Mike Johnson’s meteoric elevation from an under-the-radar congressman from Louisiana to second-in-line to the U.S. presidency sent journalists, Democrats and Republicans alike to uncover information about the personal and professional history of the most right-wing and least experienced House Speaker in history, who took the top job on Wednesday.
On the day Johnson was voted in, several major right-wing social media accounts on X, formerly known as Twitter, began circulating clips of an interview Johnson gave to PBS in 2020, in which he told journalist Walter Isaacson that the police killing of George Floyd was “an act of murder” and called for “systemic change.” Notably, Johnson said in the interview that he had learned about racism in America through the experience of raising a Black son, Michael.
Wait, what? This isn't something to be criticized for. Having a black adopted son and learning the realities of racism in America and learning from it is a good thing. He should be criticized for all the other shit, but not this.
They aren't complaining that he had a black son, but that he's an "undercover Democrat" because he's stated that he learned about racism from the kid, saying things like, “Michael being a Black American, and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges,” he said. “My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”
Further, there was a question as to if the kid was real since there are no photos. That led to the new clarification:
So if we are to believe him, there are no photos because that is the way the now-adult kid wants it.
I'm not going to believe a dang thing any Conservative says without concrete evidence and peer review.
If the black kid adoption story is real, there will be photos, and someone will be able to produce them. If there are no photos, it's all a lie.
You should apply that practice to all politicians. They never tell the truth if a lie will serve.
Let's start a new conspiracy theory that he doesn't actually have a Black son. It'll go viral in a day. Space lasers!
deleted by creator
I'm not saying you're wrong. But the right has a habit of only showing empathy only when it directly affects them.
Black people deserve protection from the law, yes. But let's not pretend that he'd change his tune about LGBT people in a split second if his son turned out to be gay or trans.
Black people don’t deserve protection from the law. Black people deserve equal treatment under the law.
It’s not at all something to criticize, it’s noble to adopt a child. It’s his party base that will pillory him.
He hasn't legally adopted this "son" and he's not shown in any family photos.
And he had a history of making up bullshit
deleted by creator
I think he's being criticized because, as per the article 'there are no pictures of his “adopted" child in public family photos.'
So either he lied altogether or he didn't want to be seen publicly with him. Since he spoke about it publicly, that might not be the actual reason
Let's see the long-form
birth certificatefamily photos first!Has he learned from it, though? I don't know enough to know about if he has or not.
Also, what were the motives in raising that kid? A lot of evangelical christians view adoption as a way to proselytize and they tend to treat those kids like shit- and usually white washing the kid. (see, for example, most adoption campaigns run by christian organizations… especially those that specialize in placing foreign kids- or indigenous kids.)
I can't speak to their motives, either, but the nobility of an act depends entirely on the motives behind the act. if somebody, for example, offs putin only to gain power themselves and continue on… that is quite different than offing putin to end the war in ukraine, yes?
I find it really odd they were able to get an adopted child immediately after getting married. I have some friends who've been trying to adopt unsuccessfully for years and they're fairly straight-edge professionals.
from NYT
So, I'm not sure who Day is, that's the only time they mention her. but apparently Ms Day is saying that, it wasn't a "real" adoption. whatever that means. non legal, but the kid lived with them? they abducted him? he really is his son, but didn't want to admit that?
So we have another Gaetz on our hand with this mystery boy who previously lived with him but is of no relation or guardianship?
Are they trying to adopt a teenager?
From another reply, it seems they never actually filled out any paperwork to adopt the guy so apparently he just lived with them for a little bit if he actually exists at all.
Adopted in this sense of the word that I had a friend stay by me for a few days when he was in town. Gotcha
Not how it should work necessarily, but if they're trying to adopt a white baby it's a very different wait time compared to a black 14 year old.