Bobby Jindal, Republican Louisiana Governor, has been targeted in the latest speculation of who Mitt Romney would shoose as his running-mate, if he wins the Republican Caucus.
He recently spoke on CNN’s “Starting Point,” stating that:
“Look, I’ve got the job that I want. We just passed the most comprehensive education reforms in Louisiana’s history. Now we’re in the middle of a legislative session … so I’ve got the job that I want.”
Former George W. Bush speechwriter and CNN contributor David Frum increased the speculation surrounding Jindal when he wrote:
“As symbols go, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is a doozy: a brilliant policy mind with an inspirational life story who has run an effective government in corruption-tainted Louisiana. He can talk data with Romney and credibly sit at the kitchen tables of the struggling middle class…which leads to this thought: Bobby Jindal for vice president!”
Bobby Jindal spoke further on Thursday, saying:
“Whoever he picks I’m going to support that ticket. I think it’s that important not only for Louisiana but our country.”
The Louisiana governor stated that he’s not sure he will be Romney’s running mate, stating:
“I don’t think it’s going to be me. He’s got plenty of great, great candidates he can select from, and I’m going to be happy to support the ticket from right here in Louisiana.”
There are lots of other names floating around the rumors for Romney’s pick, including South Carolina’s Governor Nikki Haley, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, Senator Rob Portman, House member Paul Ryan, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Every potential candidate, though, has responded to speculation by saying that they “don’t want the vice presidency.”
Only Romney knows though if Bobby Jindal will become his running mate in the coming Presidential election.
I don't think either of them is worth a vote, together, or alone.
The declaration of our independence from England clearly established our national government to be based on "NATURAL GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS" AND NATURAL LAW. There is absolutely no dispute that under natural law, allegiance is solely based on the "father's" allegiance, not the mother's.
It is important to note here, while Congress does allow allegiance to follow the mother, it is plenary authority (Title 8, Section 1401), not natural law, and therefore, a person born under the mother's allegiance, while a citizen, would not be a "natural born" Citizen. This is the very point Bret Baier failed to understand.
In short, a natural born Citizen is a person born under the allegiance of its father, period. If the father is a US citizen, irrespective of where the birth took place; the "child would be a natural born United States Citizen.
Jindahl NOT Natural Born American. Romney may not even be onr.
The Declaration of Independence is a document drawn upon the philosophy of the time…a time when the only individuals with "natural rights" were white males. The definition of "natural born" is legally ambiguous at best. Hmm…I can't imagine why someone like you want want to stick to the 200+ year, old strict interpretationalist perspective.
The Declaration of Independence is a document drawn upon the philosophy of the time…a time when the only individuals with "natural rights" were white males. The definition of "natural born" is legally ambiguous at best. Hmm…I can't imagine why someone like you want want to stick to the 200+ year, old strict interpretationalist perspective.