Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, responds to calls for sports boycotts of
her state over Senate Bill 1070, the new immigration law.
By Gov. Jan Brewer
Special to ESPN.com
Originally Published: May 5, 2010
In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a
federal government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona
is left with little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been
agreed to for 70 years, but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes
no sense. Although I recognize that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not
the entire solution to our illegal immigration problem in Arizona, most people
are united in the hope that it will finally inspire the politicians in
Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.
By now, sports fans everywhere have heard something about the passage of Senate
Bill 1070, a measure I signed into law. It has resulted in protests outside
ballparks hosting our Arizona Diamondbacks and has led to calls on Major League
Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to strip the City of Phoenix's opportunity to
host baseball's Midsummer Classic in July 2011.
Jan Brewer
Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix
is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070
have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response
to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put
simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts
are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests. As a border
state, Arizona has already paid a heavy price for the federal government's
failure -- hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in unreimbursed
costs -- and its citizens should not be punished further.
It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this
new law and have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the
south, Mexico, is in a massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because
of Washington's failure to secure our southern border, Arizona has become the
superhighway of illegal drug and human smuggling activity. In December 2008, the
U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime
threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316 kidnapping cases, turning
the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of the persons
kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.
Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very
same week that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican
cartel operatives suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through
southern Arizona were indicted.
While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence
problem, many of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of
drop houses, where illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise
severely abused, are not uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.
Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals,
representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona
taxpayers are paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because
the federal government refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal
government to pay for these prisoners -- only to be given the same answer she
and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona: They will not pay the bill.
When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial
discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for
weeks with legislators to improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and
strengthen its civil rights protections. I issued an executive order to
implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our police so that the
intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is already against
the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from
considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.
I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and
practically. I have done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with
the greatest respect for the rule of law.
This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from
crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law
enforcement accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an
individual's rights.
There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad
information about Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear
or mistrust.
So here are the facts:
1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a
federal crime. Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of
the law as "Nazis," actions that have been condemned nationally by the
Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY a federal requirement for legal aliens in
the United States to carry their green card or other immigration document. The
new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime since before World War
II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar laws.
2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama
suggested families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law
enforcement cannot randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like
enforcement of seat belt laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be
reasonable suspicion that you are breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before
an officer can ask a person about their legal status. Only then, after law
enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that another law has been
broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY if that
individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here
illegally.
"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly
vetted through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable
suspicion? Is it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is
prohibited in the new law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person
running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to
stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.
3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great
diversity of culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new
immigration law in a constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for
opponents to question the good will and the competence of Arizona's law
enforcement personnel. The specter that is raised of rogue, racist police
harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk their lives in the
name of law enforcement every day.
President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below
it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience
to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more
than patient waiting for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and
misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona
has acted to enforce the rule of law equally and without bias toward any person.
It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an
economic boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent
families and businesses merely seeking to survive during these difficult
economic times.
A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott
illegal drugs. Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for
the safety of all our communities.
-Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.
* * *
LINK: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505=
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Saturday, May 08, 2010
FOR SALE: TRAVEL TRAILER
2005 PROWLER REGAL 32 DBHS
Excellent condition, upgrades galore
sleeps 10, 4 bunks, queen bed, sleep sofa
1 slide out, stove, oven, microwave
Asking $15900 or best offer
Call Dave @ 410-422-0706
Excellent condition, upgrades galore
sleeps 10, 4 bunks, queen bed, sleep sofa
1 slide out, stove, oven, microwave
Asking $15900 or best offer
Call Dave @ 410-422-0706
DAILY TIMES IS FOLLOWING SBYNEWS AGAIN!
Two days late, the newspaper has reported the latest revelation about the Onley Road intersection on South Division Street that the Wicomico County Board of Education is hounding Salisbury to upgrade ASAP because the new high school is opening a year earlier than planned.
On Thursday, we revealed that the BOE has hundreds of thousands of surplus dollars in its hands that it is attempting to spend (also ASAP) -- so that it need not be returned to the County’s coffers—on such things as additional landscaping. During the day we did an update reporting that the City, in the light of that information not previously disclosed in its discussions with the BOE, has decided to reconsider the tentative decision made at a recent work session to proceed with a “stopgap” upgrade that would waste almost $500,000 on a poorly designed modification of the intersection.
We will be providing further news and analysis about this matter, including the BOE’s objection to spending some of that cash kitty to upgrade the intersection rather than the landscaping at the new Bennett high school. Look for more commentary on this blog in a day or so!
On Thursday, we revealed that the BOE has hundreds of thousands of surplus dollars in its hands that it is attempting to spend (also ASAP) -- so that it need not be returned to the County’s coffers—on such things as additional landscaping. During the day we did an update reporting that the City, in the light of that information not previously disclosed in its discussions with the BOE, has decided to reconsider the tentative decision made at a recent work session to proceed with a “stopgap” upgrade that would waste almost $500,000 on a poorly designed modification of the intersection.
We will be providing further news and analysis about this matter, including the BOE’s objection to spending some of that cash kitty to upgrade the intersection rather than the landscaping at the new Bennett high school. Look for more commentary on this blog in a day or so!
Statement From Dr. John Fredericksen
Statement from Dr. John Fredericksen, Superintendent of Schools, on Olney Road/South Division Street Intersection
The Wicomico County Public School System is delighted that the new James M. Bennett High School building will be ready to open in August 2010, a full year ahead of the anticipated occupancy date. However, the state of the intersection at Onley Road and South Division Street continues to be a concern, one that has existed from the start of the project in 2006.
In designing the James M. Bennett High project, the school system planned many improvements to enhance traffic flow, reduce congestion on roads around the school, and improve pedestrian and motorist safety. In 2006, the Board of Education shared with the City of Salisbury its plans to divide staff, student and parent car traffic from the bus traffic. Cars would use the entrance on College Avenue, while buses would travel on Onley Road to reach the bus loop at the back of the school. This is a traffic division we strive to make at all schools because it is safer for our students as well as motorists and bus drivers.
This fit neatly with the stated plans of the county to upgrade its portion of Onley Road, and of the city to improve Onley Road and the intersection with South Division Street. At the time, even before the opening of University Park and the many pedestrian, vehicle and shuttle bus trips it generates each day, it was already clear to city and county officials that the roadway and intersection needed improvements.
Using the city's own 2006 traffic study, which showed that bus traffic from James M. Bennett High School would have a 2 percent impact on the intersection of Onley Road/South Division Street/Bateman Street, the school system paid the city $25,000 to cover its portion of the cost of improving the intersection. As part of the project, the school system also reduced the number of curb cuts it will use on Onley Road from three to two to further reduce the impact on Onley Road.
The county subsequently widened and improved its portion of Onley Road, while improvements at the South Division Street end of Onley Road remain in the discussion stage.
Back in 2006, the Board of Education shared with the city the planned completion date for the project: August 2010. While the funding schedule later caused the school system to revise the anticipated opening date to August 2011, the school system informed the city when it became clear that the project could be finished by the original date. In February, before the school system made any public announcement about the August 2010 opening of the new James M. Bennett High building, the school system informed the city by letter of the scheduled opening date and reminded the city of the continued need for improvements at Onley Road/South Division Street.
The bulk of the intersection's use from Onley Road is residential housing for Salisbury University students, while the South Division Street corridor is a busy one thanks to business and residential development along Milford Street, Dykes Road and other areas served by the two-lane South Division Street. Salisbury University, like the school system, has made a payment to the city to address its share of the impact on the intersection.
During construction, in accordance with the terms of a public works agreement signed with the city, the school system also spent more than $1 million to redesign the access of James M. Bennett High and Bennett Middle on College Avenue, with the goals of limiting access points, improving traffic flow, and boosting safety. These improvements will reduce the number of entrances and exits on College Avenue from five to two (when Bennett Middle has been relocated to its new location in Fruitland). The improvements also aligned the exits with existing streets, and ensured that exits from the school would be made at signalized intersections. At the same time, the school system made drainage improvements south of the construction site to assist the city with ongoing drainage problems on College Avenue.
During a recent meeting, the city voted unanimously to make improvements to the Onley Road/South Division Street/Bateman Street intersection so that the intersection could be safer and more effective for all users. To allow time for the work to be done, the school system is considering temporary options for the first few weeks of the 2010-11 school year. These options could include dropping off and picking up students at the back of the parking lot between the two existing Bennett schools, or routing buses along an unimproved service path from the current staff parking lot to the new bus loop. Both of these options would combine bus and car traffic, and temporarily using the service path for buses would significantly increase the risk of accidents involving our students. The school system is still evaluating its options for handling bus drop-offs and pickups, and could determine that it is best to proceed with the original plan of using Onley Road to access the new bus loop. Making temporary adjustments on school property so that the Onley Road/South Division Street intersection can be upgraded for all users is acceptable only if those adjustments do not present an increased safety risk to our students.
The school system supports the city’s unanimously agreed-on improvements to Onley Road/South Division Street/Bateman Street. These improvements will allow bus traffic as well as other motorists and pedestrians, bicyclists and skateboarders to travel more safely through that intersection. The intersection would have a walk/don't walk signal to allow pedestrians, skateboarders and cyclists a safe time to cross.
There will be 26 buses serving James M. Bennett High, twice a day for about 45 minutes at a time. When the buses leave in the afternoon, 17 of the buses would bear right in a new right turn lane to reach their route. With immediate left turns onto Bateman Street no longer allowed, traffic could flow unimpeded. The nine buses traveling south -- not all of which would be leaving the school at the same time -- would stop at the new Onley Road signal to await the green light.
Recently, questions have been asked about whether there is sufficient funding left in the construction budget for James M. Bennett High School to pay for the intersection improvements. School construction projects in Maryland are funded jointly by the state and county. Money that remains in the project budget following the completion of construction is not surplus funding for the school system’s use, but would revert to the county.
On any major capital project, in keeping with sound financial practices, the school system maintains an acceptable level of contingency reserve until the project has progressed to the point where a certain risk threshold has been achieved. Now that occupancy is a few months away and part of the risk threshold has been achieved, money held in reserve for contingencies might now be available for use on the project. However, the Bennett project will not be complete until Bennett Middle School is constructed at its new site in Fruitland. Only then will the current Bennett Middle School be demolished and the full site available for completion of the high school, including some of its athletic fields. Only at that time will the James M. Bennett High School project be done.
The project was bid not as one giant project but as a large project with many alternates, some of which were initially included in the project and some of which were held for later consideration. The county-appointed School Building Commission, which regularly meets to review and make recommendations on school building projects, has declined to recommend including many additional alternates at this time. Payment for the cost of intersection upgrades off-site – upgrades for which the school system has already paid its portion, as well as more than $1 million for improvements on College Avenue – is not within the scope of the project.
The intersection design approved recently by the city is the least disruptive to traffic flow at the Onley Road/South Division Street/Bateman Street intersection. It is a design that is readily achievable, and one which the school system has already paid its share to support. This design would lift the intersection to a service level B, the highest service level most of the city's intersections achieve. The traffic circle option is not only more costly and time-consuming, it would require the acquisition of additional land from Salisbury University and would not provide a signalized crossing for the many people who cross the intersection on foot, cycle or skateboard.
The need for improvements to the intersection, discussed with the school system for four years and known by the city even earlier, is an issue for today. The community cannot wait five years for the construction of a traffic circle that would cost more and solve some problems while potentially creating new ones. Construction of the city-approved intersection improvements should begin now, to benefit all the users of that intersection.
HISTORICAL COMMENTS BY GEORGE CHEVALLIER
Growing Up In SalisburyI was born in 1943, so the 1950’s were the years of my youth. I don’t know how we managed without all the electronic gizmos they have today, but we did. My granddaughter, Lily, has something called a DS that is a handheld device with which she plays games. She is six and can run circles around me with it. Her little fingers fairly fly, and she has good enough hand/eye coordination to win occasionally. I wonder if I will live long enough to share my Methotraxate with her.
As seen by the above picture, I liked playing on the cannon down at the city park. It is still there and she likes to play on it, too – 62 years later. Some things never change.
Anyway, I had the standard equipment for a boy in the 1950’s – a bicycle, a baseball glove, a fishing rig and one football and one basketball. We played basketball with a hoop that my grandfather installed at the end of our driveway. The driveway was constructed of stone chip and tar and was really hard on a pair of Chuck Taylor’s (low cut black sneakers). Everybody wore them with white athletic socks. I can well remember that the driveway would wear them down to where they were almost slick. I used to take them to my grandfather’s shop and put them in a vise to saw new tread in them. You would have thought I had new shoes. They would really grip.
Of course there was always the Red Shield Boys Club. How many remember the director, Kenny Cathell? I still have my membership card. And Don Patterson manned the “cage” during football season handing out helmets, shoulder pads and uniforms. For boys 8-14 years old, their football and basketball programs were top-notch. It seemed like every boy got to play, no matter what his skill level. Of course, if you didn’t play well, you didn’t play much. That was the incentive to practice and get better.
The same mentality of thrift I used on my sneakers was exhibited by my mother. She had all kinds of ways to extend the life of an object, most of which are not even heard of in this era of a “throw away” world. When the collar or cuffs on a shirt would fray, she would “turn” them. We thought it was as good as new. It wasn’t that we couldn’t afford to buy something if we had to, but we got more out of things in those days.
Fishing in the Park was another favorite pastime in the summer. We used to fish for bass, pike and pickerel. If you didn’t have a lure to suit the occasion, the old fashioned worm came into play. We had a neat trick to obtain our worms. Have you ever observed a robin scurrying around on your lawn? What he is doing is looking for worms. He can feel them with his feet and digs down for them. We would soak a patch of our yard to get the worms moving and then wait for an accommodating robin to pull the worm half-way out. We would then shoo the robin away and proceed to extract the rest of the worm and have our bait. That seems mean to me now to have done that to the robin, but we didn’t think about that then. I have more than made up for it in the amount of peanuts I have given to the squirrels recently.
Along with the Saturday afternoon movie at the Ulman Theater, the only other diversions before television were board games, and we played them all. My father and mother never gave up their frequent game of Parcheesi. They were compatible. Pop always won, and Mom didn’t seem to mind. I think when he died in 1978; the score was something like Pop 10,000 – Mom 4.
Pence: Greece Bailout Aids Competitor
House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) on Friday said the Obama administration's support for the Greece bailout is counter-intuitive since the country is a member of the European Union and a business competitor to the U.S.
"The European Union was formed to compete with the United States of America, economically," he said on the WLS Don and Roma Morning Show, a Chicago-area radio program. "We're not asking for help with New Jersey and California from the EU so it's incomprehensible to us that the American taxpayers, at a time when we're running record deficits and debt and we have a struggling economy, that we would be asked to bailout Greece."
Earlier this week, Pence and conference vice chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash) penned a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking him to oppose the Greece bailout. In a similar letter they also urged Vice President Joe Biden to oppose financial aid to Spain, which is facing its own financial crisis.
"Should Spain request a bailout from the IMF, we urge you to make it clear that the U.S. will oppose such a bailout, and do all in its power as the IMF's leading contributor to reject putting American money further at risk," they wrote to Biden. "The U.S. did not implement the policies that have caused Spain's debt issue and the U.S. taxpayer should not be put at risk to bail them out."
Pence urged Democratic leaders to publicly acknowledge that the bailouts are partially funded by taxpayer dollars.
"People of the Chicagoland area and WLS listeners deserve to know that if the proposed bailout of Greece goes forward, American taxpayers will be asked to pony up about $8 billion," Pence said, adding, "They [Democrats] don't seem to be talking quite as much about the fact that American taxpayers will be asked to bailout this European socialist power in the EU, but those are the facts."
"I don't believe the American people want that," Pence said. "I don't believe we want to pay that price tag. But the truth is, if we don't reverse course on our present fiscal direction, we will face the same debt-to-economy ration that is crushing Greece today in just 15 years."
Here is more
"The European Union was formed to compete with the United States of America, economically," he said on the WLS Don and Roma Morning Show, a Chicago-area radio program. "We're not asking for help with New Jersey and California from the EU so it's incomprehensible to us that the American taxpayers, at a time when we're running record deficits and debt and we have a struggling economy, that we would be asked to bailout Greece."
Earlier this week, Pence and conference vice chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash) penned a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner asking him to oppose the Greece bailout. In a similar letter they also urged Vice President Joe Biden to oppose financial aid to Spain, which is facing its own financial crisis.
"Should Spain request a bailout from the IMF, we urge you to make it clear that the U.S. will oppose such a bailout, and do all in its power as the IMF's leading contributor to reject putting American money further at risk," they wrote to Biden. "The U.S. did not implement the policies that have caused Spain's debt issue and the U.S. taxpayer should not be put at risk to bail them out."
Pence urged Democratic leaders to publicly acknowledge that the bailouts are partially funded by taxpayer dollars.
"People of the Chicagoland area and WLS listeners deserve to know that if the proposed bailout of Greece goes forward, American taxpayers will be asked to pony up about $8 billion," Pence said, adding, "They [Democrats] don't seem to be talking quite as much about the fact that American taxpayers will be asked to bailout this European socialist power in the EU, but those are the facts."
"I don't believe the American people want that," Pence said. "I don't believe we want to pay that price tag. But the truth is, if we don't reverse course on our present fiscal direction, we will face the same debt-to-economy ration that is crushing Greece today in just 15 years."
Here is more
Pelosi: It’s Cheaper To Treat Teens For Drug Use Than Interdict Drugs At Border
While pointing out that it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) said Thursday it is cheaper to treat teens for drug use than it is to interdict drugs being smuggled across the border.
CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”
“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi.
“That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.
More here
CNSNews.com pointed out to the speaker at her weekly press briefing that a recent Justice Department report indicated that one in five U.S. teenagers used drugs last year, and then asked: “Are you committed to sealing the border against the influx of illegal drugs from Mexico and, if so, do you have a target date in mind for getting that done?”
“Well if your question is about drugs, I’m for reducing demand in the United States,” said Pelosi.
“That is what our responsibility is on this subject. The RAND Corporation a few years ago did a report that said it would be much less expensive for us to, through prevention first and foremost, but through treatment on demand to reduce demand in our country, is the cheapest way to solve this problem.
More here
Lieberman: Strip Terrorists Of Citizenship
Saying that citizens who become terrorists are at war with the U.S., lawmakers on Capitol Hill introduced a bill Thursday to let the government strip them of their citizenship - and stirred up a debate over what tools should be used to fight the war on terrorism.
Under a 1940 law, the State Department already can withdraw citizenship from those who join an enemy's armed forces, and the lawmakers said it's time to update the law by adding terrorism to the list of reasons, particularly because the threat of homegrown terrorism is increasing.
"Our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans here in our homeland," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who is leading the bipartisan push.
The lawmakers argued that those who engage in terrorism have shown an intent to renounce their citizenship - the standard set in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that rejected an effort to void the 1940 law. The court said Congress can decide there are some actions people take that prove they intended to renounce their citizenship.
But both administration officials and congressional leaders, however, seemed uncertain about going down that path.
GO HERE to read more.
Under a 1940 law, the State Department already can withdraw citizenship from those who join an enemy's armed forces, and the lawmakers said it's time to update the law by adding terrorism to the list of reasons, particularly because the threat of homegrown terrorism is increasing.
"Our enemies today are even more willing than the Nazis or fascists were to kill innocent civilian Americans here in our homeland," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, who is leading the bipartisan push.
The lawmakers argued that those who engage in terrorism have shown an intent to renounce their citizenship - the standard set in a 1980 Supreme Court ruling that rejected an effort to void the 1940 law. The court said Congress can decide there are some actions people take that prove they intended to renounce their citizenship.
But both administration officials and congressional leaders, however, seemed uncertain about going down that path.
GO HERE to read more.
Liberals Want To Ignore Immigration Law
The ink hadn’t even dried from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s signature on the anti-illegal immigration law written by the state legislature before the shrieks and howls and wailing and gnashing of teeth began in earnest in the media.
“This is racial profiling!” they screamed. “What about civil liberties?” “All this does is discriminate against Hispanics!” they moaned.
Wow, what a fuss. Fury erupted because Arizona lawmakers had had enough and decided to become the first state to have the guts to give police the authority to do the unthinkable: enforce the law.
Some concept, huh? Actually letting cops do their jobs. So when an Arizona police officer pulls someone over for speeding or weaving through traffic and they discover that the driver has absolutely no identification on them and is barely capable of speaking English, that officer might conclude that the driver is in Arizona illegally. Ask any cop and they’ll assure you that it doesn’t exactly take a forensics team from NCIS to figure out that someone is an illegal.
GO HERE to read more.
“This is racial profiling!” they screamed. “What about civil liberties?” “All this does is discriminate against Hispanics!” they moaned.
Wow, what a fuss. Fury erupted because Arizona lawmakers had had enough and decided to become the first state to have the guts to give police the authority to do the unthinkable: enforce the law.
Some concept, huh? Actually letting cops do their jobs. So when an Arizona police officer pulls someone over for speeding or weaving through traffic and they discover that the driver has absolutely no identification on them and is barely capable of speaking English, that officer might conclude that the driver is in Arizona illegally. Ask any cop and they’ll assure you that it doesn’t exactly take a forensics team from NCIS to figure out that someone is an illegal.
GO HERE to read more.
Va. Man Uses iPhone App To Meet Teen For Sex: Police
It’s even worse than an episode of “To Catch A Predator.” A Fairfax County man is in big trouble for having sex with a 14-year old Maryland girl he allegedly met through a social networking application on his iPhone, the Washington Examiner reported.
GO HERE to read more.
GO HERE to read more.
President Obama's Worst Judicial Nominee
Birds of a feather flock together and a President is unlikely to give a judicial appointment to someone who is not in general support of his values. So what does it mean when he nominates an inexperienced lawyer who has “never been in court,” either to argue a case as a trial attorney or decide one as a judge but from his writings clearly looks at the Constitution and finds brand new rights that have never been discovered before. His “freewheeling constitutional approach yields a plethora of extreme left-wing results, including his support for the invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Also noteworthy is his denunciation of the traditional American principles of “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections”.
Ellen Sauerbrey
Unsound and Unfit
Goodwin Liu is President Obama’s worst judicial nominee . . . so far.
This afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to conduct its confirmation hearing for Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu. Liu, who was nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience. It’s the rare nominee who could threaten to make the Ninth Circuit — long the laughingstock of the federal appellate courts — even worse, but that’s exactly the threat that Liu embodies.
Let me first acknowledge what is not at issue: Liu is clearly very bright and talented, and he has compiled an impressive list of achievements, including a Rhodes Scholarship and a clerkship with Justice Ginsburg. As the son of Taiwanese immigrants, he has an inspiring life story. And he possesses a pleasing demeanor.
But as Liu himself stated in his testimony against the confirmation of Justice Alito, “Intellect, however, is a necessary but not sufficient credential.” Nor, of course, do an inspiring life story and a pleasing demeanor go to the core of the judicial role. Rather, what ought to be of central concern, as Liu rightly put it, is “the nominee’s ‘judicial philosophy,’ a somewhat amorphous term that encompasses his perspective on the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy.”
The record of the typical nominee reveals only indirect — though often highly probative — clues about the nominee’s judicial philosophy. But in Liu’s case, we are not limited to the broad set of inferences that can reasonably be drawn from, say, his longtime membership on (and current chairmanship of) the board of directors of the American Constitution Society — which calls itself “one of the nation’s leading progressive legal organizations” — or from his service on the boards of directors of such organizations as the ACLU of Northern California, the National Women’s Law Center, the Public Welfare Foundation, and Chinese for Affirmative Action.
Beyond such indirect evidence, we have the nominee’s own lengthy confession of his views — his self-indictment. Take, for example, the book, pleadingly titled Keeping Faith with the Constitution, in which Liu and his two fellow-lefty co-authors try to slap the deceptive label “constitutional fidelity” on the shoddy “living Constitution” gambit that proponents of liberal judicial activism have used to redefine the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. In malleable terms that would make Bill Clinton a model of marital fidelity, Liu explains, “What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.” Liu is able to attack originalism — the genuinely faithful method of constitutional interpretation — only by misrepresentations and distortions.
Wonder of wonders, Liu’s freewheeling constitutional approach yields a plethora of extreme left-wing results, including his support for the invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Also noteworthy is his denunciation of the traditional American principles of “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections” (see point 3 here).
Perhaps most striking, in part because Liu presents his position as so modest, is his law-review article “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” whichargues that judges (usually in an “interstitial” role) may legitimately invent constitutional rights to a broad range of social “welfare” goods, including education, shelter, subsistence, and health care. To be sure, it’s easy to be numbed by Liu’s soporific rhetoric in passages like this one:
My thesis is that the legitimacy of judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal not to transcendent moral principles for an ideal society, but to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society. . . . I argue that judicial recognition of welfare rights is best conceived as an act of interpreting the shared understandings of particular welfare goods as they are manifested in our institutions, laws, and evolving social practices.
Or this one:
The problem for courts is to determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine. This difficult task requires keen attention to the trajectory of social norms reflected in public policies, institutions, and practices, as well as predictive judgment as to how a judicial decision may help forge or frustrate a social consensus.
But the vast discretionary judicial role that Liu urges — one that reduces Congress and the state legislatures to quasi-administrative bodies —fundamentally misunderstands (to restate Liu’s test of judicial philosophy) “the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy.” And the recklessness Liu would show in wielding judicial power is evident from his breezy conclusion that his proposed approach to constitutional welfare rights would invalidate Congress’s method for allocating federal funds to states for the education of low-income children and would also strike down California’s system of school finance.
It gets even worse. Some folks have evidently misconstrued Liu’s position on school choice as an exception to his hard-Left record on constitutional issues. But Liu supports only those school-choice programs that advance his goal of racial quotas in schools, and he views even those programs as a second-best alternative to his preferred means of direct judicial imposition of interdistrict racial-balancing orders. (Busing, anyone? Ah, yes, that’s the cure to our educational ills. Just make those four-year-olds spend three hours a day on the bus.) It’s highly doubtful that Liu considers any other sort of school-choice program to be constitutionally permissible.
Liu is pressing to revive “the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action,” an idea that, as Justice Powell warned in 1986, would result in forever “imposing discriminatory legal remedies that work against innocent people.” To Liu, the innocent victims of racial preferences count for nothing. As he bluntly puts it, “if it seems like the cumulative effects of societal discrimination will take a long time to remedy, that is because it will.” For Liu, concerns that “remedying societal discrimination . . . has no foreseeable endpoint” are nothing more than (as he quotes Justice Brennan) “a fear of too much justice.” Hence also his call for all Americans to make sacrifices as reparations for slavery.
Liu’s woeful inexperience compounds his deficiencies of judicial philosophy. He is only 39, and he has even less experience than his age might suggest. He has been a member of the bar for less than eleven years, and he practiced law for less than two years. Under a neutral application of the ABA’s rules — i.e., “a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law,” and “substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important” — Liu would presumptively receive a “not qualified” rating and be very fortunate to eke out a “qualified.” But somehow the ABA’s process was jiggered to give Liu the ridiculous rating of “well qualified.”
To top it all off, Liu made a wildly distorted and incompetent, if not deliberately dishonest, attack on John Roberts’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and he offered demagogic testimony against Samuel Alito’s nomination. Those facts alone ought to be enough to disqualify a nominee, yet they haven’t kept Liu from eagerly plotting his path to a Ninth Circuit seat as a stepping-stone to his goal of a Supreme Court nomination.
Goodwin Liu has amply shown that he has an unsound judicial philosophy and that he cannot be trusted with judicial power. His nomination should be vigorously contested and defeated.
Ellen Sauerbrey
Unsound and Unfit
Goodwin Liu is President Obama’s worst judicial nominee . . . so far.
This afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to conduct its confirmation hearing for Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu. Liu, who was nominated by President Obama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience. It’s the rare nominee who could threaten to make the Ninth Circuit — long the laughingstock of the federal appellate courts — even worse, but that’s exactly the threat that Liu embodies.
Let me first acknowledge what is not at issue: Liu is clearly very bright and talented, and he has compiled an impressive list of achievements, including a Rhodes Scholarship and a clerkship with Justice Ginsburg. As the son of Taiwanese immigrants, he has an inspiring life story. And he possesses a pleasing demeanor.
But as Liu himself stated in his testimony against the confirmation of Justice Alito, “Intellect, however, is a necessary but not sufficient credential.” Nor, of course, do an inspiring life story and a pleasing demeanor go to the core of the judicial role. Rather, what ought to be of central concern, as Liu rightly put it, is “the nominee’s ‘judicial philosophy,’ a somewhat amorphous term that encompasses his perspective on the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy.”
The record of the typical nominee reveals only indirect — though often highly probative — clues about the nominee’s judicial philosophy. But in Liu’s case, we are not limited to the broad set of inferences that can reasonably be drawn from, say, his longtime membership on (and current chairmanship of) the board of directors of the American Constitution Society — which calls itself “one of the nation’s leading progressive legal organizations” — or from his service on the boards of directors of such organizations as the ACLU of Northern California, the National Women’s Law Center, the Public Welfare Foundation, and Chinese for Affirmative Action.
Beyond such indirect evidence, we have the nominee’s own lengthy confession of his views — his self-indictment. Take, for example, the book, pleadingly titled Keeping Faith with the Constitution, in which Liu and his two fellow-lefty co-authors try to slap the deceptive label “constitutional fidelity” on the shoddy “living Constitution” gambit that proponents of liberal judicial activism have used to redefine the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. In malleable terms that would make Bill Clinton a model of marital fidelity, Liu explains, “What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.” Liu is able to attack originalism — the genuinely faithful method of constitutional interpretation — only by misrepresentations and distortions.
Wonder of wonders, Liu’s freewheeling constitutional approach yields a plethora of extreme left-wing results, including his support for the invention of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Also noteworthy is his denunciation of the traditional American principles of “free enterprise,” “private ownership of property,” and “limited government” as “code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, workplace, and consumer protections” (see point 3 here).
Perhaps most striking, in part because Liu presents his position as so modest, is his law-review article “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” whichargues that judges (usually in an “interstitial” role) may legitimately invent constitutional rights to a broad range of social “welfare” goods, including education, shelter, subsistence, and health care. To be sure, it’s easy to be numbed by Liu’s soporific rhetoric in passages like this one:
My thesis is that the legitimacy of judicial recognition of welfare rights depends on socially situated modes of reasoning that appeal not to transcendent moral principles for an ideal society, but to the culturally and historically contingent meanings of particular social goods in our own society. . . . I argue that judicial recognition of welfare rights is best conceived as an act of interpreting the shared understandings of particular welfare goods as they are manifested in our institutions, laws, and evolving social practices.
Or this one:
The problem for courts is to determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine. This difficult task requires keen attention to the trajectory of social norms reflected in public policies, institutions, and practices, as well as predictive judgment as to how a judicial decision may help forge or frustrate a social consensus.
But the vast discretionary judicial role that Liu urges — one that reduces Congress and the state legislatures to quasi-administrative bodies —fundamentally misunderstands (to restate Liu’s test of judicial philosophy) “the role of the courts in a constitutional democracy.” And the recklessness Liu would show in wielding judicial power is evident from his breezy conclusion that his proposed approach to constitutional welfare rights would invalidate Congress’s method for allocating federal funds to states for the education of low-income children and would also strike down California’s system of school finance.
It gets even worse. Some folks have evidently misconstrued Liu’s position on school choice as an exception to his hard-Left record on constitutional issues. But Liu supports only those school-choice programs that advance his goal of racial quotas in schools, and he views even those programs as a second-best alternative to his preferred means of direct judicial imposition of interdistrict racial-balancing orders. (Busing, anyone? Ah, yes, that’s the cure to our educational ills. Just make those four-year-olds spend three hours a day on the bus.) It’s highly doubtful that Liu considers any other sort of school-choice program to be constitutionally permissible.
Liu is pressing to revive “the idea of remedying societal discrimination as a justification for affirmative action,” an idea that, as Justice Powell warned in 1986, would result in forever “imposing discriminatory legal remedies that work against innocent people.” To Liu, the innocent victims of racial preferences count for nothing. As he bluntly puts it, “if it seems like the cumulative effects of societal discrimination will take a long time to remedy, that is because it will.” For Liu, concerns that “remedying societal discrimination . . . has no foreseeable endpoint” are nothing more than (as he quotes Justice Brennan) “a fear of too much justice.” Hence also his call for all Americans to make sacrifices as reparations for slavery.
Liu’s woeful inexperience compounds his deficiencies of judicial philosophy. He is only 39, and he has even less experience than his age might suggest. He has been a member of the bar for less than eleven years, and he practiced law for less than two years. Under a neutral application of the ABA’s rules — i.e., “a prospective nominee to the federal bench ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law,” and “substantial courtroom and trial experience as a lawyer or trial judge is important” — Liu would presumptively receive a “not qualified” rating and be very fortunate to eke out a “qualified.” But somehow the ABA’s process was jiggered to give Liu the ridiculous rating of “well qualified.”
To top it all off, Liu made a wildly distorted and incompetent, if not deliberately dishonest, attack on John Roberts’s nomination to the Supreme Court, and he offered demagogic testimony against Samuel Alito’s nomination. Those facts alone ought to be enough to disqualify a nominee, yet they haven’t kept Liu from eagerly plotting his path to a Ninth Circuit seat as a stepping-stone to his goal of a Supreme Court nomination.
Goodwin Liu has amply shown that he has an unsound judicial philosophy and that he cannot be trusted with judicial power. His nomination should be vigorously contested and defeated.
Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and is a regular contributor to NRO’s “Bench Memos” blog, where he has written extensively about the Liu nomination.
'Undocumented' Spectators
Imagine thousands of people were sneaking into Phoenix Suns games without tickets.
The management would quickly crack down on the "undocumented spectators."
Security personnel would engage in "profiling" - singling out younger male fans wandering around without obvious seats. They would want to see some "papers" - ticket stubs. Those lacking documentation would be deported out of the arena, or, in some cases, arrested.
The Phoenix Suns, an NBA franchise, made a statement in Game 2 of their playoff series on Wednesday by donning jerseys that read "Los Suns" in support of Hispanic (illegal) immigrants and in opposition to the new Arizona immigration law. They wore the jerseys twice during the regular season. (Are there really that many Hispanics in the NBA?)
Suns owner Robert Sarver says the law calls into question "our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law." General Manager Steve Kerr said the team wasn't after "a huge political statement" but wanted to "celebrate the diversity that exists here in Arizona." On the other hand, he said the law conjures up "images of Nazi Germany."
The team could have at least made an effort to get the Spanish right. A literal translation would be "Los Soles." Furthermore, they might want to rethink the wisdom of alienating their fan base, given that 70 percent of Arizonans support the law.
Adding insult to injury, The Phoenix News Times reports, "The greatest example of government bailout excess may just be Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver, whose banks have taken $140 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds." Apparently, he still had money for the basketball team, though.
So what to do? The Washington Times suggests a solution:
"[W]hile millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity."
We might add that if you give birth at a game, you get lifetime season tickets for the anchor baby. Or maybe the Suns should stick to basketball. Just a thought.
The Patriot Post
The management would quickly crack down on the "undocumented spectators."
Security personnel would engage in "profiling" - singling out younger male fans wandering around without obvious seats. They would want to see some "papers" - ticket stubs. Those lacking documentation would be deported out of the arena, or, in some cases, arrested.
The Phoenix Suns, an NBA franchise, made a statement in Game 2 of their playoff series on Wednesday by donning jerseys that read "Los Suns" in support of Hispanic (illegal) immigrants and in opposition to the new Arizona immigration law. They wore the jerseys twice during the regular season. (Are there really that many Hispanics in the NBA?)
Suns owner Robert Sarver says the law calls into question "our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law." General Manager Steve Kerr said the team wasn't after "a huge political statement" but wanted to "celebrate the diversity that exists here in Arizona." On the other hand, he said the law conjures up "images of Nazi Germany."
The team could have at least made an effort to get the Spanish right. A literal translation would be "Los Soles." Furthermore, they might want to rethink the wisdom of alienating their fan base, given that 70 percent of Arizonans support the law.
Adding insult to injury, The Phoenix News Times reports, "The greatest example of government bailout excess may just be Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver, whose banks have taken $140 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program funds." Apparently, he still had money for the basketball team, though.
So what to do? The Washington Times suggests a solution:
"[W]hile millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity."
We might add that if you give birth at a game, you get lifetime season tickets for the anchor baby. Or maybe the Suns should stick to basketball. Just a thought.
The Patriot Post
Cathy's Pet Salon Aides In Oil Clean Up
Cathy's Pet Salon, Spa & Doggie Daycare is collecting hair, human, or animal, to aide in the clean-up of oil in the Gulf. Hair should be free of fleas and debris. Bag in plastic bag, eliminating as much air as possible. Also please put your name or organization on the bag using masking tape or similar. We will then box it up at sent it to a Vet Clinic in Tampa, Fl. Our Salon hours are M - F 8 - 5 and every other Sat (call for Sat drop off) Any assistance in shipping will be greatly appreciated!
Congressional Candidate Andy Harris
Dear Supporter,
With the country still reeling from the attempted car bombing in Times Square, I wanted to write to you today on the important issue of National Security.
As a Navy veteran, I know that we live in a dangerous world- and we must maintain our defenses against our enemies. We must protect our allies and keep their trust by keeping our promises. Peace is kept through strength. I strongly support funding for defense and homeland security programs to ensure that the U.S. has the best-equipped and best-trained military in the world.
If you know me, you know that I am a dedicated advocate for small government. However, government does have a place in our society, and its first and foremost job is the protection of the people of our great country - from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Terrorists are not entitled to the rights of American citizens. The priority of the Department of Justice must be the protection of Americans, not the protection and defense of the rights of terrorists.
As your Congressman, I assure you that I will do all in my power to protect you and your family from the scourge of terrorism. Our current struggle against the forces of Islamic terrorism is truly a war, and should be treated as such - not as a political football. As your Congressman, I will take this responsibility very seriously, keeping America safe in a dangerous and uncertain world must be our top priority.
You can learn more about my position on National Security, as well as several other issues, on my campaign website, www.AndyHarris.com.
Thank you for your time and your support.
Andy Harris
SHOREBIRDS DROP OPENER TO CHARLESTON, 6-4
RiverDogs Plate Two Runs in the Ninth Inning
Salisbury, Md. – The Charleston RiverDogs plated two runs in the ninth inning to top the Shorebirds 6-4 at Perdue Stadium on Friday night. The Shorebirds have been involved in nine games that have been tied after eight innings this season.
The RiverDogs jumped out to an early lead against Shorebirds starter Matt Hobgood. Jimmy Paredes hit a leadoff single in the first. He moved to second on a throwing error by Hobgood. After advancing to third on a ground out, Paredes scored on a wild pitch.
In the second, the RiverDogs took a 2-0 edge. Kyle Higashioka hit a double. A wild pitch advanced him to third and he scored on a ground out.
The RiverDogs tallied another run in the third. Parades again jumped started the ‘Dogs with a double. He scored on a single by Zoilo Almonte.
The Shorebirds began to climb back in the bottom of the fourth. Ty Kelly hit a double to left-center field. A dribbler up the third base side by Brian Conley pushed Kelly to third. Stampone then grounded to short and Kelly scored as Paredes booted the grounder.
In the fifth inning, the Shorebirds tied the game at 4-4. Michael Ohlman hit a leadoff knock to left field. Garabez Rosa followed with a triple to plate Ohlman. The next batter, Mike Mooney, hit a sacrifice fly to center field to score Rosa. Kelly then smoked a double to left field. He later scored on a ground out by Steve Bumbry.
The game went into the ninth tied at four. Kelvin Castro started the frame with a single. Two batters later, Paredes singled. A walk to Justin Milo loaded the bases. Brandhorst then tossed a wild pitch to score Castro, which gave the RiverDogs a 5-4 lead. Luke Murton hit a double to left-center field to score Paredes.
Matt Hobgood pitched five innings for the Shorebirds and did not factor into the decision. Nathan Moreau tossed three shutout frames. Brandhorst was pinned with his second loss of the season.
The Shorebirds play the Charleston RiverDogs in game two on Saturday night at 7:05 p.m.
Salisbury, Md. – The Charleston RiverDogs plated two runs in the ninth inning to top the Shorebirds 6-4 at Perdue Stadium on Friday night. The Shorebirds have been involved in nine games that have been tied after eight innings this season.
The RiverDogs jumped out to an early lead against Shorebirds starter Matt Hobgood. Jimmy Paredes hit a leadoff single in the first. He moved to second on a throwing error by Hobgood. After advancing to third on a ground out, Paredes scored on a wild pitch.
In the second, the RiverDogs took a 2-0 edge. Kyle Higashioka hit a double. A wild pitch advanced him to third and he scored on a ground out.
The RiverDogs tallied another run in the third. Parades again jumped started the ‘Dogs with a double. He scored on a single by Zoilo Almonte.
The Shorebirds began to climb back in the bottom of the fourth. Ty Kelly hit a double to left-center field. A dribbler up the third base side by Brian Conley pushed Kelly to third. Stampone then grounded to short and Kelly scored as Paredes booted the grounder.
In the fifth inning, the Shorebirds tied the game at 4-4. Michael Ohlman hit a leadoff knock to left field. Garabez Rosa followed with a triple to plate Ohlman. The next batter, Mike Mooney, hit a sacrifice fly to center field to score Rosa. Kelly then smoked a double to left field. He later scored on a ground out by Steve Bumbry.
The game went into the ninth tied at four. Kelvin Castro started the frame with a single. Two batters later, Paredes singled. A walk to Justin Milo loaded the bases. Brandhorst then tossed a wild pitch to score Castro, which gave the RiverDogs a 5-4 lead. Luke Murton hit a double to left-center field to score Paredes.
Matt Hobgood pitched five innings for the Shorebirds and did not factor into the decision. Nathan Moreau tossed three shutout frames. Brandhorst was pinned with his second loss of the season.
The Shorebirds play the Charleston RiverDogs in game two on Saturday night at 7:05 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)