Donald Trump's New War Against Media: Blocking Free press First Sign Of Tyranny?

Donald Trump’s war against media is escalating with each passing day, and it seems there will be no end to it in the foreseeable future. Is he purposely escalating the “fake media” war as a part of some larger strategy? President Trump further intensified his attack on journalists via a speech at Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. He slammed the media outlets for creating fake stories. Trump clarified his earlier tweet and blamed the media for misrepresenting the facts. He said that he had called the “fake news” as “the enemy of the people,” and not the entire press. But the recent incident at White House has taken Donald Trump’s war against media to a different level. As reported by Politico, White House excluded reporters from media outlets it did not like, from a press conference held on Friday. [Image by Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Images] Customarily, the news briefing is open to all news organizations and is a televised coverage of the White House. As per his original schedule, Spicer was supposed to do the usual press briefing. However, White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer decided to do the press conference off camera and with only a selected few news outlets. The New York Times, Buzzfeed, Politico, CNN, The Hill, and LA Times were blocked from entering the press conference. On the other hand, right-leaning Breitbart, One America News, and Washington Times were all allowed. Appalling: White House bars @nytimes, @cnn, @politico from briefing. https://t.co/kpMjWCrv7l — Marty Baron (@PostBaron) February 24, 2017 Donald Trump’s ranting against “fake media” is one thing but the actual blocking of free press from attending a White House press conference was totally unexpected and is being perceived by many as an attack on democracy. Dean Baquet, executive editor of New York Times, said in a statement, “nothing like this has ever happened at the White House in our long history.” While a statement by CNN said, “Apparently this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don’t like. We’ll keep reporting regardless.” While, David Frum, Senior Editor at The Atlantic wrote, “If you’re a news outlet allowed into a Trump White House gaggle, you need to ask yourself: what am I doing wrong?” Notwithstanding what people associated with media outlets that were blocked from the news conference said about the unfortunate incident, Sean Spicer himself had criticized the blocking of the free press in the past. Donald Trump had revoked credentials of several reputable media outlets during his campaign. Defending the move back then, Spicer had made it clear that they would never do such as thing when they form the government. He had further added, “There is something you can’t ban as an entity, that’s what makes a democracy a democracy versus a dictatorship”. Donald Trump has time and again tried to cast himself as the people’s champion in the war against establishments. It is believed that the media outlets banned from the press conference had reported negative coverage of the White House. The New York Times had reported a story indicating repeated contacts between Russian intelligence officials and Trump’s campaign members. Similarly, Buzzfeed had posted dossier on alleged Donald Trump-Russia ties. Donald Trump also lashed out at the anonymous sources used by media organizations, during his speech at the CPAC conference. He reiterated the fact that he was against “fake media” who make up sources and stories, as reported by Telegraph. Trump added that media outlets should not be allowed to use sources unless they name them. He further added, “Let their name be out there, Let there be no more sources (anonymous).” 76 percent Trump supporters believe he is right about media [Image by Alex Brandon/AP Images] While Donald Trump continues his fight against media, it is worth noting that his first month in the White House shows dismal performance. There was no significant achievement for him as his biggest accomplishment, the travel and immigration order is still in courts. To add to his woes, there have been several leaks from within his government, and several scandals have emerged implicating his associates. With no opposition to attack, Donald Trump is trying to shift the focus by attacking the media. According to the latest poll released by Quinnipiac University poll, 76 percent of the Republican voters believe that Trump is telling the truth about the media, whereas 86 percent Democratic voters trust the media. This large variation between the Republicans and Democratic voters is baffling. It appears that Donald Trump is trying to eradicate the credibility of the media by constantly attacking them and calling them “fake news.” But, the latest move of blocking non-friendly media outlets from a press conference is going too far in the strategy of attacking the media. Is blocking the free press the first sign of tyranny? Let us know your views in the comments section below. [Featured Image by Alex Brandon/AP Images]

Anderson Cooper: FBI Refused Request To Suppress Trump Russia Stories

Anderson Cooper claimed that Donald Trump wanted the FBI to interfere with the media. After introducing the claim, he had some guests on to elaborate on Trump’s efforts. “So, Anderson — CNN is told that the FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications during the 2016 presidential campaign between Donald Trump’s associates and advisers and Russians that are known to U.S. intellegence, Chief National Security Correspondent Jm Sciutto told Cooper, and he added that White House sought other agencies investigating the matter to say that communications didn’t happen. After Anderson Cooper noted that this wasn’t a typical request, Justice Correspondent Evan Perez said that this began the day after several stories were published. White House officials said that the New York Times in particular vastly overstated what the FBI knew. Perez added that the White House wanted the FBI to at least dispute the stories, but they refused and declined to comment for this particular story. Anderson Cooper thinks the White House is covering up a lot of information. [Image by Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images] Cooper noted that White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus denied having constant contact with Russian spies. He then showed a video of Priebus’ denial. “Basically, these are treasonous-like accusations. We have all kinds of people looking into this. I can assure you that the top levels of the intelligence community assured me that this story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated. And it was wrong,” Priebus says in the video. The New York Times article that came out on February 14 was called “fake news” by many on the right. However, the accusations were explosive. “Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” The article adds that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee — this is something that has been confirmed by three officials. Anderson Cooper noted that the investigation is still ongoing and that Priebus is focusing on the New York Times instead of the CNN report, which is different. “If Reince Priebus is saying there is nothing to the reports of communications between Trump advisers and Russians known to U.S. intelligence insiders during the campaign, that’s not accurate,” Sciutto said to Cooper, adding that the FBI really is investigating all the communications, and Congress is investigating as well. Evan Perez stressed that the communication on this between the White House and FBI is unusual, and the request the White House made to the FBI would appear to violate procedures that limit these types of communications on pending investigations. “Either way, the White House asking the FBI to help refute stories runs contrary to the Justice Department’s procedures that were issued in 2007,” Perez angrily claimed. Donald Trump hopes to pass through a revised travel ban. [Image by Sean Rayford/Getty Images] Anderson Cooper also spent time talking about the newly drafted travel ban that President Trump hopes to pass. He noted that there were new efforts from the administration to provide a factual basis for the ban. According to Justice Correspondent Pamela Brown, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Justice Dept. are working on an intelligence report that will demonstrate that the security threat for seven countries is substantial and that these countries have all been exporters of terrorism into the United States. Do you think Anderson Cooper accurately covered the issues of the FBI communications and the travel ban? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section. [Featured Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Trump Tweets 'Love' To A Muslim: DNC President Nominee Keith Ellison

Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison is currently in the running as a Democratic National Committee (DNC) president nominee at their meeting held February 23 through 25. While Keith Ellison is a shew-in to become the next DNC president when elections are held on Saturday, February 25, according to NBC News, his one unexpected ally is Donald Trump. On Twitter on February 22, Donald Trump surprisingly tweeted, “One thing I will say about Rep. Keith Ellison, in his fight to lead the DNC, is that he was the one who predicted early that I would win!” While the tweet was likely meant to get a rise out of Democrats, many of those that retweeted about Donald Trump’s Keith Ellison post stated that Trump “must have no idea Keith is Muslim.” In 2007, Keith Ellison became the first Muslim person to become a member of Congress, and he has been a target of anti-Muslim hysteria by the conservatives, since. Bernie Sanders stands behind the nomination for Keith Ellison to DNC president. [Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images] Despite this, Democrats see Keith Ellison differently, and New Republic included this idea in an opinion piece about why Ellison is the preferred candidate over Tom Perez. Namely, Ellison’s background as a Muslim makes him more enticing as a Democratic National Committee president because he represents a “seemingly ideal combination for a party that champions diversity and economic equality.” Furthermore, Ellison is supported by “young progressives” — the group of Democratic voters that favored Bernie Sanders for President over Hillary Clinton. As far as being a Muslim, the main sticking point for Keith Ellison’s conservative opponents is that, as a young man, Keith Ellison, he was associated with members of the former Nation of Islam. When Keith Ellison converted to Islam at age 19, he joined the newly formed American Society of Muslims, according to New Yorker. American Society of Muslims was a group that was organized by politician Warith Deen Mohammed, and he inherited Nation of Islam from Elijah Muhammad. Warith Deen Mohammed condemned racial separatism and promoted Sunni Islam, instead. In other words, Keith Ellison was practicing Sunni Islam, and the accusations that he was participating directly in the doctrine of the Nation of Islam are rather thin. The idea that Keith Ellison is currently tied to the Nation of Islam has been eschewed for over 10 years. For example, In 2006, Keith Ellison publicly distanced himself from the Nation of Islam after there was an attempt to scandalize him in the press, and he stated at that time that he saw Louis Farrakhan as an “anti-Semite and a bigot.” Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren support similar ideals as Keith Ellison. [Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images] In late 2016, Chicago Tribune reported that Keith Ellison has been denounced by the Nation of Islam as a “hypocrite” for calling Louis Farrakhan anti-semitic. Despite this, Keith Ellison regularly has to answer to concerned citizens that are worried his Muslim faith might be a problem. For example, New Yorker pointed out that Keith Ellison was wise to announce he was going to run for DNC president as soon as possible because he would be facing “several obstacles” such as “recurring questions about his more radical past.” There will also need to be time for Democrats to suss through rumors perpetuated online about Keith Ellison that are often found in search engine results. For example, Snopes had a write up specifically on the rumor being circulated that Keith Ellison used a Koran to rest his hand on during the swearing in. Although it is obviously difficult to constantly field the general public’s insecurity about the parameters of his Muslim faith, Keith Ellison has many positive things to say about his time in Congress. For example, about being a Muslim in Congress, Keith Ellison was interviewed in 2014, according to US News, and said American Muslims are the “scapegoat du jour” — but things are getting better on Capitol Hill. Interestingly, one of the people that made Keith Ellison comfortable with the fact that he swore into office with the Koran was former DNC president, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. When she saw that Ellison was being grilled about this aspect of winning the election, she told him that she was similar to him because she used “a copy of the Tanakh, which is Jewish scripture,” to swear in instead of the Bible. Of course, many Muslims appreciate Keith Ellison because he stands up for them in Congress against Trump. For example, CBS News pointed out on January 29 that Keith Ellison was one of the first to identify that Trump’s executive orders on immigration were deplorable because they were, in fact, a “Muslim ban.” [Feature Image by Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Analyzes Illegal Immigration Issue

Bill O’Reilly dealt with one of his favorite topics on The O’Reilly Factor Wednesday evening — illegal immigration. “An online Harvard-Harris poll provided to The Hill is shocking, but please maintain some skepticism,” O’Reilly began his “Talking Points Memo” segment by saying. He noted that 80 percent of respondents in the poll oppose cities turning over arrested illegal immigrants to ICE officials. 53 percent of the people polled opposed building a border wall, while 47 percent support this idea. 53 percent support an executive order suspending the U.S. refugee program for 120 days, while 47 percent oppose the order. When asked about 100,000 Syrian refugees being accepted in 2017, 51 percent of respondents said that number should be lowered. 34 percent agree with the number, and 15 percent believe more refugees should be allowed. Bill O”Reilly is surprised by the number of Americans who are against sanctuary cities. [Image by Randy Holmes /Getty Images] “If the polling is accurate, that survey is a stunning rebuke to the liberal sanctuary city movement,” O’Reilly continued and talked about a couple recent crimes committed by illegal immigrants. One of those immigrants is 19-year-old Ever Valles, a gang member who was released from the Denver Sheriff Department, despite ICE asking that he be held. Then, Valles participated in the murder of 32-year-old Tim Cruz. O’Reilly condemned Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman, who said that detaining anyone without a criminal warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment. “The Sheriff Patrick Firman is full of it. There is no violation of the law in holding someone for the federal government. The sheriff upholds the sanctuary city mantra as does the mayor, Michael Hancock,” O’Reilly noted, adding that both men have blood on their hands. Bill O’Reilly then moved on to discuss the reaction inside Mexico to Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration. He asked a journalist, Giselle Fernandez, if Mexicans (in general) are angry about the criminal illegal aliens being targeted for deportation. “They’re angry and they’re protesting the streets over Trump’s ramped-up negative narrative against Mexican immigrants — legal and undocumented,” Fernandez told O’Reilly, who accused her of not really answering the question by avoiding the word “criminal.” Giselle Fernandez believes Trump has blurred the lines on what makes a “criminal.” [Image by Ron Sachs-Pool/Getty Images] Rather than talking about the illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, Fernandez told O’Reilly that it’s wrong to use the word “illegal” to describe an entire community. She then got more specific. “What defines criminal? Is it an expired visa?” she asked O’Reilly and then said she doesn’t think Mexicans oppose criminals who commit violent crimes being deported. O’Reilly than asked journalist Ruben Navarrette the same question. He said that Trump administration may not be able to see the difference between those undocumented who come here to work and those who commit violent crimes. He noted that just in the last 72 hours, we’ve seen the administration blur the lines of what makes a criminal. Navarette noted that most Mexicans in Mexico vehemently oppose the wall that Trump wants to build. However, he also said that Mexican Americans are not as opposed to the idea, even if they aren’t loudly supportive. However, according to Salon, Donald Trump is struggling to keep his border wall promise. “It has already been established that a U.S.-Mexico border wall, which was one of President Donald Trump’s most famous campaign pledges, would cost at least $20 billion and most likely do little if anything to improve America’s border security. Then again, this discussion may be moot anyway, since it doesn’t look like the Trump administration has made much progress in actually constructing the thing.” “He hasn’t made any progress other than to say, ‘We’re going to do it,’” Seth Stodder, a former senior homeland security official, is quoted as saying. Bill O’Reilly believes that a wall may help curb the flow of drug traffic and can’t understand why Mexicans would be opposed to it. Do you agree with Mr. O’Reilly. Let us know your thoughts in the comments section. [Featured Image by John Moore/Getty Images]

Even Most Trump-Friendly Poll Shows Half Of America Dislikes His Job Performance

The daily Rasmussen poll, which has been the friendliest poll toward Donald Trump over the first month of his presidency, on Tuesday showed half of Americans saying they disapprove of Trump’s job performance — for the first time. The highest previous disapproval rating for Trump in the Rasmussen poll was 49 percent, recorded on Monday of this week. The Rasmussen poll has been what statisticians refer to as an “outlier” in the field of daily Trump job approval polls, consistently showing more than 50 percent of American likely voters giving the thumbs-up to Trump in the early days of his term. As recently as Friday, February 17, the Rasmussen poll put Trump’s approve rating at a healthy 55 percent. But Trump lost five points — a full nine percent of his support — just over the holiday weekend, according to Rasmussen. Americans registered their disapproval of Trump not only in polls but in protests across the country over the past weekend. [Image by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images] The Rasmussen poll released Tuesday, despite giving Trump his highest disapproval rating so far, stood in stark contrast to two other polls made public on the same day. A Gallup daily tracking poll on Tuesday showed 53 percent of Americans disapproving of Trump’s performance on the job, while only 41 percent approved of the job Trump has done so far. Rasmussen showed 50 percent approval as well as 50 percent disapproval, an even split. Also on Tuesday, an American Research Group poll placed Trump at 51 percent disapproval and 43 percent approval — results in line with the Gallup findings. In the major polling averages, Trump’s approval also lagged far behind the Trump-friendly Rasmussen results. The Huffington Post Pollster.com average of all polls put Trump at 51 percent disapproval and 43.5 percent approval. MORE DONALD TRUMP COVERAGE FROM THE INQUISITR:
The Donald Trump Russia Connection: 5 Facts You Should Know About Candidate’s Possible Ties To Putin
Trump: Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent Of U.S. Uranium To Russia — Lie Or Fact?
Lowest Presidential Approval Ratings: Trump Beats Past Presidents To The Bottom
Donald Trump Will Resign, Oddsmakers Say — Vegas Sees Good Chance Trump Quits
At Rally, Trump Claims Sweden Terrorism Attack ‘Last Night’ — Lie Or Fact?
New Donald Trump Impeachment Poll: Move To Impeach Picking Up Steam In A Hurry
H.R. McMaster: Conflict With Trump Could Lie Ahead For National Security Adviser
New Donald Trump Poll Numbers: ‘Obama Come Back!’ Most Say
Donald Trump, Russia, And Rosneft: Vladimir Putin Oil Mystery — Shares Sold To Mystery Buyer Once Offered As Trump Bribe The Real Clear Politics average shows similar results, with 50.4 percent disapproval for Trump compared to 45.1 percent who give the okay to his presidency just over one month in. Rasmussen, despite showing generally favorable results for Trump, also found more than 50 percent of Americans saying that they believe Trump to be under the influence of Russia in his policy decision-making. Russian President Vladimir Putin holds influence over Donald Trump, more than half of Americans believe, according to Rasmussen. [Image by Toru Yamanaka/Getty Images] Why do the results vary widely between Rasmussen and most other Trump job approval polls? According to polling analyst Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, the answer may lie in the methods used by Rasmussen to conduct its polling, compare to other pollsters. “Trump’s approval ratings are systematically higher in polls of voters — either registered voters or likely voters — than they are in polls of all adults. And they’re systematically higher in polls conducted online or by automated script than they are in polls conducted by live-telephone interviewers.” Rasmussen does not base its polls on live interviews but describes itself as “a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology.” Rasmussen also includes only “likely voters” in its surveys, while other pollsters such as Gallup poll a representative sample of all American adults, without filtering out non-voters or those unlikely to vote. But even with its methodology that has given Trump his highest approval ratings of a poll, the dramatic drop in approval according to the latest Rasmussen poll will likely give Trump reason to be concerned. [Featured Image by Kevin Dietsch — Pool/Getty Images]

After Abortion: Born Alive, Abortion Survivors Speak Up For Those Who Can't

Norma McCorvey was the plaintiff in the 1973 Supreme court ruling Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal within the United States. Referred to as Jane Roe, McCorvey was a young pregnant woman who wished for an abortion. During the lengthy trial, she ended up giving her child up for adoption instead. The New York Times reported that after winning the case in the Supreme court, McCorvey changed her stance on abortion. She claimed that she had been “used and exploited” by the women’s movement and the Supreme Court of the United States to bring abortion to America. She spoke with many women after abortion and spent her later adult years fighting to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling. She died at the age of 69 on Saturday, February 18. Norma McCorvey trying to overturn Roe v. Wade ruling. [Image by Tony Gutierrez/AP Images] Since the initial Roe v. Wade ruling, approximately 50 million abortions have been reported in the United States. Revisions, which impose restrictions to abortion practices, have been made over the years. According to an analysis by Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortions has decreased over the past few decades. “When women have access to a broad method mix that includes highly effective methods. They can choose the method that is best suited for them. This reduces their risk of unintended pregnancy and leads to better health outcomes for women and their families.” The decline, across all demographic groups, in abortion statistics is primarily due to an increase in contraceptive usage. That being said, the CDC claims “that states and areas voluntarily report data to the CDC for inclusion in its annual Abortion Surveillance Report,” meaning that the known statistics actually read lower than the actual occurrence of abortion practices. [Image by M-SUR/Shutterstock] Declining or not, the topic of abortion, or after abortion effects, is so controversial that disagreements can soon turn into heated arguments. Regardless of the personal position you take on abortion, there’s one fact that is completely irrefutable. Speaking primarily of later-term abortions, the practice is a major surgical procedure. Like any other procedure, abortion can fail. The difference here is that a failed abortion results in the birth of a premature, yet live, baby. In 1977, Melissa Ohden’s mother chose to abort her through a saline abortion at seven months gestation. During a saline abortion, the womb is filled with saline, surrounding the fetus. The solution burns the baby to death, which can take hours. Melissa was delivered after abortion, and her body was thrown away. On her website, Melissa says that her life was saved when a nurse heard her cries. In the following video, Melissa tells her story. Another survivor of a saline abortion procedure is Gianna Jesson, who recently spoke to congress about the occurrence of infanticide through failed or botched abortions, or partial birth abortions, which still occur in America today. She told congress the following. “Many Americans have no idea that babies can even live through abortions and are often left to die. But this does happen. I know this because I was born alive in an abortion clinic after being burned in my mother’s womb for 18 hours. Apart from Jesus himself, the only reason I am alive is the fact that the abortionist had not yet arrived at work that morning. Had he been there, he would have ended my life by strangulation, suffocation or simply leaving me there to die. Instead, I lived and have the gift of cerebral palsy as a direct result of lack of oxygen to my brain while surviving an abortion.” In an interview with Glenn Beck, Gianna spoke of, after having been meant to die through abortion, the traumatic event of meeting her birth mother for the first time. Saline abortions still occur in today’s practices. The CDC reports the mortality rate of babies born alive after abortion procedures have taken place. The report states that a majority of babies, who were born of failed abortions lived anywhere from one to four hours without medical care intervention. Some babies who were born alive reportedly lived for one day or more. We already know that this is an underestimate since these are only the reported figures, which are undeniably lower than the actual number. Pro-Life Walk in Washington. [Image by Drew Angerer /Getty Images] Another abortion survivor, Claire Culwell, was the survivor of a successful abortion. Claire’s biological mother became pregnant at 13-years-old. Due to her young age and economic issues, Claire’s mother had an abortion. A few weeks later, she was still experiencing pregnancy symptoms and went back to the clinic that performed her abortion. It was then that she found out that she was, in fact, still pregnant. The abortion had only been successful in eliminating the first in a set of twins. Because of the damage that was done to the amniotic sac, Claire’s mother delivered her second baby two weeks later and gave her up for adoption. Today, she spends her time advocating for pro-life, and “speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves.” In 2002, President Bush signed the Born-alive Law. This law recognizes babies, who are alive at birth after an attempted abortion, as legal persons. Currently in legislation is the proposed Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which was written to ensure that those infants who are born alive after an attempted abortion will be given medical care intervention, such as an incubator or ventilator. Born Alive, a premature infant in the neonatal unit. [Image by Steve Lovegrove/Shutterstock] The bill also enforces criminal sanctions that hold abortionists accountable for ending the life of a born-alive baby. The bill excludes prosecution of the mother, but gives her the right to seek criminal charges against an abortionist who kills her baby, should it be born alive. Due to the vast developments in medical technology, extremely preterm babies born as early as 20 weeks gestation now have a 67 percent survival rate. According to a report compiled by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the United States is one of seven countries that allow abortions to take place after 20 weeks. After hearing the new evidence that suggests a fetus can feel pain, President Donald Trump emphatically stated that he would ban late-term abortions that occur after 20 weeks gestation. The #MarchForLife is so important. To all of you marching — you have my full support! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2017 The election of President Trump means that the last word on abortion will not belong to Obama or the Democratic party in general. Daily signal reported that, as a candidate, President Trump promised that he would de-fund planned parenthood and enforce the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal tax-payers money from being used for abortions. President Trump did, however, state that abortion would remain legal and funded for women who’s health is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest. The Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that during and after abortion “the method of killing a human child is so horrible that most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.” Donald Trump promised to appoint pro-life justices, like Scalia, to the Supreme Court. During his short time in office, President Trump is already making good on his promises. [Featured Image by Jennifer Swarthout]

Anderson Cooper Dishes On Donald Trump's 'Millions Of Illegal Voters' Claim

Anderson Cooper delved into Trump’s belief that millions of illegal voters helped Hillary Clinton win the popular vote on Anderson Cooper 360° Monday evening. “The president believes what he believes — that’s what Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said today about the president’s claim that millions of undocumented immigrants illegally voted and voted for Hillary Clinton,” Cooper said, adding that if that actually happened, it would be the biggest voter fraud event in modern times. “If the president really believed it happened, you would think he himself would be calling for investigations. Either the president believes something for which there is no evidence, or he doesn’t really believe it and is just using this as an excuse to explain why he didn’t win the popular vote,” Mr. Cooper continued. Anderson Cooper isn’t buying Donald Trump’s claims about illegal voters. [Image by Cindy Ord/Getty Images] Anderson Cooper than moved to his “Keeping Them Honest” video segment, which showed Spicer speaking about Trump’s claims. The narrator of the video said that Trump’s accusations have been questioned by Democrats and Republicans alike. He also noted that Trump made the “illegal voter” claims months before the actual election took place. As the Washington Post noted last month, Trump claimed there were 3 to 5 million illegal voters and zero of those votes were for him. “After all, if it’s possible that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast, as Trump alleges, isn’t it possible that such massive fraud could have also helped him?” asked columnist Aaron Blake, who explained that Trump won by about 80,000 votes in the three states that really mattered. Fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham disagrees with Trump as well. [Image by Mark Wilson/Getty Images] Anderson’s “Keeping Them Honest” segment also had Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina saying that if Trump believes all this about the illegal votes, he should disclose his proof and ask for an investigation. Senior White House Correspondent Jeff Zeleny then appeared live thought a video feed. Anderson Cooper asked him if President Trump’s own attorneys have already ruled all of this out. “Indeed they did, Anderson. If you remember back to that lawsuit of the potential recount of votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — in the Michigan case specifically, the Trump lawyers argued that all evidence points that the 2016 election was not tainted by fraud or mistakes,” Zeleny answered. Zeleny told Anderson Cooper that if one asks Republicans, most of them do not agree with Trump’s assessment. They do believe he won the electoral college and can’t understand why Trump has been pushing the “illegal voters” theory. Cooper than invited Pew Research Executive Director David Becker to talk about a study that the White House has been citing for months. Becker’s study found that while there are millions of out-of-date registrations that do exist due to people dying, there was no evidence of voter fraud. Becker agreed and said that the study was trying to quantify the challenges that election officials had. He noted that this study came out five years ago, but now things have massively improved. Becker believes the voter roles for the 2016 election were the best that election officials have ever obtained. “I don’t know of any evidence. I was at Pew and I ran the election research team. I was there for eight years… I don’t know of any study that has found any kind of significant voter fraud,” Becker said, admitting that some studies have found as much as 31 cases out of a billion nationwide, which is rather insignificant. Do you agree with Anderson Cooper and David Becker that voter fraud isn’t a huge issue — at least not as much as Donald Trump is making it out to be? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section. [Featured Image by Ethan Miller/Getty Images]

Milo Yiannopoulos: Breitbart Job, Book Deal In Jeopardy Over Pedophilia Remarks?

Milo Yiannopolous is a controversial figure who has made a career out of insulting and degrading others. Now, the tables have turned and Milo is facing consequences after a video surfaced where Yiannopolous made light of adults having sexual relations with underage children, as reported previously by the Inquisitr. According to Time, the first bit of blowback came early Monday when the American Conservative Union (ACU) rescinded its offer for Milo Yiannopulous to speak at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. CPAC is one of the largest conservative events of the year, and to be invited is a major honor for any right-wing figure in the United States. However, this could turn out to be a minor setback compared to other potential repercussions Milo might be facing. Elaina Plott, a writer for Washingtonian, earlier today tweeted that a number of Breitbart employees are threatening to quit if Milo Yiannopolous is not fired from his job as technology editor of the conservative media outlet. scoop: Breitbart senior editor tells me at least half a dozen employees ready to walk out if Milo is not fired. pic.twitter.com/k5wZ3OGTlL — Elaina Plott (@elainaplott) February 20, 2017 Fox Business Network’s Charles Gasparino posted a similar tweet. #BreakingNews @BreitbartNews considering dismissal of Milo Yiannopoulos over remarks that sparked outrage no comment yet from milo — Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) February 20, 2017 According to USA Today, Milo Yiannopolous received a $250,000 advance from Threshold Editions, a conservative imprint of publishing house Simon & Schuster for a book set to be released in June, Dangerous. The moment the book was announced, controversy erupted with calls for boycotts against Simon & Schuster over comments Yiannopolous has made about transgender people, Muslims, and women/feminists. Feminist author Roxane Gay pulled her book from Simon & Schuster in protest of the Yiannopolous deal. In response to concerns being raised, Simon & Schuster president Carolyn Reidy sent a letter to the company’s authors stating she “wants to make clear that we do not support or condone, nor will we publish, hate speech.” With this latest controversy over Yiannopolous, it’s possible that the risk of publishing the book will not outweigh the financial rewards Simon & Schuster stands to gain, and there’s a world of difference between seeming to stand behind controversial or even hateful speech and appearing to stand behind speech defending sexual crimes against children. Simon & Schuster have not yet released an official comment regarding the controversy. (Edit: Immediately after publishing this story, Yiannopolous’s book was canceled, according to Independent.) In his defense, Milo Yiannopolous took to Facebook to try and clarify what he intended by his remarks, according to Boston Globe. “I do not support pedophilia. Period,” Yiannopolous wrote. “It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a coordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject. If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.” Milo Yiannopoulos is in hot water after remarks surfaced that could be interpreted as defending pedophilia. [Image by Drew Angerer/Getty Images] Milo Yiannopolous has built a career around saying controversial things. This could be the first time that his remarks come with serious consequences. Some might say it would be a form of poetic justice if someone who has built his career on insulting, offending, and tearing down the character of others should have that career basically destroyed by his own words, whether they’re being misinterpreted or not. Milo would certainly not be the first conservative figure whose controversial words came back to haunt them. In 2013, celebrity chef Paul Dean lost a book deal with Ballantine after she was forced to admit to using racial slurs in her past. Whether Milo Yiannopolous will suffer similar consequences could be known in the very near future. Protestors at UC Berkeley forced a cancelation of a Milo Yiannopoulos appearance there earlier this year. [Image by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images] [Featured Image by Drew Angerer/Getty Images]

Trump Plans To Cut PBS Budget, Would Save Taxpayers More If He Stopped Traveling

Donald Trump reportedly wants to cut PBS and its $445 million annual budget, but critics note that there’s a much simpler way to save taxpayers even more money — have Melania move out of New York City and into the White House and stop his almost weekly visits to his Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida. The White House budget office has released a draft of programs that could be eliminated under President Donald Trump, which includes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Legal Services Corporation, AmeriCorps and the National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities. As the New York Times reported, the programs make up just a minuscule fraction of the $4 trillion budget. Cutting PBS would save $445 million, Time noted. Donald Trump wants to ‘cut broadcasting funding for NPR and PBS’ https://t.co/QCdxhBINVl — The Texas Liberal (@Left_of_Texas) February 19, 2017 Critics said it makes no sense to take aim at programs that have no real impact on the overall budget. “It’s sad in a way because those programs aren’t causing the deficit,” Steve Bell, a former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee who is now with the Bipartisan Policy Center, told the New York Times. “These programs don’t amount to a hill of beans.” The plan to cut PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities is especially controversial given Donald Trump’s rapidly increasing costs so far as president. Despite Trump’s continual criticism of Barack Obama traveling too much, Trump has already spent three weekend at his Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida — which experts said costs somewhere close to $10 million in increased security. As The Independent reported, the total cost of Trump’s travel combined with the costs of protecting his adult children during their business trips around the world came to $11.3 million just in the first month. And while it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact cost of guarding Melania Trump at her home in New York City, where she has chosen to live instead of moving into the White House, estimates from CNN Money put it at more than $1 million per day while NBC News pegged the total cost at close to $2 million per day. A report from The Washington Post noted that the price tag for protecting Trump during his many travels as well as security for his wife and son in New York City and for the business travel of his adult children will end up being hundreds of dollars more than the Obama family. And it is also causing burnout among the Secret Service agents who are strained to protect Trump in settings with logistical difficulties. “There was an anticipation of how stressful it was going to be on the agency,” Jonathan Wackrow, a 14-year Secret Service employee who served during Obama’s terms, told the Washington Post. “But the harsh reality is that the stress is just overwhelming.” Even Trump voters oppose defunding PBS https://t.co/JSNmsJaZk6 pic.twitter.com/PJ1v5QNPDU — Hollywood Reporter (@THR) February 17, 2017 When adding up the entire bill for Donald Trump’s travels, his children’s world-wide jet-setting and his wife’s decision to keep living in New York rather than the White House, it comes up to more than the $445 million he would save each year by cutting PBS. It’s still not clear if Donald Trump will end up taking aim at PBS funding. The New York Times noted that the proposed list has not yet been finalized, and the White House is expected to release its detailed budget plan sometime in the next few weeks. [Featured Image by Spencer Platt/Getty Images]

Trump's 'Southern White House' Recalls The Days Of Slavery

Donald Trump dubbed his Mar-a-Lago resort “The Southern White House” on Saturday, drawing ire from multiple fronts. President Trump, who has also referred to his private club as “the winter White House,” according to The New Civil Rights Movement, has people worried that the Trump’s insistence on maintaining multiple homes will come at a hefty cost to taxpayers. But that’s not the only concerning thing about the tweet Trump posted on Saturday with the new nickname. “The Southern White House” just so happens to be the term the Confederate states used during the Civil War for the home of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy. Will be having many meetings this weekend at The Southern White House. Big 5:00 P.M. speech in Melbourne, Florida. A lot to talk about! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 18, 2017 While it is almost certain that Trump did not consider the historical implications of calling Mar-a-Lago “The Southern White House,” the new moniker is not sitting well with people who are already critical of Trump’s rocky record with racial minorities. Considering that Trump’s presidential campaign was endorsed by the official newspaper of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, any ties to the slave-holding states of the Confederacy will only further damage Trump’s image in a time where racial tensions are escalating. Twitter users were quick to pick up on the new name, and they were not happy about it. This is what comes up when you Google “The Southern White House”. pic.twitter.com/qsYDFMSdPC — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 18, 2017 Trump is all ready for his big meetings at The Southern White House. #SouthernWhiteHouse pic.twitter.com/m6JsEqfnDB — T.R. Morley (@TheRealMorley) February 18, 2017 Interesting… I had thought the Southern White House was in Richmond. pic.twitter.com/bxYF84LCyO — Michael Rogers (@MichaelRogersDC) February 18, 2017 Donald Trump is notorious for his poor handling of racial issues. At the beginning of Black History Month, “the president made some strange observations about Douglass and Martin Luther King, but mostly talked about himself,” reported The Atlantic. In the speech, meant to commemorate the contributions of African-Americans to the United States, Donald Trump made some rambling remarks about historical figures before veering completely off topic. I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact. After this, Trump began “talking about some of his favorite subjects: CNN, himself, and his feud with CNN.” Trump has also been criticized for his travel ban, which put a temporary restriction on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries in an executive order which partially filled a campaign promise on his website “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” President Trump’s immigration crackdown led to nationwide protests last week as businesses shut down as part of the “Day Without Immigrants” movement. City Officials: 7,000 – 8,000 People Attend Immigrant March In Uptown Charlotte https://t.co/SwICAJgEe1 pic.twitter.com/e6BVo7fD3U — WFAE (@WFAE) February 17, 2017 Our founder @andyshallal is an immigrant in solidarity #ADayWithoutImmigrants. We will be closed on Thurs. Immigrants make America great! pic.twitter.com/X6evbrp9yZ — Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017 Many people consider the southern states of America to be a bastion of racism. Less than two years ago, a heated controversy centered on the flying of the Confederate flag swept the nation. While defenders of the flag viewed the emblem as the historical representation of the region, its opponents declared it a symbol of slavery and oppression. While it is undoubtedly a complex issue with an even more complex history, the fact remains that there are millions of Americans who view the Confederacy as an empire of xenophobia. It is an alliance that Trump would do well to avoid if he does not want to alienate his constituents. [(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)]