The Rise And Fall Of David Cameron

Add atheism, and you have the picture.

Not many years ago, Cameron was seen as the best invention after sliced bread. Chosen in preference to the solidly conservative, but hopelessly rigid David Davies – a man whose renditions of a member of the Politburo made him a legend in his own time – Cameron won the sympathies of the party by promising to let it remain conservative, but presenting this conservatism in a new, more attractive and dynamic package.

He was elected, and soon things became to go wrong. Conservatives started to discover the new Cameron had time for hoodies, was after every fashion of the day – remember the hybrid car? And what about the ridiculous attempt of installing an opprobrious windmill on his roof? – and was beginning to talk in a very dangerous way, like a thinner and paler Oprah.

Soon the rumour went around it would be accepted that 50% of the party members would give back their cards. No doubt, they would be replaced by other, new party members.

In the meantime, the fashion craze went on. The party had now become “green”, to the point of changing its symbol for a ridiculous (green) tree. Whatever was hip and progressive, had the attention of the party leader. The man was positively intent in letting his voters forget he was a conservative.

But slowly, things had began to change. Already at the European elections (proportional vote, and a lot of EU questions unanswered by the party) in June 2009 the UKIP had got a huge rise in votes. The Cameroons still weren’t worried, and dismissed the UKIP’s now impressive record as a protest vote, which would disappear as soon as something important was at stake. They didn’t want to see the majority at the next election was gone already.

Then the election came, and the problems became serious. Cameron made a mistake whose consequences he is paying to this day, and which will probably cost him his skin. He managed to impose to the party around 100 utterly un-conservative Conservative candidates, many of them in safe constituencies, and clearly meant to continue to sabotage Conservatism. Once again, Cameron behaved as if Conservatism was the real enemy, instead of Brown. His candidates were rapidly christened “Cameron cuties”, and were mostly “tokens” in some way or other: token women, token minorities and, of course, token poofs.

The “cuties” were meant to give a fresh face to the party. They gave it a bloody nose instead.

On election day, the country assisted to the incredible show of a Conservative candidate not managing to get a majority against the most embarrassing opponent who ever fought – or ever is to fight – a leadership election. Gordon Brown let David Brent appear eminently electable, and I often surprised myself hoping his mother was already dead, in order not to have to endure the  humiliation.

The election came, the Cameron “cuties” got a big punch in their politically correct face, and Cameron missed the easiest victory in human memory; but in his posh boy arrogance, he failed to see the warning signs and through an unholy alliance with a bunch of atheist, sodomites and “allied” of both, managed to get at the top.

The “love in” in the garden of Number Ten will probably haunt him for life, as he and his atheist girlfriend Clegg gave a rather disturbing show of how un-Conservative the new PM wanted to be, and how proud he was of it. Conservatism was buried in that gloriously sunny day, amidst the  vaguely creepy glances between the two. I can’t remember if they got to the point of holding hands;  if they didn’t, they certainly thought about it. Romeo and Romeo were, finally, in power.

At this point, Cameron stopped to be conservative altogether. In his arrogant, posh boy mind he and his new civil partner Clegg would solidly take control of the centre ground and, from there, live happily ever after in their Downing Street castle. Conservative values were at this point all but forgotten; the electors were expected to vote for him, be glad he was born, and generally shut up whilst they are modernised.

In the meantime, Cameron was becoming not only “modern”, but actively anti-Christian; not because of personal convictions (of which there is no trace whatsoever in his entire political life) but because his civic boyfriend Clegg was increasingly under pressure, and needed some scalp to justify his party’s existence as a power machine.

At this point, it got really bad. Cameron’s arrogance in criticising the owners of a B&B ( a private house, mind) not wanting to have sodomites under their roof was only surpassed by his stupidity in declaring homosexual marriage “conservative”, because family and commitment are, allegedly,  conservative values, or so he “feels” (hear this? “Feel”? Very modern, isn’t it? I “feel”. What do I care for what is right? Sounds good, anyway…). Truly, it was as stupid as this, and it goes to show all the extent of Cameron’s arrogance and his belief that you can get away with pretty much everything, provided you package it in an acceptable way.

It went on: recently, it became known the government planned to take position against the British plaintiffs in a legal controversy in front of the European Court of human rights for the right to wear a cross at work, and at this point it’s fair to say all common sense had been thrown out of the window. Someone should have told Cameron about “in hoc signo vinces”, but they were probably sipping champagne too hard, and thought Christianity boring and old-fashioned anyway; particularly the girlfriend, an open atheist.  To this, a couple of other blunders were added in a Government now resembling a bunch of crack addicts who had lost every contact with reality: the humiliating revolt about Europe, with more than eighty MPs reacting to the triple whip (stupid and senseless bullying, this) by whipping the PM in the face, and the growing dissatisfaction about another “modernisation” scalp, the reform of the Lords. 

Only at this point, even the extremely patient, amiable, cricket-loving, Waitrose-buying, gin-and-tonic sipping Conservative England decided enough is enough, and Cameron got punched in the face until his arrogant, artificial smile had all but gone away. Osborne got the same punches, but as he always looked like a seventeen-years-old who doesn’t know why he is there and what he’s doing, no one really noticed.

It might, now, well be too late for Cameron to recover. Too much did he compromise himself with every piece of garbage under the sun, and his public persona will not be so easily recycled after years of love-ins in the garden, hoodie hugging, Christians-bashing, Cameron cutie-ing, sodomy-approving, and general inability to have any idea of what happens outside of his champagne-sipping circle of liberals and perverts.

Today, Cameron did something rather new: self-criticism in Russian style. Old tart that he is, he is hoping to gain the favour of his clients by promising he will now be most willing to satisfy their every desire. That’s Cameron for you: a moral vacuum, filled with hot air.

So, Cameron says he gets the message. The problem is whether the conservative electorate got his: Cameron is a slimy, lying, opportunistic, mediocre clown with a posh voice and no clue of conservatism, and who would sell his mother to whoredom before you can say “hug a hoodie” if this would only help him to stay in power. I follow politics since I am a little child, and I have never seen such a… one as this one.

In the meantime, the tree on the internet site is blue again. A blue tree. Now that‘s smart, and modern…

Cameron has, today, recognised the necessity of being more Conservative. You can be rather sure the matter of sodomarriage will now be buried as quietly as possible. But the question is: why should the party leave the task to become Conservative again to him, instead of entrusting the job to a Conservative?

I might be wrong, and it will take some time. But I think the writing might already be on the wall.

Mundabor

 

David Cameron Officially In Trouble Over So-Called “Gay Marriage”

Make no mistake: this is an idiot from a rich family, trying to look smart.

Something is happening in this once proud country. If not an awakening – we are far away from that – a refusal to become completely asleep to Christianity, and reason.

The Coalition For Marriage is now happily sailing toward half a million signatures. For an initiative never mentioned on the BBC or Classic FM (5 million listeners a day, the latter; and a news desk drowning in socialist champagne) and supported mainly by internet tam-tam and mailing lists, there’s enough to deprive a giant like Margaret Thatcher of sleep, let alone a pigmy like Cameron.

Cameron’s problem is that part of his party insists in not wanting to become Liberal-Democrat and seems, rather, intentioned to remain Conservative. This is a big problem for him, because if they wake up to the fact they are Conservatives, they’ll realise he isn’t.

On the matter of so-called “gay-marriage” (by which an allegedly Conservative government started to sound proposal not even about the if, but about the how of the measure; if they’re Conservatives, I must be Muslim) things seem not to go very well for our dear Chameleon.

It would appear Tory MPs are terrified, and are imploring – or rather, demanding – that Cameron allows the thing to die quietly, with the least possible loss of face.

This is a typical English way: in theory I want to do something, in practice I let it be. This way, I try to smuggle myself as the right guy for both camps. Alas, I doubt it will work for Cameron, because he is now damaged goods among his own MPs, who slowly start to realise prostitution doesn’t let you stay in power for long, and it’s bad for your soul.

The “warnings that a Tory rebellion in the Commons would eclipse last year’s EU referendum revolt, when 81 Conservatives defied the Prime Minister” is perfectly credible, as whoever follows British politics knows Cameron went out of the confrontation as damaged goods, with his reputation as leader shattered and now firmly in the viewfinder of the (really) conservative wing of the party.

MPs have been so stunned by the scale of the protests that a secret group has been set up by Tory MPs at Westminster to force Mr Cameron to back down. Many of the MPs admit that the ‘avalanche’ of letters from the Tory grass-roots was forcing them to change their views.

This is embarrassing but, I think, credible. Tory MP have been stunned at knowing there are still Christians around, and at the discovery they are still enough to make them unemployed. Some of them, not having morals of their own, have decided to embrace the morals of their constituents, as their jobs depend on them. Therefore, they have told Cameron he should stop being silly, and pretend to believe in God once in a while.

A Tory MP put it this way:

‘It is clear from both my postbag and the Coalition for Marriage petition… that a significant body of opinion in our city and up and down our country share my views.’

It is unknown what were the views of said Tory before seeing his postbag, but it is consoling to know if he has ignored Christianity he doesn’t ignore his own political future.

I cannot express with polite words what I think of this bunch of professional prostitutes with a posh accent and no idea whatever of basic morality. I allow myself to notice that in the short period o his life in which Cameron has worked, he has allegedly worked in PR.

Frankly, he doesn’t seem to have profited much.

Mundabor

Coalition For Marriage Petition Approaches Half Million

Sign the petition here.

This is possibly already more signatures than homosexuals in the United Kingdom.

One wonders. Food for thoughts for that idiot Cameron, and (once?) Conservative MPs.

Mundabor

David Cameron’s Hypocrisy Exposed

In this rare image, the Prime Minister is photographed in Number Ten's garden.

I do not often link to the page of a Protestant blog, but this time I really had to make an exception.

Cranmer‘s fisking of our teflon-coated Prime Minister is not only spot on in the matter, but it has the great merit of clearly telling the readers Cameron is as fake and hypocritical in his show of Christian feelings as he is in pretty much everything else.

Cranmer “fisks” the Chameleon’s Easter address, that is: is dissects his speech taking phrases that he comments. Let us see an example:

This is the time when, as Christians, we remember the life, sacrifice and living legacy of Christ.

This is actually the holiest period in the liturgical year, Prime Minister. And Easter Day is the day we remember the Resurrection of Christ, not his ‘legacy’. Politicians tend to be concerned about leaving us with a legacy: the Son of God was concerned with offering us eternal life. Yes, that’s a legacy of sorts. But what’s wrong with the word ‘Resurrection’? Does it stick in the PC-pantheistic throat a little? Is it a bit too literally theological? Or mythically laughable? After all, carpenters tend not to get resurrected very much in Coalition Britain, so it’s probably safer to allude to some generalised ‘legacy’ rather than risk inciting Richard Dawkins and his intolerant secular-humanist hordes and being classed as a ‘nutter’ who believes on ‘conjuring tricks with bones’.

Or you might enjoy this:

The New Testament tells us so much about the character of Jesus; a man of incomparable compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love.

Yes, yes, but the New Testament tells us so much more than that, doesn’t it? Let’s not forget his uncompromising assertions of truth, his anger, his sharp tongue, his sternness and absolute intolerance of hypocrisy. What about the Jesus who was physically violent in the Temple? What about the Jesus who spewed out verbal abuse when the Pharisees criticised Him for healing on the Sabbath? And it’s not very Christian, is it, to curse a fig tree such that it ceases to bear fruit? That wouldn’t go down very well in Witney Garden Centre. Jesus told us to suffer the little children; not abort them. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more; not find a lesbian partner and marry her. And he taught quite a lot about money, greed and hell, but they’re not so fluffy and pink, are they? Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, Prime Minister. An awful lot of what he did and said may seem utterly antithetical to the modern, decontaminated Tory understanding of ‘compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love’. Love demands truth, or it is not love. And sometimes the truth is unpalatable, and people tend not to want to hear it. Especially if they’re politicians.

It is worth your while to read the article in its entirety. Notwithstanding the disastrous title of the blog this chap would, methinks, make a good convert. He certainly has managed, in the midst of his error, not to lose sight of the basic tenets of Christianity. The rest of his contributions – I have perused the site a bit, I confess – is of high quality and an interesting mixture of religious and political comments. This is a rather known blog, and is obviously followed in political circles. Let us hope that “Cranmer”‘s activity gives a contribution in exposing the purest example of Pharisaism of our time.

Hat tip to His Hermeneuticalness.

Mundabor

Italian Football And The Sign Of The Cross

Juventus-Fiorentina, Italian Serie A. They are playing as I write.

Juventus scores a goal. After a couple of minutes, the TV (Italian sender, of course) shows a replay of the Juventus manager, Conte, making the sign of the cross.

Italians appreciate these things. By all advance of secularism, it’s in the blood of the country.

Two short considerations:

1) Would the BBC have picked this beautiful moment and showed it in replay? Thought not…

2) Would this be allowed on a British football ground? If yes, for how long? In the end, Cameron government’s would tell you it is not obligatory for a Christian to make the sign of the cross when his team scores a goal. Therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed in the work place, right?

Food for thought, I think…

Mundabor

Cameron’s Government Is The Enemy Of Christians

The British Government's Enemy

The Government plans to oppose the case, presented by two British Christians, in which they demand the right to wear a Cross at work.

This is, says the Telegraph, the first time the Government is forced to say where it stands on the matter.Not, mind, out of its own initiative, but because the relevant documents were leaked to the Sunday Telegraph.

Note that the angry reaction came from the former so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, Carey. and from others among his colleagues, whilst prominent Muslims (Rowan Williams) and heathens (Vincent Nichols) do not seem, at least to my knowledge, equally vocal.

This is, though, the last example of how Cameron’s Government actively wages war against Christians.

And this moron should call himself, and be called, a Conservative?

What a joke.

Mundabor

The Archbishop And The Loose Virgin

Archbishop Nichols said this t-shirt is not "nuanced".

On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.

I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.

On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.

On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.  

Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.

In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:

‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,

…………

‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’

The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.

Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.

Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.

Mundabor

Abp Nichols Is An Accomplice Of Cameron

No Catholics were present.

Some days ago, Father Ray Blake posted the text of the letter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith about that logical impossibility some people call “homosexual marriage”.

It was, at that time, not clear yet whether the Abp would instruct the priests to read the letter during the homily. It appears this was the case, so let us say two words about this.

To say that the text is lame is still not enough to do justice to it. This text is not lame, it is outright cowardly. Whilst (semel in anno) ++Nichols even defends (at least formally) the Church’s position on sexual perversion, it is very clear this letter is meant to do no harm, and to let everyone with a bit of salt in his head understand the real message: “we are not going to prepare ourselves for a fight; please understand we must make some rumours for the sake of the job, but really, you can count on our collaboration”.

Listening to the letter this morning as it was read in the church I, again, was confirmed in my analysis of the text: weak to the point of complicity. 

If we had Christian bishops in this land I would not need to point out this is not a discussion about the opening times of pubs, or about the proposed abolition of the 70 miles/hour speed limit. This goes at the root of a Christian society.  In every country in which the bishops fear hell, this would occasion such a conflict to let Mr “Chameleon”  Cameron understand that with his politics he has made a great number of enemies for himself; some of them influential, some of them wealthy, all of them now fully determined to see him out. Not one tenth of this is happening now in the UK. On the contrary, “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Smith are, in fact, reassuring Cameron no war will be waged. 

This attitude reminds one of Paul VI who reacted to the Dutch Schism by writing to the bishops and explaining them how they were supposed to think, without taking further measures. Clearly, such a behaviour confirmed the Dutch bishops they had nothing to fear, and the schism went on for many years until JP II, after several years of pontificate, decided that perhaps the time to act had arrived.

Abp “Quisling” Nichols’ letter now has the same effect: it persuades everyone the way is free, because the Church will not give battle on this. 

The despicable, cowardly, unChristian mentality behind this behaviour is the more contemptible because on the other side is not a paladin of some strange secular cause, a man of conviction, one who would even welcome and relish the fight. No, on the other side is the most shameless whore of British politics in the XXI century; one who wouldn’t have any qualm in throwing the legislation in the rubbish bin the second after he realises it can harm him. It would be fairly easy to persuade him he can have the numbers, but he doesn’t want to have the sworn enemies, and this is going to be his grave in time. Prostitute that he is, Cameron would immediately understand the refrain and start talking about the recovery of traditional values, & Co. Even before he came to power, they didn’t call him “chameleon” for nothing. Also, Cameron’s position as party leader has already put heavily into question, and he certainly doesn’t wish a renewal of the troubles of the last months.

So, we are now facing a battle where the main opponent (the Church) has already said – in so many words – he doesn’t want to fight. Opposition will come from other corners, and the battle will not be so easy for the once blue, now pink “Conservatives”. If the Church had put herself “at the head of the movement”, the conservative fringes of the Anglicans would have been motivated in putting a harder opposition – or be more effective with it – whilst it would have been easier for real Conservatives within the Party to express their disagreement in a definitive way – like “get rid of it, Dave, sharpish” – rather than now having to fight an uphill battle.

This was so bad, it can only have come from Abp Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.

But seriously, I wonder how blind and deaf are those in Rome, and how long will it take before they get rid of this bunch of cowards and give us Bishops who believe, erm, all that the Church believes.

Mundabor

What Price Prostitution?

The claret was particularly good: David Cameron

David Cameron is a little harlot of politics, the slut of every movement he thinks can help him to get or stay in power and the prostitute of every political or pressure group he thinks is in his way of reaching his aim. Like the real slut, Cameron has a calling for sluttishness: his is not the behaviour of the politician who, obtorto collo, accepts some of the sad realities of democracy, but the enthusiastic adherence to a lifestyle for which prostitution is the only way, and the satisfaction of his perceived paying client the most natural behaviour on Earth.

One thing Cameron loves to do, is to please sodomites. Whilst not being – for all we know; and it wouldn’t be the first time we end up knowing we knew it wrong – a sodomite himself, in his relentless pursuit of political prostitution he seems to think the so-called “gays” are a wealthy, well-paying client of his. In Camerons’ world, there is no downside in lending his political backside to those who, well …. He will get the enthusiastic support – or so he thinks – of a group perceived as “influential”, without causing the ires of Christians. He thinks he will only need to mention the usual mantras of XXI century’s Britain (“tolerance”, and the like) to keep the ones well under control whilst he makes himself beautiful with the others.

It might – just might – appear this game is slowly going to an end. Cameron has already expressed himself in favour of the recognition of sodo-”marriages” (I do not mean “civil partnerships” here, which in my book is pretty much every bit as bad; I mean the full monty) delighting, as always, in being more “progressive” than Labour. He thought – as he is certainly well justified in thinking – the sums would add up and he would easily brand as intolerant neo-fascists everyone who dared to go against his “new Tory”, lavender mantra.

It might – just might – not be so easy.

First of all – and this must be said for our friends overseas, who might be justified for not closely following the events in what used to be a proud Empire, and now has his soldiers taken prisoners in Iran – Cameron’s position has been rather wobbly for a while. Whilst there is no open revolt – yet – it is clear the man grates more than some within his own party and is very probably more popular among his girlfriend’s acquaintances than among his own Members of Parliament. The unprecedented humiliation received just a few months ago in Brusseler matters – another topic where he thought he could silence the opposition with some barking and some trite slogans – ended very badly for him and showed the desire to get rid of him is much bigger than he himself expected. He survived the shock, but he survived in the same way the Chinese Empire survived the British (and French) march on Peking: badly, and with his reputation irretrievably damaged.

How damaged, the next months will show. Cameron, who had started his last trollop-crusade on the recognition of so-called gay marriages, now finds himself if not positively attacked, certainly opposed by several sides: the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (apparently, one who still cares a bit for Christian values; in striking contrast to Rowan Williams) has chosen open confrontation; among the MPs dissatisfaction is wells-spread; and even the Catholic Church now begins – as Vincent “Quisling” Nichols really cannot shut up anymore – to utter some timid meowing.

Cameron gave an interview to some sodomite magazine a couple of days ago, where he showed all the extent of his incompetence and confusion (I might write about it, but take it from me: a harlot who didn’t make her homework before meeting her client) but where he basically had to admit he might have to leave his MPs free to vote according to conscience about this. In plain English, this means he fears he can’t force them to follow the line, as he knows a second loss of face would possibly cost him the job.

What might be happening in the next months is that the country finally awakens and decides Toryism (and Christianity) can not possibly have anything to do with Cameron: whilst the so-called Church of England has pushed herself into quasi-irrelevance, she can still damage the conservative credentials of our little trollop, and if you add powerful sponsors and the revolt of rural England (which might well be in the card, though I wouldn’t bet my pint yet) things seem to look very bleak for him.

Prostitute that he is, Cameron will try to do what he always does: please everyone and look for the way of least resistance. But this is exactly his weakness: the man is not made for resistance, but wired for prostitution. He has no values, only clients. He will do whatever keeps him in power and if in order to do so he has to suck up to Neo-nazis, he’ll do so without blinking.

The petition in defence of traditional marriage, which started just days ago and already got more than 50,000 signatures could be a serious problem for Cameron, and his backers seem to be more organised and with bigger coffers than he bargained for.  They don’t seem to be sufficiently focused yet, but if you can judge the day from the morning the potential is there, and the day a couple of powerful sponsors decide they want Cameron’s scalp and are ready to pay for it the game might become interesting indeed.

Cameron saw a bigger challenge to his un-Conservative ideology take shape in October and November. He reacted with a “triple whip”, the severest form of enforcement of party discipline known to the British parliamentary system, and in doing so he made for himself several dozen sworn enemies at no cost, and got a “bitch-slapping” of proportions never seen before.  I wonder what he learned.

David Cameron is nothing more than a little filthy prostitute terrified of discovering his clients have deserted him.  Let this become big enough, and don’t bet your pint he’ll try his luck again.

A rather long shot, I know, but stranger things happen at sea…

Mundabor

Please Sign The “Coalition For Marriage” Petition Against UK “Sodomarriage”

Incredibile dictu, even in the secularised, tepid, indifferent, “let’s be nice to each other” United Kingdom opposition is starting to form to the perversion of what is most sacred, driven from a Prime Minister for which nothing is sacred, but his permanence to power.

You can sign the petition here.

Please notice this might become more than a rearguard battle, as the number of people getting slowly but surely angry is – incredibly – increasing. More than 50,000 citizen have already signed, and the tom tom can make this thing become huge with – if they wake up to the huge lie called “David Cameron” -  vast support in rural England, which is absolutely vital to the Tories’ permanence in power; or, more to the point, to Cameron’ s permanence at the head of it.

I will write about the situation separately. Please send the link everywhere, tweet it, forward it, mail it, let it come into the furthest corner of the British Isles.

I doubt Cameron will be stopped as I can’t imagine Labour not helping the lavender “Tories”; but he should be made to pay at least a high price, so that more and more people understand what a disgrace he is.

Please sign the petition.

Mundabor