Dem rebuked after calling child deaths ‘intentional’ in fiery exchange with DHS boss

Search

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
18,959
Tokens
A hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee came to a screeching halt Wednesday when a Democrat had her words struck from the record after calling the deaths of children in custody at the border an "intentional" policy decision.

Rep. Lauren Underwood's questioning of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan was contentious from the beginning, when the Illinois lawmaker asked him about the effects of separating children from their families at the border. She closed by claiming that the continued poor conditions in which children allegedly were being kept, and the recent death of a fifth child in custody, showed that this was the administration's goal.

"At this point, with five kids that have died, 5,000 separated from their families, I feel like, and the evidence is really clear, this is intentional," Underwood said. "It's a policy choice being made on purpose by this administration, and it's cruel and inhumane."

McAleenan fired back, disputing Underwood's characterization.

"That's an appalling accusation, and our men and women fight hard to protect people in our custody every single day," he said. McAleenan added that his department asked for resources prior to the latest fatality and that Congress has not responded. He also said that DHS asked for changes "that would have prevented this from happening."

Underwood's comments were in reference to the government's announcement that a 16-year-old Guatemalan died Monday at a South Texas Border Patrol station. He was diagnosed with the flu on Sunday at a border facility, which was then temporarily closed.

Last week, a 2-year-old died after he and his mother were detained. Government officials said the child was taken to the hospital the same day his mother reported he was sick, and he was in the hospital for weeks. On April 30, a 16-year-old boy also died after officials at a Health and Human Services detention facility noticed that he was sick.

Underwood was given an opportunity to clarify her remarks, and she said the same thing, using virtually identical language. "With five children dead and 5,000 separated from their families, this is intentional. It's a policy choice being made on purpose by this administration, and it's cruel and inhumane," she reiterated.

Ranking Member Mike Rogers, R-Ala., came to McAleenan's defense, calling out Underwood for her remarks.

"Mr. Chairman, you cannot impugn the character of the witness by stating that he intentionally murders children," he said. "That is completely inappropriate, and her words should be taken down. She was very explicit."

Underwood defended herself, saying she did not use the word "murder," but said that deaths were the result of policy choices.

"He has said that he stands by the policy decisions of this administration, that's what he said at the beginning of his testimony."

McAleenan said he "did not say that at all."

This eventually led to a vote over whether to take down Underwood's words from the record.

After a 9-7 vote, Underwood's words were taken down.




https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...s-intentional-in-fiery-exchange-with-dhs-boss
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
18,959
Tokens
Its insane logic how liberals yell about immigrants dying, etc.....when its nobody's fault, yet they don't have any problems promoting murder of unborn children every single day.

Absolutely no logic what so ever!
 

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
22,454
Tokens
Watching these clowns pretend that they care one bit about these children in custody is both funny and sad.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
Its insane logic how liberals yell about immigrants dying, etc.....when its nobody's fault, yet they don't have any problems promoting murder of unborn children every single day.

Absolutely no logic what so ever!

They are not promoting the murder of unborn children, they are promoting the rights of women to have a say in their reproductive rights.


If the mother's life is in jeopardy at ANY time, a woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy.

If a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she should be allowed to abort the pregnancy within the 1st trimester.

Otherwise, set a limit of no abortions beyond the first trimester -- and it's a done deal.


You fucking cave-dwelling neanderthals think you have some right, some ownership, to a woman's body are fucking disgusting.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
They are not promoting the murder of unborn children, they are promoting the rights of women to have a say in their reproductive rights.


If the mother's life is in jeopardy at ANY time, a woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy.

If a woman gets pregnant from being raped, she should be allowed to abort the pregnancy within the 1st trimester.

Otherwise, set a limit of no abortions beyond the first trimester -- and it's a done deal.


You fucking cave-dwelling neanderthals think you have some right, some ownership, to a woman's body are fucking disgusting.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]You're right, they're promoting the murder of babies that survive an abortion.

Fuck you kid, I don't care if your heart is beating. I created you, I can damn
well kill you if I want to.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]The kid is probably better off dead with a mother like that.[/FONT]
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]You're right, they're promoting the murder of babies that survive an abortion.

Fuck you kid, I don't care if your heart is beating. I created you, I can damn
well kill you if I want to.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]The kid is probably better off dead with a mother like that.[/FONT]

If the unborn fetus is an immediate threat to the mother's life, the mother should have the freedom to choose to save her life.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
If the unborn fetus is an immediate threat to the mother's life, the mother should have the freedom to choose to save her life.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]No one is arguing that. Don't try to act you actually made a point. It's not a good look.[/FONT]
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]No one is arguing that. Don't try to act you actually made a point. It's not a good look.[/FONT]

Dictating what a woman can or can't do with her body is not a good look either.
 

Life's a bitch, then you die!
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
28,910
Tokens
Dictating what a woman can or can't do with her body is not a good look either.
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]But killing a living defenseless baby is? The more you post the more you show us just how fucked up you are.[/FONT]
 

Member
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
18,959
Tokens
Dictating what a woman can or can't do with her body is not a good look either.

This is something I never understood why people say this stupid statement........the woman has a human being inside of her, yet its Ok to kill the child cuz they don't want it?

Then mothers that kill their kids that were born & have lived a few years shouldn't be arrested for murder......I don't see any difference.
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
48,486
Tokens
Liberal Logic 101:

Eagle eggs: destroying one is punishable by a 250k fine and 2 years in prison

Unborn baby: Not only legal to kill but the new wave of Democrats think taxpayers should pay for his/her execution

Nah, liberalism isn't a mental disorder at all! :ohno:
 

Rx Normal
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
48,486
Tokens
civil-rights-unborn-babies1.jpg


"The party of science" :pointer:
 

Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
16,094
Tokens
This bill has nothing to do with saving the life of unborn children, it’s about controlling women.

woman.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/20...l-is-immoral-inhumane-and-wildly-inconsistent

One of the lead architects of the Alabama bill made this view even more plain when he stated that the measure, which purports to protect fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses, would not actually apply to all embryos. After all, if you argue that life begins at conception, that’s a big problem for I.V.F. In the name of protecting “life,” anti-abortion legislators could functionally outlaw fertility treatments that involve fertilizing eggs and selecting the strongest embryos for implantation. But don’t worry, said Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss: “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,770
Messages
13,438,857
Members
99,338
Latest member
chaicoca816
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com