Further on Obama's Eligibility

I have just come across the site of one Steve Beckow, a Canadian who is doing good work in apprising his readers of aspects of the changes going on in the world, for the better. (sbeckow.wordpress.com) But he got my 'concern' up when he spoke/speaks "unabashedly" of his admiration for Barack Obama. My response, on the thread of one of those blogs of his:

"I have just come across your site, Steve, and though I find it very interesting, and am ‘simpatico’ with much of it, I have to say that I am glad to read on this thread some concerns about Obama (and that you allowed them). Maybe, being a Canadian, you don’t understand some of the basic concerns here, and have assumed that the concerns about his eligibility and motives are just sour grapes from ‘the political opposition’, or racist, or whatever. But you should know that there are serious and legitimate questions about his eligibility for that office – and therefore a legitimate feeling that the country is being hijacked.
And it doesn’t even have to do with the questions about his original, vault-copy birth certificate, ie, whether he was actually born in Hawaii or not. He was not eligible for that particular office from the beginning, according to the historical definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen (as opposed to just ‘native born’), which involves both ‘blood’ and ‘soil’ – is a person born of citizen parents (plural) on the land (or its equivalent). His father (if indeed Obama Sr. was in fact his father; another worm in this can) was a British subject – the country that was uppermost in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they agreed not to allow a person of potentially mixed national loyalties to hold that particular office (it’s not a requirement of other federal offices). He should never have been allowed to run for the office in the first place – and in fact there is some evidence that the person responsible for signing off on his eligibility to be the Democratic Party’s candidate, one Nancy Pelosi, even KNEW there was some question about this matter (she changed the wording on the legal form sent to Hawaii from that sent to the other states). But some politicians in America play a little fast and loose with ‘the law’, apparently operating with the philosophy that the end justifies the means. Which, as we know from sad experience, is the philosophy of tyrants down through the ages.
And I use this analogy intentionally. It was, after all, Hitler who famously declared, “I am the law”; and look where that attitude got the world. I am saying, in effect, that there is something of the darkness about Obama’s administration; and therefore, how can this be unequivocally of the light?
There’s something wrong with this picture. I don’t care what Mathew, SaLuSa, and David Wilcock say about this man. They have some explaining to do. And I encourage you to go inside, and get your own message from Spirit on this matter; not rely on them for your take on it.
I have my take on it. But this is your blog. And GENERALLY, I encourage you to keep up your good work."

There is an issue here that goes as well to Obama's two nominations for the Supreme Court - and signals the danger that the American Republic faces with people in positions of power who are relative about the law. Not that George W. Bush didn't also play with that same set of matches. But it's getting out of hand, now, as time passes, and with the precedent set by the Republicans (who should have known better), with the Democrats philosophically eager to drive a coach and horses through such an opening; and with the acceptance now of Elena Kagan onto that Court.

Kagan had signaled in her past writings her admiration for an Israeli judge - indeed, describing him as her "hero" - who wrote on the matter of not letting the wording or intention of the law stand in the way of modern interpretations of it. That is, that judges are, apparently, supremely qualified to substitute their own socio-political proclivities for the law. Thus negating the necessity of having anything like a democracy, or a republic; to say, a legislative branch of government. Why bother? Let the judges decide the law.

A notion that the likes of Thomas Jefferson decidedly warned the American people about.

And thus the apparent major reason why the niceties of the law regarding the legal definition of a 'natural born' citizen to be eligible to run for the American presidency was no real impediment to the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. What does it matter what the 'original intention' of the matter was? All that matters is the here and now, and who has the power to determine what the meaning of the law will be.

So much for contracts, and the rule of law. So passe, in the day and age of what one of Clinton's flunkies commented on - presciently, as it has turned out - when William 'Wild Bill' Jefferson signed yet another Executive Order: "Stroke of the pen; law of the land. Kinda cool."

Neat.

For tyrants.