Sorry Dane, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're getting it across right.
I think the best way to get something like this across is how they are attacking the legitimacy of Obama's birth certificate.
Using their research, they are claiming:
1) To become President (I.E. Head of the State; Head of Gov.; Commander in Chief) you must be born in the {USA} <----This is important to distinguish. Otherwise, Canadians, Mexicans, and South Americans would be eligible for the presidency as well.
2) Obama was not born in the USA.
3) Therefore, Obama cannot become President.
Where all the confusion arises is in what claims they make after this fact. Primarily: " it teaches that all authority is appointed by God and there is no authority that has not been appointed by God"
While this seems like an explanation that could logically be used, in answer of the reason for which Obama is in power, it violates the fundamental laws that necessitate a being (such as God's) existence.
Firstly, all of the verses that Slacker cited (realistically, all of the Bible) took place during the time in which Divine Right was the sole reason a sovereign had any power at all. During this time, the Free Will of the individual held no sway over who would be king/queen/etc.
However, you seem to agree that Free Will is something that we hold. Hence, since the advent of democracy (which instated the power of Free Will upon the ruling powers), it would be illogical for God to be responsible for whoever was placed in power, as that feat in itself would deprive us of our ultimate good (Free Will) and absolve us of any and all blame for ill-favored decisions we make.
Thus, even if you follow scripture, God's appointment of power would have ceased, the moment democracy governed the selection of our leaders.
This leads me back to Obama, by way of stating that the election of the president is the result of human free will. That being said (if you wish to stay with conspiracies), it does not imply that it was the voting populous that got to choose. Perhaps it was a smaller group that decided Obama was better, at this time, for their plans.
Regardless, this brings me to the difficult position of defending the illegal immigrant (along-side Dane). The claim, that the support of illegal immigrants comes off the back of hard-working taxpayers, might be true. That does not mean that these illegal immigrants are not hard-working themselves. It has been referenced that one woman worked hard and saved an almost ridiculous amount (to me), because you also had to think about her payment for food and the like, along the way.
I wouldn't be angry, as one of the legal citizens that work hard and have to help those less fortunate, that I had to give my excess. I would be angry that others, with much more excess, give less. I would also not blame those illegal immigrants that work and try to better their lives, by bettering the place they choose to live. Not only is doing that wrong (on a biblical proportion), I'd say that it's fundamentally wrong ethically, as well.
Locke says that everything in nature is given to us "by the hand of God". This means that everything in nature is neutral, and unowned by any individual living here. We achieve "ownership" once we labour over these things. For example, if I pick apples from a tree, I laboured over the apples. Thus, they are my property. If there was originally no tree and I planted and nurtured it, then the tree is my property. Furthermore, we ought not own so much property, that we leave too little for others to survive, or too poor quality for others to sustain themselves. We ought to take just what we need, in fairness.
In light of these things, complaints, toward illegal immigrants, seem almost ridiculous. The discontentment does not exist with them, they exist with those that are hoarding the resources everyone needs to basically survive.
