Posted on 07/30/2009 6:25:00 PM PDT by trueamerica
On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. On hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar. On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar (Notice not the state registrar, this would be the local one ). Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED. If you look at the long form copy of the birth certificate available online from 1963, Field 20 says : Date Accepted by Local Registrar. Field 22 says Date Accepted by Registrar General ( which is the State Registrar ).A change from accepted to filed are significant enough linguistic changes that a different form would have to be created. Legally, accepted and filed are two very different things. So both these phrase were used on the form depending on the circumstances.
This section of the Hawaii Revised Stautes explains why that would be used:
Sec 338-16 ( late registration defined ) d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or “when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.”
So, something entered on the long form was not verifiable and thus, it was not approved by the state. So assuming his online COLB is not fake ( or the forgers were just too incompetent to notice they put in the wrong field header ), all you have with his online COLB is a FILING, not an ACCEPTED certificate
Could this be what he is hiding?
Jim Robinson, LucyT, please forgive this ping, but you were pinged to the post I am replying to, and one that was posted on another thread about me and I am not sure exactly how it works here yet. Am I supposed to add you to a reply like this? I don’t know, but just in case.
“I can read the stitches on your dnc fastball. When a little team showed up to try and set up Polarik...”
You are doing what? trying to have me thrown off this forum? Why?
Are you out of your MIND???? When I first got here, I thought Polarik was a freakin’ hero!
You have a serious problem, MHG, and I ain’t it. Geez!
In case your memory is failing you, it was Polarik who set up Danae, not the other way around. If anyone attacked anyone around here, it was Polarik doing the attacking. As for your other little gem about LorenC. I have not got the foggiest idea who that is and did not read whatever it was he/she posted. It was gone before I ever logged on. What I know about Polarik, I found for myself...and I didn’t do it until he deliberately baited danae for absolutely NO REASON AT ALL. He flagged what he was going to do days before he did it. When he flagged it, that is when I went hunting because it made no earthly sense. What I found, I found before he sprung his little “trap,” and before LorenC, as YOU say, ever posted a damn thing.
Like I said, I have a sense of decency. Evidently, Polarik does not. And you aren’t far behind.
YOU are entitled to your opinion. I said that before. Have at it.
BTW, my “fastball” is much, much better than obwannabe’s on a bad day.
“What was you previous name used at FR?”
Look. I didn’t come to FR for the birth stuff. I came because of the TM thread that kept turning up in different searches with information I was looking for. I don’t belong to any other forums except for the Washington Times news site. And I didn’t expect to get caught up in this either. But I did and so be it. That’s life.
If you have decided I am the enemy, well, that’s on you because unless the owner of this site decides otherwise, I ain’t going anywhere.
Thank you. Dear Lord, being called a DNC plant almost gave me a heart attack. It STILL wasn’t a forgery though, was it?
* op cit
You shouldn't, none of us really knows who the others truly are. Thus we must be on guard against people who are not what and who they say they are. This is especially the case in times like these where being paranoid is a Good Thing and one wonders if they are being paranoid enough.
This is an outright lie, and I resent the implication. I have one account on FR, and it is this one, which I created in 2006. When I have criticized Polarik on these boards, I have done it under my own name, this name. I see no need to do so under any other name.
So please stop lying about me in an effort to, I presume, discredit me.
It's the Chicago way don'tchaknow, to threaten someone who has personal flaws, if they don't shut up and get out of the criminal enterptrise's way.
No one has been threatened. Polarik ran a yearlong deception wherein he convinced people that he was a credible and reliable computer and document expert, when the truth was that he was nothing of the sort. I revealed him as a phony and a liar. I did not threaten him.
And if you would like to allege that I have done so, please point out where I have issued such a threat.
But conspicuously absent were the refutations of Polarik's work on the forgeries posted at Factcheck, KOS, and fight the smears Obama website!
Conspicuously absent from where? On my blog, I have two posts devoted to the subject of Polland's "research":
On Rebutting Polarik's Research
The latter illustrates how Polarik actually went so far as to lie about the nature of the images he created and used in one of his reports.
Polarik has lied about nothing. His conclusions are based on empiracal research using professional skills which are second to none.
Why is it so important that you expose Polarik as a fake. What is your motivation in going to such extreme bouts of logic where plain fact is twisted tio suit your own sordid ends? Certainly it is not the quest for truth, or you would have much in common with Polarik.
You fool no one.
Keep it up and we simply do not care , for you want all to lick the hand of the oppressor. Oh yes, history os full of people of your ilk, and we have seen the results of work like yours.It never forwards the cause of freedom, only of the diminution of liberty.
Save your rosey little platitudes for whatever future witch burning you wish to organize, for you are hardly a patriot of our nation, nor of the republic. You have revealed yourself to be a foil, and a laughing stock.
May your chains rest upon you lightly, but we here have no use for the likes of you.
When I first heard of it I thought he was a clone of Buckhead who exposed Dan Blather!!!
The libs tactics are shoot the messenger instead of the message. Never fails!!!
Being from a Scandinavian country you will recognize the following caution: Beware the goblin fire.
As AFRICAN does NOT appear as a category on any census or as a race, and likely NOT entered by a state-recognized "certifier" such as an M.D., nurse or midwife -- who would know that AFRICAN is not a race. It DOES sound like something an inexperienced 18-year-old mother might due, especially
I think it's possible that Ann did NOT give birth in a hospital, mailing the form in. The Local Registrar FILED the form as a vital statistic, instead of the form being ACCEPTED by the STATE REGISTRAR.
In my mind, the NEXT question is from WHERE and WHEN did Ann mail in the form to be FILED to register the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II. And is it his REAL, FIRST original birth certificate?
Since this is either the third or fourth COLB which was applied for, and the names had been changed on previous documents, it would seem that the information on the last COLB was supplied by 0 himself, and would NOT be on the original long form he refuses to release. Hawaii allows this according to their revised statutes, as long as the applicant can provide documentation that the information is true. His father was African. That is what HE wanted the thing to reflect, whether for political reasons or other. Political, I would say.
Still not proof he was born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the US.
Danae, thanks for posting the receipts from Hawaii at #211 for all to see. So now will Freepers tend to believe that the Certification of Live Birth you posted at #71 on this thread is real (although you remembered incorrectly the date that you originally received it), and not a forgery as Polarik said in the accusation at the following link?
I looked at the pictures and explanation posted by Polarik at #135 there, but they did not convince me that your document is a forgery as claimed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2302120/posts?page=1#135
1. I think that the date stamp is something created by the transfer of ink from the surface of a stamper onto the paper. I would not expect all stamped impressions to have exactly the same shape due to variations in pressure, and the amount and the consistency or viscosity of ink on the stamper.
2. The folds of the document appear to be roughly formed as if it were unfolded and refolded numerous times. There could be more than one jaggedly shaped fold in the same area if it were used often and refolded. I wouldn’t expect the fold to appear identical on both sides of the paper, that is, on the inside and the outside of the fold. Perhaps, if folded only once and then creased with something hard like a metal ruler it would appear aligned on the front and back views.
3. In the animation of the seal the ‘green’ side looks washed out by bright light just above the fold as compared to the ‘red’ side. I think a metal seal maker would cause the paper to be raised on one side and indented on the other side of the paper, so I would not expect both sides of the seal impression to appear identical especially in the different light and contrast in this picture. I don’t perceive a forgery in the appearance of the fold that intersects the seal.
But that is just what I think. I follow Free Republic as often as I can, but I admit that I’ve probably not read all of Polarik’s research nor understood all of it that I have read.
Your documents may help with this mystery. I don’t recall other instances of being able to compare one person’s short form Certification with their long form Certificate (at #71 and #109 on this thread). One other thing is that I noticed there may be a typographical error for your birth date on the March 2, 2007 receipt at #211 on this thread.
Best thoughts to all good Freepers who may read this reply :)
Since the theme of the lesson seems to be ‘Hawaiian officials are incompetent’, checking back, the August 7, 1969 date is the same for the short form and the long form, so the August 8, 1969 must be ‘clerical error’.
ping
Thanks deks!
I am still waiting for an apology from Polarik. You and Mesta are correct, Polarik’s behavior was totally inappropriate, and his attack of me unjustified. Not to mention that though I made a mistake on the date, It is still a real COLB and Polarik was wrong. 100%. He might have gotten a few things right in his life, but this isn’t one of them.
Still waiting for my apology Ron. I was big enough to admit I was wrong. Are you?
No, its not a forgery. Its 100% real. Polarik was not only wrong but out of line.
“I think it’s possible that Ann did NOT give birth in a hospital, mailing the form in. The Local Registrar FILED the form as a vital statistic, instead of the form being ACCEPTED by the STATE REGISTRAR.”
Please see post #142 by BP2:
“DATE ACCEPTED BY STATE REGISTRAR” means the vital record was accepted as “official” document, signed by an official “certifier” who functions as a state-recognized witness of a birth, such as an M.D. or midwife.
“DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR”, most often means that the person may NOT have a state-recognized official “certifier” present at birth, but may have a person NON-state-recognized person present, such as an “informant”. The baby may have been born at home, on a plane, in a taxi stuck in traffic, perhaps by a retired doctor, etc. A “Certificate of Late Birth” may get the “Date Accepted by Registrar” designation too, or “Option BC3” as reported in WND.”
The indisputable FACT that Obama’s COLB uses “Date Filed” instead of “Date Accepted” is EXTREMELY STRONG EVIDENCE that Obama was not born in a Honolulu hospital as claimed. If he was delivered in Kapi’olani by Dr. Rodney West, as claimed by Snopes.com, for example (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp) Dr. West would have signed the certificate; it then would have “Date Accepted” on it.
This emphasizes the importance of being able to see the long-form BC, to see who actually attested to Obama’s birth. Was it his mother? If so, don’t we have evidence that she lied on other official forms to help her children? More importantly, if he really was not born in Kapi’olani as claimed, the question is why Obama and all his minions have been doing cartwheels to claim otherwise.
This also may help explain the discrepancy between Obama’s BC # and that of the Nordyke twins. They were born on 8/5, but parents didn’t sign certificate until 8/7 (probably on the day they left hospital?) and the birth attendant didn’t sign until 8/11. Their certificates were accepted by the local registrar and state registrar on that same day.
Obama was born a day earlier, but his certificate was “filed” on 8/8. The Nordyke twins certificate helps demonstrate that “the doctor wasn’t around to sign” excuse is an invalid explanation for why Obama’s certificate lacks a doctor’s signature: quite clearly, because of the importance of getting the doctor’s signature, the hospital was willing and able to delay filing the certificate for several days until that happened.
All the Obama COLB “proves” is that someone in early August 1961 was willing to claim he was born in Honolulu. That somebody could have been a teen mother who delivered in Vancouver days or weeks earlier, i.e., taking advantage of free medical care (i.e., to avoid burdening parents already miffed about her having gotten pregnant out of wedlock to an already-married African or perhaps simply to conserve the limited budget of newlyweds). This same mother, perhaps already recognizing the fragility of her own fledgling marriage, may also have had strong motivations to ensure her son at least had the advantages associated with U.S. citizenship.
In light of these possibilities, what the COLB manifestly does NOT prove is that the president is a natural born citizen.
Sure he has. Here's three examples:
1) He claimed that he had forged a clone of the Kos COLB from someone else's COLB. That was a lie, as he had only doctored up the Kos COLB itself and passed it off as a clone. 2) He claimed a Masters in Statistics and a Masters and a Doctorate in Experimental Psychology. That was a lie, as he does not have those degrees. 3) He claimed that he discovered that TechDude was a fraud, and that he never trusted him. That was a lie, as Polarik consistently defended TechDude for weeks, stating that he and TechDude were planning on working together. In fact, he went so far as to say "I can tell you that I know who is TechDude, and that he is who he says he is."
His conclusions are based on empiracal research using professional skills which are second to none.
He has no professional skills with regard to computers or document analysis. He is not the expert he professed to be, and his work and analysis are that of an amateur, not a professional. His skills are "second to none" only in the sense that they exceed zero.
Why is it so important that you expose Polarik as a fake.
The same reason I'll expose false quotes as bogus. I dislike the spread of misinformation, and Polarik dealt heavily in misinformation.
If I am to assume that you are speaking of me, I did not come here to assassinate the character of anyone. I have criticized Polarik heavily at my blog, but I have not brought links to those posts here. I had two major posts on Polarik this week; did you see me post either of them here?
No, the reason I am here right now is because YOU impugned ME, and I chose to defend myself against your false accusations. You accused me of utilizing sockpuppets, of making threats, and of not addressing Polarik's 'research.' None of these accusations were true, you supported none of them, and I defended my name against them. The ONLY links I have ever posted here to blog posts about Polarik were my two regarding his reports, to show that I *had* addressed his reports, contrary to what you claimed. It is not trolling to post in defense of myself, in response to direct allegations made against me.
Is your name or have you ever used the name ‘Steve Eddy’ and are you now or have you ever been connected to ‘Koyaan.wordpress’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.