On January 25, 2012, two letters starting making the rounds, concerning three lawsuits filed alleging Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to appear on the Georgia primary ballot.

The three attorneys involved in the three lawsuits are Mark Hatfield, Van Irion and Orly Taitz. The cases brought by Hatfield and Irion allege that Obama is not eligible as his acknowledged father, Barack Hussein Obama (Sr), was a British subject at the time of Obama’s alleged birth on 4 August 1961, allegedly in Hawaii; that, as such, Obama does not meet the requirements of natural born citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution. The other case, brought by Taitz, alleges that Obama has presented forged birth certificates, a forged selective service registration, and is using at least one social security number that is not his. At an early court hearing, Judge Malihi agreed to separate the cases but set the hearing date for all three for January 26, 2012, with Hatfield and Irion presenting their cases, then Taitz presenting her case.

The attorney representing Barack Hussein Obama against these allegations in the Georgia Administrative Court is Michael Jablonski of Atlanta. On January 25, 2012, the day before the scheduled hearing, Jablonski sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp in which he basically excoriated Attorney Taitz, questioned the legality of holding the hearing, requested the SOS suspend the hearing, and further, stated that neither he nor defendant Obama would be present at the proceedings on January 26, 2012. His letter can be read in full here: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=30746.

Secretary of State Brian Kemp responded to Jablonski, rejecting his allegations and stating that if Jablonski and his client (defendant Obama) failed to participate in the proceeding on January 26, 2012, he and defendant Obama would do so at their own peril. That letter can be read in full here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamas-attorney-jablonski-slapped-down.html.

There have been rumors making the rounds about subpoenas issued … to the State of Hawaii … to Obama to appear on January 26, 2012 at the proceedings. How true these rumors are is hard to know. I question the legitimacy of the claim of a subpoena issued by the State of Georgia to the State of Hawaii, allegedly concerning documents held by the State of Hawaii regards Barack Hussein Obama, as a Georgia state court would not have that authority, only a federal court would have that authority. The State of Georgia could, however, issue a subpoena for Obama to appear as the defendant.

For three years, American citizens have been trying to confirm Obama’s eligibility to the office of president. For three years, American citizens have been thwarted in that effort by courts who refused to hear cases based on merit, instead ruling that the plaintiffs had no standing.

The fact that Obama …

1. has acknowledged that his father, Barack Hussein Obama, was a British Subject on 4 August 1961 when he alleges he was born, allegedly in Hawaii;

2. has produced two birth certificates – one, a short form birth certificate, the other, a long form birth certificate – neither of which has passed the forgery test;

3. has a selective service registration that, by all appearances, is also a forgery;

4. has and is using at least three social security numbers that do not appear to be his, issued by states in which he has never lived;

5. was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and became an Indonesian citizen but has produced no papers showing that he was ever eligible to, or did, reclaim his American birthright;

6. has provided no proof that he was actually born in Hawaii, at a time when children outside the state of Hawaii and outside the United States could, and did, obtain Hawaiian birth certificates; that the two birth announcements use the address of his maternal grandparents rather than his parents suggests that Obama was born outside Hawaii and outside the United States (the only documents that tend to indicate his birth in Hawaii are his father’s immigrations records);

7. has sealed all his records that would prove his citizenship and his eligibility – health, education, passport, birth;

8. has been totally ignored by the courts and by the mainstream press in their zeal to pronounce Obama eligible. But their zeal does not pass the sniff test for any thinking, reasoning individual. In the words of the liberals – if Obama has nothing to hide, why is he hiding it? And why is he hiding it when he proclaimed, right after moving into the Oval Office, that his would be a “transparent administration”?

The lamestream media has, time and again, pointed to the birth documents submitted by Obama as proof. But not one of the lamestream media personalities, so claiming, have seen, touched or examined the actual documents they proclaim legit; all they have seen, touched or examined are copies which do not constitute anything other than what they are: copies. And what they have held up, on air, are copies, not the actual documents nor certified copies of the actual documents.

To this end, the lamestream media tries to ignore the fact that modern computer technology is a boon to forgers, even as they report on forged passports, drivers licenses, social security documents, green cards, etc. Even the untrained eye picks up on the fact that the curved long form birth certificate, as presented by Obama, has been superimposed over a flat security backdrop. The document is obviously a forgery.

As with the lamestream media, the same is true of the elected representatives – Democrat and Republican – in Washington, DC. The pro-Obama camp response to the laundry list of evidence indicating Obama is not eligible to the office he holds is to claim that if the Republicans knew Obama wasn’t eligible, they would do something about it.

Really, considering that the question of eligibility also surrounds John McCain, born in Panama of two American citizens, and Mitt Romney, born in America of a father who was probably a dual Mexican/American citizen and a mother who was American at the time of his birth? Are the Republicans any less guilty of subverting the United States Constitution, regarding the requirement that the president be natural born, than the Democrats? I think not.

What is really so apparent, in the letter Jablonski wrote to Secretary of State Kemp, is his (and Obama’s) utter disdain for the American people, for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, for the right of the people to redress of grievances. Against overwhelming evidence that Obama is not eligible to the office of president, Jablonski tries to use, as Obama’s defense against the lawsuits, the claim that the several courts, before whom cases have been brought regards this matter, have refused to hear the cases; reiterating the excoriating of Taitz by some of those courts.

This, of course, follows the very contention of so many elitists today, that the United States is a democracy, not a constitutional republic. In a democracy, there is one set of rules for the elite, another for the unwashed masses; the only time elites are held accountable is when they egregiously offend the elitist agenda. Our Founding Fathers despised democracy, was so abhorrent of it, that James Madison wrote this in Federalist #10:

From this view of the subject, is may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

Our Founding Fathers established, via the Constitution and Bill of Rights, a constitutional republic wherein rule was according to law, where the rights of the minority were protected from the whims of the majority, where justice was to be blind to race, color, creed, gender, power and position.

This, however, is not the situation we have today, where justice is meted out according to who you are, who you know, how much power you have, your position. As such, those with money and power are not prosecuted, while prisons overflow with the “unwashed masses” alleged to have committed crimes against society. Thus it is that we have a government so totally out of control that it holds no resemblance to the government established by our Founding Fathers. Thus it is that Barack Hussein Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney believe they can thumb their noses at the eligibility requirement of the United States Constitution, Article II, Section I, Clause 5:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

By virtue of his father being a British subject on 4 August 1961, Barack Hussein Obama does not meet the requirement of being natural born. By virtue of being born in Panama of American citizens, John McCain did not meet the requirement of being natural born. By virtue of his father, George Romney, possibly being a dual Mexican/American citizen at his birth, Mitt Romney has not proven he is natural born.

I have heard from Republicans who contend I’m a closet Democrat for demanding that Mitt Romney prove his eligibility. Whether Democrat or Republican, it makes no difference; the United States Constitution says that all candidates must be natural born!

If the American people allow this situation to continue, they do so at their own peril.

© 2012 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.

Submitted for publication to the Federal Observer by the author.

~ About the Author ~
Mother and wife, Lynn M. Stuter has spent the past ten years researching systems theory with a particular emphasis on education. She home schooled two daughters, now grown and on their own. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance and education reform. She networks nation-wide with other researchers and citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas. Visit her WEB SITE.