by DANA LOESCH

“You can be powerful and stylish, too” said Obama. “That’s what Michelle would say.”

Oh THANK HEAVENS. Whew! I don’t know about you, but ladies, I feel completely at ease after hearing that I can be both powerful and stylish. I’m grateful that in a commencement address to a women-only college the President didn’t condescend to his audience with a speech on fashion magazines and beauty.

“Until there are women who tell her ignore our pop culture obsession over beauty and fashion and focus instead on studying and inventing and competing and leading, she’ll think those are the only things that girls are supposed to care about.”

Yes, in the year 2012, please imagine that your female audience cares for economics, please tell them how difficult it’s going to be for them to find a job because one out of two college grads can’t find employment. Tell them how you planned to secretly double their student loan rates anyway after the election. Please tell them, Mr. President, that on your watch women are hardest hit, so the odds stack up immeasurable against them. Hide from them, for the sake of your own reelection chances, how the female sex has been hardest hit by the unemployment numbers, with 324,000 of my sisters dropping from the job pool entirely because the prospect of employment is hopeless.

This President has a problem with the ladies. For such a “fabulous” speaker he has a proven inability to articulate adequately to women why they should support him beyond “free” birth control pills. A campaign/commencement speech that has all the grace of a Derek Zoolander eulogy on how women can be powerful, stylish, and should be leaders because, fashion magazines doesn’t cut it.
This is why Democrats are tanking in the polls with women.

When women go to purchase a new car, they don’t want to be told about the cup holders. They want to know about the milage, the engine, is it all-wheel drive?

Democrats can’t stop trying to sell women on cup holders.

Read more…

Share on Facebook

by MIKE FLYNN

Is Obama in over his head?

Obama and his allies in the media clearly live in the latter world. Unfortunately for them, the voters live in the other.

Today’s Rasmussen poll should be a shocking wake-up call that the Obama campaign needs to quickly find a way into the real world:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.
This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy. See tracking history.
Thirty-seven percent (37%) give the president good or excellent marks for his handling of the economy. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he’s doing a poor job. Consumer confidence has slipped four points since last week’s government report on job creation and unemployment. The number who believe their personal finances are getting better slipped from 30% a week ago to 28% today. The number who fear their finances are getting worse increased from 43% before the jobs report to 47% today.

Romney has only just wrapped up the GOP nomination. Obama has been campaigning for… well, he’s never actually stopped campaigning. He has access to all the tools of the Presidency and benefits from a sycophantic press corps, who focus their considerable resources on diverting attention away from the sad state of the economy. We’re told ad nauseum that Obama is “winning” the news cycle and forcing Romney to respond to him, rather than drive his own campaign. And yet, Romney is absolutely crushing Obama.

The problem for Obama and the compliant media is that the economic news is so bad that their old trick of focusing on social issues, which few people really care about, isn’t working. When you can’t find a job, worrying about whether Billy marries Bob is pretty far down on your priority list.

Don’t get me wrong; there are people who care passionately about social issues. They see both gay marriage and free birth control as fundamental civil or human rights. There just aren’t that many of them. Obama’s campaign needs to find a way to talk to the 99% of us who are worried about the economy and our children’s future.

Even messianic politicians ignore the voters at their peril.

Read more….

Share on Facebook

The sound of cronyism and the good ole boy system was heard from Charleston to Pickens Counties Wednesday with the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.  As described by The State newspaper, “Up to 100 candidates ordered off June Ballots.  Decision sweeps away many challengers, but largely spares incumbents in June races”.

Within the last two years, the State Ethics Commission made some changes to the filing process.  While change itself is not a bad thing, the new requirements are confusing and misleading.  All challengers must file their Statement of Economic Interest online as well as print a copy which needed to be submitted to the County Political Party at the time of their Party filing.  In years past, candidates could download or obtain a copy of the form.  Once completed, they would submit it to the Ethics Commission.  There was no electronic filing at the time.  To further complicate the matter, incumbent candidates can rely on their previously filed Statement on file with the Commission and were provided a longer timeframe to file an updated form.

Statements of Economic Interest (SEI) are simply disclosures of income and other assets.

In many cases, challengers attempted to comply with the new law by providing a receipt of their SEI along with their filing forms at the Party Headquarters.  Others filed their SEI after the Party filing deadline passed.  One example of the difference between an incumbent and challenger is in the Pickens County Senate race.  Rex Rice, the challenger filed his candidacy paperwork with the County Party on March 16^th and was told by the County GOP that he needed to file his SEI online which he did on April 9^th.  Incumbent Senator Larry Martin filed his SEI on April 10^th.  Under the ruling of the SC Supreme Court Rex Rice must be removed from the ballot, but Senator Martin will remain.

How this happened is more complicated than what happened.  South Carolina is a State that invests a large majority of its authority in one branch of government; the Legislature.  The Legislature not only retains their authority to write the law, they also retain the authority to implement or execute the law in many cases.  This becomes apparent when you look at the recent battle for real government reform in South Carolina.  However, it gets worse; much worse.  The Legislature also appoints the Judges.  That’s right, they create law, in many cases execute the law and they appoint Judges that review and rule on the law.

For anyone that has read the many newsletters sent out over the last several months concerning the Department of Administration and reform, you should now understand the ramifications of a government with an imbalance of power.  This is why we shouted from the rooftop what they are calling historic reform is anything but historic or reform.  Separation of power is the only thing that preserves our Representative Republic from becoming a pure Democracy or worse.

There is plenty of blame to go around.  First and foremost is the Legislature itself is to blame.  Once again, they chose to create law that obviously benefitted themselves just like they did when they created their own special retirement system whereby they not only collect retirement benefits while still working, but retirement benefits that only apply to them and to no other State or Local government employee.  So what we have is a Legislature that serves and protects itself first.

There is blame to place on the SC Supreme Court.  In my opinion, they did not view this case with a clear understanding of equal protection under the law.  If a law is written in a manner that does not apply to all people equally the law should be overturned.  This case seems to shout inequality between incumbents and challengers.

The South Carolina GOP certainly has a responsibility to not only understand the law but to make sure that all candidates comply with the law.  The SCGOP has attorneys to provide legal advice to the Party.  The Party should have made sure that County Parties understood and complied with the law.  In many cases challengers were given incorrect instructions from the County Party on meeting the requirements.

Finally, the candidates have responsibility to make sure they comply with the law.  The only wiggle room that a candidate has in this situation is the fact that this is the first election cycle since the new law has been implemented.  A reasonable person would expect everyone seeking election would have to comply with the same law.  They may also have had expectations that the Party would provide appropriate advice on what they needed to do in order to be on the ballot.

All South Carolinians lose in this fiasco.  In many cases the voters will not have a choice in who represents them in the South Carolina Senate or House.  South Carolinians lost the opportunity for real reform in our State’s government because they lost the opportunity to elect real reformers.  It appears that we are stuck with the same ole good ole boys that created this mess in the first place.

Challengers lost.  Challengers lost not only the money they invested into their campaigns, in some case they had to give up their job in order to run for office.  The supporters of challengers lost not only the money they had donated to the challenger, but the hope for a more conservative State government.

Among those that lost the most are the activist that sacrificed their time and money.  Many conservative activists in South Carolina have invested years of dedication in making citizens aware of the many issues with our State’s Legislature and convincing them to become involved in the process.  Many of the citizens actually became candidates for the first time.

South Carolina lost!  South Carolina lost the opportunity to reach beyond last place in education.  We lost the opportunity to move back from the front of the line in domestic violence.  We lost the opportunity to reduce our dependency on federal funding which is a result of unbridled government growth and spending.  We lost our opportunity for real government reform and restoring the balance of power in Columbia.  We lost our opportunity for real taxes reform and ending the choosing of winners and losers with government controlled economic development.

Yes, it appears these things may be lost.  Lost not because the people of South Carolina were not willing to work hard for improvement and reform, but lost because we cannot depend on the same politicians that created the problem to fix it.

Everyone except the education apparatus and the Legislature understands the reason South Carolina remains dead last in education is because of the bureaucracy that mandates a one-size fits-all mentality.  However, South Carolina’s Legislature has the same answer year after year; more money!  Everyone except our Legislature understands having the lowest taxes and least government regulation in the nation would bring thousands of companies and jobs to South Carolina.  Legislators also understand that if they were to give up that power, they also give up their influence with Big Donors to their campaigns and to the SCGOP as well.  Just remember, the feathers they used to line their nest came from your bed.

The larger question is; what are you going to do about it?

I did not start this fight, but it is one that I plan to win.  It is a fight that must be won if our children will have a future as free men and women devoid of punitive and confiscatory taxes and unwarranted regulations.  It has become a fight that will require no allegiances other than to freedom itself.  It must become personal, very personal!  The battle lines must now be redrawn and Party politics must be forgotten.  We must develop a new plan to replace those who have created the chaos.

Are you up for the fight?

Harry Kibler
Founder – RINO Hunt

We are faced with the fact that 17 of our Republican friends put their money out to run for office and were either given mis-information, no-information, or steered the wrong direction by one person in our Republican Party. Reports have it that the State EC attempted to aide, but was told to stay out of the process.

We have a chance to fix this past year’s long pile of blunders tomorrow – Monday, May 7, 2012 with the election of a new Vice-Chair and most importantly a new State Executive Committeeman. See you there.

Source of Counts by SCGOP: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtgtKoNHR5uNdEtoeGRSVUVlUnIybzNCOHk4dkVHSEE#gid=0

Share on Facebook

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
South Carolina Republican Party
Contact: Matt Moore, Executive Director
803-988-8440

SCGOP Issues Statement on Candidate Certification

Columbia, SC – The South Carolina Republican Party today issued a statement following the S.C. Supreme Court’s Noon, May 4 filing deadline:

“On behalf of all South Carolina Republicans, I am sad about this week’s candidate filing rulings, but am committed to following the S.C. Supreme Court’s instructions. Our party has meticulously analyzed the filing submissions in compliance with the standards set forth by the Court.

We respect the Court’s decision and in compliance with the Court’s order, we have submitted our list to the Election Commission. We are looking forward to moving ahead and anticipate animated and spirited primary contests on June 12th.”

Link to filings: CLICK HERE

Read more…..

Share on Facebook

If you like your doctor, you can keep her — unless you’re poor or disabled.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

BUT WAIT......

All of these folks are dually eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid; they are low-income people who are elderly or have disabilities. But it’s hard to see how they’ll be better off in bare-bones, and sometimes poorly-run state Medicaid plans than by getting access to Medicare options they were entitled to before ObamaCare.

The crux of the new policy is a “demonstration” program under ObamaCare. Starting in January in some states, it will turn over management of these “dual eligibles,” along with the money that the federal government was spending on their medical care.

States that want to move their poor and disabled Medicare recipients into state plans must submit their proposals by June. Some are jumping at the chance to capture federal Medicare dollars for their Medicaid programs.

Some states have already said they plan to automatically place these folks in existing Medicaid plans — which often aren’t equipped to serve an older, sicker group of patients. That will mean big savings for the state and worse care for the vulnerable.

New York hopes to move most of its 700,000 “duals” into a capitated managed-care model — that is, HMO-style care. It aims to enroll the bulk of the elderly poor and disabled by 2015. California plans to move up to 1.1 million duals into its state-run Medicaid managed-care system.

Real money is shifting around here. Wall Street estimates the entire “dual eligible” market at $350 billion a year. No surprise, Wall Street is bidding up the stocks of Medicaid HMOs on the expectation that many of these patients will end up in such plans.

Care is likely to suffer. Many of these elderly poor also suffer from a lot of chronic ailments like diabetes and lung disease. Although these 9 million “duals” comprise only 18 percent of people on Medicare, they account for about a third of all Medicare costs. The idea is that the states will be better able to more closely manage their costly health-care needs.

Strange: ObamaCare is treating the poor and disabled as one big group in shuttling them into state Medicaid plans. But these people have diverse medical problems, and have been most successfully served by Medicare programs that tailored services to their specific needs.

Indeed, many duals would have been eligible for better-run, better-financed Medicare Advantage plans that already exist in the Medicare program, or for Medicare “Special Needs” plans designed to serve these vulnerable patients. Now they’ll be funneled into state Medicaid HMOs instead.

The federal Medicare agency won’t reveal how much it’s paying states to care for each of these “dually eligible” seniors — the ObamaCare law specifically empowers it to keep the data secret. Nor do we know how much of that federal money states will get to keep if they do lower the cost of caring for these patients.

But the real goal seems to be propping up state Medicaid programs.

Medicaid, after all, is essential to the underpinnings of ObamaCare. Up to 20 million of the “newly insured” under Obamacare are being put into the Medicaid program, and Medicaid plans will form the scaffold for the insurance offered in the ObamaCare exchanges.

The Medicare actuary now estimates that ObamaCare will raise the number of people on Medicaid 40 percent by 2016 — to more than 80 million Americans. That new estimate shows a 50 percent greater rise in Medicaid enrollment than what the Congressional Budget Office projected when President Obama signed the bill two years ago.

Yet Medicaid is a broken program. It pays providers at such low rates than many patients can’t get access to timely care. The “duals” gambit looks like an effort to shore up Medicaid by subsidizing it with Medicare dollars.

It’s another case of how ObamaCare is designed to serve the existing health-care system, rather than transforming it to meet the needs of individual patients.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, an American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, was a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Bush administration. He consults with and invests in health-care companies.

Changing HMOs is like changing deck chairs on the Titanic.

Read more:

Share on Facebook