DID YOU KNOW by Andy Rooney

A MIXED BAG

Glenn Beck Clips 09-29-09 Seg3- Iran President Speech to UN Very Specific About World's End	Glenn Beck Clips 09-29-09 Seg4- Battle Hymn of the Republic Song Bastardized in School

News 1.02.05 All told, faith-based organizations were awarded $1.17 billion in 2003. That is about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs in five federal departments for which faith-based groups may have qualified. White House officials expect the total to grow. The list of 2003 grant recipients provided to AP is the first detailed tally of the dollars behind this "faith-based initiative." Elected with strong support of religious conservatives, Bush came to office promising to open government's checkbook to religious groups that provide social services. Often, Bush says, religious groups do a better job serving the poor. Civil libertarians fear the government will wind up paying for worship, eroding the constitutional separation between church and state. Jim Towey, who directs the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said the Bush administration has been clear that "government money is not to fund religious activities." "This is a culture change in the way government provides social services," he said. "There's always going to be a very delicate balance." In the past, government has refrained from giving money directly to religious groups, but has required that they set up independent, secular organizations to get taxpayer dollars. Bush tried to get Congress to change that. Congress refused, so he unilaterally put many of his changes into effect. To entice religious groups to apply for grants, the White House hosted several conferences explaining the relaxed rules and put out a book listing programs they might want to apply for. "We feel much more at ease," said Louis Wonderly, past president of the Luther House Foundation of Southern Chester County, Pa. The group was awarded $10.3 million to build an apartment building for low-income older people. "We won't have to say, `Oh my goodness, is it terrible to have a cross hanging on a bulletin board?'" Wonderly said.

Newt Gingrich – Instead of progressive I would say radical. There is a radical faction in America:             Hates the idea that we are endowed by our creator with certain in amiable rights.             They deeply dislike that we are a faith based country.             They think it is judgmental that we believe in God.             Their efforts are frankly a dagger at our very heart of our spirit and our nature of our country. O’Reilly – Not all Liberals are progressive and if you put progressive with radical you would have to call Canada a radical nation. Are you?   Newt Gingrich – I think it is drifting toward a radical view of the world, which has happened to all of Western Europe. Western Europe today is probably the least religious section of the entire planet. The Christian religion is growing very dramatically in Africa, it is growing in Asia and in Latin America, but in Western Europe, the original heart of Christianity is virtually collapsed. And with it has collapsed a whole series of other commitments about the nature of life. I think the same movement that you were describing in Canada is absolutely the same movement that led to the lawsuit last year saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to say “One Nation Under God”. It is the movement in the California school system that you should not be allowed to talk about the declaration of independence in public school because it references our creator; that would be religious. Side note from me: Did you know that in California it is required for 7th graders to learn the 7 points of the Koran and dress up like a Muslim and do the chant. Back to Newt: It is a movement that would like us to have amnesia and forget what kind of country we have. O’Reilly – They want to obliterate all the founding fathers philosophical and of course the words they wrote like James Madison were based on their philosophy. Here is the problem; you saw the last election that 11 states voted down gay marriage most of them even Oregon which is as secular as it comes in the Portland area by huge margins. More than 90% of Americans by the way Mr. Speaker celebrate Christmas. Yet the progressive secular movement as small as it is, has tremendous amount of power, where does that power come from. Newt – They have the power because we allowed them to bully us and bluff us. The answer to the Mayor in Denver is to defeat him in the polls. The answer to Judges that don’t understand that America was based on concept of “One Nation Under God” that we were endowed by our creator.  Frankly to close their offices to do to them what Thomas Jefferson did to the Federalist Judges in 1802. The congress can do that and the President can do that. You don’t have to impeach them you can just abolish. Take the wackiest 5 or 6 judges out their and decide they don’t understand America and simply abolish their office. Your not impeaching them for bad conduct you are saying they shouldn’t be judges anymore. O’Reilly – You have to pass legislation to do it.   Newt – In 1802 Thomas Jefferson and the Jeffersonian wiped out over half the Federal district Judges. O’Reilly – Why? Newt – The Federalists had cheated and created Judges that were not appropriate. The congress and the President have the power to reshape the Judiciary. We have been bullied by the lawyer class and the New York Times in the editorial page in believing in a series of Myth that are simply not true. O’Reilly – What good does it do the Nation to have a fundamental belief in a creator? Newt – I think it is at eh core whether we are a covenant country or a contract country. A covenant country believes your power personally Bill, your power comes from God, your endowed by your creator and therefore you lone to the government what is your power. That is why we sway “We the people of the United States in the constitution. In European contract law you and I are just protoplasm. We don’t have any spiritual and moral rights. We don’t lone the state anything. We are in effect creatures of the state. There is a profound difference between a nation funded on a covenant with God and a nation founded on a contract among protoplasm. O’Reilly –I see Canadian and Americans basically the same, If it can happen there it can happen here. Newt – It can absolutely happen here. The radical left, the people who are against God against religion, against referencing the creator against Christmas go down the list. The people who are mad at Arnold Swartzenegger for using the term Christmas tree; fist of all, historically they are nothing but Christmas Trees. It is impossible to imagine anything else. Second, are we going to abolish the word Christmas? Are we going to abolish the word Easter? Are we going to try and pretend that we don’t have Christian roots? Overwhelmingly this is a Christian Country with totalitarian brothers but it is not an anti-religious country.