Goverment Officials Are Not Above The Law

In Josh Huston’s blog editorial, “Immunity…Not This Time,” Huston tells about a case taken by the Supreme Court to determine if former Attorney General John Ashcroft can be sued for the false imprisonment of Abdullah Kidd.

Huston paints a clear picture for us to understand what happened to Kidd. Kidd was arrested and held in detention for two weeks for being a material witness in a Visa fraud case. Kidd claims the real reason he was arrested was because he was a suspected terrorist for buying a one way ticket to Saudi Arabia and “the Attorney General had put forth a plan of holding suspected terrorists under such a guise.” Kidd wants to sue Ashcroft “for false imprisonment for holding him with no evidence that he engaged in any wrongdoing,” but Ashcroft thinks he is “immune from such charges and shouldn’t be ordered to trial.” I don’t think he should be immune and neither does the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeal “which ruled that Ashcroft has no immunity in this case.” The Supreme Court will have to uphold the ruling of the lower court in order to bring Ashcroft to court for this case.

Huston says that Ashcroft “abused his powers as an elected official” for violating Kidd’s rights for no reason. After 9/11, airport security stepped up enforcement. I’m sure racial profiling became more common and many mid-eastern people were denied their freedoms. I’m just surprised there haven’t been more cases like this one, or more cases like this that made headlines.

Huston brings up some good points. Why wasn’t Kidd called to testify in the Visa fraud case? Huston says the reason Kidd wasn’t put on trial was because “he did absolutely nothing wrong,” and I agree with that one-hundred percent. I also agree that “government officials shouldn’t be allowed to hide under the veil of immunity when they circumvent the law.” I believe Ashcroft broke the law and should be tried for his criminal act. I think it’s ridiculous that Ashcroft denied Kidd’s rights for buying a plane ticket to Saudi Arabia and I also think “he should be held responsible.”

Repealing DADT

America has been at war since I was a freshman in high school. At the time, I was scared to death that one day I would be drafted and sent to fight. Scared out of my mind, I would have gladly done what was needed for my country. Thankfully, brave men and women of all races, religions, and cultures voluntarily answered the call and reported for duty. With America engaged in two wars, why have thousands of soldiers been kicked-out of the military for the same reason?

In 1993, Congress passed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), a law mandating the discharge of openly gay service members. According to the Service Members Legal Defense Network, more than 14,000 members have been fired under the law since 1994. DADT allows gays and lesbians to serve without asking their sexual orientation, but discharges them if they are discovered to be gay. Many Americans believed this was a great thing for the gay community at the time, but when considering the punishment for being caught, one can see why this law must be repealed. Not only are we firing soldiers based on prejudice, forcing them to change their lives, but we’re hurting the U.S. Armed Services, depleting the military of willing, capable soldiers.

For many reasons, repealing the law is the only thing that comes to mind when I think of DADT. First of all, the law is based on prejudice. It is unconstitutional to deny anyone a job for their sexual preference, so why can’t a gay man or woman fight and die for their country while being able to live their lives as freely as the heterosexual next to them? And what’s not to say some of the best military leaders aren’t gay? I would want to be lead by the best whether they were gay or straight. Lastly, America needs all the soldiers they can get because we’re fighting two wars.

With the growing support of the American public and Congress, it appears as though America is on the right track to repeal this law. By a 234 to 194 vote, The House of Representatives adopted an amendment that could lead to the repeal of DADT as early as 2011. President Obama is onboard and said he will end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In an Associated Press conference last year, Obama summed up what millions of supporters are thinking, saying, “We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.”

Bullying taught at Church? Really?

In the CNN belief BLOG post by Jim Daly, My Take: Christianity not to blame for anti-gay bullying, Daly gives his argument against what many American’s believe is the cause for anti-gay bullying -- “suggested by some that Christianity itself is to blame for these tragedies.”

Jim Daly is the president of Focus on the Family – “a global Christian ministry dedicated to helping families thrive.” Daly graduated from California State University, San Bernardino, with a B.S. in Business Administration and attended Waseda University in Tokyo. Daly also has a MBA in International Business from Regis University in Denver and received an honorary Doctor of Letters degree from Colorado Christian University in Denver. After college, he worked in the private sector of a Fortune 500 company. Daly is also a regular panelist for The Washington Post/Newsweek blog on faith.

Daly expresses that the idea that people actually think Christianity is to blame is “its own separate tragedy.” I have to agree with Daly. Anybody with common sense can make the assumption that preachers do not teach people to bully others that do not fit the mold of God’s design. Daly explains that Christianity teaches the exact opposite. When interpreted and practiced properly, “it is the cure for and solution to the mistreatment and abuse of anyone, for any reason.” What the bible teaches about human rights and the treatment of others is that “no person is superior or inferior to the next.” So, to mistreat someone for any reason “contradicts” what the bible teaches and to think Christianity encourages any mistreatment of someone different than one’s self “is a sad misreading of the very tenets of the faith.”

Daly makes it clear that not only non-believers misunderstand the same tenets. He goes on to say that some think sins can be categorized by their severity. Some believe homosexuality “is of a higher (or lower) order than adultery or covetousness or lying or gossip.” It is this type of hypocrite that “[saves] their harshest judgments for the sins they don’t struggle with themselves.” The bible doesn’t teach that either.

As a born and raised Catholic, I’ve never felt that my church encouraged me to mistreat anyone for any reason. I agree with Daly one hundred percent that Christianity is not to blame for the recent bullying news. “It’s the graceless behavior of bullies” that is the reason for the bullying. There are a number of reasons why these bullies act the way they do. Maybe its parenting or perhaps the bullies were bullied themselves. In my opinion, there is no way Christianity is to blame.

Let's Make It Happen, Congress.

In the New York Times editorial by, Thomas L. Friedman, “Build ‘Em and They’ll Come,” Friedman tells us about an initiative proposed by President Obama “to plan to set up eight innovation hubs to solve the eight biggest energy problems in the world.” He explains that the program has not been fully funded because Congress “is reluctant to appropriate the full $25 million for each center…so only three are moving ahead.” Friedman thinks that all eight should be fully funded right now.

Three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, Thomas L. Friedman, has been a writer for the New York Times since 1981. Friedman was awarded his first Pulitzer Prize for international reporting from Lebanon in 1983 and his second in 1988, also for international reporting from Israel. Thomas L. Friedman won his third Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for commentary.

In the introduction of the editorial, Friedman is telling Kishore Mahbubani, dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, of Obama's proposed plan and that Congress has not fully funded the millions required to set up all eight innovation hubs. Mahbubani is in disbelief that his “little city-state” of Singapore has invested more than a billion dollars to make it a “biomedical science hub” that “[attracts] the world’s best talent” while America debates about “spending mere millions on “game-changing energy research.” The decision to fully fund the program seems like common sense to me. If a small city-state can spend billions for a science capital filled with the best of the best medical scientist, surely America can spend millions to create eight innovation hubs to make great advances in energy science.

Friedman says universities, national labs and private industry have been invited to create teams of their best scientists and research ideas to win funding. The advances that could be made could “spawn new jobs and industries.” So, we know the opportunity is there and the results will be great. All that is needed, now, is the funding, but Congress has appropriated only partial funding for three hubs for one year. $22 million or less for all of the following: energy efficient buildings, nuclear energy, and fuels from sunlight. Friedman’s view is that Congress should fund all eight hubs for five years for $1 billion so that we get “the benefit of all these scientists collaborating and cross-fertilizing.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu referred to the hubs as “a series of mini-Manhattan projects,” an example of the type of success America can gain for investing in getting the top engineers and physicists to work together to make these energy breakthroughs. The word, breakthrough, is not to be overlooked. Full funding can lead to huge advancement instead of small improvements over the years. As Chu states, “The scientists and engineers see the problem; they see the opportunity; they see what is at stake, and they want to help.” So it’s time for Congress to get on board and fully fund all eight hubs now.

Immigration Issues hit Nebraska

Living in a border state, political discussions about illegal immigration are very common to us. With election season now surrounding us, these issues seem more obvious as political candidates debate on how illegal immigration hurts or helps America’s economy. What may not be as apparent is where else immigration is a hot topic.

Nebraska Governor, Dave Heineman, has recently made national headlines announcing that the first act he will press for if he wins a second term will be an immigration law, similar to the Arizona law passed in April, which would make it easier for the police to arrest illegal immigrants. This coming from a state in which it’s “two most prominent Republican elected officials” pressured authorities to not crack down on hiring illegal immigrants in their meatpacking plants. This is clear evidence that immigration has expanded to a national issue that many candidates, not just border-state candidates, will use to propel their campaigns.