Breaking: One 2016 Candidate Is About To Drop Out. The Reason Why Makes Perfect Sense

Former Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who said last week’s Democratic presidential debate was “rigged,” will drop out of the race Tuesday.

On Monday, there was speculation that Webb would run for president as an independent candidate. Fox News reported on Tuesday that Webb will not make that decision that day, but instead discuss any independent candidacy with friends before making a firm decision to run.

Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, had been unable to attract more than about 1 percent support for his campaign.

Fox News reported that Webb is disillusioned with both political parties and the ways in which they big-money interests are pushing them away from middle of the road positions to more extreme ones.

“The party has moved way far to the left,” Webb, a former Marine, told Fox News Sunday in July. “That’s not my Democratic Party in and of itself. We need to bring working people back into the formula.”

Last week, Webb complained that the Democratic debate offered him little time to answer questions.

The debate “was rigged in terms of who was going to get the time on the floor by the way that Anderson Cooper was selecting people to supposedly respond to something someone else said,” Webb said.

Webb’s departure leaves the Democratic field down to four candidates: Hillary Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley. Clinton has led the field from the start of the race. Only Sanders has shown significant levels of rising support among Democratic voters.

h/t: Fox News

Watch: Dem Candidate Asked About Guns At Debate, Delivers Stunning Answer Most Never Expected

As the Democrat Party seems to drift further to the left with every election, one question during last night’s Democrat presidential debate seemed geared toward evoking what many might think of a typical, liberal anti-gun answer. But one Democrat on that stage didn’t appear to follow the liberal playbook.

CNN debate host (and frequent panel member at events for the Clinton Foundation) Anderson Cooper turned to former Virginia Senator Jim Webb..

“Let me bring in somebody who has a different viewpoint,” Cooper said, alerting the crowd that Webb is not a standard Democrat on the issue. “Senator Webb, your rating from the NRA, you once had an A rating from the NRA. You’ve said gun violence goes down when more people are allowed to carry guns. Would encouraging more people to be armed be part of your response to a mass shooting?”

At first, Webb noted that the largest amount of violence with guns in America is not from “mass shooting,” but from gang warfare.

“Look, there are two fundamental issues that are involved in this discussion,” Webb began. “We need to pay respect to both of them. The first is the issue of who should be kept from having guns and using firearms. And we have done not a good job on that.”

“A lot of them are criminals,” Webb pointed out. “And a lot of the people are getting killed are members of gangs inside our urban areas. And a lot of them are mentally incapacitated. And the shooting in Virginia Tech in ’07, this individual had received medical care for mental illness from three different professionals who were not allowed to share the information.”

Webb then noted that he supports background checks and efforts to keep guns from mentally incompetent people. But it was his closing comment on the topic that really seemed to set him apart from the liberal line.

“There are people at high levels in this government who have bodyguards 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The average American does not have that, and deserves the right to be able to protect their family.”

h/t: Daily Caller

BREAKING: Hillary Gets Another Challenger For The Nomination, As Democratic Field Gets Bigger

Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb formally announced his candidacy to seek the Democratic presidential nomination. It will be an uphill battle for Webb, as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is the consensus favorite, according to recent polls.

Webb made the announcement through a statement on his website Thursday. He acknowledged the difficulty of winning the hearts and minds of Democratic voters:

I understand the odds, particularly in today’s political climate where fair debate is so often drowned out by huge sums of money. I know that more than one candidate in this process intends to raise at least a billion dollars – some estimates run as high as two billion dollars – in direct and indirect financial support. Highly paid political consultants are working to shape the “messaging” of every major candidate.

A RealClearPolitics average of Democratic presidential polls has Webb at 2.3 percent, almost 60 points behind Clinton.

Webb, who served as secretary of the Navy under former president Ronald Reagan, took a jab at Clinton’s vote to go into Iraq. “Let me assure you, as President I would not have urged an invasion of Iraq, nor as a Senator would I have voted to authorize it,” he wrote.

I warned in writing five months before that invasion that we do not belong as an occupying power in that part of the world, and that this invasion would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions, empowering Iran and in the long run China, unleashing sectarian violence inside Iraq and turning our troops into terrorist targets.

The former senator also said he would work to “restore true economic fairness” by “making our tax laws more balanced and increasing the negotiating leverage of our working people.”

In his statement, Webb also called for criminal justice reform. “This isn’t a political issue, it’s a leadership issue. It’s costing us billions of dollars,” he wrote. “It’s wasting lives, often beginning at a very early age, creating career criminals rather than curing them. It’s not making our neighborhoods safer.”

Would Jim Webb be a formidable Democratic opponent? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Says Libya is Not War, It’s “Noise”

Jim Emerson,

When asked about his personal war against Libya and criticism about ignoring congress in a blatant disregard of the War Powers Act the President brushed both aside as just “noise”. Obama has no intention to seek congressional approval as required by law. The President wants Americans to ignore the fact that the incursion into Libya was supposed to be a US Lead effort to establish a UN mandated “No Fly Zone” and no more.

He wants us to overlook the fact that this “kinetic military exercise” which started as a NATO air operations is now an overt effort to assassinate Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi.

Congress Strikes Back

In an effort to justify the president’s contempt for the law, legal adviser to the State Department Harold Koh stated “From the outset, we noted that the situation in Libya does not constitute a war”. Outraged, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) shot back, “When you have an operation that goes on for months, costs billions of dollars, where the United States is providing two-thirds of the troops, even under the NATO fig leaf, where they’re dropping bombs that are killing people, where you’re paying your troops offshore combat pay and there are areas of prospective escalation — something I’ve been trying to get a clear answer from with this administration for several weeks now, and that is the possibility of a ground presence in some form or another, once the Qaddafi regime expires — I would say that’s hostilities.”

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) accused the White House of “sticking a stick in the eye of Congress,” saying it had done “a great disservice to our country.”

On the other hand, Senators John Kerry ( D. Mass.) and John McCain (R. Az.) have passed a resolution supporting the president’s action while asking the House and fellow senators to forget how president Obama didn’t obey….

Read more.

Wrong Boehner; Obama is Breaking the Law Right Now

by Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

Only in the liberal media can a weak entreaty to obey the law be considered an act of political warfare. The media have portrayed House Speaker John Boehner’s letter to Barack Obama, merely asking the president for another legal explanation for his war-by-decree in Libya, as “ratcheting up the pressure.” The New York Times correctly noted, “it is not clear if [Boehner’s Congressional] resolution and follow-up letter have any teeth.” It is actually a five-day pass to keep breaking the law.

The text of Boehner’s letter reads, “it would appear that in five days, the Administration will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution unless it asks for and receives authorization from Congress or withdraws all U.S. troops and resources from the mission.” After blasting the president’s “refusal to comply with the basic tenets of the War Powers Resolution,” Boehner invokes the Constitution – but not the section many legal scholars may have expected. Instead of noting what our Founding document has to say about the power to declare war, Boehner writes: “The Constitution requires the President to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ and one of those laws is the War Powers Resolution, which requires an approving action by Congress or withdrawal within 90 days from the notification of a military operation.”

There are only four problems with Boehner’s letter: it’s wrong on the Constitution, it’s wrong on the law, it offers no consequences for wrongdoing, and it came 30 days too late. Obama is in violation of the War Powers Resolution right now.

The Constitution or Cronyism?

Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman of California gave a more accurate assessment nearly a month ago when he said Obama is “shredding the Constitution.” Today, the House passed an amendment Sherman authored to….

Read more.