The Obfuscation Report

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/13/tim-russert-dies-of-heart_n_107032.html

Labels: Tim Russert

I love watching this and seeing Greg Leteicq point to the bible as the reason why he's opposed to Undocumented Immigrants. I call Bullshit. His position is not supported by the bible. The bible is Greg Leteicq's smokescreen for his racism. I think there's a commandment about bearing false witness he might want to consider.

For a different perspective on what the bible actually says about "aliens" check this out:

Bible has lots to say about immigration

By ANTHONY B. ROBINSON
P-I COLUMNIST

How many religious leaders have you heard address the topic of immigrant rights? How many sermons have you heard on immigration reform? If there were a scripture-to-sermon ratio test, one would expect to hear about 50 sermons on immigrants for every one sermon on homosexuality. That's roughly the ratio of biblical utterances on the two topics.

That may be a silly way to evaluate your pastor's sermons or your priest's homilies. Still the larger point remains: The scriptures of Christians and Jews, the Bible, have a lot to say about "resident aliens," "foreigners in your midst," "sojourners and strangers among you." How a society treats strangers, foreigners and resident aliens is arguably a major focus, even preoccupation, of the Bible.

The overall theme of the Bible's teaching is summed up in Exodus 22:21, "You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt." Reminding the people of biblical Israel that they had been slaves in Egypt, the Hebrews are enjoined to treat aliens, foreigners and sojourners in their midst fairly and with respect. Leviticus 19:34 echoes and expands upon the Exodus teaching. "The alien who resides among you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God." From the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews we hear, "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some have entertained angels unawares."

Why is the matter of the immigrant or the "foreigner who resides among you" such a concern of the Jewish and Christian faiths and what bearing does it have on the current immigration debate in our country? As for the first question, the answer is that God didn't want the ancient Hebrews to forget where they had come from, or how they had gotten where they were, namely, the Promised Land. They had come from slavery in Egypt. They knew what it was like to be exploited and taken advantage of. Now that they had land and wealth they shouldn't forget that hadn't always been the case. Ring any bells? It should. Most Americans are the descendents of immigrants.

A second reason that the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity press their adherents to respect and not exploit the alien in their midst is especially pertinent to the contemporary American scene. Injustice anywhere leads inexorably to injustice everywhere. If there is a class of people without rights, without voice, without legal recourse and protection, it puts not just that group at risk. It puts an entire society at risk. It becomes a cancer that eats away at the whole social body. If a certain group can be exploited, then exploitation begins to infect the whole society. Its overall standards of justice and fair play are lowered and distorted.

Another way to put this, and to bring it forward to the contemporary situation in the United States, is that we ought to want immigrants to have legal rights and to be treated fairly because it is in the best long-term interest of our own society and its health. It is bad for all of us to have a group that lacks legal protection and is vulnerable to exploitation.

This concern to avoid the development of an exploited group or class points, however, to another factor in the immigration debate, one that I have not heard mentioned or acknowledged. The United States has become a very affluent society, and the wealthy among us have become very wealthy. In the past 25 years, largely due to the taxation and social policies (or lack of same) of the Republican Party, the rich have become far richer. We have become a society of private wealth and public poverty. (If you don't believe me, check out the opulence and sheer size of new homes in Seattle and on the Eastside and the state of public school buildings in the city). Such private wealth allows and requires a servant class.

While the state of the economy in Mexico and Central America is certainly a driver, in many ways the immigration conundrum is a consequence of growing private wealth here. The question that merits serious reflection is this: Do we want to be a society of the rich and the rest, where a servant class is tolerated and required? The Scriptures of Christians and Jews argue for legal protection and respect for "resident aliens" because these faiths see the danger to the whole society in an unprotected servant class. Do we?

In an interview on NBC’s Today Show, host Matt Lauer asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about his support for the war in Iraq. Noting that violence has decreased in Iraq, Lauer asked if McCain has a better “estimate” of when he would withdraw troops from the country. “No, but that’s not too important,” McCain responded:

Q: A lot of people now say the surge is working.

McCAIN: Anyone who knows the facts on the ground say that.

Q: If it’s working, senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCAIN: No, but that’s not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.

Watch it:

McCain’s comments reflect a deep misunderstanding of the priorities of the public. Sixty-eight percent of Americans oppose the war; 62 percent believe the next president should “try to end the Iraq war within the next year or two, no matter what.”

But the comments aren’t surprising, given that McCain has supported keeping troops in Iraq for 100 to a million years. Earlier this week, McCain pledged to send an unlimited number of troops to Iraq:

Q: Will your support be there for however many U.S. troops are required?

McCAIN: Yes, and the fact is we are winning in Iraq.

For McCain, there is no end in sight in Iraq, but that’s “not too important” to him.

This evening on the House floor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is presenting 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush to Congress. “The first article Kucinich presented regarded the war in Iraq. ‘Article 1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.’”

June 8th, 2008 2:24 pm
Lawmakers Urge Special Counsel Probe of Harsh Interrogation Tactics

By Joby Warrick / Washington Post

Nearly 60 House Democrats yesterday urged the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to examine whether top Bush administration officials may have committed crimes in authorizing the use of harsh interrogation tactics against suspected terrorists.

In a letter to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, the lawmakers cited what they said is "mounting evidence" that senior officials personally sanctioned the use of waterboarding and other aggressive tactics against detainees in U.S.-run prisons overseas. An independent investigation is needed to determine whether such actions violated U.S or international law, the letter stated.

"This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law," it said. The letter was signed by 56 House Democrats, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and House Intelligence Committee members Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y).

The request was prompted in part by new disclosures of high-level discussions within the Bush administration that reportedly focused on specific interrogation practices. Some of the new detail was contained in a report last month by the Justice Department's inspector general, which described a series of White House meetings in which the controversial tactics were vigorously debated.

Conyers, whose committee already is looking into the role played by administration lawyers in authorizing aggressive measures, said a broader probe is now needed.

"We need an impartial criminal investigation," said Conyers, who called the detainee controversy "a truly shameful episode" in U.S. history. "Because these apparent 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were used under cover of Justice Department legal opinions, the need for an outside special prosecutor is obvious."

Justice officials had not yet studied the letter and would not comment, said Peter Carr, a department spokesman. "The department reviews every letter received by Congress and responds appropriately," he said.

The House letter suggested a broad inquiry that would examine the consequences of administration decisions at U.S. detention sites in Iraq; at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and in former secret prisons operated by the CIA. The letter said interrogation policies had resulted in "abuse, sexual exploitation and torture" that may have violated the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the American Anti-Torture Act of 2007.

"Despite the seriousness of the evidence, the Justice Department has brought prosecution against only one civilian for an interrogation-related crime," the letter states. "Given that record, we believe it is necessary to appoint a special counsel in order to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation occurs."

Numerous human rights groups have been calling for such an investigation for several years. Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch, said the request by House members will be significant even if the request for a special counsel is refused.

"The fact that so many representatives have called for the investigation helps lay the groundwork for the inevitable reckoning and accounting that the next administration is going to have to do regarding this administration's practices," Daskal said.

I know some of you think Hillary should be the choice. I think she burned too many bridges with her campaign and I think having Bill creeping around as the spouse of the VP would be too much of a distraction.

The Clinton Era is over. It's time for a fresh start. That's why I'm endorsing Kathleen Sebelius as Obama's VP.

Hugs and Kisses,

The Punisher