More on the US race, FBI releases, Clinton desperation and Islam: Links 1 on November 2 2016

1, Trump campaign Unveils New Policy: Will Ask Justice Department to Probe Anti-Israel Intimidation on US College Campuses.

A Donald Trump administration would ask the Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts to intimidate Israel-supporters on US campuses, a senior adviser to the Republican presidential candidate revealed to The Algemeiner on Monday in a new policy announcement.

“Colleges are generally being far too lenient in allowing the pro-Palestinian community to deprive those in the pro-Israel camp of their First Amendment right to free speech,” said attorney David Friedman — with whom Trump regularly consults on matters related to the Jewish state. “This is a serious constitutional deprivation, so it is something that must be looked at.”

Where Trump’s approach to Middle East peacemaking is concerned, Friedman said that, as part of any future Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, the administration would not expect the Jewish state to uproot its citizens who now live in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

2. Multi-agency analysts working to review new Clinton emails

3. Nicely detailed explanation of how the Clintons use corporate and foreign money to sell US policy via the Clinton Foundation.

4. Hillary already planning her giant victory celebration

(Reminds me of the joke about how a Christian minister was teaching someone about the story of Jesus. And when he got to the part about the Resurrection his pupil said:

“Boy the people who paid for the funeral must have been so pissed off!”)

Hillary Clinton may have lit the fuse for her victory celebration a little too soon — by planning an Election Night explosion of fireworks over the Hudson River, The Post has learned.

Law enforcement officials and the FDNY have been told to prepare for a barge-launched pyrotechnic display off Manhattan’s Javits Center, where Clinton and running mate Tim Kaine will join their supporters for the Nov. 8 vote count, sources said.

The aerial detonations would last for two minutes, with the triumphal celebration permitted to start as early as 9:30 p.m. — a mere half-hour after the polls close in New York, sources said.

5. Just in case anyone thinks that there was no connection between CNN and the Clinton campaign.

6. An MP in the UK points out in Parliament how Muslim women do not get the benefit of British law thanks to sharia courts where Muslim women are pushed.

7. Report: Venezuela used 500 front groups to subvert today’s UN review of its rights record.

GENEVA, Nov. 1, 2016 – UN chief Ban Ki-moon and human rights high commissioner Zeid Hussein are being called upon to investigate how their officials allowed Venezuela to commit “fraud on a massive scale” to influence today’s UN review of the country’s human rights record by using hundreds of “front groups” to submit comments favorable to the regime, a watchdog group reported.

While “an astronomical amount of 519 supposedly non-governmental organizations” submitted comments for Venezuela’s review, only 54 commented on Uganda, 26 on Syria,  23 for South Sudan, and 20 on Zimbabwe, according to a new report published by UN Watch, a Geneva-based non-governmental human rights monitoring group.

Although “critiques by genuine NGOs do appear, they are overwhelmed by an unprecedented amount of submissions by fraudulent ‘NGOs’ that, if  they do exist, are either controlled by the government of Venezuela, or by its allies Cuba and Bolivia,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch and an international lawyer.

(Just in case anyone thinks the UN has any utility for the peoples of the world, other than those that share the interests of tyrants)

8. Podesta Emails Reveal What Obama Administration Really Thought Of Top Generals.

A stolen email from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta reveals what the Obama administration really thinks of several of the nation’s top generals.

Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh, the former Air Force  Chief of Staff, were “seen as great leaders but weak on strategic thinking,” according to Christopher Kirchhoff, a Pentagon official who was then working on the National Security Council.


 Thank you Yucki, Richard, M., Wrath of Khan, Xanthippa and so many more. I don’t think its reasonable to promise after the election that the focus will go back fully to what it was. The fact is, it is about the approach, not the items.
What has an effect on our issues, the survival of civilization itself, of true, Jeffersonian liberalism, whatever is the greatest bonus or threat to it remains the subject of this site.
If Trump wins, then there is the journey of holding him accountable to his promises. If Clinton wins, then its probably going to be journaling the end of it all.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

13 Replies to “More on the US race, FBI releases, Clinton desperation and Islam: Links 1 on November 2 2016”

  1. “Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh, the former Air Force Chief of Staff, were “seen as great leaders but weak on strategic thinking,” ”


    A weak strategic thinking President employing mentally weaker generals, who is subordinate to Mother Clinton… who could figured this fem homosexual out?

  2. Nov 1 articles: The FBI on Monday released 129 pages of documents related to former president Bill Clinton’s lame-duck [last day=January 20, 2001] pardon of a fugitive financier whose family contributed $450,000 to help build his presidential library and millions more to other Democratic Party causes – Rich’s wife Denise also contributed $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign as the first family prepared to clear out of the White House.

    It seems to me that the current law allows this – where is Congressional oversight? Why is the FBI doing their job? (1 June 2001) In her eyes there was no quid pro quo whatsoever. “The truth is, there are a lot more people who gave a lot more money. Of course it gave me access [to the Clintons],” she admits, “but it went beyond that. There was truly a friendship with both of them.” Since the pardon, however, she has not heard from her good friends.
    – Instead, Rich has joined the bruised and swollen ranks of so many others who displayed generous impulses toward the Clintons. – .. – Pollard’s sister, Carol, tells me, “I wouldn’t even want to be associated with that pardon list.” Carol Pollard says she was solicited for a million dollars for a pardon for her brother—“no guarantees.”

    • The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
      Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

      Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
      Three men are seated in lounge chairs. One is standing, holding a long stick and pointing to the location of Japan on a wall map of the Pacific.
      President Franklin Roosevelt as Commander in Chief, with his military subordinates during World War II.
      Left to right: General Douglas MacArthur, President Franklin Roosevelt, Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.

      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

      The Constitution vests the President with Executive Power. That power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security.[6] And federal courts in the United States must pay proper deference to the Executive in assessing the threats that face the nation.[7] The President is the military’s commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war. Nevertheless, the power of the president to initiate hostilities has been subject to question. According to historian Thomas Woods, “Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 […] has been interpreted ‘The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress’ [….]But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack). [8][9] Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. “police action”, which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the The Resolution of The Congress Providing Authorization for Use of Force In Iraq.

      The President may require the “principal officer” of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. While the Constitution nowhere requires a formal Cabinet, it does authorize the president to seek advice from the principal officers of the various departments as he (or she) performs their official duties. George Washington found it prudent to organize his principal officers into a Cabinet, and it has been part of the executive branch structure ever since. Presidents have used Cabinet meetings of selected principal officers but to widely differing extents and for different purposes. Secretary of State William H. Seward and then Professor Woodrow Wilson advocated use of a parliamentary-style Cabinet government. But President Abraham Lincoln rebuffed Seward, and Woodrow Wilson would have none of it in his administration. In recent administrations, cabinets have grown to include including key White House staff in addition to department and agency heads. President Ronald Reagan formed seven subcabinet councils to review many policy issues, and subsequent Presidents have followed that practice.[10]

      The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, as ruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wilson (1833), the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich 274 U.S. 480 (1927), the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that “[a] pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.”[11]

    • As you can see from the previous post the power to Pardon is granted to the President by the Constitution. To change this you would have to amend the Consitution and that is very difficult, which is why the left tries ignoring it when the Constitution limits what they can do.

  3. #3.The word “friend” needs to be in quotes. “Business associate,” “acquaintance,” etc are based on transitory relationships. Friends don’t encourage each other to violate ethical standards. I don’t have the heart to complete the sentence: ____________ do encourage each other to violate the law.

  4. What has an effect on our issues, the survival of civilization itself, of true, Jeffersonian liberalism, whatever is the greatest bonus or threat to it remains the subject of this site.

    Thank you, Eeyore. Although I once debated the enabling role Liberals play with respect to Islamic jihad … let’s just say how that crap is over and done with. Angela Merkel and Hillary Clinton have made it abundantly clear that promoting civilizational jihad is very much on their respective agendas. Your widening the scope of Vlad Tepes Blog to encompass this disturbing facet of Western politics is commendable. Little sense can now be made of Islamic jihad without covering this additional aspect.

    If Trump wins, then there is the journey of holding him accountable to his promises. If Clinton loses then its probably going to be journaling the end of it all.

    In light of how (what passes for) Western political “leadership” has become so opaque and oppositional to the electorate’s clearly expressed will, accountability and transparency have emerged as two of the most essential components of good governance. As a measure of how serious the situation is, these two elements now outrank sheer competence and leave the current gold standard of Hollywood-style charisma far behind where it always has belonged. It’s also heartening to see that you will keep Trump under the microscope, which is precisely where all Western politicians (of any stripe) firmly belong. Again, thank you.

  5. No matter who wins the election utter chaos is coming to North America, I say because I doubt that the left will be willing to keep their attempts to force us to live under their total control.

    Will Trump keep his promises, I hope so if not it will be up to the blogosphere to hold him to them. My main worry is will Congress go along with Trump when he starts trying to reverse all fo Obama’s actions. Will the liberals in both parties be willing to accept to loss of power and the return of freedom?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *