Abortionist Who Performed Over 40,000 Abortions Becomes Pro-Life Activist

Screen-shot-2015-04-23-at-7.53.02-AM-672x372It should have been a routine abortion in the early second trimester. The woman was having her ninth abortion, as former Serbian abortionist Stojan Adasevic describes in the documentary “The First Hour.”

Adasevic, who is now a pro-life leader in Serbia, had performed over 48,000 abortions before doubts about the procedure made him stop —other sources claim that number is closer to 60,000.

Adasevic credits his pro-life conversion to two things: an unusual series of dreams, and this particularly disturbing experience he had while performing what should have been a routine abortion. He describes the procedure:

I opened up the womb, tore the placenta, the birth waters flowed out, and I got to work on the inside with my abortion forceps. I grabbed something, crushed it a little, removed it, and threw it onto a cloth. I look, and I see a hand – quite a large hand. The child was 3, perhaps 4 months old. I had no tape to measure it.

At three months, a preborn baby is fully formed with fingers and toes. All of the organs and body systems are present. The baby has fingerprints, and breathes amniotic fluid in preparation for life outside the womb. Adasevic goes on to say:

Someone had spilled some iodine on a part of the table and the hand fell in such a way that the nerve endings came in contact with the iodine. And what happened? I look and I say, “my God, the hand is moving by itself.” I nevertheless carry on with my forceps, and again catch something, crush it, and pull it out. I think to myself, “let it not be a leg.” I pull, and look. A leg.

I want to put the leg on the table, carefully, so that it isn’t near the moving hand. As my arm falls, I hear a bang behind my back. I jumped, and automatically, my grip on the forceps loosened. At this very moment, the leg completed a somersault and fell next to the hand.

I look – both hand and leg are moving by themselves. I nevertheless, once again, direct my instrument into the womb, and begin to crush everything inside. I think to myself that all I need to complete the picture is the heart. I continue to crush, and crush, and crush, and till I am sure that I have ground everything inside into a pulp, and once again pull out the forceps.

As I pull out the mess, thinking it will be bone fragments I lay it on the cloth, I look, and I see a human heart, contracting and expanding and beating, beating, beating. I thought I would go mad. I can see that the heartbeat is slowing, ever more slowly, and more slowly still, until it finally stops completely. Nobody could’ve seen what I had seen with my very own eyes, and be more convinced than I was — I had killed a human being.

This strange and terrible experience opened Adasevic’s eyes to the horror of what he was doing. This powerful encounter with the humanity of the preborn was stark in contrast to the training he received. In the documentary, Adasevic describes his daily work as an abortionist:

There were times when I used to carry out 20, 25, 30 or even 35 abortions every day. We used to work five days a week….

He had been trained to regard the preborn baby as subhuman. He had been taught that life did not begin until after the baby was born.

They taught us and they taught us, told us that life began with the first cry. When a baby cries for the first time. That up to that moment, a human being is like any other organ in a woman’s body, like an appendix. The removal of an appendix from a mother’s body is not murder.

Only a child that had been born, and had cried, could be killed. It hasn’t cried, then there can be no talk of murder. That is why, immediately after birth, children were taken and their heads submerged in a bucket of water. A child that would take in water instead of air. And would never cry. That was, therefore, not regarded as murder. Terrible, but that was how things were.

Abortion and infanticide, then, were morally permissible. Both were legal. Adasevic said he first began to question abortion when he began having unusual dreams. The documentary notes:

He dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence.

The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night, he asked the man in black and white who he was. “My name is Thomas Aquinas.”

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked me in my dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,” St. Thomas told me.

Thomas Aquinas would be a strange figure to appear in an anti-abortion dream. He didn’t address abortion directly in his writings and did not believe life began at conception. He believed that the soul did not enter the preborn baby until 40 days after conception (for a boy) or 80 days (for a girl).

Ultrasound had recently become available, and it showed moving pictures of preborn babies. The new technology did not sway Adasevic – but he started having the series of dreams.

After the disturbing dreams and the horrific abortion experience, Adasevic told the hospital where he worked that he would no longer do abortions. His pro-life conversion came at great cost:

Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut my salary in half, fired my daughter from her job, and did not allow my son to enter the university.

Adasevic has worked to change hearts and minds. He was responsible for the airing of a pro-life documentary on Serbian television. His dramatic conversion story is chilling, but also inspiring. A dedicated abortionist has become a pro-life hero.

Incidentally, Adasevic owes his life to another abortionist’s mistake. His mother was pregnant with him when she sought an abortion, but the abortionist botched it and he was born alive.

(See “Abortionist Who Performed Over 40,000 Abortions Becomes Pro-Life Activist”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?

SCOTUS gay marriage APOne of the more destructive behaviors of those engaged in politics is the willful conflation of political or moral arguments with constitutional and legal arguments. Nowhere is this more evident than with debate over coercing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, and three other cases in which district and appellate courts were split, on whether to toss out state marriage laws or not. Two months ago, the 6th Circuit upheld Ohio’s right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby establishing a split with other federal circuits and creating the need for intervention of the Supreme Court.

What is before the Court?

In order to understand what is at stake this week, and eventually in June when the court renders a decision, we must first discern what is not before the court.

The court is not rendering an opinion, nor should it, on the morality or prudence of same-sex relationships. That is a question for society to answer.

The court is not rendering an opinion on whether two consenting adults have the liberty to live together in all ways. They certainly have that right and have been doing so for quite some time.

The issue before the court is whether there is a federal constitutional right for same-sex partners to obtain a marriage license, thereby preventing the people or legislators of sovereign states from defining marriage as it always has been since the nation’s founding.

This is not a question of religiosity or a debate over culture. That is a societal conflict that will be settled outside of court. Even the strongest supporter of homosexuality or the idea of a same sex marriage cannot deny the fact that there is no mention of any form of marriage in the Constitution. States have plenary authority over marriage. Justice Kennedy’s primary argument for overturning DOMA was that it represented federal encroachment on a state’s “broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relationships” (even though DOMA only defined marriage for federal purposes); certainly it would be hypocritical of him to now create a federal mandate barring states from defining marriage.

Corrupting the 14th Amendment

Supporters of federal coercion contend that their aspirations are mandated by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. But that is a prima facie absurdity because everyone in this country, including homosexuals, indeed have the right to marry. If they don’t desire or feel unable to marry the way the term has been defined since creation, that is not a denial of their due process. Remember, every homosexual couple also has the right to live together without a marriage, much like many heterosexual couples do in our generation.

What plaintiffs are asking is for the federal court system to simultaneously change the definition of marriage (which is not mentioned in the Constitution) while precluding states from maintaining their own definition through their democratic processes. It is simply beyond reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent states from denying a status that nobody would have conjured up at the time, especially a status that runs counter to Natural Law and Common Law. In the very least, proponents of same-sex marriage need to use the democratic process to change the definition of marriage in order to achieve their goals. And judging by their bravado about recent polls, what do they have to fear from letting the people decide?

In order to assert a new fundamental right, the Supreme Court has laid out a constitutional test in Washington v Glucksberg (1997) when the court ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest. The asserted right has to be so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.” To prove a substantive due process violation of that right the court has ruled in Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales (2006) that the aggrieved person must show how this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

How can anyone assert such a claim of a concept that was not even conceived until this generation, thereby bypassing the political process to create that right?

Where is this headed?

Furthermore, what plaintiffs in the marriage cases can never answer is this: if marriage – as dictated by federal courts – is no longer defined as a special union between one man and one woman, what is the definition of marriage? They would have to define marriage, in the course of redefining it. They would have to draw parameters but it seems there is absolutely no legal jurisprudence one can employ to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage and not polygamist or incestual relationships

If anything, there is more of a Natural Law argument to include those relationships before homosexual ones because they can procreate. Unless of course, the court here is more interested in solving a political matter, than a legal one.

Accordingly, there is no rational basis for any one of the Justices to decide in favor of coercing states to adopt homosexual marriages but not all other relationships. Yet, four and possibly five Justice are so driven by personal beliefs that rational basis and legal jurisprudence will never sway their decision. So what is this really about?

The only way the Court can arrive at the conclusion so many in the media are supporting is for them to create a new protected class carved out exclusively for homosexuals. By using the court to create a new fundamental right and protected class instead of the political process to resolve a societal question, the Court will codify the anti-religious bigotry we’ve witnessed over the past few years into law. An Oregon baker, for example, is facing a $135,000 fine for not engaging in involuntary servitude to provide a specific service for a homosexual wedding.

Perforce, what is really before the court tomorrow has nothing to do with liberty, love, and equality for homosexual relationships; it is all about corrupting the Constitution and using the boot of government to violate the individual and religious rights of the other 97% of the population. (See “What’s Really at Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?”, originally posted HERE)

[Editor’s note: The following is a recent interview with this article’s author]

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Bigoted Judge: Christian Should Pay $135,000 to Homosexuals for Refusal to Bake Gay-Themed Cake

bnsweetcakes1jpg-ddb8cb356bb7e18aThe lesbian couple turned away by a Gresham bakery that refused to make them a wedding cake for religious reasons should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering, a state hearings officer says.

Rachel Bowman-Cryer should collect $75,000 and her wife, Laurel Bowman-Cryer, $60,000 from the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, an administrative law judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said in a proposed order released Friday, April 24.

Bureau prosecutors sought $75,000 for each woman — $150,000 total — during a hearing on damages in March.

The amounts recommended by law judge Alan McCullough, coming after four days of testimony, are not final. State Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian has the final authority to raise, lower or leave the proposed damages as is.

Friday’s ruling comes as the newest development in a legal dispute over a Christian couple’s insistence that their religious beliefs against same-sex marriage trump a state law requiring them to serve customers equally. (Read more from “Same-Sex Couple in Sweet Cakes Controversy Should Receive $135,000 due to Refusal to Bake Gay Cake” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Top Iranian General: America Was Behind 9/11 Attacks

150427_iranian_general_gty_629_956x519 (1)The commander of Iran’s ground forces said that American officials planned and executed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify military intervention in the region.

“These wars and these threats stem from a comprehensive American strategy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Americans felt that a new force was beginning to materialize, namely the union between Sunnis and Shiites,” said Ahmad Reza Pourdastan in an interview with Iran’s Arabic-language Al-Alam state news network.

“The basis of this force was the blessed Islamic Revolution in Iran. This force is Islam, or the Islamic world. In order to prevent this force from materializing, the Americans did many things,” Pourdastan said, according to a translation of his remarks by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

“The first thing they did was to plan and carry out the events of 9/11, in order to justify their presence in Western Asia, with the goal of ruling it,” he said. (Read more from “Top Iranian General: America Was Behind 9/11 Attacks” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Baltimore Mayor Decries Violence After Deliberately Encouraging It [+videos]

AP442424483422-e1430186566130-640x480By James Simpson. At the outset of the riots that are now sweeping Baltimore, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake held a press conference, telling reporters that the city was allowing violence in an effort to defuse the situation. “It’s a very delicate balancing act, because while we tried to make sure that they [meaning the rioters, not the victims] were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy, space to do that as well…” she said. She thought that would put the city in “the best position to deescalate.”

Under orders, police held back and did nothing while rioters engaged in repeated acts of violence, including smashing car windows, destroying police cars and attacking individuals and private businesses. At least 7 police have been injured, some seriously. This was the mayor’s idea of respecting the rioters’ First Amendment rights.

How is it possible that anyone could be so delusional, so mind-numbingly stupid, so utterly incompetent, that they would believe allowing rioters to go nuts would somehow pacify them. Predictably, they took her encouragement as opportunity for even more violence and widespread looting. The city is burning and the governor has declared a state of emergency. Now she is calling those very same people, thugs.

Stephanie Rollins-Blake personifies the mindless entitlement mentality that has ruined inner cities throughout the U.S. The residents of these places will not get “justice” until they figure out that they can only blame themselves by continually re-electing such clowns. (Read more from “Baltimore Mayor Decries Violence After Deliberately Encouraging It” HERE)

[Editor’s note: The following is a recent interview with this article’s author]

_______________________________________________________

“Baltimore Looks Like a War Zone”

Baltimore FireBy Holly Yan and Miguel Marquez. Streets in Baltimore looked like a war zone early Tuesday after a night of riots, fires and heartbreak.

“Too many people have spent generations building up this city for it to be destroyed by thugs who — in a very senseless way — are trying to tear down what so many have fought for,” Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said.

Buildings and cars across the city were engulfed in flames. About a dozen businesses looted or damaged. At least 15 officers were wounded, six of them seriously, the police commissioner said.

Late Monday night, CNN crews saw looters breaking in through the roof of a Baltimore liquor store. They were tossing bottles and cans of alcohol onto the street below.

All this came just hours after the funeral for Freddie Gray, who died of a severe spinal cord injury while in police custody. (Read more from this story HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Hillary Furious as Thousands Send Cigars to Her Offices With the Message: “Don’t Blow It”

233-chin_thrustHillary Clinton is reportedly furious and abashed as several thousand cigars were recently delivered to her office in protest of her announcement that she would run for President in 2016. Thanks to Send Clinton Cigars (https://sendclintoncigars.com), a service that allows you to anonymously purchase cigars and have them directly mailed to Clinton, tens of thousands of Americans are blatantly reminding her of her first stay in the White House. For those with short term memory loss, this was reportedly the sexual act of President Bill Clinton who used a cigar to pleasure White House intern Monica Lewinsky. “Send Clinton Cigars” site sports a not so subtle tagline of “Clinton / Lewinsky 2016 · Don’t Blow It!” beside a logo against smoking; cigars to be assumed.

The Send Clinton Cigars site offers several cigar gifts that may be purchased and mailed to Presidential Candidate Clinton, and mentions that their proceeds benefit the Wounded Warrior Project, [an organization that] appears to be unrelated. . .(Read more from “Hillary Furious as Thousands Send Cigars to Her Offices With the Message: “Don’t Blow It” HERE)

From the cigar-selling website:

Although it would be easy to assume we’re representing the far right conservatives, Mainspring Charities is comprised of individuals from a multitude of social and political beliefs which includes both Liberals and Democrats. However, we unanimously believe that Hillary Clinton should not be elected President of the United States in 2016 based on her performance record in public office, in addition to her history of falsifying information, misdirection, and deception as well as her seemingly volatile emotional state as demonstrated throughout her many recent hearings.

A subsequent post from the website suggests that Wounded Warriors has declined to receive proceeds from the venture:

Send Cigars to Clinton is an offhanded, not so subtle, nod to Former President Bill Clinton’s tryst with White House intern Monica Lewinsky (story here) that allows you to purchase a cigar, or cigars, to be delivered to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Headquarters as a not so gentle reminder of her first stay in the White House. If you’re tired of Hillary’s lies, cheating, and deceitful practices join us in telling her “No cigar in 2016!” by purchasing a cigar that will be delivered, with thousands of others, directly to her 2016 Campaign Headquarters!

Proceeds from the gifting of cigars at SendClintonCigars.com are donated to charities benefiting Veterans. Our originally intended charity has asked that we do not donate our proceeds to them; as such we are actively seeking new charities benefiting Veterans.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

STUNNING NEW CHART O’ THE DAY: How the Clinton Foundation Spent its Money in 2013

BillHillBefore Hillary left office in 2013, the Clintons appeared bound and determined to slurp up as much money into their Foundation as possible, spending as little on direct aid as one could imagine for a “charity”. The New York Post reports:

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

150427-clinton-global-graft-2013-2

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

In 2013, according to the Clinton Foundation’s IRS Form 1990 filing [PDF], the organization actually spent more than twice as much on travel, conferences, conventions and meetings than on actual, eh, grants.

Even the grants that were made were dubious “investments”. One such grant was nearly half a million dollars to a San Francisco-based group called “Architecture for Humanity”. Earlier this year the group announced it was closing its doors.

150427-hillary-salaries

The average compensation for the top Clinton Foundation executives we know of was roughly a quarter of a million dollars a year. In fact, as Karl Denninger explains:

You might be interested in knowing that the “charity” had 35 employees with reportable compensation (that is, over $100,000) and their top five combined had $2.6 million in direct (that is, cash) compensation and another $278,000 in benefits for approximately $3 million — or 1/3rd of all spending on “charitable causes”. On a grossed-up basis the charity spent $21.8 million on salaries and wages or approaching three times what it spent on “charity.”

In 2013 The Clinton Foundation employed 400 people, which means it doled out only $22,000 per employee.

In other words, it was — as the Sunlight Foundation describes it — “a slush fund”, not a charity. (See “STUNNING NEW CHART O` THE DAY: How the Clinton Foundation Spent its Money in 2013”, originally posted HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Taxpayers Fund Disgusting Same-Sex Study of Young Black Males

two-men-624x416On Wednesday, a Facebook friend posted a story on my page with the headline, “Taxpayers Raped to Study Anal Penetration of Black Youth.” After determining that actual rape of taxpayers was not occurring, I was no less disgusted with what is being “researched” with our tax dollars. The source of the story is a project synopsis on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website (motto: “Turning Discovery Into Health”). The project is titled, “First and Subsequent Same-Sex Sexual Satisfaction and Behavior in Young AAMSM (African-American men who have sex with men).” The study has been going on since 2012 at Johns Hopkins University and has been granted close to a half-million dollars that the American people would no doubt overwhelmingly elect to spend otherwise.

From the project synopsis:

Prior work has demonstrated that same-sex relationship trajectories support the development of self-esteem in young gay and bisexual men, while opposite same-sex relationships may be associated with homonegativity. Little is known about the meaning and function of first same-sex experience in AA adolescent men and whether satisfaction with first penetrative same-sex experience impacts sexual trajectories. The goal of this project is to understand the meaning and function of first same-sex sexual experience and to prospectively be able to assess its impact on subsequent sexual experiences, young adult sexual health and health protective behaviors.

I call bunk on this claim that “prior work” has demonstrated that homosexual relationships support the development of “self-esteem” in young, sodomite men. Besides being utterly counterintuitive, it denies statistics on the high rate of depression, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, suicide and a host of other ills among homosexuals. And, “Homonegativity”? There’s a new one. I suppose this is their term to describe the natural revulsion normal people have for homosexual behavior. That’s beside the point, though. These people are using hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to recruit and study the anal sex experience of homosexual black male adolescents, which the study calls “adolescent men,” a contradictory name if I’ve ever heard one. This is not about men. It’s about boys. The study is being conducted at Johns Hopkins in the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health & Human Development. I wonder if they are going to report to authorities those “adolescent men” whose sex partners are grown men. After all, there are laws against adults having sex with minor children, even if those kids are euphemistically called “adolescent men.” (Read more from “Taxpayers Fund Disgusting Same-Sex Study of Young Black Males” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

George W. Bush Breaks Silence; Blasts Obama on Iran, ISIS

gwbushFormer President George W. Bush blasted President Obama’s Middle East policies Saturday night at a closed-door meeting with Jewish donors in Las Vegas.

At the tightly controlled event (off the record, with a “no notes” rule), hosted at the Venetian hotel and casino by wealthy owner and Republican supporter Sheldon Adelson, Bush answered guest questions for an hour on topics ranging from national security threats to the 2016 presidential campaign, the New York Times reported Sunday.

Bush, who has largely refrained from criticizing Obama since leaving office, opened up about Obama’s pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, which most Republicans oppose strongly.

Bloomberg reported on one audience member as saying Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He’s smooth,” Bush said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”

Bush remarked on how there is “no transparency in Iran,” because the supreme leader, and not the will of the people, picks the presidents. He regretted that lifting sanctions against Iran just when its government may be caving in would cost the United States leverage, according to others who attended. (Read more from “George W. Bush Breaks Silence; Blasts Obama on Iran, ISIS” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Obama Appoints First LGBT Envoy in Effort to Convert the World Over to the Gay Agenda

CORRECTION-US-POLITICS-WHCA-OBAMAWhen officials at the State Department began mulling the notion of creating a special LGBT envoy, there was some trepidation.

A few worried that designating an envoy expressly for the purpose of promoting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around the world — an official goal of U.S. diplomacy since 2011 — would stovepipe the issue and lead others at State to neglect it. Others, according to a State employee involved in the process, wondered if including “LGBT” in the title would hurt the envoy’s ability to get meetings with senior officials in countries such as Uganda and Russia, where gays have increasingly come under legal attack.

In February, veteran U.S. diplomat Randy Berry was named to the carefully titled position of America’s “special envoy for the human rights of LGBT persons,” and it’s clear he has no intention of being isolated either at State or by any state.

In an interview with POLITICO, the 50-year-old, openly gay diplomat sketched out an ambitious agenda, one he hopes will mean forging ties with activists, companies and governments everywhere, including in places hostile to people such as himself.

Of the thousands of positive messages he’s received so far — he can’t think of a negative one — Berry points out that a big chunk came from the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose former president insisted the country had no gays. Surely, he argues, even the most ardent opponents of gays wouldn’t object to having a discussion on whether people in the LGBT community deserve basic human rights. (Read more from “Obama Appoints First LGBT Envoy in Effort to Convert the World Over to the Gay Agenda” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.