How racist remarks cost L.A. cops trust

Mark O'Mara says by not firing a cop who allegedly made racial slurs LAPD Chief Beck has sent a message to all young black men in Los Angeles this his officers are not to be trusted

• Mark O'Mara: LAPD cop caught on audio recording allegedly making racial slurs outside bar


• He says disciplinary hearing recommended he be fired; chief suspended him instead


• Black men overrepresented in criminal justice system. Racism from cops hurts trust, he says


• O'Mara: Allowing racist officers to remain institutionalizes racism and endangers good cops

Editor's note: Mark O'Mara is a CNN legal analyst. He is a criminal defense attorney who frequently writes and speaks about issues related to race, guns and self-defense in the context of the American criminal justice system. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- A Los Angeles Police officer was caught on an audio recording allegedly making racial slurs during an encounter with some young black men outside a bar in Norco, California.

The incident took place in 2012, according to a report this week by CBS-LA reporter David Goldstein, which included audio of the the officer's remarks. And a panel assembled to conduct a formal disciplinary hearing subsequently recommended that the cop, Shaun Hillmann, be fired. But LAPD Chief Charlie Beck overruled the decision, issuing a 65-day suspension instead.

Apparently, Chief Charlie Beck thinks it is tolerable to have officers on the beat who use the N-word -- as a bar security guard alleged Hillman did -- and refer to young black men as "monkeys," as Hillman can be heard doing on the audio recording.

Now, I acknowledge Hillman was off duty. But a law enforcement officer is sworn to uphold and enforce our laws equally among our citizens without regard to skin color, and has no right to bigotry even while off duty, even while upset or even while impaired.

When I think about officer Hillman's alleged encounter, I am reminded again of the troubling overrepresentation of black men in the criminal justice system. Nearly 1 of every 100 Americans serves jail time, and there are nearly six times as many black inmates as there are whites.

Is that because some cops think the use of the N-word is acceptable or think of young black men as "monkeys?"

Or perhaps it has something to do with what President Barack Obama addressed when he remarked that "African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence."

Or, more likely, it's a self-reciprocating reaction to both. If some cops exhibit racism, are black men justified in being distrustful of cops? If black men are more likely to be seen as perpetrators of violence, are cops justified in being more wary of black men?

Should you be tempted to ask yourself "which came first?" -- that will take you back to a time when virtually all black men in America were in shackles, and that line of thinking isn't productive. A better question to ask is "Who is in the best position to break the cycle?" The answer is this: The person in authority.

In our communities, police officers are the face of authority. They are the first responders to calls for justice or help. When they respond to a call, they decide how to treat the parties involved. They decide whether or not to make an arrest. As a society that struggles with a deep race problem, we have to trust that our police officers are not racists.

When we encounter a cop who displays blatant bigotry -- even when he is off duty -- we cannot tolerate it. By allowing the officer who allegedly made these racial slurs to remain on the force -- even after a disciplinary board rules that he should be fired -- LAPD Chief Beck has sent a message to all young black men in Los Angeles this his officers are not to be trusted.

This could have disastrous consequences for all the LAPD officers who are honorable and serve their community with integrity and who treat citizens with respect.

Allowing racist officers to remain on the beat institutionalizes racism and it endangers good cops.

In the face of this, here are some things to remember if you're a young black man, and you encounter a racist cop: Be better than the cop. If you allow an officer to provoke you, you're much more likely to be arrested. Whatever you say will be put in the police report, and it will be used against you by the prosecutor.

If you run, or resist, or fight, it will be used against you. It makes it harder for defense attorneys like me to help, and in the end, one gross injustice can be compounded by another.

But that doesn't mean anyone should stand by and do nothing. More and more police departments record interactions between citizens and police. When there is evidence of racism in these transactions, report it. Report it and demand action. We can start with demanding action from LAPD Chief Charlie Beck.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.

FAA official warns of dangers

• NEW: FAA: The unmanned aircraft looked like a miniature F-4 Phantom jet, pilot said


• FAA: A jetliner's pilot reported a near collision with a drone over Florida


• Drones getting sucked into jet engines could be "catastrophic," he adds


• The official makes the case for regulation of small unmanned aircraft

(CNN) -- A Federal Aviation Administration official warned this week about the dangers of even small unmanned aircraft, pointing specifically to a recent close call involving a drone and a commercial airliner that could have had "catastrophic" results.

Jim Williams, the head of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) office, discussed various potential perils during a presentation Thursday to those attending the Small Unmanned Systems Business Expo. A video of his talk in San Francisco, and those of others, to those who operate, create or otherwise are involved or interested in such unmanned aircraft was posted to YouTube.

After saying "the FAA has got to be responsive to the entire industry," Williams referred to a pair of incidents in which drones caused injuries to people on the ground. One came at an event at Virginia Motor Speedway in which an "unauthorized, unmanned aircraft" crashed into the stands, and in the other a female triathlete in Australia had to get stitches after being struck by a small drone.

Then, Williams segued to a pilot's recent report of "a near midair collision" with a drone near the airport in Tallahassee, Florida. The pilot said that it appeared to be small, camouflaged, "remotely piloted" and about 2,300 feet up in the air at the time of the incident.

"The pilot said that the UAS was so close to his jet that he was sure he had collided with it," Williams said. "Thankfully, inspection to the airliner after landing found no damage. But this may not always be the case."

According to the FAA, the incident took place on March 22 and involved as U.S. Airways Flight 4650 going from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Tallahassee.

The pilot claimed to pass "an unreported and apparently remotely controlled aircraft ... five miles northeast of the Tallahassee airport, according to the federal agency.

Such close calls are rare, the FAA notes.

The pilot reported that the small unmanned aircraft involved looked similar to an F-4 phantom jet, and not like a helicopter that might hold a camera that many associate more closely with drones. Such planes have gas turbine engines and can fly higher than an average drone, according to the FAA. Neither the drone in this case, nor its pilot, have been identified.

In its own statement, US Airways said that it was aware of this reported "incident with one of our express flights, and we are investigating."

Explaining why this event is significant, Williams referenced to the so-called Miracle on the Hudson from 2009, when US Airways Flight 1549 safely crash-landed in New York's Hudson River after striking at least one bird upon takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.

Airplane crash-lands into Hudson River

Such bird strikes are dangerous enough; a drone, even a small one, getting sucked into a jetliner's engine could be even worse, Williams said.

"Imagine a metal and plastic object -- especially with (a) big lithium battery -- going into a high-speed engine," he added. "The results could be catastrophic."

All these incidents speak to "why it is incredibly important for detect-and-avoid standards (for small unmanned aircraft) to be developed and right-of-way rules to be obeyed," Williams said. He added that such standards are in the works.

His agency reiterated this sentiment in its statement Friday.

"The FAA has the exclusive authority to regulate the airspace from the ground up, and a mandate to protect the safety of the American people in the air and on the ground," the agency said. "...Our challenge is to integrate unmanned aircraft into the busiest, most complex airspace in the world. Introduction of unmanned aircraft into America's airspace must take place incrementally and with the interest of safety first."

As to current regulations, Williams noted the FAA has appealed a federal judge's decision in a case involving businessman Raphael Pirker.

Pirker used a remotely operated, 56-inch foam glider to take aerial video for an advertisement for the University of Virginia Medical Center. The FAA then fined him $10,000, alleging that since the aircraft was being used for profit, Pirker ran afoul of regulations requiring commercial operators of "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" to obtain FAA authorization.

A judge on March 6 agreed with Pirker that the FAA overreached by applying regulations for aircraft to model aircraft, and said no FAA rule prohibited Pirker's radio-controlled flight.

Pilot wins case against FAA over commercial drone flight

But on Thursday, Williams said that another judge had stayed this ruling pending the FAA's appeal.

"Nothing has changed from a legal standpoint," he said, "and the FAA continues to enforce the airspace rules."

CNN's Rene Marsh, Bill Mears, Carma Hassan and Chandler Friedman contributed to this report.

Gingrich: Hillary's Boko Haram problem

A woman attends a demonstration Tuesday, May 6, that called for the Nigerian government to rescue nearly 300 schoolgirls who were kidnapped last month in Chibok, Nigeria. The girls were taken by the Islamist militant group Boko Haram, which means "Western education is sin."

Abuja Hosea Sambido, a leader in the Chibok community, speaks during a rally in Abuja, Nigeria, on May 6, pressing for the release of the abducted girls.

Brig. Gen. Chris Olukolade, Nigeria's top military spokesman, speaks to people at a demonstration on May 6.

Women march Monday, May 5, in Chibok.

People rally in Lagos, Nigeria, on Thursday, May 1.

Police stand guard during a demonstration in Lagos on May 1.

Protesters take part in a "million woman march" on Wednesday, April 30, in Abuja.

Obiageli Ezekwesili, former Nigerian education minister and vice president of the World Bank's Africa division, leads a march of women in Abuja on April 30.

A woman cries out during a demonstration Tuesday, April 29, in Abuja with other mothers whose daughters have been kidnapped.

A man weeps as he joins parents of the kidnapped girls during a meeting with the Borno state governor in Chibok on Tuesday, April 22.

Mothers weep during a meeting with the Borno state governor on April 22 in Chibok.

Four female students who were abducted by gunmen and reunited with their families walk in Chibok on Monday, April 21.

Borno state governor Kashim Shettima, center, visits the Chibok school on April 21.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

• Newt Gingrich: Hillary Clinton could be questioned on Boko Haram as on Benghazi


• He says State Dept. under her leadership rejected requests to designate group as terrorists


• Justice Dept., FBI, CIA, and military officials asked for terrorism designation, Daily Beast reported


• Gingrich: Was Hillary Clinton aware of the requests? If not, should she have known?

Editor's note: Newt Gingrich is a co-host of CNN's which airs at 6:30 p.m. ET weekdays, and author of a new book, "Breakout: Pioneers of the Future, Prison Guards of the Past, and the Epic Battle That Will Decide America's Fate." A former speaker of the U.S. House, he was a candidate in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Hillary Clinton's leadership as secretary of state regarding the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram could become at least as serious an issue as her decisions surrounding the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Much of the attention Thursday was on the announcement that the House will create a select committee to investigate Benghazi, but the same day, Daily Beast reporter Josh Rogin revealed details about her time as secretary of state that raise significant questions about her broader record on issues of terrorism.

Rogin reported that from 2011 through early 2013, the Clinton State Department repeatedly rejected efforts to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. In recent weeks, the group has exploded onto the world stage by kidnapping more than 250 girls at a Nigerian boarding school.

It is so clearly and vividly a terrorist organization that it seems indefensible that the State Department would have refused to designate it as such. A thorough investigation of the decision process that protected Boko Haram from 2011 until late 2013 could be devastating.

Now that Boko Haram has attracted worldwide attention for its vicious assault on young girls, political leaders, including the former secretary of state, are rushing to issue emotionally powerful but practically meaningless statements.

Hillary Clinton tweeted: "Access to education is a basic right & an unconscionable reason to target innocent girls. We must stand up to terrorism. #BringBackOurGirls"

Clinton's tweet contrasts vividly with her failure to stand up to terrorism in 2011 by calling Boko Haram what it was.

Hillary Clinton's Boko Haram 'hypocrisy'

Clinton: Nigeria must find missing girls

The requests to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization were serious and came from very responsible authorities.

As Josh Rogin reported:

"What Clinton didn't mention was that her own State Department refused to place Boko Haram on the list of foreign terrorist organizations in 2011, after the group bombed the UN headquarters in Abuja. The refusal came despite the urging of the Justice Department, the FBI, the CIA, and over a dozen Senators and Congressmen.

"'The one thing she could have done, the one tool she had at her disposal, she didn't use. And nobody can say she wasn't urged to do it. It's gross hypocrisy,' said a former senior U.S. official who was involved in the debate. 'The FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department really wanted Boko Haram designated, they wanted the authorities that would provide to go after them, and they voiced that repeatedly to elected officials.'

"In May 2012, then-Justice Department official Lisa Monaco (now at the White House) wrote to the State Department to urge Clinton to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization. The following month, Gen. Carter Ham, the chief of U.S. Africa Command, said that Boko Haram provided a 'safe haven' for al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and was likely sharing explosives and funds with the group. And yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department still declined to place Boko Haram on its official terrorist roster."

The protection of Boko Haram from designation as a terrorist organization is even more unbelievable when you read the description of the group's activities in the American Foreign Policy Council's World Almanac of Islamism.

Consider the following highlights:

-- Boko Haram means "Western education is sinful."

-- The initial Boko Haram organization grew to an estimated 280,000 followers. In 2009 there was a huge fight with the Nigerian Army and over 1,000 followers and the founder were killed.

-- A revitalized Boko Haram launched an attack on Bauchi prison on September 7, 2010.

-- Since then they have carried out over 600 attacks, killing more than 3,800 people.

-- Boko Haram's orientation can be discerned in its support for Taliban-like, extremist Sharia law and its designation of its original encampment in northern Nigeria as "Afghanistan."

-- The Nigerian terrorists have allied with al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and a number of transnational terrorist groups.

-- On Christmas Day in 2011, Boko Haram staged church bombings.

-- Boko Haram has deep ties with extremists in Saudi Arabia. Supposedly dozens have been trained in Afghanistan.

Given these facts, it is amazing that Clinton's State Department refused to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization, since clearly it was engaged in terrorist activities. Why would the department she led not call a terrorist group a terrorist group when it was in her power to do so, and, as Rogin reports, the FBI, CIA, Justice Department, and many members of both the House and Senate were urging her to do just that?

Rogin reports that some U.S. officials, and possibly the Nigerian government, opposed the listing because, among other reasons, they thought it might give the group more publicity. But this is a fairly weak rationale. For one thing, Boko Haram seems to have managed the publicity part on its own. And despite designating three individuals associated with Boko Haram as terrorists in June 2012, by refusing to list the organization, the State Department was denying the FBI, CIA, and Justice Department the tools they were seeking to use against the group as a whole and anyone linked to it.

It is a potentially devastating addition to a record as secretary of state that included a number of decisions favoring the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (after abandoning a longtime U.S. ally there), as well as appeasing a virulently anti-American regime in Iran -- moves that have not turned out so well, to say the least.

Now the Boko Haram decision raises a whole new set of questions.

How could the Clinton State Department reject naming Boko Haram as a terrorist group?

Who was involved in blocking Boko Haram's terrorist designation?

Are any of the so-called experts who were totally wrong still at the State Department?

Did Clinton have anything to do with refusing to designate Boko Haram?

If not, was she even aware of the controversy? Shouldn't she certainly have been aware, considering the number of federal agencies and members of Congress that were asking her to designate the organization?

These questions about Clinton's record are potentially even more serious than the questions about Benghazi. As Congressman Patrick Meehan, who chairs the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, told Rogin, by failing to designate Boko Haram as a terrorist organization in 2011, "We lost two years of increased scrutiny. The kind of support that is taking place now would have been in place two years ago."

In light of the recent events in Nigeria, former Secretary Clinton and other key State Department officials owe the American people some answers about their decisions.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.

E-mail reveals wait- time manipulation

• People may need to go to jail, Sen. McCain says


• VA chief acts after e-mail discussed "gaming" appointments


• House committee chief criticizes VA for handling of scandal


• CNN exclusively reported veterans dying while on wait list in Phoenix, Arizona

(CNN) -- A growing scandal over the manipulation of health care appointments resulted in an employee at a Wyoming clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs being placed on administrative leave, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki said Friday.

An e-mail allegedly written by an employee in Cheyenne, obtained by CNN, says: "Yes, it is gaming the system a bit. But you have to know the rules of the game you are playing, and when we exceed the 14 day measure, the front office gets very upset, which doesn't help us. Let me know if this doesn't make sense."

Texas VA clerk: Hospital fudged books

Shinseki released a statement saying he has ordered an investigation by the inspector general, and that the employee be removed immediately from patient care responsibilities and placed on leave.

"VA takes any allegations about patient care or employee misconduct very seriously," Shinseki said. "If true, the behavior outlined in the email is unacceptable."

Rep. Jeff Miller, chairman of House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which subpoenaed Shinseki to testify next week, said in a statement that "the VA's reaction to the latest development in its delays in care scandal is faux outrage at its finest."

"Since last year, VA officials have known about intentional efforts to falsify patient wait time data at the Fort Collins, Colo., Community-Based Outpatient Clinic, which is part of the Cheyenne VA Medical Center," Miller said in the statement. "In fact, according to a Dec. 2013 VA Office of Medical Inspector report, clerks at the Fort Collins clinic were actually taught how to cook the books. Yet until today, department officials had not taken any steps whatsoever to discipline any employees or request an independent investigation -- nor did they plan to do so."

Miller said Shinseki's actions Friday appear "to be more of a knee-jerk reaction to tough media questions than anything else. If this is what it takes for VA leaders to do the right thing, you can't help but question how they operate when they think no one is paying attention."

The latest allegation comes as the federal department defends itself against claims of potentially deadly delays at other facilities throughout the nation, including claims of a secret wait list in Phoenix, which was first reported by CNN.

The American Legion, the nation's largest veterans organization, and another group, Concerned Veterans for America, have called for Shinseki's resignation.

The VA's official policy is that all patients should be able to see a doctor, dentist or some other medical professional within 14 days of their requested/preferred date. Any wait longer than two weeks is supposed to documented. But many veterans end up waiting longer, and the delays are never reported, veterans and their advocates say.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, told CNN on Friday that if the mounting accusations are true, "people should go to jail." He spoke before news broke of the Wyoming clinic e-mail.

McCain's comments came the same day that he appeared at a Phoenix town hall meeting in which a procession of veterans and their families criticized what they described as widespread delays and mismanagement within the national health care system designed for America's veterans.

"If it is what it appears to be, this isn't just resignations, this is violations of the law," McCain told CNN's Jake Tapper. "People should go to jail."

The former POW said, "Not surprisingly ... this is spreading .... and we need to hold people accountable."

McCain told the town hall meeting that Shinseki called him to say he had ordered a "face-to-face audit" at all VA clinics but wanted to wait for an VA inspector general's report before revealing his findings.

"My friends, an inspector general's report can take months. I told him we cannot wait a day, much less months, before there is a report," McCain said amid applause.

Shinseki ordered the audit Thursday. The same day, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee subpoenaed him.

The subpoena will cover e-mails that allegedly discussed the destruction of a secret list, first reported by CNN, of veterans waiting for care at a Phoenix VA hospital.

Attention on the secretary follows months of CNN exclusive reporting about U.S. veterans who have died while they waited for treatment at VA hospitals.

CNN has submitted numerous requests for an interview with Shinseki; the secretary has refused them all.

On Thursday, a VA scheduler in San Antonio, Texas, said clerks scheduling medical appointments for veterans were "cooking the books" at their bosses' behest to hide the fact some had to wait weeks, if not months, for appointments.

The Office of Inspector General confirmed to CNN that it has staff investigators on the ground in San Antonio looking into the allegations.

It's time to televise executions

• Richard Gabriel: Recent failed execution makes the case against death penalty


• The last public execution in the United States was in 1936, witnessed by 20,000 people


• Gabriel says he believes there is no humane way to kill another person


• We should be willing, he says, to live with the byproducts of our retribution

Editor's note: Richard Gabriel is a Los Angeles-based trial consultant and author of the upcoming book "Acquittal: An Insider Reveals the Stories and Strategies Behind Today's Most Infamous Verdicts." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Last week in McAlester, Oklahoma, the blinds were raised in a small, white, antiseptic room, and two small groups of people watched as Clayton Lockett was strapped to a gurney.

A doctor examined Lockett's body for usable veins and then oversaw the administration of an untested drug cocktail that was supposed to dispatch the convicted murderer quickly and quietly. Instead, the blinds were lowered as the execution turned into more than 40 minutes of grimacing, writhing, teeth grinding and frantic phone calls. Then Lockett's heart finally seized, stopped beating, and his breath left his body.

This is how we kill our most serious criminals in the 21st century. Or at least try to. So if this is justice, let's make it real. Let's make it open to the highest form of public transparency and scrutiny: Live TV. Here's why.

In the Middle Ages, the preferred method of executing prisoners was to draw and quarter, burn, boil alive and separate body parts of the condemned, exacting a measure of slow and painful torture before death. At some point in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, society decided that executing prisoners more quickly would be more "humane."

The French invented the guillotine, the Shah of Persia introduced throat cutting, or would tie a prisoner to a cannon and blow him apart, and the British developed the "long drop" method of hanging to snap the neck and sever the spine of the executed.

In 1936, the last public execution in the United States was held in Owensboro, Kentucky. It was witnessed by more than 20,000 people, including hundreds of reporters. From that point forward, states decided that executions needed to be private affairs, held in small rooms and witnessed only by agents of the state, lawyers, family members of the victim and a handful of journalists.

Drug shortage complicates executions

Attorney details botched execution

Inmate dies after botched execution

In the years since Owensboro, the states -- with the approval of the U.S. Supreme Court -- have refined their definition of humane executions by utilizing firing squads, electric chairs and gas chambers. The states further sanitized the execution process by developing the lethal injection method, turning it into a medical procedure complete with operating table, intravenous injections and considerable ethical questions for doctors and pharmaceutical companies who have sworn to "do no harm."

None of these refinements in execution technology has anything to do with "humane" methods. There is no real measurement for how painful a death prisoners suffer when they are being hanged, shot, gassed or electrocuted, no matter how quickly they die. Lethal injection simply gives us greater psychological distance from killing another human being, making it feel more like a doctor-prescribed procedure than an execution.

Michael Wilson, another death row inmate in Oklahoma, was killed in January in the same chamber, uttering his final words, "I feel my whole body burning." And while many have used the word "botched" to describe Lockett's execution, it wasn't botched at all. That's just how messy, complicated and disturbing it is to kill another human being.

What is missing from the death penalty debate is that there is no humane way to kill another person. We consider taking a victim's life during a crime to be cruel and unusual, yet we neatly sidestep this same Eighth Amendment standard with prisoners by attempting to conduct a quick and "painless" execution.

President Barack Obama has called for a Department of Justice investigation into the death penalty following Lockett's execution. "In the application of the death penalty in this country, we have seen significant problems -- racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty, you know, situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence," Obama said. "And all these, I think, do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied."

But while I applaud the President's actions, the question is not how the death penalty is applied, but whether it should be applied at all.

It is natural to be both horrified and angered at the senseless and brutal killings committed by a convicted murderer. It is natural to want revenge -- to visit the pain we imagine the victim suffered onto his or her perpetrator. But there is a difference between punishment and revenge, no matter how we dress it up with legislation and legal procedures. We have built a system of laws to raise us above those we judge.

In this system we have built, we must be honest and ask ourselves, "Is vengeance justice?" If we want truly to codify revenge, let's not pretend. Let's admit that we are willing to live with the byproducts of our retribution. Let's admit that we are willing to kill a number of innocent people. Let's admit that it is fine to execute a disproportionate number of minorities. And let's admit that we want condemned murderers to suffer like they made their victims suffer. Let's not dress the execution up as a medical procedure.

And by all means, let's televise it. Let's watch them pump the drugs into a condemned man or woman, strapped to a gurney. Let's hear their last words. Let's watch them writhe and twitch, or listen as they groan and their last breath quietly leaves their body. Let's watch them die. Let us see what we are really choosing when we vote to implement the death penalty in our state.

Many Americans support the death penalty in principle. But, as a juror in a capital case, it is different when you look across that courtroom and stare into the eyes of the accused. At that point it is real, and not just a principle. You will decide whether that person dies.

Let's make the death penalty real. Let's open the blinds and stare into the eyes of those we condemn to death. Let's be honest about what the death penalty really is. And then we can choose what kind of society we really want to be.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.

Velez-Malaga to improve cultural legacy

Velez-Malaga is to improve its cultural legacy in the hope of attracting more tourists.

The council is restoring parts of the old Arab wall and repairing the more emblematic buildings of the town.

These improvements were part of the election promises of Mayor Francisco Delgado Bonilla who made a four year plan to improve the town – there are only 12 months left of the deadline and already it is all coming together.

The capital of Axarquia wants to compete not with the coastal towns, which attract a different type of tourist, but with other towns that are “cultural destinations”.

Velez-Malaga has been a town for around five centuries and appears in the famous Cervantes tale of Don Quijote; this fact alone brings many tourists throughout the year.

Among other projects the council is also repairing the old granary, which dates back to the 18^th century, and is to house the Municipal Historic Archives.

David Benham: Gay 'agenda' demands silence

• Jason and David Benham say they are not upset at HGTV


• Their complaint with what they call a gay "agenda"


• Cancellation of "Flip It Forward" fuels debate about effects of airing personal beliefs

(CNN) -- The twin brothers who lost their HGTV show after a recording surfaced of one's anti-homosexuality views are surprisingly not upset at the network that fired them.

Their beef is not with HGTV, but with the gay "agenda" that "bullied" the network, Jason and David Benham told CNN's "New Day" on Friday.

"I feel they got bullied," David Benham said. "There's an agenda that's out in America right now that demands silence, especially from men and women who profess Jesus Christ and hold to his standards."

Their dismissal from the show they were scheduled to host added fuel to the debate over people losing their jobs for what they say about their personal lives.

Benham: 'We love homosexuals'

It's not a free speech issue, as both sides mostly agree that people have the right to say what they want, but a question of how severe the consequences for unpopular positions should be.

HGTV was within its rights to let the Benham brothers go, but maybe it shouldn't have, Ellis Henican, a Newsday columnist, told "New Day."

"Do they have a legal right? Yes. Should we be cheering it? No, we should not. We ought to be big enough people that we can see people we don't agree with, let them fix their houses, help the nice people. What are we scared of?" Henican said.

The brothers ran afoul of the network after the site Right Wing Watch published a post about the pair, labeling David Benham as an "anti-gay, anti-choice extremist" for reportedly leading a prayer rally in 2012 outside of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The site posted a recording of Benham talking to a talk show host about "homosexuality and its agenda that is attacking the nation" and "demonic ideologies" taking hold in colleges and public schools.

Benham also discusses the fight for North Carolina's Amendment One, which involved a ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions in the state constitution.

The Benham brothers were the planned stars of the HGTV show "Flip It Forward," set to premiere in October, in which they would have helped families purchase homes they otherwise could not afford.

"When the firestorm came in, we had an opportunity to speak with HG and the folks over there and explain to them who we were as people," Jason Benham said. "We sell to all people of all kinds, and that we would be glad to take a homosexual couple onto our show."

Peter Shankman, a branding and social media consultant, told "New Day" that the decision probably boiled down to money.

"This is HGTV scared because they saw what happened with Paula Deen, they saw what happened with "Duck Dynasty," and this is a ... move to make sure that this doesn't come back to bite them," he said, referring to the controversies for offensive comments made by the stars on their respective shows.

"This is about money," he said. "And if you are going to come out and say something that is against a big section of the population, love it or hate it, you're going to not have that right to give that talk, to get that show, to do whatever."

The show's producers knew about the brothers' views and went ahead with them as hosts until the controversy went public, the Benhams said.

"We don't feel wronged at all. This isn't HG versus us, or us against the gay community. This is an agenda, and we're getting to witness it right now," Jason Benham said.

Their comments have never been aimed at gays, but at an agenda that says you can't stand by your beliefs, Jason Benham said.

"It's only going to get worse because there is an agenda that wants to silence the beliefs that we have," he said.

CNN's Lisa Respers France contributed to this report.