You have no idea what you are talking about. The Constitution does not specifically define "Natural Born Citizen" and the law is not completely settled. But two points:

1. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen > Hawaii part of United States of American > Obama born in Hawaii > therefore, Obama is natural born citizen > this lawsuit is frivolous and any court worth its salt should sanction this guy for filing it!!!!

2. even if Obama were born outside U.S. - did you remember point 1? Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen? - my understanding is that a child born to a U.S. citizen abroad is natural born citizen. Other presidential candidates born outside U.S. - Barry Goldwater (born in Arizona when it was a territory), George Romney (Mexico) and Lowell Weicker (France) - don't remember anyone questioning their eligibitliy to be president. My sister is a U.S. citizen - her children were born in Australia. Geez, will my neice and nephew be disappointed to know that they can never be President.

"The respected FactCheck.org run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania examined the document and concluded here that there’s no doubt he was born in Hawaii in 1961."

Exactly. Thank you. Here is what Factcheck.org said in an August 26, 2008 report:

FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

www.factcheck.org

But you will be happy to hear another lawsuit is being prepared claiming that Hawaiian statehood was never actually approved. Congress actually voted against admitted Hawaii and, in fact, voted to sell Hawaii to Japan for $7.3 million. The sale was finalized in 1952. But Eisenhower would not be denied and he deployed 2 top secret weapons developed during WWII. The first weapon erased memories and the second implanted new memories. Only top advisers and cabinet and military officials were protected from the effects of these weapons and they were sworn to secrecy. (Several of them have died under mysterious circumstances.) So, we all believe that Hawaii is a state but it never happened!! This fraud has been perpetrated on the American people and must be remedies. Obama was not born in Hawaii but he was actually born in Japan! (There is even a town in Japan named after him - you can look it up.) How do I know this? My grandfather was a top adviser to Eisenhower and he told me this on my deathbed. I know, I know, I am an Obama supporter so why should I want to make this public? Why because, tragically, my lifesavings have been nearly wiped out by the financial crisis.

his deathbed - the other way around would be silly because i wasn't even born during the eisenhower admin - oh yes, i was because i was born in 1957, anway...

I thought the Dems were supposed to be the ones who encouraged the scourge of litigiousness. What with all their plaintiff lawyer friends (even one on the 2004 ticket!) and donations from ATLA.

That is very funny - thank you for the chuckle!

Voters absolutely, positively, do not want Obama to "go liberal," anymore than they wanted the next administration to "go all mavericky." That's just far left, wingnut self-absorption and narcissism. OMG, these folks are no more "reality-based" than their right wing counterparts!!! Voters do not want ideological labels.

This is what voters want: they want Obama to clean up the mess and fix the problems. That is it. And it doesn't matter to them whether you call the fixes progressive, liberal, centrist or szechuan chicken. What matters is that things actually change.

What they do not want is idealogues getting in the way of making things happen. They've had quite enough of that, thank you very much. And how might idealogues get in the way? By being "drama queens," that's how, and becoming hysterical anytime Obama appears to be following through on his pledge to govern in a bi-partisan and, WOW, here's a novel idea, in an effective way. Neither far right nor far left wingnuts like effectiveness - puts 'em out of business.

Obama ran not only on a policy platform, he also made the case for himself by letting the people know how he planned to govern. The people voted for both.

As for "incrementalism," defined as: a policy of making changes, esp. social changes, by degrees; gradualism; can someone, anyone, please explain to me why, once we've agreed on what changes are needed (as we just did) and as long as we are making steady progress toward change, this is a bad thing??!! Please, I'd rather have a loaf of homemade bread anyday than a loaf I bought at Safeway, even if I get my bread more quickly and easily from Safeway. Although, of course, there are times when I have no choice but to buy a loaf from Safeway. I try to be flexible (wow, yet another novel concept) and if I must get my bread from Safeway this week, so be it.