Concise Conservative Comebacks for Loony Leftist Lines

With the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, Leftists have been throwing out all sorts of arguments why we (meaning they) can’t allow this to happen. Don’t you wish you had a handy dandy guide to help you refute those arguments?

Well, I’m going to try to provide one. Granted, I try not to think like a Leftist for too long because it makes my head hurt and I might not come back, but for you, I’ll make an exception. Let’s take a look at some of the Left’s arguments (which I have put in bold to separate them from my responses) and some of my responses (which I have not put in bold to separate them from the Left’s arguments). Yes, I know that last one was redundant, but when dealing with Leftists, it’s best to make absolutely sure. Where applicable, I have tried to make it into a back-and-forth conversation, but if the Leftist jumps to a different argument than the order in which I have written responses, just jump to the appropriate response and go from there.

Ready? Here we go!

Donald Trump shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a Supreme Court Justice while he’s under investigation.

What investigation is that?

That he conspired with Russia to help him win the Presidency.

Oh, that investigation! Seems former FBI Director James Comey and special prosecutor Robert Mueller, both of whom you’ve lauded in the past, have both said Trump is not under investigation. In fact, of the indictments to date, none have been against Trump, nor have they been linked to Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign. All the accusers have at this point is guilt by association, which doesn’t stand up to legal scrutiny.

But what about all of those connections between Trump and Russia? Surely they prove collusion!

Not quite. Much of what you’re focusing on occurred before Trump was President. It could be argued the terms of impeachment spelled out in the Constitution, along with Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 which prohibit actions that punish an individual retroactively (a little thing the kids call ex post facto), mean Trump’s alleged actions would not be legal grounds for impeachment. As a private citizen, which Trump was at the time of the alleged collusion, Trump could conduct business with anyone he chose, even the evil Russians (which people like former President Barack Obama defended against allegations they were bad folks). And, on top of all that, collusion isn’t expressly illegal. That’s where the bar of “high crimes and misdemeanors” comes into play. If no laws were broken, impeachment isn’t a good and true option.

So what? If Trump gets to pick the next Supreme Court Justice, he could be picking someone who would rule on any case involving him!

Strangely enough, you have half of a point here. Appointing a Supreme Court Justice means that Justice might have to hear cases involving the President who appointed him or her. That’s why it’s expected any judge with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from any case that they have a personal stake in the outcome.

See? You’ve just made my point for me!

I’m not finished. Just because you should recuse yourself doesn’t mean you will. In my lifetime, there have been cases where a Justice should have recused himself or herself and didn’t. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself during cases involving health insurance since his wife works in that industry. On the other side, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor should have recused themselves from any rulings on Obamacare because both had direct impacts on it. And let’s not forget Justice Ginsburg, who officiated a same-sex wedding before she ruled on a Supreme Court case involving same-sex marriages. If you’re afraid of a Justice being influenced to vote a certain way because of who appointed him or her, you’ve had plenty of opportunities to say something.

But Kennedy’s son was Trump’s banker!

So what?

So that means Trump could have put pressure on Kennedy to retire early! Doesn’t that trouble you?

The operative words are “could have.” Trump could have talked Kennedy into retiring, or Kennedy could have come to that conclusion on his own. Without plausible evidence to confirm the President pressured Kennedy into retiring, we have to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Well, that and the fact further evidence shows Kennedy’s son did not do business with Trump directly. The bank he was working for at the time did. That’s like blaming Ford for having trouble with your Chevy Volt.

Let’s go back to the appointing of the Justice ruling on a case Trump’s involved in. How can you reconcile that?

Easy. Precedent states the President cannot be charged legally with a crime while in office. That leaves impeachment as the means to remove Trump, and of all the Supreme Court Justices that would be involved, it is only Chief Justice John Roberts who would be involved, since the Constitution states the Chief Justice presides over the Senate portion of impeachment. And since Roberts was appointed before Trump was even a nominee, there is no conflict.

What about Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland? Shouldn’t we wait until the elections are over, as McConnell said in 2016?

There’s a big difference between a Presidential election and a mid-term election. In 2016, McConnell relied upon what is loosely called “the Biden Rule”, but one that is backed up by Senate history. Traditionally, no Supreme Court nominations are made in Presidential election years since there is a chance the incoming President would not get to choose a nominee, which undercuts the power of the Presidency as outlined in, surprise surprise, the Constitution.

This year, there is no Presidential election; only the election of House and Senate members. There is no affect on Presidential powers, so there is no reason to hold off on the process. Not to mention, there is a current Supreme Court Justice who was appointed in a mid-term election year. Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010…with support of Republicans. Not liking who is President is not an excuse to delay the process.

Okay, okay, but shouldn’t Merrick Garland get a hearing, given how Senate Republicans sat on his nomination?

I actually have no problem with this, mainly because it’s pretty much a guarantee Garland wouldn’t get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

But Garland never got a hearing! That’s a stolen Supreme Court seat!

In order for something to be stolen, it must first be owned. The Supreme Court is not owned by any one President or political party, so President Obama didn’t get an automatic appointment because he was President at the time the vacancy occurred. Thanks to a bit of Senate history, Supreme Court Justices aren’t nominated in Presidential election years. Only when that bit of history comes back to bite the Left in the ass does it become an issue.

To go even further into this, the Constitution states the Senate gives “advice and consent” for judicial nominees. Nowhere is there a requirement for any nominee to go through a confirmation hearing. Really, the hearing is for grandstanding politicians to look like they’re doing something when they’re acting like hams.

Well…okay, but what about Brett Kavanaugh? Don’t you right wingers want Roe v . Wade overturned?

First off, Kavanaugh said he considers Roe v. Wade to be settled law and would not consider overturning it. Even if he’s changed his mind, there would need to be a legal challenge to Roe that would need to get through multiple judicial layers before it would even reach the Supreme Court. Will that happen? We don’t know.

Even if Roe gets overturned, the decision to allow abortions would go back to the states. We can argue whether that’s good or bad, but it’s a discussion that should be welcomed by all parties involved. Until Roe comes back before the High Court, though, it’s still just theoretical.

But Kavanaugh is a practicing Catholic! Don’t they want abortion outlawed?

Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic, and she doesn’t want abortion outlawed.

Kavanaugh’s faith plays no role in determine whether he’s fit for the Supreme Court. Remember, the Constitution states there is no religious test to serve, so he could be an atheist and still not be disqualified.

What about gay marriage, civil rights, and other important issues? Kavanaugh will set us back on those and a lot more!

Again, there has to be a legal challenge that makes its way through the courts before it even gets heard by the Supreme Court. And that process isn’t quick, kids. It might be years before such a challenge gets heard.

Didn’t Kavanaugh say a sitting President shouldn’t be indicted or tried?

He did.

So, why should he be a Supreme Court Justice if he feels that way? No President should be above the law.

Because in that same piece you’re quoting from, he goes on to say Congress should change the law. In other words, Kavanaugh feels the current system needs to be changed and wants the body charged with making laws to do it, just as the Constitution dictates.

You keep talking about the Constitution. That’s outdated and should be revamped to reflect current values.

The Founding Fathers already accounted for that. If you can get enough support for your ideas, you can call for a Convention of the States and have the Constitution changed. With today’s political climate, I wish you the best of luck.

Even if you don’t want to go through the trouble of amending the Constitution, it should be pointed out the Constitution has already been interpreted to address many of the issues you hold dear. You may not feel like it’s progressive or conservative enough, but the judicial branch can be persuaded. How far those interpretations deviate from the source material may be an issue, but to call the Constitution outdated is to ignore the framework it provides us to change with the times.

Well, the Constitution doesn’t say how many Supreme Court Justices there need to be, so we should add more Justices so there is a better balance of ideologies.

That is a good point, actually. However, that has the potential to backfire. Remember, when you allow one President to do something, future Presidents can pick up that permission and run with it. Want to see 25 Antonin Scalia-type judges sitting on the High Bench?

Well, maybe we should put term limits on Supreme Court Justices.

Although it might seem like a good idea to limit the terms of Justices, the reason Justices have lifetime appointments is to avoid political favoritism. And when we look at the current Supreme Court makeup, the Justices who lean Left put their ideology above the Constitution. The Justices who lean Right tend to do the opposite. Besides, if we put term limits on Justices, we might be looking at another Merrick Garland situation, especially if the terms are to be 19 years, as is what is being suggested. Then, we might be right back where we started from and nothing will be solved.

Stop talking to me you racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot/Trumpster/insult-du-joir!


And there we have it. Use this as a guide, and may the fates be ever in your favor!

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Left has tried everything they could think of to get rid of President Donald Trump, but so far they’ve been unsuccessful. Russia? I’ve seen more evidence of the existence of Bigfoot than I have proof of any collusion between Trump and Russia. Emoluments clause? I’m surprised Leftists can spell “emoluments” let alone figure out how it relates to Trump. Insisting the popular vote should determine who is President? Sorry, but Al Gore took the initiative in inventing that excuse and what did it get him? The title of former Vice President and loser of the 2000 Presidential election.

Impeachment? Calls to step down? Maxine Waters threatening to use her considerable power to bring down Trump under any circumstances? Three strikes, and you’re out.

But now, the Left thinks they have the answer, the silver bullet that will end their Trump-fueled nightmares, the 25th Amendment. But is it the answer to their prayers, or just another Hail Obama? Let’s find out!

25th Amendment

What the Left believes it means – a Constitutional Amendment that will allow them to remove Donald Trump from the White House

What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that provides for the line of succession should the President be unable to perform the duties of the office

The part of the 25th Amendment the Left is fixating on is Section 4, which reads as follows:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

To put it in simple language, if the Vice President and enough Cabinet members or a house of Congress writes the President incapable of performing the duties of the job, the President is out the door faster than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch when he hears Hillary is in town. That’s a pretty tall order. After all, the President is the one who hired his Cabinet and Vice President, and Congress is full of people who aren’t fit to tie their shoes, let alone comment on the fitness of the President. (See the aforementioned Maxine Waters.)

So, what we have here is a failure to remunerate the proof Donald Trump is unfit for the White House. The Left loves to point to his tweets as proof he is mentally unstable, but that’s hardly sufficient proof for me. I mean, Kanye West tweets and he hasn’t been sent to Bellevue yet in spite of being more unhinged than a trailer door during a tornado. Anyone on the Left want to put Keith Olbermann on notice? How about Rosie O’Donnell? Heck, if you wanted to take it that far, most of the “reporters” in the mainstream media who lean Left would have to set up shop at the funny farm. And if that happened, the quality of reporting would automatically skyrocket by subtraction. Hmmm…maybe there’s something to that line of thinking…

The biggest problem with the Left’s obsession with the 25th Amendment is it requires a leap of faith on their part that Republicans will turn on Trump. Granted, some would, others might, but most would not. And, no, it’s not due to “party before country.” It’s because they realize Trump didn’t do anything to warrant removing him from office. On the other hand, the Left is putting party before country by taking the position it has. Plus, it has one major drawback: precedent.

During Barack Obama’s 8 years in the White House, he blundered quite a bit to the point Republicans could have brought up the 25th Amendment to have Obama removed, especially after 2010. They didn’t. Now, Leftists will say it’s because Obama wasn’t mentally incompetent, but let me remind you this is the same man who said he visited 57 states (and had 3 more to visit), couldn’t pronounce corpsmen right, and blamed a YouTube video for the attack on the embassy in Benghazi. Granted, the Left will say these aren’t examples of mental incompetence, but let’s also remember how the Left treated George W. Bush and his numerous miscues, verbal gaffes, and questionable decisions. Yeah, let’s just say they were far more generous with Obama than they were with Bush. The fact Republicans didn’t pull the 25th Amendment trigger on Obama shows incredible restraint, or at least a better understanding of the Constitution.

Another major drawback to what the Left is trying to do with the 25th Amendment is it exists primarily in an echo chamber amplified by people with similar ideological bents. When one Leftist goes off on a Trump tweet (or even a tweet from a parody account for Sean Spicer), it gets circulated and repeated. Then, more Leftists react to it with disgust (and maybe adds the call to impeach/remove/arrest/depose Trump), and the cycle continues.

The problem with an echo chamber is it gives the impression of multiple voices due to volume, but it may not be an accurate impression. Think of the boy who cried wolf. Now, picture that with millions of boys crying wolf millions of times. That’s how a lot of ideas get spread these days. You know, like Hillary Clinton being the most qualified person ever to run for President? With so many people paying less attention to politics and more attention to whichever Kardashian is doing something stupid this minute, correcting false information spread by the echo chamber is a Herculean task.

Guess what I think the whole 25th Amendment discussion with the Left is.

After losing the 2016 election, the Left is desperate to try to change the outcome after the fact. And believe me there are a lot of Leftists who think if you get rid of Trump that Hillary automatically becomes President. Once you stop laughing at the absurdity, you realize they’re not trying to be funny.

This is why it’s important to look at the endgame of any political movement. Once you figure out what the movement wants to accomplish, you can see how the proponents want to achieve its goals. And the 25th Amendment is the latest attempt to undo the 2016 election, and it’s as based in reality and plausibility as a science fiction book written by Cher.

 

Constitutional Convention Calls

There is a lot of talk about holding a Constitutional Convention, a Convention of the States, as outlined in Article V of the US Constitution. This is a dangerous notion. And one that must be opposed at every level and opportunity.

This talk isn’t new. I have seen it on past election ballots before. And I have always opposed such measures and always will. It is a great danger to our Country, our States, and our People. It is a greater danger to our Republic, our freedoms, and our Liberties.

A Constitutional Convention after the year 1808 allows the delegates to change anything and everything in the Constitution. Including scrapping our current Constitution and creating a brand new one.

This raises the question on the character of delegates to this Constitutional Convention. Are they going to protect the Republic? Are they going to defend Liberty? Do they have the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers? Unfortunately the answer to all of those is probably not. Which is why we cannot afford such a convention.

The writings of our Founding Fathers show that they were hesitant in adding Article V to the Constitution. They were afraid it would be used. That is why it had restrictions written into it until 1808. To ensure a generation of Liberty and the Republic . They never saw a time when our Liberties and the Republic would fall from within.

Oppose any attempt to call a Constitutional Convention or Convention of the States under Article V of the Constitution with every breath of life you have. The American Republic depends on preserving the Constitution. No rewriting it. Our children, our grand children, and the generations yet to be born need the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers, not one written in the 21st century.

 

Impeachment of the President

This meme is now floating around Social Media so it should be debunked for the nonsense and misinformation that it contains.

There were 4 charges against President Clinton when the US House started impeachment proceedings against him. 2 counts of perjury, that is lying to a grand jury while under oath. 1 count of obstruction of justice and 1 count of abuse of power.

The US House succeeded in impeaching President Clinton on 2 of the 4 charges. 1 charge of perjury and 1 charge of obstruction of justice. The impeachment trial was handed to the US Senate which ended in an acquittal.

Per Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution. The President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Not the speculation of, hearsay of, rumors of, alleged crimes. Just like any Citizen, even the President is to be given a fair trial. When the President is tried for Impeachment within the US Senate, the Chief Justice presides over the trial and there must be two thirds majority to gain a conviction. And the US House determines if the President or any other civil Officer is going to be impeached.

As of yet, there is no evidence that our 45th President has committed any crime that is impeachable by the US House. Only memes, misinformation, and nonsense posted on Social Media. You cannot impeach the President for winning the election because you voted for another candidate.

 

The Dying Republic

Our Republic is dying. Most of our citizens don’t know we live in a Republic. And as Ben Franklin told the woman in the town square at our nation’s founding as to what type of government was created he said. “A Republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

How can we hope to keep it when so much has been forgotten, lied about, and misrepresented. When so many think and act like we have something else entirely.

Our founding fathers would be appalled to see what has happened to their creation. And would chastise us for allowing it to happen.

So as a refresher. The United States of America is a Republic. It is NOT a democracy of any kind nor is it any other type of government. Never refer to the United States as a democracy.

We have three branches of government. The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. Our founding fathers separated these powers so they would not be in the hands of just one body or one man. And contrary to the popular belief, they are all not equal.

The framers of the Constitution knew full well the dangers that Judges could become. They are not elected and hold their positions for life unless removed from office. They can become would-be kings and tyrants under the right conditions. So the framers purposely made the Judicial branch the weakest of the three. Giving it very limited powers and authority.

They also knew that if power was not limited, the other branches would seize all power for themselves. So the Constitution was also written to limit the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches as well. Giving all unnamed powers to the States or the people.

To keep things simple so even, as they say, a 5th grader can understand. Here is exactly what the three branches of government can do in the United States according to the Constitution.

The Legislative branch, made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate, writes laws.

The Executive branch, made up of the President, Vice President, and Cabinet, confirms and enforces laws.

The Judicial branch, made up of the Supreme Court and all inferior courts, applies the laws.

But today we have a Legislative branch that does not crack down on a run-a-way Judicial branch. And unfortunately this has been going on since the early 1800’s. The Judicial branch slowly eroding away the barriers put in place by our founding fathers.

No where in the Constitution does the Judicial branch have the power or the authority to interpret the law or declare any Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. The Courts have given themselves these powers in their own opinions they have written. And these are the very things that our founding fathers were worried about happening. It is why the Constitution is framed the way it is framed.

Our citizens used to know what our government was and how it worked. They used to know the importance of Liberty and true freedom. They used to know that these were things to fight for and die to protect for themselves and future generations. Our Republic is dying and we have let it happen. Apathy, ignorance, and taking it for granted have become the enemies of this great Republic. But the tide can still be changed.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Like it or not, theft is a part of human history. From the first time Og saw something Grog had and wanted, the idea of taking what doesn’t belong to you has been a part of us as a species. Even though we’ve advanced from Og and Grog’s day (we now have a federal government to steal from and for us), we still have theft, from the small to the grand.

To hear Leftists talk these days, Donald Trump successfully stole a seat on the US Supreme Court with the help of Senate Republicans. See, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland last year to fill a vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings since it was the last year of Obama’s Presidency. After much kicking, screaming, swearing, and general pouting, the Left have now stated Trump should not be allowed to nominate anyone until Garland is given a hearing, citing Trump “stole a seat.”

Brace yourselves, kids. This one is going to be a doozy.

stolen seat

What the Left believes it means – a spot on the Supreme Court taken by Donald Trump and Senate Republicans that should go to Merrick Garland

What it really means – the Left are still being sore losers

Before we speak about the present, we need to take a step back to talk about the Garland nomination. Although President Obama nominated him, there is no requirement for there to be confirmation hearings. The Constitution states the Senate is to give “advice and consent” on nominees, but it doesn’t go into detail as to the form this advice and consent is to take. The confirmation hearing is a Senate creation and has given us such memorable moments as Republican nominees being grilled like a Chik Fil A sandwich, and Republicans rolling over for Democrat nominees.

Back when Democrats thought Hillary Clinton would win, they warned Republicans not to block Garland’s nomination because they were going to keep the White House. Yeah, how’d that work out for ya? Pretty good?

Now that they are not only out of the White House for the short and possibly long term, but also in the minority of the Senate, Democrats are relying on the stupidity of their followers to create a crisis where there is none. Trump’s victory means he gets to nominate whomever he wants to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Period. Full stop. The End. Thank you for playing, and here are your lovely parting gifts.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I reject the “stolen seat” notion completely because it was never the Left’s seat to begin with. The fact Obama nominated someone to fill the vacancy is immaterial. It does not grant ownership of said seat to any one party or ideology.

But, as with most things Leftists complain about, there’s more to the story. With Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court stood at 8 members. Four of the Justices vote consistently to the Left, three vote to the Right, and one is a wild card that votes inconsistently for either side. Garland’s successful appointment to the Supreme Court would give the Left a minimum of a 5-4 decision in their favor in practically every case that got to the high court.

Then, Donald Trump won the Presidency and that Leftist Supreme Court wet dream became a pipe dream. Now, the Left can still count on their 4 favorite Justices to vote the way they want, but the Right may have 4 Justices of their own if/when Gorsuch gets confirmed by a Republican-lead Senate. Granted, the Left may still get 5-4 decisions, but they aren’t going to be guaranteed. Then, the Leftist Justices will have to actually make compelling arguments to create the majorities they want.

And we know how Leftists hate to actually work for something.

When you consider the Left feels Trump stole the 2016 election by, you know, actually campaigning in states instead of letting Hillary win them, the “stolen seat” idea isn’t that unusual. The Left is trying to find any way they can to instill doubt in people’s minds that Trump is legitimate, so if they can get enough people to think he’s a thief they will get what they want.

The problem is the more they rely on this line of thinking, the less effective it becomes. And it doesn’t get any easier when there is no evidence to back up the notion Trump stole anything. But a lack of facts hasn’t stopped the Left before, so it’s not going to stop them now. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to play along, does it?

 

Good Idea or Bad Idea?

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Democrats decided to recycle an idea they introduced last year: banning people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from getting guns. (At least they believe in recycling something!) On the surface, it makes sense. We don’t want terrorists getting guns, right? Absolutely.

So, why aren’t more people on the Right on board with this idea? A little thing the kids like to call “due process.” It might be just a fad, though, if some people get their way.

Put simply (so Leftists can understand it), due process requires people not be denied their fundamental rights without there being some sort of legal action. Although the FBI is an arm of law enforcement, it is not equal to a trial where little things like evidence and sworn testimony can be used to determine guilt.

Still unclear about this concept, Leftists? Let’s try something closer to your political hearts. Due process prevents cops from throwing members of Black Lives Matter into solitary confinement before the BLM clowns get their case heard in court. After they’re found guilty, then the BLM clowns get thrown into solitary. There are no short-cuts in the process, kids.

Even if you’re not down with due process, there’s another huge (or YUGE if you’re a Trump supporter) problem with the FBI’s watch list. The way you get on the list in the first place is completely arbitrary. You don’t even need to be an actual terrorist to land on it! In fact, you could be an actual terrorist and not land on it. (See the Boston Marathon bombers for a prime example.) And if you’re a mother of three from Minneapolis with the oh-so-Muslim-sounding name of Lena Olson, you could wind up on it by mistake.

Yeah, that’s not exactly a “whoops.”

And it’s not exactly something we can gloss over, either. Since 9/11, we as a society have been willing on some level to let some rights go by the wayside. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the fear of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, to weaken the concept of due process for their own political ends. This continues today, as does the inefficiency and ineptitude of those who keep and maintain the watch list.

That, in and of itself, is not a valid enough reason to apply the watch list to whether someone should be allowed to get a gun. But I do have an idea, and I’m hoping the Left (and some people on the Right) have the intellectual courage to act on it.

If you support the Democrats’ proposal, volunteer to go on the watch list. Even if your name is Lena Olson. Report yourself to the FBI as a suspected terrorist, just to be on the safe side. If it saves just one life…