ccshowme
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Hillery Chronicles
Due to the public’s lack of information, Hillary Clinton may not be held to account for her crimes she’s committing against the USA, because it’s obvious that she has been able to avoid and receive immunity from prosecution for both her and her husband for over 25 years. Hillary Clinton’s pattern of criminal intimidation and cover-up leading up to her recent conduct —– resulting in the deaths of Americans in Benghazi —- is clear.
It’s obvious. It’s documented. But more importantly, it’s ignored by the media, federal law enforcement, the State Department, the White House, the C.I.A. And the U.S. Military, and therefore, the American public is totally left in the dark.
We at Guerilla Media Network, particularly the “Guerilla Girls” refuse to ignore Hillary Clinton’s criminal history, and when Pete Santilli says she deserves to be tried, convicted and punished for treason against the USA, you better believe that the Clinton machine cannot successfully intimidate, threaten, extort, assault, or bribe him or persuade him to “stand down” for any reason other than to bring back the lives of the Americans she is — by her actions — ultimately responsible for killing.
We do n0t fear the heavy hand of the U.S. Government, corporatists, fascists, military industrial complex, politicians, drug cartels, or left/right-troll-a-sphere — all we fear is that information contained in this website and presented on The Pete Santilli Show will not reach the public’s ears, eyes, hearts and minds. Please look past their attempts to silence this info — don’t silence them, just recognize them for what they are — they are working blindly for the Clinton 2016 Presidential campaign which has been fueled by Hillary Clinton’s criminal activity & cover-up, and most revealing is her addiction to drug trafficking profits dating back to the days of Barry Seal and Mean, Arkansas cocaine distribution. Anyone who supports Hillary Clinton is complicit in crimes she has committed against the USA. Please recognize those who oppose what we are trying to do to expose Hillary Clinton as either ignorant for not knowing the information we present here on GMN, or they are outright criminals themselves.
For all those who wish to berate, demonize, marginalize or discredit, and even pigeon-hole (as a right winger or “conservative”) Pete Santilli — please consider that this organized group represents the exact signature and hallmark of what Hillary Clinton has done for over 25 years — criminal intimidation of her adversaries & cover-up of her crimes. We will not be deterred, and we will definitely not be surprised if some of her Clinton 2016 Presidential-Machine-Cronies act out on the intimidation and numerous death threats we are receiving. http://guerillamedianetwork.com/hillaryclinton/
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Here’s a breakdown of every scandal swirling around Hillary | New York Post
Here’s a breakdown of every scandal swirling around Hillary | New York PostThe Wall Street Journal published an article
yesterday exploring Hillary Clinton's role in the ill-fated 'Clinton
Care' push of the early 1990s. Might her dogged pursuit of an even more invasive government intrusion into healthcare come back to haunt her in a 2016 presidential bid -- especially if public attitudes
on the issue remain sour? It's certainly conceivable, but I suspect
her more recent healthcare positions and rhetoric are more likely to
play a salient role in a future campaign. Given how closely President
Obama's brand is associated with Obamacare, it's easy to forget that he
was once a staunch opponent of what would eventually become his
signature legislative legacy project. During the bruising Democratic
primaries of 2007 and 2008, Obama clobbered rival Hillary Clinton
over her support for an individual mandate -- which was the tent pole
of her healthcare proposal. His blistering critiques sometimes crossed
into outright derision:
Lo and behold, by 2009, Obama found himself embracing the very mandate he'd spent the previous year fashioning into the key
domestic policy difference between himself and his former opponent. In
an instant, Hillarycare became Obamacare. Hillary Clinton may hope to
quietly back away from her brainchild as she devises some talking points
to sidestep its failures. If she eventually claims that she would have
sold her plan in a more forthright and honest way, Republicans can note
that she helped pioneer a certain blanket assurance for which Obama is now paying a major political price:
Surprise. At the time, candidate Clinton was trying
to blunt GOP attacks that succeeded in bringing down her previous big
government healthcare project. Hillarycare 1.0 would have been more disruptive
than Hillarycare 2.0 to people's existing coverage arrangements, so she
tweaked things to give her the space to tell wary consumers that their
plans and doctors would not be affected by her new reform proposal.
This promise was always impossible to keep, as we've all learned the
hard way. In the end, Hillary's best defense may be that had she been
president, she would have implemented the system more competently than
Obama has. (A low bar). The beauty of this argument is that it's a
hypothetical that's impossible to disprove. But we might be able to
extrapolate some things based on past performance? How, for instance,
did Clinton's hands-off executive leadership serve the Benghazi four? And don't forget this disgusting performance, which she knew was a sham at the time. Would she follow-through on essential tasks better than Obama? She didn't here. If any of these questions become a drag on her potential White House run, perhaps she'll employ her go-to buck-passing rhetorical question: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" I discussed the Hillarycare/Obamacare nexus on Fox News yesterday afternoon:
yesterday exploring Hillary Clinton's role in the ill-fated 'Clinton
Care' push of the early 1990s. Might her dogged pursuit of an even more invasive government intrusion into healthcare come back to haunt her in a 2016 presidential bid -- especially if public attitudes
on the issue remain sour? It's certainly conceivable, but I suspect
her more recent healthcare positions and rhetoric are more likely to
play a salient role in a future campaign. Given how closely President
Obama's brand is associated with Obamacare, it's easy to forget that he
was once a staunch opponent of what would eventually become his
signature legislative legacy project. During the bruising Democratic
primaries of 2007 and 2008, Obama clobbered rival Hillary Clinton
over her support for an individual mandate -- which was the tent pole
of her healthcare proposal. His blistering critiques sometimes crossed
into outright derision:
"I believe the problem is not that folks are trying to avoid getting healthcare. The problem is they can't afford it."
Lo and behold, by 2009, Obama found himself embracing the very mandate he'd spent the previous year fashioning into the key
domestic policy difference between himself and his former opponent. In
an instant, Hillarycare became Obamacare. Hillary Clinton may hope to
quietly back away from her brainchild as she devises some talking points
to sidestep its failures. If she eventually claims that she would have
sold her plan in a more forthright and honest way, Republicans can note
that she helped pioneer a certain blanket assurance for which Obama is now paying a major political price:
Surprise. At the time, candidate Clinton was trying
to blunt GOP attacks that succeeded in bringing down her previous big
government healthcare project. Hillarycare 1.0 would have been more disruptive
than Hillarycare 2.0 to people's existing coverage arrangements, so she
tweaked things to give her the space to tell wary consumers that their
plans and doctors would not be affected by her new reform proposal.
This promise was always impossible to keep, as we've all learned the
hard way. In the end, Hillary's best defense may be that had she been
president, she would have implemented the system more competently than
Obama has. (A low bar). The beauty of this argument is that it's a
hypothetical that's impossible to disprove. But we might be able to
extrapolate some things based on past performance? How, for instance,
did Clinton's hands-off executive leadership serve the Benghazi four? And don't forget this disgusting performance, which she knew was a sham at the time. Would she follow-through on essential tasks better than Obama? She didn't here. If any of these questions become a drag on her potential White House run, perhaps she'll employ her go-to buck-passing rhetorical question: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" I discussed the Hillarycare/Obamacare nexus on Fox News yesterday afternoon:
Friday, April 10, 2015
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Discover the Networks
Discover the Networks
Do you want to understand the Leftist ? In his Marxist days,David Horowitz authored several books including Free World Colossus, Corporations and the Cold War, Empire and Revolution, Marx and Modern Economics, Shakespeare: An Existential View and The Fate of Midas, which he has subsequently repudiated. He has subsequently collaborated with Peter Collier on several biographies of famous American families, including The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, The Kennedys: An American Drama, and The Fords: An American Epic. His recent books include Radical Son (an autobiography), Hating Whitey and Other Progressive Causes, Why I'm Not a Liberal, The Feminist Assault on the Military, Noam Chomsky's Jihad Against America, Liberal Racism, and How the Left Undermined America's Security. Around the 1830s, a faction of French liberals gravitated toward Romanticism and the philosophy of the late Rousseau, proclaiming that capitalism, private property, and the increasing complexity of modern society were agents of moral decay -- both for the individual and for society at large. This is essentially the worldview that has made its way, through history, into the collective mind of the modern left; it is a worldview calling for a revolution that not only will topple the existing capitalist order and punish its corrupt leaders, but that also will replace that order with a socialist regime where the utopian ideals of perfect justice and equality will reign. Such an ambition can be put into effect only by a totalitarian state with the authority to micromanage every facet of human life, precisely the end-point toward which the policies and crusades of the modern left are directed. |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)