Tuesday, October 2, 2018


In the rush to include Canada in the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), now being referred to by some in the press as NAFTA 2.0, before the witching hour of midnight Sunday, the United States “finessed” the agreement, according to various press reports. Last Friday, the liberal Toronto Star first leaked about the coming “finesse”: “The dispute resolution impasse [over sovereignty-threatening Chapter 19 in the original NAFTA] could be finessed.” (Emphasis added.)
Late Sunday afternoon, the Wall Street Journal confirmed that the United States could fold in order to keep Canada in the deal by noting that “there are still ways to finesse deadlines and processes to work Canada into the deal before NAFTA 2.0 ultimately takes effect.” (Emphasis added.)
Just before midnight Sunday, another writer at the Wall Street Journal wrote that Trump’s demand to eliminate Chapter 19 altogether from the USMCA disappeared entirely under pressure from those who wanted to keep it:
A broad coalition of Republican and Democratic members of Congress, joined by leaders from American business and labor organizations, have made clear in recent days they would be unlikely to support a revised NAFTA that doesn’t include Canada.
In response, Trump officials [including globalist Robert Lighthizer as Trump’s trade representative and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, who, said various sources, “brokered the deal”] suggested they would try to find ways to finesse the procedures and deadlines to leave the door open for Ottawa to be part of Nafta 2.0 before an agreement was submitted to Congress for consideration. [Emphasis added.]
Merriam-Webster defines “finesse” as “a skillful handling of a situation, [an] adroit maneuvering.” Regarding this instance, Merriam-Webster could have added: “utter collapse of previous nonnegotiable demands covered up with pronouncements to the contrary in order to get a deal done.”
And an utter collapse it was, as the Wall Street Journal noted in its coverage early Monday morning: “The United States compromised by dropping its demands to scrap the original treaty’s Chapter 19 provisions [creating] the special NAFTA courts allowing member states to challenge trade restrictions imposed by the others.”
This was no compromise. It was an utter collapse — a treacherous sellout of precious sovereignty in order to keep Canada in NAFTA 2.0. The Journal’s writers covering the “finesse” of American interests in favor of supporting globalism tried to handle the collapse “adroitly”:
Trump officials argued such courts infringed American sovereignty, but Canada sees the panels [supra-national courts operating under Chapter 19 that essentially allow unelected bureaucrats to bypass America’s Constitution] as vital to protecting its industries against what officials consider frequent improper tariffs imposed by the U.S. — concerns heightened by the Trump administration’s aggressive moves to block a range of Canadian exports from lumber to aircraft.
There’s the treachery: giving up essential constitutional guarantees with long-term negative implications for national sovereignty in order to cut a deal with socialists in Canada, Mexico, and supporters inside the Trump administration who cherish a global community in place of sovereign nations making their own enforceable decisions according to the will of their people.
There are other parts to the USMCA related to demands that automakers make sure that much of those vehicles are built by high-paid workers and that unions gain substantial inroads into Mexican industry, all in the name of fairness and equity. But these fade in importance when compared to the retention of the odious Chapter 19.
There remains an opportunity to stop NAFTA 2.0. Noted the Wall Street Journal
Despite the upbeat official rhetoric [President Trump called USMCA a “wonderful new Trade Deal” that’s a “great deal for all three countries”], much work remains before a new Nafta takes effect. The agreement must win ratification by the U.S. Congress, where trade deals have become increasingly difficult to pass….
Administration officials said they don’t expect the [new NAFTA 2.0] pact to face a Congressional vote until next year, when the House may be under control of Trump-hostile Democrats reluctant to support any of the president’s initiatives.
This gives more time for activists who see the sovereignty-threatening dangers of keeping Chapter 19 in NAFTA 2.0 to create awareness among their peers and to pressure their elected representatives in Congress to vote against it. It’s not a “wonderful new Trade Deal,” Mr. President, but the same old wolf all dressed up in new clothing. You gave away your trump card in order to cut this deal. Shame on you. 
Related articles: 

USMCA: NAFTA on NWO Steroids

With the renegotiated text of the new NAFTA just released, early reports indicate that globalists have quite the plan for North America. We scratch the surface of the USMCA to present initial evidence in this episode of Analysis Behind the News.
New NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Revealed
"Submission to International Authority:"
"Consistent with other globalist schemes, the USMCA follows the “rules-based system” of compliance to international authorities such as the World Trade Organization, International Labor Organization, a plethora of United Nations conventions including the Law of Sea treaty, and the furtherance of “sustainable development,” which is mentioned no less than six times in the environment chapter."
"Under this scheme, the United States will be required to surrender its sovereignty in order for a chance to be a member of the winning team. Americans have been lied to and duped by their government into believing that their elected leaders are working in their interest, only to subordinate America's interests to those of North America. It's only a matter of time before the same charade is pulled on North America in order to integrate it with the world's other regional trade blocs (i.e. the European Union, African Union, Union of South America, Eurasian Economic Union, RCEP, TPP, T-TIP) into one world economic union and commission, under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization."
"The result of “promoting further economic integration” among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, necessitating the creation of an all-powerful, unelected so-called Free Trade Commission will be nothing less than a North American Union, and that alone should motivate patriotic Americans to vehemently reject the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement."
"Far from making America great again, the USMCA is a bag of goodies for globalists and a death certificate for American national sovereignty."
President Trump EXPLOSIVE Press Conference on New USMCA Trade Deal with Canada, Mexico
Trump Slays Globalist Slave System; 
But Reverses Himself With Globalist Trade Deal?
President Trump recently called out the globalists at the United Nations. Like throwing a pail of water on the wicked witch of the West. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has lashed out in desperation. Making, what could be,her last stand for globalism. Meanwhile populism and outrage reach a crescendo as the United Nations migration plan and its heavy toll decimate the sovereignty revered by the people.
NAFTA Collapses: A New Era of Economic Nationalism WINS!!! By Dr. Steve Turley
Real News: NAFTA: A Win For Globalism Or Liberty?
New trade agreement between America, Mexico, Canada;  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Trump administration has announced a new pact between the U.S., Mexico and Canada regarding a restructured North American Free Trade Agreement.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Jihadists have used drugs to fund their efforts for years. Years ago, in his study of the Taliban, journalist Ahmed Rashid reported: “Abdul Rashid, the head of the Taliban’s anti-drugs control force in Kandahar, spelled out the nature of his unique job. He is authorized to impose a strict ban on the growing of hashish, ‘because it is consumed by Afghans and Muslims.’ But, Rashid tells me without a hint of sarcasm, ‘Opium is permissible because it is consumed by kafirs [unbelievers] in the West and not by Muslims or Afghans.’ This seems to have been a common view among the Taliban. Another Taliban named Khaled asked, ‘Who cares if heroin is wreaking havoc in the West? It doesn’t matter; they aren’t Muslims.’”
“1,566 Pounds of Heroin Found in Iranian Trucks Entering EU from Turkey,” Associated Press, September 29, 2018 (thanks to Joshua):
SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) – Bulgarian customs officials say they have seized 712 kilograms (1,566 pounds) of heroin found in two Iranian trucks entering Bulgaria from Turkey.
Officials on Saturday valued the record heroin haul at 23 million euros ($27 million).
The drugs were found in two Iran-registered trucks at the Kapitan Andreevo checkpoint on the Turkish border. They were carrying construction materials and were bound for Austria….
The two drivers, both Iranian citizens, were detained and could face up to 20 years in jail if convicted on drug trafficking charges.


Prosecutor: Kavanaugh Allegation “Weaker” Than “He Said, She Said”
The outside prosecutor who questioned Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford released her independent assessment. One America's Stephanie Myers details her report.
Rachel Mitchell Calls Dr. Ford's Testimony into Question
"Rachel Mitchell's report is now public. The long-term prosecutor says, 'Look, something smells.' She says Ford's memories have clearly been affected by Democrats and her attorneys. That's right. This circus has influenced the accuser to the point that her story should be questioned." —Grant Stinchfield

Rachel Mitchell Points Out Massive Holes in Dr. Ford's Testimony

Mitchell has nine issues with allegation
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor tapped by senators to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, said it was “weaker” than a “he said, she said” case in a report she wrote to lawmakers.
Mitchell, who has experience working sex crime cases for the Maricopa County attorney’s office, submitted a report on Sept. 30 which outlined her findings and her own independent assessment from a purely legal context.
“In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove, but this case is even weaker than that,” she wrote. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”
Mitchell brought up the following nine points she said were issues:
  1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
  2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
  3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
  4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could help corroborate her account.
  5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended – including her lifelong friend.
  6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
  7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events related to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
  8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
  9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
You can read the full report below:
Unfortunately, the pushback against Kavanaugh’s nomination stems from emotionally-driven politics, meaning that the legal, logical context of the report likely won’t redefine the battle lines – but it does put the context of the fight into focus.
Kavanaugh Is The Test Case For Trump Impeachment Using The #Metoo Hoax



Dissent from the Leftist line and you will be silenced

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
It has long been obvious that Facebook is no friend of the freedom of speech, and is especially tough on foes of jihad terror and the massive Muslim migrant influx into the West, and so it was perhaps inevitable that this would happen. The Facebook fascists, of course, do their best to conceal what they’re about. This time they have shut down the Jihad Watch page on a technicality that is in reality a catch-22.
Facebook has been giving me notices on the Jihad Watch page saying that the page is unpublished, and will remain unpublished until I confirm what country I’m in. They want to guard against all those Russian bots, doncha know.

Confirming what country I’m in involves entering in a code they send to my phone, and the code never arrives. The Facebook page after they say they sent the code to me tells me to update the Facebook app. It doesn’t say anything more specific, but I’ve repeatedly downloaded the latest Facebook app, so it should be fully updated.
When I asked Facebook Help what to do, they said to enable Location Services. I enabled Location Services. The same thing happened. Page still unpublished.
I’ve been getting the notice to confirm my country location for a while, but the Jihad Watch was still updating with new Jihad Watch posts. Today, however, there is a new notice in WordPress, which I use for Jihad Watch, saying that before I publish a post, make sure I’m set up with Facebook. So all morning today I have tried to give Facebook the info it needs, but got the same thing again: they ask for a code that they never send.

Is Facebook closing down my site because it dislikes my political views? That seems to me to be blazingly obvious at this point. For this is by no means the first time that Facebook has moved against Jihad Watch. It has been over a year and a half since Facebook began to choke off the readership that Jihad Watch was receiving from Facebook: on February 7, 2017, referrals to my website Jihad Watch from Facebook numbered 23,783, and from Twitter, 1,718. These numbers were generally representative: referrals from Facebook for several years up to that point had averaged between 15,000 and 20,000 a day, and 1,500 to 2,000 a day from Twitter. But on February 10, 2017, those numbers dropped suddenly and precipitously, with only 2,923 referrals from Facebook and 295 from Twitter. That’s around where they have held since then: on March 20, 2017, there were 1,954 referrals from Facebook and 241 from Twitter.
Did thousands of people who used to click through to Jihad Watch articles from Facebook and Twitter suddenly lose interest on February 10, 2017? Of course not. What happened on that day was that Facebook and Twitter began to censor Jihad Watch as “hate speech,” in accordance with the assurances they had given to the European Union and to Pakistan: Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July 2017 to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That is one job it has been doing consistently and with grim efficiency.
Now, I do not accept and will never accept the idea that reporting on jihad activity and Sharia oppression constitutes “hate speech.” But that is the longstanding claim of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Muslim groups in the West, and it has been uncritically adopted by the Left, with which Facebook and Twitter are so firmly aligned.
This only underscored the necessity to boycott and disempower these social media platforms. If Facebook and Twitter and all the other social media giants shut out the truth, then we have to shut out the social media giants. Anti-trust legislation is urgently needed to break up these sinister monopolies, before the First Amendment becomes entirely a dead letter? Freedom of speech? Sure. As long as you toe the Leftist line.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.



Outgoing senator earns a place in infamy as he betrays justice -- and fellow Republicans

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
The Senate Judiciary Committee may have approved the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh on a straight party-line vote Friday, but the confirmation process will not wrap up until the end of the week at the earliest.
And Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the high court remains in doubt. If Kavanaugh fails to be confirmed, the proximate cause will be the treachery of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).
It’s the same old sad, tired story of Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. With the midterm elections approaching and the possibility of Democrats recapturing the Senate looming, every delay only works to Democrats’ advantage. The longer the process drags on, the more fake victims with implausible stories can surface to bear false witness against Kavanaugh. Putting the final Senate vote off only helps the bad guys.
The Supreme Court will be shorthanded this morning as it begins hearing cases in its new term. It normally has a complement of nine justices but with Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have been only eight justices. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats are trying to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they hope to seize control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49.
Things had gone well for Kavanaugh Thursday at an evidentiary hearing pitting him against attempted rape accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who made herself look ridiculous on national television. Ford can’t remember much if anything of the high school party she alleges took place more than 30 years ago. The only thing she claims to remember with perfect certainty is that Kavanaugh, the would-be ninth member of the Supreme Court, somehow tried to rape her. She can’t remember when or where the party was, how she got there, how she got home after, or much else. The witnesses she claims were there for the party either deny her claims or don’t remember being there. It is obvious to anyone who watched the hearing that the left-wing activist is lying.
After the hearing adjourned, Kavanaugh should have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the relevant votes scheduled in the Senate, and early this week the nominee could have been confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court and sworn in.
It was not to be.
Just as the crazy Democrat-caused obstructionist chaos appeared to be at an end, Flake decided to keep it going, announcing after the committee vote that he would insist that the FBI embark on yet another pointless FBI probe of the nominee. The real purpose of the new investigation is dilatory. No one expects the FBI to find anything new or anything damning against Kavanaugh. But the Left is already saying the delay won’t be long enough and looking for excuses to keep on delaying a Senate confirmation vote for any reason at all, no matter how specious.
According to the Washington Post, White House spokesman Raj Shah said Sunday that Democrats are “merely attempting to further delay and politicize” the probe. President Trump tweeted Sunday that Democrats are “are starting to put out the word that the ‘time’ and ‘scope’ of FBI looking into Judge Kavanaugh and witnesses is not enough. Hello! For them, it will never be enough — stay tuned and watch!”
After the Republican-controlled committee voted 11 to 10, as expected, to favorably recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate, making approval by that body seem more likely than it had seemed before the vote, America’s worst senator whose remaining time in office may now be measured in weeks, betrayed his constituents and his fellow Republicans by blackmailing Senate leadership. Before the committee adjourned, he aired his ridiculous demand that Kavanaugh be subjected to yet another FBI background check – the seventh such investigation for the judge.
RINO holdouts such as Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Me.), whose votes Republicans cannot afford to lose in a 51 to 49 Senate, quickly fell in line with the request for a new FBI investigation.
Flake’s spectacular cave-in to the Left same after professional leftist operatives and his good buddy, the humorless leftist Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), vented their frustrations and yelled at him.
“The country is being ripped apart here,” said Flake, without acknowledging that he was helping rip it apart.
After declaring the confirmation process “a total sham” the day before, President Trump quietly acceded to the request for another FBI probe into the allegations of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh now leveled by three women. The investigation is supposed to be “limited in scope,” whatever that means.
Democrats want to extract more evidence from Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh whom Ford claimed was present in the room when she was allegedly assaulted. Judge said he does not remember any such incident but informed the committee by letter that he would cooperate with law enforcement assigned to investigate “confidentially.”
Kavanaugh said he will cooperate. “I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to cooperate,” he said.
Senators supporting Kavanaugh let their views be known on Sunday morning talk shows.
On ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) demanded Democrats be investigated for misconduct during the confirmation process. He also asked “who in Feinstein’s office” referred Ford to her left-wing activist attorney Debra Katz.
“We will investigate who in Dianne Feinstein’s office referred Dr. Ford to Mrs. Katz. It’s illegal, inappropriate in the Senate. The FBI will be a supplemental background investigation. I’ll call for an investigation on who betrayed Dr. Ford’s trust. Who in Feinstein’s office betrayed her trust, why Dr. Ford didn’t know we were willing to come to California? We’ll do a wholesale investigation of what I think was a despicable process.”
On CBS's "Face the Nation” Sunday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also vowed that Ford’s lawyers and Feinstein’s staffers would be investigated. Ford’s lawyers “who lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to California to interview her” will “face a D.C. bar investigation into their misconduct.”
Of course, probably nothing will come of these investigations. Even if something does happen to Ford’s attorneys, they will view any potential financial penalty as a mere speeding ticket, the cost of doing the business of social justice. They’ll become heroes to the Left and will embark on profitable speaking tours at universities across America. George Soros and his friends will make sure they’re properly taken care off. But it doesn’t hurt to put left-wing misdeeds on the record.
In other post-hearing news, late Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick is running into problems. She claimed a few days ago that in the early 1980s Kavanaugh and others spiked the drinks of young women at high school parties with intoxicants to clear the way for them to be gang-raped. Incredibly, Swetnick said in a sworn statement that she witnessed gang rapes at these parties –and was gang-raped herself— but kept on attending them anyway.
Swetnick, it turns out, has credibility problems. In a 2000 lawsuit former employer Webtrends alleged she falsely claimed to be a Johns Hopkins University alumna and fabricated prior employment. Swetnick engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo with two male employees at a business meal in the presence of clients, according to the company. In 2001 her former boyfriend Richard Vinneccy reportedly filed a restraining order against her in Florida after their four-year relationship ended. “She was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said. "I know a lot about her. She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
Swetnick is represented, of course, by creepy porn lawyer and Democrat operative Michael Avenatti.
In a separate development, the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Department of Justice to criminally investigate a man who falsely informed Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-R.I.) office that Kavanaugh raped a woman on a boat in Rhode Island in 1985 and then recanted his story after Kavanaugh denied the claim. The accuser’s name had been blacked out in official documents but the Washington Times identified him as Jeffrey Catalan.
And so the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus continues with no end in sight.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism
Hillary Clinton, the spouse of a serial sexual predator, did a tour of the morning shows to attack Republicans and Brett Kavanaugh.
On MSNBC, Clinton told Rachel Maddow that the benefit of the doubt belonged not to the accused, but the accuser.
In a smarmy chat session with Stephen Colbert, whose old boss and patron was just forced to resign for numerous counts of sexual harassment and at least one outright sexual assault, Hillary insisted on an FBI investigation.
"It would be very easy for the FBI to go back and finish the background investigation, to investigate these charges," insisted a woman who had described her own husband's accusers as "bimbo eruptions".
Juanita Broaddrick, who had accused Bill Clinton of raping her, also accused Hillary of threatening her.
Bill Clinton’s alleged assaults were not carried out in high school. But there will be no investigation of what a powerful politician did. There’s no interest among Democrats in revisiting the Clinton case. And yet Hillary’s hypocrisy in demanding an investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, despite her work covering up her husband’s victimization of women, is typical among the Democrats and their media allies.
Senate Democrats launched their smear of Kavanaugh despite the fact that two top figures within their ranks had become notorious for their abuse of women. Ted Kennedy’s crimes were so severe that they have become practically legendary. Al Franken was forced to resign, after numerous women came forward to accuse him of groping them, but retains strong support among the Democrat donor base.
That includes George Soros, who attacked Senator Kirsten Gillibrand over her criticism of Franken.
Senator Whitehouse’s staff recently relayed a smear of Kavanaugh falsely claiming that the nominee had raped someone on a boat in Rhode Island in 1985. That smear has since been retracted, and has become the subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee criminal referral of the smearer. But Senator Whitehouse was far less enthusiastic when he was asked about the Democrat attacks on Gillibrand over Franken.
The militant Kavanaugh basher refused to defend Gillibrand against attacks from Dem donors and of Franken, only said, "I think this was a very tough result for Al, but he did make his own choice. And I leave that for him to have made.”
While Soros-funded organizations protest Kavanaugh, the leftist grandmaster has been vocal in his support for Franken. Soros complained about due process for Franken, but wants to deny due process to Kavanaugh.
Soros funded groups have been caught handing out cash to anti-Kavanaugh protesters. But where were these protesters, some who claim to be victims of sexual assault, when Franken was in the Senate?
If they’re really there to agitate for victims of sexual assaults, why are they taking money from George Soros, who has sided with an accused sexual predator over the women who claim to be his victims?
Soros’ MoveOn activist group has been distributing a fundraising letter for Senator Joe Donnelly, after his refusal to approve Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, by Senator Kamala Harris. While MoveOn touts the willingness of Dem senators to “believe” Christine Blasey Ford, its funder is quite reluctant to believe the numerous women who came forward to speak out against Franken. Meanwhile Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, is the vice chair of the board of an organization funded by, among others, George Soros.
Then there’s Planned Parenthood, which has been loudly assailing Kavanaugh. That’s the same organization which issued a statement mourning the loss of Senator Ted Kennedy, a serial predator whose actions led to the death of at least one woman, and who assaulted a number of other women.
"As Gaviglio enters the room, the six-foot-two, 225-plus-pound Kennedy grabs the five-foot-three, 103-pound waitress and throws her on the table," a GQ story related. "Several glasses and a crystal candlestick are broken. Kennedy then picks her up from the table and throws her on Dodd, who is sprawled in a chair. With Gaviglio on Dodd's lap, Kennedy jumps on top and begins rubbing his genital area against hers, supporting his weight on the arms of the chair."
Dodd is former Senator Chris Dodd. Despite his alleged actions, he got a job heading Hollywood’s Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). That’s the same entertainment industry that claims to be battling sexual harassment and whose celebrities rush to outdo each other in attacking Kavanaugh.
The former Senator had allegedly also tried to block the release of a movie critical of Ted Kennedy.
Planned Parenthood had also fiercely touted serial sexual predators like Bob Filner, Bill Clinton and Al Franken. Planned Parenthood had actually described Franken, whose victims included a feminist choir member as, “a leader for women”.
It claimed that Bob Filner, the Democrat who groped half of San Diego, “has defended women”.
“It tells survivors of sexual assault that they don’t matter,” a Planned Parenthood email now declares. "And it sends a message that partisan politics trumps not only fairness, but basic human compassion. Speak out now: This nomination is a disgrace. Brett Kavanaugh must withdraw.”
Planned Parenthood possesses as much “basic human compassion” for women as it does for children. It has repeatedly promoted Democrat serial victimizers of women for purely partisan reasons.
And when Senator Flake and Senator Coons went to take their victory lap for forcing an FBI investigation of Kavanaugh’s high school years, they did it on 60 Minutes, a show whose former executive producer, Jeff Fager, was recently forced to resign over sexual harassment allegations, on CBS, whose boss, Les Moonves, was recently also forced out over sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations.
Then Saturday Night Live, Franken’s old show whose alumni had issued a statement of support for the alleged groper, then invited Matt Damon, who has admitted, after first denying it, that he was aware of some of what Harvey Weinstein, the serial rapist who made his career, had been doing to women, to mock Kavanaugh.
The gang coming after Kavanaugh consists of sexual predators and their accomplices.
The ranks of the Democrats are rotten with rapists and with their enablers, collaborators and colluders. The news networks taking cheap shots at Kavanaugh are staffed by men who are one story away from being forced to resign. The entertainment industry passionately advocating against Kavanaugh is run by compulsive predators. And the Senate Democrats and the lefty groups attacking Kavanaugh are guilty of the very crimes that they are trying to lay on the heads of Kavanaugh and the Republicans.
When an alleged rapist’s wife appears a network formerly run by an alleged rapist to condemn Kavanaugh, it’s time for Republicans to stop playing defense and go on the offense instead.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Antinomianism (Greek: ἀντί, “against” + νόμος, “law”), is any view which rejects legalism and is against moral laws. An antinomian is one who takes the principle of salvation by grace through faith to the point that they assert the believer is not bound to follow the Moral Law contained in the Decalogue or Ten Commandments.
Yeah. So…that’s pretty much what Andy Stanley is. He’s very apparently antinomian, or against God’s laws (his Moral Law). The megachurch pastor has again been on the receiving end of a social media firestorm as a consequence of his notoriously bad theology. His church has 33 thousand (mostly lost) members, who are attracted in their flesh to the regular denunciations of God’s Word that they hear from the son of the competent Biblical expositor, Charles Stanley.
For a brief reminder of the various theological controversies surrounding Stanley, he recently made waves for encouraging Christians to essentially throw out the Old Testament, arguing that believers should “unhitch” themselves from portions of Old Testament Scripture. This is essentially a spin-off of the heresy of Marcionism. Just a few weeks previous to that controversy, which was in May of this year, Stanley went on the warpath against doctrine in general, claiming that “unity is more important than theology.” Before canceling church on Christmas Sunday, Stanley argued that Jesus’ birth doesn’t really matter,thus casting doubt upon his supernatural birth and the events surrounding the nativity. In October of 2016, Stanley tacitly denounced Biblical inerrancy, at least in the eyes of many. Going back to 2015, Stanley trashed expository preaching, calling it “easy” and “cheating.”
Back in the realm of doctrinal Downgrade, Stanley claimed in a piece in Relevant Magazine – a publication typically prone to grave theological error – that the Moral Law is not for believers. Writing like a third-grader in single-sentence format, like a splattering of irreverent ideas that have coalesced in a failed attempt to form a coherent thought, Stanley writes…
The command of John 13:34 is not “all-encompassing” nor is it known as “The one commandment!” as Stanley enthusiastically labels it. No one calls it that, except Andy Stanley. That’s not a thing. The commandment to love one another summarizes the Second Table of the Moral Law (the last six Commandments) generally speaking and is applied here by Christ to believers for one another specifically speaking. Jesus summarizes the Moral Law in TWO Commandments, loving God (the First Table) and loving neighbor (the Second Table) in Matthew 22:36-40.
What is actually “new” about the “new commandment?” Well, it was not new in its substance. Loving others is the foundation of the last 6 of the Ten Commandments. The command to “love your neighbor as yourself” was first given in Leviticus 19:18. There was nothing new whatsoever about the command to love our neighbors.
So then, what did Jesus mean? What was new?
Their motivation for fulfilling the Law’s command was new. Jesus emphasized, “As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” Jesus being our Exemplar in following the Command was new. Virtually all commentary helps would support this interpretation, which Stanley might have consulted if he did not consider expository preaching to be “cheating.”
Ellicott’s Commentary says, “There is no reference in the context to the Ten Commandments, and we are not therefore to seek the meaning of the ‘new commandment’ in any more or less full contrast with them.” The Cambridge Bible for Colleges and Schools says, “The commandment to love was not new, for ‘thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Leviticus 19:18) was part of the Mosaic Law. But the motive is new; to love our neighbour because Christ has loved us.”
Bengel’s Gnomen says, “The commandment is called new, not so much in respect to the Old Testament, as in respect to the school of Christ; on account of the new measure [standard] He established. A love which goes so far as that even life is to be laid down for those who ought to be, or who are, the objects of that love.”
Barnes’ Notes says, “It is called new, not because there was no command before which required people to love their fellow-man, for one great precept of the law was that they should love their neighbor as themselves Leviticus 19:18; but it was new because it had never before been made that by which any class or body of people had been known and distinguished.” Jamieson-Faussiet-Brown Commentary says, “This was the new feature of it. Christ’s love to His people in giving His life a ransom for them was altogether new, and consequently as a Model and Standard for theirs to one another. It is not, however, something transcending the great moral law, which is ‘the old commandment.'”
You simply can’t find a commentary that interprets John 13:34 the way Stanley does, because to interpret it the way Stanley does would make you an antinomian, and any theologian worth his salt knows that’s heretical.
Doesn’t have the same ring to it, does    monument to st testam our faith, shoul leacovenant
Here is the irony. While Stanley suggests Christians should be more about the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Mount is little more than Jesus’ exposition and explanation of the Moral Law and Ten Commandments. The entire Sermon on     the Mount explicitly exhorts us to obey the Ten Commandments!
The Ten Commandments played a significant role in God’s creation of the nation of Israel. It gave them moral guidelines and helped separate this new nation from their neighbors. This was part of the formal agreement (or covenant) God created with his people, but Jesus’ death and resurrection signaled the end of that covenant and all the rules and regulations associated with it.
So says Stanley.
But first, the nation-state of Israel was founded on the Civil Code of God’s Law, not the Moral Code. The Moral aspect of God’s law pertained not only to Israel in that time and place, but to all people for all time. It is the judgment stick by which we are all measured, universally. In fact, something is said to be categorized Biblically as “moral” because it is “universal”; in other words, it is applicable to all people in all places for all time. The Moral Law is tied directly to the attributes of God, which do not change.
Furthermore, Stanley’s explanation is not how Covenants work. Previous Covenants were not so much abrogated but added to. For example, the installation of the Davidic Covenant did not replace the Sinaitic, nor did the Sinaitic Covenant replace the Abrahamic, nor did the Abrahamic replace the Noahic (there’s still a rainbow, the last time I checked). The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31) under Christ installed the Covenant of Grace into time and space (although it was foreshadowed throughout the older Covenants), but it did not uproot the Moral Law.
To argue that we are not under obligation to follow the Ten Commandments – not in order to justify us but in obedient faith – is to be a textbook antinomian. Mark it down; when someone spends the greater part of their life talking about how unnecessary theology is, it’s because they are extraordinarily bad at doing it.

[Editor’s Note: I’m going to address this article on today’s Polemics Report from the P&P Facebook Page live, at 4PM MST – JD]