Rabinowitz against the birthers

Dorothy Rabinowitz, in an article discussed by me here, calls Obama “An Alien in the White House,” even as she dismisses, as a “demented fringe” those who wonder about his origins and the facts of his birth. Laura G. replies:

It was an interesting article by Dorothy Rabinowitz, all in all. NEVERTHELESS, I take deep and personal offense at her contemptuous dismissal of those of us (probably the majority of the citizens of the nation) who would like to know who the dude who inhabits the White House is. In fact, I think very much less of her for her insulting comments that his alien nature is, “a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.” “Demented Fringe,” Dorothy? I note, in regard to demented, that she herself comments in depth about the alien character of the man, yet does not come to grips with any explanation of likely reasons he indeed is so “alien.”

The fact that not Dorothy, nor any court of law, nor any political organization, has any idea of what his citizenship might be doesn’t seem to correlate in her mind with a likely reason he is so divorced from the expected common culture of the nation. Who says “navy corpsemen”? Someone who never watched a single WWII movie. Is he English and Kenyan, citizenship he would have inherited as an infant from the citizenship of his father? Is he Indonesian, citizenship he would have gotten from his adoptive father, Soetoro? Is he an illegal alien, status he would have gotten from re-entering the U.S. from Indonesia without regularizing his status as an adolescent? All of this is in addition to the issue of where he was born, the subject of Dorothy’s scorn, and itself also a pressing legitimate Constitutional question. She is parading her elitist snobbery, and ignorant of the reasons that the issue is deeply germaine to the very subject she raises, namely, that he is “alien.” He probably is, indeed, an alien. When I read the title (“The Alien in the White House”) I thought that it was a clever use of terms, a double-entendre. Too bad I was wrong, and she was only being mundane and bad-mouthing me to boot. I never did consider her a deep thinker, thought she was over-rated by the WSJ, and now I know it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 09, 2010 06:28 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):