Michael Bloomberg angry
(AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.

It seems that Michael Bloomberg’s magnetic personality and winning smile aren’t enough to win over many Moms Demand Action members as supporters of his budding presidential bid. They’re happy to have him just write fat checks and leave the actual anti-gun politicking to the Kamala Harrises and Elizabeth Warrens of the world.

“I’m not super psyched about it but I respect him enormously,” said Jessica Craven, 51, the legislative lead for her Moms Demand Action group in Northeast Los Angeles. “I don’t think we need more candidates — more white male candidates.”

In 2018, Craven canvassed for Democrats Mike Levin, Katie Porter, and Katie Hill, who all won seats in Congress in largely Republican areas thanks to strong grassroots campaigning.

“We don’t need another business person in office,” said Rhonda Hart, 38, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Texas and an Everytown Survivor Fellow, which means she went through a sort of leadership training program. Hart’s daughter, Kimberly Vaughan, died in the Santa Fe High School shooting in May 2018, after a student opened fire in her art class and killed 10 people.

“While he’s our largest donor, it doesn’t mean he owns the organization himself,” said Alanna Miller, 19, the Students Demand Action volunteer leader at Duke University and a member of the organization’s national advisory board. “He’s just like any other candidate.”

– Amber Jamieson in Bloomberg Funds Moms Demand Action Against Gun Violence. But Several Top Volunteers Are Already Supporting Other Candidates.

70 COMMENTS

    • I came to say the same thing.

      That is how our youngest voters see the world. It is up to us to educate them.

      Of course the real challenge in educating young voters is peeling their faces away from their phones and tablets long enough to actually impart useful information to them.

      • “..That is how our youngest FEMALE voters see the world…”

        There fixed it for you!

        That is the core of where the activism originates.

      • You both absolutely right. They that control the purse strings control the purse, the purse controller controls everything thing else. Money talks and bullshit walks.
        If you can’t dazle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit, if you can’t baffle them, then, buy them with your bucks.

    • So very true. As long as political organizations have existed it has always been the biggest cash money donors who have the most influence. Right down to owning the thing.

    • No way you’ll ever convince me that shannon is working at demanding mommies for anything but the big checks from kapo bloomberg. Some of the rank and file may be believers. But not her. Let bloomies checks stop and watch her jump ship.

      If the NRA offered her a larger check she’d be pro gun.

      • I think their biggest fear is that the checks Bloomie writes for their T-shirts and travel and lodging expenses will cease, since running for Prez is a big, expensive thing, even when you have 54 thousand million dollars. Bloomberg said he’s going to finance the whole campaign himself, and won’t be accepting donations. We’ll see how long that lasts.

        Imagine if all the red-shirted harridans had to pay their own way to D.C., like the 2A supporters did for their rally a couple weeks ago?

    • Exactly, all they want is for Bloomberg to keep writing fat checks because he owes it to the (or something) but when he goes after *real* power, they don’t want that, probably because then their cash cows and free ride would be over.

      • What politicians need more than anything are votes. To them, the money donated is mainly useful as a way to get votes.

        The NRA can deliver votes that don’t cost the politician very much money. That’s why the politicians pay attention to what the NRA wants.

    • YOU betcha he does. And the DNC as well along with Soros and Steyer.

      Somebody needs to tell these canks that MONEY TALKS and USEFUL IDIOTS GO ALONG OR GO AWAY.

    • Actually, yes…those are the traitors who absolutely deserve our attention. It has been our collective inaction and indifference over the past few decades that have led our country to its current state. We must stand guard and protect against those who would attempt to deprive us of our liberties, and that means watching what Bloomberg, Newsom, and their ilk say and do as they influence and recruit against us.

      • I would go further and state that it is our duty to awaken as many of our fellow citizens as possible to the actual truth concerning our rights. And that the democratic party especially has been working concertedly to diminish and/or eliminate as many of our rights as they can get away with. We must not forget those that shed their blood, sweat and tears so that we could enjoy our rights. We have already allowed these traitors to go far beyond what our forefathers ever would have. Our domestic enemies are deliberately trying to turn us into a nation of cowards.

  1. So, you’re both sexist and racist, and you’re proud of it?

    Jessica Craven, 51, the legislative lead for her Moms Demand Action group in Northeast Los Angeles. “I don’t think we need more candidates — more white male candidates.”

    • But that’s okay in this case.

      White males are the opposite of a protected class … They’re a targeted class now, as far as Democrats are concerned. Or so it seems.

      • It is both parties that have that view towards WE Whites. In Montana, I can open carry almost anywhere in the state, except next to a Jewish person or non-White, who could be intimidated by a large White man with a gun on his hip. The intimidation laws are from conservatives, because they were afraid of Whites having pride in their own people, which thanks to bipartisan efforts since the 60’s it is illegal for Whites to have freedom of association.

        • You’re a liar. You can associate with anybody you wish to. You are not forced to invite anybody into your home. And I see nothing in montana law to restrict carrying because you might offend a race or religion.

          I’d like you to cite an example of being told not to carry because you offended someone.

        • jwm can’t speak for the freedom of assocation bit as it’s more subjective and a quagmire of opinions, but I can say that individuals of any background can get butthurt at the idea of someone they know being able to own let alone carry guns and attempt to dial up emergency services to make them feel safe at your expense. That’s why I have a guitar case with some painstakingly cut foam for when I go to the range.

        • Maybe if you removed your blinds you might find your fellow white Christian identifyingmales dwarf the number of Jews and people of color who want to remove your rights. It’s easier to blame the Jews and mud races right?

          And not all Jews are antigun or get their panties in a wad over someone who wants to walk around like it’s 1895. You do know the founders of this site were Jews didn’t you?
          Since being Jewish is a religious choice not a race no matter how much folks like you want to pretend otherwise they are not monolithic in any thing but following the commandments.
          Also, if you want to announce who to shoot first be my guest. Myself, I prefer to conceal.

    • If you’re white and you hate people of color you’re racist, if you’re a person of color and you hate white people you’re intersectional.

    • Right. Imagine if one of them had said, “we don’t need anymore black or female candidates.” The media would’ve had an absolute shitstorm.

  2. ‘…more white male candidates.’ – MLK would be so proud that his vision of an America where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin has been embraced by the American left.

    ‘We don’t need another business person in office.’ – Because the last thing we need is someone running the economy who understands how businesses work. Ignorance in leadership is so much better.

    • Senators Kennedy and Johnson both voted against President Eisenhower’s 1957 civil Rights bill. It was the same bill that was reintroduced in the 1960s. Later signed by President johnson who said, “I’ll have those niggers voting for the Democrats for the next two hundred years”.

      President Johnson also signed the 1968 racist Gun Control Act. A law primary written to disarm black people. It made it illegal to buy and received guns through the mail order. Delivered to your home. No white gun store owner was going to sell guns to black people in this country. The democrats have never supported the rights or liked black people very much.

      I don’t think MLK liked President Johnson. But he was the president. So you have to deal with whoever is in office at the time.

      • Chris T in KY,

        [federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was] written to disarm black people. It made it illegal to buy and received guns through … mail order. Delivered to your home. No white gun store owner was going to sell guns to black people in this country.


        Wow, that is fascinating. (Seriously, no snark or sarcasm.) I have never heard that perspective.

        If that is accurate, that certainly casts a huge shadow over any purported reason to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968.

      • ‘No white gun store owner was going to sell guns to black people in this country.’

        I agree with u_s, that’s an interesting perspective. I doubt that every single gun store owner in the country would refuse to sell a gun to a black person, but the logic is pretty obvious that it would make it pretty difficult, particularly in the south for a black person to acquire a gun (legally). And LBJ’s racism was never much of a secret.

        • In California there are many gun businesses owned and operated by Chinese and other Asian people. That is where black folks had to travel to. To buy guns legally.
          High Bridge Arms, in San Francisco, was one such business. They were forced to close by the anti civil rights city government.

      • “No white gun store owner was going to sell guns to black people in this country. The democrats have never supported the rights or liked black people very much.”

        The reconstruction acts after the Civil War, put forth by the Republican party, were intended to make sure that African American’s had the right to keep and bear arms for their defense. The democrats got around it by enacting the Jim Crow laws. And their enforcement arm, the KKK, made sure African Americans knew their place. And that was the standard operating procedure of the democratic party all the way into the 1960’s.

  3. For your viewing pleasure…
    Court won’t revive suit against gun site over spa shooting

    9:09 am
    November 25, 2019

    National news from the Associated Press

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won’t revive a lawsuit against a firearms website over a suburban Milwaukee spa shooting.

    The justices rejected an appeal Monday from the daughter of one of three people shot to death by a man who illegally bought a semi-automatic pistol and ammunition from someone he met through Armslist.com.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the suit, ruling that federal law protects website operators from liability for posting content from a third party. The state court rejected arguments that websites that enable gun deals must take reasonable care to prevent sales to people prohibited from purchasing firearms. The Wisconsin shooter was under a court order that prohibited him from possessing guns.

    A similar lawsuit filed by a Boston police officer is pending in state court in Massachusetts.

  4. It’s the regressive left consuming itself.
    A group of liberty hating scumbags (MDA) allowed itself to be funded by a wealthy scumbag (Blumburg).
    Enjoy the spiral down the drain scumbags.

  5. In constantly chasing the next special interest you’ll find very quickly that nobody and no thing is ever whatever enough.

    Already straight black males are the new white males and straight Hispanic males, especially if religious, are becoming the new face of anti-gay, anti-woman scapegoating. White women, if straight, have lost an awful lot of cache among the victim fetishists.

    Does it matter what any of them believe individually? Of course not. We don’t care about acts, thoughts or philosophies anymore. Just checking the ever evolving victim boxes.

    • That sums it up, it’s ALL about the lefts attempt to make “victim status” the new currency.
      The new debate…..
      Loser/Slacker #1; “Look at me, I’m a victim”.
      Loser/Slacker #2; “Look at me, I’m a bigger victim”.
      Loser/Slacker #3; “Look at me, I’m the BIGGEST victim”.
      Trump rode the average US citizens burnout of “victim status narrative” all the way to the Oval Office, yet the demonrats are too stupid to stop doing it. May be because it’s one of the few arrows in their quiver, besides LYING, and HYPOCRISY. Just read “Rules for Radicals”, Saul A spells it all out.
      If you know your enemy AND yourself, you need not fear the results of a thousand battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory you will ALSO suffer a defeat. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will succumb in EVERY battle. Sun Tzu knew what he was saying.

  6. “Chris T in KY says:
    November 25, 2019 at 08:57

    Senators Kennedy and Johnson both voted against President Eisenhower’s 1957 civil Rights bill. It was the same bill that was reintroduced in the 1960s. Later signed by President johnson who said, “I’ll have those niggers voting for the Democrats for the next two hundred years”. ”

    Actually Democrats split 29 for and 18 against the 1957 Civil Rights Act (HR.6127) with Johnson and Kennedy voting in favor. Republicans voted 43 for and 0 against.

    • Did some quick research to confirm and looks like you are correct. We are little better than the (D) authoritarians if we don’t let facts get in the way of “the truth.”

      Thank you for setting the record straight here.

    • What’s the history of the bill? Did it die in the House? Did Eisenhower veto it? I wonder what the country would be like if that legislation had passed nearly a decade earlier, without the intervening events.

      • President Eisenhower signed it into law on September 9, 1957. The bill was as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision calling for desegregation of schools in their 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case. But it was stripped of many of its provisions by southern democrats. Which of course resulted eventually in the Civil Rights bills of 1960 and 1964. As well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

        • ” But it was stripped of many of its provisions by southern democrats.”

          In the Nick Bryant book “the Bystander” (2006), he details how Senator kennedy voted to remove the stronger provisions of the 1957 bill. His actions made him a distressed figure in civil rights circles in the 1950s. During His time as president american citizens were firebombed on school busses. There were many attacks against unarmed adults and children. And the local police failed to intervene. When people demanded the use of federal troops as Eisenhower had used before. President Kennedy refused.

          That is why to this day JFK is seen as being anti civil rights. Yes he made a phone call to Mrs. MLK, I believe when her husband was in jail. But he never called for troops to be used to stop the murder of law abiding and unarmed citizens. Unarmed because of the black codes.

          And now in 2019 you have gun owners calling for the use of federal troops in California to restore civil rights. History repeats itself.

        • Yes, indeed it does. Hard to believe that there are people in this country that don’t care at all about the sacrifices our forebears made to secure these rights. That there are people that willingly become slaves.

  7. Jessica Craven sounds like a racist.
    Imagine if someone said we don’t need any more black males in response to gov Patrick getting in.

    Respect enormously my ass.

  8. Bloomberg bought New York City three times. It seems logical that he would think he can buy the Democrat party, which is always for sale — and cheap.

  9. One wonders if this reluctance isn’t in part due to the overall political orientation of the Moms Demand crowd.

    Bloomberg is one of the most ardent and active gun-grabbers out there, but he’s relatively moderate in many other areas. At least compared the likes of Warren or Kamala Harris. Perhaps far too moderate for MDA sensibilities.

    It would be interesting to know the kind of membership/support overlap there is with Moms Demand folks and groups like Code Pink, People for the American Way, and so on.

  10. The legislative lead for MDA sports the surname “Craven”?

    LULZ! Wow, you couldn’t make this kind of thing up and have people believe you. It’s like a Bond Girl named “Pussy Galore”.

  11. This will be interesting to watch– if the Demanding Moms don’t come out and support Bloomie, how long do you think it will be before the money is cut off?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here