"In essence, Bloomberg believes that the country is more safe with a centralized, all-powerful government that restricts its citizens of self defense and tramples on their right to privacy. He believes this is best for everyone's overall security. Will his fears translate to the loss of liberty in and the growth of an ever expanding police state?"

Alert: New York City Mayor Bloomberg says the US Constitution will 'have to change'

by: Lance Johnson

As the smoke clears from the Boston Marathon bombing, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is wasting no time. In a press conference Monday, Bloomberg came right out and said that the country's interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change" to allow for greater security.

Bloomberg using terrorism scare tactics to force compliance to new safety laws

In referencing September 11, Bloomberg went on to say, "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11."

Building upon his call for a redefined Constitution, he proclaimed, "We live in a complex word where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

"We have to understand that in the world going forward, we're going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That's good in some sense, but it's different from what we are used to," he said.

Bloomberg praises court interpretations that restrict the Second Amendment

In reference to gun policy, the mayor applauded court decisions that have allowed for more stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

"Clearly the Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws. Here we're going to have to live with reasonable levels of security."

Using the Sandy Hook incident, he went on, "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.

In essence, Bloomberg believes that the country is more safe with a centralized, all-powerful government that restricts its citizens of self defense and tramples on their right to privacy. He believes this is best for everyone's overall security. Will his fears translate to the loss of liberty in and the growth of an ever expanding police state?


What A "secure" Bloomberg uniform society might look like
- More police officials and bomb squads at major metropolitan events
- An expanded Homeland Security that teaches Americans to snitch out their neighbors for suspicious behavior
- Government grants that give cities money for more camera surveillance
- The suspension of the fourth amendment, including the loss of the people's right to be secure in their own persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police intrusion into vehicles and homes without a warrant authorized by oath and affirmation
- Gun laws that limit the people's rights, keeping the masses submissive to a new police "security" state
- More frequent city-wide lock downs that allow officials to search, seize, and even assassinate suspected terror subjects
- More TSA-like government bodies that scan and grope people before major traveling and metropolitan events
- More staged, assisted, encouraged attacks that enable the passage of even stricter "safety" controls
- As Bloomberg calls for an absolute police state and the stripping of civil liberties, somewhere, freedom loving Americans are gathering, talking about liberty, thinking of ways to defend their Constitution.

Two courses of ideas pave the way ahead. What road will the United States take? Government entrusted safety or personal liberty?

The words of Benjamin Franklin ring true, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040066_Bloomberg_Constitution_interpretation.html#ixzz2RTWoHDXw