However I do not think this resolution was meant to exclude persons born in the states, regardless of their parentage, from natural born status.

To take “if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens” and turn it around to say “if they are natural born citizens then they are born to American citizens anywhere in the world” would be the formal logical fallacy of “affirming the consequent”.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

Its pretty clear that congress understands the term to mean Children Born of American Citizens. It could be that perhaps you wish to maintain your perspective for your own reasons.

Even Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), says “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. ” He did not say – “born of a Foreign Father and An American Citizen”. He said – “born to American Citizens”. Notice American Citizens is Plural.

Further he said “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen”. Again – American Citizens phrase. I think the case of Obama is doubtful because his father was not an American Citizen.

There is a lot more to me that that.

The article is pro-Obama
therefore the article is by someone who voted for Obama
therefore the article lacks value due to its pro-Obama bias.

That is logically equivalent to every pro-Obama statement is biased!

Such a view reminds me of a letter I got once in response to my criticism of a Soviet reference book: “only Marxist-Leninist philosophy is objective and scientific”.

What I find most interesting in the article is the connections of particular anti-Obama conspiracy theorists to other conspiracy theories. I had no idea that Jerome Corsi was tied up in other conspiracy theories–I thought he just never got over the Vietnam War protests.