by Paris Dennard
In January, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki mocked those concerned about crime, laughing and flippantly asking “soft on crime consequences…what does that even mean?”
For Tennesseans, it means 346 homicides in Memphis last year alone, the deadliest year on record for drug overdoses in Nashville at 712 reported overdoses, and more lives at risk from senseless violence.
For Americans across the country, it means at least sixteen Democrat-run cities broke annual homicide records last year, the number of brazen carjackings surged, 346 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty in 2021, and the murder rate soared to the highest it’s been in nearly two and a half decades.
My trip to Memphis this week comes right after thieves burglarized the Memphis Police Chief’s new home last week and a 13-year-old and 15-year-old were both murdered in separate crimes. It’s never been more imperative to act than it is right now. Tennessee lives will remain at risk as long as Democrats refuse to acknowledge the deadly consequences of their “soft on crime” agenda.
Memphis, a Democrat-run city, is now the #1 most dangerous city in America and has the second highest homicide rate of any U.S. metro area. To put these numbers in perspective, last year a life was taken in Memphis an average of once every 25 hours.
As Democrats spent the last year and a half villainizing law enforcement and calling for massive spending cuts to police budgets, it’s no surprise that Memphis desperately needs more police officers to protect its residents.
Tennesseans who have lost the lives of their loved ones to violent crime won’t be dissuaded by Democrat attempts to weaponize anti-police rhetoric and feign concern for victims of criminal activity at the same time. Americans don’t support handcuffing enforcement of the law and Democrats are only recently started distancing themselves from anti-police comments as a last ditch effort to boost their poll numbers ahead of the midterm elections. But the damage has been done.
Offenders of violent crime pose a risk to communities from Memphis to Nashville and it’s the responsibility of elected officials to ensure their policies keep these criminals off the streets.
So don’t be fooled when Jen Psaki says there’s no basis that Democrats are “soft on crime.” Psaki couldn’t be more out of touch and there’s a myriad of comments from Democrats to prove her wrong.
While President Biden may have offered up a flimsy call to now “fund the police” during his State of the Union Address, his actions tell an entirely different story. Biden named advocates of “defund the police” to his administration, refused to voice support for the police in his three biggest speeches leading up to his election and failed to address the bail laws that are putting violent criminals back on the street.
As for Vice President Harris, she promoted a bail fund that freed a man charged with murder, argued for reducing the number of police officers on the street and refused to condemn defunding the police when given the chance.
89% of likely U.S. voters are concerned about violent crime in America. This number is too large for Democrats to dismiss, and Americans who have lost loved ones won’t be placated by the Biden administration’s insincere attempts to change course ahead of the election.
A year into this Biden presidency, the consequences of the Democrat agenda are no longer hypothetical; they’re tangible. They are the tragic result of defunding the police, forcing first responders to quit with unconstitutional and discriminatory vaccine mandates, weakening bail policies, and perpetuating anti-police rhetoric. This is Joe Biden’s America and Tennesseans have lost their lives as a result.
– – –
Paris Dennard is the National Spokesperson and Director of Black Media Affairs for the Republican National Committee (RNC). Follow him on Twitter: @PARISDENNARD.
Photo “Defund the Police Poster” by Becker1999. CC BY 2.0.
I want a police department, but I don’t want it above the law. We MUST have safeguards to make police accountable for their actions. We should also decide how we will use the police. Some situations require neighborhood referees or ombudsmen to settle disputes that don’t involve violent threats to public safety. We must be more selective in our use of police as a last resort instead of as a first convenience as their presence can sometimes escalate a violent situation–which we don’t want.
so who is supposed to make these decisions and when? say a robbery is in progress….does the person being robbed need to consider if he needs an ombudsman or cop?