Bobby Jindal attacks Obama as the Presidential race hots up

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.

“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."

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.

"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."

HOLDING EQUALS PRECEDENT

The direct holding of the Supreme Court in Minor set a binding precedent. Those pretending that the Supreme Court’s 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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.