Much of that is certainly true as far as it goes, but it once more omits the critical evidence that renders the half truths as deceptions. In the event you would someday come to realize and acknowledge that children born abroad cannot by definition be natural born citizens, it would then follow that any member of Congress who is such a person and is a candidate for election as POTUS would be in violation of their sacred oath upon the Bible to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. In such a case, that person would indeed be committing wrongs, whether or not their father did so.
Given how children born abroad were denied natural born citizenship by the U.S. Government on the basis of being alien born children in the 19th Century, there is evidently no possible basis for a child born in the 20th Century to have such a status as a natural born citizen of the United States either. Anything and everything else involves unnatural acts, which by definition are not natural.
A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009 written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) states: “Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural-born subject” in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause’s apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth”.”
That’s enough proof for me. There are no monsters hiding in the closet. This memorandum has been raised many times on various NBC threads. If you need me to cite the reference, let me know.