Oh mine are fine. Notice how I use them to discuss actual issues instead of bailing out on reason and just insulting people.
It is so. Anyone born in the United States that is not the child of a diplomat or invading soldier is a natural born citizen. It has been the rule for centuries, going back to England. It is not only me saying that, the US Supreme Court has said the same:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
One of the great weaknesses of Wong Kim Ark is that the second paragraph you quote: "The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established," is factually incorrect.
First it is simply stupid to say that the English rule was in effect in the English Colonies. Of course it was. That's why we fought a revolution.
And you can be sure, because I will tell you it is so, that this "same rule" was NOT in effect in all the newly independent colonies, which were very quick to set their own standards, most of which disavowed the English rule.
And it very definitely did not continue to prevail after the adoption of the Constitution as could have been determined by a very minimal amount of research, which the court at the time must have felt to be beneath its status.
And we're left with people like you who hew to a nonsense line so strictly as to make one wonder if such loyalty is bought and paid for.
I think it is possible that you are actually a paid operative of the Obama machine. How else to explain both your obstinacy on this point and your continued presence here?