Just call him Mayor Ban, Michael Bloomberg's list of bans while he was mayor

CNS News has put together a list of 32 bans imposed by Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor.

1. Smoking in commercial establishments like bars and restaurants (2003)
2. Smoking in public spaces (2011)
3. Cigarette sales to those under 21 (2013)
4. Sales of "flavored" tobacco products (2009)
5. Smoking e-cigarettes in public spaces (2013) ***
6. Cigarette in-store displays (2013)
7. Cars in Times Square (2009)
8. Cars from driving in newly created bike lanes (2007-2013)
9. Cars causing congestion below 60th Street in Manhattan (2007)*
10. Speeding on residential "slow zones" (2013)
11. Illegal guns (2006-2013) **
12. Sodium levels in processed foods (2010) **
13. Trans-fats in restaurants (2006)
14. Loud headphones (2013) **
15. Styrofoam packaging in single-service food items(2013)
16. Sodas larger than 16 ounces (2012) *
17. Collection of yard waste and grass clippings during certain times of year (2003-2013)
18. Organic food waste from landfills (2013) **
19. Commercial music over 45 decibels (2013)
20. Chain restaurant menus without calorie counts(2008)
21. The posting of signs in "city-owned grassy areas"(2013)
22. Non-fuel-efficient cabs (2007)
23. New cabs that aren't Nissan NV200s (2013) *
24. Greenhouse gas emissions (2007)
25. Government buildings that aren't LEED-certified(2005)
26. Non-hurricane-proof buildings in coastal areas(2013)
27. Black roofs (2009) **
28. Construction cranes over 25 years old (2013)
29. No. 6 and No. 4 "heavy" heating oils (2011)
30. Less than a 2-1 ratio of female and male restrooms in new public buildings (2005)
31. Cell phones in schools (2006)
32. Two-term limits for city elected officials (2008) *

* Overruled/appealed ban
** Suggested/voluntary ban
*** Proposed/pending ban

Payola gone mad with Michael Bloomberg, Should those endorsing candidates hide that they have been paid by them?

From the Wall Street Journal:

Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign is hiring hundreds of workers in California to post regularly on their personal social-media accounts in support of the candidate and send text messages to their friends about him. . . . 

To staff the effort, the campaign is hiring more than 500 “deputy digital organizers” to work 20 to 30 hours a week and receive $2,500 a month, the documents show. Those workers are expected to promote Mr. Bloomberg weekly to everyone in their phones’ contacts by text message and make daily social-media posts supporting him, the documents show. . . .

The whole Payola scandal was that radio stations played songs without letting people know that they were being paid to run those songs. The irony is that the Democrats who pushed for banning Payola and yet they haven't attacked Bloomberg.

Michael Bloomberg is flip-flopping on lots of issues.

While people are focusing on Michael Bloomberg's changing positions on "Stop & Frisk," there are actually a lot of other issues and as I have time, I will add to this list.

Marijuana -- 

Then: "Three-term New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg harped on the importance of vocational education and blasted Colorado’s decision to legalize marijuana as stupid Friday evening before a sold-out crowd at the Aspen Institute.When an audience member asked the 72-year-old Bloomberg about Colorado marijuana, he responded that it was a terrible idea, one that is hurting the developing minds of children. Though he admitted to smoking a joint in the 1960s, he said the drug is more accessible and more damaging today." 

Now: “Mike believes that further scientific study is required to assess the health effects of marijuana. In the meantime, he believes that no one should go to jail for smoking or possessing it,” the Bloomberg campaign said in a 13-page policy brief.

Minimum wage -- 

Then: "I, for example, am not in favor, have never been in favor of raising the minimum wage." 

Now: "If you work full-time, you should earn enough to live on a living wage. There is dignity in every job and there should be dignity in every paycheck as well," he said at a news conference.Bloomberg released new proposals to create economic opportunity for all Americans. Among the ideas: raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025."To fight poverty, we need to do something even more basic, and that is raise incomes. And we should start with the most straightforward change: raising the minimum wage," Bloomberg said.

Financial Transaction Tax --

Then: "When Washington attacked Wall Street, Bloomberg “stood up for the financial-services industry,” without any prodding from the business community" 

Now: "Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg on Tuesday proposed a financial transaction tax (FTT) as part of a wide-ranging financial reform plan the billionaire former New York City mayor unveiled ahead of Wednesday's debate.Bloomberg is proposing to work with Congress to implement a 0.1 percent tax on transactions for stocks, bonds and derivatives. He is calling for the tax to be phased in over time, starting at 0.02 percent, to limit any unintended consequences, according to a document from his campaign.

Marijuana legalization

Then in 2019: legalizing marijuana “perhaps the stupidest thing anybody has ever done.” 

Now: wants to decriminalize the possession of “small amounts” of marijuana and commute the sentences of certain convictions.

Social Security --

Bloomberg is now advocating for small targeted increases in Social Security benefits after repeatedly calling for cutting benefits over the past eight years. As recently as 2015, he compared AARP’s opposition to Social Security cuts to the National Rifle Association’s opposition to gun control, . .  .

“So does the AARP. Somebody suggested we change the age when Social Security kicks in in the year 2050. They went crazy, it would hurt their members. How many members of the AARP are going to be around in 2050? Come on.” . . .

Any additional examples are appreciated.

Bloomberg really is clueless: his latest comments on farming

Bloomberg's quote on Farming

"I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then we had 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job. And we created a lot of jobs. At one point, 98 percent of the world worked in agriculture, now it's 2 percent in the United States. Now comes the information economy and the information economy is fundamentally different because it's built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter."

My write up at Fox News:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s campaign slammed Sen. Bernie Sanders I-Vt. for circulating a 2016 video of Bloomberg’s comments on farming in which he said, “You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.” Bloomberg’s campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said that the comments were “completely out of context.”

The problem is that the rest of Bloomberg’s comments don’t help him. Take his comparison to the information economy.

“Now comes the information economy and the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze, and that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.”

Despite what Bloomberg might think, the notion of replacing people with technology is not unique to the information economy. It has been true with farming from the beginning. When someone learned to harness animals to help plow the field that was a technological advance that made it so you didn’t need as many people to plant the crops. Bloomberg cavalierly says, “you dig a hole,” but there is technology behind that. In 1566 in Italy, Camillo Torello patented the first seed drill for planting seeds. Jethro Tull refined it in 1701 in England.

There are also other issues in harvesting a crop. In 1793, Eli Whitney had the invention of the cotton gin, which allowed one to remove the seeds from the cotton fibers, and it dramatically revolutionized cotton farming. No longer did you have to employ armies of people to remove the seeds from the cotton fiber by hand.

When Cyrus Hall McCormick invented the mechanical reaper in 1831, he revolutionized harvesting grain, which became much faster and easier. Even for these inventions, it wasn’t like there was just a one-time change as people were constantly figuring out ways of improving on them. People went from using sickles to reapers to harvesters, which is a machine that heads, threshes, and cleans grains all while continuously moving across the field.

Despite what Bloomberg might think, all these inventions replaced people with technology.

Bloomberg might believe that his business is unique in requiring “you have to learn how to think and analyze,” but, whether one is talking about farming today or a hundred years ago, farmers need many skills, and a great deal of analysis is involved. To say you just “add water” sounds more straightforward than it is. The process may involve irrigation, which in turn requires engineering skills. Figuring out how to fertilize crops, guard against disease, and pests all involved creativity. Farmers had to be able to fix their machinery, take care of their animals, manage books, and run a business.

Sheekey also attacked Sanders because he needed to recognize that Bloomberg was talking about an “agrarian society.” Today’s farmers might have to have many different skills than those from a couple of hundred years ago, but that doesn’t make the problem any different. So today’s farmers might have a greater knowledge of chemistry and biology, but that doesn’t mean that the same challenges didn’t previously exist and that even if a farmer couldn’t tell you the exact chemical content of a fertilizer back then, he would still have to figure out what worked best for his soil and how to change things over time as certain nutrients were used from the soil over time.

Indeed, in many ways, technology has made being a farmer much easier today than it used to be.

But there is a simple response to Bloomberg’s claim. If Bloomberg were somehow transported back to living on a farm in 1700 or 1800, without any help, could he have successfully known how to grow crops and handle livestock? Unless he secretly took classes at Johns Hopkins on animal husbandry, it is doubtful. I certainly wouldn’t know what fertilizers to use and how to rotate crops or take properly take care of the horse that pulled my plow. And I doubt that Bloomberg would understand that either.

“I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer…you could learn that,” Bloomberg claims. But, ironically, despite his boasting, if Bloomberg got transported back to run a farm a few hundred years ago, he would likely fail. He would end up working for someone else on their farm.

Washington Post: "Sex Suit Could Be Problem for Bloomberg"

Among the allegations in the 2007 Washington Post story about Michael Bloomberg:

_Bloomberg asked the woman who sued if she was giving her boyfriend "good" oral sex.
_He said "I'd like to do that" and "That's a great piece of a--" to describe women in the office.
_When he found out the woman was pregnant, he told her "Kill it!" and said "Great! Number 16!" _ an apparent reference to the number of women in the company who were pregnant or had maternity-related status. . . .
The individual also said Garrison had a tape of Bloomberg leaving a message on her home answering machine, saying he had heard she was upset about the pregnancy and maternity comment and adding: "I didn't say it, but if I said it I didn't mean it." . . .
A less-restrained Bloomberg was also portrayed in a book of quips, quotes and anecdotes attributed to him and put together by employees for a birthday present in 1990. It contains such statements as: "If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they'd go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale's." . . .
A former longtime Bloomberg employee who was familiar with the book confirmed the authenticity of the quotes to the AP and said Bloomberg regularly made similar offensive remarks. The person spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear that Bloomberg would retaliate. . . . .

Will Democrats demand that Bloomberg release his employees from their confidentiality agreements?

Here is the view of Bloomberg from a liberal perspective in the Atlantic. 

Michael Bloomberg's proposal for a $5 trillion increase in taxes

Higher taxes on individuals and corporations are the highlights of Michael Bloomberg's tax plan. It is pretty clear that his tax proposals won't generate the tax revenue that Bloomberg claims for the simple reason that the proposals assume that as tax rates go up they won't alter people's behavior. The one part of the Trump tax reform that Bloomberg won't reverse is the $10,000 cap on state and local deductions because reversing that would lower tax burdens for some people.

From the Wall Street Journal, here are the main points:

-- raise the top tax rate to 44.6% for income, the next highest rate would be 39.6% up from 37%.-- Corporations would pay a 28% tax rate, up from the current 21% rate -- would tax capital gains and ordinary income at that same rate for the top taxpayers-- his top income-tax rates on individuals would be higher than those proposed by former Vice President Joe Biden-- Unlike Mr. Biden, he would not repeal the $10,000 cap on state and local deductions because the benefits of that change would flow mostly to high-income people, according to the campaign.-- The plan released Saturday doesn’t address changes to Social Security taxes or the carbon taxes that Mr. Bloomberg favors.

How come New Yorkers aren't supporting Michael Bloomberg for President?

Here are the latest estimated odds of which Democrat will win the New York Presidential primary from Predictit.



But despite massive campaign expenditures, Bloomberg is still not ahead in any of the states.

DNC changes rules so that Michael Bloomberg can enter Democrat debates

How come the DNC has changed the rules to help Bloomberg but not to help other candidates? Not everyone is pleased by the double standard. From Politico:

“Now, suddenly because Mr. Bloomberg couldn’t satisfy one of the prongs, we see it get changed?” Weaver said. “That’s the definition of a rigged system where the rich can buy their way in.” . . . 

Steyer — like Bloomberg, a billionaire — has also been accused of buying his spot on the debate stage, having spent well over $150 million of his own money to fuel his bid, including spending eight figures to solicit donations from enough individuals to qualify. But Steyer and Bloomberg are taking two very different paths to trying to secure the nomination: Steyer is competing extensively in the four early states, while Bloomberg is skipping them entirely to focus on Super Tuesday and beyond. 

Steyer, like Weaver, the Sanders' adviser, accused the DNC of changing the criteria to benefit Bloomberg. "Back in December, I called on the DNC to open up the debate requirements so that more candidates, including candidates of color, would be able to participate, he said. “Instead, they are changing the rules for a candidate who is ignoring early states voters and grassroots donors.” . . .

Michael Moore has gotten quite vexed about this.

"They removed it so that [Bloomberg] could be in the next debate," Moore said about the donor requirement. "...He can just buy his way onto the debate stage!" 

Billionaire Tom Steyer had to spend dollars convincing ppl to donate to his campaign, but not Bloomberg.

Truly massive campaign spending by Michael Bloomberg

From Politico:

Michael Bloomberg’s big-spending, shock-and-awe TV ad campaign has made politicking more expensive for everyone from his 2020 rivals to Senate, House and state legislative candidates around the country. 

Eight weeks into his presidential campaign, Bloomberg has already spent more money on advertising — $248 million — than most candidates could spend in years. That amount has squeezed TV ad inventory in nearly every state, lowering supply and causing stations to raise ad prices at a time of high demand, as candidates around the country gear up for their primaries. . . . 

Bloomberg’s ad onslaught comes with benefits to Democrats around the country, too: His ads have pushed issues that are critical to the party, like health care and climate change, and he has attacked President Donald Trump relentlessly in key swing states where Democrats might not have aired ads for months, softening up the Republican incumbent before the 2020 election. . . .

And $100 million has been spent just on attack ads against Trump. Of course, with all of Drudge's attacks on Trump, this shows how close Drudge is to the Bloomberg campaign.

Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has already dropped a fortune in support of his 2020 presidential bid — including, reportedly, $10 million for ad time during Sunday’s Super Bowl. Now, the exact figures are coming to light. And they are staggering. . . . 

Drudge, reporting through a Bloomberg campaign source, says the campaign has spent in excess of $25 million on digital ads, and has topped $85 million in TV buys. 

The Bloomberg source called the massive spending a “down payment” on the former mayor’s effort to take down Trump in November. . . . 

All this is on top of the $60 million that Bloomberg's Everytown will spend pushing gun control issues. It is nearly double the $36 million that the NRA spent in 2016, but it ignores the fact that Bloomberg funneled even much more money through other liberal groups (environmental, abortion, and other similar groups).

Bloomberg's Everytown announces initially spending of $1 million on Virginia state races this year

In 2015, Bloomberg spent $2 million just on two state Senate races to flip the control of the Virginia state Senate.  This $1 million only includes money directly from Everytown and not the side donations that Bloomberg makes directly to Democrats.  From the Washington Post:

Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the campaign arm of one of the nation’s biggest gun control groups, announced Thursday that it would spend at least $1 million in Virginia as part of an “initial investment” to elect Democrats in November. 

The fund is donating $450,000 directly to gubernatorial contender Ralph Northam, and spending $250,000 on mailers on his behalf. It’s also giving $300,000 to Attorney General Mark Herring for his re-election bid, as he faces attack advertising from the National Rifle Association.  

“We are making this initial investment because Ralph Northam and Mark Herring have been forceful champions for gun violence prevention in Virginia, while their opponents subscribe to a dangerous ‘guns everywhere’ agenda,” Brynne Craig, a senior strategist for Everytown, said in a statement. . . .

Michael Bloomberg wasted $20 million on Nevada's Background Checks on Private Transfers

This year, Bloomberg got a background check initiative onto the ballots of Maine and Nevada. He lost in Maine by 4 percent, and won in Nevada by just 0.8 percent. Bloomberg’s initiative only eked out the win in Nevada because of the $20 million spent to support it, amounting to an incredible $35.30 per vote. He outspent his opponents by a factor of three – in Maine, by a factor of six. Bloomberg was responsible for more than 90 percent of the money going to support these ballot measures.

Now it turns out that an error in how the initiative was written will prevent it from taking effect.  This error was just one example of how poorly word this complicated initiative was.   From the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

A new Nevada law requiring background checks for private party gun sales was deemed unenforceable Wednesday, days before it was to take effect because the FBI refuses to conduct them and the state lacks authority to do so. 

The opinion issued by the office of Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt left gun enthusiasts elated and proponents of background checks reeling from the blow of another setback — the second since 2013 when a bill requiring universal screenings was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval. 

Backers are now turning their sights to the 2017 Legislature, while others expressed hope that the state and FBI can work out a compromise. 

Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford, D-Las Vegas, said the Senate “will consider legislative solutions this session to ensure that Nevada law is enforced.” The Legislature convenes Feb. 6. . . .

Thus $28 million was spent by Bloomberg on two initiatives this year and neither gets enacted.

How Bloomberg's Everytown discusses gun-free zones: unable to debate the facts, they engage in personal attack

Gun-free zones are a serious problem. Shannon Watts, the head of Michael Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action, claimed that research that I had done was "wrong and misleading" and that I was "debunked."  When I responded with a point-by-point refutation of her claim, she accused him of being a Twitter "troll."  Watts makes clearly personal attacks, but she feels that it is improper for someone to factually respond to her claims.  She offers no proof for her claim that I am a "gun lobby researcher," falsely implying that I amfunded by the "gun lobby."  Instead of defending her claims about gun-free zones, Shannon moves on to other personal attacks, saying I supposedly bullied a stalking victim.

Newest appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal on people’s changing views on guns, Bloomberg’s research director explains why he won’t debate

From C-SPAN: "John Lott talked about the new study put out by Pew Research Center which finds that support for gun rights have increased and, for the first time, protecting gun rights is more important than controlling ownership." Lott was originally supposed to be on for an hour to discuss these issues with Ted Alcorn, the research director for Michael Bloomberg's Everytown. But Alcorn would not appear at the same time and insisted that he be allowed to appear after Lott. This clip is from the end of Lott's appearance on C-SPAN. The first caller to Mr. Alcorn segment asked him why he wouldn't appear on air with John Lott and Mr. Alcorn had this response. The rest of Mr. Alcorn's segment is available here.   C-SPAN's Washington Journal program listing is available here.

Bloomberg's gun control groups explain their strategy: focus on the states

Gun control advocates are going for a state by state approach, following along what homosexual rights groups have done.  The left wing Salon had this interview with Bloomberg's Shannon Watts:

. . . If you look at what we’ve done in the states alone — in 2013, we helped close the background check loophole in several states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New York) … and then we built on that this year. We got six different states, red and blue, to pass laws that would keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. And those were signed by [governors] from both parties … And then we went to Washington State where our moms were a huge part of the success of getting I-594 passed with 60 percent of the vote … And this is something we can take to two-dozen other states … to get [similar] initiatives passed there … We passed a critical gun-violence restraining bill in California, which is a prototype that we can take to other states … 

We have had huge success with our corporate campaigns. We decided that this was very much a cultural issue, so we took this issue to companies and said, You need to have policies around guns just like you do [for] attire, outside food, smoking, etc. And just in the last year we’ve gotten Target, Chipotle, Starbucks, Sonic, Jack in the Box, Chili’s — we’ve gotten all these major retailers and restaurants to say, We don’t want open-carry in our stores (in fact, some of them have said they don’t want any guns in their stores). 

If you look at how the acceptance of gay marriage came to be in this country, it was just like this; this is pretty much the playbook. You bypass Congress, you go straight to companies, you go straight to the state legislatures, you build a huge amount of momentum, you educate voters about this issue, and when they go out to the polls in 2016, hopefully you get a Congress in place that’s going to do the right thing. Maybe they’ll do the right thing before that, but we’re not going to rest on our laurels. . . .

The errors in this are quite numerous.  None of the states that they point to are "red" states.  An analysis of the 594 initiative is available here.  An analysis of the California restraining order is available here.

The claims in the second paragraph about the success in their corporate campaign are simply false (see here, here, and here.

With all the attacks on the Koch brothers during the midterm election, please note: "Big Democrat donors outspend GOP by 3-to-1"

From the Pittsburgh Tribune:

For as often as Democrats attack conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch for heavy spending on politics, it's the liberal-minded who shelled out the most cash on the just-completed midterm elections.  

At least, that is, among those groups that must disclose what they raise and spend.
Among the top 100 individual donors to political groups, more than half gave primarily to Democrats or their allies. Among groups that funneled more than $100,000 to allies, the top of the list tilted overwhelmingly toward Democrats — a group favoring the GOP doesn't appear on the list until No. 14.  

The two biggest super PACs of 2014? Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC — both backing Democrats.  

In all, the top 10 individual donors to outside groups injected almost $128 million into this year's elections. Democratic-leaning groups collected $91 million of it.  

Among the 183 groups that wrote checks of $100,000 or more to another group, Democrats had a 3-to-1 cash advantage. . . .  Not a single Republican-leaning group cracked the top 10 list of those transferring money to others.  

Overall, for the campaign season that just ended, donors who gave more than $1 million sent roughly 60 cents of every dollar to liberal groups. Among the 10 biggest donors, Democrats outspent Republicans by an almost 3-to-1 margin.  

“They're total hypocrites when it comes to this subject,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus. “They've made a living off campaign talking points when, in reality, they've been raking in more money from millionaire donors than Republicans for quite a while.”  . . .

Note that the list of donors that the Associated Press study provides doesn't include all the money that Michael Bloomberg gave to promote gun control efforts that went overwhelmingly to help Democrats.

Information on errors in Bloomberg's various claims on guns

Fox News is broadcasting a discussion that I had on Bloomberg's misinformation on guns three times this weekend.  They did it yesterday at 5:15 PM EDT, and today at 10:15 PM EDT and tomorrow morning at 1:15 AM EDT.  Fox Business will also show the discussion at 9:15 PM EDT.

However, you can watch the two segments from the show on youtube here and here.

Bloomberg's people were invited yet again to participate, but they continue to refuse to appear with anyone to debate.  If you would like to embarrass them for refusing to debate anyone, please consider following this link available here and retweeting it.

Kroger's stands up to Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action, Kroger's Michigan representatives say Bloomberg's group won't get them to change policy

In Lansing, Michigan, Kroger's stood up to Bloomberg's Moms Demand Action and asked them to leave the store.  From the Lansing State Journal:

A group protesting Michigan's open-carry gun rules hope a Lansing Kroger store's grand re-opening today will spur a new policy barring guns in the Holmes Street store. 

Michigan Kroger representatives said that's not likely. The Cincinnati-based grocery chain is sticking by Michigan law, which doesn't prohibit openly carrying guns in public. Michigan gun owners have to have a concealed-pistol license, however, to carry guns concealed in public. 

Kroger's stance won't stop Moms Demand Action's ongoing protests at Kroger stores, however, said Linda Brundage, who heads the group's mid-Michigan chapter. Brundage led a group of about 12 women at this morning's protest. 

The group was initially asked to leave the parking lot . . ., but was then invited inside to speak with store management. 

"You don't need a gun to buy a box of cereal," Brundage said outside the store. "Kroger would not be breaking any laws by saying to their customers, 'Leave your guns locked in the car.'" 

Chris Albi, Kroger's vice president of merchandising for Michigan, said the company's Cincinnati headquarters was aware of today's protest, but isn't expected to change its policy. . . .

For more on Bloomberg's push to ban guns in stores and the inaccurate way that the discussions are portrayed in the media follow this link available here.

Thanks to Tony for the link.

Bloomberg's groups continue to push to ban guns in businesses, but nothing is really changing

Bloomberg's groups have been pushing for sometime to get businesses to ban guns in their facilities.  On Monday, Panera Bread announced that it was asking customers not to bring guns to its restaurants" ((314) 984-1000).  But much of the media coverage has been misleading and simply asking people not to bring their guns with them won't have any legal effect.  The question is if Panera Bread will be posting signs and it doesn't appear to be the case.  Still, that gives Bloomberg's groups another PR boast.  From CNBC:

"We are thrilled that after months of discussions between Panera and Moms Demand Action, Panera is taking a proactive position in favor of our families' safety by putting a new gun policy in place. Moms are the consumers-in-chief of our households and we will reward companies that take a stand for our families' safety. We urge other national companies follow suit," said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in an email.  . . .

Yet, note that as in all the other announcements that Bloomberg's groups have been trumpeting for sometime, this new announcement changes absolutely nothing.  From CNNMoney:

The news is another victory for gun safety group Moms Demand Action . . . The company first announced the decision during a CNBC interview with Panera CEO Ron Shaich. He said during the interview that the company would not post anti-gun signs in its stores or require employees to confront gun owners. . . .

Given this, what exactly is the point of the news stories on this announcement?  The company is asking people not to bring guns with them, but it also is going to continue allowing people to bring their guns with them.  So how is this a victory for Bloomberg's groups? Bloomberg's groups are now spending "six figures" in ads to force Kroger to also announce that they are not welcoming people who carry guns.  You can see their ads here.

Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, and other billionaires make huge donations to Democrats to help out with Senate and House elections

It is interesting to see Senator Harry Reid complain about wealthy individuals helping out Republicans when it appears as if Democrats are getting more donations from billionaires than are Republicans.  Harry Reid should know as these donations are also going to Harry Reid's own Senate Majority PAC.  From Politifact:

We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups. (A list of billionaires and how much they donated can be found here.) . . .

From Politico: 

STEYER: Climate-change activist Tom Steyer gave the biggest super PAC donation in this month's reports: $7.5 million to his own group, NextGen Climate. Steyer, who made his fortune as a successful hedge-fund manager, also spread some of that money around. NextGen gave a half-million dollars to Senate Majority PAC, the biggest Senate Democratic super PAC, and $150,000 to the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund, another environmental group. 

BLOOMBERG: Michael Bloomberg is staying plenty active in his post-mayoral days. Aside from funding his gun-control-focused super PAC, Bloomberg has written checks to Senate Majority PAC and super PACs that backed GOP Sens. Thad Cochran and Lindsey Graham during their primary battles. Most recently, the former New York City mayor donated $2 million to Women Vote!—the largest contribution the EMILY's List super PAC has ever received. Only Steyer has given more money to super PACs this election season. 

SOROS: Democratic financier George Soros's checkbook has been active this summer: The prolific donor gave $500,000 apiece to House Majority PAC and the League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund. But that million dollars wasn't his family's only big outlay so far this summer. Soros's daughter, Andrea Soros Colombel, gave $250,000 to Planned Parenthood Votes. . . .

Information on six other billionaires is available here.  The list leaves out Tom Steyer's brother, Jim.

Sheriff David Clarke wins re-election by 4% despite major campaign spending by Bloomberg and other left wing groups

Michael Bloomberg put $150,000 into the Milwaukee Sheriff's race.  In response, former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson urged Republicans to vote in the Democratic primary.  Well, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, David Clarke was beating Chris Moews by 52 to 48 percent.  As someone who respects Clarke, this is great news.

It looks like Thompson's request worked.  The Milwaukee Sheriff Democratic Primary had 108,955 votes while Milwaukee Treasurer Democratic Primary had just 68,181 votes.  It could be that the difference in vote totals is simply due to the fact this was a much more contested race.  However, before those who support Clarke's policies celebrate too much, they should realize that there is a less sanguine explanation for this 40,774 vote difference between the two races.  If it was due to Republicans voting (assuming that some of the Republicans didn't also vote in the treasurer race), Clarke would have been crushed if only Democrats had voted. Indeed, if that were the case, Clarke would have lost 76 to 24 percent.  That is quite a reversal from Clarke's previous win in the Democratic primary 4 years ago when he won by 6 percentage points without the benefit of Republican cross overs.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discusses the vote breakdown in the city of Milwaukee, which is just a part of the county:

. . . In Milwaukee, Clarke won with a razor-thin margin over Moews, just 1% in Milwaukee wards, yielding him 50.4%, according to unofficial returns. Four years ago, Clarke rolled up almost 57%. 

In the city, Clarke did particularly well in predominantly African-American wards in Milwaukee that traditionally have voted heavily Democratic. There, Clarke ran up a 23% lead over Moews, our review of returns from areas with at least 66% black voting population showed. . . .

From Fox News:

The money from Bloomberg’s Independence USA super PAC was more than what Clarke and Moews spent on their entire campaigns combined. . . .

The city of Milwaukee had 599,164 people in 2013 and the county had 956,023.  However, it is slightly less lopsided than that as the city has a larger portion of its population under age 18.

The bottom line of all this is that people will be making a mistake to think that Bloomberg and others didn't make this a much tougher race than it should have been.  


Fox & Friends has this: "Pro-gun rights Milwaukee sheriff: 'Bloomberg made a huge miscalculation'"