Erick Erickson has a funny put-down of a "birfer". That's his terminology for people who insist that Obama isn't a natural born citizen.
Here's my two cents on this issue. As Erickson points out, if you wanted to challenge Obama's eligibility to be President, you should have done whatever you were going to do as soon as he declared his candidacy. If you believe any court in the land is going to say Obama isn't eligible after he's been in office a year, then you're delusional.
Further, if anyone had any actual evidence that Obama isn't a citizen, why haven't wee seen it? All I ever hear from these people is constant claims that whatever evidence we've seen isn't enough. As Erickson points out, no President has ever had to prove his eligiblity. I think the historical precedent comes down pretty clearly on the side of assuming eligiblity barring evidence to the contrary and I haven't seen any contrary evidence.
I have, however, seen a birth announcement. That seems pretty conclusive to me.
So, why hasn't Obama released more evidence than he has documenting his place of birth? I have no idea. There's plenty of good reasons. The best that I've seen is that it's a great way to discredit his enemies while causing people to waste time and resources. (I don't remember where I saw this idea first, but John Hawkins touches on it here.)
If you're hung up on this issue, please drop it. If you won't, the rest of us have every right to distance ourselves from you to keep from being painted as lunatics by association.