You need to remember some basic logic and set and subset theory; and also grammatical analysis. Adjectives mean something. The terms ‘natural born Citizen” and ‘Citizen at Birth” are not logically and grammatically identical terms or identical in meaning. Again the additional adjective “natural” means something special in legal and constitutional terms. The 14th Amendment and the WKA (1898) SCOTUS decision only made WKA a basic citizen by man-made acts and only an Article I “Citizen” of the United States. They did not make the person an Article II “natural born Citizen” at birth, a person born with sole allegiance to the USA at birth by being born in the USA to parents who were both U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens) at the time their child was born.
The adjective “natural” refers to created by the laws of nature not the laws of man such as the 14th Amendment of any act of Congress of SCOTUS ruling in 1898 on basic birthright citizenship. Again, adjectives mean something. Especially in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and presidential eligibility. See this report for more details on logic and grammar when comparing terms: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2024/08/08/citizen-at-birth-term-vs-natural-born-citizen-term-grammatical-and-logical-analysis/ Also see this Euler Diagram logic showing truth and fallacy of an argument analysis which graphically shows that those two terms are not identically equal: http://www.kerchner.com/documents/pol/385966818-Kamala-Harris-Not-a-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-USA-to-Constitutional-Standards.pdf
Note that "naturally" born was used by the poster, not natural born.
Give no wriggle room with deception.