Here’s an informative, professional speculation about Clinton’s health issues, which gives me pause. She is probably suffering from a number of things, but the syndrome is one I call Michael Jackson’s Disease. She is surrounded by the elite of the progressive world-crushing governance, the shock troops of the freedom-trampling lawyers of malice, the useful idiots and pathetic suck-ups of the soul-corroding entertainment and media propaganda machine. She has not a single friend with a conservative thought, nor any impure specimens of less-than-worshipful Clinton machine acolytes.

Clinton is like a stunningly beautiful woman in average surrounding who fears she has no female friends, and who finds that she polarizes men into vicious hunters and weaklings, and who therefore hangs out with the gays and laments that all of her friends are gay. Not that she’s stunning in any manner except for her jaw-dropping, appalling, callous disregard for life, law, and liberty. But her presence causes certain actions to be taken, certain answers to be given. The success of the progressive machine is not in its parts but in its pervasive smothering, and the news anchors need not be told what they must say, or why. State Department employees need not be told what they must do. IRS agents need not be told to kneecap conservatives. The FBI director need not be instructed how to stay alive. They all know — they or their mentors, their bosses, their idols, and their legends have all been working on the same project since the 1960s. The answer, my friend, is blowing in a wind which does no good.

From the Washington Times:

A congressman says Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other staff members were granted immunity deals in exchange for their cooperation in the now-closed FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.

This paragraph from Chesterton is dear to the conservative heart:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”