Posted on 04/25/2013 3:33:48 PM PDT by NoLibZone
On Thursday, the Boston Herald reported that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) refused to answer questions about whether Boston terror suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had a government-paid cellphone because of privacy laws.
The Herald reported Wednesday that “Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his wife and 3-year-old daughter collected welfare until 2012 and that both Tamerlan and Dzhokhar received benefits through their parents ‘for a limited portion’ of the time after they came to the U.S., which was around 2002.”
The Lifeline phone subsidy program, referred to as the “Obama phone” program by its critics, charges paying cell phone customers an average monthly fee of $2.50 per household to fund the now $2.2 billion program that provides lower-income individuals with free cell phones and service.
Lawmakers from both parties have recently expressed concern about fraud and abuse in the Lifeline free cell phone program, as well as the phones’ increasing use by criminals.
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Intel screw-ups, immigration screw-ups, and now giving these people welfare and phones???
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.
Also give them Obamabombs. Just kill us quick.
Answer: They probably did.
Its state-sponsored terrorism.
Only now its our state sponsoring the terrorists
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.
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
I wish they were as concerned about regular Americans’ privacy as they are the terrorists.
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.
Did he get the Mercedes for free as well? Do you have to be a terrorist to get one?
Gov. Patrick giving a dead terrorist privacy.
since when do terrorists qualify for privacy protection?
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.
>>since when do terrorists qualify for privacy protection?
January 2009, but you already knew that. :-)
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.
The fact that they refuse to answer—pretty much answers the question for me.
Don’t you just love the little heart-shaped cutout for the camera on Rico Suave’s phone case?
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.