Forfeiting Civil Liberties for “Security”: Bloomberg’s New Interpretation of the Constitution


“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-Benjamin Franklin

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the rabid anti-gun zealot who has all but abrogated the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” in his fair city in the name of “reasonable gun laws”, believes the Boston bombings require our interpretation of our Constitutional liberties to change.

But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks,” he said.

No, sorry, what I see and hear are justifications for the ever-expanding authority of government at the expense, yet again, of personal liberties.   Bloomberg’s disingenuous diatribe that metal detectors in schools can be somehow lumped in with draconian firearms laws denying ownership and possession by law-abiding adults as a part of “reasonable” tells you what you need to know about his respect, or lack thereof, for our Constitutional freedoms.

The idea that we are “…endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…” seems to him to mean “…endowed by the Mayor with certain negotiable rights…”, and should be a giant red (and I do mean RED) flag.  If you missed that one, there is this from a 2011 speech he gave at MIT:

“I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department, much to Foggy Bottom’s annoyance. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have,” Mayor Bloomberg said.

There have been rumors that he is eyeing the White House in 2016.   If he gets there, expect his interpretation of our Constitution to do far more harm to our precious freedom than a dozen Boston terrorists.   As would anyone else who shares his belief that freedom should be bartered so casually for the perception of safety.   Though I am no fan of the PATRIOT Act,  measures infringing on our privacy and liberties since then, and the desires for yet more by people like Michael Bloomberg, make PATRIOT absolutely pale in comparison.

“That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.”

Secure them.   Not trade them.   Hey, Bloomberg, you can keep your “change”, too.

8 thoughts on “Forfeiting Civil Liberties for “Security”: Bloomberg’s New Interpretation of the Constitution”

  1. How did such a foolish man ever get as far in business and politics as he has? What a truly appalling mindset he has.

    1. Carry a clipboard and walk with a purpose. Few stop such people.

      Bloomberg acts like he belongs there and some people are simply too lazy to stop him. I pray that people wake up before he does much more damage.

  2. Sure thing! Then since it will still be dangerous to walk in the park because of crime and assaults walking in the park or down the street will be banned.
    The ultimate end for this clown is to have everyone not a criminal or Policeman locked up in a place like a camp in order to protect them from themselves.
    It will be easier to ensure the safety of the citizens when they are concentrated in camps like these.

  3. “Bloomberg says something dumb” is logically equivalent to “Dog bites man.” We all should just ignore him, except for occasionally telling him “Shush, Mikey. The grownups are talking.”

  4. Hmm, anyone remember the Committee for Public Safety? How about the Jacobins? Perhaps a reminder of what they pledged their fealty to – the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen? You know – that enlightened document that listed, among other articles, Article 2: “The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, **security**, and resistance to oppression.” (emphasis added) and Article 3: “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.” Ah – sense a theme, now eh? It starts innocently enough – some high sounding words and noble principles, but as power is accrued and concentrated in the hands of the few liberty is circumscribed and the executions follow close behind.
    ” The goal of the constitutional government is to conserve the Republic; the aim of the revolutionary government is to found it… The revolutionary government owes to the good citizen all the protection of the nation; it owes nothing to the Enemies of the People but death… These notions would be enough to explain the origin and the nature of laws that we call revolutionary … If the revolutionary government must be more active in its march and more free in his movements than an ordinary government, is it for that less fair and legitimate? No; it is supported by the most holy of all laws: the Salvation of the People” – Maximilian Robespierre 25 December 1783

    Wonder if Bloomberg has any French ancestors…

    w/r, SJS

    1. Steeljaw,

      Well-said. I also hearken back to the Reichstag Fire Decrees of 1934. And Uncle Adolf’s promise: “The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures…The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one.”

Comments are closed.