LTC Lakin will be a guest on G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show from 1000-1100 EDT on Tuesday, as announced on WorldNetDaily here. That should be interesting. At 1030, he’ll be joined by WorldNetDaily CEO Joseph Farah, whose guano-crazy take on the case we discussed here.
WorldNetDaily states that “Lakin and his private counsel are scheduled to address the controversy . . . .” So perhaps listeners will also hear from LTC Lakin’s lawyer tomorrow.
Due to my day job, I’ll be unavailable to listen in on the lunacy.
WorldNetDaily is now observing that “various challenges and lawsuits that have developed about Obama allege that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 has [sic] he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the office.” As demonstrated convincingly here (complete with quotations from Madison), even at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, a baby born in the United States was considered a natural born citizen even if one of the parents was a citizen of another country. But apparently the birthers’ copies of the Constitution stop before the 14th Amendment. That amendment, designed in part to repudiate the Dred Scott decision’s limitations on who is a U.S. citizen, see Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. Regardless how one obtained “natural born citizen” status before the Fourthteenth Amendment’s adoption, that Amendment removes any doubt that a baby born in Hawaii in 1961 to a U.S. citizen mother and Kenyan father is constitutionally eligible to one day be elected president of the United States. Apparently the birthers are challenging not only the results of the 2008 election, but the Fourteenth Amendment as well.