Criminal statutes cannot be "implemented" by executive order or DOJ fiat, they must be written by Congress, something Trump would know if he had hired a lawyer or two instead of business types and political operatives. The DEA does nothing EXCEPT focus on the drug cartels, making that memo moot, except as a photo op.

How do you suppose stiffer penalties will curb violence against the police anyway? It is ALREADY a crime to do that, suggesting that criminals don't give a f&ck. In addition, the memo's about violent crime are advertisements, not solutions, and democrats are smart enough to know that. Has Trump called for increased funding for police in especially violent areas? Nope, he's threatened to send in the fed's if they don't do something on their own. Has he suggested funding better education and job training in troubled areas? Nope, he's hired an advocate of for profit education as education secretary and said nada about job training. Has Trump tried to stimulate job growth in high crime areas? Nope, he's tried to stimulate job growth in fortune 100 companies by threatening them via tweet.

So, you see, democrats don't need to battle anything - because nothing of note is happening. All they have to do is wait until the illusions wear off and folks realize that Trump has actually done jack shit.

From Unfiltered Patriot

Trump Could Force Dems to Embrace a Pro-Crime Agenda
Posted On 12 Feb 2017
By : shawn


President Donald Trump positioned himself as the “law and order candidate” in the general election, and he’s already taking concrete steps to make good on that promise. With the confirmation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a new series of executive orders, the Trump administration is poised to give police the support they never had under Obama.

On Thursday, Trump announced a new executive order directing the Justice Department to implement new federal crime penalties for anyone arrested for violently attacking police officers. Another order signed last week calls for a new task force aimed at reducing violent crime. A third order called for an increased focus on the drug cartels.

“We must better protect those who protect us. Our men and women in blue need to know that we’re with them 100 percent as they patrol our streets. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Naturally, liberal Democrats are trying to find ways to oppose Trump’s law-and-order agenda. Their initial focus seems to be on downplaying national crime rates and accusing Trump of trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. In this, they have an ally in the ACLU, which released a statement opposing the orders.

“President Trump intends to build task forces to investigate and stop national trends that don’t exist,” said the statement. “We have seen historic lows in the country’s crime rate and a downward trend in killings against police officers since the 1980s. The president not only doesn’t acknowledge these facts about our nation’s safety, he persists in ignoring the all-too-real deaths of black and brown people at the hands of law enforcement.”

Okay, great. So what’s the point here? Because crime rates are down, we should be outraged to see the president of the United States sign orders meant to protect police, dismantle the cartels, and restore peace to some of our country’s chaotic cities?

“President Trump stood up for our law enforcement officers and pushed back against the rising tide of crime with three key Executive Orders,” the White House said in a statement Saturday. “President Trump’s actions respond to past failures to address rising crime throughout the country.”

Democrats can do as they wish, but they might want to be careful about which battles they pick. The 2016 election showed that many Americans have grown weary of their extreme-left positions, and that includes Obama’s rhetorical and legal war on police. Before they start fighting Trump on this issue, they may want to pause and consider how much appetite there is for a “pro-crime” party. Our best guess: not much.

From Unfiltered Patriot

Trump Could Force Dems to Embrace a Pro-Crime Agenda
Posted On 12 Feb 2017
By : shawn


President Donald Trump positioned himself as the “law and order candidate” in the general election, and he’s already taking concrete steps to make good on that promise. With the confirmation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a new series of executive orders, the Trump administration is poised to give police the support they never had under Obama.

On Thursday, Trump announced a new executive order directing the Justice Department to implement new federal crime penalties for anyone arrested for violently attacking police officers. Another order signed last week calls for a new task force aimed at reducing violent crime. A third order called for an increased focus on the drug cartels.

“We must better protect those who protect us. Our men and women in blue need to know that we’re with them 100 percent as they patrol our streets. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

Naturally, liberal Democrats are trying to find ways to oppose Trump’s law-and-order agenda. Their initial focus seems to be on downplaying national crime rates and accusing Trump of trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. In this, they have an ally in the ACLU, which released a statement opposing the orders.

“President Trump intends to build task forces to investigate and stop national trends that don’t exist,” said the statement. “We have seen historic lows in the country’s crime rate and a downward trend in killings against police officers since the 1980s. The president not only doesn’t acknowledge these facts about our nation’s safety, he persists in ignoring the all-too-real deaths of black and brown people at the hands of law enforcement.”

Okay, great. So what’s the point here? Because crime rates are down, we should be outraged to see the president of the United States sign orders meant to protect police, dismantle the cartels, and restore peace to some of our country’s chaotic cities?

“President Trump stood up for our law enforcement officers and pushed back against the rising tide of crime with three key Executive Orders,” the White House said in a statement Saturday. “President Trump’s actions respond to past failures to address rising crime throughout the country.”

Democrats can do as they wish, but they might want to be careful about which battles they pick. The 2016 election showed that many Americans have grown weary of their extreme-left positions, and that includes Obama’s rhetorical and legal war on police. Before they start fighting Trump on this issue, they may want to pause and consider how much appetite there is for a “pro-crime” party. Our best guess: not much.

Crime rates down huh?? I don't buy that at all.. Will have to check it out..

From your article ~~~Naturally, liberal Democrats are trying to find ways to oppose Trump’s law-and-order agenda. Their initial focus seems to be on downplaying national crime rates and accusing Trump of trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. In this, they have an ally in the ACLU, which released a statement opposing the orders.
To this I say BS!!!

Toh the rest of the article Thank You President Trump... Helps not only the police but citizens too... Just maybe some of these criminals will not want the Rath of charges and jail time they will get... Then again most won't care which means a not so nice end result will surely follow.. Dead is final....

Crime rates down huh?? I don't buy that at all.. Will have to check it out..

From your article ~~~Naturally, liberal Democrats are trying to find ways to oppose Trump’s law-and-order agenda. Their initial focus seems to be on downplaying national crime rates and accusing Trump of trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. In this, they have an ally in the ACLU, which released a statement opposing the orders.
To this I say BS!!!

Toh the rest of the article Thank You President Trump... Helps not only the police but citizens too... Just maybe some of these criminals will not want the Rath of charges and jail time they will get... Then again most won't care which means a not so nice end result will surely follow.. Dead is final....

==================
There you go again. You reverse the facts, as the SOP's of your liberal/democrat/Marxist party, and throw them to the law abiding party of President Trump. Your party does not have any sense of civility, and truth, but lies, deceptions, violence to innocent people, and law enforcement officers, burn and destroy private and public properties, including cars of police officers, kill unborn babies, police officers, riot, terrorize, burglarize, loot, steal, drug addicts, drug dealers, BLM' crimes. What do you call those acts? But the works of SATAN! Are you proud of that?

==================
There you go again. You reverse the facts, as the SOP's of your liberal/democrat/Marxist party, and throw them to the law abiding party of President Trump. Your party does not have any sense of civility, and truth, but lies, deceptions, violence to innocent people, and law enforcement officers, burn and destroy private and public properties, including cars of police officers, kill unborn babies, police officers, riot, terrorize, burglarize, loot, steal, drug addicts, drug dealers, BLM' crimes. What do you call those acts? But the works of SATAN! Are you proud of that?

'Given' the choice? And who, pray tell, is going to 'give' you that choice? Is there some individual or group of individuals who are somehow empowered to 'give' you the choice to exercise a right that you were born with and is specifically referred to in the supreme law of the land? Allow me to quote directly:

"...[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is not some 'special privilege' like getting married or driving a car or fishing a lake where you have to fill out an application and pay some bureaucrat to 'regulate' your activity. This is an 'unalienable right', endowed by the creator and above political legislation. Now let that sink in for a minute...

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/the-final-text-of-the-declaration-of-independence-july-4-1776.php