Listening to Cameron shows that there really is no difference between Labour (the fabulously named "Liebour") and Tory parties and is why so many people in the UK are now attracted to the UKIP and BNP. What good is it if you have a Labour-lite party? Everything Cameron espouses is to take socialist/big-government programs and somehow make them more efficient or effective. He still holds to the line that they need to create a "fairer society," which is doublespeak for equality of outcomes and is not all "fair" for the hard working and innovative classes who pay for those who are not. The real answer is to dismantle the socialist state and return freedom to the British people, which will allow for the values of hard work, family and entrepreneurship to naturally take hold. No state-run program can create that and distribute it to the people.

Which bring us to our country. What good does it do to have a "Democrat-light" party? When Democrats propose a massive social program costing $500B, it does no good to propose a smaller version of the same program that only costs $250B. You still get the same creeping government and long-term trends of over taxation, high dept and less freedom. Sure, you have put the brakes on a little, taking longer to get to the point that the Democrats would have taken the Nation, but in the end we still get there. Instead, draw a clear line; the party of state-intervention and oppression and the party that stands for limited government and freedom. Republicans lost ground under Bush because conservatives were disheartened and did not respond to Democrat-light (with the clear exception of national security), but now that we have returned to freedom, look how excited everyone is and look at our prospects!

If I were a UK citizen, I would be begging Daniel Hannan to take the reigns!

Hardly an "idiot." He is a deceitful, calculating, conniving, dangerous individual. His "religion" allows for the purposeful deflection and lies he is spewing in order further Islam. Americans would never accept its presence, just as they rejected communism and Nazism, if they were aware of the whole truth, so people like Shakir must make it some way palatable to the populace by lying about its true nature.

Mormons are evangelical about their religion but don't try to kill you or subject you to second class citizenship if you decide you don't want to be part of their religion. I've had a number of them over the years come to my door, they have always been very nice, then move on. I am not nervous that a Mormon might one day decide that bombing my neighborhood would be a good idea based on what they have been taught.

Islam, however, has codified within its ideology Jihad (armed struggle against unbelievers), giving you as the target the option to convert, move you to dhimmitude, or kill you. The belief that violence towards "unbelievers" is good is contained in over 500 passages of the Qu'ran. If you should die by battling those around you, you will be given a great reward (as opposed to the passive notion of Christian martyrdom). No other major religion to my knowledge expresses such hostility to those not part of it, nor exhorts them to violence in its cause.

This conference is a further example that Islam is utterly incompatible with democracy and our cherished values of individual freedom. It is as much a tyrannical political system as a religion, which demands the subservience and submission of its followers just as communism and Nazism, and their stated goal is the overthrow of the West's belief in reason and self determination. The sooner we do three things the better:

1. At home, oppose Islam as a political system the same way in which we opposed communism from becoming entrenched in our society. Forget about the protection they seek under the guise of the supernatural and a 7th century tyrant.

2. Disabuse ourselves of the notion that we can bring peace and democracy to regions where the population is muslim (e.g. Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan). It is a gigantic waste of blood and treasure and is hugely naive on the part of politicians and elites who see us as nation builders, because they never address the root cause which is Islam. For now, we must have a policy of containment and block its spread in places like the Philippines, China, Africa, Thailand, etc., and block muslims from emigrating to the West, just like we wouldn't have let millions of communists from the Soviet Union enter the UK, Canada, US, Germany, etc.

3. Rather than basing troops in the region to build democracies (which are doomed without a commitment to secularism) and become entrenched in unending conflict we must retrench and protect our homelands, then send a clear message that any attacks on us will be met with severe retribution, not for the aim of bringing them freedom but for the purpose of punishment and destruction (think Japan, c.1945). This is the only level on which they understand and a strategy that served us very well during the Cold War. The Soviets knew they would be melted down if they tried to come across the Fulda Gap (they were at least a rational people), and the Islamic countries should know the same. Only when the population rejects Islam will we assist them with building stable and free nations as part of the world community (like we have done with Eastern Europe).