How a Pro-Life Video Changes Minds on Abortion

A pro-life advocacy group published a series of man-on-the-street interviews to make the case that some pro-choice Americans shift to a pro-life position when encountered with the reality of abortion.

On Tuesday, Live Action,a nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Va., released a video that showcases a series of self-proclaimed pro-choice Americans watching a four-minute video made in late February. It portrays former abortionist Dr. Anthony Levatino describing in detail the steps of a second-trimester dilation and evacuation abortion.

Live Action aims to uncover and shed light on abortion procedures in an effort to make the practice illegal in the U.S. Their mission is to “end abortion by leading the culture to embrace the rights and dignity of every person.”

Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive policy organization, states that “nearly half of pregnancies among American women in 2011 were unintended, and about four in 10 of these were terminated by abortion.” This statistic is just one of many that prompted groups like Live Action to take action.

“We wanted to show America that most people who support abortion have no idea what it actually entails for the mother and the defenseless child inside her,” Live Action president and founder Lila Rose told The Daily Signal. “We also wanted to show how quickly hearts and minds can be changed when we simply expose people to the truth with the four-minute ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos . We hope this stunning man-on-the-street video encourages people to share the ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos with everyone they know until millions more have come over to the pro-life position.”

If born at 24 weeks and given sufficient medical care, a baby can make a full recovery and live a healthy life, according to Baby Center, a tool for expecting mothers. Because abortion up to 24 weeks is legal in many states across the country, Live Action decided to show Americans what an abortion at 24 weeks really looks like.

According to a statement released by Live Action, the video also includes “medically accurate animations to give viewers a window into the womb during an abortion and show how developed a baby is during the procedure.”

When asked to describe their stance on abortion, all eleven of those interviewed believed women should have the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. After watching the four-minute video, every one of them expressed a completely different opinion.

One interviewee’s stance changed from, “I think the person should have a choice to have an abortion or not,” to “abortion shouldn’t be legal.”

While some questioned the legality of the abortion procedure, others questioned the humanity. One observer said, “I believe that’s, like, murder right there–what I saw.” Others labeled abortion “inhumane” and “heinous” after viewing Dr. Levatino’s presentation.

Brian Gottstein, chief communications director of Live Action, told The Daily Signal that the ‘Abortion Procedures’ videos, released over the last three months, have received “over 42 million views,” and are “changing hearts and minds about abortion.” (For more from the author of “How a Pro-Life Video Changes Minds on Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview With Pro-Gun Activists

The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.

At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.

Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”

The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. The moment can be watched here:

However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.

(Read more from “Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview With Pro-Gun Activists” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Tom Cotton Eviscerates Harry Reid on Senate Floor for ‘Cancerous’ Leadership

Senator Tom Cotton (B, 80%) took to the floor of the Senate today and ripped apart the “bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings” of Senate Democrat Minority Leader Harry Reid (F, 2%).

Reid (D-NV) has been saying the bill, sponsored by Sen. John McCain, was “written in the dark of night” and has been “grinding the Senate to a halt all week long” saying there hasn’t been time to read the bill. Cotton accused Reid of slandering the National Defense Authorization Act in his speeches on the Senate Floor.

“It’s been public for weeks! And this coming from a man who drafted Obamacare in his office and rammed it through this Senate at midnight on Christmas Eve on straight party-line vote…that is an outrageous slander!”

Cotton noted that all the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee voted for the bill in committee and that the bill could have passed “unanimously” two days ago.

Further, Cotton blasted Reid for complaining that the Senate is not in session enough.

“Whatever you think about that, the happy by-product of fewer days in session in the Senate is that this institution will be cursed less with his cancerous leadership.”

Senator Reid dismissed Cotton’s comments on the floor later that day.

“I think it would distract from what we’re doing here today to go into the statements by the very junior senator from Arkansas,” Reid said. (For more from the author of “Tom Cotton Eviscerates Harry Reid on Senate Floor for ‘Cancerous’ Leadership” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The ‘SWAT’ Team Just Stormed Capitol Hill

That title evokes an image of armed law enforcement officers storming the Capitol. But in fact, there are no police officers involved; nor any weapons. Instead, that title is in reference to an article published by The Hill on a brilliant idea by Republicans to assemble a “budget SWAT team” in one last attempt to pass a budget.

Never mind the fact that the House has already started to pass spending bills, which, for obvious reasons, are only supposed to happen after the passage of a budget. So why would House Republicans want a budget now? The answer, one supposes, is politics. They want to be able to say they voted for lower spending levels in a budget, while then voting for spending bills that blow those lower spending levels away. This is Washington’s “house of mirrors” at its finest.

The “SWAT” team will be made up of eight Republicans, which will include Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) and House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). Apparently the plan was hatched by Republican Study Committee (RSC) chairman Bill Flores (R-TX), who was quoted as saying:

Earlier this month, I recommended that Speaker [Paul] Ryan put together a small team of interested individuals with disparate views to develop a path forward to get a budget on the floor.

But for the life of me, I just don’t get why they want a budget so badly. To those unfamiliar with the process, the budget is really less useful than toilet paper. (At least toilet paper is useful for something.)

The budget is useless because at best it accomplishes absolutely nothing; at worst, it’s used as a faux campaign document for Republicans—a “check the box” vote for lower spending levels, before then going on to ignore their existence. Yet, in reality, it simply is a document full of gimmicks, misplaced revenues and apathetic attempts to repeal Obamacare or other reforms.

To prove my point, let’s look at last year’s budget.

Budget Promise: The Republican budget passed last year promised to cut discretionary spending for fiscal year (FY) 2017 from the statutory spending caps included in the Budget Control Act (BCA).

In total, the BCA has a FY2017 budget cap level of $1.040 trillion; yet, the Republicans passed a budget that further reduced those spending levels by $26 billion ($1.013 trillion).

As a result, the Republican budget was supposed to produce a budget deficit of $400 billion, down from $438 billion in 2015.

The budget also promised to repeal Obamacare, implement tax and welfare reform, and produce a balanced budget.

Outcome: Republicans failed to implement even a single item in their budget – not one. The Obamacare repeal never landed on the president’s desk. Tax reform was never honestly attempted, nor was there any attempt to find the $5 trillion in promised spending cuts.

In fact, Republicans actually increased spending. Instead of reducing total discretionary spending levels to $1.013 trillion as the budget promised, Republicans increased spending by $57 billion above those levels.

A congressional budget can be a noble goal. But doing one merely to distract and trick the voters is wrong. At no point did Republicans actually try to legislate the budget. It was little more than a document members touted, but had zero intention of implementing. Republicans and conservatives deserve better; if our representatives are going to pass a budget, they should try to enforce it – perhaps that would be a better use of a budget SWAT team. (For more from the author of “The ‘SWAT’ Team Just Stormed Capitol Hill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

New Report Disputes Official Account of Communication with Downed Plane

Contradicting official accounts of Thursday’s final moments of EgyptAir Flight 804, a French news outlet reports the pilot of the doomed jetliner spoke with Egyptian air traffic control for several minutes before the plane plunged into the Mediterranean.

Since the crash, authorities have said the plane lurched left, then right, spun all the way around and plummeted 38,000 feet (11,582 meters) into the sea — never issuing a distress call. The crash resulted in the death of all 66 people aboard.

A report on French TV’s Station M6 is now disputing that account. According to the report, pilot Mohamed Said Shoukair had a conversation lasting several minutes with Egyptian authorities, and was reportedly trying to deal with smoke inside the plane.

Flight data automatically sent by sensors on the Airbus 320 has confirmed there was smoke in the cabin and lavatories at the time of the crash.

French TV reported that after Shoukair finished speaking with authorities, the pilot made an “emergency descent.”

Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said finding the exact cause of the crash “will take time.” Terrorism has been widely reported as a likely cause of the crash.

“This is not one scenario that we can exclusively subscribe to … all scenarios are possible,” the president said Sunday on Egyptian television.

Egypt has deployed a robot sub to recover cockpit voice and data recorders.

Greek officials say as of 2:48 a.m. local time the pilot was talking to Greek authorities and appeared to be in good spirits. By 3:27 a.m., the sensors detected a fire and a fault in two of the plane’s cockpit windows, according to data published by The Aviation Herald. By that time, there was no response to calls to the plane from the ground. (For more from the author of “New Report Disputes Official Account of Communication with Downed Plane” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Could Be the First State to Put Gun Owners in Federal Database

Hawaii could become the first state in the United States to enter gun owners into an FBI database that will automatically notify police if an island resident is arrested anywhere else in the country.

Most people entered in the “Rap Back” database elsewhere in the U.S. are those in “positions of trust,” such as school teachers and bus drivers, said Stephen Fischer of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Hawaii could be the first state to add gun owners.

“I don’t like the idea of us being entered into a database. It basically tells us that they know where the guns are, they can go grab them” said Jerry Ilo, a firearm and hunting instructor for the state. “We get the feeling that Big Brother is watching us.” (Read more from “This Could Be the First State to Put Gun Owners in Federal Database” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Admin: U.S. Stopped Sanctioning Iranian Human Rights Abusers After Nuke Deal

The Obama administration has not designated a single Iranian as a human rights abuser since finalizing last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, despite rising abuse in the Islamic Republic, including state-sanctioned killings and the imprisonment of opposition figures.

The administration’s hesitance to use sanctions as a tool to confront Iranian human rights abuses, despite past promises made to Congress, has prompted outrage on Capitol Hill among lawmakers who were given assurances the administration would act.

A senior administration official admitted during questioning on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the U.S. has not sanctioned a single Iranian human rights abuser since the deal was finalized. The disclosure calls into question further administration promises to continue using sanctions as a tool to pressure Iran . . .

Republicans and Democrats alike are now accusing the administration of misleading Congress about its commitment to sanctions and saying that it has avoided such designations in order to prevent the Iranian regime from walking away from the deal.

“We were told during this process that getting the nuclear issue off the table was so critical and we could actually expect Iran to engage in additional destabilizing activity,” Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) said during a House Foreign Affairs Committee examining the administration’s promises regarding Iran. (Read more from “Obama Admin: U.S. Stopped Sanctioning Iranian Human Rights Abusers After Nuke Deal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Memorial Day Crosses Honoring Fallen Soldiers Removed From Public Property After Complaint

A Memorial Day display featuring crosses to honor fallen soldiers was removed from public property in Georgia after someone questioned whether the soldiers were all Christian.

The 79 white, handmade crosses posted on public property along state Highway 92 in Hiram, Ga., were meant to represent the 79 Paulding County residents who died in America’s wars, according to town officials.

But the crosses were abruptly taken down last Friday after someone called Hiram City Hall questioning whether the cross is an appropriate symbol for the memorial.

Hiram Mayor Teresa Philyaw said the cross display, which she approved and planned, was never intended to be religious . . .

“We wanted to make sure that they weren’t forgotten. We also wanted their families to know that our hearts still bleed for them,” she said. “At the time, it never, ever crossed my mind about the religious factor in it.” (Read more from “Memorial Day Crosses Honoring Fallen Soldiers Removed From Public Property After Complaint” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Does This DOJ Memo Hint That Criminal Action Against Hillary Is Forthcoming?

A new filing by the Justice Department contains a key phrase that some might construe as a hint that criminal prosecution is being planned for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Vice News reporter Jason Leopold formally protested the classification of an FBI declaration that provided details about the investigation into how sensitive information ended up on Clinton’s private email server.

The Justice Department submitted the declaration as part of “a secret filing,” but a U.S. District Court judge ordered them to publicly submit a redacted copy of the document or at least “show cause why” that isn’t possible.

They responded in kind by saying they couldn’t make the document public because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Clinton’s private email server.

Fair enough, but it is two words further into the DOJ memorandum that will be sure to raise some eyebrows. The department claims it can’t reveal the document because doing so could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Via Law Newz:

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Enforcement proceedings? Does this mean the FBI has found enforcement to be necessary?

It should be noted that this particular phrase is used in federal law on disclosing public information “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” in tandem with another set criteria – when “the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law.”

The Legal Information Institute writes:

(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and—

(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and

(B) there is reason to believe that (i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and (ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section. [Emphasis added]

That’s a far cry from the “security review” Clinton has repeatedly claimed the FBI is undertaking. (For more from the author of “Does This DOJ Memo Hint That Criminal Action Against Hillary Is Forthcoming?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Report Reveals the Truth About Newt Gingrich’s 2012 Presidential Campaign

Running a presidential campaign is costly, with many campaigns operating in the red.

According to a Bloomberg report, the campaign with the largest outstanding debt belongs to Newt Gingrich, owing $4.6 million for his 2012 presidential campaign.

A Huffington Post article from July 2015 reported the campaign was indebted to several businesses, the largest portion of the debt, 1.8 million, owed to Moby Dick Airways for chartered jet service.

Campaign field and political operator Bo Harmon revealed he is still owed $25,000 for his work organizing volunteers, as well as canvassing neighborhoods and making phone calls. Harmon said he called for 2 years following the campaign’s end attempting to collect the amount he was owed, but never received a response.

“Especially with someone like Newt, you hope they conduct themselves in a different way than that. So it’s very disappointing,” Harmon said. “He’s not the first politician to disappoint his supporters, and he won’t be the last.”

A deadline for Gingrich’s debt settlement plan, originally set for May 23, has been moved to August 1.

Gingrich is not the only one to owe for campaign expenses. President Obama’s campaign still owes $2.4 million for his 2012 campaign, while Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson owes $1.4 million for his 2012 bid for the White House. Others like Reverend Al Sharpton and former Senator John Edwards are still in campaign debt.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Gingrich confirmed he would consider joining the Donald Trump presidential ticket. “I endorse Donald Trump. I’m going to work very hard for the nominee,” he said.

When asked if Gingrich was on the short list of possible running mates, presumptive Republican nominee Trump said, “Absolutely. I’ll say yes, because he’s been such a supporter. I mean, anybody that supports me is on the shortlist as far as I’m concerned.” (For more from the author of “Report Reveals the Truth About Newt Gingrich’s 2012 Presidential Campaign” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.