The cartoon is a caricature of Michelle as an urban terrorist in an Angela Davis afro with an AK-47 slung over her back and a bandoleer of ammo in the Oval Office doing a fist-bump with a Barack decked out in turban and Muslim garb. On the wall hangs a portrait of Osama bin Laden. Blazing away in the fireplace is the American flag.
"President Obama and First Lady—as Seen From the Right-Wing Point of View" might have been the caption. Phil Klein of American Spectator nailed it: "This cartoon is intended to make fun of conservatives as ignorant racists and essentially marginalize any criticism of Obama as moronic."
Why did progressives recoil? Because the more savvy among them sense that, like much humor, this cartoon was an exaggeration that contained no small kernel of recognizable truth.
After all, Barack did dump the flag pin. Michelle did say she had never been proud of her country before now. Barack did don that Ali Baba outfit in Somalia. His father and stepfather were Muslims. He does have a benefactor, Bill Ayers, who said after 9-11 he regrets not planting more bombs in the 1960s. He did have a pastor who lionizes Black Muslim Minister Louis Farrahkhan. Put glasses on him, and Barack could play Malcolm X in the movies.
I think this goes to the twisted way we use the word "change" today. There are a lot of ways and forms with which to apply it, but societies, nations and individuals do not "change" in the way liberals use the word.
A land where there were mostly Whites one hundred years ago, but today there are mostly non-Whites is indicative of TWO DIFFERENT NATIONS not the same one "changed". That's why the Founding Fathers didn't refer to themselves as Cherokees or Apaches.
(it's interesting that liberals see no problem with the violence and social upheaval migration and race replacement are causing in the West today, yet they wax mournful over Colonialism)
An individual changes in that they grow up and grow old, but they do not change in the sense that one year they are a tall White man and the next year they're a female Mexican midget.
-Don't laugh, liberals, because of their cult's ideology, are forced to entertain the notion that it just might happen-.
Oak trees don't "change" into Maple trees, Apples don't "change" into Oranges and Dogs don't "change" into cats.
And saying that the varying races of humans are the same species (though that itself is debatable) won't help here as there is still no way that a tall White man might wake up tomorrow and find he has magically changed into a Mexican midget......just ain't gonna happen.
Nations are no different. Societies are biological in that they are composed of a specific people who have nurtured an order (a culture) that is naturally reflective of them (as in their unique genetic makeup). As long as those unique genes are passed from one generation to the next, that society will continue to exist. Revolutions may occur and varying philosophies toyed with, yet (as history has evidenced) as long as those genes remain, that society will remain the same in its most basic identity.
Neo-liberalism operates in a totally different, ever changing, ever twisting reality.
In that world, you might bring your dog to the veterinarian only to have a cat returned to you, being told, "It's still Rover, he's just changed."
You're hit with, "hey, you can't judge a book by it's cover."
With that example in mind, go back and re-read the above article by Buchanan again.
Remember, when a neo-liberal says "change", what they mean is, replace. Or more bluntly, Destroy...