The only misunderstanding is the one you seem to be laboring under that I was ever in need of any correction on this matter.
My governor is a U.S. citizen, but not a “natural born citizen”. My saying this would make it obvious to anyone with sentience that I recognize that there is a distinction between the two.
Your governor is naturalized. That he is naturalized means that the Constitutional language under discussion does not apply to him, and can never apply to him. He's never been eligible for the office of President, and never will be, barring a Constitutional convention and an amendment that specifically permits a naturalized citizen to become President.
Now, if you're capable of reasonable discourse, without resorting to insulting language, you'll revisit our exchange, and hopefully come away with the information that I have been trying to convey to you. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree; that is what the author of this piece contends. Your definition of natural born citizen carries no more weight than this one, and probably less. The term only applies to the presidency, and so any other legal precedent outside of that does not apply.
To help you out, since you don't want to scroll up to the article with which you disagree:
During the research he did before filing his initial case, it became apparent to Mr. Donofrio that not only is Mr. Calero Constitutionally ineligible, but so are Mr. Obama and Senator McCain. Why? How could this be the case? Here is the relevant passage from 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.
The key phrase here is "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President". The Founding Fathers included this phrase because virtually everyone was a British Subject at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In other words, the passage serves as a grandfather clause conferring 'natural born citizen' status to those who were ALIVE at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
No where else in the Constitution does the phrase 'natural born citizen' appear. The Founding Fathers were very leery of a person with multiple allegiances becoming the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the United States. The only way to ensure this would not happen was to require something else that no other office in this country required . . . the status that our President be a 'natural born citizen'. That is, someone who at birth could claim only one allegiance. Thus a 'natural born citizen' is not the same as being a US born citizen. They are not an interchangeable terms of status.
Do you see where you are at odds, both with what I wrote in reply to you, and what is written in the article that is the topic of this thread?
If you don't, you're being deliberately obtuse.