Starting July 1, we will only send the Evening Edition to subscribers of that newsletter. Please add your name here to receive these emails.
As rumored, yesterday, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced that the Trump Administration was withdrawing the US from the UN Human Rights Council (note: it’s not the Human Rights Committee or Commission, but a 47-member body that supposedly promotes and protects human rights worldwide). Naturally, this will be covered in the media as an “OUTRAGE!!!” (Trademark registered) and further proof that Trump hates humans.
In explaining the decision, Ambassador Haley pointed out that the UN “Human Rights” Council (the quotation marks are well earned) is a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias” unworthy of its name, far more concerned with virtue signaling and partisan attacks than protecting human rights. In fact, it’s actually damaging the cause of human rights.
She noted that the “Human Rights” Council ignores widespread human rights abuses by other nations while relentlessly attacking Israel; and that earlier this year, it had passed five resolutions against Israel, more than the number passed against North Korea, Iran and Syria combined.
OUR TOP STORY TODAY: A response to Laura Bush
(Personal aside: I have been going to Israel at least a couple of times a year for decades. It is an oasis of human rights in the Middle East, with a democratically-elected government that protects the rights of all residents, regardless of their religious beliefs. If you think Israel is the worst human rights abuser in the Middle East, then ask yourself which you would rather be: a Muslim in Tel Aviv or a Jew in Iran or Syria?)
The Council has also managed to ignore horrific human rights violations in countries such as China and Venezuela while condemning such terrible human rights abuses as the GOP tax cut in the US. Yes, you heard right: that’s officially a human rights abuse according to them, because it allegedly contributes to income inequality due to more of the money going to wealthier people, who are the ones who pay most of the taxes. This would fall under the “if you have to work that hard to explain why it’s a human rights abuse, then it’s not a human rights abuse” rule.
Haley said the US has worked to reform the Council for a year with no success and that every nation she’s met with agrees with the US behind closed doors, but won’t say so publicly (what a perfect summation that is of how the UN works.)
She said that if the UN reforms the Council, the US will consider returning. I wouldn’t count on that, though. After all, what does the UN “Human Rights” Council need with the US when it still has such stalwart guardians of human rights as Angola, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is almost as misleadingly named as the UN “Human Rights” Council?
Let critics call this US withdrawal from one UN council an “outrage” if they want. I’d call it “a good start.”
At the link, more on the story, including video of Ambassador Haley’s statement.
As every parent knows, the cry of a child evokes a Pavlovian response that will grab your heartstrings and make you drop whatever you’re doing and run to pay attention. That's why the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are literally using recordings of crying children to get us to turn our attention away from other issues and run to look at the situation on the border in which children are separated from their parents when those parents choose to attempt to enter the US illegally with their children and then refuse to go with their families back where they came from (notice how much responsibility for creating this situation the parents have, a fact that is never mentioned in the “Trump is cruelly ripping babies from mothers’ arms” narrative.)
At this link, some photos from conservative commentator/editor Ben Shapiro, showing that Trump is enforcing a law that has been on the books for years, and that the facilities for children are the exact same ones they were put in under Obama, which Rachel Maddow and her media colleagues never shed any tears about.
This overheated hyperbole has served its function, diverting attention away from the devastating revelations of Tuesday’s House IG hearing that showed what an utterly corrupt, politicized scam the FBI “investigations” of Trump and Hillary were. It’s also helped inflame passions and cause even more divisiveness and disrespect, with reports of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen being forced to leave a restaurant due to heckling and threats by activists from the Democratic Socialists of America...
...And a Capitol Hill intern yelling a Robert DeNiro-style obscenity at President Trump when he visited Congress to discuss the situation. Even worse, actual elected members of the Hispanic Democratic Caucus heckled Trump, screaming at him in the hallway (remember when one Republican shouted “You lie” at Obama, and the Democrats hit the ceiling over that horrifying lack of respect for the Commander-in-Chief?)
Yet, as Shapiro notes, all of this could be fixed instantly, simply by Congress changing the law. The Trump Administration has been asking Congress to pass an immigration reform bill for over a year, and offering to sign anything that fixes DACA and the family separation issue, as long as it also includes stricter border security measures and funding for a wall to prevent the leniency from encouraging future abuses. So far, the Democrats who curse Trump for not doing their job for them and cry about the children even louder than the children cry on their videotapes have blocked every legislative effort.
As of this writing, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly still blocking any reform bill. He wants Trump to hearken back to the Obama era, ignore the Constitution and change the law with an executive order. He claims this will be faster, although anything would be faster than waiting for the Democrats to stop obstructing everything, even things they supposedly support. It would also have the benefit of giving the Democrats what they want without them giving Trump anything he wants. And for the cherry on top, it would mean Trump would give them what they want without them having to do their job.
Something to remember when they ask you to vote them back in charge of Congress in November: they’re not only terrible at crafting laws and policies, they obviously also really hate having to do it.
With so much seriousness in the news, we need a Huck’s Criminal Mastermind to lighten the mood, and I’m proud to say we have one from my home state. Well, not “proud,” come to think of it. But this did happen in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
A woman was in a gas station Sunday when someone broke into her car and stole her purse with her wallet inside. Two days later, she was waitressing at a diner two blocks away when a man paid for his meal by handing her her own credit card. She called the police, who came over and searched him. He was also carrying her other credit cards, her Social Security card and her driver’s license, which had her picture on it. Police said you’d think he would've known what she looked like, yet he tried to pay her with her own credit card.
So he’s not exactly a genius, but there was double good news for the victim. She got her stolen possessions back, and she can now feel better knowing that she really must not look like her driver’s license photo.
Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) couldn’t have planned it better. They kept Tuesday’s news cycle focused hysterically on child immigration –- you’d never know that kids were separated at the border from their illegal immigrant parents while Obama was President –- while the real news was being made in the House committee hearings with Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
I know I’ve called Trey Gowdy a “pod person” in recent days. Seriously, it was the most descriptive term I could come up with. But the release of the IG report, which paints in its 568 pages a disturbing picture of anti-Trump bias coloring the FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s email case, has jolted him back to real life. His questioning of Horowitz was magnificent.
Here's just one example from Gowdy: "They pre-judged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation before the investigation ended, and these exact same FBI agents and attorneys pre-judged the outcome of the Russia investigation before it even began. If (that) is not evidence of outcome-determinative bias, for the life of me I don't know what would be."
In contrast, Democrats in these hearings keep trying to push the narrative that Comey’s October letter to Congress kept Hillary out of the White House. Never mind that Comey hated Trump and certainly didn’t want to hurt his opponent in any way. This appears to have been a hail-Mary attempt by Comey to help Hillary when the Weiner laptop story couldn’t be contained any longer. Most importantly, if she had been prosecuted in July for mishandling classified material and obstructing justice as she should have been, the point of the October letter would be moot, because she would no longer have been a candidate for the White House –- only the Big House. Hillary lost the election because she is Hillary, so it would be really nice if Democrats would just put a sock in it.
Committee Republicans have obviously had enough of this blather and were in top form on Tuesday. Most of us didn’t see it, though –- every channel was showing crying children. So let’s play some catch-up on the FBI story.
After the release of the report, Peter Strzok was reportedly escorted out of the FBI building in Washington DC on Friday. According to his lawyer, Aitan Goelman, he’s still employed and is just going away while the FBI conducts its “ongoing internal proceedings.” Seems to me they’ve had plenty of time for all the internal proceedings they should ever need, pre-firing, but that’s the line.
And now, just for fun, I’m going to give you the text of Goelman’s unintentionally hilarious statement, picked apart line-by-line by me. (The part in total caps is me.)
“Pete has steadfastly played by the rules and respected the process, and yet he continues to be the target of unfounded personal attacks, political games and inappropriate information leaks.” (JUDGING BY HIS TEXTS, PETE WAS READY TO USE THE RULES AND THE PROCESS TO “STOP” TRUMP, YET HE STILL COLLECTS A PAYCHECK FROM THE FBI. AND THE BIGGEST TARGET OF PERSONAL ATTACKS, POLITICAL GAMES AND INFORMATION LEAKS HAS BEEN TRUMP HIMSELF.)
“All of this seriously calls into question the impartiality of the disciplinary process, which now appears to be tainted by political influence.” (SERIOUSLY?? WELL, WE CALL INTO QUESTION STRZOK’S IMPARTIALITY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE TAINTED BY POLITICAL INFLUENCE.)
“Instead of publicly calling for a long-serving FBI agent to be summarily fired, politicians should allow the disciplinary process to play out free from political pressure.” (IN STRZOK’S CASE, IT’S ONLY POLITICAL PRESSURE THAT HAS LED TO ANY DISCIPLINARY PROCESS AT ALL.)
“Our leaders and the public should be very concerned with how readily such influence has been allowed to undermine due process and the legal protections owed to someone who has served his country for so long.” (STRZOK HAS BEEN EMPLOYED AT THE FBI DURING THE YEAR-AND-A-HALF IT TOOK TO GET THE IG’S REPORT. AND HE’S STILL EMPLOYED. THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH HOW HARD IT IS TO FIRE SOMEONE WHO REALLY DESERVES FIRING.)
“Pete Strzok and the American people deserve better.” (YOU'RE HALF RIGHT: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER THAN PETER STRZOK..)
So much for Goelman’s statement. As for Tuesday’s questioning of Horowitz that most people didn’t see, at least the questions and answers are now on the record. The charge that Peter Strzok was leading a sham investigation into Hillary and an “insurance-policy” investigation into Trump was made quite dramatically. Horowitz was in no position to refute it; all he could really say was that the matter was “still under review.”