Correct. If the constitutional requirements for the presidency itself are open to negotiation, then all bets are off.
This is really not that hard, and one doesn't even need to resort to Minor v Happersett to reach the natural, logical conclusion:
If the purpose of inserting the Natural Born Citizen language in A2S1C5 of the Constitution was to preclude, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for divided loyalties in the Executive (and you'd better believe that is was), then a citizen born on the country's soil to two citizen parents represents the gold standard (completely natural, not being able to be any other kind) in citizenship. Just what you'd want in the person entrusted with the authority to wield the presidential levers of power; a person with presumed undivided loyalty to the Republic.
Nominating an ineligible candidate on the GOP ticket is just about the only thing that will make me vote 3rd party. And if I do, it won't be for a candidate that shrugs off the foregoing exercise in basic logic.
1. Let's flesh out your opinion.
2. Senator John McCain was born of American parents in Panama when his distinguished father was in a substantial command position in the US Navy. I believe he was later the head of naval operations for the Vietnam War when the senator, in his youth, was shot down as a naval aviator over North Vietnam and wound up being badly injured and taken to the "Hanoi Hilton" prison. Was John McCain a "natural born citizen" when he ran for POTUS in 2008 or at any time in his life? If so, why? If not, why not?
2. Mitt Romney's great grandfather apparently fled Utah for Mexico when Utah Territory, as a condition of admission to the United States, outlawed polygamy. Romney's great grandfather reportedly had four wives at the time. Assume that he fled to Mexico not only to avoid criminal prosecution for polygamy which had previously been quite legal in Utah Territory, but also to reject what he reharded as the USA and the Utah Territory infringing on his religious "right" and that of his four wives to be a polygamist and intended to renounce his citizenship when he moved to a Mormon colony in Mexico with others of similar views. Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather was born in Mexico not in the USA at all. I suspect but do not know that his paternal grandmother was likely to have been born there as well and to parents either Mexican (in which case we would have heard by now) or of a Mormon family who had fled to Mexico either as polygamists or simply as Mormons offended by what was perceived as US and Utah religious discrimination. If one assumes the foregoing, was George Romney, Mitt's father, a natural born citizen? Is there any evidence that he or anyone in his family line (and according to your theory both maternal and paternal ancestors) had regularized any alleged citizenship in the US? When? Where? Before or after Mitt was born? I will stipulate that Mitt's mother was a natural born American citizen according to your apparent standards. Does her citizenship plus Mitt's birth in Michigan suffice to make him a "natural born citizen?" Even if his father was, for whatever reason, NOT a natural born citizen or not a citizen? This issue arose in 1968 when George Romney ran for the GOP POTUS nomination but no one bothered to DO anything about it because George Romney was going to get his ass kicked for making such a fool of himself claiming to have been "brainwashed" into supporting the VietNam War after figuring out that he would get little credit for supporting the war when contesting Nixon (flip-flopping with outrageously empty-headed and not credible rationalizations is an old Romney family tradition). Short question under that complicated history, is Mitt Romney eligible as a "natural born citizen" to run for POTUS? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. A man is in the US military and fought for our country in the VietNam War. His family history is such that his natural born citizenship is based upon BOTH of his parents being natural born citizens and both being descended from families going all the way back to George Washington's officer corps and even those ancestors were born within the thirteen (really fourteen since Connecticut consists of the colonies of Connecticut and of New Haven). While in South VietNam, he meets and falls hopelessly in love with an astounding young VietNamese woman, marries her, brings her back to the USA to reside permanently (and joyously) with him. Before her citizenship is final, their first child is born in, say, Kansas. Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why? If not, why not?
4. Same situation as #3 but that child is born in VietNam and those parents are legally married there prior to the birth. Mom returns to Kansas in 1975 as the Reds take over the South? Is that child a "natural born citizen?" If so, why, If not, why not?
Recognize that these questions seek your opinions but also your reasoning. For the latter, something more substantial is needed than that you REALLY, REALLY want your personal definition of "natural born citizen" to be the law just because it makes sense to you personally and to others who understandably despise Obama and want him gone. Courts require proof and preferably some legal precedent. As to these questions, Minor vs. Happersett is generally silent, deals with entirely other issues, gives mere lip service in the form of non-precedential dicta to even the qualifications of a woman differently situated might have successful access to federal courts to force Missouri to allow her to vote in its elections after she moved there, based on what one of you called "the gold standard" of two American parents and birth in Virginia (or any other state of the USA). The decision does NOT address anyone with only one citizen parent (or none) or who was born elsewhere since no such person was a party before the court.
Emotional "outbursts" are not arguments and are no substitute for the real thing. As someone once observed of a particularly silly position, the proponent's "argument" could be accurately summarized as "Shut up!" she argued. If there is nothing other than Minor vs. Happersett (1874 no less) for you to rely on, then it would seem likely that the matters of George Romney, Mitt Romney, John McCain, AND Obozo would be cases of "first impression," i.e. virgin issues never decided by our courts previously and quite ripe to be decided. Yet every case brought against Obozo's qualifications have foundered and been dismissed by the courts or lost by the petitioners just as Mrs. Minor (for entirely different reasons) lost her case.
Your collective definition of "natural born citizen" does not hold water (at least not yet) and has no apparent precedent. Of course, SCOTUS handed down Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and has kept it on life support ever since, so, who knows? Nonetheless, I suspect not. If you disagree, hire this Attorney D'Onofrio. It will be cheaper if yo pool your resources to do so. Whatever you do, don't agree to pay his fines for frivolous lawsuits in federal court when he loses. The courts have entertained literally dozens of these suits and rejected them by decision or dismissal in every case I am aware of. Eventually the judges tire of wasting scarce judicial time on such repetitive bad claims and fine those responsible (particularly the offending attorneys).