Hilarious: Laura Ingraham Unveils Her Pitch For Jeb Bush’s Campaign Slogan

Wikipedia/Gage Skidmore

According to radio host Laura Ingraham, potential 2016 presidential contenders Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have so much in common they might as well throw party affiliation out and campaign as a team.

The syndicated host spoke at CPAC last week and expressed her frustration with many GOP elites rallying behind Bush despite his positions on a number of hot button issues.

“We can dispense of this whole nomination process altogether,” she sarcastically asserted. “Why don’t we just call it quits and Jeb and Hillary can run on the same ticket?”

She said the two agree on issues like “Common Core, amnesty, giving Obama fast track trade authority, [and] the surveillance culture.”

Ingraham went so far as to develop some campaign material for the facetious team.

“So I’m designing the bumper sticker,” she said. “It could be ‘Clush 2016: What Difference Does It Make?’”

She then expanded her focus to include the frustrations she identifies in the nomination process as a whole.

Citing the “closed-door meetings” many potential candidates prefer instead of open discussions of the issues voters care about, Ingraham urged the conservatives in attendance to engage in reform of the system.

“You go into battle with the political system you have,” she said, acknowledging that “the media and most of the donor class is hostile to conservatism.”

Nevertheless, those on the right can bring about change by uniting behind the common goal of giving the people power to select a nominee of their choice.

“It’s not enough to rage at the darkness,” she asserted. “Instead, we have to light a candle.”

Organizations like Citizens for the Republic, which was founded by Ronald Reagan in 1977 and resurrected recently by Ingraham, exist to encourage such activism. She shared the traits she believes conservatives should demand in their nominee.

“Merely having the right ideas is not enough,” she said. “A strong conservative has to be able to debate anyone, anywhere on matters of policy — and win.”

Ingraham concluded that “we also need a candidate who is proud to be called a conservative.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

BREAKING: Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Probe Uncovers ‘Shocking’ Hillary Clinton Email Bombshell

Image Credit: Fox News

It’s the latest Hillary Clinton scandal everyone is talking about — the revelation that the former secretary of state used only her personal email account to conduct official business while she headed up the State Department. The extraordinary practice, reports The New York Times, may well have violated important federal regulations regarding government record keeping.

In a brief mention toward the end of its report, the Times article notes that it was the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi that discovered the highly questionable practice as it sought to obtain Mrs. Clinton’s email correspondence regarding the deadly 2012 attack in Libya.

The chairman of that committee is South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, who has said that he intends to call Mrs. Clinton to testify before the panel. This new email bombshell could make that testimony, if it occurs, even more contentious than it would have already proven to be.

“Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.”

This disclosure comes hot on the heels of another scandalous discovery regarding Hillary Clinton that could have a lingering impact on her potential bid for the White House.

As The Washington Post reported just a week ago, foreign governments with which Mrs. Clinton may well have had dealings as secretary of state gave millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation she helps to manage — those donations coming while Mrs. Clinton ran the State Department for four years of the Obama administration.

“Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.”

While left-leaning media outlets often ignore, downplay or serve as apologists for questionable behavior of leading liberals, the Hillary Clinton email scandal is front and center at MSNBC.

Reacting to the fast-spreading firestorm over Clinton’s use of personal email and not a government account at the State Department, the hosts of “Morning Joe” labeled The New York Times report as “staggering” and “shocking.”

By clicking on the video above, you can watch the MSNBC segment suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s expected presidential campaign could be facing stiff media headwinds even as it comes out of the gate.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

‘Morning Joe’ Defend Chris Christie From NYT Article By Highlighting The Clintons’ Royal Lifestyle

Joe Scarborough

A New York Times report about New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie’s lavish lifestyle stumped the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe Tuesday. They wondered what said article would have looked like if it were about the Clintons.

People have talked about Hillary Clinton recently due to her potential 2016 presidential bid; last summer, her erroneous and callous claims of being “dead broke” and “truly not well off” were largely frowned down upon.

Co-host Joe Scarborough expounded on those talking points, remarking that it would be interesting to see an article placing the Clintons under the same scrutiny:

They talked about the one night that Chris Christie was around Bono. Would we like to count the nights that the Clintons have been around Bono, Beyoncé, rockstars, kings and queens? They have lived an extraordinarily lavish life that very few people, not only in America but on the planet. They have lived like kings and queens.

“I’m just curious if the New York Times is going to write a story about Hillary Clinton and the lifestyle that she has had over the past 30 years, along these lines,” he added.

h/t: Newsbusters

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

What These Hollywood Leftists Just Said In An Appeal About 2016 Should Worry Hillary

Image Credits: Wiki Commons

If Hillary Clinton is thinking she’ll collect a lot of Hollywood cash for her 2016 campaign coffers, she may want to think again…and start some serious outreach to left-coast lefties who are already looking beyond the former first lady to another potential female candidate.

As writer Robert Laurie points out on Herman Cain’s website, a whole lot of movie and TV stars and entertainment industry luminaries have signed an open letter to Elizabeth Warren, virtually begging the Massachusetts senator to enter the race for president.

Calling themselves “Artists for Warren,” these 90 celebs put their names to the plea for the ultra-liberal lawmaker to “stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that broke our economy.”

The open letter with the heading “Run Warren Run” refers time and again to “big corporations,” “corporate interests” and the “big banks” aligned with greedy Wall Street fat cats — pleading for a champion “who stands up for the people.”

Of course, one might find it more than a tad ironic that these Hollywood types — many of whom make many times the average wage of the average American — see fit to slam the system that has made them part of the “wealthiest 1%” they so harshly criticize. It would seem these stars want to bring down the kind of capitalism in which they, themselves, thrive.

Among the more recognizable names attached to this letter appealing to Warren to jump into a race she has avoided are:
– Michael Moore
– Mark Ruffalo
– Susan Sarandon
– Julia Stiles
– Ed Norton
– Olivia Wilde

One should note that those six names out of a list of 90 might suggest that this group does not necessarily represent the best and brightest of the left-coast libs — especially not the ones known to shower Democrats with torrents of money.

Still, this is a clear shot at Hillary Clinton, who, the letter suggests, is aligned with those big, bad “corporate” interests and Wall Street bankers from whom Elizabeth Warren could be a “powerful, tireless champion…to push for real solutions to income inequality.”

As for Warren herself, she continues to say she has no intention of running for president in 2016. Though, in doing so, she has not hesitated to denounce a Hillary Clinton candidacy, as The Atlantic notes: “Warren has characterized Hillary Clinton herself as a conscienceless politician who betrayed her professed principles for campaign donations.”

h/t: Herman Cain

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Benghazi Hearings Provide A Glimmer Of Hope

Twitter/Norwood Tea Party

Last week, the Democrat members of the Select Committee on Benghazi virtually declared war on the majority members, criticizing their pace, rules, and committee scope.

Representative Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., claimed that the Select Committee was on a wild goose chase for a nonexistent “unicorn” and “nefarious conspiracy,” and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., falsely called the stand down order a “myth.”

But in what may be a turning point for the Select Committee, Republican Chairman Trey Gowdy emphasized at the January 27th hearing that “we’re gonna pick up the pace…. I have no interest in prolonging” the investigation into Benghazi.

“Letters haven’t worked. Southern politeness hasn’t worked. We’re going to ratchet it up,” he said at what members of the mainstream media, such as U.S. News and World Report, characterized as a “partisan grudge match.”

The next day, Chairman Gowdy issued a statement that defied Democrats outright, arguing he “will continue to move the investigation forward in a fair and impartial manner, but…will not allow the minority’s political games and unreasonable demands to interfere with the investigation.” Rep. Gowdy said he will continue operating under the scope originally set by the House of Representatives.

This, the media preferred to coin as political failure or “out of control” politics. “The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which began with dignity last year, spun out of control Tuesday as Democrats complained that Republicans were abusing their authority and Republicans threatened to spray the Obama administration with subpoenas,” wrote Dana Milbank for The Washington Post. Milbank specializes in snarky columns criticizing and marginalizing conservatives, and even took aim at the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi for a conference held on Benghazi in 2013.

Regarding the hearing last week, the Associated Press in turn remarked, “The partisan tone marked a sharp turnaround for a panel that had won praise for a bipartisan approach through its first two public hearings.”

The subject of the first two slow-rolling hearings was the current state of embassy security, a topic suggested by the committee’s Democratic members which had little to do with the administration’s response to the attack—and which conveniently glosses over the security failures of 2012 to emphasize present solutions instead of accountability.

MSNBC focused largely on political angles instead of substance. For Alex Seitz-Wald, it was all about Hillary Clinton. “Gowdy and Republicans had been hoping to preserve and grow the credibility of their inquiry, which is part of the reason for their assiduous avoidance of taking pot shots at Clinton Tuesday,” wrote Seitz-Wald. “But Democrats are seeking to undermine the credibility of the panel, in the hopes that it will be viewed as a partisan witch hunt if it ever demands testimony from Clinton.”

New bombshell reporting by The Washington Times shows that Clinton was the strong voice pushing to intervene in Libya in 2011 in the first place, which set the stage for the attacks. Ultimately, however, President Obama was the “Decider-in-Chief” and bears at least equal culpability.

Chairman Gowdy told Megyn Kelly of Fox News last May that he plans to subpoena Mrs. Clinton, and repeated that in December.  We now learn that the Select Committee has requested Clinton and other top State Department officials’ emails, and that Rep. Gowdy is willing to bring Clinton before the Committee just 30 days after receiving “all the [State Department] documents,” according to CNN.

Select Committee Members would also like to interview 22 persons with firsthand knowledge of Benghazi whom Congress has never spoken to before. The Associated Press reported on January 28, the day after the hearing, that State Department officials said they were ready to “commit” to interview dates for these persons.

But the press doesn’t seem interested in holding the administration accountable for the fact that the State Department waited from the December 4 request until January 28 to issue such a guarantee.

The State Department representative, Joel Rubin, said at the January hearing that a part of the committee’s relationship with the department is indicating priorities for requests—as if more resources could not be allocated to provide such information to the committee more swiftly.

Rubin, formerly of the Ploughshares Fund, also said at the hearing that he was a friend of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in 2012 at the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi. Rubin wrote the following for ThinkProgress that year:

“Instead of getting that support, their deaths are being used as a partisan attack on President Obama, part of a false narrative that the president failed them. What has failed them is our political system. Rather than supporting a serious, nonpartisan investigation into what took place and what went wrong, waiting to get all the facts out, conservatives are trying to affix blame for their deaths for political advantage. This is how some conservatives use terrorist attacks against America.”

Now Rubin helps guard the gates for that same President who would like this simply dismissed as a phony scandal.

Although the media, along with the Democrats, may accuse Chairman Gowdy of partisan politics as he attempts to more aggressively investigate the Benghazi attacks and the resulting cover-up, I am cautiously optimistic about his new tone.

“The letter exchanges between Gowdy and Cummings [prior to the hearing], as well as Tuesday’s hearings, should put to rest forever the fiction that this type of investigation can be conducted in some Nirvana-zone of bipartisan comity,” Kenneth Timmerman astutely wrote for Front Page Magazine.

With this new focus on government stonewalling, the Committee brought the possibility of embarrassing the administration to the fore, and the backlash was palpable.

Accuracy in Media and the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi have long been critical of the Mike Rogers’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report, which contains a number of factual errors and glosses over the intelligence failures leading up to the attacks. Apparently the Select Committee asked to examine the HPSCI’s research in October—and had been asking the Central Intelligence Agency for these files ever since. These files were only produced by the agency after learning that a hearing on them was scheduled.

Similarly, the State Department has produced 40,000 pages related to Benghazi, but Rubin wouldn’t answer as to whether the information provided to the Accountability Review Board was provided fully within those documents.

He also refused to say whether he thought the Select Committee was frivolous.

“If Gowdy is proceeding as a good prosecutor should, he is lining up all his ducks before he goes public with anything,” CCB member, and former CIA officer, Clare Lopez told WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi last week as part of a series of articles about the CCB’s own investigations. “I think it’s premature to jump to a condemnation of the process or the committee leadership when the truth is that we don’t know,” she said.

“Delays by Gowdy are unnecessary at this time,” CCB Member and Retired General Paul Vallely told Corsi after the Times’ bombshell dropped. “Gowdy can press forward now as he does have sufficient intelligence and documents to call all witnesses and issue subpoenas as necessary.”

“Additional delays will only give the obstructionists in the Obama White House, the State Department and the Democrats in Congress time to thwart the efforts of the select committee,” Vallely said.

While the administration continues to stonewall the Select Committee whenever possible, and Democrats continue to complain that the investigation isn’t bipartisan enough, the CCB will continue to search for the truth in its own citizen-led investigation.

We have already dug up some disturbing facts in our 2014 interim report, such as:

  • the administration decision to dismiss the possibility of truce talks with Moammar Qaddafi;
  • helping arm al-Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya; and
  • the inadequate military response that night.

“I don’t know if the decision came from the White House or from Hillary Clinton at the State Department,” Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic told Corsi about those failed truce talks. However, Admiral Kubic said, “…the advice for me from AFRICOM was to basically just leave everything alone, to simply stand down.” Who, exactly, at the White House decided it was unnecessary to pursue truce talks with Qaddafi?

The CCB and Accuracy in Media are continuing the search for the truth with our own Freedom of Information Act initiative. Currently, the Department of Defense is withholding 12 pages of maps from us regarding the position of military forces during the attacks.

As we await our day in court, we will not stop digging for the truth through whatever means are available to us. I am encouraged by the possibility that the Select Committee might likewise now use all the powers at its disposal to force the administration to reveal what happened that night and in the aftermath, not only to its Congressional investigators, but to the public as well. America deserves answers, not more stonewalling.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom