Bloomberg: Tyrant In The Making...

I was recently asked a question about Bloomberg’s stance on gun control, and whether he would be likely to write a gun control executive order if he is elected. 

Even though it is not supposed to be in the power of a president to enact laws on his own, It would not surprise me in the least if, should he be elected, Bloomberg  issued a gun control EO on his first day in office. It would then either be on congress to pass a law overriding that EO - something that will by no means be a certainty depending on the makeup of congress at that time - or for the supreme court to rule it unConstitutional.

Bloomberg has imperial ambitions; he proved his willingness to micromanage the lives of those under him while mayor of NYC (his ban on large soft drinks, trying to control their sodium intake, his stop and frisk policy that let police frisk you without probable cause, etc.). He truly believes his intellect is far superior to the rest of us mere mortals, as he stated in a recent speech at Oxford University: “… We, the intelligentsia, the people who could make it into this room…” He went on to state his belief that as a member of that elite group HE knows and understands things that the unwashed masses (that’s us) can’t begin to comprehend (specifically, why “a guy in a dress should be in the same locker room as your daughter”). HE knows what’s best for us - and he is willing to outspend everyone else, all the while using his media empire to push his views and agenda, to make it into the White House. And to top it off, he is a card carrying member of the Trilateral Commission (http://trilateral.org/download/files/membership/NA%20members%20April%202018(2).pdf) AND the Council on Foreign Relations (“[Full disclosure: Bloomberg (the candidate) is a life member and Bloomberg (the firm) is a corporate member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Bloomberg Philanthropies has generously supported the work of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Global Health Program, https://www.cfr.org/blog/meet-michael-bloomberg-democratic-presidential-candidate)” - the kingmakers of the US; Trump is a member of neither group, neither is Steyer. This group isn’t just putting their stamp of approval on a candidate, as they did during those three days when Obama mysteriously disappeared from the campaign trail, showing up at the annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission and securing their approval over Hillary Clinton, this time it’s ONE OF THEIR OWN, putting them firmly in the driver’s seat of the government. For those who doubt, the DNC rules kept a number of candidates out of the debates because they failed to meet certain fund raising and endorsement criteria, yet they are looking to change those rules to allow Bloomberg, who hasn’t raised a dime, and so far only has the endorsement of Obama, to allow him on the stage for their next debate. Why?  These two groups are the ones that elevate the candidate of their choice. One of their own is running, and they want him on the stage.

Sanders is scary because of his socialist ideology, but he would have a difficult time pushing his agenda through congress.

Bloomberg is TRULY scary because, not only does he have the wealth and media empire (his own personal propaganda machine) to shape opinion and policy, he is a member of the very organizations to which so many in government are beholden, the true, behind the scenes power brokers not just of the US, but of the world.

EDIT:  02/18/2020.  The DNC has announced that, despite raising no funds and only collecting ONE endorsement, Bloomberg has “earned” a place in the Nevada debates.  As I said, the Trilaterals and CFR’s WANT Bloomberg on that stage, and the DNC is willing - if not happy - to comply with their wishes.

I Don’t See Color....

This statement has triggered debate in recent years from both sides of the racial divide.

On one hand, there are those of all chromatic persuasions who state that they don’t see color, which is immediately denounced as an impossibility; one cannot NOT see color.  And there are those who will also argue that the statement, “I don’t see color”, is a repudiation of the injustices suffered through the years by minority communities.  It is a deliberate attempt to deny the implicit bias they assume that all people - particularly those of the majority “race” - MUST have.

On the other hand, there are those who truly use this statement as a way to deny that minorities have suffered as a result of their ethnicity.

Then there is a third group who say they don’t see color; I am one of these.  No, I’m not blind or colorblind, nor am I ignorant of history, so what do I mean when I say this?

It means, very simply, that I - and many like me - have made a conscious decision not to let color play a role in how I treat people.  I am fully aware of the injustices suffered by minorities, and I make every effort to ensure that I treat all people with respect.  When my minority customers come to my store, they receive the same high level of service with which I provide my non-minority customers.  A black male in a hoodie doesn’t elicit any more attention or concern from me than a white or hispanic male in a hoodie; frankly, with the desire to hide their identity, they all concern me equally.

I disagree with the notion that ALL people, particularly non-minorities, suffer from implicit bias against ethnic minorities, and it is too easy a conclusion to which to jump to automatically assume that everyone who makes this statement is denying an implicit bias of which they are either unaware or deliberately trying to cover up.

It is sad that those who assume non-minorities MUST be biased against them nonetheless allow themselves to indulge in the same biases of which they accuse others.