I agree it is a fact, it is also a fact that the cited abuses are defined "in US Law or USSC decisions" — two of the three items that was cited as being relevant. Contemporary of the writing of the time was Blackstone and his commentaries on the laws of England, they were very popular here (they sold out, in a time when books were expensive) and he used and explained/defined the term natural born subject
which did, in fact, require the parents to also be subjects.
In the absence of any discussion in the Federalist or anti-Federalist Papers, there really isn’t much to go on. The oft-cited USSC decision (Happerstet?) does not RESTRICT NBC status to a child of citizens. It only says that it has always been undoubted that a child of two citizens is a NBC.
Looking only at the text, the “minimalist” definition of NBC as “citizen at birth” still makes sense. I.e., the distinction between the citizenship requirement for a member of Congress, and the NBC requirement for President is preserved, since a member of Congress can be a naturalized citizen, and a President cannot.
Of course, there is NO EVIDENCE that Obola is a citizen AT ALL. We know his father was a non-citizen, and his mother was too young to transmit citizenship, and that he has never been naturalized. His ONLY chance at citizenship is birth in the U.S., and the only “evidence” of that is a crude, rank forgery.
The party that nominated an ILLEGAL ALIEN and got him elected should be put out of business as a criminal conspiracy.