OP-EDS

  /  

November 2, 2004

GOP will preserve American dominance

Fifty years from now, how will historians look back on today's election? My hope is that they will see it as a test America passed, when as a democracy we chose to keep our place at the top of the world. November 2 is a moment of truth. There are two paths to choose from: one that leads to our downfall, and one that leads to our everlasting supremacy, and a better world. My hope is that we will have chosen the latter, that we re-elected George W. Bush.

More than just a choice on how the war on terror is pursued or tax policy is written, it is our very way of life that is at stake today as we decide the future of the United States' role in the world. The events and dealings on the opposite side of the globe are directly linked to our affairs at home, and it is in maintaining our position as the world's undisputed leader on which the American way of life depends. Everything from vast supplies of affordable goods to the free and open markets that keep our economy afloat to the safety of our homeland relies on America maintaining her rank. Do you want to be responsible for the end of the Pax Americana? America's Bolshevik detractors, who in the United States like to call themselves "Democrats," would like nothing more than to see the end of our hegemony. They are on the side of Chirac, Kim Jung-Il, Chavez, and yes, Osama. They want an end to the American way of life.

America can no longer risk dwelling in Kerry-esque fantasy; it must come to terms with cold, hard reality. On every front, a Kerry victory would spell disaster for the United States, and Bush's re-election would reassert American hegemony and security.

In the European theater, Kerry would sideline Eastern Europe in favor of keeping "positive" relations with Old Europe. He would cave in to the socialist powers in E.U. trade disputes, keep our military in Germany while it should be moved to bases in Poland, and allow the true coalition of the "bribed and coerced," that being those nations corrupted by greed who gave in to Saddam (France, Germany, and Russia), to do business in Iraq and continue dealings with Iran. Bush, on the other hand, would put Old Europe in its place while continuing to build strong relationships with New Europe.

On the Asian front, Kerry would let the Communists have as easy a time as when he returned from Vietnam; China would overtake American dominance along the Pacific rim, and Communist-occupied Korea would blackmail the West once again, to no avail. Taiwan would have no friend in John Kerry. Meanwhile, Bush does not allow himself to be pushed around by the Chinese communists or Kim Jung-Il, nor does he let them dictate how diplomacy is carried out. He would remain firm on Jung-Il, and would not let China command economic affairs in East Asia. It is better for America to do business on her terms rather than the Communists'.

In the Middle East, Kerry's election would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran, indicate a crack in America's solid support for Israel and the Pakistani alliance, and nations from Syria to Egypt would become far more vigorous in their anti-American behavior, for they would not fear Kerry, and neither would the terrorist insurgents in Iraq. There's a reason why polls in Israel show citizens favoring Bush over Kerry by more than a 2 to 1 margin. Bush will finish the job in Iraq, and he will not allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Nor will he let Syria provide terrorists with chemical and biological weapons. If that means military action, so be it. At least Bush understands that the only messages dictators like Syria's Assad and the mullahs take to heart come in the form of bombs and bullets, not pieces of paper and olive branches.

And dare I mention the home front. If Kerry is elected, mark my words, we will be hit harder than anything we have seen, in a way we haven't seen. Despite what some people say, reminding people of this is not a scare tactic. Judging by his record, which almost no one has done, Kerry has been consistently weak on every national security issue, and it's weakness that invites terror. Kerry, if he's anything like the Kerry of the past 20 years, would have an impossible time keeping us safe. Kerry's idea of fighting terrorism is sending Osama bin Laden fruit baskets until he eases up and becomes a "nuisance." It's also discerning to note the similarities in the rhetoric of Kerry and one of our nation's worst enemies. The latest video-release from Osama might as well have been the director's cut of Fahrenheit 9/11. With all of its talk on Bush's "delay" in the classroom on 9/11, the "oppressive" Patriot Act, how Bush stole the election in Florida, and how "in the fourth year after the events of September 11, Bush is still practicing distortion on and misleading you," one would think it came from the latest printout of the DNC's talking points. How can Kerry fight an enemy that holds the same political perspective? It is Bush who strikes fear into the hearts of our enemies, and if he is re-elected, the homeland will go four years without attack.

Why is it that everyone with anti-American interests, from Castro to Assad to Jung-Il, supports Kerry's election to the White House? Even former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who some of you may remember as arguing before a conference of Muslim nations that "Jews rule the world by proxy," weighed in, and has urged Americans to vote for Kerry. In the end, this election is a choice between two worldviews: one that corrupts our sovereignty, gives homage to the United Nations, and embraces the failed notion of internationalism, and one that puts America and her citizens first, whatever the cost. There is no question that the latter is better. The only question is whether it will be chosen. It's your life, and your way of life, that's on the line.