Todd Akin Ought To Leave Senate Race. But Here’s Why What He Said Isn’t As ‘Illegitimate’ As Liberals Demagogue.

Update, August 22, 2012: If you really want to demonize a party for Todd Akin’s comments, maybe you should refuse to vote Democrat:

Democrats funded Akin to help McCaskill
The Washington Examiner
by: Sean Higgins
Monday, August 20, 2012

Call it a wise investment in light of his recent comments: Democrats wanted Missouri Republican congressman Todd Akin to win his state’s hotly contested Senate GOP primary because they believed he gave incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill her best shot at retaining her seat. As the Washington Post reported earlier this month:

There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field — and the most unpredictable one. …

While Democrats are now blasting Akin’s comments on “legitimate rape,” one person is resisting calls for Akin to step aside: Claire McCaskill.

It’s rather funny in a way that the left is trying to now demonize Mitt Romney over the remarks of a candidate that Democrats funded.  Especially given the fact that Mitt Romney called for him to leave the race and Claire McCaskill refused to do so.  [End update].

Todd Akin isn’t in trouble because he did something unethical or illegal.  He’s in trouble because of ONE remark:

Asked in an interview on a St. Louis television station about his views on abortion, Mr. Akin, a six-term member of Congress who is backed by Tea Partyconservatives, made it clear that his opposition to the practice was nearly absolute, even in instances of rape.

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Here’s the thing: had Akin simply said “forcible rape” instead of “legitimate rape,” the remark would have been entirely factually correct.  Forcible rape distinguishes from things such as statuatory rape (when two people have consensual sex but one of them is underage) and situations that many feminists push such as a woman having consensual sex and then later deciding said consensual sex was a mistake and ergo sum amounted to a rape.

Pregnancy from forcible rape are incredibly rare.  That is simply a documented fact.

Consider the following evidence.  Let me first dismiss the liberal/feminist claim that “unreported rapes” somehow throw off the statistics that prove that forcible rapes hardly ever result in pregnancy with this: because the only way such a claim could be remotely true is if “reporting a rape” decreases fertility whereas not reporting a rape increases fertility.  Otherwise, whether a victim reports a rape or not, she is obviously no more or less likely to get pregnant than if she doesn’t report a rape or not.  So very simply the assertion that reported rapes almost never result in pregnancy but unreported ones somehow often result in pregnancy is complete nonsense.

Now the evidence:

How many forcible rapes result in a pregnancy? The numbers claimed have ranged the entire spectrum of possibilities. Some feminists have claimed as high as 5 to 10 percent, which is absurd. One problem has been the lack of available studies and accurate statistics. Often women do not admit to having been raped. On the other hand, it has been known that women, pregnant from consensual intercourse, have later claimed rape. Is it possible to know the actual facts?

There have been some studies. In the statistical abstract of the US in 1989, there were 90,000 rapes reported in the United States. (Bureau of Census Table #283)

Another study was from the U.S. Justice Department, which surveyed 49,000 households annually between the years 1973-1987. In 1973, it reported 95,934 completed rapes. In 1987, the figure was 82,505. The study stated that only 53% were reported to police. Factoring this in, the totals were 181,000 rapes in 1973 and 155,000 in 1987. In August 1995, the US Justice Department, using a different study with different questions, returned a result of 170,000 completed rapes plus 140,000 attempted rapes.

There are approximately 100,000,000 females old enough to be at risk for rape in the United States. If we calculate on the basis of 100,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 1,000 is raped each year. If we calculate on the basis of 200,000 rapes, that means that one woman in 500 is raped each year.

Now for the important question. How many rape pregnancies are there? The answer is that, according to statistical reporting, there are no more than one or two pregnancies resultant from every 1,000 forcible rapes.

But, does it make sense? Let’s look, using the figure of 200,000 rapes each year.

  • Of the 200,000 women who were forcibly raped, one-third were either too old or too young to get pregnant. That leaves 133,000 at risk for pregnancy.
  • A woman is capable of being fertilized only 3 days (perhaps 5) out of a 30-day month. Multiply our figure of 133,000 by three tenths. Three days out of 30 is one out of ten, divide 133 by ten and we have 13,300 women remaining. If we use five days out of 30 it is one out of six. Divide one hundred and thirty three thousand by six and we have 22,166 remaining.
  • One-fourth of all women in the United States of childbearing age have been sterilized, so the remaining three-fourths come out to 10,000 (or 15,000).
  • Only half of assailants penetrate her body and/or deposit sperm in her vagina,1 so let’s cut the remaining figures in half. This gives us numbers of 5,000 (or 7,500).
  • Fifteen percent of men are sterile, that drops that figure to 4,250 (or 6,375).
  • Fifteen percent of non-surgically sterilized women are naturally sterile. That reduces the number to 3,600 (or 5,400).
  • Another fifteen percent are on the pill and/or already pregnant. That reduces the number to 3,070 (or 4,600).
  • Now factor in the fact that it takes 5-10 months for the average couple to achieve a pregnancy. Use the smaller figure of 5 months to be conservative and divide the avove figures by 5. The number drops to 600 (or 920).
  • In an average population, the miscarriage rate is about 15 percent. In this case we have incredible emotional trauma. Her body is upset. Even if she conceives, the miscarriage rate will be higher than in a more normal pregnancy. If 20 percent of raped women miscarry, the figure drops to 450 (or 740).

Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.

So assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we’re talking about only ten per state, per year. In the United States in one year, there are more than 6 million pregnancies. Roughly 3 million eventuate in live birth, 1.5 million are aborted and 500,000 miscarry. And so while each assault rape pregnancy is a tragedy for the mother (not for the baby, though), we can with confidence say that such pregnancies amount to a minuscule fraction of the total annual pregnancies in the United States. Further, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted, even though that course of action tends to be vigorously pushed by those around the woman. 2,3

One final thought, Sandra Mahkorn, in two excellent studies, has asked such women what was their chief complaint? One might fully assume it was the fact that she was pregnant, but that is incorrect. Her chief complaint was how other people treated her. Such treatment ranged from negative, to simply getting little support from those around her. Even in a culture that offers little support and aggressively pushes abortion as a solution, fewer that half of such babies are killed by abortion. Think of how many fewer yet there would be if each pregnant victim of a rape were given the support, aid and tender loving care that she and her baby deserve.

Our goal is to offer truly compassionate care to the woman. That is what is best for both mother and child.

1 New England Journal of Medicine, A.N. Groth, Sexual DyFORBESSunction [sic] During Rape, Oct. 6, 1977, p.764-6

2 Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion, University Publisher of Amer., 1981, pp.182-199

3 Mahkorn, “Pregnancy & Sexual Assault.” In Psychological Aspects of Abortion, University Publishers of Amer., 1979, pp. 53-72

By J. C. Willke, MD,
reprinted with permission from 4/99 Life Issues Connector

Four pregnancies caused by forcible rape per state per year.  One in one thousand forcible rapes result in pregnancy.  That pretty much proves what Todd Akin is saying if you simply remove the poorly chosen term “legitimate rape.”

Note that this conclusive evidence doesn’t attempt to claim that “women who don’t enjoy the rape can’t get pregnant” or any of the other crazy claims that the left is now saying that Akin somehow implied even though he never said anything of the sort.  But for the reasons listed above and possibly certain other reasons, it is nevertheless a simple scientific, biological, statistically documented FACT that forcible rape rarely results in pregnancy.

Akin was trying to get at something important: what liberals invariably attempt to do is take an EXTREME situation that occurs once in a blue moon and then enact legislation that affects the entire population.  To wit, what liberals have implicitly done is created a legal assumption that EVERY pregnancy of EVERY woman should be treated identically to a pregnancy caused by forcible rape, such that a “victim” of pregnancy ought to be able to abort her baby just as any victim of forcible rape ought to be allowed to do. 

Roe v. Wade was enacted on a complete fabrication: the woman identified in the case as Roe (Norma McCorvey) was claimed to have been gang-raped and therefore ought to be able to get an abortion.  But in fact she had NOT been raped at all.  And so not only “forcible rape” but in fact GANG rape was the legal basis upon which all women suddenly became victims of pregnancy and had the right to kill their own children.

That actual woman, Norma McCorvey, is now a Christian crusading for the right to life and the end to the mass abortions that her case inflicted on society.  She has asked the courts to reverse that decision the way one ought to reverse a guilty verdict of a person who has been proven to be innocent.  But the liberals got what they wanted out of her – a fabricated case that allowed them to advance their agenda – and they’re done with her.

Even überliberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has stated that Roe v. Wade was based on terrible legal reasoning.  But so what?  Liberals lied and fabricated and abrogated the Constitution to get what they wanted.  Screw the evidence and screw the truth.  And most certainly screw the Constitution, which has been reduced to “penumbras and emanations” rather than anything that actually says or stands for anything meaningful.

The entire underlying case behind Roe v. Wade was that every single woman ought to be treated as if she had been gang raped if she gets pregnant. And since all pregnancies are the result of said implicit assumed gang rape, she should not have to carry that child against her will.  All that was part of the background for what Todd Akin was – excuse me, but – LEGITIMATELY saying. 

I am a staunch pro-life proponent.  And my reasoning is clear: the child who is in the womb is an innocent human being.  Therefore whether that pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, the child is still human.  But that said, I would never push for legislation that would force a victim of forcible rape or incest to have a child against her will.

Why not?  For two reasons: one is practical: BECAUSE so few pregnancies occur from such situations, I would rather see the rest of the millions of pregnancies viewed separately and distinctly from “forcible rape” or “gang rape” the way the liberals imposed on Roe v. Wade.  To demand that women be forced to bear their rapists’ babies is simply something that will never be legislated by any politically elected body.  Let us protect the 99.999 percent of babies as our first goal.  And the second reason is simply that the fathers are such reprehensible human beings.

I am now digressing, but let me repeat a point I have made numerous times before: that abortion has destroyed fatherhood in America.  And the higher the abortion rate in a population (e.g., the black abortion rate is stratospherically higher than any other population) the greater the fatherlessness in that population.  And the reason this is true is self-evident:

When a man and woman have intercourse, can a child be conceived?  Absolutely NOT, say liberals as a matter of rigid doctrine.  No “baby” or “child” was conceived; the “fetus” is merely an inanimate lump of goop possessing no humanity, no personhood, no rights of any kind.  It is a thing.  It is NOT a baby.  No “father” “fathered” ANYTHING.

And with that “reasoning,” no “father” should have any rights whatsoever over what happens to his “child” because he didn’t “father” any “child” did he???

Therefore, the “father” is merely a basically uninvolved contributor of some material that facilitated a lump of goop. 

Therefore, no “father” ought to have any rights over what is clearly not a child or a baby or a human being no matter how much he might think otherwise.  If the “mother” decides she doesn’t want to be a “mother” after all, that man is compelled by the force of law to stand by and do nothing while his BABY is murdered.

And thus fatherhood was murdered.  And the doctrine of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” was solidified into our culture.

Every father ought to have the duty to support and care for his child.  Every mother ought to have the duty to birth her child and nourish that child.  Abortion has turned both of these truths into lies.

Getting back to the political discussion, it is pathetic that Joe Biden can incite racial hatred –

“They’re going to put y’all back in chains”

– he said to an audience of mostly black people.

There is a crystal clear meaning that is utterly hateful: Republicans, the Party of Abraham Lincoln, the Party that fought a war to end slavery against the Democrats, will literally put black people back into slavery if Mitt Romney is elected president.

But that was just Joe being Joe, Democrats said.  What he really meant to say was something different.  How dare you try to hold him to what he actually said, they say.

And then poor Todd Akin blunders into a stupid choice of words and of course there is no possible way in hell that the mainstream media will treat that Republican with the same kid gloves they just treated Joe Biden with.  No, it is the political buzz saw for him for no other reason than that he is a Republican.

And that massive hypocrite double-standard is simply the reality: Democrats are dishonest hypocrites as a matter of fact.  We will never get fair treatment from them or from any industry such as the mainstream media that they dominate.  Period.

To try to slander Akin by arguing that he was somehow stating that all forcible rape victims ought to be blamed for not “shutting that whole thing down” (i.e., a pregnancy) is simply idiotic.  But that is what is being shrilly argued by the left.

Therefore, as a practical matter, I believe Todd Akin ought to leave the Senate race. What he said amounted to such poorly-chosen words that he will be haunted by those words throughout the campaign.  The way he phrased what he was trying to say was simply politically inexcusable.  And further, the Republican Party cannot support him or they will be branded with the same hot iron. Which means that there is simply no way Todd Akin can win – and therefore frankly if the man cares about his country or even about abortion, he ought to step aside and allow a better candidate to have a chance to win a very winnable election for the pro-life Republican Party.

If Todd Akin stays in the race (he has a short time remaining to bow out) I hope he wins, and I would cast my vote for him if I lived in Missouri.  But I hope he does the best thing for the GOP and drops out of the race.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to “Todd Akin Ought To Leave Senate Race. But Here’s Why What He Said Isn’t As ‘Illegitimate’ As Liberals Demagogue.”

  1. FMC Says:

    I understand the logic for wanting to have Akin step down. I did not actually hear him say what he said and only briefly caught wind of this whole ordeal yesterday. Reading your blog this morning did I even know what he actually said.

    Am I missing something, but I personally did not find anything wrong with what he said. Would changing just one word (legitimate) have averted all this nonsense? Are the American people that stupid to not know what he was really talking about or what he really meant? In my opinion, this double standard with the libs has gone way too far. The libs have the real problem and not Akin. Maybe Biden should step down for all the stupid things he said, instead! Unfortunately, I understand this is politics.

    Ultimately, I think Akin was merely defending the unborn. It is a shame that that is now a crime in this country.

    I myself am against abortion for any reason, maybe except in the case that the mother will die from actually giving birth – that is a hard one. The way I look at it, in the case of abortion due to rape, two wrongs don’t make a right. Why should the unborn have to die? The victim could easily just give the child up for adoption. There are couples that will pay decent money to have a child, even if it was the result of rape. I don’t want to sound like I have no empathy for the female in this case, but I think that she will be better off by having the child and giving it up for adoption. That way, in the long run, she won’t have to deal with both having being raped and then killing an actual human being. As I firmly believe, abortion always leaves a nasty stain on the soul.

  2. Michael Eden Says:


    I’ll comment on one of your last remarks first. You mentioned being against abortion for any reason, then said:

    maybe except in the case that the mother will die from actually giving birth – that is a hard one

    The “life of the mother” is an exeption even in the case of the most ardent pro-life views (including the Catholic view formulated by I believe Thomas Aquinas). And here’s why: the premise for being anti-abortion is that of being pro-life, of course. “You should not kill.” The medical oath says, “First do no harm.” [The Hippocratic Oath that endured until liberal ideologues changed it also says no doctor should perform an abortion, fwiw]. To force a mother to have a child even though that mother would die if she had that child would amount to killing and doing harm.

    In these cases doctors will deliver a baby – even prematurely when it would result in the baby’s death – NOT to perform an abortion but to save the life of the mother.

    Even in the case of extreme war, American policy has never been to order even our soldiers to die. We don’t send men on “suicide missions” the way the Japanese sent the Kamakazi pilots, the banzai charges, etc., during WWII.

    So, no. No mother should ever be required to sacrifice her life to deliver her baby. Pregnancy should not be a “suicide mission.” That would be immoral.

    That said, the left has ALWAYS used this exception in a cynical and rabidly partsian manner, loading up “life of the mother” with things like, “her pregancy caused her to get a headache, so she should be able to have an abortion.”

    In my own case, I too believe that abortion in every other case (save being done to literally save the life of the mother) results in the unjustified homicide of an innocent human being. I believe that a baby produced by an act of rape is an innocent human being. The baby is innocent of any crime and should not be killed.

    But I also realize that maintaining the argument of “all or nothing” and literally arguing that we should continue to allow millions of babies to die by abortion in order to keep fighting over the few hundred that are killed as the result of pregnancy caused by rape is wrong. Therefore, not only would I support legislation that outlawed abortion in all cases BUT those that involved rape, incest, or the life of the mother to medical complications, but I would even be willing to stipulate in that legislation that no mother would EVER be forced to give birth to a child conceived by act of rape or incest. And I would submit to that in order to save the lives of the tens of millions of babies who have been killed by abortion even though some would still be unjustly killed by abortion.

    What is mostly going on with Todd Akin now is that he used the phrase “legitimate rape” – which creates the rhetorical attack that he views rape as “legitimate” – and that he goes on to talk about women’s bodies somehow shutting down to prevent pregancies. The latter has been exploited by the left to imply that Akin is literally saying that any woman who gets pregnant because of a rape is to blame for the pregancy. That charge is deranged and evil, but that is what they are saying.

    Had Akin used the phrase “forcible rape” that would have prevented him from being falsely demonized for saying “rape is legitimate.” And had he merely said “pregnancies from forcible rape are extremely rare” rather than saying that women’s bodies have some defense against pregancy during rape, he would have merely been stating a pro-life position as supported by all factual evidence.

    This is largely a ginned-up attack by the same media that refused to similarly hold Biden to account for ANY implication from his remark that Romney would put [black people] back in chains [of slavery].

    I agree with you that Todd Akin was attempting to justify the pro-life view. But he did so in a clearly VERY poorly worded way that allowed the left to create at least two giant straw men to demagogue.

  3. Barbie Says:

    I am extremely pro-life. And I have been forcibly, and legitimately raped by knife point. Afterward, my life was threatened if I said something. By a 300 pound ex-inmate. Guess what I did? I called the cops, and they took my statement, and took me right to the hospital to examine me, test me for diseases, and cleared my system so that there would be NO REASON for me to have to even CONSIDER an abortion. If I had said nothing, and cowered from this man, and let myself possibly develop the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, that would have been my fault. Not an innocent human baby. The point is, that it isn’t some impossible thing to take care of YOUR BODY as a woman after you have been raped. Your responsibility to yourself, your consensual partner, and all other women, is to report this man, and have him taken off of the streets, so that he can’t hurt you, or any other woman. The simple act of taking responsibility for your OWN BODY would eliminate the need for rape-case abortion. Incest is a little trickier, as is the rape of a very young girl, who may not have understood what was happening, or what she should do, or what could happen.

    The fact is that abortions are not just for women who have been raped, anymore. It is not a rare occurrence, and it is encouraged.
    If abortion is made illegal except for in these extreme cases, they are still going to happen. But they won’t be pretty, there won’t be a lady smiling at you when you enter the clinic, there won’t be a pamphlet on how you are doing the right thing. There will be a coat hanger, tetanus, internal bleeding, sterilization, and infection to the mother. Which, is exactly what she deserves for murdering someone who is defenseless in EVERY way.

    I do believe that a woman should have the right to choose what happens with her body. I don’t believe that she should have the right to choose whether or not to murder a beautiful innocent baby.

  4. Michael Eden Says:


    My heart truly goes out to you because of what you have suffered. There are pains that nobody can understand who hasn’t felt that exact pain, and rape is surely one of them. When children are raped, often times that child’s life is destroyed as a result of all the evil that kid experienced. And it can’t get that much less vile just because you’re grown up.

    Please allow me to address the concern you raise:

    I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who talked about abortion from a Christian perspective. As a devout Catholic, he believed life began at the moment of conception and wanted to discuss various possibilities in order to morally examine them. On Thomas Aquinas’ view, a doctor trying to save the life of a mother in which the baby died would NOT be “an abortion.” Why not? Because the purpose of abortion is to kill a baby; what occurred was a doctor trying to save a woman’s life. And the baby’s death was a tragic consequent of saving a human life.

    I have always accepted that as completely morally reasonable and right. Nor do I believe that that same mother who was deemed at risk of losing her life should be compelled to maintain a pregnancy any more than ANYBODY should be legally compelled to risk our lives for everyone around us. That mother’s life is every bit as human and every bit as valuable as that baby’s; she should be free to choose whose life must be saved in such a situation. And she wouldn’t be having a “abortion” in the sense of the intent of abortion; she would be taking an action necessary to save her life.

    Furthermore, you would have no way of knowing even IF you were pregnant at ALL. I believe I pointed out in this article that it is a simple statistical fact that VERY few women become pregnant after a rape. There are a lot of various reasons for that, but it is simply true. The only way something could medically/scientifically be an “abortion” is if a zygote had formed. If no zygote was formed, what could you have “aborted” to begin with? And you can’t have an “abortion” if you don’t even know you’re pregnant for the very same reason above of your intent.

    Having said that, I believe your situation is completely harmonious with the great moral teaching of one of the greatest Catholic thinkers ever: your intent was not to have an abortion; your intent was to undergo necessary medical treatment following a terrible act of evil being committed against you. You didn’t have an abortion; you had medical treatment after a rape. And on my own moral view you are innocent of the crime of abortion. And literally twice over given the two points I raised above. And I hope you truly believe that you are innocent for the sake of hoping you are not in pain over an abortion.

    “Abortion” is the unjustified homicide of an innocent human being. And for the record I believe that God holds every man who wants a girl whom he made pregnant to have an abortion JUST as guilty of the crime of murder as He holds the mother who suffered the procedure that the father wanted her to have. Abortion is by no means a crime that only women are guilty of.

    I think there are MANY reasons why abortion is wrong. You offered a couple. But let me get back into “man-talk” as I did above for one: one of the things that makes abortion particularly terrible for society is that it destroys fatherhood. And our communities are falling apart all over the nation as a result of that. How is fatherhood destroyed? Well, think of it this way: on the pro-abortion view, a woman having an abortion didn’t “kill a human being” or “a baby.” Nope. It was just an inanimate lump of goop instead, right? Okay, so what did that “father” actually “father”? He couldn’t have fathered a child. And so every father isn’t really a “father.”

    Let me continue. What if that mother wants to have an abortion? What happens? She gets to “choose,” NOT the father. The father has been deemed irrelevant to the process of the wonderful creation of human life. He simply does not matter. Only the mother does. And if she chooses to have an abortion, then that father is compelled to allow her to kill his own son or daughter with absolutely no rights whatsoever. And on the flipside, if the mother chooses to keep the baby, the “father” suddenly is DECREED to have been a father all along – even though that same father was NOT allowed to be a “father” had the mother decided to abort. That is simply morally insane. And as a result “fathers” no longer exist, because all they really “fathered” was a lifeless lump of goop that somebody else (the mother) decided to allow to continue existing until one day it was born (and presumably prounced to officially be an actual human being). And then it became a child and after nine months of having no right whatsoever to choose what happened to your child, you are suddenly responsible for it because somebody else (a judge) decided you were.

    Abortion is a crime against an innocent human being. And fathers and mothers have been conditioned to participate in a genocide that is now officially nine times more murderous than the Holocaust in America.

    Every father owes his child his fatherhood, just as every mother owes her child her motherhood. Soren Kierkegaard once wrote that a father owed his child a Christian view of the world as much as a mother owed her child her milk. Parenthood becomes the duty of every single human being who has a child. And every parent who refuses to accept that duty is guilty of a terrible moral crime.

    Why should a bad father be held responsible for child support? Not because he was involved in the formation of a lifeless non human lump of goop; but because almost from the moment he ejaculated he was a FATHER of a CHILD. And while that child is developing and after that child is born he should be made to at least financially support that human being he fathered. And in that same way, every single mother owes the baby she mothered LIFE.

    I wish you full and complete recovery from your traumatic and evil experience,
    Michael Eden

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: