The Left Feasting on Dead Heros in Santa Cruz*

 *or never let an emergency go to waste

Sorry about the gruesome title, but it took little time for the Santa Cruz left to try and use the death of two police officers to forward their agenda; remember to the left/ collectivists there is only the agenda. These are the first to join in when there are complaints of excessive force and/or other constitutional violations voiced by the vocal minority. This shown in it's full fruition in the 1997  after the "Happy" John Dine Shooting. John Dine was a homeless subject with many documented mental issues. Dine had obtained a plastic replica pistol, which his friends later said he had told them we had gotten for protection. On November 12th, Dine was seen flashing the gun on the Pacific Garden Mall and the police were called. Dine was contacted by several police officers and one of them shot Dine dead when he pointed the gun at him. The end result was the officer was put through the ringer, with a constant barrage of lies, usually revolving around that the plastic gun was a police plant and that Dine was simply murdered by the police officer for no reason. The fact that this story makes no sense at all, still didn't draw any support from the left as any day a police officer can be shown in a bad light is a good day for them. In the below letter the writer says she is the wife of a retired police officer; one wonders if he is as hopeful for a police state as she is.

It's Time to Get Guns off the street  
Thursday, the people of Santa Cruz and from across California gathered to mourn the loss of two police officers who were shot to death at close range by a man they were investigating. One was the mother of two young children. The other was a longtime veteran whose own son is now a community service officer in the same city. This senseless act is yet another counterpoint to the NRA's defense of the right to bear arms and flies in the face of the ludicrous statement made by NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Not so Mr. Pierre! My husband is a retired Seattle police officer/detective, who investigated the same kind of crimes as these two slain officers. He was lucky, but we cannot rely on luck alone. The bottom line is we need to get semi-automatic weapons off the streets and ensure that tight regulations and background checks are in place for anyone who wishes to own a gun. No police officer should ever again have to walk into a situation like the fallen two from Santa Cruz. My heart goes out to the families of Elizabeth Butler and Butch Baker.  Rebecca Levy, Aptos

My response: Rebecca you are simply a coward and your post is an insult to law enforcement. Not every tragedy should be fodder for a anti-gun rant from the left. Your remark, "No police officer should ever again have to walk into a situation like the fallen two from Santa Cruz" is hopelessly self serving, as if you and your love of a paternal and protective government can re-define reality with a gun ban. We the police are public safety officers; we are the thin blue line between you and the criminals and no gun ban will ever change that. The idea that computers will some how eliminate violent crime is based on the naive belief that all crime is about the most intelligent way to steal money; I've got news for you, holding up a liquor store or mugging a guy in the park, are high risk and low profit crimes, yet they are the most common. When the gun fire starts and everyone is running away, the police will be rolling code 3 right to the heart of the problem; it's what we want do, it's what we are trained for and we do it so you don't have to sacrifice your individual rights to be safe..

Things to Keep in Mind When You Vote

The following is a collection of letters I have sent to the Santa Cruz Sentential. Although they have printed my articles in the past, recently they have had a partisan change were well thought out arguments from conservatives have been censored.

 Prop 37; What You Don't Know Will Save You Money!

Monsanto is telling us that cost of GMO labeling (Prop 37) will be over a billion dollars a year and an increase in grocery bills of $400 a year. What Monsanto doesn't immediately explain is where these costs will come from. One might think it's the re-labeling costs or expected litigation, which is not the case. The huge costs of prop 37 will be the result of consumers not wanting GMO food products. In other words Monsanto is telling you that it's best not to know you are probably eating GMO products than for you to make the choice to not to buy it if you don't want it! The billion dollars is the price Monsanto says it will cost for farmers to switch from growing GMO crops to non- GMO crops. Are you really going to buy the argument that it is best to vote to stay ignorant because it will save you money? 

When Job Numbers are Propaganda. 

 The September jobless rate that fell below the 8% mark to 7.8% is one of the most manipulated numbers in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lets look at the numbers; only 114,000 jobs (out of 12 million unemployed) was reported to the BLS. But a household survey showed 873,000 jobs. This immense job growth was accomplished through a mid-year "seasonal adjustment"; meaning this number was arrived at by multiplying the household survey preliminary numbers because October is normally a slow month for job growth. If the 873,000 number is true it would be the highest one-month jump in 29 years; this is obviously very doubtful. Either 342,000 people were "Raptured" or the BLS is grossly under-reporting job growth. There is a third possibility and that is the job numbers were specifically tweaked to bring the jobless rate below 8% to help Obama's re-election campaign.
Bureau of Labor Statistics is controlled by the Department of Labor which is an Obama Cabinet position. The secretary is Hilda Solis, an extreme left wing environmentalists who has been vocal in her disdain for Bush (43) and his Department of Labor that reflected a pro-business agenda. Solis revamped the Department of Labor as a more regulatory agency, working closely with labor unions and investigating and fining businesses for safety and environmental violations.

Obama; Fanning the Flames of Class Warfare 

President Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the rich at the same level as President Clinton. What is missing in this comparison is the fact that when Clinton raised taxes the US had full employment and the economy was healthy. To raise taxes now with massive unemployment and in the middle of a recession would be a disaster; even to a Keynesian (raise taxes during boom times and decrease taxes during recessions). Further as Paul Ryan stated in the Vice-Presidential debate, the revenue generated by a Clinton era tax increase would be a rounding error compared to the deficits being created by current president (Obama has admitted as much). The only way to create a health economy is through jobs; not the Presidents fuzzy numbers, lowering the unemployment rate by counting those that have dropped out of the job market, but real jobs; and a lot of them! 

Obama's Creates a Dependent Voting Block 

If the best the Liberals have is the latest Romney tape where he says half of America is on the public dole, than Romney is a shoe in. As Romney explained, the reason is all these Americans have been made dependent on Government. If you are dependent on government you want more of it; if you are not dependent on government you want less. The dependence is the direct result of government policies and the consequences of the welfare state. As Benjamin Franklin said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."

The Banker Bookies Extort Government to cover Losses

With the election coming up, we need to look back to remember why the economy is in such a mess. If one looks at Wall Street and Investment banks as bookies it becomes quite clear . In 1999 under the Clinton administration, a 60 year old law was repealed that had forbid the Investment banks from being bookies. A good bookie will make sure that bets he takes are balanced out, so an unexpected win or loss will not wipe him out. But the Investment Bookies took in trillions of dollars (with a "t") of bets that the mortgage market would fail, believing it could never happen; so when the houses started to go down in value, the bookies looked like they were going to fail and had to stop lending money. The other effect was the glutted housing market sunk under water; wiping out much of the wealth of the middle class and stalled housing construction. The Federal Reserve stepped in and threatened complete financial break down unless the government cover the banks losses. The responsibility for this lies with the Congress (not president Clinton and/or Bush), as it was the Congress that voted to again allow Investment Bookies and has yet not voted to end them.