Guest Post: The Testimony of a Child of Rape

Considering the turn the public debate this week has taken with the attempted character assassination of Indiana GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock over deliberately misconstrued comments he made about rape, abortion, and God, one of my Twitter followers – @Phillybama1 – volunteered to share the story of his birth. He is the child of a rape survivor and, needless to say, he feels very blessed that his mother did not abort him.  Here is his story:


“And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen” –Richard Mourdock, October 23, 2012

My name is Scott Braddock, and I am a product of date rape. My birth mother gave me up for adoption 10 days after her 16th birthday in 1967. So, naturally, when Mr. Mourdock made these statements, they were certainly attention-getting, and quite personal for me.

For many, belief in the sanctity of life is based on one’s religious upbringing. That is not the case for me. If abortion were legal at the time and the laws regarding underage notification were as they are now, my birth mother told me I would have been aborted. She’s 61 years old now and much wiser and more mature, so that is obviously no longer the case.

I was adopted by two wonderful parents who were unable to have children, have led a completely blessed life, and now have a beautiful wife and two teenage children of my own. I have been blessed to have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, and am working at a demanding, yet satisfying job.

When I turned 25 and was newly married, I received a call from Catholic Charities. My birth mother was trying to contact me! Now I have a relationship with her and her husband, as well as three brothers and a sister. My adoptive parents have been supportive of this as well, which is a testament to their selflessness in raising me.

While I might not be a doctor or an educator, a scientist or engineer, didn’t I deserve the chance at life, even though I was the product of a rape? Also, as a Christian, is it proper for me to say that God allowed the rape to happen? I would certainly say so.  I close with a simple quote from Joseph in the book of Genesis, referring to his brothers selling him into slavery.

Genesis 50:20

But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day.

Despicable: #Obama2012 sexualizes voting process for “1st time” teen women voters

We’ve hit a new low in campaign tactics. I’m so disgusted right now:

And here I thought women were more than just the sum total of our “lady parts”? Apparently not. Is nothing sacred and innocent anymore? Most “first time” voters are those who have turned 18. This video is aimed at young teenage women! has a tweet round-up of the enthusiastic supporters of this disgusting tactic – like (unsurprisingly) actress Ashley Judd, as well as comments from critics. This one pretty well sums it up for me:

Make sure you (respectfully) let Obama campaign manager Jim @Messina2012 (who is promoting this video) know how you feel about it, especially if you’re a woman sick of being treated like you need to be extra nice (hint hint) to Uncle Sam to make it in the world.

Update – 7:52 PM: Here was my response:

Wonder how long it will be before I’m blocked by both of them? ;)

Portrait of a juvenile President of the United States

Screen-cap via The Drudge Report:

No grown-ups in this White House.

The quote comes from a hard-hitting interview the President recently had with … Rolling Stone magazine. Politico writes:

President Obama sat for an interview with Rolling Stone for next month’s issue and Playbook has the first look at the story by Douglas Brinkley:

“We arrived at the Oval Office for our 45-minute interview … on the morning of October 11th. … As we left the Oval Office, executive editor Eric Bates told Obama that he had asked his six-year-old if there was anything she wanted him to say to the president. … [S]he said, ‘Tell him: You can do it.’ Obama grinned. … ‘You know, kids have good instincts,’ Obama offered. ‘They look at the other guy and say, “Well, that’s a bullsh—er, I can tell.”’”

You know what? I know a POTUS has to deal with a lot of stress and has to blow off steam, and sometimes cursing is a part of that, but – dang it – Presidents are role models for kids and language like this should be left behind closed doors.   It’d be one thing if this was an unintentional hot mic moment or if he were speaking out of frustration and in the heat of the moment cursed, but it’s not. He said this knowing it had the potential for being published, knowing that teenagers read this unabashedly left wing magazine.

And anyone who thinks I’m being fuddy dud about this, think about other things Presidents in modern history make sure they don’t do in public: smoke, get drunk, become overly affectionate with their spouses, be seen in revealing clothing, etc. There are things you just shouldn’t do in public when you’re in a position of great influence like the leader of the free world is and, frankly, you need to act like a bleeping adult and not some college frat dude.  Such a high office commands more dignity and respect this President sometimes takes for granted.

Related to this, I thought this tweet from my friend @sleepdoctorjoe was spot on:

God, I can’t wait til adults take over the White House again – whether it’s after next month’s election or in 2016.  This guy and his gooftastic second in command have got to go.

Benghazi Consulate Massacre: a word of caution about those emails

**Posted by Phineas

Yesterday I wrote about emails sent from Libya to the State Department and the White House, among others, indicating that an al Qaeda subsidiary, Ansar al Sharia, had taken credit for the assault on our consulate that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. These emails seemed to confirm what many have suspected all along: that the White House knew quickly the attack had nothing to do with an obscure video, that they knew who had really perpetrated it, and that they were lying to the American people to cover up their incompetence and to protect Obama’s reelection chances.

While I still think that’s largely true, last night Daveed Gartenstein-Ross pointed followers to an article containing an observation by Anthony Zelin that makes the “the White House knew within two hours” narrative much less certain:

However, an examination of the known Facebook and Twitter accounts of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi reveals no such claim of responsibility. Aaron Zelin, a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, tracks dozens of jihadist websites and archives much of what they say. He told CNN he was unaware of any such claim having been posted on the official Facebook page or Twitter feed of Ansar al-Sharia in Benghazi.

Zelin, who said his RSS feed sends him any new statement from the group, provided CNN with a copy of that feed. It shows no Facebook update between September 8 and September 12, when a posting late that afternoon first referenced the attack. Zelin notes that the posting referred to a news conference the group had held earlier that day in Benghazi in which it denied any role in the assault on the consulate, while sympathizing with the attackers.

This is an important point: these groups are not shy about claiming credit when they strike at the infidels (that’s us); not only is attacking us an act of religious piety that, in their view, is something to be proud of, but bragging about it also boosts the prestige of their group. Yet they first said nothing, then denied involvement.

The article continues by describing the difficulties of obtaining solid information in a place as chaotic as Libya:

In the hours following such incidents, it is not unusual for “spot reports” from agencies and overseas posts to pour in to the State Department. They typically include intercepts, what’s picked up on social media, witness accounts and what’s being said by local officials. They often contain raw, unfiltered information that is then analyzed for clues, patterns and contradictions.

In the case of the Benghazi attack, there were plenty of contradictions. Such situations are frequently chaotic, with claim and counter-claim by witnesses unsure of what happened when, according to U.S. officials. Building a complete picture without access to first-hand-accounts and little visual evidence can be a major challenge to government experts working from thousands of miles away.

So too have been the attempts to pin down who represents Ansar al-Shariah and their movements on the night of the attack.

Wings of Ansar al-Sharia, which means “partisans” or “supporters of Islamic law,” are based not only in Benghazi but in the Libyan town of Derna, east of Benghazi. The group’s leaders in Derna are thought to include Abu Sufyan bin Qumu, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee.

A different Ansar al-Sharia is affiliated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and budding franchises are said to exist in Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.

In other words, with groups as decentralized as al Qaeda and its affiliates, the leadership in one place might take false credit, while that in another might deny it altogether, while a third, wholly unrelated group that happens to have the same name might (or might not) be the real perpetrators. (In fact, there is some indication al Qaeda jihadis from Iraq were part of the attack.) Thus the emails from Tripoli are not necessarily as damning as they may seem.

So, while I’m reasonably certain that this was an organized al Qaeda hit and not just a “flash mob with mortars,” I’m withdrawing my specific contention from yesterday that Obama had to have known within two hours that this was a terrorist hit and who did it — for now, until we get better information.

I am not, however, withdrawing or walking-back or wavering in my belief that the administration knew at some point early on that there was no anti-video demonstration and that this might well have been an al Qaeda attack. The evidence is too strong to believe otherwise (such as from drone surveillance during the fight). It appears much more likely, indeed probable, that they desperately latched onto any rumor that would allow them to claim it was someone else’s fault — an obscure film producer in California, for example. And then they stuck with it and lied to us for weeks afterward.

Forget about exactly when they knew: that they knew at all -and Obama and company had to have known- and continued to blow smoke in our faces in order to avoid responsibility is what we need to remember on Election Day.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Liar-in-Chief on Leno shows trademark dishonesty discussing Mourdock rape remarks


During an appearance on “The Tonight Show” taped Wednesday evening, President Obama slammed Richard Mourdock over the Republican Senate candidate’s controversial comments about pregnancies resulting from rape.

Asked by host Jay Leno about Mourdock’s comments, in which the Indiana state treasurer said during a debate Tuesday evening that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen,” the president said “rape is rape.”

“I don’t know how [they] come up with these ideas … rape is rape. It is a crime,” the president said. “These various distinctions about rape … don’t make any sense to me.”

Mourdock, an evangelical Christian, says abortion should only be legal when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. He argues it should be illegal in cases of rape and incest. Many who share his faith believe God chooses when conception occurs and that abortion is equivalent to murder.

In a press conference Wednesday, Mourdock accused Democrats of twisting the meaning of his comments.

“I would be less than faithful to my faith if I said anything other than ‘Life is precious.’ I think it is a gift from God. I don’t think God would ever want anyone harmed, sexually abused or raped. I think it’s wrong when someone wants to take what I said and twist it,” Mourdock said.

There is no one in their right mind, and who is not blinded by naked political bigotry and desperation, who can watch the video of Mourdock’s debate comments and/or read the quote itself and conclude he “supports rape” and/or thinks there are “various distinctions about rape.” Anyone who suggests that’s what Mourdock said is DELIBERATELY lying and shamelessly pandering to a key voting bloc by way of vicious character assassination using “facts” that have no basis in reality. NO ONE SUPPORTS RAPE, and NO ONE thinks rape is NOT A CRIME. Also, it’s INSULTING to women across America for him to think he can just say these things and women will automatically fall for it. Well, some will – but many more will NOT. I’m personally fed up with this bull sh*t!

And he said all this not in front of a WH press corps that is eager to talk to him, that might actually question him on his comments, but on a friendly-to-liberals late night show like Leno’s.

This is absolutely contemptible and unbefitting of the office of the Presidency. Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you.

Thank goodness the gender gap appears to be closing. This man deserves to lose and lose big next month, especially among women voters.