That’s your personal opinion but over the last 115 years, court after court has disagreed with your interpretation.
And, with specific reference to the eligibility of Barack Obama:
Purpura & Moran v Obama: Judge Jeffrey S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.
The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo
115 years? Let's see, 2013-115 = 1898. You are citing "Wong Kim Ark." The lynch pin of most subsequently incorrect understanding of Article II.
A 6 to 2 decisions pitting Mostly Northern Republicans against two Democrats, in which they ignore the Debates on the 14th amendment, and the Civil Rights act of 1866, as well as ignoring the Entire War of 1812, all to land in Calvin's court in a Nation who've very principles on Subjectship we rejected when we became a nation.
And of course you take it as a matter of faith that the court COULDN'T have got this wrong, and that the most Liberal interpretation of their ruling is the correct one.
That about sum it up?
I suppose if I thought the court system was infallible, I'd simply believe everything they said too.