What the Steinle and Brown Shootings Reveal About Democratic National Strategy

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.  

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com