Pillay's Plea to Prosecute Netanyahu Proves Her Prize is For Pillorying Israel Not For Promoting Peace

This year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Navi Pillay has called for the prosecution of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with Israeli President Isaac Herzog and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

This, of course, is the reason Pillay was bestowed with the Nobel Peace Prize. Pillay uses the prestige of this prize to pillory Israel. It has nothing to do with promoting peace.

The Uyghur Muslims, who have actually been victims of a genocide at the hands of China, certainly don't view Pillay as a voice of peace as reflected in this announcement from the World Uyghur Congress:

On 9 October 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Navanethem “Navi” Pillay in recognition of her efforts to promote peace and international law. The World Uyghur Congress (WUC) expresses serious concerns about this decision in light of actions taken by Pillay during her tenure as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2008 to 2014.

Under her leadership the NGO liaison office shared the names of Uyghur and other Chinese human rights defenders, as well as information about their participation in the UN Human Rights Council, with the Chinese government without their consent and despite the potential risks to the individuals concerned and their families.

Among those affected was Dolkun Isa, former president of the WUC, who faced significant obstacles in obtaining accreditation and accessing the UN Human Rights Council between 2012 and 2013. Isa described the disclosure of information to the Chinese government as “a profound betrayal of trust by an institution that should have protected us.”

Suffice it to say, I don't think Pillay will be using her platform to champion the rights of Uyghurs, let alone other Chinese dissidents. Why would she? Aside from the fact that she does not want to be on the receiving end of Beijing's ire, she has no reason to speak on behalf of the Uyghurs because it would take time away from her agenda of pillorying Israel. 

In Trump's World Zelensky is a Dictator & Putin Isn't

While in Alaska on Tuesday to campaign for incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan, President Trump was asked about his disagreement with Sullivan concerning Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Sullivan believes Putin is a dictator while Trump...well, I'll let him say it:

Well, look, I have to make deals with people so I don’t go around calling them names. I’m a deal maker. I’ve always been a very good deal maker. I became very rich because of deals. So I don’t go around mocking people. 

As one can imagine much of the commentary to this statement revolves around Trump's dubious claim that he does not mock people. Name calling and mocking people is Trump's stock and trade. In the past few days, Trump has mocked a woman assaulted at his rally in Youngstown, Ohio, referred to South Carolina Democratic Senate candidate Annie Andrews as Trannie Andrews and just this past Wednesday afternoon referred to Arizona Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs as "a dumb person."

But I want to focus for a moment around Trump's unwillingness to describe Putin as a dictator because he is perfectly happy to describe Ukrainian President Voldymyr Zelensky as a dictator as he did in February 2025. This was not long before Trump and JD Vance publicly berated Zelensky at the White House in front of the whole world. 

It will come as no surprise that Putin has also referred to Ukraine as "a dictatorship." It is even less surprising to know this isn't the first time Trump has declined to refer Putin as a dictator. During a White House visit by French President Macron days before he and Vance ambushed Zelensky, Trump was asked if he considered Putin a dictator. He replied, "I don't use those words lightly."

Trump uses words lightly all the time. He certainly used the word dictator lightly when describing Zelensky. But where it concerns Putin, Trump treads carefully. He doesn't want to displease his boss.

Mattingly Earned The Chance To Be The Phillies Full-Time Manager

I'm glad the Philadelphia Phillies came to their senses and announced last night that Don Mattingly would remain as the team's manager for the next two seasons after serving on an interim basis in 2026.

All Mattingly did was take a team headed for disaster, right the ship and make their way to the post-season.

Yet an early exit against the Atlanta Braves was sufficient for the team to seek out former Boston Red Sox manager Alex Cora who declined the position. 

As it stands, Mattingly is popular with his players, and I think hiring a new manager at this time would have done more harm than good.

Don Mattingly earned the chance to be the Phillies full-time manager and it's about time the club removed the interim tag. 

Trump Misses The Mark Regarding His Regret Over The Killing of Iran's Leaders

(YouTube screenshot of President Trump speaking in Youngstown, OH on 10/12/2026)

During a rally in Youngstown, Ohio last night, President Trump made some revealing comments concerning the War in Iran which are worthy of both discussion and derision.

Trump's commentary on Iran is being overshadowed by his egging on violence by his supporters against a female protester (not without justification) and his fawning over Senator Jon Husted's ass. That I could have gone my whole life without being the wiser.

Regarding Iran, Trump specifically commented on killing its leaders and having regrets about having done so:

We might have gone too far with the leaders because we don’t know who the hell we’re dealing with anymore.

For starters, it is clear to Trump that his decision to engage in a military action against Iran has harmed his standing and may very well lead to Republican losing both Houses in next month's mid-terms. Voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the Iran War by a 2:1 margin. 

Yet at the same time, Trump completely misses the mark.

Mind you, this is hardly a surprise. Where it concerns in Iran, he has gone from calling on the people of Iran to take back their government to claiming that regime change has been achieved and then saying he never cared about regime change in the first place. If one was going to commit to a military action against the Iranian regime, Trump is the worst possible President to have in the White House.

His statement in Youngstown is predicated on the premises that Iran's existing regime continues as an Islamic Republic. Yet let us not forget there has been popular discontent against the regime for years including in the months prior to the war. As I argued prior to military action:

From where I sit nearly 6,000 miles away from Tehran, I believe the best possible outcome would be if the regime were to collapse by the sheer force of popular revolt from within and for Iranians to determine their own destiny. I write this knowing full well such a thing is unlikely to happen without the aid of external actors. 

That external help could have come in the form of covert operations not only on a military level but also working closely with Iranian opposition on the ground to prepare a government in waiting. Had this opposition been successful in forcing the collapse of the Iranian regime then this opposition could have formed a provisional government.

This provisional government with technical assistance from the United States, Israel and other willing parties with the aim of establishing democracy through elections, the writing of a new constitution, granting autonomy to existing civic institutions within Iran as well as the establishment of an independent judiciary. That body would be given the task of holding leaders and members of the previous regime not killed in any military conflict to be held to account for their actions. 

Of course, such things require patience, planning and precision. Unfortunately, President Trump does not possess any of these qualities. 

Because of this lack of qualities and the Left's relative indifference to the fate of the Iranian people as compared to the Palestinians, Iran's regime continues to have a lifeline regardless of how many of its leaders have been killed in the course of this military campaign.

Abbas Postpones Palestinian Elections - Again

(YouTube screenshot of Mahmoud Abbas from France 24)

Yesterday, Mahmoud Abbas, who is amid his third decade of his four-year term as President of the Palestinian Authority, postponed elections which were scheduled for next month until September 11, 2027. 

Quel surprise!!!

True to form, Abbas blamed Israel for delaying the elections and keeping him in power for all of these years. What suffering he has endured. 

For its part, France "regrets" Abbas' decision. Where it concerns the Palestinians, France regrets. Where it concerns Israel, France condemns. Indeed, French President Macron has been indulging Abbas going so far as to erroneously claim that Hamas does not operate in the West Bank. 

Not that Abbas needs much encouragement. After all, this isn't the first time Abbas has delayed an election. He previously did so back in April 2021 while also blaming Israel.

Assuming Abbas, who turns 91 next month, is still alive I have no doubt he will postpone Palestinians elections come next fall and blame Israel for it while France will be full of regret.

Guardians Overcome 0-2 Deficit vs. Chisox to Face Rays in ALCS; Brewers vs. Dodgers NLCS Rematch Begins Tomorrow Night

The Cleveland Guardians bested the Chicago White Sox 2-0 to win Game 5 of the ALDS. 

Guardians starting pitcher Gavin Williams struck out 12 batters over 5.2 innings pitched. Cleveland pitchers struck out a combined 21 batters - a new MLB record for a 9-inning game. In 1962, Washington Senators pitcher Tom Cheney struck out 21 Baltimore Orioles batters over 16-innings.

Jose Ramirez supplied Cleveland's only two runs with a 2-run HR in the fourth inning.

The Guardians overcame a 0-2 deficit to end the Chisox's dream season two years removed from losing a modern-day MLB record 121 games. Nobody expected the South Siders to be playing October baseball. 

Cleveland will head to St. Petersburg to take on the Tampa Bay Rays in the ALCS starting Monday night.

In the meantime, the NLCS rematch between the Milwaukee Brewers and the defending World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers begins tomorrow night at American Family Field in Milwaukee.

The Dodgers are seeking to become the first NL team to win three consecutive World Series titles. The Rays and Brewers have never won a World Series while the Guardians have not a won a World Series since 1948. 

While MLB's owners insist on a salary cap in order not to lockout the players at the end of this year, the Brewers have the 19th lowest payroll in MLB while the Rays & Tribe are 28th & 29th out of 30 teams, respectively.

Let us consider the possible World Series matchups.

Tampa Bay Rays vs. Milwaukee Brewers

Tampa Bay Rays vs. Los Angeles Dodgers

Cleveland Guardians vs. Milwaukee Brewers

Cleveland Guardians vs. Los Angeles Dodgers

If the Rays face the Brewers, it will mark the first time since 1980 featuring both teams which had not won a World Series. That year, the Philadelphia Phillies bested the Kansas City Royals in six games.

Prior to 1980, the last time that had happened was 60 years earlier in 1920 when the Cleveland Indians beat the Brooklyn Robins for their first World Series title. The Robins, of course, are the Dodgers.

So, it would be the first World Series between these two teams in 106 years. But if the Rays vs. Dodgers, that would be the first time in 6 years.

With the Guardians & Brewers, it is between a team that hasn't won a World Series in 78 years and a team which has never won a World Series. 

Like many people, for me it's anybody but the Dodgers and there's a 3 in 4 chance of that happening. With that said, it is hard to bet against the Dodgers. While I would not care for another Dodgers' World Series title, it would be a triumph of historical significance for the NL. Not only would the Dodgers become the first NL team to win 3 straight World Series, it would be their fourth World Series title this decade.

Let the games continue tomorrow night.

El-Sayed, Israel, Iran & Ridiculous Hypotheticals

On Thursday evening, Abdul El-Sayed faced off against Mike Rogers in the Michigan U.S. Senate debate.

During the debate, WOOD TV8 political reporter Rick Albin posed this question to El-Sayed, "Who is the bigger threat to the United States? Israel or Iran?" El-Sayed called it "a ridiculous hypothetical." He then added:

Here’s what’s happening right now: our ostensible ally in Israel has lobbied us to go to war with Iran. We have watched as Iran has responded by bombing all kinds of countries in the Middle East and then choking off the world’s energy supply.

When Albin pressed El-Sayed, the most he would say was, "Both of them have proven dangerous in their own way."

Wrong answer!!!

The answer is Iran is a bigger threat to the United States than Israel. 

This is not a ridiculous hypothetical. Nearly half a century of history proves it.

As to El-Sayed's assertion of moral equivalence between Israel and Iran, at no time has he ever publicly criticized the Iranian regime.

El-Sayed has not criticized the Iranian regime for killing 30,000 of its own people late last year and early this year.

El-Sayed has not criticized the Iranian regime for sentencing singer Parastoo Ahmadi to be flogged for performing without a hijab. 

El-Sayed has not criticized the Iranian regime for holding Iranian American journalist Reza Valizadeah in captivity, let alone call for his release. 

Nor has El-Sayed criticized the Iranian regime for funding Hamas.

This is because El-Sayed reserves his criticisms for Israel. As such, he will never say Iran is a bigger threat to the United States than to Israel.