Bradley Manning inspires me -- not as a national security leaker -- but as a "gender identity" switcher.

If Manning has a "gender identity" right to live out his 35-year federal prison sentence as a woman known as "Chelsea," despite his male plumbing and DNA, I want a "racial identity" right to be known as "DaShonda," setting free a fiercely formidable black woman trapped in a white body.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled on April 20, 2012 that "an employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant on the basis of the person's gender identity is violating the prohibition on sex discrimination contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." That "gender identity" isn't mentioned in Title VII is of no moment to the dictocrats at the EEOC.

The federal "hate crime" statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 249, includes "actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability" as protected classes.

No "racial identity"? How hateful is that?

Since Manning's "gender identity" preference is now a protected class under federal law, all that remains is for a federal judge to order the U.S. Army to pay for Manning's transgendering process.

Why shouldn't my "racial identity preference of formidable ferocity" (RIPOFF) be a protected class? So what if my birth certificate indicates that my parents were Caucasian? That's based on nothing other than some hospital clerk's perception of them.

I will no longer allow my RIPOFF to be dictated by the prejudicial perceptions of a judgmental bureaucrat.  Henceforth, I will be checking the box for "African-American" on all government forms.

Manning's lawyer is insisting that taxpayers fund Manning's hormone therapy.

I might submit a claim to Medicare to reimburse my tanning parlor visits. If I get lucky, the Medicare fraud squad at AARP will get wind of it and report me to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

I figure it's the only way for a transracial woman in Texas to have a conversation about race with Holder.  Recall how tolerant and affirming he seemed when he used his first speech as attorney general to refer to America as a "nation of cowards" when it comes to racial matters.

Holder has totally affirmed "gender identity" preference as a protected class. A search for the term on the DOJ website generates 1370 affirming links.  Even so, I doubt that Holder is ready to embrace my racial identity as a protected class.

Consider the possibilities of RIPOFF.

Imagine the reaction from a race-obsessed, affirmative action college administrator if low-income white parents check the African-American box on their child's college scholarship application?  If the administrator rejects it based on his perception of their race, the parents could sue the school for "racial identity" discrimination.

Maybe I could host an RIPOFF reality show on Oprah's cable network to debunk critical race theory. Call it "Cracker Crumbs."  (Oprah probably prefers Chelsea Manning as a host.)

Promoting RIPOFF would be worth it if only to ignite Bob Beckel on Fox's "The Five." He went postal on Tuesday's show about "crackers" in Texas who want voter ID laws.  Beckel didn't mention the federal "crackers" who already require a photo ID of applicants for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. How about Holder's "crackers" at DOJ who require a photo ID just to enter the building?

Holder is suing Texas a second time despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 upholding Indiana's voter ID law and a recent Court decision rejecting Holder's claim that some Texas counties had violated the Voting Rights Act.

It is about color -- using black vs. white to turn red to blue, which explains Holder's ongoing assault on Texas.

Americans are wising up to the left's disingenuous and dangerous exploitation of race for political advantage.

Maybe President Obama and his attorney general could have influenced those in charge of the 50^th anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s historic "March on Washington" to include as a speaker Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, the nation's only black U.S. Senator.

Could it be that Sen. Scott wasn't included as a speaker because the left refuses to accept the real racial identity of a black conservative and the content of his character?