Navy SEALs Tell Top House Lawmaker They Don’t Have Enough Combat Rifles

Navy SEAL teams don’t have enough combat rifles to go around, even as these highly trained forces are relied on more than ever to carry out counterterrorism operations and other secretive missions, according to SEALs who have confided in Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

After SEALs return from a deployment, their rifles are given to other commandos who are shipping out, said Hunter, a former Marine who served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This weapons carousel undercuts the “train like you fight” ethos of the U.S. special operations forces, they said.

Hunter said he’s been contacted by several SEALs, but he declined to provide further information about the weapons they use in order to protect their identities. (Read more from “Navy SEALs Tell Top House Lawmaker They Don’t Have Enough Combat Rifles” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Watch: Billy Graham’s Daughter Just Said Something Terrifying About Where Humanity Is Headed

Noting the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948 and world events in relation to that and Bible prophecy, Billy Graham’s evangelist daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, said the world is “unraveling,” it is “the judgment of God,” and that the signs show “the end is near” and “we are looking at the end of human history.”

“Jesus is coming, Jesus is coming – I don’t mean some day,” she said. “I mean He’s coming soon. “[T]he time clock of human history is winding down,” said Anne Graham Lotz in a revival speech about the End Times.”

“I believe that we’re living in the last generation before He comes back,” she said.

Anne Graham Lotz, 67, is one of the five children of Billy and Ruth Graham. She founded AnGeL Ministries and is the author of 11 books. She holds six honorary doctorates and regularly preaches at evangelical conferences in the United Sattes and abroad . . .

In her talk on the End Times, Anne Graham Lotz said Israel “came back into being as a result of the Holocaust and World War II. The Jews came from all over the world and they reestablished the nation of Israel and the family of nations in May 1948.” (Read more from “Billy Graham’s Daughter Just Said Something Terrifying About Where Humanity Is Headed” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

She Had an Abortion at 15 – This Is How It Changed Her Life

Nona Ellington was 15 years old when she found out she was pregnant. A victim of rape, Ellington felt alone, ashamed and desperate for help.

After a free pregnancy test came back positive, showing that Ellington was five weeks pregnant, she went forward and scheduled an abortion.

Around October 1983, Ellington, who was still in high school at the time, aborted the only child she would ever successfully conceive.

“As a result of that [abortion], I was never able to have children,” Ellington told The Daily Signal. “I had five miscarriages, two were pregnancies that required emergency surgery and [during] the last one in 2004, the only tube I had left ruptured so I was bleeding internally and they almost lost me.”

When Ellington was eventually ready to have children with her then-husband, she said she visited a fertility doctor who “confirmed that it was the abortion that had damaged me so much that I was not able to have children.”

Ellington considered trying in vitro fertilization (IVF)—where an embryo is manually transferred into the uterus—but said even if it had worked, her health insurance didn’t cover the cost.

“It covered abortion. But not fertility stuff,” Ellington said.

Looking back on her experience, Ellington calls abortion the most “selfish” decision she ever made, and now, she spends her time trying to warn other women against it.

As part of that effort, Ellington joined 3,348 women who who shared their abortion “injury” stories with the U.S. Supreme Court as part of what’s called an amicus curiae brief.

Their hope is that by discussing their “injuries”—both physical and mental—the Supreme Court justices will uphold a controversial Texas law that places new regulations on the abortion industry.

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, is being called one of the biggest abortion case since Roe. v Wade, in which the Supreme Court said that women have a right to abortion while also affirming a state’s right to regulate the practice.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt could signal how far states are allowed to go in issuing those regulations.

The law in question, known as H.B.2, requires abortion facilities in Texas to maintain the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Whole Woman’s Health and its supporters believe the imposed regulations dangerously limit women’s access to safe and legal abortion.

“Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States, and neither of the requirements imposed by the Texas law would make it any safer,” the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. “Worse, this law clearly imposes an undue burden on a large number of Texan women, who would no longer have reasonable access to abortion care when needed, forcing them to wait longer before an abortion, travel across state lines for safe care, or even forego abortion care altogether.”

Those in favor of upholding the law argue the regulations are “commonsense” for the health and safety of women.

The law, wrote Sarah Torre, a pro-life expert at The Heritage Foundation, “was passed in response to the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who ran a ‘House of Horrors’ abortion clinic for over a decade with nearly no government oversight.” She added:

After the Gosnell grand jury recommended new clinic regulations and after hearings on the medical risks of abortion, Texas (along with other states) decided to require abortion clinics to meet the same minimum cleanliness and safety standards as other outpatient surgery facilities and require doctors performing abortions to have the credentials to admit a patient to a nearby hospital.

Myra Jean Myers, another plaintiff on the Supreme Court brief, said she’s experienced some of these dangers first-hand. Both Myers and Ellington spoke last week at a press conference held at the Family Research Institute one day before the court heard oral arguments for the case.

“Abortion is a dangerous procedure,” Meyers said. After her procedure, Myers said, “I had a hysterectomy two months later.”

A hysterectomy is a surgery to remove a woman’s uterus. At 28 years old, she, too, would never be able to conceive again due to her abortion.

Allen E. Parker, a lawyer at The Justice Foundation, which is the non-profit submitting the personal testimony by women who allege injuries caused by abortion, said most of the participants “suffered grievous psychological injuries,” “but many suffered severe physical complications as well.”

The most common physical complications of abortion, he added, are hemorrhaging, punctured uterus, punctured colons and scarring of the uterus.

“In abortion, you’re basically scraping the walls of the uterus and the contents of the uterus with a scalpel-like instrument,” he said. “And you’re doing it by hand in most instances or by feel, the doctors would say. And you can punch the wrong part and that’s where the complications occur.”

As for the mental conditions, Parker cited guilt, shame, sadness, depression, anxiety, drug abuse and suicide as the most common conditions.

Ellington blames her abortion for causing her to “spiral” into a “very destructive behavior of drugs, alcohol and promiscuous sex.” In 2001, she ended up pleading guilty to felony theft.

Myers said while the physical scars are still present, it’s the mental anguish that continues to haunt her.

“Nothing wounds you like being responsible for the death of your child,” she said at the press conference.

Parker, who sounded hopeful that the Supreme Court will consider the testimony of the 3,348 women when issuing their ruling in the case, added, “Whether you’re for abortion or against it, you can acknowledge that some women are hurt by abortion and we ought to do everything we can to protect these women.” (For more from the author of “She Had an Abortion at 15 – This Is How It Changed Her Life” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Social Conservative Leaders Wonder: Can Homosexual Activism and Religious Liberty ‘Coexist’?

Minutes after addressing a packed room at the 2016 CPAC, two leading social conservatives told LifeSiteNews that sexual agendas are putting religious liberty at risk.

The Family Research Council’s Travis Weber told LifeSiteNews that “for a lot of us, religious liberty’s only been a hot-button issue recently, we’re seeing in the news. Why is that? It’s driven by agendas affecting matters of sexuality – marriage, abortion, contraception, and all sorts of other issues.”

(watch a recent interview between Joe Miller and Travis Weber below:)

“So what do we do about this? Some of these claims are going to be dealt with in the courts. Others, though, we need to deal with [inaudible] protections. Where’s the threat right now? It’s on anyone doing business with the government, having indexes with the government, those getting tax-exempt status, contracting, getting grants, etc.”

“And those folks need to be protected with a version of the federal First Amendment Defense Act, or state government non-discrimination act, not other areas, such as pastor protection act, or some focus that doesn’t need protection right now.”

Weber’s co-presenter was Ashley McGuire of The Catholic Association. “We were discussing threats to religious liberty,” she explained. “I focused on the threats facing health care workers and religious people who do not wanted to be conscripted into providing drugs and devices that violate their consciences.” (Read more from “Social Conservative Leaders Wonder: Can Homosexual Activism and Religious Liberty ‘Coexist’?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FDA Admits That Nearly 70% of U.S. Chickens Contain Cancer Causing Arsenic

(Editor’s note: Snopes contests this MSN article’s conclusion, stating that at one time chicken contained arsenic but that the sale of the arsenic-laced food additive was discontinued by Pfizer in 2011) I don’t know about the rest of you, but lately my poultry purchases at my local market have become more and more of a ‘hit-and-miss’ situation, with more ‘misses’ if I’m being honest. As I bite into my homemade chicken nuggets or Coq au Vin (when I’m feeling fancy) I can’t help but feel that the chicken just tastes weird, stringy, just…funny. So a few days ago when I turned on the tube and saw the news headlines stating that the FDA has finally confirmed that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, my head, and stomach, nearly hit the roof. This cancer-causing toxic chemical, that in high doses could kill you, is actually being added to chicken feed on purpose, giving store-bought chicken the illusion of healthy coloring and plump appearance. Shockingly, this is the case with more than 70 percent of all U.S. chickens! That is just awful! . . .

So, the next time you’re out buying chicken (if you’re not totally put off by it at this point) make sure you look out for the following:

-If the chicken meat is bright pink in color, like in an unnatural way, avoid it at all costs.

-Make sure that the fat content on the chicken is white to deep yellow, not gray or pasty.

(Read more from “FDA Admits That Nearly 70% of U.S. Chickens Contain Cancer-Causing Arsenic” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Blocks Pro-Life Legislation; Only One Justice Says He Disagrees

By Robert Barnes. The Supreme Court on Friday blocked Louisiana from enforcing a law that threatened to close all but one of the state’s abortion clinics.

The court’s action came just two days after it heard oral arguments in a similar case from Texas, and abortion rights supporters treated it as a positive sign. It came just hours after the justices met to discuss the Texas case for the first time in their private conference.

The court gave no reason for its Friday order; only Justice Clarence Thomas noted that he disagreed and would have let the Louisiana law take effect.

The issue is whether clinic doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. It was hotly debated during Wednesday’s oral arguments reviewing the Texas law.

Abortion providers say the requirement is medically unnecessary — hospitals accept any patient who developed complications after an abortion, they say, whether the doctor had admitting privileges or not. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blocks Pro-Life Legislation; Only One Justice Says He Disagrees” HERE)

_____________________________

Lesbian ex-Girlfriend Backed in US Supreme Court Ruling on Custody

By Newsmax. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Alabama court order that had prohibited a lesbian from having contact with the three children she adopted and helped raise in neighboring Georgia while in a long-term relationship with their biological mother.

The 6-2 ruling reinforces gay rights less than a year after the court legalized same-sex marriage across the country. The justices didn’t hear arguments in the case, instead summarily reversing the Alabama Supreme Court.

The woman, identified only as V.L., has been battling the children’s biological mother, known as E.L. in court papers. The two women lived as a couple for 17 years in Alabama before gay marriage was legal in the state. V.L. adopted the children in 2007 after the pair set up a second residence in Georgia. The children were conceived by insemination from an anonymous donor. (Read more from “Lesbian Adoptive Mother Backed in US Supreme Court Ruling” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Republicans Just Revealed Something About Trump That Will Shake the Establishment to Its Core

By Jack Davis. Republican voters have put the party’s elite establishment on notice that any attempt to tamper with the will of the people will face a buzzsaw of anger.

Across the ever-expanding band of America the New York Times labeled “Trump Country” and beyond, voters reacted with anger to 2012 GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s Thursday speech to derail Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s candidacy. Romney spoke amid multiple reports of behind-the-scenes maneuvers to deny Trump the nomination at this summer’s Republican National Convention.

“I personally am disgusted by it — I think it’s disgraceful,” said Lola Butler, 71, of Mandeville, La., who voted for Romney in 2012. “You’re telling me who to vote for and who not to vote for? Please.”

Butler made it crystal clear how she felt.

“There’s nothing short of Trump shooting my daughter in the street and my grandchildren — there is nothing and nobody that’s going to dissuade me from voting for Trump,” she said . . .

“The furious campaign now underway to stop Mr. Trump and the equally forceful rebellion against it captured the essence of the party’s breakdown over the past several weeks: Its most prominent guardians, misunderstanding their own voters, antagonize them as they try to reason with them, driving them even more energetically to Mr. Trump’s side,” reads the Times article published Saturday and written by Michael Barbaro, Ashley Parker and Jonathan Marton. (Read more from “Republicans Just Revealed Something About Trump That Will Shake the Establishment to Its Core” HERE)

____________________________________

Mitt Romney Would Vote for Write-In Candidate Over Donald Trump

By Jordan Fraiser. Former Gov. and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Donald Trump is “anything but presidential” and pledged to cast a write-in vote rather than support the Republican front-runner if he were to become this year’s GOP nominee.

During an interview on “Meet the Press”, Romney said. “I’m going to be voting, but I’ll vote for someone on the ballot that I think is a real conservative and who will make us proud and I may write in a name if I can’t find such a person.”

Romney stopped short of saying he regrets receiving Trump’s endorsement four years ago, but continued to condemn the Republican front-runner’s bombast and vulgarity. (Read more from “Mitt Romney Would Vote for Write-In Candidate Over Donald Trump” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

8 Key Observations From Cruz’s Super Saturday Win

For most non-political junkies last night was just another quiet Saturday night. However, in the world of politics, which will determine the trajectory of our country for the next four years, last night might have been the turning point. If Cruz winds up upsetting Trumpmania in this election, last tonight’s largely overlooked contests will have been the Battle of Midway of this nomination war.

Last night’s results consummate the narrative we’ve been observing since Super Tuesday: Cruz is surging and can defeat Donald Trump for the nomination, but if Marco Rubio and John Kasich do not exit the race, Trump will win.

Cruz won big in Kansas and Maine. Cruz won twice as many votes in Kansas as Trump and more than the entire GOP field combined in 2012. And he closed a massive pre-election deficit in Louisiana and Kentucky to come in just a few points behind Trump and nearly tie him for delegates. Overall, Cruz will net more delegates over Trump from last night. My best estimate (subject to change) is Cruz 71, Trump 60, Rubio 14, Kasich 10. Cruz has now garnered roughly 300 delegates, about 80 less than Trump.

Here are the 8 key outcomes:

Cruz is surging: Cruz has demonstrated that he can beat Trump even with a crowded field. His over-performance in every state by as much as 20 point as compared to pre-election polling shows that his Super Tuesday victories and superb debate performance have won over both Rubio and Trump supporters.

Rubio/Kasich playing spoiler: It’s self-evident that had Kasich or Rubio been out of the race, Cruz would have easily won Kentucky. Trump has siphoned off much of Cruz’s conservative base in rural counties and Cruz needs the full support of urban and suburban Republicans to overcome Trump. As long as a more moderate candidate is in the race, many of these voters will not go with Cruz. But once they are left with a choice between the two, they would have to get behind Cruz. This was borne out in Lexington and Louisville where Rubio siphoned off enough votes in third place to prevent Cruz from winning enough votes needed to counteract Trump’s advantage in rural, eastern Kentucky. In northern Kentucky, which would have otherwise been a stronghold for Cruz, Kasich played spoiler. Due to the Cincinnati media market, the favorite son of Ohio was able to cut into Cruz’s margins. Rubio/Kasich also prevented Cruz from reaching the 50% threshold in Maine to win all the delegates, costing him roughly 11 delegates and giving Trump 9 more.

Rubio is out of luck: Rubio failed to win 20% in a single state last night. He won just 16.7% in Kansas despite winning the endorsements of all the major Republican officials in the state. Yet, he still siphoned off some delegates from Cruz. Even if Rubio pulls off a miracle and narrowly wins his home state, he has nowhere to grow and is, mathematically speaking, hopelessly behind in the delegate hunt. Narrowly winning your home state means you will likely loose almost everywhere else. There is no rationale for his candidacy.

Kasich is the new Rubio: Across the map, Kasich is beginning to supplant Rubio as the candidate of choice for more moderate Republican voters. Also, he is likely to win his home state while Rubio will probably lose his home state of Florida. Kasich is also polling well in Michigan. But even if Kasich wins Michigan, he won’t net many delegates out of this crowded field in a purely proportional allocation. He won’t have enough delegates to mount a serious challenge and cannot appeal to conservative voters. By staying in the race for the long run, he could prevent Cruz from winning in important neighboring states like Pennsylvania and Indiana on the back end of the primary calendar. He is playing the role of spoiler.

Closed caucuses/Primaries matter: All four contests last night were closed to non-Republican members. It is quite evident that Donald Trump does much better with cross-over voters but as the primaries continue, most of the remaining contests are closed. This should help Cruz going forward.

Early voting is a killer: Donald Trump has been garnering all the media attention and has led the entire race. Thus, most of the early voting benefits him. He crushed Cruz 2-1 in early voting in Louisiana but Cruz won election day voting. This is yet another demonstration of why early voting is fundamentally unfair. In this case, many voters cast ballots before the Cruz surge and debate performance. It also shows that headed forward, Cruz is in good shape to continue winning states that are commencing voting after the debate. It will be interesting to see if Cruz could win election day voting in the neighboring state, Mississippi, on Tuesday, where there is no early voting. There is no early voting in the other three contests that day either: Hawaii, Idaho, and Michigan.

RNC Rule 40: In order for a candidate to be placed into nomination at the GOP convention, a candidate must win the majority of delegates in at least eight states. After last night’s majority wins in Kansas and Maine, Cruz now has three states under his belt. Trump already won four states with a majority of the delegates prior to last night’s contests.

Cruz can beat Trump: The biggest takeaway from Saturday is that were the other candidates to drop out, Cruz can easily win in most of the remaining states. Sure, Kasich can win his home state of Ohio, but he can never catch Donald Trump in the delegate count. Were he to drop out, Cruz would have an excellent shot at winning those winner-take-all delegates in Ohio. This week we will find out if those declaring #TrumpNever are good to their word or if they really hate Cruz just as much as Trump.

(For more from the author of “8 Key Observations From Cruz’s Super Saturday Win” please click HERE)

Watch a recent interview with the author below:

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supporters of Rubio Claim This Is What’s Ruining His Chances at Becoming President

Sensing an opportunity for an upset victory, Marco Rubio spent most of Friday in Kansas, where he picked up a series of high-profile endorsements that he hoped could help thrust him into contention.

Instead, he finished a disappointing third in the Saturday caucus in Kansas, repeating the same pattern as in some Super Tuesday states earlier last week: a big last-minute push, notable endorsements and a thud of a finish.

Those doing the endorsing, along with many other supporters, bemoaned the results, as well as the campaign that produced them.

I felt I had a dog in the fight, and it hurt me personally when I thought we were going to win,” said Republican Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, another state where Rubio came in behind Cruz and Trump. “The thing is, when Rubio was there, the enthusiasm was so great, better than the others. He had a great reception. If everything had been equal in terms of appearances and organization, he would have won Oklahoma.”

Party leaders, donors and other supporters of Rubio portray a political operation that continues to come up short in its message, in its attention to the fundamentals of campaigning and in its use of a promising politician. The failures have all but doomed ­Rubio’s chances of securing the GOP nomination, leaving him far behind Trump and Cruz in both delegates and states won. (Read more from “Supporters of Rubio Claim This Is What’s Ruining His Chances at Becoming President” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Stays in Front as Cruz Raises Pressure With Split Decision

Donald Trump and Ted Cruz got a split decision from Republican voters in four states Saturday that didn’t dramatically change the nomination race but did expose unrest among party conservatives who want an alternative to the celebrity real estate mogul as their presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, scored an overwhelming win over Bernie Sanders in Louisiana’s delegate-rich primary that lets her maintain a solid lead for the Democratic nomination even as the Vermont senator won caucuses in Kansas and Nebraska.

Trump defeated Cruz in the Louisiana primary by 41 percent to 38 percent and in the Kentucky caucuses by 36 percent to 32 percent, according to the Associated Press. Cruz prevailed in caucuses in Kansas by 48 percent to 23 percent and in Maine by 46 percent to 33 percent. Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Ohio Governor John Kasich finished third or fourth in the states, prompting Trump to call for Rubio to drop out of the race.

The results of Saturday’s voting for both parties raises the stakes for Trump’s and Clinton’s challengers to make a stand in the next round of contests on Tuesday and the slate of five state primaries on March 15 . . .

While Trump held on to his front-runner status in the Republican race, Cruz’s wins show that he may be able to rally support from some conservatives who’ve been pushing back against Trump over his rhetoric and changing positions, said Ron Bonjean, a Republican political consultant who’s not aligned with any of the campaigns. (Read more from “Trump Stays in Front as Cruz Raises Pressure With Split Decision” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.