SHATTERED: Mount Vernon Exposes Politico’s Very Fake News Story About Trump’s Visit To George Washington’s Estate

To liberals and their lapdogs in the media, all Republican presidents are stupid — like, really stupid.

The Gipper was a moron, or as Slate put it, “The stupidity of Ronald Reagan.” George W. Bush was such an idiot that Vice President Dick Cheney actually ran the White House (remember those stories?). And President Trump, I mean, c’mon. The liberal media questions whether he can even read. The liberal disdain is all summed up in this New York magazine story: “Why Republicans Love Dumb Presidents” (‘cuz don’t forget, all Republicans are stupid, too).

So when Trump escorted French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife to George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Va., just outside Washington, D.C., last April, of course he was too dumb to understand any of the significance of the place. At least according to the liberal inside-the-Beltway “news” site Politico.

The president’s disinterest in Washington made it tough for tour guide Bradburn to sustain Trump’s interest during a deluxe 45-minute tour of the property which he later described to associates as “truly bizarre.” The Macrons, Bradburn has told several people, were far more knowledgeable about the history of the property than the president.

A former history professor with a PhD, Bradburn “was desperately trying to get [Trump] interested in” Washington’s house, said a source familiar with the visit, so he spoke in terms Trump understands best — telling the president that Washington was an 18th century real-estate titan who had acquired property throughout Virginia and what would come to be known as Washington, D.C.

Trump asked whether Washington was “really rich,” according to a second person familiar with the visit. In fact, Washington was either the wealthiest or among the wealthiest Americans of his time, thanks largely to his mini real estate empire.

“That is what Trump was really the most excited about,” this person said.

“This person.” The story would prompt laughter it was a tale told at a cocktail party, but this piece was actually published.

The sourcing in the story is absurd: “according to three sources briefed on the exchange” and “according to a second person familiar with the visit” and “one person close to the White House.” But still, the writers attribute direct quotes to Trump.

During a guided tour of Mount Vernon last April with French president Emmanuel Macron, Trump learned that Washington was one of the major real-estate speculators of his era. So, he couldn’t understand why America’s first president didn’t name his historic Virginia compound or any of the other property he acquired after himself.

“If he was smart, he would’ve put his name on it,” Trump said, according to three sources briefed on the exchange. “You’ve got to put your name on stuff or no one remembers you.”

“Three sources briefed on the exchange”?! So, they weren’t there, but someone told them that Trump said that, then they all told the Politico writers, using the exact same words? Like we said, absurd.

Luckily, the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, a private, non-profit organization that runs the historic home, had something to say about the piece — and they completely destroyed it.

Here’s their statement released on Wednesday:

Mount Vernon has a firm, long-standing policy of not commenting on the details of high-profile visits to the home of George Washington. However, we believe in the importance of ensuring that reports about events that take place at Mount Vernon are accurate. As such, we are concerned that the third-party accounts of the Trump-Macron visit released by several media outlets today do not correctly reflect the events that transpired nearly a year ago.

Mount Vernon President Doug Bradburn and Regent Sarah Coulson escorted the presidents and first ladies on a tour of the Mansion on April 23, 2018. During the tour, all parties were interested and engaged in the story of George Washington and his beloved home. Conversations touched on topics like business dealings, real estate, and related matters that were of relevance and interest to the touring parties, and questions were asked by both leaders with curiosity and respect. Comments pulled from sources who were not present for the tour do not properly convey the tone and context in which they were delivered.

Let’s repeat that last line, in bold: “Comments pulled from sources who were not present for the tour do not properly convey the tone and context in which they were delivered.” Ouch. Only took two paragraphs to completely debunk a “fake news” story.

And a couple more things while we’re at it: To the writers of the Politico piece, Eliana Johnson and Daniel Lippman, look up the word “disinterest.” As Inigo Montoya says in Princess Bride, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” It doesn’t mean “lack of interest,” it means “the state of not being influenced by personal involvement in something; impartiality.” So, who’s dumb now?

Last, there was this line in the piece, which figuratively drips with disdain. “Even former President George W. Bush — not known as a tweedy intellectual — consumed several presidential biographies while in office.”

For the record, Bush had a contest with top White House aide Karl Rove. In 2006, Bush read 95 books, or about two a week.

If the Politico writers read just half that much, they might know the meaning of the word “disinterested.”

The post SHATTERED: Mount Vernon Exposes Politico’s Very Fake News Story About Trump’s Visit To George Washington’s Estate appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

BOZELL & GRAHAM: The Dictionary Adds ‘White Fragility’

One of strangest developments in today’s internet culture is how website dictionaries, which one might presume to be objective, have dabbled in "woke" leftist politics as a way of drawing clicks. USA Today reporter Jessica Guynn, who explains that her job is to explore how the digital world can "amplify bias and widen disparities," delighted in reporting how the term "white fragility" has been added to dictionaries as a result of racial discussions on social media.

via Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml

Anna Wintour: Vogue Only Profiles Women ‘We Believe In.’ Melania Trump Hits Back: ‘Been There, Done That.’

She was cool with then until he ran for president. So petty. Via Daily Wire: Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour publicly declared the magazine will only profile women who conform with their social agenda, dismissing the idea that Melania Trump will ever be featured on the cover. Speaking with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour this week, Wintour commented […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

No Controversy Here! CBS Yawns at 2020 Dem’s Extreme Views

Nothing controversial here. CBS This Morning co-hosts on Thursday breezily questioned 2020 presidential candidate Jay Inslee, offering little in the way of challenges to the Washington governor’s plans to end the filibuster and the electoral college and to have Medicare for all. Instead, the journalists offered softballs with little skepticism. 

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Academia’s rabid left taking new swings at leading conservative intellectuals – Paglia, Scruton..

The rabid left has been rampant on college campuses since the 1960s, but never has it been as emboldened as it is now, not content to just spew crazy things, but to censor conservatives. What’s standing out now is that they are no longer going for the small fry – students, untenured assistant professors, conservative academics who really do say malapropistic things … they’re going for the bigs now.

According to AEI’s estimable Christina Hoff Sommers – they went after Camille Paglia, a powerful, influential, conservative-leaning, and very independent intellectual:

 

 

Paglia is gay herself, as well as a woman, but she doesn’t meet the radicals’ color criteria, named in the lunatic petition to get rid of her.

And we all know the real problem was: Her ideas. Paglia doesn’t have much sympathy for victim-mentality or political correctness. In fact, she has absolutely none, and she doesn’t back down on this.

Hoff Sommers, in her string of tweets, pointed out that the left not only put out a petition to get rid of Paglia, they also protested – and being a bunch of clowns, ended up having to listen to one of Paglia’s academic lectures on ancient Egyptian hair styles.

The far left’s bid to Get Paglia even had a happy ending. Hoff Sommers posted this tweet as I was writing this, with her university, the Philadelphia College of the Arts (now the University of the Arts), being smart enough to come to her defense – much to its credit, as Hoff Sommers observes:

But not so lucky was distinguished British philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, a leading academic whose views lean conservative, yet like Paglia, independently so. According to athis post by Mark Steyn (Hat tip: Instapundit.com):

So Roger Scruton gave an interview to The New Statesman, which is left-wing but once employed him as its wine critic. But that was then, etc. At the new New Statesman he fell into the hands of one of those lefties whose goal in the interview is to talk to you for two hours and then pluck three partial quotes uttered twenty-five minutes apart that destroy your career and get you banished from public life. In this case, it was various Scrutonisms on China, Islam, Hungary and homosexuality, all of which are worth thinking about seriously.

But, as I say, that’s the leftie hack’s objective, and you can’t blame him for achieving it. Douglas Murray, quite rightly, is more disgusted by the craven pile-on of so-called conservatives:

Within four hours of Eaton tweeting out his misquotations of Britain’s most prominent living philosopher, the housing minister (James Brokenshire) announced that Scruton had been dismissed with immediate effect from his role as Chairman of the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’. The sacking from this unpaid, advisory position came because of these ‘unacceptable comments’.

Scruton’s a big name in academia and the attempts to shut him down are getting out of control. Abusing him this way is an outrage. And one can’t help but feel that the left will continue to try to keep taking down Paglia, too. The ones who did were essentially clowns, but what happens when the Alinskyites with big money get involved or a new university president, with few balls, shows up?

It’s disturbing stuff, given the boldness of the attacks, no longer focused on small fry but on big guns — with big audiences. Not even they are immune from attacks. Rest assured that unless President Trump’s bid to end censorship on campus succeeds, there is going to be more of this.  

 

Image credit: Fronteiras do Pensamento // CC BY-SA 2.0

The rabid left has been rampant on college campuses since the 1960s, but never has it been as emboldened as it is now, not content to just spew crazy things, but to censor conservatives. What’s standing out now is that they are no longer going for the small fry – students, untenured assistant professors, conservative academics who really do say malapropistic things … they’re going for the bigs now.

According to AEI’s estimable Christina Hoff Sommers – they went after Camille Paglia, a powerful, influential, conservative-leaning, and very independent intellectual:

 

 

Paglia is gay herself, as well as a woman, but she doesn’t meet the radicals’ color criteria, named in the lunatic petition to get rid of her.

And we all know the real problem was: Her ideas. Paglia doesn’t have much sympathy for victim-mentality or political correctness. In fact, she has absolutely none, and she doesn’t back down on this.

Hoff Sommers, in her string of tweets, pointed out that the left not only put out a petition to get rid of Paglia, they also protested – and being a bunch of clowns, ended up having to listen to one of Paglia’s academic lectures on ancient Egyptian hair styles.

The far left’s bid to Get Paglia even had a happy ending. Hoff Sommers posted this tweet as I was writing this, with her university, the Philadelphia College of the Arts (now the University of the Arts), being smart enough to come to her defense – much to its credit, as Hoff Sommers observes:

But not so lucky was distinguished British philosopher, Sir Roger Scruton, a leading academic whose views lean conservative, yet like Paglia, independently so. According to athis post by Mark Steyn (Hat tip: Instapundit.com):

So Roger Scruton gave an interview to The New Statesman, which is left-wing but once employed him as its wine critic. But that was then, etc. At the new New Statesman he fell into the hands of one of those lefties whose goal in the interview is to talk to you for two hours and then pluck three partial quotes uttered twenty-five minutes apart that destroy your career and get you banished from public life. In this case, it was various Scrutonisms on China, Islam, Hungary and homosexuality, all of which are worth thinking about seriously.

But, as I say, that’s the leftie hack’s objective, and you can’t blame him for achieving it. Douglas Murray, quite rightly, is more disgusted by the craven pile-on of so-called conservatives:

Within four hours of Eaton tweeting out his misquotations of Britain’s most prominent living philosopher, the housing minister (James Brokenshire) announced that Scruton had been dismissed with immediate effect from his role as Chairman of the ‘Building Better Building Beautiful Commission’. The sacking from this unpaid, advisory position came because of these ‘unacceptable comments’.

Scruton’s a big name in academia and the attempts to shut him down are getting out of control. Abusing him this way is an outrage. And one can’t help but feel that the left will continue to try to keep taking down Paglia, too. The ones who did were essentially clowns, but what happens when the Alinskyites with big money get involved or a new university president, with few balls, shows up?

It’s disturbing stuff, given the boldness of the attacks, no longer focused on small fry but on big guns — with big audiences. Not even they are immune from attacks. Rest assured that unless President Trump’s bid to end censorship on campus succeeds, there is going to be more of this.  

 

Image credit: Fronteiras do Pensamento // CC BY-SA 2.0

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

Cruz at Tech Censorship Hearing: Who Defines ‘Hate Speech?’

At the Senate Judiciary hearing on April 10, Republican senators went beyond establishing the liberal biases of Silicon Valley social media giants, and questioned the very idea of “hate speech.” Senator Ted Cruz proclaimed not only that banning “emotionally” harmful content is absurd, but that “None of us have a right to live in a world free of being offended.”

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Liz Cheney: Ocasio-Cortez ‘Ought to Go Thank’ Crenshaw for Defending Her Freedom

Rep. Liz Cheney (R., Wyo.) had harsh words for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., NY) after she defended Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D., Minn.) comments about 9/11 and rebuked Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas), a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.

"It’s disgraceful. Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez came out to defend Omar and said, well, her comments were taken out of context and that’s ridiculous," Cheney said during an appearance on the Ross Kaminsky Show on Friday. "There’s no context in which calling 9/11 ‘some people did something’ is okay."

"And I would also point out, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez attacked our colleague Dan Crenshaw and suggested he should go do something about domestic terrorism. And I would just remind her he lost an eye in Afghanistan defending her freedom, and I think she ought to go thank him for that," Cheney continued. "And she ought to recognize that it doesn’t matter what your gender is, it doesn’t matter what your race is, it doesn’t matter what your religion is, if you stand up and say 9/11 was ‘some people did something’, we all ought to condemn that, and especially a representative from New York."

"Remember, it was the worst attack on U.S. soil in our history," Cheney added. "It was at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists and anybody who holds the views that Representative Omar has expressed on this issue and on anti-Semitism has no place on the House Foreign Affairs Committee."

Crenshaw criticized Omar on Twitter after she referred to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as "some people did something." Ocasio-Cortez jumped on his tweet, saying he should "go do something" about domestic terrorism.

Crenshaw served in the war in Afghanistan and lost his right eye after an improvised explosive device detonated.

Omar accused Crenshaw of inciting violence against her, which the Texas congressman denied.

"1. I never called you un-American. 2. I did not incite any violence against you. 3. You described an act of terrorism on American soil that killed thousands of innocent lives as ‘some people did something.’ It’s still unbelievable, as is your response here.’

The post Liz Cheney: Ocasio-Cortez ‘Ought to Go Thank’ Crenshaw for Defending Her Freedom appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Google: Hey, our bad for labeling Unplanned as “propaganda”

Talk about bad timing. Google is under fire this week for misleading Congress about its manual manipulation of its search engine to exclude some conservative websites.  That makes this a bad week for Google to get creative in categorizing the film Unplanned as a “drama/propaganda,” as Daily Signal contributor Kelsey Bolar discovered:

Fox News was all over the story last night:

Google is the latest tech giant to be accused of bias against the newly released pro-life film “Unplanned,” with the search engine listing the movie as “propaganda.”

“Unplanned” is the story of a Planned Parenthood clinic director who becomes an anti-abortion activist. …

Another Twitter user compared the search results of “Unplanned” with those of left-leaning films like the Dick Cheney biopic “Vice” and the documentaries of Michael Moore. None of them were considered “propaganda” by Google.

Here’s that comparison:

Just in pragmatic terms, a “propaganda” category might not be a great idea, as it might encompass a significant part of Hollywood’s output. Even Dumbo, with its reportedly heavy-handed treatment of capitalism, could qualify. What a ground-breaking idea!

Google seems too embarrassed to pursue it, at least now that it’s been called out for it:

A Google spokesperson told Fox News that after analyzing web content about “Unplanned,” there was a large volume that called the movie propaganda. But after being made aware of facts that have been disputed through the company’s “Knowledge Graph,” the company works to fix issues, the spokesperson said.

After the controversy was sparked, Google has updated its search results, removing the propaganda tag.

That leaves a question or two unanswered, though. What’s the tag doing there at all? Do they routinely assign that tag, or is it just kept handy for point-of-view films whose POV Google opposes? Their explanation doesn’t make a lot of sense, although it may well be true anyway. If they really categorize film genres by analyzing “web content” rather than just the declared genre by the film company, who knows how those tags could turn out? Battlefield Earth might get tagged as a comedy, and for all the laughs you get out it, Date Movie might have been tagged as an apocalyptic dystopian drama. And don’t even get me started on the Andromeda Strain remake.

Honestly, if Google applied that propaganda tag in an even-handed manner, it might make sense, especially for films like Vice and Michael Moore’s documentaries. His film Sicko practically came out of Cuba’s ministry for propaganda in the first place. Given Hollywood’s propensity for mixing political agendas into a broad range of their product and the “web content” generated by their promotion campaigns (think Captain Marvel and the Ghostbusters reboot), it might turn out to be a rather handy flag for moviegoers who don’t want to enroll in a Hollywood Re-Education Camp Annex. But if Google’s not prepared to apply that tag even-handedly, it shouldn’t exist at all.

That’s hardly the only media controversy involving Unplanned, but the Washington Post’s Ann Hornaday thinks the complaints are basically a marketing gimmick. It didn’t get many reviews, she says, because the filmmakers didn’t set up pre-release screenings on a wide basis:

No one at The Post received notice that “Unplanned” was available for advance consideration, even by link. A colleague in New York who says he was not notified of the preview there instead attended the very first public showing of the film so he could file his review that night. A critic in the Midwest was invited to the L.A. screening, which would have made for an impossible commute under the best of circumstances.

Still, the fact that reviews of “Unplanned” didn’t appear in several mainstream outlets has only strengthened the narrative that media has “ignored” the film, prompting stories reinforcing the notion that the liberal media is once again dismissing entertainment they deem politically unacceptable or pop-culturally beneath them. (“The movie abortion supporters don’t want you to see,” blared a typical headline on my own newspaper’s website.) It surely doesn’t help that the “Unplanned” Twitter account was briefly and mysteriously suspended on March 30, understandably fueling more conspiratorial outrage. The film’s directors have also complained about receiving an R rating from the Motion Picture Association of America.

By leveraging all this grievance into loads of free publicity — called “earned awareness” in advertising parlance — the producers of “Unplanned” have created a box-office bonanza. Gaining valuable word-of-mouth by way of screenings at churches, conferences and for individual opinion leaders (a playbook perfected with “The Passion of the Christ” 15 years ago), the “Unplanned” team has brilliantly connected with the film’s core audience, amassing an impressive box office return of $13 million and counting.

Hornaday’s not entirely wrong here, but let’s also recall the context. Unplanned had a $6 million budget, on the low end even for indie films. The budget wasn’t there for a massive PR campaign and tons of private screenings for critics. Even after holding screenings in New York and Los Angeles — two major media centers — Unplanned only got a dozen or so reviews in the first few days of its release on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s about to go into its third weekend and Rotten Tomatoes still only has 21 reviews aggregated (48% “fresh, by the way). Compare that to Hotel Mumbai, which has a smaller release footprint and also is in its third week of release, and which has … 127 reviews aggregated.

Maybe it was inconvenient to get to the film the first couple of days, but critics have had plenty of time to catch up to Unplanned. They just aren’t interested in covering it, while social-media platforms seem more interested in covering it up.

The post Google: Hey, our bad for labeling Unplanned as “propaganda” appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Comey’s Excuse: I Didn’t Regard Electronic Surveillance As Spying

This really is an evil clown show. Via Daily Caller: Former FBI Director James Comey contended Thursday that electronic surveillance of individuals really doesn’t amount to “spying,” as Attorney General William Barr suggested during a congressional hearing this week. Comey told CNN he doesn’t “know what [Barr] is talking about when he talks about spying […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us