WHAT'S NEW?
Loading...

The Washington Redskins have made a quarterback change: Kirk Cousins will be the starter this season, not Robert Griffin III.

"When it's all said and done, after all the film we've gone through, after all the offseason activity, all the training camp footage, we feel like at this time, Kirk Cousins gives us the best chance to win and that's where we're going. It's Kirk's team.

"Kirk has done an outstanding job. Robert has done some great things no question, we have total faith in all three of them. But moving forward, with all the things we've studied over the course of training camp and OTAs, we just feel like Kirk has earned the right to be the starting quarterback for 2015.

It's a good problem to have to have three quarterbacks that are competing and working their butts off and I feel like all three of them are capable quarterbacks. Some people say when you have three, you don't have one and I disagree with that. We have three good quarterbacks that I feel good about.

"I just feel like Kirk right now gives us the best chance," head coach Jay Gruden said.


The latest Monmouth University Poll of likely Iowa Republican voter finds Ben Carson and Donald Trump tied for the top spot. This marks the first time since July 26 that a poll in any of the first four nominating states has not shown Trump with a nominal lead.

Not surprisingly, given the top two contenders in the poll, most Iowa Republicans prefer someone without a traditional political pedigree. At this early stage, though, the vast majority of voters say their eventual support could go to one of several other candidates in spite of their current preference.

When Iowa Republicans are asked who they would support in their local caucus, Ben Carson (23%) and Donald Trump (23%) tie for the top spot. The next tier of candidates includes Carly Fiorina (10%) and Ted Cruz (9%), followed by Scott Walker (7%), Jeb Bush (5%), John Kasich (4%), Marco Rubio (4%), and Rand Paul (3%). The last two Iowa caucus victors, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, each garner 2% of the vote.

None of the other six candidates included in the poll register more than 1% support.

“These results mark a significant shake-up in the leaderboard from Monmouth’s Iowa poll taken before the first debate,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long Branch, NJ. “Carson and, to a lesser extent, Fiorina have surged, while Walker has faded into the background.”

The poll of 405 Iowa Republicans was conducted between Aug. 27 and Aug. 30 and has a 4.9 percentage point margin of error.
We told you this was coming after Walmart's big February announcement that it was raising the minimum wage for workers in the retailer giant's U.S. stores.

From Bloomberg:

"Wal-Mart Stores Inc., in the midst of spending $1 billion to raise employees’ wages and give them extra training, has been cutting the number of hours some of them work in a bid to keep costs in check.

"Regional executives told store managers at the retailer’s annual holiday planning meeting this month to rein in expenses by cutting worker hours they’ve added beyond those allocated to them based on sales projections.

"The request has resulted in some stores trimming hours from their schedules, asking employees to leave shifts early or telling them to take longer lunches, according to more than three dozen employees from around the U.S. The reductions started in the past several weeks, even as many stores enter the busy back-to-school shopping period."

Read more....

A long time reader sent me this very interesting comment and question about the federal minimum wage:

“It’s the government’s job is to keep business honest. If business paid a wage that is in line with the cost of living, workers could afford to pay for their housing, healthcare and education without government assistance.

In 1969. the federal minimum wage was in line with the cost of living. “What, in your opinion, has happened since then?”

First of all, the minimum wage and honesty have nothing in common.

Labor is worth the value it creates less compensation for the risk taken by the business that hired the labor. Think about that for a second before reading any more.

Note: there is no reference in that definition to cost of living.

There are also various floors and ceiling that wrap around that value. Labor can never be worth more than the capital it takes to replace it (would you pay a welder $50K per year if you could buy a welding robot than only costs $25K per year to buy and operate?).

Labor is also impacted by supply and demand. If there are lots of people skilled at a job and only few of these jobs to be had, wages will be depressed. The inverse is true if there are few skilled people and lots of jobs.

Again, no mention of cost of living. These numbers are all “soft”; value is perceived by the buyer (employer).

If $1 of labor creates $10 of profit at an auto plant, then those workers are underpaid. That was the case in the early years of auto manufacturing. They unionized and got more. Good for them.

But if they drive their wages too high, they bring capital alternatives into play and cause jobs to be lost. Even before globalization, this was happening in Detroit because the unions pushed their advantage too far.

Most service jobs pay far less than construction or manufacturing because they add less value, require far less skills to perform, and can be more cheaply replaced by capital. McDonalds could easily get a robot that would be the fries in the oil and take them out when they are done. If it cost them $20 an hour to pay a laborer to do that job, they would go with the robot.

In an era where technology is moving so fast and becoming so cheap, be careful with minimum wage laws. BTW, although I think it is only a small part of the equation, ZIRP also makes capital cheaper than employees; Obamacare makes the cost risk of having employees much higher, so you see the mass exodus to part-time to avoid that risk.

The private sector jobs that historically pay the most (median or average real wages) in the U.S. are manufacturing, mining / exploration, construction, banking, and certain professional services. Most of those areas are under assault by our own government, and at the worst time possible because this internal assault is happening at the same time labor markets are becoming global.

I know of several businesses in the last few years that might have opened U.S. factories, but opted not to because they wanted to get to market faster than the regulatory processes would allow. They had plants in China up and running in just a few months; something that would have taken years here.

As we abandon high-value add sectors and replace them with lower-value ones, wages will by definition go down. That is exactly what is happening. You cannot fix the problem by mandating wages, the unintended consequences will far outweigh any benefits.

What the U.S. needs to do is encourage high value-add industries to be here. We must win against global competition.

I believe we can, but not if we keep shooting ourselves in the foot; and not if we think that Government can simply mandate the solution to every problem and that business will take it without a fight.

If “the market,” i.e. the aggregate of those who seek to hire workers and those who seek to work in a particular job and job market, equilibrates at a certain wage level, laws that mandate a different wage level create an inefficiency. Money gets used less optimally, opportunity costs grow, and productivity/productivity improvements lag.

Lets say that the equilibrium wage for those fry cooks is $7/hour, yet the mandate is at $9/hour. And, lets say that the restaurant still needs those 5 fry cooks to satisfy demand. Where does the money come from? The infinitely deep pockets of the money bag owners? If the restaurant was truly that profitable, competition would very quickly drive prices downward until profits matched the owners’ aggregate required minimum rate of return (factoring in risk assumption, capital investment, workload, etc).

What will happen instead, and this is where statists always drop the ball, is that the cost of this labor will be passed on to the consumers. The consumers will then choose to dine out less often, choose to spend less money on other things, or a combination of the two. The fry cooks make more money, but they’re not producing more wealth. Everyone’s standard of living decreases a bit.

And, in the aggregate, reduced sales will reduce employment levels. Maybe this one restaurant still keeps its 5 fry cooks. But, maybe with lower sales levels, a waiter gets cut from the payroll. Or, with less discretionary income available to the consumers, other businesses suffer declines in sales and cut staff.

And, there’s the whole automation issue on top of it. If you raise the minimum wage to the point where it is better for an employer to buy a machine and hire a skilled worker to run it, rather than use two or more unskilled workers, how does that achieve your goal?

Shallow thinking is how such stupid notions as mandated minimum wages continue to have traction. The smart statists know that minimum wages are kabuki/dog-and-pony shows for the gullible and economically illiterate. They’re panders.

The statists who don’t care about the vibrancy of the economy know that minimum wages are overt redistribution, harmful to economies but more “fair” in their overlordish view.

Those who have any sort of ambition learn skills while working at entry-level jobs, and thus increase their worth and their wage. It’s a narrative that’s occurred a hundred million times in this nation – immigrant lands on these shores, often with no marketable skills and limited language skills, and goes to work doing the lowest level of labor. He works, learns skills, gets raises either in-house or by moving from employer to employer, and lo and behold, he’s no longer working a bottom rung job for the lowest wage.

Statists presume that people’s lives are static, when in reality income levels and standards of living are quite dynamic. They often talk about wage inequality, while conveniently noting that the people at the lowest wage levels 10 or 20 years ago are by and large not the people at the lowest wage levels today.

A higher minimum wage gets in the way of upward social mobility by making that first step harder to take. But, you gotta give them credit for consistency. Progressive taxation does the exact same thing: work against people’s upward mobility. Best to keep people down and dependent.

Increasing expenses for a small business with no corresponding increase in income will force many of those small businesses to close up shop, which in turn will decrease demand for workers.

Despite what President Obama and the liberal left would have you believe, not all business owners are rich. Most small business owners are not “rich” but are in the middle class.

Causing those small businesses to close will actually reduce the middle class and increase the lower class.

Minimum wage jobs are not meant to be a living wage. They are entry-level jobs to provide an opportunity to develop some job skills and experience.

Many people understand this, and realize that even working for “nothing” in an internship or a volunteer job for a few months can boost your future prospects considerably. Letters of recommendation can go a long way to upgrading your next form of employment.

Instead of institutionalizing victim-hood in poor people, which is what President Obama and the liberals specialize in, they should be educating poor young people to think past the minimum wage, and focus on their future: work hard, get along with others, move up and make something of yourself. Get some additional training. There is no, and will be no substitute for that in the future.

Brainwashing poor youth that they will stay poor unless the “fat cats” on Wall Street hand over bags of money to them has done inestimable harm to generations of poor kids. Liberals have done more harm to poor people than the “robber barons” of the 19th century who were not always very nice about it, but at least provided opportunities for work.

We live in a global jobs market. Technology is accelerating at finding new ways to do repetitive, and even some non-repetitive tasks, with few or no people. We have a vast “entitlement” network that effectively brings anyone whose income is below the “poverty line” (middle to upper-middle-class in most of the rest of the world) to over that line.

Now introduce a significant minimum wage jump into that mix, and walk through the effects. The 500,000 job loss estimate by the CBO is likely very low, probably by a factor of 3 to 10.

McDonalds is already exploring technology solutions to replace some in-store workers. You just gave them $3 per hour more reasons to invest more in those programs and implement them much, much sooner.

I’m sure WalMart is looking at how to use Amazon robot picker technology in their stores to stock shelves. You just gave them a lot more reasons to invest more and move more quickly.

Lots of companies see the opportunity to move customer service and other clerical functions to India or the Philippines, but have held off because the economics didn’t justify the effort. Now it will. Lots of companies now use co-packers in the US to do high labor-content work at low wages, now moving that work to China or Mexico becomes more appealing. Not to mention that the “labor black market” for illegals will grow as the spread between what you have to pay legal labor v. illegal widens.

All the while, they needn’t worry about the employees they let go; most will be as well off or better getting free Obamacare, SNAP, child care, educations, etc. And the long-term implications for the US economy as a whole isn’t McDonald’s or WalMart’s or anyone else’s problem.

I’d like to see lower and middle-class wages go up. But government mandating it won’t make it happen. We need to focus on finding new ways to use that labor that adds greater and greater value. But that takes hard work and allowing the private sector to have the room to experiment.
Man made global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis with some supporting evidence and some refuting evidence. This is a far cry from "settled science." If a consensus exists among many scientists and politicians, it is not due to the science but to other factors--human desire for consensus, or action, or to find fault with Man's interactions with nature.

Our solar system is spinning through the universe on a roughly 24,000 year cycle. We have recently learned that 94% of the universe is dark matter, which we barely understand.

Do you think that these facts--and they are provable facts--have some effect on our climate? It's hard not to. Guess what role they play in climate models?

A few more points to ponder:

1) There are thousands of peer-reviewed Atmospheric studies studies that denounce AGW as alarmism.

2) AGW climate change ideas have never progressed beyond the theory stage.

3) Not a single AGW climate change hypothesis has survived scientific challenge and scrutiny.

4) AGW climate change zealots cannot identify a specifically trend change outside norms that is permanent and not a temporary outlier that was caused by man's actions or inaction.

5) AGW climate change zealots never try to separate naturally occurring climate from man-made climate changes because they can't and they don't even want people to think about how small our actions might be in the overall theory.

6) No scientist can state, with any authority, that a reduction of X activity will result in Y climate change "improvement" and whether that result is meaningful.

7) No realistic quantification of required resources to make an X% "improvement" has been developed

8) No outline of what the trade-offs would have to be in order to achieve said X% improvement has been explained or whether it is realistic that we could achieve it.

9) Climate change zealots do not expect to make any personal changes to their lives otherwise demand would be outstripping supply for so-called green technologies, smaller homes if not tents, vegetarian restaurants, etc and supply would be outpacing demand for airlines services, hotels, single use plastic bottles etc.

10) Climate change slush fund activities undermine real efforts to improve the environment and tackle real challenges and undermine the credibility of the sciences and of real scientists.

Climate change? What climate change? Scientific facts? Allow me a slight diversion.

Lately people like to refer to the “explanatory power of climate change” because that sounds scientific! When they do be alert to a con job being pulled on them by politicians, who may have been conned themselves by a higher authority. It illustrates perfectly a misunderstanding and mistake continuously made about how science is done and what it means to say that there are scientific answers.
A man charged with killing a suburban Houston officer first shot the 10-year veteran in the back of the head and fired a total of 15 times, authorities said Monday.


On Saturday, 30-year-old Shannon J. Miles of Cypress, Texas was arrested and charged with capital murder for the Friday killing of a 47-year-old Harris County Sheriff's deputy Darren H. Goforth. Miles is accused of gunning down Goforth at a Chevron station at Telge and West in Houston.

Goforth was shot and killed Friday night while filling up his patrol car at a suburban Houston gas station. Officials confirmed that 47 year old Deputy Darren H. Goforth was shot from the back "execution-style."

"He was literally gunned down in what appears to be an unprovoked, execution-style killing. I have been in law enforcement for 45 years, I have never seen anything this cold-blooded," Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said.

Harris County Sheriff''s Department spokesperson Deputy Thomas Gilliland confirmed the deputy was in uniform and pumping gas at a station off Telge and West when he was shot several times from behind.

"A male suspect came up from behind the deputy and shot the deputy multiple times. The deputy then fell to ground. The suspect then continued over to him and shot the deputy again multiple times as he laid on the ground.

"This is a very tough moment right now for the Harris County Sheriff's Office. I can ask you if you give us your prayers and your thoughts.

"It's tough enough being a deputy and being in law enforcement in this country right now, but for people, the way that they are right now, I have no words for what this type of person did, the callousness is much," Gilliland said.

Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott issued a statement Saturday saying that "heinous and deliberate crimes against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the State of Texas."

"Texas reveres the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve their communities.

"Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to Deputy Goforth's family and the Harris County Sheriff's Office during this difficult time. I know local law enforcement will work tirelessly to apprehend the killer and ensure justice for Deputy Goforth is served," Abbott said.


Miley Cyrus shook a long ponytail and strutted in barely there silver straps Sunday on the red carpet at the MTV Video Music Awards. Other stars rocked outrageous fashion of both the couture and casual variety.

The human fallibility of science is amply and tragically demonstrated through the centuries, including our current one. Our long recognized desire for data to fit preconceptions has generated research constructs that attempt to compensate for our biases - our desires. Thus, for example, medical research uses placebo controls and double blinding.

When the desires of human scientists are laced powerfully with wealth, power and prestige, disgrace can result, as a recent slew of retracted medical research publications can attest. Money, power and prestige. Any scientist, or body of scientists can succumb.

Thus my strong reservations about the extraordinarily politicized, monied and public assertions of impending Anthropogenic Global Warming cataclysm. Frenzied absurdity is epitomized by solemn Nobel acclaim for Al Gore? Can anybody else see the emperor's new clothes?

What's important for science here is that research and debate continue, for from this eventually will emerge incontrovertible truth. The pseudo-scientific, politicized steamrolling of dissent seen thus far has been disgraceful.

Climate science, meaning climate modeling, very clearly is not science. In every respect it represents falsificationism. Falsificationism is the process of presenting a false argument or observation and demanding that others show that it is not true.

The climate scientists have presented a false argument (such as, CO2 is primarily responsible for global temperature change) and they have demanded that others prove that it is not true. In the process of defending their false assertions they attempted to limit the discussion of the issues and they have tried to blacklist opposing scientists. The global warming folks have even attempted to cover-up past warming events (that are well documented in glacial science) to support their false science.

These tactics are not compatible with the scientific method and in the course of time will be overcome by experiment and observation.

One of the biggest drivers behind the doctrine of anthropogenic global warming is the leftist belief that AGW causes economic injustice. Leftists believe that developed, industrialized nations are raping the earth for profit and causing the earth's climate to warm unnaturally, and poor nations are paying the price for this.

In order to fix the economic injustice caused by allowing developed nations to increase global warming, the left wants all the industrialized nations to redistribute part of their income to poorer nations who supposedly are suffering more from the effects of global warming. Look at the U.N. reports on global warming for proof of this.

People on the left have a crazed desire to redistribute income. The fact that they can use the concocted doctrine of anthropogenic global warming to accomplish wealth redistribution means it will be almost impossible to get the left to ever admit that AGW does not exist--no matter much how much evidence you give them.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that AGW, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

The problem I see is that those opposing AGW fall into the trap of using the same data to make their case. This data is from a scant scintilla of this planet's age and climate history and they ignore the true big picture. That big picture to me is the geological history of this planet that shows huge long term swings in cooling, warming, CO2 levels and temperature swings that occurred without any input from man over the last 600 million years.

This geological history shows us that in the very short period of the last million years or so, the planet had ice ages lasting around 100,000 years followed by periods of warming lasting about 10,000 years. Obviously, as one views this geological history, an inconvenient truth emerges that man’s activity had nothing to do with the warming periods that last around 10,000 years before the planet again goes into the deep freeze.

The way in which I couch the futility of determining the extent of man made climate change: The Earth has had 4.3 billion years to develop an integrated ecosystem of millions of species of life, all of which together work to regulate global temperatures.

There are millions of systems, subsystems, and sub-sub systems working in unison. Until every one of those systems can be tracked accurately, it is futile to expect that we have any idea how Gaia performs her 'magic'.

Some claim that we can deduce or determine the major systems, but until we have tracked the vast majority of all systems and how they interact as conditions change, we truly do not know which ones are the key ones.

Another fact, a billion years ago, the Earth was plunged into a freezing darkness. It took 200 million years, but eventually the global ecosystem brought the planet back into stasis, after which Earth had the greatest bloom in speciation in Earth's history. Earth has its ways of doing things.

I say all this not to imply that we should ignore what humans are doing to the Earth. Indeed, we ought to leave as small a footprint as possible, as a gift to our future offspring. Certainly, there is a lot of polluting going on, runaway GMOs, millions of chemicals being pumped into the environment, etc. all of which ought to be either more regulated, or more controlled by the perpetrators themselves - with oversight from some independent organization (trust but verify).

But the clue as to how phony climate warmism is in how much chicanery and obfuscation the pro-warmists have repeatedly engaged in. The arrogance of liberals is EPIC, they always figure they can bluff their way to victory. Of course, if and when humans were to try to 'fix' this nonexistent problem, the 'solution' would probably be catastrophic in that it would be designed based on a completely too simplistic, broken model that would inevitably yield the wrong answers and solutions.

Another way I look at it - liberals worship at the altar of Gaia, they profess their admiration for Darwinism and evolution, so how come they have so little faith in nature and its systems?

It is all about money and power at the end of the day, and people with common sense get that. Liberals would love to have their mitts in every aspect of everyone's business, from sunup to sundown. They would love to have a convenient excuse to tax people to death based on people exhaling a 'pollutant' (something that the more plants inhale, the faster they grow, but count on libs to defy logic).

In my view, AGW is a research grant scam and the best way for opposing voices to discredit it is to focus on the true big picture. The best rebuttal is to point out the long term geological history of this planet and the conclusion that past cooling and warming periods had nothing to do with man. Using climate data of a few decades or even centuries to project the future while ignoring millions of years of geological climate history is the true definition of junk science.

When Al Gore divests himself of his four mansions in this country, including his most recent mansion, a $9.5 Million ocean side estate in Montecito, California, an exclusive community on the West Coast that, according to Gore, was supposed to be under water by now, then perhaps I'll consider downsizing my life.

When I see Gore in one of those clown cars instead of a group  of large SUVs and Gulf Stream jets on his way to exotic locales to enjoy fine wines and rich food, then maybe I'll worry about the polar bears.

When all the global warming elites move into 400 sq. ft. inner city high rise flats built by the government in the inner city, as they advocate for us, then I'll worry about the earth burning up.

Until then, I'll let his dupes and stooges on the left forage the ground for nuts and berries as I drive to the grocery store in my politically incorrect SUV.

Speaking in Greenville, South Carolina, Donald Trump said that he represents "the silent majority in this country that feels abused, that feels forgotten, and that feels mistreated."

"There is no better expression for what's happening. Because this is a movement. There is no better expression for what's happening than the expression: silent majority," Trump said.

I am far from being a fan of Donald Trump and still believe the chances of him becoming the next President of the United States are slim to none. However, there is no doubt Trump has changed the entire dynamic of the 2016 presidential election.

The Trump phenomenon is simple to understand: people are fed up with lying professional politicians who won't address the problems that are taking this great nation down the tubes. I don't know Trump knows himself what he would do but he is not shy to fight for what he believes once he makes up his mind and I sense people want a fighter, not one who hedges all his or her bets and wants to please everyone.

Well, he certainly has more credibility than most of the professional politicians running. How can they be believed when they have been part of the problem for so long. At least Trump promises a new fresh approach.

Conservative Republicans have seen what has happened to the Tea Party movement as it was sabotaged by the IRS selectively targeting patriotic and conservative organizations by intrusive audits, harassment and plain persecution.  In 2010 Tea Parties brought an energy and focus to the conservative wing of the Republican Party that was truly remarkable and this alarmed its leadership.  The movement was too independent and didn’t need financing or direction.  They had ideas of their own.

The Tea Parties were not so much an ideological movement as they were a reaction to the corrupt internationalist Republican core.  While the IRS harassment was urged on by anti-rightist "watchdog" sympathizers and liberal Democratic Senators, the Republican establishment was not unhappy, even though they paid for it in 2012 when they lost close races they should have won.

Donald Trump's support represents values still held deeply by many conservative Republicans outraged by its RINO inner elite.

Trump is just saying the truth in a way that the people understand. Politicians never even speak substance, just mention nouns but don't give them any content--they are afraid it would turn off one or another voter. Trump calls them as he sees them. The people may not agree but like that someone is finally telling them something real.

The phenomenon we see with Trump is the same that put Fox News on top: they filled a gap, maybe not as stridently as Trump, although some would say just as much, but still they filled a gap.

When asked about who they trust, people score politicians the lowest. Trump is tapping into that, with the double advantage that by doing it not only do people listen but he gets a lot of free publicity from the very media that he knocks.

Take immigration. Every politician on all sides of the isle just beats around the bush with no one addressing the issues the people see. Trump does.

Trump created outrage when he said illegals coming across the border are a crime wave. I started following it then.  Three things have happened since that I can report:

1. A vibrant young lady was murdered in San Fransisco by an illegal with a bunch of felonies and deportations.

2. A retired homicide detective in California told me 42% of crimes charged in the state today have illegals as defendants.

3) Last week a Hayward, California police sergeant with nice family pulled over a 21-year old kid and was shot in the face with a 9mm.  The turnout for his funeral, to support his teenage family was so big they used the Oracle Arena.

Now here's the thing about #3: go read the San Jose Mercury News or the San Francisco Chronicle and you'll think the guy they've arrested was just some kid. No, he and his family are illegals from Mexico but they will not report it.

Trump was right!

We the People are tired of the hypocrisy and tired old ways of professional politicians and welcome a new face who calls them as he sees them. Maybe he is a bit rough around the edges but often that's the way the truth sounds. Politicians by contrast are so worried about whose toes they may step on that they never say or do anything meaningful.

Even if he doesn't get elected he should have the salutary effect of letting other candidates know that We the People are fed up with being spoon fed nouns without content. We want real answers to what we see is going on in the country. Trump provides them while professional politicians run away from them. Enough. Let's address the problems we have without more bs.

It's interesting that there has been such a huge Republican Establishment boom for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Carly Fiorina today, whose business accomplishments are nil in comparison to what Trump has accomplished.

Trump does have a big mouth with a thin filter between thoughts that pop into his brain and words that come out of his mouth.

But, if we want a person who understands business in the White House, why would Trump NOT be our first choice? We especially glorify entrepreneurs. Is Trump NOT the Kingpin of entrepreneurs? He doesn't talk like he owes any loyalty to anybody but himself. Is THAT the problem? Or do we really want another Republican tool of big business,  or a Dem tool of Big Labor and Big Government in the White House?

We seem to be picking on Trump because he has the big mouth of a self-made man. Do we not want to cut him some slack on BEING a self-made man of fantastic accomplishments in business?

My favorite part of "The Apprentice" was the board room.  Trump was always fair in assessing the contestants, questioning them, and ultimately figuring out (correctly) why a candidate moved forward....or was "fired".  He expressed empathy when needed; accolades when earned.  I always felt he made the right decisions because he backed them up with facts...whatever they were; pleasant or unpleasant.  I do think most of the contestants admired him.  He did allow them the time and effort to defend themselves when the time came.  It was fun.

Granted Trump can be harsh, rude, and sometimes appears in love with himself.  But he has earned his way to the top in the business world, raised ambitious and successful children, and is generous with his money in both overt and covert ways.

Trump gets things done; no matter what it takes.  He's not perfect, but he loves this country

The Nation better take Trump seriously...especially the Republicans.  He is speaking the language that many of us want to hear but don't from the political machine...on either side.

He's rough, he's gritty, he's not PC, he doesn't mince words, he calls it how it is rather than how it should be or "probably" is, he doesn't give a rat's ass about the media or what they think of him.  In other words, he's real and all of the other candidates are posers.  They have too much to lose, he doesn't.  That's why he can talk truthfully about this country's major issues.  And he's right about most of it...but not all of it.

Should he be taken seriously?  Oh yes.  If you are a Democrat or a Republican, be very afraid. This man is a loose canon with the right talk and the right walk with the right weapons.  Take heed politicians, this man is going to shake you to your core.

Under estimate him at your own peril. Could he win?  I can think of another man in a similar situation that did.

Trump won't enter as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination. He may try to broker a deal of some sort, but despite his ego, he's not stupid. Unlike Ross Perot who had a personal antagonism for Bush Sr, Trump is not going to put another Democrat in the White House if he truly believes what he says about getting the country up and running again.

At this stage of the game, like Hillary's scripted performances, answering NOTHING, there is no reason for Trump to show his cards. He'll keep everyone guessing until that game plays itself out.

If anything, I believe if he continues to carry a sizable following as the Republican convention approaches, he will engage is some backroom dealing, maybe even a VP nod.

I'll take the Donald Trump over Hillary any day.
There is overwhelming evidence President Obama and his administration are no friend to Israel.

President Obama told the Jewish newspaper the Forward "there not a smidgen of evidence for" that he is anti-Semite.

Editor of the Forward: "Does it hurt you personally when people say that you’re anti-Semitic?"

President Obama: "Oh, of course. And there’s not a smidgen of evidence for it, other than the fact that there have been times where I’ve disagreed with a particular Israeli government’s position on a particular issue. And I’ve said before, and I will continue to say, that if you care deeply about Israel, then you have an obligation to be honest about what you think, the same way you would with any friend. And we don’t do anybody, any friend, a service by just rubber-stamping whatever decisions they make, even if we think that they’re damaging in some fashion.

"And the good news is that the people I’m close to, the people who know me, including people who disagree with me on this issue, would never even think about making those statements. I get probably more offended when I hear members of my administration who themselves are Jewish being attacked. You saw this historically sometimes in the African American community, where there’s a difference on policy and somebody starts talking about, well, you’re not black enough, or you’re selling out. And that, I think, is always a dangerous place to go.

"These are hard issues, and worthy of serious debate. But you don’t win the debate by suggesting that the other person has bad motives. That’s I think not just consistent with fair play; I think it’s consistent with the best of the Jewish tradition."

Clashes erupted between police and nationalist protesters outside Kiev's parliament Monday, after a controversial vote to give greater powers to separatist regions in the east. Police say about 100 officers were injured, 10 of them seriously.


Clashes erupt outside Ukraine's parliament between protesters and police as lawmakers vote for constitutional changes to give its rebel eastern regions a special status.

By Rob Nikolewski

An Inspector General of the Department of Energy report that picked over the bones of the Solyndra green energy fiasco placed most of the blame on Solyndra executives for losing more than $500 million in taxpayer money.

But a close reading shows DOE made plenty of mistakes as well.

The report authored by DOE Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman came just short of calling Solyndra’s highest officials liars, saying their actions during the loan process were “at best, reckless and irresponsible or, at worst, an orchestrated effort to knowingly and intentionally deceive and mislead the Department.”

While the 13-page report also criticizes DOE officials for not sufficiently vetting Solyndra and mentions political pressure placed on unnamed DOE employees to get the loan pushed through as part of the Obama administration’s stimulus program, it does not go into many specifics — especially about the political aspect of the case.

Instead, the report placed the lion’s share of fault on the solar company’s officials, saying they “were at the heart of this matter” that soaked U.S. taxpayers of more than half a billion dollars in federal loans after the company went broke.

That conclusion riles William Yeatman, senior fellow specializing in environmental policy and energy markets at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a policy group that advocates for limited government, who called the IG report “a conspicuous whitewash” that tries to absolve DOE.

“It’s an outrage,” Yeatman told Watchdog.org, adding he has admired Friedman’s work in the past.

“I can’t explain the impossibly inappropriate emphasis on Solyndra’s culpability,” Yeatman said. “The report is rife with this language that is to lay the blame at the foot of Solyndra rather than the DOE.”

Watchdog.org left a voicemail message with the media inquiries phone number at Friedman’s office Friday, but did not receive a response. Update August 31, 11:29 a.m.: Tara Porter, Assistant Inspector General for Management and Administration at the office of inspector general called Watchdog Monday morning. When asked to comment, Porter said, “We feel the report speaks for itself.”

Click here to read the 13-page inspector general’s report on what went wrong in the $535 million Solyndra deal

In 2009, DOE began the first of a series of loan guarantees calling for up to $535 million to Solyndra to construct a photovoltaic manufacturing facility in Fremont, California. In 2010, President Obama visited the plant and said, “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”

But just a year after the Obama visit Solyndra collapsed, filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, largely due to companies in places like China that were able to produce solar panels at a lower price.

The political fallout was harsh, with Republicans on Capitol Hill pouncing on the White House.

After four years of investigating, the IG report came out last week, citing a litany of allegations against Solyndra executives, accusing them of deception during the loan process.

In one instance, the report said Solyndra claimed it had $1.4 billion in sales contracts lined up over a five-year period but didn’t tell DOE or an independent engineering firm hired by the agency that price concessions had been made to three of the four companies.

That “distorted the view the Department and its consultants had of the market for Solyndra’s product,” the report said.

However, the report went on to say DOE had a spreadsheet in its possession showing the four companies’ sales contracts weren’t quite what they seemed.

But the agency’s loan officers “who received this spreadsheet each told us they did not examine it closely,” the report said. “While Solyndra did nothing to highlight or emphasize the new information, the Department missed an opportunity, prior to loan closing, to evaluate the fact that Solyndra’s contract customers were not buying product at the contracted terms.”

“They simply didn’t pay attention to this,” Yeatman said in a telephone interview. “That information was quantitative, hard data that, if (DOE) had paid attention to, made clear that this was a bad deal …What a piss-poor job the government does when it plays banker.”

In addition, a week before the loan closing, an employee noticed the price of rooftop solar systems was projected to be much lower than Solyndra’s estimates and sent three emails to top DOE loan officials alerting them to the issue. “Yet, no action was taken,” the report said. “Instead, it was apparently disregarded.”

Later in the report, the inspector general mentions political stress placed on employees at DOE.

“Employees acknowledged that they felt tremendous pressure, in general, to process loan guarantee applications,” the report said. “They suggested the pressure was based on the significant interest in the program from Department leadership, the Administration, Congress, and the applicants.”

But the 13-page report doesn’t dig into any of the specifics of who received pressure and who exactly in DOE leadership, Obama administration or Congress was applying it.

That irritates David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington D.C.

“There was a lot of political pressure put on bureaucrats to approve loans to Solyndra and other companies that fit the ideological predisposition of Obama appointees,” Boaz told Watchdog.org. “The more controversial question is whether the political pressure reflected actual political and financial interests. The report shies away from getting too close from that question.”

Instead, Friedman’s conclusions centered on Solyndra.

Read more....
By Luqman  Adeniyi

The Jefferson Davis statue will no longer cast a shadow on the University Texas main mall after its removal Sunday morning.

About 100 students, university staff members and other Austinites gathered to see the relocation of the controversial statue of the Confederate president. Workers wrapped the statue in plastic and cut its bolts loose from its column before lifting it onto a trailer on the back of a truck.

UT President Greg Fenves announced during the summer the statue will move to the Dolph Briscoe Center for American History. The decision came after he received recommendations from a task force he assembled on the future of statues of Confederate veterans. The fatal shooting of nine people inside a black church in South Carolina in June sparked nationwide debate about Confederate symbols across the South.

Fenves said a statue of President Woodrow Wilson will also be moved for symmetry on the South Mall.

The removal of the Jefferson Davis statue was briefly postponed after the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a confederate heritage group, asked a judge to block the move. Last week a state district judge gave UT the right to continue.

Kirk D. Lyons, a lawyer for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said he will work to have the statue put back.

“This is the beginning of legal procedure; this is the beginning of the fight," Lyons said.

Lyons said the removal of the statue has, “awakened the sleeping giant.” He said the Sons of Confederate Veterans intends to tap its supporters on social media, where it has launched a GoFundMe campaign that has raised $8,805 in the past 16 days.

UT Student Body President Xavier Rotnofsky — who proposed the removal of the statue as part of his satirical campaign — said the fight is over and he is happy to see the statue being moved.

“It’s very satisfying,” Rotnofsky said. “What started off as a very far-fetched idea during the campaign — we came through with and the school year has barely started.”

He said the national conversation after the South Carolina shooting and the passion of students on UT's campus made the removal possible.

UT public health junior Amber Magee, who was on hand to see the statue come down, said Fenves’ decision to move it makes it feel like she matters on campus.

“I think that this more than anything, it is a fantastic first step for showing support for students of color, for really anything that students identify as an impairment to their personal experience, education or their personal growth," Magee said.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune. 
By Edgar Walters

Following the killing of a Harris County sheriff’s deputy late Friday night, a local law enforcement leader said Saturday the “rhetoric” of anti-police brutality protestors had ramped up “to the point where calculated, cold-blooded assassination of police officers happens.”

“We’ve heard black lives matter, all lives matter,” Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman told reporters at a press conference. “Well, cops’ lives matter, too.”

Hickman was speaking after Harris County Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, was shot Friday night at a Houston gas station. After Goforth fell to the ground, a suspect — Shannon Miles, a black man, authorities said — stood over him and fired several more times. Miles has been arrested and charged with capital murder.

At a second press conference Saturday to describe the arrest, Hickman said anti-cop rhetoric could influence people to commit crimes against police officers, but he said he had "no details as to a motive" in this case.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson told reporters earlier Saturday the "vast majority” of police officers had good intentions, despite a “few bad apples” — an apparent reference to recent, high-profile police shootings of unarmed people that has fueled the #BlackLivesMatter movement and other outcries against police brutality.

“That does not mean there should be open warfare declared on law enforcement,” Anderson said. “What happened last night is an assault on the fabric of society.”

Last month, the death of Sandra Bland sparked outrage in Texas and the nation for what many saw as the latest high-profile case of white police harassment of a black citizen. A Department of Public Safety trooper, Brian Encinia, was put on administrative leave after a dash cam video showed him threatening to use force on Bland after stopping her for a minor traffic infraction. Three days after the arrest, Bland was found hanged to death inside the county jail.

On Saturday, state leaders chimed in with support for Goforth and other police officers.

“Heinous and deliberate crimes against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the State of Texas,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. “Texas reveres the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve their communities.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called the killing “a reminder of the danger our men and women in law enforcement face every day and the courage they demonstrate to protect their communities.”

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune. 
To use a common challenge: “What would Jesus do?”

I’m certainly not an expert on that! But I am quite sure that he would not surrender his faith, and would not try to force anyone else to adopt his, and would not stop speaking to anyone willing to hear his words.

Jesus was a man of peace. He did not take up arms, forcibly convert people to his faith, or rule in this world.

Buddha likewise was a man of peace who lived a modest life.

When Christians or Buddhists engage in violence, they are perverting the teachings of their founders.

Islam, alternatively, has a deeply embedded foundation of violence at its core–violence promulgated by Mohammed on his enemies. When Muslims engage in violence, they are emulating the founder of their faith. This is why the vast majority of religious violence is fomented by Islamists.

Speaking the truth is not thoughtless, though it might be politically incorrect.

Islam must deal with the rot at its core: Mohammed conquered by the sword, forcibly converted people to his beliefs, murdered with his own hand, and took child brides. This is the example he sets for his followers.

People of Islam who wish it to be accepted as a modern faith must repudiate these acts of Mohammed, which are repugnant to modern life. Until they do, their faith–which is really a political philosophy tinged with religion–will be repugnant to most of humanity.

I don’t think that pointing to the barbaric acts of Mohammed is an ad hominem attack either on him or on Islam. Those actions, which are documented historically, are central to the creation narrative of the Islamic faith.

The teachings of the man and his actions cannot be conveniently divorced, no matter how much people would like to separate them. Calling Mohammed a man of peace, or Islam a religion of peace, is not sufficient to change the foundation of it in violence.

When Muslims engage in violence, they are emulating Mohammed. When Christians engage in violence, alternatively, they are going against the teachings of Jesus. There is a difference, and it is profoundly meaningful. Christianity is a superior religion for these reasons.
Please bear with me. The moral of this article is in the very last paragraph and sentences. It's about being moral, which we get from faith, and why we need it.

I would argue the proper definition of American Exceptionalism is that the United States was founded by the people, granting powers to a government rather than the other way around. Government is subordinate to the people as opposed to citizens being a component of the state.

The U.S. is the only country where, if you find oil under your house, it is yours, not the crown's or the government's. Thus we are the exception to the rule hence American Exceptionalism.

Underpinning this is the establishment of rights imbued to the individual by God, not by the government.

The U.S. is predicated on the idea of a moral citizenry thus enabling citizens to hold the power entrusted to them by the constitution. It is this link, between a moral citizenry arising from a religiously inspired moral structure that is explicitly under attack by the modern left.

Progressivism is an alternative moral structure designed to weaken and ultimately destroy the faith based moral structure on which our country was founded. In order to create a "new" United States, it is necessary to tear down the existing country and ripping apart the foundation is the strategy of the left. That is, eviscerate the legitimacy of morality by destroying the concept of God or a religious moral structure and then concept of a citizen guided by such a morality becomes illegitimate. This clears the path to the primacy of the government and the power that entails.

The modern Progressive eschews the idea that individuals could rightfully own oil or natural resources found on their property. In their view, those resources rightfully belong to the collective or state.

Similarly, the fruits of one's labors also belong to the state. How else to make sense of "You didn't build that" comments by President Obama? This is the end game for Progressives in their attacks on religion and morality in the public square, transferring all power to the government.

Progressives hate religion because it interferes with their decadent ideology. They are a plague who wants more sexual promiscuity, abortion, no rule of law, no morals, no integrity, and relativism where anything goes.

Most atheists are progressives and feel humans have no business believing in a higher power or God. Scientists now believe that our planet is so exceptional and unique in the universe and is very likely there is no other planet with the richness of life and order present in our planet. This raises the question of us being here for a purpose and an intelligent design.

A few weeks ago there was a column in the Wall Street Journal by Dan Henninger titled "The New Stupid Party: Democrats call Republicans the stupid party. But now, there’s dumb, and dumber."

That morning I was also reviewing Fukuyama's new book, "Political Order and Political Decay," wherein he identifies three crucial institutions of a modern state: the state itself or government and bureaucracy, the rule of law, and mechanisms of accountability. As I was reading the introductory and summarizing chapter, I got the distinct impression that he places too much emphasis on a large bureaucratic state.

Fukuyama recognizes that and closes that chapter arguing that size is not necessarily the answer, that quality is also important. "Much more important than the size of government is its quality." Moreover, there needs to be a "balance between government power and institutions that constrain the state," a subject that is very dear to me.

The reason I brought this up in the context of stupid, and again now, is that Fukuyama closes the introductory chapter by saying that "this volume will not provide any straightforward answers, and certainly not easy ones, to the question of how to improve the quality of government."

And that is the big problem, isn't it?

People like Elizabeth Warren, who was featured in Henninger’s article, and Progressives more generally, don't have any answers either, they just make promises, create more bureaucracy, and throw money at it.

My preference and that of the more conservative right is to be more humble and to err on the side of less government and let market forces and the checks-and-balances of democracy do the job. So I bring up stupid because the first step in overcoming it is to recognize that we are indeed stupid when it comes to the quality of government, that the answer doesn't lie in larger, more "scientific" solutions because we don't know what these are and the so-called experts don't know either.

All the experts have are simplistic models that help explain some things but are really helpless against the immense complexity of our society and economy.

Rules or laws are the glue that holds societies together. Some govern our everyday social relations. Others only apply to certain circumstances and types of relationships and are important only to limited groupings.

I've broken the whole mess of rules into very long term, medium and short term. The very long term rules are constituted by the moral and ethical values that have come down to us from our ancestors. These are so important and constant that they have survived the test of time and have been folded into a religion.

Because they are so important, we teach them very intensely to our children and review parts of them in formal weekly gatherings.

Then you have the medium or near long-term rules like those of our Constitution, moving down to the more short term laws, statutes and regulations passed to achieve and enforce shorter term objectives. These are always in flux and, unfortunately, expanding but it is the price we pay for social and economic progress and growth.

It would be ideal if we all knew those rules but it is obviously impossible. That alone becomes a problem because we can't follow rules we don't even know exist.

In my reading of the dynamics of social change, one highly undesirable area where rules are growing, and I believe this is the one the people object to most, are rules that substitute for the moral and ethical values we learned at the feet of our parents and the pews of our churches.

These are certainly not perfect and we know they need to keep up with the times but changing them is not as easy as changing the flow of traffic in our streets. We all know to be alert to the rules of the road in places we haven't been to before, but moral and ethical rules are very deeply embedded in our psyches since they were so insistently drummed into us already as babies.

No surprise then that the Sandra Fluke kind of moralizing from Washington is so controversial, yet in the bigger scheme of things so inconsequential, except if they lead to a society that gets its moral and ethical values from government.

The moral and ethical rules we have today were arrived at through thousands of years of trial and error. We are fools who think we can do better by a stroke of a pen or a cost-benefit analysis.

To bottom line it, it is not about one side being better than the other but about what is the best way to govern. I think it behooves conservatives to somehow get across the idea that there are no magic solutions to quality in creating new bureaucracies like, say, the Independent Payments Advisory Board, or IPAB, to manage the healthcare market, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, to keep banks from abusing consumers; that we need to be humble and recognize our limitations; that in most cases we don't even know what "quality" is; and that we should let markets, a well-functioning democratic process, and our values and morality, yes, our morality, or core laws do more of the job.

The better our core moral values, the fewer imperfect and often low quality government-made laws and regulations we will need.
On Saturday, 30-year-old Shannon J. Miles of Cypress, Texas was arrested and charged with capital murder for the Friday killing of a 47-year-old Harris County Sheriff's deputy Darren H. Goforth. Miles is accused of gunning down Goforth at a Chevron station at Telge and West in Houston.

Goforth was shot and killed Friday night while filling up his patrol car at a suburban Houston gas station. Officials confirmed that 47 year old Deputy Darren H. Goforth was shot from the back "execution-style."

"He was literally gunned down in what appears to be an unprovoked, execution-style killing. I have been in law enforcement for 45 years, I have never seen anything this cold-blooded," Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said.

Harris County Sheriff''s Department spokesperson Deputy Thomas Gilliland confirmed the deputy was in uniform and pumping gas at a station off Telge and West when he was shot several times from behind.

"A male suspect came up from behind the deputy and shot the deputy multiple times. The deputy then fell to ground. The suspect then continued over to him and shot the deputy again multiple times as he laid on the ground.

"This is a very tough moment right now for the Harris County Sheriff's Office. I can ask you if you give us your prayers and your thoughts.

"It's tough enough being a deputy and being in law enforcement in this country right now, but for people, the way that they are right now, I have no words for what this type of person did, the callousness is much," Gilliland said.

Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott issued a statement Saturday saying that "heinous and deliberate crimes against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the State of Texas."

"Texas reveres the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve their communities.

"Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to Deputy Goforth's family and the Harris County Sheriff's Office during this difficult time. I know local law enforcement will work tirelessly to apprehend the killer and ensure justice for Deputy Goforth is served," Abbott said.


A sheriff's deputy in uniform was shot and killed Friday night while filling up his patrol car at a suburban Houston gas station. Officials confirmed that 47 year old Deputy Darren H. Goforth was shot from the back "execution-style."

"He was literally gunned down in what appears to be an unprovoked, execution-style killing. I have been in law enforcement for 45 years, I have never seen anything this cold-blooded," Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said.

Harris County Sheriff''s Department spokesperson Deputy Thomas Gilliland confirmed the deputy was in uniform and pumping gas at a station off Telge and West when he was shot several times from behind.

"A male suspect came up from behind the deputy and shot the deputy multiple times. The deputy then fell to ground. The suspect then continued over to him and shot the deputy again multiple times as he laid on the ground.

"This is a very tough moment right now for the Harris County Sheriff's Office. I can ask you if you give us your prayers and your thoughts.

"It's tough enough being a deputy and being in law enforcement in this country right now, but for people, the way that they are right now, I have no words for what this type of person did, the callousness is much," Gilliland said.

Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott issued a statement Saturday saying that "heinous and deliberate crimes against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the State of Texas."

"Texas reveres the men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve their communities.

"Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to Deputy Goforth's family and the Harris County Sheriff's Office during this difficult time.

"I know local law enforcement will work tirelessly to apprehend the killer and ensure justice for Deputy Goforth is served," Abbott said.

By Jon Cassidy

The El Paso Republican Party has been told to stop distributing copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence outside of naturalization ceremonies at the city’s Civic Center.

But the local party chairman, Adolpho Telles, said Thursday the group was planning to defy that order and continue handing out the materials this morning.

“It’s the individual that manages the Civic Center that had originally notified us that we would not be allowed,” Telles said. “We distribute them at the end of the ceremony, which is what we’d historically done.”

The manager was acting on instructions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, Telles said.

Telles received an email from Margaret A. Hartnett, the USCIS El Paso field office director, on Thursday saying she was “happy to hear that you will abide by our policy,” which “requires all non-USCIS participants to not engage in political, commercial, or religious activity of any kind, before, during, or after the ceremony.”

“We are not participants in their ceremony and we never have been,” Telles said, as “participants” are formally defined.

Telles said his members would be outside the civic center in a public area Friday morning, distributing copies of the founding documents.

The welcome for new citizens is a bit of a tradition for his group, Telles said. Usually, one of the members dresses up as Uncle Sam and poses for pictures.

“The reaction from the new citizens is always positive,” he said.

Party members went to the El Paso City Council this week to complain about the attempted prohibition.

Read more....

A Harris County, Texas sheriff's deputy was shot and killed while pumping gas on Friday night. The deputy was a 10-year veteran assigned to the west district patrol in District 5.

A manhunt is currently under way for the suspect.

From Fox News:

"A Texas sheriff’s deputy was reportedly shot and killed late Friday after responding to a report of a suspicious vehicle near a gas station.

"Fox affiliate KRIV reports the Harris County Sheriff’s deputy was shot once in the head and three times in the back at around 8:30 p.m. at the gas station on West Rd. and Telge in northwest Harris County. The officer died from his injuries.

"Police are searching for a suspect."

Read more....

Harris County Deputy Thomas Gilliland confirmed the deputy was in uniform and pumping gas at a station off Telge and West when he was shot several ttimes from behind.

"A male suspect came up from behind the deputy and shot the deputy multiple times. The deputy then fell to ground. The suspect then continued over to him and shot the deputy again multiple times as he laid on the ground.

"This is a very tough moment right now for the Harris County Sheriff's Office. I can ask you if you give us your prayers and your thoughts.

"It's tough enough being a deputy and being in law enforcement in this country right now, but for people, the way that they are right now, I have no words for what this type of person did, the callousness is much," Gilliland said.

The Harris County Sheriff's Department posted information about the suspect on Twitter.

"Help locate dark complected male, 5'10 - 6 ft, white t-shirt and red shorts in a maroon or red fleet side extended cab Ford Ranger.

"Male suspect in fatal deputy shooting is guessed to be between 20-25 y/o with short hair. Traveled westbound on West Rd," the Sheriff's Department posted to Twitter.

On Friday night, Sarah Palin interviewed Donald Trump for the One America News Network.

Speaking in Minneapolis on Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed that Republicans want to place illegal immigrants in "buses or box cars in order to take them across the border."

"Well, I'm glad you asked me that, because some on the other side who are already advocating to deport 11, 12 million people.

"I find it the height of irony that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive government effort, which might include national guard and others, to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.

"I find that absurd but appalling. And that's why I support comprehensive immigration reform," Clinton.

Tim Tebow is back in the NFL spotlight after taking the field with the Philadelphia Eagles this preseason.

Tebow says he isn’t worried about whether he makes the Eagles' final 53-man roster.

“That’s not something I worry about, to be honest. I worry about what I can control and that’s come out and improve every day, enjoy the process, count your blessings and work extremely hard.

“You know, something I always try to practice is be anxious for nothing, but let your request be known to God. That’s how I try to handle that," Tebow said during a recent interview.

Tebow is an inspiration to a generation of young people. He proves that one can be a fierce competitor and a fervent Christian. There was a time in America’s history where clean-cut moral people with good manners were admired. Today, many boorish and immoral people no longer admire good sportsmanship, but enjoy the taunting and ridiculing of opponents by their sports heroes.

Most of us are sick of the foul language and bad image of professional sports. Maybe it’s time to insert moral clauses in professional sports contracts. Our children should emulate people of character, not criminals.

Look at the position that Tebow has put himself in and ask yourself the question– How does he do it?

Tebow has become the most watched example of a Christian American–sworn to chastity, helping the poor, honoring God and helping those in need. At the same time he has all the temptations that come along with his fame– excessive amounts of money that result in women throwing themselves at his feet and no need in the world to care for anyone but himself.

Every single eye in the media and public is acutely on Tebow. His critics are only waiting for the moment when he caves into temptation and his character fails. Needless to say the pressure on the field from defenses is complemented well by an astounding pressure off the field.

How does he do it? How does he deal with the temptation from fame and at the same time further entrench himself in the Christian image? I’d argue that it’s not hard for him at all. He loves doing. He does it only for one reason, Jesus. To thank Him, honor Him, and bring others closer to Him.

Tebow gets that the rationalists in the secular establishment do not get is that all good things, large and trivial, proceed from the Lord. All of Tebow’s considerable talents and blessings – as well as his passing “shortcomings” – were given him solely for the purpose of fulfilling the plan that the Lord has for him. Tebow demonstrates that it is not necessary to be perfect to succeed and that miracles just happen when you use your strengths to overcome your weaknesses.

Perhaps, Tebow’s greatest advantage is that he has faith in the script that the Lord has written for him. He does not need to know the ending or the next plot twist. He follows the directions of the Lord because he understands that, in the grand scheme, delivering his best effort is actually the point of the exercise, not whether he wins or loses games. But of course, when you are positive and faith full, you have a better chance of a positive outcome.

Tebow has the confidence and clarity of purpose born of his faith that God’s plan is the right plan and he will be blessed if he follows it. I would bet that his faith will not be shaken even if the outcome doesn’t happen to be a Super Bowl ring during his NFL career.

This, of course, is 100% contrary to the precepts of secular humanism that has come to dominate public discourse. Born of 18th Century French Rationalism and the scientific method, secularists put the human being at the center of the universe – they have faith in human “rationality” (millenia of butchery, greed and emotionalism to the contrary) and believe in an individual human being’s ability to drive the action of his life.

Tebow understands that he is just an actor in a play that has already been scripted. He has the free will to act well or poorly, but he can’t change the script and has no need to. What Tebow demonstrates, and so many of us struggle with, is complete confidence in the Director’s vision and a willingness to follow direction and accept – not control — outcomes.

Tebow is tapping into a larger universal energy source and is fulfilling the primary mission any of us have on earth – to bear witness to the glory of God.

Many people are jealous that anyone can live the life that Tebow lives off the football field because they know they aren’t strong enough to pull it off. Those who wish his demise are the weakest of all and are waiting anxiously for the day he stumbles so they can point to his failure and forget their personal failings for a while.

Most people don’t understand the strength necessary to hold true to ones convictions as Tebow does, especially the ones he lives by. I’m sure that if you ask Tebow if he is living up to the ideal the media and society has projected upon him, he would say that he falls short of his goal, which by the way is a goal all people not just Christians should be living toward. Imagine what the world would be like if we did.

Tebow is just a football player and there are lots of people in the sports world who try to live a good life. Beyond the anti-abortion commercial Tebow did with his mom, he stays out of the media, he isn’t in anyone’s face looking for people to convert to Christianity or leading his teammates in prayer. He kneels on one knee in silent prayer which is no different from the Sign of the Cross, pointing to the heavens, etc., that other players do.

What has separated him from the pack? Why all the attention?

Tebow runs his own charity and pays staff salaries and administration costs out of his own pocket, leaving 100 percent of fundraising to support the foundation’s outreach. The foundation’s initiatives include teaming up with CURE International on building a children’s hospital in the Philippines, football-themed playrooms in oncology centers, orphan relief, and granting wishes for the terminally ill. He doesn’t just hug a kid on the sidelines for the camera.

What have the rest of us done lately?

Football is a team sport and Tebow is a leader who inspires teammates to play better and for each other. If he was a phony, he would not have the respect of his fellow players – all young men who’ve grown up in an era in which arrogance and material and intellectual self-indulgence are too often the standard for gaining notoriety or a few fans.

Tebow plays for his team and is inspired by his faith. He is a modern sports reminder of a time when Americans did what they had to for each other and for their country and made us the most respected country in world but today generates cynicism among those incapable of thinking about others while mocking others who do.
Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech back in the 1960's challenging African-Americans to take responsibility for their lives and stop blaming everything on the white man. He cited that only 10% of the population in St. Louis were black but they were responsible for 58% of the crime.

“Do you know that Negroes are 10% of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards.

“We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves,” King said.

King’s vision of a society where a man is judged by the content of his character died with the rise of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the other race baiters of today. It also died with the teachings of Sol Alinsky, who taught these post-King leaders that creating enemies and boogeymen was the way to organize communities. Vision and aspiration are a poor substitute for anger when you need quick motivation for disruptive action.

MLK was a man from a previous age, the age before the age of nihilism, when academics and intellectuals discovered that ‘utopia is a place where moral accountability is no more’. Such ideas led to the breakdown of the family.

The family is the root of civilization and always has been. It is no longer politically correct to discipline children, or to give them bad grades if they fail to learn.
Martin Luther King Jr. wanted his own children, and all people to be judged by their character, not the color of their skin. Which means, a colorblind society begins with each individual looking at the character of other individuals instead of their color or gender.

What does that say about the character of someone who is forever looking for racism in others?

If it takes a village to raise a child, then that means it involves everyone regardless of color or gender to raise a child. If you want a child to be respectful to you, you have to show respect to someone regardless of color or gender. This is not difficult, but it is if you insist you are not the problem and not the solution.

Not only would Dr. King be amazed at how his words have been interpreted and by whom, but he might not be happy with those individuals who have “hijacked” his words. In fact, from experience, I believe those individuals (and you know who they are) who have deliberately misconstrued Dr. King’s words will wish they had not chosen the hate filled path of violent destruction, which is not what Dr. King advocated.

One of the great tragedies of our society is that simple-minded people with shallow and superficial thoughts and observational abilities fail to recognize their shortcomings.

The term “segregation,” in the context of race relations and civil rights, is a condition imposed upon some by others or by broader society. It does not refer to people voluntarily migrating or to people freely associating as they will, even if those migrations and associations do not result in a uniform distribution of races and ethnicities in all places.

The great achievement of the civil rights movement is in removing the obstacles to the exercising of individual freedoms by minorities. It is not about forcing people to blend together, no matter how much the finger-wagging do-gooders insist that it should be.

Forcing people today to live other than how they wish to is little different from forcing people half a century and more to live other than how they wished to.