Donofrio discloses and discusses a new (to him) 1905 Law Journal article that aligns with his previous analysis and conclusion that Wong Kim Ark did not extend NBC status to all born on US soil via the 14A. While Donofrio hasn't yet published in top tier law reviews, such as Obama’s Harvard Law Review with its politically correct bias, he has been able to find law review articles over the past decades that support him.
Donofrio from the WND article:
A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.
The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous.
end quote
If only Mr. Morse's opinion (or Donofrio's for that matter) was legally relevant. Alas, it is not. However, there are plenty of Supreme Court and lower court cases that are clearly legally relevant that do use "native born" and "natural born citizen" interchangeably. Imagine that?