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. 
T.Jefferson,
For a dumb, hit and run troll you sure sparked a debate.
To All the Usual Suspects,
Thank you for the erudite discussion. I’ve learned much about Jefferson, on both sides, that I didn’t know. My take on him is like my take on all “Great” Men. Every human being has feet of clay. Like the quote presented from Jefferson by CCD regarding “self interest,” we sometimes cross our own moral lines. Rabbi Hillel was responsible for both the following quotes that highlight the issues:
“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am ‘I’? And if not now, when?”
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
That sums up for me my entire philosophy of life, dealing with people and spirituality. Yet, as you have seen in some of my comments, I often miss the mark. I aspire to lofty ideals, but there have been many times in my life when I haven’t acted as the person I’ve aspired to be. This is true for all of us. Humans often reach a pinnacle of greatness in their actions, but none of us sustains it throughout their lives. Can we expect more of the “great” who have acted heroically, or advanced humanity? I admire and respect Ghandi, MLK and Clarence Darrow. All three of them though had unsavory aspects to their lives.
Since the race issue has been implicit to this discussion I’d like to give you my take as a blue-eyed, formery blond Jew.
America was and still is a predominantly racist country as measured by its views of people of color % ethnicity and its’ governments’ treatment of them. Nevertheless, each individual who suffers that bigotry must as an individual strive as if it did not exist, or fall victim to it. That’s what Barack and Michelle Obama did. His election though was more about the quality of the man and his message, than it was an acknowledgment of America’s diminished bigotry.
What a heavy burden it is to bear for the individual person of color, sex, sexuality and ethnicity. It means that they have to work harder than others more fortunately positioned. The fact of this is a lesson yet to be learned by many American’s who would deny the truth of this.
Jefferson was indeed a man of his time and to me that cuts him some slack. There is evidence though that he knew better than what was the common consensus of his day. In this sense he failed to live up to his ideals and was a hypocrite. That still doesn’t diminish the good that he did, merely balances out the picture of the total man as not a “superhero,” but as a human being that on balance distinguished himself.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
And my personal favorite,
“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.”
Do I really have to tell anyone who that speaker is?
Publius:
how old are you? I am not asking to be condescending.
I think slavery was a moral stain on our country and I also think blacks were treated horribly, I personally am ashamed (and I am not a liberal) as a white man about how blacks were treated only 30 or 40 years ago in this country it was appalling. And I have had a taste of it as a person who uses a wheelchair, I have been turned down for work because I cannot walk and it pissed me off. But I dont dwell on it and most people white and black are very kind to me. In fact I would have to say blacks are more helpful than whites.
If you work hard and conduct yourself properly I have found that most people dont care if I use a wheelchair or not. I dont whine or cry why me, it is what it is. I make the most of it, and I can tell you when I go to a marketing meeting I dont need to wear a red tie for someone to remember me.
So I would say if you are black quit listening to Minister Farakhan and start reading Thomas Sowell and working hard, you will be amazed at what happens. Granted there are some people that are bigots, but to judge a man because of small differences in DNA is the mark of a very small and timid mind and if you cant deal with that type of person then your mind is smaller and more timid.
Another thing older people like to help younger people along, when I was younger I had help from whites, blacks, hindus and one of my favorite people is an old builder from India a truly great man who walks the walk.
Education is nearly free in this country and if you are a black guy you can get 8a status with the government and get preferential treatment on government contracts. Basically if you are black and young enough to start a business you got the world by the short and curlys. And I can tell you from experience that most people in America, when it comes right down to it do care about color but it isnt black or white its green as in money.
There is no hatred here. I have even pointed out his values in drafting the Declaration.
Feel free to add any other facts you want to the flogging of an American man who sought his freedom.
I note that your essay at 8:39 pm did not mention his position on mandatory deportation, nor his flogging of a escapee. So I have a right to balance you presentation.
This is just an effort to show the posters the other side of the case.
Publius:
“Just what is your problem with historical fact? These are the facts. Get over it.”
**************
My problem is I wish to consider all the facts and words not just the ones that support my position. And quoting one full passage to the exclusion of the mountain of contrary passages found elsewhere is hardly fairness. You suffer the same problem as most haters–an absolute refusal to see the other side of the case. Hate for an acknowledged great man of our republic will not diminish his standing, nor raise yours.
Dry up, mespo, the quotation was printed in full. Nothing was cherry picked. No one needs sanctimonious lectures from you. This is contrary evidence never acknowledged by the Jefferson supporters.
Feel free to add anything you want to the quotation. The bookshelves are groaning with paeans of praise for him.
This is an educational process. Several posters here have learned for the first time that TJ did not free all his slaves at his death. They have looked up the facts themselves. Good.
Others think he never mistreated his slaves, but we now know from his own words that he had one flogged. TJ resented a slave for stealing nails, after he had stolen the life of his slave, the life of his father, and the life of his entire family.
Just what is your problem with historical fact? These are the facts. Get over it.
Here are some more words that ought to be inscribed on a monument on the Mall to Jame Hubbard, a man who truly struggled with the great moral issue of his time. Jefferson wrote “I had him severely flogged in the presence of his old companions.” The historical record shows that Hubbard eventually escaped and was not recovered. Just how is this cherry picking? What part did this play in Jefferson’s struggle with the great moral issue of his time?
How about some praise for the Americans who never had the occasion to order a man flogged.
Again, I hope this has been educational, that some posters have learned something new, and that it leads them to further study.
Thomas Jefferson to Reuben Perry
Monticello, April 16. [18]12.
Having received information in March that Jame Hubbard had been living in Lexington upwards of a twelvemonth, I engaged a man…to go after him. he got there five days after Hubbard had run off from there having committed a theft. he returned of course without him. I engaged him to start a second time, offering a premium of 25. D. in addition to yours, besides his expences. he…persued him into Pendleton county, where he took him and brought him here in irons. I had him severely flogged in the presence of his old companions, and committed to jail where he now awaits your arrival. the course he has been in, and all circumstance convince me he will never again serve any man as a slave. the moment he is out of jail and his irons off he will be off himself it will be therefore unquestionably best for you to sell him…(Farm Book, 34-35).
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/earlyrepublic/fehn.html
Publius:
It may well be cherry-picked words on the Jefferson Memorial — a monument Jefferson had no part in designing or creating. But it is equally true that you have cherry-picked Jefferson’s words as he struggled with the great moral issue of his time. The record clearly shows this to be true. That fundamental principle of persuasive advocacy is to be fair, and acknowledge contrary evidence. In this regard you fail, not Jefferson.
If you go to the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., you will believe that Jefferson wrote:, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” That is true, but it is not all that he wrote,
You will not read the very next sentence that he wrote: “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.”
His policy: “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers.”
Feb. 8, 1821, full paragraph:
“The bill on the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future & general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment however were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their place be pari passu filled up by free white laborers. If on the contrary it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our case.”
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/Jefferson_negroes.htm
“A Gift for Bob” – Act III, Sc. 4
NARRATOR is driving across the desert at night.
(sound of radio static)
Rush (VO): What I want to know is why when you take more than ten oxy’s, you get bound . . .
(sound of radio static)
The Cramps – Garbage Man
LOUD CAR GUY: Sunday through Saturday only! We’ll say whatever it takes to lower our inventory!
(sound of radio static)
Rush (VO): And I mean like concrete! So there I was, stuck in the same spot! Just like the concrete between these unpatriotic Democrat Party pork enabling tax and spend terrorist enabling loser . . .
(sound of radio static)
NARRATOR: By the Insanity Inducing Gaze of Cthulu!!! Is there no escaping that vile little man!
AAR (VO): Coming up next on Air America . . .
(sound of radio static)
Mozart’s Adagio in B minor K540
(station fades)
NARRATOR: Doh!
(sound of radio static)
Sean (VO): That liberal fascist . . .
(sound of radio clicking off)
(sound of digging through a console)
NARRAROR: Damn it!
(sound of radio clicking on)
(sound of radio static)
Howard (VO): Stripper’s dig me so much! So when the satellite money went away and . . .
(sound of radio static)
last measure of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, Presto Allegro
JEAN (VO): Beethoven concludes our time hear tonight on Classical Corner. Please join us next time when it’s lyrical piano time at the Corner with an evening of George Gershwin. Next up on NPR, it’s good food on Good Times. The ladies guest tonight is renowned local candy maker, Keith Schwetty.
(sound of radio static)
TED (VO): . . . and it looks like we’ve got a pitch hitter here at the bottom of the ninth, tie game, runner on base. Up at the plate, Bob, Esq., better known by his minor league nick name bobfrog.
HARRY (VO): They call him that because he jumps right to it at the plate! I hear much like his swampy brethren his butt doesn’t hit the ground when he jumps! Yah know they say he’s the pride of his hometown!
TED (VO): That they do and rightly so. He surely has been a leader on this team all the way to this championship game. Devastating at the plate and his skills in the outfield are poetry in motion. And what a game it’s been, Harry! One for the record books!
HARRY (VO): I, I, I think he’s got a great chance at MVP. Yah know, back in the day . . eh whuz zat’ he’s doin? Is he pointing toward the outfield?
TED (VO): I don’t believe it! This guy’s been hitting a ton all season and then he has the chutzpah to pull one from the Bambino’s play book!
(sound of crowd)
TED (VO): Appleton’s on the mound. He doesn’t look nervous despite the pressure.
HARRY (V0): That kid’s got ice in his veins!
TED (VO): And a rocket launcher on his shoulder! No matter who wins here, this guys also a credit to any team lucky enough to have him. Strong pitching arm and no slouch at the plate himself. He’s eyeballing the runner. He’s staying on base. Back to bobfrog at the plate. He’s waving mespo off. Mespo, no stranger to the big game. Here’s the pitch . . .
(crack!)
(sound of crowd going berserk)
HARRY (VO): And it’s out! of! the! PAAAARRRRKKK! CUBS WIN!
NARRATOR: Now that was worth turning the radio back on!
_____
P.S. Blessed are the insomniacs for we shall inherit the Earth. You hear that the meek?
Mike Appleton:
And I was just about to hit it for the night.
But alas, regarding your last post:
“Perhaps I don’t understand your criticism. My points were intended to be understood within the context of legal contests.”
Actually Mike, you sketched out a universal maxim by which the most closed minded could thrive. Consider the vigilante– who ‘knows’ who the guilty are. Thing is, you expressed it so eloquently that envisioning Catholic Church using the same ‘reasoning’ to condemn Gallileo wasn’t much of a stretch.
“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.”
Okay, as you know the legal analysis at this point comes down to the verification of the document. Again, while I’m not intimately familiar with the facts of this case, at this juncture we’re faced with the Best Evidence rule; which, from what I hear, is implicitly raised by those asking for ‘the papers.’ And unless Hawaii’s department of vital statistics was burned by a volcanic eruption, etc., then I don’t think we even need to venture into the ancient document rule. (It’s 30 years on New York; don’t know what it is in Hawaii)
“The burden then shifts to my opponent.”
Upon following the steps stated above.
“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.”
And all I’ve been saying, explicitly and implicitly as someone completely new to this argument, is that if the foregoing steps for establishing the authenticity of a document have been dismissed by the proponent, then, as you’re well aware, the burdens or persuasion and production fail to shift to the opponents. Accordingly, when I hear the opponents claim that the burdens have not been shifted and the only response I hear from the proponents equates to “well, whatever we gave you was good enough, so deal with it,” I’m not hearing a legal argument.
“Second, the analogy to the trial of Galileo is not well taken.”
The analogy was strictly in terms of adopting universal maxims, or templates or structure you might say, for framing an argument. Your maxim, while eloquent, was rife with informal fallacy bolstering outcome determinism. The particular facts within the argument are irrelevant.
Consider Dred Scott; was Justice Tanney argument based in outcome determinism? Was he more concerned with attempting to prevent a civil war or reaching the merits of the case?
“Galileo’s evidence for his beliefs was not relevant to the crimes with which he was charged.”
And you don’t think that had anything to do with outcome determinism?
Furthermore Mike, your exposure to the Jesuits has no relevance to an analysis of the structure of argumentation you presented; no more than yours or my exposure to astronomy has to an analysis of the structure of the following argument:
All celestial bodies are made of green cheese
The moon is a celestial body
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.
Deductively, the argument is completely sound. However, the inclusion of a counter-factual premise, i.e by leaving it unexamined because ‘you just KNOW it’s true,’ leads to the faulty conclusion.
Finally Mike, as we reflect on the process argumentation, let’s not forget that old legal maxim: “law is not a search for truth, but for process.”
Stay in your own movie,
Bob
“And that’s all I’ve got to say about that” — Forest Gump
Yes terrific. Thanks mespo.
CCD:
I would start with the collected letters of Thomas Jefferson at UVA Library. Here’s the website:
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/texts/
That letter to Thomas Law, Esq which contains that specific passage can be found at:
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1814b.html
For a real treat, read Jefferson’s letters to John Adams. Never have I read a more intelligent discourse among learned persons with the possible exception of this blog on particularly good day. 🙂
Here’s a great line from Jefferson to Adams lamenting the anti-intellectualism of the youth of his day. Sound familiar?
“But why am I dosing you with these antediluvian topics ? Because I am glad to have some one to whom they are familiar, and who will not receive them as if dropped from the moon. Our post-revolutionary youth are born under happier stars than you and I were. They acquire all learning in their mother’s womb, and bring it into the world ready made. The information of books is no longer necessary; and all knowledge which is not innate, is in contempt, or neglect at least. Every folly must run its round ; and so, I suppose, must that of self-learning and self-sufficiency; of rejecting the knowledge acquired in past ages, and starting on the new ground of intuition. When sobered by experience, I hope our successors will turn their attention to the advantages of education.”
Sounds like me to my kids — without the eloquence, of course.
Hi mespo,
Could you please provide directions to a resource for a clearer understanding of Thomas Jefferson? Specifically this paragraph:
“Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.”
I’ll do the lifting; I would just like a recommendation. Thank you in advance!
Got to love that Aristotle.
bron98:
“Based on your thoughts wouldnt we have to condemn all great men for one action or another?”
************
We do not condemn men in most cases merely their actions. As Aristotle said “We are what we repeatedly do,” not what may occur out of the ordinary.
Plus there is plenty to aspire too; we need only remember that perfection is only approachable not attainable, and we can rejoice in the near perfect deeds of any “great” man.
Mespo:
well said and we will have to agree to disagree on this point. Based on your thoughts wouldnt we have to condemn all great men for one action or another? In the end there are no ideals and nothing to aspire to.
I think Publius’s condemnation of Jefferson is more than he is white or he owned slaves. I think he disagrees with Jeffersons thoughts on liberty and so he trys to tear down the man to negate his arguments. If Jefferson is a dirty slave owner then nothing he believed in is worthy of study and liberty is something that has no value.
bron98:
I disagree with you that we cannot judge men of the past by today’s standards. Why not? Has our morality changed in the past 200 years. Was murder, rape, and robbery acceptable behavior in 1776? Was acceptance of slavery as a moral good universal throughout the world in 1800? It is abundantly clear to me that Jefferson understood the depravity of this “peculiar institution,” but for practical reasons turned a deaf ear, and I say this as an admirer, not a detractor. Right and wrong is innate as most of the research shows, and Jefferson understood this better than most:
“I believe… that [justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.
Jefferson would not have wanted this historical excuse, and I do not recognize it either. It is no coincidence to me that in 1814 after penning the beneficent words about the slaves quoted in my post above, Jefferson wrote,as if in remorse, these words about self-interest to his friend, Thomas Law:
“Self-interest, or rather self-love, or egoism, has been more plausibly substituted as the basis of morality. But I consider our relations with others as constituting the boundaries of morality. With ourselves, we stand on the ground of identity, not of relation, which last, requiring two subjects, excludes self-love confined to a single one. To ourselves, in strict language, we can owe no duties, obligation requiring also two parties. Self-love, therefore, is no part of morality. Indeed, it is exactly its counterpart.”
Publius:
I consider myself second to none in my admiration for Jefferson, but I must conclude his conduct with respect to his own slaves was shameful. His feelings on the topic were complex and sometimes contradictory depending on when during his lifetime the question was posed. In essence, he was torn between the moral dilemma of the institution and the practical aspects of freeing them and incurring even more debt. The seven slaves he emancipated during his lifetime were from the Hemmings family with obvious implications that have been well-documented, if not cemented into the national consciousness. On the other hand, the great man did say with some sense of remorse in 1814:
“My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them, we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from ill usage, require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by freemen, and be led by no repugnancies to abdicate them, and our duties to them.”
As a young legislator he advocated a bill allowing owners to free their slaves. However he also felt that slaves were naturally inferior to freemen in his early life as well. His first draft of the Declaration of Independence strongly condemned the slave trade and he signed a bill outlawing it while in office. Some of his concern about freeing the slaves sprung from his paternalistic feeling (reflected in the quote above)that freed slaves would not be able to survive after emancipation, but some critics would obviously conclude this was more self-interest than benevolence.
In sum, the Sage at Monticello was a man of his times in this aspect of his morality and much deserving of criticism, however in matters of liberty and human rights he was situated squarely in the future and earned the honor of being, perhaps, freedom’s most eloquent spokesman despite this seeming paradox. The measure of a man includes all his works and deeds, not merely those with which we agree or disagree. By this standard, Jefferson compares favorably to most any citizen this planet has produced, or, in my humble opinion, is likely to produce.
Jill:
you were crystal clear, I understood your post. I dont think you can judge Jefferson or any of the founders by todays standards thus my reference to chastising a dog for chasing a cat.
The nature of a dog is to chase a cat, the dog cant help it. So to humans, we are all (or at least most) creatures of our particular time in history as regards to societal mores. It is a pitty it is so because principals are more important than pragmitism.
Publius:
Since Buddha has opened that line, I put Sowell and Williams down as a polite way of saying what Buddha has said. These are men who actually have reasons to hate whitey and who overcame significant obstacles to get where they are today. They are both exceptionally brilliant men who would disagree with your stance on Jefferson in particular and the founders in general.
Bron,
Sorry to not be very clear. I am talking about our nation’s political leaders both in the past and at present. We always need to know the truth.