This election is a fundamental test of character for the nation, for the world, and for individuals. More than that: it is a test with just one question and one correct answer. Those who care for human freedom, those who care for the future of the West, and those who care for the survival of the United States of America are supporting George Walker Bush for re-election to the office of President of the United States. Those who don’t aren’t.

Next Tuesday is the date of the most critical battle in the War on Terrorism since September 11th itself. If Kerry wins this election, the terrorists will probably ultimately win. That may be harsh. That may be questioning the “patriotism” of those opposed to the Commander-in-Chief, but it also has the unique advantages of being true.

If Bush doesn’t win: we’ll lose and millions will eventually die. We may even ultimately lose our civilization. That’s how high the stakes are in this election. The future is on the ballot on Tuesday.

There’s no excuse for not being a Bush supporter this year. Those who oppose him fall into four general groups:

The Stupid: If the debates around the mechanics of voting this year prove anything they should prove that, upon the whole, Democrats are dumber than Republicans. After all, why else would the Democrats fight like hell to ensure that voters who don’t show up in the right place on Election Day can still vote? Why would Democrats be so certain that “undervotes” and “overvotes” would largely go to them? The answers should be obvious to everyone, seeing as they’re apparently obvious to the people running the Democrat Party: Democrats are likely to be disproportionately represented among those too stupid to show up at the correct polling place or fill out their ballots correctly.

These people tend to vote for Democrats because they believe themselves to be (and generally are) incapable of tying their shoes or bathing without a government program to tell them how to do so. Fortunately for us, these people are mostly to lazy to actually bother to vote. Most of the time when they do vote it’s because some Democrat with a big wad of walking-around money has roused them from the viewing of the Jerry Springer Show long enough to give them a $5 bill, a cigarette, and a ride to the polls.

The Ignorant: This is probably the largest category of Democrats. Among this group would be people whose sole source of news is one of the big networks and those who went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 and came out without realizing that the film contains more lies than words. These are the people who believe any nonsense that’s thrown at them, even when that nonsense contradicts the other nonsense that they’ve been told. They tend to believe that an ability to recite from memory nonsensical conspiracy theories proves that they’ve got an IQ which can be measured at higher than room temperature.

For example they’ll explain to you, with a straight face, that the Iraq war is a result of sinister intrigue involving a “Neocon” (Jew) Cabal, the Saudi Royal Family, and Texas Oilmen. Because, as we all know, those are groups with strong common ties and affection.

The Foolish: There are some people who know better who are voting Democratic this year for petty or silly reasons. Most notable among this category is blogger Andrew Sullivan who, despite what he’ll tell you, is obviously voting for Kerry for the sole reason that he hopes that Kerry will allow the perversion of marriage. Andrew, it seems, doesn’t really quite get what our enemies do to his kind when they get the chance. Of course, I suppose, Andrew is well aware that as a result of his… past indiscretions… he probably won’t live long enough for that to matter to him personally in any case.

Traitors: This last group, also known as “Democratic activists” consists of all of the supporters of Kerry who don’t have their own idiocy, ignorance, or moral blindness as an excuse to explain away their otherwise inexcusable lapse in judgement. Like Kerry, most of these people would have been traitors in the Vietnam-era as well, opposing US victory then as they do now.

It’s just not safe to vote for Democrats anymore. There used to be patriotic Democrats: good men like Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry Truman: but they’re mostly all dead or Republicans these days. The rest, out of a desire to remain loyal to the old party, have mostly drifted into category two or three.

Anyone who has been paying attention should have a fairly good idea as to exactly how a President Kerry would run the War on Terrorism. He’ll work to get US forces out of Iraq as quickly as possible and, beyond that, he’ll confine the war to limited operations of the sort that we saw in the Clinton era. He’s going to attempt to hide behind homeland security appropriations: he’ll dump tens (or even hundreds) of billions of dollars into these efforts to give himself political cover and then he’ll withdraw from active engagement with the enemy.

I think that Kerry’s view of terrorism is what he said a few weeks ago: if it is mostly ignored, it will be mostly a “nuisance” which means, in essence, that he’s willing to accept fifty or a hundred dead Americans every year as simply the “price of doing business” overseas. Some have said that it would be preferable to risk the loss of a US city to terrorism than to involve the United States in years of global war. Deep down, I think, Kerry probably agrees with that as well.

However, there’s an essential problem with this view: the War on Terrorism is a global conflict in which time is not on our side. We have a limited window in which to win this war easily because the demographics are running against us. In another twenty years we of the West are going to have to deal with an increasingly Islamic Europe and even a Canada where Moslems may constitute more than 10% of the population, making them the nation’s most powerful minority.

Today in France roughly 30% of those under twenty-five are Moslems. Think about that for a second. The Islamic birthrate is much higher than that among the native French, so that number is bound to continue to grow. In a few decades, France might be a Moslem-majority country. Think about that for a second. Even in the best case scenario in thirty years a third of Frenchmen will be Moslems.

From the opening steps of the Cold War to the end of the Soviet Union roughly forty-five years passed. The demographics and economics of the Cold War were on our side: we could wait the thing out and let Russian Communism decay from within. The same is not true here: if we wait, we’ll lose. If present trends are allowed to continue without being abated, what will our world look like in forty-five years?

Imagine for a moment if you will, what the world of 2049 might look like if we were to now abandon out efforts to slay the Islamist beast. The only Western nations which might still look like the West by then would be Australia and the United States. And even those nations will, in all probability, have been grotesquely transformed. Australia will, given time, take on an increasingly Asian character. The United States, without action taken to stem the tide of illegals, will be an increasingly balkanized nation. Islam will be on the ascent all across the world, with stern mullahs ruling from Tehran to Paris. In the east, the rising economic (and perhaps by then military) superpowers of China and India will contend for dominance in Asia. Even in the Americas, a rising Brazil will challenge the local economic supremacy of the United States.

In simple terms: if we don’t win soon, we’re going to lose this thing. It may be even worse than that. The rise of Islamism will not occur without resistance in large parts of the world. What happens when the Moslem majority in France tries (as it inevitably will) to impose Islamic law upon that country? What will courageous Frenchmen (yes, a few still exist) do then? By that point their options will have been essentially reduced to surrender, flight, or genocide.

Demography is destiny. If the present situation is allowed to go on, the Moslems will win. This is simply a fixed fact. If we fail to resist, if we fail to follow through on the revolutionary changes which the President is seeking to make, then we will be faced with a choice between defeat and rolling the dice on a decidedly unpleasant all-out apocalyptic war.

There’s only one way to defuse the demographic time bomb which threatens us: we have to transform the Moslem world. We dive into the heart of the Middle East and transform the societies there and several things will happen. First, as living standards go up, birth rates will decline. Second, as liberty increases, Middle Easterners will suddenly find themselves arguing about environmental regulation instead of better ways to blow up infidels. Third, as the Moslem world transforms, it will stop exporting its people to the West and may even take back some of what they’ve already sent. Either way, as the flow stops, those already in the West will probably assimilate.

This is a difficult plan, but it’s also the best one we’ve got and we all have to get onboard. If we fail in transforming that region of the world, the options we’re going to need to save our civilization in fifty years won’t revolve around liberty: they’ll revolve around atom bombs.

We must resist the temptations of evil and remain dedicated to the cause. George Bush’s cause this year is the cause of all decent men and women who may be found anywhere in the world. All who are moral, all who know, will join with me in supporting this President and seeing his mission through to its completion.