Friday, January 06, 2006

Praying for Ariel Sharon

The jaw dropping is audible, but hear me out folks. It seems there is no way to get out of the compulsory Sharon post…

Sooner or later, it was going to happen – the stroke I mean- the guy is hyperactive and overweight, has a lot of pent up anger, worries about Israel’s security, about voters , about the corruption case he was implicated in. I am surprised he held out this long. But Sharon is a tough man I must give that to him.

As a human being regardless of his cruel and bloody past I will ask that may God prolong his life and spare him or shorten his pain if he is dying.

As someone who has done a lot of harm in the ME and who was blatant about it then I must admit that I felt it is kind of ironic that he may soon join Arafat his archenemy in the afterlife.

If as the medical reports say that even if he survives he may be severely brain damaged, I think that would be a very cruel way to spend the rest of his life..some people may call it Karma.

For many Israelis he is a hero, and for the other camp he is a butcher. I absolutely understand the way he acted, because he was being true to his vision, and he stuck to it.
Sharon’s death will not herald a new era of peace, because in my opinion , the next PM will try to outdo Sharon to sound credible to his people and that can only bring more cruelty and bloodshed in the ME. I am going to pray for his recovery. God let Sharon live, at least he knows the situation and the people know how to deal with him.


Anonymous said...

What do you mean by 'I absolutely understand the way he acted, because he was being true to his vision, and he stuck to it'? Clarifying your point above would be great.

Kind regards,

Highlander said...

that's a good question anonymous 11.34 pm. I will clarify for you: some people accuse Sharon of all sorts of crimes whether in Lebanon or against the Palestinians. I'm saying that if these acts are true then they would be understandable when carried in tbe name of the national security. I'm assuming here that Sharon's vision was to make Israel more safe and secure and he was ready to go to any lenght to do that. I'm aware that Israeli citizens have died and that he had initiated the Gaza pullout as well.
Thank you for visiting my blog . I appreciate discussions.

Twosret said...


You are very optimistic about Israeli leaders. They pretend to take one step forward and on the other hand steal more land and build walls.

Sharon and his likes are not working for peace and will never work for peace. It is an endless game they play. If anyone is going to achieve peace it will be the PEOPLE of Palestine and the PEOPLE of Israel not politicians.

The same shit but different day.

programmer craig said...

Twosret, I wish you were right. You've heard the same news programs I have, I'm sure. All the pundits are predicting Israel will move further to the right with it's next government. That isn't going to be a move in the right direction.

Though I have to say, I share your pessimism. I don't think there's ever going to be peace in Israel or the Palestinian territories. It's been about 10 years since I thought that was still possible. War has become the normal state of affairs. There are at least 2 generations who've never experienced peace.

removedalready said...

I have never felt any pity for sharon, the only Israeli I have pitied was yizhak rabin (?) who was shot by an Jew.

I don't believe the Palestinians & Israelis will be able to live peacefully, both are too stubborn and the other arab countries aren't helping their Palestinian brothers & sisters.

Look at Iraq, muslims fighting against muslims which is stupid! We should be standing hand in hand no matter if you're a sunni @ shiah.

It's just dumb!

(sorry for being over sensitive & emotional!)

AGRADA said...

I respect anyone stands for his principles.

the other person who i respect deeply for standing for his principles is fidel castro.

No need to accept thier ideologies, just respect them for being real.

then what the hell interesting other ME leadres did to their nations?!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for answering my question, kindly appreciated.

I respect and listen to other views, opinions and thoughts. However the extent to which I do or do not agree with them is respectively my decision.
The statement 'if the acts are true' still does not make sense. The actual illegal occupation of Palestine is not 'true' in morals and acts. So how can a mans killing or ordering the killing of innocent refugees in Lebanon or residents of the Gaza strip be 'true'. True can be defined as correct, morale to do so, proper and right. None of these characteristics can be associated with or define the actions of the occupying forces.
I personally believe the Jewish people were and always will be welcomed into the countries and homes of the Arabs. When the Jewish people fled Europe as they were threatened with persecution, the Arabs of El Andulus (Spain) welcomed them with open arms, and it was ironic that during that era both Arabs and Jews worked together to create the best era for the Arab - Jew relationship, which generated the greatest time for the Arabs, the ‘Arab Renaissance,’ with the great Arab mathematicians, philosophers, scientists all being developed.

So the Palestine’s did to an extent welcome the Jewish people, as normal citizens who would apply for Palestine refuge and citizenship, working normally in life, like any other Palestinian citizen. This would have brought a diverse mix of culture between Arabs and Jews, and would have created another great period for their good relationships. However installing 80% of the Jewish people from Europe and America after WW2 into a tiny country like Palestine and forcing the Palestine people to give up their land and homes to accommodate for the new citizens (Jewish people) that are rated better than them, I do not think so.
To allow them to enter Palestine as people seeking refuge and wanting to build their lives again and integrate within the Palestinian society, bringing with them their cultures and beliefs is totally fine and beneficial. However forcing their way through using the same tactics as a bloody revolution has generated and still is generating hatred among both people.

Anonymous said...

Al-Imran (The Family of Imran)Ayah [3:118]
"O ye who believe! Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks: They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin: Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths: What their hearts conceal is far worse. We have made plain to you the Signs, if ye have wisdom." Quraan
Truly Yours
Free Dance

Anonymous said...

Allah Ukbhar!

As Muslims and as Arabs it is always within our stride to welcome all people. We tried doing this but the betrayal inside the hearts of the Jewish People destroyed our lands and people, as they did so with their religion, by mocking and betraying it.
‘Once a traitor, always a traitor.’
We helped them on many occasions and welcomed them into our homes and lands but in the end they betrayed our people and their dignity. If a race betrays their own religion, the word of God, what do you expect them to do to their fellow human beings in Palestine?
One of the key reasons Hitler was afraid of the Jews was they had planned an uprising and the establishment of a large Jewish party in Germany.
You give them warmth, land, shelter and a welcome but they betray you and that’s what Hitler was afraid of and that’s what the Palestine’s are experiencing now, the Jewish Betrayal.

programmer craig said...

Whoa. Did I just see a justification for genocide, right next to a comment about the warm welcome Arabs give Jews?

Anonymous said...

Hi programmer Craig, just to clarify I did not justify The Jewish Holocaust nor do I excuse it in any way. It was one of the worst disgusting crimes the human race has seen. I am not a racisit against any race, enthnicity, colour, creed or religion. In addition to this my statement was not an excuse nor a justification for the Jewish Holocaust. HOWEVER it was a characterstic the Jewish people have, I believe the German framework should have dealt with the possible uprising in a more democractic manner, allowing them to form a group, as long as not being detrimental to Germany.

Anonymous said...

Genocide, Craig, Look no further than Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan, My question to you dear, how you are reacting to the Killings of thousands of people in those countries: please check the answers below:
A: I approve of them
B: They are genocide I condemn them
C: I have no interest in politics
D: I could care less who is killed and who is the criminal.
Always remember, we as Muslims despise actions not human beings, once that human being is repented she/he are welcome to the beauty of living amongst us again.

Truly Yours
Free Dance

programmer craig said...

It's not rational to think the US is trying to exterminate Iraqis.

KhadijaTeri said...

Don't have any pity on Sharon and his cronies - He is not worth wasting your time praying for! Instead pray for those who are deserving.

Anonymous said...

Interpreting water with water Craig
I am Truly Yours

Free Dance with me

programmer craig said...

OK since you want to pursue this irrational discussion, Free Fance, how about:

E) Most the Iraqis killed in the last 3 years in Iraq have been killed by other Iraqis

Does that make Iraqis guilty of genocide against themselves?

I'm seriously *boggling* here at this point.

Anonymous said...

Craig, no politics if no boundries
Enjoy the lyrics if you like them so much go to Borders's CD section and buy the whole thing:-)
Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a mule
A mule is an animal with long funny ears
He kicks up at anything he hears
His back is brawny - and his brain is weak
He?s just plain stupid with a - stubborn streak
And by the way, if you hate to go to school
You may grow up to be a mule
Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a pig
A pig is an animal with dirt on his face
His shoes are a terrible disgrace
He ain?t got no manners when he eats his food
He?s fat and lazy - and extremely rude
But if you don?t care a feather or a fig
You may grow up to be a pig
Would you like to swing on a star
Carry moonbeams home in a jar
And be better off than you are
Or would you rather be a fish
A fish won?t do anything but swim in a brook
He cant write his name or read a book
And to fool the people is his only thought
Though he slippery - he still gets caught
But then if that sort of life is what you wish
You may grow up to be a fish
And all the monkeys aren?t in a zoo
Every day you meet quite a few
So you see it?s all up to you
You can be better than you are
You could be swinging on a star

Frankie sings it the best
Truly Yours,
Free Dance

programmer craig said...

Free Dance, are you trying to insult me with these songs you post?

I don't mind, but I'd rather you do it directly :)

Anonymous said...

Lossen up
Kick back,
Kick off your shoes,
Enjoy the lyrics,

I love you
Truly Yours and I mean it

Free Dance when ever you can

Anonymous said...

Here's another one for ya... By Harry Nilsson,

Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
His sister had another one, she paid it for the lime

She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up (3x)
Put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up, and said

Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache

Now let me get this straight
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em both up (3x)
Put the lime in the coconut, you called your doctor, woke him up, and said

Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache

You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning

Brother bought a coconut, he bought it for a dime
His sister had another one, she paid it for the lime
She put the lime in the coconut, she drank 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, she called the doctor, woke him up, and said

Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Doctor, to relieve this bellyache, I said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Now let me get this straight

You put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both up (3x)
Put the lime in the coconut, you're such a silly woman

Put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both down
Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning

Woo-oo, ain't there nothin' you can take, I said
Woo-oo, to relieve your bellyache, you said
Woo-oo, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said
Woo-oo, to relieve your bellyache, you say

Yeah-ah, ain't there nothing I can take, I say
Wow-ow, to relieve this bellyache, I said
Doctor, ain't there nothin' I can take, I said (3x)
Doctor, you're such a silly woman

Put the lime in the coconut, you drink 'em both together
Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
Put the lime in the coconut, drink 'em both up
Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the mo-o-ornin'

Yes, you call me in the morning
If you call me in the morning I'll tell you what to do {repeat to fade}
Harry Nilsson
Truly Yours
Free Dance

AK said...

Well I am not a big fan of Ariel Sharon due to his indirect involvement in the massacres in lebanon although defending isreal at the time that was no excuse for mass murder, but he would have been better than benjamin netanyahu for leadership. Hopefully peace is still possible and hope he does not end up brain damaged or dead

If only Arafat had not rejected peace in 2000, perhaps things would have been very different now. I remember reading memoir bill clinton which was very interesting in this area

Highlander said...

Twosret, from past experience, I am aware that the Israeli leaders don't really seem to care about peace except on their terms.

Did'nt you get the irony of the post ? - Sharon would suffer more alive than dead.

Tasnim said...

great post, highlander, bas it doesn't reach that level with me i'm afraid :) i7tiram il rai wil rai il akhar is all well and good but wen it comes to a mass murderer like sharon it's not his opinions its his actions. wala shinu?

i dunno, bas thats wot annoys me about saddam defenders, like ok he killed ppl left right and center but hey he believed he was defending the iraqi nation.

sure they both had horrible visions, lakin the point is tabaquha bil gatil. otherwise, who would even care? or that's wot i think.

anyway. eid mubarak, have a great time we mat3asibnish wotever u do. one rules out the other. at least in my book ;)

Highlander said...

Thanks to all who are participating in this discussion, I just wish to welcome Free Dance who is relevantly new to my blog you make interesting points and fresh ideas, but I have difficulty in understanding some of the other things you say , especially the songs are they relevant to the topic ? could you do that without taunting the other readers? It is not personal here , we don't know each other but simply wish to learn and exchange ideas.

programmer craig said...

I still think Israel should do what the Soviets used to do. Prop sharon up in a wheelchair and pretend he's still in power. Better than the alternatives I think. I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not!

I have one question though... why does everyone blame Sharon (and the Israelis) for turning a blind eye to those massacres, yet I never (that I can recall) see anyone blaming the Lebanese Christians who actually CARRIED OUT the massacres?

Is that for political reasons? It's preferable to blame Israel? I'm really curious about this. I definately believe Israel shares the blame (and the shame) of those massacres, but they aren't the actual perpetrators. The Phalangists carried out the murders in those camps, 2 weeks after their leader Gemayel was assassinated. It seems foolish to think they were directed by Israel to do those things. The Israelis directed the Phalangists to find PLO members in those camps and turn them over to Israeli forces. Those were the official orders, and I think it's quite reasonable to believe it was the Phalangists themselves who decided to start the slaughter, since they were the ones who wanted revenge for Gemayel's murder. The fault of the Israeli's is in not stopping the massacres, which they surely knew were happening.

Why do Lebanese get a pass?

Twosret said...

I'm missing a lot obviously :) who is hitting on who here. I see PG you got a secret Santa :)

Hey PG when Wolfie visits the US we should have a cup of coffee and fight over politics :)

Twosret said...


I seem to offend people a lot these days :) I think if Sharon will live like a veggie that will be good way to punish him.

Natanyahu should be next :)


I second you :)

programmer craig said...

Twosret, that sounds like fun :)

I'll be outnumbered though, so you two have to promise and take it easy on me :D

Highlander said...

Craig and Twosret , you got yourself a deal :) , coffee for you and tea for me. What do I get for being a referee?

Anonymous said...

No offense, to no one, I do have a problem with some one who says" my president kills people all over the world cause he is my president and I support him in his crimes and we have bigger guns than you, and you all should just shut up cause we have democracy"
I am not just sensing that from Craig I am feeling it, I requested Craig to have a straight answer… you or do you not, it helps in understanding what people think, so we know who we are talking to, therefore give better explanations. The Swinging on the moon is a favorite song of moi, for a better understanding of the situation, I made a clarification, if we can not be straight in our opinion, I rather talk about leisure listening.
Truly Yours
Free Dance

programmer craig said...

"I am not just sensing that from Craig I am feeling it, I requested Craig to have a straight answer…."

No, you attempted to manipulate me by demanding that I choose one of your pre-fab answers. You could have just asked for my opinion, you know.

I was particularly offended by the song that seemed to ahve something to do with it being fun killing Arabs. I don't know who you think you are, but you don't know me at all. Keep the insults to yourself, or I'll start sending some back your way.

Highlander said...

Dear Free Dance, on this blog we do not censor speech, and I do not delete comments, I'm sure you can ask Craig any question you wish without being provocative, and he would gladly answer you.

As much as we all are upset and angry about Afghanistan,Iraq and Palestine and other Muslim and Arab problems we should not be blinded and stereotype all non -Arabs immediately, let's not act the same way that we criticise others and believe they act towards us.

Whatever the situation and however we feel we have to remember our sense of bedouin hospitality. When a guest comes to your abode/sanctuary then he/she will expect full hospitality and respect. FD that is what I try to maintain with all readers.

This is not a personal criticism at you, these are the very simple rules of my blog, not much to ask and it has been like that for 3 years now.I would appreciate we all kept it this way. Your questions are ok but the songs are out of place.

Twosret said...


I will be more than happy if you bring an ally as long as you promise to bring scorekeeper. He is super cute and entertaining :)he will be surprised that half of my children's family are Armenians and they can tell him their horror stories living in west Jerusalem under occupation.

May be, we will manage to keep SM in the US and that will be the most entertaining cup of starbucks I have ever had :) it will be a pleasure to meet you.

Keep your cool Craig and don't insult back please ;)

Anonymous said...


I asked you simple questions craig, manipulate or not manipulate, I feel it you are escaping from answering the real question, you say you elected and you are backinga ll actions of the president so that means you are happy with killing even one human being in Iraq, opinion is opinion, I welcome it.
Greetings to All,

I asked you simple questions Craig, Manipulation is your emotional reaction to it(plus every well floods with it's own content), you could just answer my question and not get so emotionally philosophical about it or run away from it. To get back to the subject, I ask you again, do you support the invasion, killing and displacing thousands of innocent children woman and elderly people in Afghanistan and Iraq?
As for the Lyrics-not songs-, I do not have to be apologetic, it is my style, they reflect a change of course I thought-think was necessary, simply for me if no boundaries, the person who do not adhere to them should talk not about POLITICS( slang-lishly speaking) , implementing your emotions the way you did Craig is some thing you have to deal with dear and I feel I have the right to post (with highlander's permission off course), I was never disrespectful to anyone including you in which you have reacted the way you wanted and you have the right for it, but it did not answer my question.

Highlander: Your statement about actions since you mentioned the word "act" is simply flawed, I did not take this online debate out of it's context, I simply asked a genuine question that could have been answered straight forwardly, Bravery requires honesty Highlander and I was seeking an honest opinion from Craig: period
Truly Yours
Free Dance

Hannu said...

I see that hell broke loose on your blog, HL! ha ha ha

I didn't read everything here, just scanned... I see what happened to Sharon as a positive thing. Such events bring change, and change is needed there no matter in what form... it just breaks the monotony! I wish it happened to an Arab leader; Israel is the best democracy and the region so far. It seems that natural death is the only thing that could bring about change in an Arab country, but even that is not working anymore with the bastards passing power to their offspring!

Anonymous said...

Assassinating a leader would be good, good for change that is. I have had one in mind for a long time ;-).

programmer craig said...

Free Dancer,

"I asked you simple questions Craig"

And then you demanded I pcik an answer that you provided for me, all of which were offensive.

And I did answer your question (as you worded it) several replies ago. Now, you seem to be demanding that I withdraw that answer and pick one of the ones you offerred me :P

"you say you elected and you are backing all actions of the president"

That's not what I said. What I said is that the US has a true democracy and the actions of are taken in the best interests of the majority of the people, and are supported by the majority of the people. I think everyone who says something like "I like America but I hate the Bush administration" either misunderstand our system of government, or is being delieberately dishonest, and is trying to hide their America bashing.

"To get back to the subject, I ask you again, do you support the invasion, killing and displacing thousands of innocent children woman and elderly people in Afghanistan and Iraq?"

I have answered this question many times. I answered it a few times on this blog. All you had to do is ASK me the questions, instead of asking me whether I support "genocide," Free Dancer.

I absolutely supported the actions of the United States in Afghanistan. I only wish that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden had been killed there. I wish all Taliban and Al Qaeda had been killed in Afghanistan. Every one of them. If I could have waved a magic wand and made it so, I would have.

I did NOT support the invasion of Iraq. I'm not a neocon. I don't really subscribe to the theory of nation building, I believe the purpose of war is to destroy your enemies, not to create democracy. That being my view, I did not consider Iraq to be a major threat to the security of the United States.

However, once the war started, I did support the war... because I don't want my country to lose a war. And once it was clear the US was commmitted to creating a successful and prosperous democracy in Iraq, I supported that too. For the same reason. I don't want my country to fail. I'm old enough that I rememeber the consequences of America's failure in Vietnam. Such social upheaval and demorilzation of our military, loss of faith in out federal government, these things would leave the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than ever. The American anti-war people activists are fools.

As to your statemenst about genocide, the claims of genocide would be laughable if we were talking about GENOCIDE. The war in Iraq is the cleanest and most humane war that's ever been fought. Don't take my word for it though.

Look up the stats on the Vietnam War (America's last major war) and see for yourelf. Millions vietnamese died, and over 60000 American troops died. For you to call a war with a fraction of those casualties "genocide" is absurd on it's face.

I'm really not sure why I responded to you at all, you clearly don't want to hear what anybody else has to say.

Anonymous said...

'The war in Iraq is the cleanest and most humane war that's ever been fought.'

Any war is not good. The lives and dignity of human beings are demolished.
The first thing the American administration reported after taking over Baghdad was 'we've secured the oil well's, they are safe for the Iraqi people and for their resources.'
What aloud of crap, all wars are about the economy and a countries monopoly power. Mr. Bush can wipe out an entire nation as long as his economy and his business is ticking.

Anonymous said...

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Anonymous said...

Battle of Antietam, important battle of the American Civil War. The Battle of Antietam was the bloodiest one-day battle in all of United States history. It was one of the most important battles of the Civil War because the Confederate defeat led General Robert E. Lee to abandon temporarily his plans for an invasion of the North and because it discouraged both Britain and France from coming to the aid of the Confederacy. The Union victory also led President Abraham Lincoln to issue the first, or preliminary, Emancipation Proclamation, in which he declared his intention to free all slaves in the rebel states.

After the Second Battle of Bull Run, Lee decided to invade Maryland. Although he knew that he could not successfully attack Washington, D.C., he wanted to move the fighting out of war-torn Virginia, and he wanted to interrupt the North’s supply lines. In addition, he thought that a success in the North might lead France or Britain to recognize the Confederacy. Lee moved across the Potomac River with his entire army of about 50,000 troops and then sent the majority of his army under General Stonewall Jackson to Harpers Ferry. They were to seize the area and open up supply routes to the Shenandoah Valley. Lee then stationed the rest of his army at Sharpsburg, Maryland, near Antietam Creek.

Lee’s forces were intercepted on September 17, 1862, at Antietam Creek by a Union army of 75,000 men under the command of General George Brinton McClellan. The fighting began the same day. Despite the superior number of Union forces, the Confederate Army was able to hold off the Union troops. Just as Union General Ambrose E. Burnside captured a bridge and led his men across the creek, a Confederate force led by Ambrose P. Hill arrived with fresh reinforcements for Lee. The Union attack was repulsed, and the fighting stopped. Lee led his men in orderly retreat back to Virginia, and the North did not pursue him. Both sides had lost heavily, with total Union casualties of about 12,500, including 2,108 dead, and Confederate casualties of about 10,500, including at least 2,700 killed. The casualties were so high that Antietam was the bloodiest one-day battle of the Civil War (and in all of U.S. history).

Although the outcome of the fighting was indecisive, Antietam was a major success for the Union. As a result of the battle, Lee lost almost 25 percent of his men and gave up his plan to invade the North. Diplomatically the Confederate defeat at Antietam made it more difficult for France or Britain to openly support the Confederacy. Prior to the battle, Lincoln had informed his cabinet that he intended to free the slaves in states that were in active rebellion. However, the cabinet had persuaded him to wait until a Northern victory so it would not seem like a desperate measure. Antietam served that purpose. Five days after the battle, on September 22, Lincoln issued the first, or preliminary, Emancipation Proclamation.

Anonymous said...

Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution


The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever noticed the way that the really fervent practitioners of the "RELIGION OF PEACE", Islam, are soo insistent that their faith is one of harmony and enlightenment that they will threaten to KILL you if you disagree?

Anonymous said...

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
Presented by the Indiana University School of Law—Bloomington

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:

National Archives and Records Administration: Declaration of Independence
Library of Congress: About the Declaration of Independence

Anonymous said...

"He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures."

Please note that in this grievance, the United States will remove it's armies the first second that a semi sane government can be reasonably assumed to assume power in Iraq. If your contention that the US is there for only economic reasons is correct; Then we will surely have failed. It would take about one hundred years for Iraqi’s to pay back the money we have spent there in the last three years. Maybe that’s a good reason for impeaching George Bush.