I am a USA national and traditional Conservative (non-neocon); I strongly believe in all human rights, including the right to responsibly exist.

While I defend adamantly the right of responsible, peaceful participation and ideation in localized and global democracies, there is no way I can countenance support for ANY nature of anarchy, whether it be USA anti-abortion bombers like Army Of God, or al-Qaeda, or the KKK, or neo-Nazis, ad infinitum through Hamas.

I for one find it disappointing that under Bush, my nation has failed to include or produce better results against such terror...in fact, overlooking Army of God sending white powder many times after 2001, funding militants in Somalia, and of course famously funding Pakistan's government non obstante same's coddling of Qaeda and anti-India terror groups.

Wherefore, I wholly support Israel in taking the initiative to disrupt actual, bona fide terror in the geo-politically intended definition of same...in my opinion, they are helping not only Isreal, but perhaps the USA, European Union, Russia, and any other nation which has lost innocent people to the power-plays of amorphous totalists buoyed by terror "loose cannons".

Again, I am grateful to Israel for its role in protecting not only its own State, but the world, and look forward to Isreal being brought into global dialogues which could better pinpoint that when you hit a hitman, you're hitting a criminal enterprise, not an ethnicity, race, or religion.

The most people of earth don't want ANYBODY killing for them, and I believe that more light needs to be shed on the fact one cannot claim "political differences" due to mere fact one is of this or that persuasion(s), even if they kill their own too, somehow they then have "rights" blocking capture/trial, while then some stereotype relevant persuasion(s) as "reasons" for expanding Gestapo/KGB-like powers over everyday citizens. 

Just want to say I find it inane of Bush, neocons, and media to interpose that just because Rahm Emmanuel and Obama talked with Blagojevich immediately after election as to who should replace Obama, this is de facto, prima facie, and controlling proof of ANYTHING in itself, other than the lunacy of those who actually push it and imply four MORE years of neocon rule and Bush rights and economy would have led to greatness and uber-national security...which "dadgum, corrupt Democrat folks are lousin' up!".

Plenty of Governors and such ask around and consider opinions when making vacancy appointments of Judges, Senators, et al...how does merely doing so de facto and perfectly constitute actus rea proving impropriety?

I will NOT promulgate against Obama, Emmanuel, Blagojevich, or anyone else based on the self-serving twaddle of neocons scrambling to remain important "or else!"...about time we all start holding our ground when political smackdown  and PSYOPS artists pounce.

I was glad to see posted to change.gov Obama's earlier stance on faith; in the Christian strands, and limited to issue of God's universality, the old Roman Catholic Archbishop Fulton John Sheen, Baptist Harvey G. Cox, and Lutherans Martin Luther (q.v., "The Three Walls" part of Luther's "An Appeal To The Ruling Class Of Germany For The Amelioration Of The State Of Christendom", 1520 AD) and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (AD 20th Century) need to be reflected upon, as they all spoke to the universality of one God...as Sheen said of the whole world we shouldn't seek melding of governments just meeting of people reflecting on God; said Lutherans also said incarnation of Christ perfectly joined God to all mankind without need for ANY religion othe than Christ's rather simple and COMPLETE "directions".

Of course, anyone familiar with Christ's sayings themselves, and I charge this against anyone wearing a collar on precept He is God, has to know even Christ said no one disciple can ever be "better" than another, that ALL people on earth who simply do God's will as Christ might define are Christ's brothers and sisters, and for those not into Baptisms or listening to Christ, Christ Himself in John inter alia asks His Father to not destroy such people but still protect them from the evil one.

Christ Himself also doesn't sound like much of a hair splitter on many people other than any nature of hypocrite...which even then are to be left alone by man's hands but are warned of one day meeting God for explanation at judgment...again, something like any nature of Calvinism or Calvinsit-like "better you than me" seems to be not Christ's idea, since He says God will judge the heart not the physical person...and Christ makes no mentions about sexuality either. You could also say there's nothing about a DIVINE Christ that would find Him "visiting most bestes buddy preacher folk" in non-parousia ways to "amend what He plumb forgot back when"...by implication of divinity, Christ cannot be "known" more "perfectly" by Benedict XVI, Jimmy Swaggart, Tony Perkins, me, or anyone else.

Again, this July I myself switched to the Universal Life Church, and enjoy its social issue and universality worldview. It's refreshing to see a man like Obama emerge, to the view of Buckley Conservatives such as myself, from an imagined totalist atheist spectre to a visage of a man better understanding most assorted religions better than many of their own government-installed, or government-pressured, or self-serving  clergy do.

Insofar as faith initiatives, like Buckley I say government and charity do best with lives of their own; however, I trust whatever new pathways Obama will decide upon re faith in his Presidency...there are plenty of voluntarily "unchurched" millions in the USA, mainly as they are tired of decades of advancing political psyops under guise of true original faith, and really, government should not restrict survival of peaceful religions to those best able to channel the spirit of Sigmund Freud rather than the Holy Spirit.

I recall, back in the 1980's somewhere, some in the Bush League implying Islamic terror re the West was most usually plied via OPEC; I do not say it's true or not, just that such was partisan politics then.

I recall, back in the 1980's, a man by the name of John Hinckley (q.v., e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley_Jr. ) gunned down President Reagan, and then Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush ("41") chomped to take over the plenary powers of the Presidency...and Mr. Hinckley, inner circle type of the Bush family, has always gotten the kid-glove treatment.

I recall that throughout the George Walker Bush Presidency ("43"), same has said it uses planted/stagecraft news events for whatever reason(s); it says it has hardcore evidence against GITMO detainees and separate politicians, but that trial isn't that necessary in ANY venue for GITMO types and that pols are best tried by slamming in media also looking to be bailed out or "all you'll get is our aider of those slapping at you until you cave"; the same Bush has said his plenary funding to Iraq and Pakistan are about all that keep them going, even if Pakistan admits using Qaeda for its own purposes and grows sites where Mumbai (inter alia?) attack planners can concentrate; the same Bush team constantly invents new reasons why if anyone questions his Presidency at all about anything, they are or are emboldening terrorists; and now it appears Bush had a foreign reporter just sashay into a "secret farewell" to Iraq which press knew about, throw his shoes at Bush, and the neocon grapevine chants "terrorist, if you criticize a Commander In Chief again attacked by an Islamic hothead IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!".

By coincidence, today it's USA media buzz that Bush wants to use the plenary Presidential powers to bail out an auto industry Congress AS WELL AS AND SEPARATELY FROM the People don't want bailed out; worse, Bush just told us the other month TARP would save our economy and a penny less as TARP spends sends jobs and homes into the abyss, yet now he wants to use TARP funds for it...like somehow that's belt-tightening.

Well, this Conservative agrees with Lefties like Levin and Righties like Ensign and Corker...there is no reason(s) demonstrated why the consuming global let alone USA public yet could be expected to purchase or even need as many vehicles as such TARP-twisting infers in theory; surely, one hopes this isn't some ploy in the nature of "our Commander In Chief was attacked with shoes ala Random Task in Austin Powers, another international man of mystery, this proves need to preserve tool-up military use of auto plants despite base and recruitment center closures...and hey, only a free-trade hating, anti-democracy terrorist of some stripe or Socialist would fail to support oilmen making huge pump profits again, what with all the zillions of vehicles that surely will now roll onto the globe...hey, ask Hayek, increased demand means increased costs to keep up...heh, heh, heh".

For the record, if there IS evidence to cook GITMO folks or otherwise cook Federal Defendants in everyday matters, get them to a trial pronto, and ask the maximum penalties if any are found guilty, otherwise release whoever is just "media stagecraft"; also, why did Bush let Iraq hold the goofy reporter, when it's obvious he DID in front of zillions of viewers actually at least try to commit aggravated battery on a USA official...shouldn't that be a matter of USA sovereignty, or at least collateral sovereignty; and maybe, like he says GITMO DOES have real benefits in fighting anything at all, there is a reason(s) tethered to sense that the automakers need a bailout.

But at present, I respectfully submit more re benefits to personal economies needs to be more fully explained, rather than relying on the opinion only of one man and those he pays or funds, can reach through media attacks, or both.

Okay, let’s try to balance right-wing (actually, amorphous neocon ) Christmas gay bashing hysteria with reality…or more likely, at least let the vast majority of folks know what’s being said.

To start, one neocon voice has recently claimed that Washington State atheists are tantamount to Osama bin Laden because they dare to have a Constitutional right to NOT believe in ANY deity(ies) whatsoever; it appears the atheist group simply wants to have a “disclaimer” adjacent to Nativity scenes on public property…if you can’t stand that, don’t agree with them…just like atheists simply can look at your crèche and pass on. Story currently at http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2008/fmb_12131.shtml .

Notice that most neocon yappers deal exclusively in emotionalism over, say, RESULTS: “When we hit Afghanistan, our economy will recover”; “When we remove Saddam, our economy will recover”; “When we delete Tom DeLay, our economy will recover”; “When we delete Rod Blagojevich, our economy will recover”….you get the idea.

When it comes to neocons now emotionalizing over atheists, well, how much “influence” would these folks have without neocon objectivists engaging 24/7 hammer-time money to scare us with (note, the ONLY kind of “jobs” they seem to create…or KEEP). Perhaps neocons fear their grip on dogmatic Pavlovistic control via auto-God-pilot is slipping; no, there’s still a difference between atheism and agnosticism/apathy…you can still believe in God (as many of the hundreds of millions “unchurched” on Sundays now do), but be turned off by Calvinisms such as “all people in Africa or Asia live in huts”, or “almost all Muslims are nomads and killers”,  or “all Latinos are but Mexicans living in mud”, or “all but the most useless American nationals have plenty and should share THEIR wealth with the rest of these global hut-dwellers, even if the USA already for decades gives foreign aid to their leaders”…again, you get the idea.

Such Calvinism is most odious when it preaches “God is NOT punishing this or that nationality through their being in the same boat as those in say America, but God IS punishing or viewing as a plaything vessel of wrath gays, or Americans, or whoever needs to do as benefits government leaders globally”; note that many of these preachers in every faith are the government-installed or faith-initiative/funded types, and would never suggest THEY need to give up a mansion (as many USA Cardinals live in), limousines, platinum cufflinks, what have you. In a word, listening to such stereotypings and commandments for sharing, if following ipse dixit preachers’ own words, self-proves that doing things their way for decades accomplishes nothing more than continuation of the status quo they claim they’re trying to defeat…and for those believing in “vessels of wrath God destroys anyway”, how do THEY know their God isn’t sending them for pronto destruction via some abortions, which they oppose?

Sorry for that last one…but it carries another dynamic: it would seem not atheists, but uber-right pan-Christian Calvinists are the ones with fundamentalist, “God tells us who to destroy” Laden-like emboldenment.

Which brings me to conclude that recent neocon efforts to hook up homosexuality with abetting terrorism (q.v., e.g., http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/colson-gay-marriage-causes-terrorism , http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fill-blank-gays-are ) are just an extension of pure emotionalism tethered to no reality(ies) except to perpetuate the influence over the minds and pocketbooks of people by neocons; the only “results” their troupe as President and once majority Congress brought was emotionalism to distract from attention they were themselves doing everything they could in opposition to what they emotionally screamed and promised.

Sure…gays are more an aid to terrorists than calling Pakistan, which for some time has housed the USA UN Permanent Mission of Iran in the USA Embassy of Pakistan, a “let them be, do as see fit partner in war on terror”…even when under Mushareff they admitted using Qaeda well post 2003 to “destabilize” Pashtun chiefs, and then speaking of Mumbai… .

We’ve heard just about everything an American can conceive of doing or saying be tacked on as an “aider of terrorism”; if we sacrifice our intentions of change with the new Congress and President and fall for making gay life the end-all/be-all definition of the legislative/executive calendar, we’ll be chasing our tails, opening the door to further claims like State/County-issued vital record abstracts are “renditionable/say-so detainable non-proof of anything”, and see little if any change to anything; now, who would that benefit, heh heh heh?

USA media today seem abuzz with news that the U.S. Attorney has arrested Illinois Rod Blagojevich (D) on charges of attempting to sell the Obama vacancy and refusing to use State money to bail out the Chicago Tribune (which, until its recent endorsement of Obama, was known for decades as THE Midwestern Republican paper); Illinois GOP Chair Andy McKenna was shown locally insisting the Governor should resign immediately due to being charged; CNN legal analyst Jeff Toobin this morning said the Senate WILL refuse to seat any Senator Blagojevich names, if any, to the Obama vacancy.

Well, there certainly has been a lot of claptrap about Rod, yet to date not even the Illinois GOP would say there was reason to use the State Constitution’s paragraphs about easy impeachment…at ANY prior time…against him.

Next, Andy McKenna back in the Summer of 2005 was cited in the Tribune and central Illinois Pantograph, inter alia, as offering $10,000 to anybody who would say Mayor Daley was a corrupt crook AND had legal proof of it…no known takers, ever, so McKenna could be taken now as just doing what comes naturally in his type of position.

Then there’s the fact that U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald himself has said Blagojevich’s arrest does NOT stem from a grand jury indictment, just some apparent “ex rel” upon third party complaint(s); surely, Fitzgerald WILL seek to back up his case by seeking an indictment on those charges, won’t he? I mean, as if the Governor had ever been a flight risk in the first place.

Looking at this, and I doubt the US Attorney would be grabbing camera time if he didn’t want us to, I find it so far that Mr. Fitzgerald dittos the ILGOP in finding nothing else of which Blagojevich could properly be accused of initiating, nor any other party(ies) then benefiting from all prior past alleged corruptions; in that the DOJ hasn’t denied it will fire U.S. Attorneys who aren’t GOP-partisan friendly, one has to assume what otherwise has passed in Rod’s tenure has been to the absolute satisfaction of the White House. Thus, there’s no true “Blago baggage” clinging to today’s histrionics…nor to Obama, now that it’s kosher to say he IS a USA national by birth.

The Tribune non-bailout is easy…why SHOULD any government bail out anything nobody can afford to buy (or cares to), without counting in the bailout of customers, employees, or both? THAT would be “offensive” to the moral character of USA government?

Now let’s say the Governor, obviously fully cognizant of Bush eyes from at least the time Obama announced candidacy, wanted to test the ease with which some Senatorial or other appointee(s) would succumb to pressure or temptations, only with eye toward crossing off the list any name(s) even coyly open to same? Um, even BUSH would try to fish out such data from his own as Governor and later President…wouldn’t he? One hopes more than “word-against-word” at the flat level will surface, the kind of necessary meat that SHOULD be present in a charge which…if heard unanswered by a grand jury…would leave little doubt as to guilt; after all, the White House wouldn’t just say hold someone indefinitely without trial or release after a flashy news grab, would it?

As to the CNN comment the Senate will not seat anybody Rod might appoint, why? Isn’t it a staple of USA law and Constitutional practice that absolutely every person charged for absolutely any crime(s), via indictment or ex rel, is absolutely innocent until proven guilty?

So no, I’m still not an un-American…IF Rod or anyone else appears to truly have done anything, follow procedures of a relevant prosecutorial office, allow them discovery, schedule them for a reasonably swift trial, and do not say they are guilty until they admit it or a Court or jury finds them guilty…and yes, even Rod Blagojevich is entitled to Constitutional handling, as those words must apply to everyone or they mean nothing for anyone.

Let’s hope it’s more than Fitzgerald hoping to keep his job despite DOJ partisanship problems already existent and over which Attorney General Gonzales resigned, or just another sop to neocons in reassurance change from the present socio-economic management protocols will be fought hard.