Actually, the U. S. Constitution itself says you are wrong. Here is the actual quote from the 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
If natural born citizen is equal to citizen, then the phrase "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" would have been unnecessary. The Founders, who were wiser than you, intentionally added it for clarification, to make it clear that the two terms are not the same.
WTF are you talking about, that was put in there for people born in other colonies and Britain and who were active Americans at time, like Alexander Hamilton (born in the Caribbean). It has zero relevance to anyone alive today.
Do you have any idea what this poster is talking about?
Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1865, and specifically the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, the courts have consistently ruled that there are two, and only two forms of U.S. citizenship, born citizenship and naturalized citizenship. Born citizens can become president, naturalized citizens cannot become president. Its really that simple.
For example: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
“This section [of the 14th Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’”