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.
“DONALD TRUMP GOES BIRTHER ON TED CRUZ”
“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:
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/donald-trump-goes-birther-on-ted-cruz/
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”
Citizen WElls 