RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

If Never Trump Republicans succeed on Election Day, Donald J. Trump will return to real estate, his political dreams shattered.

Hence, the bigger headline on Wednesday, November 9, would read: hillary clinton elected 45th president. Neither independent Evan McMullin, nor the Green party’s Jill Stein, nor Libertarian Gary Johnson will leapfrog Clinton and Trump to win the White House. So, ipso facto, Never Trump = President Hillary Clinton. Full stop.

A President Hillary Clinton would be Obama with a work ethic. Rather than slacking off on putting greens, she will dedicate her impressive work ethic to turbocharging Obama’s policies, America be damned. Thus, here is some of what to expect if Never Trump triumphs:

Hillary Clinton would appoint at least one justice to the Supreme Court. If she only replaces the late Antonin Scalia with a liberal, the 5–4 center-right high court will go 5–4 center-left. And if, among justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas, one or more departs, Clinton would shift the Court even farther left. On issue after issue, the Supremes consequently would order less liberty and more government. They would be eager to reverse the Heller and Citizens United cases and thus jeopardize gun rights and non-union political speech.

Also, scores of Clinton’s judicial appointees would use their federal trial and appeals courtrooms to apply her statist legal philosophy for life.

“We are going to start immediately on comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship,” Clinton recently promised. From illegal aliens to the lightly vetted Syrian refugees that America’s Angela Merkel would vacuum into the U.S., Clinton would convert these individuals as swiftly as possible into freshly minted Democratic voters. Republicans will find it even harder to win elections as Clinton builds a permanent Democratic majority.

To that end, Clinton’s Justice Department would double down on Obama’s war on voter ID and other ballot-integrity measures. This would expand opportunities for pro-Democrat vote fraud and rigged elections. Good luck, GOP candidates.

Clinton ignored the candidate questionnaire from the 335,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. “I was disappointed and shocked,” the cops’-union president, Chuck Canterbury, told The Hill. This exposes Clinton’s cold shoulder towards blue lives, even as 2016’s shooting deaths of police officers have climbed 61 percent through August 25, compared to the same period in 2015, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Clinton likely would turn her back on cops, even as they increasingly endure bull’s-eyes on theirs.

“I want us to defend and build on the Affordable Care Act,” Clinton declared. “That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic party, and of our country.” Rather than a temporary aberration, Obamacare would become permanent — unless Clinton transforms it into full-blown, single-payer, socialized medicine.

A C-SPAN video documents at least one, if not two, Push Coalition forums from as early as 1998 that focused on Wall Street, minority business executives, and the black community, honoring those who’ve made a difference. In addition to one other notable individual, the clips feature Jesse Jackson. (I know. Hang in there with me.)

Who is the other notable person being honored at the gathering?

Donald J. Trump.

Why? Because of his support of and investment in the black community.

Jesse Jackson was absolutely gushing with praise for Trump, whose work crews comprised a disproportionately high percentage of black and Hispanic builders, stating:

Let me bring forth a friend who has, well, he is deceptive in his social style [inaudible], one can miss his seriousness and his commitment for the success is beyond argument…He has a sense of the curious and a will to make things better.

Jackson went on to enumerate various ways that Trump had shown himself to be a genuine partner in promoting inclusivity and helping those living in underserved communities.

In his 1978 paperback titled Word Power Made Easy, author Norman Lewis devotes an entire chapter to the number of words used to describe lying. Thus, “it was the famous Greek philosopher and cynic Diogenes who went around the streets of Athens, lantern in hand, looking for an honest person. This was over two thousand years ago, but I presume that Diogenes would have as little success in his search today.” Indeed, some have theorized “that language must have been invented for the sole purpose of deception.”

In reviewing the chapter, it is hard not to make the connections about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

As notorious liars, it is clear that “everybody knows [Obama’s and Clinton’s] propensity for avoiding facts. [They] have built so solid and unsavory a reputation that only a stranger is likely to be misled — and then, not for long.” Which is why the Millenials of today need to be exposed to the “liar who lies about her lies.” And they need to be reminded of the lie told over thirty times by Obama that they could keep their doctor and their premiums would decrease under Obamacare. Hardly — as evidenced by the weekly tally (at Apothecary) of the failures of Obamacare across the country. And Hillary wants to continue in the same vein — thus cementing the complete destruction of the American health care system.

But being the consummate liar that she is, “her skill has, in short, reached the zenith of perfection. Indeed [her] mastery of the art is so great that [her] lying is almost always crowned with success.” So much so that she is still in the running for the highest office of the land. And Obama made it to the office lying all the way to those who could not see through his artifice and prevarications.

As an incorrigible liar, Obama is “impervious to correction” Even when caught in his fabrications, there is no reforming him — he goes right on lying.” Those who are paying attention can tell when he is lying because (a) he smiles the big grin, (b) feigns hurt feelings or (c) engages in a masterful bait and switch maneuver which changes the topic completely. Hillary responds with artful shrugs of her shoulders, cackling laughter, and smug remarks about “wiping email servers with a cloth” when she is caught.

Hillary is an inveterate liar who managed to receive the highest rating of Pinocchios from the liberal Washington Post since “telling untruths is as frequent and customary an activity as brushing [her] teeth in the morning.” It is simply a “reflexive act” with this woman.

As a congenital liar, Hillary has a “long history of persistent falsification” proving that she has been lying from the moment she could. See the 13-minute video capturing Clinton’s biggest lies.

Chronic lying is when someone “never stops lying.” She lies “continually — not occasionally, or even frequently, but over and over.” Consider Clinton’s removal from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying; her involvement in the Whitewater scandal; lying about “sniper fire;” stealing furniture, and artwork from the White House; ignoring the proper structure and rules for the handling of sensitive national information; and the pay-for-play deals that endanger American security — the list goes on.

Both Obama and Hillary are pathological liars since neither “is concerned with the difference between truth and falsehood; they do not bother to distinguish fact from fantasy.” Obama makes a mockery of the language as falsehoods and fibs have marked his entire presidency. In fact, lying is a “disease” for them. Like parasites, they “benefit at the expense of the host — the parasite uses the host to gain strength, and the host loses some strength as a result.” Hence, America now has a lowered economic index ranking, her military prowess has been stripped, and her Constitutional base is negated at every opportunity.

Neither Obama nor Clinton has a conscience. No matter “what misery their fabrications may cause innocent victims, they never feel the slightest twinge of guilt. Totally unscrupulous, they are dangerous people to get mixed up with” — thus unconscionable liars through and through.

Let’s get this straight. Calling Hillary Clinton a “bigot” has reporters asking every Republican in sight if Donald Trump has gone too far. But the Clinton campaign releases a video saying Mr. Trump is the candidate of the Ku Klux Klan and it’s all okey-dokey?

Then again, Mr. Trump has already been likened to Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. Small wonder there’s a collective ho-hum when Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine says Mr. Trump is peddling “KKK values.”

This is what Democrats do.

It didn’t start with Mr. Trump, either. For years Democrats have portrayed the GOP as one giant hate group. Each presidential election, the drill goes like this: After Republicans nominate someone, he immediately finds himself having to prove he’s not a hater—of African-Americans, of women, of gays, etc.

This year Democrats added a twist. Mr. Trump, they claim, represents a break with all those decent and lovable Republicans such as Mitt Romney, John McCain and George W. Bush. Of course, this isn’t what they were saying back when these men were running for president.

• In 2000, for example, an NAACP ad recreated the gruesome murder of James Byrd to imply that then-Gov. Bush was sympathetic to lynching black men. Over footage of a chain being dragged by a pickup truck, Mr. Byrd’s daughter says, “So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.”

• When John McCain ran in 2008, Barack Obama warned that Republicans would scare people by saying, “You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.” The McCain campaign fired back, accusing Mr. Obama of playing the race card from the “bottom of the deck.” Funny thing: All those reporters always hearing “dog whistles” from Republicans somehow didn’t hear this one.

• In 2012, when Mitt Romney went to the NAACP and told them face-to-face about his opposition to ObamaCare, the stories were all about how he was really just trolling for the racist vote. Vice President Joe Biden put it more explicitly, telling a largely African-American audience that if Mr. Romney were to win, he’d “put ya’ll back in chains.”

The only difference today is that Republicans now have a nominee giving as good as he gets. It’s often clumsy; it comes late in the day; and his case hasn’t been helped by, say, his belabored moaning that a federal judge’s Mexican heritage meant he couldn’t be unbiased in litigation involving Trump University. CONTINUE AT SITE

Hillary Clinton tried to tar Donald Trump as a racist last week by associating him with the “alt-right.” Yet it is Mr. Trump who has decried the loss of black life to violent crime—and has promptly been declared biased for doing so. Whether intentionally or not, Mr. Trump has exposed the hypocrisy of the Black Lives Matter movement and its allies.

Speaking in West Bend, Wis., on Aug. 16, only days after the recent riots in Milwaukee, Mr. Trump observed that during “the last 72 hours . . . another nine were killed in Chicago and another 46 were wounded.” The victims, as in other cities with rising crime, were overwhelmingly black.

Bringing safety to inner-city residents should be a top presidential priority, Mr. Trump said: “Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets and walk to school. Or the senior citizen waiting for a bus. Or the young child walking home from school.” Mr. Trump promised to restore law and order “for the sake of all, but most especially for the sake of those living in the affected communities.”

The reaction was swift. The progressive website Crooks and Liars deemed Mr. Trump’s speech a “mashup of Hitler and George Wallace.”On CNN the activist and former Obama adviser Van Jones called it “despicable” and “shocking in its divisiveness.” Historian Josh Zeitz told USA Today that “the term law and order in modern American politics is, ipso facto, a racially tinged term.”

Mr. Trump’s acceptance speech in July at the Republican National Convention provoked similar dismay. “Young Americans in Baltimore, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Ferguson,” he said, have “the same right to live out their dreams as any other child in America.”

This defense of black children was too much for Alicia Garza, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement. “The terrifying vision that Donald J. Trump is putting forward casts him alongside some of the worst fascists in history,” Ms. Garza said. The executive director of the Advancement Project, Judith Browne Dianis, complained that “the speech lends itself to be interpreted as isolating and scapegoating of communities of color.” Political commentator Sally Kohn wrote in Time that Mr. Trump “has basically recycled Richard Nixon’s version of dog whistle racism by insisting he is the ‘law and order candidate’—implicitly protecting White America.”

Why this frenzied effort to demonize Mr. Trump for addressing the heightened violence in inner cities? Because the Republican nominee has also correctly identified its cause: the false “narrative of cops as a racist force in our society,” as he put it in Wisconsin.

DJ Jaffe is Executive Director of Mental Illness Policy Org., and the author of Insane Consequences: How the Mental Health Industry Fails the Mentally Ill (Prometheus Books, April 2017, 340pp.)

There are two problems with Hillary Clinton’s mental health plan: What’s in it and what’s not. The plan mainly continues the practice of moving mental health funds away from helping the most seriously mentally ill, and instead allocates the funds to helping people without serious mental illness and programs that lack any independent evidence they work.
We need an all-hands-on-deck approach aimed at helping reduce homelessness, arrest, incarceration, suicide and violence among the seriously mentally ill. While there are bills in Congress that do that, this plan doesn’t. It focuses on where serious mental illness isn’t, rather than where it is.
What’s in the Hillary Clinton mental health plan.

The plan for early diagnosis and intervention, focuses spending on kids younger than eighteen in spite of the fact that serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder begin in late teens and early twenties, not grade school. While some serious mental illness strikes early, most of the illness that affects kids, like ADHD, is mild and transient.
The plan diverts resources to fund programs that are proven not to work including Positive Parenting and Mental Health First Aid.
The national initiative for suicide prevention, will focus on spending dollars on high-school and college students the two groups least likely to commit suicide. In 2014, there were 43,000 completed suicides of which 5,500 involved people under the age of twenty-four. Congressional mandates already target $54 million in suicide prevention funds to that age group and only $2 million to address the 37,500 completed suicides by people over twenty-four. The plan proposes to make the disparity worse.
The plan focuses on requiring private insurers to provide parity coverage for mental illness, but is silent on the federal government’s own discrimination within Medicaid (IMD Exclusion) that prevents the most seriously ill from getting treatment.
The plan does nothing to increase hospital beds and instead trains police on how to handle those who will become their responsibility as a result of the lack of beds.
The initiative funds peer support, in spite of the fact there is no independent evidence it works and plenty that it doesn’t.
It provides additional funding to the Protection and Advocacy Program. These are federally funded lawyers who go to court to oppose parents who want to help seriously ill children get care, oppose states that want to provide hospital care, and oppose localities that want to fund Assisted Outpatient Treatment as an alternative to incarceration or involuntary commitment.