Skip to comments.Bobby Jindal attacks Obama as the Presidential race hots up
Posted on 06/23/2012 1:38:33 AM PDT by Jyotishi
Bobby Jindal attacks Obama as the Presidential race hots up
Agencies Washington, Sat Jun 23 2012, 13:18 hrs
Indian American Governor Bobby Jindal has launched yet another attack on the US President by alleging that Barack Obama's re-election campaign message is divide and blame and not hope and change of his 2008 campaign.
In 2008, President Obama campaigned on a message of 'Hope and Change'. (On) Thursday, speaking in Ohio, the President announced his re-election campaign message of 'Divide and Blame', Jindal wrote in an op-ed on the CNN website.
Jindal is said to be among those shortlisted as the Vice President running mate of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
The first Indian American governor of a US State, Jindal said Obama cannot ask Americans if they are better off than they were four years ago, and so is trying to blame others for his record.
Over half a million fewer Americans have jobs today than when he took office, he charged.
After his advisors projected that his USD 800 billion stimulus bill would keep unemployment below eight per cent, it has remained above that benchmark for a record 40 months and counting.
Median family net worth has hit a two-decade low, median household income has declined, more than 30 per cent of borrowers are underwater on their mortgage, 23 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, and half of college graduates this year come out of school unemployed or underemployed, he said.
This is for the second time in less than a month that Jindal has launched a scathing attack on Obama.
Early this month Jindal alleged Obama's administration is a nexus of liberalism and incompetence.
The Obama admin(istration) is at the nexus of liberalism and incompetence and together that's a deadly combination," Jindal said in his remarks at the Chicago meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Writing for the CNN, Jindal said being President is a hard job. One of the hardest parts is that you can't just make excuses. Harry Truman understood this. It's just not allowed from the president of the United States. Excuses make the president look small and weak. It is frankly a little embarrassing, he wrote.
The President himself promised, after being elected, that if he didn't get the economy fixed in three years, then his presidency was 'going to be a one-term proposition'. President Clinton, speaking in 2010 at the same spot where the President spoke Thursday, said 'Give us two more years. If it doesn't work, vote us out'. Good advice. That was then. Now, the president is basically saying that he is a victim of circumstances, and we are all victims, Jindal wrote.
Thursday's speech was also a speech of class warfare. The other campaign President Obama announced is a class warfare campaign of division. He plans to divide America along class lines, gender lines, party lines, age lines and any other lines he can find. He will run a campaign of rich against poor, men against women, Democrats against Republicans, young against old and liberals against conservatives, he said.
Jindal said Obama's entire philosophy can be encapsulated in one little line toward the end of his speech.
He suggested we should put money into infrastructure and 'do some nation building here at home'. While this may be a cute turn of phrase, and certainly polls well, it is all you need to know about the outlook of this President.
He believes that this nation was built by the government, and that more government spending is the key to our future. This is a speech that should have been delivered in France, Jindal said.
The damn fool has spent $5Trillion already ...
and NOW he says he wants to improve infrastructure? We could have upgraded our entire electrical grid AND highway system for that
Instead it was used to hire one group to dig a hole, and hire a second group to fill it in. (literally, in some cases)
Piyush Amrit Bobby Jindal
born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, LA (Meets the Jus Soli Requirement)
Amar Jindal born in India, naturalized Dec. 4, 1986
Raj Jindal born in India, naturalized Sept 21, 1976.
Parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth (Does NOT meet the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)
Bobby Jindal is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Bobby's status is the same as that of Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama, who is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
“we should put money into infrastructure “
If spending were the solution we wouldn’t have the problem.
Jindal should have reminded his audience that Obama sank us deeper into debt by the end of Feb 2010 than EVERY Administration before his Combined.
Obama is not unique. He’s the full realization of everything his party has stood and worked for for longer than I’ve been alive.
“liberalism and incompetence and together that’s a deadly combination,”
Liberalism and incompetence are not separable items. They’re the same thing. His Party knew what he was before they nominated him. And now Anyone is surprised that what the left actually believes in is such a disaster and so distasteful when it actually hits the fan, to so many Americans?
Obama just tied it all together and put the pedal to the metal. And in so doing demonstrated that there is no way to competently institute his Party’s modern, anything but liberal, Liberalism.
But overall, Nice speech. Maybe it’ll impress another .05 percent of the people who voted for Obama last time to think a little harder this time.
As you admit, Jindal was born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, LA.
That’s it. End of story. He’s a “natural born” U.S. citizen as eligible as you or I. Doesn’t matter where your parents were born, and no court has ever held otherwise, nor will any court ever do so.
He’d make a great campaigner, debater, conservative advocate and Vice President, as would many others. Romney could do far worse than Jindal.
I would be happy if he were the vp choice. Indians and the group “Asians” they are lumped in with have a large viable voting number.
The Natural Born Citizen part does not seem to bother Obama.
My problem is that if we pick Jindal or Rubio we basically endorse the fact that Obama is not a Natural Born citizen but we accept him anyway.
I do not accept Obama in any way shape or form.
FOUR Supreme Court cases that cite natural born Citizen as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast."
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ."
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), "was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens."
"But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term natural born citizen to any other category than those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof.
Thank you, Godebert, for the summary of Supreme Court cases.
With the Arpaio press conference coming up in the next week or so, this information will become highly relevant to all of us here.
A storm is about to break over the One—one that has been brewing for four years.
Assuming Arpaio has good stuff, one can wonder if a shortened life awaits him. Natural causes of course...... /s
Bobby Jindal is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.Correct. Same as Rubio. Same as Obama.
There are about 3 million Indian Americans, and they apparently tend towards Democrats.
Jindal would probably garner most of them. Jug-ears can’t afford another million or two lost votes.
“...race hots up.” LOL
You obviously have no idea what the word “dicta” means. Look it up.
Quoting a bunch of cases, all of which have nothing to do with citizenship, means absolutely nothing.
As I said, no court has ever ruled and no court will ever rule that someone born in the U.S. is not a “natural born” citizen. You really should get over it.
You and your buddy ASA remind me of a bunch of tax protesters. As in delusional.
I refer you to post 14.
I’ll also say that your constant posting of legal rubbish is annoying.
You, too, need to look up the meaning of “dicta.” After you do that, perhaps you’ll understand that your postings are legally meaningless.
Or not. I don’t hold out much hope that you’ll figure out that the stuff you ignorantly spout has exactly zero legal merit.
Scratch 14, make that post 15.
The ignorance on this thread is astounding.
HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT
The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Courts direct construction and definition (in Minor) of the natural-born citizen clause is dicta are mistaken. They need to review the first two points of the syllabus, which state:
1. The word citizen is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since. (Emphasis added.)
Check the words if born of citizen parents again. They are stated at the very top of the syllabus and more than once in the Opinion of the Court. This is a direct holding of the case. It is clearly precedent. For it not to be precedent, the Court could not have held that Mrs. Minor was a US citizen. But since that determination was part of the holding, the grounds by which they made that determination are precedent, not dicta.
It DOES matter where parents were born.
Milt RomneyCARE is not eligible which is why
the DNC, MSM, and Obama SELECTED him for the GOPe.
This is an important issue EVEN IF IT IS IGNORED
by Team Romney/Team Obama (two sides of the same coin).
Here are the actual cases cited:
12 U.S. 253 (1814)
A case about cargo on a ship in the War of 1812.
SHANKS v. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242 (1830)
Descendants of a U.S. born citizen ruled able to inherit, never mind which islands the British invaded.
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
A pre-civil war slavery case. OVERTURNED.
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
A case where a woman wanted to vote and was denied. OVERTURNED.
U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
ALL of the crap quoted in a post above is nothing but meaningless dicta. Passing comments by a court (including the USSC) have no bearing on the actual RULING of the court. ONLY THE RULING MATTERS.
Dicta doesn’t mean squat, legally, but it’s great fun for those who don’t know what they’re talking about to extract a meaningless sentence or two from an opinion to support their delusions.
Like I said, NO court has ever ruled that anyone born in the U.S. isn’t a U.S. citizen and NO court ever will. Doesn’t matter where the parents were born. Period.
BTW, your “direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent” quote is absolute and total garbage. Who wrote that junk? I notice that you provided no source.
The court actually held this:
“Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the constitutions and laws of the several States which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we affirm the judgment.”
Get it? The holding says absolutely NOTHING about citizenship, doesn’t even mention it. The court meandered on about citizens at length, mostly pointing out the obvious and finally dismissing it all. Citizenship had no bearing on the holding. Didn’t mention it in its holding because it had nothing to do with the holding. It was all meaningless dicta.
Not to mention that the ruling was overturned by both the USSC and the 19th Amendment.
But, hey, don’t let out-of-date and off-point nonsense stop you from making a fool of yourself.
No, it doesn’t matter where your parents were born, it matters where YOU were born.
Only if you were born outside the U.S. does the issue of whether one of your parents was a U.S. citizen come into play.
And not the intent of the US Constitution.
> . . .
> Parents were NOT US Citizens at the time of his birth (Does
> NOT meet the Jus Sanguinis Requirement)
> Bobby Jindal is NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
> . . .
The Seventh U.S. President with a Foreign-Born Parent
With Barack Obama’s election, immigrant parents from all over the world can now honestly tell their American-born[*] children that they, too, can dream of one day becoming president. It’s a cultural as much as as a racial barrier that’s fallen: As the son of a Kenyan man, Barack Obama will be the first U.S. president with a parent born outside the British Isles or Canada.
Only six other U.S. presidents had a foreign-born parent. Mr. Obama will be the first in nearly ninety years, since President Herbert Hoover was inaugurated in 1929.
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.
[*] There’s of course considerable doubt about Barack Hussein Obama’s alleged U.S. birth.
> ...race hots up. LOL
I find “hots up” funny too! However:
vb (adverb) Informal
1. to make or become more exciting, active, or intense the chase was hotting up
2. (Engineering / Automotive Engineering) (tr) another term for soup up
I think I’ll start using it. LOL
I am not trying to take issue with Jus Soli / Jus Sanguinis / Vattel but just want to understand how this reading of Jus Sanguinis can be reconciled with the facts in the case of the Founders.
This is a good-faith question -- I am fine with Sarah or Rand or (if he is Constitutional) Bobby as VP -- though I am putting on my asbestos suit here in any event, meaning that I don't foresee the need to reply unless I have more questions.
Thanks in advance.
No amount of wishing or desiring or thinking or even writing that something is true doesn’t make it so.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for you or anyone else to come up with any ruling that supports what you claim, because it doesn’t exist.
That was the reason the founders stated "citizen at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." They exempted themselves from the NBC rule so we wouldn't have to wait 35 years to have an eligible person. Notice, they used different terms "Citizen at the time of Adoption" and separately "Natural Born Citizen." The founders knew the difference, so wrote the Constitution in a manner to buy us the 35 years. They could have just declared any citizen eligible, but choose the more restrictive requirement "NATUAL BORN CITIZEN" for the office of President only. For House of Representatives members the founders considered age 25 and a citizen for 7 years as good enough. For Senators, they went with 30 years of age, and 9 years a citizen.
Article II, Section 1:
"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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."