Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Sanctuary States category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Sanctuary States’ Category

Friday night, Tim Walz tried being the ‘I’m all things to all people’ candidate during his debate with Jeff Johnson on Almanac. On one of the first questions, Walz talked about single-payer health care being where most people finally arrive at. Then Walz went into a long-winded spiel about how preventive care drives down health insurance premiums, which is why we need single-payer.

That’s BS. What drives up premiums is aging. As we get older, we reach our high-use years. Preventive care is a worthwhile thing to do because, theoretically, it keeps us healthier longer. Still, it doesn’t drive down health insurance premiums. Then Walz totally stepped in it, saying “everyone knows that there’s no plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions unless you have the ACA in place.”

Johnson jumped in at that point, saying “That’s utterly ridiculous. We did it for 30 years in Minnesota before the ACA and we did it better before the ACA. But let’s be honest about what single-payer is. Single-payer means that everybody loses their insurance. There is no private insurance and we’re all forced onto one government plan.”

That’s true. I wrote about the DFL’s single-payer bill in this post. That bill has 31 coverage requirements for each policy. Think of it this way. It’s the ACA except that it’s totally run by bureaucrats. After the rollout disaster of the ACA, that can’t sound appealing.

Next subject up was immigration. Mr. Walz went first, saying this:

I spent 24 years on national security and numerous trips to the border to actually witness how we do security in-depth and how we do it electronically and with surveillance. Every sovereign nation has the right and the need to control its borders but the issue is about stoking fear and telling us we’re not stronger because of immigration. It doesn’t matter what your plans are. The next governor of Minnesota must have the capacity to bring people together to solve problems. Immigration has always been an issue that has bound us together and what we see is this fear of telling people that they are in danger instead of coming up with real solid plans like comprehensive immigration reform that passed in the Senate but was never heard in the House.

Notice that Walz criticized President Trump, criticized House Republicans, tossed out the Democrats’ favorite go-to phrase on immigration but didn’t actually tell the moderators whether he’d advocate for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state. Eventually, Walz admitted that he’s for turning Minnesota into a sanctuary state before lying about what a sanctuary state or city is.

Jeff Johnson immediately highlighted the fact that “there are only — what — 5-6 states in the nation that are sanctuary states in the country. We’d be the only one in the upper Midwest and what that means is that we would prohibit our law enforcement officers from cooperating with law enforcement from the federal government in any way.”

Walz denied that description, insisting that violent felons would go to prison. That isn’t at question. What’s at question is what state law enforcement officials would be allowed to do when these violent felons are released from prison.

After hearing Walz insist that Republicans have been stoking fear amongst citizens on immigration, I’d love hearing how Tim Walz would “bring people together to solve problems.”

At other points in the debate, Walz’s answers were more word salad than serious policy prescription. At one point, I hit pause on the DVR and told my roommate that “this guy is ‘The Babbler’.”

I highly recommend you watch the entire debate. Tim Walz was all over the place. Jeff Johnson’s answers were short, concise and actually fixed problems.

The Democrats have a major problem brewing that really can’t be fixed. Thanks to their divisions, Democrats are fighting over immigration. A significant percentage of Democrats openly want open borders. Another significant percentage are fine with open borders but don’t want to talk about it during the campaign. There’s a tiny fraction of Democrats that are actually sane who want the borders enforced. Doug Schoen is a patriotic member of that tiny fraction. In this op-ed, Schoen makes the argument that advocating for open borders will eliminate opportunities for Democrats.

Specifically, he wrote “Not only is Ellison’s statement in itself completely detached from reality, but it seems to suggest that if we cannot have wide open borders, then we must not have free trade at all. These remarks come just weeks after Ellison wore a T-shirt which read ‘yo no creo en fronteras,’ which in English translates into ‘I do not believe in borders.'”

What’s stunning about that t-shirt is that it gives context to his run for Minnesota’s state Attorney General’s office. It’s clear that Ellison will fight law enforcement (through the courts) whose responsibility it is to protect us from drug cartels, gangs like MS-13 and sex and human traffickers. It’s apparent that his only is to pad DFL voter lists. If he has to ignore the law, he’s shown that he’s willing to do that without hesitation.

Further, Ellison has a history of defending cop-killers in the court of public opinion. He did that with convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, and with Kathleen Soliah. But I digress.

Concerningly, Ellison’s brash statement on immigration is not far out of line with the Democratic Party as a whole. In fact, a Harvard Harris poll from June states that a striking 36 percent of Democrats support “basically open borders”—an inflammatory policy dangerously out of line with mainstream thinking.

Then there’s this:

With the midterms slowly approaching, regaining the support of Independents and moderate Republicans will be key for Democrats in their fight to take back the House. However, light of contentious issues such as immigration where the party has moved further left than ever before, this will be an increasingly difficult demographic for Democrats to appeal to in November. According to a July Gallup poll, immigration is one of the most important issues for Americans heading into the midterm elections, with 22 percent of respondents saying it was the nation’s most important problem.

The Democrats lead in the generic ballot polling but I don’t think it’s a sturdy lead. That’s because I think the Republicans’ closing arguments will devastate Democrats this fall.

Part of the Republicans’ closing arguments should be this insane blathering from Nancy Pelosi:

Saying that Democrats are better at border security is stupid beyond belief. Republicans should also use this interview of Thomas Homan, the retired acting director of ICE, by Harris Faulkner:

When Homan said that the judge ordered the government to stop doing DNA testing because the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the issue, my heart broke. Homan said that “5%-7% of the kids” weren’t a match with the people who claimed to be their parents. Homan then hinted that this judge might’ve just given these kids to sex traffickers.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to have that fight, Republicans should welcome that fight. Thoughtful people don’t release kids to sex traffickers.

Just when you thought the DFL couldn’t get any nuttier, their messaging center, aka ABM, sent out this fundraising appeal:

Hasn’t the DFL paid attention lately? This fundraising letter says that “Undocumented Minnesotans are our friends and our neighbors.” Go to Willmar, St. Cloud, Little Falls or any town with a meat-packing plant and ask them if they see illegal aliens (they aren’t “undocumented Minnesotans”) as their neighbors.

The DFL hasn’t figured it out that the average blue collar worker is disgusted with the DFL’s open border policies. BTW, this includes the rising tensions caused by the refugee resettlement program. If the DFL wants to write off rural Minnesota’s voters, they’re advocating for the right policies to accomplish that.

Earlier today, I read this article about how Gabby Giffords’ group is running ads against Republicans who’ve accepted money from the NRA:

As President Donald Trump addresses the National Rifle Association this week, a leading gun-safety group is looking to make an example out of suburban Republicans. Giffords, the organization co-founded by shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., will announce Thursday that it is adding five GOP lawmakers to its list of midterm targets and launching digital ads in 10 competitive House and Senate races, NBC News has learned exclusively.

If that’s the Democrats’ strategy, Republicans should counter by highlighting the Democrats’ open border policies.

People have noticed that immigration-related crime is rising. That’s why President Trump keeps pounding the subject. He knows that people don’t think of illegal immigration the way Jeb Bush saw it:

President Trump stripped away the propaganda and exposed the reality of illegal immigration, especially the gangs like MS-13 and the human trafficking that people in California are seeing. The Jeb Bush ‘act of love’ image of illegal immigration doesn’t play anymore.

Thanks to ABM’s and the DFL’s tone deafness, they’re still convinced that illegal immigration is a winning issue for them. Rest assured that it’s a winning issue … for Republicans.

Please, please, please, please, please let Tim Walz be the DFL candidate for governor. This afternoon, Tim Pawlenty sent out an email stating that Tim Walz answered a questionnaire from Our Revolution Minnesota. Reading through Our Revolution Minnesota’s news & headlines page, it’s pretty clear that this isn’t a moderate, center-left organization. One post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorsements: Ellison, Kulp, Phifer. The next post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorses Jeff Erdmann.

It’s obvious that they’re far left radicals.

The Pawlenty email states “Walz answered a question as part of the ‘Our Revolution Minnesota’ candidate questionnaire by stating that he would ‘make Minnesota a Sanctuary State.'” That Rep. Walz wants to turn Minnesota into a cold California is frightening. In California, which is now known as the ‘Crime & Homelessness State’ (compared to the Golden State of yesteryear), crime is rampant and pictures of massive tent cities of homeless people are routine parts of newscasts. If Tim Walz gets his way, this is what’s in Minnesota’s future:

This is Tim Pawlenty’s response to Tim Walz:

In the ad, Pawlenty said this:

Really? I mean that’s just nutty. And it’s not safe. It’ll take away tools from police officers who are trying to get criminals off the streets. When you turn on the news and you see things like a 90-year old farmer from Carver County who was robbed and beaten to death in his home by two illegal immigrants, Tim Walz’s plan makes even less sense. In fact, it’s dangerous. There’s a better way forward. I’ll bring common sense and accountability back to government.

It isn’t a stretch to say that Tim Walz sold his soul to run for governor. He used to have a great rating with the NRA. Now he’s trashing them because being on good speaking terms with the NRA isn’t allowed if you’re a DFL candidate for governor. Walz crafted an image of being sensible while in Congress. (He wasn’t sensible but that’s the image he crafted.) Running as the ‘Sanctuary State Candidate’ won’t help Walz’s carefully-crafted image.

This isn’t something Walz can dodge, either. I’m told that there’s visual proof of Walz’s sanctuary state statement. That puts Walz in an impossible position. If he denies making the statement, the visual proof is produced, which destroys Walz’s credibility. If Walz proudly states that he supports Minnesota as a sanctuary state, he turns off people in rural Minnesota, who expect laws to be enforced. Couple Walz’s sanctuary state policy with the refugee resettlement crisis and you’ve got the potential for lots of hostility directed at Rep. Walz. That’s a can’t-win situation.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday night, Beaumont and San Diego became the latest cities to officially reject California’s SB 54 California Values Act, aka California’s Sanctuary State law. In Beaumont, the Beaumont City Council voted 3-2 tonight to approve a resolution asserting that California’s so-called ‘sanctuary state’ law is incompatible with federal law and, therefore, illegitimate. Beaumont is the first Inland Empire municipality to oppose Senate Bill 54, the ‘California Values Act,’ joining Orange County and a number of its cities in challenging the statute’s validity.”

Also on Tuesday night, the “San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over so-called sanctuary laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement. The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the board.”

I’d like to thank Agnes Gibboney, one of the Angel Moms I’ve had the privilege of interviewing, for tipping me off about the Beaumont vote.

It’s unmistakable that the tide is turning against the Sanctuary advocates. A month ago, Gov. Jerry Brown and California State Attorney General Xavier Becerra were lipping off to President Trump. Now, they’re in full retreat. According to Agnes and others, Californians are speaking up against the Democrats’ anti-safety policies. One of the ‘others’ is Kristin Gaspar, the chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Gaspar is also running to replace Rep. Darrell Issa in the US Congress. After Tuesday night’s vote, Fox News’ Ed Henry interviewed Ms. Gaspar about their vote. Here’s that interview:

I found this snippet disturbing:

SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries an courthouses serve as ‘safe zones,’ where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention.

I don’t see how that’s enforceable since the sidewalks and city streets are public property. It’s possible that SB 54 could suggest those areas as safe zones. I don’t see how California could mandate that those areas be safe zones.

In the end, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors listened to their constituents:

During the announcement of the vote, Gaspar showed printouts of emails she received from each side of the debate. The stack of emails criticizing her for considering support for the lawsuit was not much thicker than a legal pad. The stack of emails asking her to support the Trump administration’s legal challenge was more than a foot tall.

On a political note, Democrats had to think that they’d flip Darrell Issa’s seat after he narrowly defeated Doug Applegate, his Democratic opponent, by 1,600+ votes. With an increase in Republican voter intensity in San Diego, a pretty red district, coupled with Ms. Gaspar’s popularity, I’d say another Republican seat is a bigger challenge for the Democrats than it was a month ago.

Based on the reports I’m getting from southern California, I’m getting skeptical that Democrats will get enough seats from California to flip the House.

Margaret Baker, who lives near the border, told the board that backing the lawsuit will discourage immigrants from reporting crime. “We see this lawsuit as an attack on our safety and the well-being of our community,” she said.

The reports I’m getting from southern California is that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are injuring pedestrians in hit-and-run accidents, with many legal residents getting severely injured. It’s impossible to make the case that shielding these illegal immigrants from prosecution is making San Diego safe.

Facts on the ground are changing the debate more than Jerry Brown can spin things. That truth should frighten Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A week ago, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, California’s governor and state attorney general respectively, were riding high while touting California’s sanctuary state law. Since then, Brown and Becerra have done nothing but backtrack on immigration. Don’t expect their losing streak to end anytime soon. Los Alamitos was the first openly defiant city to challenge SB 54. It wasn’t the last.

Last night, Los Alamitos voted for a second time to opt out of SB 54. By a vote of 4-1, “Los Alamitos Council members voted … to opt out of a state law that prohibited state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.”

Councilman Mark Chirco was the lone dissenting vote. Afterwards, Chirco said “the council has no legal authority to approve the ordinance and criticized the council members for what he called being irresponsible, stating that the measure will open the city to lawsuits.”

That started the Democrats’ criticism:

Shortly after the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that the ordinance is “a blatant violation of the city’s obligation to follow a state law that puts our local resources to use for the safety of our communities rather than toward federal immigration agencies.” The civil rights group previously threatened the city with a lawsuit if it passes the ordinance.

It isn’t surprising that the ACLU has it bassackwards. California doesn’t have the authority to ignore federal immigration policies. Let’s be blunt. That’s what California is doing by not notifying ICE of when illegal immigrants are getting out of jail.

The Democrats’ arguments are worthless as trash:

Omar Siddiqui, a U.S. Congressional candidate in California running to unseat Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also spoke at the meeting, urging the council to oppose the motion as “our communities are safer when we work with each other and trust each other, not when we operate under a police state.”

Tell that to the Steinle family. This is an outright lie that’s told by Democrats. There’s no proof that verifies that as anything more than spin or theory.

Don’t be surprised if people reject Siddiqui. There’s an anti-sanctuary state backlash building in California. More people are getting tired of California’s failed liberal policies, especially with regards to illegal immigration. They’re tired of hearing how safe their communities are when they aren’t.

It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that this controversy is increasing voter intensity on the right. People are rejecting the Democrats’ anything goes immigration policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When I first read this op-ed, I didn’t take it seriously. Then I reread it. This time, the second time was the charm. While I’m far from agreeing with each of the opinions expressed by the author, I’m not dismissing them either.

For instance, the author is Peggy Grande, “the executive assistant to president Ronald Reagan from 1989–1999.” This isn’t some wild-eyed activist. This is someone who’s connected to California’s political culture. I won’t dismiss Ms. Grande when she wrote “Surprising but true, there actually are conservatives in California, but we have been silenced and powerless far too long and now are finding an unlikely alliance with common sense Democrats who feel abandoned by their party and realize it no longer represents them.”

Eventually, people won’t tolerate being ignored. That’s often where backlashes start. I’d certainly make a persuasive argument that that’s where Trump’s backlash came from. In 2015-16, people in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin switched allegiances in the presidential election.

Further, Ms. Grande wrote “It appears those in power here who have championed policies that continue to steer California further and further left may now have overplayed their hand. And the backlash has begun, with no end in sight. In fact, common sense Californians from both sides of the political aisle are coming together in solidarity to challenge policies and governing that has left them to endure the consequences of the decisions of their lawmakers, which has made life more expensive, more challenging, more dangerous, and in some instances even putting them into potential legal jeopardy. For example, business owners now face the quandary of being in compliance with the feds or being in compliance with the state with their employees and their immigration status. This is not a partisan issue. This is the very type of issue that continues to make California a difficult place to do business and disincentivizes businesses to come here and continues to drive successful businesses and taxpayers out of the state.”

Then Ms. Grande gives us a history lesson:

Ronald Reagan was a Democrat for many years before switching to the Republican Party. When asked why he changed parties, he said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me.”

If high taxes, overregulation and dealing with a homeless/illegal immigration crisis isn’t enough to spark a backlash, nothing will.

Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra spearheaded the initiative to turn California into a sanctuary state. Since I first wrote about the crisis, cities and counties started defying the will of the elitists. Eventually, people will reach a point where they join this guy:

On a more serious note, if Democrats don’t flip a bunch of seats in California, their blue wave won’t swamp the Republicans. It’s that simple.

Whatever you think of Jerry Brown, aka Gov. Moonbeam, it’s indisputable that he’s a typical career politician. The latest proof of that is Gov. Brown’s announcement that he’s sending National Guard troops to reinforce the border but that “they won’t be used for ‘enforcing federal immigration laws.'”

In his official communication with the administration, Brown states “Your funding for new staffing will allow the Guard to do what it does best: support operations targeting transnational criminal gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers along the border, the coast and throughout the state. Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. That’s why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.”

Next comes the important part for Gov. Brown, especially politically. Gov. Brown states “But let’s be crystal clear on the scope of this mission. This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.”

That’s what’s known as CYA. There never was an expectation that the National Guard would build the wall. Further, it’s been established practice that the Guard supports the Border Patrol by manning surveillance posts, keeping vehicles in good repair and other non-law enforcement activities.

Finally, this is what’s called caving to political pressure. Suffice it to say that Gov. Brown and California Attorney Gen. Becerra didn’t expect this much push-back on illegal immigration. What’s interesting is that Gov. Brown admitted that illegal aliens are part of “transnational criminal gangs”, are human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers.”

With those types of crimes on their rap sheets, and with California protecting criminal aliens, it’s more accurate to call California a fugitive state than to call it a sanctuary state. It’s difficult to say that today’s Democratic Party cares about enforcing laws or protecting people. Finally, it’s difficult to take Democrats seriously about #MeToo when they turn a blind eye towards human trafficking.

This afternoon, a loyal reader of LFR forwarded me an email newsletter from TakeAction Minnesota. Included in that email was a link to this article, which deals with the topics of voting and gun control.

It starts by saying “At last month’s March for Our Lives in Washington, DC, the 20 young people who spoke had a clear message for the hundreds of thousands of protesters: Vote. Specifically, they urged their supporters to vote out of office any lawmaker who stands in the way of gun control. ‘The voting is what we’re pushing here,’ Stoneman Douglas student and #NeverAgain activist Jaclyn Corin said in an interview with Crooked Media before the march. ‘The March is kind of a statement saying, ‘Hey, we’re gonna be voting in November. Watch out—all these people are voting against you.'”

This year, Democrats are pushing 2 things hard — raising the minimum age of buying certain types of guns to 21 and lowering the voting age to 16. Democrats are arguing simultaneously that 16-year-olds are wise enough to make informed decisions on who should represent people in Congress but 20-year-olds are too stupid to safely operate a semi-automatic firearm. Wouldn’t you love to hear David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez explain that?

Actually, the explanation is rather simple. First, Democrats want to flood the polling booths with as many uninformed voters as possible. People that think things through vote for conservatives more often than they vote for Democrats. That’s a statement of statistical fact. It isn’t a statement of derision. Next, raising the age of purchase to 21 is an emotional issue for people. The Democrats’ base will be fired up as a result.

Republicans need to frame this election as a referendum between sensible policies vs. irrational policies. Let’s illustrate:

  1. There’s nothing irrational about enforcing our international borders. There’s nothing sane about opening our borders to drug cartels while fighting an opioid crisis.
  2. There’s nothing irrational about reducing regulations and increasing competition.
  3. There’s nothing sane about increasing regulations that cripple competition.
  4. There’s nothing irrational about moving national guard troops to the Tex-Mex border to prevent human trafficking.
  5. There’s nothing sane about letting human traffickers bring in sex slaves from Latin America.
  6. There’s nothing irrational about shutting down the borders to prevent violent felons from entering the US.
  7. There’s nothing sane about letting violent felons into the US by turning a blind eye towards the Tex-Mex border. That inevitably leads to new members of the Angel Parents ‘club’.

Conservatives, it’s time for you to ask yourselves if you want Congress run by people who won’t protect its citizens by electing Democrat majorities in the House and/or Senate or whether we’ll tell our friends, neighbors, co-workers and church family to get out and vote for sane conservatives, then voting ourselves. What’s required from conservatives is gritty determination to vote. Losing the House and/or the Senate will stop President Trump’s common-sense agenda on immigration, regulations and shutting down gangs like MS-13.

It’s ok to disapprove of President Trump’s tweets. Some of his tweets are inexcusable and shouldn’t be defended. His economic and national security agenda, however, aren’t just defensible. They’re essential.

Finally, it’s essential that all patriots vote to save this republic. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic but it’s where we’re at right now. Democrat progressives hate the principles that this nation was founded on. That’s how they can advocate for raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, then immediately argue that it’s essential to lower the voting age to 16. These aren’t sensible arguments. They’re the arguments of irrational people. Liberalism isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a mental disorder.

Ideologues like Gov. Kate Brown, (D-OR), don’t get it when it comes to border security. Their reflexive hatred for President Trump eliminates the possibility of rational thought. This morning, Gov. Brown took to Twitter to state her position on illegal immigration. She said “If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by [President] Trump’s plan to militarize our border.”

Angel Mom Sabine Durden replied “Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn’t about ur dislike of @POTUS, but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for. Want ur child’s name in a story like mine?” Ms. Sabine then included this picture memorializing her slain son:


Here’s a little background on Sabine and Dominic Durden:

Durden’s son, Dominic, was killed four years ago in a fatal motorcycle crash. On July 12, 2012, Dominic, 30, was on his way to work when an illegal immigrant driving an unlicensed pickup truck took a wrong turn. Dominic was killed instantly.

The driver, Juan Zacarias Lopez Tzun, was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala with a record of drunk driving convictions. His initial sentence included nine months’ jail time, five years of probation, and a restitution fee of $18,800.

Then there’s this:

For Ms. Durden, the hardest part about Dominic’s untimely death was knowing that his killer was permitted to remain in a “sanctuary city” of Riverside County, California, after having demonstrated irreverence for its laws on multiple occasions. “I want my country to be protected, and I want others to never know the kind of pain and grief this causes — not just when your child gets killed, but when it’s avoidable.”

Gov. Brown apparently doesn’t want to hear from people like Sabine Durden. If she took time to listen, it might change Gov. Brown’s mind. That might lead her to get out-of-step with the Democratic Party.

There’s a personal cost that Gov. Brown isn’t considering:

“I’ve been called racist, Nazi, Hitler,” [Sabine] said, adding that she commonly has to report threatening Facebook messages she receives from strangers. But even more upsetting, she shared, are the biting comments from people who she “thought were friends,” telling her that she should “leave things alone and not separate families.” “And then I remind them, ‘What about my family?’ I don’t have one left. My only child is dead,” she said. “When they call me a racist, I show them a picture of Dominic and tell them, ‘That was my son,'” she laughed, referring to Dominic’s mixed race.

It’s time for Democrats to take their first real look at this crisis rather than acting like puppets dancing for campaign contributions from La Raza and other open borders organizations. Thus far, Democrats have demagogued this issue. When someone disagrees, they accuse that person of being a racist. The notion that Sabine is accused of being a racist is disgusting and dishonest. Whoever made that accusation should be publicly humiliated. Period.

This is the third Angel Mom I’ve written about this week. I’m writing about these women because their stories need to be told. I’m writing about things that the MSM hasn’t written about. That’s because they don’t want the real story to be told. This is too important to not get told.