Charles - dimwit or dhimmi?

Submitted by InfowarDoc (United States), Nov 1, 2005 at 09:19

Good God! Here is the presumptive future head of the Anglican Church and future King of England (unless Lizzie lives to 150 or comes to her senses and skips him), cozying up to a fanatical, murderous religion that not 4 months ago inspired a few of its British adherents to murder 52 innocent British subjects...and he's daring to counsel the United States as an aplogist for these fanatics? I must assume that the royal lessons may have included adultery, idiocy, bad hairstyles, and foppishness, but obviously neglected manliness, honor, courage, the Anglican Faith, and the lessons of a millenium of British history.

Dimwit or dhimmi? We've long known about the former; now we must assume the latter. Apparently, HRH is BOTH!

He's surely welcome to visit the US - tourism is good and better he spend his pounds sterling here as anywhere else - but he can keep his weak-kneed, tuck-tail, Nevillle Chamberlain-style opinions to himself.

And to think there was specualtion as to whether or not he'd reign under one of his middle names - Arthur! I suggest, rather, that he ascend the throne under another nickname - the Woosie King!

If Charles had been in charge in 1940, they'd be serving bratwurst in Windsor Castle. Churchill is surely grinding his teeth flat and begging Saint Peter for another go at it.

This CAN'T be the best the Royal Family can do, can it? William seems a level-headed lad - c'mon Liz, whaddaya say we cut to the chase! Out with Chuckie and in with Bill.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".