If there’s one thing America’s law-abiding gun owners never want to see—something maybe even scarier than a Hillary Clinton presidency, if that’s possible—it’s gun-ban billionaire Michael Bloomberg walking onto the stage while “Hail to the Chief” plays in the background.
But if unbridled arrogance, endless hypocrisy, tons of money and an ego the size of New York City are important to becoming president of the United States, the nanny-state former New York City mayor might just be the next occupant of the White House.
Bloomberg, who has spent millions of dollars over the past several years trying to curb the Second Amendment rights of lawful Americans, started kicking around the idea at the end of 2015. Few took the rumors seriously until Bloomberg himself actually started speaking up about a possible third-party candidacy.
First were the seemingly random reports here and there that Bloomberg might consider a run—kind of a trial balloon situation seemingly designed to see what the reaction would be. Then in January, CBS New York reported, “Bloomberg is taking a look at the 2016 presidential landscape, and putting the pieces in place for a possible presidential run.” Shortly after that revelation, Breitbart reported that sources close to Bloomberg said he is willing to spend up to $1 billion of his personal fortune to win the White House.
The reports still seemed quite speculative until Hizzoner himself started speaking up. He began by proclaiming the current two-party system to be broken, saying the system “answers to lobbyists and special interests instead of the American people.” While that might ring true to many, it does beg the question: Since when has the megalomaniac billionaire been interested in the opinions of the American people? Surely not during his mayoral term. Even worse, imagine Bloomberg nominating two or three justices to the Supreme Court, which already hangs in the balance …
Bloomberg’s pronounced interest, however, quickly found supporters, including News Corp founder Rupert Murdoch. On Jan. 23, Murdoch tweeted the following words of encouragement: “Allegedly Bloomberg again considering running. If he does, may hurt Clinton more than Trump. Seems 2016 the year for populists.” His next post even hinted at desperation: “This is Bloomberg’s last chance. You never know until your hat is in the ring! Events change everything, especially during elections.”
Even before Bloomberg spoke up, some political observers were already counting him in as a candidate, simply due to his unfettered arrogance. Following reports that Bloomberg had commissioned a study to see how he would fare against Republican front-runner Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton, CNN political commentator Errol Louis seemed certain that Bloomberg would jump into the fray.
“After more than a decade of covering, interviewing and occasionally dining with Bloomberg, I’d say his denials of interest in the presidency, no matter how firm and definitive, should be taken with a huge grain of salt,” Louis wrote. “I once saw Bloomberg and one of his top political aides, Kevin Sheekey, at a press conference in front of the West Wing shortly after the mayor met with President Obama to talk about education policy. When the press conference was over, you could see both men pause and look at the building covetously, almost hungrily.”
Of course anyone who has followed the politics of gun control with even a small bit of interest knows of Bloomberg’s copious efforts to stifle our right to keep and bear arms. From pumping millions of dollars into state ballot initiatives aimed at diminishing the Second Amendment, to funding numerous groups that make constant attacks on our rights, to financially backing state and federal candidates who support more, and more restrictive, anti-gun laws, Bloomberg has never found a gun ban he didn’t like.
Just imagine him as a president willing, like President Barack Obama, to use executive actions to gut our rights. Imagine him setting the tone of the nation’s so-called “gun-control conversation” for the next eight years. Imagine the access gun-ban groups would have to the White House. Even worse, imagine Bloomberg nominating two or three justices to the Supreme Court, which already hangs in the balance with the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, a stalwart defender of the Constitution.
With Clinton and Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders jockeying for the spot of America’s top gun-ban candidate in this year’s presidential election, it’s impossible to say exactly how throwing Bloomberg into the mix might affect the outcome. Many political observers, including some Democratic legislators, worry that it could give the advantage to the Republican candidate.
One thing’s for sure, though: Taken together, the three of them represent a three-headed gun-ban monster the likes of which we’ve seldom seen in an election for the highest office in the land. The thought of Clinton, Sanders or Bloomberg becoming our commander in chief should give any law-abiding gun owner added motivation to spend the next several months working harder than ever before to ensure that whichever pro-gun candidate rises to the top in the primaries becomes the new White House resident after the dust clears this November.
