In addition, your definition of what constitutes a "natural born" citizen has been proven wrong many times on this forum. Natural born has been established as having two citizen parents and born under the jurisdiction of the United States. In this scenario, there is no other condition than being a natural born citizen. That is why the term "natural born" is used.
The only thing that’s been proven on this forum is that Congress has the power to decide what natural born means, they have never agreed with your interpretation, and by law right now (as it has been since 1790) children born overseas to a US citizen parent are citizens at birth and meet the constitutional eligibility criteria for the presidency.
It might be that some day they’ll agree with you. But, even George Washington and the first Congress ever in this country under this constitution did not agree with you.
Ted Cruz is eligible.
With regard to your other comment, regardless of what may have been said on this forum, the early court cases to rule on this matter ( the ones closest in time to the actual writing of the Constitution) and the writings of those actually involved in writing the Constitution would seem to disagree with your definition. For example, in the case of Lynch vs. Clarke (1844), in a case that turned on whether or not the plaintiff, who was born in the USA of 2 non-citizen parents, was indeed a natural-born citizen, the court held as follows:
"The only standard which then existed [when the Constitution was written], of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen."
Even James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" wrote in 1789: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other." Based on this statement, it appears that the person considered to be the most influential contributor to the Constitution considered the place of birth to be the only criterion that needed to be considered or investigated when determining if a person were a natural-born citizen of the US.