Who is Barack Obama?

U. S. Presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita,Kansas.

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia.

When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya Soon after the divorce,
and never again had any direct influence over His son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam.

Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the Western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking Major
public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined
the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's Presidential candidacy.

Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they plan
on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level.

Just a little something that was emailed to us recently that I thought I would pass along!

Jim Chitty

Starbucks; Home of coffee and controversy.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2007/05/06/ddn050607cup.html

Michelle Incanno was admitted Starbucks addcit.

She'd buy the company's coffee beans every week. Whenever she'd get the chance to drop by a Starbucks, she would, placing the same order every time: a large, house brewed coffee with nonfat milk and two Splenda. When the Seattle-based chain opened a drive-through near her Springboro home, she was in java heaven.

That was until she got an unexpected jolt last week from her coffee cup.

Printed on the cup was: "Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

It is attributed to Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, and was included on the cup as part of an effort by the company to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

"As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that. I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee," said Incanno, a married mother of three who is Catholic.

She wasn't satisfied with a company disclaimer saying the quote is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks. It invites customers to respond at www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit.

Starbucks spokeswoman Sanja Gould said the collection of thoughts and opinions is a "way to promote open, respectful conversation among a wide variety of individuals. "

But Incanno said her Starbucks days are over.

"I wouldn't feel right going back," she said.

***************************************************************

This whole situation can be summed up as simply a collision of rights. Bill Schell has the right to believe that God could be a figment of one's imagination and the right to express that uninformed belief. Starbucks has the right to right to make a bad business decision and pass his quote along by putting it on their coffee cups. Michelle Incanno has the right to be offended by the quote that flies in the face of her personal beliefs and by the fact that when she paid her money for Starbucks coffee, she was not expecting to receive religious indoctrination along with her cup of java. The rights of all the above collided at an intersection that had no traffic lights or four way stops and thus there was an ugly crash.

Ms. Incanno has the right to choose and decide how, when, and where she will spend her money. If on the basis of this collision of rights she chooses to not spend anymore of her money at Starbucks, she has that right and I say good for her! I personally would not have a problem with it with it if each and every Christian individual, group, business, etc. in America stopped doing business with Starbucks. When you hit a place like Starbucks in the pocket book, they tend to sit up and take notice. I would love it if this actually happened because it would be a glorious display of the American free-enterprise market place, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. It would be a free society functioning the way a free society is supposed to function.

We need more people in this world to personally take a stand for what they believe. The only reason she is getting so much consternation is because she is a Christian, and in our messed up society, Christians aren't supposed to stand up and speak out. We are instead supposed to just silently cower in a corner somewhere and let the godless like Bill Schell and Starbucks run over us.

Sadly and pathetically, now in America in 2007, everyone has complete, total freedom of speech, religion, and expression. Everyone that is except Christians. We are supposed to keep our beliefs silent because they might offend someone of a minority faith or no faith at all. If we express our beliefs and they get offended, they are listened to and taken seriously. If someone expresses a belief that offends Christians and we speak out, we are labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture??

That is exactly what is going on here. Ms. Incanno spoke out that the quote on the coffee cup offended her. She has the right to be offended by it, and the right to say so. She never once said that Bill Schell didn't have the right to believe the way he believes or to express his belief. She never attacked him. But she is getting attacked. Not so much for speaking out, but for the far worse crime against society of being a Christian and for saying so and sticking up for her Christian beliefs. American needs more people like her!

If Starbucks had, God forbid, (pardon the pun) put a Bible verse, or a Christian quote of some kind on their coffee cups, some of the very same people heaping criticism on Ms. Incanno would have not only complained loud and long about the offense and injustice they feel, but they would have sued Starbucks. And all the rest of us, Christians included, would be expected to just go along with it. And if we spoke out against them suing, then again, we would be called hate-filled, intolerant bigots.

The indisputable, undeniable fact is Starbucks is in the coffee business, not the religion or anti-religion business and thus for their own good should avoid all such quotes and stick with just selling coffee. Ms. Incanno went there to get coffee, not someone's ill-conceived religious opinion. The bottom line is, Starbucks needs to decide if they want to be known as purveyors of coffee, or controversy. They should stick with coffee. That after all is what they're known for.

Jim Chitty

The New Sanctuary Movement

Back in the 70's and 80's, many immigrants were fleeing communism in Cuba, Nicaragua, and other places. More often than not, they found refuge and shelter in churches that were part of something called The Sanctuary Movement. Because they were literally fleeing for their very lives, we gladly welcomed them, even though they didn't come here legally.

Today, many churches are joining something called The New Sanctuary Movement. The difference is, today the immigrants coming here from Mexico and other places are NOT fleeing terrorism, communism, or any other similar situation. They are not facing grave danger by staying in their homeland. They are coming here simply to work, make money, and send it back to their homeland. And they are doing so illegally.

They ARE flagrantly violating federal law. Any church that knowingly, purposely gives sanctuary to law breakers ceases to function as a church and instead begins to function as a political, activist organization, and as such should no longer be entitled to retain its tax exempt status. The so-called pastors of these so-called churches should be arrested for harboring criminals, and so should anyone else who aids in sheltering them.

The Bible, which should serve as the basis for all church rules and policies, clearly points out that Jesus instructs us to obey the laws of the land. To do anything else, or to aid someone in doing anything else not only violates the law, but also violates scripture.

Many churches disguise their sanctuary practices as compassion and help for the poor. There is nothing wrong with giving food, clothing, or other necessities to the needy. That's totally fine and totally scriptural. There is everything wrong with aiding and abetting law breaking, even and especially if it is done under the guise of or in conjunction with helping the needy.

I will not financially or otherwise support any alleged church or ministry that believes its job is to shelter and protect criminal immigrants from prosecution, and neither should any other Christian or any other American who respects our laws as Jesus commands us to.

If a church truly wants to help illegals, the can best help them by teaching them that they are violating the law, and that their best and only option is to go back to their home country, and then go through the process of coming here legally. If they refuse to go through the legal process, then it is the job, even the responsibility, of the church to notify the proper authorities and let them do their jobs.

Standing up for the rule of law and desiring to see our laws aggressively enforced is NOT hateful, in-compassionate, intolerant, evil, or racist. It IS AMERICAN and it IS BIBLICAL! Sadly, far too many of our cities and now churches, are neither American, nor Biblical anymore.

Jim Chitty

Lest we forget!

Let these pictures serve to remind us all why we are, as a nation, fighting the War on Terrorism.

We must NEVER forget!

Jim Chitty

Who says religion can't be funny?!

Some great church signs that I thought I would share!!

Jim Chitty

IMMIGRATION LAWS MUST PASS!

If you're not one who makes a habit out of voting, there's no better time than now to change your habit. If you live in Farmers Branch Texas, please go to the polls & vote FOR the immigration ordinances on the ballot.

Despite what the opposition says, it's NOT about racism, hate, or intolerance. It IS about national security, national sovereignty, and obeying the law. It is NOT racist, hateful, or intolerant to require immigrants to come here legally and to require them to adapt and adjust to our culture and our laws.

The Farmers Branch immigration ordinance is a good thing and it deserves to pass by an overwhelming majority of votes. The city's future depends on it. As do the futures of Texas and the United States.

The mayor of Irving Texas has said his is a sanctuary city, which means illegal immigrants are welcome with open arms and that the city won't tolerate or cooperate with any state or federal attempts to enforce immigration laws.

I think it would serve him right if he was arrested for aiding and abetting lawlessness and for effectively flipping the bird to all that is good and right. The same goes for San Francisco (also a law hating sanctuary city) and its perverted mayor Gavin Newsome.

Opposition to immigration laws is un-American. Plain and simple. I will gladly and wholeheartedly welcome any and everyone who comes here legally. The rest don't deserve to be here. They don't deserve the chance to vote on the subject, and they don't deserve a platform to protest our immigration policies.

Any immigrants, or their supporters, who skip school or work to join in an illegal protest should be expelled or fired for their actions. They claim to be exercising their free-speech rights. Well, I have a newsflash for them. The US Constitution guarantees those rights only to legal citizens, no one else. Illegal immigrants only have two rights. The right to leave, and the right to be incarcerated and/or deported.

Jim Chitty

Burning fuel & structural steel

I find it funny and also telling how all of the pointy headed conspiracy theorists can assert with all certainty that, in reference to 9/11, there is no way burning fuel can melt structural steel sufficiently enough to cause buildings to collapse.

Yet they totally believe that burning fuel CAN melt structural steel enough to cause a highway bridge to collapse such as what happened in San Francisco weekend before last. A tanker truck can crash into an overpass, explode, and the burning fuel be hot enough to melt steel, yet if a plane crashes into a building, explodes, somehow that burning fuel cannot melt steel in that case??

If that's not a clear cut example of selective, agenda driven ideology, I don't know what is.

The truth is, in BOTH the collapse of the World Trade Towers, and the San Francisco highway bridge, it was in fact burning fuel that caused the steel to melt, and brought both structures down. Whether these lame-brained ideologs want to acknowledge it or not.

Scientific principles don't alter or change to fit the agenda of a particular person or group, no matter how hard they may try. So, the only choice that leaves is to lie about the scientific principles, or just flat make stuff up.

Jim Chitty