Fine. Live in your fantasy world. For any others reading, here is what the Indiana Court wrote:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
In this case, they did not discuss where Obama was born because:
“With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Are you doing like James now and making my argument for me?? Your quote from Ankeny shows how they avoided declaring Obama to be a natural born citizen despite having a perfect opening. The problem was that they couldn’t, because they can’t say with any certainty that Obama was born in the United States. At best, they’re claiming Barak Sr’s citizenship doesn’t matter, but as you and I know both know, this absolutely false, since WKA specifically used the same definition of natural born citizen as the Minor decision.