I think the observation having been made here, accurately, is that race DOES "matter" TO OBAMA. He's making numerous "race-based" appointments, from among a pool of Leftists (who are also of a certain race). Not that some here are objecting to race per-se, but that the correct observation (and objection) is to Obama's clearly race-based biases among a political group of Leftists.

The objections from some radicals who are also "Black" is that "there aren't enough Blacks (in whatever area of our government, etc.)" so they complain that "more Blacks" HAVE to be appointed, visible, whatever.

But think of it this way: 12% or so of our U.S. population is Black. Is it at all reasonable that 75% or more (thereabouts) should be present (in Obama's appointments and politics) and depicted (in the case of entertainment and now sports) in any one segment of our society, and I mean by intentional pre-picking or selection of them? There were these complaints about television commercials a short few years ago, how it was that (so the complaints went) "there aren't enough Black people included" in commercials -- so now we see in all areas of TV a preponderance of Blacks that is far out of balance with society, like, 5 out of 7 people in films and commercials being Black (just an example to make a point -- point being that over representation of Blacks just to emphasize Blacks is a racist statement) (by Blacks).

In Obama's case, he is clearly racist and so is his wife. He also overtly emphasizes his racism which makes him a militant in some sort of race-based engineering (for one race, contrary to others). What I think it is is he's racist-Muslim, which many Muslims are: racist as to Black supremacy. And that involves an intentional disparagement if not intent to harm based upon race-selection (by Obama, by others like him -- there are many Democrats today who are also Black who are engaged in this).

I HOPE (in the sincere sense that I then anticipate) that there are our own age's or time's remarkable people who will present with equivalent or similar "awesome" statements and presence and at exactly the right time as did Reagan, Thatcher, Walesa, Pope John Paul...

We can all look back in time and say certain individuals, who were heroes in their time, appeared remarkably to lead, inspire and do the right thing, that they won't be seen again at later times, but I think that's wrong because the world, and our nation in it, does tend to witness similar heroes of later times when they are needed.

I think back to WWII and think many of those heroes were, indeed, angels, certainly mortal humans inspired by God to do exactly what was needed in remarkably bleak times (and they did so), despite their personal failings, in those "one moments" they appeared and were the heroes the rest of us needed, like Patton, Eisenhower, Schindler, many, many others -- all of them with individual liabilities but as to the work they accomplished "in a time of strife" they all moreoreless worked toward a saving result.

So I do anticipate that we will, again, indeed, see heroes emerge among us, not idols as Obama has attempted, not celebrities, but real heroes: individuals of exceptional courage who will appear (and do) and rise to the occasion. Angels or no, certainly brave people.

It's going to be so very sweet on November 05, 2012.

Obama's "talking smack" and using any ball-game (foot or basket) reference and illusion he can to "drive" his "points" "home" to the "goalpost" in "this final hour" "toward" "the goal"...(what he said today yet again, but he repeats this blather daily).

What it does is it hypes up, amplifies, a certain emotionally-driven and usually naive male of a certain impressionable age and once nabbed, they seem to stay with "him" for the duration like drunken or infected zombies (what the Obama promoters/defenders are as to their behavior).

I'm not (at all) knocking sports enthusiasm nor fans of such but I AM noting that Obama is making very sloppy and broad use of "sports buzz words" that eek into the mindset or references of those who are sports enthusiasts and it's hooking a certain group among them who are both exceptionally needy and naive -- in need of a team or "coach acceptance" and "team belonging"...

Obama's not doing this naively, himself, however. He appears to be a crafty user who is keenly aware of how to court and exploit a certain impressionable spot in needy people that he then continues on to exploit after they surrender their reason to him to do whatever with and therein lies Obama's "wave" and he knows it.

Obama's an evil man, in my view, no difference between him and any other exploiter of youth (whether they be youth in years or mind -- remember the hapless adult women who were screaming last year that Obama was going to "give them" their "gas money' and "mortgage" and whatnot -- these are the same ones today who show up at Obama's teleprompter performances and scream).

It'll be interesting if anyone in D.C. has the balls to file charges against Mary Landrieu and/or staff, whoever it was who filed the bogus allegations with the police as to O'Keefe "wiretapping" their "phones" or whatever they've outrageously alleged he was doing there.

O'Keefe's a member of the public, Landrieu's office is public access (and she's a public employee). O'Keefe, as with any citizen, had every right to enter and take a seat there, as he apparently did without threats, violence or anything else. His "crime" seems to be that he was wearing a repairman's uniform -- in which case, I guess we should arrest posthumously Micheal Jackson, what with his many "uniforms" worn everywhere/anywhere, for years, as also his two children in his recent memorial or whatever it was that used the two children of his to promote a film or whatever: they wore what appeared to be "uniforms" (black jackets, bottoms, red stripes around arms and on chests, uniformed dressing).

The "charge" against O'Keefe was and is bogus. It's a false statement made against a peaceful citizen for purposes of trying to ruin him. It's what the mob and other Democrats do, they ruin people they don't like or can't use.

And just how, specifically, is O'Keefe a "criminal/moron" (either or both)?

He is not either (nor both) and you're just doing what Leftists do: making stuff up that disparages others just because you think you're entitled to destroy others or whatever the reason may be today.

Excellent comparison you make there.

Also, O'Keefe (on Hannity this evening) said that he was not engaged in nor attempting any hijacking/bugging of Landrieu's phone, wasn't even handling her phones -- so that allegation by the Left is utterly ridiculous as it is also deceitful, if O'Keefe and his two companions are correct (and I don't have any cause so far to think that they are not). It seems that they were, perhaps (O'Keefe and his two others at the scene), "amped up" by frantic, hysterical leftwing needs to impune them once identified in Landrieu's office, and, that it's Landrieu/staff who need to be charged with filing a false police report...

Invasiveness is a behavior, not a species. Any species can be invasive (can engage in invasive behaviors, can "participate" invasively with other species, etc.).

And "people" ARE "human beings" so if some "people" "believ(ed) that humans are an invasive species" then they'd be applying such belief to themselves (because they're human beings).

Your idea only holds some tenuous logic IF one assumes, first, that there are "SOME" "people" who consider other human beings as not being human beings but being some sort of "sub species" other than themselves...

In which case, I think that line of thinking leads to acts of genocide and other violent, amoral murderous acts.

Invasive species CAN be human beings, but that applies to ALL individuals IN that species (homosapiens or, as you say, "human beings").

Yes, humans are invasive as a species. We go where we need to go (or did in our development as a species) in order to survive and prosper, or, to survive more easily or in greater happiness than we were surviving somewhere earlier. There's nothing wrong with invasive BEHAVIOR, though, as I wrote earlier here -- when it's militarized, however, then that's another story.

I'm just and only referring to the behavioral characteristic that is "invasiveness" -- by humans, by cane toads, too, though their invasiveness is not genuine since they were "carted" to Australia and didn't on their own figure out how to act invasively upon that continent (unless they, say, conjured some drugged state upon hapless human beings who were compelled to then cart them off to Australia, which is not likely).

I agree with Hojo ^^. The only thing about the filmmaker's remarks, though, that are offensive is his anti-human-being snide. Humans are today "top of the food chain" because we're invasive. Invasive isn't a bad thing, it's a behavior that reveals curiosity, self-interest, exploration and intent to develop survival helps by mankind (as with other species as to the invasive-thing).

Predation counters over-populating species. When cane toads start building a space station and instructing human beings as to how to travel at light speed to anywhere desired, then they're welcome in the top-of-the-food-chain spot, but until then, contending with their overpopulation is simply a matter of locating a predator who favors cane toads for supper.

California goes years without so much as a few raindrops nearly statewide, then, whoosh, floods. What causes it is the massive fires every other year, then hills on coast are bare, then it rains, then the mudslides because there's little vegetation to keep things in place. It's nature's way for the West Coast, unfortunately (for people who want to live in those areas, not for nature). There were even tornado warnings for Southern CA the other day. The state turns beautiful green with just a little bit of rain, but generally is a desert on the ocean and remains mostly very, very dry except for these rare downpours about every seven years or so.