The narrative has become trite, the thoughts behind it more transparent. The idea – the malformed idea – that the Republican Party offers nothing to the black voter and, in fact, eschews that demographic is as unfortunate as it is false.
The Rev. Joseph A. Darby wrote a guest OpEd piece in The State newspaper titled “Scott unlikely to attract many black voters to GOP.“ The argument Rev. Darby proffers is that even a popular figure like South Carolina’s junior Senator Tim Scott, an African-American, is not enough to bring black voters into the Republican fold. He writes:
I appreciate his apparent intent, but I’d suggest that he and those who sing his praise consider four things if they truly want to appeal to South Carolina’s black electorate.
The first is that black voters — like all voters — make decisions based not on skin color but on stated political intent. Black voters tend to be conservative when it comes to social issues and private-sector initiatives, but also appreciate government’s role in assuring that those at the bottom of the ladder of opportunity don’t fall off as they climb and that they have an equal, legally protected chance to climb with a decent wage. Black voters aren’t impressed when Republicans label that interest as a desire to “freeload” or gain a “handout” — especially in a state where corporations receive handouts and white citizens are the majority beneficiaries of public assistance.
The notion that “black voters – like all voters – make decisions based not on skin color but on stated political intent” is madness. In his first run for the presidency, Barack Obama pulled in 96% of the African-American vote and 93% in 2012. In 2008 he got 89% of the DEMOCRAT vote! In 2012, it was 92% Democrats for Obama. In each election, more blacks voted for Barack Obama by percentage than did Democrats. “Not on skin color but on stated political intent?” Reverend? The only place you’ll see higher numbers than these are in North Korea!
As for Republicans believing that entitlements are “handouts” for “freeloaders,” Rev. Darby is mistaking fiscal accountability to a nation for charity. Republicans and conservatives are not against helping people, and the Democrat mantra to the contrary is a lie they love to tell. What Republicans prefer to do is create more opportunities for everyone, not reserve the spoils for the few. Small businesses, many of which are the lifeblood of the black community, suffer under the heavy restraints of Democrat imposed taxes, regulations and now, ObamaCare. It’s the old adage of teaching a man to fish.
Rev. Darby contends that “Black voters tend to be conservative when it comes to social issues,” yet we hear far too little from the black community on the critical social issue of abortion. There is probably no single issue on the American political landscape that demeans religion more than abortion. Barack Obama is more than just a proponent of abortion, he is and has always been an advocate, even promoting legislation in the Illinois Senate to allow for after-birth “abortion,” also known as infanticide. How does this mesh with black “conservative” principles on social issues or even with Rev. Darby’s theology?
Rev. Darby goes on:
The second is that black voters place considerable value on respect. When Republicans oppose everything proposed by President Obama instead of coming to the table of compromise, shut down the government and label our duly elected president a foreign terrorist, that doesn’t warm the hearts of black voters. Engaging in voter suppression through voter ID laws, passing stand-your-ground legislation and trying to nullify federal law in the name of “states’ rights” — the same foolishness that started the Civil War — doesn’t warm the hearts of black voters either.
The Reverend begins with the Harry Reid chant that Republicans oppose everything Obama proposes. If the president were not a black man, how much of what he has offered the country would African-Americans support? Immigration reform? That is to say, allowing for more illegal aliens to enter the country and take jobs from the black community. How popular a policy would that be among blacks if it were coming from a President McCain or Romney?
As for lack of compromise, it was Barack Obama who famously said “We won the election, get over it.” This is the man who chooses to play golf rather than work on the critical fiscal issues of the government.
Then, Rev. Darby plays the inevitable race card. “…voter suppression through voter ID laws, passing stand-your-ground legislation and trying to nullify federal law in the name of “states’ rights” — the same foolishness that started the Civil War.” I ‘ll not re-argue that point here or the inane “stand your ground” point as they have been debated repeatedly without changing minds. With that, I’m willing to bet Rev. Darby would be pretty suspicious if a group of white voters showed up at a predominately black precinct polling place on election day and I’ll double down that those white voters would be challenged.
As for the nullifying of federal law in the name of “states rights,” what better reason to annul laws with which a state is in opposition? Does the Reverend believe that Barack Obama’s selective “nullification” of certain aspects of his own ObamaCare legislation is appropriate? It’s not done for states rights but rather to enhance his own power as chief executive.
Rev. Darby’s third point had to do with cooperation and collaboration. I don’t know how that bears specifically on Republicans or exclusively to Sen. Scott, but it’s a point all voters want of all of their elected representatives. Still, before casting Tim Scott as being opposed to such things, Rev. Darby might first consider the shining example of the Senate Majority leader. Cooperation and collaboration with his Republican counterparts is as foreign to him as is truth and reason.
The Reverend’s last bit of advice:
The final thing is that those in the GOP can’t think for those in the African-American community or anoint black “leaders.” The most amusing thing in the recent coverage of Sen. Scott was that more than 90 percent of overwhelmingly white GOP voters surveyed believe that he represents the mindset of the black community. While it may be comforting for Republicans to embrace Sen. Scott as “a good one,” it might also be a good idea to ask a few more black folk what they really think and who they really listen to and respect.
Darby spun completely off the globe on this. No one in the Republican Party has tried to dictate leadership to any ethnic/minority group. For the black community, as I understand it, that mantle often falls to religious figures in the community. At the same time, however, there are those who anoint themselves as mouthpieces for the entire race. I HAVE asked “black folk” what they really think and only a miniscule percentage put any stock or faith in such “leaders” as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Jim Clyburn.
If leaders like Rev. Darby are honest with themselves and with their congregants, they will talk things out with reason and without prejudice and consider which tent is the best for them as individuals, as a minority and as a race. And in doing so, will Rev. Darby and his NAACP colleagues point out that in the 81 years since 1933, Democrats have controlled the Senate for 60 years (74%) and the House for 64 (79%). How has Black America fared with such Democrat domination and how might support for Republicans better their lives?
I suspect Rev. Darby is correct; Tim Scott won’t bring in a massive number of African-Americans into the Republican fold. And, in this case, skin color won’t make a difference, primarily because there are far too many people that will cast him as an “Uncle Tom” and an “Oreo.” Or, as Rev. Darby has tried to do, paste upon him the label of House Negro to a bunch of bigots. And in doing so, the Rev. Darbys are telling “black folk” that doing what they believe is right, thinking for themselves and following their inherent “conservative” principles is wrong.
"The referendum in Crimea was a clear violation of Ukrainian constitution and international law"
- Barack HUSSEIN Obama's statement after Sunday's Crimean vote
Well...well...the man who could care less about the U.S. Constitution suddenly cares about the Ukrainian constitution and international law...all while his very inaction's helped fuel this current situation on. And now comes useless sanctions that Putin will just laugh at while calling Obama's bluff as he sends Russian forces further into the Ukraine.
And those in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, and even those in Kazakhstan, are all now fearful they could be next.
Knowing his escalations mean NOTHING to Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the very man who drew a 'red line' in the sand over Syria and then did NOTHING about it when crossed...Vladimir Putin will manipulate Obama into doing his bidding, because with Russia being a two trillion dollar a year economy, with Russia involved in negotiations to remove Syria's chemical weapons, and with Russia a player in the game over Iran's nuclear program, Putin will push Obama into a corner and place the 'sucker punch' dunce cap on him himself..
Checkmate...game over...as the 'Russian Bear' triumphs over the man...the U.S. president...who wears 'mom jeans.'
In a vote planned by Crimea's regional parliament and endorsed by the Russian government...by the Russian Federation...Sunday's secession referendum was basically a choice between Crimea seeking annexation by Russia or Crimea opting for more autonomy from Ukraine under the 1992 constitution. And coming as NO surprise in a region with a 60% ethnic Russian population the referendum passed with 95% of the vote, and with a turnout reported to be well above the 50% mark that makes the referendum binding.
Again NO surprise but remember also that there was NO option on the ballot for Crimea to remain a semi-autonomous region of Ukraine, causing many like Nikolay Vasilyevich, a Ukrainian professor, to say, "There's no choice to vote against joining the KGB-run government" ... translation: its Putin's way or else.
And the 'or else' would NOT be pretty...that I can guarantee.
And so what becomes of the 40% ethnic Ukrainians living in the Crimea..the very people who refused to take part in the referendum...those who called the referendum "an illegal charade stage-managed by Moscow"...these people are now rightfully scared of widespread discrimination and harassment...or worse...against them, very similar to what happened in parts of nearby Georgia after its 2008 war with Russia.
And adding further fuel to this Ukrainian fire is that while the U.S. and the EU are still seeking a diplomatic solution to this flexing of Putin's muscle, Putin continues surrounding Ukraine with more and more troops...more and more tanks...in addition to the troops and tanks already in place in Crimea, thus helping to further destabilizing the region.
So as Ukrainians in Kiev are preparing themselves for war what is our anything but fearless leader from behind doing...in a few words...NOT a damn thing of any substance even as many in Ukraine fear that Moscow could be orchestrating violence as a pretext to invading their southern and eastern regions. The fear is so great that it has caused many of age to sign up as volunteers to serve on the front in the event of a Russian attack ...all while Barack HUSSEIN Obama slaps (useless) sanctions on Russian officials, self-serving Crimean leaders, and others they hold responsible for the problems in Ukraine.
Sanctions...sanctions so useless as to have Vladimir Putin openly mocking Obama’s attempts to get tough on Russia leading Obama to issue one of his nefarious executive orders. And this order has Obama naming seven Russian officials whose U.S. assets will now be frozen and “may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt.” Focusing on individual personal assets NOT on the companies that the officials may manage on behalf of the Russian state, and focusing on any assets that the individuals have in U.S. jurisdiction have been frozen and Americans are prohibited from doing business with them.
Big freakin' deal! What a leader...what a man...war on the horizon and Barack HUSSEIN Obama freezes the assets of a handful of people...punitive measure at best that are sure to heighten the ever-expanding tensions between the U.S. and Russia...between Obama and Putin.
Between a man and a sniveling coward.
And what does the EU do...they announced travel bans and asset freezes on 21 people for their involvement in the Ukraine crisis...another slap on the wrist that must have Putin besides himself with laughter.
Now to add insult to injury, Obama is sending none other than Uncle Joe 'Bite-Me' Biden on a visit to Poland and Lithuania next week to help lay the groundwork for plans to help the European countries wean themselves off their dependency on Russian energy sources...on Russian natural gas and oil. But come on...'Uncle Joe'...oh yeah...that will help the situation...NOT.
And as Barack HUSSEIN Obama gets ready to jet off to the Netherlands next week to take part in the biennial Nuclear Security Summit, Vladimir Putin surrounds an independent nation with plans to overthrow their government and bring them back into the Russian fold. Crimea shows it can be done, and Obama's farce of a reaction and joke of a response shows Putin can get away with it all.
Be prepared for changes to the internet, including web taxes!
Currently, the US Department of Commerce is in the last year of a long standing contract with Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit company in California. Formed in 1998, ICANN took oversight of many internet duties perform for and by the US government. They are now the organization that is responsible for the management of the global internet’s distinctive identifiers which helps to keep the entire global internet stable and secure.
ICANN’s contract ends next year and US officials just announced plans to not renew their contract and turn over US governmental control of the administration of the Internet to international control. Of course, this is a decision of Democratic lawmakers that fit in with their agenda of dismantling American superiority in favor of a one world governmental system.
Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), described the decision as being:
“…consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.”
Others see this move as a dangerous one. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) reacted to the announcement by tweeting:
“What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”
Garth Bruen, a Security Fellow at the Digital Citizens Alliance group that combats online crime also commented about the announcement, saying:
“This is a purely political bone that the U.S. is throwing. ICANN has made a lot of mistakes, and ICANN has not really been a good steward.”
Some are blaming the decision on all of the scandals involved with the NSA spying on US citizens; but US officials are denying that this has anything to with their decision. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information stated:
“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.”
“The timing is now right to start this transition both because ICANN as an organization has matured, and international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.”
Supporters of the move are saying that there will be no perceptible changes to the internet, but not everyone agrees. For the past several years, some members of the international internet community have been wanting to place taxes on internet use and commerce. With the transition of control from the US to the international community, many fear that this will open the doors to those taxes.
There are also fears of international control of content and censorship of what anyone will be allowed to post on the internet. How much is conspiracy theory and how much will turn out to be true will tell over time, but all I can say is that you shouldn’t be surprised to see internet taxes and increased censorship in the future.
If you can't start controlling and taxing it here, the Democrats have a solution: Give it way to the other tyrants, they will do it for us...
I’m not much of a beer drinker. If the beer is really cold and I’m really thirsty, I might drink half a bottle.
I have friends who like to drink beer. I even have a son who actually makes his own beer. I haven’t heard many of my beer drinking friends say much about the beer made by the Boston Beer Company makers of Samuel Adams Beer.
After the latest news that the company will no longer participate in the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade in South Boston because the parade organizers won’t permit a homosexual veterans group to march in the parade, I suspect that the patriot-named company will lose some customers of its tepid brew. It’s not that the parade organizers want to prohibit homosexuals to participate; it’s just that they couldn’t participate as an advocacy group for homosexuality.
The same is true for beer companies Guinness and Heinekein. Here’s a statement from Guinness:
“Guinness has a strong history of supporting diversity and being an advocate for equality for all. We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this year’s parade. As this has not come to pass, Guinness has withdrawn its participation. We will continue to work with community leaders to ensure that future parades have an inclusionary policy.”
Given the history of Ghinness, it's unlikely that homosexuality would have been an "inclusionary policy" of the company.
It might surprise a lot of people that the Guinness brewing company was started by a Christian, Arthur Guinness. “His children . . . built the Guinness corporation on the strength of their father’s vision and faith. This is what became the great legacy of the Guinness family.” For a fascinating history of Guinness, see The Search for God and Guinness: A Biography of the Beer that Changed the World by Stephen Mansfield.
Here’s a short video by the author explaining bit of the history of Guinness.
I suspect that the parade organizers would have prohibited pro-polygamy, pro-adultery, pro-NAMBLA, and pro-incest groups to join in the festivities as well
The issue is not about people; it’s about what people do and what most people consider to be immoral and don’t wanted presented as if such behavior is morally acceptable.
This battle has been going on for some time. As is usual for liberals, they never give up and will continue to press the matter even though the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue nearly 20 years ago:
“The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1995 that the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council had a constitutional right to exclude marchers whose message they reject, including those who seek to identify themselves as gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans. The parade, one of the biggest St. Patrick’s Day parades in the nation, draws as many as one million people to South Boston.” (source)
Mayor Martin Walsh will also be boycotting the annual Boston parade and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced announced that he will “not be marching in this year’s St. Patrick's Day Parade because organizers will not allow participants to carry gay pride signs.”
Here’s one of the best lines ever from Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League. First, he said that he was “‘delighted’ that de Blasio would not be there” and second, “the parade is not about homosexuals, or abortion, or anything other than honoring St. Patrick.”
I say “good riddance.”
Prior to the decision not to include veterans who advocate for same-sex sexuality, “The Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Harvard said they would pull their float if the homosexual group was permitted to march they did not “want to appear to be condoning the ‘homosexual lifestyle.’”
Good for them.
The brewers of Sam Adams’ beer might want to consider the views of their company’s namesake and their state's former governor:
“I conceive we cannot better express ourselves than by humbly supplicating the Supreme Ruler of the world . . . that the confusions that are and have been among the nations may be overruled by the promoting and speedily bringing in the holy and happy period when the kingdoms of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ may be everywhere established, and the people willingly bow to the scepter of Him who is the Prince of Peace.”
In addition, to Sam Adams (1722-1803), St. Patrick would be horrified if he knew that a parade in his honor was being sabotaged to promote same-sex sexuality.
Let me see if I've got this straight... for many years, our elite have told us about the noble task of spreading "democracy" around the world (a terrible form of government that our Founders strongly rejected, but... I'll leave that for another time).
Russian state media said Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to break with Ukraine and join Russia on Sunday, as Kiev accused Moscow of pouring forces into the peninsula and warned separatist leaders "the ground will burn under their feet".
With over half the votes counted, 95.5 percent had chosen the option of annexation by Moscow, the head of the referendum commission, Mikhail Malyshev, said two hours after polls closed. Turnout was 83 percent, he added - a high figure given that many who opposed the move had said they would boycott the vote.
Western powers and leaders in Kiev denounced it as a sham.
How soon we've forgotten these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Look, I'll be the first to admit: Russia ain't no Founding-Era America, but... do the people of Crimea not have the right to decide what government shall be in place? The right to... choose?
I guess it's the same as here in the contemporary United States. We only have the right to choose that which our elites say we have the right to choose. Other than that, it's "Shut up, sit down in the back of the bus, and leave the driving (and your wealth) to us!" After all, as the First Lady said recently: "We nag you because we love you."
Tea Party Patriots, If we fail to point out on a daily basis, how much of a scumbag Hillary and Bill Clinton are, then we deserve who we will see sworn into office in January 2017.
Every tea party organization, conservative group, Christians and Republicans, should be screaming at the top of their lungs, who Hilary Clinton is, and what she has done.
Many of us know about her role in the Benghazi murders and cover up, but do not forget her full record.
1. She was fired for lies, and unethical behavior in the Watergate trials
2. During the Whitewater criminal investigations, she lied under oath and was brought up on perjury charges
3. She was the main culprit in the U.S. Travel office corruption and scandal
4. She was caught lying about facing sniper fire in Bosnia
5. She received Illegal campaign contributions in her senate and presidential campaigns (China) she was forced to give back over $850,000.
6. She was fined $35,000 for under reporting campaign contributions.
7. During her time as a Senator from New York, more than 1 million people from her district moved out of the state.
8. Hillary and Bill Clinton were involved with Samuel Berger's theft and destruction of documents from the national archives, involving the in the failed apprehension of Osama bin laden prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
9. Hilary and Bill Clinton pardoned F.A.L.N terrorist who bombed over 36 places in Chicago and killed hundreds. She denied having anything to do with it, however documents show, she received a letter from a then City Councilor Jose Rivera, who advised her, if she wanted to get the Spanish vote for her senate election, she needs to influence her husband to pardon the group.
10. She does not favor English as the official language of America.
11. She voiced the opinion to remove "one nation under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, because if offended some people.
If you do your research, you will find other criminal activities tied to the Clinton's, including several suicides and murders of people who had ties to them.
If your a conservative blogger, radio show host, vlogger, or write a column, you should warn the world of the danger this woman and her circle represent. We should have daily public service announcements on every conservative show.
We need to raise money to create commercials for radio, television and the Internet. Urge every conservative to post about her. Educate the public about this dangerous, evil, vindictive woman. She is a women void of values, morals and ethics.
If you love your country and do not want it to fall into the hands of this pure evil villain, please share. Make this go viral.
It started as a plea arrangement between a lobbyist arrested for fraud and the Republican attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. And it ended not with a bang but a whimper by the new Democratic attorney general, who shut down the investigation without filing a single charge.
Philly.com quotes Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, who took office in 2013, as telling the Inquirer that the investigation was “poorly conceived, badly managed, and tainted by racism, saying it had targeted African Americans.”
The undercover sting, begun three years ago by Kane’s predecessor, Republican Tom Corbett, captured leading Philadelphia Democrats, including four local members of the state’s House delegation, on tape accepting money. The lobbyist who agreed to wear a wire and tape officials reacting to offers of cash and/or gifts is Tyron B. Ali, 40, who was arrested in a $430,000 fraud case.
“Sources with knowledge of the sting said the investigation made financial pitches to both Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats accepted the payments,” said the Inquirer.
Four state lawmakers took money, the sources said. State Rep. Ronald G. Waters accepted multiple payments totaling $7,650; State Rep. Vanessa Brown took $4,000; State Rep. Michelle Brownlee received $3,500; and State Rep. Louise Bishop took $1,500, said people with knowledge of the investigation.
You would think by now the police departments, counties, states and officers would have learned performing an illegal search would result in a lawsuit since there have been a slew of them filed recently, in New Mexico. At what point will they grow tired of citizens filing lawsuits and winning them? In Hildalgo County, New Mexico, Lori Ford, 54 years old, was stopped by police, had her car searched and seized, and strip searched four days later after trying to get her car back.
The war on drugs claims another victim. Here are the questions I don’t think are being asked. What in the world is so important that police feel the need to do a body cavity search? Why couldn’t they have obtained a warrant? On that note, isn’t it very likely that anything believed to be inside a living person’s body will, eventually, work its way out? Lastly, where is the decency? Why do law enforcement officers think it acceptable to treat individuals this way when one state to the north, what this woman is accused of possessing is legal.
More problematic is the evident bad reaction law enforcement has to a United States citizen exercising her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when she refused to allow officers to search her vehicle. This article boils down to a short series of events: 1) Get stopped for speeding; 2) Refuse to have your car searched; 3) police search anyway and don’t find anything; 4) have your car seized; 5) finally find your car; 6) go to get it; and 7) get raped in the name of the United States of America and the war on drugs.
Law enforcement needs more perspective on what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, and the means used to achieve their alleged goal. How many real truckloads of drugs went by during these events? It is apparent that the officers have no big picture understanding of the nature of their job and even more apparent is the their distaste for individuals who do not submit to their demands.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled that body cavity searches can be performed in felony cases (who knew police could determine a quantity they cannot see) and that in suspected misdemeanor cases officers need a reasonable articulated basis to perform a body cavity search. Most of us probably aren’t convinced that people who would perform a body cavity search on a misdemeanor case have the ability to articulate a need for it in the first place.
Fortunately in this country we have federal judges with lifetime appointments. Ms. Ford is also asserting her constitutional right under the 7th Amendment. Damages are likely more than $20.00.
I understand that police are supposed to catch bad guys. And I understand that a society where bad guys get cause is safer than a society where they get away with crimes.
And, in this case, since the bad guys were caught without anyone being shot, one could say that the police did their job.
But their methods seem legally questionable and extremely dangerous to bystanders.
From the Washington Post: “Police halt Montgomery County commuters on I-270 to hunt for bank robbery suspects.”
Police arrested three bank robbery suspects in Montgomery County on Tuesday after officers set up a roadblock on Interstate 270 and walked car to car with pistols, shotguns and semiautomatic rifles drawn. The rapid show of force stunned late-morning commuters but allowed officers to nab the trio 44 minutes after the robbery.
“I guess it turned out well, so it’s hard to argue with success,” said Don Troop, who was heading to the District when traffic came to halt. A group of officers made its way to his car and other cars around him. “They were just walking along saying: ‘Pop the trunk! Pop the trunk!’”
It is not clear to me why they had the authority to stop literally everyone on the interstate and search their cars. I see nothing in the story that indicates they had reason to believe anyone was riding in the trunk of a car.
At 10:02 a.m., police said, officers were called to the Wells Fargo bank branch along King Farm Boulevard in Rockville. They learned that two men armed with handguns had come in, demanded money and left with it. They got into a silver Kia, where a third man was waiting, and drove off.
A short time later, the Kia was spotted on southbound I-270. Officers in cars raced toward the area and shut down traffic in both directions.
At the time, Troop was trying to get to the District, where he is a senior editor at the Chronicle of Higher Education. Just south of the Montrose Road exit, “everything came to a halt,” he said.
Again, nothing is said about anyone hiding in a trunk.
Traffic backed up for miles on the freeway for over an hour with no explanation from police. Commuters exiting their vehicles to see what was happened were met with hostility from police. As one woman leaned out of her vehicle to vomit she was yelled at by an officer to stay inside and close her door. I suppose she's supposed to puke inside her car while they trample her rights.
During this encounter motorists were approached by armed officers and ordered at gunpoint to submit to warrantless searches of their vehicles.
That’s one way of looking at it. I guess if they can do it to Boston they can to it to drivers on an interstate.
I want to bring up another consideration. The robbers had one firearm in their vehicle but they surrendered without resistance. What if they had shot at police? Hopefully Maryland police are far more accurate than police in Los Angeles or New York City. But even if they are, by stopping and jamming all traffic on I-275, they had created a situation with many bystanders who could have been hurt or killed.
[B]y putting armed criminals into a miles long roadblock authorities made it more likely they would take someone hostage or commandeer an innocent bystanders vehicle. Some will say that the ends justify the means and as long as the robbers were arrested, the "operation was worth it".
What, in the final analysis happened? The robbers held up a bank and the cops held up an interstate full of traffic. Both pointed guns at innocent people to get what they wanted. In one case, they wanted someone else’s money. In the other case, they wanted to catch a criminal...