Unfortunately, since this definition cannot be found in the Constitution, your assertion can only be proven to be true by a Court case. None exists and I believe will never be decided, so who might be a Natural Born Citizen will be decided by practice, currently those who are not required to obtain their citizenship through naturalization laws. Demanding that everyone submit to your notion is a futile quest. Especially since politicians do not want any limits on what and how they might decide to do. That fight is over.
Obama certainly worked hard and brilliantly to obscure his citizenship status, but I don't think that it had anything to his place of birth or nationality of his father. His birth certificate is forged because he held a replacement birth certificate listing his step father as his father and he held Indonesian Citizenship. He used an Indonesian passport to get into Occidental and Columbia long after he could have, by law, resorted his American Citizenship. Obama was manipulating the system, as he continues to do whenever the opportunity presents. My opinion, nothing of great worth.
Even looser than that. If ones qualification is not questioned, or if there is no record of a naturalization ceremony, then "they're in." We know that dual citizenship at birth is not a barrier.
Naturalization laws were the focal point in Rogers v. Bellei, an early 1970's case which depends on finding that a person "born a citizen" by dint of statutory law, is "naturalized" even though there is no ceremony. That rule of law is not going to operate against a presidential candidate, ever.
I figure this is one of the minor parts of the constitution that has been rendered inoperative by the fedeal government. A much bigger part is the extent the constiutuional principles of "enumberated powers" and "limited federal government" have been run over.
The government doesn't have to follow the constitution. The people aren't going to rebel.