August 9th – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #932

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.


This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

President Trump Twitter @POTUS / Vice President Pence Twitter @VP

Stephanie Grisham Twitter @StephGrisham45

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

847 Responses to August 9th – 2019 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #932

  1. Perot Conservative says:

    1. Sundance must be digging in real good to Bruce Ohr’s 302s.

    2. Only 34 or 43 pages of 302s, after TWELVE INTERVIEWS???!!!

    SMELLS. Major redactions or 302s buried?

    Liked by 2 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      A 302 is, by design, a brief summary of an “interrogation”. It is not meant to be a transcript.

      What I don’t understand is why any interrogation is not recorded in this day and age. Like, for example, the one the corrupt FBI had with Hillary.


  2. Perot Conservative says:

    PS OIG reports due any day / week now.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Nick the Deplorable says:

    I guess we will not see Dershowitz or Bill Richardson on Fox anymore. The witness claimed she had sex with both of them.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. ilcon says:

    Liked by 10 people

  5. Garavaglia says:

    Just an Miss., if you attend a state sponsored (Whitfield) rehabilitation center, even for alcoholism or drug addiction, you are considered mentally ill.

    Liked by 4 people

    • thetrain2016 says:

      So, don’t do drugs and don’t drink your brain away.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mick says:

        Does this sentiment include someone who was prescribed pain medication for sever burns, who may seek professional help to ween themselves off the drugs when they get better? Should they loose their Constitutional rights? Who decides? Slippery sloop indeed.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I think that there should be a required medical protocol to determine and to evaluate which [addictive …] pain medications have been prescribed for a patient, and to periodically review the case to determine if continuation of the pain medication is called for. Also, explicit help should be provided to recognize when addiction has probably occurred and to assist the patient in freeing themselves.

          Unfortunately, drug companies know damned well that the products are addictive and they love the sales that continue to occur. But, there’s not much in this world that is more horrible for an individual than “drug addiction.” We should be prepared to offer the medications when needed, and then, in due time, to offer a life-line for escape.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Joemama says:

            It boggles my mind that anyone could get addicted to prescription pain pills.

            I have had a couple of operations in the last 10 years, one with major after-surgery complications which caused excruciating pain. I could not get any opiates prescribed for weeks. They prescribed tylenol for aftercare for both operations. When I finally got an opiate prescription for the event with major painful complications, it was in dosages fit for a 5 year old child and had zero pain relief efficacy. I weigh 280lbs.

            I had to go to the emergency room a few years back for an extremely painful knee injury. Again, no pain relief. They offered tylenol, which I declined, because I didn’t want to pay $500 for two tylenol pills. I left the emergency room literally screaming in pain, because the ride in the wheelchair was quite bumpy through the lobby and out to the parking lot.

            I don’t know what doctors are facilitating these opiate addictions, but none of them are here near where I am in CA. They will watch you writhe in agony and never provide any pain relief. They appear to be scared to death of some regulatory agency. The only pain relief you can get here is a few big swigs of whisky and biting on a bullet.

            Liked by 4 people

            • Chimpy says:

              “…The only pain relief you can get here is a few big swigs of whisky and biting on a bullet.”

              And they are trying very hard to take away that bullet now, too!

              Liked by 2 people

            • CM-TX says:

              The idea is thru lots of red-tape, vilifying responsible Drs, & treating legit patients like criminals to create more customers for street drugs & dealers. They want people suffering. There’s a lot of money to be had, & that includes for our politicians & certain agencies.


      • Garavaglia says:

        Cigarettes? Aluminum cans are linked to alzhiemers.


        • Joemama says:

          Well if you are worried about aluminum cans, you should be even more worried about mainstream underarm deodorant, since it is aluminum based and you absorb it into your body.

          Switch to a more expensive magnesium based or natural deodorant.


          • Garavaglia says:

            Oh yeah, maybe some stanky hippie crystals. Brain cells being killed all kinda ways. Maybe something like: If you pump regular gas, the fumes are slightly less potent than Premium, so, the regulars can own a gun but the premiums can’t. I want things to improve, but this a a slippery slope. How about someone who has been sexually assaulted and receives treatment for that, maybe some xanax. Are they mentally fit enough to own a gun? It doesn’t take much to poke holes in this. I mean, how about people that are bullied and get therapy?


    • dilonsfo says:

      More than that: If your doctor sends you to a see a counselor or psych for bereavement or any other reason and you go, you are considered mentally unstable or mentally ill. It does’t matter which. You can then be red flagged. Same thing applies if your pastor, priest, holy man or any other spiritual leader or person in authority at you job, police department, etc.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Marcia says:

    It is interesting. The clients I represented as a Public Defender and the Defendants who appeared before me as a Magistrate were never too interested in their Constitutional rights until someone or something tried to take them away.

    Liked by 3 people

    • lolli says:

      Patriot Act all over again. Same arguments.
      As Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

      Liked by 6 people

      • mimbler says:

        And there are only about 300 deaths from rifles of all types per year in the US. This is pure hysteria giving away constitutional rights for essentially as statistically zero event.

        On the other side of the ledger, even Obama’s CDC did a study saying that guns are used defensively against criminals .5 million to 3 million times a year.

        How many deaths would there be if we were disarmed?

        Liked by 6 people

      • MAJA says:

        As Sundance has pointed out numerous times, PDJT is about assigning responsibility to the rightful owner. Enacting red flag laws in response to the mass shootings is another example of assigning blame to the wrong entity. Most, if not all ,of the mass shootings were done by people who did have a “red flagged” history with authorities, school administrators, family members, and friends. Many of these people were reported (the mother of the El Paso shooter contacted authorities just days before the shooting). Why were the mother’s cry for help ignored? The Parkland shooter had an extensive history with local law enforcement and school staff. They knew exactly what he was capable of and they refused to do their jobs and intervene before it became a tragedy.

        This is the same situation as the Patriot Act that has imposed upon lawful citizens, who have done nothing to warrant the violation of their fourth amendment rights, the requirement to be relentlessly searched whenever traveling within the USA. These law-abiding people are subject to constant violations of this right because the government refuses to do their job and enforce immigration laws, thus making the entire system potentially dangerous for everyone. Illegal travelers into and throughout the USA are given a literal pass while lawful travelers and citizen’s rights are violated with impunity, and are then required to pay for it.

        It is wrong to remove Constitutional rights and impose restrictions on law-abiding citizens and legal residents when they aren’t the problem.


  7. Dora says:

    Liked by 7 people

  8. jx says:

    Bruce Ohr Documents Undercut FBI Claims In Carter Page FISAs

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Jason Ross says:

    Amazing how the film TAKEN happens all the time in real life and hardly no one bats an eye…

    “She was last seen with an Asian man on the city walls above Station Rise in the city at 16:40 BST on Tuesday.”

    A 15-year-old tourist swiped off the street in broad daylight. Of course in the UK a distinction is made between “East Asian” and “Asian” …. wherein the latter includes all manner of Muhammadans.


    • Matthew LeBlanc says:

      I read an article where Sikhs in UK are beginning to formally protest the use of “Asian” to cover all those from South Asia because as you mention it includes them in the atrocities the Muslims are committing (i.e. rape grooming gangs). They mention it was the usual PC move to keep Muslims from hurt feelings but they are sick of guilt by association. Always good to see when folks with a normal thought pushes back on fake PC that’s been forced down our throats.

      Liked by 5 people

  10. Bill of rights (circa 1789-2019) says:

    President Trump,

    First Amendment (1789)

    Congress shall make no law
    1. respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
    2. abridging the freedom of speech, or
    3. of the press; or
    4. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
    5. to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    For 239 years (1789-2019), the following SECOND AMMENDMENT has protected those Natural rights FIRST AMMENDMENT…..

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Of the 60,000,000 people who voted for you, probably 59,999,000 of them do not have the financial resources (like you) to maintain a team of dozens of lawyers.

    All they have is their 12 gauge, handgun, rifle, etc at home to defend their family.

    If you take away the SECOND AMMENDMENT from your 2016 voters, you will be taking away their FIRST AMMENDMENT also.

    In the future, people will be afraid to:
    1. Exercise their religion (Christianity is being portrayed as religion of hate already)
    2. Freedom of Speech (people won’t dare question a TWENTY minute Walmart shootout with ZERO cops entering Walmart…. then arresting him on the street while driving????)
    3. Press (bloggers will be red flagged for conspiracy theory stuff in their blogs – FRIDAY FBI release before the two SATURDAY shootings)
    4. Peacefully assembling? —— No thanks. People will sit everything out and keep their doors shut – thanksgiving dinner….. have a lefty sister or brother? Relative that works for the gubment? That tradition will end if you pass gun control or red flag laws. We will be officially Soviet with a SNITCH MENTALITY).
    5. Have a grievance? petitioning the government will end under President Trump’s presidency. Nobody will write Congress, oversight, ethics offices, etc. Government do something to you? Better keep your mouth shut or you will be red flagged.

    President Trump, the SECOND AMMENDMENT is the foundation of the FIRST AMMENDMENT.

    If you pass red flag legislation in 2019, it won’t matter if you get elected in 2020 to President, city council, or dog catcher. America (FREEDOM) will be lost, and we will sink into hundred of years of darkness under your watch.

    You won’t win…. but it won’t matter (shills please reply with how Trump is our savior and trust the plan).

    One more thing…. almost half of USA marriages end in divorce. The RED FLAG will be the first shot across the bow for the petitioner to ensure a win in at least 10% of future divorces….. probably a lot higher than that.

    This would destroy USA families and the human spirit of FREEDOM that existed under REAGAN. Republican family will avoid democrat family like Ebola.


    Liked by 3 people

    • G. Alistar says:

      Ten %? I’d say way closer to 50%….or more. First shot out however won’t be the divorces, rather it will be liberal resistance activists who target ex military, serving first responders and conservatives in general.


    • Ken Lawson says:

      Nice post, but hopefully you don’t expect President Trump to see it if you only post it here. Don’t hesitate to send your opinion directly to his office. I would bet he wants to hear from the public.


    • Bill of Rights
      May I use your response to the PDJT. I sent a similar but much more succinct version. Some times I believe a longer read may have more of an impact.


  11. Joemama says:

    Keep alert when in crowded places. The deep state will likely be instigating a new mass public killing very soon to hush the Epstein news.

    They might switch it up and do a bombing, train derailing, commercial jet crash or car massacre because another white male shooting up a crowd might be a little too obvious.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Epstein deserves no public mention at all. A pedophile, a liar, a cheat, a blackmail artist. No one cares what his “little black book” contains. Start jury selection today.


      • Joemama says:

        You have some very strange views. You don’t care if the “little black book” has Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, British Royalty, etc. in it?

        If it turns out to be true that Hillary and Huma raped a girl on Epstein’s island (& worse), you don’t think that is newsworthy?

        I think I speak for the vast majority of sane people when I say that I very much care who is in Epstein’s black book.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I don’t want to give him opportunity for continued blackmail. I want his ass in prison. Now. Forever.

          And, I’m really not inclined to believe this man, no matter what he says. He is, after all, a blackmailer … and a liar. I daresay that everyone who ever attended his parties probably wound up in one or another of his “books.” I’m not inclined to believe a word of it.

          After his ass is in prison forever, we can of course evaluate the material to see if any of it should result in further criminal charges good enough to persuade a Grand Jury. (A clear photograph, for instance, might be compelling.) But, that’s a separate matter, which can be dealt with after his trial when he’s rotting in solitary.

          Liked by 1 person

        • thehawkeyehoneypot says:

          Agreed!! Anyone who doesent want to see the names is a pedo apologist. Let it go through the courts & get a grand jury, Like jussie smollet? The legal system is a get out of jail free card for high level perverts.

          Look up epstiens girlfriend ghislene maxwell. She also procured his underage sex slaves.

          Sunlight is the best disinfectant!!


        • cplogics says:

          “If it turns out to be true that Hillary and Huma raped a girl on Epstein’s island (& worse), you don’t think that is newsworthy?”

          For God’s sake, if you are going to throw out accusations like this, please be kind enough to add a link so that the rest of us can evaluate whether or not the source of your accusation is reputable.


      • thehawkeyehoneypot says:

        How is maybe the highest level & well connected sex offender not worth discussing? He was in the front row of chelsea clintons wedding with the other sex criminals. Lolita express, pervert island? I want every darn name of all the perverts. If they trusted epstien its their fault. Not mine.!!


    • Shelley Childs says:

      Heavenly Father, please thwart the evil plans of men, and expose the evil deeds of men so that they will not escape justice, and rescue from destruction the innocent, the helpless, the unwary, and the unsaved.
      Protect us from a slow agonizing destruction we pray.
      In Jesus’ name, Amen.

      Liked by 4 people

  12. chickenhawk says:

    Discussing right now on Hannity. We need to highlight all of the made in America companies and products somehow!!

    Liked by 3 people

  13. ilcon says:

    14 yr. old girl shames male fem.

    Liked by 7 people

  14. ilcon says:

    Liked by 10 people

  15. jakeandcrew says:

    Sharpton receives some well deserved pushback in Baltimore.

    Liked by 11 people

  16. ilcon says:

    Three bad Dims, see how they run.

    Liked by 2 people

    • hillariousclinton says:

      Ah ha…. now we know the reason Dershowitz was backing our PDJT so often on Faux News…hoping for a get out of jail free card…


  17. Food for thought about the 2nd (and other …) Amendments … JM2CW™ and IMHO™

    The Bill of Rights mostly constrains government. It says what the government cannot outright prohibit you from doing. But at the same time, I believe that it does not say that these things are exempt from government regulation or control.

    Example: “freedom of assembly” doesn’t mean that I as a private property owner can’t insist that you must hold your assembly somewhere else. “Freedom of speech” doesn’t mean that you can’t be held responsible for, say, spewing “hate speech” or inviting people to stab Mitch McConnell. You’re personally responsible for how you go about exercising these freedoms, and you can be held accountable for them.

    I think that this same reasoning applies to the 2nd Amendment, too, especially giving the intrinsic nature of what a firearm is. I don’t think that the Amendment means that anyone can own any weapon that they want to, nor to do anything they want to with it. We can prohibit you from carrying your weapons in a bar; and/or, the owner of the bar can insist that you must not bring your weapons in. I think that we can restrict ownership of exotic and highly devastating weapons like “assault rifles.” I think that we can do this because people other than the gun owner are immediately and intrinsically affected by the weapon and are entitled to “feel safe, too.”

    Plus, I think that we should properly ask questions: “Why do you need a weapon like this?” “Do you know how to use it?” “Have you been properly trained on a weapon like this, or is your entire knowledge gleaned from watching Rambo?” “Do you know the applicable law?” “Do you have a criminal record or a mental diagnosis?” To me these are obvious and sensible questions that society, itself has the right to ask. With great weaponry comes great responsibility … and, let’s face it, greatly enhanced public danger.

    So, I think that we need to have dialogue, look for the right compromises, and above all emphasize gun safety and gun education in every single thing that we do. We’ve got to seriously think about what situations we do and don’t want to find ourselves in, whether we are the gun owner or a bystander. Because, “the gun doesn’t care.” The gun is a tool that can be rightly or wrongly used; rightly or wrongly carried; that can be an equal or greater danger to its bearer than to anyone else. The gun doesn’t care. So, we have to. And I’d like to think that most gun owners are responsible – but, we just can’t assume. The gun doesn’t care.

    (And, this isn’t something that delegates in Philadelphia tried to “settle with twenty-seven words” in a meeting room with no air conditioning. It was, and still is, much more complicated than that.)

    Just my two cents worth. Just my humble opinion. (And, thanks for providing a venue where I feel that I can express such opinions freely.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • JustSomeInputFromAz says:

      What is an “Assault Rifle”?

      Liked by 1 person

      • booger71 says:

        One man’s assault rifle is another man’s varmint rifle.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken Lawson says:

        In today’s political climate it’ll probably be defined as any rifle that is semi-automatic.

        Liked by 1 person

        • JustSomeInputFromAz says:

          Yep and exactly why I posed the question which the original poster will not answer.

          There is no definition.

          Heck a Roman short sword was the “Assault Rifle” of its time.


      • LafnH20 says:

        Any “Thing” that someone “thinks” might be used to commit assalt…(In this case it “looks” like a rifle)

        Tomorrow, it might “look” like a Handgun.

        Next week a slingshot.

        That is the rub…

        Any “thing” used to assault.

        Across the pond they’ve included knives on the list of “Inanimate Objects” that commit assault..
        All by themselves.
        Just happens..

        The future for “Sporks”… Ain’t lookin too good, either..


    • thedoc00 says:

      All you say was part of the discussion back in 2016. You left out the MAJOR item required as the focus for your “discussion”, protection of rights for the person loosing their guns allowing them to regain their gun(s) if wrongfully taken. That is the crux of the entire discussion required and in 2016 the NRA as well as Republican Party signed up for discussion of controls so long as rights were protected.

      Obama’s and Democrat Party’s response was NO deal and pizza party sit-in by the Democrat Congressional Caucus.


    • sDee says:

      “I don’t think that the Amendment means that anyone can own any weapon that they want to, nor to do anything they want to with it”

      The second Amendment is a restriction upon the power of the federal government. It has nothing to do with types of weapons or what one does with them

      What you talk of is infringement, plain and simple – exactly what the Founders knew government would do to try and disarm their citizens.

      The Second Amendment, like the rest of the original Bill of Rights was a constraint on Central government power, which the citizens of America just fought a war to remove.

      It is there to ensure freemen have the ability to defend their freedom against that which always takes it – government.. They were not stupid, naive, vague, nor politically correct.

      Educate yourself on the basics on contemporary firearms. “Devastating” weapons and “assault rifles” are meaningless terms.

      When it comes time to defend your family and yourself from the tyranny of a police state, you will not be the least bit concerned if your weapons offend or intimidate others.

      EVERYTHING the media and the government is doing now in response to the crisis they manufactured, is to effective nullify the Second Amendment and to then confiscate our guns. Understand that.

      Give an inch and the Second Amendment falls. When that happens you lose all the others and your ability to restore them

      Liked by 2 people

  18. ilcon says:

    Not sure if this is new info
    Five tweets.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Bigly says:

    Leader of the democrat party update, Hattip liberty free press

    He says there are at least 3 genders…truth over fact.

    Liked by 3 people

    • CM-TX says:

      Biden lacks a filter when it comes to physical interactions & social norms. He has zero respect for women & children, especially their personal space.

      It was also interesting to learn the ways in which he touches or grabs people, are considered gestures that exert dominance & intimidate. Grasping the sides of their head, hands pressing on their shoulders, embracing someone uninvited, or grabbing from behind… etc.

      The dude is just creepy. If he wasn’t in politics, he’d probably be a serial killer.

      Liked by 1 person

      • mr.piddles says:

        “gestures that exert dominance & intimidate”

        I’m no psychologist/behavioral type, but I saw this as well after the first debate when Biden was being interviewed on MSNBC. He turns to the reporter and gets right up in his grill… reporter keeps backing up, probably thinking to himself “hey hey hey, take it easy, old man”. It’s subtle, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Just how he operates.


    • Timmy-the-Ute says:

      We all remember what happen to Corey Lewandowski when he handled a reporter.


  20. ilcon says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • linda4298 says:

      Donald J. Trump Retweeted

      Ronna McDaniel
      Thanks to the unhinged mob on the left,
      raised $12M today, $2M more than originally expected.

      The support for our President is unprecedented and growing!

      Liked by 4 people

  21. ilcon says:


  22. Perot Conservative says:

    Linked via Tracy Beans, one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims named the following perons she was instructed to have allegedly sex with:

    Prince Andrew
    Glenn Dubin, billionaire
    George Mitchell, Democrat Congressman
    Bill Richardson, Dem Congressman
    Alan Dershowitz, Democrat
    Stephen Kaufman, New York Democrat
    Jean Luc Brunel, modeling agent
    A prince.
    A foreign President.
    A Prime Minister.
    The owner of a large French hotel chain.

    This is just one victim.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. I saw Alan Dershowitz on there and have heard the rumblings. I caught a bit of him discussing it with Laura Ingraham a few weeks ago, where he was denying it and was pretty emphatic about it. Not sure what to believe. I like Alan and have a hard time believing this, but who knows.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. ilcon says:

    Liked by 2 people

  25. ilcon says:

    Damn, he outed me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedoc00 says:

      Probably the most repeated Archie Bunker line of all times, “once a meat head always a meat head”.

      Then there is the little known line he provided after his daughter (Gloria) moved out of he dad’s house when leaving the Meat Head…”look at this way Edith, we lost a daughter and gained a Meat Head”.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. ilcon says:


  27. ilcon says:

    Liked by 9 people

  28. ilcon says:

    Poor lyin’ AndySpan.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. sarasotosfan says:

    Very interesting opinion expressed today in Zero Hedge regarding the possibility that Trump could win the trade war. Every prior story I read there disparaged Trump’s position of using tariffs to win a trade war. His win is couched within an opinion that China lost control of their economy back in 2015.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. ilcon says:


  31. Dora says:

    10 days! I’m going to miss him

    Liked by 7 people

  32. youme says:

    The FBI: Domestic terrorist investigations/arrests you ask? Sure, lots and lots but we can’t show you anything. We don’t even have a report that we can redact.

    “The FBI Told Congress Domestic Terror Investigations Led to 90 Recent Arrests. It Wouldn’t Show Us Records of Even One.”

    Four days after asking for information on the FBI’s claims of 90 domestic terrorism arrests, we are still waiting. And, frankly, it got kind of weird.

    “Thank you for getting back to me this fast and for your answer. I am a bit confused though: The number of DT arrests I was referring to originally comes from the FBI Director and was later clarified by a FBI spokesperson. So where would that number come from? I would be happy if you could clarify this point?”

    The spokeswoman responded: “What do you mean? We clarified the number, it’s a comprehensive list of press releases that I’m saying we’re unable to provide.”

    The spokeswoman, saying she was speaking “on background,” and thus not to be identified, later suggested that we go on the Department of Justice’s public affairs website and “see what pops up.”

    Liked by 2 people

  33. ilcon says:

    When I go low, we go lower.


  34. ilcon says:

    Chief Lieawatha,
    Barry’s wingman said otherwise.


  35. youme says:

    If you think the FBI is corrupt…

    State Department: Yeh, that’s right, the hiring freeze undercut diplomatic security, counter-terrorism initiatives, AIDS programs, and more.

    Oh, by the way. we didn’t bother validating any of the claims in our report. It was too much work>

    From the report:
    OIG determined that the hiring freeze had a broad and significant effect on overall
    Department operations, particularly on its ability to address its most significant management

    This conclusion is based on OIG’s review of responses from 38 domestic bureaus
    and offices and 151 overseas posts as well as analysis of Department-furnished staffing data.

    However, OIG was unable to validate each individual response due to the number and range of reported effects.

    Liked by 1 person

    • sarasotosfan says:

      The State Department ignored FOIA requests for years. It was never prioritized. It was too much work.

      The hiring freeze meant employees actually had work to do. And we benefit from them not misguiding policy while they shuffle paper.

      Liked by 2 people

  36. ilcon says:

    Liked by 8 people

  37. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 4 people

  38. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 10 people

  39. MamaTried says:

    per yesterday’s call to action I wrote my congressman about the Born Alive bill. Here is a cut and paste of the email I just received:

    Dear MamaTried,

    Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 962, the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” introduced in 2019.
    You may not be aware that Congress has already, in 2002, passed into law protections for any babies who are born alive. The title of that bill was the “Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.” The vote on that bill was unanimous, a truly rare event in Congress, and it is still the law of the land.
    You may be asking why some members of Congress are now pushing a largely redundant bill that essentially repeats what Congress did in 2002. I cannot speak for them, but my guess is that they hope you do not remember the 2002 law. It is no secret that these are more divisive times politically than in 2002 and some members are looking for political ammunition for the 2020 elections. Finally, the changes that are proposed to be made to the 2002 law may well go so far as to threaten its legitimacy in the courts. It doesn’t help pro-life or pro-choice supporters to have instability in the law.
    Unless the Senate passes a version of H.R. 962 first, I doubt that the House of Representatives will even be voting on H.R. 962 due to the issues I have mentioned above. If I am wrong in my prediction, I will be happy to look at the bill more closely.
    Thanks again for reaching out to me.

    Jim Cooper
    Member of Congress

    Liked by 2 people

    • Skippy says:

      Thank you SO much, MamaTried, for writing Congressman Cooper and revealing there is already a USA law providing protection to babies born alive:

      H.R.2175 – Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
      107th Congress (2001-2002)
      Shown Here:
      Passed Senate without amendment (07/18/2002)
      Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 – Directs that in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various U.S. administrative bureaus and agencies, the words “person,” “human being,” “child,” and “individual” shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive (as defined in this Act) at any stage of development.

      Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Congressman Cooper spoke on the House floor reminding all that this law exists! Perhaps suggest this too him. As a Virginian, I will write Governor Northam as well as all 3 of my Congressmen (Beyer, Kaine, Warner) given the news you provided us, as I had no idea of prior this prior passage. I can’t thank you enough for you enough for your help on this disgraceful issue, Mama Tried! I am indebted as are all those babies.


    • Katherine McCoun says:

      Really appreciate this. I did not know we already had this law on the books. Funny that the Dems who speak against any new laws don’t just point to the existing law.

      If the law already exists then can those who murder born alive babies in the name of “finishing” an abortion be prosecuted for murder?


  40. Sundance: You’ve just GOT to do a post on Tucker Carlson’s “special” tonight reviewing the Democrat field for President.

    Then cap it off with President Trump’s prospective branding for Biden:



  41. Summer says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • ilcon says:

      Aug. 7th.


      • jeans2nd says:

        Regan should stick to reporting on Venezuela and leave the gun legislation to the Big Kids.
        Regan is in way over her head on this. Way out of her league.

        Liked by 3 people

        • mopar2016 says:

          Trish Regan is sounding like an airhead. I side with the NRA.
          Creating laws to disarm regular Americans is a pretty stupid idea.
          Someone should ask her if the bad guys are going to obey these laws too.

          Just talking about red flag laws is a BIG red flag IMO.


      • MAGADJT says:

        LOL! The ‘majority of Americans’ support this? Really Trish? Or is it just the ones you know on the cocktail party circuit.


      • Katherine McCoun says:

        If does as Regan suggests he will not gain leftist votes and he will loose many on the right (I am talking about banning, strict gun laws and background checks, etc. as she suggests)

        We must speak up and be heard on this topic without making it about President Trump. Let him and every DC politician know where the majority of America stands on this issue!


  42. ilcon says:

    Federal Government is a total fraud.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. jeans2nd says:

    For Andrew McCarthy aficionados – McCarthy’s new book, “Ball of Collusion,” is out and McCarthy will sit for a two hour interview with John Batchelor Show next Wednesday. McCarthy was one of SDNY’s best prosecutors, and has an eye for DOJ misconduct/malfeasance. Should be a good interview.

    Liked by 1 person

    • MAGADJT says:

      Whatevs. McCarthy was still playing dumb about the entire scandal and fabricating plausible excuses for the perps up until about a year ago. He obviously read enough of CTH analysis to give him the ‘courage’ to get on the right side of things. Not interested in his take whatsoever.


    • Skippy says:

      Mr. Andrew McCarthy: if you read this, I urge you to not protect the Deep State in your two hour interview on the John Batchelor Show next Wednesday!

      This is a common complaint about you, that you wax poetic. Cut threw this diabolical morass on the part of the Deep State (those in the FBI, CIA, Government, LawFare etc) who have attempted an obvious Coup against a sitting President and the 63 Million who voted for President Trump who won by the lawful Electoral College route!

      These are times for abject honesty by all, including you, Mr. McCarthy, not times of sitting on the fence between the Deep State and Americans voters and waxing and waning. There may be grave results for the current and future generations in the USA if the FACTS don’t come out for current and future USA generations. Thank you very much and with great respect.


  44. ilcon says:

    Most here know this was Barry’s fault. Decent article from Miami Herald.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. bessie2003 says:

    Sharyl Attkisson has a short, 6 minute, podcast observing why some were charged and some not charged in the Trump-Russia probe:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s