Lt. Scott Easterling has entered a novel fight while serving in Iraq: he is suing President Barack Obama. Easterling is calling the President an “impostor” and challenging his right to issue commands while his birth status is in question. It is one of a series of lawsuit challenging the right of the President to serve on the basis of his birth status. It appears that he could be joined by Senator Richard Shelby in the litigation. Shelby has refused to accept Obama citizenship until he sees a birth certificate.
Easterling is supporting challenges filed by California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedom Foundation. He issued a statement: “As an active-duty officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the office of president of the United States,” wrote Scott Easterling in a “to-whom-it-may-concern” letter.
The statement will raise an interesting question for an active soldier. It appears that Lt. Easterling is still following orders and he does have a right to file a lawsuit. However, calling the Commander-in-Chief an “impostor” in an out-of-court statement could be the grounds for discipline under the military code. Here is the statement that he released to the public:
To Any and All Interested Parties,
As an active-duty Officer in the United States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the Office of President of The United States. He has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility. In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so.
Until Mr. Obama releases a “vault copy” of his original birth certificate for public review, I will consider him neither my Commander in Chief nor my President, but rather, a usurper to the Office – an impostor.
My conviction is such that I am compelled to join Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit, as a plaintiff, against Mr. Obama. As a citizen, it pains me to do this, but as an Offficer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this action.
I joined the Army at age 40, after working in Iraq as a contractor with KBR in ‘05/’06. I chose to work with KBR to support my troops and then left that lucrative position when the Army raised it’s maximum enlistment age to 40. Upon completion of Basic Training, I entered Officer Candidate School and commissioned as a 2LT in August 2007. After completing the subsequent Basic Officer Leadership courses, I was assigned to Ft. Knox and shortly therafter deployed to Balad, Iraq. I was promoted to 1LT on Feb. 2, 2009 and I have approximately five months remaining of our fifteen month deployment.
I implore all Service-members and citizens to contact their Senators and Representatives and demand that they require Mr. Obama prove his eligibility. Our Constitution and our great nation must not be allowed to be disgraced.
Very Respectfull,
Scott R. Easterling
1LT OD/LG
United States Army
[Update: Now a second soldier has reportedly joined Easterling in his challenge to the President’s legitimacy.
The case may follow the same course as the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada for his public comments against the Iraq war. His case led to some novel appeals and a mistrial. 
Publius:
you still havent answered my question, it cant be that he owned slaves or that he wanted to send them back to Africa. Those are very simplistic reasons, something more profound fuels your animosity toward Jefferson. I would like to know what it is.
Jill:
Bad behavior when? In 2009? Thats like chastising a dog for chasing a cat.
Well, no bias in that response, Publius.
As to who ran up the debt, that’s irrelevant. Who chose the method of that disposition after Jefferson’s death? His heirs did. They, not Mr. Jefferson as he was taking a dirt nap at the time, could have chosen to sell Monticello to satisfy those debts. Instead, they sold off the slaves. That would make them the “decider” to maintain their “lavish and lordly life style”. You can’t have a life style or decide the disposition of anything when you’re dead. Jefferson only avoided having Monticello seized by creditors in his lifetime because of of his immense public stature and those credit issues were due largely to the actions and misrepresentations of his father-in-laws estate. Even your beloved Wiki states that. No, I suspect your main problem may not be with Jefferson the man, but Jefferson the white man. How stunningly superficial. I suppose if you oppose suicide, that invalidates the works of Socrates? That if you disapprove of homosexuality, that Leonardo da Vinci’s work is all garbage? That if you despise Islam, that invalidates Abu Sa`d al-`Ala’ ibn Sahl’s work in optics while Europe languished in the Dark Ages? A chip on one’s shoulder is neither an endearing trait nor a good place to base an argument as to another man’s value to society.
Bron,
I have to agree with Publius about this. To point out the truth about a person is an important act in a democracy, even if that person is beloved. We should know as much as possible about our leaders, even if it makes us uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s possible to truly love or admire another person without knowing who they are/were. It is disrespectful to look the other way about bad behavior. Just call it for what it is and you reevaluate your understanding of a person (which may mean you don’t love or admire them anymore). But if you still do love or admire them, your feelings are not based on ignorance, but on the recognition of who the person is/was, flaws and all.
Bron: Sowell? Walter Williams? Are you kidding? What do they have to do with this?
BTW, the facts I have stated about Jefferson are correct, as you have found out. We have all heard stuff about history, like the stories of Washington and the cherry tree, that are not correct. A lot of the stuff we have heard about Jefferson is not correct. We are all trying to learn.
Everybody, look up the quotations on the Jefferson Memorial. They are edited, with words omitted, and others cobbled together. The monument seems to say he hated slavery, but the full quotation added that he never thought ex-slaves could live in our society. The full quoted language does not help us much today.
Despise? I just pointed out that he said one thing and did another. There is a word for that. You may judge, not I.
Damn, Buddha:
That was great!
Publius:
Why do you despise Jefferson? I should say how could you despise Jefferson?
Go read some Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, get another perspective from some real (African) American thinkers.
Sowell is probably smarter than Jefferson and Williams is a close second.
I see that I’ve missed several comments that deserve a response:
FFLEO: I agree with you that it is wearisome to hear every public official finish an address like Tiny Tim at Christmas. But since every public official is free to confirm his or her own belief in a deity, it does not raise any constitutional issues as far as I know. It simply grates on me because I regard it as insincere pandering. In the case of Pres. Obama, he probably feels that if he omits the reference, the “Obama is really a closet Muslim” crowd will fly out of every ideological latrine in the country.
Bron98: You are welcome to use whatever I have to say for any purpose you wish. Besides, I don’t think we can claim a copyright on stuff we publish to the world. Even though I’d love to be able to crib occasionally from writers who are truly eloquent, I know that I would be found out immediately and exposed to public humiliation. If I am to be humiliated, I’d prefer that it be limited to the deficiencies in my own thinking without throwing plagiarism into the mix.
Bob, Esq.: Perhaps I don’t understand your criticism. My points were intended to be understood within the context of legal contests. If the date or location of my birth are in dispute, all I need to do is place into evidence the certificate of my birth issued by the government agency responsible for maintaining those records. Under both federal and state rules of evidence, that document constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents. The burden then shifts to my opponent. The individuals and groups who have been filing lawsuits do not wish to be bothered by such details. In my opinion, the reason for that is that they are not concerned with either evidence or the rule of law. They are concerned, however, with the fact that someone they despise (for reasons known only to themselves) has been elected to the presidency. They will not be satisfied with any degree of proof. Second, the analogy to the trial of Galileo is not well taken. His crime was theological, asserting a view of the natural world which clashed with established religious doctrine. A modern example is the position taken by creationists. Galileo’s evidence for his beliefs was not relevant to the crimes with which he was charged. I might add that the Catholic Church has matured a great deal in its acceptance of the scientific method. I was exposed to the Jesuits for four years of high school and a brief stint in a seminary. The fundamental principles of natural selection were never questioned by my instructors, nor was there ever any suggestion that the theories of Darwin and his successors were incompatible with religious belief. The anti-Darwinists at large today are a recent phenomenon, theological reactionaries who reject not only science but biblical scholarship as well.
Get off it, BIL, he ran up debts himself. He had an esapee flogged. Even by the standards of his own day, he was behind the curve in a time when the vast majority of people never owned, bought, or sold slaves. He wanted them forcibly deported. He supported disunion with his Virginia resolution. He was the hero of the rebel slaveowners in the Civil War. He was a hypocrit.
But he had some good points. He did a first draft of the Declaration. He said and wrote some nice things. So, all you Jefferson lovers out there, keep your hero.
Even among southern slaveowning founders, Geroge Mason stands up better on slavery.
Meanwhile, no word from “T. Jefferson” to earlier questions. Why DID you select that pen name, anyway?
Publius,
I had never read the Wiki entry for Jefferson and it had a couple of tidbits I didn’t know. For example, that Jefferson taught himself Gaelic to read Ossian. Now that’s dedication! And taking Wiki as first blush, sure, I had the specifics of his disposition of his slaves upon his death wrong. Honestly, that was not an area of his life I’ve ever found compelling compared to the rest of his work. It was always a bit tabloid and prurient in my eyes because of the Hemmings issue, so I never gave it a lot of attention. It is worthy to note, however, that the disposition upon his death was the work of his family, a family saddled with bad debt from his father-in-law’s transactions. The very father-in-law that left him the bulk of his slaves to begin with. That he emancipated any slave in his lifetime makes him far superior to most men of his day.
However, nothing there invalidates Jefferson’s intent in re personal liberty or his general treatment of the slaves in his charge being superior to the practices of the day. Indeed his predictions of the outcome of abolishing slavery being violence is only a matter of timing and scale if you look at the Civil Rights movement – a movement that could have been much bloodier absent the wisdom of MLK. He could see the inherent danger of the practice. He was good at “seeing around corners” as was evidenced by his championing of the Bill of Rights and his immediate and prescient distrust of corporations, but I digress.
In fact, the Wiki quoted letter to Abbé Grégoire clearly shows his stance on “negroes” when he stated “[N]o person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunity for the development of their genius were not favorable and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making toward their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men . . . ”
Jefferson was not perfect, no man is, but he proved he was always learning. His dedication to the principles of individual liberty is beyond reproach. That being said, he was a man of his times and particular situations. As such (as Bron pointed out) Jefferson should be evaluated as such. As a man of his times, he was certainly way ahead of the curve. In many ways, he still is.
Publius:
cant you find any other sources? Wiki is good first go around but please find a couple of other sources.
Anyway I found other sources that mention 7 but no matter, tis a drop in the bucket compared to 187.
BIL asked for a source: Wiki: “The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves (two his mixed-race sons) and petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in Virginia. After his death, his family sold the remainder of the slaves to settle his high debts.[90]” footnote 90 refers to Merril D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1975), pp. 991-92.
Seconded.
Thomas Jefferson is who he was and like many great individuals there were flaws outweighed by the good. To equate this current turkey with him is to give him more cachet than his pitifuls rants require.
Publius:
It appears that you are right and I am mistaken. The only reference I can find has him freeing 7 slaves out of a supposed 187 and that was prior to his death.
The fact that he owned slaves does not diminish his accomplishments. He was as far as I can tell deeply concerned over slavery and predicted the civil war and it being the price the US would pay for slavery.
Wether they owned slaves or not the founders were brilliant men and gave us a wonderful form of government. It is unfair to apply to them the standards of our day.
Thanks, Publius. That’s why I said “to my knowledge”. I’m a fan of Jefferson, not an expert. But in general, if not specifics, my statements stand. Hey, can you provide a reference for the sale for debt? I’m not doubting you, just curious.
BIL, not to get off point, but Jefferson’s slave James Hubbard escaped, was captured, and was flogged in front of other slaves at TJ’s order. He eventully escaped for good. So Jefferson did not hold the whip, but he ordered torture and flogging. Some protection. Sorry if you did not know about that. That is a fact. He wrote about it himself in a letter. In the DofI, he dropped a condemnation of George III and the slave trade, not a proposal to free slaves already here. Again, history.
Bron and BIL, wrong, Washington freed his slaves, but some of Jefferson’s were sold to pay his debts. He maintained a lavish and lordly life style, running up enormous debts, so he needed his slaves. He did not need to run up those debts.
Jefferson did want to eliminate slavery, by deporting all the slaves. Read Lincoln’s Cooper Union Address, since he talks about it. (Lincoln favored voluntary emigration instead).
To the modern T. Jefferson, feel good about your namesake. You still have not given us the clauses that require a hospital birth or signature of a doctor. You have nothing. We have a lawfully certified birth certificate. Allan Keyes for President? Only for the nutcases.
This is pretty ridiculous. If he couldn’t be a soldier under a president he doesn’t like, then the odds are that he should have never joined in the first place.
I’d also like to point out that to my knowledge, the bulk Jefferson’s slaves were an inheritance from his wife’s father – not something easily refused. If you’ve ever been married, that is a self-evident problem. In addition, he is noted for providing and caring for those in his charge in very humane ways. They were not beaten, starved or forced to live in substandard housing. They had decent clothing. They got medical care when they needed it. They were well fed. He PROTECTED them. And upon his death, he freed them in the hopes they would be able to take the protections he afforded them and build it into a better life. He was also intent on abolishing the notion of slavery in the Declaration, but the political consideration of unity against the British meant he met with stern resistance even from those who agreed with him in principle.
No, Jefferson lived with slavery, but he most certainly did not approve.
Publius:
Mr. Jefferson also said:
“We shall have our follies without doubt. Some one or more of them will always be afloat. But ours will be the follies of enthusiasm, not of bigotry, not of Jesuitism. Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both.”
“The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
“There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity.”
(He was talking about slavery)
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
If I am not mistaken Jeffersons slaves were imancipated upon his death.
No matter how much you may hate dead white males they have left us an outstanding legacy, which we appear to neither understand nor wish to continue. Historically our republic is an anomaly, one hopes it lasts awhile longer.
“‘Cause you’re deranged.
‘Cause you know BO is a faker.
‘Cause you don’t know where BO was born or who could possibly certify that it actually happened at any particular place, at any particular time.
‘Cause you drank the kool-aid and he sukkered you.”
Jeffyboy,
You seem to imply that you are a lawyer. Yet you present stuff like above that is the equivalent of a six year old going: Nyah,
Nyah, Nyah. I bet if your assertion is true that gets you far in courtwork and in writing briefs. Based on your comments thus far anyone who would hire you as a lawyer would either be a fool or a relative, or in your case both.
To The varied Trolls Like Mimi,Jeffy, et.al.
You are to be pitied rather then derided. All of you reflect
the O’Reilly, Hannity, & Rove style of political debate: Make as many wacky assertions as you can and some will stick just by repetition; Don’t worry about lying in your assertions just make sure they slander and fool the rubes; When confronted with questions you can’t answer just make another assertion to change the topic.
What is so pathetic about all of you is that you’re not the people like O’Reilly, Hannity & Rove that pull the strings, you’re the puppets that dance for them. They have enthralled and enslaved you into their alternate universe and you lack the will or the tools to return to reality. I sincerely mourn for your reality, as I mourn for your lost souls and humanity.
You once were real children, but you grew up to be controlled robots. That is so sad for you. I pray that you’ll return to patriotism and to God.
T. Jefferson:
Which clause of the Constitution requires the hospital in which the President is born?
Which clause requires that a doctor sign for his birth?
You still have not answered the question.
By the way, Mr. Jefferson, history shows that you owned and bought and sold slaves.
It shows that you wanted all former slaves mandatorily deported from the United States. Yes, mandatory deportation, not voluntary emigration.
No wonder that you are shocked to the very core of your being that a man of African descent now serves as President.
That is because when you wrote that all men are created equal, you meant to say that all free white male property owners are created equal.
In your eyes, no African American could ever be President.