Excellent: Jindal rallies Louisianans to oppose the feds’ drilling moratorium
posted at 9:14 pm on July 21, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via Cubachi, two minutes of pure candy. Maybe my expectations were too low because I’d never seen him address a crowd before and still remember his, er, unfortunate performance following Obama’s SOTU speech a few years ago, but I’m stunned by how effective he is here even in a clip this brief. With the exception of Christie, no Republican governor’s done more over the last three months to impress the righty base, I think, than this guy has. Exit question: Second look at Jindal 2012?









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Lourdes, it’s either, or, not both
Schadenfreude on July 21, 2010 at 10:12 PM
cane_loader you hit the bigs.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM
Cindy Munford: I didn’t see a h/t,but yes,Cane_loader gets
the credit,staying on point,kudo’s to CL:)
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:13 PM
I think he impresses most of America.
Gov. Jindal is America’s quiet hero of Louisiana.
Zorro on July 21, 2010 at 10:13 PM
Bobby Jindal is a natural born American born in Baton Rouge La in 1971.
Read his early life on Wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
SO, yes, he is fully qualified to run for president.
So just stop that shidt.
44Magnum on July 21, 2010 at 10:14 PM
I don’t know what copy of the constitution you’re reading, but my copy does not have the word “native” in it.
So you’re either playing with this thread or you’re just plain dumb. I personally don’t care which but if you have a citation to authority to support your argument, I’d like to see it. Otherwise, you should push back from the keyboard and get yourself another drink.
platypus on July 21, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Sometimes it takes a crisis to show what a leader can do. If you rise to the occasion, you look like Bobby Jindahl, if you don’t, you look like Barack Obama.
bflat879 on July 21, 2010 at 10:04 PM
bflat879:We both came in at 10:04,with roughly the same
comment,kudos on that,it shaped one man,Jindal,
and I agree!!:)
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:08 PM
In line with your comments, I saw this somewhere else and wish it was mine. Kind of undersores his failure I think.
“Obama`s Katrina, is Obama!”
bluemarlin on July 21, 2010 at 10:15 PM
“Obama`s Katrina, is Obama!”
bluemarlin on July 21, 2010 at 10:11 PM
bluemarlin: Dam straight,and if the MSM did their jobs,
all of America would know by now!!:)
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:15 PM
oops, sorry for that double post.
bluemarlin on July 21, 2010 at 10:16 PM
I agree and I do not think we are alone! Again sorry about the dbl post, having issues tonight.
bluemarlin on July 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM
oops, sorry for that double post.
bluemarlin on July 21, 2010 at 10:16 PM
bluemarlin: Thanks I almost did a double-take,and at 10:15,
its getting spooky,eh!!:)
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM
What What double double post post??
platypus on July 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM
Everybody, just calm down.
Jindal’s parents when Jindal was born were not American citizens. That’s the issue as to his dubious “natural born” qualification for the Presidency (as it would be applied to anyone else who wasn’t a Democrat named Barack Obama).
I realize Jindal was born in Louisiana.
That means he IS an American citizen AND he IS “native born.”
Both requirements for the Presidency,.
BUT his parents were not American citizens at his birth so that raises the question as whether Jindal is “natural born” which is ALSO required for the Presidency (can’t be a naturalized citizen, must be “natural born” as a citizen).
Obama isn’t natural born, and he’s lied about that, in my opinion. He made a big do out of announcing he was NATIVE BORN on his campaign website but the choice of that term while omitting addressing the others was peculiar, to say the least (he ignored the remainder of the requirements, would not address them).
In Jindal’s case, since his parents became U.S. citizens (naturalized) later, after his birth, and did immigrate legally for purposes of obtaining citizenship, then, that’s to his credit and I could foresee that being used to fit him into the Constitutional requirements that exist.
In Obama’s case, however, he’s never “fitted in” to those requirements and done a great deal to both offend and suppress all questions and inquiry in these regards.
So I think the issue just needs to be resolved as to what “natural born” as a citizen actually means Constitutionally in referenece to the Presidency, that’s my point, so as to hopefully accept Jindal if he runs.
It’s not a case of fluctuating requirements from my perspective. Obama clearly did not qualify and has done a great deal to refuse to substantiate his qualifications. There just isn’t any argument where Jindal is concerned by comparison: Jindal’s an honorable guy, Obama isn’t.
Jindal seems to be someone who would go with what the legal decision is or would be; compared to Obama, who has barnstormed over all inquiries in that regard, well, there is just no comparison between the two: Jindal’s decent, Obama isn’t.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:18 PM
I Am AMERICA by Krista Branch (on you tube). I can’t do the link.. where is canofor who always posts the links for me?
I AM AMERICA!!
One voice, united we stand,
I AM AMERICA
One hope to heal are land.
You pay no attention to the
people in the street,
Crying out for accountibility.
You make a joke of what we belive,
You say we don’t matter
Cause you disagree.
Pretend your kings,
Sit on your throne.
Look down your nose
At the peasants below.
I got some news,
We’re taking names!
We’re waiting for
Judgement Day!
I AM AMERICA!!!!!
Beautiful song! Check it out…
TN Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM
Jindal will have no problems. He was born here.
Schadenfreude on July 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM
2nd look at LA & NJ as places to move to.
roy_batty on July 21, 2010 at 10:24 PM
I agree with you.
Natural born = born in U.S. to parents who are U.S. citizens.
Native-born = born in U.S. (on U.S. soil, geography).
BOTH are required to qualify for the Presidency, including, also, the additional requirements you identify there.
NOTE how the phrase “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” has been utterly bastardized to distort it’s meaning.
The Founders (“…at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”) were addressing an aspect of the population “AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION” who were born elsewhere but included, even, the Founders themselves in some cases (some born in England, etc.).
So they were addressing citizenship from a point of being grandfathered-in but not as to the Presidency in any “or” sense of that following phrase (“…OR at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”).
Natural born. Must be natural born.
Natural born. Means, born to U.S. citizens, born here, to U.S. citizens.
So if Obama — who clearly does NOT meet that requirement — can be administered the Oath of Office, we’ve got a guy in the Presidency who isn’t Constitutionally eligible…
Does that mean that the requirement/s in the Constitition are now to be ignored or dismissed?
I’m suggesting they need to be resolved to avoid another preposterous liar like Obama in the Presidency, ever again.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Second look at Captain America?
faraway on July 21, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Ugh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Heres Jindal’s birth history,he’s AMERICAN as apple pie!!
=========================================================
Piyush Amrit “Bobby” Jindal (born June 10, 1971)
Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the United States as immigrants from Punjab, India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie are needed right where they are for several more years. We have some other governors that can take a crack at running in 2012. And after November, we’re going to have more new governors that will make a fine farm team for after 2012.
Jill1066 on July 21, 2010 at 10:27 PM
WRONG. Because THE CONSTITUTION declares the requirements for the Presidency. It’s not the same as “definition of citizen”.
Citizenship is but one requirement. THE NATURE OF THE CITIZEN IS ALSO REQUIRED FOR THE PRESIDENCY.
Otherwise, any Joolio or Barack can move here and run for the Presidency after being naturalized or “losing” their “original birth certificate”.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:28 PM
Once more: “native” is NOT in the constitution.
Natural born is not defined but I can promise anybody that Jindal cannot be judged by any different standards than a fence jumper in Arizona who drops a kid on the US side.
So unless the country is ready to declare ALL children born here of illegal aliens are NOT citizens (and that would have to be retroactive), Jindal is golden on this issue.
So I, for one, am looking forward to this issue being brought forward by libtards. Think roadkill.
platypus on July 21, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Groan. You wouldn’t be, if you had done more than two minutes’ research on the man. But no, all the lemming squishy righties have to make the expected “but his SOTU response was so awful!” disclaimer whenever it comes to Jindal.
Because, you know, everyone knows if you have one big dud speech, you can’t be President.
We’ll definitely keep winning with that attitude.
Missy on July 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM
I AM AMERICA!!!!!
Beautiful song! Check it out…
TN Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM
TN Mom: You rang!!!!!!!!!!!!:)
==========================================================
I Am America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM
Lourdes — in fact it is an open question — whether or not someone born in the USA whose parents are not citizens at the time of birth is a “natural born citizen”. It is in fact not clear at all that they are.
SunSword on July 21, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Jindal was born in BAton Rouge, Louisiana, he has as southern an accent as you can get.
Requirements for presidency:
Must be a natural born citizen of the United States
Must be at least thirty-five years old;
Must have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
Don’t see anything about parents having to be Natural Born citizens, otherwise Obama wouldn’t be in the White House right now
Cookies Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:32 PM
platypus — this issue is not “citizen” but “natural born citizen”. Do some research — they are not the same at all.
SunSword on July 21, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Hello? Hellooo? Hellooooo?
It’s not a case of being “born here” but of being BOTH “born here” AND BORN TO PARENTS WHO ARE U.S. CITIZENS, inorder to qualify as “natural born.”
Born in the U.S. = “native born U.S. citizen.”
Born in the U.S. to parents who are U.S. citizens == native born AND NATURAL BORN citizen.
It’s an additional requirement for the Presidency under our Constitution. It was required (prior to Obama’s bastardization of the Constititution, if not dismissal of it) to prevent people who arrived here with foreign loyalties becoming President. The Founders wanted Presidents to possess unchallenged, non-interrupted loyalty to the nation (not be born to foreign nationals, not be born elsewhere, not be naturalized, reside here for reasonable length of time prior to the Presidency).
If you all making noise about this can’t read the basic defintions, I’m tired of repeating them for you.
Just read the basic requirements.
Native born == born in the U.S.
Natural born == born in the U.S. to parents who are U.S. citizens.
BOTH individually identify a U.S. citizen…
***but only the combination of the two equals qualifying for the President as per the Constitution.***
You can’t be just “native born” as a citizen to qualify. You must be native born AND natural born to meet the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency.
I raised this issue because obviously Jindal’s parents were not U.S. citizens by birth when he was born in the U.S.
So that means he is not a “natural born” citizen, though, yes, he IS a citizen and yes, his parents BECAME citizens by naturalization later.
I’m just saying the issue needs to be resolved to ensure that what the Founding Fathers didn’t want (say, Obama’s charade in the Presidency) never occurs again.
If Jindal runs, this issue will be important and will be raised.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Age and Citizenship requirements – US Constitution, 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.
===========================================================
http://www.presidentsusa.net/index.html
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:37 PM
By the way, the chief problem with Jug Ears is that his mother was not married when he was born. I also think she was not eighteen but I could be wrong about that. But if she was unmarried, then his legal name is Dunham. Thus, he would be natural born.
He is not hiding his long form birth certificate because he’s not natural born. (Even if she gave birth outside the country while she was unmarried, he’d be natural born since she was a citizen)
He’s hiding it because of the information on it. Who his daddy is, or even if there’s a name on there. What his birth name was, which may trigger a whole lot of other quesstions regarding whether it is legal to campaign under an alias.
Jug Ears is the nastiest person to ever occupy the WH. And that includes BJ Clinton.
platypus on July 21, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Thanks, yes, you’re right (as I am earlier, not bragging, just reasserting what I’ve already written earlier here — which obviously, some are not reading or comprehending).
The issue needs to be resolved.
I think it’s reasonable to say that many among the Right and in the Middle would love Bobby Jindal to both run and qualify for the Presidency, and to win that Office.
I’m just saying this issue needs to be resolved if that’s going to ever happen.
I would not support any candidates (as I also did not support Barack Obama for this, among so many other, reasons) occupying the Presidency with such clearly violating statistics as presented, where the Constitution is concerned – that means, I do believe Obama is not Constitutionally qualifed and I do believe he has lied his way into the Office by dismissing the Constitution to do so).
I can’t see Bobby Jindal ever being so corrupt as that, to ever do such a thing. So as long as this issue remains unresolved, then, to an honest, moral man such as Jindal (and to me as a voter), this issue needs to be resolved if Jindal is to ever hold the Office.
I won’t vote for him for the Presidency if the issue remains unresolved or remains “bendable” per Obama’s method as it has in the times of Obama. Not resolving the issue simply grants access to anyone to do anything by saying whatever, just as Obama has done. I cannot see Jindal ever behaving as badly as that.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Then what about Obama? His father was Kenyan, if “Natural Born” means parents have to be citizens and born in America then he shouldn’t be in the White House.
Granted Obama is a Democrat but still Republicans could point out that Jindal fits the requiremnts of being “Natural Born” more than Obama since at least Jindal’s parents did become American Citizens
Cookies Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Yes, those, too, as you point out, are additional compromises about the nature and type of citizenship Obama claims to hold.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:44 PM
I’m sorry, but if that little anti-American kenyan turd-in-a-tie can be president with no proof of a real birth certificate, than Jindal should have no issue.
Go Bobby go!!!
Jindal/Christie 2012!
ErinF on July 21, 2010 at 10:45 PM
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen”, the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Cookies Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM
If Jindal runs, this issue will be important and will be raised.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:35 PM
Lourdes: The post was about Louisana,not is Jindal eligable
to be President,anyhow,here ya go!!
====================================================
Executive Temperament in Evidence:Bobby Jindal
http://biggovernment.com/prahe/2010/06/18/executive-temperament-in-evidence-bobby-jindal/
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Liberals have insisted that the requirements are an either/or set. Be a citizen, or, be natural born.
They are unique and distinct, however, and badly bastardized by people who of later times have simply deemed anyone from anywhere who managed to be born in the U.S. “can be President.”
THAT ISN’T what the Founders intended. Their intent was to prevent that from occuring, to ensure that any President would not be affected by dual loyalties or foreign loyalties when compared with those of the U.S.
So, you can BE a citizen but NOT be “natural born”…
And, you MUST BE a citizen AND be natural born to be President.
The problem is the grammar but the intent has been further explained by the history of the times in which the content was written (intent is to prevent anyone NOT “natural born” as a citizen from occupying the Presidency).
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:48 PM
TYPO, WRONG, SORRY:
I WROTE:
What I should have written was:
Liberals have insisted that the requirements are an AND/OR set. Be a citizen, and/or, be natural born.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen”, the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
Cookies Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:50 PM
Yes, I know and I never intended this issue to be pronounced here — only to point out that it’s important to iron-out if Jindal is to be anticipated as a President.
When so many people can’t or refuse to understand even simple statements, it gets harder to remain patient after trying so patiently so many times to explain simple things simply.
Anyway, end of this trail for me…I recognize it’s not the thread topic, never intended it to be.
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM
So you’re suggesting, then, that the Founders were referring to people born in England to foreign parents when they used the term, “natural born”?
In other words, per your quote, the Founders used the term “natural born” to address people residing in the newly-born U.S. who were born in England to foreign parents there?
Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:53 PM
You’re the BEST song-link poster evah!! :)
TN Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Yessss
and Cane_loader : looking forward to your tape of the event . Keep the passion and keep the rest of the country informed
macncheez on July 21, 2010 at 10:56 PM
I’m saying that the Founders did base a lot of their laws and ideas on what the English did and the Supreme Court recognized that
This was an excerpt about the defintion of Natural Born where it states that the majority believe that the Founders would have followed a similar tactic as the English and this is the English law.
Cookies Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:57 PM
http://www.examiner.com/x-9404-SF-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Birthers-Obama-is-the-seventh-president-with-a-foreignborn-parent
Lourdes is a birther. Great – let loose the lunacy within the GOP.
If he were really correct wouldn’t someone have challenged some of the legislation signed into law by the other six presidents.
Bradky on July 21, 2010 at 10:58 PM
[Lourdes on July 21, 2010 at 10:35 PM]
You know, you have to quit repeating your argument over and over. The force of your opinion alone isn’t going to work no matter how long your comments are. Put up some links to case law, common law, or legal tradition. If you don’t have any, you can start over at Volokh’s by querying: natural born Obama McCain site:volokh.com
Dusty on July 21, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Bobby should run just to demonstrate how to openly display an actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE. While he’s at it, don’t be surprised to see actual COLLEGE TRANSCIPTS.
teacherman on July 21, 2010 at 11:08 PM
I watched the livestreaming of the rally. It was much better. Charlotte Randolph president of Lafourche Parish said to Shut the Valve. That means everything shutdowns down east f the Rockies. The nation has no idea how much it relies on Louisiana for just about everything. We are what Alaska and Texas want to be with our resources.
EVERY speaker was great and Hoffmeister rocked the house like a rock star could ever want to do.
Kermit on July 21, 2010 at 11:14 PM
Obama is not a natural born citizen because, even though he was born in the United States, one of his parents was a British subject.
Jindal was born in the US to two US citizens. Therefore he is a natural born citizen of the US.
Vatican Watcher on July 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I think the 14th amendment settles this issue by granting birth right citizenship. Because of slavery it was possible to be born here, to parents that were born here, but because of your status as a slave you were not a “citizen.” So, when the 14th amendment rectified the terrible decision of the SCOTUS in Dred Scott v Sanford it essentially redefined “natural born” as being born a United States citizen, which only happens 1) if you are born on US soil, or 2) born abroad to parents who are BOTH US Citizens. I am not arguing that it should be this way – but this is how the courts will see it, and if I was arguing this, it would be in light of the 14th amendment which no one seems to be talking about.
Govgirl on July 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Vatican Watcher on July 21, 2010 at 11:16 PM
Here is a great clip and far better than the one on this site.
http://hometownproductions.com/videos/satelittefeeds/download.php?f=sat072110bp.mpg
Kermit on July 21, 2010 at 11:17 PM
I like both Governors Jindal and Christies but we need to let them fix their states first. They need time. Especially Gov. Jindal, they were still struggling with the mess left by Katrina and now this. We will all be stronger with those two states serving a a foundation of well run government.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Not only that, but Jindal is truly intelligent. He has credentials as a policy wonk and as a scholar, AND he has executive know-how. He commands respect from those who work for and with him because his respect for hard workers is mutual.
You won’t see Jindal run off like a ninny on self-indulgent vacations or at celebrity parties…like someone else that I could name.
Send this clip to Drudge and any others that you Gulf people have. The media blackout cannot stand any longer.
onlineanalyst on July 21, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Great guy! I’d vote for him in a heartbeat
clnurnberg on July 21, 2010 at 11:19 PM
As for Jindal’s SOTU response, anyone who replies to a camera, in a big empty room, looks bad. Does no one remember Tim “the eyebrow” Kaine in 2006? Thus the reason that whoever was responsible for setting up Bob McDonnell’s SOTU response in 2010 deserves a HUGE pat on the back, (this was I think the best SOTU response I have ever seen, and its not just because it was MY Governor in MY state Capitol) and the model should be forever followed. GIVE THE RESPONSE IN FRONT OF A LIVE AUDIENCE, it will be better every time. 1) you are actually talking to someone, rather than a camera, 2) mirrors the actual SOTU so the contrast is not as big.
Govgirl on July 21, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Since this, to my knowledge, is the first time the commenter has mentioned this subject, I don’t think he/she needs to be labeled a birther.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Bradky on July 21, 2010 at 10:58 PM
It’s perfectly fine to have foreign born parents. But they must be naturalized *at the time of their child’s birth* for that child to then become POTUS.
None of the POTUSes in your link give any info on whether these foreign born parents were citizens *at the time of the POTUSes* birth, but I would venture to say that they *were*.
“Natural born” is a phrase that John Jay discussed in a letter and it implies that both parents are to be US citizens (either naturalized or natural born themselves) at the time of birth.
I’ve read up on Arthur a couple of years ago and there are some who argue that he should never have been POTUS either. In fact, he obsfucated his background wrt to Canada. I’ll try to find a link…
-Aslan’s Girl
PS Lourdes, you go girl!
Aslans Girl on July 21, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:30 PM
I’m pretty sure I’ve read Lourdes post on this before. What’s wrong with being “labeled a birhter”? I wear the title proudly as do most “birthers”.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on July 21, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Vatican Watcher on July 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM
I don’t think Jindal’s parents were US citizens *at the time of his birth*… I know that they became citizens, just not sure when.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on July 21, 2010 at 11:34 PM
The same can be said for “all” domestic drilling. Its not the oil. We can get oil elsewhere. Its the Jobs that domestic drilling will produce that is important.
This is where Newt got it wrong with his Drill Now/Here intitiative. He placed emphasis energy independence. Thats not what is important. It is, again, the jobs that will be produced that will get the electorate enthused. Darvin Dowdy
Darvin Dowdy on July 21, 2010 at 11:42 PM
I think that because this was added, changed or whatsoever in the Constitution about four times, the differences in opinion matter.
ProudPalinFan on July 21, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Many of the so called birthers that have been here in the past were one trick ponies. It was all they could talk about even if it wasn’t the subject of the thread. I am sympathetic to those with doubts but since no one will ever do anything about it and a lot of other questions about our shiny president, I limit my fights to things my contributions and votes can change.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM
All these people out of work and the goons are partying, vacationing, yakking it up about race and all sorts of nonsense. Media culpable.
In Nov. when they lose “America is a racist country” will be the headline.
What a bunch of utter fools!
Schadenfreude on July 21, 2010 at 11:53 PM
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM’
You are the wise one. We’ve got big fish to fry.
Schadenfreude on July 21, 2010 at 11:55 PM
It would be wonderful to see some off-teleprompter passion from Jindal. I’m not saying he’s not passionate under these trying circumstances, but a communicator needs to be able to bring it off teleprompter. Christie brings it. Palin brings it.
Sure Obama is teleprompted, but the big O gets propped up by a drooling media. Jindal won’t have that support. Christie won’t need it (but he is probably not running 2012). And Palin has no resume, so her passion as a Presidential candidate seeking nomination is irrelevant to me. (Of course I’d vote SP if she were nominated.)
T-Paw 2012 baby, proven competence.
exdeadhead on July 21, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Many of the so called birthers that have been here in the past were one trick ponies. It was all they could talk about even if it wasn’t the subject of the thread. I am sympathetic to those with doubts but since no one will ever do anything about it and a lot of other questions about our shiny president, I limit my fights to things my contributions and votes can change.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2010 at 11:50 PM
Amen Sister!
annoyinglittletwerp on July 21, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Jindal needs to hire a speaking coach so he could give good speeches.
At this point I would support a Jindal campaign for 2012 in a sec… I think the guy would cause the democrats a lot of trouble and he could nullify all the crazy racist smears that the dems will throw at us.
TimeTraveler on July 22, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Jindal 2012 baby…. someone needs to smack this guy into running he would be great for us.
TimeTraveler on July 22, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Kermit: I will have to catch this video later. (Bandwidth exceeded. Try again later.)
I have valued every bit of information that you and cane_loader have shared with us. Keep it up!
onlineanalyst on July 22, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Gov Jindal sat out the healthcare debate when he should have been engaged. Men with with his background were badly needed and could have made a difference.
Gov Jindal doesn’t deserve a second look from conservatives until he steps outside his comfort zone of Louisiana parochial concerns. His words in favor drilling and fighting bureaucracy are good, but it’s still related to what’s good for Louisiana.
Step up to national debate and let’s see what you got!!
HDFOB on July 22, 2010 at 12:19 AM
I Am America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw
canopfor on July 21, 2010 at 10:30 PM
====================================
You’re the BEST song-link poster evah!! :)
TN Mom on July 21, 2010 at 10:54 PM
TN Mom:)
canopfor on July 22, 2010 at 12:26 AM
I’m a Palin girl always, but Bobby is always on my radar as a possibility. I certainly prefer him to some of the names that get tossed around here regularly. I thought he was unfairly written off after his SOTU rebuttal. It’s not unlike how people judge Palin based solely on her performances in the Couric and Gibson interviews. Have we become that shallow and undiscriminating that a single bad day is enough to end a person’s career? Heck, if that’s the case, I’m sure all of us would have been finished and done for in no time.
People should be judged on the body of their work, not a handful of a high and low points. On balance, Palin impresses me, and so does Jindal. His response to the oil spill weighs well in his favor. He is the one of only a handful of people directly involved who has shown any sign of leadership skills whatsoever.
NoLeftTurn on July 22, 2010 at 12:42 AM
We need good Republican Governors too, especially in LA and NJ where there is still a hell of a lot of work to do.
holdfast on July 22, 2010 at 12:48 AM
He’s gotten much smoother than a couple of years ago. More oomph. A good leader for the movement.
MadisonConservative on July 22, 2010 at 12:59 AM
The one thing that bothers me about Jindal is the reason that he has stated for his conversion to Catholicism. It is because he saw that it had a strong central decider unlike other forms of Christianity.
It is obvious to anyone who has met Jindal and heard any speech without teleprompter of his that the SOTU response was completely unlike any other that he ever gave (except maybe grammar school). That is the only speech were he had the help of speech writers and the only one where he heeded the request to slow down.
Bobby does not need any prewritten speech or teleprompter. All that he has to do is read a few position papers and reports and then can speak with authority on almost any subject.
Kermit on July 22, 2010 at 1:02 AM
Yes, and obama’s alleged father, Barack Sr., a native born Kenyan and subject of the British Crown at the time of Barack Jr’s. birth, was just a visitor to the USA, not even a permanent resident, let alone a naturalized citizen.
Natural born requires that a person be born on US soil, and at the time of birth, that one’s parents be US citizens, either by birth or naturalization.
And, obama is showing, imo, his conflicted allegiances over and over. Kind of like the paternal foundation on which he could build his America hating career.
With the British, he refuses their offer of keeping the bust of Churchill, and returns it in the rudest possible way. Then, he insults Queen and British PM with bizarre, thoughtless gifts, and refused to acknowledge that US and Britain have a “special relationship”, refusing to use that wording which is of particular importance in the relations between the two nations.
Then there is the little problem of berri, as a United States Senator, campaigning all over Kenya for his communist father’s relative, communist Raila Odinga.
Andrew McCarthy wrote a great article over at NRO online about how obama’s active campaigning against the sitting President of Kenya, who was supported by the Bush Administration and US State Dept. most likely violated several laws pertaining to U.S. government officials interfering in a sovereign nation’s electoral process.
berri raised something like one million dollars for Odinga, who also cut a deal with the muslim minority in Kenya, promising them if he won, he would install Sharia law in the 80% Christian country.
When Odinga lost, he incited his (and obama’s) fellow luo tribesman to murder and butcher thousands, until the re-elected President gave in and installed Odinga as a “Prime Minister”, to co-govern with the President.
This position can be found nowhere in the Kenyan Constitution. berri had to be loving the total destruction of their Constitution.
Recently, it was also revealed that there is a referendum scheduled for a vote which would change the pro-life Kenyan Constitution to open the door wide to abortion.
berri recently sent Kenya something like 23 million dollars, “under the table”, to directly fund groups that are pushing the pro-abortion vote for the referendum.
Again, this violates several U.S. statutes forbidding direct funding in these kinds of matters in another sovereign state.
obama is a criminal on so many levels, it’s dizzying.
So, it seems the Founders were exceedingly wise in making the provision for Presidential allegience through birth and lineage so stringent.
Look at how berri’s own Kenyan father and grandfather had so much trouble with the British. He recounts it in his book. Then, observe his relationship with Britain.
Look at berri’s obsession with much more than meddling in the affairs of Kenya, to the point of most likely breaking several federal laws to do it.
But, tut, tut, he’s teflon. By the time he’s finished, we may well be also, because no one who is Constitutionally duty bound to get him removed from office is willing to even whisper the word impeach. Can’t have that, first black president and all. Riots and all.
Lady Justice is blind, I guess, but not color blind.
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:02 AM
Screw Palin and Romney.
Jindal 2012
TimeTraveler on July 22, 2010 at 1:07 AM
FIFY!
Jenfidel on July 22, 2010 at 1:13 AM
I think you are wrong there, tigerlily. US v Wong Kim Ark pretty much settled that question, deciding that a child born on American soil was a citizen from birth even if the parents were aliens.
Dusty on July 22, 2010 at 1:29 AM
I assume you are referring to the authority of the Pope, Kermit.
If I may say, many converts to Catholicism have said that the clear and decisive teachings on faith and morals, which are the only two areas in which the the Holy Father can and has spoken infallibly in the 2000 year history of the Church, have been vitally important to them in their journey to the Church.
As Catholics, we believe this is a love of certainty in matters one’s conscience and ultimately, one’s immortal soul. It is personal obedience as chosen in the very highest levels of personal freedom, freely chosen through the gift of faith; God himself working in the individual to bring about this mysterious union with the Church.
So, what I am trying to say is that the individual who chooses to give their assent in matters pertaining to faith and morals to the the head of their Church, in this case we are speaking of the Pope, gives their assent in complete freedom, directly opposite of the tyranny and enslavement of body and conscience (especially manifested in obamacare), that our current “president” is attempting to impose.
It is an assent to Truth, “transmitted” as it were, through the power and integrity of the Holy Spirit, again, only infallibly in matters of faith and morals, to the faithful through the successors of Peter.
To the believer, this is a profound source of comfort. Trying to figure out the great mystery of salvation coupled with the huge moral and ethical questions that must be tackled in every soul’s life would be exhausting, with so many conflicting beliefs and dogmas in so many Christian sects, many with no “teaching authority” save one’s own individual interpretation.
For 2000 years, the Church has not been perfect by any means, but no Pope, no matter how much a saint or sinner, has ever contradicted the teachings on faith or morals. They are unbroken.
So, please don’t think that the authority of the Catholic Church in any way can be translated by the believer into a love of political tyranny, statism or abusive centralization of power.
Jindal has a formidable intellect. He knows that the Church is in the world but not of the world.
P.S. to fellow posters: I don’t want this to become a thread hijack, nor to start another religious war here. Just wanted to perhaps put Kermit’s mind at ease. Hope it helped, but maybe I made things worse. Hope not.;)
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:32 AM
I assume you are referring to the authority of the Pope, Kermit.
If I may say, many converts to Catholicism have said that the clear and decisive teachings on faith and morals, which are the only two areas in which the the Holy Father can and has spoken infallibly in the 2000 year history of the Church, have been vitally important to them in their journey to the Church.
As Catholics, we believe this is a love of certainty in matters one’s conscience and ultimately, one’s immortal soul. It is personal obedience as chosen in the very highest levels of personal freedom, freely chosen through the gift of faith; God himself working in the individual to bring about this mysterious union with the Church.
So, what I am trying to say is that the individual who chooses to give their assent in matters pertaining to faith and morals to the the head of their Church, in this case we are speaking of the Pope, gives their assent in complete freedom, directly opposite of the tyranny and enslavement of body and conscience (especially manifested in obamacare), that our current “president” is attempting to impose.
It is an assent to Truth, “transmitted” as it were, through the power and integrity of the Holy Spirit, again, only infallibly in matters of faith and morals, to the faithful through the successors of Peter.
To the believer, this is a profound source of comfort. Trying to figure out the great mystery of salvation coupled with the huge moral and ethical questions that must be tackled in every soul’s life would be exhausting, with so many conflicting beliefs and dogmas in so many Christian sects, many with no “teaching authority” save one’s own individual interpretation.
For 2000 years, the Church has not been perfect by any means, but no Pope, no matter how much a saint or sinner, has ever contradicted the teachings on faith or morals. They are unbroken.
So, please don’t think that the authority of the Catholic Church in any way can be translated by the believer into a love of political tyranny, statism or abusive centralization of power.
Jindal has a formidable intellect. He knows that the Church is in the world but not of the world.
P.S. to fellow posters: I don’t want this to become a thread hijack, nor to start another religious war here. Just wanted to perhaps put Kermit’s mind at ease. Hope it helped, but maybe I made things worse. Hope not.;)
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:32 AM
I was born Jewish, baptized Protestant, and joined in full communion with the Church at this years Easter Vigil.
What drew me to the church was that it’s teaching is truer to Judaism. I feel a lot more at home as a Catholic than I did as a Protestant.
The lord even lead me to a Jewish-born patron saint…Edith Stein.
(Sorry-as a recent convert I just wanted to add to Tigerlily’s eloquent comment.)
annoyinglittletwerp on July 22, 2010 at 1:43 AM
Yes, Dusty, being born on US soil makes one a citizen.
But, as Lourdes explained very succintly further up the thread, the Founders required, for the Office of the Presidency only, that a person be not only a citizen, but a natural born citizen.
I admit that I’m too tired to get sources now, but British common law, which the Founders based the presidential Constitutional requirement upon, defined natural born as: born on U.S. soil, with parents who are, at the time of birth of the offspring born on U.S. soil, U.S. citizens themselves, either by birth, or by naturalization as per the laws of the United States as pertaining to naturalizing and conferring citizenship upon immigrants.
If you look at the history of every one of our presidents, with the exclusion of b. hussein, you will see that not only was every U.S. President born here, but that their parents, if immigrants, were citizens of the U.S. at the time of the Presidents’ births.
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:44 AM
Hey, I just got back from editing the video I shot of Bobby Jindal’s speech at the massive rally in Lafayette, Louisiana, and posted it on YouTube in two parts.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5hyE3FUm6w
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czk8Lqs7yMN
He rocked the Cajundome with 11,000 angry and hollering Cajuns hollering at the Rally For Economic Survival, protesting what Jindal called the “arbitrary and capricious” offshore oil drilling moratorium that will soon be coming to a gas pump near you. I was 15 feet from Bobby and he told it like it is!
Got lots of great photos, as folks turned out with their families to protest the federal boot on the collective neck of our communities here in coastal Louisiana.
It’s one thing to think that the oil spill is over. It’s another to experience the faces of the families being condemned to joblessness by the, in Jindal’s and the federal judge’s words, “arbitrary and capricious” moratorium imposed by President Obama.
cane_loader on July 22, 2010 at 1:46 AM
Yes, there are so many really powerful and binding realities between Catholicism and Judaism, starting with the fact that our Lord was Jewish.
It’s funny you should mention the similarities; Catholicism really is the fulfillment of the Covenant. As a life-long Catholic, I feel so comfortable around Judaism; especially their liturgical life and traditions. John Paul II had it right when he referred to the Jews as “our elder brothers in the Faith.”
P.S. Edith Stein is such an incredible witness for the power of God in a soul as unselfish as was (and is) hers. She is just tremendous. St. Edith, pray for us.
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:52 AM
“It may have been there but I didn’t see a teleprompter and he didn’t look down at notes. It seemed to come from inside him.
Big John on July 21, 2010 at 9:49 PM”
——-
I was 15 feet from him and filmed the speech.
1. No teleprompter
2. Bobby used notes ONLY for the middle section of the speech where he highlighted 3 Louisianians in trouble. After that, he finished the speech sans notes.
I watched him reading the notes in the center and made a mental note of it. You can watch the YouTube I shot because overall, despite some movement, etc., it’s the best yet posted on the ‘net so far (links posted above) because you can really hear the crowd, and you can see exactly where he’s reading notes and where he ain’t.
Note that I had to skip the third personal story because that was the only way I could take some still photos too, unless I had a clone!
Oh heck, for convenience, here are the links again:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5hyE3FUm6w
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czk8Lqs7yMN
filmed by cane_loader 7/21/10
cane_loader on July 22, 2010 at 1:57 AM
God bless you!!!
Hope your footage goes viral!!! Haven’t watched yet, but maybe someone with know-how can edit, add music and make it blow sky-high in the viral universe. Just an idea, forgive if I’m too forward. Maybe it needs no Hollywood tweaking at all, but either way, please God it is seen by millions.
I also hope that HA will give you a front page thread of your own to inform the masses of what you have seen and heard first hand.
We are behind you all the way!
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 1:58 AM
Ugh — “Natural born” means you were a certain way from birth, e.g., a citizen. That (modulo derivative definitions like “native born”) is the only definition. Anyone saying otherwise is at best misinformed and at worst a follower/promulgator of conspiracy theories. The phrase “natural born” is in many dictionaries, and it never means what Lourdes claims. You can go through paragraphs and paragraphs but if you never cite a legitimate source — e.g., a dictionary or the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark— it remains meaningless drivel. Birthers made conservatives look bad enough, but at least most of them know what “natural born” means.
calbear on July 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM
I tired too and going to bed. I’d just note two things:
1) the above excerpt shows only coincidence and matters not at all wrt the clarification of any ambiguity in the law, primarily because it never provided clarification of the law.
2) Give this a read when you get a chance. You may find that the portion of your comment you felt you had to put in bold is a distinction without a difference.
Dusty on July 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM
Two points. One – Wong Kim Ark was not running for President. Two – the parents, though aliens, were here legally as residents. Because of the hiding of Jug Ears records, we have no idea who fathered him or what his father’s status was.
He looks more like communist Davis than Kenyan Obama.
platypus on July 22, 2010 at 2:16 AM
I’ve got other footage, Billy Nungesser, etc., but haven’t edited it yet. Gonna work on the photos next. Man, you should have seen the people streaming in with their families! Inspiring. And ALL the speakers kicked butt, not just Jindal.
cane_loader on July 22, 2010 at 2:22 AM
calbear on July 22, 2010 at 2:15 AM
dictionary and legal definitions of words are many times completely different.
And,(whether one agrees or disagree with the controversy surrounding obama’s citizenship status and complete lack of proof of identity or paper trail); when one finds it necessary or even enjoyable to use the Leftist’s Alinsky terms of ridicule such as “birther” to address persons who have such status concerns, then one has made oneself someone who promotes the Left’s agenda of hate and censorship of speech through spineless, p.c. intimidation.
Glad Sarah Palin, regardless of all the ridicule and name calling she has to endure, doesn’t cower, and even worse, turn around to fellow conservatives and belittle them with the same names she is called. That would show a shocking lack of intellect and character. That would make her a toady for the Left, which she certainly is not, nor will ever be.
In short, even though one may never admit it, every time one uses the Left’s weapons, against one’s “own”, one is revealed as just another useful idiot.
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 2:38 AM
There are a couple spots where I turned the camera around for reaction shots of the crowd and it looks random – that’s because one row behind me and a couple seats over was Senator David Vitter and also the entire state leadership of Louisiana was sitting DIRECTLY behind, and I felt funny about sticking a camera right in their faces. Didn’t want to end up in the bayou one night ;-) The only Louisiana leader who skipped was Mary Landrieu.
cane_loader on July 22, 2010 at 2:44 AM
Thanks for the link. Will read it when I get the chance.
p.s. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence, but an historically significant and hugely strong precedential indication of the requirements of the presidency that every president’s parents were citizens. They were because the clause, as understood from the beginning, required it.
And to add another wrinkel, there is the matter of obama receiving scholarship money from a fund exclusively for foreign college students.
As we know, berri’s adoptive muslim Indonesian father enrolled him in Indonesian school stating berri’s Indonesian citizenship.
However, there is no record of U.S. naturalization when berri returned to the states.
And, since Lalo Soetoro, berri’s adoptive father was a government worker in what was a police state at the time in Indonesia, I don’t think he would be fool enough to claim his adoptive son was an Indonesian citizen, which was a requirement to go to their schools, when he wasn’t.
tigerlily on July 22, 2010 at 2:49 AM
It does not appear that either Obama or Jindel is legally eligible to be President.
Tav on July 22, 2010 at 4:25 AM
As to the citizenship issue for Obama, here are some interesting facts. Here are clips from the Wikipedia entrance of Natural Born Citizen of the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States
Note the similarities to Chester Arthur’s case (he was also allowed to take the office of the Presidency):
Basically, if there is some doubt, we have traditionally erred on the side of allowance.
Also, please note this portion of a Supreme court ruling:
This shoots out of the water the question of whether a person needs both parents to be citizens of the U.S.A. in order to be a natural born citizen. According to that decision, neither parent needs to be one.
As to whether or not his time in Indonesia removed his citizenship, there is this Supreme Court decision:
That removes the Indonesia stuff.
Thus, for all intensive purposes (assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii as officially stated), the Supreme Court rulings and American tradition are on his side.
I don’t like the guy, his policies or his actions, but he has much in his corner in this debate.
That being said, I don’t care where the Marxist was born. (Could we really remove him now if it were to come out that he was born in Kenya? What kind of Constitutional Crisis would we have on our hands? For the record, I do wish, if only for the sake of proper vetting that all birth certificates of all presidential candidates were publicly disclosed, but the genie may be out of the bottle for this go-round even if we find out that he was born elsewhere.) What I care about is voting him and his ilk out of office as soon as possible, undoing everything that they did (increase the size of government by 30%, having over $1 Trillion deficits, passing Obamacare, destroying the economy with Keynesian policies and wealth re-distribution policies) and then making sure that they can never again do those things.
Vote out the bums!
Theophile on July 22, 2010 at 4:58 AM
Not so, please see the case of Chester Arthur quoted in my post above. His father was _not_ a citizen until 14 years after Arthur’s birth.
Theophile on July 22, 2010 at 5:03 AM
govgirl & Lourdes
Ever heard of “Certificate of birth of a United States Citizen Born Abroad”? It’s what John McCain had (that’s why he doesn’t have Panamanian citizenship) It’s what my 35 yr old son has and his mother was and is not a US citizen. Naturally born means he was a citizen when he was born. That’s why I get frustrated with the nonsense about Obama’s eligibility. No one has ever claimed his mother gave up her citizenship. It might have served as a distraction to keep him from be elected, but now that we’re saddled with it, it serves no purpose but pointing out people that have never had a passport.
It is one of the many reasons I think the “anchor baby” nonsense needs to be revisited.
The site @ the state dept is here.
Plase pay close attention to the use of the term “parent(s)”. That means it only takes ONE.
rrroark on July 22, 2010 at 5:05 AM
He is 100% eligible for the office of POTUS. He meets all requirements. He is a “natural born citizen” in that he was a citizen at the time of birth.
Being born a citizen is what “natural born citizen” means. Which is ‘interesting’ because it also happens to use the same exact wording.
Born a citizen=”Born Citizen”
Weird, huh?
The term “natural” is used as an exclusion of “naturalized.”
anuts on July 22, 2010 at 5:37 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »