MANHATTAN, NY- New York Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is attempting to claw his way up from the bottom of the 2020 Presidential polls by promising to pack the Supreme Court with “pro-gun control judges” if he were elected president.
In a Chicago Tribune op-ed, the anti-gun former NYC mayor described his fear that the Supreme Court would do the worst possible thing he could think of.
He’s afraid the justices would dare to vote to uphold God-given rights enshrined in the Constitution and rule in favor of pro-Second Amendment voices in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. The City of New York.
Bloomberg says that the law at the center of the case, which prevented New Yorkers from transporting their legally purchased firearms outside the home unless it was to one of seven gun ranges in the city, was an “unnecessary restriction” and that it was “rightly rescinded.”
While these words certainly ring true, anyone who is familiar with Bloomberg’s history of anti-gun actions and rhetoric should see these statements as a disingenuous attempt to sell himself as a moderate who wants only “commonsense gun reforms.”
In reality, Bloomberg’s opinion on firearms, and on those who own them, represent the antithesis to the right to bear arms.
Before you even consider the ex-mayor’s policy stances one need only see that in a 2014 interview with Rolling Stone, Bloomberg was quoted saying:
“If you want to have a gun in your house, I think you’re pretty stupid — particularly if you have kids — but I guess you have a right to do that.”
The idea that someone who is running for president could be this ignorant about our constitutional rights and is also promising to appoint justices who reflect this line of thinking should truly be cause for concern for every single American.
Bloomberg’s op-ed concludes with him saying:
“As president, I will appoint judges who understand that the Second Amendment allows for common sense limits on gun ownership.”
Yet we all know that what he views as “common sense” is anything but. Bloomberg wants to ban the sale and production of modern sporting rifles even though he himself admits that these firearms are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes.
NSSF recently reported that more than 17.7 million modern sporting rifles are in private ownership today, clearly a commonly-owned firearm.
He also ferociously opposes national concealed carry reciprocity, which would ensure that an American’s right to protect him or herself doesn’t end at the state line.
In fact, Bloomberg’s campaign against concealed carry reciprocity has been active for years through his gun control organization Everytown, which promised to spend up to $25 million in the 2018 election cycle to defeat elected officials who supported reciprocity.
Of course, Bloomberg also supports a slew of other Second Amendment restrictions.
Bloomberg gun control-wish list includes requiring every gun buyer be issued a Department of Justice-endorsed permit to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, enacting a federal age-based gun ban for adults under 21, repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that blocks baseless lawsuits intended to bankrupt the gun industry and banning the private transfer of firearms.
All of these positions surely disqualify Bloomberg from earning the vote of any Second Amendment supporter, but the idea that he wants to pack the Supreme Court with justices who see these concepts as “commonsense” represents a very real threat to our constitution.
A candidate for president that already has shown a preference of reshaping the nation’s highest court with judges who seek not to use the law as a guide to decision making but rather to legislate from the bench is clearly no friend to any American, but especially to law-abiding gun owners.
Just laws month, Larry Keane, reported on when he made it official. Gun control godfather, financier of several anti-gun groups, is throwing his billions in to buy his way to the White House and forcing his radical anti-gun agenda on America.
It might have been the worst-kept secret in the history of presidential runs.
The former New York city mayor has played an on-and-off again tease with his presidential ambitions. In October, the Nanny-in-Chief threatened a run, only to walk it back when he announced in March he wouldn’t. Then, he said:
“I am clear-eyed about the difficulty of winning the Democratic nomination.”
It seems that the billionaire got a set of 2020 glasses where the future appears, at least to him, much clearer.
Bloomberg’s vision for a gun control America is brighter, in his estimate, after he poured $2.5 million to flip Virginia blue for gun control through Everytown for Gun Safety, which he bankrolls, along with Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action and March for Our Lives.
Those groups are already setting their sights on the Second Amendment stronghold of Texas, aiming to knock out Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Colorado’s Republican Sen. Cory Gardner.
Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.
None of this comes at a surprise. Bloomberg said in February he was prepared to spend a half billion dollars to wrest control of the White House from President Donald Trump.
He dumped $80 million to bolster gun control Democrats to Congress in the 2018 midterms. Now, he’s vowing off public funding, using his near endless reserves to launch a shot to be elected as nation’s top Gun Controller.
Welcome to the Race
His announcement, though, is already being widely panned, even by those who openly embrace even the most far-reaching gun control ideas he embraces. Democratic candidate and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) blasted the Republican-turned-Independent-turned Democrat.
“Telling billionaires they can come and buy elections, that does not make democracy work,” she told reporters.
Bloomberg got a similar chilly reception from Sen. Bernie Sander (I-Vt.) when he reacted to the announcement saying Bloomberg’s “not going to get very far in this election.” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) panned his $34 million announcement media blitz, adding:
“I just don’t think people are going to buy it.”
More Obstacle Course than Race
The 77-year-old has hurdles to overcome.
Aside from his less-then-warm reception by his fellow competitor candidates, he’s not inspiring a strong following from those who he funnels missions of dollars to peddle his gun control message.
Buzzfeed polled 11 Moms Demand and Students Demand Action grassroots volunteers to see if their gun control funder-in-chief earned their vote. None committed to the billionaire.
“I’m not super psyched about it, but I respect him enormously,” said Jessica Craven, 51, the legislative lead for her Moms Demand Action group in Northeast Los Angeles.
The Wall Street Journal reported Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action reassured their followers they wouldn’t need to pledge their votes to the guy footing their bill.
Adding to Bloomberg’s obstacles are two glaring facts he can’t ignore. Bloomberg’s own news organization refused to investigate their benefactor, a signal he might not be up for the media scrutiny.
To be fair, they’ll extend that same courtesy to all other Democratic candidates, but not to President Donald Trump, whom Bloomberg has targeted. Former Bloomberg D.C. bureau chief editor Megan Murphy was astonished, saying:
“This is not journalism.”
Bloomberg’s also facing a dearth of public support.
In the five national primary polls tracking the candidates, he’s hovering around 2 percent. That might explain why he’s skipping the early state tests of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and the debate stages where Americans get to hear directly on why he’s running.
Even the left-leaning Mother Jones begged Bloomberg to butt out.
“Stop, please!” pleaded Michael Winchester of Cedar Rapids. “This is insane.”
That’s something we’ve been saying about Michael Bloomberg for years.
It’s interesting hearing Warren attack Bloomberg.
She’s touted a plan to end all private health insurance and strip millions of American union workers from their negotiated healthcare plans.
She’s pushing for Medicare for All, which would force taxpayers onto public healthcare plans – at a cost of $52 trillion. TRILLION.
And how the presidential hopeful, Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, plan on paying for it all?
By providing amnesty to as many as 22 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.
That’s right – the woman who wants to be our President says that by driving up the population to the highest levels possible to increase federal tax revenue, we’d cover the costs.
Apparently you don’t have to be very good at math to run for President.
Currently, America’s immigration levels sit at historic highs. We’re adding more than 1.5 million foreign nationals to our population every year. Yet Warren wants to decriminalize sneaking across the border, provide amnesty for all who already did, and increase legal immigration levels.
“I support immigration reform that’s consistent with our values, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and expanded legal immigration consistent with my principles,” Warren wrote. “That’s not only the right thing to do – it also increases federal revenue we can dedicate to Medicare for All as new people come into the system and pay taxes.”
Here’s what’s scary. According to Breitbart, her plan is supported by “tech billionaires, the open borders lobby, the outsourcing industry, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the nation’s giant multinational corporations that have sought for decades to drive down U.S. wages by importing cheaper foreign workers to compete against America’s working and middle class.”
Based on the current immigration levels, we’ll increase the U.S. population to 404 million by 2060. That’ll be the largest population in American history. It will also mean that one in six U.S. residents will have been born outside of America.
To add contract, that number was one in 20 in 1970.
Based on the current levels, approximately 580,000 foreign-born residents will be added to the population every year. Compare that to the just 1.3 million native-born residents are set to be added every year.
Another way of paying for that massive Medicare for All plan would be a 42% national sales tax. But what would that mean for law enforcement?
We have been engulfed by a myriad of programs and platforms from the boatload of candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Every single one of them is EXPENSIVE. While most of them are not about to explain how they think they will pay for such programs, common sense tells us that the only way to cover these costs are to significantly increase taxes.
What would these incredible tax hikes do to career fields that are already known for not paying well – namely, the emergency responder community?
For the record, the vast majority in that community do what they do because they have a heart to serve, not because they are looking to make a financial windfall. But what would happen to the current work force if everyone’s pay was cut in half? What would the impact be on recruiting efforts?
For the sake of this argument, we will use the national average annual salary for a cop in the US, $48,739.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has done voters a favor by spelling out what kinds of new taxes it would take to come up with that much money. The following calculations and percentages are all part of a breakdown on Democratic campaign promise costs done by the CRFB.
Using Medicare for All as the primary example, this huge, single-payer government health plan backed by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and several other Democratic presidential candidates, say it’s time to think big and move to a health plan that covers everyone.
Getting there is a bit tricky, however. A variety of analyses estimate that Medicare for All would require at least $3 trillion in new spending. That’s about as much revenue as the government currently generates. So, if paid for through new taxes, federal rates would have to theoretically double.
Warren justifies many of her programs by saying all it would take is “two cents” from the wealthy. That’s a reference to her 2% wealth tax on ultra-millionaires.
But Medicare for All would be so expensive that if you taxed top earners at 100%, yes, take every penny, of people earning more than $408,000 per year—you’d still fall far short. And everybody getting taxed at 100% would obviously stop working.
But that scenario would not only not be possible, it would also eliminate most law enforcement officers from the conversation.
Moving on to methods that have been discussed, the CRFB outlined a variety of options.
A 42% national sales tax (known as a valued-added tax) would generate about $3 trillion in revenue. It would also destroy the consumer spending that’s the backbone of the U.S. economy. A tax of that magnitude would be like 42% inflation, wrecking consumer budgets and the many companies that depend on them, from Walmart and Amazon to your local car dealer.
And what would this number do to cops take home? Nothing at first – until the massive impact of inflation begins to trickle down.
Until then, that new truck you wanted with a sticker price of $62K, ($65,875 after taxes in Texas) is now $88,040 no matter where you live. That new pistol you wanted for $900 would cost you $1,278.
This would obviously drive spending down, thus leaving us in a situation where the government has promised millions healthcare that they cannot pay for.
Other options include a 32% payroll tax split between employers and workers or a 25% income surtax on everybody.
Looking at each of these, splitting the difference with your municipality would cost you an additional $4,142.82. The surtax would do exactly what you think it would do. Your annual take home would decrease from $41,428.15 to $32,898.83.
The government could cut 80% of spending on everything but health care, which would include highways, airports and the Pentagon. That would also cut the funding that departments across the country rely on to operate.
We could also just borrow the money and quadruple Washington’s annual deficits.
The CFRB said that the best idea might be charging every enrollee in the new program $7,500 per year, so they’d be paying directly for the coverage they’re getting. Some people pay more than that now for health care, by purchasing insurance outright or sacrificing pay raises in exchange for employer coverage. It would still be a nifty trick to propose that to voters.
What would any of these ideas do to the existing level of resources that departments across the country are dealing with? Many departments are understaffed. They are dealing with decreased recruiting pools, increased retirement, and a revolving door when it comes to retention.
Overtime and off-duty opportunities would be at a premium for many officers, deputies and agents to be able to make up the difference in lost wages.
In 2008, departments in west Texas lost numerous officers to the oil field boom that doubled and tripled many of their annual salaries. Many of those agencies have struggled to return to a fully staffed department.
Parts of our current societal climate is discouraging younger people from considering a career in law-enforcement. If you add a decrease in salary, longer working hours that create more difficult working environments, and constant scrutiny from certain sections of our country that want to see cops disarmed and departments completely disbanded.
God help us all if one of these money-grubbing Socialist candidates change their address to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.