NOTE: This is far from original, but worth passing on.

Osama Goes to Heaven

When Osama bin Laden died, he was met at the Pearly Gates by George Washington, who slapped him across the face and yelled, “How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!”

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, “You wanted to end our liberties but you failed.”

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, “This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!”

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Osama with a long cane and snarled, “It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence.”

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader.

As Osama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Bin Laden wept and said, “This is not what you promised me.”

The Angel replied, “I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?”

Larry Kudlow on why oil prices are where they ought to be (and helping everyone!), but the Fed may ruin everything, again. Click here.

Just as there was no tech bubble — just a Federal Reserve badly misusing its central planning powers to actively destroy an entire sector of the economy — likewise there’s no housing bubble today. Jude Wanniski explains why, and warns about how a Phillips Curve-obsessed Fed could kill our economy yet again. Click here.

Remember: prosperity is not inflationary. Do yourself and your countrymen a favor and remind President Bush to look for a Fed Chairman who actually understands this.

The “God’s judging America by raising up al Qaeda” line never seems to go away, no matter what happens. It started with strange bedfellows like Bill Clinton and Jerry Falwell (and, for certain Reformed Christians, homeschoolers, etc., a very weird, immediately stupid-looking special issue of Doug Wilson’s Credenda Agenda, pronouncing the immediate end of the world as we know it, just a couple weeks after 9/11 and a couple weeks before American smashed the Taliban, accomplishing in days what the Soviet and British armies failed at miserably over many years).

But it doesn’t ever end. And while some of the more vociferous proponants don’t even believe in God (Micheal Moore, for instance, seemingly longing for some cosmic karma to smite his meal-ticket, er, the U.S. public, off the planet), nevertheless, certain odd corners of Christianity continue to come up with some of the more interesting suggestions. I received one today which suggested that God is using Muslims to destroy the west at least in part because church people have largely ceased singing impreccatory Psalms, and have adopted the hymns of Isaac Watts (who lived from 1674-1748, in case you missed it, and wrote such blasphemous works as “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and the obviously Satanic “Joy to the World”).

You gotta scratch your head at this stuff, folks.

But the bigger point here is that, whatever America might deserve, it isn’t America that’s on the receiving end of this supposed judgment. To me, I simply can’t grasp the kind of self-absorption it takes to look at what’s happening (or even what happened, i.e., 9/11) here and think somehow that this compares in any way, shape or form to what has been unleashed upon the world of Islamist tyrants in the past few years. America is stronger and richer than it has ever been; meanwhile, the Taliban and Saddam are swept away, democratic revolution (mostly peaceful) has broken out across the world, from Lebanon even to Ukraine, and 2/3 of all al Qaeda leaders and members on 9/11 are now dead or in prison.

Yet the “judge America first” crowd prattles on.

Oh well. Let them. In the meantime, here’s my response to the writer of the post I mentioned a moment ago. Hopefully it will give you something useful to think about the next time this foolishness surfaces.

—————————–

Well, to be quite honest, I don’t think the facts bear this out. I think we’ve seen a tremendous upsurge in the United States, in China, in Africa and Latin America in Biblical Christianity, completely independent of anything having to do with Islam. Meanwhile, we’ve seen Islam get its block knocked off every time and everywhere it’s taken us on. Afghanistan couldn’t possibly be a bigger success story in the amount of time we’ve had. Iraq is an equally tremendous success story in 14 of 18 provinces, and even the remaining four have only been difficult because jihadis are coming from all over the Middle East, and then for the most part dying there. The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population stands against them, freedom is taking root, and as long as we’re talking about it, the Gospel is being preached to a degree that just boggles the mind. My good friend George Grant is an important part of that, but there is more opportunity for missionaries now than there are missionaries to go! It’s like nothing since the Muslims swept out of Arabia.

So no, I don’t think this is any existential threat to the United States, to Christendom, or to much of anybody. I think they badly miscalculated, believed we’d run away at the first sign of trouble — not least because we spend so very much of our time contemplating our navels instead of fighting real evil — and their miscalculation is rapidly turning into an existential threat to THEM (by which I mean the Islamists, not Muslims broadly). The era of tyrannical Middle Eastern dictators is threatened if not ending; the rise in oil prices is not only *not* benefiting OPEC but is completely out of their control, and in fact is sparking a tremendous upswing in nuclear plant construction and development of hybrids that get 200 miles per gallon and hydrogen cars which burn no oil at all; and the cream of al Qaeda’s crop has been completely wiped out.

Perhaps most important of all from a geopolitical perspective, Bush’s Sharansky-inspired rhetoric, backed with concrete action, is convincing average Arabs for the first time in fifty years that American really means business about advancing freedom, instead of just propping up whatever dictator happens to promise a stable oil flow (that’s not exactly what we did all those years, mind you: we mostly propped up whatever dictator happened to promise both a stable oil flow and cooperation against the Soviets; but this is a distinction lost on average guys from Alexandria). That very real tendency of ours has damaged us immeasurably, and is al Qaeda’s chief rallying cry against us (if you listen closely). The problem for them is that, by actually backing democracy, we’ve called a bluff they couldn’t possibly afford to have called.

So no, God’s not cleaning our house by way of them, not even if they nuke New York (maybe especially if they nuke New York). God’s cleaning their tyrannical decrepit house, because while he gave the Canaanites 400 years, He’s given these clowns 1300, and oh boy oh boy are their sins ever full.

And separate from all that, we’re in the middle of an enormous revival here, and much of the rest of the world is seeing extraordinary new growth for the Gospel such as has never been seen in human history. How anyone can miss this I can’t imagine.

Best,
Rod

Vanguard PAC Board Member and World Magazine Editor-in-Chief Marvin Olasky knocks it out of the park with this excellent piece on what a church can do when it gets its priorities straight. Take a minute and read “Compassion Over Cathedrals“.

Miracle of miracles, the secular gang at Psychology Today, the same folks who’ve foisted more harm on society than we could ever calculate, has figured out another age-old truth. In its August 2005 cover story, the journal examines “The Cohabitation Trap: When ‘Just Living Together’ Sabotages Love”. The article is advertised with this blurb: “Living together before marriage seems like a smart way to road test the relationship. But cohabitation may lead you to wed for all the wrong reasons–or turn into a one-way trip to splitsville.”

Generations of mothers could have told us this, of course. And they did.

Nevertheless, we should commend truth wherever we find it, and I surely do. It is long overdue for the “if it feels good do it” crowd to awaken to the real consequences of some of their favored “alternate lifestyles”; not because other people are better, mind you, but because everyone deserves at least a fighting chance. And teaching (and encouraging) successive generations to do things which are wildly self-destructive is just plain wrong.

Al Mohler has a tremendous write-up here. You should definitely take time to read it.

Oh, and one other thing. Why is it that when minor pro bono work for some gay rights people comes up — work which did not involve actually representing them, and which was never repeated on any case for any similar group in his entire career — Ann Coulter et al. say this proves he’s pro-homosexual; but when umpteen cases are cited wherein Roberts personally argued before the Supreme Court that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, the same Ann Coulter et al. say he was just representing his client and his arguments don’t tell us anything about his true beliefs?

So which is it? It can’t be both.

ROD: I’ve seen enough now. Are you embarrassed yet? Our obligation and duty as Christians is to be loyal to our Christian Faith and fixed first principles, not to a fickle and treacherous party that has denied us over and over again any role in policy or personnel. I have 40 years with GOP, but am not so sure now.

Sincerely,
(Name Withheld)

To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45733

Dear _____________,

I admit I do not know John Roberts; however, I don’t know any person who does know him who believes any of this makes the slightest sense.

Even on the pro bono thing: he was assigned the work by his supervisor and he did it. And what did he do? He looked over some files and he played Scalia on a moot court panel, shooting down the gay rights people’s arguments. For this we’re supposed to be upset at him? I don’t see it.

But I really don’t see it for this main reason: even if Roberts had actually been their lawyer (and he wasn’t) and actually argued their case before the Supreme Court (and he didn’t), the issue at stake wasn’t gay rights but the proper interpretation of the Constitution (and he disagreed with the homosexuals’ interpretation!). If there’s a legitimate right and homosexuals benefit from it, shall we deny it to them through judicial activism? And if we’re not willing to do whatever it is you want to achieve legislatively, how are we different from the liberals who want to use the courts to twist laws whichever way they wish?

Jay Sekulow is constantly arguing cases which make life easier for Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so forth. Should we bar him from the Supreme Court too, because his work on behalf of Christians helps people we don’t necessarily agree with? Or should we rather note (and be grateful) that laws — and rights — apply to everyone equally, and these cases necessarily cut both ways?

I just don’t see it. But what I DO see is the usual suspects lining up to help the left divide and conquer. Howard Phillips came out with this on Tuesday. Joe Farah is out there, and Ann Coulter too. Has it not occurred to you that they are (a) alone, and (b) at the head of constituencies from whom they make their living by being “more conservative than thou”? And here they are at it again, when everyone from Jim Dobson to Lou Sheldon thinks they’re nuts. Doesn’t this make you wonder, even a little?

I’m a lawyer, and the life issue is of utmost importance to me, and from my perspective I see no fault in the man, and I can’t find anyone without an axe to grind who does. He may fool us all, and he may be the next Souter: I’ll be the first to say so. But you could have said the same thing about Scalia, Bork, Rehnquist and Thomas with equal evidence and equal likelihood of being correct. For my part, I look at the President’s record of nominations, and the many lessons he’s proved he’s learned since his dad messed any number of things up. And I just don’t see any reason other than paranoia to oppose Roberts.

Or to put that another way: Bush says he’s sure about the guy and has done the vetting and has a proven track record on this kind of thing. Coulter says she’s not sure one way or the other, so let’s oppose him. Phillips says he’s not sure one way or the other, so let’s oppose him. Farah says he’s seen a handful of wordings of things that weren’t quite the way he’d have put it, so clearly Roberts is the devil and Bush is a sell-out (which Farah will say any day of the week on any topic under heaven regardless).

Oh, and one other thing: you — and crucially, Joe Farah — base all of this on an article by Richard Cohen, whom even his own Washington Post refers to as “a left-leaning writer”, which is to say, a socialist, who wants Bush’s nominee to fail, no doubt in part by peeling off his conservative support before the coming leftist assault.

Do I detect a pattern? And shouldn’t Joe? And shouldn’t you?

Rod D. Martin, J.D.
http://www.VanguardPAC.org
________

It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially
a Bible-reading people. The principles of the
Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.

— Horace Greely