Obama is salient specific example of the general class of violation. Would it make you feel better if rather than using Obama as the specific example, I simply said anyone born of questionable American Allegiance? (Of which he is a subcategory example.)
To illustrate, imagine if a liberal said "To suggest that they wanted ordinary citizens to be able to carry weapons capable of shooting 30 bullets as fast as they could pull the trigger is absurd." The scariest possible counterexample isn't the way to discuss principle.
I don't see your point. As the purpose is to strike fear into the heart of a Federal Tyranny, it requires whatever weapons which are necessary to do so. This fear of the citizenry using Military grade weapons has worked in two specific examples of which I am aware. Here is an example of one of them.
So instead, look at the purpose of the presidential qualification clause, the way you did for the Second. As John Jay wrote, "it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government." The qualifications that we all agree on are that the president has to have been a citizen from birth and 14 years a resident of the country (and 35 years old). That's a "strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government" right there.
No it isn't. At this time in History it was not uncommon for European Royalty to send members of their household to live with their foreign Brethren serving as both hostages and potential heirs. Because their loyalty was always assumed to be to that of the Family and Nation that sent them, rather than the one they lived in, it is easy to see why the Ruling families which hosted these people would regard them with distrust. The Founders were more than familiar with this custom of European Royals, and wanted no part of it. If I remember correctly, the Federalist papers even speak of this exact thing.
We now have a situation the Founders likely couldn't have anticipated, but they wrote what they wrote. Not liking a particular example isn't a valid approach to analyzing what they wrote--any more than it is for the Second.
I suggest you do more analyzing. The Founders were definitely aware of a "Manchurian candidate" issue with the Presidency. They warned of it in their debates.
Those people weren't "citizens from birth" of the nation they lived in. No one is arguing that people who weren't born citizens are eligible for the presidency.
The Founders were definitely aware of a "Manchurian candidate" issue with the Presidency.
The Manchurian Candidate was a natural born citizen by even the strictest definition.