Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (88320)	5/16/2012 6:13:26 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

What Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn't By John Lott May 16, 2012 foxnews.com{linkBack}_What_Zimmerman%2C_Martin_medical_reports_tell_us_and_the_media_didn%27t The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find. First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound. Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury. It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. But here is what is missing: where are the injuries to Zimmerman’s hands? Where are the bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body? The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows. The broken skin on Martin’s knuckles and Zimmerman’s wounds obviously provide some justification for self-defense. But if Zimmerman is to have justifiably used self-defense, he can’t have provoked Martin’s attack. The affidavit filed by the prosecutor against Zimmerman was extremely weak and had many glaring omissions. It does not answer the most crucial question: Who attacked whom? All it states is: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” “Confronted” does not mean “provoked” or “assaulted.” It may mean that Zimmerman merely followed Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Surely Zimmerman had the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. But, in any case, Zimmerman simply asking Martin why he was in the neighborhood doesn’t give Martin the right to start striking him or pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk. Simple words do not justify hitting someone. Anyway, it appears that Zimmerman didn’t even question Martin. The 911 tape of Zimmerman reporting a strange person in the area indicates that Zimmerman didn’t even try to ask Martin a question. When the police operator told Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that [following Martin],” Zimmerman appears to have stopped following Martin and agreed to go to where the police would be arriving. The medical evidence implies that Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin and thus there was no justification for Martin to start hitting Zimmerman. With the case unraveling, it makes the prosecutor’s behavior look even more outrageous. The prosecutor wasn’t required to go to the grand jury for the indictment, but the fact that she didn’t in such a high-profile case is troubling. Everyone knows how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to indict, because only the prosecutor presents evidence and the standard of proof is very low. A grand-jury indictment would have provided political cover; that charges were brought without one means that the prosecutor was worried that even a grand jury would not give her the indictment. The Obama administration has been fanning the flames, and it isn’t just President Obama’s attempt to personalize the tragedy. News reports surfaced Tuesday that the US Justice Department was pushing hard to charge Zimmerman, who is part black himself, with a hate crime because Martin was black. Such a charge can carry a life prison term or even the death penalty. Yet, Zimmerman and his wife mentored two black children for free. A recent R euters report that interviewed Zimmerman’s neighbors found that both black and Hispanics viewed Zimmerman as someone who cared deeply about his neighbors and volunteered to head the community watch to help them. The claim that Zimmerman referred to blacks as “f***ing coons” has long since been dropped. Using this case for political purposes has already come at a real cost. In Gainesville, Florida; Oak Park, Illinois; Mobile, Alabama; Toledo, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and possibly Norfolk, Va., blacks have attacked whites in what they think is revenge for Zimmerman attacking Martin because he was black, and those are just the cases where the perpetrators would make some comment such as “This is for Trayvon.” The media has been partially responsible for this aftermath with its sensational reporting. Recent coverage has helped to balance things out, but responsible reporting requires still more. Bottom line: the medical reports about George Zimmerman are revealing a lot more information than the media have so far let on. Read more: foxnews.com

To: Land Shark who wrote (88320)	5/16/2012 6:22:59 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

Democrats balk on Walker recall election communities.washingtontimes.com PHOENIX, May 16, 2012 — After months of a media frenzy surrounding Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the changes made to the collective bargaining process in Wisconsin, Democrats have balked on the upcoming June 5 recall election. The effort to recall Walker began last November, when United Wisconsin in coalition with the Democratic party began collecting signatures to initiate a recall election in Summer 2012. Within 60 days of launching its signature drive, United Wisconsin had already collected well over one million pledges to recall Walker. At the end of March, an official recall election was confirmed, and Democratic and Republican primaries were set to take place in May. Controversy struck the recall efforts when 29 Wisconsin circuit court judges signed recall petitions against Walker. The Wisconsin state Supreme Court issued an advisory opinion in 2001 stating that while judges are allowed to sign petitions to help support candidates getting on the ballot, they cannot endorse specific candidates. Landmark Legal Foundation filed a suit requesting that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission properly investigate this misconduct. In April it was announced that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission would investigate the issue, however the specifics of the investigation would never actually meet the public eye. Despite the judicial controversy, the Democratic and Republican primaries proceeded. Incumbent governor Scott Walker won the Republican primary, with Milwaukee mayor and Democratic nominee for governor in 2010, Tom Barrett, winning the Democratic primary. Since then, little has been heard about the recall effort that had Democrats in a tizzy in 2011. The majority of polls show Walker once against beating Barrett, with a recent Public Policy Polling poll showing Walker garnering 50 percent of the vote to Barrett’s 45 percent. This 5 percent margin was unchanged since PPP last polled Wisconsin voters in April, showing that the May 8 Democratic primary did nothing to help boost Barrett’s chances at beating Walker in June. However, Barrett’s failure to catch steam might be at the fault of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In an exclusive report by the Washington Post, top Wisconsin Democrats are furious at the DNC for not helping to fund Barrett’s gubernatorial bid against Walker. “We are frustrated by the lack of support from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governors Association,” a top Wisconsin Democratic Party official told the Washington Post. “Scott Walker has the full support and backing of the Republican Party and all its tentacles. We are not getting similar support.” On top of that, the far-left group, MoveON.org, blasted the DNC in an email this week saying “The Democratic National Committee isn't investing in the massive get out the vote effort in Wisconsin to recall Scott Walker....Wisconsin is ground zero for Democrats this summer....the DNC’s lack of support has left a huge hole”. The MoveOn.org email also urged its followers to contribute five or more to help recall Gov. Walker. The Wisconsin Democratic Party has reportedly asked the DNC for a lump sum of $500,000 to help recall Walker. While the DNC has vocally supported the recall effort, their financial contributions to Wisconsin tell a different story. The Republican National Committee (RNC) on the other hand is spending top-dollar to help squash the recall efforts by the Democrats. It is curious to see as to why the DNC isn’t helping in the efforts to recall Walker. Not only is Wisconsin the battleground for big labor to be squashed, but it is also a key swing-state that Obama could very well lose in November. Walker is leading in all the polls by at least a five-point margin and the Democrats are looking the other way. Either they have some kind of yet to be unveiled master plan to defeat Walker, or they’ve simply given up so soon.

To: Land Shark who wrote (88320)	5/17/2012 12:05:00 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 89467

President Obama's Place In U.S. History: Debt-Monger By MIKE COSGROVE 5/16/2012 news.ptest.investors.com The U.S. economy generated federal tax revenues of $2.6 trillion in 2011 — a sizable pot of funds. Yet the federal government spent much more, with the result being a federal budget deficit of over one-third of tax revenues. That is very weak stewardship by President Obama. In comparison, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, generated net revenue of $97 billion last year and was criticized by Obama for a $2 billion trading loss — a 2% hit on net revenue. Stockholders of JPM ate that loss. But U.S. taxpayers need to shoulder higher taxes for years for the trillions of dollars of outstanding federal debt that Obama has added since becoming president. Hypothetically, what would be the results if Obama and Dimon traded leadership roles? One wouldn't be surprised if the shares of JPM took a major dive while the overall U.S. equity market rose and economic growth accelerated. It is more useful to compare the performance of Obama to recent U.S. presidents in terms of additions to the outstanding federal debt. The U.S. is weighed down with excess sovereign debt of over 100% of gross sovereign debt to gross domestic product. As recently as 2000, the same ratio was 55%. And the sovereign debt explosion post-2008 has been particularly egregious. The following table summarizes the issue in terms of: 1) additions to sovereign debt per year by recent presidents and 2) the productivity of those sovereign debt additions (their multiplier.) Message: President Clinton's policy of austerity for Federal outlays worked. The nonausterity policies of Reagan and the two Bush presidents added major increments to the U.S. sovereign debt issue. Clearly President Obama is the all-time leader in adding to the outstanding Treasury debt. In his first three years in office, he has added $3.3 trillion of inflation-adjusted debt to outstanding federal debt. Obama's record-setting pace added $1.1 trillion per year to taxpayer obligations. He will add more than $1 trillion this year to the outstanding debt. Among all past presidents of the U.S., there can be no doubt: Obama is the clear winner at adding to the U.S. taxpayer obligations. He has found his place in history. How did this federal debt explosion happen? Sovereign debt additions are a long-running problem, and U.S. voters and politicians repeated many of the mistakes of debt-laden countries in Western Europe and Japan. Adverse policies to put America on this path of excessive sovereign debt started in the 1930s when Social Security was established as a defined pay-as-you-go benefit program instead of a defined contribution program. Along came Medicare in the 1960s — another defined benefit program. Approximately half of Medicare expenditures are funded from general revenues, the other half from Medicare taxes. Income-tax policy has evolved to exclude half the people who file a federal income-tax return. Entitlements and income-support programs flow to one portion of the voters;the other half pays the federal income tax to support the programs. The design of Social Security, Medicare and the tax system led, in part, to today's entitlement problems and excessive central government outlays. Obama appointed the Bowles-Simpson commission, whose deficit-reduction plan was released in late 2010. Had the president pushed the entitlement and tax reform of his commission, he would have been able to take credit for leadership and for major success if the parameters of Bowles-Simpson had passed Congress. Major changes modeled on the major parts of Bowles-Simpson need to be implemented to restructure the entitlement programs and the tax system. The longer the delay in restructuring entitlements and the U.S. tax system, the greater the cost to economic growth and U.S. taxpayers.