We are several days removed from the nonsensical Obama suggestion of limitations on certain citizen's rights. We see the left wing LA Times (and others) now admitting that restricting anything to a group of citizens who have never been convicted of any crime (or even accused) is clearly unconstitutional. Surely this must have occurred to our ex constitutional professor President. To think not would mean he's a complete dolt. I can't go there even though I don't think he's the sharpest tack in the drawer. I prefer option B.

Option B is a "stray voltage" campaign. Obama is taking incoming fire on his national security failures from the San Bernardino events. Change the topic by making a proposal so outlandish as to grab the attention of the talking heads. The topic cannot have a direct connection to the recent event, must be controversial, and, ideally, have no chance of actually doing or changing anything. Just get them talking about something else.

Democrats are very good at this. They can count on their legion of operatives and the main stream media (but I repeat myself) to go along. The entire topic will evaporate in the end.

It is very likely that all or some of the posters in favor of this Obama proposal are part of the campaign. To think otherwise would mean that some of our neighbors are sentient beings who have grown to older age and actually believe that it is perfectly sensible to restrict the rights of citizens who have been put on a secret list by unknown people for an unknown reason. That would mean they are truly dolts. I don't believe that.