The Patriot Post® · Trump and Harris: Contrasting Approaches to Policing
One of the many promises that voters usually want to hear from a presidential candidate is a pledge to uphold the laws of the land, to crack down on criminal activity, and to make the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens a top priority.
To put it mildly, this might be a challenging message to drive home for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, at least with any level of sincerity. Their combined record: advocating for defunding the police, letting criminal activity run rampant, promoting bail funds for arsonists, and insisting that the presence of police in a community is not synonymous with safety. They both aided and abetted the 2020 summer of Black Lives Matter violence.
In 2020, during a Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College, Harris admitted that part of her plan to make America safe again was to pull police officers from schools. Later that year, in a separate online chat with fellow left-wing activists, Harris was asked about her position on the famous BLM slogan and agenda to “defund the police.” In response, she criticized the percentage of the budget that most cities allocate toward law enforcement and suggested that the real solution was to “reimagine safety,” whatever that means.
Notably, Kamala has also been called out on numerous occasions. The Trump campaign did so, hitting the then-VP candidate for her past promotion and ultimate assistance in helping “a controversial bail fund rake in millions of dollars,” reports the New York Post, “which it spent on getting violent criminals back on the streets in the name of ‘social justice’ — only for some to commit more crimes, including murder.”
The “fact-checkers” may have a conniption over that one, but Harris’s June 2020 X post advocating the Minnesota Freedom Fund (bail money for BLM rioters) is still live.
If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020
All of these actions and statements from the current vice president make her efforts to portray herself as a prosecutor running against a felon almost comical — if she weren’t absolutely serious.
Each candidate’s views on policing allow us to gauge how the problem will be handled under their leadership. As both candidates have been expected to articulate their plans to either restore or curb policing should they win the White House, Trump has not held back on reminding the public of what Harris’s past positions have been. He has highlighted the consequences of her blunders and emphasized that the anti-police efforts of the Left have cost the lives of countless innocent people.
Trump has pledged to “give our police back their power, protection, [and] respect that they deserve.” According to The Washington Post, his plan to restore the safety of American citizens includes the “intent to curb federal monitoring of local police and to withhold funds from departments unwilling to employ more confrontational tactics,” along with correcting “what they see as ideological overreach by the Biden and Obama administrations.”
Harris, on the other hand, seems to be upholding her desire to … er … think outside the box when it comes to managing crime. Her belief is evidently that less is more when it comes to preparing law enforcement officers to face off with criminals.
For example, the Biden/Harris administration proposes a $20 million pilot program to “test the use of non-lethal, perhaps non-police traffic enforcement.” The idea is that many traffic stops are due to minor offenses like a broken taillight or running a stop sign.
However, the part of the data that Democrats leave out is the fact that traffic stops are among the most dangerous aspects of policing. The Washington Free Beacon reports, “Routine traffic stops have been the third-deadliest out of 11 commonly performed police activities since the start of the Biden-Harris administration in January 2021, according to annual reports compiled by the Justice Department. At least 134 police officers have been shot at during traffic stops during the Biden-Harris administration, 23 of whom lost their lives.”
Harris’s administration wants them defenseless.
Walz, with a similarly shady record of handling criminal activity, governed Minnesota during one of the most chaotic times in modern history, when his state was ground zero for the aforementioned 2020 George Floyd riots. Like Harris, he has been heavily criticized for his handling of the mobs, his abandonment of police officers, and his “excitement” at the idea of communities of innocent people going up in flames.
A report from a recent hearing held in the Minnesota State Senate further called into question Walz’s priorities. It reminded Minnesotans that officers were told they could not wear protective frog suits or effectively respond to criminal activity. Testifying officers allege that Walz instructed them to let the rioters burn the MPD Third Precinct station with the words “give it up.”
The egregious statements and actions of today’s Democrat ticket make their constant insistence that “no one is above the law” both laughable and astounding — made even more so by the unwavering loyalty of their base.
In fact, by feigning alignment with law enforcement, Harris diminishes the profession itself — to the point where its practitioners might want to ask her to refrain from using them in the future.