There is a certain basic level of understanding that one assumes is present in these discussions. You do not have it. Thread upon thread, and article upon article have been posted on this subject, and you have NOT availed any of it.
Why are “anchor babies” not qualified to be President? Because they re not “natural born” citizens.
Here’s the primer you have missed over the past six months:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI&eurl=http://www.plainsradio.com/
Nor do you have that basic knowledge. You can live in any fantasy world you choose to live in, and your youtube does not at all prove what you claim. The term "natural born citizen" does not seem to have been precisely defined by any US court review of its constitutional meaning.
So what if the Senate passed a resolution declaring McCain to be a natural born citizen. That resolution might have ended the questioning in 2008, but Senate resolutions do not settle constitutional questions. They're not even laws. That is given in the youtube as proof of the meaning of the term, Lol.
The reality is probably that this question has rarely come up, and the term has not been precisely defined, like many other general terms in the U. S. Constitution.
There are constant questions about second amendment rights before that courts all these years later, because their meanings are not precisely stated in the constitution.
Unless you can show where federal court decisions have precisely defined "natural born citizen", you're just blowing smoke.
We probably agree on the importance of the questions surrounding Obama, but I do not believe that this critical term has precisely defined and affirmed in the federal courts. And if not, it's not settled law. And like any constitutional question, it can be argued from more than one interpretation.