Mini-Mike and Hillary

Well, since Bloomberg seems to be sucking up all the oxygen, mostly because media have been giving it to him, there is now a new idea floated out there.

How about Bloomberg picking Hillary as a running mate VP?
You can read about it here. Matt Drudge was pushing it as an exclusive.

How is it the Daily Mail always gets the scoop on this stuff?

Murdy Rupert vying for Bloomberg

NYT | Jan 23, 2016

Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for a potential independent campaign in this year’s presidential race. His advisers and associates said he was galled by Donald J. Trump’s dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton’s stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side.

Why not go all out and let Rupert Murdoch chair the advisory committee?

Last August – 2025

CNN Money: Rupert Murdoc wants Michael Bloomberg to run for President

Who would media mogul Rupert Murdoch like to see on the ballot in 2016? Apparently Michael Bloomberg.


Now he acts allegedly surprised. Never mind he was begging Bloomberg to run in August.
He should be ecstatic about it. Or has the media mogul changed his frugal mind?

What’s behind gas relief?

A broad question but Bloomberg diagnoses some reasons, starting with the Fed.

Crude Falls on Federal Reserve Stimulus Halt, U.S. Supply

By Mark Shenk Oct 30, 2014 | Bloomberg

West Texas Intermediate oil fell after the Federal Reserve ended its asset-purchase program and U.S. crude production surged to the highest level since the 1980s. Brent declined in London.

Futures slipped as much as 1.7 percent in New York. The dollar strengthened a second day against the euro after the Fed’s announcement, curbing the appeal of commodities priced in the U.S. currency as a store of value. U.S. crude supplies rose for a fourth week as output increased to 8.97 million barrels a day,

“Yesterday’s Fed announcement is pushing the dollar higher, which is putting selling pressure on commodities,” Gene McGillian, an analyst and broker at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut, said by phone. “The supply build yesterday may have been smaller than expected but it was still quite large. Ample supply and economic worry are going to continue to weigh on the market.”

WTI for December delivery dropped $1.05, or 1.3 percent, to $81.14 a barrel at 11:59 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Crude has collapsed into a bear market amid increasing global supplies as leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries resisted calls to cut production. Futures are down about 11 percent in October, set for the largest monthly loss since May 2012.

More Bloomberg

It’s only about time. We cannot have economic growth when oil is sucking up all the oxygen. Prices have been doubled since Obama took office. So the Fed is a reason. I guess we should have been blaming the Fed for the high prices, then.

The interesting thing is that Opec is holding production. Prices are bound to affect oil rich countries, especially Iran. Reuters 2012: “Tehran requires $117 [per barrel] to balance the books, according to the IMF”.

Here’s to hoping Obummer doesn’t do anything to stop the long-awaited correction. Was this supposed to be a pre-midterm surprise? I don’t know. The Opec statement hints at it.

Bans verses Abortion on demand

The “nanny staters” want bans and regulation for trans fats, salt, smoking, and large sugary drinks, or anything they deem harmful; but they want no limits on a mother’s so-called “fundamental right” to kill babies – abortion. Oh, that would be taboo. They believe in “choice” to kill babies, but not in what you eat or drink, or any other things.

Since they also say we need sin taxes on behavior they wish to discourage, then how about a 250,000 dollar tax on abortion? That could discourage it. Oh that’s right, they can’t do that. It might actually discourage or keep someone from getting an abortion. Don’t want to do that. See how consistent they are, not? Its like three Musketeers, all for one and all for abortions.

Come to think of it, about the only thing other than limits in office that they do not want to control is abortion. And they want government to endorse and subsidize that.

They don’t believe in self-regulation for an industry, except when it comes to abortion. In that case, no government oversight is needed. However, we do need to subsidize the organization that does most abortions in this country. Yet they want to ban trans fats, salt and excessive soda drinking for “obvious health concerns” they raise.

They want warnings on everything that can potentially harm human beings except abortions. No warning labels or disclosures needed for that. Killing and harmful side-effects are the main objectives. Malpractice could be having a baby survive.

Nanny Bloomberg has no problem; he would support scissors to the back of the head for babies while banning 32oz beverages. He calls the latter “a crisis” that “requires action”. Killing babies? Not so much. Don’t be ridiculous.

Of course, no one has an active plan to ban big government, or limit our exposure to it and its harmful effects. They would probably call that unconstitutional.

They can’t allow someone to willfully buy a big gulp and endanger one’s life. That’s a national health threat. But you can have abortion on demand, any time. In fact, have a few. We don’t need a limitation on killing babies — that would be taboo!

Trans-fats — very bad, they could kill you! Government must act to “save lives.”
Abortion — very good, protect it as a fundamental right.

How many times have you heard liberals claim “if we save one life by what we are doing, then it was worth it”? But 50 million is a matter of fundamental “privacy” to them.

No choice for those nasty, harmful things. But the choice for killing babies must be a “protected fundamental right” at any and all costs. Can’t have civilized society without abortion on demand.

The Food Gestapo

What is it with power and food?

NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg believes he is the food police. And apparently Obama has to have a food taster before he can eat it.

Daily Caller

“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.

“Collins continued, “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over…”

It’s long been rumored that the Secret Service has someone taste the food for the commander-in-chief before he eats meals prepared outside of the White House, but it’s never been officially confirmed.

Obama shared another fear during the campaign that an immigrant could be harassed while taking a child for ice cream.

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen. — Obama

Obama likes his straw men with ice cream.

Bloomberg wants to regulate food like the gestapo, which tells me power is just as dangerous as crack addiction and far more seductive than alcoholism.


“We are moving forward immediately with our appeal,” said Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel of the city’s law department. “We believe the judge was wrong in rejecting this important public health initiative. We also feel he took an unduly narrow view of the Board of Health’s powers.”

Maybe Bloomy could just ban large cup holders.

Obama cannot trust anything being served until it is tasted first, and Bloomberg believes he needs to regulate what the people can have. And they both believe in severely regulating what people can do.

What is with their fear and obsession over food? I wonder if Bloomberg has a food taster?

Too Bad these people weren’t around to advise Adam and Eve, they could have saved us a whole lot of trouble. That puts it into perspective, they believe they are gods and they fear what people can do.

So what are you giving up for lent? How about obsessive, power-hungry politicians…or are we too addicted to them?

I scream, you scream, we scream for freedom.

Spoiling for gun control, never too early

After news broke about the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that renewing the federal assault weapons ban “does remain a commitment of” the president’s. However, he continued, “What I said is that today is not the day to, I believe, as a father a day to engage in the usual Washington policy debates. I think that that day will come, but today is not that day.”


Gun Control Advocates Predict Tougher Response to Shootings


Official Washington’s response to the Connecticut school massacre Friday came along predictable lines, with Republicans and many moderate Democrats expressing their condolences and horror while silent on a legislative response to gun violence, and liberal Democrats saying it is time to move forward with serious gun legislation.

But advocates of gun control say the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown might be different for two reasons: the victims were children, eliciting a gut-wrenching response across the country, and the National Rifle Association proved to be a political paper tiger in the 2012 election.

“The political atmosphere has clearly changed because now we have solid evidence that the N.R.A. just was not effective in the last election cycle,” said Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group. “This just has a feel that they won’t get away with doing nothing this time.”


More at:


Obama’s statements: (emotional speech as its been called)

We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news I react not as a President, but as anybody else would–as a parent.
As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago–these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children.

And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.


By 8 o’clock in the evening Ed Schultz was asking if this was the event that would usher in real change — meaning gun control. Asking “is this is a game-changer?” … saying we are “hiding behind the second amendment”. Congressman Nadler says the “NRA is the enabler of mass murder”. Rep. Keith Ellison called others “2nd amendment extremists”.

Mayor Bloomberg rushes to offer statements and support for gun control.

“President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem … Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership—not from the White House and not from Congress.”

“With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it’s still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their ABC’s are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for ‘meaningful action’ is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership – not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.”

That’s right, the same man who said police should stand down from protecting the public untill they pass gun control. Let’s presume if they did such a thing, the police might never have responded to this scene. Ridiculous or what?

And all that by the 12 hour mark. So its never too early to call for gun control.
But they thought “fast and furious” was a “manufactured scandal” by Republicans.