you have been fooled by the Progressives into believing that only one U.S. parent (A or B) is required if a child is born on American soil (C).I'm going by the clear meaning of the law mentioned in the original post. It is clear from that text that the requirement of having a father who is a Citizen applies only to a child not born on U.S. soil.
Perhaps there is another law that defines it for someone who was born on U.S. soil, but I'm not aware of such a law.
If the requirement of a father who was a Citizen were true in all cases, then it would be redundant to include it here. It it were not a requirement in the "default" case, then it would make sense to list it here.
Since the authors of the Constitution failed to define the term "natural born citizen", and since this law only describes the parental requirement for someone who was not born in the U.S., you have failed to prove your point.
Here's my position on all of this when it comes to Obama:
A) Obama falls under the "more confusion" category in the previously defined Boolean expression (A'*B)X. In other words, his dad was NEVER a United States citizen and NEVER resided in the United States. Because of that, his Natural Born status is in question:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [plural] who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but NEVER as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." - Minor v. Happersett
Since Obama's Natural Born status falls under the "there have been doubts" category, we need to search out the original intent behind the Natural Born Clause.
I submit to you an original signer of the U.S. Constitution and Founding Father, Charles Pickney, for an explanation of the intent behind the Natural Born clause:
"...and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible. . . ." - March 28, 1800.
And, lest we forget the author of the 14th Amendment, Rep. Bingham:
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents [plural] owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." - Rep. Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Okay, now that we know that the actual intent of the Natural Born clause has more to do with allegiances than anything else, let's continue onto the next line item and take look at Obama's situation:
B) He was born with dual allegiances:
He readily admits this on his website fightthesmears.com. (No, I'm not going to link to that cursed, God-forsaken site!):
"When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children."
- I.E., Barack H. Obama, Jr...
Which means, Obama Jr. was born with his allegiances to not only the United States, but also Kenya, and ultimately, the British empire.
Now, if we were to stop there, there would still exist a little wiggle room for Progressives to play word games and what-not to downplay Obama's split allegiances. After all, the assumption is that Obama was born in the United States and would therefore owe his allegiance solely to the United States.
Of course, that's not the ultimate true test of allegiances when dealing with a person born with dual citizenship. One must also look into the actions of said person with dual citizenship to determine sole allegiance to the United States or split allegiance between the United States and another foreign country.
The Obama-psychophants' much vaunted U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision contains some real interesting nuggets that they (the psychophants) would like to keep hidden. One of which is this:
"...and [Wong Kim Ark] has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom."
Clearly, one can commit an act which would exclude one from sole allegiance to the United States!
Please note, the majority decision by the SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark ruling makes it clear that even if one does not renounce one's citizenship, one can still commit an act "or things" which would exclude him/her from sole allegiance to the United States.
Of course, the SCOTUS cops-out in defining specifically what type of act or things, besides renunciation, would exclude one from sole allegiance to the United States.
Here's their cop-out clause:
"Whether any act of himself or of his parents during his minority could have the same effect [as renunciation of his citizenship] is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry..."
Well, has Obama committed an act or thing serious enough to jeopardize his sole allegiance to the United States?
I believe he most certainly has! In fact one need look no further than his 2006 trip to Kenya:
C) He has demonstrated his split allegiances by actively participating in the governmental affairs of Kenya---namely, stumping for, and helping Odinga attain a position of power within the Kenyan government---BEFORE he (Obama) was elected President!
That, to anyone paying attention, clearly shows his split allegiances between the United States and Kenya.
There are, of course, more instances of Obama having committed acts which demonstrate his split allegiances, however, the 2006 trip to Kenya is the real clincher.
In conclusion, I think Our Founding Fathers have been VERY clear what they meant by Natural Born, it's just that everyone gets caught up in the letter of the law, and not the actual intent of the law---which was to ensure that the President owed sole allegiance to the United States and no other foreign nation.
Obama clearly has demonstrated his dual allegiances and is therefore not a legitimate president.
I'll leave you with a little quote from David Ramsay. If you remember your history, he was the Acting President of the Continental Congress before the current U.S. Constitution took effect. In 1789 He wrote:
"[Citizenship] as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."
You can find a scan of his dissertation on citizenship HERE.
Cheers