One of the great comedy films of 1984 was “Ghostbusters.” The opening stanza of the movie’s song asked a question of import to one plagued by ghosts: “If there’s something strange in your neighborhood, who you gonna call?” It then advised calling “Ghostbusers!”
Similarly, in the world of reality, when one feels threatened by the words or actions of another person, “Who you gonna call?” Logically, we have been programmed to call the police. However, if one is a liberal politician who feels so threatened but has established a reputation for undermining police credibility by calling for their defunding, “who you gonna call?”
One would envision such liberal politicians, in need of law enforcement help quickly, knowing they have done everything in their power to undermine such authority, would find themselves on the horns of a dilemma when confronted with a perceived threat. Realizing they’ve beaten the anti-police drum, they will look pretty hypocritical now, when immediate police assistance is needed, putting in that 911 call. Doing so would convey the contrary message that despite their anti-law enforcement rhetoric, there is a very real need in a civilized society where law-abiding citizens cohabitate with a small percentage of law-breaking citizens, there will always be a need for law enforcement assistance.
So then what does the liberal politician seeking to defund police do when police assistance is needed? Does the politician opt to underscore the defund campaign by refusing to call for help? Or, does he or she bite the bullet, recognizing law enforcement is there for an absolutely necessary purpose in providing safety and security when it is needed? The question for the liberal politician, then, is “who you gonna call?”
A review of numerous threatening incidents occurring within districts where politicians have promoted “defund the police” movements are most telling in this regard. These incidents in which such politicians felt personally threatened demonstrated they have taken the “hypocritical” oath of office by calling for defunding out of one side of their mouth while demanding greater for police action out of the other side:
One such politician who, ever since the 2020 death of George Floyd in the custody of arresting officers, has clamored to defund police has been San Francisco Supervisor Hillary Ronen. She has put in several calls for law enforcement to increase policing in the Mission District, where she lives. Despite being responsible for decreased police funding (the city redirected $120 million) that has reduced security in her district, Ronen reported she felt betrayed when she was informed there was insufficient staff to allocate to her neighborhood. As if oblivious to the fallout from her own actions, she criticized everyone else for the unsafe situation. And, most outrageously, she still continues to promote police defunding.
The very vocal anti-police advocate Los Angeles City Councilman Hugo Soto-Martinez had the nerve to call for special police protection for his Lexus.
U.S. Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., called for defunding while receiving special police patrols at his home.
Audacious police defunder Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, D-Lower Manhattan, although living in Harlem, campaigned from a wealthier part of Manhattan due to “safety issues.” Now she demands better protection in Harlem.
Self-described socialist Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant is another qualified hypocrite. She is one of the city’s most prominent anti-police activists. As if police do not have enough on their hands, she demands police track down the offender who is tossing human feces into her yard – a threat for which she feels police protection is warranted – all while still calling for defunding. She threatens to file a complaint as police have yet to investigate the matter.
When a gun-toting man threatened Rep. Prima Jayapal, D-Wash., she understandably wasted no time calling police who arrested him. Yet it is incongruous for her to initially push for defunding before later pressing for funding reductions, reallocating money for social services that prioritize housing, homelessness, mental health, etc. – all problems reduced forces would then be unable to address.
Despite the anti-police rhetoric (calling them “stormtroopers”) of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who had one of her congressional lieutenants accuse police of being “inherently racist and need to be abolished,” her husband, Paul, called police when an assailant broke into his home – their presence saving Paul from much more serious injury.
On the police defunding bandwagon as well are congressional members of “The Squad,” such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known as AOC, D-N.Y. While they have no problem reducing police availability for the public by defunding, members like AOC spend over $100,000 for personal security. Despite having such funding available, she still trashed police about being harassed on the Capitol steps by a conservative comedian “seeking extremist fame.” In doing so, he let her hypocrisy show through as only days earlier she had ridiculed Supreme Court Justice Brent Kavanaugh after he had been harassed and forced to leave a restaurant.
These hypocritical politicians do not seem to grasp the fact that defunding and denigrating police has direct consequences, having caused en masse retirements and resignations, leaving many departments undermanned. Accordingly, police have had to limit their responsiveness, even to 911 calls. Tragically, such political rhetoric has also further endangered police officers as reflected by the number of those killed in the line of duty. Officers are dying violently at a greater rate today than they were 10 years ago, undoubtedly in part due the actions of police haters encouraged by defund the police politicians.
It is totally irresponsible for such anti-police politicians to call for defunding before even offering a reasonable alternative. It has been suggested, where domestic disputes are involved, consideration be given to sending unarmed counselors with some psychiatric expertise rather than armed police. This, again, is irresponsible as such disputes can easily turn violent. It will only take the killing of a few such counselors before the reality of this misguided policy sets in for anti-police advocates.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
