Super-rich Jew (about $40 billion), Bloomberg, former mayor of NYC, enters demon-rat Pres. primaries

Did you know Mike Bloomberg banned food donations to the homeless because his bureaucrats didn’t know the sodium content?​

February 18, 2020 by IWB

Link: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...is-bureaucrats-didnt-know-the-sodium-content/

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s food police have struck again!

Outlawed are food donations to homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content, reports CBS 2’s Marcia Kramer.

Glenn Richter arrived at a West Side synagogue on Monday to collect surplus bagels — fresh nutritious bagels — to donate to the poor. However, under a new edict from Bloomberg’s food police he can no longer donate the food to city homeless shelters.

It’s the “no bagels for you” edict.

“I can’t give you something that’s a supplement to the food you already have? Sorry that’s wrong,” Richter said.

Richter has been collecting food from places like the Ohav Zedek synagogue and bringing it to homeless shelters for more than 20 years, but recently his donation, including a “cholent” or carrot stew, was turned away because the Bloomberg administration wants to monitor the salt, fat and fiber eaten by the homeless.

Richter said he was stunned. He said his family has eaten the same food forever and flourished.

newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/
 
When Bloomberg News’s Reporting on China Was Challenged, Bloomberg Tried to Ruin Me for Speaking Out​

Link: https://theintercept.com/2020/02/18/mike-bloomberg-lp-nda-china/

Leta Hong Fincher
February 18 2020, 10:18 a.m.

I am one of the many women Mike Bloomberg’s company tried to silence through nondisclosure agreements. The funny thing is, I never even worked for Bloomberg.

But my story shows the lengths that the Bloomberg machine will go to in order to avoid offending Beijing. Bloomberg’s company, Bloomberg LP, is so dependent on the vast China market for its business that its lawyers threatened to devastate my family financially if I didn’t sign an NDA silencing me about how Bloomberg News killed a story critical of Chinese Communist Party leaders. It was only when I hired Edward Snowden’s lawyers in Hong Kong that Bloomberg LP eventually called off their hounds after many attempts to intimidate me.

In 2012, I was working toward a Ph.D. in sociology at Tsinghua University in Beijing, and my husband, Michael Forsythe, was a lead writer on a Bloomberg News article about the vast accumulation of wealth by relatives of Chinese President Xi Jinping, part of an award-winning “Revolution to Riches” series about Chinese leaders.

Soon after Bloomberg published the article on Xi’s family wealth in June 2012, my husband received death threats conveyed by a woman who told him she represented a relative of Xi. The woman conveying the threats specifically mentioned the danger to our whole family; our two children were 6 and 8 years old at the time. The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos reports a similar encounter in his award-winning book, “Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth and Faith in the New China,” when the same woman told Osnos’s wife: “He [Forsythe] and his family can’t stay in China. It’s no longer safe,” she said. “Something will happen. It will look like an accident. Nobody will know what happened. He’ll just be found dead.”

The experience was especially terrifying because it came just months after the murder of a British businessman, Neil Heywood, who was poisoned by the wife of a senior Chinese leader, Bo Xilai, according to Chinese state media. His body was reportedly discovered in a hotel in the southwestern Chinese city of Chongqing. While our family spent the kids’ summer vacation in 2012 outside of China, Bloomberg executives kept my husband busy in nonstop conference calls about how to maintain our security. I had recurring nightmares about my young children getting beaten up or killed. I desperately wanted to speak publicly about the death threats, feeling it would give us stronger protection, but Bloomberg News wanted us not to say anything about it while the company conducted its own internal investigation. I had been loyal to the company ever since my husband and I married in 2002, and I didn’t want to jeopardize his job. I stayed silent until October 26, 2012, when another (unrelated) story was published in defiance of the Chinese government. I decided to tweet that we had received death threats after the Bloomberg story on Xi Jinping.

Screen-Shot-2020-02-15-at-11.52.57-AM-1582039653Screenshot: Leta Hong Fincher

Within hours of my tweets — the original and my replies to questions — a Bloomberg manager called my husband and said, “Get your wife to delete her tweets.” I did not delete them, but I also did not tweet or speak publicly about the death threats again. I did not want to anger the company because we needed it to relocate us to Hong Kong, where our children would be safe. As we finished the remainder of our time in Beijing, applying for schools in Hong Kong and preparing for our move, I lived in constant fear. Would someone get to our children while they were on their way to or from school? Who was watching and listening to us? I obsessively pulled down all our window blinds at night in case Chinese security agents were watching us. I was careful not to speak loudly about our plans in our home or on my phone in case we were bugged.

In August 2013, I finally relaxed as we flew out of Beijing and moved to a temporary apartment in Hong Kong. I thought that our yearlong nightmare had ended. But things would soon get even worse.

My husband had been working for many months on another investigative report for Bloomberg about financial ties between one of China’s richest men, Wang Jianlin, and the families of senior Communist Party officials, including relatives of Xi. Bloomberg editors had thus far backed the story. A Bloomberg managing editor, Jonathan Kaufman, said in an email in late September 2013, “I am in awe of the way you tracked down and deciphered the financial holdings and the players. … It’s a real revelation. Looking forward to pushing it up the line,” according to an account published by the Financial Times.

Then Bloomberg killed the story at the last minute, and the company fired my husband in November after comments by Bloomberg News editor-in-chief Matt Winkler were leaked. “If we run the story, we’ll be kicked out of China,” Winkler reportedly said on a company call.

Michael Bloomberg’s Right-Wing Views on Foreign Policy Make Him a Perfect Candidate for the Republican Nomination

Mike Bloomberg, then New York City mayor and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, was asked on November 12, 2013, about reports that his company had self-censored out of fear of offending the Chinese government and he dismissed the question.

“Nobody thinks that we’re wusses and not willing to stand up and write stories that are of interest to the public and that are factually correct,” Bloomberg told a press conference.

Yet, days after Bloomberg made those comments to reporters in New York, Bloomberg lawyers in Hong Kong threatened to devastate my family financially by forcing us to repay the company for our relocation fees to Hong Kong from Beijing and the advance on my husband’s salary that we took out, leave us with no health insurance or income, and take me to court if I did not sign a nondisclosure agreement — even though I had never been a Bloomberg employee.

The law firm representing Bloomberg, Mayer Brown JSM, sent a letter to my lawyer on December 6, 2013, threatening a court injunction if I didn’t agree to their confidentiality terms within seven days.

I told my husband’s lawyer that I did not want to sign a gag order, so Bloomberg summoned me and my husband to a meeting on December 16 at Mayer Brown JSM’s office in central Hong Kong. We sat around a fancy conference table with some Bloomberg senior editors and Mayer Brown lawyers and spoke via videoconference with a lawyer from Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, representing Bloomberg in New York. My husband’s lawyer said that I did not possess any recordings or emails that might be damaging evidence about the company’s practices.

The thought of Bloomberg possibly ruining our family financially if I didn’t give in to their threats made me sick, but I was also infuriated that they had kept us in harm’s way.

“But what about all the evidence that is in her head?” said the outsized man on the video screen. When Bloomberg’s lawyer in New York uttered those words, I suddenly pictured him holding a giant vacuum cleaner, trying to suck all the memories out of my brain. I told everyone that I needed to leave the room and I walked out of the building, determined to go down fighting.

On December 20, they sent a letter to my husband demanding that I sign a nondisclosure agreement. If I didn’t agree, we might owe the company thousands of dollars. I might even have had to pay Bloomberg’s legal bills. The thought of Bloomberg possibly ruining our family financially if I didn’t give in to their threats made me sick, but I was also infuriated that they had kept us in harm’s way after we received threats, forbidden me from speaking publicly about the death threats we received in Beijing, and now were trying to take away my freedom of speech forever.

It was only when I hired Snowden’s lawyers in Hong Kong — Albert Ho and Jonathan Man offered me a low rate because it was a “good cause” — that Bloomberg finally backed off. In the meantime, they had sent me several more threatening letters. One letter from Mayer Brown JSM on January 8, 2014, spelled out that “by virtue of the knowledge that she retains (in her head) of our client’s [Bloomberg’s] Confidential Information she has an ongoing duty of confidentiality to our client.” They demanded that I sign away my right to speak out about things such as “unpublished drafts of an article prepared for our client; documents concerning our client’s newsgathering, editorial processes and editorial judgment …; any emails and other communications (including oral discussions) between and among our client’s employees concerning our client’s newsgathering editorial processes and editorial judgment.”

Ho, a veteran Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator and activist who has been assaulted twice over the years, told me that if Bloomberg didn’t back down, we could hold a press conference to shame them. Fortunately, it didn’t come to that and in February 2014, Bloomberg finally stopped sending me legal threats. I returned to Tsinghua University to finish my Ph.D. and published my first book about women in China. My husband joined the New York Times, re-reported the entire story on the Chinese businessman, Wang, which Bloomberg claimed was “not ready for publication,” and his story was published on the front page of the New York Times in late April 2015.

I never wanted to seek publicity about Bloomberg’s threatening behavior and was genuinely terrified of financial ruin, so in spite of preserving my freedom of speech, I have never written about my experience before. I am speaking out now because unlike so many other women, I am not bound by a nondisclosure agreement. Given the large number of women silenced by NDAs, it’s clear that there has been an environment of sexism at Bloomberg’s company. Bloomberg managers and lawyers treated me as though I were a piece of company property, an appendage of my husband, using intimidation and threats to try to bully me into submission. I agonized over whether to sign the NDA and I remember feeling physically suffocated, as though my mouth were stuffed with cotton balls. I haven’t met any of the other women, but I imagine that they, too, may have experienced the same terror of being threatened by a multibillion-dollar corporation, which could ruin their lives if they did not comply. Even now, I am nervous about the consequences of speaking out. But the more of us speak out, the stronger we are.
 
Anti-Gun Bloomberg Group Spending Millions in Bid To Turn Texas Anti-2A​

5 minute
Read

Link: http://www.hideoutnow.com/2020/02/anti-gun-bloomberg-group-spending.html

It was like a nightmare for firearm owners: As of Wednesday evening, former New York City mayor and Second Amendment scold Michael Bloomberg had risen to third place in the national poll average for the Democratic presidential nomination, right behind the plummeting former Vice President Joe Biden. He’d quickly become the toast of the establishment, the only thing preventing a hard-left socialist from marching to standard-bearer status.

Wednesday evening turned to night and, like an afternoon nap that lasted way too long, we all woke up from the nightmare about five minutes into the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas.

If this is Thursday and you’re just waking up, having figured another one of these things wasn’t worth losing sleep over, I have one word for Bloomberg’s performance: Ouch.

The debate ended at 11 p.m. in the East. I half-expected an 11:05 p.m. EST news conference in which he announced he was suspending his campaign.

There’s not enough time to go into what an odious faceplant Hizzoner managed on Wednesday; I’ll merely observe that if you google “TurboTax” or “non-disclosure agreement” for the next few days, the site for the software or a description of the legal document won’t be the only things that get returned.

Bottom line, a truncated version of how things stand: Short of a miraculous recovery that makes Bill Clinton’s 1992 primary performance look pretty eh, Michael Bloomberg won’t be our next president.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to take your guns, though, at least if you live in Texas.

According to the Washington Examiner, Everytown for Gun Safety — Bloomberg’s astroturf gun control group — is planning to use what it believes to be the changing demographics of Texas for a major ad push it hopes will lead to more stringent gun control laws in both the Lone Star State and Washington, D.C.

“We believe that Texas, as it becomes younger and increasingly diverse, can be the next emerging battleground state with gun safety as the tipping point,” Chris Carr, political director for Everytown, said in a statement.

“We believe there are opportunities to elect gun sense candidates up and down the ballot, from the statehouse to the U.S. Congress — and potentially even statewide,” he said.

The group plans an $8 million ad blitz followed by an unprecedented $60 million to try and influence the 2020 election.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Everytown’s plan is straightforward: Flip the Texas statehouse through an “unprecedented financial and grassroots effort,” defend Democrat freshmen in close U.S. House districts and try to win Republican seats in the suburbs the same way Democrats did in the 2018 midterms. The fact the group is targeting Texas has to do with positive polling numbers for its less-controversial measures.

“Eighty-seven percent of likely voters in Texas said they support background checks on all gun purchases, while 80 percent support red flag laws, according to a poll commissioned by Everytown and shared with Hearst Newspapers. It follows a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll released this week that found 79 percent support background checks for all gun purchases,” the Chronicle reported.

Beyond the fact that there’s little evidence background checks work and red flag laws — which basically eliminate all due process when it comes to seizing firearms from individuals deemed “dangerous” — sound great until they’re implemented, keep in mind that’s not really what Everytown wants.

Everytown for Gun Safety may have a terminally clubfooted name, but it also has an outsized role in American politics.

In Virginia, its money and strategy helped flip the state legislature, which in turn has led to an attempt to ram through a suite of gun control legislation, including bans on the sale of so-called assault weapons and possession of firearm clips holding over 12 rounds. (Both blessedly failed in the state Senate, where members were worried about the effects such a seismic shift would have on the vote the next time Virginians go to the ballot box.)

Molly Bursey still thinks this kind of push can work in Texas. She’s the leader of a San Antonio-area chapter of Moms Demand Action, another Bloomberg anti-gun astroturf-tastic pressure group.

Bursey told the Chronicle that while the red part of the electorate is going to react to this kind of push with a collective conniption, purple and blue voters are “fired up to get to work” to reverse a loosening of firearm restrictions enacted in September.

“People can’t really believe that … instead of passing laws that most Texans agree with, they’re really just loosening restrictions on who can carry a gun and where, and that’s not what Texans want,” she said. “I think people have had enough. They’re paying attention.”

Well, certain people, yes. Certain other groups are paying attention as well.

“The Texas State Rifle Association sent an email to supporters earlier this month warning of the type of spending Everytown is now planning,” the Chronicle reported.

“The rifle association declared an early victory in Fort Bend County when Republican Gary Gates beat Eliz Markowitz, a Democrat backed by gun safety groups, in a closely watched special election for state House last month.”

An email from the group said, “Though gun control advocates and gun-grabbing politicians failed to lay down a marker in this particular contest, the amount of resources they invested in this race demonstrates their commitment to turn Texas ‘blue’ and make the Lone Star State their next target after Virginia for passing radical restrictions on our rights.”

To a certain extent, one wonders whether this is exactly the state to pick. Virginia and Texas both have changing demographics, but that’s not the whole story.

Virginia was a swing state that has slowly morphed from red to blue, partially because of demographic change but to a great extent from an influx of career bureaucrats who favor the Northern Virginia suburbs over the District itself. It wasn’t terribly conservative before this.

Since 1990, Virginia has had two Republican senators.

The first, John Warner, was in office from 1979 to 2009 and pretty much got re-elected on tenure and the advantage of incumbency. When he retired, he was replaced by Democrat Mark Warner (no relation), who continues to hold the seat.

The other, George Allen, made it in on George W. Bush’s coattails in 2000. (It didn’t hurt that he was the son of legendary Washington Redskins football coach George Allen.) Six years later, he was voted out in favor of Democrat Jim Webb, in large part because of an ill-advised comment about a Democratic opposition research member that could charitably be called dumb and uncharitably be called racist.

All of which is to say Virginia has been moving in one direction for a long time.

Texas has been moving in another.

The Democrats once had an iron grip on the state, then at least a strong foothold. Those of us of a certain age and/or who are certifiable political junkies will remember former Texas Gov. Ann Richards and her famous (slash-infamous) keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 1988: “Poor George [Bush],” she drawled. “He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”

When she left office in 1993, Richards was the last Democratic governor of Texas. That was the same year Texas had its last Democrat senator.

We’ve been told that Texas is going to turn blue any cycle now. The latest proof is that former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, with nearly unlimited money and media adulation, almost beat Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018. This race was sui generis, however; Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, arguably a more divisive figure, won a 56-43 victory over his nearest opponent.

So, no, Texas going blue still seems like a bit of a fantasy, as are applying the kind of gun control measures Democrats are behind in Virginia.

That said, Michael Bloomberg isn’t a man who gives up easily. He might still win the White House, but that debate will be difficult to come back from.

As for Everytown’s influence in 2020 elections, that’s not something we can sleep on.

Texas isn’t Virginia. Does that mean it can’t go that way? Conservatives shouldn’t get overconfident; when Bloomberg doesn’t have to take to a debate stage, he can be awfully effective.
 
Bloomberg Asked About Hypocrisy of Armed Security, Says He’s Wealthy & Can Afford It (Watch)​

Link: https://flagandcross.com/bloomberg-...ecurity-says-hes-wealthy-can-afford-it-watch/

[see vid at site link, above]

John Salvatore
Published
1 day ago
on
March 2, 2020

2020 Democrat presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg was asked if his life matters more than that of the average citizen during a Fox News town hall on Monday evening. In short, “Mini Mike” seemingly dodged the question and said he faced more threats than others due to being wealthy and the former mayor of New York City.

In other words, yes, Mike’s life is more valuable and deserves to be safeguarded by retired police officers because he has the ability to pay for his detail. But you really shouldn’t be able to defend yourself even though you can afford a firearm.

Check it out for yourself, via Free Beacon:

Latest: Watch: Biden Awkwardly Sniffs Baby's Hair Before Super Tuesday Dominance Across the Nation

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg incorrectly asserted Monday that background checks are not required to be performed on gun sales done at gun shows or over the internet.

At a Fox News town hall, Bloomberg falsely claimed gun stores are required to perform background checks on sales done at their physical premises but sales conducted elsewhere were exempt from background check requirements.

Michael Bloomberg is ENDED by a citizen on gun control:

"You have an armed security detail that is likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines you seek to ban the common citizen from owning. Does your life matter more than mine or my family's?" pic.twitter.com/LawKcwJEwl

— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) March 3, 2020

Reactions:

He never directly answered the question in this clip and essentially told the guy “Yes, my life is more important because I’m rich and famous. I get death threats all the time.” because the poors never get death threats right?

— William Dunn (@thebillyfive) March 3, 2020

Bloomberg is the best argument I’ve ever seen for wealth confiscation.

— Thomas Skull (@thomstern) March 3, 2020

And Bloomberg’s initial response infers yes, his life is more important, as a wealthy man and presidential candidate.

— Peter Garrett (@TheUnrealPeterG) March 3, 2020

Bloomberg's response, in short: YES.

— klarson (@kglarson) March 3, 2020

you want to grab my guns while your own security guys carry them, why should you have more rights than I do
YEAH UM HELLO I'M RICH AS HELL https://t.co/ZzOgHMl3lj

— It's still 2016 apparently (@jtLOL) March 3, 2020

Mike certainly isn’t expected to win the far-left party’s nomination this summer, at least not by himself.

But if he added Hillary Clinton to the mix he might give himself a slightly better chance.

Former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris is warning Bloomberg, though. He’s telling Mike to be careful what he’s asking for.

LOOK:

To: Mike Bloomberg: Before you put Hillary on your ticket, better hire a taster

— Dick Morris (@DickMorrisTweet) February 15, 2020
 
Why Bloomberg’s Dropping $100 Million in Florida​

September 14, 2020 by IWB

Link: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/why-bloombergs-dropping-100-million-in-florida/

RUSH: Here is Ron in Hartsville, South Carolina. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your patience.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. It’s a great pleasure to talk to you, and mega dittos and prayers to you. I’ve been listening to you since 1992 when I found you in Dallas, and thank you so much for all the knowledge and entertainment that you provided over the years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. I know it’s been a lot. I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

CALLER: The other day I heard about Mike Bloomberg offering a hundred million dollars of his money to try and take Florida. And I wonder why it is that he would be doing that? You know, I know you gotta follow the money, so I thought I would give you a call and see if you know why – what’s in it for him? What is he gonna gain from spending all that money and having a Democrat elected?

RUSH: Well, it’s an interesting question. You know, you’re actually very, very prescient here. The reason that — it’s twofold. Right now the Trump campaign is really outpacing Biden in money given by small donors. The reason why that’s important is that it shows enthusiasm. These are people that are giving less than 200 bucks. And it’s largely people who, that’s the max they have to give, 25, 50, 150, 200, that’s it. They are doing everything they can to come up with as much as they can give. But it isn’t much when compared to people like Bloomberg spending a hundred million.

The reason why this is something that politicians envy is because it indicates mass enthusiasm. And Trump is outscoring Biden in this fundraising method. I mean, he’s just swamping him with it. But Biden is leading in massive amounts of donations like the Bloomberg hundred million dollars. That’s largely corporate. There’s also a game being played. There’s an outfit out there that is bundling contributions but not identifying the people who are making them, in favor of Biden, and it’s leading people to believe that some chicanery is going on.

The reason why Bloomberg would be doing this — I know you’re gonna have trouble believing this — it’s vanity. It is A, it’s to counter whatever upside Trump has with all of those small donors. But it’s also the fact that Bloomberg simply can’t believe that Trump was able to do what Bloomberg can’t, and that’s get elected president. And so Bloomberg, a hundred million dollars to Michael Bloomberg is like 50 bucks to you. It’s chump change, really, when you get down to it, the number of billions that he’s got.

So this is simply he’s able to run in and drop this amount of money in Florida in the singular hope that he can defeat Trump. That’s what this represents. Because he’s jealous, because he’s envious. There’s so much of that at this level of the game that these guys play.

Every effort they’ve engaged in to get rid of Trump has bombed out. They’re getting frustrated. So Bloomberg’s dropping a hundred million in the state of Florida hoping to take it out of play. If he does, then the election’s over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top