Is Michael Bloomberg Slated to be the Democratic Party’s Nominee?

And Possibly on a Ticket with Hillary?

Although he is ranked as the twelfth richest man in the world (with a net worth of over $60 billion), I didn’t pay much attention to Michael Bloomberg until this January. Guns rights activists in Virginia have denounced him for funding Democratic legislators there as well as Virginia’s controversial gun control laws, which resulted in the huge Virginia gun rights rally on January 20.

Then I noticed the name of Bloomberg—who didn’t launch his campaign until last November—starting to appear in election coverage more and more. On February 13, Trump called him “Mini Mike” in a Tweet (Bloomberg is 5 feet 7 inches tall). Since Bloomberg cannot do anything about his height, the mainstream media rushed to his defense over this insult. Inadvertently or not, Trump had given Bloomberg a publicity boost.

Bloomberg is behind in the polls, but his numbers are rising. Could he rise fast enough to secure the nomination? Historically, it’s occurred fairly often. In 1976, according to a Gallup poll taken just seven months before the Democratic National Convention, less than 4 percent of Democratic voters had favored Jimmy Carter for President. What happened? Carter was anointed by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had invited him to join their then-new Trilateral Commission. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:

What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months.1

The media blitz included adulatory pieces in the New York Times, and a Wall Street Journal editorial declaring that Carter was the best Democratic candidate. Before the nominating convention, his picture appeared on the cover of Time three times, and Newsweek twice. Time’s cover artists were even instructed to make him look as much as possible like John F. Kennedy.2 The major TV networks inundated the public with his image.

The same process has happened with Republicans. Go back to 1940. Seven weeks before the GOP Convention, a poll showed only three percent of Republicans favored candidate Wendell Willkie, who, prior to that year, had been a registered Democrat. But, as if by magic, Willkie won the nomination. Ten-term Congressman Usher Burdick of North Dakota said of this:

We Republicans in the west want to know if Wall Street and the international bankers control our party and can select our candidate? I believe I am serving the best interests of the Republican Party by protesting and exposing the machinations and attempts of J.P. Morgan and the New York utility bankers in forcing Wendell Willkie on the Republican Party. . . .There is nothing to the Willkie boom for President except the artificial public opinion being created by newspapers, magazines, and the radio. The reason back of all this is money. Money is being spent by someone, and lots of it.3

If anyone can spend money today, it’s Michael Bloomberg. Recently, with a sense of déjà vu, I’ve noticed that he is getting mainstream media headlines every day. Here’s a screen shot of AOL’s lead news story on February 17:

The next day, February 18, here’s AOL’s lead news story:

(The “good news” was that Bloomberg would be appearing for the first time in the Democratic Party’s Presidential debates.)

On February 15, major news outlets noted that the Drudge Report claimed that Bloomberg was interested in having Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential candidate. Two days later, Business Insider reported: “Hillary Clinton ‘wants back in’ as Bloomberg campaign tries to quiet speculation she could be his VP.”

These announcements appear to have been pre-planned and well-coordinated. (Is it even conceivable that, behind closed doors, Hillary was promised a Vice Presidency as a consolation for 2016?) Some doubt the reports altogether, saying that Hillary would regard a Vice Presidency as a snub.

But whether the story materializes into reality or not, for Bloomberg, this hint of a move toward Clinton could sweep him to the top of the Democratic polls. Hillary’s many supporters, still stinging from 2016, might switch allegiance from other Democratic contenders to Bloomberg, just for a chance to see Hillary in the White House, a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Hillary’s participation in the Goldman Sachs groundbreaking ceremony quickly became tranformed into an iconic meme during the last Presidential election; that’s Bloomberg at the opposite end.

On February 17, the Bloomberg campaign began running an ad featuring former President Obama. Although it is older footage of Obama praising Bloomberg as mayor of New York City, the ad subliminally creates an impression that Obama is endorsing Bloomberg for President:

If Bloomberg secures the nomination, these tactics will become self-fulfilling, because Clinton and Obama will assuredly endorse the Party’s nominee.

And let’s face it. While Bloomberg himself lacks charisma, the Democratic Party’s other leading contenders don’t generate much excitement either. Bernie Sanders appears to be typecast as a perpetual runner-up. Joe Biden is the current poll leader, but could easily be discredited if the mainstream media catches up with alternative media and suddenly decides to showcase all those photos of “creepy Uncle Joe” fondling children.

A Bloomberg-Clinton ticket would not be without its handicaps. Both are from New York—America’s abortion capital—and tickets usually do better by representing diverse regions of the nation; this is a major reason why, for example, John F. Kennedy (Massachusetts) picked Lyndon Johnson (Texas) as his running mate. In fact, Drudge reported there may also be constitutional issues involved in a Bloomberg-Clinton matchup, which would force one of the two candidates to change their official residence (not a big deal for people who own multiple homes).

If nominated, Bloomberg, paired with Clinton or not, would easily win “blue” states like Massachusetts, but lose in red states like North Dakota. So it would be a matter of tipping the scales in important “swing” states like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Could Bloomberg win in 2020? Aside from vote fraud, if the House of Rothschild is determined to have a Bloomberg victory, it would be easy to collapse the economy just before the election. The stock market has been steadily ballooning, which many Trump supporters have taken as proof of a healthy economy, whereas it is primarily the result of the Federal Reserve pumping billions of fiat dollars into the markets. All the Fed has to do is pull the plug, and the Wall Street orgy will be over. A market collapse would set Trump back on his heels going into the election. Bloomberg, in the meantime, could claim that he, like Trump, is a savvy “New York businessman,” and tout his personal wealth as proof that he knows how to fix the economy.

Now I have to preface my next remarks by pointing out that I am half-Jewish on my father’s side; I mention this because of the recklessness with which charges of “anti-Semitism” are getting made these days.

If victorious, Bloomberg would become America’s first overtly Jewish President. I say “overtly” because some have argued that a few Presidents were of partial Jewish descent. In any event, none were ever publicly perceived as Jewish. But a “President Bloomberg” would certainly represent a feather in the cap for the House of Rothschild, long the world’s leading power brokers, and who have historically been very tribal about their ethnicity.

The crucial question: Would the Rothschilds prefer Bloomberg over Trump? This requires elaboration.

After Mitt Romney was allowed to steal primaries from Ron Paul in 2012, and deny Paul the nomination bid he had earned at the GOP Convention, many conservative and libertarian activists gave up on Presidential elections. The cry was: ”The system is rigged!” And of course, it always had been. But then Donald Trump came along. He certainly had the right sound bites. I voted for Donald Trump. He made it appear that an “outsider” could win a Presidential election—so maybe they weren’t rigged after all? But contrary to what is believed by Trump’s “Deplorables” (people whose basic values I share and respect), Donald has in reality turned out to be “Israel First,” not “America First.” I strongly recommend Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s article summarizing Trump’s many broken promises.

Just like globalism and communism, Zionism has always been Rothschild-funded and a cornerstone of the New World Order agenda. Trump, the guy who Tweeted (before the election) that we should stay out of the Middle East and fix America, has turned out to be our most pro-Israel President ever, continuing and expanding the same neocon foreign policies of Bush, Obama, McCain, and yes, Hillary Clinton. And he was able to continue them far more effectively than Hillary could have, because war-exhausted Americans perceived him as new, patriotic, and an outsider to “the Swamp.”

• appointed pro-occupation hardliner David Friedman as his ambassador to Israel;
• attacked Syria with cruises missile—twice—over false reports of chemical weapons attacks;
• concluded an arms deal with Saudi Arabia—which supports ISIS—worth up to $350 billion;
• has extended and expanded the 19-year-old war in Afghanistan;
• dramatically increased drone strikes;
• recognized Jerusalem as solely the capital of Israel, not Palestine;
• moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major step in the Rothschild-Luciferian scheme of “building the Third Temple”;
• completely exceeded his Presidential authority by proclaiming that Syria’s Golan Heights belong to Israel;
• recognized all Israeli settlements in the West Bank as no longer violating International Law;
• last December, in a strike against the BDS movement, issued an executive order equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism;
• ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, nearly bringing on a World War.

On a personal level, his daughter Ivanka converted to Orthodox Judaism in order to marry Trump’s meddling son-in-law Jared Kushner. One doesn’t get much more Zionist than Donald Trump.

On the other hand, the Zionist Deep State might prefer a switch to Bloomberg, who is also (not surprisingly) very pro-Israel. In 2013, Bloomberg was chosen to receive Israel’s annual Genesis Prize. He has stated, ““I strongly oppose the BDS movement.” And: “As president, I will always have Israel’s back. I will never impose conditions on our military aid, including missile defense—no matter who is prime minister.” “And I will never walk away from our commitment to guarantee Israel’s security.”4

If the House of Rothschild decides that Bloomberg can satisfactorily continue Trump’s foreign policy objectives, it might favor him. After all, a Bloomberg Presidency, especially if paired with Hillary, could more swiftly advance the Deep State’s nightmarish domestic agenda for a Bolshevized America. A few weeks ago, Bloomberg appeared to be making gun control the centerpiece of his campaign (see, e.g., Poliitico’s December 2019 article “Bloomberg Unveils Sweeping Gun Control Plan”). Just recently he seems to be toning his rhetoric down, probably due to negative reactions from Second Amendment defenders. But there is no doubt that, if elected, Mike would be the biggest gun confiscator in American history. Even though Donald Trump has said “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Bloomberg could seize guns without alienating his own base of supporters. During 2020, an upsurge in orchestrated gun violence could be used to further advance Bloomberg’s poll ratings. And a market crash could not only sweep Bloomberg into the Presidency, but give the Democrats strong control of both houses of Congress, meaning easy passage of harsh gun control legislation. In addition, a Bloomberg Presidency would mean a huge slide to the left, with a full-blown push toward more socialism, abortions, transgenderism, mandatory vaccination, “drag queen story hours,” etc.

Of course, Bernie Sanders is also Jewish and pro-socialist; however he has made remarks critical of Israel and supportive of the Palestinians, and is unfriendly toward Wall Street. And unlike Bloomberg and Hillary, Bernie lacks the cold-blooded temperament suited to ushering in a Trotskyite police state.

I know that with the potential for Hillary on the ticket, some people are already making jokes about Hillary later “suiciding” Bloomberg. That would never happen. Even Hillary knows where the line is drawn.


1. “Jimmy Carter,” Wikipedia,
2. Gary Allen, Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter (Seal Beach, Calif.: ‘76 Press, 1976), 139.
3. Congressional Record, June 19, 1940, Vol. 86, p. 8641.
4. “Views on Israel of U.S. Presidential Candidates 2020: Michael Bloomberg,” Jewish Virtual Library,