From the State Highway Administration:
Talking on a hand-held mobile phone while driving is a distraction that is not only dangerous, but beginning October 1 in Maryland, it also is illegal. Nearly 31,000 crashes in the State are attributed to driver inattention. Coupled with the 2009 texting ban, the laws are powerful tools to combat the leading cause of traffic deaths and injuries – distracted driving.
“Protecting the public’s safety is the greatest obligation that we have in government.” said Governor Martin O’Malley. “This new law is a big step toward reducing the number of crashes, deaths and severe injuries caused by distracted driving.”
As thousands of vehicles swiftly traveled north along I-95 at a news conference today, Colonel Terrence B. Sheridan, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police and Delegate James E. Malone, Jr. joined Transportation Secretary Beverley K. Swaim-Staley as she unveiled one of the signs that will be placed at state borders to alert drivers about Maryland’s new laws prohibiting hand-held cell phone use and texting while driving.
“Every one of us has a responsibility to pay attention and drive safely,” said Secretary Swaim-Staley. “A call can wait. The best advice is to make your vehicle a no-phone zone and not even use it while driving.”
According to the National Safety Council, 1.6 million crashes in the United States are caused by cell phone use. Studies indicate that mobile phone conversations distract drivers and delay reaction time, which can cause and increase the severity of traffic crashes. Additionally, a person makes an average of 20 major decisions during every mile of driving and frequently has less than one-half second to act to avoid collisions.
“It only takes a second on the cell phone to drastically change the lives of you and your loved ones,” said Delegate Malone. “If we all obey this law starting today, we will be one step closer to arriving home safely tomorrow.”
Working hard with his legislative partners to pass this legislation, Delegate Malone defended the bill on the house floor during the legislative session. Delegate Malone is a 35-year veteran volunteer firefighter and frequently responds to help people injured in vehicular crashes.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted a study in 2006 and found the risk of a crash or near-crash increases by nearly 30 percent when a driver is engaged in a mobile phone conversation. The risk of a traffic crash more than doubles when a driver dials.
“We know that a combination of good laws and enforcement can reduce deadly distracted driving behavior,” said National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator David Strickland. “Maryland residents are safer today thanks to this new anti-distracted driving law and vigilant enforcement by state police.”
The law, also known as the Delegate John Arnick Electronic Communications Traffic Safety Act, prohibits drivers in Maryland from using a mobile phone without a hands free device while operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway. Law enforcement officers will issue tickets to violators with fines up to $100 and one point. If the violator causes a crash, he or she may receive three points. The court may waive a penalty for a person convicted of a first offense if the person provides proof that he/she has acquired a hands–free device for the person’s hand-held telephone. The law is named for the late delegate in honor of his many years of advocacy for such a law.
“The number one cause behind traffic crashes in Maryland continues to be ‘failure to give full attention’ behind the wheel,” said Colonel Terrence B. Sheridan, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police. “The new law will help to alleviate one of the many driver distractions that can lead to an injury or a fatality on our highways.”
The new cell phone law takes effect as National Drive Safely Work Week (DSWW) starts. DSWW is an annual workplace safety campaign sponsored by the Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS). This year, SHA has teamed up with NETS and AAA to highlight the dangers of distracted driving, particularly as related to the use of cell phones and texting while driving. The week-long campaign begins on October 4.
Can’t wait for this, but it probably won’t make a difference until it is a primary offense.
Hopefully it will at least deter the idiots that can barely handle driving and talking as it is. I don’t see it changing my habits…..
Not sure this is going to change a whole lot. It’s easy to link a bunch of accidents to cell phone usage when thats all your looking for. Ive seen plenty of accidents attributed to dropped french fries, cigarette lighting/ash and child disciplining. I think this is a bunch of hoopla because it’s the “in” thing right now.
Bad driver’s are bad driver’s with or without cell phones. So until it becomes illegal to not eat, read, talk, smoke, or keep both hands on the wheel at all times,or drive tired, I highly doubt there will be a dramatic decrease in vehicle accidents ( with the exception being drivers 16-20 years old)
And I’m just curious as to how you measure “risk”. IF the statistics validated that 30 percent of all traffic accidents were attributed to mobile phone use then I might be willing to adhere, but it only say’s the “risk” increases. Well I’m sure the risk of being in an accident increases when it rain’s but I don’t see that law being put into effect.
*rains, not rain’s*
Please excuse my random apostrophes lol
Apostrophe issue excused, but you seem to have missed a large statistic concerning actual accidents right up there in the article. Now, the “20 major decisions during every mile of driving” statistic in that same article is where I’d put my money on some moron having made something up. I’m curious as to where THAT nonsense came from.
I don’t believe that police or paramedics have any particular interest in linking cell phone usage to an accident when they arrive on the scene of one–it’s either a factor or it isn’t–and those individuals are the ones providing the statistical data used for risk assessment. But what do you care about the “hoopla” when you’re going to ignore the cell phone law anyway? I’ll offer you a reason.
I like that you identified young drivers as bad drivers, which they are in and of themselves whether cell phone use is involved or not. I understand your lack of confidence in the sincerity of our lawmakers. If they increased the legal driving age to at least 18 I’m sure we’d see a decline in another significant statistic and find it easier to attribute their motives to public safety. While they’re at it, they can stop taking all the money to expand the MD roadways out of the budget to supplement other bugets they’ve screwed up so that there isn’t so much congestion on the road (while also providing more jobs, a nice little bonus). Where’s that TLC for us fine Maryland citizens?! Unlike you rebels I plan to stay off the phone while driving, even though I don’t have trouble focusing on my driving when I’m talking on the phone (I’ll pause my conversation before I’ll do something stupid…but so many others do the reverse and pause only when they’re about to crash or after running someone off the road). Now, here comes the reason I mentioned. I much prefer to get a warnings if I’m stopped for speeding; I don’t want to experiment in seeing what happens if I’m stopped for speeding while on my cell phone. A $100 is more than $0 and a point will keep costing you money many, many trips later. You might want to consider that before you make your final decision…
So what if it’s not a cell phone that causes an accident in a particular incident? You eliminate as many risks as you can, and statistically, handheld cell phone use is one of the biggest causes.
Here’s hoping they don’t ban french fries in cars. 🙂
I’d be more impressed if it was a primary offense rather than a secondary offense. Other than probably MSP and maybe couple of traffic officers in other agencies I doubt this will get enforced much, especially at night. I don’t think having it as a secondary offense is going to have a big impact on people’s behaviors and I doubt anyone is going to admit that they were on the phone when a crash happened since they know it’ll get them a ticket.
Personally, I’m happier about the new ban on having a “tv-like device” turned on in view of the driver while driving. That at least is a primary offense. There aren’t all that many people who have a tv/dvd player mounted in their dashboard, but I have seen a few (including a couple drivers watching porn while driving down 95…)
Ok I’m going to oust myself here a bit. I’m a police officer. That being said I spend most of my day talking on a radio, that’s usually in my hand. I really find that no different than talking on a phone. Also talking on a cell phone while driving isn’t a primary offense which means I can’t pull you over just for holding the phone while driving. That makes it extremely difficult to enforce. And I like to believe that most people will obey the law just on principal but my experience tells me otherwise. Also, I have been to my fair share of accidents and I can’t remember attribituting any directly to cellphone usage.
Also now with these wonderfull handsfree devices people will be able to talk, eat, and read all at the same time while driving lol. I belive that some will look at this as a bonus… yes I’m being a bitterness synical. I agree that talking while driving may be dangerous, but no more than anything anyone else does while driving. Excuse any grammar errors, using my cell phone while parked at court 🙂
Officer, I just got stoped by a police officer And gave me 2 tickets, 1 for having the front tag on the dash board. I was working plowing snow. Every time I use the snow plow I remove the front tag because it will come loose while working And I always put it on the dash board. I explained that to Him but he still gave me a tikcet for fail to attach plates on the front. And He gave me a second ticket for talking on the phone. Would I have a chance in front of the Judge?
All independent data on the issue from sources like AAA says that the use of a hands free device doesn’t make it any less likely that you will get into an accident while using a cell phone. Numerous studies have determined that the phone conversation itself is the primary distraction and that there was little difference as to whether the person was holding a phone or using a blue tooth… But I guess its okay to drive down the road with a 50 pound or larger dog running the front seat and drivers lap… Thanks government!
Henry – It’s typically the person who gets hit that observes the idiot who hit them using the cell phone and includes that info when giving a statement, but I’m sure there are also cases when some people are honest and probably do admit they did it. I reported it when it happend to me, and everyone I know, and so on. By the way, if you’re watching someone’s dashboard mounted TV closely enough to determine they’re watching porn while you’re supposed to be focusing on the road and traffic around you, then you SHOULD be happy about a new ban on tv-like dashboard devices. I’m sure it will prove less distracting for you and you won’t have to be quite so “concerned” about such nuisances any longer (please).
BPB – I certainly hope you didn’t oust yourself on account of my comment. To be so forthcoming after saying you personally intended to ignore the law without explaining that you personally HAD to ignore it in order to enforce it; knowing all the while that not everyone who reads your comment will be a police officer…tisk, tisk. I’m not sure I believe you’re a police officer…but if you truly are THANK YOU for all you do! I soooooooo appreciate cops (even when I’m being pulled over and don’t know how it will turn out, though statistically the odds are in my favor). You’re awesome and I hope you know how awesome you are. Listen, most people do obey laws on principal, but people also pick which laws they won’t (like people who never completely stop at stop signs). Don’t talk yourself into a funk.
I encourage all of you to stay off your phone while driving, unless you have to do it for work. Whatever you decide, just don’t hit anyone or anything.
Angie,
It’s not like I’m trying to watch what someone else is playing on a dvd in another car, but I’m constantly looking around when I’m driving (and when I’m a passenger…just habit) and couple of times the angle happened to be just right that I caught it…certainly not what I wanted to see. I’ve also pulled people over who happen to have a movie playing in a dash mounted dvd player (and one time someone who had a ps2 on in the dash, though it was the front seat passenger playing, not the driver.)
In any case, like BPB (who I think is an Aberdeen officer, but I’m not positive), I’m a police officer and have handled plenty of crashes. Once, maybe twice, I’ve had the other driver tell me the person who hit them was on a cell phone. I have had several drivers tell me that they were on the phone when they hit someone else. I doubt that’ll continue to happen with the ban in effect since they know it’ll add another $100 ticket and 3 points to whatever else they’re getting.
There is an exception in the law for law enforcement, EMS, fireside, and 911 calls. I know there already are too many distractions in my patrol car as it is without me talking on the phone while driving (which I usually only do if I’m talking to a supervisor or getting more info about a call.)
ANOTHER law that the ones that enforce the law are exempt from. Like the speeding laws and parking laws.
Henry, oops. Okay, I can do better. I’m very sorry for my inappropriate misjudgement of your actions and intent, and the sarcasm I so discreetly (ok, obnoxiously) attached to it. Of course you were watching–you’re used to being aware of your surroundings as a police officer and it makes you more than an average cop no doubt (but I can’t resist pointing out that you guessed completely wrong which PD BPB works for, and I think it’s kind of funny–I’m going to guess you work for the LAPD because I’m really sharp too…just kidding ;-). Law enforcement, EMS, fireside, and 911 calls having an exception in the hands free restriction to those such as you and BPB makes all the sense in the world. I certainly can recognize that I’m safer because lawmakers are wise enough to determine that such limitations should not be placed upon those who ENFORCE the law, as it would only prevent them from protecting citizens to the best of their abilities in complex and demanding circumstances. If police officers can be entrusted to enforce the law, protecting and serving no matter what, you and other officers can certainly be entrusted not to abuse the liberties that you are more than entitled to.
Just as I told BPB, THANK YOU for all you do! Your committment to protect even those who don’t appreciate or understand that committment, or respect the magnitude of what such service entails and the sacrifices involved, is GREATLY appreciated and admired by those with solid and any sense. You are awesome!
Oops…I’m sorry, Henry, please excuse my error and discreetly delivered sarcasm (okay, it was somewhat obnoxiously delivered and blatantly inappropriate). I’m sure the fact that you’re always observing your surroundings makes you a better than average cop. THANK YOU for all you do as well! You too are AWESOME (know it) and I appreciate the committment, dedication, and sacrifice that you make every day as you protect and do what you do best. So you drive right on down I95 and peep out whatever you want to. You rock!
Ignore one of my comments. It didn’t show that the first one went through and I couldn’t remember everything I typed, and someone was getting very impatient waiting for me to do something else, so I typed a shorter response for my second one. Both equally sincere 🙂
Angie,
Thanks for the support. It’s always nice to hear some kind words from the public since most of the people we deal with are either dirtbags or are having a bad day (and let’s face it, most of the time if you have to deal with an officer it’s not a good thing.) I wouldn’t call myself better than average…I just try to do my job to the best of my abilities, help those who need it, and lock up those who deserve it.
This law is so dumb. This is just another freedom being taken away by a typiacal liberal state. I hate Maryland. Our freedoms and rights are being taken away slowly everyday by big government. I believe that the founding fathers would have been up in arms years ago. I hate this law and I hate Maryland. If I want to talk on my cell phone while I drive; I will. That is my right and my freedom. No liberal state is gonna change that. I can’t wait to see what freedom they take next. Thanks Maryland.
I will be happy to help you pack and drive you to Pennsylvania.
Whether this law will benefit us or not remains to be seen. I personally don’t drive while holding my cell phone just because I’ve seen the idiots texting while driving and I won’t become “one of those people”. It’s a matter of personal responsibility. I don’t need the government to tell me how to behave. Others do, I suppose.
One undeniable fact is that our freedoms are being slowly stripped away in the name of the “common good”. Unfortunately, it’s a self-fulfilling cycle in that, the more you feel the need to limit the actions/behavior of individuals, the more the individuals become conditioned to look to “big brother” to look after them. In some cases, you also get folks that will defy “big brother” just because they’re pissed off.
As much as I’d like to return to the relative simplicity of when our founding fathers laid the foundation for this republic, we can’t go back. Our population is too large….we’ve had a steady decline in morality (or at least that’s how it appears to me) over the last 100 or so years. Maybe it’s just that since we’ve got more people around, there appear to be a greater number of idiots around. Maybe the overall percentage of idiots is the same as back in colonial times, relative to population. I don’t really know. What seems apparent is that there is an attempt underway to control people more and more. Just as the colonists rebelled against their over-reaching government, we may end up doing the same.
Everything in life cycles….if we’re heading into a valley of “oppression” by an over-reaching government, maybe the bright spot will be that we’ll eventually trek back towards the peak of “liberty”. I can only hope that to be true. Only problem is that the descent into the valley has been a slow one….little actions here and there that slowly chip away at personal liberty. So, those being affected may not even realize it’s happening until it’s too late.
Ok some of us are getting a little bit silly. It’s not a” right” to talk on your phone whiile you drive, it’s not even a right to drive, it’s a privelege that can be taken away from you. And though I agree that this law will most likely not stop accidents from happening, it probably won’t cause any either. I feel the same pressures of BIG governement as everyone else.
This law isn’t an attempt to take rights away, its an overreaction to what has been perceived as bad. Take for example DUI. This is a serious criminal offense due to the potential dangers it causes. But does it warrant harsher sentencing than repeated sex offenders or repeated hand gun violators? If there is no accident or injury, then I say absolutely not. But time and time again I see DUI offenders receive 1 year or more sentences when repeated violent offenders and sex offenders get probation and work release. I’m using this as an example as to what is perceived in the public eye. Drunk drivers hurt upperclass white collar citizens, and violent offenders typically hurt lower class urban citizens. This is why laws like cell phone bans go into effect and are subject to future harsh punishment, because they are perceived by the media and public as bad for everyone, not just one demographic. I’m not saying the laws themselves are biased, just how they make it to that point. Do you think DUI penalties would be where they are today without groups like MADD?
And I’m a 7 year veteran police officer, not APD or any other department in harford county. But I live in harford and have police friends and family throughout. Thank you for.your kind words Angie, it means a lot.
So driving is a privilege? Its not my God Given right? If I have a valid license, I pay for my registration on my vehicle and insurance, its not my right? I find it hard to agree with the government’s claim that driving is a privilege. Our constitution clearly says “All men are created equal” so if we are all equal, who has the right to be privileged? If you are privileged and I am not, we are not equal. BPB, you are a police officer set in your ways. Im very familiar with your kind. You are working for the Government and you are blind of what goes on around you. If you had a point of view that disagrees with any law, you couldn’t voice it even if you wanted to. I don’t need lawmakers or “Big Brother” to take away more freedoms from me and “keep me safe”. I love this country and I am a patriot. This country was founded on freedom and liberty, not big government. If you want to play with words and say that its a “privilege”, go ahead. Go ahead and say i am overreacting. However, I am not a sucker and I don’t agree with everything this Government spits out. I agree with laws Mr. BPD, but where does it stop? at what point do you stand up and say that a new law infringes on your rights and freedoms as an American?
Ok Patriot, show me where in the Constitution it says it’s your God given right to drive a car? If it was a right, it couldn’t be taken away from you. However, if you disobey the law, it can be, hence driving “privileges” get suspended and revoked. You can’t revoke rights, that’s illegal.
I’m pretty sure I just openly disagreed with the hands free law, so in effect, that is me “voicing” my opinion about it. I see my self as pretty right winged, and I am also a Patriot and I assure I have the scars to prove it. But yeah you are over reacting. For someone who views themselves as a “Patriot” you certainly are ignorant towards the Constitution and what exactly it consists of.
Let me school you some on your valid license Captain America. Lets start with “implied consent”. By having a valid license, you consent that you will adhere to chemical testing for intoxication as required by law. You can refuse, but it will most likely result in your license being revoked. Since it’s a privilege, I can take your license right then and there under certain circumstances and prevent you from driving, without violating a single amendment in the Constitution.
People like you are the reason people like me and other conservatives get called “extremists”. I’m sure you wrote your local delegate as well as Gov. O’Malley and voiced your opinion on “Senate Bill 321” and “House Bill 92”.I’m sure you went out to the primaries and voted for the appropriate officials who supported your ideals. But you didn’t. Instead you sit and bitch about your rights being violated, and you don’t even know what rights you have. Go pick up a text book and stop wasting the daggers time. Stop crying about America or become educated enough to fix it.
Hear, Hear!
No, driving is a privilege that you have to earn. You have to pass driver’s ed, get a driver’s license from your state, renew it every 5 years, follow traffic laws, etc. If you’re not capable of doing that then your privilege is revoked and you lose your license. In some cases (like DUI) your license is taken on the spot, returned to the MVA, and you get a issued a temporary license that’s only good for 45 days. If you want to continue to have a valid license after that you have to have a hearing with MVA or voluntarily agree to have an interlock system installed in your car.
I don’t see the government issuing licenses granting people freedom of religion or taking that right away.
I do think this new “hands free” law is pretty useless and doubt it’ll really change behaviors much unless it’s made a primary offense. Most of the studies I’ve seen say that texting while driving bans and “hands free” laws don’t have any significant effect on crash rates, though in most states with bans not enough time has passed to really be able to say for sure. The studies I’ve read about regarding “hands free” devices say that drivers aren’t anymore distracted using a hands free device than they are holding a cell phone in their hand.
Additionally the Constitution does not say all men are created equal. I love the Neo-constitutionalists who don’t know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence!
Hang it up Patriot. You just got ousted by 2 police officers. Nobody on the dagger will agree with you here. It’s like you watched an episode of Glenn Beck, and repeated the words you think you understood. Complete silliness on your behalf. And I actually like Glenn Beck hehe.
Obama, OMalley, O my
Main Content
Target of FBI terror-support raid visited W.H. – Josh Gerstein: Target of FBI terror-support raid visited W.H.October 01, 2010
Categories:Terrorism.Target of FBI terror-support raid visited W.H.
An Arab-American activist who attended an outreach session at the White House complex in April had his Chicago home raided by the FBI last week and appears to be a focus of an unfolding federal terrorism-support investigation.
Hatem Abudayyeh, who serves as executive director of the Arab-American Action Network, took part in a meeting for Arab-American leaders held in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on April 22, according to appointment data posted on the White House website.
“He attended a briefing held by the Office of Public Engagement on April 22, 2010, to update members of the Arab-American community on issues of their concern,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye said.
The guest list for the event was drafted by the Arab-American Institute. Inouye said President Barack Obama did not take part in the session, which appears to have involved more than 80 people.
Last Friday, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Abudayyeh’s Chicago home as part of a coordinated series of raids involving at least one other Chicago site, along with the homes of anti-war activists in Minnesota. A copy posted on the web of a grand jury subpoena served on one target of the raids in Minneapolis demands “all records of any payment provided directly or indirectly to Hatem Abudayyeh, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (“PFLP”) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”).”
A search warrant served on a Minneapolis anti-war activist, Michael Kelly, ordered agents to seize records relating to Kelly’s travels to “Palestine, Colombia, and … within the United States.” It also mentions possible connections to Hezbollah.
The warrant and subpoena suggest the probe, which is being run by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago, is focusing on illegal support for terrorist organizations, particularly by a Minnesota-based group called the Freedom Road Socialist Organization. PFLP, FARC and Hezbollah are designated as terrorist groups by the U.S. government. A spokesman for Fitzgerald’s office declined to comment on the probe.
Abudayyeh has not been charged with any crime, nor do the court documents made public by targets of the searches make any explicit allegation of ties between the Chicago activist and any of the groups.
The White House briefing Abudayyeh attended was organized by the Arab-American Institute in connection with its annual dinner and related events, AAI President James Zogby said Friday.
“Each year we do a leadership summit of our institute leadership also of leadership from the Arab-American network. That is a network of Arab –American community and social service organizations and the group in Chicago is one of the network members and so they were invited,” Zogby said. “We did, as part of the weekend, a White House briefing and Hatem was included as part of the network.”
Zogby said the national network Abudayyeh’s group is part of works on domestic issues, such as immigration reform and civil liberties. “I know Hatem is active on those issues in Chicago. He’s very much a part of immigration reform coalitions there. That that would have been the purpose of the network’s inclusion in this meeting,” Zogby said.
A lawyer for Abudayyeh, Jim Fennerty, said he was not aware of his client’s White House visit. Asked if the investigation into Abudayyeh was underway at the time of his White House visit in April, Finnerty said, “We only became aware of [the probe] when people got their houses raided and search warrants carried out…..I think the grand jury started sitting a year ago though.” The lawyer said the investigation may extend back to protests held in connection with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., in 2008.
Fennerty said he believed his client was being targeted because of his anti-war activism. On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the attorney said Abudayyeh supports “a single, secular democratic state,” not the two-state solution endorsed by the U.S.
In a 2006 interview with Fight Back News, an outlet run by Minneapolis activist Kelly, Abudayyeh seemed to disagree rather strenuously with at least some of the U.S. government’s use of the “terrorist” label.
“The U.S. and Israel will continue to describe Hamas, Hezbollah and the other Palestinian and Lebanese resistance organizations as ‘terrorists,’ but the real terrorists are the governments and military forces of the U.S. and Israel,” Abudayyeh said. “The vast majority of the world sees and understands this, and are in full support of Lebanese, Palestinian and worldwide resistance to Israel and the U.S.’s naked aggression, war, imperialism and occupation.”
Fennerty said he was surprised to hear Abudayyeh was invited to a White House event. “He runs like a social-welfare office that helps people get citizenship, apply for benefits, welfare if they’re entitled to it,” the lawyer said.
According to a bio on the AAAN website, Abudayyeh has been affiliated with the group since 1999 and took over as executive director in 2003.
Abudayyeh’s White House visit was noted Thursday by several conservative websites, including the Gateway Pundit blog at First Things magazine.
Abudayyeh’s group, AAAN, briefly drew attention during the presidential campaign following reports that a foundation on whose board Obama served donated $40,000 to the group for “community organizing” in 2001. Conservative critics said the group and Abudayyeh have promoted anti-Israeli views. AAAN officials said the organization is strictly focused on local community issues and doesn’t get involved in international politics.
In 2003, Obama spoke at an AAAN-sponsored farewell dinner for Rashid Khalidi, a professor who was decamping from the University of Chicago to Columbia. During the 2008 campaign, the Los Angeles Times obtained a video of the event and reported that Obama lavished praise on Khalidi, who once served as a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Other speakers at the event railed against Israeli policies.
Late in the 2008 campaign, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain attacked the Times for failing to make the video public. The newspaper said it obtained the video on the condition that it not be released publicly.
High-level contacts between politically active Arab-American leaders and White House officials have stirred controversy in the past after the activists became caught up in terrorism-related probes. In some cases, defense attorneys for those charged have sought to use their White House visits to undermine the prosecution’s assertions that the individuals were dangerous.
BPB, your right and you make a good point Sir. I was upset about this law because I just think there are enough rules as there is. I still disagree with it however, I am a law abiding citizen. I am very far right as you guessed. I respect what you do as a police officer and respect what all you guys do. Thank you for your service. God bless and be safe.
Please take a moment and reread our founding documents so that next time you quote one you cite the correct one. You look ignorant when you say things like
“Our constitution clearly says “All men are created equal”…….”