President Obama was interviewed prior to the Super Bowl on Sunday, and spent most of his time defending his actions while avoiding directly answering O’Reilly’s questions.

During the extended interview which was taped, O’Reilly asked Obama if he thought he had been unfair during the live interview and Obama answered in the affirmative.

Absolutely, of course you are, Bill. But I like you anyway.

O’Reilly then asked him in what way was he unfair.

We just went through an interview in which you asked about health care not working, IRS, were we wholly corrupt, Benghazi.

Uh, what did he expect?  Questions about  Michelle’s 50th birthday or what Sasha and Malia will do after Obama leaves the White House?

The questions that O’Reilly asked were ones that his administration has tried to avoid directly answering because they don’t have a good answer and it exposes the web of lies that the administration has been hiding behind.

O’Reilly did what he had to do and he was both respectful and fair.  The left thinks otherwise which only reinforces this as they were squirming along with Obama.

As a matter of fact O’Reilly could have been tougher and dug deeper, but he didn’t and that’s okay because he still made Obama uncomfortable which everyone who watched could see.


The disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act website-healthcare.gov has resulted in conservatives and Republicans in Congress to once again call for the repeal of Obamacare and earned the enmity of liberals who are confident that the problems that have occurred will be fixed and that the law will be a success.

What liberals like Chris Matthews rail about on a regular basis is the lack of a Republican alternative as if they need to create one.  The fact of the matter is that they do have an alternative plan.  Go back to what was in effect before Obamacare was passed.

Granted that it wasn’t a perfect system, but based on what has transpired in the last seven weeks, with the government website failing miserably along with many poorly performing state exchanges and millions of people being sent insurance cancellations notices, it is very clear that the old system was far better than Obamacare.

Instead of a free market system where individuals were able to choose the benefits and plans that they wanted and could afford, we now have a system that forces insurers to provide certain benefits- like pregnancy, whether or not a person wants or needs it, covers pre-existing conditions and expands Medicaid in states that opt-in, which drive up the cost of health care for everyone.

And while the Obama administration said that the goal was to insure the 30-40 million Americans who didn’t qualify for insurance due to their medical condition, or couldn’t afford it, the reality is that the law will wind up helping less than half that number, while adding yet to be determined costs to the health care system.

So in effect we have overhauled a system, that while imperfect was working t help maybe 12 million people out of the 315 million people living in this country.

Not only that but while people are being sent cancellation notices and being given more expensive alternatives, the taxpayers will be subsidizing many of the newly insured through tax credits that the government will give them to make insurance more affordable.  So the affordable in the Affordable Care Act needs an asterisk that should say it’s only affordable if you can get a  direct taxpayer subsidy.

Don’t forget that Obama promised that people could keep their plan and their doctor if they wanted to when he was pitching Obamacare even though he knew that it wasn’t the truth.  Even with his edict telling insurance companies to reinstate canceled plans, that doesn’t solve the problem.  For some reason Obama thinks that insurance companies and state insurance commissioners will be able to magically flip a switch and put everything back the way it was.

If you wanted a  good example of a nanny state- Obamacare is a poster child for it.

Maybe we should consider ourselves lucky that we only got stuck with Obamacare and not what the Democrats really wanted- a single payer system.

Talk about the lesser of two evils.


Sixty-one year old Dianne Barrette of Florida has become the poster child this week for the failure of Obamacare when CBS News revealed that her health insurance premiums will rise a whopping 994% thanks to the new law.

Barrette was paying $54 per month for a low-end plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, but that plan doesn’t meet the new standards under the Affordable Care Act and so now she will be forced into a more comprehensive plan that costs more than ten times more than her old plan.

While Barrette will be in a markedly better plan, she told CBS News’ Jan Crawford that she was perfectly happy with her old plan and couldn’t understand why she couldn’t keep it.  After all President Obama said that Americans would be able to keep their plans and their doctors under Obamacare, but that has proven not to be true.

Obamacare requires plans to cover pre-natal, mental health and a host of other conditions that Barrette’s plan didn’t cover, but something she felt she didn’t need,.  After all what does a 61-year old care about pre-natal care?

Health insurance is a complex issue and there are tens of thousands of plans available across America, that have been crafted to give buyers a choice of what they wanted to be covered for and how much they were willing to pay.  While the system isn’t perfect, it was working  about as well as could be expected.

Under Obamacare, the federal government is now setting standards and putting people into a kind of one-size fits all box.  Sure there are a few different types of plans based on what people are willing to pay, but choice has been dramatically reduced, which will cause many people to pay for coverage they don’t need or will never use.

This is what Barrette is facing.  She will likely qualify for federal subsidies, meaning she won’t have to pay the full $6600 increase in her annual premium, but guess where that subsidy will come from?  The U.S taxpayer.

Obama has moved America one step closer to a more socialist system with the passage of Obamacare, though I don’t think we will lurch further in that direction since the launch of the program has been nothing short of an absolute disaster, but it is a very good example of why the government shouldn’t be involved in our lives.

Another problem with Obamacare beyond the massive website failure has been the large number of people who have signed up for the expanded state Medicaid programs.

The initial figures show that the enrollments have topped 80% in some of the states and if it remains at that level going forward the programs will be in severe financial trouble as Obamacare was based on the premise that young people would sign up in droves and subsidize those on Medicaid, who tend to be older, poorer and sicker than the general population and require more medical care,

Barrette isn’t the only person facing the loss of her current plan- the latest count is that 1.5 million cancellation notices have gone out across the country, which is more than the number of people who have enrolled in Obamacare, and those people are likely going to be paying more.

This may be Obama’s signature achievement, but it is likely to also be his greatest failure as costs rise, saddling the taxpayers with more debt than America can ever hope to repay.

On Sunday’s State of the Union, CNN’s Candy Crowley had Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod squirming as he tried to explain how a second Obama administration would be different from the first.

Axelrod admitted that Obama isn’t happy with the economic results of the president’s first term, but they were making progress and that the country couldn’t afford to return to the policies of the past.

After Axelrod listed some of the things Obama would do in a second term, Crowley said that they weren’t specific and that they were really goals. She also added that none of the proposals that Axelrod mentioned have passed, in some cases after having been debated for two years.   Axelrod also failed to deliver when Crowley asked if their was going to be something new in  a second Obama term or will it be a “stay the course” administration, and replied with the same proposals that he had previously mentioned, which didn’t contain anything new as Crowley had suspected.

Utah which is seen as a solidly red state and will easily vote for Romney in November, will still see some votes cast for Obama, and most of them will come from the Salt Lake area.

That’s where the University of Utah is located and where the student body is one of the most liberal in the entire state.

That was reinforced this week with the release of a straw poll conducted by the Hinckley Institute of Politics, that showed Barack Obama was the favorite of students over Mitt Romney by a wide margin.

Obama was favored by almost 53 percent of the students with Romney finishing a distant second with nearly 38 percent of the vote among students.

Despite the presence of the Mormon Church which is headquartered in Salt Lake, and is one of the most politically conservative religions, the city and its surrounding area has trended liberal for years.  The recent mayors have been extremely liberal, and it is the only Democratic congressional district in the state, though that might change this year thanks to redistricting and a strong challenge by Saratoga Springs mayor Mia Love against incumbent Jim Matheson.

In the poll Matheson beat Love 51-28 percent, only underscoring the liberal tendency of the students.

While 30 percent of the students identified themselves as Democrats versus 29 percent as Republicans, 49 percent they favored Democrats in the state legislature versus 40 percent for Republicans.  That’s in contrast to the actual legislature, which is more than 75% controlled by the GOP.

So while the students may be out of step with the rest of Utah, they are right in line with the sentiments of Salt Lake.

MSDNC, I mean MSNBC struggled last night to deal with the aftermath of a shockingly easy victory for Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, leading to the delusional claim by Lawrence O’Donnell that Obama actually came out a winner.

O’Donnell wasn’t the only host on MSNBC to try and paint the Wisconsin results as a positive outcome as labor shill Ed Schultz masquerading as a talk show host called it a “great night for democracy.”because of the heavy voter turnout.

Schultz was right, but not because of the heavy voter turnout, but because the voters showed that they understood that the recall election was manufactured by the Democrats and the Occupy Movement, along with a big helping hand from Schultz and not for a legitimate reason such as corruption.

I wonder if Chris Matthews got another thrill up his leg as he anticipated a big labor victory earlier in the evening?

The nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) came in Friday below expectations, but you might not know it if you read the headline of the Washington Post on Saturday.

Rather than lead with the GDP number, the Post ran the headline- Economy continues on path of growth and talked about how consumer spending is up even though the savings rate dipped.

As for the GDP number though, readers didn’t find out about it until the 14th paragraph in the jump, where the jump was -economic growth cools but was buoyed by an uptick in consumer spending.

So the economy is both on a path of growth and is cooling at the same time?

And why is the GDP number not mentioned until the 14th paragraph when it’s one of our most important economic indicators?

Perhaps it’s because the slowing of GDP below economists forecasts and that of the Obama administration is not good news for a president seeking re-election.

But the Post has too much journalistic integrity to try and bury the bad news to help Obama, so that couldn’t be the reason for the subterfuge.

The fact of the matter is that the economy is indeed slowing down and could possibly slip back into a another recession as Great Britain has just done.

Maybe the editors at the Post still have hope for Obama, but the rest of the country needs a change.