Defunding police results are totally predictable. So why do it? [Video]

The screed of “Defund the Police” has yielded scenes like this:

That this sort of activity has actually been implemented anywhere at all is stunning. The results of it have been uniformly bad everywhere it is implemented. According to this piece from The Wall Street Journal:

In the last three months of 2020, homicides rose 32.2% in cities with a population of at least one million, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Quarterly Uniform Crime Report. Law-enforcement officials and criminologists say pandemic stress and a police pullback amid protests are likely contributors.

Some particularly virulent locales where this set of policies was enacted have extremely disastrous changes in crime rates. Portland, Oregon has seen riots every single night for well over one year now, and it should be no mystery that the number of shootings in the city rose by 126% and that the number of homicides skyrocketed by 533% from the year before.

And, still the city tries to implement this policy of criminal appeasement. In fact, the entire staff of fifty riot control officers just resigned their posts together on Wednesday night this week. So, with this team gone, there will be peace on the streets of Portland now?

Don’t bet on it.

But here is also a window into why this obviously dangerously absurd behavior is happening.

The system is compromised by Marxists. Here is how:

Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) spelled the reasons for this out in their report from June 17th, saying,

The resignations from the unit came after news this week that one member of the team, Officer Corey Budworth, would face criminal charges for excessive force used during a racial justice protest last year, and that a second Rapid Response Team member, Det. Erik Kammerer, is being investigated by the Oregon Department of Justice on similar allegations…

Speaking to OPB on Wednesday, Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt said his office was still reviewing other use of force cases by officers related to protests, leaving the door open for further criminal prosecutions against RRT members…

The Portland Police Association, the union that represents rank-and-file officers, has lobbed criticisms at Schmidt’s office this week over Budworth’s prosecution, calling it a political move and saying that Budworth was “caught in the crossfire of agenda-driven city leaders and a politicized criminal justice system.”

The prosecution brought against Budworth was done with assistance from the Portland Police Bureau and came as a result of a grand jury process.

Budworth is accused of hitting activist photographer Teri Jacobs from behind with a baton. Several videos of the incident posted to social media show Jacobs with her hands over her head moving away as officers clear a street near the Multnomah Building on Southeast Hawthorne Avenue. An officer in the video, identified as Budworth, hits Jacobs once in the head from behind, and then hits her head again in the face after she falls to the ground.

Do you see the ingredients? Most of them are mentioned, though subtly so at times:

1. The Oregon Department of Justice is against law enforcement.
2. So-called “excessive force” is being charged out of context.
3. More clearly, city leaders and the criminal justice system have fallen prey to politicization in one direction only.
4. Social media pressure and the corresponding “court of public opinion.”

The real source that is not mentioned has two prongs. The one hiding behind the scenes in the Department of Justice is simply “social justice wokery otherwise known as cultural Marxism.” It is the notion that somehow “white supremacy” is involved in mistreatment of black people and that this must be corrected.

However, most of the rioters in Portland that I have ever seen are white. So, how does this relate?

It doesn’t. White people protesting white supremacy? Such nonsense can only take place with highly infected minds. A liberal government, legalized marijuana, and a very strict COVID-19 lockdown policy set are the likely ingredients added to the mix of people who are fundamentally immature and – wham! There you go. An insane rioting crowd, night after night after night. Note how few photos there are of riots taking place in the day time. So maybe we ought to add disturbance of circadian rhythms and insomnia to the mix.

Such an insane group could be controlled really easily. Some would die, but when people are this crazy, to be quite honest, that is unavoidable. As it stands, appeasing them does not change the fact that people are dying as the result of these lawless people having their way.

President Trump wanted to send the National Guard in to Portland and other places experiencing this, and his assessment that the situation would be quieted in nothing flat is accurate. It would be. But the President made a mistake by not doing this. The selective histories of social and news media said such a thing could not be done without the local governments’ approval, but this is not true. In fact, in 1954, President Dwight D Eisenhower went farther than just the National Guard – he sent the 101st Airborne, a crack military outfit, to Little Rock, Arkansas to face down that state’s National Guard which had been called up to prevent nine black students from entering a formerly all-white high school:

On September 23, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, which put the Arkansas National Guard under federal authority, and sent 1,000 U.S. Army troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, to maintain order as Central High School desegregated.

“Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our nation,” said Eisenhower, in a televised address he gave at the White House the day after he enforced his executive order. “Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of the courts.”

“Eisenhower was boxed into a corner and reached a point where he had to show the power of the federal government and chop off continued insurrection of southern segregationists,” says Dolores Barclay, an adjunct professor at Columbia Journalism School and administrative manager of the Lipman Center for Journalism and Civil and Human Rights. “His decision was decidedly political—to maintain federal power—and to ensure that Brown was enforced.”

The whole story is fraught with politics, of course, but when it came down to brass tacks the President deployed the US military to a place on US soil to fix a problem of lawlessness, and it worked.

What is interesting even more so, is why: President Eisenhower realized that in the eyes of the world, the United States could not claim the high ground in the Cold War if there was such lawlessness happening inside ‘the nation of laws and fairness’ the US purported to be. He was ambivalent about the issue of desegregation himself, and had it been up to his own assessment, he would not have gotten involved. But for the sake of the country, he did.

How is that different from now? It really isn’t. President Vladimir Putin went to town describing the problems America presently has with lawlessness and Black Lives Matter. He was unequivocal to Western journalists at his press conference this week in a very simple message: We sympathize with our partners in the United States but we do not want those kind of problems in our country and we are determined not to give space to such elements as would create them here.

Now, even more, the whole world is able to point the finger at the craziness in the “nation of laws” and say, “you are not what you say you are. For your own sake, you ought to correct this.”