I have mailed the following letter following conversations with Contrairimairi and others who have suggested an FEC investigation of the Obama birth information. Currently, it does not appear that any one government office has taken responsibility for verification of a candidate's eligibility to be president, and part of this inquiry is to force the FEC to clarify who is responsible.
PO Box 130
West Shokan, New York 12494
mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com
August 6, 2008
Mr. Donald F. McGahn, II, Chairman
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463
Dear Mr. McGahan:
I would like to file a formal complaint with the Federal Elections Commission requesting verification of the natural-born U.S. citizenship of Mr. Barack Obama, and revocation of the registration and recognition of Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president of the United States if that citizenship is not verified as described below within 7 days of the FEC receipt of this letter. Mr. Obama has not shown that he fulfills the Constitutional requirement for president, to be a “natural born citizen”, Article Two, Section 1.
The basis for this complaint is:
a) Mr. Obama’s refusal to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate, with the Hawaii file number visible, upon my previous repeated request and the requests of others.
b) Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
c) The electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website has the Hawaii state birth certificate filing number blacked out, eliminating any objective information that links the image to an actual certificate on file (see http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html).
If Mr. Obama produces a certified, stamped copy of the original birth certificate with all information visible, I request as the complainant to see that document in person to examine its authenticity, including electronically, before the FEC finalizes its response; and the opportunity to verify the authenticity with the issuing state official. This process should require no more than two business days, and may take place in at the FEC office in Washington.
If the certificate is not produced in 10 days and verified by the FEC and myself within another 5 days, this complaint requests the following four remedies:
1) Mr. Obama’s registration as a presidential candidate is rejected (as filed on FEC Form 2).
2) Mr. Obama’s campaign finances will not be monitored by the FEC as a candidate, during the primary or election.
3) Votes cast for Mr. Obama and reported by the states’ boards of elections will not be recorded and displayed by the FEC.
4) Mr. Obama will be considered in violation of 2 U.S.C. 437g, for filing a false statement on FEC Form 2, as specified on that form.
I ask for expedited formal response and resolution of this request, given that the national convention furthering the candidacy will occur in three weeks, and given that this document is easy to produce upon personal request of Mr. Obama to the Hawaii state government. Please note the FEC can request it directly, as qualifying under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 338-18 has having “a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
This request is made with the utmost respect for the presidential election process and the candidates involved, in the desire to resolve this question quickly and confirm their integrity. If a similar request is appropriate to be made to all presidential candidates by the FEC it must not slow down this specific request.
If the FEC decides it does not have jurisdiction in this matter, please respond within three business days of receipt of this complaint with the agency or governmental organization that is responsible for enforcing Article Two, Section One of the Constitution that requires natural-born citizenship for candidacy for the president of the United States. Please include the basis for such jurisdiction by that agency or organization. Please respond by email to: mlangbert@hvc.rr.com
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert
PO Box 130
203 Watson Hollow Road
West Shokan, New York 12494
Cc: Steven T. Walther, Vice Chairman
Cynthia L. Bauerly, Commissioner
Matthew S. Petersen, Commissioner
Caroline C. Hunter, Commissioner
Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Significant analysis of the electronically-displayed image displayed by Mr. Obama on his official campaign website as the certificate indicates forgery.
I hope by "significant analysis" you don't mean analysis by Techdude.
The guy's little more than a charlatan who has fabricated much of his analysis which he has already contradicted himself, not once, but twice.
And since his Maya Soetoro swan dive, it's beginning to look like he's decided to cut his losses and leave those who were taken in by his fabrications and his "credentials" to twist in the wind.
k
Just so others who may be reading this will know, Pamela over at Atlas Shrugs has been selectively deleting comments in response to her post. At least half a dozen of them that I am aware of including several of mine.
Infidel Grannie asked of Ray, "Show me the PROOF that Techdude is a fraud and has been exposed as an impersonator."
I asked Ray the same question. Both my query and his reply were deleted. Odd that she should leave Ray's first two posts up, including the one where he says Techdude has been exposed as an impersonator, yet delete queries asking Ray to cite a source for his claim as well as Ray's reply.
It will be interesting to see if Infidel Granny's post will be deleted.
In any case, Ray cited this post over at HackerFactor (see the "Who is TechDude?" update at the bottom, just before comments start.
This stems from the fact that Techdude had previously said his real first name was "Adam," and that the experience and qualifications he has been claiming are virtually identical to those of an Adam Fink of COLLECTECH, LLC.
So it seems that Techdude is not any sort of forensic computer analyist, but is just someone who used the bona fides of someone else to lead others to believe that he was.
And the clear cut evidence that much of his analysis has been nothing more than a complete fabrication on his part leaves little doubt that this is likely the case.
And given some of the comments that TexasDarlin has been allowing to be posted calling Techdude's claims into question, it seems she may finally be coming to this realization as well.
k
For what it's worth, everything that Koyaan said above is true.
Regardless of the merits of the analysis, there is no reason why the Obama campaign should not come clean with respect to providing his birth certificate to any interested party. One question is one of openness. Why is Mr. Obama hiding behind the assertively secretive bureaucrats at the Hawaii Department of Health, whom I have contacted. Why has his staff failed to respond to my letter? Why have the state election boards failed to respond to letters in Illinois and elsewhere?
Perhaps even more importantly, there seems to be a failure of responsibility. Who is responsible for ensuring that candidates indeed meet the Constitutional requirement of natural-born citizenship? There needs to be a coherent management of the federal election process so that citizens may be informed about questions they may have.
mitchell langbert wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the analysis...
Why do you say this? The analysis has been hyped to the hilt, and you and others have exploited it to help bolster your arguments such as the one you make to the FEC.
Because of this, I'd like to think that the merits of the analysis deserve a little more than to simply be dismissed by a "regardless..."
Wouldn't you agree?
And if, as I've both argued and provided a substantial amount of evidence for, the analysis ends up being little more than the fabrication of a charlatan, is that something you'll have wanted to ultimately put your seal of approval on?
...there is no reason why the Obama campaign should not come clean with respect to providing his birth certificate to any interested party.
Ok. But have you thought of just what it is you're asking for here? How exactly do you expect this to be done? Any interested party? Does that really mean any interested party? You? Me? Anyone else? You say provide. Do you mean they would be expected to deliver it to the interested parties? Or would the interested parties have to come to them?
I'm not trying to be silly here. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're asking for and just how you expect your request to be fulfilled.
One question is one of openness. Why is Mr. Obama hiding behind the assertively secretive bureaucrats at the Hawaii Department of Health, whom I have contacted.
I don't know that "assertively secretive" is fair. I'm sure they're just doing their jobs as the state's laws and regulations require which I'm sure are geared toward protecting the privacy of their vital records. So unless there's some exclusion for presidential candidates that no one knows about, I wouldn't bust their chops for doing their job.
Why has his staff failed to respond to my letter?
I don't know. I'm sure they haven't responded to quite a few letters. Just because they haven't responded to yours doesn't necessarily mean there's something nefarious behind it.
Why have the state election boards failed to respond to letters in Illinois and elsewhere?
I don't know. Perhaps it doesn't come under their purview. I mean, Article II is decidedly federal after all.
And let's not forget that the elections aren't actually about electing candidates. When we go to the polls, even though we see the candidates' names on the ballot, who we're really casting our votes for are electors, as it is the electors who cast the only votes for the president and vice-president that actually count.
So really a state's job really only centers around the means of appointing the state's electors as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and not around determining who may qualify to be a candidate, which is under federal purview as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
And also let's not forget that as of now, Obama isn't even a candidate for the presidency. He's still only the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. So until the delegates have cast their votes at the convention, I don't see that there's anything the feds can do even if there were someone responsible for doing something.
And until then, it would seem that the only "controlling legal authority" would be the Democratic Party itself and/or the delegates.
Perhaps even more importantly, there seems to be a failure of responsibility. Who is responsible for ensuring that candidates indeed meet the Constitutional requirement of natural-born citizenship?
I don't know. To my knowledge, no one's ever been elected President who wasn't qualified to hold the office as per Article II, so it's nothing that's ever had to really be dealt with these past 232 years. Though I'm kind of surprised no one has thought of it before if for no other reason than create some jobs for the friends and relatives of our elected officials. ;)
There needs to be a coherent management of the federal election process so that citizens may be informed about questions they may have.
Certainly a point worth considering, given that no one seems to has any definitive answer as to any "controlling legal authority."
k
Mr. Langbert,
This is the first reasonable idea I've seen on this issue. Ask the responsible authority to clear up this matter.
A bunch of conflicting blog posts on the internet will not satisfy anyone's questions.
Strange that we find folks such as koyaan who would rather just ignore this and assume that everything we be ok with no proof.
If there's one thing we've seen in the last 8 years, it's that citizens need to ensure accountability of governmental authorities. Since we don't know that anyone has validated Obama's qualifications to be a nominee for the presidency, we're obligated to ask - or expect to the system to be duped.
I'm trying to understand a logical reason not to ask that eligibility be validated. None I can think of.
So again, thanks for doing this!
I believe that it's important for everyone to remember that Mr. Obama and/or his campaign staff, created this issue themselves, by posting an image of what they claimed was an authentic COLB. But even to the untrained eye, it is missing the necessary requirements for such a document to be valid: it has no signature, no state embossed seal of Hawaii and no certificate number. Furthermore, the document states on its border: “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”. Given the fact that the certificate has been altered by the blacking out of the certificate number it stands to reason then that by the document’s own definition, it is invalid.
The fact that his posted document is missing those key elements means that not only has he not provided authenticated proof as he claimed to be doing, but by his very own actions, he has cast a gigantic cloud of suspicion over the issue of his birth certificate and eligibility to serve as president.
Yes, we can all argue back and forth whether the document he posted was a forgery. I for one believe that it is. But I’m way past arguing what the pixels on the document show or don’t show. It’s time for the rubber to meet the road. Mr. Obama needs to produce an authentic COLB that demonstrates his eligibility to serve as President of the United States. He claims to be ‘transparent’, but I see nothing in his behavior related to this issue that is ‘transparent’. What I do see instead is stonewalling.
Thank you Mitchell Langbert for taking a very sensible approach to learning the truth in this matter; which is apparently something that Mr. Obama doesn't want the rest of us to know.
richard wrote:
I believe that it's important for everyone to remember that Mr. Obama and/or his campaign staff, created this issue themselves, by posting an image of what they claimed was an authentic COLB.
No. A handful of ignorant buffoons created this whole issue themselves when they made equally ignorant and buffoonish knee jerk claims of a forgery.
But even to the untrained eye, it is missing the necessary requirements for such a document to be valid:
No scanned image of a document is a valid document. The only valid document is the actual, physical piece of paper. If you believe otherwise, then just photocopy your driver's license and see how far that gets you next time someone asks you to provide a valid driver's license.
...it has no signature...
The signature stamp is evident in the image and was made more evident with image enhancement.
...no state embossed seal of Hawaii...
That's evident as well, and again made even more evident with image enhancement.
...and no certificate number.
Yes, that was blacked out of the digital image.
Furthermore, the document states on its border: “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”. Given the fact that the certificate has been altered by the blacking out of the certificate number it stands to reason then that by the document’s own definition, it is invalid.
That's incorrect.
The "ANY ALTERATIONS..." refers to the actual physical document itself. As I said, no scanned image of a document is a valid document. So even if it showed the certificate number, and the embossed seal and signature stamp were clearly visible (or the other side had been scanned as well), it still wouldn't be a valid document.
The fact that his posted document is missing those key elements means that not only has he not provided authenticated proof as he claimed to be doing...
How would you propose he provide the entire country with a "valid document"? No photograph, scanned image, video, photocopy, etc. of a document is a valid document.
You're just creating a straw man here.
k
richard said...
I believe that it's important for everyone to remember that Mr. Obama and/or his campaign staff, created this issue themselves, by posting an image of what they claimed was an authentic COLB.
They didn't create a problem at all. They simply communicated in a concise style that nearly everyone with life experience would understand.
Obviously there were people who thought that the COLB was a scan an actual certificate that was made in August 1961, but people who knew anything about printing knew that:
(a) Offset printed light green and yellow backgrounds were extremely rare in 1961. (letterpress printing was used almost exclusively for forms).
(b) The black printing font 'Arial' didn't exist in 1961. It was invented in the 1980's after PC's became popular.
(c) Most people know that REAL birth certificates contain signatures of the parties and extra details.
------
Others realized that the COLB couldn't have been a 1961 certificate because it had "Laser 2001" printed on it.
Others realized that it wasn't a certificate at all - it was actually a "certification" by the Registrar that THESE were the details of a 1961 birth record.
In reality there is NO SUCH THING as a "Birth certificate" or "Certificate of live birth" ever given to any citizen. The original certificates (which are signed by a parent or Doctor etc) stay with the Hawaii Health Dept and they have, since becoming a state, only ever issued photocopies of them on light green and yellow security paper.
In 2001 Hawaii ceased issuing CERTIFIED photocopies of the original "Certificate of Live Birth on green paper and been instead issuing "Certification (by the Registrar) of Live Births.
---
Now the Obama people could have got very pedantic and written something like this (instead of "Obama's Birth Certificate").
They could have said:
"See below the digital image which is a reasonably faithful reproduction of the Certification of Live Birth for Barack Obama which was issued by the Registrar for the Hawaii Health Department in 2007. The quality of the image has been reduced via JPEG compression to facilitate rapid viewing on the internet. The viewer should also note that the certification number has been blocked out for privacy reasons and that that the actual certification of this birth information appears on the reverse side of the document."
------
But even to the untrained eye, it is missing the necessary requirements for such a document to be valid:
It's not a document. No one said it was a document. It's an image of the front side a real certification of birth - provided for the sole purpose of convincing most people taht Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. It wasn't purported to be absolute proof of anything. It was just EXTRA INFORMATION in graphical form that was supplied to convince most people of the truthfulness of Obama's informal claim that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.
it has no signature,
The signature (stamp) is on the back and can be seen with image enhancement.
no state embossed seal of Hawaii and no certificate number.
The seal can be seen with image enhancement.
Furthermore, the document states on its border: “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”. Given the fact that the certificate has been altered by the blacking out of the certificate number it stands to reason then that by the document’s own definition, it is invalid.
That would be true ONLY if it was a paper certificate, but it's not. It's a digital image.
The fact that his posted document is missing those key elements means that not only has he not provided authenticated proof as he claimed to be doing, but by his very own actions, he has cast a gigantic cloud of suspicion over the issue of his birth certificate and eligibility to serve as president.
He didn't CLAIM he was providing "authenticated proof". It is patently obvious that he was providing extra information, which if disputed, could be used against him if any of it was false.
Yes, we can all argue back and forth whether the document he posted was a forgery. I for one believe that it is. But I’m way past arguing what the pixels on the document show or don’t show. It’s time for the rubber to meet the road. Mr. Obama needs to produce an authentic COLB that demonstrates his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
Obama will decide when rubber meets the road. He may well be America's next elected expert on international brinkmanship, so I'm sure he's quite capable of handling blogger-brinkmanship admirably. If he can't - then don't vote for him because no one wants a pussy representing the U.S.
He claims to be ‘transparent’, but I see nothing in his behavior related to this issue that is ‘transparent’. What I do see instead is stonewalling.
Yes. He's playing a game with you and he's done it very well. He would be quite proud of himself for passing this piddly little test so far.
Thank you Mitchell Langbert for taking a very sensible approach to learning the truth in this matter; which is apparently something that Mr. Obama doesn't want the rest of us to know.
Yes, it was a good idea to do something, although it's a pity it was based (in good faith) on flakey information from an impersonator and a possible nutter ("Techdude" and Polarik).
Ray
Report Obama to Homeland Security!
They have to follow up!
Have you gotten a response back yet from Mr. McGahan and the FEC?
Post a Comment