Joyanna Adams

Nobody's Opinion

Let’s Send Jeb Our Car Repair Bills….

Nobody Cares

The debates last night left Jeb Bush, still on the low-end of the totem pole, so I was amused and surprised to see him holding a big press conference with Lindsey Graham, who now says he is endorsing Jeb Bush…in order to start that war up over there in the Middle East.

The NEO-CONS ARE BACK!  All they need now is a big Daddy Bush Funeral so that the Bush propaganda can go into full force! (Will Daddy die just to get his son in the White House? Wait and see!)

What is really happening is Hillary is taking a big nosedive and so, the only man the big globalists/corporates have left is Jeb Bush….therefore, they are going to try to ‘steal’ North Carolina, with Lindsey’s help because Jeb can’t win in Iowa or New Hampshire.

He figures his brother was popular there, so you can be sure George will be making appearances.

Most Americans, despite the terrible job Obama has done, do NOT want to sacrifice any more sons or daughters in the Middle East. So…expect an attack. That’s what I think.Puzzled faces one

Jeb.COULD win with the Muslims, who he is hell-bent on giving them their American right to come into our country…and another amusing thing: Jeb just found out how really ‘poor’ Americans are. Like his Daddy, he doesn’t get out of his own rich neighborhoods.

Why…they can’t even afford to pay for car repairs! By the way, I suggest we send our car repairs from now on to Jeb.

On another note, Ann Coulter wrote an excellent explanation why Donald Trump’s attack on Ted Cruz is right on:  HERE. She gives the best legal argument that Trump is right: Ted is a citizen, but only a naturalized one. ONLY a natural-born citizen can run for President. She explains it all in her piece…”.We’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg Now”

I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy — as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers ( The Constitution says: “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.” The phrase “natural-born” is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin’s Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin — a Scot — could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.

So Cruz was born a citizen — under our naturalization laws — but is not a “natural-born citizen” — under our Constitution.

Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”

Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural-born citizen


January 15, 2016 - Posted by | Presidential Elections, Uncategorized | ,


  1. Sorry hon, but you’re misinformed on this. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790 (as amended several times), any child born outside the U.S. of a parent who is a U.S. citizen (as Cruz’s mother was) is a natural born citizen. Even the Harvard Law Review says so:

    “Thus, an individual born to a U.S. citizen parent — whether in California or Canada or the Canal Zone — is a U.S. citizen from birth and is fully eligible to serve as President if the people so choose.”


    Comment by snopercod | January 15, 2016 | Reply

    • Joyanna, You and Ann Coulter (and the US Constitution) are correct. One has to be born of TWO citizen parents, and a naturalization act is just that; an act that naturalizes citizens; it doesn’t make them natural born. We’d have to have a Constitutional Amendment, not a law/act of naturalization; the authority was given to the congress to make/set uniform rules of naturalization ~ they were not given authority to change the qualifications for President except by amending the Constitution, which has NOT happened.


      Comment by Mrs. O | January 15, 2016 | Reply

      • Mrs. O, did you actually read Coulter’s article? She wrote: “…in 1790, the first Congress passed a law that provided: “The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”
        That seems pretty clear to me.


        Comment by snopercod | January 15, 2016

      • Dear Snopercod,
        Yes, I certainly DID read it. And here’s the part that came after the part you quoted (did you read beyond that? 😉 I usually enjoy your comments; I’m keeping this a friendly conversation):

        *[Except the problem is, neither that Congress, nor any Congress for the next 200 years or so, actually treated them like natural born citizens.

        As the Supreme Court said in Bellei, a case about the citizenship of a man born in Italy to a native-born American mother and an Italian father: “It is evident that Congress felt itself possessed of the power to grant citizenship to the foreign born and at the same time to impose qualifications and conditions for that citizenship.”

        The most plausible interpretation of the 1790 statute is that Congress was saying the rights of naturalized citizens born abroad are the same as the rights of the natural born — except the part about not being natural born.

        Does that sound odd? It happens to be exactly what the Supreme Court said in Schneider v. Rusk (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be president. (Article II, Section 1)”

        Unless we’re all Ruth Bader Ginsburg now, and interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we want it to mean, Cruz is not a “natural born citizen.”]*

        And again, it’s still: born to TWO citizen parents; Ted Cruz’s father was not a citizen of the US at the time of his son’s birth (perhaps of Canada tho’ I’m not sure when he became a Canadian citizen; and Cruz Sr. didn’t become a US citizen until 2005). And you can Google the SCOTUS decision that specifically states it’s TWO citizen parents; I’m too tired tonight and battling a migraine. Enjoy your research! 😉


        Comment by Mrs. O | January 15, 2016

      • Great comment Mrs. O.!


        Comment by Joyanna Adams | January 15, 2016

    • If I’m wrong, then so is Ann Coulter. Did you read her piece? I took it to mean, and like most thing in the Constitution, it leaves you open to interpret it any way you like..Our Supreme Court passed Obamacare which is against the Constitution, but they found precedence for it didn’t they? Right? Right? Its in the interpretation. …I took it to mean, SURE…he IS a citizen. HIs mother was an American, but he was born on Canadian soil. Ted Cruz is an American Citizen …there is no doubt of that. The constitution says meant it to mean a “natural born citizen, born here in the United States. That’s the way our founders meant it…..that’s only common sense. When it was written, that’s what it meant. They meant someone born HERE in the colonies. NOW…Obama used to be the head of the Harvard Law review, so I’m not so sure Harvard Law should be the last word on it. . Read Ann’s columns and explain to me where she got it wrong. Her column made sense to me. And she is a graduate of Harvard. Yes, he is a citizen, but only a man born on American soil (according to Ann) can be President. If he had been born on a military base, no problem. Frankly, I’ve always thought Obama was not ‘vetted’ either, (and you know that from reading me. ) and it’s no big deal to any of us now…our liberties have been so trashed..And because nobody paid attention to the rules with Obama, we got a man who from all accounts is a Muslim, and that’s why it’s important. That’s why our founders meant it literally….to protect us from foreigners. They were right…look how much damage Obama has done. Whether it is the law, or not, Donald Trump has a point…the democrats WILL bring it up. They will. Hillary brought up Obama’s eligibility the first time. In a way, Trump did him a favor. Ted should have been prepared for this. And its obvious, Donald was using this to try to get rid of Ted, he admitted it as such. It was sneaky yes. But what else are you going to attack him on? Trump wants to win Iowa. Was it a low blow? In life, nice people don’t always win… Trump hasn’t spent years arguing law in front of the Supreme Court granted…but TED doesn’t know much about economics. And what do we need more? America doesn’t have the time to try to put all the Constitutional damage that has been done by both parties back in the bottle…what we need now are jobs.  I’d like to see Ted in control of the Senate, where he is good. Where he can put the Constition back in order.   I like to compare Ted Cruz to John Quincy Adams. JQA was a unremarkable President, and he had the highest IQ of any President ever lived according to McCullough. But the work he  did in Congress, was beyond exceptional. I put Ted Cruz in that same line…a brilliant litigator, a fighter, never giving up…Congress is just as much an enemy as the world…and Ted is plainly needed there. Let Trump take on the Chinese. If we were smart, Ted could clean out the Congress. , I don’t think China or Russia is going to be scared of Ted…no matter how many times he practices his ‘tough’ look. There is more to life than being the most intelligent man in the room. Street smarts…are a whole different world, and the world we live in is filled with very street smart despots. But hey, I’ll look into it more, snopercod…but nobody said…and by the way, didn’t he recently just give up his Canadian citizenship? Why did he wait so long? Okay, I’ll shut up now. 🙂


      Comment by Joyanna Adams | January 15, 2016 | Reply

      • I like Ann Coulter, but when it comes to legal advice, I’m going with the Harvard Law Review over Ms. Coulter. Just to pour more gasoline on this fire, Barry Goldwater wasn’t born “within the borders of the United States”, either, yet nobody questioned his Citizenship. He was born in Phoenix before Arizona was a State. George Romney ran for president and yet he was born in Mexico. Chester A. Arthur is rumored to have been born in Canada when his father wasn’t a citizen at the time. The whole idea of the “natural born citizen” clause was to prevent a foreigner from becoming the Commander in Chief. Does anybody really think that Ted Cruz is secretly loyal to Cuba?


        Comment by snopercod | January 16, 2016

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: