Jihadists funded by welfare benefits, senior police officer warns

Taxpayers’ money is being claimed fraudulently and used by terrorists in countries such as Iraq and Syria, according to Terri Nicholson, from the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism command unit

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 6.11.29 PM

By Peter Dominiczak, Tom Whitehead and Christopher Hope10:00PM GMT 26 Nov 2014

Britain’s benefits system is being abused to fund terrorism, a senior police officer has warned.
Terri Nicholson, from the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism command unit, said that taxpayers’ money was being claimed fraudulently and used by terrorists in countries such as Iraq and Syria.
She said there had been “a number of cases” recently of terrorists making fraudulent student loan claims to fund their activities.
MPs described the prospect of British money being used to bankroll potential terrorist plots on British soil as “sickening”. Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said he would in the coming weeks question Theresa May, the Home Secretary, over the “shocking” disclosures.
Two brothers became the first Britons to be jailed for Syria-related terrorism offences, having gone to a training camp in the country.

Life in a terror training camp: lights out 10pm, cleaning, military training 26 Nov 2014
British jihadist mocks security after skipping bail to fight with Isil in Syria 26 Nov 2014
David Cameron to meet Lee Rigby’s family over Facebook concerns 26 Nov 2014
Police hail ‘landmark sentence’ over Syria terrorist camp brothers 26 Nov 2014
Another jihadist, who skipped bail to fight in Syria, used Twitter to mock the lapse in security that allowed him to flee.
Meanwhile, the family of Fusilier Lee Rigby claimed that Facebook failed in its “duty of care” when it missed messages in which one of his murderers discussed killing a soldier. Facebook was accused in a report of being a “safe haven for terrorism” after it failed to pass on information that could have prevented the killing of Fusilier Rigby in Woolwich, south-east London, last year.
Miss Nicholson, a Met Assistant Commander, said terrorists were using “innovative” techniques to send money abroad. “We are seeing a diverse fraud, including substantial fraud online, abuse of the benefits system, abuse of student loans, in order to fund terrorism,” she said.
She also said women were being used to smuggle money out of Britain to fund terrorists abroad, as it is believed they will arouse less suspicion. Earlier this month, Amal El Wahabi, a British mother-of-two, was jailed for more than two years for trying to arrange to smuggle €20,000 (£16,000) to her husband, who is believed to be a jihadist fighting in Syria. She duped her friend, Nawal Msaad, into carrying the cash in her underwear.
Philip Davies, the Tory MP, said of Miss Nicholson’s claims: “I know the Government has been cracking down on benefit fraud. It seems to me that this shows that if anything, they need to go further.”
He added: “It is sickening to think that [UK money is funding terror plots] but whenever there is any money being doled out, it’s obvious that terrorists will be trying to get their hands on as much of it as possible.”
Kwasi Kwarteng, a Conservative member of the Commons work and pensions committee, said: “Ordinary people will be very, very concerned about this and it’s something which the Government obviously has a duty to crack down on.”
Mr Vaz said: “It is shocking that this is happening. We need to see assurances from government that the integrity of the student loan and benefits
system has not been compromised, with the full cooperation of the banking network.”
A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “No one should doubt our commitment to rooting out benefit fraud.”
Ministers said up to 50 suspected jihadists a year are expected to be prevented from going to Syria or other terrorism hot spots under proposed powers to seize passports.
Around 15 terror suspects a year will also be placed under the revamped terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims), which restrict their activities.
The measures are part of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.

GOV’T WON’T PROTECT YOU FROM RIOTERS

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 5.58.01 PM

Law-abiding citizens at the mercy of rioters

http://launch.newsinc.com/?type=VideoPlayer/Single&widgetId=1&trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=28191242

http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=69016&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=28191242

By Gary North
The Tea Party Economist

La Riots store owners protect store with guns

Looters in Ferguson, Missouri defied President Obama and the parents of Michael Brown. The President and the parents had called for peaceful protests. This appeal to non-violence did not work.

In the summer of 1965, I lived in Southern California. The region saw the images from the KTLA TV traffic helicopter, day after day, night after night, of the arson and the looting. This was new to us. How could looting of businesses owned by residents do the cause of justice any good? It couldn’t. These were looters and arsonists, not justice-seekers.

The video of the looting of a Ferguson liquor store is typical. The owner had been victimized by Brown, who stole cigarillos. This was caught on an in-store camera. Now more thieves came out in force. Twice victimized, what was he to do?

If the owner had stood in front of his store with a shotgun, and had shot a few looters, he might have been prosecuted by the grand jury that did not vote to send the policeman to trial.

How do property owners deal with mob violence? If defenders face prosecution for defending their property, and the police and national guard fire tear gas canisters and rubber bullets, which do not slow down the looters, then both personal safety and private property are left without meaningful support.

The rioters set fires, as they always do. Loot and burn for justice! I remember the rioters’ cries in Watts in 1965: “Burn, baby, burn!” The law-abiding citizens were at the mercy of rioters.

In his great book, From Dawn to Decadence (2000), Jacques Barzun wrote that the Western state is entering a phase of contraction. Politicians have promised welfare benefits that cannot possibly be paid for. At the same time, the state can no longer protect the nation from crime. A loss of legitimacy will undermine the state.

The looters and rioters in Ferguson have sent a message: the state is impotent when it comes to protecting life and property. Yet these two protections are basic to the theoretical justification for the state’s possession of a lawful monopoly of violence. The state of Missouri visibly shares this with looters. “Sorry; there is nothing much we can do.” The looters knew this, and they acted accordingly.

There is a fundamental law of economics: “At a higher price, less is demanded.” But modern Americans have been verbally assaulted for so long by the bullies in ghettos and their accomplices in the media that law enforcement agencies are today unwilling to hike the price on violence. Result: more violence.

Push came to shove in Ferguson. The law enforcement agencies figured “better safe than sorry” for them. They tried to contain the violence, not stop it. Once again, they sent a message to citizens. It was the same message sent by the looters, “You’re on your own. Do not resist.”

In the 1992 Watts II riots — the Rodney King riots — Korean store owners got guns. They stood their ground. They had no problem.

As you watch this, listen to the concern of the off-camera media lady. She asks the on-site lady: “Does it look as though these guns are registered?” Then she asked about handguns. Handguns!

My response would have been this: “Does it look as though the looters are registered?”

The liberal media have long since castrated the majority. But not in this part of town in 1992.

Georgia’s New Plan To Arrest Welfare Abusers

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 5.50.24 PM

As many know, the food stamps program is intended to help low income families afford food. Recently, however, more and more stories are coming to light revealing dishonesty and abuse of the system. It appears that when given the chance, many people tend to trade the food stamps for cash, and end up buying whatever they want. Such action is illegal.

Georgia authorities have discovered this new type of fraud, and 54 people were arrested for opening “grocery stores” that service welfare recipients. According to reports, food stamps were being traded in for cash at the store, for only a percentage of their actual value. 90 people were arrested for using the service to commit fraud.

Although there is currently no indication of legal penalties for committing welfare fraud, the first punishment that occurs for an offender is to lose funding. In that case, the person facing charges will not be able to obtain food stamps for a period of time, and could even be permanently banned for the program.

What do you think of welfare abusers?

OBAMA: AMERICANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO FAVOR AMERICANS

Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 3.48.23 PM

No distinction between native-born Americans and future migrants

NEIL MUNRO
White House Correspondent

The only Americans who can legitimately object to immigration are native Indian-Americans, President Barack Obama told his Chicago audience Nov. 24, as he made an impassioned ideological plea for endless immigration, cultural diversity and a big government to manage the resulting multicultural society.

“There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans,” Obama said, rhetorically dismissing the right of 300 million actual Americans to decide who can live in their homeland.

Americans should not favor other Americans over foreigners, Obama demanded. “Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently… that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration,” he said in the face of many polls showing rising opposition to his immigration agenda.

Obama denied any moral or practical distinction between native-born Americans and future migrants. “Whether we cross the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we all shared one thing, and that’s the hope that America would be the place where we could believe as we choose… and that the law would be enforced equally for everybody, regardless of what you look like or what your last name was,” said the president.

“That’s the ideal that binds us all together. That’s what’s at stake when we have conversations about immigration,” he declared.

Obama did indicate his approval for some measures to exclude illegal immigrants, even as he works to amnesty 12 million illegals stage-by-stage. His current amnesty “doesn’t apply to anyone who has come to this country recently, or might come illegally in the future, because borders do mean something,” he said.

In Japan, however, where the government allows little immigration, “they don’t have problems with certain folks being discriminated against because mostly everybody is Japanese,” Obama admitted.

Currently, one million immigrants are accepted each year. That inflow brings in roughly one immigrant for every four Americans who turn 18 each year, even though wages and the number of native-born Americans with jobs have both flatlined since 2000 amid increasing competition from migrants, stalled productivity, accelerating technology and changing trade patterns.

Obama’s speech was a defense of his Nov. 21 unilateral effort to roll back enforcement of immigration law.

That action freezes the enforcement of immigration law against 12 million illegals now in the country and also against every new migrant who makes it over the border. The edict also awards work-permits to roughly four million illegal immigrants, and puts them on a fast-track to citizenship. It also sharply increases the annual inflow of 650,000 guest workers for blue-collar and white-collar jobs sought by Americans. Obama’s speech did not mention the unpopular work permits or the fast-track to citizenship.

Numerous polls show Americans want to reduce or stabilize immigration, and also oppose Obama’s immigration policies by a factor of two-to-one, three-to-one or even four-to-one. On Nov. 4, 66 percent of Oregon’s voters —- including many Democratic voters — struck down a law granting drivers’ license to illegals.

In his Nov. 25 speech, Obama downplayed the existence and interests of native-born Americans as he championed the arrival of many non-English speaking students in Chicago schools. “Chicago has always been a city of immigrants, and that’s still true,” he declared, while adding that “you go to the public schools around here and you got 50, 60, 70 different languages being spoken.”

In fact, Chicago and the United States is overwhelmingly populated by native-born Americans who work, live and learn best in stable neighborhoods and classrooms. Nationwide, five out of six people in the U.S are are native-born.

More immigration “means more jobs, more growth for everybody,” Obama claimed.

But more jobs doesn’t mean more wages for Americans. Since 2000, median wages have stalled and the number of native-born Americans with jobs has remained flat amid the annual arrival of roughly one million legal immigrants, 650,000 guest workers and millions of illegals.

The award of work permits to four million illegals will provide more revenues for government, Obama said. But he ignored the likely $2 trillion cost of providing U.S. welfare and social services to the migrants, who average a 10th grade education.

The migrants “will boost wages for American-born workers,” he said, without mentioning that his aides estimated the increase to be worth only $170 per year for each working American, 10 years after his planned amnesty. That estimate is based on many assumptions, including claims that migrant workers will not usually compete against Americans for better jobs, and that the migrants will earn more money because of government intervention.

His forecast of a $170 per year gain claim also ignores evidence that more immigrant workers can swamp the labor market and drive down wages for Americans. That labor-supply reality is accepted by his top economic adviser.

But Obama was far more passionate when making his ideological argument for mass immigration.

Deportations of illegals who have children in the United States “breaks up families… it is heartbreaking, it is not right,” he said. “We’re not a nation that kicks out strivers… we find ways to welcome people, fellow human beings, children of God, into he fold, and harness their talents.”

The Statue of Liberty doesn’t have its back to the world, he said, trying to portray the monument as a colossal invitation to migrants. In fact, the statue was designed as a “Light to the World” that would show foreigners how Americans use their constitution and liberty to govern themselves without kings or emperors.

The many immigrants who arrive have to be treated equally under the law, Obama said, segueing into his progressive agenda.

“Sometimes that’s hard to do, and it is worthwhile, it is worth doing,” he said.

Obama’s praise for mass immigration reflects his long-standing belief that migrants can join with Africans-Americans, under the guidance of the progressives who run the Democratic Party, to win political power and wealth from Americans.

“In my mind, at least, the fates of black and brown were to be perpetually intertwined, the cornerstone of a coalition that could help America live up to its promise,” he wrote in his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

That hope, however, was frustrated by economic competition between Americans and migrants, he wrote.

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole…. [but] it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”