Tag Archives: Soft on Crime

Minneapolis “begins the process of ending” their police department

Democrats want to refund the police and release criminals
Democrats want to refund the police and release criminals

I think that one of the best things we can do to make sure that Trump wins in November is to paint the Democrats as too extreme to win the vote of moderates. One way to do that is to publicize the weirdest things that they do so that everyone sees them. Well, “ending” your police department is a very weird thing.

Here’s the article from the radically leftist Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

In their boldest statement since George Floyd’s killing, nine Minneapolis City Council members told a crowd Sunday that they will “begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department.”

“We recognize that we don’t have all the answers about what a police-free future looks like, but our community does,” they said, reading off a prepared statement.

[…]“Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its actions,” they said. “We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.”

And it’s not just dark blue Minneapolis that is ending their police force. Other Democrat mayors are getting in on it:

The effort to defund police departments has gained some momentum. Last week, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city would look to cut $100 million to $150 million from its nearly $2 billion annual police budget to redirect to black communities. Mayor Bill de Blasio pledged for the first time to cut New York City’s police funding following 10 nights of mass protests against police violence and mounting demands that he overhaul a department whose tactics have caused widespread consternation.

It’s not JUST that the Democrats are trying to do away with police. That’s only half of their plan to eliminate crime. The other half of their plan is to release convicted criminals. Don’t believe me? Then read this and weep:

New York City released over 2,650 criminals from prison to protect them from the pandemic. But they didn’t stay home or wash their hands. They went back to their old jobs and 100 of them accounted for 190 arrests for crimes like burglary and robbery. A rapist was released and he went back to raping.

One of the freed criminals was responsible for 18 burglaries at closed eateries. And when he was arrested, the end of bail meant that he was set loose. This looting was going on long before the riots.

Now as the rioters and looters rule the streets of Manhattan, when the police manage to arrest them, they have to quickly let them go.

“When it comes to a burglary, a commercial store, which is looting, they’re back out,” Chief Terrence Monahan said. “Because of bail reform, you’re back out on the street the next day. You cannot be held on any sort of bail.”

Of the 650 thugs arrested, almost all will be released back on the street to riot and loot again.

Los Angeles County released about 5,000 criminals accounting for around a third of imprisoned criminals. And with no bail, arrested criminals were set loose and then arrested again. In the first 30 days of the experiment, 213 criminals were rearrested again after being put back on the street.

Sacramento County’s jail population fell 30%, Orange County’s prison numbers dropped by 45%, Detroit’s jail population dropped by 40%, Philadelphia’s by 17%, and Denver’s by 41%. Massachusetts freed 1,000 criminals while Illinois freed around 4,000. Dallas released 1,000 criminals and Hennepin County, the home of the riots that went on to sweep major cities, reduced its prison population by 44%.

These are all jurisdictions dominated by Democrats.

I think these two policies (end police, release criminals) are wonderful news for the Trump re-election effort, and we should by all means make it known where Democrats stand on law and order issues. We already know about their foreign policy views (appease and retreat), and we should make sure that everyone knows about their views on public safety. Who do Democrats think are more important? Criminals? Or law-abiding taxpayers?

The question answers itself. In Chicago, a city dominated by far-left Democrats, they have all the anti-police, anti-gun, anti-self-defense policies and regulations any criminal could hop for.

And this is what they get:

Bloody Chicago recorded 18 murders on May 31, making it the city’s deadliest day in 60 years.

The dubious milestone was reached on a day Chicago was roiled by another round of protests and looting following the Memorial Day death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis.

The 18 deaths tallied by the University of Chicago Crime Lab made May 31, 2020 the single-most violent day in six decades, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Monday. The Crime Lab numbers go back only to 1961.

On May 29 and May 30, there were seven murders. In a city with an international reputation for crime, the 25 murders on those three days made for the most violent weekend in Chicago’s modern history, according to the paper.

With Democrats, the important thing is that people feel good and look good to others. It’s not important to them whether their policies actually work. Because, if their policies don’t work, (and they never work), then they can always blame racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christianity, or capitalism.

Right now, the Democrats are running Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington D.C., Minneapolis, etc. And you can see how seriously they are taking the responsibility to protect the public from criminals. So, we actually know what will happen if we put Democrats into the House, Senate and Oval Office.

When people ask you why you’re a Republican, make sure you explain to them what Democrats believe about ending the police and releasing convicted criminals. And don’t forget to add the part about opening the borders for illegal immigrants, criminals and terrorists. This is an important election, and people ought to know.

Obama releases jihadists from Guantanomo, then misleads the public about it

Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time
Neville Chamberlain Obama: peace in our time

This is from the Weekly Standard.

Excerpt:

Consider the Taliban Five, released in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. Although Obama administration officials initially downplayed the significance of these detainees, intelligence and military officials made it clear that they were high-risk transfers. Michael Leiter, the former head of the National Counterterrorism Center under Obama, said it was “very, very likely” that the five Taliban leaders would return to the fight. Rob Williams, the national intelligence officer for South Asia, who briefed Congress shortly after the transfer, testified that there was a high likelihood that at least four of the five freed detainees, and possibly all of them, would rejoin the fight.

And what about Ibrahim al Qosi?

[…]Was he a “low-level” fighter, as Obama suggested?

He is not. Qosi is now a senior leader in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as the group’s public spokesman. AQAP has repeatedly attempted to attack the U.S., while taking over large parts of Yemen. The dossier compiled by U.S. officials for Qosi demonstrates that he served bin Laden in multiple roles because he was so trusted.

Does this surprise you? It turns out that Obama regularly makes decisions that benefit America’s enemies, and put America’s allies and armed forces in harm’s way. His job is to make us safe, but his ideology prevents him from doing that, apparently. He just doesn’t have a sufficient grasp on reality that he is able to make decisions that produce good results for his clients – the American people. Instead, he wants to do things that make him feel good about himself – “look at me, I’m so merciful and compassionate” – and then when bad consequences occur, he tries to minimize the damage by lying about the harm he’s caused to his gullible followers. As if lying to them about the mess he’s made somehow makes the mess go away. I know that children sometimes do that, but this is the President of the United States. I expect more accountability.

And as for the misleading the American public:

“I am absolutely persuaded, as are my top intelligence and military advisers, that Guantanamo is used as a recruitment tool for organizations like ISIS,” Obama began. “And if we want to fight ’em, then we can’t give ’em these kinds of excuses.”

There is no reason that Obama would need to be “persuaded” of something that can be easily demonstrated. Either Guantanamo is a major recruitment tool or it’s not.

Administration officials have been making this claim for years and it’s not true.

Guantanamo rarely appears in jihadist propaganda, whether ISIS or al Qaeda, and reviews of recent propaganda materials from ISIS and al Qaeda – online videos and audio recordings, glossy magazines, etc. – found very few mentions of the facility.

“Keep in mind that between myself and the Bush administration hundreds of people have been released and the recidivism rate – we anticipate,” Obama said. “We assume that there are going to be – out of four, five, six-hundred people that get released – a handful of them are going to be embittered and still engaging in anti-US activities and trying to link up potentially with their old organizations.”

A handful? Obama is woefully ill-informed or he’s being dishonest. According to the most recent report on Guantanamo recidivism, prepared in September 2015 by James Clapper’s office, Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, 196 former detainees are either confirmed (117) or suspected (79) of returning to the fight. That’s a recidivism rate of more than 30 percent. Intelligence officials tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that those numbers are almost certainly low, as they do not include jihadists the United States and its allies are no longer tracking.

How many times have you seen Obama assert that “all the experts agree with me” without naming any? Do you know why he does that? Because no one agrees with him, and that’s why he cannot name any names. The surprising thing is that his gullible supporters believe that, instead of saying “name one person who agrees with you”. We have stopped asking questions, apparently.

Is Obama against police officers and victims of crime?

Obama has really put his foot in his mouth this time by insulting police officers just for performing their duties.

Normally, I would always blog about policy issues and leave these Obama gaffes for other blogs. But in watching the story explained on Fox News below, I began to realize that there was a policy angle after all.

Watch this Fox News clip: (H/T Nice Deb)

And pay attention to the part of the transcript that Deb snipped out from NRO, where Charles Krauthammer makes the point:

I think it was important, because the Democrats have suffered for almost a half a century of a reputation of being soft on crime. The flip side of that is tough on cops, or insensitive to the duties and the sacrifices of law enforcement.

Now click through and see Verum Serum’s video of non-white police officers standing by officer Crowley. (H/T Hot Air)

The police are not happy with Obama calling them stupid. But should we be surprised that he thinks police are stupid?

Consider this article on Obama’s softness on crime from The Hill.

Excerpt:

In 1998, Obama was one of only three senators to vote against a proposal making it a criminal offense for convicts on probation or on bail to have contact with a street gang.

In 2001, Obama voted against a measure that would have expanded the penalties for some gang activity to include the death penalty. The bill was vetoed by then-Gov. George Ryan (R ) not long after he had issued a moratorium on the death penalty in the state.

Obama, at the time, said the bill would unfairly target minorities, stating, “There’s a strong overlap between gang affiliation and young men of color … I think it’s problematic for them to be singled out as more likely to receive the death penalty for carrying out certain acts than are others who do the same thing.”

Obama opposes the death penalty except for terrorists, serial killers and child-murderers, but his campaign added that he does not support the death penalty as it is currently administered in this country.

On a 1999 vote making adult prosecution mandatory for aggravated discharge of a firearm in or near a school, the senator voted “present.”

He explained the vote, saying, “There is really no proof or indication that automatic transfers and increased penalties and adult penalties for juvenile offenses have, in fact, proven to be more effective in reducing juvenile crime or cutting back on recidivism.”

And in 2001, Obama voted “present” on a bill that would increase penalties for trafficking in Ecstasy and other designer drugs.

The senator questioned the length of some drug penalties when compared to other crimes, noting that selling 15 tablets of Ecstasy was a Class X felony, as was raping a woman at knifepoint.

…During Obama’s campaign against Rush, the senator missed a vote on the Safe Neighborhoods Act that would have made illegal gun possession a felony, and Ryan blamed Obama and two other lawmakers for missing the vote and dooming the legislation, though it failed 31-17.

And consider this IBD article:

Excerpt:

As an Illinois state senator, for example, he acted more as a friend to criminals than to cops, legislating among other things:

• Curbs on what he called a “broken” death penalty system.

• A measure to expunge some criminal records and give job grants to ex-cons.

• Tougher handgun controls.

• A vote against making gang members eligible for the death penalty if they kill someone to help their gang.

• Opposition to a bill requiring juveniles to be prosecuted as adults for firing a gun at or near a school.

At the federal level, Obama would:

• Repeal “unfair” mandatory sentences for crack convictions.

• Provide drug counseling instead of jail time for some abusers.

• Rethink criminal penalties for pot.

• Ban profiling by federal law enforcement, even if it helps catch violent criminals including terrorists.

• Strengthen hate-crime laws and beef up civil rights enforcement against police chiefs who profile.

• Provide job training, drug rehab and counseling for ex-cons.

• “Re-enfranchise” felons denied the right to vote.

In addition, Obama, who once vowed to repeal the Patriot Act, still talks about reforming it. He also once proposed banning executions of inmates, arguing he was against capital punishment.

…”In our criminal justice system, African-Americans and whites are arrested at very different rates,” Obama recently complained. “It has to do with how we pursue racial justice.”

This Cambridge, MA story is consistent with Obama’s previous voting record against public safety and law enforcement.