John Bibb

The cats aren’t the issue, it’s the crazy cat lady thing. She probably has thirty feral felines living in a one bedroom apartment eating roaches, crapping in her handbag.

benny shakar

The same paper who brought you the likes of Jayson Blair. The same paper stating “Mr Blair repeatedly violated the cardinal tenet of journalism, which is simply truth,” yet runs a story above the fold of McCain “affair” with Vicki Iseman? That same bastion of truth that refused to report on John Edwards real affair while his wife was suffering with cancer? Refused ads from people they wanted to censor, published the infamous General Betrayus…man you must be as dumb as a bag of rocks.

Yeah, I love kittehs too. I’ve owned six or seven of them, with a fair amount of dogs thrown in. Right now, I have a Siberian husky and a gray haired 8 year old cat that has nothing better to do all day than sleep on my pillow.

This was nothing more than a spiteful piece by a rabid liberal who has no reason to live beyond hating people who don’t precisely think like she does. Mark my words she has cats at home and a really crappy dental plan.

Hey! What do cats have to do with anything?

I used to be strictly a dog lover (for my first 42 years of life), until I married a cat lover, thereby becoming a cat lover by default. We now have 3 beautiful, affectionate, amusing felines, each with a personality all his/her own.

Still love dogs though. Hope to have one again someday, but that will require a bigger house, or a few of the cats dying, or some combination of both.

So, I submit that Gail Collins’ poor attitude and lack of intellect is more likely due to her crappy benefits package than her preference of four-legged companionship.

Its cute when people who get their news from rush limbaugh, bill oreilly, and kooky bloggers try to disparage a newspaper that has won one hundred Pulitzer Prizes.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 4:23 AM

TRY to disparage? Who’s trying? I just sit back and let those nitwits do it all by themselves.

….but it’s worth highlighting for its sheer stupidity.

Yup! That’s what it was.

I suppose that there is a course in journalism schools that teach this now.

Remember that old Twilight Zone, where the ugly woman had plastic surgery? It’s like that — only without the surprise ending.

I sure wish I had enough money to buy out the Times and make it a respectable paper for the first time.

I’d imagine it was the people responsible for this mess.

benny shakar on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Say what you want about Ann Coulter (and she can be overbearing at times) but she’s always factually correct.

Answer me this. How is it that a rabid Bush-hater can get a commentary published in one of the nation’s most influential newspapers without any editor bothering to point out that her blather doesn’t even make sense from a Constitutional, let alone practical standpoint. This ugly stupid woman doesn’t write for The Pennysaver! Supposedly there are intelligent highly-paid professionals as part of the process to step in when stuff like this gets past the initial gatekeepers. So how does something this stupid make it to print?

The bastard-elect CAN’T take office until the Electoral College votes and he is inagurated in accordance with the Constitution. This was nothing more than a spiteful piece by a rabid liberal who has no reason to live beyond hating people who don’t precisely think like she does. Mark my words she has cats at home and a really crappy dental plan.

To close, I’ll point out the fact that transition period used to extend into March. Waiting that long to change administrations would probably put Collins in a mental health facilty, which wouldn’t be a bad thing since she is clearly unhinged. I’d just be concerned about the plight of her cats.

katy on November 23, 2008 at 11:32 AM

Katy hit the nail on the head. The woman is so fugly and needs to fix her teeth!!!! Stupid and ugly — what a bad combo.

Yes, she must be used to disappointment.

how could the NY Slimes possible further embarras itself?

Maybe it could make all of its reporter wear speedos all the time?

Constitution, what constitution?
The grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.