Is The New Yorker Cover All That Farfetched?

First of all, everyone gets that the New Yorker cover was supposed to be a satire of what the 'rightwing' thinks of Obama. Never mind that the myth of Obama-the-Muslim was promulgated chiefly by Hillary Clinton's supporters during the primaries (some of who used the very lame excuse that they needed to send those emails around as a warning of 'what will come this November' at the hands of the Republicans), and never mind that the images of Obama in muslim-esque garb, and the Reverend Wright videos, were circulated by the MSM and not the RNC. Those pesky facts interfere with the narrative, you see, and history must always be rewritten so as to accomodate liberal mythbuilding.

Is the 'satire' really that outrageous though?

Well, Obama in a turban is a documented fact:

As for the image of Barack and Michelle as terrorists, well, Obama enjoys the support of Hamas, and the two of them are in fact very good friends with terrorist Bill Ayers:

Guess that also explains the flag burning in the fireplace in the New Yorker image.

The idea of Barack and Michelle as firebreathing radicals is not so farfetched either, considering their 20-year association with the black racist Jeremiah Wright, and Obama's contacts with the wretched and corrupt organization known as ACORN.

The cover image on the New Yorker is in very bad taste and not factually accurate. Obama is not a Muslim, and he has declared himself a Christian. That should settle it for everybody. Michelle Obama is an ungrateful whiner, but she is hardly a Black Pantherette toting an AK-47. The idea that Obama secretly likes Osama bin Laden is of course ridiculous. But satire works when it amplifies and magnifies facts - otherwise it is simply fantasy and not satire. Obama gave the artist who drew the New Yorker cover all the facts needed to do just that. The left is yelping because they know many of the elements of that image are just a little too believable.