Friday, February 26, 2010

Corralling Crime on Horseback

February 26, 2010 - 9:09 AM | by: Adam Housley

Illuminated by the faint light of a golden moon, saguaro cactus, multi-stemmed ocotillo and sagebrush whizz past. Donkey has decided to make a run and agents on the back of three other horses bolt across the Sonoran Desert just ahead. We had only been in the Border Patrol truck for about 15 minutes, horses and trailer in tow, when the call came. Seven men seen through night vision goggles hiking across the remote desert, huge packs of drugs on their backs, now agents ride full speed dodging stuff. Half the time you can't even make it all out.
Brian Reed, Travis Johnson and Juan Claudio form the team that I have tagged along with on this night. All told, there are 14 agents on the Ajo horse team and these three have handed me the reins of a horse known as 'Donkey.' Captured from smugglers several years back, the ten year-old gelding gets complimented as the "Cadillac of the herd" and I quickly understand why while trying to feel the difference between his trot and gallop. His gait can only be described as smooth and from the outset I realize this horse likes to lead.
I have ridden before and have a paint horse of my own, but other than riding 150 years ago with a gang of outlaws, nothing can really prepare someone for what lies ahead. Even so, before the sun went down agents put me through a test to ensure I wouldn't put them, or me, in a dangerous situation. I pass, likely more due to horse than the rider.
Back to the action…simply put, Donkey gets up and goes. He easily races through the organ pipe and sage to keep up with the others, only slowing to traverse through washes and other barely seen marks in the desert. I am following the team leader Brian, at this point, doing my best to stay out of the way. Travis and Juan have taken off in a different direction and the thundering of hooves of their horses galloping along can be heard off to my right-hand side.
As Donkey picks up considerable speed, I pull back on the reigns. Verbal queues are avoided since it might tip off the smugglers easier than just hearing the echo of horseshoes on the desert floor. Minutes later, about 30 yards away, I hear Juan yelling in Spanish for someone to get down on the ground and I rein Donkey in that direction and we again begin the race across the desert. I am here to document, so out of my jacket I grab my flashlight and camera, Juan and his horse are now just feet away. One smuggler staggering from a fall stumbles into my horse and then follows directions in Spanish and lies face first on the desert. Other yelling can now be heard, so I switch my light from hard-to-see red to white, which better lights up the darkened and arid scenery. Two more men being led by agents on horses, each carrying massive sacks of dope. They too join the line-up, laying flat on the ground as the dope gets piled nearby.
Travis then heads out to scout a bit in the area, while Juan and Brian control the scene. Other agents from the Ajo station arrive in SUVs on a rugged dirt road about 150 yards away and with them our photographer Scott King and producer Ron Ralston. They jog across the landscape and once on site, their lights also help show quite a haul. More than 350 pounds of marijuana with a street value of roughly $250,000…and the night has only just begun.
“We can get there quicker…the horses can see in the dark, so we can ride up within feet. The aliens think it is just another horse walking around in the desert,” says Brian. Juan tells me when drug smugglers are involved there's always the likelihood of more danger because many are armed as the mostly fight each other and other cartels trying to control the operations. I am told by both men drug busts numbers have skyrocketed in this remote wildland in the last year.
The men dismount and then use the horses to pack the drugs over to the road. The three suspects are led in front, a few others would be captured later by another group of border agents.
Once back to the roadway and the drugs and smugglers loaded into the back of the trucks, the team mounts up and heads back to the trailer for yet more calls. Forty illegals seen through night vision and radar walking about 15 miles away. Then another group of 50 heading toward the hills and a group of fifteen about 30 miles south. The hunt to protect our borders consumes every second as there is an obvious mix of new and old, horses and technology.
On horseback, ATV, SUV, foot and even in helicopters, the desert comes alive at night. As Ajo Field Ops Supervisor Cesar Acosta tells me, they do their best to be less intrusive to such a beautiful landscape and that's yet another reason why the horses are so valuable. Technology can point out trouble and horses with riders can get there safest and cleanest. He says, “In mixing the new technology, which is the mobile systems (the MSS) and the horse patrol, makes a faster or quicker means for us to apprehend or interdict a group of illegals crossing the border or drugs crossing the border.”
Once loaded back into the trailer, the team races again down crusty, rugged roads heading towards the group of 40. Another horse team has gotten there first and has the group seated in two lines when we ride up. Clearly these immigrants are looking for work, as drug bundles are nowhere to be seen. One tells us he had work already set up for him at a winery in Napa Valley. Another tells me he is from the state of Michoacan and apologizes for being caught. I am told 30-40 percent of those caught like this end up having criminal records of some sort once fingerprints are run, but one in the group catches my eye.
He sits behind his father, or so it seems. He can't be any older than 8 or 9 and from my perch aboard Donkey, he looks even smaller. In 8 years of covering this border for Fox News, this always gets me. I have seen kids captured before and in years past watched on the Mexican side as they bought water and prepared to cross with their families. Your heart sinks for what they have been through and seen already at such a young age. The men tell me they have walked nearly 30 miles through this harsh desert over the course of the last couple of days and this boy has been with them.
It is still many hours before light will peak above the mountains in the eastern sky, yet both of these horse teams are done in the field. They have hours of reports and processing of drugs and people ahead. Donkey and I ride just off to the side and watch as the people are walked towards the highway and a number of SUV's now parked alongside. Once everyone gets loaded, I take out his bridle and load him into the trailer with the others.
The horses in so many ways provide the advantage here in this western outpost as they have been for generations. They see better at night, move swifter and quieter through the desert than any other vehicle and as Brian tells me, “When the illegals see a horse they say aah I am not going to run. With an ATV out in the dark, they can hear the ATV coming they can start scattering before the group even gets there. With a horse we can get right up on them, they see the horse, they relate it’s a horse and it’s an animal and he’s just doing his job and they don’t want to hurt the horse, so it makes everything a lot easier.”
But nothing is truly easy in this neck of the woods…for everyone and everything involved.
Photo Gallery
Agents Bring in the Drugs taken by Agent Eric Cantu
Image 1 of 9

Why Obama defies the public on health care

 By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent 
February 26, 2010
"There have been a lot of comments from every Republican about the polls," President Obama said near the end of the mind-numbing White House summit on health care reform. "What's interesting is when you poll people about the individual elements in each of these bills, they're all for them."
What Obama was addressing was a dilemma that drives Democrats crazy. Polls show the public supports some parts of the Democratic national health care reform plan, but adamantly opposes the comprehensive bill now dying a slow death on Capitol Hill.
Just look at the latest survey from CNN and Opinion Research. When asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become seriously ill," 62 percent say yes. When asked whether they support "requiring all large and midsized businesses to provide health insurance for their employees," 72 percent say yes. And when asked if they support "preventing health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions," 58 percent say yes.
On the other hand, asked what Congress should do on health care -- pass the current bill, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on the issue altogether -- a huge majority opposes the Democratic proposal now on the table. Just 25 percent of those surveyed want to see the bill passed. Forty-eight percent want Congress to start over, and 25 percent want lawmakers to stop working on health care altogether. Put those last two together, and an overwhelming majority of 73 percent do not want Congress to pass the current bill.
The White House is cherry-picking the news it likes; that's what Obama was doing when he said the public is "all for" elements of the bill. But bring up the polls showing people just don't want the current bill, and the administration gets a little dodgy.
"Who knows what is in those polls, how they were taken, when they were taken?" White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass told Fox News during a break in the summit.
But why do people support some elements of the bill while opposing the bill overall? Some Democrats blame Republican misinformation. Some believe it's because the bill isn't yet a reality, and people would love it, if it were only passed. Others say the public is just stupid.
Few Democrats can accept the possibility that voters are telling them their whole approach is wrong. Big, comprehensive legislative proposals just make people nervous.
"We don't do comprehensive well," Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander said at the health summit. "We've watched the comprehensive, economywide, cap and trade. We've watched the comprehensive immigration bill ... we've watched the comprehensive health care bill. And they fall of their own weight."
That's what's happening now. And it's something Democrats would know, if they had listened to one of their leading pollsters.
Back during the 2004 presidential race, there was a debate going on inside the John Kerry campaign. Should the Democratic candidate push bold, far-reaching proposals, or should he balance boldness with more modest initiatives?
Pollster Stanley Greenberg did some research. He found that, when considered individually, Kerry's most sweeping plans were more popular with voters than his more modest ones. "Voters are ready to respond to new ideas, particularly bold ones," Greenberg wrote.
To further test the idea, Greenberg put together a hypothetical Kerry agenda -- he called it "Bold Kerry" -- which included all of the candidate's bold ideas.
Voters balked. They were uneasy with the big agenda, even though they liked some elements of it. "While voters are clearly open to bold initiatives to major problems, they may be less attracted to the candidate who wants to act boldly in every area, without exception," Greenberg concluded. "All together, that may have suggested an expanding scope for government beyond what people felt they could trust."
And that is what is happening now with health care. Ever since Inauguration Day, the White House has acted on the assumption that, because voters elected Barack Obama, they want "Bold Obama." All the evidence suggests that is wrong.
At the end of the summit, Obama said that if he can't reach an agreement with Republicans -- and there's no chance if the existing bill stays on the table -- then "we've got to go ahead and make some decisions." That means jamming the bill through Congress against the public's wishes. And if there's still dispute, Obama said, "that's what elections are for."
He's right. This is an issue that won't be fully settled until November.

‘Health Care’ Summit/Photo Op Overnight Thread: So How’d He Do?

Posted by Frank Ross Feb 25th 2010 at 7:11 pm in Healthcare, Politics

You know you’ve just had a bad day when the apostle of Washington Conventional Wisdom, David “Teddy Kennedy’s seat” Gergen puts on his serious mien (does he have any other?) and pronounces upon the weighty matters of the day.

Yes, when Gergen speaks, people not only listen — they’ve already heard it all before!  In fact, it’s what everybody else is already thinking!  By the time it gets to Gergen’s lips, God long ago changed the channel to re-runs of Happy Days.
So what do you think?  How did POTUS do, sans TOTUS — commanding college professor (okay, “senior lecturer”) or tongue-tied, smirking, classless community organizer?  Mr. Smile and a Shoeshine, or an anxious, cantankerous former wonder boy/palooka who can’t figure out why this particular fight wasn’t properly fixed by David “Jake Lingle” Axelrod, like all his others? A strike, or a gutter ball?
obama-bowling
And what about the Republicans?  Spineless, craven cowards or forceful members of the loyal opposition?  Are Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor rising stars in the conservative movement or just more soon-to-be-coopted Rotary Club members-in-waiting?
And has this guy been right all along?
Let’s have your thoughts.

Big Journalism

Palin v. Obama: ‘Real’ American v. the ‘Citizen of the World’

Kyle-Anne ShiverPosted by Kyle-Anne Shiver Feb 26th 2010 at 10:18 am in Featured Story, Obama, Sarah Palin 
 Perhaps never before in American history have two individuals so captured the hearts, minds and imaginations of such a wide proportion of the citizenry as have Sarah Palin and Barack Obama.  Both are charismatic, charming in their own ways, in dramatic, stand-above-the-crowd fashion.  Both have written best-selling autobiographies, which have mesmerized large swaths of the American public.
palin-obama
There, however, the similarities end.
One has been adored by the leftist-activist media brigade, which gleefully tossed away its fabled “objectivity” in order to get the candidate with whom it was both in love and in sync elected.  The other has been veritably loathed by the same Ivy League-centric mandarin class which long ago forsook its working-class roots and is now actively ashamed of them.
One represents academic elitism.  The other comes from a standard state university background.
One uses a teleprompter for nearly every spoken word, often flailing, repeating sentences due to electronic glitches and mispronouncing even those words that seem simple to the average American:
The other uses a few broad-topic scribbles on her hand for prompts.
One is the darling of Hollywood; the other is the butt of crass celebrity jokes.
Pundits see this pair in purely political dimension of left vs. right.
What we have here, however, is far, far more fundamental than a left vs. right spectacle, performed by two adroit representatives.
It’s far more meaty than the little tit for tats among the leftist literati and their adversaries, the conservative commoners.
No, what we have here are two philosophies fighting to the death for the soul of America, each represented by one phenomenal public figure.
Barack Obama, in keeping with international socialists throughout the last century, has proclaimed himself loudly-and-clearly a “citizen of the world.”  He conducted his entire campaign as a lecture to greedy, over-consuming Americans on the necessity of propping up the lagging third world and the inherent goodness of his redistributive plans for government.
That this message was apparently lost by mainstream American voters in the haze of media sycophancy, is a sad commentary on both our presumed independent press and the attention span of voters.  Nevertheless, Barack Obama’s message was clear to sentient observers from the start of his campaign.
obama_contempt
Whether he was explaining the necessity for putting the coal business out of business for the good of global climate goals or telling people they couldn’t just drive their SUVs anywhere they wanted to go and expect the people in the rest of the world to just go along, he made his message clear.
We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.
To Obama, America is the problem to the world, not the solution.  He hammered away consistently at his intention to divvy up the American “pie” in international-socialist fashion, even while disingenuously peppering his talk with Reaganite calls for lowering taxes on the middle-class.
Even if folks missed some of his intentions, it should have been clear to all but the proverbial ostriches among us that Obama was declaring himself a citizen of the world when he actually made his “citizen-of-the-world” speech in Berlin.  Thronged by ogling, drooling, chanting Europeans on a celebrity campaign tour, Obama took great pains to paint himself as post-American.
And his first year in the presidency has demonstrated beyond doubt that Barack Obama is indeed anything but an all-American president.  From his obsequious bowing, his kumbayah-to-the-world speech at the UN and his magnanimous granting of American civil rights to foreign terrorists, he has demonstrated again and again that America is nothing to him but a member state of the morally superior global community.
Which brings us to Sarah Palin, his arch-foe in the public psyche.
No, Mrs. Palin holds no public office.  She wields no genuine power in terms of armies or bureaucracies.  She is merely a private citizen.
But Sarah Palin has arisen from the ashes of electoral defeat as the embodiment of archetypal American values, beliefs, hopes and dreams.
At present, with a “post-American” president at the helm, Sarah Palin carries the torch of liberty and American exceptionalism in the palm of her lovely hand.  She is the surviving embodiment of the spirit of 1776 and the Reagan reformation.
She is at once the American phoenix and the shining city on the hill, captured in the imaginations of a people still yearning to be free and determined to strive for greatness, even if the rest of the world prefers to drown in mediocrity, corruption and defeatist socialist uniformity.
While it is easy to see Barack Obama and Sarah Palin as nothing but political adversaries in a nation grown weary with partisanship, that explanation defies the reality we see exhibited in the passions of their respective followers.
Whichever side one is on, the stakes are clear.  Nothing less than the soul of America is on the line.
Will we give up forever on the American dream and become nothing more than footnotes in the annals of failed international socialism?
leipzig 
Leipzig, Germany
Or will we see an American reformation that reestablishes individual liberty and ingenuity as moral imperatives worth fighting for and preserving for our progeny?
DetroitDetroit
The stakes could not be higher.  And the archetypes, Palin and Obama, could not be clearer.
These two torch-bearers define an era in which fence-sitting is beyond the bounds of reason.
Two opposing world views are colliding.
And only one side can prevail.

Big Journalism

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Highlights: The best freak-show moments from the health-care freak show

posted at 5:02 pm on February 25, 2010 by Allahpundit

Did I miss anything here? We’ve got the Perpetual Campaigner reminding McCain that the campaign is over; The One declaring his entitlement to extra speaking time based on the fact that he is, after all, The One; and Tom Harkin lamenting the malevolent Jim Crow dynamic involved in charging higher premiums to people who incur greater health costs. Thanks to the Breitbart folks and our pal Greg Hengler for the vids.
I watched five minutes this morning and thought it would backfire on both parties. Everyone knew it was theater (well, 77 percent), everyone knew nothing would come of it, yet the premise seemed to be that the public might be gullible enough to believe they were negotiating in earnest. “We think you’re stupid” is rarely a winning slogan, least of all in this political climate. I actually laughed out loud when Politico put out that story announcing the Dems’ plan to go it alone on Obama’s bill when there were still, oh, around four hours or so left in the Summit That Saved America. But after watching a bit longer, I came around to Jay Nordlinger’s view:
This health-care summit was a bad idea for the Democrats for this reason: They have long benefited from a perception — a perception greatly abetted by the media: The Republicans don’t care about health care, they don’t know about health care, they are the Party of No. All the ideas and caring are on the Democratic side.
It is not so, and it has never been so. And now everybody knows it.
Yeah. The flaw in the Democrats’ bipartisan kabuki is that they’ve invested so much time in painting the GOP as brainless and feckless that the media — and public — almost can’t help but be pleasantly surprised. Yuval Levin’s also right that it’s not to Zeus’s advantage to descend from Mt. Olympus, because the lesser gods that surround him on his side of the aisle are … what’s the word? Ah yes — unappealing losers.
Third, an important part of the Democrats’ problem is that Obama himself is their only star, and this format is not working for him. He certainly seems engaged and well informed (even given a few misstatements of fact, at least one of which John Kyl made very clear.) But he doesn’t seem like the President of the United States—more like a slightly cranky committee chairman or a patronizing professor who thinks that saying something is “a legitimate argument” is a way to avoid having an argument. He is diminished by the circumstances, he’s cranky and prickly when challenged, and he’s got no one to help him. The other Democrats around the table have been worse than unimpressive. The Republicans seem genuinely well-prepared, seem to have thought through the question of who should speak about what rather carefully, and several of them have done quite a good job making their case against the Democrats’ approach. If we were to judge by debating points, Republicans certainly won the morning handily.
For once, I think Slow Joe got it right: “This could end up being not good.” A few moments for your amusement here of how not good it was.


Hot Air

Paul Ryan slams the Health Care Bill – Obama has no answer

Posted by therightscoop in Politics on Feb 25th, 2010
Paul Ryan artfully and expertly exposes all of the gimmicks in the Democratic health care bill and how does the President respond? Well, he doesn’t really want to get bogged down in numbers.

Yeah he’s got nothin’.


The Right Scoop

Why Dems' Health Care Bill is Stalled


By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Today's health policy "summit" comes at a moment when, as happens with metronomic regularity, Washington is reverberating with lamentations about government being "broken." Such talk occurs only when the left's agenda is stalled. Do you remember mournful editorials and somber seminars about "dysfunctional" government when liberals defeated George W. Bush's Social Security reforms?
The summit's predictable failure will be a pretext for trying to ram health legislation through the Senate by misusing "reconciliation," which prevents filibusters. If the Senate parliamentarian rules, as he should, that most of the legislation is ineligible for enactment under reconciliation, the vice president, as Senate president, can overrule the parliamentarian. This has not happened since 1975, but liberals say desperate times require desperate measures.
Today's desperation? Democracy's majoritarian ethic is, liberals say, being violated by the filibuster that prevents their enacting health legislation opposed by an American majority.
Some liberals argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional, for two reasons, the first of which is a non sequitur: The Constitution empowers each chamber to "determine the rules of its proceedings." It requires five supermajorities (for ratifying treaties, endorsing constitutional amendments, overriding vetoes, expelling members and impeachment convictions). Therefore it does not permit requiring a sixth, to end filibusters.
The second reason filibusters are supposedly unconstitutional is that they exacerbate the Senate's flaw as "inherently unrepresentative." That is, the Founders -- who liberals evidently believe were dolts or knaves -- designed it to represent states rather than, as the House does, population.
Liberals fret: 41 senators from the 21 smallest states, with barely 10 percent of the population, could block a bill. But Matthew Franck of Radford University counters that if cloture were blocked by 41 senators from the 21 largest states, the 41 would represent 77.4 percent of the nation's population. Anyway, senators are never so tidily sorted, so consider today's health impasse: The 59 Democratic senators come from 36 states containing 74.9 percent of the population, while the 41 Republicans come from 27 states -- a majority -- containing 48.7 percent. (Thirteen states have senators from each party.)
Since there have been 50 states, Republicans have never had 60 senators. There were 60 or more Democratic senators after seven elections -- 1960 (64), 1962 (66), 1964 (68), 1966 (64), 1974 (61), 1976 (62) and 2008 (60, following Arlen Specter's discovery that he is a Democrat, and the protracted Minnesota recount). But both parties have been situational ethicists regarding filibusters.
In 2005, many Republicans, frustrated by Democrats blocking confirmation votes, wanted to ban filibusters of judicial nominees. They said such filibusters unconstitutionally prevent the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But this is not just the president's duty; the Senate has the constitutional role of consenting -- or not -- to nominations.
"Great innovations," said Jefferson, "should not be forced on slender majorities." Hence Barack Obama recently embraced a supermajority mechanism: The 18-member commission he created to recommend measures to reduce the deficit requires that any recommendation be endorsed by 14 members.
Filibusters are devices for registering intensity rather than mere numbers -- government by adding machine. Besides, has a filibuster ever prevented eventual enactment of anything significant that an American majority has desired, strongly and protractedly?
Liberals say filibusters confuse and frustrate the public. The public does indeed mistakenly believe government is designed to act quickly in compliance with presidential wishes. But most ideas incubated in the political cauldron of grasping factions are deplorable. Therefore, serving the public involves -- mostly involves -- saying "No." The Bill of Rights, like traditional conservatism, effectively pronounces the lovely word "no" regarding many possible government undertakings -- establishment of religion, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
The fiction that government is "paralyzed" by partisanship is regularly refuted. Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush reached across party lines in 1986, 1996 and 2001 to pass tax reform, welfare reform and No Child Left Behind, respectively. The $700 billion TARP legislation and the $862 billion stimulus were enacted with injudicious speed.
Liberals are deeply disappointed with the public, which fails to fathom the excellence of their agenda. But their real complaint is with the government's structure. And with the nature of the politics this structure presupposes in a continental nation wary of government and replete with rival factions. Liberals have met their enemy and he is the diminutive "father of the Constitution," of whom it was said that never had there been such a high ratio of mind to mass: James Madison.

georgewill@washpost.com
Real Clear Politics