Now, consider that, and then look at what Joseph Farah said in the second paragraph. That is prime Birther boilerplate, right there, straight from the horse's mouth.
Joseph Farah is saying that, from his understanding of the facts, Barack Obama is ineligible to be President because he was not born to two citizen parents, one had divided loyalties, and the other wasn't old enough to confer her citizenship.
He even goes on, not a paragraph later, and says:
"Birthers understand that since we have not seen an actual eyewitness, contemporaneous document known as a long-form birth certificate there is no basis upon which we can determine Obama's eligibility, because we don't know for certain who his parents are and where he was born."
"Since we have not seen..." sounds pretty damning, but I'm willing to be nice and say maybe he means the general we, rather than we as in "me and others like myself."
(You'd think someone who'd been practicing journalism for 35 years would be a little more careful in his phrasing, but I guess he's got Crisis Cookers and Tea Party Manifestos to sell.)
So let it be resolved: by his own ill-chosen words, Joseph Farah has revealed himself to be a Birther. Maybe he is not willing to go on record as saying he doesn't believe that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, and maybe he does actually think he was born there, and just wants to see if the mythical long-form Birth Certificate has some tasty tidbit he can use to Whitewater a sitting President.
But if he seriously believes that Obama is "possibly" a non-US citizen because of his father's nationality and his mother's age, in spite of the law saying otherwise, then he is a Birther by any standard of the current use of the term.
Please let me know if I have misstated or mischaracterized the issue before us in any way, Mr. Farah. But I think you owe a whole lot of people -- especially Newsweek -- a very large apology right now.