That's the title of an article written by Brianna Cox for [link to www.sheknows.com]

The cartoon:
[link to twitter.com (secure)]

There is no way to discuss this propaganda piece logically as it's premise (title) is a passive/aggressive logical fallacy which presupposes the reader's position to be a racist position if any disagreement is made with the authors statements, followed by a rapid fire moving of the goalposts strategy.

So you start of with a catch, "If you're not upset about this Michelle Obama cartoon, you're part of the problem" (reader's presumption: talking to me) "If you're not upset about this Michelle Obama cartoon" (reader's presumption: discounting my authenticity) and you use that controversy (reader is inflamed to respond) to launch a campaign to show how right you are in the face of inauthentic opposition which shows up as an authentic response to your inauthentic premise.

Is that about right?

From the article:

"America is freaking out over a cartoon of Michelle Obama"

"If you're not upset about this Michelle Obama cartoon, you're part of the problem"

"At this point in the 2016 presidential election coverage, it is no longer surprising to hear of racism, sexism or any other vitriol coming from the Trump camp or his supporters. Though he has not specifically endorsed Trump, political cartoonist Ben Garrison has an affinity for cartoons espousing conservative views, and his latest falls right in line with being sexist and racist."

"Garrison says the cartoon — which appeared on his website Grrrgraphics.com — meant to "express our outrage at the growing tyranny of Big Government."

"Featuring our first lady, Michelle Obama, and Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, it misses the mark in regard to addressing government tyranny and instead expresses racism, sexism and transantagonism. And while the reasons it is offensive are many in number, an age-old message reads loud and clear: black women are held to a different standard of "greatness" than white women."