Posted on 07/03/2007 3:47:49 PM PDT by bnelson44
This review is from: Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses
I am also a physician and have a good acquaintance with city hospitals in America. Things have not got so bad here but some of the trends are not good. My British friends do not believe that it is as bad there as Dalrymple describes but one, a famous surgeon in London, has expressed alarm at the number of young women medical students who are converting to Islam. These are not the children of immigants. What an educated women would see in Islam is a mystery to both of us.
This book of essays has already predicted the subsequent riots in France. His picture of the inner cities of England is worrisome. These children who are living such self-destructive lives are not the great grandchildren of slaves. They are the products of progressive education and the welfare state..
Will the Queen sit idly by?
&&&&&
What can she be thinking!!!
Flexible police and military responses have nothing to do with a formal declaration of war though. We managed to retake the Falkland Islands without a formal declaration of war.
In reality it would always be difficult for a Prime Minister to declare a war without the support of Parliament. All this move really does is formalise the precedent set by Tony Blair’s debate and formal vote in the House of Commons prior to the Iraq invasion.
Scary stuff.
I challenge liberal women, who hate GW and feel for the Islamofaciscts. I ask them what has made them so self destructive, drugs, sex with severe side effects or just hatred of life in general. Most just glare and never answer.
When I leave, I tell them to enjoy their Burkas and being shot in a stadium by Islamofascists for not being good Muslim women.
Don’t get me wrong, though I think allowing the legislative
bodies who are generally more representative of their districts a direct say in the need for war making is generally a good thing. I just hope their learning curve in handling their new powers isn’t too steep if these powers have to be quickly brought to bear on lets say a major terrorist nuclear attack!
But about Brown's proposed surrender of war powers to Parliament, think about it! The power to declare WAR should not rest in the hands of one person, for history repeatedly has shown that nations have suffered the deaths of countless of its citizens and also the huge financial burdens of unnecessary wars, just to satisfy the vanity, false pride and/or excessive ego of one unbalanced leader. NO, let such an enormous decision be made by many people, not just one.
Remember the wisdom provided in the U.S. Constitution that REQUIRES war to be declared by Congress, NOT the President. Events of the past 15 years unequivocally show the sorry results of letting one man make that decision.
Granted, most all U.S. Senators and Representatives have violated their oath of office and ignored their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution in respect to this principle (to their eternal damnation), but the principle is sound, even though the congressmen show they are not.
But I'll bet not. So will she sit idly by and see her own power diminished?
Britain doesn’t have a written Constitution - it has “tradition” - note the phrase “traditional powers.”
This new prime minister has also banned the phrase “War on Terror” and using the word “moslem extremist.”
When they yell allah akbar as the bombs go off - that’s very unPC of the bombers.
Britain joining us in Iraq was Britain’s last hurrah.
The British lion is in a zoo.
Another step in the West’s surrender to Satan.
“Regarding your statement that “We managed to take the Falklands Islands...”, those islands rightly belonged to Argentina, period. Any objective study of the history of the Falklands Islands situation will come to that conclusion.”
Bahaha! Not really within the scope of this thread, but I just wanted to take time out to laugh at this!
“The power to declare WAR should not rest in the hands of one person”
Yes, that’s what I said.
“Remember the wisdom provided in the U.S. Constitution that REQUIRES war to be declared by Congress, NOT the President.”
It was me that pointed that out above.
Actually it’s kinda hard to tell whether you think you’re agreeing with me or arguing with me. But maybe it’s just because I’m still distracted by laughing at your views on the Falklands.
“Perhaps she thinks that Brown’s yielding of her power to parlaiment is in the best interests of all, and that before she dies she will abdicate and eliminate the monarchy altogether.
But I’ll bet not. So will she sit idly by and see her own power diminished?”
Her power? Although the power to declare war falls under the Royal Perogative, this can only be exercised currently on formal advice of the Prime Minister. If the proposed change would be enacted the power would only be enacted on formal advice of the Prime Minister following a Commons vote (ie much the same approach Tony Blair took to the invasion of Iraq although he was not obliged to). Hence no change whatsoever to the power of the Monarch.
He’s looking like a cowardly dog!
The enemy is testing him, and he’s failing quickly and frantically!
Oh Shiite. In the US we are in the process of raising the "driving age" to 18, or at least applying additional restrictions to those under 18, such as when they can be driving, how many passengers they can carry, etc. Meanwhile this idiot wants to extend them the franchise? That plays right into the hands of the Islamofacists, who breed like rats, starting as young as possible, and thus have a younger average age.
That rumbling is coming from Bladon, Oxfordshire about 60 miles NE of London. About as "out in the countryside" as you can get in England.
His tombstone was replaced in '98 due to damage to the site by folks paying their respects.
Remember that under the UK's parliamentary system, the majority in Parliament selects the PM in the first place. They select him and they can remove him by a vote of "no confidence". Unlike the US system where the people elect (albeit indirectly via the electoral college) the President. The founders of the US felt that splitting power to declare war from that to make war, between Congress and the President, was wise, but in the UK Parliament has in effect both legislative and executive power.
In a way, this shift would change little.
But the President is not selected by Congress, as the PM is selected by the majority in Parliament. Parliament already had a giant "Check" on the powers of the PM, they can remove him from office by a "no confidence" vote.
WHile Congress can remove the President, it cannot do so simpily because they don't like his polices. The situations are not comparable.
Also at the time the US Constitution was written, the King, and not the PM had the power to declare war. We didn't like Kings and were not about to make the President an elected King. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as was the King of England at the time.
His first reaction to the new terrorist attempt in england was to kiss the collective asses of all the Muslims in the IK .
What a supreme jerk off this guy is . England is lost and probably deserves to get blow up .
The people who live there would beg to disagree.
“The situations are not comparable”
Maybe or maybe not. People are not criticising that on this basis, but posting (with greater or lesser degrees of hysteria) that removing this power from the executive is somekind of death knell for the UK and will affect our ability to defend ourselves. In actual fact, most Western democracies, including the US, vest this power in the legislative rather than the executive branch.
“What a supreme jerk off this guy is . England is lost and probably deserves to get blow up.”
What a supreme jerk off you are...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.