The Coming Metamorphosis of Hillary’s Brain Slug

NEW HILLARY2Watch for a metamorphasis

maryville forum


When I think of politics these days, I picture mud wrestlers emerging from a pit of slime, shaking themselves off, and heading for the showers of forgiveness to become clean again.

I have grown pessimistic, not about our political system but about some who participate in it. It seems the concept of service has given way to measly ambition.

Indeed, governing for the good of the country has folded into a war of one’s personal idea of what everyone should be as opposed to who we are.

The once-practiced notion of getting the people behind leadership so challenges could be met together has lapsed into the dangerous idea a few elitists know what’s best for everyone.

Politics is promotion and is, therefore, inherently dishonest. The striving by those seeking office should be to make it less so, to imbue the office with integrity, and to make the country a better place to be.

Some politicians do so because they are good people; many don’t because their ambitions lie within themselves or they want to advance an agenda they know won’t succeed on merit. It must be hammered home through propaganda, force, lies, and any other method convenient.

Who one truly is may be different during the campaign than during one’s tenure in office.

I suspect, if elected, Hillary Clinton will undergo a political metamorphasis. Don’t be shocked. We have had more than enough opportunities to understand this person.

Know this: Hillary will not morph into a butterfly. She will be a bee. Questioning or defying her will get you stung if you happen to be in that patch of brambles called Washington, D. C.

What will Clinton become?

Well, she will follow the Barack Obama model by dropping the façade of moderation. That will happen on Day 1, post election.

The true Hillary Clinton is a 60’s absolutist. In her mind, there is no room for challenges, for compromise, or for change not ordained by herself.

To the far Left, only they are right. Differences in thought, opinion or expression are not tolerated; therefore, there will be no compromises despite Clinton’s campaign claims.

Have you not heard Obama say, “The discussion is over?” Have you not listened when a Leftie says, “We’re on the right side of history?” as if there is no question about that? Have you not seen the absolution granted Hillary by a system corrupted? Do you not know what political correctness is about?

Hillary will drop her act of being a booster for America. She needs the patriotic persona only as long as it helps get her elected.

In the minds of Leftists, America is a bad place founded not on individual rights, but on slavery, greed, expansionism, and the horrors of capitalism. They deeply dislike this country and want to change it.

The goal is to get this done progressively, through domination of the media, education, government, and by changes in social perception and practices. Thus far, all goes swimmingly.

Once in office, Clinton will stop pretending to be anything other than the liberal she really is. Her political behavior will be responsive only to the Left’s goals of a dominating government, political correctness, and high taxes.

Hillary will drop her performance as a political Dr. Phil seeking popular solutions to problems the Left created. She will do as she pleases.

There will be aggressive moves to increase taxes. Don’t be surprised if the justification is the national debt racing toward $20 trillion. Don’t be shocked if Obama’s name is not connected to this, even though debt increased more during his administration than all preceding presidencies combined. The Left doesn’t link problems to liberals.

Our military will continue to decline. Liberals like Hillary tie the military to aggression. Diplomacy, by contrast, is miraculous.

Our nation will become more and more secular. Religion will be regarded as superstition and tolerance toward religions will fade. Governmental solutions will become the norm.

The distinction between illegal and legal immigration will cease as it nearly has already. The border will open further. Talk of cooperative immigration reform will fade.

Industry will continue to die just as Wire Co. perished in St. Joseph a couple of weeks ago due to cheap, protected imports. In its prime Wire Co. employed 1,500 hard-working souls. Now it employs none.

A lousy job will be propagandized as a stellar one.

The new Hillary will emerge aglow with purpose. On that same day, the concerns of Americans will give way to a new phase of Leftist progressivism.

And that, folks, is what mediocrity will feel like.


Obama To Leave $20 Trillion Debt Crisis For Next President

Obama To Leave $20 Trillion Debt Crisis For Clinton Or Trump


President Obama is set to leave a massive near $20 trillion debt crisis for his successor – be that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

The U.S. national debt reached $19.5 trillion last week and has been increasing by roughly $1 trillion a year during his Presidency and during the so called “recovery” as the U.S. government continues to spend money like a drunken sailor.


President Obama gestures while speaking at Concord Community High School in Elkhart, Ind., on June 1, 2016. (Associated Press)

During Obama’s presidency, the total national debt has risen from $10.6 trillion to nearly $20 trillion – see Debt Clock here. There is also the not insignificant matter of the between $100 trillion and $150 trillion in unfunded liabilities – for medicare, medicaid and social security.

The U.S., like the EU and most western nations, is “kicking the can down the road.” Consequently, a U.S. and global debt crisis looks likely during the term of the next President if not sooner. The Washington Times reported last week:

With federal budget deficits on the rise again, the White House Wednesday officially kicked the problem down the road to the next president.

Asked about Congressional Budget Office projections that the federal deficit will spike 33 percent this year, White House press secretary Josh Earnest cited reasons including an aging population and Republican-sponsored tax cuts.

Then he added, “There’s certainly a lot of money that can be saved, and this will be a challenge that the next president and the next Congress will have to do.”

This and the fact that neither Presidential candidate has articulated concerns about the once again ballooning national debt and is it is not an issue in the campaign is leading to well founded concerns that a new debt crisis is looming right around the corner. From the Buffalo News:

When Clinton or Trump takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, he or she will owe those investors nearly $20 trillion. Right now, the debt amounts to $60,100 for every man, woman and child in the country.

We are supposed to be in an economic recovery. Yet the debt has more than doubled from what President Obama inherited from President George W. Bush, and many times what President Bill Clinton passed on to Bush in 2000.

The debt is not a forgettable thing, such as who won the men’s 1,500-meter race at Rio. It is a monster problem. It’s Jabba the Hutt looking for meat; it’s firewood smoldering in the cellar.

The situation is not sustainable – meaning the worst kind of crisis for everybody is looming around the corner.

Investors will continue to lend to us at low interest rates only as long as they can expect regular repayment.

In personal terms, the debt bill is larger than at any time in our history other than right after World War II.

This continuing surge in the U.S. national debt to the $20 trillion level means that the U.S. is now the largest debtor nation in the world – by a significant margin. Its total debt of over $120 trillion means it is the largest debtor nation the world has ever seen.

This profligacy will be paid back by the people of the U.S., and most likely by people in all indebted western nations, in the form of higher taxes, higher interest rates, inflation, currency wars involving devaluations and almost certainly a currency crisis involving the dollar and other leading fiat currencies.

Hillary’s Plantation

hillary surrounded by black women2

FILE - In this Feb. 23, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes pictures with supporters after a campaign event at the Central Baptist Church in Columbia, S.C. During a primary season that has proved surprisingly competitive, bombarded with persistent critiques about her likeability and trustworthiness, Clinton has maintained a strong bond with one significant block of Democratic Party voters. Black women. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

FILE – In this Feb. 23, 2016 file photo, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton takes pictures with supporters after a campaign event at the Central Baptist Church in Columbia, S.C. During a primary season that has proved surprisingly competitive, bombarded with persistent critiques about her likeability and trustworthiness, Clinton has maintained a strong bond with one significant block of Democratic Party voters. Black women. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

Hillary’s Plantation

Katie Kieffer

She doesn’t discriminate. No, Hillary Clinton welcomes all less fortunate Americans into her campaign—especially women, African Americans, and the poor.

Hillary is not often in a good mood and lately she is in a particularly foul mood. Why? Her opponent, Donald Trump, is engaging in straight talk with minorities, particularly African Americans:

“Look at how much African-American communities are suffering from Democratic control. To those I say the following: what do you have to lose by trying something new – like Trump? …You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed, what the hell do you have to lose?”

Fuming at Trump’s courage to tell it like it is, Hillary fired off a response: “[Trump is] taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe.”

Hold on, Hillie. Before you throw stones, count to 10 and recall how you imbibed the philosophy of Saul Alinsky. Hillary wrote her senior thesis for Wellesley College analyzing and sympathizing with Alinsky’s model of ends justifying the means. She also was endorsed by one of Alinsky’s strongest acolytes, Barack Obama. (Another way of saying this is that Hillary, Barack and Saul would have been sorted into the House of Slytherin had they attended Hogwarts with Harry Potter.)

When Barack Obama left his first “job” as a community organizer in Chicago to pursue politics, he left the African American community he promised to help, having done “nothing that would change poverty on the South Side of Chicago.” And that’s according to an interview given to the New York Times by Obama’s friend and mentor Jerry Kellman who helped him land the community organizer position.
CARTOONS | Robert Ariail
View Cartoon

Saul Alinsky’s socialist and self-serving philosophies help folks like Hillary and Barack rise to political power—but do little to help those in need.

Trump’s Truth

Trump is correct. I’ve fact-checked his statements for you here, detailing how Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s policies have and will continue to harm women, African Americans, and the poor. Single motherhood, absentee fatherhood and unemployment are at historic highs among these demographics, yet Hillary promises to continue Obama’s tried-and-failed plan to spend instead of mend.

Hillary isn’t welcoming female, black and poor Americans to follow her leadership to attain better jobs. Or to live in safer, more peaceful neighborhoods. Instead, she is inviting them to give up.

No man, no gun, no worries! has been Hillary’s motto for years. When she talks to an all-black audience as she did in on Martin Luther King Day in 2014, she claims Republicans are stifling the freedom and safety of minorities because they run Congress “like a plantation.”

Truth is, Hillary needed a man in her own rise to political power. She also needed—and still needs—guns for her safety. However, she is trying to buy votes by convincing women, blacks and the impoverished that they need her; that they must renounce traditional values and their natural right to self-defense; and that they are victims in need a nanny who masquerades as a heroine.

Since 1992, Hillary has boasted she “could have stayed home and baked cookies” and relied on husband Bill to bring home the bacon—and didn’t. She wore the pantsuit. He stained navy blue dresses.

“But Mr. Clinton has profoundly shaped her ability, as well as that of any modern Democratic nominee, to compete [for the office of presidency],” the New York Times opined in 2014.

When even your kindred spirits at the New York Times concede that you needed your husband to rise to power, you may as well own up to it.

By promoting the notion that women don’t need men, she lies about her own path to power. More disturbingly, she promotes resentment between the genders—which in turn leads to broken families. Single, impoverished mothers will be more willing to vote for Hillary, who is offering tempting goodies like “free” childcare and “free” college education than mothers with a reliable father in their child’s life.

Gun Grabber

If elected president, Hillary plans to renew her husband Bill’s tried-and-failed ban on semi-automatic weapons. Of course, she has Secret Service protection for life, so such a ban would not impact her. It would, however, disproportionately hurt poor, minorities and single mothers who live in high-crime urban areas.

Women and minorities don’t just need strong fathers. At a time when rape and mass violence is escalating on college campuses, the weakest among us also need gunpowder. Trump has proudly announced that he has a concealed carry permit and will respect the right of Americans to do the same. Hillary? Not so much.

This month, Hillary wrote a letter to teenage girls—including many first-time voters—in Teen Vogue—urging them to fight against “gun violence.”

In claiming there is such a thing as “gun violence”—she leads young girls to have an irrational fear of the most modern tool of self defense; the only tool that can most effectively level the playing field between themselves and a large male attacker. Guns are not animate objects apt to thrust themselves into the hands of madmen who proceed to rape an unarmed college student after a night class.

Earlier this year, Clinton was the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the Trayvon Martin Foundation. You’ll recall Martin was the young black man who mounted a Hispanic man in an MMA-style “ground and pound” attack, pummeled him with his fists and then reached for the Hispanic’s gun. But, the Hispanic, George Zimmerman, reached his own firearm first and shot Martin in self-defense. By keynoting an event for Martin’s foundation, Hillary made a clear statement: she supports violence—as long as it helps her appear to support African Americans.

Don’t help Hillary turn the United States into her plantation. She won’t discriminate in her efforts to make the most vulnerable among us—women, minorities and the poor—suffer as long as she wins their votes in the process. Choose freedom. Choose Trump.

India Playing Fast and Loose with Missile Diplomacy

BEIJING: China’s Defence Ministry said on Thursday that it hoped India could put more efforts into regional peace and stability rather than the opposite, in response to Indian plans to put advanced cruise missiles along the disputed border with China.

Indian military officials say the plan is to equip regiments deployed on the China border with the BrahMos missile, made by an Indo-Russian joint venture, as part of ongoing efforts to build up military and civilian infrastructure capabilities there.

The two nuclear-armed neighbours have been moving to gradually ease long-existing tensions between them.

Leaders of Asia’s two giants pledged last year to cool a festering border dispute, which dates back to a brief border war in 1962, though the disagreement remains unresolved.

Asked about the missile plans at a monthly news briefing, Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian said maintaining peace and stability in the border region was an “important consensus” reached by both countries.

“We hope that the Indian side can do more to benefit peace and stability along the border and in the region, rather than the opposite,” Wu said, without elaborating.

China lays claim to more than 90,000 sq km ruled by New Delhi in the eastern sector of the Himalayas. India says China occupies 38,000 sq km of its territory on the Aksai Chin plateau in the west.

India is also suspicious of China’s support for Pakistan.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet Chinese President Xi Jinping when he visits China next month to attend the G20 summit.

Modi’s government has ordered BrahMos Aerospace, which produces the missiles, to accelerate sales to a list of five countries topped by Vietnam, according to a government note viewed by Reuters and previously unreported.

Modi visits Vietnam, which is embroiled in a dispute over the South China Sea with Beijing, before arriving in China

Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS – Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened

[What Is the Truth About ISIS?]

Yes, Obama and Clinton Created ISIS –

Too Bad Trump Can’t Explain How It Happened

black agenda report


Clinton supporters rejected out of hand Donald Trump’s charge that she and Barack Obama “created” the Islamic State — and even Trump seemed to retreat from his statement. But, a solid case can be made that Obama and Clinton were, indeed, the “most valuable players” in spawining ISIS. Moreover, it is an historical fact that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia created the international jihadist network from which al Qaida and ISIS sprang, almost four decades ago.

Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement.”

Donald Trump has backtracked — sort of — on his assertion that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are “the founders” of ISIS, or the “most valuable players” on the Islamic State team. “Obviously, I’m being sarcastic,” said the self-styled “America-Firster” – quickly adding, “but not that sarcastic, to be honest with you.”

Trump cannot articulate or fully grasp the horrific truth of his original statement because that would require a much more fundamental indictment of U.S. imperial policy in the Muslim world since the last days of 1979, when Zbigniew Brzezinski convinced President Jimmy Carter to set the jihadist dogs loose in Afghanistan. As stated in his memoir From the Shadow, Brzezinski advised Carter to aid the right-wing Muslim resistance to the leftist, secular government in Afghanistan in order to “induce a Soviet military intervention” and thus embroil the USSR in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Brzezinski viewed the so-called Mujahadeen as potential foot soldiers of U.S. global policy. “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Brzezinski asked, rhetorically, decades later.

Having acted in accordance with Brzezinski’s counsel, President Carter can accurately be described as a founding “creator” of al Qaida, along with fellow “most valuable player” Ronald Reagan, whose CIA partnered with Saudi Arabia to spend billions drawing Muslims from around the globe into the war in Afghanistan. Together, the U.S. and the Saudis gave birth to the international Islamic jihadist movement – a phenomenon that had not previously existed in world history. The jihadists would become an essential weapon in the U.S. imperial armory, a ghastly tool for regime change in the Muslim world which also doubled as justification for the never ending American quest for planetary dominance, now that the Soviet boogeyman was gone.

In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars.”

Brzezinski became Barack Obama’s foreign policy guru, with consequences that should have been predictable for U.S. Middle East policy but were largely ignored by liberals and so-called progressives in their euphoria at the exit of George W. Bush.

Clearly, the U.S. public would not tolerate another episode of massive, direct U.S. troop involvement in the region; that was no longer an option. But what force, then, was available to execute Washington’s unfinished agenda for conquest in this part of the world? In 2011, Obama launched the Mother of All Proxy Wars, first against Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya, then swiftly mobilizing the totality of the international jihadist network that had been created out of whole cloth under Carter and Reagan nearly 30 years before. Washington and its NATO partners in the Libya aggression, in close concert with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, turned Syria into a cauldron of death, funneling billions of dollars in weapons to literally hundreds of Salafist and outright mercenary militias, with Al Qaida’s regional affiliate, al Nusra, at the core. This was Obama’s idea of a “smart” war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.

The criminal foreign policy pursued by Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is rooted in the same worldview arrogantly articulated by Brzezinski when he derided those who fretted over the blowback that might result from deploying “some stirred-up Moslems” as foot soldiers of imperialism. As the U.S. and its allies literally competed with each other to flood Syria with the weapons, funds, intelligence resources and diplomatic and media cover to bring down the government in Damascus, they collectively created both the material basis and political space for the jihadists to pursue their own ideological objectives. ISIS emerged, to establish a caliphate of its own in Syria and Iraq. No one should have expected otherwise.

“This was Obama’s idea of a ‘smart”’war: a frenzied terror offensive cloaked in lies and deception.”

Back in July of 2014, we at Black Agenda Report described the rise of ISIS as signaling “the final collapse of U.S. imperial strategy in the Muslim world — certainly, in the Arab regions of Islam.” We wrote:

“Think of it as a Salafist declaration of independence…from the Arab monarchies and western intelligence agencies that have nurtured the international jihadist network for almost two generations. The Caliphate threatens, not only its immediate adversaries in the Shiite-dominated governments of Syria and Iraq, but the potentates of the Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and the Mother of All Monarchist Corruption in the Arab Sunni heartland, the Saudi royal family. The threat is not inferential, but literal, against ‘all emirates, groups, states and organizations’ that do not recognize that ISIS in its new incarnation is the embodiment of Islam at war.’”

ISIS did not exist when President Obama took office and put Hillary Clinton in charge at Foggy Bottom. His (and her) regime change in Libya and massive, terroristic pivot to Syria “created” ISIS. And, let’s get the history right, on this score: the U.S. did not reject the jihadist death cult that became ISIS; rather, the Islamic State divorced itself from the U.S. and its European and royal allies. Yet, it still took the Russian intervention in Syria in September of last year to push Washington to mount more than token air assaults against ISIS. Apparently, the U.S. wants to avoid killing too many Islamic State fighters, in hopes that there will be lots of them left to join U.S.-sanctioned jihadist outfits when it gets too hot for ISIS. (Al Nusra has changed its name and resigned from al Qaida — with the blessing of al Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan — so as to better blend in with the other jihadist outfits on western payrolls.)

“U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS.”

You don’t need to take Donald Trump’s word for it, that Obama and Clinton have been “most valuable players” for ISIS. The U.S. military’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) came to much the same conclusion, back in 2012. The military spooks’ reports, declassified last year, showed the DIA had warned that “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey [which] support the [Syrian] opposition” believe “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

The DIA was alarmed that

“…the deterioration of the situation has dire consequences on the Iraqi situation and are as follows:

“This creates the ideal situation for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi, and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [meaning, Shia Muslims]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Thus, a year after Obama and his European and Arab friends brought down Libya’s Gaddafi and shifted their proxy war of regime change to Syria, U.S. military intelligence saw clearly the imminent rise of ISIS — and that “this is exactly” what “the West, Gulf countries and Turkey…want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

Yes, Obama created ISIS, with the enthusiastic assistance of Hillary Clinton, and he is still nurturing al Nusra, the erstwhile affiliate of al Qaida, which was mid-wifed into existence by Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski. In the intervening years, the jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy, but especially so since George W. Bush’s defeat in Iraq, which soured the American public on “dumb” wars – meaning, in Obama-Speak, wars in which large numbers of Americans die. Proxy wars are ideal — “smart,” because only Arabs and Africans and people that Americans have never heard of, die. Libya wasn’t even a war, according to Obama, since no U.S. personnel perished.

“The jihadists have become indispensable to U.S. imperial policy.”

The truth about ISIS and the Obama administration is so obvious that even Donald Trump has a hazy idea of what happened in Syria and Libya. However, the spoiled man-brat white nationalist billionaire from Queens is incapable of putting the Obama/Clinton/ISIS connection in the historical context of U.S. imperial policy. Sadly, most “liberals” and far too many “progressives” (including Black ones) are afflicted with the same disease as Trump: extreme imperial chauvinism — which is practically inseparable from white supremacism.  Extreme imperial chauvinism allows Americans to send to the White House people that should, instead, be sent to the gallows or a firing squad (after a trial, of course). It allows Americans that claim to be on the “left’ side of the spectrum to recoil in horror at Donald Trump (who hasn’t killed anybody that we know of, and who says he will not engage in regime change as president), yet will vote for a woman whose career is soaked in the blood of hundreds of thousands in the Middle East and the northern tier of Africa, and whose husband set in motion a genocide that has killed six million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

One candidate, Trump, most resembles the late Alabama governor George Wallace with a “let’s make a deal” foreign policy. The other, Clinton, is a genocidal maniac, whose crimes as president will be Hitlerian in scale.

What is scarier than Clinton or Trump, is that Americans seem to have no visceral aversion to genocide (of non-white peoples). But, unless you’re a Green or some shade of Red, genocide isn’t even an election issue.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at