Jindal Claims Obama Told Him He doesn’t Trust Governors


Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Thursday that Barack Obama told him he doesn’t trust governors to protect their people.

IJReview.com quotes Jindal as saying,

“When we met with him as governors, I asked him, why don’t you give the states more influence on accrediting higher education, to bring more competition in the marketplace

“Here’s the insulting thing: In a room full of Democratic and Republican governors, basically, in so many words he said, ‘We can’t trust states. We can’t trust governors to protect their own people.’”

This is hardly a shocker. After all, the President and the feds know best about all things. That’s why they have sued the states over things like voter ID laws, immigration laws and union issues. That’s why they bypassed state legislatures as they snuck Common Core K-12 standards through the back door. That’s why they insist on imposing a school lunch menu that children refuse to eat.

Obama has a tendency to forget that our Constitution created a federalist system, where power is shared between the federal government and the states. He seems to forget the proud American tradition of local government, which works best because unique states and communities have unique needs and circumstances.

Or maybe he doesn’t forget any of that at all. Perhaps he believes that state and local governments are ridiculous entities that should step aside and let the big boys in Washington, D.C. call all the shots.

It’s just that stupid Constitution, the same document that prevents him from completely ruling by executive order and forces him to deal with that silly Congress on far too many issues.

CNN Anchor: Obama gets ‘Icy Reception’ at West Point Graduation

Mr Freeze

It’s hard to fault the guy – he simply read what was in the teleprompter. Nevertheless, Obama’s policy speech went over like a lead balloon with West Point graduates Wednesday.

Mediaite reports:

Obama’s “philosophical” speech to the 2014 graduates of West Point about a new direction for America’s foreign policy was “not a great” speech for that audience, said CNN anchor Jim Clancy on Wednesday. He said that the president did not sound like a “commander-in-chief speaking to his troops” and got an “icy reception” as a result.

“It was a philosophical speech,” Clancy said. “It was not a commander-in-chief speaking to his troops. And you heard the reception. I mean, it was pretty icy.”

Watch the clip here.

Experts Say Gasoline Prices Wouldn’t be So High if Obama Would Approve Keystone Pipeline

Obama_gas prices

Do you remember the 2008 presidential campaign, when candidate Barack Obama constantly attacked President George W. Bush for high gas prices?

Well guess what? Six years later prices as the pump are still hovering around the $4 per gallon mark, and President Obama continues to resist efforts to make the U.S. more energy independent.

Unless, of course, the term “energy independent” means a national reliance on green energy. But green energy is not nearly developed enough to power our economy. We still need a bigger and less expensive supply of fossil fuels if we hope to drive down energy costs that are sucking the life out of the economic recovery

In a recent column in Forbes magazine, two oil industry experts say the president’s reluctance to approve the Keystone pipeline project is contributing to the problem.
[Read more…]

Care to guess how many journalists self-identify as ‘liberal’ in the latest poll?

media bias
(Before It’s News)

It’s a wonder Republicans ever win any election in America.

They run for office on a hopelessly uneven playing field, created by referees (the media) who are openly rooting for the other team.

The good news is that voters seem to recognize and disapprove of the bias, and many do not allow it to sway their decisions when they step into the ballot booth.

Of course the media wields a great deal of power and influence over American public opinion.

It chooses the issues that get news coverage, and frequently presents information in a manner designed to manipulate public reaction.

That’s just the way it is in a free society with a necessarily vigorous and unobstructed media.

And of course reporters are overwhelmingly liberal and tend to work overtime to give Democratic candidates and their issues a boost.

Media types have always denied it, but there’s a mountain of conclusive evidence.

The newly-released results of a 2013 survey of 1,080 television, print and online journalists showed that 28 percent consider themselves Democrats and only seven percent say they are Republicans.

About 50 percent identified themselves as politically “independent,” which is far more appropriate for a journalist, and would be a good sign if it were indeed the truth.

But the percentage of self-identified “independent” journalists increased by a suspiciously high 18 percent since 2002, according to Newsbusters.org.

Perhaps their embarrassingly overt worship of Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign shamed some of them back into the ideological closet, but their preference is still obvious and their bias remains detectable in their work.

A 2010 report from the Media Research Center revealed the following:

A poll of journalists by the American Society of Newspaper editors found that self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in newsrooms 61 percent to 15 percent.

More than four-fifths of surveyed journalists said they voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election between 1964 and 1976.

In 1992, 88 percent of surveyed D.C. reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton for president. In 2004, the same group said it supported Democrat John Kerry over President George W. Bush by a 12-to-1 margin.

In 2009, a whopping 96 percent of the staff working for the online Slate magazine said they supported Barack Obama for president.

And get this – in the American Society of Newspaper Editors poll, 71 percent of editors admitted that reporters’ opinions “sometimes” or “often” influence their coverage.

“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic,” said Politico’s Jim VandeHei in 2012.

Given all of this, one might expect the U.S. to be a largely single-party state, with Democrats in control of pretty much everything.

That’s obviously not the case, which is a tribute to the intelligence of the American voter.

According to the Media Research Center report, most voters understand they’re being fed an incomplete picture by liberal journalists.

In every presidential election since 1992, most Americans said the media clearly backed the Democratic candidate.

In 2008, 70 percent of poll respondents perceived the media as being supportive of Obama, compared to 9 percent who said it favored Republican nominee John McCain.

“Nearly nine out of 10 Americans (87 percent) strongly or somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion,” the report said.

But here’s a key stat – Only 29 percent of poll respondents think reporters consistently get the facts correct, and only 18 percent said the media is fair.

The message is that most voters take news reports of political campaigns with a grain of salt and still vote the way they believe.

If that weren’t the case, there’s no way the GOP would control the U.S. House. There’s no way 29 out of 50 governors would be Republicans.

And the idea of Republicans regaining the U.S. Senate this year or the White House in 2016 would be laughable.

But those things might very well happen, despite the best efforts of the media.

So here’s to the average American voter, who is obviously smarter than most people think.

That’s probably why we have such a great nation, and the future still holds a great deal of promise.

Authored by Steve Gunn