Joe Biden's perfunctory crime speech

 In light of the fact that Democrats are polling badly on the issue of crime/law enforcement, Joe Biden tried to stop the bleeding. He didn't just fail to stop the bleeding. He failed the test miserably.

Predictably, the speech was poorly delivered. Equally predictable is that it contained the same tired material as other Democrat crime speeches. For instance, many of the things that Biden called for are already law. Most disappointing is the fact that nothing Biden proposed will stop the current crime wave.

President Biden in remarks Wednesday said his crime prevention strategy would focus on strengthening background checks, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and boosting community policing.
Background checks are required. Strengthening them is virtually impossible. Banning assault weapons is counterproductive since they're used in so few crimes. The only item on Biden's list that might help is community policing. That's only possible if that police force isn't already stretched too thing by defunding.
  
I find it extraordinary that a big-government type like Joe Biden would say that it's our job to keep each other safe. How can we do that without the police and without firearms? Are we supposed to ask criminals to stop committing crimes? If they don't stop, should we ask them 'pretty please'? Guns aren't the problem. The lack of respect for police officers is a major problem:
The attempted carjacking happened during an uptick in such cases last summer and law enforcement is warning again about armed carjackings in the Twin Cities. There were 25 carjackings reported from the start of the year through mid-February in St. Paul, compared with three during the same period last year, according to St. Paul police.

Yesterday, Joe Biden told the nation that the crisis would be solved by taking away the criminals' tools (guns), not by arresting the criminals. In what world does that make sense? This isn't sensible. It's utterly irrational.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio
Read more