Member of British government puts bounty on US Presidents

Odd, the left has been historically anti-royalty….

@3,

Of course they have been. Royalty is always interested in spending money and awarding things taken from other people.

😉

If I were the President, David Cameron would be on the phone:

“I say, old chap, was it strictly necessary to send an Arc Light mission on the House of Lords? I’m having a bit of a sticky wicket during Question Time this week . . . “

At least we now have a justification to arrest/kill him if he should ever venture far from the UK. I doubt we would ever violate an ally like Britain sovereighty to get him there.

“Ahmed has also leveled the accusation that Obama “has challenged the dignity of the Muslim Ummah (Muslims world-wide).””-from the article. Well we know where his primary allegiance lies.

Lashkar-e-Taiba is a terrorist organisation that openly(unlike almost all the others in Pakistan) flaunts its patron relationship with the ISI. There was an article recently about its leader operating in the open, in a major city, taunting us to kill him or have him arrested, since he is protected by their government. LeT was responsible for the 08′ Bombay/Mumbai hotel terrorist attack. Though origionally founded as a Pakistan proxy to fight India in Kashmir, its since spread it geographic presence. It has been known to contribute to the fight in Afghanistan, like it’s overall strength, how many is hard to discern.

3#”#2 Not so odd: the nobility has been more progressive than the rest of the population for decades.” No it hasn’t. The hereditary peers were largely more conservative then the general population, despite some famous radicals amongst them. Blair’s government passsed legislation altering who was entitled to sit in the House of Lords. So unless the entire membership was radically altered, this guy is likely an outlier. I am unsure of that answer.

“The Baron Ahmed is the first Muslim life peer in the House of Lords.” And that was the first mistake.

I’d like to know from where this mooselimb gets the money.

#11″The House of Lords Act 1999 (approved by the Queen) basically converted the House of Lords from a hereditary body (previously, only British nobility that inheritied a title could serve) to an majority elected body.” This is basically what I said above. The Queen also doesn’t really have a choice in the legislation that comes before her, though the monarch’s views(about a range of topics) are taken into consideration, if not always adhered to.

“A life peer is a title of Baron thats given to someone (such as a elected member of the House of Lords) but does not pass down to the rest of his or her family.” The labour(leftists) didn’t like the former body because most of the hereditary peers were nominal Tories. They passed legislation to alter that balance, though it still favors the Tories in the upper chamber.

“Basically, this guy is the equilivent of a US Senater” No he is not, atleast not yet. There has been talk of turning the House of Lords into the Senate of the UK. The problem with that is two fold. First the Lords have very little power to outright derail law, only alter it. To turn that body into a Senate would give it real constraining power on the Commons, which many of all political stripes would be weary of. Second is tradition, a Senate by nature is a Republican institution and would further weaken the power of the Constitutional Monarchy of Great Britain.

“Life peer”? Sounds kind of gay to me.

I’m even more interested to know what the Obama administration’s response will be.

That’s easy: “I’m sorry!”

@ 18 Casey – Quote of the day right there!