It all means what, exactly, is meant by “race” and “black”.
For example, when Nobel Prize winning poet Tony Morrison, who is African-American, can write an October 1988 New Yorker article titled “Clinton as the first black president”, then what is “black”? When the NAACP calls the black conservative Kenneth Gladney, “not black enough”, and “not a brother” then what is “black”? When Time magazine’s Jack White calls Supreme Court Justice Thomas, “the scariest of all the hobgoblins”, saying “Washington seems to be filled with white men who make black people uneasy”, than what is “black”? And when Obama, a man whose mother is Caucasian, can tell us in a widely read autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity before *deciding* to be black, what is “black”?
When Bill Maher, during a panel discussion on HBO complains that Obama’s policies are “half-assed” “because he’s only half black.” and that “if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.”, and that “there’s a white man in him holding him back”, than what is “black”?
“Black” in all these contexts, as well as Juan Williams’s complaint on Fox News that the extraordinarily lopsided expression of Missouri voter sentiment in August of 2010 rejecting ObamaCare (in one county by 92%) was really about race, is not about “race” at all. It is about ideology, socialist ideology.
With respect to BHO being black: it is not about the racial characteristics he was born with, it is about the ideology he adopted. It is not what percent black he is, it is about how thoroughly red he is.
And if that is the case, what is “post-racial”? Where socialist-black has finally been outed and the public rejects its socialist orientation? I sincerely hope so.
Right on target. They will never talk about SOCIALISM.
Socialism is simply THEFT by force in it’s ultimate state.
Do any of these hollyweird libs understand that they only speak because they say what their masters let them say?
I learned something the other day. Hollywood movie lobbyists (incidentally Chris Dodd now is the head of the Motion Picture Assoc. lobby group) prevented the establishment of a “movie product” futures trading market. Why? because they are protected in their agenda by not having to answer to human nature— that is, human nature is the reason socialism fails. Movies that spout the crap would fail too if they would be affected by finance markets that relied on true human nature to reject their movies.
That whole idea that hollywood would do this, speaks volumes.