Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

careysub

User Profile Image careysub
Member since : Jun-03-2009 (Verified)
0 Ideas, 6 Comments, 62 Votes

User Activity Stream

Comments Posted

careysub 8 months ago
" Twitchy 53 minutes ago

Warning Report Abuse
sreinke,
"The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

The department only issues "certifications" of live births, and that is the "official birth certificate" issued by the state of Hawaii, she said."
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html"

More to the point:

The legally responsible official for making determinations of birth, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, has certified that he has seen the original birth certificate showing Obama's Hawaii birth.

See:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

This means that Fukino has verified that Obama was born in United States, and is thus an American citizen eligible to President independent of any other consideration.

The matter is settled in fact and in law.

The burden is thus upon anyone challenging Obama's legitimacy to present evidence that he was not born in Hawaii. So far none has been presented, so we must conclude that none exists.
careysub 8 months ago
According to the press, linked to by Twitchy:

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html

the statutory authority for certifying Obama's place of birth, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, has "personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record".

This settles the matter factually, and legally. He is a U.S. citizen by virtue of his birth in Hawaii.

Unless... you think Fukino is part of conspiracy?

If you think so, or otherwise feel Fukino is mistaken then the burden of proof is on you to show evidence that he was born elsewhere.

Now, we know that you have no such evidence otherwise you would be waving it from the roof-tops.

Its time to put up or shut up, as they say (though it appears from the evidence that there is no chance you will do either).

Have a nice day 'patriots'.
careysub 9 months ago
Well, "ricardomigrant" since NONE of several dozen nearly identical "topics" about the birth certificate have more than about one-tenth the number of the votes as this "anti-topic" response (maximum is 203 of this writing), and they are clustered together with nearly identical vote counts, we can conclude that there are only a couple of hundred fanatics (plus their multiple sock-puppets, so the number is likely much smaller than that) interested in this issue.

I doubt anyone reading here just fell off the turnip truck and is unfamiliar with sock puppets and astro-turfing.
careysub 9 months ago
Well, "ricardomigrant" since NONE of several dozen nearly identical "topics" about the birth certificate have more than about one-quarter of the votes as this one (maximum is 203 of this writing), and they are clustered together with nearly identical votes, we can conclude that there are only a couple of hundred fanatics (plus their multiple sock-puppets, so the number is likely much smaller than that) interested in this issue.

At the same time the number who voted on the birth certificate anti-topic (pointing this is a bogus waste of time) is a couple of thousand, ten times the number of apparent BC fanatics.

I doubt anyone reading here just fell off the turnip truck and is unfamiliar with sock puppets and astro-turfing.
careysub 9 months ago
The logic of scheduling Cannabis at Schedule IV (or V) is further shown by the DEA itself - by scheduling pure 100% THC at Schedule III.

Clearly a preparation that is only about 10% as potent should have a lower ranking. One should note that Schedule V consists entirely of drugs with higher rankings (from I down to III) in reduced potency preparations.
careysub 9 months ago
This is a simple matter of paying attention to science and obeying the law as written. The rules for Schedule I are:
A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

The best available scientific and medical evidence and opinion clearly shows that criteria B and C do not apply. The only way one can claim A applies is via a circular argument: all cannabis use DEFINED as abuse, therefore it has a high potential for abuse.

If the rules of classification are objectively and scientifically applied the it would rank no higher than Schedule IV!