This is a copy of a long form certified Hawaiian birth certificate.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9779/hawaiib...

If Obama was to walk into his local recruiting office and present that certificate of live birth would he be able to enlist in the Armed Forces using that document as it has been presented on the Fight the Smears website?

When the Democratic National Committee has admitted the following ever since they published it in 2008:

http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetes...

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

In their Take Action side bar, they stated:

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Hi everyone!

People who are determined to keep us divided start these rumors about Barack’s birth certificate to manipulate us into thinking he is not an American citizen.

The fact is Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.

Learn the facts and see the birth certificate for yourself:

http://my.barackobama.com/birthcertificate

Together we can make sure these negative and divisive attacks don't affect this election.

Thanks for your help.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-suprem...

WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP

In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

In 16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Once a soldier swears that oath, it becomes their solemn duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same [the Constitution of the United States of America]. This duty is without question.

However… the next portion of the oath they swear where they will obey the orders of the President of the United States, would be dependent upon:

1) The Citizens of the United States giving the soldiers who serve in their Armed Forces, a constitutionally legal President.

2) A constitutionally legal President giving lawful orders to soldiers who serve in the Citizens Armed Forces.

How can Citizens of the United States expect soldiers in their Armed Forces to obey an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President?

How can Citizens of the United States expect an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President to give lawful orders to soldiers who serve in their Armed Forces?

Lemme lay it out for you like THIS. Just ask SIMPLE QUESTIONS!! Trust me. If you do your research, you've got PLENTY of questions to WAKE UP THE LIBERALS WITHOUT the citizenship ties.

Why didn't he keep his promise to stop using signing statements A.K.A. executive orders??
Why didn't he keep his promise to dismantle the Patriot Act?? Why did he EXTEND the Patriot Act INSTEAD??
Why is he REALLY building FEMA “emergency camps” all across the nation??
Why didn't he keep his promise to end the NAFTA??
Why did he hire Eric Holder as his attorney general who is a former LOBBYIST when he EXPLICITLY STATED that he would KEEP LOBBYISTS OUT of policymaking jobs??

See where I'm goin with this?? He's BROKEN just about EVERY promise he made in his campaign speeches. We DON'T NEED the “birthers” makin this battle to SHED LIGHT in the dark seem “CRAZY.” We HAVE the ammo ALREADY. Let's USE WHAT WE'VE GOT.

ANOTHER reason I'd like for you not to discredit Beck TOO quickly is because if you go to http://www.infowars.com and listen to some Alex Jones for a little while…you'll SEE that Beck is basically a SOFTER version of HIM. He uses “Progressive” instead of GLOBALIST. He brings up the Federal Reserve bankrupting America, but in SOFTER WORDS that DON'T DIRECTLY blame them.

THINK FOR YOURSELVES. DECONSTRUCT EVERYTHING. That's all. I've spoken my peace.