The definition of "Natural Born Citizen" that requires both parents to be U.S. citizens is nothing more than a fictional device created by birthers specifically to be a standard of eligibility that Obama could not possibly meet. As such, you'll find this definition nowhere in the Constitution or any established case law.
Hence, this event:
Followed by this one:
Wishing this requirement is a "fictional device created by birthers" does not make it so, any more than a global warming alarmist - wishing the earth was heating up to further their agenda - will make it so. As you can see, we are in the midst of a brutal winter, and this issue will catch up with Barry, in time. The Truth has a nasty way of coming to light.
Nice try though...
It is decidedly not my intent to cast aspersions at birthers, but I have yet not found anything in the law that clearly defines natural born citizens. Natural born and native seem to be used interchangeably. The only distinction I seem to find distinguishes between citizens and naturalized citizens. A naturalized citizen is one who through some act of the law becomes a citizen. That would demonstrate a clear difference between naturalized and natural-born as 'born' is not an act of the law.
In the U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401 it even appears that someone can be a citizen as long as they were born here, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. The Constitution (of which I have been accused of not supporting) state, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
So the question would seem to hinge on the definition of 'natural born citizen' as opposed to mere citizen and as understood by the founders and, hopefully as interpreted in case law. That is what I am currently looking for and what, for some reason, a few of the folks on this thread seem to be loathe to provide. Preferring instead to call me names.
I would be a happy to see Obama run out of DC on a rail as the next guy but only for reasons that can be supported rationally and in the law. Not simply because I have heard somebody else say he isn't eligible to be president.
Regardless, even if it could be shown definitively that he is not eligible and should therefore be impeached, I maintain that the likelihood of that occurring is close to nil. Given that, there are other areas that ought to be more pressing concerns for someone like Glenn Beck and I think he has chosen them pretty well.