previous post next post  

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

By The Armorer on February 24, 2009 | | Comments (19)
Myself, I suspect that Lieutenant Easterling is going to get ground into hamburger.

But how it plays out will be instructive, on several levels.
"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.
 
You can read the rest of the article, over at World News Daily.  H/t, Drudge.

The whole birth certificate thing has been an annoying little bug, certainly.  And is the Right Wing's new Mena, Arkansas, just as the Left Wing (and some Right Wingers, too) have the 9/11 Truthers.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

19 Comments

By Barb on February 24, 2009 10:55 AM
I was very sorry to see this issue get buried during the campaign (thank you, LSM).  But I am equally sorry to see LT Easterling take the full force of the reaction I expect to occur.  I think 'ground into hamburger' is a good characterization of the likely outcome.
 
By AFSister on February 24, 2009 10:59 AM
He'll be court martialed, for sure... 

Does he have the right to see a copy of the birth certificate, like the rest of us?  Absolutely.

But as a member of the military, he must recognize Obama as his CiC.  To publicly state that he's an "imposter" is just asking for trouble- trouble an officer shouldn't be in.  As an officer, he has even more of a duty to show respect to the office of the President and to act as an example to his enlisted soldiers.  This was done disrespectfully and, like you said John, he's gonna get ground up over it.
 
By Argent on February 24, 2009 11:29 AM
Though many conservatives believe conspiracies are a product of the left they actually grow like weeds in any segment of society particularly anywhere belief trumps reason.  I feel an important thing to do is look for the personal element because it's nearly always present in consipracies.  ie what is the personal angle of Easterling.  Maybe I should roll out my old conspiracy post.

I think he has the right to question it and there should be no serious consequence if he continued to obey orders in the meantime, but his mode of failing to obey orders on his presumtions means he should take the normal results of failing to obey such orders once the issue is cleared up.  Probably he should be dealt with as a traitor as well for attempting to subvert the CiC.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 24, 2009 11:32 AM
if you read the link to the Salon article, it discusses the whole "conspiracy theory" phenomenon.

It's a product of how the brain is wired, moreso than political philosophy.
 
By Grumpy on February 24, 2009 3:13 PM
I find myself walking lightly, watching my attitude, this can become ballistic. At this point, everything  matters. As it has been said many times, "It's gonna hit the fan!" The thing they don't tell you is this, it's a ceiling fan. It's going everywhere. We are not just dealing with this situation. The consequences can cross many lines in status, geography and time. We are talking of the US Constitution, its extensions, US Code, its extensions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its extensions. Note, when I use the phrase, "its extensions", actually this should give you a reason to just observe. These extensions link up with many other options, this is the reason I am walking lightly.
 
By jay on February 24, 2009 3:15 PM
LT Easterling is subject to the UCMJ, and rightly so.

Very poor example as an Officer, and bad leadership for the enlisted folks to see.

Court martial -- prob not.  However, he is prob not going to make CPT (and shouldn't).

My suspicion is that LT Easterling wants out...and wants some conservative foundation to pay his lawyers fees.  I hope that if he owes the U.S. Government any funds for his education, he does the right thing, and pays it all back before being shown the door.

Good luck to him in his civilian career.
 
By RetRsvMike on February 24, 2009 4:07 PM
jay: did you even attempt to read the article??

the LT is 40 years old.  he joined the military AFTER having already served a stint as a contractor in Iraq. 

he VOLUNTEERED (recently, and at an advanced age) to join, so why would he be looking for such a sledge hammer approach to get out??
 
By olga on February 24, 2009 4:10 PM
Jay,
Seeing that Lt enlisted at 40, he probably does not owe US Gov't any money for his education.  He also worked as a contractor in Iraq before enlisting.  So, I doubt that he simply 'wants out'...

So far I have not seen anything indicating that he already disobeyed the orders. I think he decided "to fall on the sword" for the rest of us, based on the fact that being a 40-year-old LT probably makes him less concerned about "other than honorable" discharge...
 
By Grumpy on February 24, 2009 5:46 PM
@Jay, you're right he is under the UCMJ, this is Military Law. But how many other people have broken the laws to which they swore an oath voluntarily to be compliant? The big thing is this, are we at a State of Peace or a State of War? The way we look at people has to do with this question. This is a question that must be answered by the entire Nation, not just the Military.

@Olga, I think your second paragraph is reasonably accurate. Why do I say it that way? I think you are giving the best insight on this question. But, in my view, this is not an accurate conclusion. Why? I believe you are giving us the best insight, BUT, based on the information available to you. I believe there is a huge chunk of conclusive evidence being withheld from us, *well done*!
 
By Josh on February 24, 2009 7:48 PM
I signed the petition.  Not because I think that it's ever going to get Barack Hussein Obama dragged out of the White House before 20 January, 2013, REGARDLESS of whether he turns out to have the birth certificate or not.  I'm pretty sure that, Constitution be damned, the cult of personality at work in this country has chosen him and nothing is going to change that.  I just signed it because the DoD makes each and every one of us file every last shred of paperwork, so why shouldn't the Commander-in-Chief?  I don't care if it's paperwork that could determine his eligibility to hold the office or if it's just proof of insurance for his car, he should follow the rules like the rest of us.

As for the LT, I feel bad for him.  I'm pretty sure this is NOT going to turn out well for him.  If he had done this with no public statements or anything, I think he could have gotten away with it with no repercussions, but calling the [acting] President an "impostor" and claiming to be unable to follow his orders is just asking for punishment.
 
By olga on February 24, 2009 8:47 PM
Grumpy,
The WND article clearly states that all previous cases were dismissed due to 'lack of standing'.  This Lt is the last straw - he is an active duty who is required to obey the "lawful" orders and, thus, has a legal standing in this case.  They could not ask a young officer to sacrifice his career and his future in order to get this case pass the legal standing muster, precisely because of USMJ and Court Martial that will follow...
I have to admit though that  the word "impostor" is, indeed, inflammatory and the fighting word...
 
By BloodSpite on February 24, 2009 9:09 PM
I dunno. The way I see it yes the Lt is playing with fire, but he can possibly justify his actions via the oath, going beyond that of the constitution by stating "enemies foreign and domestic" key words being domestic. As long as he continues to do his job, follow orders, and doesn't try to walk off a deployment, I really don't see what they can do against him short of libel and making his life hell. Of course they can also censure him, shut him down, and basically crawl up his various orifices with a microscope, which is fully possible and likely, but again its the line of doing nothing wrong and you have nothing to fear. I can't think a rational person with even a iota of military experience or knowledge would do something like this without realizing the consequences.
 
By Grumpy on February 24, 2009 11:44 PM
I missed this a few times. Let's try to see if we can understand everything. Olga pointed out something very important, the "lack of standing in the Court." She caused me to go back to the WND article, be patient with this old vet. I went back to the first sentence and only the first sentence. this is the absolute key. The real message,  there is no actual, verifiable evidence of wrongdoing in the young LT's part. In fact, you don't want to start down this path, because in doing so, you create case law. Many people call this legislating from the bench, but the court ruled a "lack of standing."

As we continue, I would ask you to think about something, please don't encourage this type of behavior on either side. This young LT  was drawn into this behavior. Remember at some point, the Government will decide it is time for you to pay the the final price. 
 
By Josh on February 25, 2009 1:52 AM
Grumpy, the LT is not young, he's 40 years old and enlisted after having already had his boots on the ground in Iraq as a private contractor.  This isn't some naive or impressionable kid we're talking about.
 
By Grumpy on February 25, 2009 5:33 PM
Josh, in reference to your comment about this 40 year old LT, who can not be a naive or impressionable kid. I respectfully disagree. You submit his contractor in Iraq status plus his age as proof of his maturity. Now, did this man have prior experience in the Military before he worked for the contractor in Iraq? There are major differences between civilian and military. Many people think they understand the differences, but the biggest obstacle is helping people understand, their own need to learn. The idea is "life-long learning". My Father said to me when I was 14 years old something that has stayed with me for over 46 years, since then. I was angry because of so much homework. He came over, with a cup of coffee for me and sat down. He said, "You're angry with homework. You figure, once you're finished school, no more homework. Right? Wrong! You'll have homework until the day you die. If you want to be all that you can be, you'll do it." The irony, I spent the rest of my life doing the very same things I hated. I've seen mature 20 year olds and naive and impressionable 50 year olds. I would respectfully submit to you, my Father's comment to me about homework, was the secret that was needed by this LT. Our Military has or had a metric for measurement, "Time and Grade", now we have "Professional Development" added to the mix. Josh, what is your metric?
 
By Josh on February 25, 2009 10:00 PM
Yes, I know what you mean.  I'm not entirely disagreeing with you..."mature" isn't precisely the opposite of "young, naive, and impressionable".  I say you leave any claims to "young" behind around 30-ish (yeah yeah yeah, everybody under retirement age wants to claim that they've still got a few years of "young" left, I know).  Naive and impressionable would be if somebody had suggested to this guy that this lawsuit was actually going to get Barack Hussein Obama dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming and the LT was going to be a hero and there would be no repercussions...and he bought it hook, line, and sinker.  I kinda think he has a decent idea of what's REALLY going to happen here.  We can, of course only speculate on that.  Mature, on the other hand, would be having the restraint to file his lawsuit QUIETLY, instead of drawing attention to himself and calling names.  So...yeah, you could make the argument that he is, in fact, lacking maturity.
 
By Grumpy on February 26, 2009 3:06 PM
Josh, I AGREE with you, this is not a disagreement, but a friendly chat. I would respectfully ask you to think about the time line of this man's Military career. He was commissioned as a LT. Affectionately known as a "90-Day Wonder." "Trained for 90 Days and they Wonder what you are going to Do." This LT was past the age of 40 at the time he was commissioned and had not yet reached the age of 41. He was a "Green" officer, he had no battlefield Military experience. His Iraqi contractor experience has no value in this context. The day he was commissioned he was born. If you'll notice, there are two reference points. You have the chronological point and the Military point. Now, we must realize, one will become dominant and the other recessive. You have a dominant reference being Military and the recessive reference being chronological. As we look through this lens, we see this LT as being green, unseasoned, young, naive and impressionable officer.
 
By Grumpy on February 26, 2009 9:48 PM
Josh, you might just call this a post script. I agree this LT's behavior was not right.  But were our expectations of him right? As we look at this situation, there is an impossible question. What didn't we see? There was an agenda in this LT's life that was not evident. We must find the answers, so we don't repeat the same mistakes. We are building a brand new force, we must learn at every step.
 
By Argent on February 26, 2009 11:19 PM
There was an agenda in this LT's life that was not evident.

I think this relates to the personal element I mentioned previously.