Ben Stein on Bloomberg’s life saving endeavors or not

I am endlessly amazed at how backwards we humans get things in our lives. Just let me give you two very basic examples, one of which is a crime against humanity.

I keep reading in the New York Times that Mayor Bloomberg, a billionaire health nut, is on a campaign against having too much salt in foods in New York City restaurants. His belief is that New Yorkers and visitors shorten their life spans by eating too much salt and therefore raising their blood pressure in a dangerous way. If he took control over the salt content in New York restaurants, he could save a few dozen lives per year, he believes.

But, wait a moment. I also read in the New York Times that New York City is one of the abortion capitals of the nation, with a much higher rate of abortion than most other parts of the nation. And Mayor Bloomberg is a great fan of “…a woman’s right to choose…” to abort her baby.

As I calculate it in a rough way, New York City has about 8 million persons living there, or about (very roughly) 3 per cent of the nation’s population. And New York has a much higher abortion rate than the rest of the nation. So it is possible that New Yorkers have about 50,000 abortions per year, or maybe a lot more.

That is 50,000 killings of totally innocent children every year. Does Mayor Bloomberg think that his anti-salt campaign means much compared with that number? If he wants to save lives, why doesn’t he throw his tiny weight and his huge purse behind right to life? That’s a truly life-saving act.

From Ben Stein/The American Spectator

Isn’t there some noise out there that this idiot Bloomberg is thinking of a presidential run in ’12? He wouldn’t stand a chance so he needs to forget that idea. Lord knows that he has nothing of importance in New York to worry about so he’s down here in Arizona investigating us!

And some more good stuff I read this morning:

Daniel Halper writes in today’s Weekly Standard that Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is refusing to expand his investigative committee to include neo-Nazi and other extremist organizations in America because he believes that al Qaeda presents the clearest and most dangerous threat to national security.  According to King: “Pursuant to our mandate, the Committee will continue to examine the threat of Islamic radicalization, and I will not allow political correctness to obscure a real and dangerous threat to the safety and security of the citizens of the United States.”

samiam60 has a great blog including Robin of Berkeley (from American Thinker) on why so many liberals hate Sarah Palin.

Bob Mack has a touching blog from last night about the poor – no pathetic – medical care our vets are receiving.

Victor Davis Hanson at Pajamas Media writes on the consequences of the Egpytian chaos : “I think unfortunately we may go the 1940s “we can work with Mao”/1970s “no inordinate fear of communism”/2000s “jihad can mean a personal struggle” route, where liberals believe that totalitarian nationalists somehow admire the American Revolution and our lack of a colonial heritage, and, as closet moderates, wish to work with us. That translates into a backdoor courtship with the Muslim Brotherhood…”

Quote of the day – Matthew Continetti

The White House has rightly asserted its privilege to detain enemy combatants without trial for the duration of the present conflict. After the midterm elections, there is no way the White House will be able to move the Guantánamo prisoners to the mainland United States. After the Ghailani farce, there is no way the administration is going to rely on civilian trials for captured al Qaeda operatives. The president and his attorney general have lived in denial for too long. The next step is acceptance. Give up the pretense of closing Guantánamo. And prepare a room there for Julian Assange.

The Weekly Standard

Stupid Harry sticks his foot in it again – Just love this guy!

Chris Coons is Harry’s pet and the blogosphere is abuzz with this new little gem out of Harry’s mouth.  But Harry’s been Obamas lapdog since day 1 of this American nightmare called the Obama administration, so he should know best about being someone’s beloved pet.

From The Atlantic Wire:

• ‘Well This Is Odd’ writes Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard. “Is there any way he could have complimented his friend and sounded more off-putting and out of touch with the electorate? …In my head, Harry Reid is Dr. Evil, creepily patting the head of Mr. Bigglesworth, the next senator from the great state of Delaware.”

• This is ‘Sheer Dr. Evil Goofiness’ chuckles Allahpundit at the blog Hot Air. Does Reid, “not understand that his endorsement doesn’t help, even in a blue state? His national favorable rating is 26/56; I can’t find numbers for Delaware, but if The One’s approval rating is now underwater there, surely the vastly less likable Reid is deep into negative territory. Why would any semi-coherent Democrat want to nationalize this race in a year when the Democrats’ national brand is pure poison for their candidates?”

• ‘Creepy Harry Reid Hands O’Donnell Her First General Election Ad’ concludes Michelle Malkin on her blog. “And go ahead, Democrats. Keep gloating about how you’ve got Delaware in the bag.”

Quote of the Day – Bill Kristol

For Obama, 9/11 was a “deeply traumatic event for our country.” Traumatic events invite characteristic reactions and over-reactions–fearfulness, anger, even hysteria. That’s how Obama understands the source of objections to the Ground Zero mosque. It’s all emotional. The arguments don’t have to be taken seriously. The criticisms of the mosque are the emotional reactions of a traumatized people.

But Americans aren’t traumatized. 9/11 was an attack on America, to which Americans have responded firmly, maturely, and appropriately. Part of our sensible and healthy reaction is that there shouldn’t be a 13-story mosque and Islamic community center next to Ground Zero (especially when it’s on a faster track to be built than the long-delayed memorial there). But Obama (like Bloomberg) doesn’t feel he even has to engage the arguments against the mosque–because he regards his fellow citizens as emotionally traumatized victims, not citizens who might have a reasonable point of view.

The Weekly Standard

I’m so sick and tired of TheOne talking to us like we are children or one of his students in some imaginary class. He’s not a professor, and never has been one, contrary to what the lame stream media wants us to believe. He is not a constitutional scholar nor does he understand the Constitution any better than most attorneys.  The only thing he’s an authority about is community organizing and patronizing Americans.  He’s no more a psychologist than Dr. Seuss was – although Dr. Seuss had a much better understanding of human nature than Obama has.

Don’t talk to me about being traumatized and acting irrationally. That is the purview of liberals who talk about how they “feel” about issues and not what they “think.” If he wants to talk to Americans, he needs to talk about right and wrong and he needs to grow some balls in order for him to speak about right and wrong.

No one denies that there is a Constitutional right to build this mosque. And in fact, the ones who oppose this building are more knowledgeable about that document than most on the left are.  But because you can do it, does not mean you should: because you have the right does not make it right. What part of this does he and his party not understand?

I also get peeved when I hear people say that this is a local issue, as though only New Yorkers have the right to an opinion. It is a national issue. On 9/11/01 what American didn’t feel as though we were under attack? America was under attack on that day and not just in New York but in a field in Pennsylvania and in Washington DC. All Americans felt that same way on December 7, 1941, too.  So Nancy, you may want to duck the issue by claiming that building a mosque in New York is not your business, the rest of us Americans feel pretty vested in the topic.

And if she wants to investigate nearly 70% of American citizens, then that includes some in her own party  – like Harry Reid.

Quote of the day – Fred Barnes

In his WSJ column regarding being labeled a racist by JournoList:

What was particularly pathetic about the scheme to smear Mr. Obama’s critics was labeling them as racists. The accusation has been made so frequently in recent years, without evidence to back it up, that it has little effect. It’s now the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.

How Lindsey has it wrong about the Tea Party

Lindsey Graham believes there’s no reason to court the tea party because, in words I use in my profession,  it’s ‘actively dying’;

“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out,” Graham said in an interview with the New York Times magazine. “We don’t have a lot of Reagan-type leaders in our party. Remember Ronald Reagan Democrats? I want a Republican that can attract Democrats.”   CBSNews

Graham has obviously missed the message or he’s just simply ignoring it. The two things that will always hold the tea party together is it’s love for the Constitution and it’s belief that we must have less government in order to maintain and regain our freedom.  I think at his own political peril, he’s not getting it and has taken this stance against the tea party.

We  do have a very coherent vision for government: GET OUT OF OUR LIVES! Graham’s vision is to join hands with the left and tax the hell out of us.

So what did attract democrats to Reagan? A conservative, uplifting message that America’s best days are NOT behind us. It was conservatism that drew democrat votes, not compromising their principles in order to “get along.”

Graham is not really a republican and he’s most definitely not a conservative. He’s really in the wrong party.

And now this from the Weekly Standard:

“They are overwhelmingly white and Anglo, although a scattering of Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans combine to make up almost one-fourth of their ranks.”

This is from today’s long (and on the whole not bad) USA Today article on the tea parties and tea partiers. But there’s something a little odd about that term “scattering.” That “scattering” is (as is suggested later in the same sentence) pretty hefty—23 percent of tea partiers are, according to the survey, non-white Anglos. How does this compare to the nation’s adults as a whole? They’re 25 percent non-white Anglos. So tea partiers are—in this as in other respects—a startlingly representative demographic group.  William Kristol