‘Hypocritical’ Mexico Slams Texas’ Deployment of National Guard on Border

HOUSTON, Texas — Late last week Mexico’s foreign ministry vocalized strong opposition to the presence of the National Guard at the Texas-Mexico border amid the current border crisis. 

A statement from the foreign ministry reportedly said that Mexico “reiterates, in a firm and categorical way, its rejection of this measure. No circumstance at all or change in border security exists that justifies this measure taken by the state.”

The statement further asserted that the National Guard’s being at the border “does not contribute in any way to solving the immigration problem,” according to the AFP

Texas Governor Rick Perry deployed National Guard troops along the border after the federal government ignored Texas’ multiple requests for additional resources to help secure its border with Mexico.

Breitbart Texas Contributing Editor and border security expert Sylvia Longmire said that the ministry’s protest of the National Guard “hypocritical,” especially considering that “the Mexican government deployed its own army to deal with drug cartels eight years ago. That army also has a history of crossing over into U.S. territory over 300 times in the last 10 years–something the U.S. National Guard has never done.”

“Of course, the Mexican army isn’t defending its northern border from southbound floods of armed drug smugglers and illegal immigrants,” Longmire continued. “However, the Mexican government has the sovereign right to use a military solution to its criminal insurgency, and it has never had a problem declaring their sovereign rights. It’s almost insulting for Mexico to say it’s offended by the U.S. exerting its own sovereign right to deploy National Guard troops to the southwest border, regardless of what they’re being used for.”

The current border crisis involves tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors from Central American countries entering the U.S. illegally. Since October 2013, almost 60,000 foreign minors have crossed the border. 

In response to what has been called a “humanitarian crisis,” authorities have been ordered to transport all foreign minors to federal facilities while they wait to be processed. During their time in such housing units, the migrants receive many taxpayer-subsidized benefits including food, education, vocational training, education, English lessons, and even legal counsel.

Ultimately, most of the unaccompanied minors are released after promising to be in court at a later date for an immigration hearing–but many never show up. 

The long term effects that the border crisis will have on American society is not fully known at this point. Breitbart Texas has reported extensively on the potential impact the foreign minors, all of whom are “entitled” to a taxpayer-funded education, could have on public schools. 

A total of 30,340 unaccompanied minors–almost all of whom are from Central America–had been released to foster homes around the country as of July. Assuming that most of these children will not be immediately deported, U.S. public schools be will forced to accommodate them. Breitbart Texas previously reported that taxpayers in Texas alone are expected to spend more than $45 million educating the minors next year.

Follow Kristin Tate on Twitter @KristinBTate

Source: Breitbart Feed

Children Born in 2013 Will Cost Parents $245,340 Through Age 18

Babies born to middle-income families last year are expected to cost their parents nearly a quarter million dollars through age 18, according to the federal government. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture released its annual report on the Cost of Raising a Child Monday, revealing that a child born in 2013 can expect to run up a bill of $245,340 for food, housing, childcare and education, and other expenses until they become adults. Adjusted for projected inflation that cost is $304,480.

In the USDA’s analysis a middle income family makes between $61,530 and $106,540 a year. 

The children’s expenses vary from region to region.

The lowest children costs for middle income families, according to USDA, are in the rural regions of the U.S. ($193,590) and the urban South ($230,610). USDA notes that the urban eastern is the most expensive place to raise a child ($282,480).

While the government data can help families plan for future costs, the government also uses the statistics to help with child support guidelines and foster care payments, according to USDA Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Under Secretary Kevin Concannon.

“In today’s economy, it’s important to be prepared with as much information as possible when planning for the future,” Concannon said in a statement. 

The 2013 costs represent a 1.8 percent increase over the costs the USDA determined a child would incur if born in 2012. 

According to USDA, while 2013’s costs are higher, the percentage spent on each facet of life — housing, food, care, etc — remained the same with housing costs (30 percent of the total costs) representing the largest expenditure, childcare and education following (18 percent) and food representing the third biggest cost category (16 percent).

“Variations by geographic region are marked when we look at housing, for example,” USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) economist Mark Lino and the study’s author said. “The average cost of housing for a child up to age 18 is $87,840 for a middle-income family in the urban West, compared to $66,240 in the urban South, and $70,200 in the urban Midwest. It’s interesting to note that other studies are showing that families are increasingly moving to these areas of the country with lower housing cost.”

USDA highlighted that for families making less than a middle income family, child costs are slightly lower at $176,550. For families making home above a middle income salary the cost is about $407,820. 

USDA based its cost conclusions on the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Consumer Expenditure Survey. It further noted that the more children a family has the less each child costs thanks in part to hand-me-downs, bulk purchases, and shared bedrooms.

Source: Breitbart Feed

Britain is the Fattest Country in Europe: Here’s the Real Reason Why

Britain’s “obesity epidemic” is mainly caused by the fact that its population are lazy slobs and not because they eat too much, a shock new study called The Fat Lie has found.

The only reason the study – produced by Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) – is shocking is because it contradicts one of the great received ideas of our politically correct times: that fatties are the hapless victims of the rapacious and bullying food and drink industry which pressures them into eating and drinking far too much fat and sugar.

What Snowdon’s research clearly shows that this claim is nonsense. Yes, it is indeed true that British people are getting porkier. Since 2002 the average body weight of English adults has increased by two kilograms, contributing to Britain’s unenviable status as the fattest country in Europe.

But what is rarely mentioned by health campaigners is that this rise in obesity over three decades has coincided with a steady fall in average sugar and fat consumption.

Fat consumption has fallen from 111 grammes per day in 1974 to 81 grammes per day in 2012.

Sugar consumption has fallen by 16 percent since 1992.

Total calorie consumption has fallen from 2534 calories per person per day in 1974 to 1990 in 2012 – a decrease of 21.5 per cent.

Yet obesity has gone on rising. Why? Because, as Snowdon explains, obesity is a simple function of repeatedly eating more calories than you burn off.  And people are taking much less physical exercise than they used to. Britons are walking less (from 255 miles per year in 1976 to 179 miles in 2010) and cycling less (from 51 miles per year in 1976 to 42 miles in 2010). At work, 63 per cent never climb stairs; while 40 per cent never walk. Outside work, 63 per cent report spending less than ten minutes a day walking, while 53 per cent claim to do no sports or exercise at all.

This is worth keeping in mind next time you read some shrill lobby group – such as Action on Sugar – demanding that the government does more to rein in the food and drink industry or pushes for a ban on supersize portions in fast food outlets or higher taxes on fizzy drinks.

The reason these lobbyists get away with such drivel is because they find a ready audience among the panic junkies at places like Mumsnet and in much of the mainstream media which thrives on public health scare stories.

And the reason they find a ready audience in government is because there are few things a minister on the make enjoys more than being seen to clamp down on some greedy industry or other.

With most departmental budgets being cut, ministers can no longer make a name for themselves by spending their way into public favour. But what they can do – because notionally it’s “cost-free”, though of course it’s not really – is introduce more regulations in the name of public health and safety. It has happened to the tobacco industry. Now it is happening to the food and drink industry.

This is why reports like Christopher Snowdon’s are so unusual and refreshing. They’re one of our few remaining toeholds on reality in a world which finds it more convenient to fall for the cultural Marxist lie that nobody is responsible for their own problems and that it’s the government’s job to sort them out.

Source: Breitbart Feed

Horowitz: On Ferguson, Libertarians Playing with Fire

As Congress remains in a protracted recess for another three weeks and the political news recedes from the headlines, it didn’t take long for the nonpolitical event surrounding the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, to become political. After all, everything in this day and age is ultimately politicized.

There is a narrative developing among some libertarian figures that the actions of the police in Ferguson represent the latest example of egregious abuses of “big government.” From listening to their diatribes one would come away with the impression that the local police decided to randomly kill an African-American teen in cold blood, then proceeded to terrorize the neighborhood and suspend civil liberties while engaging in para-military exercises throughout the streets. Their account of the tragedy portrays the situation as a zero-sum battle between agents of government and private citizens.

For some on the libertarian right, the fact that the “victims” of the alleged police brutality are black makes this both an opportunity to bash big government and make in-roads with the black community by showing how unbridled government control is particularly harmful to their way of life. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), for example, parachuted into the conflict by penning an op-ed unambiguously making this tragedy about race. While offering a terse throwaway line about the importance of police maintaining the peace, he then weaved in general bipartisan concerns about a militarized police into a politically motivated supposition about the role of race in this conflict – all before the facts are clear.

“Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them,” said Paul.

He then boldly presented a long-held left-wing patronizing talking point that “anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention.”

Really? Until Paul cites real evidence that blacks are punished more severely for crimes than whites or are wrongly accused of crimes more often than other people in the year 2014, he should leave the racial pandering to Al Sharpton. Clearly, this suburban police department was not ready to deal with such a volatile situation with full competence. But the notion that they had a racist agenda beyond protecting the citizens of the city or that they would have been more forgiving of other races engaging in violent rioting is not something that can simply be asserted.

Moreover, while this view of the events in Ferguson would indeed present us with an opportunity to show the harmful effects of a police state and the general concern of militarization of police, it fails to take a holistic approach to what actually happened.

There is nothing political about the events that took place on the tragic night of August 9, when Michael Brown was shot dead in an altercation with police. Like every individual fatally shot where law enforcement is involved, we have to learn the facts on the ground before pontificating and drawing politically motivated conclusions from the tragedy. The truth will come out through the judicial process.

What is clear from the aftermath of the shooting is that parts of the city erupted in mass rioting, burning down businesses and terrorizing neighborhoods with violence reminiscent of scenes in the Middle East. Even if a cop shot Michael Brown in cold blood, which has not been demonstrated, the lawlessness and the rioting was simply unacceptable and needed to be shut down immediately. Rioters weren’t just attacking the police; they were attacking private businesses and innocent citizens. There is no higher degree of tyranny than violent anarchy, in which people cannot travel freely without fear of harm to their bodies or property.

Conservatives are certainly in agreement with libertarians on many issues and share their concerns about over-criminalization of some dubious non-violent crimes or overzealous use of police to collect speeding tickets to purvey the welfare state. There is a valid general concern about the over-militarization of police forces, and there is certainly no need for such para-military arms of bureaucracies like the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Education.

But conservatives should not rush into the libertarian social media mob against all things police or government engaging in a zero-sum “the police acted stupidly” meme while obfuscating the fact that the rioting presented an imminent threat to the liberty of innocent citizens. As conservatives, we don’t believe in zero government. We believe in ordered liberty built upon a strong civil society. There is no place in a civil society for violent rioting, and we need brave members of law enforcement to help preserve that ordered liberty. Their absence would lead to rampant tyranny much worse than what we experience under our ever-encroaching government.

Indeed, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) struck the perfect pitch, encapsulating everyone’s concerns: “Police officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and any time a young man loses his life in a confrontation with law enforcement, it is tragic… Civil liberties must be protected, but violence is not the answer. Once the unrest is brought to an end, we should examine carefully what happened to ensure that justice is served.”

There is so much common ground between conservatives and libertarians (and even liberals). We can craft legislation to clearly regulate the use of military tactics and weapons. We can work on sentencing reform for some non-violent crimes. But to completely and dishonestly ignore the role that violent crime plays in limiting liberty and the critical role that a robust police response plays in preserving liberty is antithetical to all of our values. And to engage in politically motivated racial pandering to help legitimize the behavior is shameless.

Source: Breitbart Feed

Four Landmark Rulings: Opening and Shutting Pandora’s Boxes in College Sports

It has been a dizzying few months for big-time college football and basketball players, coaches, fans and the attendant media. How all of this will change college sports is yet to be determined, but without a doubt, we are in a new era. On the one hand, it is pleasurable to see an operation as bureaucratic, heavy-handed and corrupt as the NCAA take a few lumps. They ran themselves like you would expect a bunch of out of touch academia nuts would, which is to say, they had a rule for everything and common sense for nothing.

So afraid was the NCAA that Kentucky would buy basketball players or that Auburn would buy football players with suitcases of cash – that they made sure a poor kid playing for N.C A&T could not get a pizza or have his parents visit for the opening round of March madness. Only academic bureaucrats could have designed the NCAA rulebook. Which they did. Only IRS tax law is more cumbersome and nonsensical. (also designed by bureaucrats, I might add)

On the other hand, market forces of supply and demand insist that college athletes already had a pretty darn good deal. If not, rosters would go begging, and that’s not the case. There is more demand for these scholarships than there is supply – or put another way – there is more supply of good athletes than there is demand. This just is. Not that anyone on the NCAA’s defense team was smart enough to figure this out and say so.

Having said all that, some stipends for meals and some family travel should have been commonsense changes years ago. In fact, years ago colleges would allow for some meal and laundry money for athletes. And the rule about scholarships being offered on year at a time? Absurd. Many school have waived that option, but it was criminal in the first place.

The Landmark Rulings:

The first ruling was one that might manifest down the road more than it does immediately – and that is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling that Northwestern University football players were employees – and thus could form a union. Reports from the inside say that while Wildcat players liked the ruling, they have very little interest in actually doing so. The ballot was secret, and not yet divulged – but that seems to be the consensus.

Unionization could well end up being a double edge sword for athletes – with a wickedly sharp back edge – and it seems as if the Wildcats figured that out. Be careful what you ask for.

Then, in rapid fire order came Maryland’s settlement with the ACC over conference exit fees, followed by the O’Bannon case against the NCAA and the splitting off of the 5 major conferences from the NCAA umbrella. Of these, the O’Bannon case is the most significant, but all of these issues are intertwined.

The ACC/Maryland settlement, combined with the Five Power conferences splitting off, probably brings an end (for a while) to the revolving door of conference memberships. This Pandora’s Box is shut — for now.

I believe that led to the power schools and conferences readily agreeing to some of the O’Bannon ruling.

Concerning O’Bannon, it is a Pandora’s box that no one can fully contemplate yet. It will force some needed reforms, but the law of unintended consequences is always lurking – and often strikes shortly after a liberal judge has made a ruling.

Will this change the nature of the fans’ relationship with players, and schools? I think it might. Will the money factor be more important – in other words – will schools “bid” on players or will the stipend be a set fee? We love that universities compete on the field and on the court, but do we want to turn this into an economic competition purely? I don’t think so.

And what about the share of jersey and likeness revenues. It’s easy to think this is a good idea, but will the next Johnny Manziel cause dissension on his team with his big checks for jersey sales? You know, offensive lineman don’t sell jerseys, but they keep those that do healthy.

And all of this is likely to give even more advantages to the huge state universities – Ohio State, Florida, Michigan and Michigan State, etc. They all have more fans to buy more jerseys, and thus can indeed “buy” players from smaller schools simply based on that.

All of which begs another question: should Kentucky basketball return a percentage of its revenues to the citizens of Kentucky? After all, it is the name KENTUCKY that sells the tickets and brings in the donations. Did long before the current players were born and will long after the current players are off the team. If Manziel is worth something on the back of the jersey, what was Texas A&M worth on the front? Anyone who thinks the free market ramifications of this are one sided and simple is not paying attention. If the name Redskins is valuable to Daniel Snyder – and it is – then the name of a huge state brings incredible equity to sports teams.

Again, not that anyone on the NCAA defense team is smart enough to have said so.

And speaking of that, will those built-in fan bases remain as enthusiastic about paid players in the future? I think it’s an open question.

At this point, there are more questions than answers. I have my opinions, but this is now uncharted territory. Some of the changes will be good. Some of it will be bad. But almost all of it will be very different. 

Source: Breitbart Feed