Skip to comments.
Feds Won't Say if Tsarnaevs Had Gov't-Funded Phones
breitbart.com ^
| April 25 2013
| Wynton Hall
Posted on 04/25/2013 3:33:48 PM PDT by NoLibZone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
WhiteHouse refuses to deny that Obama Phones were used in the Boston Bombings
1
posted on
04/25/2013 3:33:48 PM PDT
by
NoLibZone
To: NoLibZone
2
posted on
04/25/2013 3:34:38 PM PDT
by
TurboZamboni
(Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
To: TurboZamboni
3
posted on
04/25/2013 3:35:32 PM PDT
by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: NoLibZone
It's amazing how far the country has gone down in five years.
Intel screw-ups, immigration screw-ups, and now giving these people welfare and phones???
To: NoLibZone
"I hear from law enforcement that these phones are often found at crime scenes and are used in drug deals," said Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AK). "Why? It's because you can't trace them." Of course you can trace them. A given serial number to a given recipient. The purchased pay-as-you-go phones, OTOH, can be a problem.
5
posted on
04/25/2013 3:43:47 PM PDT
by
steve86
(Acerbic by Nature, not Nurture™)
To: NoLibZone
Also give them Obamabombs. Just kill us quick.
6
posted on
04/25/2013 3:46:56 PM PDT
by
ravager
(I)
To: NoLibZone
Answer: They probably did.
7
posted on
04/25/2013 3:52:30 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Inside every liberal and WOD defender is a totalitarian screaming to get out.)
To: NoLibZone
Its state-sponsored terrorism.
Only now its our state sponsoring the terrorists
8
posted on
04/25/2013 3:53:13 PM PDT
by
PGR88
To: colorado tanker
I was just thinking about the same thing earlier today. And it is only accelerating. Just think of how screwed up things will be like on 20JAN2017!
We will look back to 2013 as a completely different time.
9
posted on
04/25/2013 3:53:39 PM PDT
by
Jack Hydrazine
(IÂ’m not a Republican, IÂ’m a conservative! Pubbies haven't been conservative since before T.R.)
To: colorado tanker
's amazing how far the country has gone down in five years. What's really amazing is how many federal agencies now seem comfortable refusing to answer simple questions.
Even Patrick in Massachusetts is getting into the game by refusing to answer if the terrorists were on state aid.
Where is this refusal to be transparent with taxpayer funds coming from?
-PJ
10
posted on
04/25/2013 3:55:56 PM PDT
by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: NoLibZone
I wish they were as concerned about regular Americans’ privacy as they are the terrorists.
To: Political Junkie Too
"Where is this refusal to be transparent with taxpayer funds coming from?"
Lack of consequences, feeling that they are invulnerable combined with a ineffective and feckless opposition - not to mention a populace that votes for them no matter what.
12
posted on
04/25/2013 4:00:34 PM PDT
by
Truth29
To: NoLibZone
Did he get the Mercedes for free as well? Do you have to be a terrorist to get one?
To: Political Junkie Too
14
posted on
04/25/2013 4:03:12 PM PDT
by
Atlantan
To: NoLibZone
since when do terrorists qualify for privacy protection?
15
posted on
04/25/2013 4:03:54 PM PDT
by
elpadre
(AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
To: Political Junkie Too
Even Patrick in Massachusetts is getting into the game by refusing to answer if the terrorists were on state aid.And the Massachusetts state university system is refusing to reveal whether the younger jihadist was getting free or reduced tuition.
Perhaps the elder jihadist was even collecting welfare $$ while receiving terrorist training in Russia. The governor is refusing to release the information.
To: elpadre
>>since when do terrorists qualify for privacy protection?
January 2009, but you already knew that. :-)
17
posted on
04/25/2013 4:12:44 PM PDT
by
Bryanw92
(Sic semper tyrannis)
To: NoLibZone; All
Constitution-respecting patriots can point out that Congress cannot use any clause in Section 8 of Article I to justify laying taxes so that feds can fund phones given to the public.
To: NoLibZone
The fact that they refuse to answer—pretty much answers the question for me.
19
posted on
04/25/2013 4:14:36 PM PDT
by
Venturer
To: Travis McGee
Don’t you just love the little heart-shaped cutout for the camera on Rico Suave’s phone case?
20
posted on
04/25/2013 4:15:35 PM PDT
by
nascarnation
(Baraq's economic policy: trickle up poverty)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson