Oh man, entertainment abounds today. Who knew C-SPAN could be so dang entertaining? Kavanaugh, or how I prefer to refer to him after today, Kava-Naw. Do those who support him, do so, because they genuinely support Kavanaugh or because they support President Trump? Do those who oppose Kavanaugh, do so, because they genuinely oppose him, or do they oppose Kavanaugh because they oppose Trump? The answer is rather obvious for those whom oppose, politics, plain and simple. The mid-terms are approaching and the Dems are deathly afraid of what will happen if they lose in the mid-terms.

The biggest question surrounding Kava-Naw, is whether or not he may overturn Roe versus Wade, the notorious and extremely controversial decision on abortion. The flaw in the abortion argument is, those who support abortion, also support limiting the 1STAmendment, and doing away with the 2NDAmendment. Meanwhile the 13thAmendment still allows slavery as punishment for a crime.


The Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What is the definition of APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION?

Those who want to stand on racial platforms to promote their candidacy, seem to always ignore this. Why is that you may ask? Because once the 1STAmendment is limited and the 2NDAmendment is stricken from the Bill of Rights, they will force us into involuntary servitude, based on new laws forbidding “hate speech” and firearm possession.

Oppose Kavanaugh and convince everyone that we would all be safer without guns and without hate speech, pass new laws and continue the limitation of rights, slavery takes place again. Support Kavanaugh and say what you want, and keep your guns. Then again, Kava-Naw also supports spying on American citizens. It’s a win win and a lose lose, no matter the outcome. Kava-Naw or Kava-Yeah?


26 thoughts on “Kava-Naw

  1. I think they keep that there for the draft in relation to “UCMJ Article 108: Destruction of Government Property”

    I was once charged because I broke my hand while in the military under that article. I broke my hand off base.

  2. All of this is manufactured, ‘Much Ado About Nothing’. Kavanaugh is no better or no worse than Gorsich. He’s already stated that Roe v. Wade is “settled law”:
    Sounds to me like there is more sweat on brows about ‘other reversals’…

    “Some Supreme Court precedents that could be most immediately vulnerable are lesser-known ones, such as a 1997 case called Auer v. Robbins, which says judges owe deference to government agencies’ interpretation of their own regulations. Conservatives have said that doctrine gives too much unchecked authority to administrative agencies.”

    That statement dovetails with Sen. Ben Sasse’s Congressional ass-chewing:

    There are those that don’t like the term “Constitutionalist” because of worries of overturning previous rulings. Abortion rights aren’t declared in the Constitution like slavery is. Many think that being ‘strict’ on the Constitution is code for ‘anything not IN the Constitution should be overturned’. Knee-jerk hysteria…

    Regarding his ‘supporting spying on American citizens’… There is a large difference between ruling on cases based upon existing rules & regs set up by an un-elected alphabet agency (supported by whatever Prez. is sitting) and actually ‘agreeing’ with the rules & regs. One can disagree with a law, a rule or a reg. but, rule in the favor of any of them because they are applicable to a case (I refer to Auer v Robbins above). Wouldn’t it make heads spin if the accusation of “supporting spying” gets blasted away if the above 1997 case is re-visited and he pens a dissent against said agencies and their “spying”. Hmmm…

    Judges don’t decide LAW. That’s the problem everyone is having. Many act like they do, legislating and steering things from the bench. Impartiality is that thing you practice despite your “feelings”. It is a rare thing to witness but, juries have the ability to decide a court case in declaring that a law is unjust.

    Who are the law makers? I refer to the video above. It’s not a judge’s duty to re-write a law…only apply it, for better or worse or, rule when they conflict. Roe v Wade isn’t a law. It is a ruling. There were laws in place criminalizing or restricting abortion and the court declared those laws in violation of privacy under due process of the 14th Amendment. If Kavanaugh turns out to be a strong Constutionalist, Roe v Wade is a clear, clear non-issue.

    Regarding your 13th Amendment “appropriate legislation” question:
    Two Acts are listed as being referred to for Section 2.

    Did Kavanaugh have a hand in crafting Bush Era surveillance rules & regs as the ACLU suggests? I don’t know. That could be the stink over the “Executive Privilege” thing. Honestly, I think that withheld paperwork will be a hell of a lot more damning for the Bush Admin. than for Kavanaugh.

    This circus is all about Trump. I’m no fan of his by any stretch of the imagination. Kavanaugh? I don’t know. I don’t have a dog in this hunt. My hero right now is Ben Sasse. “Bring back School House Rock…” Hear, hear!!! LOL!

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Damn, outstanding friggin break down. Thorough, concise and straightforward. Your insight is a breath of fresh air. I agree, the outrage coming from the left has more to do with their fear of the right adopting their behavior. As practically all leftist judges have exemplified for the past 10 or so years. After viewing some of the clips yesterday, I admit that I revel in their manufactured outrage, friggin extremist Linda Sarsour was there, dat bitch had to be physically removed she was causing such a commotion.Part of me hopes that more and more conservative judges will be appointed, but I must remind myself, the pendulum always swings both ways. Thank you for the incredible comment.

      1. Thank you. I call ’em as I see ’em.

        On the issue of Kav’s involvement with crafting terrorism guidelines during the Bush Admin., Orrin Hatch just covered that. Kav stated that he was never “read in” during any of that (i.e. “no clearence”). So, I’m back to my original speculation…all that screaming over “Exec. Priv.”…Bush is covering HIS ass & his partners in crime. And, probably his whole f****** family. Daddy G.H.W. has dirty hands over MANY things. I am not one to hate but, I come within a hair’s width regarding him. That c***s****r can’t die fast enough to suit me.

        That whole family is “eat up” with some dark s***, going back generations.

        1. bottomlesscoffee007

          I guess the same can be said of McCain. Wasn’t his fingerprints all over the Russian Dossier? Perhaps his death was a bit too convenient!!!!

              1. You may be right. He may have been given the choice to “fall on your own sword” for his family’s sake or risk exposure. He gets a spot in Arlington with his “hero” status instead of a “Benedict Arnold” historical black mark.

                Can you see the press conference if his deeds were displayed…
                “Meghan! Meghan! How does it feel to be the daughter of an executed traitor? Did he have any final words before his neck snapped (head exploded)? Have you been contacted by any surviving family members from the USS Forrestal disaster? Meghan! Meghan!”

                1. bottomlesscoffee007

                  Meghan is a rino, plain and simple. The things that McCain did while he was in power were criminal at the least. He traveled the globe, pandered in other countries election process. He was a war monger and a liar. When I voted for him in 2008, I hoped that he would die and Palin would be the first woman president. The entire McCain dynasty is sullied in politics and favoritisms. Why else would Meghan leave fox and join the View, it’s all a setup. Nothing is mere happenstance. Their values change with the wind and the dollar. Meanwhile the Catholics and the pope are off the hook and the attention is back on trump. The district and the constituents he leaves behind are now being represented by a person whom they didn’t elect.

  3. You bring up a valid point – we no longer seem to judge a person based on their merits. And like you said – those who oppose the President will oppose anything and everything that is remotely related to him. It’s really sad. To be blinded by something that has nothing to do with the person you’re choosing. Of course, it goes both ways. We need more critical thinking.

  4. He was a nasty war hawk. And, Meghan is a media whore.

    I didn’t vote in 2008…in fact, the only time I have voted was for Reagan Part Deux, state elections in Texas and for our local Sheriff, here (which I now regret). Palin would have been a trip as the first female Prez but, would have suffered from multiple assassination attempts.

    Regarding Jon Kyl, read the 17th Amendment.

    1. bottomlesscoffee007

      Touché, I have been bested! Thanks for the clarification regarding Jon Kyl. This is what I set out to do, discussion and conversation that aids in understanding. Thank you Hinoeuma.

      1. Hey. No “one upmanship” here. I am a lover of truth and a sharer of knowledge…good or bad. Score keeping is for strip poker.

        Call me Vic, 007. I am a Victoria Lea…at your service, Sir.

Please Like This Post, Follow and Comment to Aid in the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.