l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 What the Steinle and Brown Shootings Reveal About Democratic National
Strategy
By Michael Bargo, Jr.
This year the nation was stunned by the deaths of two young people, Kate
Steinle and Michael Brown. Each one became the focus of national media
coverage. Each one involved a minority. In the Steinle case the alleged
murderer is Hispanic while in the Brown case the person who shot Michael
Brown was a white police officer.
But while both cases involved different minorities the portrayal of the two
incidents was much different. Michael Brown, it was first reported, was an
innocent, unarmed young black man whose only crime was in being black and
having the misfortune of encountering an allegedly racist white police
officer.
Kate Steinle was, allegedly, murdered by an illegal immigrant. Furthermore,
the law enforcement authorities of San Francisco knew he was wanted by
Federal law enforcement authorities, and that authorities had officially
requested that San Francisco police detain him until he could be placed into
Federal custody. This was because the alleged shooter of Steinle was
convicted of seven felonies, had been deported from the U.S. five times, and
had after each deportation, returned back to the U.S. He has allegedly
stated that he returned to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city
that does not enforce Federal immigration law.
Michael Brown was portrayed as an innocent victim of white oppression. The
police officer who shot him was portrayed as racist, while the alleged
murderer of Kate Steinle was not portrayed as exhibiting racism or racially
motivated violence. Rather, the important thing about Kate Steinle’s
alleged murderer was that his moral and ethical character was neither
approved nor disapproved. In his case the media, and in particular liberal
spokespersons, made an effort to downplay the violence.
Democrats politicized the violence of Michael Brown’s death but sought to
de-emphasize any political aspect to the death of Kate Steinle. But while
these two incidents were treated in opposite ways in reality they are both
consistent with the strategy Democrats have with regard to minorities.
President Obama asked his Justice Department to investigate the Ferguson,
Missouri police department for evidence of civil rights violations. In a
detailed report the Justice Department found a pattern of conduct that
violates some civil rights, there was not enough evidence to prosecute
Police Officer Darren Wilson for federal civil rights violations in the
Michael Brown incident.
Significantly, President Obama has not asked the Justice Department to
investigate if Kate Steinle’s civil right to public safety was violated by
the sheriff, the mayor, or San Francisco supervisors for failing to take
positive actions to defend the rights of citizens against violence
perpetrated by illegal immigrants. In fact, San Francisco officials continue
to defend their policy of ignoring the 1996 Immigration Act, even though
sanctuary status is a violation of Federal law. Between January 2014 and
June 2015 San Francisco law enforce officials declined to enforce more than
10,000 “holds” requested by ICE, more than the rest of the U.S. combined.
Obama has done nothing.
In 2013 S.F. Mayor Ed Lee signed an ordinance barring the city’s law
enforcement agencies from cooperating with most immigration and custom’s
enforcement requests. Yet no investigation has been started of Mayor Lee for
his violations of Federal law and violating his oath to uphold the laws of
the land.
So while Michael Brown’s death provoked a heavy-handed Federal
investigation, San Francisco’s sanctuary policy does not. While they seem
to be contradictory on their face, they are both consistent with the
Democrat Party’s overall strategy: to encourage blacks to vote for their
candidate in 2016, and to pander to the Hispanic vote in the 2016 election.
Michael Brown was black, and Democrats sought to stir up white racism in
order to stimulate blacks to come out and vote for their party in 2016. This
required resurrecting the old 1960s civil rights language, whether it
accurately applied to the situation or not.
Kate Steinle’s alleged murderer is Hispanic, and Democrats sought to
downplay the fact that he was an illegal immigrant with a very serious
record of criminal behavior. The reason they did this was because they
needed to defend their strategy of illegal immigration. They cannot afford
to have any bad publicity; they want Americans to believe that illegal
immigrants are just like anybody else, and are in the process of
assimilating into American society.
Democrats do not want the public to see that illegal immigrants are getting
away with defying Federal law. They have been promoting illegal immigration
since the late 1970s and cannot risk losing the public’s support. They do
not want illegal immigrants seen as criminals, such a perception would
disrupt their goal of filling their sanctuary cities with illegal residents.
So while Kate Steinle and Michael Brown seem like very different cases, in
reality they both are being used by Democrats to push their political agenda
. One would imagine that Democrats would benefit by appearing to protect
the law, that they would immediately indict Steinle’s alleged murderer and
take all legal measures.
The reason behind this is that Democrats have always gained political power
by controlling the largest urban areas of the United States, from Portland,
Oregon and Los Angeles, to New York and Boston. And because all of these old
strongholds of Democratic power have been losing population, and legal,
Federally approved immigration procedures cannot provide enough immigrants
to restore the population of these cities, Democrats have chosen to defy
Federal immigration law. But in so doing they must also allow criminal
illegal immigrants to be immune to prosecution.
Democrats also don’t want to scare illegal immigrants away from San
Francisco. So they must protect the city’s reputation as a safe haven from
Federal and criminal law. While this may seem outrageous beyond belief to
the average law-abiding American, Democrats are more than willing to
conceive of this strategy and do anything they must do to make it happen and
keep it alive. To them it is a matter of preserving their political power,
and they obviously value that above all things, including the rule of law,
the lives of innocent young women, and the Constitution.
The result of all this manipulation of the public’s perception of criminal
behavior is that violence against police is now on the rise and the criminal
behavior of illegal immigrants continues to be ignored. This slow anarchy-
creep is not a concern of Democrats, who are too busy whipping up Hispanic
and black votes to be concerned with law and order. In fact in these two
incidents law and order were pushed aside in deference to the will of the
Democrat Party.
That this is a strategy of the DNC, or what I call the Democrat National
Machine, is very clear. They created sanctuary policy, they created all the
black ghettoes in the country, they control all the major metropolitan areas
and they see their continuing dominance of government and Federal policy as
dependent upon this control. Melissa Click of the U. of Missouri was simply
being a good liberal employee when she sought to control media coverage of
an event staged to continue the DNC’s strategy. | T*********I
发帖数: 10729 | |
|
