Newsweak tries to take down Michelle Bachman and even NOW is pissed

Her eyes don't look crazy to me -- she looks more like she's amused or amazed by the Leftist idiots, as well she might be --JR

The National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill called the cover 'sexist' and referred to a simple test by the group's founder Gloria Steinem to explain how they got to that conclusion - would the magazine do the same to a man.

'Who has ever called a man "The King of Rage?" Basically what Newsweek magazine - and this is important, what Newsweek magazine, not a blog, Newsweek magazine - what they are saying of a woman who is a serious contender for president of the United States of America…They are basically casting her as a nut job,' O'Neill said.

MailOnline revealed on Monday how conservative commentators believe there is a conspiracy among the liberal media to discredit the Tea Party-aligned congresswoman from Minnesota by making it look like she's nuts.

Fox News Channel contributor and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin wrote on Monday: 'Seriously, Tina Brown? Yes, I’m talking about you, Oxford University-educated Newsweek/Daily Beast editor Tina Brown. 'You’ve resorted to recycling bottom-of-the-barrel moonbat photo cliches about conservative female public figures and their enraged “crazy eyes?” Really?'

Miss Malkin said the liberal media has a fetish for demonising conservative women and their looks which goes back years. She cited USA Today altering a photo in 2005 of then-GOP Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to demonise her eyes.

'Under the editorial control of Tina Brown, the rice paper magazine barely struggles against its bias towards conservative women to view them with anything other than contempt.'



  1. I think that the original purpose of a "free press" was to serve the public as a guardian against big government rather than to provide free press on behalf of the big govt establishment propagandists. But then, socialism is incompatible with rule by with and for the people it is the audacious and haughty assumption that big brother knows better than you do when it comes to the CHOICES we really have, whether it be in the economy or politics, and education as well, for that matter. Socialism is the ultimate economic monopoly and corruption - because it legitimizes and institutionalizes coercion and the violation of the liberty and the potential of the masses and individual writ large which it has always claimed and promised to save from the oppressive danger of liberty and the adult mentality that capitalism fosters along with productivity and excellence, in contrast with the mediocrity, envy and infantile dependence that socialism in its narrow ignorant and utopian view of economics fosters.

  2. And really, who is scarier, those who want to have a government which is fiscally responsible and accountable to the people it is supposed to represent, or those who want to protect you from yourself by giving more and more power to government over your life??? That's what I would say about this newsWEAK vs Bachmann story. Just incredible. I guess that's what you get in a socialistic education. Like I said mediocrity.


All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them