This sure hits it on the head!


The Newsweek Magazine is going out of
business but not before it critiques the President. Wonderful story!
Newsweek COVER Story!!! It is their
last cover before they fold. Also read the article at the end. AMAZING!!!





The conservative historian Niall Ferguson pens an error-filled tirade against Obama, and the struggling weekly concedes that it didn't fact-check the story



This week, Newsweek came under an onslaught of criticism for publishing a cover story titled: "Hit the road, Barack: Why we need a new president." (See an image at right and below.) Written by conservative historian Niall Ferguson, a Harvard professor who served as an adviser to the John McCain campaign in 2008, the story is a litany of complaints against Obama, blasting him for his poor economic stewardship, fiscal irresponsibility, broken promises, and foreign policy weakness. The problem? The article 
is riddled with so many errors and misrepresentations that it prompted scores of corrections and complaints from other publications. Rival magazine The Atlantic even conducted a full fact-check of the article — an embarrassment for a venerable magazine like Newsweek. Indeed, the struggling weekly all but admitted that it no longer has a fact-checking department, saying, "We, like other news organizations today, rely on our writers to submit factually accurate material." Ferguson's piece is the latest attention-grabbing cover to emerge from Newsweek under the editorship of Tina Brown (who also runs Newsweek's online partner The Daily Beast), and she was also criticized for a recent piece slamming Mitt Romney as a "wimp." Has Newsweek lost its credibility?
No. Newsweek is simply publishing a diversity of opinion: As a mainstream magazine that recently published a "pretty aggressive anti-Romney" story, Newsweek "should publish anti-Obama cover stories, too," says Michael Tomasky at The Daily Beast. "We should cultivate, and cater to, Republican readers as well as Democratic ones." There is "something fun and vibrant about a publication wherein the principal voices have at one another." But of course, "the attacks ought to be factual." 
"On Niall Ferguson"
Yes. The article is plain wrong: Ferguson is perfectly within his rights to oppose Obama's re-election, but he's "deliberately misleading readers," says Paul Krugman at The New York Times. In an egregious example, he suggests that Obama's health care overhaul added $1.2 trillion to the deficit, when the Congressional Budget Office clearly shows that ObamaCare reduces the deficit. "We're not talking about ideology or even economic analysis here — just a plain misrepresentation of the facts, with an august publication letting itself be used to misinform readers." Newsweek should issue an "abject correction." 
"Unethical commentary, Newsweek edition"
Newsweek has sacrificed integrity for clicks: "If Newsweek's goal was to spark some conversation," then Ferguson's cover story "is a smashing success," says Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog. The article is "generating far more interest than the magazine's pieces usually do," and is probably getting a lot of clicks. "If, however, Newsweek's goal is to strengthen its reputation, and gain new respect as a major news outlet, Ferguson's cover story marks an ignominious low for the once-great magazine, tarnishing the publication's reputation in ways likely to do lasting, irreparable harm." Newsweek's latest article "isn't journalism; it's a joke." 
"Where political journalism must not go"







Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is
timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being
extremely liberal The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following
article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this
a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth
about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the
protective wall built around him by the liberal media...
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist -
Opinion Writer)
Years from now, historians may regard
the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon,
the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze
of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional
accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's
largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's
most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining
Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite
unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a
"community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of
legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, less often
did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in
the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential
ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia,
authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter
of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who
for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual
terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to
imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such
a man elected president? There is no evidence that he ever attended or worked
for any university or that he ever sat for the Illinois bar. We have no documentation for
any of his claims. He may well be the greatest hoax in history.
Not content to wait for history, the
incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall
Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with
an outspoken hater of America
like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have
lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in
the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various
American injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard because of
the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case,
what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant
and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him
a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the
curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on
the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the
legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all
affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make
white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer
so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit
minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no
responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which
follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting
from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone
to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's
affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to
Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but
why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he
was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he
was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his
life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next
step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort
of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who
agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's
oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the
hoariest of cliches, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him;
when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one
original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of
the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his
2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is
constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it;
it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned
for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his
own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he
actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy
and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has
never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
responsibly? In
short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor
the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when
you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make
sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval
Office.


PS: Please send this article to all
family and friends throughout America
and ask them to read and distribute this article to others.
By -
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)