I'm sure you're not interested in elevating this to a debate. And neither am I.
But I've always believed that there was only one "birther" argument that was worth pursuing. Was Obama born in the USA....or was he not? The outcome of any such investigation -- delivering proof, one way or another -- could be considered dispository.
The natural-born citizen argument has always struck me as a red herring. Everybody who gave a damn about who was going to be elected in 2008 already knew that Obama's daddy had been born in Kenya. Obama himself had written of it. If that singular event made him ineligible for the office of the President, why didn't even one of the thousands of politicians and lawyers and scholars whose business it is to know the Constitution and Electoral Law come forward with that proposition?
To my knowledge, none did...until we were several years into Obama's term. And, even then, we are left with an argument that can only be decided by a court -- whose verdict will never be announced so long as Obama is an elected President.
What an utter waste of effort...
It’s not the birthplace of BO’s dad that disqualified BO from being POTUS. It was the citizenship of BO’s dad at BO’s birth that did it. He was a foreign national, not a naturalized citizen of the United States of America.