Seriously? You're still not rebutting a single point in Sourcery's essay.
As I commented in my last reply to you, the sum total of your voluminous replies on this subject have amounted to little more than rejection and denial of the reason and logic that's been presented to you.
I read what you posted on the subject upthread, and it reads like a mere cut and paste of various items you've collected. Nowhere do I see where you've made a cogent, thoughtful argument for your position.
However humble, my first response to you at least contained the germ of my personal reasoning on the topic.
I also noticed that you didn't give Sourcery a courtesy ping to your last comment. You've been around long enough to know that's expected.
For what it's worth, you're failing to make a convincing case for your opinion on the subject. The overall tone of your comments reveals an emotional, rather than an intellectual grounding in your position, which goes hand in glove with your failure to rebut the opposing view.
That simply isn't true. I've presented what virtually every significant known early legal authority had to say about the subject of natural born citizenship.
Not one of them, except for the thoroughly discredited Ramsay (who was never a legal authority to start with) EVER says it takes anything other than being "born a citizen" or "born in the United States."
So we know what they said it meant. And what they said it meant is NOT what you and other birthers claim it meant.
In this case, it's not our Founding Fathers and early legal authorities who are wrong. It's you. And the fact that you are unwilling to yield to the entire lineup of all known early American legal authorities shows how far down the rabbit hole of absolute fantasy you have gone.