It has been a struggle of late to manufacture runs for the Lady War Eagles in these crucial district games. Come from behind wins have put two W’s in the column for the struggling team who are left wondering where the hits have disappeared to. On this night, Kingwood would pepper enough runs on the board to take the W with them and leave Ridge with their third district loss.

After a quiet first inning, Kingwood came out in the 2nd with a lead off hit from senior Audrey Winders. A wild pitch from Oak Ridge starter Taylor Hastings moved Winders over to 2nd with no outs.  A line drive out to Hastings caught Winders off the bag but a failed pick-off attempt ultimately moved Winders to 3rd. A well executed bunt-and-run play by the Lady Mustangs made it a 1-0 ball game after the second frame.

Kingwood scrapped another run in the 4th inning after consecutive hits from pitcher Cassie McClure and senior Jordann Jezek. A fielding error in the outfield scored McClure that put the Lady Mustangs ahead 2-0 after four innings of play.

Oak Ridge appeared to have a spark in the 6th inning when lead-off hitter Kris Davila sent a rocket out to left field for a standup double. A fielders choice from Taylor Ervin moved Davila over to 3rd and another attempted fielders choice placed senior Jessi Burnett on first base. However, the rally was killed after an untimely double play was produced off an infield grounder.

With two outs in the 7th inning, Kingwood posted two more runs off consecutive hits from lead off hitter Anna Olejniczak and Jess Rubin. Olejniczak moved to 2nd on her hit from an outfield error and moved to 3rd on Rubin’s hit.  Kaitlin Munoz hit a double to left center, scoring Olejniczak and Rubin before getting thrown out at 3rd on an 8-4-5 play.  Despite Oak Ridge’s five batter appearance in the bottom of the 7th, McClure handled the Lady War Eagles one pitch at a time and produced a strike out to end the game.

Oak Ridge is now 3-3 in district play and sits in 3rd place behind The Woodlands and Kingwood. The second round of district action will begin on Friday, 4/1, as the Lady War Eagles host the visiting College Park Lady Cavaliers.

Oak Ridge       0 runs, 4 hits, 3 errors        0-0-0-0-0-0-0
Kingwood        4 runs, 9 hits, 2 errors        0-1-0-1-0-0-2

WP: Cassie McClure (5-1; 7 IP, 3 K)
LP: Taylor Hastings (2-2; 7 IP, 3 K)

Oak Ridge Leaders: Taylor Ervin 2-3, 1B, 3B;  Kris Davila 1-3, 2B;  Taylor Duck 1-3, 2B
Kingwood Leaders: Jordann Jezek 3-3, 3 1B

Comments to Doug Sarant at doug@oakridgenow.com

The Sophomores were able to hang with the Lufkin JV Team for four and two thirds innings, the score was 3-0. Tyler Miller got the start on the hill for the War Eagles, Miller proved he could hold his own against the older team. He pitched four and two thirds innings giving up four runs (three earned) on five hits, while striking out four Panthers.

With two outs and runners on first and second in the top of the fifth inning, the wheels came off the once close game, the War Eagles committed three costly errors allowing four more runs to cross the plate, putting an end to any thought of a War Eagle come back.

The Lufkin pitcher was too much for the young War Eagles, he had a nasty curve ball that he threw every other pitch it seemed like and War Eagle batters just couldn’t lay off it.

There were a few bright spots for the War Eagles, Derek Davis, Tanner Doyel and Jacob Norton collected hits, War Eagle back stop Alex Walker threw out a would be base stealer and Peydon Vasquez had an outfield assist, throwing out a base runner trying to score from second.

In all this was good experience for the Sophomore War Eagles, maybe it will help prepare them for the rest of the district schedule.

Next up for the Sophomores: Rudder @ Oak Ridge, Saturday at 12:00. Hope to see you there.

Team    1          2          3          4          5          6          7          R          H          E

Lufkin JV           2          0          0          1          4          1          3          11         11         1

Oak Ridge         0          0          0          0          1          0          0          1          3          6

This article was contributed by Derrick Walker

Photo courtesy of David Neubert

If there was a funeral notice, I missed it. No obituary appeared in any of my daily papers. But make no mistake about it: In the spring of 2011 in the United States of America, our collective sense of moral outrage must now be officially dead.

You want proof? On March 25, The New York Times ran David Kocieniewski’s front-page story disclosing that General Electric — which had corporate profits of $14.2 billion last year, including $5.1 billion in this country — did not pay one dime of federal taxes to the U.S. Treasury. That is the same GE the CEO of which, Jeffrey Immelt, was chosen personally by President Obama to head the president’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Where did the outrage go? Every one of us can know for sure that every firefighter, every special education teacher, every hospice nurse we run into, each of them will individually on April 15 pay more in federal taxes than will General Electric. And more as well than ExxonMobil, Citigroup and Bank of America paid Uncle Sam last year.

There was a time, barely a quarter-century ago, when news like that did engage an American president and lead to a rewriting and reform of the nation’s loophole-heavy tax law. When then-Treasury Secretary Donald Regan told President Ronald Reagan that 60 American corporations would pay less that year in federal taxes than the president’s personal secretary, Kathleen Osbourne, would, Reagan, according to Regan, responded, “I just didn’t realize that things had gotten that far out of line.”

More importantly, the Gipper, after being re-elected in a landslide, threw his political support squarely behind the tax-reform effort, initiated by Democratic Sen. Bill Bradley, which would eventually triumph in law as the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Shepherded expertly through Congress by Democratic House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski and Republican Senate Finance Committee Chairman Bob Packwood, the reform law was inspired by the straightforward principles that people of equal incomes should pay equal taxes and that the tax code should elevate simplicity and, as to the degree possible, eliminate complexity.

In the last 25 years, presidents and Congresses have compromised — make that sold out — those principles, and we end up with the current statutory snarl and its corporate welfare, when the corporate share of all U.S. taxes paid has dropped from 30 percent of the total in the mid-1950s to just 6.6 percent in 2009.

While all of this takes place, the newly empowered House Republican majority makes it clear that their new lean, federal budget will include cuts of $1.3 billion from community health centers across that nation, which could mean denying access to medical care for 11 million people. Add to those, cuts to Head Start of $1.1 billion, which would translate into dropping 200,000 children from the proven preschool program.

I forgot to mention that GE, according to the Times piece, also claimed it was owed a tax benefit from the Treasury of $3.2 billion on its 2010 taxes.

All of this brings to mind the sworn testimony in a New York courtroom of Elizabeth Baum. Baum, a housekeeper, quoted her multimillionaire employer, on trial for income-tax evasion, as telling her: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.” After that, Leona Helmsley became an enduring object of public scorn. Of course, that was when outrage was still alive in this land.

Photo courtesy of Craig Cloutier

Oh, the outrage. President Barack Obama wants to deport criminals, before ousting schoolgirls with immigration problems. The audacity of this man.

The Colorado Springs Gazette laid out last Sunday the extraordinary similarities of Obama and former President George W. Bush, which speak poorly of each on most counts. These big-spending interventionists are the same on nearly all important issue, distinguished more by red-team/blue-team affiliation than anything of substance.

On one policy, however, we applaud the similarity. Each man has a rational approach to immigration.

Bush, a Texan fluent in Spanish, has an affinity for Mexico. As president, he wanted reasonable immigration reforms that would enable our country to benefit from productive, noncriminal aliens. He was pressured by extremists on the right — mostly talk radio hosts pandering for ratings — to show more hostility toward illegal immigrants. Deport them all and keep them out, the talking heads demanded. Don’t adjust quotas. View all immigrant babies as mere “anchors,” unworthy of their citizenship. Bush mostly held his ground, understanding that we have outgrown old immigration quotas and need immigrant productivity and procreation in order to thrive.

Obama’s immigration philosophy is nearly identical. He would like to see order at the border but refuses to demonize illegal immigrants and their kids. He understands that visas expire. He knows that crossing the border without permission is a misdemeanor, while subsequent residency is a noncriminal civil infraction. He views America’s immigration dilemma with a healthy perspective.

Talk radio hosts are riling up the masses this week because Obama said deportation efforts should focus on criminals. He was at a town hall meeting in a Washington school, when a student using Skype asked why students like her continue to receive deportation letters.

Obama said: “We have redesigned our enforcement practices under the law to make sure that we’re focusing primarily on criminals, and so our deportations of criminals are up about 70 percent. Our deportations of non-criminals are down, and that’s because we want to focus our resources on those folks who are destructive to the community. And for a young person like that young woman that we just spoke to, who’s going to school doing all the right things, we want them to succeed.”

The moderator asked if Obama could use an executive order to stop student deportations. Obama explained that it would “not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

“That does not mean, though, that we can’t make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity,” Obama said.

That’s about as benign and commonsensical as a statement can be. Our country hasn’t the wherewithal to deport all illegal immigrants, but it can and should deport some. Our country, therefore, gets the most benefit by first deporting those who commit crimes. Lose the criminals, then worry about successful schoolgirls.

Leading radio jocks and bloggers went berserk. How dare Obama suggest any of them succeed? The normally sound-minded radio host Jason Lewis told us they’re all criminals.

No, they are not. A student is not a criminal for overstaying a visa, not by any stretch. It is illegal to double park, but not a crime. Likewise, it is illegal to reside in the United States without permission, but not a crime. To focus deportation efforts on criminal immigrants is like placing more emphasis on drunk drivers than on jaywalkers. We are a country of civil law and criminal law. Not all illegal activity is crime, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants have not been caught committing crimes. Let’s worry most about those who have. It’s common sense.

Bush and Obama are similar and weak. On immigration, they are wise and strong.

Republished from the Colorado Springs Gazette

According to a Gallup poll released this week, Obama has fallen more than 20 points in the leadership category in less than two years. Right now, 52 percent of Americans believe he is a strong and decisive leader, while 47 percent say he is not. Bad news for the prez.

Truthfully, much of the leadership issue these days is driven by style. The last strong leader America had was President Reagan, who came across as tough but not belligerent. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, thereby busting the union, demanded that the Soviets tear down the wall in East Germany, and generally governed with a good-natured confidence. His acting experience helped him project authority and benevolence at the same time — not an easy thing to do.

President Bush the Elder came across rather fatherly, even when waging war against Saddam Hussein. Bill Clinton had little authority because of his controversies. And Bush the Younger‘s battlefield setbacks eroded his leadership image.

Obama is a deliberative leader, a man who seeks consensus before acting. He took months before committing more troops to Afghanistan, did not alter the Bush strategy in Iraq even after criticizing it, and seemed to be indecisive about Libya. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the guy who drove the military action, with Obama hitching a ride on the Frenchman’s passion.

In turbulent times, people naturally look for leaders who can bring them comfort and reassurance. At this point, Obama is having trouble doing that, and the Gallup poll reflects that reality. Obama’s style is cool and sometimes distant. When waging war or trying to prevent economic disaster, detachment can be detrimental. Rallying the troops usually wins the day.

President Lincoln was the nation’s strongest leader, with George Washington second and Franklin Roosevelt third. All three had huge problems to solve and did so with courage and bold decision making. Lincoln, in particular, was constantly under siege. If the Confederates had won the Battle of Gettysburg, the union might have been shattered forever. Lincoln knew that. Yet, he remained strong and in control and did what he had to do to hold the country together — even suspending habeas corpus.

Obama is a big admirer of Lincoln, as is George W. Bush. Both men understand that true leadership requires stone-cold courage and brilliant decision-making capability. Most human beings fall short in both categories, which is why true leadership is rarely on display.

But if it is in 2012, the person who shows it will be president.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor” and author of the book “Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama.” To find out more about Bill O’Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. This column originates on the website www.billoreilly.com.