Posts Tagged ‘Frank Lautenberg’

“Murder every NRA member” from those peace lovers on the left!

December 30, 2012

Seems that all those peaceniks on the left really are not so peaceful after all. Not to mention that Feinstein, Schumer, and Lautenberg are hard at work as usual committing treason to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. I do believe in the death penalty, and treason is indeed a capital offense.

I am so sick of these better than thou’s inflicting their perceived utopia that I could personally come up with a hot barrel of tar and a feather bed! These are the very same people that came up with ex post facto law, the permanent taking of rights for less than felonious behavior, as well as the taking of private property rights.

Remember, in 1994 it only took one day for Congress and President Clinton to “legally” remove guns from the hands and homes of law-abiding Americans!

Remember, in 1984 it only took one day for Congress and President Reagan to “legally” remove title II guns from the hands and homes of law-abiding Americans! So much for arch conservatives!

Remember Ruby Ridge, and the Waco massacre. Never forget the War of Northern Aggression. Never forget that ours is anything but a benevolent government.

Deo Vindice, molan labe!

Ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY)? More like big government commies…

July 31, 2012
Anti-gun Lautenberg trying to
put amendment on Cybersecurity Bill
Washington is, to say the least, not a town known for its high moral standards.
But there is, perhaps, no one with more expertise in milking shameless advantage out of national tragedy than ultra-liberal senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
So it can hardly be a surprise that, this week, these anti-gun Senators intend to offer an amendment to the cybersecurity bill which would prohibit the manufacture of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.
They appear oblivious to the fact that their “gun ban” mentality created a deadly situation in Aurora, Colorado, where there was a room with a number of trained military marksmen — and none of them were allowed to have a gun.
Any one of those individuals could have made a big difference.  Heck, does anyone doubt there would have been a different outcome if George Zimmerman had been in the theater?
Incidentally, lest anyone think that banning magazines is the be-all-and-end-all for Lautenberg, he has already announced that he intends to follow up his magazine ban with legislation to monitor and limit your purchases of ammunition.
Explains the clueless Lautenberg:  “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck ….”
So this Einstein believes you don’t need 100 rounds of ammunition?  Who decided that our Bill of Rights should be a “Bill of Needs”? 
It’s time to nip this nasty piece of work in the bud and ensure that his efforts to exploit innocent victims for political gain do not go any further.
ACTIONClick here to contact your Senators.  Demand that they vote against the Lautenberg-Schumer magazine-ban amendment to the cybersecurity bill.

Fools one and all.


DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A wake up call?

July 12, 2009

For several years I have posted on various forums, and blogs about the domestic violence law, and the abuse of that law. We were first informed of just how evil all men are, and were by Patricia Schroeder from Colorado. Men were / are Al Bundy’s at best and at worst, well, what ever could be dreamed up.

Then, as always, there have to be Supermen! They had to please, and be praised no matter the cost of dignity and honor. The two most famous have to be Frank Lautenberg, and Charles Schumer. Both men of power, and as ruthless in their search for praise and recognition as any gunfighter in a fiction movie about the “wild west.” Both men have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet, Lautenberg sneaked through a law that bans people from exercising rights that are defined as unalienable for less than felonious acts, and Schumer keeps blocking the funding so that rights could be restored. That’s bad enough, but the original act of treason, by Lautenberg, was to implement ex post facto law. For those that don’t know what that means, the short version is changing the rules after the game is played.

Here’s one example of how this has played out that I have personal knowledge of. Around 1957, at Von’s Market in Oceanside California, my stepfather and mother got into an argument. No hitting or anything, just some pretty loud yelling about whether they were going to buy Olympia beer, or Lucky Lager… A policeman happened to be in the store, and cited them both for disturbing the peace. Not really a big deal? Well, they both paid a ten dollar fine, and? Other than the Marine Corps dishing out a punitive tour at Adak, Alaska, all was well. Or so we thought…

Comes the year 2002, and mom wanted to go bird shooting with the grand-kids and some friends. She goes to the local store, and buys a shotgun, a regular old used Remington 870. But? The sale gets blocked. Based upon domestic violence (that wasn’t) from 1957! Years before the law was enacted! That friends, is how the domestic violence ban works. It is immoral, and goes beyond the Constitution all the way back to the Magna Carta, and The Rights of Englishmen. Remember those? Those little things that led to the “shot that was heard around the world?”

Now folks, I’m just a dumb old retired Paramedic but even I was able to see just how these laws were applied in a sexist manner. Not to mention in an un-Constitutional manner on a day to day basis. Now it seems that after all these years a few other folks have figured out what I have been talking my head off about for years.

$4 billion abuse industry rooted in deceptions and lies

By Carey Roberts
web posted July 6, 2009

Erin Pizzey is a genial woman with snow-white hair, cherubic cheeks, and an easy smile. It wasn’t always that way. The daughter of an English diplomat, she founded the world’s first shelter for battered women in 1971. To her surprise, she discovered that most of the women in her shelter were as violent as the men they had left.

When Pizzey wrote a book revealing this sordid truth, she encountered a firestorm of protest. “Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats, and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters,” she would later reveal.

According a recent report, the domestic violence industry continues to engage in information control tactics, spewing a dizzying series of half-truths, white lies, and outright  prevarications. The report, “Fifty Domestic Violence Myths,” is published by RADAR, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting:

How often have you heard the mantra-like claim, “domestic violence is all about power and control”? That’s code for the feminist dogma that domestic violence is rooted in men’s insatiable need to dominate and oppress the women in their lives.

And the obvious solution to partner abuse? Eliminate the patriarchy!

I know it all sounds far-fetched, but that’s what the gender ideologues who get their funding from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) believe. And no surprise these programs have been an abject failure. As Dr. Angela Parmley of the Department of Justice once admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Once you blame the whole problem of partner abuse on patriarchal dominance, the women who proudly call themselves the “VAWA Mafia” find themselves compelled to dress up the fable with a series of corollary myths.

Here are some examples: When a woman attacks her boyfriend, claim she was only acting in self-defense. Shrug off her assault with the “He had it coming” line. Aver her short stature prevents her from ever hurting her man. Or assert she grew up in an abusive household, as if that somehow lets her off the hook.

Above all, the ideologues will never admit that partner violence is more common among lesbians than heterosexual couples. Just consider the case of Jessica Kalish, the 56-year-old Florida woman who was stabbed 222 times last October with a Phillips screwdriver wielded by ex-girlfriend Carol Anne Burger. But no one dared call it “domestic violence.”

Once you begin to play tricks with the truth, you need to invent ever grander prevarications.  So sit back and get ready for a good chuckle, because there’s not a shred of truth to any of these claims regularly put forth by the domestic abuse industry:

1. A marriage license is a hitting license. (Truth is, an intact marriage is the safest place for men and women alike.)

2. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women. (The leading causes of female injury are unintentional falls, motor vehicle accidents, and over-exertion. Domestic violence is not even on the list.)

3. The March of Dimes reports that battering is the leading cause of birth defects. (The March of Dimes has never done such a study.)

4. Women never make false allegations of domestic violence. (That’s the biggest whopper  of all.)

5. Super Bowl Sunday is the biggest day of the year for violence against women. (Will the abuse industry never tire of its demagoguery?)

These are just five of the 50 domestic violence myths documented in the RADAR report.  As former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once deadpanned, “You’re entitled to your own opinions; you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Hopefully the $4 billion partner abuse industry will begin to pay attention. ESR

Carey Roberts is a Staff Writer for The New Media Alliance. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.


Some political musings…

April 23, 2009

So? What is hot across the Internet and MSM today as far as politics go?

Hillary Clinton thinks Dick Cheney isn’t a reliable source. Funny how no one addressed her credibility…

Frank Lautenberg, of high treason fame, yet again seeks to destroy the nation and Constitution that he swore an oath to protect. One tiny cut at a time or the the occasional full blown slice! The man needs to do a rope dance, not be in elected office.

The folks that dubbed a rather sizable chunk of America with a Domestic Terrorist label are yet seeking even more power. Talk about Chutzpah!

Then the impostor in chief pulls the populist card yet again but fails to even suggest hammering the big boys where it will hurt. As in getting credit reports flagged to indicate that these people were, and are being hounded by those operations, and attorneys that feed from their teats.

But, I digress…

The Anti-Hunting NRA?!

August 25, 2008

The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA) is once again trying to confuse hunters into believing two bold lies:  that the NRA does not support hunting, and that AHSA and the Sierra Club do.

In a report released on August 21, AHSA makes the ridiculous argument that NRA is anti-hunting because NRA does not support the same candidates that Sierra Club and other environmental groups support. The problem is, these groups rate candidates on their radical environmental record, not on their support for hunting or for gun owners’ rights. In fact, the politicians endorsed by the Sierra Club are a “Who’s Who” of the most anti-gun politicians in American history. Gun-ban advocates like Barack Obama, John Kerry, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Frank Lautenberg, Jack Reed, and Teddy Kennedy have all been endorsed by the Sierra Club. Since Teddy Kennedy wants to ban almost all ammunition used by hunters in America, it is impossible to see how the Sierra Club is supporting hunters by endorsing him.

Groups like the Sierra Club rate lawmakers on many issues that have nothing to do with hunters or hunting, and do not rate on some issues that do. While the Sierra Club supports massive set-asides of land under wilderness designations, they fail to consider hunter access to these lands. Wilderness designations often create problems for hunters because they do not provide for methods of access needed to actually use the land for hunting, since all improvements–including roads, trails and other changes–are prohibited. Such designations also prohibit programs to provide food and water to wildlife during times of drought. These policies are hardly good for hunters. Neither is Sierra Club support for anti-gun politicians who would end gun shows, ban guns and ammo, and support gun registration and gun licensing.

NRA knows that without our Second Amendment rights, Americans will lose our firearms to radical politicians like Obama. And without the right to own firearms, our hunting tradition will not survive. With this report, AHSA has made one thing perfectly clear: it is willing to sacrifice Second Amendment rights–and in the end, hunting in America–on the altar of its radical anti-gun agenda.

On the other hand, the NRA Political Victory Fund grades candidates first and foremost on their position on the protection of the Second Amendment, but also on their positions in support of issues relating to hunters. These issues include access to hunting lands, proper scientific management of game species, and expanding opportunities for hunters and hunting. NRA is also one of the most effective advocates for issues that truly impact hunters. Over the decades, NRA has worked hard at the federal and state level to protect and enhance our hunting heritage. NRA worked to reform federal law on migratory birdhunting. We have fought to keep federal lands open to hunting, to open more federal lands for hunters, and to protect conservation reserve programs that provide vital habitat for game species. In the states, NRA has worked for passage of youth hunting programs, for no-net-loss bills that ensure the amount of public land available to hunters is not diminished, and for increased hunter access plans like Open Fields and walk-in programs. AHSA has done none of this.

AHSA claims it is promoting “conservation,” but in truth, the groups it is endorsing are radical environmental groups. For these groups, hunting is either not a factor at all, or, at best, something to be endured but not promoted. In fact, these groups oppose hunting if it interferes with their radical agenda, as it did when it came to listing polar bears as endangered and banning the importation of polar bear trophies.

AHSA knows its report is phony, which is why it never lists any of the anti-gun politicians it is attacking NRA for not supporting. But for AHSA to mislead gun owners and hunters is nothing new. AHSA claims to be pro-gun, but in reality, they are not.

AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. In 2000, AHSA president Ray Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. Former AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, and has recently unveiled a new anti-gun billboard in Massachusetts attacking gun shows with misleading and untrue claims. And one of the leading organizers, and current Executive Director, of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.)

AHSA is a front group for left-wing zealots who want to fool sportsmen into voting for anti-gun candidates by lying to them about the issues. That is why AHSA has endorsed Barack Obama and his extreme anti-gun views. That is why AHSA is now attacking NRA for failing to endorse men and women who would end most gun ownership in America, including the guns used by hunters. NRA members, and everyone who really cares about our hunting tradition, should be reassured that NRA does not, and will not ever, endorse the vast majority of radical anti-gun zealots regularly supported by the Sierra Club and AHSA.


%d bloggers like this: