Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs:Why We Shouldn’t Be So Hard on the Birthers
Orly Taitz, the lawyer and self-appointed mother of the birther movement was chastized by a judge yesterday for bringing a frivilous lawsuit challenging the birth certificate of President Obama. It’s true, the lawsuit had no evidence and no one thinks it has any chance of success.
But what if they won?
Maybe then we would have to look at the archaic rule that requires every President to be born in the United States.
Perhaps, way back when, we thought that loyalty had something to do with birth. Specifically, British born subjects might be more inclined to support the monarchy than their fellow Americans. But these days, with Americans increasingly from first or second generation immigrant families, it makes little sense to base the most important election rules on birthright.
I don’t agree with Arnold Schwarzenegger, but can one really claim that he doesn’t love the United States?
More importantly, many countries now have laws against discriminating on the basis of citizenship. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship. Canadian law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship.
We have to ask ourselves, if the birthers were successful and Obama was really born in Indonesia, or Afghanistan for that matter, would he be a worse President?
I can see WorldNetDaily lifting two sections of your blog and claiming that you support their movement:
Emma Ruby-Sachs, attorney and board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association of Chicago (LAGBAC) suggests is laying the groundwork to allow Obama to remain president in spite of the constitutional requirements. Ruby-Sachs suggests, “Maybe then we would have to look at the archaic rule that requires every President to be born in the United States.” “We have to ask ourselves, if the birthers were successful and Obama was really born in Indonesia, or Afghanistan for that matter, would he be a worse President?”
You’ve now made the extreme right more paranoid and more determined to reveal the Manchurian Candidate.
P.S. I botched that posting, but I hope my point comes across. It sure would be nice if we could edit our comment postings!
“Do you honestly think people would elect such a person?”
Funny – I don’t recall having elected Gerald Ford. Or Lyndon Johnson. Or any of the other Presidents who gained the office through non-elective means.
I’ve been trying really, really hard to see this issue from your perspective, Ms. Ruby-Sachs, but the more I read this column, the more it strikes me that you’re missing the point. The problem isn’t that people question(ed) Obama’s birth status, the problem is that these people (Birthers) have denied the facts. Your premise of asking ourselves: “if the birthers were successful and Obama was really born in Indonesia, or Afghanistan for that matter, would he be a worse President?” totally misses the mark. We need to be asking ourselves, “If the Birthers were successful and managed to get Obama’s birth certificate thrown out or its legitimacy denied, exactly what position would America be in right now?” The Birthers have proven themselves to be not just disruptive, but flat-out crazy. These people have come up with one bogus “birth certificate” after another and you STILL feel inclined to defend their movement? This is both sad and scary.
The Birthers have nothing to do with securing the birth status provision for any potential future president, their only interest is in proving that Obama himself is not fit to be president right now, today. Turning their mission into something more palatable might make you feel better (whoever you are), but it gives legitimacy to a patently illegitimate claim. So YES, Ms. Ruby-Sachs, YES we need to be hard on the Birthers!