The U.N.’s Human Rights Council Wants to Investigate America’s “Systematic Racism”…Can You Say “Hypocrites”?


“When do you see the United Nations solving problems? They don’t. They cause problems. So, if it lives up to the potential, it’s a great thing. And if it doesn’t, it’s a waste of time and money.” – United States President Donald J. Trump reports that

As the top human rights body of the United Nations seeks international scrutiny of systemic racism in response to the recent killings of African Americans by police, some countries are wondering if there is a double standard at play for America rather than the ways other countries are targeted for human rights violations because of dehumanizing their people.

A draft resolution, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, singles out the United States and could become the centerpiece of a hastily scheduled debate by the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Wednesday.

The text calls for a commission of inquiry — the rights body’s most powerful tool to inspect human rights violations — to look into “systemic racism” and abuses against “Africans and of people of African descent in the United States of America and other parts of the world recently affected by law enforcement agencies” especially encounters that resulted in deaths.

Such work would be carried out “with a view to bringing perpetrators to justice,” the text states.

The proposed commission would “examine the federal, state and local government responses to peaceful protests, including the alleged use of excessive force against protesters, bystanders and journalists.”

Botswana’s representative to the U.N. in Geneva, Bokani Edith Seseinyi, argued for support for a resolution that “addresses the urgency of the matter today.”

“There is nobody who doubts that the American system has a judiciary system that is functional. If it is so good, then why is it happening over and over and over again?” she said, alluding to the deaths of George Floyd in Minneapolis and other unarmed black people who were killed by police officers in the U.S.

Seseinyi said Western countries that had expressed good intentions needed to do more than just “talk shop” and take action this time.

On Monday, the council agreed unanimously to hold the urgent debate Wednesday afternoon on “racially inspired human rights violations, systemic racism, police brutality and the violence against peaceful protests” in the wake of recent American police killings.

The European Union and some Western nations appealed Tuesday for more time to discuss the resolution.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley tweeted the resolution is hypocrisy: “America is not perfect, but it’s a farce for the UN Human Rights Council to debate police practices in America, when it refuses to debate concentration camps in China, political murders in Cuba, torture in Syria, state-imposed starvation in NK & slavery in parts of Africa.”

One Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, told the AP it was not appropriate for a democracy with a “working” judicial system like the United States to be held to the same level of scrutiny that countries like Syria have faced through the commission of inquiry mechanism.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, questioned the debate and resolution.

“The main sponsor of the U.N. Human Rights Council resolution singling out the United States is Burkina Faso,” she told Fox News.

She referenced the latest report from Freedom House: “In June, the parliament adopted a revised penal code that criminalizes the dissemination of information related to terrorist attacks; the revised code also criminalizes speech that can ‘demoralize’ the defense and security services.”

Bayefsky, a human rights scholar and activist, said: “In other words, it is difficult to imagine the U.N. Human Rights Council — with so many of its members both undemocratic and some of the world’s worst human rights abusers — bringing to bear the moral authority necessary to steer or promote change in a democratic society.”

The U.S. mission in Geneva declined immediate comment to the AP on the resolution.

President Trump pulled the United States out of the 47-member body two years ago, accusing it of an anti-Israel bias and of accepting members from some countries with autocratic governments that are serial rights violators.

On June 5, 2009, Professor Jeremy Rabin of George Mason University, author of “The Case for Sovereignty”, delivered a lecture sponsored by Hillsdale College in Washington, DC. What he said certainly applies to this situation…

The Constitution provides for treaties, and even specifies that treaties will be “the supreme Law of the Land”; that is, that they will be binding on the states. But from 1787 on, it has been recognized that for a treaty to be valid, it must be consistent with the Constitution—that the Constitution is a higher authority than treaties. And what is it that allows us to judge whether a treaty is consistent with the Constitution? Alexander Hamilton explained this in a pamphlet early on: “A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.” And he gave a very logical reason: It is the Constitution that authorizes us to make treaties. If a treaty violates the Constitution, it would be like an agent betraying his principal or authority. And as I said, there has been a consensus on this in the past that few ever questioned.

…At the end of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton writes: “A nation, without a national government, is, in my view, an awful spectacle.” His point was that if you do not have a national government, you can’t expect to remain a nation. If we are really open to the idea of allowing more and more of our policy to be made for us at international gatherings, the U.S. government not only has less capacity, it has less moral authority. And if it has less moral authority, it has more difficulty saying to immigrants and the children of immigrants that we’re all Americans. What is left, really, to being an American if we are all simply part of some abstract humanity? People who expect to retain the benefits of sovereignty—benefits like defense and protection of rights—without constitutional discipline, or without retaining responsibility for their own legal system, are really putting all their faith in words or in the idea that as long as we say nice things about humanity, everyone will feel better and we’ll all be safe. You could even say they are hanging a lot on incantations or on some kind of witchcraft. And as I mentioned earlier, the first theorist to write about sovereignty understood witchcraft as a fundamental threat to lawful authority and so finally to liberty and property and all the other rights of individuals.

While Barack Hussein Obama held the Office of the President of the United States of America, he was bound and determined to make America into just another nation, assigning American Exceptionalism to the trash heap of  history. His pure ignorance to America’s place in the world was overwhelming. Obama’s bowing and scraping, like a leader of a country who occupied a subservient position to nations filled with barbarians, who would slit every American’s throat, if given the chance, was a stunning example of this naiveté and downright ignorance.

After terrorists murdered four Americans at the US Embassy Compound in Benghazi, Libya, Obama stepped in front of the General Assembly of United Nations, like a little school boy, repeating the lie which he and his staff concocted, that it was some little unwatched Youtube Video that caused the Muslims’ actions over there.

There is a reason that the Headquarters of the United Nations is in New York City in New York State in the United States of America and a reason why President Trump pulled us out of the Human Rights Council.

We are not their servants. In fact, the United Nations would not exist if not for America.

Obama’s acquiescence to the United Nations emboldened that body to believe that THEY were our, forgive the term, “Masters”.

The United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, created by the blood, sweat, and tears of men and women, who rise above those who do not believe in American Exceptionalism and our Sovereignty as a Free Nation, in stature, honor, integrity, and courage to the point where those who are the enemies of our country, Foreign and DOMESTIC, are not even fit enough to tie their boots.

We are an “independent state”, completely independent and self-governing. We bow to no other country on God’s green Earth. We are beholden to no other nation. America stands on its own, with our own set of laws, the most important of which is The Constitution of the United States, which guarantees us, as a Free People, the right to determine our own destiny, both individually, and, as a free people.

We are Americans.

We man up and we handle our own problems.

Before they attempt to label Americans as a bunch of racists, the countries on the United Nations Human Rights Council need take care of their own shortcomings.

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:5

Until He Comes,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s