Feelings don't enter into it; the question is intent. "Natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, but it's pretty clear the "intent" was to prevent people with divided allegiances from becoming President. McCain didn't have the slightest shred of allegiance to Panama. None. Zip. Nada.
The closest you can come to a contemporary understanding of who was considered a natural born citizen would be the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 which stated quite specifically that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens" McCain's parents were undoubtedly U.S. citizens (and so were his grandparents).
18th century law commentaries were pretty clear about "natural born" when they stated "The children of ambassadors in a foreign Country, are natural born Subjects, and not Aliens." McCain's father was not working out of an embassy, but he was most certainly in Panama at his government's behest.
Your position seems to be that the thousands and thousands of children born overseas to U.S. citizens serving their country aren't natural born because they weren't born on U.S. soil, but by that same "logic" every anchor-baby born to an illegal alien must be. If that's the case, then the Law truly is an ass.
My position is whatever was the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. And the voluminous reserach threads on FR have proved what that was without a shred of doubt.
Maybe one of the gentlemen so involved can kindly provide a link or two to one of the threads.
You said that my position is that babies born on US soil to foreign parents are NBC? Come on! It’s “born on the soil to parentS who are themselves citizens! I learned because I read up on it.
Interesting that you post the 1790 version and not the 1795 version which changed the wording in the specific area you appear to seek dissemble.