Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Guest
Author:  Bruce Walker
Bio: Bruce Walker
Date:  February 7, 2007
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

A Special Summit

I have written a number of prophetic articles about changes in the governments of democracies since September 11th and since America liberated Iraq. At the time we ended the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein, men like John Kerry were speaking openly about how unsympathetic our democratic allies were toward America. Things have changed a great deal since then.

As I predicted after the SDP lost the state elections in West-Rhineland Westphalia, Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder, one of our most obnoxious critics, would call early Bundestag elections for Germany, and, just as I predicted, the new Chancellor of Germany would be Angela Merkel, a Christian Democrat much more sympathetic to America than her socialist predecessor.

Also as I predicted, the Conservatives in Canada would win a plurality in the Canadian general election and Albertan, Steven Harper, would be the next Prime Minister with a much more pro-America and pro-Israel policy than his two socialist and anti-American predecessors prime ministers.

I predicted that Calderon would win the Mexican presidential election – easily the best candidate out of a not very good selection of candidates – and that his pro-growth, low-tax, pro-business government, which is also the least hostile possible government we could hope for in Mexico, would win.

The Japanese government, always a good ally, now has one of the most pro-American in the war on terror and defense of freedom, peace and democracy of any, perhaps, since the end of the Second World War. This government has also won general elections since the war on terrorism began in earnest, and again the good guys – the most pro-American candidates and parties – won.

The same has been true in Australia, where one of our most redoubtable allies has won general elections since Australia unambiguously sided with their English-speaking brethren in a solid front against the Axis of Evil. The good guys down under, as well as nearly everywhere else, have won. Two more elections seem likely to place two more critical nations in the pro-America camp in the next few months.

In April, the French will elect a new president. Although the attractive Ms. Royal, the Socialist, had been running very close of the proudly pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy, the most recent public opinion polls in late January show Sarkozy opening a significant nine point lead over Ms. Royal, and more importantly, show him opening a eight point lead in the run-off. It appears very likely that the next President of France will be someone who openly loves America and who is very determined not to have France turn into a Moslem nation. Sarkozy is also, like Merkel and many others, a devout Christian (a real oddity in modern pagan Europe.)

Almost as intriguing, as our noble friend, Tony Blair, leaves the premiership of Great Britain, it seems more and more likely that the Labour Party will have to call a general election in 2007. Labour has run Great Britain for more than a decade, it is deeply divided itself over the war in Iraq and the threat of terrorism, and the scandal of the sale of honours (knighthoods, etc.) for cash is the type of corruption scandal which will make it very difficult for a fractured Labour Party to avoid asking the people for a vote of confidence.

Who would win the British general election of 2007? Very likely the Conservative Party, which consistently runs ahead of Labour in all the public opinion polls. The Conservatives now have an attractive candidate for Prime Minister and people in Britain are unhappy about just about everything that the Labour Party has done. The Conservative Party in Britain has always been closer and friendlier to America than the Labour Party, and although one could not have asked more of Prime Minister Tony Blair, having a whole government full of cabinet ministers who are pro-American will make our special relationship even more special.

What could this mean? Internationally, it will mean an even more united front against the Axis of Evil, radical Islam and the forces of terrorism. Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council will vote the same way – our way. The governments of all of the “Big Eight” nations except for Italy will now be decidedly more sympathetic to America than five years ago.

What could this mean nationally? It could mean a lot. Right now, the drive-by media is telling us that we are isolated, alone, pariah, etc. In fact, based upon the way democracies decide such things (elections) we have been leading and our major democracies are beginning to follow our lead.

So consider this around January 2008: President Bush calls a summit of the leaders of Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Canada and Australia to meet at Ground Zero in New York and to come up with a common plan for fighting the war on terrorism. Out of this summit comes an agreement that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a humanitarian act that will promote peace and democracy if it succeeds, that all of the intelligence agencies of each of the attending nations believe that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction prior to invading Iraq, that all the participating nations agree to share intelligence and to work on multi-national forces to preserve peace around the world, and finally, that each nation signs a treaty embracing a common plan to fight terrorism and to preserve the values of democracy and tolerance which Japan and western democracies embrace.

What would be the impact of that? President Bush could sign the treaty, but the Senate would have to approve it, and approve it by a two-thirds vote. Would Harry Reid allow the Senate to vote on the treaty, or would he bottle it up in committee? How would individual senators vote on the treaty? Would they vote against cooperation with our closest allies to fight terrorism? What position would the presidential candidates, probably largely chosen by then, take? Would Hillary, for example, say that America should “go it alone” and not approve the treaty negotiated by President Bush?

If the summit was held at Ground Zero, what would be the emotional impact of having Rudy Giuliani, increasingly the likely Republican nominee, address the leaders of government of all these nations – our friends – and remind the world what he did on September 11, 2001 and what happened to New York that day.

If France and Britain have new, conservative, pro-American governments this year, then Democrats and socialist brethren around the world who tried so hard to tinker with American elections may find that sometimes the worm will turn. An embarrassed Hillary, an exalted Giuliani, a rehabilitated Bush – all of these could come out of a summit about a year from now. Shhhh! The good guys keep winning.

Bruce Walker

Send email feedback to Bruce Walker


Biography - Bruce Walker

Bruce Walker has been a published author in print and in electronic media since 1990. He is a regular contributor to WebCommentary, Conservative Truth, American Daily, Enter Stage Right, Intellectual Conservative, NewsByUs and Men’s News Daily. His first book, Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie by Outskirts Press was published in January 2006.


Read other commentaries by Bruce Walker.

Copyright © 2007 by Bruce Walker
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]


© 2004-2018 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved