#INSEN: I stand with @RichardMourdock against #prochoice demagoguery


Last night, the three candidates for Indiana Senate participated in a debate, and the last question asked was on abortion and where the candidates stood. All three candidates (Richard Mourdock – R, Joe Donnelly – D, Andrew Horning – L) are pro-life and said so in response to the question. Donnelly is Mourdock’s main opponent and they are locked in a tight race, if polling numbers are an accurate indication. Of course, a Republican having to contend with a Libertarian candidate on the ballot makes it even more uphill and it could ultimately be a factor in this race. But in the meantime, Mourdock’s chief concern is Donnelly, and with two weeks to go before election day, opportunistic, leftists seized on Mourdock’s answer and explanation to the abortion question. Via CNN (bolded emphasis added by me):

(CNN) — U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Wednesday that he is sorry if he offended anyone by saying that pregnancies from rape are “something that God intended to happen” but accused Democrats of distorting his comments for political gain.

“For those who want to kind of twist the comments and use them for partisan, political gain, I think that’s what’s wrong with Washington these days,” the Indiana candidate said. “I spoke from my heart; I spoke with my principle; I spoke from my faith. And if others want to somehow turn those words and use them against me, again, that’s what’s wrong with Washington today.

“It is win at any costs. Let’s make up issues when we can’t find real ones. Let’s twist, let’s distort, let’s deceive. And I think that’s a sad process.”

His initial comments came during a debate Tuesday with Democratic congressman Joe Donnelly, and they prompted outrage among liberals who accuse the GOP of seeking to undermine women’s rights.

“Mr. Mourdock’s lack of compassion for rape survivors is callous, insulting and completely out of touch,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Mourdock became the Republican Senate nominee after toppling longtime incumbent Richard Lugar in a bitter primary fight. The Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal, which had endorsed Lugar, announced Wednesday that it was endorsing Donnelly in part because of Mourdock’s pregnancy comment.

The newspaper, which has readers in southern Indiana, wrote that Mourdock’s statement “exceeded extreme” and that Donnelly represented “the only rational choice for voters.”

Just what were Mourdock’s full remarks? Read below:

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” said Mourdock, the Indiana state treasurer. He added that he would allow for exceptions to an abortion ban when a mother’s life was in danger.

Seeking to clarify his comments, Mourdock said Wednesday that “I absolutely abhor violence. I absolutely abhor any kind of sexual violence. I abhor rape, and I am absolutely confident that, as I stand here, the God that I worship abhors violence, abhors sexual violence and abhors rape. The God that I worship would never, ever want to see evil done.

“So many people mistook, twisted, came to misunderstand the points that I was trying to make. … If they came away with any impression other than that, I truly regret it.”

First thought is: Why the hell did the comments deserve clarification in the first place? He didn’t say, contra to lying “feminists” and opportunistic DEMagogues like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, that God “condoned” rape, nor did his comments demonstrate that he (Mourdock) “supports rape“, another outrageously false assertion being made by many on the pro-abortion side. My opinion is that  his thoughtful answer stood on its own: As a Christian pro-lifer he has struggled with the issue of abortion but ultimately he comes down on the side of life, even in the horrible instances where one has been conceived as the result of rape – because he believes life is God-given and begins at conception, no matter how the baby is conceived.  And he does make exceptions in the cases of life of the mother.

None of these positions are “extreme” (unlike the abortion procedures themselves) nor were his comments intentionally “insulting” to rape victims, no matter how much shameless victim-mongers on the left want to make them out to be.  And here is the kicker: There are probably very few people outside of the state of Indiana who know that Joe Donnelly’s position on abortion is not that far off from Mourdock’s.  Here is his answer (Mourdock’s follows) on where he stands on abortion.  He is pro-life, but makes exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother.  In other words, his position is very similar to many on the GOP side, and it’s a position “feminist” groups like NARAL have said  in the past is “dangerous for women across America” – but you’re  not hearing SCREAMS of outrage from The Usual Suspects on his position because militant left wing zealots on this issue still believe his position is better than Mourdock’s.

Ideally, would it have been better for Mourdock to leave God out of his answer? Sure, if you want to be politically correct about it, and if you want to ignore the fact that faith does play a role in the personal opinions of  many candidates and already-elected politicos.  Paul Ryan, for example, expressed in his debate with Joe Biden that he didn’t believe you could separate your public life from your faith, and that – in a roundabout way – is what Mourdock said with respect to abortion in instances of rape.   What Mourdock did NOT say was that he doesn’t feel compassion towards rape victims who end up being pregnant as a result of the violent crime – his note that the crime was “horrible” should have been a a strong indicator that he is not unfeeling when it comes to this issue, and the fact that he admitted he’s struggled on the question is another indicator that he doesn’t take the issues of abortion nor rape lightly.

Really, NO ONE does – not Democrats, not Republicans, no one. But try telling that to the hacks who have distorted, misrepresented, and lied about Mourdock’s remarks.  As usual, NARAL/NOW types are using the opportunity to make dishonest claims about “extremism” and “rape-supporting.”  It’s cheap, it’s low, it’s classless, but in the end it’s a tactic that hopefully will NOT impact this race negatively for Mourdock.

Keep in mind that as a Senator, there would be VERY little Mourdock could do on the issue of abortion anyway in terms of legislation.  There is the SCOTUS nominee confirmation process, however, which is ultimately what scares the bloody hell out of abortion devotees.

Also, to use a famous quote from our celebrity President, let me make this perfectly clear: Though I have been in a date – rape situation that was fortunately stopped in time, I am not a rape victim and can only imagine the physical, emotional, and psychological ups and downs victims go through as a result of it happening.  For some victims of rape who have become pregnant as a result, they say it is like reliving the rape all over again – and again.  My heart goes out to all rape victims, whether they became pregnant as a result or not. From what I’ve read, the feelings of terror, powerlessness and helplessness they must have felt when they were victimized never fully leaves them.  But in the cases of those who have become pregnant, the decisions they must make take on an added layer of agony, trauma, and resentment.  I can’t step into their minds to fully understand what they’re going through, and can’t honestly say that I wouldn’t be a little conflicted if I were in the same situation.  Emotions are tricky things and sometimes we act on them in ways we end up regretting later, which leads me to this:

I believe that having an abortion just adds another victim to the horrific crime of rape itself.  As Mourdock implied with his comments, a life conceived is a life, regardless of how it happened.   It can’t be a “clump of cells” in instances of rape but a “developing baby” in instances where the conception was intended. There are women who have been raped who kept their babies and ended up loving them with all of their hearts. There are women who have been raped who did not abort and who ended up giving the baby up for adoption.  I have spoken with adult kids of rape victims.   Needless to say, they are relieved their mother made the difficult choice to have them in spite of the daily reminder it must have brought of what happened to them.

This is an issue that deserves careful thoughtful analysis and discussion, introspection, sensitivity, and honesty – NOT despicable demagoguery, pandering manipulation, and cheap politicization. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but unfortunately the liberal opposition doesn’t care about being reasonable nor truthful. The real “insult” from all of this is the fact radical feminists and liberal politicos and other left wing public figures use issues like this to divide Americans, and to demonize pro-life men who – in their view – should not even be allowed to have an opinion at all on abortion since “they can’t have babies.”

If you’re a supporter of Mourdock who is reconsidering in light of what he said last night, I urge you to stand firm.  If you’re someone whose support has never wavered but who wants to step it up more now to help him defend himself from character assassination, click here.

But if you’re a GOP politico demanding apologies (Mike Pence) and/or are pulling your support for Mourdock (looking at you, Sen. Ayotte) as a result of the false narrative generated from what he said, I am deeply disappointed in you – and I know I’m not the only one.   We are quickly become a nation of people losing its collective backbone, and on this issue – perhaps more than any other – we can’t allow the media and the left to paint us into a corner by falsely defining who we are and where we stand.  The unborn can’t speak for themselves but we can try to speak for them in the interests of protecting them.

In all the hoopla stirred up by manufactured controversies like this one, we must never forget that.

Benghazi consulate massacre: Obama knew who did it within two hours and lied to us. UPDATE: emails withheld from Senate?


**Posted by Phineas

US Consulate, Benghazi

Dear Mr. President: Let this be a teaching moment for you not to throw the intelligence and foreign service communities under the bus. They know things you’d rather be kept secret. Try to make them the fall guys, and those things will …somehow… become public:

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

(Emphasis added)

It wasn’t just “for days” that the administration tried to blame the disaster on a video few had even heard of; with very few exceptions, it went on for two weeks, including an infomercial in Pakistan bought and paid for with US taxpayer money and a presidential address before the UN General Assembly. The film’s maker was rousted out of his home by the sheriffs at night and made a public scapegoat, his free speech rights gut shot and left to bleed.

But it didn’t end after just a few days or even a few weeks, or even after US officials finally acknowledged what our “lying eyes” had been telling us all along, that this was an al Qaeda terrorist operation. Let’s roll tape and review a moment from the second Obama-Romney debate that the president I’m sure wishes we’d all forget:

Remember those first 45 seconds.

The three emails (via PJM) mentioned in the Reuters report detail the early stages of the attack on the consulate. They arrived within the first two hours of a battle that lasted seven hours. There are two key takeaways here:

  • First, amidst all the addresses in the headers, note “nss.eop.gov.” That is the White House Situation Room, President Obama’s emergency command center. It is almost unthinkable that Obama himself wasn’t informed.
  • Second, the subject line of the last email, beginning “UPDATE 2,” reported that Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit for the attack. Ansar al Sharia is al Qaeda’s subsidiary in Libya.

In other words, within 120 minutes of the battle’s beginning, while there still might have been time to send help and save lives, the president, who almost certainly was informed, instead went to bed, lied to us the next day in the Rose Garden (and for weeks after), and that night went to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.

As I’ve written before, these lies could not have been meant to keep secrets from the enemy; al Qaeda knew what they had done. It wasn’t to protect a retaliatory strike, for none was underway. (We were still “investigating,” trying to find out what happened, y’see.)

No, the only purpose of this repeated, serial lying from multiple administration officials, from the president to Secretary of State Clinton to Ambassador Rice to Mouth of Sauron Press Secretary Jay Carney and God knows how many others, was to lie to us, in order to protect Obama’s reelection.

Bear in mind that Obama had spent months spiking the ball over killing bin Laden, culminating at the Democratic convention in Charlotte early last September and proclaiming that al Qaeda was crippled. Then the Benghazi attack occurred, clearly planned in advance, clearly an al Qaeda operation, and, so clearly that even a blind man couldn’t miss it, demolishing Obama’s one great claim to foreign policy success, something he desperately needed in his race against Governor Romney.

And thus the “fables” about a “spontaneous reaction to a hateful video” and “no evidence of terrorism” were born. Thus the midnight knock on the door for guy who had made the video. The only question is who came up with the idea. Axelrod? Jarrett? Cutter? Obama, himself?

We’ll probably find out in a tell-all memoir after the election, when all these wretches are in retirement and pointing fingers at each other.

But I doubt we’ll ever find out who released these emails. That’s a secret that will be kept.

UPDATE: Oh, this is special. Apparently the Senate Intelligence Committee had been asking for the emails for weeks, but the White House –I just know you’ll be shocked– stonewalled them.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)