Soldier questions Obama's authority

Lieutenant Easterling, currently serving in Iraq, has put his career in jeopardy. He has joined in a legal challenge with California attorney Orly Taitz, who, along with her DefendOurFreedom.us Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution to be President. He questions whether Obama is a legitimate Commander-in-Chief.

"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.

Obama "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," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so."

Taitz told WND she had advised Easterling to obtain legal counsel before making any statements regarding the commander-in-chief, but he insisted on moving forward. His contention is that as an active member of the U.S. military, he is required to follow orders from a sitting president, and he needs – on pain of court-martial – to know that Obama is eligible.

Lt. Easterling's actions are principled. They are risky. And I believe that he will stand a better chance if he control's his opinions and conducts this challenge with utmost professionalism. He should also understand that while his challenge may be necessary and legal, he will have to continue to follow his oath, not only to the Constitution, but to follow orders or accept the consequences of disobeying those orders, ie, court martial, until those orders have been proven to be illegal. He should either resign his commission or accept punishment until then. He can't BOTH follow orders and challenge their authority.

I wonder if the liberal crowd will support THIS dissent as patriotic.