Rachel Dolezal’s secret is out.

She’s not black. She’s white. Yet she heads the Spokane, Wash., chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

The question of her race/ethnicity has prompted a tempest in the Pacific Northwest.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/naacp-leader-rachel-dolezal-lied-about-being-black-parents/ar-BBl19nt

My view? It’s not that she’s white that ought to be so troublesome. It’s the lying.

She’s contended she’s black. Both of her parents are white. Her childhood pictures show her, as described in the link, as a “pasty blonde” girl. Her appearance today looks much different.

This story might even be weirder than, say, the Dennis Hastert alleged cover-up about hush money.

One question keeps gnawing at me: Do the NAACP membership requirements stipulate someone has to be a “colored person”?

The very title of the organization doesn’t say categorically that NAACP members must be African-American. It says it works toward “the advancement” of “colored people.” White people can do that, too, correct?

The saddest part of the story perhaps is that Dolezal’s parents are revealing the lies as well. The NAACP stands behind her — so far.

As for the question posed to her recently about whether she’s African-American, she offered a sly answer, which is that all humans hail from Africa.

My head is spinning over this one.