HB 348 May Be Dead, but the Sanctuary State Battle has just Begun
By Gail Weiss
As you may have heard, voters across the political spectrum voted this past November with 70% approval to pass Term Limits in Montgomery County because we citizens had more than enough experience with local politicians who do NOT listen to us, their constituents.
We thought there was a glimmer of hope when those very same county council members voted last November 5 to 3 to not recommend HB348, which sought to stagger council elections between presidential and gubernatorial elections. It was sponsored by Delegate “I-Clearly-Have-Too-Much-Free-Time” Al Carr of Chevy Chase, who refers to himself in the insufferable third person. When questioned about how he came up with this bill, he testified that “it’s just something that Delegate Carr thinks up at night.”
The bill, which many viewed as a crass attempt to undermine the spirit of the overwhelming Term Limits mandate, created such an outcry among those who had supported term limits that last week Delegate Carr was forced to withdraw his bill. You would think that maybe our local politicians might be starting to see a pattern when they are slammed so decisively 0 for 2 on legislation that cuts across political lines in Montgomery County, but alas, no.
On February 27, our Leftist Council members voted UNANIMOUSLY to support HB 1362, which seeks to make Maryland a sanctuary state.
You think you hated your nearly 9% real estate tax and 33% real estate recordation tax increases last year? Just wait until President Trump makes good on his promise to justifiably withhold federal monies from jurisdictions across the country who brazenly defy federal immigration laws by not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding the immigration status of anyone arrested in Maryland. I’m no lawyer, but I know at least two MC council members are.
So what is their excuse for supporting legislation that not only doesn’t reflect the best interests of their constituents in Montgomery County, but also does not reflect the best interests, once again, of the population they claim to try to protect: the illegal residents who are absolutely the most vulnerable to becoming victims of crime committed by fellow illegal residents?