But putting that association aside, let's look at what FactCheck.org actually says under the heading, "The truth about Obama's birth certificate." Explaining to website viewers what they're looking at — a short-form "certification of live birth" for Barack Obama — FactCheck.org says:

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

In other words, even the folks at FactCheck.org — cited reflexively and ad nauseam by everyone under the sun as the independent authority on Obama's birth certificate and proof that he's "natural born" — admit they haven't seen the real (long-form) birth certificate, can't get it from Hawaii, and can't even get an answer to their question about the long form.

Now, the other reason I care about this issue is because I still care about the Constitution.

It's a very dangerous thing in life to intentionally cross sacred boundaries, especially when you know you're doing it. It's hard — sometimes impossible — to get back on the right side again. For Americans, one of those great moral lines is violating the Constitution. For instance, once Congress starts spending taxpayer money on things not authorized by the Constitution, no matter how seemingly laudable or humanitarian, there is no stopping it. There is no other "line" to cross after the first one. So after you've justified crossing the sacred line and violating your oaths to God and man, the way seems clear. In front of you lies wide open territory as far as the eye can see — green pastures of plunder. Eventually we arrive at today's trillion-dollar spending bills and national and personal bankruptcy, the precursor to tyranny. All because we allowed our government to step over the sacred line of constitutional spending decades ago.

It's exactly the same with the Constitution's requirement that presidents be natural born.

And why is "natural born" important?

A great deal has been written about how critical it was to the founders that the nation's highest office and commander in chief be occupied only by people for whom utter loyalty to the USA, and not any other nation, was indisputable. John Jay, president of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779, and who later became the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following in a letter dated July 25, 1787, to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention and later first president of the United States. Note: The underlining of the word "born" was in the original:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Without debate, the "natural born" requirement for the presidency was introduced by the drafting committee and subsequently adopted by the Constitutional Convention, as Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

If we abandon the requirements for president specified by the Constitution — which millions of brave young Americans have fought, bled and died to protect — then we are no longer a constitutional republic of citizen sovereigns. We become just another rudderless, hell-bent nation ruled by selfish, ambitious, sinful — and sometimes sociopathic — men and women. Nothing special. Our former national blessing from God just a sad memory.

I don't think that's what we want America's fate to be. As I said, it's a lot better not to cross a sacred line — and this happens to be one.

Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal.

"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," observed Judi McLeod, writing for Canada Free Press. "Obama's plan requires, among others, anyone receiving school loans to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."

She also describes one section with a program to introduce "service learning" as "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

The plan suggests raising the participation in such programs from 75,000 now to 250,000.

Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Gary Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.

"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

He cited the Hitler Youth's launch in the 1920s. In 1933, the participants totaled 100,000, and in 1939 the membership was compulsory for those over 17. Two years later, the membership was compulsory for those over 10, and it included 90 percent of the nation's youth.

He also cited concerns it would steer volunteers away from churches, politicize charity and focus on the "education" of participants.

"The legislation will, in many circumstances, force our children to participate in charitable activity as part of school – and that activity may well be chosen by or approved by a bureaucrat," he suggested.

At Washington Watch one forum participant warned, "Our republic is under attack as never before."

Said another, "This is social engineering at the very least, and could be the first step towards the reinstitution of slavery! Take heed, the New World Order (aka 'Change') draws nigh!"

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue of a "national civilian force" and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.