The man who should be America’s President

By 12 Comments 1,004 views

image

Today British Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech about the need to act vis-a-vis the threat posed by ISIS.

You can see the speech in its entirety:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHw7M_WhPgA

Among measures announced:

Legislation will be drawn up to give the police statutory powers to confiscate the passports of suspect terrorists at UK borders
The UK will challenge any attempt by the courts to water down these powers
Plans to block suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK will be drawn up on a “cross-party basis”
Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) will be extended, to include the power to relocate suspects
Terrorists will be required to undergo de-radicalisation programmes
Airlines will be forced to hand over more information about passengers travelling to and from conflict zones.

Cameron added:

“Adhering to British values is not an option or a choice. It is a duty for all those who live in these islands so we will stand up for our values, we will in the end defeat this extremism and we will secure our way of life for generations to come.”

The Guardian, the NY Times of England, was not impressed, but I was. The terror threat has been raised in England to “severe.” The comments following the article made very clear that the British do not take the terror threat seriously or the comments are being made largely by Muslims.

Some government officials were quick to throw legal roadblocks in the way.

The difficulties facing Cameron were underlined by the former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve, who warned that removing passports from UK-born citizens returning home would breach international law and UK common law. Grieve said “even taking such powers on a temporary basis is likely to be a non starter”.

There was some agreement:

Britain’s governing coalition has agreed that potential Jihadis who return to Britain from abroad should be forced to undergo a de-radicalisation programme when they arrive back in the UK.

You might not agree with Cameron, but give him credit. He has a plan. Our blockhead in chief has no plan to defeat what he called a “cancer” other than to play golf and fundraise. Leading with your behind doesn’t cut it, especially when you’ve decided there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

At least Cameron sounds like he gives a damn.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

12 Responses to “The man who should be America’s President”

  1. 1

    John

    Dr j
    Are you afraid ? Last year 14000 Americans were murdered why are you worried about foreign jihadists? You should be more concerned about your death from fellow citizens

  2. 2

    Nanny G

    @John: Typical liberal in doing the actuarial comparisons.
    Yes, it is more likely I would be killed by a bus hitting me than a terrorists blowing up near me.
    BUT…..
    I can be defensive in my driving and walking.
    How does on act defensively when the terrorist could be the lady with the baby carriage filled with explosives or the teens with the backpacks filled with explosives at the mall?

  3. 3

    batman

    Dr. John,
    I heard his speech. After experiencing what we have experienced: I agree it’s refreshing to witness good leadership. Though, we really should NOT be at all be surprised about Cameron’s actions. They are completely natural. As, these actions are naturally necessary for the survival of his nation. A good start. While we’re the subject of commendable actions of sovereign heads of states. with respect to the subject: Similar observations can and should be made for old Vlad Putin, bless his heart.

    Who woulda thunk? Maybe there is something to this? Perhaps, this ” natural law” thing is not at all an anachronism? Requiring that sovereign heads of state must be natural born citizens. Like the way our constitution was drawn. The founders really seemed to think that it was important enough to draw into our constitution. Now, we apparently witness the reason in action.

  4. 4

    Nanny G

    There are still ”men” in this world.
    Witness what the Filipino general of his UN forces did: He disobeyed orders from New York UN to surrender his men in the hopes that the Fiji men would then be freed by islamist fighters in Golan.
    He allowed his men to fight.
    And his men were NOT taken hostage or beheaded.
    They escaped into Israel.
    (Funny how freedom and safety are associated with getting away from Islam and into Israel if you’re not Obama.)
    There may be figurative heads roll, however.
    Read it and weep at what a wussy thing the UN is:
    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2014/09/01/theirs-not-to-reason-why/

  5. 5

    Greg

    Legislation will be drawn up to give the police statutory powers to confiscate the passports of suspect terrorists at UK borders

    The UK will challenge any attempt by the courts to water down these powers

    Plans to block suspected British terrorists from returning to the UK will be drawn up on a “cross-party basis”

    Terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) will be extended, to include the power to relocate suspects

    Terrorists will be required to undergo de-radicalisation programmes

    Airlines will be forced to hand over more information about passengers travelling to and from conflict zones

    It would be interesting to see how the U.S. political right would react if Obama proposed identical measures.

  6. 9

    Greg

    @MAKAYA, #8:

    No, although I would certainly have reservations until I knew the particulars of some of them. In a U.S. context, item #2 would sound suspiciously like a suggestion that the balance of power should in some way be preemptively circumvented. Item #4 is worrisome because of how broadly the word suspects might come to be applied. Item #5 is similarly worrisome because it’s not entirely clear who they’re actually talking about; if you’re already a terrorist, it would seem to be a bit too late for a “de-radicalization programme.” They ought to be thinking about fighting radicalization before it happens, in schools, mosques, and community organizations.

    The U.K. is admittedly a very different cultural environment than the U.S. Their problems with radicalization are more immediate and more pervasive, because their Muslim community is proportionally much larger. That also means they have to be careful not to act in a manner that could have exactly the opposite of the intended effect. Actions directed at the Muslim community that were perceived as broadly focused and oppressive could backfire, creating even more alienation and radicalization among the young.

  7. 10

    Bill

    @Greg:

    It would be interesting to see how the U.S. political right would react if Obama proposed identical measures.

    With shock and surprise he did not grant them amnesty and ask for a campaign contribution and vote.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *