Insty links to "A comprehensive debunking of arguments that Obama is ineligible for the presidency." The piece is named "Claims of Obama Proofers Go ‘Poof’", speaks of those with a "sincere, often irrational belief that Barack Obama does not meet the Constitution’s minimal requirements to become president". It ends like this:

Even that may not be enough for some irrational souls, but those remaining would be such a small, marginalized group, that they could be easily be monitored by law enforcement. After all, those black helicopters need something to do.

Bob Owens, the author, is not alone: A good number of conservative pundits are embarrassed by their fellow travelers who continue to demand that Obama produce definitive proof of eligibility.

As usual, I find this episode instructive, and feel the obvious arguments are being missed.

First, if the newspaper announcement of Obama's birth is real (and I have no reason to think it isn't) then it fairly well clinches the argument that Obama was born in the US. (What, did they know he was going to be President when he was born, and place a fake announcement in a far-distant paper?) This isn't legal proof, but it certainly passes the common-sense test.

But, that said, when in history have we had a president-elect who was so recalcitrant about releasing his birth certificate? Normally candidates release that, college transcripts and grades, medical records, and copious other documentation. Yet two-thirds of Obama's college transcripts are missing, as well as his birth certificate. What on earth is he hiding?

And there's a lot to be learned about those who are ashamed of such demands. For example, Owens, above, dismisses all who disagree with him as "irrational", and seem to think the police should spy on anyone not adhering to his particular opinion. Is that the usual small-government lovers' response to dissent?

Worse, his "debunking" is composed of the kind of stuff I see decorating dishonest arguments. As I mentioned, the newspaper ad is the best evidence I know of, but he doesn't even seem to be aware of it. (Without the ad, the question is indeed far less clear.) Instead, Owens spews chaff, focusing on bit players and straw men, and quickly whisks his readers past the killer argument, camouflaging it with a blast of illogic:

If he was born outside the United States or U.S. territories, this might indeed have been a legitimate Constitutional issue. The problem with this theory is that no one has been able to provide any credible evidence that Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

Huh? That's a "comprehensive debunking"? Since when the burden of proof on everyone else?

When my employer wants to know if I'm a citizen, am I allowed to answer the challenge with: "Well, no-one can prove I was born elsewhere!" But what applies to me apparently doesn't apply to Citizen Obama. Worse, when McCain was challenged on this very issue, the courts admitted the challenge; yet when the exact same arguments were used towards Obama, the judge simply dismissed the case. (Apparently, proof of "natural born" citizenship can only demanded of Republicans.)

What saddens me here, as with the issue with Hillary and the emollients clause, is that nobody, not even many conservatives, seems to give a whit about fulfilling the only requirements stated by the Constitution for the highest office in the government. Frankly, I don't care if Obama was born in Debuque, Iowa, and there were no serious questions about it. He should have to produce his full, legal birth certificate like every other candidate.

Further, if this report in New American is accurate...

Obama has reputedly hired three law firms (firms, not lawyers) to make sure that no one gets access to his birth records in Hawaii or his college transcripts from Occidental College and Harvard.

... then we should be all the more concerned. Nobody works that hard to hide something unless they actually have something to hide. Something seems amiss here.