Illegal immigrant teen wants U.S. to kill her unborn baby and taxpayers to pay for it

Women's right to kill group

An immigrant teen, who was denied an abortion by a U.S. government official, has threatened to harm herself if we don't kill her baby, according to a government memo.

She believes that because the baby was conceived by rape, and that she doesn't want it, that killing him or her is acceptable and that the American taxpayers should pay for it.

The memo is addressed to Scott Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency that shelters thousands of illegal, unaccompanied minors. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted the memo as part of its ongoing lawsuit over the rights for illegal minors who are in custody to have their babies killed and do so at the taxpayers' expense.

The document describes the rape taking place in the teen's home country [which may or may not be true] and believed she became pregnant as a result. 

The memo was written by the Office of Refugee Resettlement's deputy director describing that she told the doctor that she wanted to kill the baby in her womb. (She called it an abortion, but it's the same thing.)

The teen "disclosed to the medical doctor that she preferred to harm herself rather than to continue with her pregnancy."

In later visits, the teen told of how her mother and a potential sponsor wanted her to not kill the baby. At one point, she reported facing "physical harm" if she killed him or her.

"She felt pressured by her mother and potential sponsor to continue the pregnancy, but she wants to terminate the pregnancy," the memo said. The term 'terminate the pregnancy' means to kill the baby, usually before it travels through the birth canal, but some liberals believe it doesn't matter how late in the pregnancy that it's killed. Just as long as Planned Parenthood gets paid.

The recommendation of the deputy director is redacted, but Lloyd circled the word "disapproved" at the bottom of the memo with his signature. But unfortunately for the baby, the teen eventually received the okay to have the baby killed after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in the favor of killing the baby. 

Judge Chutkan has already been born so was able to make that decision.

Lloyd said that an abortion would not "cure the reality" of the teen's rape. Both killing the unborn and rape are forms of abortion, the letter said, but not in those exact words.

"Implicit here are the dubious notions that it is possible to cure violence with further violence," Lloyd said, obviously aware that killing the unborn is a form of violence and clearly immoral.

The ACLU accused Lloyd of implementing a "cruel and heartless policy," which is exactly what the ACLU wants to do to the unborn. 

Is it more heartless to not allow the teen to kill the baby and thus allow it to be adopted if she doesn't want it? Or is it more heartless to kill the baby that has no rights as far as the ACLU is concerned?



Tweet

Texas wants out of Obama refugee program over terror threat

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is planning for his state to withdraw from the Obama administration's hair-brain resettlement scheme to take in poorly vetted refugees that could pose a terror threat to infidel citizens. He believes (correctly) that the Obama administration cannot ensure Texas that the refugees pose no existential threat.

In a letter to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Texas said they will be withdrawing from the program on January 31, 2017. The letter comes on the heels of several terror attacks across the country over the weekend. Abbott obviously sees that as a wake-up call.

The Obama administration refused to approve an actual security plan drafted by Texas that aimed at better ensuring refugees are only resettled after undergoing a real, in-depth security check, not the flimsy "Are you a terrorist?" type-questionnaire test that allow jihadists in under the radar.

The Texas plan would require federal national security officials to provide assurances that none of the individuals being resettled pose a terror threat, but that apparently is too much to ask of an administration whose leader is so enthralled with Islam that he simply trusts all Muslims who would want to live here.

Abbott made it clear that Texas wouldn't accept even one refugee until proper security measures are in place and said in a statement that "The federal government's refugee settlement program is riddled with serious problems that pose a threat to our nation. The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the director of national intelligence have repeatedly declared their inability to fully screen refugees from terrorist-based nations. Even with the inability to properly vet refugees from Syria and countries known to be supporters of propagators of terrorism, President Obama is now ineptly proposing a dramatic increase in the number of refugees to be resettled in the U.S."

What does Obama care? He's surrounded with armed protection all the time.

An Iraqi refugee who planned to blow up a Houston mall this year had been arrested in Texas, so it isn't as if Abbott is shooting from the hip and making stuff up.

"While many refugees pose no danger, some pose grave danger, like the Iraqi refugee with ties to ISIS who was arrested earlier this year after he plotted to set off bombs at two malls in Houston," he said.

"Despite multiple requests by the state of Texas, the federal government lacks the capability or the will to distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, and Texas will not be an accomplice to such dereliction of duty to the American people," Abbott added. "Therefore, Texas will withdraw from the refugee resettlement program. I strongly urge the federal government to completely overhaul a broken and flawed refugee program that increasingly risks American lives."


It's unclear what the Obama administration will do in reaction to the stance Texas has taken, but don't be surprised if somehow they are forced to accept refugees.

And don't be surprised if it doesn't work out all that well in the end wherever the refugees are resettled. 



Tweet

Obama: "I have spoken!"

Al, Lou, and Akbar

Our Supreme Exulted Monarch has decreed Wednesday that all "57 states" do not have the right to refuse potential Islamic terrorists (aka refugees) and if they go against his orders, the leaders of his caliphate will suffer the consequences.

The decree letter from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) tells American governors that they are not permitted to deny taxpayer money to provide services and benefits to refugees based on their country of origin or so-called religion of peace and otherwise. In other words, it used to be your money and your rights but now it belongs to Big Brother.

"Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees. Any state with such a policy would not be in compliance with the State Plan requirements, applicable statutes, and their own assurances, and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension and termination."

Even Canada is smart enough to realize how most of these so-called "refugees" are men of military age, as well as the age that fits terrorist profiles. So Canada is only admitting families and women with children. 

But we don't profile in the USA because that would be politically incorrect. Instead, we have a president who is going against a significantly large majority of Americans who believe that the nation's security trumps political charity. 

Even many Democrats agree, except for the hard-line robots like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The ORR letter discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin in all programs that receive federal funding. The Democrats like to take credit for the Act but while 6 Republicans opposed it, 21 Democrats also opposed it.

And speaking of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you may recall a Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson who discussed the '64 act with several southern governors. (WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE.) 

Johnson is alleged to have said: 

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference . . . I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years."

Furthermore, Democrats like to say the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the brainchild of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but actually, it was an extension of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts created by the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater, one of the six Republicans who voted against the 1964 version didn't like the idea that the 1964 version was totally Republican policy with Democrats taking the credit.

Back to the Syrian "refugees." Last week the House overwhelmingly approved a bill that would improve the screening for Syrian (and Iraqi) refugees. It would require a more comprehensive background check on every one of them before they can be admitted to the US and a certification that they do not individually pose a threat.

The ORR followed the administration's line saying Syrian refugees are subject to even more precautionary measures than other refugees, referring to the measures as "a multi-layered and intensive screening and vetting process involving multiple law enforcement, national security, and intelligence agencies across the Federal Government."

When Democrats have these "refugees" living in their neighborhoods, only then will I have a modicum of trust for their claims that they pose no danger to our citizens. But I will still wait eagerly for any possible repercussions that may occur based upon their poor judgment, as the results of those repercussions will impact directly upon them.

Tweet