Competition is a good thing and when you have two conservatives vying to be governor, it could be really good. Abbott is described by one Texas lawmaker as scheduling a “conservative home run derby” with the announced special session. The winner will be conservatives all over Texas who have waited for years for such an opportunity. Governor Abbott is playing catch up with Republican primary voters and Abbott’s 20 item special session is his way of getting ahead of Dan Patrick. Two questions remain: (1) will it succeed and (2) will the mainstream media recognize the subtlety.
Democrats have wrongly accused Governor Abbott of becoming unhinged based on the content of his special session call. Democrats see Abbott’s conservative call as a liberal disaster. What they do not see is that Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is planning to run against Abbott. Lt. Dan has been planning this since at least November 2016 when he and his political consultant Allen Blakemore openly discussed the opportunity at the Harris County Republican Party election night watch party. When all countywide republicans were defeated in one fell swoop in Harris County, Patrick saw opportunity.
Planning and success in politics requires opportunities, not unlike the business world. Darrell Royal once said, “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” Sports metaphors work in politics too.
When Dan Patrick wakes up in the morning, he sees the President of the United States in the mirror, not the Lieutenant Governor of Texas. Lt. Dan sees the Governor’s Mansion as his next step to the presidency. The governorship of Texas provides a very important fundraising platform. While only thirteen presidents served as governors, four of the six latest presidents were governors: Jimmy Carter (Georgia), Ronald Reagan (California), Bill Clinton (Arkansas), and George W. Bush (Texas).
Lt. Dan’s plan requires getting rid of Governor Abbott. Patrick’s team has already begun to portray Governor Abbott as a nice enough guy, but someone who is not moving the conservative agenda forward. If you are active in Republican circles you have heard Patrick’s “Abbott has failed to show leadership” narrative. Governor Abbott is behind because he actually believed Patrick when he said that he would not run against Abbott.
This plan is being executed on a number of fronts. The bathroom bill was nothing more than a ruse
to put Lt. Dan to the right of the Governor, and to get back into the good graces of Steve Hotze. The quest is to win over Republican primary voters. This will confound the Texas media. Most of the media that covers statewide politics covers it from the prism of Austin. This is the last place this fight will occur. Conservative enclaves in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio are about to be wined and dined in a way we haven’t seen in quite some time. Lt. Dan has been on a statewide tour explaining his great leadership skills.
The orchestration of the death of the sunset bill was by design. This was done to bait Abbott into calling a special session and the Texas Freedom Caucus was used by Patrick to further his agenda. Don’t get me wrong, the Texas Freedom Caucus is a group of liberty and freedom loving patriots who are all about smaller government, but they need to be careful of Lt. Dan as well. Watching Lt. Dan throw every Houston taxpayer under the bus on the pension bill should be a cautionary tale to all.
Before he killed the sunset bill, Lt. Dan had to wait until the pension bill (SB 2190) passed the house so his law enforcement union friends (e.g., HPOU) would continue to support him and line his pockets. Patrick has always closely aligned himself with this union, which handed out more money to legislators this session than Donald J. Trump trying to get a building built in Manhattan. I hope that Governor Abbott was smart enough to cut a deal of his own before he signed this horrific legislation. Once the pension bill passed, Abbott and Straus played into Patrick’s hands – now it will be a fight.
One winner in this fight: Texas conservatives. Strong conservative legislation makes folks choose sides. This will not be good for Straus and his Republican henchman. Republican primary voters are about to learn a lot about their state representatives. Speaker Straus and his liberal house leadership, including his democratic committee chairman, are about to be whipsawed in a way not seen in these parts in a long time. Straus is unlikely to survive and the heat of the July Texas special session summer will burn through until the Republican primary.
Governor Abbott finally woke up to realize that Patrick was putting him in a corner and Abbott is fighting back with his special session call. Folks forget that your opponent gets to throw punches too. It is great to see the governor fighting back and doing his best to prove his conservative bona fides. Again, conservatives for the win.
This game is probably over for now and (unfortunately) Lt. Dan will have an advantage in a 2018 Republican primary against Abbott. Remember, the goal is for Lt. Dan to be in position to primary Donald Trump in 2020 or step into his shoes if something should happen. I was reminded of Dan Patrick’s press conference to announce that he was not running for governor. I was also reminded that Kay Bailey Hutchison denied 18 times (six times on television) that she was running against Rick Perry before she did.
Competition is a good and the real winners here will be conservatives. We need more conservative competition for ideas in Texas and nationally, it is healthy for our Republic.
Just an observation…it appears a few of the contributors here are decidedly opposed to Dan Patrick. Don, can you show us on this doll what Mr. Patrick did to you?
I share your disdain for Joe Strausss though.
Dan,
Dan Patrick uses the sleaziest political consultant in Texas. Lt. Dan listens to Alan Blakemore on issues involving criminal justice, which have not served him, Harris County, or even his son well. Devon Anderson can explain all this to you or you might be able to catch Susan Brown and get her opinion. Abbott has not fared a lot better.
I also think his immigration policy is just rhetoric to get votes. This policy has left big portions of our border open.
Dan serves two masters money and influence, neither has been good for Texas.
I could write a tomb but these are the latest. You get the idea. I did not understand the doll comment, assuming it was a typo. I can correct it?
Patrick may be the most conservative of the 3, but he is losing part of the grassroots, too. His opposition to Constitutional carry and other more libertarian friendly ideas hurts him. In addition, the fact that there was no bill in the Senate to abolish abortion hurts him with social conservatives. I’m not saying that he can’t beat Abbott, but that he has not positioned himself as well as he thinks
Jim,
Dan is betting that the police, i.e. HPOU and other law enforcement unions will be more helpful than those that supported constitutional carry. Make no mistake about who killed constitutional carry. I am with you by the way, my position has changed on the bill.
Don,
You may be right, but I think Lt. Dan may be looking for one more statewide landslide and one more General Session in the State’s most powerful position (Lt. Gov.) before he makes his move. Why pick a fight in the 2018 primary when he risks losing everything, when he can continue building momentum and take a “free” shot at the U.S. Senate seat in 2020 without risking his position?
I agree that he seems to have his sight on DC, but I think he is smart enough to wait to build his resume for an ultimate WH run in 2024.
Having said this, I am still not a fan of Lt. Dan, but I think he is playing a slightly longer game than you think.
Ed,
It’s, his age, he has to do it now. Dan would be 74 in 2024. Got to do it now. Abbott’s folks are preparing for a primary run. We will see, I am confident I am right. Anything could happen.
“Before he killed the sunset bill, Lt. Dan had to wait until the pension bill (SB 2190) passed the house so his law enforcement union friends (e.g., HPOU) would continue to support him and line his pockets. Patrick has always closely aligned himself with this union…”
When he first ran for state senate, that union pulled out all stops in the primary targeting Dan Patrick in favor of city councilman Mark Ellis, Patrick then slammed democrat Micheal Kubosh in the general election. On his radio talk show, he regularly bashed city finances, including pensions so saying Patrick was always closely aligned with any employee group of Houston just isn’t so. But once he toned down his rhetoric enough, both police and fire courted his influence and started donating money. Still, using the recent pension bill doesn’t convince me since Patrick, Governor Abbott, and Straus all let it sail through the legislature with minimal changes for such a large, complicated bill.
Pete,
Dan’s political consultant has always been the consultant for HPOU. Just because HPOU supported Ellis makes little or no difference. Ellis promised something to the union and it was most likely payback. They knew him not Patrick. You had to notice Huberty, Murphy, Zerwas, Bohac, and Schofield all voting for sb2190. Working it hard on the floor. Throwing taxpayers under the bus. They all share Blakemore as a consultant with Patrick and the HPOU. I guess I am the only one who notices such things.
Don, I’m not disputing whether they use some of the same lobbyists or not, merely pointing out that it doesn’t make sense to say they supported Patrick when they were airing his dirty laundry in public, sending out PAC driven hate fliers, and actively supporting Ellis. When you say the group with with him from the beginning in one post yet admit to their support for a different candidate in the next, I’m not sure where you’;re going with the belief that they were always with him.
Then, with regards to representatives Huberty, Bohac, and Schofield at least, they most certainly did not push for the pension bill but to defeat it by adding some very pro-firemen amendments as city leaders jumped up and down saying it would end the entire bill, costing over $400 million. You can check out the legislative history of the bill to see this, check out the amendments to the bill via media coverage, or go to the HFRRF website where the trio is immortalized for doing their best to restore benefits. If something went on behind closed doors that showed these three were really in cahoots with mayor Turner, I’m sure that would make a fascinating article.
anybody have the tally of who voted to admit we’re a sanctuary city? Rumor has it a vote was held but I see no reference in our daily waste of a local newspaper.
No one admitted that Houston is a sanctuary city, because it isn’t. SB4 is an egregious law that violates several portions of the Constitution. Here’s the MALDEF summary of the lawsuit they filed that explains their causes of action https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/SUMMARY_OF_LEGAL_ARGUMENTS_AGAINST_SB4.pdf
As for the Houston City Council vote, it’s in the paywalled section. Here’s the voting summary:
Turner was joined by council members Jerry Davis, Ellen Cohen, Dwight Boykins, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Mike Laster, Larry Green, David Robinson and Amanda Edwards in voting for litigation.
Council members Brenda Stardig, Dave Martin, Steve Le, Greg Travis, Mike Knox and Michael Kubosh voted against a lawsuit.
Ross,
Thank you for posting the recorded vote. You must not understand how our court system works. The people Houston just joined in the sanctuaries City lawsuit against will get to depose members of the Houston City council.
We all heard what Greg Travis put on the record. The same is true for Gallegos, Lasiter, Cohen, and the rest. We most certainly will be defined as a sanctuary city quicker than you can say SB4.
The best part will be when Sylvester asks the Texas legislature for something else. The down side to this ridiculous lawsuit has not been well though out.
Don’t think folks won’t run to the polls to vote against the bonds and lifting the revenue cap too. You don’t need no stinking money, you light it on fire every day at the City of Houston.
I am curious why you think joining a lawsuit against the sanctuary cities bill does not make us a sanctuary city? Houston does not do well in the court system. The other side of the argument is the US Federal Government and the State of Texas and their government lawyers are better?
Don, did you read the MALDEF summary of their lawsuit? Here’s the actual complaint they filed https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/File_Stamped_Complaint_COSAvTX.pdf
Read that, and you will understand the objections to SB4. Some of the allegations are a stretch, but the items on First Amendment violations due to the prohibition on local entities, which includes elected officials, “endorsing a policy” that “prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws” are on point, as are the items on the Fourth Amendment issues with ICE detainers that are not supported by a Federal warrant.
Objecting to those items doesn’t make Houston a “sanctuary city”, it makes Houston a city that is concerned about limits on political speech and detaining individuals for unspecified time periods without a warrant.
Politically, Council had to vote on this. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the members who voted for the suit privately think the City should have let the other plaintiffs do all the work.
Don if it is frivolous then the state will probably get attorney’s fees. If the state thought the law suits would be frivolous it would not have jumped in before suits were filed seeking a better court that would rule in their favor.
All Republicans that voted for Trump are Russian supporters, that is a very broad statement that does not mean anything, but that is what I get sometimes when you try to justify something you support. I am capable of making rational decisions when presented with facts.
I have yet to read what a “Sanctuary City” is, your definition may not be same as my interpretation, it may not be what Abbott thinks, it may not be what Patrick thinks. So let us start out what is your definition of sanctuary city?
But as a “Mexican” looking American and having been here back when America was great, I recall that we had to travel with our birth certificates. I remember us being stopped as the non-Mexican looking folks were waived on. I don’t look forward to those good old days.
Manuel,
I think MALDEF’s position and the position of liberal democrats is one of the racist mind sets we have in our land. Allowing illegal immigrants to come into the country exposes them to rape, murder, forced prostitution, and large scale human trafficking abuses. I have never understood this racist policy that protects murderous gangs to prey upon the illegal community and the desire of conservatives to do something about it should be cheered, instead we have dangerously ignorant politicians calling conservatives racist for trying to protect this community.
I know many legal immigrants who are cheering the new President’s efforts to put an end to the awful gangs like, but certainly not limited to MS-13, who are murdering, exploiting, prostituting, illegal immigrants every day. I have no idea why latino-politicians support the policies of allowing these gangs to operate freely in a our country. You need to go spend some time down at the Harris County Criminal Courthouse and see who the victims are of this insane policy of HPD order 600, not allowing officers to ask who folks are and what are they doing here, which is legal under our constitution. I have to show my ID to enter City hall, how did undocumented workers get in on Tuesday and Wednesday?
It’s almost as if Hispanic politicians are taking money from home-builders, contractors, businesses of all types who exploit illegal immigrant labor for a organized racketeering operation and everyone of them should be horse whipped. You should be ashamed of yourself. This is something I will not debate with someone who promotes his own people to be abused in this manner. You are very definitely on the wrong side of this argument, not to mention promoting slavery, murder, and prostitution.
What is your definition of a sanctuary city? Maybe referring to some people as liberal Democrats has some meaning to some people, but I don’t have an idea of what it means to you or anyone else. It is just name calling to argue a point.
I don’t know of anyone legal or otherwise that is against getting rid of gangs, all types of gangs that are a menace to society. So your statement is true in the sense that you know some legal immigrants are for that.
I don’t have to go to a court house to see what HPD does or not does. But unlike you I don’t blame the Democrats for the “Illegals” being here, I blame the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans in Texas could pass an e-verify for all employees that was ruled legal in Arizona. I have been favor of a National ID like for ever. I don’t mind getting pulled over and proving I am a citizen, if everyone else has to be inconvenienced as well. What home builders are you referring to? What is one of the largest home builders and to whom do they give money? Have you ever bothered to look? Look at all those people working on state highways, so many brown folks, wonder why the state does not make sure that they are all legal.
Name calling I am in favor of “This is something I will not debate with someone who promotes his own people to be abused in this manner. You are very definitely on the wrong side of this argument, not to mention promoting slavery, murder, and prostitution”. That is always your answer when you don’t have any facts to support an argument.
My people are American. Great Uncle WWI, father and his brother WWII Pacific Theater(4 Years), uncle mother side Europe WWII, uncle my mother side Korea, brother Vietnam, 101st, nephews Iraq. So Don I am an American I don’t know what your family has done to prove themselves that they deserve to be more American. Name calling shows at least to me that you have no rational argument.
“I am capable of making rational decisions when presented with facts.”
“I have yet to read what a “Sanctuary City” is, your definition may not be same as my interpretation…”
Bub, if definitions = interpretations I don’t think discussing anything worth anything is going to occur with you. And if you don’t what the term sanctuary city means by now you are either ignorant, willfully ignorant or relying on your blinkered interpretations to cloud your ability to have a discussion.
DanMan so if you are so smart enlighten me at, but your attempt at arguing a point by calling someone names or questioning their intelligence certainly shows a lack of a quite few things about your character and ability to argue. I could easily state you “are either ignorant, willfully ignorant or relying on your blinkered interpretations to cloud your ability to have a discussion.” So if someone disagrees with you are Don we are ignorant, it is “Your” people. If you want only people that follow some party line without regard to loyalty to country, tend state it.
Manuel, you deflect from the issue by stating you don’t know what it even means. My position is enforce the law and recognize the border exists. Very simple concept. Do agree we should enforce immigration laws?
Ross, that summary of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund appears to declare law enforcement illegal while always referring to illegal aliens as undocumented. Only federal officers can enforce immigration laws? Once an illegal gets admitted to college he is untouchable re: immigration laws? really?
An illegal alien that gets elected locally can’t be scrutinized for being in the country illegally? c’mon man!
You libs are a laugh riot. Because the feds won’t enforce immigration laws locals try to get some kind of order related to the impacts illegals are having on their communities and that flies in the face of your open borders demands and then when the feds want to move in to enforce immigration laws you libs want to have local control protect illegals from prosecution. Y’all want it your way, both ways in order to block any attempt to maintain national sovereignty.
And then as a bonus you get to cram your toxic racial epitaphs at anybody that doesn’t toe your BS advocating for open borders.
What if we simply adopted Mexico’s immigration laws and applied them here? what would MALDEF say about that?
So, Dan, you can’t respond to the issues raised by MALDEF with regard to the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments?
I don’t agree with all the points MALDEF raises, but they are on point with respect to violating elected officials free speech rights, that local police lack the training and knowledge to determine immigration status, and that allowing any random cop to ask about immigration status will result in pretext stops of people who are brown. If you don’t think that will happen, you are naive.
sure I can, the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
MALDEF – gahhh!! it’s a violation of our 1st amendment rights to not be able to break immigration laws!!! We have created a new religion where only the whole family can worship together so therefore NO CHURCH AND STATE!!11!!! aaaahhhkkk!
My take – Probably won’t hold up on the merits.
2nd Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
MALDEF – andele’!!! It is against the law to enforce the law!!!11!!
My take – I don’t think extending US civil rights to illegals will trump the laws we are attempting to enforce. If so, we need to make available all the other laws we won’t be enforcing so we can all plan accordingly.
14th Amendment : I have to assume they are keying on Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
MALDEF – caramba!!! We must be allowed to have our pregnant citizens free access to gain a foot hold in the US!!11!! Any woman that drops a baby across the border must have welfare benefits immediately conferred!!1! That dual citizenship baby must be the anchor that forces the citizens of the US to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and solemnly endorse bringing it’s entire family into the jurisdiction of the US because an amendment written to address the issue of slave offspring has to be contorted to provide everything we demand!!11!!! oh, and that last part about due process and equal protection of the laws only applies to what we see fit to protect.
My take – Pound sand. Let’s take it to the SC and get a decision. Until then I don’t consider anchor babies citizens either. But Mexico does.
Like I said, let’s just adopt Mexico’s immigration laws when it comes to enforcement.
ahem…
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/06/23/trump-administration-weighs-sb4-court-battle/
MALDEF believes any non-federal agency voluntarily cooperating with ICE is usurping the federal government’s jurisdiction while the federal government under Trump is happy to have the assistance.
Ross and Manual hardest hit.
Dan,
It is one of those arguments they will soon regret. It will happen this way.
“So if we concede your point does this mean illegal immigrants are no longer entitled to local school education, county hospitals, local healthcare clinics. We will take that trade.”
Not real smart and will be crushed on that argument all day.
When the FEDS and State of Texas cutoff Houston because they defined themselves as a sanctuary city by joining the litigation the folks who will undoubtedly be hurt most will be the folks these pandering politicians are claiming to help. It always amazes me why democrats are so inclined to drive off the highest part of the cliff. It will be another I told you so.
and how many of these dems on council are lawyers? Can they disbarred for advocating breaking the law? Officers of the court have a duty to follow that don’t they?
I sure hope the lawsuit about term limits causes an uproar for our elections…these folks need to be exposed.
There you go again DanMan, I don’t believe I have taken a position on MALDEF here, so again you resort to who knows what people like you resort to to try to win arguments. There was a time when one that called themselves a Republican could argue facts and not just resort to name calling how the party has deteriorated of late.
Manuel, do you believe we should enforce immigration laws?
I will presume the reason Manuel doesn’t know what the term sanctuary city means is because he doesn’t want enforcement of immigration laws. Thanks for playing Manuel.
Dan, the term “sanctuary city” is as yet legally undefined and means different things to different people. That is where I think Manuel is struggling. Many true conservatives think SB4 doesn’t go nearly far enough, simply asking people where they are from or holding people for the federal government considered weak tea out here in the county.
Peter do you think we should enforce immigration laws?
Absolutely! We should also go after employers that hire them and revisit many related areas such as anchor babies, and social services provided illegals that do not currently inquire as to status. Cities like Houston are not sanctuary cities simply because they have policies restricting what questions their police can ask suspects, they are sanctuary cities because they bend over backwards to accommodate illegals and provide them with services paid for by the rest of us. Just because some crooked construction company or restaurant profits from using their services does not mean most taxpayers benefit directly but we should be crystal clear in defining exactly what will legally be considered as a sanctuary city, not the current version where everyone has their own interpretation.
I give you a solid B+. We know what an illegal alien is. Those that don’t know what a sanctuary city is don’t want to recognize the concept of an illegal alien either. I think there is a pattern.
I could assume many things about you Dan but I will not resort to insults yet.
Why not look how Sessions has defined Sanctuary Cities?
Peter and you think that the State doesn’t do the same by allowing all those undocumented folks to work on their construction projects?
Peter, I am struggling because I don’t adhere to what ever your position or Dan’s position is, I think that is very presumptuous of you. Who woke up and made you god?
I been pushing for a National ID for everyone that has to be carried at all times.
ahem…http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sanctuary-city
sanctuary city
noun [ C ] /ˈsæŋk.tʃʊə.ri ˌsɪt.i/ /ˈsæŋk.tʃu.er.i ˌsɪt̬.i/
a city in the US or Canada where illegal immigrants (= people who have moved to live in a foreign country permanently) are not prosecuted:
Houston is one of the better-known sanctuary cities for immigrants in the US.
On my Norton SafeSearch site it took getting past 6 pages of sanctuary city definitions as “explained” by CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN, VOX, Pew, The Hill, Slate, The New Yorker, NYT, Washington Times, Politico, several local liberal rags like the Minneapolis Star, NO Picayune, Houston Comical, etc., The Atlantic and at least 20 more well known liberal hitching posts and believe it or not they just about all have the same problem you do Manuel. They don’t recognize the term and that gives them the protection they need to not address the issue other than to rail against any effort to enforce federal immigration laws.
Your noble declaration that you want more federal laws is a canard. Why would we need national IDs if the laws aren’t going to be enforced? It’s easy to enforce laws until it isn’t because because you wouldn’t for decades. This same principal applies to public employee pensions btw. Odd how just about every sanctuary city (or state or other jurisdiction) that is up to its eye teeth in pension debt is also run by a liberal democrat. But I digress. Most repubs in office are weak on the issue as well.
This is how we get Trump.
Dan, I’ll take a B+. Moving back to the term sanctuary city though, currently, illegal aliens are prosecuted by the city of Houston for every city ordinance and presumably every state law so it can’t be said to give illegals a free pass. Immigration status is a federal issue and city’s do not prosecute federal crimes, the discussion is on just how much cooperation the city gives the federal authorities. If the feds ask the city to place a hold on an individual, they currently do so just as the newly elected democrat sheriff does. But for the most part, the federal authorities have not provided any means to detain or ship illegals back to their home countries except in relatively narrow circumstances in recent decades, focusing mostly on illegals that have committed violent crimes. A great many people are in favor of deporting illegals back to their countries of origin but it remains up to the feds to handle this process, not individual cities, hence my splitting hairs on definitions.
Had President Reagan not passed the buck and then subsequent presidents left the resulting chaos on the back burner, we wouldn’t have to deal with it now but sanctioning cities should be for very specific behaviors, not just window dressing. Those 6 pages of layman definitions are only the surface of the iceberg, even your dictionary definition not helping since a codified, legal definition that clearly states actions and/or omissions by the city that qualify it as such is what is needed.
Your grade is dropping Peter. The evidence of the city allowing illegals fairly free reign is all around us. There is no reason to dispute that other than to promote the status quo in this regard.
Reaching back to Reagan shows you have no argument. What Reagan did was agree to a compromise that was never implemented. You know it. If local law enforcement is precluded from cooperating with federal law enforcement then let’s list all of the federal laws that can ignored openly now so all of us can participate in the anarchy of our choice.
Once again, Dan, you provide no specifics, just vague statements. What is the City of Houston doing to cater to illegals?
uh…er Ross…the city has joined a lawsuit to stop voluntary enforcement of federal immigration laws by city police.
After proclaiming the city did not need to consider joining said lawsuit because we were not a sanctuary city, Mayor Turner turned tail and called for the council to support him in joining same suit.
The lawsuit sponsored by LULAC, MALDEF and the ACLU makes clear it is to stop enforcement of federal immigration laws by local police, our mayor sure confirms he accepts the lawsuit is intended to do that, first by rejecting it as not needed and then embracing it as his best chance to keep the status quo.
That you can’t make the connection is on you bub. Well you and Manuel.