At best, he was a dual citizen (British and USA), but he was born a “natural born citizen” of Great Britain, not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

By the law of nature alone, which the founders of our country studied and followed, Obama was born a British citizen, and the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

I.E., Obama was born a British citizen EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

So, you were not talking about natural born citizen in your post. Try to keep your terms straight if you’re going to be so insistent.

There is a difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen”, as clearly evidenced by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Notice that “or“?

“Natural born Citizen” and “Citizen” are not the same thing.

The 14th Amendment defines who is a citizen, not who is a natural born citizen.

It is possible to be born a citizen, (by being born in the U.S.) and still not be a natural born citizen (because one or both of the parents are not citizens). The word “natural” in “natural born citizen” refers to “natural law”, and the natural law definition of a citizen remains:

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

You would be correct if the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born in the United States are natural born citizens of the United States.

But that is neither what it says, nor what the author of the 14th Amendment intended.

As great as it is that you’ve decided to capitalize your point, and that you’ve cited an 18th-century text, that doesn’t change the fact that you’re wrong.
I.E. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Thus, if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is in fact a US citizen. Thanks for playing.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

Obama’s father was a British citizen. That fact is not disputed.

By the law of nature alone, which the founders of our country studied and followed, Obama was born a British citizen, and the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

I.E., Obama was born a British citizen EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

The problem as I see it is that the Constitution doesn’t authorize these direct federal infusions into state coffers in any case.

If we have a POTUS who can’t prove he was even born in our country, Denver Republican (so you’re the one!) why would the infusions matter?

Tee hee.