We Have a New Home! Please Click Below to Go to the New Freedom’s Lighthouse!

freedomslighthouse.net

Blog Archive

Friday, October 23, 2009

Gov. Bobby Jindal Tells Hannity Upcoming Governors Elections Will be "Bellweather" for 2010 Elections - Video 10/23/09


Here is video of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on with Sean Hannity tonight where he said he believes the Governors races in Virginia and New Jersey this November will be a bellweather for the 2010 Congressional elections. Jindal said, "People have had enough."

Jindal believes that many in the Republican Party have learned their lesson and are coming back to the conservative principles that can build a great party. This after the party really strayed from those principles when in the majority.

10 comments:

gingko October 24, 2009 at 4:23 AM  

Hi,
Thanks for the video. I am New To Blogging And Found this Article really Worthy. I Visit many pages of your Blog. And learn many things About Blogging. thanks for this Great Blog.

Hangmann747 October 25, 2009 at 1:57 AM  

BrianinMO, Did you see the Part of the Hannity interview where he asks Jindal about a Presidential run. Doesn't Hannity know that Jindel is even less of a Natural born citizen then Obama. Just cause you are born in the state does not make you a Natual Born Citizen. Both Jindal's parents were non-Citizen's at his birth.

What's UP!


Shane (Hangmann747)

www.federalistfred.blogspot.com

BrianinMO October 25, 2009 at 7:36 AM  

Hangman,
My assumption is that Jindal is considered a natural-born citizen and is eligible for the Presidency. There has already been so much speculation as to his running some day, and yet I have heard no story as to the possibility he is not eligible. I am no constitutional scholar, but I would say he must meet the criteria.

Hangmann747 October 25, 2009 at 9:26 AM  

BrianinMO,

I hope you do not take offence to this, it is not intended as such.

I started my Blog site out of frustration because so many people in this nation say the same thing as you just did. "I don't know the Constitution".

If you do not know the truth you will believe a lie.

I'm not saying that everyone should be a Constitutional scholar. However, basic "High School" understanding of the Constitution is all I'm asking. That would be enough to keep our Government in check, as it was intented.

I never go into too deep to any details or get to long winded in my defense of the Constitution. I let other sites I link to do that. I try to use plan words, with simple Constitutional statements of basic Constitutional principles.

The power in America was suppose to be with "We The People". Because of a lack of Basic Constitutional knowledge that power moves further and further away every day toward the Government.

If people knew that "ObamaCare" was unconstitutional, the left would not even try to pass it. They would know even before they started they had no chance.

How far would a bill get that said "All those with Down Syndrome should be but to death". Not to far. But if you went back in time to the 1800's you could never get the law passed "For the support of Abortion".

How long into our future will it be before "Promote the General Welfare" will mean "Kill those with Down Syndrome" because the drag down the General Welfare.

This is long, but for you a piece of cake, let James Madison tell you the point of the Constitution.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/10/speaker-of-the-house-embraces-unconstitutional-government/

Shane (Hangmann747)

www.federalistfred.blogspot.com

Hangmann747 October 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM  

BrianinMO,

Also for you.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/hannity-probes-not-constitutionally-qualified-jindal-about-presidential-run/

I'm still "Standing Strong" with you, Shane (Hangmann747)

Anonymous,  October 25, 2009 at 1:14 PM  

Brian, you're right on this one, and this other guy is full of hot air. A "natural born citizen" is one born in this country, PERIOD. That's the whole issue regarding so-called "anchor babies", for you fans of draconian anti-immigrant laws; if the child is born here, it's an American citizen, and they try to use that baby as an "anchor" for the parents to stay in the U.S.

There is absolutely no constitutional requirement that says a natural born citizen has to be born in the U.S. to parents who are also U.S. citizens.

Which is not to say Bobby "Gee Whiz" Jindal should be President. He IS eligible, however.

Hangmann747 October 25, 2009 at 6:37 PM  

Anonymous,

I put my name and info out for all to see! And always have! Whats up with you!

Although you can see my comments, they were intended for my good friend of many years.

But since you said something, here it is.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Why do you think the Constitution itself clearly makes a distinction between a "Natural Born Citizen" and a "Citizen". Da! Because there is one that's why.

US Citizenship is not given at birth just because the birth happens inside the US borders. There must be residency established by the parents. If a British couple is on vacation in the states and the wife is 8 months along and gives birth early, the child is not a US Citizen, "Period". That’s why McCain is not a Citizen of Panama.

Back at the time of the writing of the Constitution very few people had parents from or residency of what was to become the US. This is why it was important to include an exemption for "Citizens" only, at the time of the "Adoption of this Constitution".

All this was a national security measure written into the Constitution and adopted by ALL states to guard against foreign influence & usurpation. Read George Washington and Alexander Hamilton (Federalist 68)(http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/obama-natural-born-subject-of-the-great-british-crown/)

Or maybe Fact is a bit to much for you!

Sorry Brian, I read and study way to much to have some Wa-Zoo try to through me under the bus.

I'll give this a rest now.

Shane (Hangmann747)

BrianinMO October 25, 2009 at 7:22 PM  

Hangman,
I did not mean I had not read the Constitution. I only meant I am not a Constitutional expert.

The simple reading of the Constitution would seem to say that Bobby Jindal is eligible to be President. Jindal was born in the United States. As far as I can see, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the parents having to be born in the United States.

Here is what it actually says as to the requirements for being President:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

"By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:

* natural born citizens, or citizens, at the time of the Constitution's adoption
* at least thirty-five years old
* inhabitants for at least fourteen years of the United States."

The Fourteenth Amendment says a person "born" in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. Again, it says nothing about the parents.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Hangman, Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and is eligible to be President. At least that's how I view it, and understand it.

Anonymous,  October 25, 2009 at 9:46 PM  

There most certainly is a difference between a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen". The difference, though, is nothing like what you've stated. One who is born elsewhere can come to the United States, follow the immigration laws, and become a naturalized citizen. Just about the ONLY thing they can't do, as a naturalized citizen, is serve as President.

You also fail to comprehend a basic fact of citizenship law: each country establishes its own requirements. Whether or not John McCain is a citizen of Panama is irrelevant, since he is considered to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. (being born elsewhere while his dad was in military service). What Great Britain says about Obama's citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls that question. That baby born to a British couple on vacation in the U.S. is a natural born citizen of the U.S. Now, in almost all instances, that wouldn't be of particular interest to that British couple, and the child might also qualify as a British subject by virtue of the parents' citizenry. But that's up to British law to decide.

Bobby Jindal is a natural born U.S. citizen. And the birthers need to get a life. You can read and study way "to" much, but if you don't understand what you're reading, it's not going to get you very far. (I studied way "too" much in law school, and look where it got me: arguing the law and the Constitution with birthers.) But don't worry; I have absolutely no intention of "throughing" you under a bus or any other form of transportation.

Hangmann747 October 26, 2009 at 10:03 AM  

Hello Anonymous,

For someone who has studied law you didn't study very much.

This is an essay by Nancy Salvato. It is the most complete and objective look at what is and what is not a "Natural Born Citizen". She uses only references of the Founder Fathers, writer of the 14th Amendment, and the SCOTUS all at the time of when the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was written.

Are you bold enough to take 45 minutes to read it!

As you will see, even the writer of the 14th Amendment questioned citizenship to those born in the land, but from foreign parents.

Nancy draws no conclusions to a final definition of "Natural Born Citizen" and clearly states that there is none. When one was proposed in 2004 it was shot down, but does state that the need for a clear definition is needed.

Although Nancy does not make a conclusion it is very easy to see that the framers had my point of view in mind when they were trying to explain themselves. You and I still may not see eye to eye over this, but I do not doubt that we would agree that a clear definition has not been established but needs to be.

http://www.worldandi.com/subscribers/feature_detail.asp?num=26823

Shane (Hangmann747)

www.federalistfred.blogspot.com

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP