Yeah, I totally understand where you are coming from. Commander Kirchner says “two citizen parents” in all his writings yet he is challenging candidates whose parents are naturalized citizens, such as Ted Cruz’s father and Governors Jindal of Louisiana and Haley of South Carolina.
That said, it is also fertile ground for the agitator who wishes to confuse. On the one hand there is the ambiguity in the definitions themselves. On the other hand, it is easy for an agitator to use the foreign born nature of those involved to lay a claim of racist, xenophobe, or any other term intended to scare off reasoned debate.
A past confusion has been to purposefully conflate foreign-born alone as a disqualifier for birthing a president.
What makes the Obama situation different is the hiding of his past, the lack of trustworthy documents, and nobody from his childhood who has come forward with stories of his heritage. All prior presidents have came from families whose histories were never in doubt. Add to that the willingness to use race to stifle any challenge, and we are left with a pattern of behavior that seems to exactly fit what the Framers were afraid of.
Which means that the only line of attack left is to discredit the intent of the Framers.
This reminds me of when the Left circled the wagon around Bill Clinton. To protect Clinton they had to tear down their darling Thomas Jefferson (the Saint of separation of Church and state). Now, to protect Obama, they have to tear down the intent of the Framers.
In my opinion, of course...
So the question then is, if Obama had not run, would a Jindall or Cruz be running later, or would a non-Obama understanding of natural born self-selected them away from trying?
-PJ