New Tucson Shelter to Provide for Border Crisis Kids

HOUSTON,Texas–A tidal wave of children who entered the U.S. illegally has left federal resources and facilities completely overwhelmed. As a result, the children have been sheltered in housing facilities in states across the country including Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. As agents are in dire need of more space for the unaccompanied minors, a new shelter will reportedly open in downtown Tucson, Arizona. 

According to local media outlet KVOA, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave a contract to a nonprofit organization called Southwest Key, which shelters children who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally. 

The Southwest Key website says, “Southwest Key has been the largest provider of services to unaccompanied children in the United States for many years…During their stay, they receive counseling, legal and medical services, and attend an on-site school while awaiting the resolution of their legal case. The national goals for ideal length of stay in these shelters is 45 days as arrangements are made to either reunite the youth with relatives living in the United States or back in their home country.”

It continues, “The inspiring youth and parents we work with are seeking the American dream: equality, education, and a higher quality of life. At Southwest Key, we simply open the doors to opportunity so they can achieve these dreams.”

Breitbart Texas’ calls to the nonprofit were not immediately returned. 

KVOA, however, reported that Southwest Key’s employees are currently not allowed to speak to news outlets, as they have reportedly signed a nondisclosure agreement with the HHS. 

Additionally, HHS officials reportedly refuse to disclose how much sheltering the illegal immigrant children at Southwest Key will cost U.S. taxpayers.

The Southwest Key facility will not be the first Arizona-based housing unit for illegal immigrants recently apprehended near the Texas-Mexico border. As Breitbart Texas recently reported, officials were forced to resort to a makeshift housing center in Nogales, Arizona for hundreds of illegal immigrant children. Arizona officials are in dire need of medical supplies and living materials for the illegal immigrants.

The Associated Press (AP) reported that children at the new housing center in Nogales are sleeping on plastic cots while officials wait for 2,000 mattresses to arrive at the facility. Portable toilets and showers were also allegedly brought to warehouse, which has a capacity of 1,500. 800 children are expected to be living at the housing center by the end of this weekend, but the AP reported that 1,400 minors will ultimately be brought there. 

Breitbart Texas contributing editor and border security expert Sylvia Longmire said the Arizona state government is being forced to accommodate the illegal immigrants since the federal government has not handled the situation appropriately. 

“What’s most telling about the severity of this situation is the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are criticizing President Obama for the way his administration has been handling this crisis,” Longmire said. “US Rep. Raúl Grijalva, probably the most liberal congressman in Arizona, acknowledged to Arizona Public Media that even he wasn’t notified about the immigrant transfer to his state, and said the Obama administration was not handling the situation appropriately.”

Follow Kristin on Twitter @KristinBTate

Source: Breitbart Feed

How US Policy Enabled the Rise of Al Qaeda 2.0 and the Collapse of Iraq

Policy decisions and politically driven censorship of the American national security establishment have helped strengthen Al Qaeda’s successor and hastened the collapse of the nation of Iraq.

​The current administration and the President represented Operation Iraqi Freedom as the “wrong war,” as opposed to the “good war” that was Afghanistan. The Vice President even called the end of our involvement in Iraq one of the great achievements of Obama’s tenure.

With the jihadi group ISIS now in control of parts of the country that together equal the size of Syria, taking over former US bases, and moving toward the capital of Baghdad, the “achievement” has vanished.

The chaos and murder unleashed in the last few days are beyond the comprehension of the majority of Americans who have never served or lived in a war zone. According to the vicar of Baghdad Andrew White, Iraq is now witnessing mass violence and atrocities worse than anything seen since the invasion in 2003.

Almost 4,500 American servicemen and women died in OIF, and the US taxpayers have spent $20 billion to equip and train the Iraqi security forces. So how did we arrive at this apocalyptic horror?

The fact is that ISIS – The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (or the Levant) – has grown in strength and ferocity in the last three years to a point that it now is more powerful and capable than the original Al Qaeda whence it came. It has become Al Qaeda 2.0. ISIS’s growth is in part a result of conscious actions and policy decisions taken by the current US administration.

  • First, since very early on in his presidential campaign and then after becoming the Commander-in-Chief, it became obvious that the President had little interest in international affairs and national security. In fact, in his first speech to graduating West Point cadets in 2009, he was unequivocal. It was time to “end the war in Iraq” because “we must rebuild our strength here at home.” The White House agenda since 2008 has primarily been driven by domestic projects aimed at expanding the state such as Obamacare. That is why none of the National Security Advisers appointed by the White House since General Jim Jones was ignominiously replaced in 2010 have been recognized names in the world of national security. The issue just does not interest the incumbent, and therefore there was no need for a Kissinger- or Brzezinski-caliber replacement.

  • As attested to by a remarkably in-depth 2011 article in The New Yorker, the administration sees all crises as unique and unrelated to one another. So great is this belief that America does not need a strategy to deal with the world and inform our national actions in a consistent fashion that the President, when interviewed on national television, actually stated that having “blanket policies” can get you “into trouble.” As a result, the idea that the chaos in Syria, where ISIS built its forces, was connected to the future stability of Iraq did not occur to the administration until Mosul, Fallujah, and Tikrit had fallen to fighters trained and hardened in the war against Assad just next door. Our government cannot connect the dots if the Commander-in-Chief openly believes that doing so is a bad idea.

  • This lack of any strategic approach to the global threat of jihadi groups is compounded by politically-driven censorship of the national security and defense establishment. As documented elsewhere, in 2011 putative “representatives” of the Muslim communities in the US demanded that the White House review and censor all counterterrorism training materials and trainers used by the Defense Department and Department of Justice, their claim being that existing materials and trainers were un-Islamic or “Islamaphobic.” This event that has come to be known as “the purge” – see this documentary for the full story – and led to the forced removal of any mention of Islam or jihad from all governmental training materials used by our armed forces or the FBI. As a result, as a government, we have blinded ourselves to such an extent that it has become practically impossible for a national security professional to understand what is going on in the Middle East and what drives groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda without getting into trouble for being politically incorrect.

    Of course, trying to understand the decapitation of enemy forces or the tactic of suicide attacks without referring to, or being allowed to refer to, jihad is analogous to our trying to understand the Third Reich in 1944 while banning our soldiers and intelligence professionals from talking about and analyzing Nazism.

  • Lastly, the fact that Senator Obama built a campaign narrative on the foundation that Afghanistan is the “good war” and Iraq was the “bad war” locked his administration onto a politically defined track that short-changed America’s national security interests. Once in office, commitment to this narrative – that was deemed to have helped him win office – meant that the Iraqi campaign had to end at all costs. So great was the pressure that the administration was prepared to pull all US forces out in 2011 without securing the standard Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Baghdad that would have allowed us to leave enough forces in country to suppress and deter violence against the Maliki regime and keep the country functioning after more than 4,000 Americans had died to free it from Saddam Hussein.

You don’t have to be a dastardly neoconservative to understand that the events occurring now in Iraq – and Syria, and Libya, and even Egypt – have direct implications for the security of America. We know that Westerners, including Americans, are going to the Middle East to fight the jihad. If they win, or simply survive to come back home, they will present a clear threat to any political system such as ours that is not sharia-compliant or theocratic.

But there is a bigger danger.

Al Qaeda was formed out of an organization not dissimilar to ISIS. In the 1980s a Palestinian-Jordanian called Abdullah Azzam created the Services Bureau (MAK) to fight the Soviet military units in Afghanistan just as ISIS is fighting the military units in Iraq that they consider to be kufr (unbelievers) because they are Shia and not Sunni. Azzam’s deputy was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden who inherited the MAK when Azzam was assassinated. Bin Laden then turned the MAK into Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that killed almost 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.

According to the official investigation, the 9/11 attacks cost Al Qaeda $500,000. On its murderous rampage to Baghdad, ISIS has captured $430,000,000 from Iraqi government coffers. Should these jihadists, who are now stronger than the original Al Qaeda they grew out of, capture all of Iraq, or Iraq and Syria, they will likely turn their sights on the “Far Enemy” as the MAK/Al Qaeda turned against us when the Soviets were defeated.

In this case, however, they will have enough money for at least 800 9/11-scale attacks.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka has been appointed the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and is the National Security Affairs editor of

Source: Breitbart Feed

Schieffer Gaffe: Calls for ‘Path to Citizenship for Hispanics,’ not Illegal Immigrants

During the closing moments of his interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), CBS’s “Face the Nation” moderator Bob Schieffer referenced Eric Cantor’s defeat in Virginia on Tuesday as it pertained to the issue of immigration.

However, rather than stating how immigration reform was needed to create a path to citizenship for those here illegally, Schieffer instead said there was for a path to citizenship for “Hispanics.”

Transcript as follows:

SCHIEFFER: I can’t let you leave without asking you about Republican politics right now, while the big story was Eric Cantor, the majority leader in the House getting beat last week in a primary.


SCHIEFFER: You had stronger Tea Party force, you had an army, you had four or five of them running against you–

GRAHAM: Say exactly, but who’s counting, yeah.

SCHIEFFER: Six and– and you won.


SCHIEFFER: –and you won by stressing that the Republican Party has to have some kind of path to citizenship for Hispanics, which was one of the big issues in his race.

GRAHAM: Right.

SCHIEFFER: What as a winner, what is your advice to your party this morning, Senator?

GRAHAM: Number one, I don’t think Eric got beat because of his stand on immigration. I think he got beat because of his lack of defining himself on immigration. I told the Republican Party at home that we’re doing well because the Democrats are doing poorly. This ultra-liberal agenda of President Obama has blown up in their face. We’re going to win in 2014. Conservative values will connect with Hispanics and African-Americans, but don’t be delusional about where we stand. If we become the party except deportation, if that again is our opposition in 2016, we’re going to drive a deeper wedge between us and Hispanics, have pathway to citizenship after you secure the border, control who gets the job, more legal immigration where they have to pass a criminal background check, learn the English language, wait ten years before you can apply for a green card, is sixty-five percent.

Republicans nationally will accept an earned pathway to citizenship if you secure the border for our party to let the thirty-five-percent tell us how to engage with immigration. We will lose a natural ally in the Hispanic community. Bush was at forty-four; we’re down to twenty-seven. You’ll never convince me it’s not because of the rhetoric around immigration. If you solve the immigration problem in a good American responsible way, our party is back in the game and we can dominate the twenty-first century. If we keep playing this game, that self-deportation is the only answer for the Republican Party, we will have destroyed our chances in 2016 and dealt a death blow to our party, because by 2015 majority of this country is going to be African-American, Hispanic, and Asian.

Conservatism is the best hope for African-American children in failing school. Conservatism alliance with Hispanics, they’re hard working, they’re entrepreneurial, they’re prolife, they’re pro military. It will break my heart for my party to go down a road that we did not go. Embrace rational, comprehensive immigration reform that prevents a third wave of illegal immigration and we’re back in the ballgame. If we don’t adjust on this issue, our chances for survival as a party are very bleak and the country needs a vibrant Republican Party and our Democratic friends have put us back in the game. Let’s take advantage of it.

(h/t SooperMexican)

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Source: Breitbart Feed

Feds Providing Better Care for Some Minors from Border Crisis than US Foster Kids

On June 13, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson told reporters in a press conference that the federal government would do what was in the “best interest” of thousands of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) crossing the border into south Texas every week. He also denied that the taxpayer-funded care being provided to them was serving as an incentive to Central American families to send more of their children. But a closer look at the services UACs are receiving while they go through removal proceedings tells a different story.

Over the last several weeks, US Border Patrol stations in south Texas have been overrun with illegal immigrants from mostly Central America. Johnson said that since October 2013, agents have apprehended over 47,000 UACs, roughly double the 24,000 UACs who were apprehended the previous fiscal year. Prior to 2012, the average number of UACs under US government supervision averaged around 7,500 kids. According to procedures outlined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, he stated the goal was to transport these children in “a safe and human manner” to the US Department of Health and Human Services, where they would be cared for by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

The primary goal of the ORR is to reunited UACs with family members or other legal guardians in the United States while they go through removal proceedings. However, if those family members or guardians are in the country illegally, there was no indication by DHS officials that those individuals would also be placed into removal proceedings despite the fact they have to provide a considerable amount of identification in order to claim a UAC.

Procedures for transporting and caring for UACs depend on the children’s ages. According to the ORR’s Division for Unaccompanied Children’s Services (DUCS), most UACs over the age of 13 are placed in shelters or group homes. However, for UACs ages 13 and younger who don’t have a relative or guardian who can care for them, “short and long-term foster care is available through ORR’s foster care program network.”

The services these 58 licensed ORR facilities provide are extensive: “The facilities, which operate under cooperative agreements and contracts, provide children with classroom education, health care, socialization/recreation, vocational training, mental health services, family reunification, access to legal services, and case management.” But perhaps the most interesting claim by DUCS is “Ensuring that the interests of the UAC are considered in decisions related to their care and custody.” The “best interest” of UACs coming from gang war-torn countries like Honduras is almost always a permanent stay here in the United States.

Johnson defended the services being provided to UACs while going through removal proceedings. “We provide a number of things [for UACs] because our laws require it and our values require it,” he said. He also said that those apprehended at our borders are priorities for removal regardless of age—a sentiment echoed by ICE Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations Tom Homan, who said, “Every [unaccompanied] child is placed into removal proceedings.”

But the circumstances for those children in removal proceedings are plush in some cases compared to US citizen children placed in foster care. According to Children’s Rights, a national advocacy group working to reform failing child welfare systems, “many child welfare systems are underfunded, understaffed, beset by serious system-wide problems, and lacking the leadership necessary to fix them.” Some of the claims the group makes are that US child welfare systems fail to protect children in foster care from further abuse and neglect, don’t provide adequate medical and mental health services, and warehouse children in institutions, group homes, emergency shelters.

This means one of two things. Either UACs apprehended at the border are being placed into the same system as US citizen children and not receiving nearly the adequate level of care the ORR says it is providing, or UACs are placed into a different federal foster network that provides a superior level of care to that being provided to US citizen children.

The legal support US citizen children in foster care and UACs receive can also vary wildly. During court proceedings, American kids in foster care are assigned a lawyer by the judge in their family court to oversee their cases, according to The Legal Aid Society. For UACs, the DUCS engages in “coordination of a pro-bono attorney outreach project to pilot pro-bono capacity building models in major immigration apprehension areas so that more UAC can have access to legal representation.”

While the US government does not pay for legal representation for UACs, many of the children receive assistance from top-notch immigration attorneys who take part in programs like The Safe Passage Project. In May 2014, Director Lenni Benson wrote a letter to The New York Times in which she said, “Our organization, Safe Passage Project, finds that nearly 90 percent of the unaccompanied minors we meet who are facing deportation qualify for immigration relief, allowing them to remain in the United States legally.” Benson also added, “While emergency shelters provide a temporary solution for unaccompanied minors entering the United States, appointed legal counsel to enable these vulnerable young people to receive the immigration remedies for which they might be eligible would provide permanency and would truly be in their best interests.”

To say that all these benefits being provided to UACs are not acting as an incentive for families in Central America to send even more children is misleading, irresponsible, and is further eroding the efforts of our law enforcement agencies to control our southwest border.

Sylvia Longmire is a border security expert and Contributing Editor for Breitbart Texas. You can read more about the evolution of cross-border migration in her new book, Border Insecurity: Why Big Money, Fences, and Drones Aren’t Making Us Safer.

Source: Breitbart Feed

Scholfield State Rep Race Won by Old Fashion Shoe Leather

KATY, Texas–Republican Texas State Representative candidate Schofield was like the mailman, out walking, rain, sleet, or shine. It paid off because he won by 68% of the vote in a district where 5,100 voters voted in the run-off. He did so against a candidate who has been the President/CEO of the Katy Area Chamber of Commerce since 1999.

His attitude is that “if you want to win the hearts and minds of the voters, you have to go to the grassroots and actually talk with them. They want to know what you believe.”  He says that you go out and talk to the voters “not just because it helps you win, but because it makes you a better representative, you hear the issues.”

Schofield told those who he talked to on their doorsteps that “if I just wanted you to know what I thought, I could mail you this brochure. I want to know what you think.”

Scholfield told Breibart Texas that he is a grassroots candidate and believes that a “race is about getting to know people – not about attacking your opponent.” He said it is like applying for a job – “you do not attack the other applicants, you try to convince the employer that you are the right candidate for the job.” 

He covered 1000 homes a month between October 15th and Memorial Day. He knocked on 7,880 doors, just shy of the 8,000 he thought he would get to by the primary run-off date. He had knocked on 3000 doors by the time of the primary vote on March 4th. He hit the pavement on all but 9 days during that 7 1/2 month period. Schofield knows the power of the grassroots. He has been working for candidates for over two decades in West Houston and Harris County.

The Republican nominee for House District 132 is a lawyer who has worked at the prestigious law firm of Baker Botts, and as in-house counsel of a joint venture between Shell and Texaco. Schofield has served as advisor to Governor Rick Perry since 2003 – 6 sessions of the Texas Legislature.

While serving Governor Perry, Schofield worked on getting tort reform passed in 2003. At that time, Texas was losing doctors because they were facing double-digit malpractice insurance premium increases in the valley and in high risk specialties. High risk health care was limited for some of the most vulnerable Texans.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London sparked a nationwide property owner movement. The case expanded eminent domain powers beyond public use, to the power to take private land for the public benefit. It allowed an economic development authority to take homes for a corporation on the theory that it would increase the tax base and be good for the community. This U.S. Supreme Court decision enraged Democrats, Republicans, Southerners, and Northerners. Schofield went to work and helped pass a law, and later a constitutional amendment, that operated to limit eminent domain powers in Texas. 

He is also an expert on election law and worked on the Voter ID law during 3 sessions. He has assisted the Governor and Texas legislators with a whole host of legal issues as they relate to legislation, and he has experience with a wide range of policy issues. Schofield was entrusted with any question that involved lawsuits and potential lawsuits in legislation. The object – not to make suing the remedy in legislation. In-between sessions, he took time off to help candidates and to help get out the vote.

Schofield says he learned by knocking on doors that the issues facing the voters in his district are pretty much the same as those facing all Texans. He says “Texans are concerned about government that can’t be bothered to protect its borders, but has plenty of energy to get into their family’s business and tell them what health insurance to buy. Texans are very concerned that under Barack Obama the government is trying to enter into a permanent state of dictating more and more from Washington about how people have to live.”

He says that “government no longer suggests that smoking is bad and that you should eat more vegetables, they want to tell you to stop smoking and to eat more vegetables. There is no reason to believe that dictating that you must buy health insurance is anything but the first step in Washington’s attempts to tell you how to live.” 

If elected in the November general election, he pledges to stay out in the community. The district is very fast-growing and more and more people are added to the area every day. He says he will stay out in the community in order to see how the community is affected by the constant growth.

The fiscally conservative candidate attended a Katy Area Economic Development Corporation meeting a few months ago. Twenty minutes of slides were shown setting out commercial projects that were going to employ from 500 to 1000 people each. He says that the amount of housing and road mile increases, and increases on water infrastructure, is going to be enormous. Schofield is concerned that if the state keeps spending tens of billions of dollars on projects that are outside of Republicans’ core mission, the state is never going to be able to pay for things it is supposed to pay for like roads, schools, and water.

During the past 6 sessions of the legislature, Schofield spent his time helping the passage of good bills, keeping bad amendments off bills, and getting amendments on bills. He says “that if elected, I have no illusions that I will be anything other than a freshman legislator” but adds that “I have had a lot of experience working bills through the process.” 

Anyone desiring to run for state representative, city council, school board, or any local race, would be wise to emulate Mike Schofield when running for office. As the Republican nominee, he is now turning his attention to November 2nd. His plan is to turn out the voters for the judges and for all of the Republican ticket. He faces Democrat Luis Lopez in November.

Follow Lana Shadwick on Twitter @LanaShadwick2

Source: Breitbart Feed