She is the former Lt. Governor of New York, who has gotten attention for her consumer-focused book Beating ObamaCare.
Betsy McCaughey has turned her fine analytical skills to the S.744, which is designed to be too complicated for normal citizens to read and understand. Confusion is a very useful tool of the powerful against citizens trying to keep an eye on their government.
I couldn’t find a recording online of Betsy McCaughey on the Ingraham show, but the June 9 video below has some of the same topics. Ginni Thomas at the DailyCaller.com has been doing some great interviews with interesting people.
McCaughey believes the worst thing about the bill is how it weakens America’s security at a time when we increasingly under attack by terrorists. The legislation actually relaxes the rules for asylum seekers after the deadly Boston Marathon bombing, which was committed by asylees.
Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey bets “you can’t find five members of Congress who have read” the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.
The former Democrat is experienced at reading large bills the Congress seems inclined to pass without reading, such as Obamacare. She tabs them, underlines them and tries to see the big picture of what will happen if the provisions of the bill are implemented.
In an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas, McCaughey brought her dog-eared immigration bill with her and pointed to it repeatedly.
“There are many interest groups involved in this bill,” she said.
“In fact, many, many, many — except one. I didn’t find anything for Joe Q. Citizen in this bill. I didn’t find anything for the average tax-paying citizen in this bill.”
“Somebody forgot to tell him about the meeting, so he or she is not represented in this bill,” she added.
McCaughey, author of “Beating Obamacare,” laid out six criticisms and unexamined problems of the bill beyond what she sees as the problematic pathway to citizenship and lax border security provisions of the bill.
According to McCaughey, the bill imperils national security by weakening rules for asylum seekers; outsources government jobs to community organizers, like happened in Obamacare; doubles the numbers of legal immigrants with green cards; contradicts Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s ads that promise new citizens will be self-supporting; costs too much; and impedes border agents from doing their basic enforcement job.
The popular radio host has started discussing amnesty, perhaps because of the many complaints from his listeners that he has been ignoring the worst threat to America in years.
So Limbaugh has been mouthing the appropriate words about amnesty being really a bad thing that ruined California etc., but it’s becoming more clear that his continuing recalcitrance likely stems from a stubborn political infatuation with the photogenic young snake-oil purveyor, once a great Republican hope for the future.
There is more proof of protectiveness from today’s show. Note the use of the word “clarify” from Rush in reference to Rubio’s pledge of amnesty on Spanish-language radio. It didn’t take much from Rubio to convince Rush that the Senator is acting in America’s best interest.
CALLER: [. . .] And I cannot tell you how seething mad I am, as I’m sure a lot of your listeners are, especially hearing, you know, one of the great hopes of the young Republican class, Senator Rubio, going down this path doing exactly opposite of what he initially said he was going to do.
RUSH: Well, let me clarify for you what he told me on the phone today. And he reminded me that he said this while he was here whenever his last interview was on the program. And he said it then, too. His point is, he’s not relegating border security to secondary status. He has just decided that we need to get these 11 million people, whatever they are, identified so that they’re it, that they’re the end of it, it stops after them. And the only way to do that is to immediately put them on the pathway to citizenship. But it’s all part of securing the border, is the point that he’s trying to make. His point is he’s really not changing his strategy or his opinion on this.
He points out there’s still the 10- to 13-year waiting period before they’re granted citizenship. I did on the phone this morning, I asked him, “Well, what about the idea, we had it yesterday, that those people during that 13-year period are not eligible to vote, they’re not eligible to get Obamacare benefits or any others, so what about the idea that they’re gonna be hired first, they’re cheaper?” He said, “Yeah, that’s a problem, and it goes to show we’ve gotta deal with Obamacare as well.” But he’s insistent that the legalization process is not the right to vote immediately, it’s not the right to collect benefits immediately. It’s simple drag ’em out of the shadows so they’ll be identified so that we know that’s it, no more after that. Then we secure the border to make sure that doesn’t happen.
The Dutch freedom-fighter Geert Wilders (pictured) visited southern California last weekend to deliver a speech at an event titled “Europe’s Last Stand?”
Wilders analyzed the history and wrong ideas leading to the current liberal dislike of national sovereignty among European liberals, namely their belief that Nazi fascism was caused by bad patriotism.
As it happens, liberals believe that if they can just find the perfect construct of government, then utopia will result, so they keep plugging away, trying to find the secret recipe. California liberals, for example, have led the charge for diversity being the highest good, which if somehow turned into a principle of governance, then everyone can live happily in a multicultural Eden.
The California experiment has not been encouraging, from the liberal viewpoint, if honest. The Golden State gets less like paradise and more like Babel every year, with its growing population of diverse residents.
The unaccountable European Union is the real problem with government in Europe, Wilders believes, which doesn’t allow the Netherlands to protect itself by keeping out hostile Muslim immigrants. Disconnecting from the giant EU PC nanny state would allow more freedom of the people.
At a time when Washington’s super-sized digital snoopocracy feels threatening to Americans, we should all pay attention to Geert Wilders’ wise observations about patriotism and the nation-state.
The Resurgence of National Pride and the Future of Europe, Speech of Geert Wilders, Los Angeles, June 9, 2013
Dear friends, thank you for inviting me to Los Angeles. I always like coming to the United States. There are many things that I admire Americans for. One of them is that they are unashamedly patriotic.
The American Freedom Association [actually, the American Freedom Alliance: BW] has asked me to speak to you about the future of Europe.
Europe is in a terrible state. Bit by bit, European countries are losing their national sovereignty. The economy is in shambles. Islamic immigrants riot and terrorize the many locals. And when people’s throats are slit in the streets, while the murderers shout “Allahu Akbar,” the authorities appease the killers and declare that Islam has nothing to do with it.
Europeans feel that the gap between them en those who rule them is growing. Many no longer feel represented by their politicians. There is a complete disconnect between the people that truly rule Europe and the people that live in it.
The blame lies to a large extent with the European Union and the weak leadership within the European countries which have signed away their national sovereignty. The EU cannot be compared to the United States. Europe is a continent of many different nations with their own identities, traditions and languages. The EU is a supranational organization, but its leaders aim to turn it into a state. To this end they are destroying the wealth, identity and freedoms of the existing nation-states of Europe.
Before I elaborate, let us take a closer look at the terrible mistake that Europe made.
Following the Second World War, Europe’s leaders mistakenly thought that patriotism was the cause of the war.
All over Europe, not just in Germany, but everywhere, they equated the defense of national identity with extremism.
Politicians told the electorate that the nation state was dangerous.
On the rooftops of Europe’s parliaments and official buildings, they flew the EU flag next to the national flag, as if the nation is nothing but a province of a Pan-European empire.
On the number plates of European cars, they put the EU flag instead of the national flag, thereby forcing people to drive around with the symbol of their subjection.
They signed away their national interests for the goal of so-called Europeanization.
Such policies could never have been possible if the ruling elite had not fallen for the ideology of cultural and moral relativism. Patriotism, which is a virtue, came to be seen as a vice.
Today, the citizens of Europe are reaping the bitter harvest of this arrogance, this refusal to stand by the ancient nations of Europe, the mothers of modern democracy, the guardians of our liberty.
The EU stands for everything that is wrong in Europe.
It is a gigantic undemocratic transnational monster.
It issues legislation permeated with cultural relativism.
It meddles in the everyday lives of millions of people.
It has opened Europe’s borders to uncontrolled mass immigration, mostly from Islamic countries. And it has deprived Europe’s parliaments of a huge amount of their legislative powers. Continue reading this article
A vexing problem with mainstream media is their disinterest in the connection between excessive immigration and poverty. Apparently they never heard of supply and demand, even though the captains of industry know the principle very well. (Hint, an oversupply of workers leads to lower wages and big business profits.)
Analysts have said for years that the mass immigration of Third Worlders is importing poverty, so the concept is not exactly new.
Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% of Adults say if immigration laws were enforced, there would be less poverty in America. Only 19% disagree with that assessment, while 20% are not sure.
There’s nothing like a strong vote against asylum fraud to brighten one’s day. The sensible Swiss have said they have had enough of foreigners plopping themselves down in Switzerland and demanding the full trough of the nation’s generous asylum benefits. The national referendum passed with 79 percent of voters approving more restrictive asylum provisions.
The Swiss sign below says “Now is enough! Stop mass immigration.”
An interesting aspect is how many of the asylum grifters are draft dodgers from Eritrea, a nation which supplied the largest number of wanna-be asylees last year.
Naturally, Al Jazeera’s coverage focused on the earnest asylum seekers, although it let slip that the surge was “attributed in part to the Arab Spring uprisings.” Wait, why aren’t the strapping young men fighting for freedom in their beloved homelands? Because it’s easier to mooch.
Switzerland has voted overwhelmingly in favor of tightening the country’s asylum law. The controversial decision comes with refugee applications having risen to their highest level in more than a decade.
The asylum law revisions passed with 79 percent support from voters on Sunday, according to the final results of a national referendum published by public broadcaster SSR.
Celine Amandruz of Switzerland’s largest party, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), welcomed the changes to the law. She insisted that nine out of 10 people who seek asylum in the country did so “for economic reasons.”
“There is clearly a need to change this system,” she said.
Parliamentarian Anne Seydoux-Christie also condemned the changes. Speaking against the official line of her Christian Democratic Party, Seydoux-Christie said the vote “marks a weakening of our humanitarian tradition, and certainly a lack of solidarity towards what is happening in countries in serious crisis.”
Conscription revision Among the most controversial revisions was eliminating military desertion as valid grounds to seek asylum.
For Eritreans, who accounted for the most asylum applications last year in Switzerland, military desertion was the most-cited reason. The African country imposes unlimited and low-paid military service on all able-bodied men. Continue reading this article
Citizens of the Netherlands has been polled about how much they love their Muslim diversity and how much better the country is after being culturally enriched by immigration.
Oh wait, the Dutch don’t like having unpleasant hostile Muslims in their midst at all, according to a recent survey. The whole experience has been a disaster, from the assassination of Pim Fortuyn to the attacks on basic free speech by demanding Muslims.
We Americans should take the hint and end Muslim immigration on national security grounds before it’s too late.
The Netherlands has enough of Islam. More than three quarters of the Dutch (77 percent) believe that Islam is no enrichment for our country. More than two-thirds – 68 percent – say that there is enough Islam in the Netherlands. It is striking that a majority of voters from all political parties (from PVV to VVD, CDA, D66, PvdA, SP and 50plus) share this view.
A poll conducted by the research bureau of Maurice de Hond (the Dutch equivalent of Gallup), commissioned by the PVV, among a representative sample of over 1,900 people also shows other striking results:
A majority of 55 percent favors stopping immigration from Islamic countries.
63 percent say: no new mosques.
72 percent favor a constitutional ban on Sharia law in the Netherlands.
64 percent say that the arrival of immigrants from Islamic countries has not been beneficial to the Netherlands.
Nearly three-quarters – 73 percent – of all Dutch see a relationship between Islam and the recent terror acts in Boston, London and Paris.
PVV leader Geert Wilders: “The results are very clear. The Netherlands has had enough of Islam. The majority do not want new immigrants from Islamic countries, nor any new mosques. They think that Islam is no enrichment for the Netherlands and say: Enough is enough. I will confront the Dutch government with these findings and demand that we finally stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands. For a long time is has been claimed that anti-Islamic opinions are extremist. It is clear now that they a majority of our people supports them!”
Click here to read the opinion poll conducted by Maurice de Hond (Dutch).
Thursday’s edition of JihadWatch on SunTV was particularly interesting. In discussing the recent violence in Turkey, Robert Spencer noted how Obama is particular about whom he helps in the Muslim world regarding democratic reform.
SPENCER: It’s amazing how selective Barak Obama is in the protesters in the Middle East he will support and those he will not. This is now the third group of actual serious pro-democracy protesters that he has refused to help. The first was in Iran in 2009; the second were the anti-Muslim Brotherhood protesters in Egypt; and now in Turkey, the secularists.
Now the common thread between all of them is they are fighting against pro-sharia Islamic supremacy regimes. The only protesters that Barak Obama has supported in Tunisia in Libya in Egypt in Syria are those who are fighting to install pro-sharia Islamic supremacy regimes.
Spencer went on to say he doesn’t think Obama is a secret Muslim, an idea for which there is some evidence, but the President may believe that if he lets the pro-sharia bunch take over the Middle East in a caliphate they will be satisfied and the terrorism will stop, a strategy described by Daniel Greenfield a few weeks ago, linked below.
But wait, the caliphate goal of jihadists is worldwide sharia governance, not just the sandy parts. Hostiles residing in Europe make clear that Muslim rule is their intention. How could the smarty-smart President miss such a basic point? It’s a very dangerous game to play with America’s security, not to mention the world’s, based on a wrong idea and expressed in weakness. Blowing off the entire region by surrendering to the historic enemy of the West would make Chamberlain’s appeasement to Hitler by selling out Czechoslovakia look like a day at the beach.
In the spring of 2009, Obama went down to Cairo. He skipped the gaming tables at the Omar Khayyam Casino at the Cairo Marriott and instead went over to the Islamist baccarat tables at Cairo University and bet big on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama had insisted on Muslim Brotherhood attendance at a speech that was part apology and part abandonment. The apology was for American power and the abandonment was of American allies.￼
The text of the speech was largely inconsequential in the same way that most of the words that scroll across the teleprompters of politicians are. In politics, the speech is often the medium while the timing, the audience and the location are the message. And the message was that the Brotherhood’s hour had come.
Obama was following through on an idea that had long been an article of faith on the left. The idea was that the United States had invested in a defunct status quo and that our biggest problems were our allies. The only way out was to toss them all overboard.
Generations of diplomats had griped from their walled compounds in Riyadh, Kuwait City or Doha that many of our problems in the region would go away if Israel somehow went away. But this was bigger. It involved dumping every single allied government in the region to start fresh with new governments elected through popular democracy and enjoying popular support. It would be a new beginning. And a new beginning was also the title of the Cairo speech.
The idea wasn’t new, but it was right up there with proposals to unilaterally abandon our nuclear arsenal or dedicate ten percent of the budget to foreign aid; ideas that a lot of diplomats liked, but that they knew no one would ever be crazy enough to pull the trigger on.
And then Obama tried to pull the trigger on two out of three. What he wanted was for the Brotherhood to win so that it could make the War on Terror irrelevant.
As much as the advocates of smart and soft power insisted that Islamic terrorism had nothing to do with Islam, they knew better. They knew that Al Qaeda wanted to create Islamic states that would form into a Caliphate. Central to its thinking was that it would have to fight to create these states. But what if the Caliphate could be created without a war?
To make it happen, all America had to do was surrender the Middle East.
The attacks of September 11 had created a serious crisis for liberal policymakers. Unlike the bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton’s watch, these attacks could not be ignored or swept under the rug. But neither could liberals accept a clash of civilizations that would destroy their multicultural society or an extended series of international police actions that would militarize the country. Continue reading this article
Al Qaeda guys must be feeling pretty upbeat about worldwide jihad, given recent events. Egypt is now run by the Muslim Brotherhood, with help from the United States in the form of political support, cash aid and F-16 fighters. A couple guys from Dagestan managed to bomb the Boston Marathon, kill four, cripple dozens, shut down a major city for a couple days and generally create terror. A British soldier was recently slaughtered like an animal on a London street. Washington has taken no action against the Benghazi killers nine months after the murder of four Americans.
President Obama essentially surrendered in the “war on terror” against hostile Islam. The occasion was a May 23 speech at the National Defense University when the American President disavowed the use of military defense, saying, “Force alone cannot make us safe,” and he wanted to avoid the “risk of creating new enemies.”
For Allah’s adoring defenders, what’s not to like about this picture? It all looks good to them.
Yemen’s al Qaeda boss says Osama Bin Laden’s death has not eliminated militant groups, rather they have moved closer to the US.
Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has said the Boston blasts revealed America’s fragile security and showed making bombs was within “everyone’s reach”.
Qassim al Rimi, the military chief of the group, urged Muslims in America to “carry on with this way” and defend their religion in an audio message posted online.
In “A letter to the American people”, he said: “The Boston events … and the poisoned letters (sent to the White House), regardless of who is behind them, show that your security is no longer under control, and that attacks on you have taken off and cannot be stopped.
“Everyday you will be hit by the unexpected and your leaders will not be able to defend you.”
Two brothers, 19-year-old Dzhokhar and 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are accused of being behind the April 15 attack near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, which killed three people and wounded more than 260. Continue reading this article
However, his Friday opinion piece usefully examined the problems with refugees and asylum seekers, a topic far too PC for most politicians to confront. Those groups are uber-victims, which makes them highly favored by liberals. The associated symptoms of terrorism, criminality and fraud are little explored in the press, except when an unavoidably blatant example pops up.
Senator Paul’s interest may have been arroused earlier by the case of Waad Ramadan Alwan, an asylee from Iraq resettled in Kentucky, who had been a soldier in Saddam’s army fighting Americans and whose fingerprints were found on an IED, yet he was admitted to this country. Senator Paul voiced the opinion during a 2011 hearing that there were too many refugees and asylum seekers to be screened adequately, remarking “I don’t fault you for missing the needle in the haystack. You’ve got to make the haystack smaller.”
Yes, let’s reduce the number of refugees and asylees to the low dozens, a number the government could conceivably screen properly.
Fazliddin Kurbanov is from Uzbekistan, a Central Asian country that borders Afghanistan. This month, Mr. Kurbanov was arrested in Boise, Idaho, charged with teaching people how to build bombs that could be used to target public transportation. He is accused of conspiring with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which the United States recognizes as a terrorist organization. Mr. Kurbanov was here legally, admitted as a refugee in 2009.
Last year, in Aurora, Colo., Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested and charged with providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, which the United States recognizes as a terrorist organization. Like Mr. Kurbanov, Mr. Muhtorov is from Uzbekistan and was also here legally as a refugee.
In 2011, in my hometown of Bowling Green, Ky., Waad Ramadan Alwan and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi were arrested and accused of supporting efforts to kill American troops in Iraq. Both men are from Iraq. Both were also here legally as refugees.
The Bowling Green Daily News reported that these Iraqi refugees “slipped through the vetting process that allowed both of them political asylum in the United States.” Apparently, Mr. Kurbanov and Mr. Muhtorov “slipped through” as well.
So did Ulugbek Kodirov, who was arrested in Birmingham, Ala., last year and sentenced to 15 years in prison for plotting to kill President Obama. Kodirov was from Uzbekistan and was in the country illegally on a student-visa overstay.
Last month, two pressure-cooker bombs were exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring 264 people. The Washington Post noted of the suspects, brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev: “With their baseball hats and sauntering gaits, they appeared to friends and neighbors like ordinary American boys. But the Boston bombing suspects were refugees from another world — the blood, rubble and dirty wars of the Russian Caucasus.”
I condemn government inefficiency and incompetence often. The targets for criticism are endless. In the repeating patterns from these refugee and visa cases, however, we see potentially dangerous scenarios in which we cannot afford any excuses.
In the case of Sept. 11, 2001, if the State Department had more adequately monitored visa overstays and application screening, most of hijackers would have been detected and caught beforehand. After the Boston bombing, I asked what faults we might have in our current intelligence that allowed the Russian government to identify the suspects as potential terrorists before the US government did. Continue reading this article
He recently delivered remarks, shown in the video below, about how Britain has come to the current state of affairs, where a British soldier can be butchered like an animal on a London street by Muslims following the dictates of the Koran.
Weston succinctly recounted the history of government lies about immigration to his country over the past few decades:
Look, the numbers are very small, it doesn’t matter, the numbers are so small it will have no impact on your lives. Then the numbers got bigger and we were then told: Look, all right the numbers are bigger but they’re going to integrate, so you have nothing to worry about. Then the numbers became huge, and they said: Well all right, they’re not going to integrate there’s too many of them, we’ll introduce this new ideology, we’ll call it multiculturalism, and they can have their separate lives, you can have your separate lives and we’ll all get on very well together.
PAUL WESTON: I was going to talk today about “Is Britain Sustainable”, but events have rather overtaken that on Wednesday night with the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby, and as horrific as that was I am more horrified by the reaction of the media and by the reaction of our government.
David Cameron tells us this is a betrayal of Islam. Boris Johnson tells us Islam has nothing to do with this. When they butchered that soldier, they quoted verses from the Koran, they shouted “Allahu Akbar” as they were chopping the poor guy’s head off. This was done in the name of Islam, and no matter what our treacherous politicians have got to say about this, this was done in the name of Islam. And everybody is in denial in this country.
The BBC are trying to pretend this is because we are in Afghanistan, because we are in Iraq, because we are oppressing them worldwide.
The Daily Telegraph – which is supposedly a right-wing newspaper – every single article they’ve had on this they’ve switched off the comments, because they know the comments are going to be hanging David Cameron out to dry. They will be telling him: Don’t lie to us, we know Islam was involved and no matter what you’re going to say about it, this has to be the truth, because it is the truth. And they turned off all the comments. In The Spectator they did exactly the same thing, another supposedly right-leaning periodical. The reason that they’ve done this is because they have to admit that if there is a problem with Islam, then they have to do something about it, and if you want to do something about it, that automatically makes you a far-right, racist, xenophobic bigot, and they don’t want to be labelled that, so they would rather betray their entire country than be labelled a racist.
This whole racism thing has got to stop, because we are no longer a country with a few immigrants that we have to be nice to. At the time back in the fifties and sixties we were, but that is no longer the case, and when they talk and label us as racists, they’re doing this because the left liberals have declared a racial and cultural war on the indigenous people of this country. It’s what they’re doing. Everything that they are doing right now is literally a racial and cultural war.
You look at someone like Peter Sutherland, who’s the UN immigration/ migration official. He has said that in order for the European Union to actually achieve what it wants to do, which is political union of the entire continent of Europe, they have to de-homogenise the nation states.
Now what does he mean by de-homogenise? What he means is we can no longer be considered an indigenous people; we must open the doors to the Third World, we must break down the nation states, and only when the nation state is broken down can they achieve full totalitarian control over any number of bickering communities, as they call us – not the bickering, just the communities.
Since Tony Blair came in 1997, we have had eight million immigrants coming into Britain, principally into England, and we’ve had two million indigenous Brits move out. Now that’s a ten million difference. This is an astonishing figure, it’s never happened before in the history of this country, in the history of any countries really. And the result is that our cities are now becoming minority white. But even that is a slight lie because they’re not minority white across the whole spectrum. If you get down to the ten- to twenty-year-olds, we are a huge minority already. Continue reading this article
Since that time, however, the horrific Boston Marathon bombing has shown what a backpack explosive hidden in a crowded place can do. That attack was mentioned by the judge in sentencing. Hassoun’s bomb was encased in a paint can rather than a pressure cooker, but the contraption sounded similar otherwise. Hassoun, a Lebanese national, placed a backpack with what he thought was a bomb inside a trashcan outside Sluggers sports bar near the ballpark. But the paint-can “bomb” had no explosives because he had been intercepted by the FBI after expressing an interest in pursuing terrorism. The “bomb” was a fake, a situation set up by the FBI to catch a terrorist.
In the news video below, the reporter oddly remarks that Hassoun “had a hatred of all things Chicago.” So if he and his Lebanese family had settled in Peoria instead of Chicago in 2008 he would have had no desire to mass murder Americans?
But at least the court appearance brought more attention to the case, accompanied by a surveillance video of the perp setting the “bomb” which he thought would level a city block.
More actual trials of jihadists, rather than plea deals, would inform Americans what dangerous people our diversity-crazed immigration policy admits. Let’s hope that the Boston bomber Tsarnaev will get the full courtroom treatment including an exploration of his jihad motive. Then citizens might begin to understand that Muslim immigration is a really bad idea.
As is common, the Lebanese perp tried to portray himself as the victim because of his violent experiences as a kid. If we forget about personal responsibility, Hassoun’s argument makes a good case for the US ending asylum and refugee admissions altogether.
One disturbing item: the suggestion that Hassoun will be able to resume positive pursuits after his release in a couple decades — no mention of the crud being deported! What does it take to get thrown out of this country?!
CHICAGO (AP) — A judge raised the specter of the Boston Marathon on Thursday as he sentenced a young Lebanese immigrant to 23 years in prison for placing a backpack he believed contained a powerful bomb along a bustling city street near the Chicago Cubs’ baseball stadium.
Everyone at Sami Samir Hassoun’s sentencing in a crowded courtroom in Chicago could not help but think of the bombs that went off a month ago concealed in backpacks on the East Coast, killing three people and wounding hundreds more, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said.
“Let’s give the elephant in the room a name: It’s called the Boston Marathon,” he said. “What would have happened had (Hassoun’s) bomb been real would have made Boston look like a minor incident.”
Earlier, prosecutor Joel Hammerman held up the ominous-looking but harmless device fashioned from a paint can that Hassoun put in a trash bin near Wrigley Field, placing it in front of the judge. Hassoun was told by undercover FBI agents, the prosecutor said, that it would destroy half the city block and kill dozens of people. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.