intolerance with Trump was glaring.

USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page, who moderated the Pence-Harris match, was calm and collected. But her questions belied her political slant toward Harris.

None of the above, however, explains why millions of Americans and others around the world tuned in and stuck around to watch the 90-minute contest, broadcast on all major channels and live-streamed on websites of major news outlets. It is particularly odd, considering that many viewers voiced their boredom on social media, while others spent the duration joking about the fly that landed on Pence’s head.

Is There a Doctor in the House?

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/is-there-a-doctor-in-the-house/91291/

Too bad there’s not a 25th Amendment-type clause in the Constitution granting to the cabinet the power to remove from office the Speaker of the House. That’s our reaction to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she is going to lead tomorrow in the House a discussion in respect of using the 25th Amendment against President Trump. She’s upset that he called off negotiations with her over a Covid relief bill.

It seems the speaker thinks that might have been a reaction to the steroid the president is taking for his case of the coronavirus. The Daily Mail is reporting that some doctors are concerned that it can cause insomnia, mania, mood swings, and rage. Then again, Congress itself has been known to cause in ordinary taxpayers insomnia, mania, mood swings, and rage. So this could yet turn out to be tomorrow quite a discussion.

Plus, one doesn’t have to be taking a steroid to see the logic of Mr. Trump calling off negotiations with the Speaker and her camarilla. Just read the Wall Street Journal, which issues what is, clinically speaking, the sanest editorial page in the Milky Way. It noted that the talks from which Mr. Trump withdrew were over a “ransom demand” for a $2 trillion “blowout” in new covid relief spending. Mrs. Pelosi would take nothing less.

That’s just crazy. Particularly since in order to get the $2 trillion, the Congress would have to borrow the money from the Chinese communists or other lenders. Or just have the Federal Reserve create it out of pixels (it would be borrowing 2 trillion dollars whose value has not been set by, in the Congress, the only body empowered to regulate the value of the dollar). Put that, as they say, in your 25th Amendment and smoke it.

Biden Can’t Have It Both Ways on the Virus By Kyle Smith

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/biden-cant-have-it-both-ways-on-the-virus/

When your campaign media arm is also known as “the media,” not only may you enjoy being asked almost nothing but friendly questions, but you may also find that internally inconsistent assertions go unchallenged. Consider the Biden position on coronavirus: He would be tougher on the virus and also easier on the economy at the same time. How’s that?

Think of coronavirus response as a seesaw: If you stomp down on the economic end, and grind it into the ground, the other end — public safety — rises high. At least in theory. We can’t actually be certain how effective the lockdowns have been in containing the virus.

But here’s something we do know: You can’t have both ends of the seesaw high up in the air at the same time. Crush the economy, maybe there’s a big uptick in safety. Loosen up the economy and allow people to mingle in public spaces, and there is a corresponding rise in risk. What is the proper balance of health vs. jobs? No one can really say. If we welded shut the door of every American dwelling, we’d probably reduce the transmission of the virus. And as soon as the doors opened, the virus would start spreading again.

Abetted by the media that shows no interest whatsoever in calling out the logical inconsistencies of Democrats, Biden contends both that he would have been quicker on the draw to prevent the spread of the virus and that he would have magically saved everyone’s job at the same time.

Why Won’t the Media Listen to These Scientists? Prize-winning biologists vs. compelling narratives. By James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-wont-the-media-listen-to-these-scientists-11602013456?st=eb16j3x84nc3q0n&reflink=article_copyURL_share

This week dozens of esteemed medical experts with blue-chip academic credentials published a warning about the destructive policies adopted to address Covid-19. Since the Sunday publication of this “Great Barrington Declaration” more than a thousand biological scientists and more than 1,500 medical practitioners have added their names to the petition. Yet it’s been almost entirely ignored by the media outlets that spend much of their days presenting themselves as obedient to science.

Maybe this is because the accomplished group of scientists behind the declaration is refusing to obey political narratives. According to the petition:

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

The scientists go on to note that the poor are “disproportionately harmed” by current policies and that for children, “COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.” They add that the best approach “is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.”

This means that those “who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” including attending schools, going to restaurants, participating in sports and even gathering at public events. Meanwhile attention should be focused on protecting those most at risk. According to the scientists.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: JANE FONDA

https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/biden-surrogate-jane-fonda-calls-covid-gods-gift-to-the-left/

“I just think that COVID is God’s gift to the Left,” Fonda said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the band-aid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average people and working people in this country.”

“What a great gift, what a tremendous opportunity, we are so lucky, we have to use it with every ounce of intelligence and courage and wherewithal we have,” she added.

Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands – Again by Judith Bergman

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16598/netherlands-free-speech-geert-wilders

“[T]his is not just about my freedom of speech, but about everyone’s…” — Geert Wilders.

“But for all of us it was absolutely obvious that we all wanted to live in a society where people can…. present their views… and not to be punished for this. It is called the town square test, where every person can go in the center of the town, say what he or she thinks, what she believes, to insist on their right to promote these views, and will not be arrested and will not be punished for this. And if that is possible, that is a free society. If it is not permitted it is a fear society. And there is nothing in between.” — Natan Sharansky, former Soviet dissident, November 30, 2004.

The Netherlands is a party to the European Convention of Human Rights, article 10 of which states the following: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…”

In its case law, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Article 10 protects not only “the information or ideas that are regarded as inoffensive but also those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness without which there is no democratic society. Opinions expressed in strong or exaggerated language are also protected.”

What seems offensive is often extremely subjective…. Speech with which everyone agrees does not need protection.

In the light of the case law of the European Human Rights Court, which specifically protects the political speech of political actors and political campaigns, it is difficult to see how the question Wilders posed could legitimately be limited in accordance with article 10 (2). Wilders did not incite to violence, nor did he jeopardize national security or public safety or any of the other concerns noted as relevant to limiting free speech.

A Dutch appeals court recently upheld the conviction of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for supposedly insulting Moroccans in comments he made at an election rally in 2014. At the same time, however, the appeals court overturned Wilders’ conviction for inciting hatred or discrimination against Moroccans.

At an election rally in The Hague in March 2014, as leader of the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom), reportedly the country’s most popular opposition party today, Wilders asked those present, whether they wanted “more or fewer Moroccans?” After the crowd chanted “fewer, fewer” Wilders said, “We’re going to organize that.”

Wilders was prosecuted and convicted in December 2016 on two counts: First for “deliberately insulting a group of people because of their race.” Second, for “inciting hatred or discrimination against these people.” Wilders did not receive any punishment then, nor will he now: Judge Jan Maarten Reinking stated, “The accused has already for years paid a high price for expressing his opinion,” referring to the fact that Wilders has lived under constant police protection for more than a decade and still receives constant threats. Most recently, Al Qaeda issued a threat against Geert Wilders, among others. “Terrible news,” Wilders called the threat.