PELOSI TELLS US DEMOCRATS ARE NOT A THREAT TO OUR CONSTITUTION…DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT!!!

Let me just start by saying that I think many of us can agree that our Constitution always becomes imperiled whenever it is that we have Democrats in control of the government, every time leftists have a majority on the Supreme Court, and every time a Democrat president appoints leftist activist ‘judges’ to the judiciary, where they think they can simply circumvent both the Constitution and our Legislative Branch from there on the bench.  And in truth it is always the Democrats who choose to simply ignore the Constitution whenever they're in power.  And despite their many claims that it is President Trump who represents the greatest danger to the Constitution, what is it that he has done that adds credence to that little theory?

So imagine my surprise when I learned that Nancy Pelosi, during an appearance over there at ‘fake news’ headquarters, the Communist News Network, aka CNN, actually admitted that the Constitution of the United States of America will be very much at stake in the 2020 presidential election.  And I was even more surprised to find myself actually agreeing with her, albeit from a slightly different perspective.  Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think we could agree on anything.  Pelosi started out by saying, “Let me just say I’m very proud of all of the Democrats who have put themselves forward. They show why they are running. They know what they are talking about and they know how to communicate with the electorate.”

And she then went on to say, “The electorate, the people will decide who our nominee is, not anything from on high, and I do believe though that the way we won this last election, which was a message of simplicity for the people—lower healthcare costs, bigger paychecks, cleaner government, that’s the kind of message that we’ll bring forward. A unifying message that again addresses the insecurity of American will be pretty exciting.”  And the part that I agreed with was when she said, “Everything is at stake in this election. The Constitution of the United States, which the president is trying to usurp the power of the legislative branch of government, the environment in which we live.”  Where was this concern during the eight years of Barry ‘O’?

But it was then that she brought up an issue on which I could not disagree with her more, or with her fellow leftwing kooks.  I was when she said, “A Republican party that’s in denial about the assault on climate and the climate crisis, which is a health issue, a national security issue, an economic and jobs issue and a moral issue.”  Anyone who falls for this cockamamie, cooked up, fake science that Democrats like Pelosi continue to peddle is little more than a complete moron.  Republicans are not in denial a climate change, many actually believe that it may even be taking place. What they are not willing to accept is the ‘fact’ that man has anything to do with it and thus they are not willing to destroy our entire economy in combating it.  

But anyway, in getting back to the topic at hand which is the Democrats and the danger they continue to represent to our Constitution, despite their many claims, other than him saying he wants to “Make America Great Again,” how many times have you ever heard President Trump say that he wants to change America?  Barry ‘O’ said it, Bernie has said it, even Hitlery said it.  So from where I’m standing, the ONLY ones I see as being a continuing threat to our Constitution are not only those in the Democrat Party, but pretty much anyone on the Left, because it is they, and only they, who hate this country and view our Constitution as being nothing more than an impediment to what it is that they wish to bring about in this country.

Democrats not only want to change our Constitution, they want it changed instantaneously and without having to bother going through the pesky process for doing so.  They want mob rule, imported voters and they want to mandate emotions and word usage into crime.  Meanwhile it’s actual crimes that they seem to want to have decriminalized.  They abhor the traditions and beliefs that form the very foundation of this country.  And they refuse to accept that it is God who has granted us those certain inalienable rights because it is they who see government as being the sole entity responsible for granting, limiting, or even denying those rights as way of reinforcing what those in government view as being correct behavior and/or thought.

So this is one of those rare occasions where Pelosi is actually correct, in a way. The future of this country is at stake in 2020 because Democrats want to finally get rid of the Bill of Rights once and for all. They want to limit free speech, eliminate due process and the presumption of innocence. They want to repeal the Second Amendment and totally disregard the Tenth Amendment and pack the Supreme Court. They want to nationalize entire industries and selectively target individuals because of their income and wealth. They seek nothing more than to turn America into another Third World socialist shithole. And make no mistake, they will do all of these things if we ever again grant them any measureable level of political power.

And so Pelosi would have us all believe the party that is the true defender of the Constitution also just so happens to be the very same party that supports: 1. Open borders and a continued invasion of hordes of uneducated, unskilled, destitute, disease ridden and often violent illegals; 2. The right to murder babies right up to and even beyond their birth; 3. The elimination of the Electoral College; 4. Replacing Capitalism with Socialism; 5. So-called reparations for blacks; 6. Continuing the attack on free speech and even free thought that departs from liberal groupthink; cede US sovereignty to the globalist elites by moronic policies on so-called global warming; and on and on.  And Pelosi says we MUST elect those people!

To be honest I don't really consider President Trump a Republican, at least in the sense we have known them in the past.  President Trump is someone I would call an individual who ran for president on a Republican ticket.  He certainly isn't a globalist, he's not a NOW type nor is he a ‘Deep State’ type.  And he most certainly is not a RINO.  He actually is a president of the people, first one in living memory.  Which is why ‘The Establishment’ hates him so.  Meanwhile, nothing that the Democrat Party stands for, or promotes, has anything to do with adhering to the Constitution!  If anything, they promote everything that is against both our Constitution and our way of life!  They spend all of their time attempting to destroy this nation!

And Pelosi can make all of the idiotic claims she wishes, but it isn’t President Trump who has been out campaigning on issues like the eliminating the Electoral College or doing away with our southern border.  That would be the same Democrats that Pelosi herself has claimed are ‘mainstream.’  Yes, the Constitution of the United States of America is at stake, but ONLY if a Democrat is elected. Every Democrat now running for president essentially advocates the scrapping of our Constitution.  Pure Democracies die from within, the tyranny of the majority wants what you have and individual rights quickly become extinct.  Democrats are dead serious when it comes to making it possible for government to better control the people.   

And make no mistake, come 2020 if the Democrats are able to achieve victory in any meaningful way, including keeping the House, winning the Senate or ,God forbid, winning the Presidency, America and her Constitution will be forever changed and in less than a heartbeat. The Democrats have been saying since 2016 what they intend to do if they are ever able to worm their way back into power, and it should terrify every freedom loving American.  And it goes without saying that if they are able to return to power, they will destroy all or most of what so many have fought and died for.  Democrats today represent the greatest danger this country now faces, and to think they will not make good on their promises is beyond foolhardy. 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ‘REALLY’ SAYS…

I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH ACCELERATES

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"  So states the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Now while keeping that in mind, if I'm reading the news correctly, it would seem that we presently have underway three separate, dangerous, and simultaneous, assaults that are now ongoing and that have as being in their sights that very same First Amendment. Ya know, if I have this right, there is some pretty scary stuff currently going on out there in that vast wasteland that is our government. There now appears to be several very purposeful attempts afoot with one specific goal in mind and it is not something that will prove to be at all beneficial to the general population of this country. One of the most efficient and effective ways that the American people use to gather information to keep them appraised of what those in government are doing, is the Internet. And it is that very same ability to gather information that is now under a full-fledged assault and on what at least appears to be three fronts, all of which are being waged against the American people by their very own government.


First off is what I have read about regarding many of those who comprise our federal law enforcement as well as our national security officials who are now seeking some sweeping new regulations regarding the Internet. Now while it does not sound like it's hampering my ability to keep myself informed of governmental monkey business, it does sound like "Big Brother" wanting to stick his nose in to the point where they would be able to listen in on the citizenry in order to see just what they might be up to. The supposed argument for requesting these new expanded regulations revolve around, they say, the fact that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorist suspects is in the process of "going dark" because many more people are now choosing to communicate online instead of by telephone. But I do have one small question here. Where is all the concern from all of those screeching liberals regarding the privacy issues that were seen as being threatened with wild accusations quite literally being screamed from nearly every front page and newscast when it was Bush who wanted to be able to listen in on phone calls when one participant of the call was a potential terrorist calling from another country? What these officials are now requesting is for there to be a federal requirement for "all services that enable communications," everything from encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook to software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype, to now be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. This mandate would include they’re being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages. Now in a day and age when Barry is very busily assembling a rather extensive list of perceived enemies, I'm just not thinking that this is really such a good idea. Call me paranoid, but I just don't see Barry as being anywhere near as trustworthy as Bush was. Now the legislation which our buddy Barry "Almighty" plans to submit to Congress next year, raises a whole new fresh batch of questions regarding how to balance security needs with the protecting of privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally. Which makes it all the more unnerving. So, is someone in some foreign country also going to be looking over my shoulder or perhaps reading my emails?


A fella by the name of James Dempsey, who is the vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had "huge implications" and challenged "fundamental elements of the Internet revolution" including its decentralized design. "They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet," he said. "They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.” But law enforcement officials “guarantee” us that the imposing of such a mandate is "reasonable and necessary" in order to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers. Hmmmm, investigative powers. Well, one man's "reasonable and necessary" is another man's abuse of power. "We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said Valerie Caproni, general counsel for the FBI. "We're not talking expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security." Again, when those who are doing the snooping are also the ones who are defining what's "lawfully authorized" I get more than just a tad bit queasy. Ya know, under normal circumstances, normal being not having a “Chicago thug, community agitator” of a Democrat in the Oval Office, I might be a little more likely to go along with this idea. But definitely not when we have the likes of Barry, “Dingy” Harry and “Botox” Nancy running roughshod over a Congress whose membership is comprised of a majority of members who have a rather difficult time behaving in anything that would even remotely resemble an ethical manner. Nope, I'm just not feelin it. Sorry! No way, Jose!


Secondly, we also have our old friend, Senator Patrick "Leaky" Leahy, yet another Democrat as well as being that pillar of honesty and integrity, trying his best to assist his buddy Barry, having now introduced a bill that could have a very “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Boy, now there's a surprise, another Democrat seeking to place limits on our right to Free Speech. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) has been introduced by "Leaky", and if I'm reading the news right he’s assisted in his endeavor by Senator Orrin Hatch. “Leaky,” who also happens to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would require Internet Service Providers, Domain Name System providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. Well now, I wonder what other "intended uses" ol’ Leaky might have up his sleeve here? This seriously flawed bill would allow our stellar Attorney General Eric "I'm a Black Panther lovin MoFo" Holder, and the Barry Justice Department to break the Internet one domain at a time, by requiring domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites. The bill would also create two Internet "blacklists." Only two? The first "blacklist" would consist of all websites hit with a censorship court order from our Attorney General. Oh, now doesn't that just give that warm and fuzzy feeling all over? Holder is as corrupt as his boss Barry is a narcissist. The second "blacklist" is a list of domain names that the Department of Justice determines, and "without judicial review" I might add, are “dedicated to infringing activities” that violate copyright laws. Again, this sounds just a bit too broad for me. COICA requires blocking for domains on the first list and “strongly suggests” that domains on the second list should be blocked as well by providing legal immunity for those who do block access to websites, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a nonprofit civil liberties organization. Ya know, it's easy to predict here that there will be tremendous pressure for Internet intermediaries of all stripes to block these "deemed infringing" sites on the second blacklist. “This is a censorship bill that runs roughshod over freedom of speech on the Internet” and could have a “dangerous impact on freedom of speech,” the EFF observes. And the fact of the matter is that The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998, already gives copyright owners legal means to remove copyright violating material piece by piece. But COICA “vastly expands this. It would allow the Attorney General to shoot down a whole domain including all the "blog posts," images, backups, and files underneath it,” the EFF reports. “In other words, it’s not just possible but probable that a great deal of legitimate, protected speech will be taken down in the name of copyright enforcement.” A hearing on the bill is scheduled this week before the Judiciary Committee. COICA is a fairly short bill, but it could result in a very long lasting and very dangerous impact on freedom of speech, current Internet architecture, copyright doctrine, foreign policy, and beyond. In 2010, if there's anything we've learned about such efforts as these, it's that they always produce more unintended consequences than any actual benefits.


And finally third, and perhaps the scariest idea I've heard yet, is something that's being called an "amalgamated cybersecurity bill" that our freedom loving Democrat lawmakers are hoping to pass "before the end of this year", and which is more than just little frightening to me. This little piece of wizardry includes some very interesting new powers which would allow Barry "Almighty" to actually shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also give the power to do the same to businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency. Now knowing Barry as I think I do, what is there exactly that would prevent him from using this little gift from Congress as some sort of a political weapon if the mood should strike him? Does anyone other than me see this as being anything other than just another very blatant attempt to stifle potential dissent directed at either our "Fearless Leader?" or his party. The present draft of the bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by, you guessed it, two more Democrats in the person of Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. “Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats,” simply by citing concerns about an “imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network.” “Even in the absence of an imminent threat, companies could face government scrutiny. Company employees working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills. It also would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and to have plans for responding to a cyber attack,” states a report from Reuters. I think it has been pretty much made clear by those much smarter than I that the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is actually pretty remote. The perpetrators of just such an attack these types of infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to those systems that operate these plants in order to cause them any significant damage. Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear as being the real agenda behind this so-called cybersecurity. That being the enabling of those in government to regulate free speech on the Internet. Handing Obama the power to shut down certain companies or businesses is likely to heighten already existing fears that the new cybersecurity federal bureaucracy could very easy be turned into something that could then very easily be used as a political weapon.


What causes me some very serious concern here is that it was just back in March when Barry's administration released its Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, a plan that that would provide to those in the government the power to “secure,” or perhaps control is a better word, the nation’s public and private sector computer networks. It just so happened to coincide with the Democrats attempt put forward the claim that the independent news website "The Drudge Report" was serving malware, an incident Senator Jim Inhofe described as being a deliberate ploy “to discourage people from using Drudge”. Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to admit that the legislation had more to do with simply protecting US infrastructure when he told CNN's Candy Crowley that the bill was intended to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing. “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman. In case of war? So now we're looking to China as being our model for governmental control of the Internet? Wait just a minute here Joe. I don't think I'm too crazy about that whole idea. Let's not kid ourselves here, the Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet out of any genuine concerns regarding its national security. What it does do is to habitually take such action for no other reason than to oppress and silence the victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to attempt to literally strangle any and all dissent perpetrated against the state, a practice that many are now beginning to fear as being the ultimate intention of cybersecurity here in the United States. And another thing! The implementation of some monstrous cybersecurity apparatus would represent just one more huge expansion of a federal government that is presently running amuck. A government that has already grown way too much and acquired way too much power and control over the American people already. The creating of an Office of Cyber Policy within an executive branch steeped in corruption and possessing very questionable motives is just not a very good idea. And adding to that “a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) within the Department of Homeland Security, led by a separate director who would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector” also does not represent the right direction in which we should be going. It just wouldn't be prudent.


Now I don't know about anybody else, but for me it just seems like every time I turn around this crowd of power hungry Democrats are setting about to do their level best in exhausting every possible method in their effort to acquire ever more control over, not only what information is available to the public, but how that information is to be disseminated as well. There is simply too much secrecy involved and it is all but impossible to get the truth from any of those who participate in today's state run media, because those who are relied upon to report the news are essentially in bed with the guilty parties. And to my way of thinkin this is all about nothing more than the creating of yet another way for Barry to poke around in my business. Business that he has no business poking around in. Look folks, let's be real here! This is but one more reason that exposes the fact that we must get away from this "one party rule" nightmare of a situation that we have managed to create for ourselves. And as quickly as possible. Democrats, as a whole, are not to be trusted in any way, shape, manner of form with type of ability that has been outlined in any of this proposed legislation. It allows for nothing more than to provide those in our government new and improved ways to go snooping on anyone they may perceive as being an enemy of the state. To allow the implementation of this type of wide-ranging authority is to put on the fast track a "Brave New World" of Barry's design. And to attempt to do so under the guise of national security no less, is absolutely ludicrous. Might this rather be all about the squelching of any possible dissent regarding the enacting of policies advocated by Barry "Almighty" and his fellow Democrats? Just something to ponder.