If it were not so frightening it would be a curiosity to observe that the Western world has pretty much decided to ignore the threat of fanatical, fundamentalist Islam to death. Marc Styne identifies a demographic waypoint, 2030, but the tipping point obviously will occur well before 2030. That means that as early as 2015 or 2020 the moral energy of the democratic world to resist sharia will have been exhausted.
But you say, the United States does not have this demographic problem and will be able to resist the tsunami of Islam and, after all, America is still world' s superpower with weapons equal to its presumed determination to keep America the shining city on the Hill.
What will America look like after eight years of Obama, that is, assuming that we can expect him to retire from the scene after his constitutional terms are exhausted?
The initial understandable reaction to that question is to take into account Obamas record of appeasement in his first 30 days in office. Implicit in that reaction is the assumption that Obama is a typical Leftist motivated by a genetic disposition toward appeasement. Under this understanding, Obama can be expected to engage in appeasement as rank as that seen in Europe leading to surrender differing only in that it will occur a decade or so behind the Euroweenie's pusillanimity. This assumption might not be valid. Obama' s DNA might be very different.
Those of us who entertain a darker assessment of Obama believe that he is not truly an appeaser, and he is truly a Manchurian Marxist who welcomes chaos as a means, Saul Alinsky style, to invest his world with Marxism. We are conditioned since Neville Chamberlain and the shameful Democratic administrations in our own country during the Cold War to see liberalism as afflicted with incurable appeasement. What might be true for a liberal might not be true for a radical, for a Saul Alinsky marxist. Obama might not need chaos, having already achieved his ends.
Radical leftists throughout history have shown themselves to be not at all squeamish about inflicting casualties so long as it is calculated to advance their own power. Thus, Stalin would mercilessly push his troops into suicide attacks, Mao Tse Tung deliberately sacrificed hundreds of thousands of his soldiers to improve his position in the Communist Party, and sacrificed perhaps a million in the Korean War to draw the West into killing fields. So there is no doubt that a committed communist will not shrink from making war or even in sustaining mind numbing casualties of his own people in the advancement of his ideology.
The implications of this article are stark. On the one hand we have an inexorable demographic march of Mohammedens determined to impose a faschistic sharia upon democratic man. On the other hand we have the potential of our last best hope for that democratic man to be subverted by a Manchurian Marxist well before Islam is in a position ultimately to confront us.
If this scenario should play out, war is absolutely inevitable and it would be to the death. I have been preoccupied by some time now that the election of Barak Obama has actually elevated probabilities that we will be engaged in serious war rather than, as the slaphappy Euro weenies and leftists in America assume, Obama, as opposed to Bush who was rushing toward Armageddon, will somehow lead the world in singing kumbaya.
