Showing posts with label Guy Benson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Benson. Show all posts

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Report: Obama To Take Unilateral Action On Immigration 1 Week After Midterm Elections?

By Guy Benson, Oct. 2, 2014, Townhall.com

We've been talking about this inevitability for weeks now, so the only 'newsy' item in this Buzzfeed story is the alleged timeline, which the White House is disputing. President Obama has every intention of expanding his DREAM Act-style power grab to millions of adults who entered the country illegally -- he just knows that doing so before voters go to the polls would further endanger a bunch of Democrats up for re-election. Solution: Don't rethink the unpopular idea; delay it until the opportunity for an electoral backlash passes. That political Rubicon looms in 34 days. If reporter Adrian Carrasquillo's sources are correct, Obama will drop his decision on the country less than a week later:

A source tells BuzzFeed News a much-anticipated speech at the Congressional Hispanic Institute Gala by the president will tell Latinos to wait 40 more days until after the election on long-awaited executive actions on immigration. President Obama will reaffirm his promise of administrative actions to slow record deportations before the end of the year during a high-profile speech to Latinos and Hispanic officials on Thursday, BuzzFeed News has learned. His speech at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) gala — his first there since 2011 — comes as activists have expressed anger and frustration over repeated delays on executive actions. Obama will tell Latinos in attendance that he understands their frustration but will also call on them to stick with him and wait 40 more days, until after the election, according to a source who viewed the president’s prepared remarks.
In an update to the story, "a White House official told BuzzFeed News that the president’s remarks do not include a reference to waiting '40 days.'" So the precise time frame remains hazy, even if the president's cynical game is crystal clear.

Read the full story:  www.townhall.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Thursday, August 28, 2014

CBO Revises 2014 DOWN

By Guy Benson, Aug. 28, 2014, Townhall.com

When the economy shrinks substantially over the course of an economic quarter, tepid recoveries tend to look, well, tepid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has slashed its predictions for US economic growth in 2014:

The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday forecast that the U.S. economy will grow by just 1.5 percent in 2014, undermined by a poor performance during the first three months of the year.The new assessment was considerably more pessimistic than the Obama administration's, which predicted last month that the economy would expand by 2.6 percent this year even though it contracted by an annual rate of 2.1 percent in the first quarter...Even with the [Q2] rebound, economists have lowered their outlook for the entire year, given the weak start. Economists at JPMorgan Chase are forecasting that the economy will grow by 1.9 percent this year, when measured from the fourth quarter, down from 3.1 percent in 2013.

US Gross Domestic Product grew at a sluggish 1.9 percent rate in FY 2013. The new 2014 forecasts reflect the ongoing reality of America's historically weak economic recovery under President Obama. Policies matter. The CBO also updated its projections on annual deficits and the national debt. The latter measure has ballooned by $7 trillion and counting since Obama took office, far eclipsing the debt accrual of all other presidents. The bookkeepers determined that this year's deficit will exceed half-a-trillion, an improvement over Obama's abysmal baseline, but that trouble lies ahead. Reason's Peter Suderman summarizes the latest findings:


Read the full story:  www.townhall.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, June 21, 2014

 Hillary Rodham Clinton
By Guy Benson, Jun. 20, 2014, Townhall.com

A brutal-to-read follow up to my Monday post regarding newly-released audio of Hillary Clinton reflecting on a 1975 criminal case in which she represented an accused child rapist whom she believed to be guilty. On the tape, Mrs. Clinton recalls a catastrophic error made by the police, who lost DNA evidence implicating her client -- a man she'd taken on as a client as a favor to a local prosecutor. Court documents reveal that Clinton planned to aggressively assail the victim's credibility (the victim was a 12-year-old girl) by asserting that she had a history of making baseless allegations of assault, and by citing the opinion of an expert who argued that adolescent girls from broken homes are prone to "exaggerate" and "romanticize" sexual behavior." In doing so, Hillary embraced a smear-the-victim legal strategy while calling into question the veracity of an entire class of potential victims of sexual assault. Critics may wonder how these actions coincide with Clinton's carefully-cultivated image as a champion of women and girls. The audio recordings also capture Hillary chuckling about her efforts to exploit the local authorities' mistake, which ultimately allowed the her client to get off with an extremely reduced sentence on lesser charges. Her laughter over decidedly unfunny developments is strange and off-putting. A legal expert quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, which published the original story, also questioned the ethics of Clinton revealing the results of her client's polygraph test. She told a reporter that the accused man passed the test, which "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," a clear indication of Hillary's opinion of her client's guilt. The Free Beacon piece did not quote the victim extensively, saying that the woman (now 52 years old) declined an interview. She did, however, express a "deep and abiding hostility" toward Mrs. Clinton. In the wake of the audio's release, the Daily Beast managed to land an interview with the victim, who comes across as a troubled woman who remains furious with Hillary:

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago. “I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary's claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies:
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape. “I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
She also says that listening to the clip of Hillary discussing her case reduced her to tears and compelled her to speak out at greater length:
For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said. “It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.” “When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
Based on her experience, the woman does not believe Hillary Clinton would make for an honest president:

Read the full story:  www.townhall.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Friday, April 4, 2014

By Guy Benson, Apr. 1, 2014, HotAir.com
In his effort to discredit Boonstra, (Harry) Reid relied on a Washington Post “fact check,” which effectively ruled her story half true.  In fact, every claim Boonstra made in the ad has been confirmed, as explained by the Detroit News’ Dan Calabrese (see update below):
Boonstra is on five different medications to help deal with her leukemia. The Blue Cross PR spokesman claimed that they are all covered. But when Boonstra went to fill her prescription for Loratadine — a prescription-level equivalent of Claritin that she uses to control congestion brought on by chemotherapy — she was told that Loratadine is not covered. She has not yet attempted to restock any of her other meds but she is already having to come with strategies to deal with that problem. The $5,100 cap on Boonstra’s out-of-pocket spending is for in-network care only. If she has to go out of network, she could spend an additional $10,200…When Boonstra was first diagnosed, she had to go through a painstaking process to get approval for her chemotherapy drugs to be covered. When she finally found insurance she liked, she had no problem with the chemo drugs. She now says that process is starting all over again. Boonstra has already had to cut back on her bone marrow biopsies, which she was having on a regular schedule she had worked out with her doctor, because she doesn’t have clarification on whether these will be covered. I could go on, but the bottom line is this: Julie Boonstra told the truth, and arrogant media “fact checkers” had a lot of nerve claiming she hadn’t when they never even talked to her.
Nevertheless, Reid’s inaccurate nasty gram touched off a torrent of bile from Obamacare supporters,  including this delightful care package Boonstra received in the mail:
Source:  HotAir.com


Read the full story:  www.hotair.com


Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

Saturday, March 22, 2014



By Guy Benson, Mar. 21, 2014, Townhall

Four years ago today, chants of "yes we can!" echoed throughout the House chamber. A new dawn had broken in America. Tens of millions of uninsured Americans would finally have access to quality, affordable health coverage, healthcare spending would fall, healthcare-related deficits would contract, everyone pleased with their existing arrangement would be protected, and everyone's rates would drop. Some of us didn't buy any of it, but those who did -- or said they did -- cheered and partied the night away:




In spite of their now-infamous promises, the bill Democrats passed was unpopular with the American people at the time, and remains so to this day. Pew Research:






Read the full story:  www.townhall.com

Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook