Tag Archives: WHY?”

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”

Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Protecting Obama, Why?, At least cover the whole Blagojevich story

Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Fox News, Protecting Obama, Why?

This will serve as the open thread today, February 19, 2010.

Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck have not only not  covered Obama’s eligibility, they have insulted concerned Americans who exercise their First Amendment Rights. Beck and O’Reilly are speaking out of one side of their mouth, while claiming to uphold the US Constitution out of the other side of their mouth. That is just wrong!

To add insult to injury, they are not covering the entire Rod Blagojevich indictment, not to mention Obama’s involvement. As you go about your daily activities ponder whether or not we should allow them to proceed in this manner.

I am still waiting on a phone call from Glenn Beck. Beck, you are pals with O’Reilly, give him the phone number.


There has been a lot of controversy lately about bloggers being silenced and attacked. Google, blogger.com, bloggers that opposed Obama were shut down. Larry Sinclair has received numerous personal attacks as well as death threats. Attempts were made to prevent Larry Sinclair from speaking at the National Press Club and then he was arrested and taken to Delaware, the home of Senator Joe Biden and Attorney General Biden. Now a Sinclair YouTube video has been taken down and instead of being informed through the normal channels, a comment was made on his blog. Larry Sinclair has traced this person and when he called the associated phone number, it led him to a DC law firm. Here is the story in Larry Sinclair’s words on his blog:


Posted by Larry Sinclair on July 23rd, 2008


The youtube video I put up a couple of days ago of a phone conversation with a man claiming to be James Barry, was taken down by Youtube.  Why?  Well because it turns out the phone number on the video belongs to an Attorney with Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, who by the way happens to represent Google, Inc.

At 7:30 AM this morning Central Time I called 202-449-9737 which is the phone number listed on my caller ID from a man claiming to be James Barry.  This individual also has a WordPress Blog under the name neonzx, where he continues to publish claims that I have aids and other things in his effort to slander and defame me. 

An interesting thing happen when I called that number this morning.  It was answered by the Washington, DC Law Firm of HARRIS, WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS


Below is a list of the Attorneys in this firm and I do not see a single James Barry.  What I do see is a Law Firm who is in some very deep shit for contacting me under false pretense when they know I am represented by Counsel in the DC Civil case and the Delaware Criminal case and they are blogging about me in a slanderous manner.  The firm of Harris (Scott B Harris, left), Wiltshire (William Wiltshire, right) & Grannis can explain to the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel their activities in calling me and not stating they were Attorneys from this firm and for publishing claims in a bog that I am HIV positive among other things.

I called the same number two more times after the firm opened this morning and this time went to the receptionist.  I was transferred to one Alex Bryson who seem extremely nervous when I started asking why this number would be coming from this Firm and I wanted to know why the firm would have an employee calling my home and harassing me and blogging pure lies?  Mr. Bryson responded (and yes all calls were recorded) by saying in a nervous tone the number was not his (yet he did not even allow me to tell him what number I had dialed) and then he hung up.  The last call a lady named Natalie advised that the firm would get back with me by the end of the day with the name of the person this phone belongs to.  I advised her to inform Mr. Harris (the senior partner) I will be contacting the DC Bar regarding this matter immediately.

 Mark Grannis

Just to note, I have the phone call of this morning recorded as well with the firms answering system and with a female working for the answering service.  I was advised that the number 202-449-9737 could only be a cell phone belonging to one of the Attorney’s in the firm in order for it to be routed to the firms after hours answering system



Why is a Washington, DC Law firm harassing, threatening, and intimidating me on behalf of Barack Obama?  Why is a Washington, DC Law Firm by and through one of its employee’s slandering me, my mother, and other US Citizens for opposing Barack Obama?”

If Google, YouTube or the DC law firm has a response, it is welcome here.

To read more about Larry Sinclair, click here: