No Standing? Court Says Citizens Not Allowed to Ask for Qualifications

Welcome to Barack Obama's America, a land where mere citizens dare not challenge the legitimacy of The One. A country where behind the mask of democracy lays massive voter fraud and intimidation of opponents. A nation where campaign finance laws are yet another minor obstacle to be overcome in the process of stealing an election.

In an election season marked with massive voter fraud, and in which the least qualified Democratic candidate has spirited the nomination away from a rival who soundly beat him in nearly every major primary, a federal court has ruled that the common man has no right to question Obama's constitutional qualifications. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on Friday dismissed a suit brought by former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip J. Berg challenging the credentials of Barack H. Obama to run for President of these United States.

The substance of Berg's suit, that Obama is constitutionally prohibited from holding the Presidency because the location of his birth is in question, was never addressed. Berg, a Democrat, and supporter of Hillary Clinton during the primaries, claims to have proof that Obama was not born in Hawaii, but in Kenya. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No person except a Natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution; shall be eligible to the Office of the President;..." If Barack was born in Kenya, he is not, by definition, a natural born citizen, though he may be a naturalized citizen, as is, for example California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, later married an Indonesian national, who adopted Barack, making him an Indonesian, and again, potentially disqualifying him from holding the office of Presidency, or even a seat in the U.S. Senate.

Berg's argument is a strong one, especially if he has, as he claims, proof that Obama was born at Queens Hospital in Kenya, including signed affidavits from Obama's African family who witnessed the birth. Judge Surrick, though, chose to ignore the substance of Berg's argument, and focused instead on the standing of Berg. Surrick's incredible ruling states that Berg has no standing, or legitimacy, in bringing the suit, as he would not be harmed in Obama's election, that the harm is "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters." In other words, no possible harm, or a harm so slight as to not matter, would come to voters if Barry Sotero Hussien Obama, of Indonesia and Kenya, were to become President of these United States.

No standing? Too vague? Too thin? We're being told by a court of the United States that voters have no right to examine the constitutional qualifications of a man who wants to be president. Let me repeat: the judge maintains that no possible harm could come to us. If that's the case, then why the explicit qualification the founders laid out in Article II? Surrick argues that I - or you, or your cousin - have no right to challenge whether this candidate might have been born outside these shores, that we have no right to be in court, questioning the One.

That right, apparently, is left to our betters. Perhaps to party officials who allowed Obama to get away with massive voter fraud in the caucuses. Or to the free press, who have done such a masterful job of examining the content of Sarah Palin's garbage, or an Ohio plumber's tax returns, while ignoring Obama's ties to domestic terrorists or third world dictators. Perhaps we don't need an election after all. Since we have no right to challenge the qualifications of One seeking to lead us, what's the point of the election? Why not just anoint him?