Sheer blind idiocy.
And that would be a true statement.
And that would be an ad-hominem attack against "birthers." What I will do is say Mark Levin either has more knowledge or less knowledge regarding this subject than does the Birthers who have studied it. Mark Levin may possibly have very good information regarding why he is correct and we are wrong. I would very much like to hear his evidence and argument, but given that Presidential eligibility is a small backwater cul-de-sac of constitutional study, I would be greatly surprised if he actually has enough specific knowledge about this tiny little aspect of the constitution to express an informed opinion. His opinion certainly contradicts the evidence of which *I* am aware.
The commonly used argument of "Shut Up! That's why!" is rather weak and unpersuasive, especially to people who recognize no betters among us, and revere the principle of freedom. Are you such a person?