Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden’s SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins


The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author, a current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

WASHINGTON, DC- She may not know what the definition of a woman is or when life begins, but Biden’s radical Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson sure loves herself some criminals. The more egregious the offense, the more sympathy she apparently feels for them.

Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who has excelled in his line of questioning of Jackson (along with Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO)), was asking Jackson about comments she made to a “career criminal” drug “kingpin” in 2018.

In those comments, Jackson told the drug dealer she “shared his frustration” with her not being able to go light on him, adding, “And for this, I am sorry,” Breitbart reported.

“Keith Young was a career criminal who had previously been convicted of trafficking cocaine,” the Missouri senator said during the second day of Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cotton continued:

In 2017, he was running a drug business in his house where his children lived, and was found with two, one kilogram bricks of heroin, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, along with a gun, ammunition, thousands of dollars in cash, and equipment to cut and package heroin for retail sale. The drug lab also confirmed that there was fentanyl in both bricks of heroin. And in one of the two bricks there was actually more fentanyl than there was heroin.

At the D.C. jail awaiting trial, Young bragged about his arrest, and about how he was a “kingpin.” Those were his words, not mine. “Kingpin.” He was even recorded calling his wife and brother to give them instructions on collecting drug money from people for him.

Cotton continued that in light of Young’s criminal history, “he faced a mandatory minimum of 20 years.”

“You did not seem to like that, judge,” Cotton told Jackson. “In fact, at his sentencing, you said that you ‘shared his frustration’ that you couldn’t give him a lighter sentence.”

“I was shocked to see this in the transcript,” the Missouri senator continued. “I was also shocked that you apologized to this drug kingpin for having to follow the law.”

Cotton then reminded Jackson that she said she didn’t believe “20 years was fair.”

“This is the quote: ‘And for this, I am sorry, mostly because I believe in second chances.’ You apologized to this career criminal, a drug kingpin, in his own words. He was not some low-level, first time drug offender who made a bad choice.”

Jackson, who has avoided answering any questions as basic as the one posed by Sen. Blackburn, that being whether she could define what a woman was (she couldn’t…or wouldn’t), also wouldn’t answer another question posed by Cotton, that being whether she believed the United States should strengthen “sentences for child pornographers.”

Jackson also has a history of going light on child pornographers, sex offenders and pedophiles.

In the case of Young, Jackson offered the following excuse:

“Congress changed the law, Congress decided the old penalty, the old crime was no longer eligible for the increased sentence,” Jackson said. “So what I determined under those circumstances was that I would re-sentence Mr. Young to the penalty that Congress had decided was appropriate.”

Cotton however wasn’t buying Jackson’s tepid excuse, noting that the law didn’t allow for judges to reduce sentences retroactively.

“Congress did change the law in the First Step Act, it was a big mistake. But Congress specifically did not make it retroactive,” he said. “You chose to rewrite the law because you were sympathetic to a fentanyl drug kingpin.”

Jackson offered a meek, “Respectfully senator, I disagree,” in response to Cotton’s line of questioning, Yahoo News reported.

For our recent post about the U.S. Sentencing Commission withholding information about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s tenure there, we invite you to:


The following contains within editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson is a radical by any definition of the word. Despite that, Democrats and their bootlickers in the mainstream are trying to paint her as a just to the left-of-center kind of moderate.

With that in mind, one must wonder why Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are having problems getting information about Jackson’s tenure at the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The irony in all of this is that senate Democrats, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) signed a so-called “Sunshine Week” letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro advising him that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) “is crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in government, but persistent challenges continue to limit citizens’ ability to access information under the statute,” the Epoch Times reports.

For those not so informed, Sunshine Week is an annual “celebration” of the FOIA by journalists, transparency advocates, and some elected officials.

Durbin and others who signed the declaration asked Dodaro, who heads the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into why there is a significant backlog of unanswered FOIA requests at federal agencies.

Perhaps, he can start with one made by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the judiciary panel.

On day one of Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Grassley complained that it isn’t just private citizens who are having trouble getting government agencies to produce official documents required under FOIA to be made public.

In this case, Grassley has made a number of requests to the U.S. Sentencing Commission for public documents created while Jackson served as vice-chair on the commission, documents which would unmask her legal reasoning. Grassley, by the way, was one of those who signed the Sunshine Letter along with Durbin.

“I was disappointed we weren’t able to get bipartisan agreement to ask for Judge Jackson’s documents from her time as Vice Chair of the Sentencing Commission,” Grassley said in his opening remarks at the Monday hearing.

“The commission is an independent agency created to ‘advise and assist Congress and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy.’ Unfortunately, it sounds like we’ll have to wait until those documents are required to be released—20 years from now,” Grassley complained.

Jackson served as vice-chairman for four years with the commission prior to being named to the federal bench as a U.S. Circuit Court Judge in 2021. She served as a U.S. District Judge from 2013 to 2021.

Grassley tried to gain Durbin’s assistance in efforts to obtain the documents, but was not successful. It’s almost as if they are trying to hide something. Epoch Times said they reached out to Durbin’s committee spokesperson, Emily Hampsten, who couldn’t be reached for comment.

Grassley noted that everyone on the judiciary committee agrees on  the importance of Brown Jackson’s service on the commission, so it is clear the documents are a necessary component of the confirmation process.

“Democrats have argued her time on the commission is an important part of Judge Jackson’s experience that she’ll draw on as a judge. They’re right. That’s why it would’ve been good to see what her views are,” Grassley said.

In touting Jackson’s experience on the commission, Durbin described that as a key reason he looks at her as a “jurist who understands the importance of pragmatism and real-world experience.”

The committee was told by commission officials that the documents which were produced didn’t specifically show the views Jackson held in any particular case, Grassley said.

In contrast to what is going on in this particular case, a nomination to the highest court in the land, when Obama nominated Jackson to be a federal court judge over 68,000 documents were furnished to the judiciary panel.

“But more than 38,000 pages are repeated copies of an email thread keeping track of tweets about the Garland nomination. Those emails contain one tweet about Judge Jackson. More than 13,000 pages are just lists of previous nominations,” Grassley said.

The senator added that the Biden administration has hidden an estimated 48,000 documents “under the Presidential Records Act and FOIA exemptions. That’s a lot of hiding.”

Durbin claims to be an advocate of greater transparency and openness on the high court, but apparently only when it suits partisan needs. He has co-sponsored legislation currently before the Senate requiring the Supreme Court to allow video cameras to record and broadcast proceedings. Separation of powers, anyone?

“The bipartisan ‘Cameras in the Courtroom Act’ would require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open sessions of the Court, unless the Court decides, by a majority vote of the Justices, that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court,” Durbin said in a statement dated March 18.

“It’s time to put cameras in the Supreme Court so Americans can finally see deliberations and rulings on cases, which will affect them for generations to come. This bipartisan bill shines a light into the Judicial Branch of government so more than just a few hundred lucky Americans can watch proceedings in the Court’s historic halls,” Durbin said.

“Today’s bill introduction coincides with ‘Sunshine Week,’ a national initiative aimed at promoting a dialogue about the importance of open government and freedom of information,” Durbin said.

Grassley is also a major co-sponsor of the Act.

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins

For more on Judge Jackson’s radicalism, we invite you to:


The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Joe Biden boxed himself into a corner when he decided that his first nomination for a vacant Supreme Court opening had to be a woman and she had to be black.

That certainly eliminated a plethora of overwhelmingly qualified candidates.

Still, there were a number of qualified jurists who fit the bill. Yet, Biden decided to pick probably one of the most radical possible choices for the seat of retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

According to a piece in Breitbart, Joel Pollak, Senior Editor at Large paints a disturbing picture of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Biden has put forth for the Supreme Court.

She apparently is a proponent of Critical Race Theory, admires the Black Lives Matter movement, and has touted the bogus “1619 Project.” All of this, Pollak proposes, should disqualify her from serving on the United States Supreme Court.

Pollak noted that Jackson’s sentiments about these radical beliefs and ideologies were discovered during a recently discovered lecture she delivered at the University of Michigan Law School.

These were not the sentiments, he wrote, of a young student but rather were delivered while she sat as a federal judge in 2020, who would be confirmed a year later to the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals.

For reasons which are unknown, all of this somehow escaped scrutiny during Jackson’s previous confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However it is one thing to sit as a district judge and perhaps an appeals judge. It is an entirely different matter for a Supreme Court justice to admire philosophies which run counter to the foundation of our republic, since part of their responsibility is to uphold our founding documents, including the Constitution.

Hopefully, and it seems that it is so, Republicans are paying close attention to Jackson’s radical beliefs, which paint her as likely the most radical judge ever appointed to the nation’s high court.

Pollak notes the sheer irony in Jackson’s selection as a SCOTUS nominee, due to Biden’s declaration his nominee was being put forth solely based on their gender and the amount of melanin in their skin, which he notes invokes “the kind of discrimination that the Supreme Court itself has said is unconstitutional.”

Moreover, there are pending cases due to come before the high court that Jackson would hear as a justice, which makes her views on these topics overwhelmingly important.

And the fact that Jackson admires the 1619 Project raises a number of alarm bells, since the author of that garbage, Nikole Hannah Jones, proposes that the United States was founded upon racism and slavery and is therefore a systemically racist country. That fact alone should disqualify Jackson.

The title of her University of Michigan lecture was “Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement Era and Beyond.” There is certainly not, as Pollak notes, anything controversial inherent in that title; it was clearly an acceptable topic.

Jackson’s remarks, which were delivered in observance of Martin Luther King Day were generally that black women have served on the front lines in the fight for equal rights in the United States, which would hopefully direct the country to adhere to our founding principles. She noted that due to those women, America became a freer country for everyone. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, Jackson went off the rails when she claimed that Critical Race Theory and its founder, Derrick Bell were a “source of inspiration,” Pollak wrote.

Bell proposed that America is a fundamentally racist country, with that racism being part and parcel of all of our institutions, claiming that because slavery was prevalent when the Constitution was written, it was therefore acceptable in the founding of our country to engage in racism. Which of course, makes no sense.

Bell posited that only through the redistribution of wealth…aka socialism…could our country be saved from so-called “systemic racism.”

Jackson cited Bell’s book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, which she said was “omnipresent” in her home when she was growing up, a book which posited that “America is so racist that we would sell our black citizens to space aliens for gold to pay off our national debt.” Tremendous role model right there.

Then there is the Hannah-Jones program of fiction, the 1619 Project.  In the opening essay published in the New York Times magazine, Hannah-Jones made the absurd, ridiculous, and easily debunked claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.

Therefore in her mind, slavery was the “founding principle” of the United States. An overwhelming number of historians have dismissed Hannah-Jones’s claims as fantasy.

Then there is her admiration for Black Lives Matter, an organization that has been marred by allegations of financial malfeasance and whose founder, Patrisse Cullors has somehow been able to leverage into a significant real estate empire.

Jackson said in the lecture that her “favorite civil rights photograph of modern times” was a picture of a BLM protester being arrested by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police at a 2016 march protesting police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

It apparently didn’t enter into the equation that both of those men were shot while armed. And of course, we don’t have to address the violence BLM fomented in 2020 after George Floyd’s overdose death in Minneapolis.

All of this raises concern about Jackson’s judgment and what her judicial philosophy would be if she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As Pollak notes, “we cannot have a Justice who believes the Constitution is racist; who believes America was founded on slavery; or who believes police are guilty until proven innocent.”

About the only thing that can be said is as the court is currently constructed, a potential Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be in the minority—for now.

There are important questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee need to ask Jackson, although it is pretty much a given that Democrats’ questions will be typical hanging curveballs. That’s why it is important for the Republicans on the committee to ask her tough questions and not worry about being labeled as “racist” for simply asking questions that it is important to know the answers to.

“Does she share Derrick Bell’s view that the Constitution is racist? Does she share the 1619 Project’s view on the American Revolution? Does she believe the officers who shot Sterling and Castile are guilty of murder? And—crucially—does she believe the race and gender criteria of her own nomination are acceptable?” Pollak asks.

All of these are important questions.

Also, Jackson’s comments…only two years old…are certainly pertinent to her nomination. Breitbart cites the case of a Trump nominee, Ryan Bounds, who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2017.

In that case, two Republicans—Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC)—slammed Bounds for writings he authored…as a college student…twenty years prior. The essays mocked identity politics and political correctness, yet were characterized as “racist.”

While Bounds apologized for his writings as a young college student, his nomination went down in flames.

However, as Pollak notes, nothing Bounds wrote comes anywhere near the “racial extremism” of Jackson’s role models.

Racial extremism goes both ways, or at least it should. We agree with Pollak.

“If a Republican nominee had to withdraw because of skepticism of racial politics as a student, a Democratic nominee with radical racial views in the present day should not be on the Supreme Court.” [emphasis added]

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins

For our prior article on the threat Judge Jackson poses to the Second Amendment, we invite you to:


By Larry Keane and our friends at NSSF

President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson, who was only recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has authored just two opinions on the merits, both in the past month. Her judicial record tells us truly little about her views on the Second Amendment or about the firearm industry.

Unlike Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who openly told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that her family is a gun-owning family and openly advocated for originalism on the court, Judge Jackson doesn’t offer similar insights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on a D.C. Court of Appeals decision to uphold a ban on most semiautomatic firearms and a firearm registration requirement in Washington, D.C. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an outdoorsman and hunter, was introduced as an originalist jurist and “very much in the mold” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her Record

Judge Jackson would undeniably be paving a new path if she is confirmed. She would be the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

When it comes to gun rights, her judicial experience and philosophy are less obvious. Judge Jackson could be expected to be in the ideological mold of the justice she is to replace, Justice Breyer for whom she clerked from 1999-2000.

When it comes to firearms and gun rights, Justice Breyer was certainly no ally of gun rights.

Justice Breyer dissented on Heller and MacDonald, and holds views that are hostile to individual Second Amendment rights. Justice Breyer once claimed the Founding Fathers intended for government to strictly regulate firearms, though no legislative evidence shows this.

In fact, the first gun control laws were openly racist and intended to deny guns to slaves. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication, pointed out that in 1640, Virginia had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on Black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts.

Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes during the post-Civil War reconstruction era and those were racist laws designed to suppress recently freed Blacks.

Still, Judge Jackson’s judicial record affords no direct insights into how she might rule on Second Amendment-related or firearm industry-related cases. An opinion she authored in her eight months on the D.C. Court of Appeals was published just one day before her nomination.

That case related to unions and the federal government. The closest case that Judge Jackson related to firearms was Baisden v. Barr, in which she dismissed the complaint of a convicted felon petitioning to reclaim gun rights.

The plaintiff offered no evidence that he ever owned a firearm, obtained a permit, ever used, intended to use, or expressed a desire to possess a firearm prior to his conviction.

Her Philosophy

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton directly asked Judge Jackson about the Second Amendment when she was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her answer was similar to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who both stated that they would be bound by Heller’s precedent. Little more was said.

Gun rights advocates would disagree that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor respect individual gun rights, especially after hearing their questions to the pending New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett hearing.

Justice Kagan posed the question of whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

While Justice Barrett openly embraced her ideas on originalism and how that informs her judicial philosophy, Judge Jackson has been ambiguous on her answers of a “living Constitution” approach.

Professor Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote in The Hill that Judge Jackson told the courts she didn’t believe in the concept when nominated to the district court.

Later, when she was nominated to the appellate court, she told the Senate she didn’t have the experience to make such interpretations as a judge.

Professor Turley was baffled by that response since it wasn’t a question of her signed opinions but her judicial opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Judge Jackson has been overruled for judicial overreach.

There’s proof she’s willing to engage in legislating from the bench when faced with questions she doesn’t like.

Her Critics

When President Biden nominated her last year to the Court of Appeals, the National Review wrote that Judge Jackson is, “not highly regarded as a judge” and was, “considered to have a middling reputation.”

The article added that Judge Jackson has, “a striking record of reversals by the [Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings.”

Professor Turley noted that as a district court judge she was reversed in 2018 by a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a federal workers’ collective bargaining case based on lack of jurisdiction and again overruled in an immigration case in 2019 for judicial overreach.

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, wrote for Fox News that Judge Jackson would be little more than a politician in robes for liberal special-interest causes. She said Judge Jackson’s nomination is, “paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network” that was instrumental in President Biden’s campaign.

“Since it comports with a strategy of moderate rhetoric/radical substance, expect to hear little from Biden and his supporters about Judge Jackson’s past advocacy for terrorists, softness on crime, upholding racial preferences, hostility toward pro-lifers, and reversed decisions involving Trump-era policies.”

There’s nothing to indicate that Judge Jackson will strictly interpret the Constitution. She will be what President Biden wants – a secure replacement for Justice Breyer. When it comes to gun rights and the industry, that’s what America can expect. Judge Jackson will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment and the firearm industry.

There’s just one other thing that won’t change. Should Judge Jackson be confirmed, the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same, currently a 6-3 conservative majority.


Re-Fund the Police”: Law Enforcement Today launches nationwide campaign for Americans to back the blue

Originally published October 10, 2021

Editor note: In 2020, we saw a nationwide push to “defund the police”.  While we all stood here shaking our heads wondering if these people were serious… they cut billions of dollars in funding for police officers.  And as a result, crime has skyrocketed – all while the same politicians who said “you don’t need guns, the government will protect you” continued their attacks on both our police officers and our Second Amendment rights.

And that’s exactly why we’re launching this national crowdfunding campaign as part of our efforts to help “re-fund the police”.

For those looking for a quick link to get in the fight and support the cause, click here.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA – You back the Blue.  You support the police.  You quietly buy an officer a cup of coffee at your local coffeehouse.  You bring homemade cookies to your local police station.  You make it a point to thank an officer when you see one out in public.

You watch the news, aghast to see crowds of anti-police protesters and rioters committing acts of violence and massive property damage.  You pray daily for the Blue family.

And yet, you may feel quite alone.

Politicians and the mainstream news media would have you think that police support is at an all-time low.

Some of you may have found it necessary to take down your Thin Blue Line flags from your house, or to scrape off the Thin Blue Line sticker from your vehicles, due to the potential for violent retaliation by those who hate the police.

Yes, it is the loudest voices that are the ugliest.  They revile and attack those who back the Blue.  They call, “Defund the Police!” at every turn, fueled by the lie that police officers are racists who are out to kill.

But you are actually in excellent company in your support of the blue family.

According to a Gallup poll, 85% of Americans support law enforcement.  That means supporters of the Thin Blue Line are 285 million strong.

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins
85% of Americans support Law Enforcement

That would be 285 million who, like you, refuse join in the calls to defund the police.

And that means you are in the company of those who have logic and reason on their side.

After all, we at Law Enforcement Today bring you stories daily of exploding crime in police-defunded areas such as Austin, Portland,  New York City, or Los Angeles.

Homicide rates since defunding are up 58% in Atlanta, up 533% in Portland, and up 37% in Philadelphia.

Shootings in post-defunded New York City are up 64%, and they are up 51% in Los Angeles and up 18% in Chicago.

In addition, you have also followed our disturbing and often tragic stories of attacks on police officers in the era of police defunding.

Felonious attacks on police are on the rise, as documented by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) Data Collection.

According to LEOKA:

“The 50 law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the first 8 months of 2021 represent a 51.5 percent increase compared to the 33 officers killed during the same period in 2020.”

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins
370 officers gave their lives in the line of duty in 2020

Also thanks to defunding, police departments across the country now lack training, resources, and equipment.  Ironically, calls for additional training in cultural awareness, de-escalation, and use of force often have to go unheeded due to the lack of financial resources.

Another irony is that the push to do away with less-lethal options such as Tasers and tear gas will simply lead to more fatal police shootings.

These alarming stories and statistics indicate beyond a doubt that defunding the police is absolutely the wrong move for this great country.  You know this, yet you and 285 million other voices are all too often silenced by social pressures as well as physical threats of violence.

You are even told, “Silence is violence,” when it comes to refusing to stand against law enforcement.

Your voice matters, and you need to be heard.

As Law Enforcement Today National Spokesman Kyle Reyes points out:

“Americans have stood by in disbelief as this ‘defund the police’ movement has spread across America and ravaged our communities. 

“We’ve watched our cities burn, our officers be attacked and violence skyrocket. 

“It’s time to come out of the twilight zone.  It’s time to fight back.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Law Enforcement Today, the nation’s largest police-owned media outlet, has developed a way to make your voice heard and oppose those who would seek to remove funding from those who protect and serve.

It’s called the “Re-Fund the Police” campaign.

Reyes explains:

“We wanted to make the “Re-fund the Police” campaign something that everyone- whether you can spare $1 or $1 million – can be a part of.

“People will donate to politicians all day long in hopes that person will get elected and possibly make a difference.

“We are asking for people to come forward and support those who make a difference and save lives every single day.”

Through your generous donations, Law Enforcement today will direct a media and advertising blitz to rally other Americans who, like you, are done with attacks on law enforcement, both physical and financial.

Here’s what the funds go towards:

  1. We’ve assembled a “strike team” of researchers and reporters who will delve deeply into the devastating impact that defunding the police has on communities and families.  They’re going after not just the “leaders” in Congress who are pushing to defund the police… but they’re exposing everyone from the local politicians and city councils who are behind it.  They’re also tracing the money of exactly who is funding this “defund the police” movement.
  2.  We will focus on publicizing all the negative effects of defunding police while expressing support for our brothers and sisters in blue.  The advertising blitz will be a show of support for police officers all across America.

In addition, we will be sending a team of reporters into our communities to share positive stories of law enforcement, stories which are consistently ignored by the mainstream media.

As a thank-you for your generosity in standing strong for the blue family, we are offering access codes for Law Enforcement Today’s Wounded Officer documentary and Border Crisis documentary.  In addition, we offer additional perks such as stickers and Thin Blue Line face masks or yard signs.

Donors are also able to honor or memorialize a member of the blue family.

For those who cannot afford to contribute, we invite you to be a part of a nationwide chain of prayer warriors.

You can join our prayer chain along with other supporters who are willing to pray for our brothers and sisters in blue.

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins
We support those who protect and serve.

Also, when you sign up for our newsletter, we will keep you informed on how we are continuing to back the Blue, and bring you the stories the mainstream media will not touch.

Now to small businesses who are sick and tired of watching our cities burn as the “defund the police” movement spreads.

For business donors, we are pleased to offer a unique opportunity to make a difference in police departments across the country.

Reyes explains:

“We wanted to make sure small businesses could get in the fight, so we are rolling out the ‘adopt a police department’ program.”

Your business donation will be used to cover stories in the community of your choice, and expose those who are attempting to defund the police.  Those stories, if you choose, will also include a thank you to your business and a link back to your business website.

In addition, your generous business donation will go toward advertising campaigns that highlight the negative effects of demonizing and defunding the police.

Former police chief: Not only soft on pedophiles, Biden's SCOTUS pick also loves her some drug kingpins
We’ve got your 6.

This will give you the opportunity to show to millions of Americans that, unlike “woke” anti-police organizations, you support and appreciate law enforcement.

Reyes points out:

“Corporate America rallied around the Black Lives Matter movement, donating hundreds of millions of dollars to a campaign that brought widespread looting and destruction in our cities. 

“This is an opportunity for businesses to show America that law and order and keeping people safe still means something to them.”

Please join your voice with Law Enforcement Today in this campaign to support all those who protect and serve us.

We invite you to visit the Re-Fund the Police website for further information.

If you have questions, or you want to start your own fundraising team, feel free to email us at [email protected]

It’s time to get in the fight.


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts