This will be a short post, but to the point. And surly there will be follow up postings.
Colorado and California. That says it all…
Posts Tagged ‘election 2010’
Stuck on stupid: A tale of two states…
November 3, 2010Largest campaign finance violations in Colorado history!
November 2, 2010Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.
On Thursday, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).
In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” group and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.
Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.
In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.
Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough). View our website, www.clearthebenchcolorado.org, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.
If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).
This would be the largest campaign finance violation penalty in the history of Colorado – dwarfing the previous record by some 30 times…
These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better. Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point. However, they messed with the wrong guy…
Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog. CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.
At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake
October 30, 2010Rights Endowed by Whom?
What is really at stake in this election?
“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” –George Washington
Buy this poster hereNext Tuesday’s 2010 midterm election marks the first major battle in a fired-up grassroots effort to restore constitutional integrity, one with a fervor not seen since the election of Ronald Reagan 30 years ago.
The stakes in this election and those to follow are much higher than a mere contest between competing political platforms and personas. These elections will determine who is this nation’s arbiter of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Perhaps unwittingly, Barack Hussein Obama, by way of omission in several recent speeches, has made it abundantly clear whom he and his comrades reject as the source of the rights of all men. On three separate occasions, when speaking at fundraisers for his Leftist comrades, Obama has referenced the Declaration of Independence.
Speaking at the Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Annual Awards Gala, Obama said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are … endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” When questioned about the omission of who, precisely, endowed those rights, the White House press office claimed that Obama went off script … unlikely for a man who has been glued and tattooed to his Teleprompters.
A few days later, speaking at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Obama said, “If we believe that … everybody is endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights and we’re going to make those words live, and we’re going to give everybody opportunity, everybody a ladder into the middle class…” For the record, that utterance was not “off script.” Rather, it was precisely how the White House posted his speech.
At the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser, he did it again, saying, “What makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire and said, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men … are endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights.'”
In each instance, Obama omitted the Declaration’s clear affirmation that the rights of all people are “endowed by their Creator,” not by some potentate or government.
Our Declaration of Independence was derived from inherent common law, and in its first sentence, our Declaration establishes the rights of man as “which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”
When asked again about Obama’s omission, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted, “I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence.”
So, Obama “believes in the Declaration”? The Declaration is a piece of paper, one that expresses a self-evident Truth. Were it destroyed today, or had it never been written, the right of all people to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” among other rights, would still be endowed by our Creator.
Mr. Gibbs’ assurances notwithstanding, Obama’s subtle but telling omissions expose the underbelly of the political beast that is intent on devouring Essential Liberty and replacing it with the rule of men.
With his omissions now a matter of public interest, Obama has now tossed “our Creator” into a stump speech before Election Day. But make no mistake: That would be subterfuge. Obama believes that the rights of men are subject to the rule of men, and the terminus of the unabated rule of men is always tyranny.
The election of Barack Hussein Obama was the worst of insults to our nation’s heritage of Liberty, but in one important way, it has proven a blessing in disguise.
It has drawn millions of Americans to the frontlines of the eternal war for Liberty and Rule of Law, as enshrined in our national Constitution. Still, this midterm election cycle is different than the knee-jerk response to Bill Clinton that seated a Republican majority back in 1994.
There is a Great Awakening across our nation, one being spearheaded by Tea Party Patriots who are armed with, among other things, the right tools to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, and who are willing to passionately fight for the former over the latter.
In the words of Thomas Paine, “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”
At this moment, the future of Liberty is at stake.
Our Declaration of Independence concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” (I suspect Obama would omit “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”)
I know that you have “pledged your sacred honor” for the defense of Liberty. I beseech you to help us muster millions of additional Patriots to the frontlines for the battle ahead.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
The BIG Lie: again…
October 30, 2010It’s all about me … except when that’s inconvenient: “It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republicans] feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.” –Barack Obama
Psychotherapy for voters: “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.” –Barack Obama
Doesn’t say much: “The single best decision I have made was selecting Joe Biden as my running mate.” –Barack Obama
If only he understood his own claims: “I think families, as well as the federal government, have understood that you can’t just operate on the basis of debt.” –BO
Blame Bush, check; bash the Chamber, check: “We have lost millions of jobs to outsourcing under President Bush. We don’t intend to repeat that policy — no matter how much money the Chamber of Commerce dumps into our elections.” –House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) getting in all her talking points
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging: “When Barack Obama was elected president, he found himself in a hole so deep that he couldn’t see the outside world. It was like the Chilean miners, but he, being the man that he is, rolled up his sleeves and said, ‘I’m gonna get us out of this hole.'” –Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
The BIG Lie: “In the course of this year we will have created more jobs this year, 2010, than in the entire Bush administration of eight years.” –Nancy Pelosi, who also once infamously claimed, “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” (To say the least, she’s not very good at math.)
Yeah, fewer of them: “The health care bill is about jobs, the energy bill is about jobs, the education bill is about jobs, and the recovery act is about jobs.” –Nancy Pelosi
‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment
October 29, 2010‘Army of One’ takes on Colorado Legal establishment
Campaign finance and electioneering complaint filed against “Know Your Judge” consortium
Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.
This afternoon, Clear the Bench Colorado – Political Action Committee filed, pro se, a campaign finance and electioneering complaint against the “Know Your Judge” consortium: the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (“IAALS”), Colorado Bar Association (“COBAR”), Colorado Judicial Institute (“CJI”) and the Colorado League of Women Voters (“LWV”).
In this complaint, Clear the Bench Colorado alleges that both collectively as the “Know Your Judge” campaign and as individual organizations, these groups have engaged in electioneering communications through print, radio and television advertisements as well as on their website – in violation of campaign finance laws, which would have subjected them to the same guidelines to file as a political committee (and the same contribution and expenditure limits) with the Secretary of State’s office as were followed by Clear The Bench Colorado.
Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent by these organizations with no accountability or transparency, in sharp contrast to Clear the Bench Colorado – which has followed the ever-changing law to the letter – while conducting similar political advocacy activities.
In a clear example of “what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” Clear the Bench Colorado simply wants these organizations held to the same legal standard as is everyone else in the state.
Unlike the frivolous, groundless, and vexatious complaint filed by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) against Clear the Bench Colorado back in May, this lawsuit has a solid legal basis (in part, due to the ruling against CTBC, ironically enough). View our website, www.clearthebenchcolorado.org, to read the complaint in its entirety and for updates.
If Clear the Bench receives a favorable judgment, these organizations will be subject to fees ($50 per day that they didn’t file) as well as fines of 2-5 times the contribution totals above and beyond the $525 contribution limit of a political committee (which, since these groups spent at least $85,000, will add up to a hefty sum).
These groups, with armies of accountants and lawyers at their beck and call, should (and do) know better. Apparently, they thought that they could get away with violating the law, since CTBC’s resources (and ability to challenge) have been strained almost to the breaking point. However, they messed with the wrong guy…
Clear The Bench Colorado may be the underdog in this fight – but it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that matters, but the size of the fight in the dog. CTBC doesn’t have armies of attorneys and accountants on call – but CTBC is… an Army of One.
GOA In The Trenches
October 26, 2010— Highlighting Records of Pro-gun Congressmen
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
GOA representatives are traveling coast-to-coast to discuss the differences between candidates running for office.
GOA’s Political Victory Fund has already issued scores of alerts, endorsements and contributions in important elections that will take place next week. You can go to www.goapvf.org to see the highlights of these races.
GOA representatives are appearing at press conferences or rallies in several states. While the following are just the tip of the iceberg, they represent the type of work that GOA is doing:
* Arizona, Dist. 1 — Paul Gosar (A rated) vs. Ann Kirkpatrick (C rated)
* Colorado, Dist. 3 — Scott Tipton (A rated) vs. John Salazar (D rated)
* Florida, Dist. 2 — Steve Southerland (A- rated) vs. Allen Boyd (D rated)
* Georgia, Dist. 2 — Mike Keown (A- rated) vs. Sanford Bishop (C- rated)
* Michigan, Dist. 7 — Tim Walberg (A rated) vs. Mark Schauer (D rated)
* Minnesota, Dist. 8 — Chip Cravaack (A rated) vs. Jim Oberstar (D rated)
* Missouri, Dist. 4 — Vicky Hartzler (A rated) vs. Ike Skelton (C rated)
* New Mexico, Dist. 1 — Jon Barela (A rated) vs. Martin Heinrich (D rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 2 — Steve Pearce (A rated) vs. Harry Teague (C rated)
New Mexico, Dist. 3 — Tom Mullins (A rated) vs. Ben Ray Lujan (F rated)
* Pennsylvania, Dist. 11 — Lou Barletta (A rated) vs. Paul Kanjorski (D rated)
Pennsylvania, Dist. 12 — Tim Burns (A rated) vs. Mark Critz (NR)
* Virginia, Dist. 9 — Morgan Griffith (A rated) vs. Rick Boucher (C rated)
* Washington, Dist. 2 — John Koster (A rated) vs. Rick Larsen (F rated)
Many of the above races involve Blue Dog Democrats who are trying to portray themselves as solid defenders of the Second Amendment, but their current grades seem to reveal they are nothing more than Pelosi puppets.
You can go to this link to see a bigger list of Blue Dogs who have been working to prop up Pelosi.
The GOA representatives who will be traveling this week include Vice-Chairman Tim Macy, Executive Director Larry Pratt, Director of Federal Affairs John Velleco, and Director of Communications Erich Pratt.
So just who is left to blame now..?
October 19, 2010“So, who’s left to demonize? The Girl Scouts? Rotary Clubs maybe? We’re running out of devils to distract us. Then again, the Obama administration’s preposterous attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does nothing to help Democrats and everything to reinforce the moderate voter’s perception that the president’s party has gone bonkers. A recent ad by Democrats makes the charge — dutifully echoed through the blogosphere and by talking heads — that the chamber was part of a cabal out to ‘steal our democracy,’ accepting foreign cash and then using the funds to campaign against candidates on the Left. Though, admittedly, they have no proof of any wrongdoing, Democrats have threatened that investigations will soon uncover this reprehensible criminal activity. Inquiry to come post-election, no doubt. ‘Stealing democracy,’ as you may know, loosely translated, means: Holy crap, Republicans are going to win an election. You’ll also notice that the insidious sway of outside political money always seems to blossom into a critical threat to the future of democracy about the time misguided conservatives start to get the upper hand on Democrats. … But let’s face it; no one is really buying the argument. Though, a perceptive voter might ask himself this: If the United States Chamber of Commerce — composed of some of the most moderate, milquetoast, government-friendly saps in the country — is now on the enemies list, who exactly does the president think is reasonable? If the crony capitalists aren’t good enough for Barack Obama, who is?” –columnist David Harsanyi
“Back in January, the president attacked the Supreme Court for ruling that corporations and unions have First Amendment speech rights and pointed to the possibility that foreigners might try to influence American election outcomes. Now he and his spokesmen on the campaign trail and on Sunday interview programs are charging that outfits like the Chamber of Commerce are smuggling foreign money into the campaign. Their evidence? Well, there isn’t much…. But Obama uberadviser David Axelrod says it’s up to the chamber to prove it’s innocent. … There are a couple of odd things here. One is that the 2008 Obama campaign, by deliberately not using the address verification software most enterprises use to determine it’s really your credit card, took in a lot more illegal foreign money than its rivals. The Obama folks may be projecting their own sins on their opponents. The other is that this charge of foreign money doesn’t fit into any familiar political narrative. At least when the Obamaites attack evil rich people, some voters think of 19th-century caricatures of fat cats (and ignore the fact that Obama carried voters with incomes over $200,000 in 2008). … I seem to remember that it was candidate Barack Obama (not John McCain or Hillary Clinton) who gave a big election year speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was Obama cheerleaders who told us that foreigners would love us once again if we sent George W. Bush back to Texas and installed their multicultural champion in the White House. Back in 2008, we were supposed to vote for the candidate foreigners loved. Now, in 2010, we are supposed to vote against the party foreigners support.” –political analyst Michael Barone
The Ruling Class — Past and Present
October 18, 2010Defenders of the idea that only the ruling class should be able to make decisions for everybody else desperately try to put lipstick on the tyrannical pigs of history and today.
One common argument – in both Russia and in the West – is the defense of Lenin as a well-intentioned guy whose good work was cut short by his premature death. Then that bad old Stalin took over and tyranny sprang up like flowers after a rain in the desert.
Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler has examined this notion and has totally destroyed its claim to veracity from first-hand accounts. His conclusion is that Lenin was “a heartless and ambitious individual who was self-righteous in claiming to know what was good for humanity, brutal in his attempt to subject his own people to radical social transformation, and convinced he held the key to the eventual overthrow of global capitalism and the establishment of world Communism.”
The picture Gellately paints of Stalin and Hitler shows that Lenin’s character flaws were shared by them as well.
Gellately describes Lenin in terms that disturbingly fit Saul Alinsky, President Obama’s intellectual inspiration. Both men wrote that the current system needs to be collapsed. While Alinsky argued that it should be collapsed from within, Lenin sought the same goal by deliberately provoking a civil war which would then be followed with murder and terror as an official regime policy. Lenin was successful, and as a result of the war, he emerged in total control of the country at a cost of two million dead. Of course, he and his disciple Stalin killed many tens of millions more in the years following.
Larry Grathwol was the FBI agent who infiltrated close-Obama-friend Bill Ayers’ terrorist Weather Underground. He testified that he had a conversation with Ayers in which the terrorist said that after taking power it would probably be necessary to kill 25,000,000 Americans who could not be reeducated to accept the new communist system.
Grathwol reported that Ayers made that statement in a room of some twenty-five people, most of whom had graduate degrees. Gellately found that the leaders of the death squads in Hitler’s Nazi regime were also similarly well-educated. This information certainly adds perspective to the detrimental value afforded by a liberal arts education in most universities of the United States.
All three of these mass murderers followed the Alinsky prescription faithfully, namely, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” When we look at President Obama’s method of operation, we can see that he learned this lesson well. (Indeed, Obama taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for two years at the University of Chicago School of Law).
He picks targets for smearing (banks, insurance companies, Republicans, etc.). He then goes on to freeze his target, to personalize it (greedy executives, House Minority Leader John Boehner) and then to polarize. Polarizing is part of the acid used by the 20th Century’s tyrants as well as Saul Alinsky and his followers.
While we are not yet where Germany and Russia ended up,, the end game of polarizing the population against a personalized enemy led to the destruction of Jews and foreigners under the Nazis. And in the Soviet Union, it led to the destruction of the nobility, the educated, and the clergy, as well as businesses and farm owners. As Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s close friend and former White House Chief of Staff has put it, you never let a good crisis go to waste. The crisis allows the implementation of the Alinsky formula, creating an enemy that must be fought. In order to fight the enemy, the tyrant demands that all power be handed over to him.
According to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama now controls seventy percent of the private sector in the United States. This takeover has been carried off by a constant rush from one crisis to another. “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now.”
Well, Mr. Obama, the time for voting is coming. The time for the arrogance of power is over.
President Obama’s voting puppets: GOA strikes back
October 18, 2010On the Campaign Trail in Arkansas
| Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund endorsed three candidates in Arkansas for the November elections: Richard Crawford in the First Congressional District, Tim Griffin in the Second, and John Boozman for Senate.
All three are campaigning vigorously, and their hard work is paying off in recent polls. Arkansas First Congressional According to a poll released this week by The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political news organization, Rick Crawford is leading his Democrat opponent in the First Congressional District. Crawford, a small business owner and constitutional conservative, is forthright in his support for the Second Amendment. His commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms earned him an “A” rating from GOA.  GOA Vice-Chariman Tim Macy (left) with nationally syndicated talk show host Roger Hedgecock on the campaign trail in Arkansas
His rival, a staffer for the retiring Congressman in the district, did not return a GOA survey even though he was given two opportunities to do so in the past few months. This is usually a sign that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views. Learn more about Rick http://www.meetrickcrawford.com. Arkansas Second Congressional In the Second District, Tim Griffin leads his opponent by 17 points. A fifth generation Arkansan, Tim is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and is committed not only to opposing the anti-gun schemes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he will also work to roll back the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. His opponent, “F” rated by GOA, will be just another vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical, anti-gun agenda. Tim’s website is http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com. Arkansas Senate In the race for one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senate seat, Rep. John Boozman holds a double-digit lead over incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln. In the U.S. House, Rep. Boozman has been a champion for the Second Amendment, one of only six House members to earn an “A+” from GOA. In addition to holding a perfect voting record, Rep. Boozman is the author of the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” a bill which would allow concealed carry licenses to be recognized while traveling across state lines. He also recently took the lead in opposing President Obama’s efforts to block the importation of—or even destroy—nearly one million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea. The firearms are lawful for Americans to own, and Rep. Boozman continues to work on this issue even as the congressional session winds down. His opponent has proven to be one of President Obama’s voting puppets. Sen. Lincoln voted for a slew of anti-gun nominees put forward by the President, including two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices and a U.S. Attorney General who would like to reinstate the semi-auto ban of 1994. The polls indicate that voters have had enough of Sen. Lincoln marching in lockstep with the President and his anti-gun agenda. Rep. John Boozman is a proven leader and a consistent friend of gun owners both across the state of Arkansas and across the country. Visit John Boozman on the web at http://www.boozmanforarkansas.com. The elections in Arkansas are crucial for the makeup of the new Congress. Not only are pro-gunners leading in Districts 1 and 2, but both seats also stand to flip from Pelosi-supporting anti-gun puppets to strong Constitutional leaders. And in the Senate, John Boozman will be one less vote for anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid, and one less vote for the devastating Obama agenda. Although their hard work is paying off with great polling numbers, none of these candidates are taking anything for granted. They are campaigning hard right up to Election Day, so if you can help out any of these campaigns with volunteer efforts or a financial contribution, please visit their websites. |
New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?
October 18, 2010
Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation
Posted by Walter Olson
There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)
I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.
Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).
Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.
Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”
I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 