
Paul R. Hollrah
Another Elephant in the Living Room
October 23, 2008
In spite of the
best efforts of social science teachers over many decades, few Americans
understand the purpose or function of the Electoral College.
The Founding Fathers
had some very specific reasons for creating the Electoral College. Aside
from their insistence that the president and vice president be elected
by the states... not by the people and not by the state
legislatures... their primary concern was that a foreign power might one
day attempt to achieve through corruption and political intrigue, that
which they could not achieve on the battlefield.
As Alexander Hamilton
wrote in Federalist Paper No. 68, "These most deadly adversaries of
republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.)” might come from many
quarters, "but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an
improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this
than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the
Union?”
The idea of a foreign
power purchasing the allegiance of an American president had never been
a major concern – until 1996, that is, when Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and
the DNC accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from agents of the
Peoples Republic of China. Those illegal receipts were not disclosed
until well after Clinton and Gore were reelected. Would some Democratic
electors have withheld their votes, had they known? Perhaps not, but
we’ll never know.
Then, in 2004,
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry refused to authorize the
release of some 100 pages of his military records. It is known that
Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserve on February 18, 1966 for a six year
commitment, expiring on February 17, 1972. He returned from Vietnam and
was released from active duty on March 1, 1970.
After assuming
leadership of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he traveled to Paris
in May 1970... just two months after being discharged... where he met
with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong negotiators. He was given a copy of
the Communists’ 7-point peace plan and in July 1971, seven months before
the end of his Navy commitment, he led demonstrations in Washington
demanding that the Nixon Administration accept the Communist peace plan,
exactly as written.
Although he was
released from active duty in March 1970, Kerry did not receive an
honorable discharge until February 1978, six years after his commitment
expired, and only then under an Executive Order, EO 4483, signed by the
President of the United States, Jimmy Carter.
It raises a number of
troubling questions. For example, what kind of discharge did Kerry
receive in February 1972, twenty-one months after giving aid and comfort
to the enemy in Paris? Why was his honorable discharge not granted until
six years later? And what is in those 100 pages of military records
that, to this day, he refuses to let us see?
Could it be that, in
1971 or ’72, Kerry was booted out of the Navy with a dishonorable or a
less-than-honorable discharge? If so, and if Kerry had eked out a
victory in Ohio and a true patriot in the Pentagon had leaked his
discharge papers, how would Democratic electors have responded? Would
those who were veterans of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam cast their
electoral votes for a man who had earned a less-than-honorable
discharge? We’ll never know.
And now we have Barack
Hussein Obama, the most liberal and the least qualified man ever to seek
the office of President of the United States... a man who is the subject
of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on August 21, 2008. The suit asks the court: a)
to declare Obama ineligible to run for the office of President of the
United States, b) to temporarily and permanently enjoin Obama from
running for President of the United States, and c) to temporarily and
permanently enjoin the Democratic National Committee from nominating
Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee.
The plaintiff in this
case,
08-cv-04083, is
not a conservative or a Republican. The plaintiff is Democratic attorney
Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania; former Democratic chairman of Montgomery County, PA, a
large Philadelphia suburban county; and a former Democratic
gubernatorial and U.S. Senate candidate.
Among other charges,
Berg contends that Obama is not a "natural born” citizen; that he was
born, most likely, in Kenya; that two separate hospitals in Honolulu
have been given as Obama’s place of birth; that a GOP research team
located a birth certificate for Obama at a maternity hospital in
Mombasa, Kenya, then a British colony; that a Canadian birth certificate
for Barack Hussein Obama, dated August 23, 1961, has been located; that,
in or about 1967, after his mother married Indonesian Lolo Soetoro, his
stepfather established his official nationality by registering him as an
Indonesian Muslim; that upon his return to Hawaii, at age ten, Obama
failed to reapply for U.S. citizenship; and that Obama perjured himself
when filing an application for admission to the Illinois bar, writing
"none” in the space provided for "Full former name(s).”
Since Barack Obama and
the Democratic National Committee, co-defendants, have not responded
fully to the allegations, it is impossible to know the truth of any of
Berg’s allegations. However, according to Rule 36(a)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, "A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days
after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on
the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the
matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”
Neither Barack Obama
nor the DNC responded to Berg’s allegations by the October 15 deadline,
a tacit admission that the allegations contained in his complaint
are, in
fact, true. By rule, Obama is not a natural born citizen and is not
eligible to serve as President of the United States.
However, given that
liberals and Democrats have never been "sticklers” for the Rule of Law,
or for troubling provisions of the U.S. Constitution... it being a
"living” document and subject only to what they’d like it to say on any
given day... can we count on Democratic electors to do their patriotic
duty when the Electoral College meets on December 15? And if 270 or more
electors should proceed to elect Obama to the presidency, with the tacit
admission that he is not a natural born citizen hanging over his head,
the American people will be faced with a constitutional crisis unmatched
in the annals of democratic self-government. How will they react?
Although Republicans
view the Berg lawsuit with intense interest, it is, after all, a fight
among Democrats. But for Democrats and their friends in the drive-by
media it is another "elephant in the living room” that they wish would
just go away quietly. But that’s not likely to happen because the judge,
R. Barclay, Surrick, is not free to simply ignore the Rules of Civil
Procedure. It will be fascinating to watch the drama unfold in the weeks
ahead.