Michael Bloomberg

Opinion/Analysis: Bloomberg: Guns for Me, but Not for Thee

‘How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that is likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines you seek to ban the common citizen from owning? Does your life matter more than mine or my family’s or these people’s?” a Virginian named Clarke Chitty asked Democratic Party presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg during a recent Fox News town hall. It’s an outstanding question. And Bloomberg’s answer is pretty straightforward: Yes, his life is worth more than yours. “Look, I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, OK, and some of them are real. That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City or you’re very wealthy and if you’re campaigning for president of the United States,” Bloomberg replied. “You get lots of threats. So, I have a security detail, I pay for it all myself, and . . . they’re all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.” In the United States, our rights aren’t — or shouldn’t be — meted out according to status. But you’ll notice Bloomberg doesn’t really answer the question, anyway. I suspect millions of Americans who aren’t as famous or rich (very rich, in this case) live in situations in which their property and safety are threatened to the same extent. Not that it matters. Does Bloomberg propose that everyone undergo a government risk assessment before being allowed to practice constitutional rights? Probably, right? More importantly, Clarke Chitty, one suspects, has zero interest in stripping away Bloomberg’s constitutional right to own a firearm, or to hire professional armed bodyguards to protect him from legitimate threats. The former mayor of New York City, on the other hand, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in efforts to pass laws and regulations that would leave Americans like Clarke Chitty defenseless. It’s this kind of arrogance that brought about District of Columbia v. Heller, the case affirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right. One of the first plaintiffs in that effort, Shelly Parker, was an African-American resident of Washington, D.C., who had gotten fed up with the crime near her Capitol Hill home. She attempted to rally her neighbors to clean up the neighborhood, provoking the ire of local drug dealers, who began vandalizing her property and threatening her life. “In the event that someone does get in my home,” she explained, “I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them.” It would have been illegal for Parker, neither wealthy nor famous, to obtain a gun to protect herself. She was also in danger. Or take Otis McDonald, the retired 76-year-old of McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case that affirmed that the right of individual gun ownership extended to the states. By 2010, the neighborhood McDonald had lived in since 1971 had become infested with gangs, drug dealers, and widespread criminality. His home had been broken into on five separate occasions, so he had a legitimate reason to worry about his safety. Someone like Bloomberg might have suggested that Otis keep some paper towels handy, but McDonald wanted a handgun. At the time, Chicago had a handgun ban in place, ensuring that only criminals could own them. I suspect that McDonald was in as much jeopardy as Bloomberg. To top it off, Bloomberg then blatantly lied to the Fox crowd, claiming that “the Supreme Court said you can have reasonable restrictions, and the only restrictions which I am in favor of is to prevent us from selling guns to people with psychiatric problems, criminals, or people that are minors, OK?” Not really. If Bloomberg had any practical hope of overturning the Second Amendment, he would certainly do it. As it is, Bloomberg bankrolls major anti-gun efforts that go much further policy-wise than keeping guns out of the hands of children and people with serious psychiatric problems — both of which are already illegal, and supported by nearly everyone. Bloomberg, the presidential candidate, supports banning “assault weapons,” the most popular rifles in the country, which account for a sliver of the gun crimes in the country. Bloomberg supports stripping gun companies of “immunity” in civil lawsuits that would allow activists to hold manufacturers responsible for all criminality — a blatant attempt to put them out of business. Bloomberg supports “red flag” laws, which strip away due process for gun owners. Bloomberg supports raising the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21. Bloomberg supports federal efforts requiring every gun buyer to obtain a permit. Bloomberg wants to create a position for a federal gun czar to implement all these restrictions on the federal level. In other words, Bloomberg supports every single active effort to restrict gun ownership that exists. Well for you, not him.

Mike Bloomberg is the poster child for an elitist, self-righteous, arrogant, self-serving hypocrite.  He looks down at the rest of us unwashed peasants and tells us that we have no right to have a firearm…and yet he himself is surrounded by firearms protecting his pompous ass.  He is quite literally a little Nazi.  If you think that’s over the top, then consider this…   Not only is he short in stature….but, he would love nothing more than to register all gun owners, before ultimately having those guns confiscated.  Hitler did the exact same thing in the late 1930s in Germany.  Thanks to David Harsanyi over at National Review for that sobering assessment of that little Nazi from New York.

Charlie Daniels: Mike Bloomberg Knows as Much About Farming as a Hog Knows About an Airplane

Country rock legend Charlie Daniels ripped Michael Bloomberg (D) on Monday after the presidential hopeful’s belittling remarks about farmers resurfaced, noting that the billionaire knows “as much about farming as a hog knows about an airplane.” “Hey Bloomberg you know as much about farming as a hog knows about an airplane, so how are you going to teach somebody else how to do it, Better stay in NYC where corn comes in cans,” the “Uneasy Rider: singer said in a tweet to his 985k Twitter followers. Bloomberg’s past remarks about farmers, which he made during an Oxford University forum in England in 2016, resurfaced over the weekend. He told the crowd that he could “teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer.” “It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that,” Bloomberg said. “Then we had 300 years of the industrial society,” he continued. “You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow, and you can have a job.” He veered the conversation into the reality of the “information economy” and suggested that farmers lack the intellect or “gray matter” to keep up with the new economic realities and advanced technologies associated with modern life. “Now comes the information economy and [it] is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different,” he stated. “You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.” The remarks prompted sharp responses from both sides of the political aisle, from Donald Trump Jr. to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) supporters to Vice President Mike Pence.

Wow..  What a arrogant elitist!  Mike Bloomberg’s verbal gaffes are only rivaled by Joe Biden’s.  We expect we’ll see more of this from Mike in the coming weeks.  Kudos to Charlie Daniels for calling out that pompous ass.  For more, click on the text above.

Coulter: Stop Apologizing for Saving Black Lives

Idiot conservatives were doing the idiot thing this week, screaming “racism!” in response to an old tape of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg defending stop-and-frisk, one of the policies that drove New York City murder rates down to Mayberry levels. They weren’t being ironic. In the 2015 tape, Bloomberg makes the blindingly obvious point that if “95 percent of murders and murder victims are young male minorities” — as is true in New York City — then police should be questioning about 95 percent young male minorities. To stop crime, he said, you “put a lot of cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods.” Bloomberg further explained that frisking young black and brown men for minor crimes is how you keep guns off the streets generally: “And the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them. And then they start, they say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to get caught.’ So they don’t bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home.” Does anyone with a functioning frontal lobe disagree with this? By pursuing the wacky idea of having cops frisk kids in high-crime areas for minor offenses like turnstile jumping, Mayor Rudy Giuliani cut the murder rate from more than 2,000 per year to about 600. No one thought it could possibly go any lower — and then Bloomberg got murders down to an unfathomable 300 or so per year. Giuliani and Bloomberg did more for young minorities than all living Democrats combined. In New York City alone, at least 20,000 more black men are alive today than would be under the genius crime-fighting ideas of prior administrations (and The New York Times). Unless liberal elites are pursuing a secret plan to reduce the black population by allowing young black men to kill one another (that would make a great movie by Jordan Peele!), stop-and-frisk is nothing to apologize for. Well, guess what? Bloomberg apologized for it. He began his presidential campaign with a repudiation of his signature accomplishment in order to please a handful of black activists and a lot of white liberals. For that, he deserves the contempt of all men of good will. Why not attack him for the gutless apology? Is Bloomberg sorry for saving so many black lives? Does becoming a Democrat make basic math incomprehensible? Is he a pandering coward? Can we trust anything he says? But small-bore conservatives did what they always do: Give up winning a war in order to land a quick blow in a skirmish. They called Bloomberg’s earlier, logically insuperable point “RACIST!” Great, so now conservatives are adopting the absolute worst aspect of liberalism — calling everything “racist.” As I wrote in 2016, when the media were going through their quadrennial demand that the Republican candidate for president “disavow” David Duke, these “racism” orgies never have anything to do with black people. It’s part of the Fabulous White People competition, where black people are the chips. If anything, the urge to call other people “racist” has only gotten stronger since then, so I’ll quote myself: “Sad people with meaningless lives [are] suddenly empowered to condemn other people. I beat you in blacks yesterday; I’m going to beat you in women today. This is what makes them feel superior to other people, especially other white people. It’s not about racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; it’s just a self-actualization movement for people with emotional issues.” Why are conservatives leaping into this game? For the teeny-tiny pleasure of taking a cheap shot at Bloomberg, they are endorsing the idea that anyone who 1) grasps basic math and 2) is opposed to gun crime is a “racist.” Our entire public dialogue will soon be nothing but white people calling one another “racist,” as if we’re trapped in an eternal Democratic presidential debate. At the New Hampshire debate last Friday night, Tom Steyer — hedge fund manager and Hero to Black People Everywhere — kept hammering Joe Biden about some “racist” remark made by South Carolina State Sen. Dick Harpootlian, a Biden supporter. “One of the leaders of Joe Biden’s South Carolina campaign,” Steyer said, “made racist remarks about someone associated with our campaign.” Steyer then repeatedly called on Biden to “disavow” the remark and the man who made it. “Be on the right side,” he implored. The story: Harpootlian had tweeted that another South Carolina Democrat, state legislator Jerry Govan, flipped his support from Biden to Steyer after being paid “almost $50,000” by the Steyer campaign. Calling Steyer “Mr. Moneybags,” Harpootlian concluded, “This is what happens when billionaires get involved … They don’t have to persuade anybody, they just buy them.” I’ve assembled a panel of black judges to rule on Harpootlian’s racism, and their response is: Keep reading. Get to the racism part. Nope, that’s it! Govan is black, so pointing out that Steyer paid him $50,000 and got his endorsement is “racist.” I would have gone with “anti-Semitic” myself, but what do I know? I guess I’ll check with the conservative “racism” fighters!

Thanks to conservative firebrand Ann Coulter for calling these self-righteous hypocrites out.  When Dems abuse the word “racism,” we kinda expect it.  It’s like a Geico commercial; “it’s what they do.”   But, when our side does it, it’s nauseating, and we need people like Ann to call them out.  Heck, Trump is called racist basically every day for simply waking up and breathing.  It’s beyond ridiculous.  Stop and frisk was a method that worked in both Rudy’s and Bloomberg’s administrations in NYC.  There is NO question or debate about that.  It’s not even remotely moot.  And those who shout “racism” over such practices are the real racists.