RUTHFULLY YOURS

The sicker Hillary Clinton looks on the campaign trail, the more the Media Left tells us to deny the evidence of our eyes. Mrs. Clinton has suffered two strokes near, if not inside, her brain; but strokes are seldom localized affairs, and behind the scenes her doctors must be telling her to stop any physically demanding campaign activities.

Hillary is in effect suspending her active campaigning to do almost exclusively fundraisers.

We are seeing a woman who should be checking into Walter Reed Hospital to take full-time rest and recovery under intensive medical care, but who has to be physically propped up at some pubic appearances.

The nation is looking at a practice that would not be permitted for a racehorse.

Dr. Drew Pinsky, MD, and a medical colleague have reported that Hillary’s known prescriptions include Coumadin, a useful but out-of-date blood thinner, used to prevent strokes and cardiac events. It is impossible for the public to know, but she may be being treated by an older physician, who is more comfortable using Coumadin. Alternatively, she could have been on that drug for many years.

Democrat politicians are hardly the most likeable characters, but this comes too close to medically sanctioned torture, much more cruel than anything at Abu Ghraib.

The media-political establishment that has ruled America since the Watergate resignation of Richard Nixon is now in deadly crisis. This chaos can no longer be covered up, which is why all the pathetic media donkeys are loudly braying that everything is just hunky-dory, folks, don’t pay no attention, ya’ hear now?

The fact that “50” Bush-era intelligence types signed a statement against Donald Trump and therefore for Hillary’s election, is unprecedented in my memory. The DC Permanents always pretend to be non-partisan, and this is the first public breach of that front that I can remember — at least since FBI Assistant Director Mark Felt came out in public as Deep Throat, the big Watergate leaker.

Middle East Forum President Daniel Pipes joined Breitbart London Editor Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM to talk about Republican nominee Donald Trump’s Muslim immigration policy.

Kassam opened the discussion by mentioning Trump’s announced trip to Mexico on Wednesday to meet with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, which Pipes described as “a very high-risk undertaking.”

“The sides begin so far apart that unless they have some kind of groundwork in place, some kind of preliminary draft agreement on what they’re going to say, it could work out to the detriment of Donald Trump,” Pipes explained.

Kassam quoted Nigel Farage’s observation that Trump was approaching politics with a “businessman’s strategy of trial and error,” which doesn’t work in politics, because “people always hold you to your previous positions.” Pipes offered a similar observation in a Washington Times article several weeks ago, concluding that Trump was learning “slowly and erratically from his mistakes.”

“There clearly was a learning curve,” Pipes told Kassam on Wednesday morning, adding:

I focused not so much on the Mexican question, but on the Muslim question. He came out with this extraordinary statement that there should be a complete shutdown and closure to Muslims entering the United States. He said that back in December, and he doubled down on it, repeated it, elaborated on it.

And then, starting in the middle of June, he started walking away from it, and he started talking about extreme vetting, and then he started talking about not taking in people from certain territories, which he implied would include places like France and Germany where there is a lot of political violence.

And finally he settled on his formulation – which is in fact, I think, the only workable one – which is that you keep out the Islamists. You keep out the nasties. You keep out the people who want to do you harm.

WASHINGTON—The State Department said Tuesday it has found approximately 30 emails from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s account that could be related to the 2012 attacks on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

The new documents were found among the roughly 15,000 emails forensically recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from Mrs. Clinton’s personal email server as part of its investigation into whether she or her aides mishandled classified information.

Those emails were turned over to the State Department in the wake of the FBI probe, which resulted in no charges against Mrs. Clinton earlier this year. The messages are expected to be made public in the coming months.

The State Department couldn’t say how many of the 30-odd emails previously have been made public, raising the possibility that some were among the 55,000 pages of emails already provided to the State Department by Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys and released to the public. The department also couldn’t say with any certainty that the identified messages were related to the Benghazi attacks.

“Using broad search terms, we have identified approximately 30 documents potentially responsive to a Benghazi-related request. At this time, we have not confirmed that the documents are, in fact, responsive, or whether they are duplicates of materials already provided to the Department by former Secretary Clinton in December 2014,” said State Department spokesman John Kirby.

It’s anyone’s guess where Donald Trump really stands these days on illegal immigration. Even Donald Trump may not know for certain, which is why the Republican presidential nominee apparently feels compelled to clarify his stance in a speech scheduled for Wednesday.

Given the centrality of immigration to Mr. Trump’s presidential run, this ambiguity is noteworthy. No one puzzled over where Ronald Reagan stood on tax cuts or defense spending 10 weeks before Election Day in 1980. Barack Obama’s health-care ambitions were unwavering and clear to all in August 2008. If you knew nothing else about Mr. Trump’s candidacy this year, it was that he vowed to wall off the southern border and remove every cotton-pickin’ foreign national here illegally. Until the past week or so, that is.

To be accurate, skepticism about Mr. Trump’s sincerity on deportation isn’t new. In February, BuzzFeed reported that the candidate had told the New York Times in an off-the-record interview that his views on expelling illegal immigrants were more flexible than he had let on. Asked about the story, Mr. Trump allowed that “everything’s negotiable” but declined the Times’s offer to Since then, Mr. Trump’s immigration shift has became more overt. In November he was proposing a “deportation force” to hunt down the undocumented. Last week, however, he said that giving millions of people the boot is impractical and that enforcement should focus on “the bad ones”—which is the Obama administration’s policy. For those who obey the law and contribute to society, Mr. Trump says that no citizenship should be offered and opposes “amnesty as such.” But if they “pay back taxes” he would be willing to “work with them.” Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio ought to sue for plagiarism.

The weekend brought more confusion. Mr. Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence, told CNN that “there’ll be no path to legalization, no path to citizenship unless people leave the country.” But when Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was asked by Fox News whether her candidate still supported mass deportation, she answered that his approach was “softening.” CONTINUE AT SITE

Editor’s note: Frontpage’s recent article by Matthew Vadum, The Alt-Right is Coming! Hillary Shrieks, exposed the dishonest nature of Hillary’s and the Left’s slanderous attacks on Trump, Breitbart and the “Alt-Right,” revealing that the situation is far more complicated than their smear campaign would suggest. For instance, Clinton and leftists blame individuals such Richard Spencer for the Alt-Right, but it was Dr. Paul Gottfried, Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, who actually invented the term for the movement. Below we are publishing Gottfried’s account of the narrative to help clarify matters for our readers.

Last week I was reminded by a call from Associated Press that I had invented the term “Alternative Right.” When I asked about how I had accomplished that, the woman on the other end of the phone referred to a speech I had given in November 2008 in which I urged the creation of an “Alternative Right.” The same caller said that I was considered the “godfather” of what had become Altright, something that the Democratic presidential candidate would be denouncing later in the week. Thereupon I tried to explain in what modest ways I may have inspired the movement that Hillary was about to go after (namely, in a quadrennial ritual in presidential races in which the Democratic candidate accuses her GOP rival of being the second coming of Adolf Hitler).

I pointed out that Altright authors, some of whom I knew, shared my revulsion for the neoconservatives and deplored their influence on the American Right. I also noted that Altright publicists believed that modern liberal democracies had become dangerously fixated on promoting equality; and I’ve made this observation repeatedly in my books. Finally, as someone who had published entire works on the European Right in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (and most recently a book on the career of fascism as a concept), I had provided the Altright with food for thought. This was the case, even if the writers in question didn’t bother to look at my qualifying phrases.

Except for being a very occasional contributor to vdare.com, I am not exactly part of the Altright stable of writers. Recently I expressed interest in an email in writing for Breitbart, which is rumored to have some connection to Altright. Alas, I may have to wait until Hell freezes over before hearing from this website. More importantly, I couldn’t recall until a few days ago that I had spoken to fifty attendants at the H.L. Mencken Club eight years ago on the subject of the “Alternative Right.” I am president of the Mencken Club, and in November 2008 gave an inaugural address, in which I called for an “Alternative Right” to combat the high degree of neoconservative control over the intellectual Right.

This speech may have been a rousing affair, but until someone in the national news service retrieved it a few weeks ago, I had forgotten about my oration. Although I still support the project mentioned in that speech, I’ve never had the means to bring it about. Indeed, I’ve been largely marginalized by both the entire Left and most of the Right since the late 1980s. My works (perhaps we should look at the bright side) do get read but mostly in translation in Poland, Russia, Romania and other Eastern European countries. To link me to the Altright may be more of a stretch than the person from AP was aware of.