BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 216826 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189029 Apr 20, 2014
doggy doo wrote:
November 4th is a coming
Yep, the Second Independence Day!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189030 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
8 U.S. Code § 1409 - Children born out of wedlock
(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Hmmmm: acquired at birth
Now was Obama born after December 23, 1952?
Birfoons claim he was born out of wedlock.
So you are trying to tell us that Barrack H. Obama SR was not married to Junior's mother?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189031 Apr 20, 2014
But I thought ALL scientists agreed about Global Warming!!!

Global Warming - Peer-Review Deception

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189032 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Relationship to other Nature journals
Nature Communications is editorially independent, and its editors will make their own decisions independently of the other Nature journals. It is for authors alone to decide where to submit their manuscripts. Nature will continue to publish the most significant advances in science and the Nature research journals will publish landmark papers of interest to their specific communities. Nature Communications will publish high-quality papers from all areas of science that represent important advances within specific scientific disciplines, but that might not necessarily have the scientific reach of papers published in Nature and the Nature research journals. For papers that could satisfy the scope of more than one Nature journal, the choice of which journal to submit to first lies with the authors.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/index.html
Ah YES, anyone can submit anything but the EDITOR of any publicans only has to print what he wants and if the editor has a particular agenda, things that do not support his agenda will not be printed!!!
Not the most significant as you claim, but ones that support their agenda.
Still don't get it, dew you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189033 Apr 20, 2014
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
In denial once more , I see. What about "Operation Frequent Wind?". Do you or do you not trust Wikipedia? Here it is again :
"F-14 Tomcat operational history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main article: Grumman F-14 Tomcat
American withdrawal from Saigon (1975)[edit]
Main article: Operation Frequent Wind
The Tomcat made its combat debut during Operation Frequent Wind, the evacuation of American citizens from Saigon, in April 1975. F-14As from Fighter Squadron 1 (VF-1) and VF-2, operating from the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), flew combat air patrols over South Vietnam to provide fighter cover for the evacuation route.[2]"
==========
Ðo you at least realise you look like an idiot?
And , well, the Supreme Court refused to hear the absurd cases. What does that mean to you? That they had no merit. You quote Clarence Thomas? Really? Those must have been the first words the esteemed justice has uttered in a long long time, seeing as it is on record that never, ever, in his long , too-long tenure on the court, he has never said one word for or against in any case.
"combat debut"??? You have know idea what combat is and obviously the writer of this peace did knot either. Did these F-14 engage any enemy in the air, ground or sea? NO!!!
You are the IDIOTARD!!!!
wojar

Hartford, CT

#189034 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah YES, anyone can submit anything but the EDITOR of any publicans only has to print what he wants and if the editor has a particular agenda, things that do not support his agenda will not be printed!!!
Not the most significant as you claim, but ones that support their agenda.
Still don't get it, dew you?
Rogue is totally ignorant of the peer review process. No, the head of the editorial board does not function according to the Rougetard fiction.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189035 Apr 20, 2014
Oh Deep Throat, this Wiki article does not even mention either then USS Enterprise nor F-14. It does mention the carriers USS Midway and USS Hancock but not the Enterprise.
And it does not mention any COMBAT fighter missions!!!

Operation Frequent Wind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freque...
wojar

Hartford, CT

#189036 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are trying to tell us that Barrack H. Obama SR was not married to Junior's mother?
Where did the Rougetard see that in my post?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189037 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The irony is that the illiterate buffoon decries peer review but is the guy who claimed that a 1979-2000 arctic ice extent baseline for SUMMER months is evidence that the "books were cooked" because it was different than a 1981-2010 baseline in WINTER months.
But birfoons don't understand irony.
Scientist review science. Does Rogue think truck drivers should review clinical trial data before publication?
And what qualifies you to do peer reviews of Climate issues? Oh, I am still a Master Army Aviator and have studied weather for decades?
If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies.
If the mechanics screw up, the pilot dies.
If the air traffic controller screws up, the pilot dies.
If the weather forecaster screws up, the pilot dies.

Chinook helicopters are not ice certified and in January 2006 an Air Force weather forecaster cleared my flight saying there was not icing foretasted. An hour into the flight we encountered moderate rime ice and I immediately requested from ATC a higher altitude and climbed about the clouds and out of the ice.
Now was the trick, how to land. When I was cleared for the approach I did not descend to procedure turn altitude but maintained 7,000 feet until beacon out-bound. I then dumped the pitch and was descending over thousand feet per minute. I had lost 5,000 feet of altitude during the procedure turn and accumulated a lot of ice and when I was beacon in-bound I slowed my descent to 500 FPM.
By the time I landed most of the ice had been shed but I waited on the runway for a few minutes before I taxied in as I was worried I might throw a chunk of ice off one of the 450 mph rotor blades and damage a parked aircraft. That was my annual instrument check ride and the CFI loved it!!!
Yep, even though the weather forecaster miss-forecasted, I still look great!!! Just what you would expect from a Master Aviator.
And what qualifies YOU?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189038 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Rogue is totally ignorant of the peer review process. No, the head of the editorial board does not function according to the Rougetard fiction.
Oh, I am fully aware of peer review but what you Libtards do is only accept LIKE MINDED Libtards into your peer and what you get is a bunch of bobble-headed dolls.
Republicans presidents accept liberals into their staff so they can get other opinions where as Progressives like Obama surround themselves with a bunch of Progressive Bobble Head dolls and that is why this country is going down the toilet!!!
wojar

Hartford, CT

#189039 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05
Here we go again as another loony-left organization tries to explain away what is happening to Global Warming. Of course they site another loony-left site, Nature Communications, which has been around only about four years which publishes "peer reviewed" articles.
Now, what does "peer review" actually mean? It should mean they send the draft copy to all other groups studying the same field but loony-lefty groups only send their drafts to LIKE MINDED groups who's gawd is Owl Gore.
<quoted text>
Ah, the REAL reason to incorporate 2007 into the base line is to muddy the waters!!!
https://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/201...
Okay, look at the curve for 2007! Now 2008, 2009 and 2010! The fact is is that 2007 was the all time low point and ever since then we have been gaining Arctic Sea Ice!!!
Hard to admit it, isn't it?!?
It is just like Michael Mann and James Hansen Hiding the Decline! You've been caught in the fraud of the Century!!!
And what is really funny is that a Berkley Professor helped expose them for what they are, FAKES!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =8BQpciw8sukXX
Rougetard doesn't seem to comprehend that the 1981-2010 baseline is virtually identical to the 1979-2000 arctic ice extent baseline. And the Rougetard recently ranted about temperature anomaly data NOT using the current 1981-2010 standard. What a scatterbrain. Now please explain how using a baseline according to the current standard that differs insignificantly from an old out of date baseline muddies anything but Rougetard's fuzzy thoughts?
wojar

Hartford, CT

#189040 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And what qualifies you to do peer reviews of Climate issues? Oh, I am still a Master Army Aviator and have studied weather for decades?
If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies.
If the mechanics screw up, the pilot dies.
If the air traffic controller screws up, the pilot dies.
If the weather forecaster screws up, the pilot dies.
Chinook helicopters are not ice certified and in January 2006 an Air Force weather forecaster cleared my flight saying there was not icing foretasted. An hour into the flight we encountered moderate rime ice and I immediately requested from ATC a higher altitude and climbed about the clouds and out of the ice.
Now was the trick, how to land. When I was cleared for the approach I did not descend to procedure turn altitude but maintained 7,000 feet until beacon out-bound. I then dumped the pitch and was descending over thousand feet per minute. I had lost 5,000 feet of altitude during the procedure turn and accumulated a lot of ice and when I was beacon in-bound I slowed my descent to 500 FPM.
By the time I landed most of the ice had been shed but I waited on the runway for a few minutes before I taxied in as I was worried I might throw a chunk of ice off one of the 450 mph rotor blades and damage a parked aircraft. That was my annual instrument check ride and the CFI loved it!!!
Yep, even though the weather forecaster miss-forecasted, I still look great!!! Just what you would expect from a Master Aviator.
And what qualifies YOU?
Is the Rougetard on drugs? Peer review of climate science papers is done by experts in the field. I have reviewed biochemistry grant applications but not climate science. Rougetard is not qualified in any scientific field and has no clue about the peer review process.
wojar

Hartford, CT

#189041 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I am fully aware of peer review but what you Libtards do is only accept LIKE MINDED Libtards into your peer and what you get is a bunch of bobble-headed dolls.
Republicans presidents accept liberals into their staff so they can get other opinions where as Progressives like Obama surround themselves with a bunch of Progressive Bobble Head dolls and that is why this country is going down the toilet!!!
Scientific peer review has nothing to do with Rougetard rants about Republican presidents or President Obama. Can the Rougetard stay on point for five seconds?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189042 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05
Here we go again as another loony-left organization tries to explain away what is happening to Global Warming. Of course they site another loony-left site, Nature Communications, which has been around only about four years which publishes "peer reviewed" articles.
Now, what does "peer review" actually mean? It should mean they send the draft copy to all other groups studying the same field but loony-lefty groups only send their drafts to LIKE MINDED groups who's gawd is Owl Gore.
<quoted text>
Ah, the REAL reason to incorporate 2007 into the base line is to muddy the waters!!!
https://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/201 ...
Okay, look at the curve for 2007! Now 2008, 2009 and 2010! The fact is is that 2007 was the all time low point and ever since then we have been gaining Arctic Sea Ice!!!
Hard to admit it, isn't it?!?
It is just like Michael Mann and James Hansen Hiding the Decline! You've been caught in the fraud of the Century!!!
And what is really funny is that a Berkley Professor helped expose them for what they are, FAKES!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch ..
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Rougetard doesn't seem to comprehend that the 1981-2010 baseline is virtually identical to the 1979-2000 arctic ice extent baseline. And the Rougetard recently ranted about temperature anomaly data NOT using the current 1981-2010 standard. What a scatterbrain. Now please explain how using a baseline according to the current standard that differs insignificantly from an old out of date baseline muddies anything but Rougetard's fuzzy thoughts?
And why the NEW standard? Was it because they wanted 2007 to be hidden?!? Again, show me one year, before or after 2007, that had less Arctic sea ice. If this Earth is still getting hotter, why is the Arctic gaining sea ice. If not, shut the f-up!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189044 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the Rougetard on drugs? Peer review of climate science papers is done by experts in the field. I have reviewed biochemistry grant applications but not climate science. Rougetard is not qualified in any scientific field and has no clue about the peer review process.
Let me use your words, "Scientific peer review has nothing to do with Rougetard rants about Republican presidents or President Obama. Can the Rougetard stay on point for five seconds?"
By the way, they are related. Progressives like to distort facts while claiming we Conservatives are the ones that are distorting the facts.
Again, if all of your peers area as loony-lefty as you, they will all agree with you. Just a bunch of bobble head dolls. Sad, very sad.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#189045 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I am fully aware of peer review but what you Libtards do is only accept LIKE MINDED Libtards into your peer and what you get is a bunch of bobble-headed dolls.
Republicans presidents accept liberals into their staff so they can get other opinions where as Progressives like Obama surround themselves with a bunch of Progressive Bobble Head dolls and that is why this country is going down the toilet!!!
So you think a brick layer should have reviewed this paper?
Grow up!

I'll only show the abstract.

Structural Basis for Assembly and Function of a Heterodimeric Plant Immune Receptor

Cytoplasmic plant immune receptors recognize specific pathogen effector proteins and initiate effector-triggered immunity. In Arabidopsis, the immune receptors RPS4 and RRS1 are both required to activate defense to three different pathogens. We show that RPS4 and RRS1 physically associate. Crystal structures of the N-terminal Toll–interleukin-1 receptor/resistance (TIR) domains of RPS4 and RRS1, individually and as a heterodimeric complex (respectively at 2.05, 1.75, and 2.65 angstrom resolution), reveal a conserved TIR/TIR interaction interface. We show that TIR domain heterodimerization is required to form a functional RRS1/RPS4 effector recognition complex. The RPS4 TIR domain activates effector-independent defense, which is inhibited by the RRS1 TIR domain through the heterodimerization interface. Thus, RPS4 and RRS1 function as a receptor complex in which the two components play distinct roles in recognition and signaling.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#189046 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me use your words, "Scientific peer review has nothing to do with Rougetard rants about Republican presidents or President Obama. Can the Rougetard stay on point for five seconds?"
By the way, they are related. Progressives like to distort facts while claiming we Conservatives are the ones that are distorting the facts.
Again, if all of your peers area as loony-lefty as you, they will all agree with you. Just a bunch of bobble head dolls. Sad, very sad.
So the Rougetard thinks a truck driver should evaluate papers on nuclear physics before they are published?

The reason for peer review is a means of quality control. A journal that publishes anything at all has no reputation. The Rougetard is an ignorant fool.
wojar wrote:
Is the Rougetard on drugs? Peer review of climate science papers is done by experts in the field. I have reviewed biochemistry grant applications but not climate science. Rougetard is not qualified in any scientific field and has no clue about the peer review process.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#189047 Apr 20, 2014
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05
Here we go again as another loony-left organization tries to explain away what is happening to Global Warming. Of course they site another loony-left site, Nature Communications, which has been around only about four years which publishes "peer reviewed" articles.
Now, what does "peer review" actually mean? It should mean they send the draft copy to all other groups studying the same field but loony-lefty groups only send their drafts to LIKE MINDED groups who's gawd is Owl Gore.
<quoted text>
Ah, the REAL reason to incorporate 2007 into the base line is to muddy the waters!!!
https://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/201 ...
Okay, look at the curve for 2007! Now 2008, 2009 and 2010! The fact is is that 2007 was the all time low point and ever since then we have been gaining Arctic Sea Ice!!!
Hard to admit it, isn't it?!?
It is just like Michael Mann and James Hansen Hiding the Decline! You've been caught in the fraud of the Century!!!
And what is really funny is that a Berkley Professor helped expose them for what they are, FAKES!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch..<quoted text>
And why the NEW standard? Was it because they wanted 2007 to be hidden?!? Again, show me one year, before or after 2007, that had less Arctic sea ice. If this Earth is still getting hotter, why is the Arctic gaining sea ice. If not, shut the f-up!!!
See #189003, the Rougetard moans about NOAA not using WMO standard of 1981-2010 and now he moans that it is being used. Pathetic.

Rougetard, compare the 1979-2000 arctic ice extent baseline with the 1981-2010 baseline. They are virtually identical.

Rougetard: Was it because they wanted 2007 to be hidden?!?

Answer: No. The baselines are almost identical. Does the Rougetard think that the 1979-2000 baseline is set in stone for all time?

Rougetard, it's a 30 YEAR BASELINE. Do you have a friggin' clue why they use a 30 YEAR BASELINE? It's so that the baseline will not be skewed by one anomalous year.

Does that answer your ignorant naïve question?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Rougetard doesn't seem to comprehend that the 1981-2010 baseline is virtually identical to the 1979-2000 arctic ice extent baseline. And the Rougetard recently ranted about temperature anomaly data NOT using the current 1981-2010 standard. What a scatterbrain. Now please explain how using a baseline according to the current standard that differs insignificantly from an old out of date baseline muddies anything but Rougetard's fuzzy thoughts?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189048 Apr 20, 2014
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think a brick layer should have reviewed this paper?
Grow up!
I'll only show the abstract.
Structural Basis for Assembly and Function of a Heterodimeric Plant Immune Receptor
Cytoplasmic plant immune receptors recognize specific pathogen effector proteins and initiate effector-triggered immunity. In Arabidopsis, the immune receptors RPS4 and RRS1 are both required to activate defense to three different pathogens. We show that RPS4 and RRS1 physically associate. Crystal structures of the N-terminal Toll–interleukin-1 receptor/resistance (TIR) domains of RPS4 and RRS1, individually and as a heterodimeric complex (respectively at 2.05, 1.75, and 2.65 angstrom resolution), reveal a conserved TIR/TIR interaction interface. We show that TIR domain heterodimerization is required to form a functional RRS1/RPS4 effector recognition complex. The RPS4 TIR domain activates effector-independent defense, which is inhibited by the RRS1 TIR domain through the heterodimerization interface. Thus, RPS4 and RRS1 function as a receptor complex in which the two components play distinct roles in recognition and signaling.
If it was about brick laying, sure, why knot?
And who peer reviewed your writing? That is your writing, isn't it?
Now, do you think Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller was qualified to rebutt Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Michael Mann? Muller is a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#189049 Apr 20, 2014
Global Warming -- The Current Status: The Science, the Scandal, the Prospects for a Treaty
https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 26 min OzRitz 60,105
News Violence follows California Trump rally, about ... 42 min Synque 1,379
Need Urgent Financial assistance or Loan? Conta... (Jun '13) 4 hr Mr Williams Hood 17
News Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, ren... 11 hr PFfff 8
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 19 hr Barbi A 201,865
News California can't hide police misconduct any more 23 hr Go Blue Forever 1
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) Mon Moker 61,391
More from around the web