WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″



Words matter.

Especially in the US Constitution.

Especially when they define the eligibility for president of the US.

So the question is, why did Cheryl Chumley omit them?

From WND March 24, 2015.


“Section One, Article Two of the Constitution states “no person except a natural born citizen, or citizen of the United States … shall be eligible to the office of president.””

Read more:


Why did she leave out:

“at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

which is crucial to the statement and to differentiate between citizen and natural born citizen?

Much of the tone of this article is atypical for a WND article.

It resembles work from the left or “1984.”

Read the full article and let me know.

She left out 9 words.

9 very important words.

I can only think of one plausible answer.

The same conclusion you are arriving at.

24 hours within Glenn Beck using citizen and natural born citizen interchangeably.

“‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take “good”, for instance. If you have a word like “good”, what need is there for a word like “bad”? “Ungood” will do just as well — better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of “good”, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like “excellent” and “splendid” and all the rest of them? “Plusgood” covers the meaning, or “doubleplusgood” if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already. but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words — in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.’s idea originally, of course,’ he added as an afterthought.”…George Orwell “1984”


34 responses to “WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Joseph Farah seen this?

  1. citizenwells

    I had just written “Words matter” when in walks a friend of mine, an English Professor, from England who has written 3 works on Orwell.
    I asked him, “do words matter?”
    His answer.

  2. citizenwells

    From prior article:


    Submitted on 2015/03/24 at 2:05 pm
    There are two kinds of American citizens: Natural born and naturalized. A naturalized citizen is one who previously had foreign citizenship and going through a legal process established for citizenship becomes a naturalized US citizen. Such a person was Arnold Schwartzenegger. A natural born citizen is one who received US citizenship at birth and does not have to go through a naturalization process. I don’t know of any other kind of citizen. Did Cruz receive US citizenship at birth? Or did he have to undergo naturalization to become a citizen? I believe he received his citizenship at birth, which makes him a natural born citizen. Some people have it in their minds that you have to be born on US soil or that both parents have to be US citizens. But there is no such stipulation in the Constitution that one must be born on US soil or that both parents must be US citizens. Kids born abroad to one or both parents US citizens are given US citizenship at birth making them natural born as opposed to having to go through a naturalization process. Do some, like Donald Trump, want to create a third category of “unnatural born” citizen? Come on, folks, where does common sense come in?

  3. citizenwells

    My response.

    There was no naturalization at the time the constitution was written.”

  4. I’m not a fan of Jeb Bush, but even less so when he takes advise from James Baker who hates Israel. When people ask why aren’t Jews crossing over to the GOP, I fault Bush 1 and James Baker for that. Bush 1 and Baker set us decades behind on attracting Jewish voters away from the Democrats. See the recent ZOA press release on this:

    NEW YORK – March 24. 2015 — The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has criticized former Florida governor and possible republican presidential contender Jeb Bush for appointing the perennially anti-Israel former Secretary of State James Baker as one of his senior foreign policy advisers.


  5. citizenwells

    There were 2 types at the adoption of the constitution.

    Natural born citizens and citizens.

    Citizens were everyone else.

    People who had immigrated or were born to parent(s) who had.

    Hence the wording of the constitution.

  6. If Cruz is eligible, then Kim Jong Il can send his mistress to a baby hotel in the US, where a future son/daughter POTUSA can be born

  7. I love Ted Cruz. I’d vote for him in the blink of an eye. I wish he were considered a natural born citizen.

  8. Cruz is one of the few who will stand up to Obama and the RINO’s, if we still use that term.

  9. Obama is doing everything it can to discredit Israel. Today there’s a story that Israel might have spied on the Iran talks. Do you think we don’t spy on Israel or other countries we consider our friends? We spy on everyone. The hypocrisy stinks.

  10. CW,
    The term, “natural born Citizen” has been so bastardized, that even logic, and precedence, play no part in the definition liberals use to circumvent the requirement for POTUS eligibility.

  11. No matter what one thinks of his politics, Ted Cruz is NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Read: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  12. Pingback: CitizenWells: WND article omits critical words from US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Has Editor-in-Chief Joseph Farah seen this? | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'

  13. I myself always thought WND was PAID OFF by the Obama regime. Not to mention their BAD ETHICS of STEALING others researched facts and not citing the original miner of that information!

    Yeah, you heard me WND!

  14. Citizen Wells – it seems we’ve fallen down the rabbit hole and it’s 2007/2008 all over again.

    As a DISH subscriber, I can watch The Blaze for free, but because I like about 90% of what they do there, I have been a paid subscriber since it began, essentially donating $100 a year to support their efforts. That ends today.

    Their idiotic chortling over how stupid we are because Cruz is a “citizen” ignores natural born citizen. And Sen. Cruz should be ashamed of himself for further destroying the Constitution.

    By their standards, a person born in another country to 1 American parent is good enough. If that’s so, then Valerie Jarrett (born in Iran) is eligible. Now Mr. Beck, please go face the loved ones of/and our military men and women and tell them they could serve under Valerie Jarrett as their Commander in Chief.

    Who is the idiot now, Glenn Beck??? Pat Gray? Stu B.???

  15. CW, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution describes citizens as “born” or “naturalized.” These are the only two categories mentioned, right?. Isn’t “born” someone who receives his citizenship at birth? And “naturalized” someone who goes through a legal process to become a citizen? (CDR Kerchner, I will address your point next. I have to look something up first. But take a good look at the 14th Amendment, Section One. “Born” and “naturalized” are the only two categories mentioned for citizenship in this important amendment. It does not say, “born,” “natural born,” and “naturalized.” Also, there may have been some quibbling on wording for the original document, but as to the idea of natural law, though it was a backdrop to a lot of 18th century thinking, it was subject to considerable variance in understanding. American Constitutional Law evolved from English Common Law in contrast to Roman Law. Your point, however, is well taken. I have check something to fully answer your point.)

  16. I like Ted Cruz, and I have often thought that part of his reason for running for president was to expose the usurper’s credentials, in a sly way, by stirring up the argument with his own run for president, even if his eligibility is questioned.

    I am enjoying watching the media tip toe around the subject of natural born Citizen, again, so they don’t say the wrong thing and disqualify the usurper.

  17. Sunday morning I was in a Twitter debate with Michael Brown, former FEMA director. He’s generally very conservative and makes sense on his radio show, but on this issue, even he is clueless. And it didn’t take long to back the lawyer into a corner. Unfortunately, I had to leave the computer or would have kept pushing it, but he had already shut the door since he couldn’t back up his claims.

    It’s a little disjointed because we were both tweeting each other at the same time, but I tried to show the conversation in order. Keep in mind that each “tweet” can only be up to 140 characters, so it keeps you on your toes trying to get your point across. (I cleaned up all the hashtags and Twitter names to try to keep it uncluttered here. Ted Cruz was included in most of these)

    I would have kept going with more (like his boss Chertoff before Congress saying TWO citizen parentS) but had to leave. There’s one thing in his comments that sent me into hysterics and proved he had no argument to stand on. Can you find it?

    Him – PSA for haters. If Ted Cruz announces tomorrow, he is a natural born citizen. His mom was a US citizen. Don’t make fools of yourselves.

    Me – A foreign born dual citizen is NOT a natural born citizen. He may be a “citizen” but not a natural born citizen.

    Not a hater. I respect Senator Cruz. But the words in the Constitution mean something.

    Him – Yes, they do. And Congress has dealt with this. He is qualified.

    Me – With all due respect, Congress is the last place I trust to support and defend the Constitution.

    Him – I despise Congress. But law is law. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-president

    His mother was a US citizen. Debate over.

    Me – Now THAT is how a liberal responds. Guy Benson & Katie Pavlich would be proud. See their book “End of Discussion”

    Him – The US Supreme Court has ruled. I can’t debate any further. Either advance argument or I stop

    Me – Please provide the SCOTUS ruling details.
    The Constitution requires Sen/Reps. to be “citizens”. But only POTUS/VPOTUS are NBC. It’s a higher standard.
    I’ll still listen to your show agree with most of what you say. But on this we will disagree. Please stop with the “hater”.
    Would you make same argument if Ted Cruz was born in Iran to a foreign father & American mother? Founders wanted loyalty.

    Him – But you won’t even read/listen to USSCt rulings. I think there’s something else going on here.

    Me – So you can’t provide USSCt rulings? I wasn’t aware there was one. Nothing nefarious going on. Constitution isn’t negotiable

    Him – Look, there is a lot of dicta, rulings, law reviews. I’m not going to spend all day citing cases. You disagree, fine.

    Me – You tweeted people who disagree “haters”. FTR, I don’t know who I’ll vote for. Not sure it makes much difference anymore.

    Him – I did not call YOU a hater.
    Please stop. Haters referred to those libs who’ll attack him. Don’t take it so personally. This is Twitter. And yes, I’m done.

  18. What I had to check for CDE Kerchner was The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states, “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” I rest my case as to what the Founders had in mind as to “natural born.”

  19. bob strauss | March 24, 2015 at 4:16 pm | I too have thought the same thing. What a great way to further the debate on O’s eligibility. I absolutely respect Ted Cruz, and I believe someday he would make a fine POTUS.
    I don’t however believe now is the right time for him.

  20. “Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:”

    “Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”

    Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.

    So, it’s clear that while there are only two paths to US citizenship, birth and naturalization, those two paths sometimes merge. But naturalized citizens are not eligible to be President. (The Minor Court failed to mention that the words “natural-born” were repealed from the naturalization act of 1795.)

    Additionally, the current US Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual, at “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency“, comments on the 1790 act as follows:

    “This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”


  21. HonorFirst | March 24, 2015 at 4:42 pm

    I think we’re about to witness mass quantities of hypocrisy, I am loving it.

    Starting with the usurper backing down on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

  22. To Dean_M et al of that type of flawed reasoning in an effort to make/redefineTed Cruz into a natural born Citizen, Orwellian style by changing language and conflating terms, which Ted is not and can never be: Dean’s premise as to there being only two types of citizens is too simplistic. There are two types of naturalized citizens which are those created by acts of Congress, those naturalized at birth by U.S. statutory man-made laws passed by Congress such as Title 8 Section 1401 and those who naturalized sometime later after their birth. Dean_M is not using correct boolean logic and is conflating things. On purpose I believe. Read this for more on basic logic and types of Citizenship: https://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  23. Dean_M: The 14th amendment did not address or even mention Article II Section 1 Clause 5, nor do the words “natural born” appear in the 14th amendment. If an amendment addresses any other part of the Constitution it would say so. See the various types of Citizens mentioned in the U.S. Constitution here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same Words matter. Adjectives matter. And the adjective “natural” means something legally. Look up the meaning of the word “natural” and see what it means. You cannot conflate that away the original meaning, intent, and understanding of the term natural born Citizen no matter how hard you try here. And the word/adjective “natural” is not in the 14th Amendment or Title 8 Section 1401. A person such as Ted Cruz, born in another country to a non-U.S. citizen father, would not even have been a basic U.S. Citizen of the United States at all to the founders and framers when they put the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of the constitution. CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  24. citizenwells

    Katie, et al.
    One of the problems with Beck is that he & his lackeys are entertainers & not journalists (rare commodity).
    Beck does not do his homework.

  25. Dean_M: How “clever” and disingenuous of you to forget to mention the 1790 naturalization act was repealed and replaced by the 1795 naturalization act which corrected the prior error and removed the word “natural”: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html I think most readers here and the editor clearly see through your disinformation attempts. CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  26. If Ted Cruz (and/or his CruzBots or the Obots pumping indirectly to help Cruz to help provide cover for Obama in case it surfaces that Obama really was not physically born in HI) wish to point to the 1790 or 1795 Naturalization Acts as a way of claiming “natural born Citizen” status, then they also are admitting that Cruz is a “naturalized” Citizen by the very title of those man-made laws. “natural born Citizens” are created by the laws of nature and natural law and need no statutory law or act of Congress to recognize them as such. See again how the 1795 naturalization act repealed and replaced the 1790 act removing what children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents are considered to be at to type of Citizenship: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org

  27. Pingback: Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court | Citi

  28. Pingback: Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court | Citi

  29. Pingback: Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court | Citi

  30. Pingback: Ted Cruz another Harvard Law graduate and Harvard Law Review editor like Obama?, Ignoring constitution, Cruz states he is a natural born citizen when having a US mother only gives him citizenship, Let’s get a ruling from FEC and Supreme Court | Citi

  31. “A bridge too far” with Ted Cruz. Papers Discussing Natural Born Citizen Meaning to Constitutional Standards: https://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org and cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

  32. Think about it–if this rhetoric continues.
    Your grandchildren may see America ruled by Vladimir Putin’s son or daughter.
    He just needs to have his American bride give birth in the states, and after Harvard or Princeton become President.
    He won’t even need to be here to take over America.

  33. Pingback: Citizen News » WND misquotes US Constitution on presidential eligibility, Cheryl Chumley replaces at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution with …, Why?, Farah approved?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s