Funeral Protestors

      The most terrible event a parent could ever got through is the death of their child, and unfortunately,  America looses many of it's brave young soldiers each and everyday. With every death of a soldier comes the real life nightmare of every parent, and what could make their grieving process any worse than picketers at their child's funeral. An editorial article in the LA Times address the recent Supreme Court Case which ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected under the first amendment to picked and protest at the funerals of US soldiers. The particular case that preceded this decision was that of a diseased US Marine's father, Matthew Snyder. He argued that the protesters signs displaying messages like "Thank God for 9/11" , "Don't Pray for the USA", and "Thank God for IEDs" were not only offensive for obvious reasons, but added a great amount of unnecessary grief to him and his family. The church members and their Pastor, Fred Phelps, claim that the reason God is killing US troops is because of the United States tolerance of gay rights and homosexual
activities.
       The author continues to explain that the Supreme Court ruled that under the first amendment the protesters have every right to be outside of the funerals. As long as the picketers are at least 1,000 feet away and are peaceful, they are exercising their American rights. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explains that there was an eight to one majority on wether or not the protests are constitutional, and they did counter three argument against Phelps who was ordered to pay Snyder damages for "intentional infliction of emotional distress". The protesters were in their designated distance, the Snyders' couldn't read the signs from that distance, and none of the picketers entered the church or used any violence or profanity. The Chief Justice continues to argue that the protest was not intended to be a lash on that protocolar family or soldier, but is more of a message to a public issue. He quoted the 1989 Supreme Court case that decided that burning the American flag is constitutional, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the first Amendment, it is the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This idea embodies that although people may not like the ideas portrayed but it is their rights as citizens to express them, and it is not the governments place to tell them they cannot do so.
       I feel that this situation is a very complex and dense one. It really bothers me that people could ever protest someone who lost their life to give them the very freedom that allows them to even practice their religion not to mention protest for it. I fully believe that the constitution protects this right and the Supreme Court decision was
the correct one, but that does not make it the right one. The law is sometimes too narrow and ambiguous and neglects special situations like these. I honestly cannot imagine blaming the deaths of our brave and beloved soldiers that are dying for no other reason that to protect our country for the imperfections of our society. If the people who protest are that desperate to look for someone to blame, I think that there are much larger problems in our society than homosexual tolerance. Overall I support our troops no matter how I feel about the war or reasons they are fighting. I am completely understanding to being against the war but I cannot fathom ever abandoning and demising our soldiers.

The High Cost of Freedom

   In the United Sates we are granted many liberties that we cherish deeply, but what are the lengths to which the American are people willing to go to in order to protect them?  In 2001 under George W. Bush,  a law was enacted that caused heads to turn then, and is still raising controversy today. Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, more commonly known as The PATRIOT Act, reduces restrictions placed on law officials by the fourth amendment in circumstances of suspected terrorist activity. In the LA Times I came across an editorial that addresses this issue with an approach many Americans take. The author is trying to reach out the average American by making a strong point that the PATRIOT Act is an infringement on their rights as citizens. He presents a valid argument after introducing that the House failed to extend three provisions of this act. The author continues by explaining that he is not totally against the provisions that he believes will be extended sometime in the near future, but he believes one of them gives the government too much power. The third provision allows the government to obtain business records of suspected terrorist activity with simply a court order. The article explains that this is a direct violation of American's right to privacy, and search and seizure and presents his idea that the Act should require probable cause before financial records can be released. The author has a strong argument that many Americans would agree on, but i my opinion I feel that to those average citizens who are living their mundane lives, this law will never touch their privacy. I believe that it is our right to take whatever precautions necessary to protect our freedom, even if it means temporarily restricting some of our constitutional rights. Honestly, what is the difference between other things that infringe on our right to privacy that we have become accustom to such as DUI check points. A citizen can be driving down the street and drive into check point without knowing it and be required to present identification for no reason other than the officer requesting it. They then can search your car which in some cases may be a violation to search and seizure. Ultimately, our duty as Americans is to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives and above all, we must ensure safety, security, and preservation of our country.

Peaceful Examples Pave New Path

   On Friday, February 11th 2011, monumental and inspirational news spread across the world. Egypt, after eighteen days of protesting, successfully forced their nations leader to resign from power. As supporters of the new government were given the news of the resignation, the former leader Mubarak, and his family, left the city of Cairo. According to The LA Times, President Obama commented on this glorious triumph through a speech shown on cable stations across the United States. The celebration erupting in Tahrir Square could be seen split screen during Obama's speech, which exemplified the significance of this event. The President, who until now has remained neutral, congratulated and recognized the admirable acts of the Egyptian people. He explains that this event is one that will forever change not only Egypt, but also the rest of the world including preceding countries seeking liberty. Obama continues by comparing this victory to Gandhi, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and MLK's civil rights protests, by admiring the peaceful means in which Egypt has acquired their new freedom. Although the speech mostly was congratulating the people of Egypt, Obama does offer a word of advice that their new nation has difficulties ahead that he is certain they can over come. Obama's speech, given in the Grande Foyer of the White House, was a demonstration of his hopes that all nations, including our own, can follow the lead of Egypt by solving problems peacefully without force and terrorism.