For years, Francesca Hong has made it very clear that she wants to defund the police and abolish prisons. When she's asked about this, she uses a very deliberate phrase —"public safety"—to describe her massive tax-and-spend schemes.

Hong, like all Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), believes that crime will magically go away if they spend billions of tax dollars on failing public schools, substandard public housing, and other social programs. The one thing that does help curb crime is school vouchers, a program Hong also wants to abolish.

But telling voters ahead of a big election that you plan to turn their neighborhoods over to violent criminals isn't a winning electoral strategy. Instead, Hong has reportedly "reversed" her stance on defunding the police and her claims of police racism.

Here's more:

In an Aug. 4 interview on the national podcast Pod Save America, Hong said she would "not abolish the police" and when asked if she still holds the view "that police exist to uphold white supremacy," as she posted in 2020, Hong said "no."

"My views have only become stronger in that I'm serious about public safety and I will not abolish the police. My views are that people are struggling right now and need basic needs met. And I want to focus on stopping violent crime and giving law enforcement the resources and the training that they need, but ensure that we are also holding accountable law enforcement that does not follow the law," Hong said.

When asked when she changed her belief that police support white supremacy, Hong did not answer.

That is likely as far as the media will take this line of questioning.

Recommended
Elizabeth Warren Gets Reality Check Over Her Inability to Understand How Rent Works Amy Curtis Masked Goon Uses St. Paul City Council Meeting to Call for Abolition of Private Property Amy Curtis

But here's one that must be asked of Hong: the DSA recently said that, to get the organization's endorsement, candidates must pledge fidelity to the DSA platform in its entirety. Defunding the police and abolishing prisons are two planks in that platform.

Given that Hong is a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the DSA, what is her response to this demand? Will she seek the DSA endorsement or forgo it in favor of running as a moderate?

If only the journalists would ask her that question.

No one believes Hong actually changed her stance, of course. This is the same card played by Abigail Spanberger in Virginia: run as a moderate, govern as a radical.

Lies.

Trust her. Or something.

That's the plan.

So-called journalists do this repeatedly with Democrat candidate's. They take the Democrat at their word and refuse to ask tough follow-up questions. Hong should be pressed on what "public safety" means and why she constantly uses that phrase instead of law enforcement. She won't be. She should be asked why her views changed. She won't be.

The media remain propagandists for Democrats. Remember, they refused to fact-check Hong's claims about abolishing the Senate, saying her post was not proof she agreed with the explicitly stated platform of the DSA to abolish the Senate, the Electoral College, the Supreme Court, and the presidency.