What Does Newsweek Know That We Don’t?
by Big Dog on Aug 31, 2010 at 12:05 Political
Newsweek is one of the lamestream media mouthpieces for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Given that this periodical is a firm supporter of the liberal/progressive destruction of America it is quite surprising to see this cover. Look at what it has printed on it:
The Making of a
Terrorist Coddling
Warmongering
Wall Street Loving
Socialistic
Godless
Muslim
President
*Who isn’t actually any of those things
If Obama isn’t actually any of these things then it means Newsweek is saying he is not the President. What does Newsweek know that we don’t?
This is quite a dilemma for the magazine. Newsweek cannot back off this and say it was mistaken about the president part or it admits that a mistake appears on the lost and if one mistake appears then there could be more than one. Newsweek cannot fix this problem without admitting that it could be in error on any item on the list and if it lets the list stand then it is admitting that Obama is not president, at least in the eyes of the people who made the cover.
Funny how things like this work out. In its eagerness to defend Obama the magazine actually insulted him. This is what happens when liberal/progressives live their lives of lies.
In the same spirit of living a lie, Obama was asked why so many people think he is a Muslim. He answered by saying he can’t go around with his birth certificate attached to his forehead. What does his birth certificate have to do with whether people believe he is a Muslim or not? Was Obama throwing the birther issue into the equation because racist and bigot no longer work or was he preoccupied with this issue?
I don’t know and I don’t care but I do know Don Surber had it right.
The birth certificate attached to his forehead would be better than the big L that is currently there…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: birth certificate, birther, don surber, lies, newsweek, Obama, President
“In the same spirit of living a lie, Obama was asked why so many people think he is a Muslim. He answered by saying he can’t go around with his birth certificate attached to his forehead. What does his birth certificate have to do with whether people believe he is a Muslim or not?”
Actually, here is what Williams asked:
He wasn’t throwing anything into the equation, just simply answering a question that dealt with both issues.
That is not a question it is a statement as to the beliefs of Williams. He states, you are an American Born Christian and Obama responds Uh-huh in agreement.
Then:
Williams goes from this to the latter and discusses the issue being the latter (Muslim) and Obama addresses it and says he can’t go around with his BC attached to his forehead (it would look better than the L)
So Williams cleverly inserted both issues but Obama was addressing the LATTER in the follow on. The rest of the answer deals with the funny name and the Muslim part.
But what do you think about Newsweek?
My only point about Williams is that the subject of his birth and his faith are both on the table in the conversation. While your point is taken that the direction is much more toward faith, your statement seems to act as if he brought it up on his own which simply isn’t the case.
As far as Newsweek goes I wouldn’t have taken you for a Gawker reader. As far as the point you make, I don’t get it. Newsweek assumed we were all smart enough to understand that they were not questioning whether he was actually president but just pointing out the lunacy of his critics. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a correction.
I assume Gawker is some website. I do not recall ever seeing it.
Yes, assumed we were all smart enough. The problem is, this publication and many in the LSM took many things that politicians like Bush said and twisted them. We might have assumed they were smart enough to understand but it did not turn out that way.
Mission Accomplished and 100 years in Iraq come to mind as not only taken out of context but not being reported as to what they actually meant.
My point is, they screwed the pooch and now they will have trouble fixing it for the reasons I pointed out.
No, I would not wait for a correction. The LSM is allowing Obama to take credit for the victory in Iraq when he opposed the tactic that gave it to us. The LSM is ignoring his past statements and allowing him to claim that which does not belong to him.
Of course, you can bet that if we had lost the LSM would say it was Bush’s fault…
I still can’t agree there was an error. The colors make up the visual language in my opinion. They clearly denote the difference between the words in white and the words in red. If you read only the red text for instance it would be “The making of a president who isn’t really any of these things.”
I mention Gawker only because when I did google searches for this cover story and the umbrella story from a few days ago the only site I found with the pictures were both Gawker postings. I didn’t know if you were big on celebrity gossip or not but I thought I’d poke fun either way.
“Of course, you can bet that if we had lost the LSM would say it was Bush’s fault…”
And Nixon was given credit for winding down the Vietnam war. This isn’t some magical thing the media is doing just for Obama.
OK, let’s look at that. Obama opposed the tactic that won and he has been against everything that the previous president did. He then claims credit for the victory that was achieved with a tactic he opposed and if he had his way would not have been used resulting in defeat.
Nixon did not oppose tactics and took control of VN when he won in 1968 and took office in 1969. He employed tactics that would win the war. His carpet bombing campaign had VN on the verge of surrender and then we stopped and allowed them to gain traction. Did we stop to appease peacniks?
Anyway, Nixon was engaged in the war for 6 years before bringing it to an end. In no way does this compare to the current situation.
Obama might not be a Muslim by conviction, but he sure as hell isn’t a Christian. We measure such things by deeds, not empty protestations — and Obama’s deeds, from his refusal to attend any sort of Sunday services ever since his inauguration all the way through the policies he’s promoted, are the reverse of Christian.
But then, his pastor in Chicago wasn’t a Christian either, was he?
“…his refusal to attend any sort of Sunday services ever since his inauguration…”
And you base that statement on what? President Obama has attended church no more or less than President Bush for example.
It’s a nightmare for the president to attend regular church services outside Camp David. That is why Obama has only attended in DC about five times since becoming President including two Easter services and has made his primary place of worship Camp David just like President Bush.
Actually, apparently the Time report was denied by the White House at that time. I guess they may still be shopping for a church and attending at Camp David part of the time.
“He then claims credit for the victory that was achieved with a tactic he opposed and if he had his way would not have been used resulting in defeat.”
Maybe you can outline ways in which he’s taken credit for victory.
You know, Adam- much of that title can be taken as the truth- depending on your POV- I personally think he is not a muslim, but other than that-