In contrast, the oath taken by officers says,
Only enlisted members swear to obey the orders of the President. Officers swear to "well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office" they hold. Doing so includes the responsibility to determine whether the orders they receive and the orders they issue are "lawful orders."
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, one can be prosecuted for refusing to obey a lawful order. And if a service member obeys an order which he knows to be unlawful, and his actions in doing so are criminal but for the order, he may be held responsible for that act as well.
As an Army officer, Lt. Easterling is expected to carry out the orders of the President, and to order his troops to do the same. Thus, in order to "well and faithfully discharge" his duties, he must be able to determine whether any order issued by President Barack Obama is a lawful order.
If Obama is an "imposter," as Easterling charges, then he cannot issue lawful orders as Commander-in-Chief.
This may be just the distinction needed to get a hearing on this issue. Numerous other challenges have been rejected without a full hearing by the Supreme Court. Various retired military officers have joined in challenges, but the courts have held they do not have the necessary standing to maintain the challenge.
Lt. Easterling, on the other hand, DOES have the necessary standing to challenge the validity of orders issued by the man who claims to be Commander-in-Chief. He is an active duty officer, deployed in harm's way in a combat zone. He has a responsibility to his country and to his troops to ensure that the orders he passes along are valid orders.
So THIS may be the case that makes it all the way to a full hearing by the United States Supreme Court. This may be the distinction that makes the difference.
The United States Constitution imposes only three requirements upon anyone seeking the office of President of the United States. Article II requires that the President must be:
Barack Obama was born in August of 1961, which makes him 47 as of January 2009, so there is no problem with the first requirement.
He has lived in the United States continuously since age 10, so he meets the third requirement.
The sticking point is the requirement that he be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States of America. Unfortunately, that term has never been defined in U.S. law, and only the Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the Constitution.
The issue, in case you've been lost on an uninhabited desert island for the past 6 months, is whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii (which would make him at least a "native-born citizen"), as he claims, or in Kenya, as members of his extended family in Kenya claim.
Thus far, Obama has provided only a certification of live birth, which the State of Hawaii issued at the time he was born to officially register births occurring elsewhere, to parents living in Hawaii.
If he were born in Hawaii as he claims, it should be a very simple matter to produce an original (or duplicate original certified by state officials) long-form birth certificate stating that he was born in Hawaii. The actual birth certificate would show which hospital (if any) he was born in, and would be signed by the doctor or mid-wife assisting at the birth. These would be facts that could easily be verified.
That would end the controversy once and for all, and possibly end the many challenges to his eligibility to serve as President. And yet, despite months of challenge after challenge to his Constitutional eligibility, and despite claims that he has such a document in hand, President Barack Obama has steadfastly refused to provide it for inspection. Instead, it is reported he has spent roughly $1 million dollars in legal fees in multiple states to prevent release of ANY information about him. What is he hiding?
During the presidential campaign, his staff produced on his web site a "Certification of Live Birth," which many sources claim had clearly been tampered with. The pro-Obama site, Fight the Smears, even calls him "a native citizen of the United States." They're not willing to go so far as to claim that he is a "natural born citizen," as the Constitution requires.
The only logical conclusion is that Obama won't provide the actual long-form birth certificate because he can't, because it doesn't exist. There is no other answer that makes any sense at all.
Both his parents are dead. His grandparents, who raised him, are now dead. His maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, with whom young Barack lived for most of his life prior to age 18, was in Hawaii at the time of his birth, and may or may not have been present at his birth. She certainly could have answered the question (whether anyone would believe her answer because of obvious bias is another story).
But all legal challenges were stone-walled, and Madelyn Dunham died the week before the election, without having been asked to testify via deposition on the whereabouts of Barack Obama's birth.
Apparently, none of the hospitals in Honolulu have any record of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama having been admitted during the time frame surrounding his birth date. In 1961, birth mothers routinely spent 3-5 days in the hospital after giving birth, so if Obama was born in a hospital, there would be a record of his mother's admission.
The other possibility is that he could have been born at home, but if that were the case, why hasn't a midwife come forward to claim having assisted at his birth? Or why doesn't he just disclose that fact, to eliminate the controversy? There's nothing shameful or embarrassing about being delivered at home by a mid-wife.
However, it is highly doubtful that an 18-year-old, first-time mother whose own mother lived just a few blocks from a hospital, would have chosen to give birth at home in the U.S. in 1961.
And the water is further muddied by his relatives in Kenya claiming he was born there. Their motive for making such claims (even if false) is obvious.
If it is established that he was in fact born in Hawaii, he would clearly be "native-born," but there is still a question whether that satisfies the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen." There are some who argue that the framers of the Constitution intended to exclude those with dual citizenship, and thus possibly divided loyalties, from eligibility to be president. Since Obama's father, at the time of his birth, was a British subject because of his birth in Kenya, then Obama would also inherit his father's citizenship status.
So whether Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen" is NOT as simple as merely providing a birth certificate. These are issues which have arisen in a "legitimate case or controversy" and only the Supreme Court is authorized to determine the intent of the framers on the Constitution when they chose the phrase "natural born citizen" but failed to define the term.
Then, if it is established that Barack Obama, at the time of his birth, met the qualifications to be a "natural born citizen," it must next be examined whether at any time since then he relinquished his U.S. citizenship.
There are numerous indications this may have happened at different times. It may have happened when he was acknowledged or adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his mother's second husband, and enrolled in school in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen.
Or it may have happened when he applied for and received financial aid at Occidental College in Los Angeles as foreign student Barry Soetoro. Or when he was 19 or 20 and made a college trip to Pakistan to visit in the homes of his fellow students at Occidental College. At that time, Pakistan was under military rule, and it was very difficult for Americans and other non-muslims to gain entry. It would have been much simpler for Obama to enter Pakistan using his Indonesian passport. If, after reaching the age of 18, he renewed his Indonesian passport claiming Indonesian citizenship, does that operate to relinquish his U.S. citizenship? Or did the framers intend to exclude those with dual citizenship?
Obama has refused to release his records from Occidental College. Some have claimed it is because he registered there as a foreign student from Indonesia. If that is the case, the American public is entitled to know. Recent reports have surfaced claiming that records show he applied for and received financial aid as foreign student Barry Soetoro from Indonesia. A nice trick for someone who lived in Hawaii since he was 10. How did he substantiate that he was in fact a "foreign" student with high school records from Hawaii?
Obama's presidency will be clouded with this doubt until he steps forward, either voluntarily, which he apparently won't do, or under court order, to produce documentation that he meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.
Until then, all of his "official acts" will be suspect, and subject to question as to their validity.
It is interesting to note that the attorney who is bringing these lawsuits was born in the former Soviet Union. Could it be that she understands, better than many in this country, the value of the rights and freedoms bestowed by our Constitution?
There are more details on some of these points in our response to the reader submission below, titled "Obama is a Fraud." It includes a link to a Yale Law Journal article discussing the meaning of "natural born citizen" as it relates to Presidential eligibility. If you have interest in the finer legal points of this issue, we urge you to read it.
This is not a simple issue, and it's not merely a case of sour grapes by sore losers. It's a legitimate Constitutional crisis, and too many are trying to sweep it under the rug. If the Constitution does not apply to all of us, its value is questionable at best.
For the entire story, including a wrap up of the current status of other pending challenges, see World Net Daily. You will also find a link there if you wish to sign a petition demanding that Obama release his birth certificate.
Update! Second soldier volunteers to join lawsuit.
Update! World Net Daily is reporting that additional plaintiffs have joined California attorney Orly Taitz' lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States. They include Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer Clinton Grimes, formerly of the U.S. Navy; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.
Scroll down to leave your comments.
Sign the petition demanding the release of Barack Obama's original birth certificate.
Barack Obama's Extended Family
Please, use the "add this" button in the right-hand column or the buttons across the bottom of the page to share this article, and/or
Would you like to receive our blog updates by e-mail, so you'll be notified when something new has been added to the site?
Return to top of Soldier Challenges Barack Obama.
Return to Home
Share Your Thoughts About Barack Obama's Eligibility to be President
Should Obama have to prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements?
Other Readers' Comments
Here's what other visitors to this page have said ...
Obama is Smoke and Mirrors
Obama Prove Your Citizenship
Obama is a Fraud
The military has national trust because it is not political
Disrespect in the Military
Barack Obama, explain away this one...
Obama in School Here Since Age 10?? Not rated yet
Natural-Born Citizen Not rated yet
Danger: 60 years to produce an imposter, Obama/Soetoro Not rated yet
New! CommentsJoin our conversation! Leave me a comment about this page in the box below. If your comment is about another page on this site, please leave your comment on that page, because I have no ability to move it to the correct page. Thanks!