There is a new story that surfaced last week that again illustrates the hypocrisy of the media and the democrats.

The story concerns two elements.  First, it concerns the ability of a Military officer to willingly defy orders he believes unlawful.

That rewinds us to Lt Watada, a local Army Soldier who is under arrest and still awaiting trial at Fort Lewis for missing his deployment.  He claimed that the war was not legal, therefore his deployment was not a lawful order.

In the new case, an Army officer is also claiming that orders are not valid, but for a different reason:  That they are issued by a man who is not qualified to be the President, therefore they are not lawful orders:

Soldier doubts eligibility, defies president’s orders

‘As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this’

A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an “impostor” in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be commander in chief.

The statement was publicized by California attorney Orly Taitz who, along with her Defend Our Freedom Foundation, is working on a series of legal cases seeking to uncover Obama’s birth records and other documents that would reveal whether he meets the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

“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.

Which is the second element of the case.  Is Obama a natural born US citizen of the United States, as required by the US Constitution.

Now, I have no interest in debating the merits of Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution, nor debating whether an Amendment to the constitution to strip that provision is justified.

What is a valid question is whether Obama is qualified as he claims he is.

I have blogged this in the past.  As the story continues, many bloggers like Hot Air have dismissed it as a worthless debate.

I take the position that the likelihood that he is not qualified is remote and the evidence thus produced support him, so this is likely just a snipe hunt. 

But that is not relevant, really.  What is relevant is whether people have a right to be shown proof, and all indications are that they do not.

I find that element of this to be outrageous, which is really the only reason this interests me.

Looking at the list of lawsuits in the above WND article, most have been dismissed, more often than not because the court has determined that the plaintiff does not have legal standing.

So who does?  Who has legal standing to challenge the president over his constitutionally mandated qualifications?  More to the point, who are the courts to say that any citizen of our country does not have standing to challenge a breach of our constitution?

Think about it.  What if you were suing over a breach of your free speech rights and they decided you did not have any legal standing?

The ACLU and the democrats would have a field day.  And that’s why this infuriates me and displays their gross hypocrisy.  The matter is a simple one.  Release the documents to public inspection and have done with it.

As I noted in my previous blog on this topic, they won’t.  Democrats do not disclose their documents.  John Kerry to this day still has not.

Obama has created this with his refusal:

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.”

And so far the courts are backing him up.  So my pugnacious nature forces me to take a stance against him, because I hate the arrogance of all this.

It is a fair question and people have a right to know.

The other element of hypocrisy here, of course concerns how similar in argument the two military officers are.  Watada was praised by liberals for his gross insubordination, and has teams of lawyers making a mockery of the military judicial system.

Watada was in the news, on the TV and was the general darling of the liberal media.

Easterling on the other hand is virtually mews media unknown.

In fact one of the few news stories that I could find in a main stream source was accusing Republicans of fomenting rebellion, not discussing the merits of his case.

So there you have it, the issues are similar.  The response grossly different.

I will also say that Easterling has no support for me other than my support of his opinion, and my ornery hope his lawsuit succeeds.  He is still bound to obey his orders, as was Watada.

The Oath military officers take is clear on that.  As long as Obama is the inagurated president, his duty is clear.  If he actually defies any order, he deserves the same prosecution that Watada is wriggling to escape.

In closing, the lawsuits will yield nothing in the end and are virtually pointless for that reason alone.  All this will be is a grumbling footnote in the media fueled and driven success stories of Obama.

But imagine….just imagine if the parties were reversed…if someone was challenging Bush’s citizenship….

Oh the outrage…

Trackposted to Buck Ofama, The Virtuous Republic, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, , Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Stageleft, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.