Recently, I blogged a response to Time Magazine’s article – the Nation that Fell to Earth - looking back 30 years from 9-11 and how the war on terror was fought and supposedly won. I was critical of the ‘noted historian’s’ scenario and said so.
So, here’s my take on that future history.
It's the year 2031 - one generation removed from Sept. 11, 2001 - and Americans are commemorating the 30th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on
It was a global war that reshaped the both the geography and ideology of the world. This time the pundits were right. Except for a few backward countries in Africa and South America who still practiced the defunct ideology of Marxism, the nations of the world had embraced some form of democracy – Republic or Parliamentary (even one or two small nation practiced a direct form of democracy similar to the ancient Greeks) under The Federation of Nation’s (replacing the defunct United Nations) Bill of Rights for Humanity.
As the Presidential election of 2008 approached, many Americans and, in fact, the world watched to see if outgoing President Bushes’ foreign policy that had been discredit by then, be replaced with the more liberal version of Democratic Party Presidential candidate George Sperry, a dark horse candidate who was a compromise choice between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore – neither of which could gain a majority at the convention. The body politique was in disarray as the decade came to a close with the country polarized on the war and how it was to be fought.
Sperry’s ‘Take America Back’ campaign was helped by the disillusionment of the American voter with Bush’s approach to winning the war by democratizing the
Besides pointing out the errors of the Republic strategy, the Democrats were successful in their argument over security vs personal freedoms. Their position on the Patriot Act and other monitoring programs by the Republican government gained traction with voters. The Republican Presidential candidate, a right wing born-again Christian from Iowa, could no longer defend the position of ‘hold the course’ and the Democrats won the White House and re-gained control of Congress with the overwhelming financial assistance of George Sorros and movon.org.
But by the Presidential election of 2012, Sperry and the Democrats were in trouble. Sperry did keep his promise that in his first 100 days he would return
He worked closely with the primary Muslim organizations like CAIR and proved that bowing to their demands had kept the peace within the nation’s borders. This was important because civil strife boarding on civil war was occurring in
It wasn’t hard to see why the plot was not discovers no that the clandestine intelligence networks and programs were gutted by the Democratic Congress. The Democratic government could not deal with the growing political conflict between security and personal freedoms that unshed them into power and the government ceased to function. This and the growing victories of the Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and Iraq and the powerful influence of Iran over the Middle East was capped off by Iran’s successful long range ballistic missile tests, ushered in a new Republican President and the control of Congress back in the hands of the Republicans in 2012. The man who became the Republican president was a multi-decorated
President Olsen identified the enemy and its goals and convinced the American public that was right. The enemy was an ideology that was clear and concise. Any person that sought to advance the agenda of Sharia law and re-establishment of the caliphate were considered an enemy of the state. Any person or organization that preached or supported such and ideology was deemed seditious.
The message his gave to Muslims in
- State loud and clear as individual Muslims that they are Americans first and Muslims second by stating that their allegiance is to the American nation and not the nation of Islam (the ummah) and that our secular laws supersede the Shari when and if their is conflict between the two.
- Muslim need to monitor their clerics, neighbors and even family for those that would preach sedition and report these people to the authorities.
- Muslims should volunteer as interpreters for the government and security institutions to help them decipher any possible threats to the nation.
- All Muslim organizations should take the same actions that individual Muslims should take supporting and ecnougaing them to take actions that will prove to that they share the same values of non-Mulsims and can function in a rough and tibble secular society protesting peacefully and shouting down the seditious elements of their community who protest in support of the radical Islamists..
President Olsen used the now raging civil war in Europe to make NATO pour hundreds of thousands of troops into
President Olsen also used the current political environment to advance the democracy agenda and remove the support structure that the Jihadist Islamist had enjoyed. It was
A short decade later, looking back from 2031, the War of Democracy was won using the Cold War strategy of containment, sanctions, and the selective military power of the Allies of the free world.
5 comments:
I know your point is not necessarily to be a predictor of the future, but instead, to warn of danger by projecting possible scenarios.
However, I do want to predict one thing. If a Hilary, or a Soros-backed candidate becomes President, I think it is likely we will see a time of appeasement follow. However, the greatest danger that comes from these types of leaders is, in my opinion, that they are totalitarians. They are bent on power, and therefore, I think their reaction to an attack on our country would actually be far more likely to be nuclear.
Pastorius
Yeah. I like using scenarios to get information across. It's entertaining and you can see thoughts and opinions in action.
I see your point about Hillary and her response. I'd add that her response would even be more drastic than a man's only to prove that she is a capable 'manley' President.
That would probably be another consideration. I will add this: You know how people like Rush Limbaugh will say that Clinton is a man without a moral compass, almost a sociopath. I've always thought that was ridiculous. Clearly, Clinton has a morality by which he lives. He clearly cares about human beings, and he attempts to do the best he can. He is an earnest person. You can see it written all over his face. Sure, has faults etc, but he is earnest in his own way.
Now, Hilary, on the other hand, really does seem to lack a moral compass. I believe Hilary may truly be a sociopath. I would be frightened to have her as a President.
Two words: 1. proofread. 2. spellcheck. I had to read some of those sentences 3 times before I could untangle them.
"President Olsen" impresses me favorably on the whole. However I could only hope our next wake-up call would be as survivable as a foiled plot and one dirty bomb on the NYC subway. (Who'd notice? By August you can't breathe down there anyway.) We may be lucky enough by the grace of 9/11 to have learned enough to avoid the sort of low-tech doomsday attack warned of by Phares in "Future Jihad". But with Ahmadhimmijerker's Iran currently on the nuclear front burner I can't comforably put my faith in klutzy home-grown jihadi hijinks.
Not that it wouldn't be nice to get off that "easy"...
Glad you did this. That article was beyond ridiculous. I have been getting TIME for free, and frankly, I'm sick to death of it already. That was kind of the "last straw" article. The reader complaints about the cover featuring Zarqawi's head with a bloody "X" over it were almost worth it, though. Boy, they sure got angried up over the bloody insinuation that a man with blood on his hands had died a bloody death. So cute when they're all indignant and angry about "violence". Somehow, I never feel that scared.
Post a Comment