OCD and Math Education

I think the persistence of Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD) may be related to the poor state of mathematics education in this country. I do not refer to higher mathematics, or arithmetic, but to the more basic skill of counting.

Let me offer this example:

There is a page on the AtlasShruggs.com web site where a “forensic document expert” declares the published Obama birth certificate a fraud. The most accessible part of his evidence is close-up shots of the security borders of sample copies issued about the same time and Obama’s. The borders are different, therefore the Obama certificate is bogus.

There is a page on another website where Dr. Rod Polarik examines a Hawaiian birth certificate issued within three months of Obama’s. Here the security borders are identical. Polarik concludes that Obama’s certificate is bogus because if the borders are the same, then the security seal should also be the same (but it isn’t, according to him).

Now, count the number of document experts who conclude Obama’s birth certificate is bogus. In the OCD world, the answer is 2. But, but since they cannot both be true (the borders cannot be both correct and not correct), one excludes the other, only one can be counted, perhaps.

Both of those web sited claim incontrovertible proof. They contradict each other. I’d say they cancel each other out, and the real count is zero.

Both of these web sites have been debunked. Please refer to: https://www.blogordie.com/2008/11/dr-rod-polariks-analysis-of-barack-obamas-birth-certificate/

About Kevin

Just an old guy with opinions that I like to bounce off other people.
This entry was posted in Obama Citizenship Denial, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to OCD and Math Education

  1. Kevin says:

    sus, as you probably know there’s no “Polarik” listed on the UMI dissertation database. But I’m thinking that Polarik is not his surname. He’s made some cagey comment about it coming from his father and it might be his father’s middle name or an anagram or some other obfuscation.

    But Polarik doesn’t talk like a PhD when he posts on blogs. He sounds like one of those angry adolescents in chat rooms. But one would HOPE that a school wouldn’t give out a PhD to somebody who was so unscientific as Polarik. Never mind that. Jerome “swiftboat” Corsi (author of Obama Nation) has a real PhD from Harvard. I have a copy of his dissertation right here.

  2. sus says:

    Anybody ever find Polarik’s phd? i’m still looking.

    The good news is that if this conspiracy stuff is what will keep the Right busy for the next 8 years… maybe President Obama will be able to un-do the damage created over the last 8 years.

  3. Kevin says:

    A lawyer on another forum where I participate said this:

    The reason why [Kevin] and others like myself have identified OCD as a CT [conspiracy theory] is that, when pressed, people who still forward this belief exhibit all the signs of classic CT – repeating debunked evidence, denying sound evidence that disproves their position, and the hallmark: alleging a giant conspiracy to “cover up” the “truth”, yet failing to give a reasonable explanation why so many people from all walks of life – who must be involved for the conspiracy to occur – would do such a thing (i.e. to what end would the HI Sec’y of State blatantly lie to cover this up? To what end would the federal courts “illegally” dismiss lawsuit after lawsuit?)

  4. Kevin says:

    Obama’s refusal to produce a document is reasonable so long as no one has made a reasonable request for it. I have already made an argument at http://www.blogordie.com/2008/12/obama-citizenship-denial-final-summary/ that any doubts about Obama’s citizenship are reasonably put to rest.

    I am not caught in a loop because I made a decision where reasonable doubt ends. Whether you will ever be satisfied remains an open question. That some people will never be satisfied is certain.

    9 – 8 – 7…

  5. TRUTH says:

    We’ve gone around in circles a lot anyways. Me suggesting the very simple act of Obama showing his real birth certificate, then you completely avoiding that and trying to justify why everything currently existent is sufficient. Well if it were sufficient, then this whole talk wouldn’t even being taking place for one, nor would there be more than one case being addressed to the SCOTUS. If you were pulled over yesterday for a speeding ticket, showed the police officer your license, then stopped today for rolling a stop sign and asked to show your license again I bet that would be unreasonable, you JUST showed it Yesterday.

    Since we’re caught in this never ending loop, and I’m the one that has become unreasonable all of a sudden, I’ll give the Obama Smearing a break until after Dec. 5th at least. For whichever way that turns out I’m sure it will generate some necessary blogging.

    Now take a deep breath and count backwards from 10 to 1 slowly.

  6. TRUTH says:

    And refusing, in your opinion, to show the “document” IS Reasonable?

    The available document is questionable, at best
    The “competent” government witnesses is a personnel opinion
    Obama is a VICTIM?! He is about to take the POTUS and he is a VICTIM?! Ya better look up the definition for unreasonable a bit closer, as well as VICTIM.

  7. Kevin says:

    I’ve written half a dozen replies to this and deleted them.

    Your dismissal of the available documentation is unreasonable. Your dismissal of the testimony of two competent government witnesses confirming the document is unreasonable . Your blaming the victim of the smear for the smear is unreasonable. Your concern about what Obama did with his spare minutes in Hawaii is unreasonable.

    In short, your position is unreasonable. I cannot debate someone who is being unreasonable.

  8. Truth says:

    Great way to put it Kevin..

    1st Document…

    BUT then the same Document

    Then again the same document

    Now Not EVEN a Document, but an Okie Doke! Nope, I didn’t vote for that person, no matter what his party affiliation is. We want a Forensic Document Expert to look at this “document”. Obama flew to Hawaii to visit his ailing Grandmother November 3rd, Alone, No kids, No Wife. What did he do the entire time he was in Hawaii? I don’t know.

    Farce? Why is showing his real B.C. a Farce if there is nothing wrong with it? What IS WRONG with seeing it?

    How Long? Ask Mr. Obama that, hes the one let this drag out. If it were ME, I’d have insisted it done months ago, I’d volunteered it was done, CORRECTLY, 1 time…no secondary document, FackCheck, FighttheSmears, and everything BUT the Real thing.

    How Long? Your guess is as good as mine.

  9. Kevin says:

    Yes, I take dumb-down drugs to keep my brain from overheating.

    But really, about this Obama certificate thing.

    Generally nobody looks up the birth records of a president.

    BUT in this case somebody asked.

    SO Obama’s folks contacted Hawaii for some documentation. Let’s not quibble about what birth certificate is or is not. There’s nothing in the Constitution about “birth certificates” but there is about where someone is born. So let’s just call it a “document”. Barack Obama’s document is a signed statement that says where he was born. It’s signed by the state official who has the job of keeping track of who was born in Hawaii. It’s produced in accordance with state law, it has the state seal on it. It’s accepted as evidence in any court of law. You can get a US Passport with it.

    BUT people objected.

    SO, the Obama campaign gave scans of it to two fact checking organizations and posted it on two other web sites so everybody could see it, and third parties could check it.

    BUT people objected

    SO, the Obama campaign let folks from FactCheck.org handle the document and photograph it from different angles, and they showed close-up pictures on the Internet.

    BUT people objected

    SO state officials shlogged down to the vault and looked at the original and came back saying “everything’s cool”.

    But people objected.

    How much longer do you want to prolong this farce?

  10. Truth says:

    Do you have to take Medication for that?

  11. Truth says:

    LOL… we were submitting at the same time Kevin.

    FUNNY how things are different when your team needs to see proof. And you expect to see it YOURSELF. We would be happy with a certified document expert flying to Hawaii and verifying the b.c. and we all move forward into this illustrious Presidency our citizens have given to us. But no, that is Not Reasonable, we need to jump through hoops of fire and get an affidavit signed by God first saying we are allowed to see the Messiahs Birth Certificate on file.

    If you would just give up the copy you have of it, and I KNOW you have it in the dashboard of your Prius, this could be settled. Maybe that is why Obama is stalling, you haven’t mailed it back yet.

  12. Kevin says:

    Looks like Polarik is signing his name now:

    Ronald Polarik, MS, PhD


    This guy reminds me a lot of adolescents that word-fight on the Internet. Hit the “cache” link in Google if one of his tirades has disappeared.

    By the way I have an MS. (Trust me.)

  13. Truth says:

    Seems like a legitimate request Mike. I’ll be on the look out for an answer to that.

    SUCH a Simple task, he should just refuse to answer it on the same grounds Obama has refused to answer the simple request made of him. Or we could go on the premise they are ALL liars, so just Show Us your Documention, or hit the road, and none of this 3rd party(actually 5th party) Fight the Smears crap.

  14. Kevin says:

    Who knows. I typed in the names of all the PhD’s I could think of (including some who’s dissertations are 40 years old). They were all there. Perhaps Mr. Polarik is not in the United States. Oh my, perhaps he is a foreign terrorist trying to disrupt our electoral process.


  15. mike says:

    Polarik is now claiming that “Ron Polarik” is his real name.

    If that is his real name and if he really does have a PhD, then why isn’t his dissertation available at UMI?


    Every accredited university submits their dissertations to UMI for cataloging.

    Every accredited PhD program requires a dissertation. Other, non-theoretical and non-philosophical doctoral programs may not required a dissertation, but the degree that Polarik claims to have requires a dissertation.

    Nobody with the last name “Polarik” has a dissertation on file. But a lot of people named “Krawetz” have dissertations on file, including Neal.

    To Polarik: if you have a PhD then where is your dissertation?

  16. TRUTH says:

    Ohhhhhhh!!! Well that clears it all up for me. I stand corrected in trying to correct you Kevin.
    EUCLID…. Assumptions…. I got it! Your Assuming ONE or BOTH of them are Wrong. And, if I may do a little “Eucliding” of my own, I have to assume your Assuming we don’t have a reason to ask if Mr. Obama really does meet our Constitutional Requirements. Wow, what a Pandora’s box that opens up.

  17. Kevin says:

    After having read these:

    I believe the correct equation is 0 + 0 = 0.

    Euclidean geometry is the usual geometry set out by the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid. Euclid based his work on a set of postulates (assumptions). Modern mathematicians have asked what geometry would look like under a different set of non-Euclidean assumptions, and in particular that there is more than one straight line parallel to another that passes through a single point (or by analogy, my having it both ways).

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-euclidean_geometries

  18. TRUTH says:

    LOL…. I’ll concede this one, based on you just winked at me, and your the Blog owner. haha and oh yeah, I’m going to have to google what Euclidean means. lmao

  19. Kevin says:

    In non-Euclidean space, we mathematicians CAN have it both ways. 😉

  20. TRUTH says:

    I love math. haha.

    I was using my example based on your feelings. Since you believe both men were wrong, Wrong = Negative hence the Neg(-) sign.

    Now, in your new math formula you have a Negative and a Positive. So are you now saying ONE of those men are Correct Kevin? 🙂 Ya can’t have it both ways. lol.

  21. Kevin says:

    Say you’re on a jury and one witness looks at the defendant and says “that’s definitely the guy who robbed the bank” and then another witness says “that’s definitely NOT the guy who robbed the bank”. Do you know anything more than if there were no witnesses at all? Different people think about this different ways. I personally think there is some information in there, but not much.

    I think your math example should read:

    -1 x +1 = -1

  22. TRUTH says:

    Ummmmmm…. cute theory, but not logical. OCD is to MATH as Two Labor Workers in Brownsville are to speaking English… they just don’t relate, but its fun to imagine the do.

    Since were talking theories, how about this one. ONE of those men are wrong, ONE of them is right. OR, if you insist on the math theory, -1 x -1 = +1 🙂

Comments are closed.