Atlantic editor admits major claim on Trump hit piece could be wrong

Atlantic magazine Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a 2019 interview with

Nieman Lab’s Laura Hazard Owen said women and people of color are few and far between when it comes to writing cover stories for his magazine. And when he got pushback on Twitter for his words, he blamed the woman journalist who published the story. The theme of the interview was about recent diversity achievements of the Atlantic, the fakest of fake news magazine in America. 

Goldberg agreed that the writers of the Atlantic print edition's most important pieces are overwhelmingly White male written and it was pointed out by Nieman Lab that of the 15 issues published that year, eleven had cover stories written by men.

Here’s what Jeffrey Goldberg said:

It’s really, really hard to write a 10,000-word cover story. There are not a lot of journalists in America who can do it. The journalists in America who do it are almost exclusively white males. What I have to do — and I haven’t done this enough yet — is again about experience versus potential. You can look at people and be like, well, your experience is writing 1,200-word pieces for the web and you’re great at it, so good going! 

That’s one way to approach it, but the other way to approach it is, huh, you’re really good at this and you have a lot of potential and you’re 33 and you’re burning with ambition, and that’s great, so let us put you on a deliberate pathway toward writing 10,000-word cover stories. It might not work. It often doesn’t. But we have to be very deliberate and efficient about creating the space for more women to develop that particular journalistic muscle.

So there's that about Goldberg.

A recent anti-Trump hit piece in the Atlantic claimed that President Trump referred to soldiers who died in World War One as "losers." The piece claimed that Trump didn't want to make the helicopter trip to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 and "he blamed the rain for the last-minute decision, saying 'the helicopter couldn't fly' and the Secret Service wouldn't drive him there."

The hit piece even claimed that he rejected the idea of the cemetery visit because his hair would get messed up in the rain "and because he didn't think it was important to honor the American war dead," Goldberg wrote, citing only anonymous [likely make-believe] sources.

After the article was published, Goldberg went on to say that there was going to be a lot more shade thrown on Trump to follow.

But people who were with the President when the remarks were allegedly made denied he ever said them. Even John Bolton, an avid Trump-hater who wrote a book about the President, said that he never heard those words and he agreed that the reason was due to the weather:

“Marine One’s crew was saying that bad visibility could make it imprudent to chopper to the cemetery. The ceiling was not too low for Marines to fly in combat, but flying POTUS was obviously something very different. If a motorcade was necessary, it could take between ninety and a hundred and twenty minutes each way, along roads that were not exactly freeways, posing an unacceptable risk that we could not get the President out of France quickly enough in case of an emergency,” Bolton wrote. 

“It was a straightforward decision to cancel the visit but very hard for a Marine like Kelly to recommend, having originally been the one to suggest Belleau Wood… Trump agreed, and it was decided that others would drive to the cemetery instead.”

Let's not pretend if Bolton heard Trump make those remarks that he would not put it in his book. In fact, he'd probably put it on the book jacket with a cartoon bubble over Trump's head stating those words.

On Sunday, Goldberg finally admitted the White House’s account that President Trump’s trip to a cemetery of fallen World War I soldiers in France in 2018 was modified due to bad weather is probably accurate.

Probably accurate.

“I’m sure all of those things are true,” Goldberg told CNN in an interview on Friday when asked to respond to evidence a story he published saying otherwise is false.

The Atlantic's major stockholder is Laurene Jobs, the billionaire heiress to the Steve Jobs fortune and the largest Biden donor for his election campaign. So even she had a dog in this race, or in this case, a 77-year-old guy whose mental capacity has declined to the level of cabbage.

Despite conceding that the cancellation due to weather might be true, Goldberg stood by his story about President Trump’s trip to the cemetery, claiming that “the public’s interest in meeting this information outweigh the ambiguities or the difficulties of anonymous sourcing” and that he will “be continuing to make that effort to move this material directly onto the record.”

When you have a story supported only by anonymous sources in contrast to denials of the story by known sources, even some who would hope it was true, you should not go ahead and print it.

But we're just a few weeks out from the election and the mud [if that's what that funny smell is] is flying.

Yet it isn't as if The Atlantic has refused to published false stories before this one. If you believe Trump would be crazy enough to make a statement that he knows would go public and destroy his reelection hopes, then nothing could convince you otherwise, even if you were there.

President Trump denied the claims by Goldberg and his anonymous sources, saying that other people on the trip such as the Secret Service and Gen. Keith Kellogg can “refute” the allegations.

“I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more. So I just think it’s a horrible, horrible thing,” he told reporters as he deplaned from Air Force One. “We made a great evening into, frankly, a very sad evening, when I see a statement like that. No animal, nobody — what animal would say such a thing?” 

Seriously, you have to be stupid to believe this story.

C'mon, man. You know you want to follow Brain Flushings--it's free and worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a liberal sheds a tear.






Tweet

Black supremacist Jemele Hill calls for black athletes to leave 'white' colleges

Black supremacist Jemele Hill, who in the past made salacious tweets that President Trump is a white supremacist, is now calling for black athletes to leave "white" colleges [she doesn't define the term] because she believes that the schools make all the money and the athletes are not compensated for their play in sports.

Hill evidently doesn't see the value of a college scholarship or the public exposure an athlete gets for his performance, which often translates into a lucrative sports contract at best, and an education at the very least. But when everything you see is in terms of a person's melanin, you often miss those nuances, 

The former ESPN writer who was suspended for calling President Trump a white supremacist without evidence [beyond some dumb things he has said], is calling for black athletes to leave those 'white' colleges. She is now a staff writer for The Atlantic, a leftist magazine that fired conservative Kevin Williamson for being Kevin Williamson after giving his opinions about abortion.

Hill's first article for the magazine, titled, "It's Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges," has drawn a range of responses -- including assertions that Hill is "pro-segregation" or "racist," and that she isn't the one to decide where an athlete should go to school.

Hill argues that black athletes help bring in money and attention to the "predominantly white universities that showcase them," while Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) continue to struggle.

She writes that mostly white schools’ [aka schools whose students are mostly lower on the melanin scale than HBCUs] multibillion-dollar revenues have been built on the “exertions of (uncompensated) black athletes," claiming that an elite black athlete attending an HBCU raises awareness of the institution, whose endowments combined are less than a tenth of Harvard’s.

The racist Hill writes that HBCUs have graduated a significant number of black professionals, a thriving HBCU lifts up the community around it and finally, that some black students “feel safer, both physically and emotionally," at an HBCU – “all the more so as racial tensions have risen in recent years,” a claim that needs actual data to prove.

“Navigating a predominantly white campus as a black student can feel isolating, even for athletes,” she adds, again with nothing to substantiate her claim.

"The flight of black athletes to majority-white colleges has been devastating to HBCUs," she writes, positing, "What if a group of elite athletes collectively made the choice to attend HBCUs?" What if it isn't a "flight" at all, but merely a choice? Usually a flight is a journey from somewhere to somewhere, but it isn't as if black students are fleeing from predominantly black institutions to go to white institutions--but if they were, that would be their freedom to do so.

Hill, like most liberals, doesn't practice what she preaches--she attended Michigan State University [Go Spartans!] which is not an HBCU but merely a U. She left ESPN last year after incessantly attacking President Trump and making ESPN something other than a sports network. She tweeted that President Trump is a "white supremacist" and a "bigot" who was "unqualified and unfit to be president."

But ESPN did nothing initially to punish her for the tweet but then suspended her for two weeks in October 2017, after she violated the company’s social media guidelines again. She called upon fans to boycott the Dallas Cowboys' advertisers after owner Jerry Jones demanded his players respect the American flag and national anthem and not take a knee during its playing or they would be benched.

That was a real empty-headed move, to boycott your own family's money providers.


Please consider following this blog and feel free to click on the ads on this page. It costs nothing, and may just save your life. Or not. But seriously, please check out the ads as this is my source of generating revenue. And you can also see my blog on the Times of Israel.




Tweet

Chelsea "upset" with Bannon for "fat shaming' Spicer

Howdy Doody lookalike Chelsea Clinton was upset with Steve Bannon for making fun of Sean Spicer's weight.

Rosie Gray of The Atlantic wrote that Chelsea is upset that Bannon said the reason why White House briefings were currently being held off camera is because "Sean [Spicer] got fatter."

And this was said by a rather corpulent Bannon, so perhaps it was just tongue-in-cheek, unless he doesn't own a mirror.

But really, I suspect Bannon was just breaking Spicer's chops with playful banter and giving us, the American people, a laugh-out-loud moment in a world where laughing is met by hearty "Allahu Akbars" and blood.

So of course, Chelsea Clinton had to get into the act. She couldn't deal with the fact that America couldn't give a rat's keister about her and she just had to step onto Bannon's comedic moment to show us all just how woke she is.

"The White House using fat shaming to justify increased opacity, 2017. --Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton)

The fact that Ms. Doody has to go after two guys busting each other's chops and having fun is sad, but sad in the way that Hillary Clinton is sad for us to watch as she tries to be relevant.


But not sad for me--I'm glad Chelsea's momma is irrelevant.

Hopefully, Sean Spicer will be able to get through the Bannon ridicule and joshing and will not develop bulimia or anorexia. 

But Chelsea continued: 

"Oh ok. So using fat shaming to avoid answering questions about increasing opacity. Got it. 2017."

She's so on point, so brilliant with her remarks and verbal demonstrations. So 1990s.

Chelsea deftly responded to a tweet about how calculated she is:

"Hi Jim! Just me as I was standing in line @Starbucks earlier. Fat shaming isn't a joke I find funny. Ever."

Hillary must've gotten on her case for something she said about her pantsuit look.

Funny how liberals always take the moral superiority route, even when they're killing the unborn.


Tweet

The Atlantic retracts claim that fetal heartbeats are 'imaginary'

The Atlantic one of Washington liberal rag-mags of record published a fake article attacking ultrasound technology. It then published several updates to fix their fake facts without acknowledging the extent of the corrections.

The fake article was "How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea That a Fetus is a Person" on Tuesday. In a 2,500 word article, it argued that ultrasound technology "has been used to create an imaginary 'heartbeat' and sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus." 


The article, by Moira Weigel, a Yale PhD candidate in comparative literature, included no less than three major errors that the publication corrected. It originally claimed that fetal heartbeats depicted in ultrasound are "imaginary" because there is no heart in the body during the early stages of development.

Weigel should stick with comparative literature.

"It is dubious to call this movement a 'heartbeat'; there is no heart to speak of [at six weeks]," she wrote.

Actual medical experts and medical textbooks disagree with the comparative literature PhD candidate.

According to the Mayo Clinic's website, "just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby's back is closing and your baby's heart is pumping blood."

The Atlantic deleted that sentence from the fake story, dropping all mention of heartbeats captured by ultrasound were imaginary. The editors revised the headline to read: "How Ultrasounds Became Political: The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus."


Weigel also got John Kasich's governorship wrong--he is not the governor of Indiana (that was Mike Pence) but Ohio. 

Sloppy research.

It was Kasich's veto of fetal heartbeat legislation to which the article referred.

The really annoying thing was that The Atlantic didn't publish a notice of correction along with its edits. A spokes liar for the rag mag said the "editors were still reviewing" the article four hours after publication. 

Sloppy editors.

When a correction was posted on the site, it didn't reflect the other changes made on the fake article.

"This article originally stated that there is 'no heart to speak of' in a six-week-old fetus. By that point in a pregnancy, a heart has already begun to form. We regret the error," it says.

This is what you get when liberal literature majors try writing a convincing liberal article using science as the medium--it just goes beyond their ken. 



Tweet

Who or what murdered those 9 innocent Americans?

At what point is it going to take the American public to come together and realize that politics is not only dividing us as a country, but is a form of schizophrenia that would make a Martian scratch his six heads in confusion?

An obvious mentally deranged 21-year-old racist sat with his victims for an hour, spoke with them, accepted their Christian hospitality, and then methodically shot them, reloading several times in this horrific act.

Before Roof began shooting, a parishioner confronted him and attempted to calm him. According to Syvia Stevenson Johnson, cousin of the slain pastor, Rev. Clementa Pinckney, Roof allegedly shouted: "No. You've raped our women and you've stolen and you've taken over the country, so no, this must be done."

Still, there are many liberals who don't blame the shooter; they blame the gun. Some blame the Confederate flag for the killing of 9 African-American Bible study attendees. 

It's a form of schizophrenia suffered by the left that has gone undiagnosed since Obama took the White House and made the office of the president "too cool for school."

Objects don't "do" and thus cannot be assigned blame for the act of a human hand. Guns, knives, ice picks, scissors, hammers, and swords are tools that can serve a good or bad purpose but that fully depends on the human being using it. Hell, even icicles can kill, so maybe liberals should embrace global warming and save the lives of the innocent victims whose killers saw the Alfred Hitchcock movie where an icicle was used as the murder weapon and the evidence was destroyed by melting.

But no matter what happens, liberals will try to "never let a good crisis go to waste," as Winston Churchill said and Rahm Emmanuel repeated.

Before the first African-American victim was laid to rest, Obama blamed gun control. In other words, he blamed the gun for the massacre. Somehow he believes that if there were even more strict gun control laws, Dylann Roof would have complied with it and wouldn't have broken the law. (I think I just heard a 6-headed Martian laugh.)

But the most serious schizophrenic reaction, if one is to take the purveyor of this crap seriously, is the article by Ta-Nehisi Coates article in The Atlantic. It's the liberal way of blaming the racist shooting on all white people, not merely Roof.

"Coates' military utility cap has killed more innocent victims than ISIS"

The article focuses on the South Carolina statehouse where the Confederate flag flies. Coates writes:

The Confederate flag's defenders often claim it represents "heritage not hate." I agree--the heritage of White Supremacy was not so much birthed by hate as by the impulse toward plunder. Dylann Roof plundered nine different bodies last night, plundering nine different families of an original member, plundered nine different communities of a singular member. An entire people are poorer for his action. The flag that Roof embraced, which many South Carolinians embrace, does not stand in opposition to this act--it endorses it. That the Confederate flag is the symbol of white supremacists is evidenced by the very words of those who birthed it.

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth . . . 

And Coates blathers on about how Roof honored the flag with his sacrifice--which he chickened out of at the end. Coates assumes that Roof is even aware of Confederate history and has the cerebral synapses to symbolically express it in his crazed actions. 

Roof has the mental capacity of a wall. He clearly is a racist and he clearly hates the successes of the African-American community. But to blame a flag? That is sooo MSNBC. 

We still have racism in our country--there is no doubt about that because racism is part of the human condition, albeit the exception, rather than the rule. The race hustlers, like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson stand to gain by bringing race into the equation of every interaction between blacks and whites. President Obama uses race for political gain. 

Mr. Coates should know better than to blame a flag.

But maybe Coates does know better and simply has the need to express his own hatred for white Americans. Or maybe he's just out trying to make a buck off his copious vocabulary and racist Sharptongue.

Tweet

The Definition of a Coward and a Chickens**t

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a "coward" and "chickenshit," what do we call the anonymous White House aide who called him that? It's hard to tell, because like the First Lady, the aide is hiding behind his or her Twitter account.

It's disgraceful for anyone in Obama's administration to use terms like the above to describe a man who joined the Israel Defense Forces during the Six-Day War in 1967 and served as a team leader in Sayeret Matkel special forces unit where he went into combat on many missions like Operation Gift in 1968 and Operation Isotope in 1972. He was shot in the shoulder on that last mission but went on to fight in the War of Attrition and Yom Kippur War in 1973 and took part in special forces raids along the Suez Canal.

Netanyahu lead a commando assault deep into Syria before he was discharged a captain from the IDF.

I wonder who the badass in the White House staff is who called him a coward and chickenshit.

We drew the short straw

But Josh Not-So-Earnest walked it back a little when asked by the press if Obama and cronies agreed with the remark. Earnest said the remarks were "counterproductive." Not that they were offensive, untrue and cowardly--they were simply not going to get us anywhere with Israel.

"Comments like that do not reflect the administration's views," the pencil-neck Earnest said, and described the U.S.-Israeli relationship "as strong as ever." 

If you believe the Obama administration's relationship with Israel is as strong as ever, you probably also believe that "it don't rain in Indianapolis." Obama never showed any liking or even comfort around Netanyahu. My theory is that real men, like those in the military, intimidate him and remind him of the father that never stayed.

The Atlantic published a story where senior administration officials described Benjamin Netanyahu as a cowardly politician who was only motivated by self-interest. One of these geeks said, 'The good thing about Netanyahu is that he's scared to launch wars."

Now this guy, whoever he is, happens to be everything used to falsely describe Netanyahu. The fact is, Netanyahu is not afraid to launch a war, but he isn't going to launch an unnecessary one--Israel is surrounded by Islamic Jew-haters with big guns. You don't start a war with them--you fight them when it's time.

The fact that nobody in this administration admonished the cretin who called Bibi these names shows that Obama and his butt-kissers believe it's true. This person who did it should be outed for the coward that he is, and shown the door. If nothing is done, then it's obvious that Obama stands behind the creep.


Tweet