Okay, we'll leave it at that.
“I take it, then, that yours is the final word on all matters concerning citizenship — that you know better than any judge or other authority.”
You are being sarcastic without justification, and you take it wrong. As a matter of fact, I do know far more about this subject that the majority of judges, and that is not my opinion. It is the opinion of a number of judges and attorneys-at-law with whom I have debated this issue over the past 52 years. I began my investigation of the Presidential eligibility issue during the 1964 election when I was given an assignment to research and write about the eligibility of Senator Barry Goldwater. By the time George Romney was a candidate in the 1968 election, I was well prepared to argue that he was in fact not an eligible Presidential candidate. Judges and attorneys have complimented me in private upon my depth of knowledge about this subject and related law, even when many of them disagreed with some of my conclusions. So, your sarcasm is inappropriate and ineffective in this case. Nonetheless, my word on the subject has nothing to do with the validity of the information. The information and its inherent validity stand on their own and by themselves.
I invited you to look at your source and discover for yourself the lies used by your source. Those lies are just as obvious as the nose on your face. All you need to do is open your eyes and your brain to the information within the source you cited and compare it to the real world facts found in the legal dictionaries, dictionaries, statutes, and case law preceding the adoption of the Constitution and after the adoption of the Constitution. You so far appear to be determined to automatically disbelieve and dispute any such legal information put before you by the people you choose to disagree with, so I suggested you do your own research instead. The you will only have yourself to disbelieve and argue with when you run across evidence that reveals just how bad of a ridiculous batch of lies your source put forth.
Clue: any person, no matter what their alleged legal expertise is supposed to be, who tries to argue a naturalization law makes a person a natural born citizen is ignorant, a liar, and/or a fool. I have explained why this is so innumerable times on FR, so I will not repeat it again on this occasion, especially since you do not appear to be interested in learning anything which challenges your cherished beliefs. If you should choose to learn more and take it seriously, then you can indicate so by accepting the challenge of identifying one or more of the lies I’m speaking about being located in your cited source.
“Okay, we’ll leave it at that.”
No, we’ll not leave it at that. You are using a fraudulent source that is disseminating a pack of lies for the purpose of deceiving the electorate. Such dishonesty by your source is unacceptable in a polite and just society, and it must be publicly impeached, refuted, and treated with the public condemnation it deserves. For example:
Your source lied when it said:
“”Natural-born citizen” is accepted by law to mean “born as a U.S. citizen,” regardless of place of birth.”
The evidence that statement is a lie is the existence of the Naturalization Act of 1790, Naturalization Act of 17995, Naturalization Act of 1802, and the fact children born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents were born without U.S. natural born citizenship and without U.S. naturalized citizenship; until a new naturalization law after the American Civil War allowed them to become U.S. naturalized citizens only, and not natural born citizens of the U.S. This is an unfortunate truth that utterly refutes what your source had to say.