Only Democrats think "sportsman" is in the constitution

Once again democrats prove they are illiterate. Well at least when it comes to reading the Constitution and the bill of rights.
In Hillary's response to BO's gaff about small town dwellers and guns, she said something about democrats not coming after the guns of sportsmen. The oft use variant substitutes "hunters."
But one thing is undeniable. Democrats and some republicans (republicrats really) do not believe that where "the people" appears in the seconds amendment actual means what it says. THE PEOPLE. You, me all of us who have not violated the rights of others have the right to bear arms to defend our homes and families.
In Massachusetts, our legislators have decided that the second amendment does not exist. How do they do this? In this state, one must apply for a permit with the local police department. The criteria for approval are set by the local police chief. The chief has no limits on what restrictions he can place beyond requirements already set by the state. There are towns in which the current police chief is adamently anti-gun and set a blanket denial policy and deny all applications and renewals of permits approved prior to the new chief coming in.
It actually easier for someone from out of state to get a carry permit for Massachusetts than it is more most residents. They only have to pass a back ground check and meet the gun safety course requirement. A resident can pass all of that and still be denied based only on what zip code they live in.
Studies have prove repeatedly that when lawful gun ownership goes up, violent crime goes down. The number one beneficiaries of increased legal gun ownership is women. After all, nothing scares off a mugger faster than a nice compact 9mm semi-auto.
The converse is also true. Jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest violent crime. DC does not even allow their police officers to have a weapon off duty. Naturally, the bureaucrats in DC blame lax gun laws in neighboring states. That is not true because the law abiding citizens obey the ridiculous gun ban while the criminals still get all the guns they want to use against those who obey the law.

Do we really need more proof that Islam is not a "religion of Peace?"

There has much written about the recent very public conversion of a "moderate" Muslim man to Catholicism.
Names are not important here. It could be anybody because the reaction from the "Religion of Peace" is always the same. "Death!!!!"
Yet no matter how times the Islamic world turns violently against the rest of the world, no matter how great the number of violent participants, our elected representatives insist on trying to convince us that it is a small number of Muslims that are violent.
Every major Islamic group has advocated the death of this convert.
No other religion uses such coercion to keep people from leaving. If Islam were actually a religion of peace, it would not have to use the threat of death to force conversion to Islam or to prevent people from leaving publicly. If Islam is a religion of peace, Bibles would not be illegal, subject to the death penalty. If Islam is peaceful, why do the "religious" police in Egypt and Saudi Arabia murder with impunity anyone they decide has broken Sharia law?
Why can fathers freely murder there daughters if they become rape victims, or are merely said to have seen alone with an unrelated male?
Islam presumes that all men are pigs and all woman are sluts. It seems to preach the Fraudian notion that we are driven only by sexual desire and are incapable of control this impulse. Therefore if a woman exposes any part of her skin she is trying to seduce a man away from his "purity in Islam." Soit is always the woman's fault if she is raped. An an Imam in Australia said regarding a string of gang rapes by Muslim men, "what do you expect a cat to do when you leave the meat uncovered?"

As an aside:
One must keep in mind also that Islamic law assigns one's religion based on the father. SO Barak Obama, under Islamic law is Muslim. When Obama claims he is not Muslim, that makes him an apostate and subject to the death penalty if he ever goes to a Muslim country. Will BO merely say he was compliant with Islamic law that allows lying a deceit to advance Islam because he had to lie to get elected? Why else would he spend 20 years in such a hateful "church" that is anything but Christian and has more in common with Farahkan's cult which the truly moderate Muslims reject as Not of Islam?

Some Thought on the passing of MLK Jr and the death of what he stood for

40 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. And along with him so too did his dreams and desires for a world where hos children would be judged not by the color of there skin but by the content of their character.
Today, nearly every "civil rights leader" ended there speeches with diatribes against white racism. Yet these same people make a living by making sure that enough people believe that white racism is a serious problem so they can continue to earn tax deductible livings from the hatred they themselves foment.
Whether is if the "Rev." Wright, "Rev. Sharpton, or "Rev. Jackson, they all sign the same tune. White people are bad. All white people are racist. And anyone who questions their actions is a racist. All black people who do not share their twisted view are Uncle Toms and "House niggers."
Just ask columnist like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Ellis Washington or the eminent professor Walter Williams about the profanity laced hate mail they receive for holding opinions that difference from the Black Victim Theology? And it is as much a religion, or cult as anything else. At its core is a belief not just in something that can not be proven, but can actually be proven false.
If Doctor King were alive today he would be receive hate mail from Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Men far wiser than myself have pointed out that even before Doctor King's death the black civil rights movement was moving far left. Those who resisted would have been rejected as "old school
There is ample evidence to support this thesis. When Malcom X came back from his turning point trip to Mecca his tune had changed. He no longer believed in black segregation as still preached by the cult known as the Nation of Islam. For that he too was assassinated. Some believe by the current head of NoI, Louis, The white, Jew and women hating, Farrakhan.
Of course, if Hillary or Barak are elected, this entire post would be a hate crime under federal law.
If you don't think that is possible one need only look north to Canada or even just to PA where 11 people faced over 4 decades in prison for reading the bible out loud at a "gay pride" festival.
Today, because I am white and believe in equal opportunity, I am called a racist. Though it would be impossible to prove with a single visit to my home. But maybe then they would just label my wife a race traitor.
Schools no longer even teach children the fact that Doctor King was a registered Republican. In the 50's and early 60's the majority of black voters were registered republican and the Democrat party was and still is the party of the KKK. It is the republican party that ended slavery. It is the republican party that passed the Civil Rights act in the 60's.
Yes, if Doctor King were alive today preaching the same message, he would be shunned. He would have Oreo cookies thrown at him at every speech. He would be called every vile name currently thrown at Condi Rice, Colin Powell and Justice Thomas.
Leaving the victim ideology plantation is just not allowed. By doing so, it increases the risk that the current crop of "leaders" will actually have to go out and get real jobs.

What would a President Hillary do to College admissions?

How many voters remember that Bubba Clinton attempted to have title IX, which decimated men's college sports, to college academic programs. In particular, he, at the insistence of Hillary, sought to apply it only to programs dominated by men.
Can you imagine the chaos that would create? One visit to the Northeastern Campus in Boston and one will find both and engineering college and a nursing college. The engineering school is 90% men. The nursing school is 95% woman. Does any really think Hillary would ever mess with the school dominated by woman? Do you really think she would try to force men into nursing? No. But she would try to force Northeastern to equalize the percentage of men and women in engineering. The result will be the mass reduction of engineering schools because the government, even with Hillary in charge, can not force woman into engineering. China does. But the US government has no such authority. That will not stop Hillary from trying. After all, she believes the Constitution say what it would say if she wrote it. She will claim a "compelling government interest" in deciding what careers woman choose because mere mortal citizens can not be trusted to make "the right choice."
Hillary is an authoritarian socialist to the core. She is only pro-choice when we make choices she approves of.
She is also and truth challenged as her "husband." She does not "misspeak." She lies.

Gas mileage or safety?

Given the choice between fuel economy and safety, one can judge a persons character based on what they choose.
As a father, I would never choose economy over safety. Parents who pile their children into a Prius when they can easily afford an SUV are putting their politics ahead of their own children's safety.
Forget that the Prius does more harm to the environment from raw materials through end of life than a VM Golf Diesel. In fact some studies have shown that a Hummer H2 does less damage as well.
I drive a modified Jeep that has been in two crashes. Both not my fault. In both cases, had I been in Prius, the harm to all in the accident would gave been much greater, not to mention the injury to my children. As it was, the Honda Civic got totaled and I had less than $800 damage. The driver of the Honda survived with minor injury. That is because my Jeep held her car to the pavement instead of hitting it low and flipping her over. Simple physics.
If I had a long commute and did not have my children with me and I could afford to have a stable of task specific vehicles like the Hollywood elites who take out their hybrids for show, then I could have a safe car for the family and an econo box for commuting.
As it is, I have a two mile drive to work. My wife has a 1.7 mile. But I drive 18 milers one way to karate. As such my Exxon gas bill is still about $400 per month.
If one genuinely cares about one's children, a used SUV is a safer choice than a new Kia or Hyundai.
A new 4 door Wrangler Rubicon is a very nice safe family vehicle and you don't have to dodge potholes either. Spring rains? Drive through them.
Just my $0.02