Spent a few minutes surfing the Web, and found this collection of tidbits on New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, the frenzied media’s scandal du jour. From the sublime to the ridiculous … first, Mickey Kaus notes that a Spitzer resignation (unless he’s brazen enough to stick it out) would put school choice supporter Lt. Governor David Paterson at the helm of the Empire State. That’s good news.
And on the lighter side, Scrapple Face’s Scott Ott notes the chief clue that tipped off investigators to Spitzer’s illicit behavior:
A spokesman from the prosecutor’s office said, “Typically, when a Democrat Governor comes to the nation’s capital, he’s got his hat in hand and winds up leaving town with a bunch of money. The fact that Spitzer brought money into the District, gave it to a taxpayer, and left with less cash in his pocket was a red flag for us.â€
But the laugh-out-loud punchline of the night comes from David Freddoso at the Corner. After highlighting Republican campaign staffers’ efforts to demand Democrat Congressmen return the money if their fundraising was aided by Spitzer, he writes:
If their PR pain threshold is low enough, then I suppose the candidates will return the money or give it to charity (perhaps to battered women’s shelters or something). But I’d actually admire any one of them who has the courage to keep the money and say:
“Well, at least this $2,300 won’t be spent on a whore!”
Then again, that may not be entirely accurate. It is being spent on candidates for Congress…
Meanwhile, as the media salivates over Spitzer’s salacious story and its impact on Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a longer-lasting, potentially more damaging political scandal for her rival returned to the news today. Barack Obama’s name came up again in the Tony Rezko trial. Just passing acquaintances, eh? Time will tell.
Well, well, well. Now we hear that Gov. Spitzer of New York is involved in a prostitution ring. When I first heard today that he was involved in a prostitution ring, my first thought was whether this ring was a forced prostitution/human trafficking outfit. If it is, then Mr. Spitzer is supporting one of the most heinous human rights violations in the world today. He is supporting it financially, if nothing else (although I suspect that his involvement is deeper than that). This from a man who pretends to defend women’s rights.
Mr. Spitzer pretends that he supports a woman’s right to choose on the abortion issue. That’s a laugh. He has tried to shut down Crisis Pregnancy Centers in New York so that women in crisis pregnancies will have less chance to support their babies. He is obviously very anti-choice for women who want to choose life. His excuse was that these centers “lie” to women. But the pro-abortion/anti-choice crowds labels any information that makes abortion look less than perfect as a “lie.” Also any time a woman is shown that she can have and care for the baby and that she doesn’t have to abort, that is called a “lie” too. The must-aborts have set themselves up as the ones who decide what a “lie” is. Thus they have an excuse to suppress information that they don’t want pregnant women to hear.
Those who are pro-abortion, but anti-choice, want to stop all other options for pregnant women. In addition to attacking Crisis Pregnancy Centers, there are also internet campaigns against adoption. These internet sites propagandize the public against all adoptions, even for orphans. They are very open that their goal is to outlaw all adoptions. Oh, and by the way, one of the “alternatives” to adoption that they promote is abortion. Of course. I wonder who is financing this campaign. I don’t know for sure, but I have my suspicions. It is no secret that the most fanatical must-aborts are very hostile towards adoption.
Social pressures are brought to bear to push women into unwanted abortions. There are women who have been fired from their jobs and kicked out of their homes because they refused to abort. It is the “pro-choice” movement’s dirty little secret that the leading cause of death in pregnant women is homicide. It is usually done because the woman refused to abort when someone else wanted her to. They kill the woman to see to it that the baby is never born. (And maybe as an example to other women who might want to give their children life when others in their lives say no to the baby.)
The whole idea of all this abuse and discrimination is to eliminate all alternatives to abortion and to make parenthood as hard and punished a choice as possible. That way women can be pushed into unwanted abortions. An unwanted abortion brings the abortion industry as much profit as a wanted one.
Do the so-called “pro-choicers” stand up for the rights of these women to choose life for their babies without being subjected to violence, death, and discrimination? Not on your life. In fact they have campaigned against bills that are designed to protect women from such abuses.
Such bills do not help abortionists to convince a woman that it is an impossibility for her to have this baby, that she is silly for thinking that she can be a mother, and that she must give up her desire to do so, and have that “absolutely essential” abortion.
The must-aborts want people to automatically think that most pregnancies must be aborted and that there is no choice about it. They don’t even want people to think that there could be other alternatives. Other alternatives could decrease the profits of the abortion industry.
Think about that the next time you see people marching and rallying for “choice.” These people are not defending “choice.” The word “choice” is a public relations ploy. Although I’m sure many of the people marching with them are duped into thinking it is about choice, it is really only about the abortionist’s profits.
Here’s to Mr. Spitzer getting a prison term.