I think what you are missing is the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”. Leo is not arguing that Obama, if born in Hawaii, is not a citizen. Rather, he is arguing that because he was also a citizen of Great Britain, that he is not a “natural born” citizen, and thus cannot serve as President.
And that question has already been answered. As the Supreme Court found in 1898, children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens regardless of their race, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. The question was summed up in the closing paragraph: "The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Substitute Kenya for China, and you still find that the court ruled Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.
Don’t bother with non-sequitur (which by definition means “a logical fallacy”). He / she is trolling on every Obama thread on FR he can find trying to pass the same weak $#!t.
Probably a nice person, just mis-guided.