Unlike Obama, UK's Cameron "Gets it" on Islam

By John W. Lillpop

While President Barack Obama stubbornly and foolihly refuses to admit that the war on terror is essentially a war against Islamic extremists, British Prime Minister Dave Cameron has chosen a less politically correct, more honest, stance.

As reported, in part, at Reference 1:

David Cameron today pledged to make Britain ‘a lot less’ tolerant towards Islamic extremists who whip up hatred against the West.

In a major speech on terrorism, the Prime Minister argued that Britain has been too ‘passive’ towards organizations and preachers who poison the minds of young Muslims.

Mr. Cameron said Britain needs to be less tolerant and more judgmental when faced with ideologies that threaten the country’s basic values.

Signaling a major departure from Labor’s softly-softly approach, he suggested that to ‘belong’ in Britain, individuals must sign up to core values such as freedom of speech, the rule of law and democracy.

In a barely-concealed attack on the opposition, he will say:

‘It’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.’
The Prime Minister pledged to end all public funding for groups which give succor to extremist views. And he called for action to ban extremists from radicalizing young people in universities, prisons and internet chat rooms.

At a security conference in Munich today, Mr. Cameron said: ‘Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.’

Hear, hear, Mr. PM!

How refreshing to hear a leader of the free world tell it exactly “like it is.”

Meanwhile in the United States, our Commander-in-chief and President continues to ignore the truth, refusing even to use the word Islam in conjunction with discussions about terrorism.

What will it take to awaken Obama to the truth?



1 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353902/David-Cameron-Stop-tolerating-Islamic-extremists-respect-British-core-values.html#ixzz1D6VJXbKh

Second Year of Obama Presidency Most “Polarizing” in 57 Years: Why?

By John W. Lillpop

As measured by a recent Gallup poll, Barack Obama’s second year in office was the most polarizing since 1953, when President Dwight Eisenhower was running the show.

As reported by Gallup poll (1), in part:

"President Barack Obama's job approval ratings were even more polarized during his second year in office than during his first, when he registered the most polarized ratings for a first-year president. An average of 81% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans approved of the job Obama was doing as president during his second year. That 68-point gap in party ratings is up from 65 points in his first year and is easily the most polarized second year for a president since Dwight Eisenhower.”

Obama’s poor showing is doubtlessly linked to the government take-over of health care, unflatteringly referred to as ObamaCare.

The president’s defiance of recent court rulings against ObamaCare will do little to rehabilitate his numbers.

Consider, please:

In a speech following that of Egyptian President Mubarak on February 1, President Obama said the following, in part:

“The process (transition)must include a broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties. It should lead to elections that are free and fair. And it should result in a government that's not only grounded in democratic principles, but is also responsive to the aspirations of the Egyptian people.”

Interesting words, those, especially the part about the need for “a broad spectrum of voices and opposition parties” and a call for “government being responsive to the aspirations of the people.”

This moral talking-down from an aloof, elitist president who
presided over a corrupt process of manipulation to pass a socialized health care bill (ObamaCare), despite widespread opposition among the governed and the opposition party.

This blatant hypocrisy from an inexperienced community organizer who chose to bribe, deceive, lie, misrepresent, deny, extort, slander, obscure, hide, execute, mischaracterize, sabotage, and any and all other acts of sleight-of-hand chicanery and tom foolery needed to pass ObamaCare in cahoots with like-minded Marxists in Congress.

This condescending language from a wrong-minded, anti-capitalist renegade who chose to render the principle of democratic governance subservient to the wishes of the elitist governing class, including Congressional scalawags such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who hold the will of the people in utter contempt.

Antonyms to the way in which President Obama handled health care include open, honest government, integrity, rule of law, Constitutional, fair, decent, democratic, representative, and American.

Unfortunately, Obama’s dictatorial behavior has extended beyond the criminal antics required to pass the controversial measure.

Indeed, two federal judges have independently ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

Furthermore, federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

While Judge Vinson did not issue a specific injunction against implementation of ObamaCare, he clearly expected the Obama Administration to pull the plug on the flawed legislation, as evidenced by the following words from Vinson on the subject:

"...there is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.”

“There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

Alas, to date the Obama Administration has simply ignored the ruling by Judge Vinson.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that Barack Obama is such a divisive figure?



1: http://www.gallup.com/poll/145937/Obama-Approval-Ratings-Polarized-Year-Year.aspx