By Bob McManus     July 26, 2014

Andrew Cuomo is a f—ing steamroller. You gotta problem with that?

US Attorney Preet Bharara apparently does, judging from his reaction to last week’s remarkable, 6,400-word essay in The New York Times detailing gubernatorial interference with an investigating commission Cuomo very publicly imposed on Albany 13 months ago — only to disband it when it started putting heat on him.

Even Cuomo doesn’t dispute that he stuck his thumb in the soup. But he says it was his very own commission — and that he was free to compromise it, or to kill it, whenever.

So he did. So there.

But Bharara, every corrupt New York pol’s monster under the bed, takes exception: “If other people aren’t going to [fight official misconduct], then we’re going to do it. That’s our main mission.”

Cuomo’s legal pettifoggers are, well, pettifogging. But the governor clearly has poked a big stick into a bear cave, and he’s not likely to walk away from the episode with his reputation intact.

Just like the last self-designated avenging angel of Albany — the very much former governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer.

That is, just like the man who — three weeks into his abbreviated gubernatorial term — famously pronounced himself to be a “f—ing steamroller” poised to “roll over [Albany] and anybody else!” (History records that Albany was not amused.)

There are many differences between Spitzer and Cuomo, but the two men have this in common: They are bombastic, profane-in-private control freaks who rarely opt for persuasion when blunt-force trauma is available.

Spitzer’s arrogance is rooted in great wealth, steeped in the unshakeable conviction that he is — in every situation and all possible circumstances — the smartest man in the room. If not the world.

Cuomo is less scrutable. He’s never met the man he can’t stare down, or so he clearly believes. But sometimes the arrogance seems tentative — the product, perhaps, of the same outer-borough insecurities that often hobbled his father, Mario Cuomo.

No matter. The hubris is real, and therein reside the origins of his current problems.

Spitzer, for the record, accomplished precisely nothing during his brief term.

Always a slave to his instincts and appetites, his epic tirades generated first resistance, then paralysis. His effectiveness, such as it was, ended in July 2007, when The Post’s Fredric U. Dicker revealed that he had sent state troopers after political enemies. And when he left office nine months later, the central figure in a bizarre sex scandal, Albany was in near total meltdown.

Then came the surreal David Paterson interregnum — punctuated by the increasingly frequent corruption convictions won by Bharara. Meltdown descended into farce.

And so the scene was set for Andrew Mark Cuomo, who came to office pledged to reform Albany once and for all.

The low-hanging fruit was quickly plucked: Budgeting reform and peripheral tax relief were achieved, and a sense progress was real.

But friction always takes a toll. Cuomo proved to have no appetite for the heavy lifting real change would require — for truly taking on the Legislature, the public-employee unions and other left-leaning special interests — and presently stagnation set in.

And frustration, manifested in unguarded public moments with hectoring speeches characterizing dissenters from the company line — traditional Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Second Amendment supporters and so on — as “extremists” unworthy of intellectual engagement.

Ugly stuff, but par for the Cuomo course.

Meanwhile, Bharara’s federal gumshoes were hard at work. Their increasingly frequent indictments and convictions, from the governor’s perspective, simply underscored how little he himself had accomplished in that respect.

Fast forward to a year ago, after Cuomo’s third legislative session failed yet again to produce significant anti-corruption legislation.

Once more the governor reached for the bludgeon: He appointed a special anti-corruption commission under the state’s 107-year-old Moreland Act — properly employed, that’s Albany’s version of the nuclear option — and handed it a very clear mandate.

“Anything (the commission) wants to look at, they can look at — me, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, any senator, any assemblyman,” declared Cuomo. [Members] have total control and ability to look at whatever they want to look at.”

Which Albany pol dared argue with that? Complain, yes. Obstruct, no. It was classic, naked Cuomo my-way-or-the-highway coercion.

Imagine Cuomo’s surprise, then, when he discovered that his handcrafted commission had taken him at his word. That it was indeed, according to the Times, looking squarely at his own campaign practices.

That would never do. Key Cuomo aide Larry Schwartz, a bludgeon of his own in hand, descended swiftly on the mutineers.

What happened next isn’t entirely clear — but this much is beyond dispute:

n  The Albany establishment was not at all intimidated by Cuomo and his commission, which he folded in less than a year. The entire exercise yielded nothing.

n  Preet Bharara, who swiftly confiscated the commission’s records, is now combing through them — methodically and ominously.

Spitzer proved that sometimes steamrollers pop gaskets. Too bad for Cuomo that he wasn’t paying attention.

(Reuters) Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:57pm EDT

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office meddled with a commission he created to root out corruption in state politics, pushing back whenever it focused on groups tied to Cuomo, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The commission that Cuomo established in July 2013 to investigate violations of campaign finance laws and other matters was hobbled almost from the start by demands from the governor’s office, despite a public promise of independence, the Times said.

Within a year, it was disbanded by Cuomo, who had initially indicated it would operate for about 18 months.

Now the commission’s scrapped probes, which included hundreds of emails, subpoenas and internal documents from politicians and state agencies, are being investigated by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the Times said. Federal prosecutors also are looking into what role Cuomo and his aides played in the panel’s shutdown.

Cuomo’s office did not immediately respond to calls about the Times story and a spokesman for Bharara declined to comment on it.

The bipartisan Commission to Investigate Public Corruption, more commonly known as the Moreland Commission, was created after the state capital was rocked by a series of scandals involving legislators, which Cuomo said had undermined the public’s confidence in state government.

The commission was granted the power to subpoena state officials, lawmakers and records from state agencies, such as the Board of Elections.

“Anything they want to look at, they can look at – me, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, any senator, any assemblyman,” Cuomo, a Democrat, told reporters in August 2013.

But the commission soon encountered resistance from Cuomo’s office when it issued a subpoena to a media-buying firm, Buying Time, which unbeknownst to investigators happened to include Cuomo as one of its clients, the Times said.

The governor’s most senior aide, Lawrence Schwartz, directed the commission to withdraw the subpoena, which it did.

“This is wrong,” Schwartz was quoted in the Times as telling the commission. “Pull it back.”

Similar responses from Cuomo’s office had shut down several other investigative efforts whenever the commission focused on groups with ties to Cuomo or on issues that might cast him in a negative light, the Times said.

That included stopping a subpoena the commission planned to send to the Real Estate Board of New York, the trade group whose members have generously supported Cuomo, the Times said.

After he abruptly disbanded the commission in March and caught the eye of the U.S. attorney’s office, Cuomo downplayed the idea that he had interfered with its work.

“It’s my commission,” the governor told the editorial board of Crain’s New York Business in late April. “I can’t ‘interfere’ with it, because it is mine. It is controlled by me.”

(Reporting by Barbara Goldberg; Additional reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Bill Trott)

July 18,2014, 11:12 a.m.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CUOMO SPENDS MORE THAN
QUARTER BILLION TAX DOLLARS ON TV ADS

——-
Astorino Calls for Cessation of Spending in Election Season

New York–July 18…New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is spending $237.5 million — including almost $40 million in money intended for Hurricane Sandy victims — to run false television advertising, telling voters here and nationally that everything is coming up roses in New York under his administration, the campaign of New York gubernatorial candidate Rob Astorino today said.

The shocking figure, which was obtained by Gannett news after a year of effort, is $87.5 million more than what was previously thought. New York ranks 50th among states in economic outlook, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, and it has the highest taxes in America. It was ranked the worst state in America in which to retire, and its state government is ranked the most corrupt in America by the University of Illinois.

“This is a swindle of historic proportions,” Mr. Astorino said. “Andrew Cuomo has taken more than a quarter billion dollars of taxpayer money and put it into television advertising for his own political gain. People have been locked in jail for far less than that.”

Mr. Astorino said it should be illegal for taxpayer ads like Mr. Cuomo’s to run inside New York, especially in an election year, and he called on Mr. Cuomo to halt the television campaign immediately.

“Mr. Cuomo is literally taking money from homeless New York families on Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and elsewhere and put it on TV for his own political gain, three months before an election. He can’t be allowed to get away with that. This is what having the most corrupt state government in America looks like.”

                                                                                ###

July 18, 2014, 12:48 p.m.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Statement from Rob Astorino on today’s report of new subpoenas issued in the U.S. Attorney’s investigation of Governor Cuomo

“Andrew Cuomo rode into town saying he was going to tackle corruption.  But he’s only brought corruption to a new level. Between his nefarious Moreland and JCope deals, and his swindling of Hurricane Sandy dollars, this Administration may go down as the most corrupt ever.”

###

BY: Tom Precious

BuffaloNews May 16, 2014

ALBANY – Nearly 200 years after Eliphalet Remington II forged his first rifle in Ilion, residents of the small central New York village are getting the bad news they have feared for more than a year: Remington Arms is moving production of two of its gun lines to Alabama.

While the company did not announce the outright closing of the facility that has been home to Remington since 1816, gun rights advocates said that day is now likely moving closer and they blame the state’s 2013 NY SAFE Act gun control law.

“This could very well be the beginning of the end of Ilion,’’ said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state chapter for the National Rifle Association.

The Buffalo News last September featured Ilion in a story about residents there growing increasingly worried that Remington, the anchor in the village of 8,000 in Herkimer County, was under growing pressure to leave New York since passage of the SAFE Act.

Remington said it will move production of its Bushmaster line of semi-automatic rifles that are no longer legal for the company to sell in New York without modifications. It is also sending work on its popular 1911 R1 pistol.

A Remington spokesman made no mention of the SAFE Act in announcing the production line shift, nor the number of jobs affected, though King said he has been told as many as 200 of the 1,400 or so jobs at the facility could be lost.

“This was a strategic business decision to concentrate our resources into fewer locations and improve manufacturing efficiency and quality. We are working hard to retain as many people from the affected facilities as possible,’’ said Remington spokesman Teddy Novin. The company said several other subsidiary companies from other states are moving to Alabama.

Local officials, residents and business owners last fall told The Buffalo News that Ilion – which has the sprawling Remington factory sitting right in the middle of town – would be devastated if the company moved the plant’s operations. Everyone from a pharmacist to owners of a diner and hardware store said the company’s employees directly or indirectly help keep them in business along a Mohawk River region battered by decades of job losses.

Remington is now at least the third gun company to announce it was moving at least part of their operations since the SAFE Act was passed. One gun maker last fall said a couple dozen states had approached him about moving to their states that they pitched as more “Second Amendment-friendly.” A Finger Lakes gun maker said a couple of state economic development officials visited to see what kind of state assistance could help, months after other states already began wooing the firm.

In addition, New York-based gun companies have gotten hit with angry emails and letters from consumers in other states saying they will not buy guys made in New York.

The United Mine Workers local in Ilion, which represents Remington workers, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The union dispatched members to an anti-SAFE Act rally in Albany last month.

King, from the NRA-affiliated group, said Remington has plans to expand its newly opened, state-of-the-art facility in Alabama and that the remaining jobs in Ilion could be lost within several years.

“I don’t think moving Bushmaster and their pistol line this early in the process to Alabama bodes well,’’ he said.

King said the shifting of two popular gun lines from Ilion to Alabama is not coincidence to New York toughening its gun laws.

“I wouldn’t doubt it’s SAFE Act-related in a New York minute,’’ he said. “The company made statements over and over again that when they bought the property in Huntsville, Alabama, that having a manufacturing facility in a Second Amendment-friendly area means a lot to them.’’

The SAFE Act was passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. Its provisions include stricter definition of banned assault-style weapons and a new ammunition purchase recording system that is not yet in place.

April 16, 2014  By Matthew Strong

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” Author Aldous Huxley penned these words in 1927, and they are just as true today. If those who are attempting to destroy the 2nd Amendment were serious about actually preventing future crimes and protecting children, they would demand answers about the common factors in every mass shooting since Columbine, and take action accordingly. But they aren’t serious. They don’t want to look at those themes, and for good reason. When we look at the facts behind gun violence, the truth is clear, and the real motivation behind “reasonable restrictions” becomes obvious.

First, let’s look at the big, national picture. The FBI’s national crime statistics shows that violent crime has dropped dramatically over the past 5 years. Except for a 1.9% increase in 2011/2012, the drop in the violent crime rate has been at least 5% per year. If you add up the reduction over the past five years including the one year uptick, violent crime has gone down 16.1%. The bigger shock is the murder rate, down 21.4% over the last 5 years!

This has happened while gun sales have sky-rocketed. In 2013, there were 21,093,273 background checks for the year ending Dec. 31. Each background check represents at least one gun sale attempt, with some representing multiple guns per sale. And many of these sales were first time purchasers, young, female, urban buyers, outside the standard gun owner stereotype. Gun sales have increased every year since Obama’s first election in 2008. With gun sales going up and crime coming down, the narrative that guns cause or increase crime is patently false.

So, with that in mind, let’s look at the microcosm of Vermont. Vermont has some of the most lenient gun restrictions in the U.S. (one of only 4 states where a concealed weapon does not require a permit), and it also has the second lowest crime rate in the entire country. You would think that Socialists would look at this correlation alone and realize they are wrong, but they continue. The recent town meeting ballot vote in Burlington to revise the city’s charter to include three new firearm restrictions, after a big push by the city council members, while a long way from actually becoming the law of the town is indicative of where they want to go. So, there is obviously a huge public safety issue for them to do this, right?

2012 is the most recent year that complete crime data is available for Vermont. Of the 13 homicides in Vermont in 2012 only 2 were committed with firearms of any kind, both with handguns. In 2011 there were 8 homicides, 4 by firearms, 2 handguns, and 2 ‘firearms – unknown type”. From 2009 to 2012 there has been an average of 8 homicides, with firearms averaging 2. In 2009 there were only 4 homicides and zero firearm homicides. So all other weapons (knives, bats, tools, hands, feet, and automobiles) are used far more frequently, yet are never the target of increased regulation.

The city of Burlington wants to control how guns and ammunition are stored in private residences. Looking past the facts of being unconstitutional and nearly completely unenforceable, most altercations that involve firearms are over in 3-5 seconds, and take place between persons who are between 7 and 21 feet apart. If you are required by law to keep your firearms and ammo in separate rooms and each under lock and key, they will be effectively useless for home defense. Furthermore, this will not stand up in court and will cost taxpayers significant funds dealing with lawsuits.

In looking at all of the mass shootings in recent memory, the pattern is clear, so you would think the questions that need to be asked would be as well. Were these horrific crimes committed by conservative, Church-going, jacked-up truck driving, law abiding, camouflage hat wearing, un-medicated, Tea-Party and PTA members, who attacked people and locations known to have armed guards? No.

We’re going to take a brief look at them all, and you will notice two important things. One, I refuse to use their names, these men committed cowardly and horrific acts of violence and should not be sensationalized, the fame becomes part of the attraction, and the victims deserve far more attention. The second is that the following information cannot be found in one place in any mainstream news reports. It is out there, if you take the time to wade through the mountains of unverified information to find the nuggets of verifiable fact. In fact, the lack of information available is stunning. Every anchor on the national nightly news would love to tell you that these people were racist conservatives with basements full of guns, the fact they have not is further evidence to the contrary.

The second Ft. Hood shooting investigation, while still in its infancy, has already yielded valuable information. He was on multiple medications according to many sources. He was at Ft. Hood to seek further treatment because he had asked for help about potential PTSD two years ago! Even after the previous shooting there, Ft. Hood (like all military bases) continued to be a “gun free zone,” only military police are allowed to carry firearms and Ft. Hood is the largest military installation on the planet. It took 15 minutes for a military police officer to find him, and when she found him and confronted him with her firearm, he immediately took his own life.

The LAPD police officer who terrorized several states last year, resulting in the largest manhunt in CA history passed all necessary background checks, owning his firearms legally. He had been treated for depression for several years and was on psychiatric medication. His “manifesto” contained his support for President Obama and CNN’s Piers Morgan, and his hatred for the NRA, Republicans, and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. After his initial attack on unsuspecting fellow officers, he chose targets who would offer the least resistance.

The Navy Yard shooter had mental health issues, was on psychiatric medication prescribed by the VA, and he used a shotgun which was legal in all fifty states (prior to New York’s new law). He attacked a military base that was a “gun free zone” and he was a Democratic supporter.

The Newtown shooter had severe mental health issues, and had been seen by several mental health professionals. The report on the incident, when it was finally released, was over 7,000 pages long, heavily redacted, concluded no motive, and listed the toxicology screen as being clear at the time of autopsy. However, a freedom of information act for medical records was denied the AbleChild Foundation (a mental health advocacy group) because the state was concerned “people would stop taking their medication.” He had weapons purchased legally by his mother, and went to a “gun free zone”. His mother also enabled his behavior, despite having serious concerns, accepting his demand that no one come into his room, which had a spreadsheet on the wall with over 500 mass murderers. The reporting of the crime was so shoddy by all the major networks that there are huge issues that have not been explained and have led to many seemingly plausible conspiracy theories using news reports that have not been corrected.

The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter bypassed seven movie theaters which were closer to his home because the theater he chose had “gun free zone” signs prominently displayed. He had mental health issues, was taking multiple prescribed psychiatric medications, and was also adding Vicodin and marijuana to make “mind altering cocktails” and took an extra 100mg of Vicodin before leaving for the theater. The sources on his political inclinations are so varied they are almost worthless. Some reports say he was an Obama re-election campaign volunteer. Other credible sources said he was an Occupy Black Bloc member and his attack was in retaliation to the unsavory depiction of Occupy Wall Street members in the film Batman, The Dark Knight, the film that was showing in the theater that night.

The person who opened fire in a parking lot in Arizona, gravely wounding then Rep. Gabby Giffords had severe mental health issues, was not medicated at the time, but had been experimenting with and abusing alcohol and drugs, including mushrooms and LSD. He purchased his pistol legally, passing a background check. He was described by his classmates as being “quite liberal, left wing, radical,” and “welling up in anger every time he saw President Bush.”

The first Ft. Hood shooting is different in that there were no known mental health issues, but his acts are considered by most to be terrorism, despite being officially designated only “workplace violence”. Although President Obama finally called the shooting “violent jihad” last May, the army’s “workplace” designation remains. This means the military victims are not eligible for Purple Hearts, and survivors do not qualify for certain benefits. It also means the perpetrator is not treated as an enemy combatant, and still collects his paycheck; taxpayers have given him over $300,000 since the attack. He picked his target very intentionally, knowing it was a gun free zone, with little chance of resistance and a lot of people in a small space.

The VA Tech individual was prescribed psychiatric medications, but the autopsy toxicology report claimed there were no substances in his system at the time of the shooting. He had a severe and extensive childhood psychological history unknown to the university. He passed two background checks to purchase two standard pistols due to a technicality with a judge ordered mental health evaluation that “became voluntary”. He chose the class room building knowing it would have no armed response inside. He railed against Christianity in the video he sent to NBC, and he reportedly sent hate mail to then President Bush.

The D.C. Sniper was a Muslim extremist who set out to kill “6 white people a day for 30 days”. During one of his trials in 2006 it was revealed that the aim of the killing spree was to extort money from the government and then kidnap children for the purpose of “setting up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities” with the ultimate goal being to “shut things down” across the United States. He used a stolen semi-automatic rifle.

Columbine – At least one of the two teenagers is known to have been prescribed psychological medication, and their journals provide evidence of much deeper mental health issues. When they attempted to buy guns on their own at a gun show they were rejected due to their age. Unfortunately, they had an older friend break the law for them, purchasing shot guns and semi-automatic pistols on their behalf. This horrific mass murder happened while the Clinton Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect. They both came from liberal families. The one known to be on medication was fascinated by Charles Darwin, writing “Natural Selection! …damn it’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of the stupid and weak organisms.” As he walked through the school that day, his t-shirt said “Natural Selection” across his chest.

These people fell through the cracks until it was too late. These few outliers are a rare exception; there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who have been helped by psychiatric medications, people who are able to function much easier, who are able to be productive members of society. But, our mental health system is strained, we need far more Psychiatrists. We need to examine how these drugs are being used, currently the pharmaceutical companies hide behind a veil of legal immunity and secrecy. Most importantly, we must resist the rush to hospitalize and force-medicate people at the first sign of trouble, as far more innocent people will be harmed doing so, and law abiding gun owners who feel like they might need help will be afraid to reach out to professionals for fear of losing their ownership privilege and it will make matters worse.

But, rather than focusing on how we can all make mental health treatment more accessible, less stigmatized, and pharmaceutical usage and side effects more transparent, the left is trying to minimize the one thing that can prevent these crimes in the future; the threat of an armed response. It is the threat of violence (the knowledge that someone has a concealed weapon but doesn’t know who they are, or where they are), not actual violence itself which many times prevents crime, and this point is often misunderstood. The vast majority of people who legally carry a concealed weapon, or have a firearm in their home, hope and pray they will never have to use it, and most of them never will. When faced with a firearm and someone trained and ready to use it, the survival instinct in most criminals will win, they will run, and the use of a deadly weapon will actually be prevented, on both sides of the law.

So, in the face of facts, logic, and reason, why is there still a push from the left to restrain Constitutional gun ownership? Their ideological leader said it best. “They [the government] have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. They are pushing, just like the socialists and communists before them, because they want a nation they can control completely. But they know there is a point at which Americans will take up arms in defense of liberty, and like the frog set into a pot of cold water to slowly heat to a boil, they want to cross that line so slowly, with “reasonable restrictions” as Speaker Shap Smith has said, that no one will understand until it is too late and the ability to rise up against tyranny will be impossible.

Fortunately, they are sorely mistaken. The intestinal fortitude in those who are fed up is growing daily. Connecticut legislators are now scrambling to figure out what to do when they realized an estimated 5% of gun owners registered their now “illegal” firearms and magazines. Many estimates say there are at least 500,000 “illegal” firearms left unregistered. Heavily armed militia members from across the country are still converging on a ranch in Nevada at the center of a federal Bureau of Land Management debacle that is “over” but still has the potential to go sideways very quickly. NY residents recently burned thousands of firearm registration forms in protest and defiance of the new draconian measures passed last year. Less than 3,000 of the estimated 1.2 million so called “assault” weapons (a made-up term more fitting a baseball bat or a hammer) have been registered in NY because residents know the law is unconstitutional and are waiting for the law to be overturned and will not comply in the meantime. We are quickly reaching a tipping point, and it may be already here.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013 http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013/tables/table_3_january_to_june_2012-2013_percent_change_for_consecutive_years.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf – See more at:

http://truenorthreports.com/the-truth-about-guns-in-vermont-and-the-national-gun-violence-issues-the-media-and-politicians-refuses-to-address#sthash.01SQbMGM.dpuf