Beck rants about "power grab," claims "they are going to silence voices like mine"

The rights outlined in most Western countries are based on rationality. Every single right that anyone has was created with specific reasoning behind it. By saying that the rights of any given country stop at their borders robs those rights of their rationale. The moment you start denying American rights to anyone is the moment that the rights are rendered meaningless. Rationality knows no borders.

Also 'Obviously biased to a conservative slant' is different from a conservative interpretation. Once something has a slant, it's no longer accurate because facts are either accompanied or replaced by opinion, and opinions are meaningless. Finally, looking for genuinity in reporting implies that emotion has a place in journalism. On the contrary, ideally, there is no place for emotion in reporting.

jstephen, there is so much wrong in your post, I barely know where to start, but I'll do my best.

1. "Bush did not steal an election. That is a federal offense, which would have been prosecuted. It was not, therefore, no such action took place."

Here's a tip- pretending to be literate doesn't make moronic comments any more intelligent, it just makes them SOUND slightly more intelligent. There was no prosecution, therefore, no offense? Seriously? By that logic, unsolved murders involve no crime, since no one was prosecuted.

2. "Second, every conservative, including Glenn Beck, voiced concern over warrantless wiretaps. Myself, an American citizen of strong conservative values, agree that taps between Americans is absolutely wrong, but tapping foreign conversations to suspected and/or known terrorists is fair game."

Here's another tip- if you want to be taken seriously, don't lump yourself in with a recovering coke-and-alcohol addict who makes his living as a carnival barker like Glenn Beck. And here's another one- don't call yourself a conservative (who by definition argues for smaller, less intrusive government) and then say that if the Government suspects someone of being a terrorist, it's all right to wiretap them without even going to the FISA court within 72 hours AFTERWARDS to justify it. Because sorry, those ideas just don't go together.

3. "Third, detention without charges is absolutely acceptable for NON American citizens. They were terrorists, caught on the field of battle, attempting to kill American soldiers."

They were NOT terrorists, and they weren't CAUGHT anywhere. They are SUSPECTS (is it "conservative" to consider suspects Guilty On Sight?) who were for the most part rounded up and sold to the US army by their own countrymen. If they were "attempting to kill American soldiers," why werent' they put on trial for that? (And by the way, is it illegal for enemy combatants to shoot at American soldiers who have come into their country to kill them? Seriously?)

"I, for one, educate myself on the issues and do not take a political commentators word for anything. I have found that most of the time, Glenn Beck, and many other conservative commentators, provide accurate viewpoints."

Listening to drooling morons like Beck doesn't qualify as an "education," sorry. Your post suggests that you DO take the blatherings of people like Beck at their word. There's nothing accurate about your post, and no wonder- you can't get education from a rock.

"taps between Americans is absolutely wrong, but tapping foreign conversations to suspected and/or known terrorists is fair game. I believe only the latter took place (prove otherwise)."

Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

David Murfee Faulk, a former U.S. Navy Arab linguist, said in the news report that he and his colleagues were listening to the conversations of military officers in Iraq who were talking with their spouses or girlfriends in the United States.

"They were terrorists, caught on the field of battle, attempting to kill American soldiers. "

WRONG. Not all of them...

Cash bounties offered by U.S. forces encouraged local villagers to turn in as many people as they could capture. And this is what Abu Bakker and two dozen other Uighurs say happened to them.

John Kiriakou, a top CIA official in Pakistan after 9/11, describes the Americans’ dilemma. “If a Pakistani or Afghan villager comes up to you with a guy he has tied up and says, ‘This is a terrorist; I caught him in my village,’ what are you going to do?” he says. “Maybe he is a terrorist.”

Kiriakou says the only way to sort out the captives was to send them to Guantanamo.

“We viewed it as a place where you had the luxury of time. You had a staff of linguists, and you could spend quality time with each one of these prisoners, interviewing them and getting to the bottom of each one of these stories,” he says.

"Violence is only coming from progressive bloggers and media. "

Examples, please.

"but tapping foreign conversations to suspected and/or known terrorists is fair game. I believe only the latter took place (prove otherwise).

I would love too... but the Cheney/Bush regime and there Congressional Republican lapdogs passed the very un-American and quite un-Constitutional law called the USAPATRIOT Act and made it nearly impossible to get information when they damaged the FOIA to a nearly unrecognizable condition...

Third, detention without charges is absolutely acceptable for NON American citizens

Really? You do realize that if you were alive when George Washington was the commanding general of the army and you were one of his soldiers... you would have been arrested and charged with disobeying a direct order.

They were terrorists, caught on the field of battle, attempting to kill American soldiers.

This is the most pathetic, ignorant, and childish argument I have ever heard in my life. If this was the case smart-ass, why then did the Bush regime go out of its way to NOT allow these men the right to face their accusers/charges?

Perhaps I can interest you in this little tidbit of history that kind of sums up what the founding fathers expected of the country they gave everything up to help create...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal..."

Declaration of Independence

Just because Bush and Cheney and their slimy lawyers made the claim and said that they can on their own call a particular group of people... enemy combatants... and use that as a bludgeon to destroy the very foundations of this country... does not make it legal. And you claim to have educated yourself on the issue? Try history sometime.

As for the rest of your post... I'll hold off saying anything... for I can't stop laughing!

JStephens005:

The election thieves took office on January 20th, 2001, as a result of their theft. I think it's safe to assume that they weren't going to prosecute themselves. But the fact is that Gore won, and a recount by any standard would have shown that, which is why Team Bush went to great lengths to prevent a recount. How do you know that they know they didn't win? Because if they thought they had won, they'd have WELCOMED a recount.

I wonder how you can KNOW that terrorists captured on the field of battle were the only ones subject to rendition and detention without charges? If the Bush administration won't tell you who's being held and why, and if the individuals themselves never get a chance to explain their circumstances, where's the proof? You certainly don't expect me to take the Bush administration on FAITH, do you?

If you think that Glenn Beck was warning about warrantless wiretaps, detention without charges or any of the other Bush administration's "fascist" policies and programs, I suggest you "educate yourself" by looking here. Here. And here.

If you believe that AMERICANS were not subject to the fascist excesses of the Bush administration, I suggest you "educate yourself" by going here. Brandon Mayfield's case is just for starters. If you're willing to do any research at all, you'll really "educate yourself" on the Bush administration's out of control activities, none of which was condemned by Beck or his peers, and almost all of which were actively supported by them. It's only since January 20, 2009 that this alleged concern for an out of control government has manifested itself in Beck's rants, or O'Reilly's, or Limbaugh's...

That was weak. What aspect of the things you listed do you not like?

Taxes: lower federal taxes, lower spending. Fiscal responsibility. Do not compare to Bush, as he WAS NOT conservative.

War: conservative view is that you only engage in war to protect American citizens, fight strong and quick. Period.

Rights of people: This is the strongest argument of conservatives. We believe that the individual IS the key piece, not the community (like progressives). That individual rights require the most protection from federal government.

I'm naming it...waiting for you....