JC Ethic Stops Crime

by Cap Black, Contributing Writer

As an anti-crime activist, two of my most powerful weapons are reminding Americans of their cultural super powers: the Judeo Christian ethic, which I call the “JC Ethic” and the Constitution.

The JC Ethic is America’s top crime prevention tool because folks governed by the Ten Commandments and/or the Gospel, don’t have to be governed by cops, COs (Correctional Officers), prosecutors and others.

The JC Ethic promotes ethical self-governance; something all agree is in precious short supply from the Hood to the Heartland, as Miley Cyrus repulsively reminds us.

This self-governance even applies to secularists and agnostics who nonetheless can practice this ethos.

We have a country being brow beaten (and worse) into deleting cultural super powers of the JC Ethic and the Constitution in favor of documents and a soulless doctrine of a distinctively Eastern European origin that rejects God, moral absolutes and ethical behavior.

The JC Ethic remains America’s best crime prevention program because it is self-administered and thus doesn’t need tax payer-funded forces to oversee.

Cap Black The Hood Conservative is an anti-crime activist and coordinator of the Home Defense Foundation http://www.hdfnola.org

Government Creates Drug Demand, Then Serves ‘Customers’

by Don Hank

Reports seem to show that: First the CIA helped usher in the drug culture, thanks to MKUltra1.

Then with these CIA-made customers, the agency went into business and became the world’s largest drug cartel, on your dime.2 After all, who was to stop them? You aren’t supposed to know what they’re up to, Nurenberg Trials be damned.

Whether this sequence of events from demand creation to providing supply was preplanned is not known. But it did happen this way.

The New American reports: 

“According to the article, which also cites former CIA officials and even ex-Drug Enforcement Administration boss Phil Jordan, Los Zetas has already prepared to disrupt and possibly even subvert Mexico’s 2012 national election. Ironically, many leaders of the criminal empire supposedly threatening the existence of the Mexican government were actually trained in the U.S. at the infamous military training center known as School of the Americas.”3

This fits with what we know about Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega4, who also was trained at the School of the Americas, in Panama, and enlisted as a CIA agent. Once installed as president, Noriega was given tacit permission to sell drugs in exchange for his cooperation with the Nicaraguan Contras. (Also see the video The Panama Deception – link below)4

Russia has also complained about the CIA’s protection of Afghan drug production.5 The U.S. refusal to destroy opium poppy crops in Afghanistan guarantees that raw drug sources there will be inviolable, leading to heavy drug use in Russia, the head of the Russian federal drug control agency said.

The amount of narcotics brought into Russia has increased two-fold since the beginning of the anti-terrorism operation in Afghanistan, Viktor Ivanov, Russian Federal Drug Control Service chief, said on Saturday.

Now let me clarify my position. I do realize that the ‘War on Drugs’ is 100% phony; but, unlike the libertarians, I do not advocate legalizing drugs simply because supposedly ‘banning drugs won’t help’ any more than banning alcohol helped during Prohibition. Heroin is not alcohol and kids who take it once often become slaves to it for life. The CIA Cartel likes this. It’s good for business. It also keeps the DEA in business.

What I do advocate is dismantling these centralized ‘anti-drug’ agencies because they are corrupt and doing more harm than good. After all, they have always operated on the premise that supporting the lesser of two evils is beneficial. This policy, antithetical to Biblical teachings on which our nation is founded, never works that way in real life and has never worked for the US government. 

The libertarians’ push to legalize drugs is similar to the East Indies Trading Company’s policy6) of selling drugs to China. When China banned opium imports, the powerful company simply prevailed upon the British government to declare war on China and force it to accept ‘free’ trade – not much different from today’s ‘free’ trade policies foisted upon an unwilling Western public by Western Oligarchs. 

Either way, the People are not involved in the policies, which are, in effect, forced upon them to the detriment of their children and hapless Americans who are sold the idea that drugs are a ‘right,’ not a dangerous substance that can kill them and enslave their minds. 

Don Hank is a Guest Contributor to The Bold Pursuit

References and other sources:

If you like action movies, “Two Guns,” with Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1272878/), plausibly illustrates how collusion between US agencies and the Mexican cartels might be working in the real world. 

Thanks to the CIA-induced demand, it went into business and became the world’s largest drug cartel, on your dime:

CIA recruited mercenaries and drug traffickers1 http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of-the-most-shocking-cia-programs-1370236359

2 http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-war-on-drugs-cia-recruited-mercenaries-and-drug-traffickers/22777

3 TheNewAmerican.com: According to the article in the New American, which also cites former CIA officials and even ex-Drug Enforcement Administration boss Phil Jordan, Los Zetas has already prepared to disrupt and possibly even subvert Mexico’s 2012 national election. Ironically, many leaders of the criminal empire supposedly threatening the existence of the Mexican government were actually trained in the U.S. at the infamous military training center known as School of the Americas. http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/10658-reports-cia-working-with-mexican-drug-cartels

4 This fits with what we know about Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega, who also was trained at the School of the Americas and enlisted as a CIA agent. http://www.unsolvedrealm.com/2011/06/12/true-conspiracy-cias-history-of-drug-trafficking/

See the video The Panama Deception, available at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Txky2IH60    and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPbUnpqz5OI

5 And here is Vlad Putin’s government, complaining about the CIA’s protection of Afghan drug production:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-lashes-out-at-nato-for-protecting-afghan-drug-production/17841

The US refusal to destroy opium poppy crops in Afghanistan guarantees that raw drug sources there will be inviolable, leading to heavy drug use in Russia, the head of the Russian federal drug control agency said.

The amount of narcotics brought into Russia has increased two-fold since the beginning of the anti-terrorism operation in Afghanistan, Viktor Ivanov, Russian Federal Drug Control Service chief, said on Saturday. (See more at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-lashes-out-at-nato-for-protecting-afghan-drug-production/17841#sthash.v9P9qYnG.dpuf)  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel#Allegations_of_collusion_with_Mexican_federal_government_forces

Allegations of collusion with Mexican federal government forces [edit] In May 2009, the U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) aired multiple reports alleging that the Mexican federal police and military were working in collusion with the Sinaloa Cartel. In particular, the report claimed the government was helping the Sinaloa Cartel to take control of the Juarez Valley area and destroy other cartels, especially the Juarez Cartel. NPR’s reporters interviewed dozens of officials and ordinary people for the journalistic investigation. One report quotes a former Juarez police commander who claimed the entire department was working for the Sinaloa Cartel and helping it to fight other groups. He also claimed that the Sinaloa Cartel had bribed the military. Also quoted was a Mexican reporter who claimed hearing numerous times from the public that the military had been involved in murders.[citation needed] Another source in the story was the U.S. trial of Manuel Fierro-Mendez, an ex-Juarez police captain who admitted to working for the Sinaloa Cartel. He claimed that the Sinaloa Cartel influenced the Mexican government and military in order to gain control of the region. A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent in the same trial alleged that Fierro-Mendez had contacts with a Mexican military officer. The report also alleged, with support from an anthropologist who studies drug trafficking, that data on the low arrest rate of Sinaloa Cartel members (compared to other groups) was evidence of favoritism on the part of the authorities. A Mexican official denied the allegation of favoritism, and a DEA agent and a political scientist also had alternate explanations for the arrest data.[48] Another report detailed numerous indications of corruption and influence that the cartel has within the Mexican government.[49]

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Prohibition: Government poisoned 10,000 people

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/the-american-government-once-intentionally-poisoned-certain-alcohol-supplies-resulting-in-the-death-of-over-10000-american-citizens/

Precursors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_CHATTER

 

Deconstructing the Minimum Wage Law

by Alex Burwasser, Guest Contributor

Whether you are in favor of or opposed to minimum wage laws, know these five axioms:

1. One’s labor has no intrinsic value over and above what another is willing to pay for it (which is to say that there is no such thing as a “fair” wage aside from that established by the forces of supply and demand in a free marketplace).

2. The economic return on an employee’s labor must exceed what the employer pays for that labor (which is to say that we cannot expect businesses hire workers at a loss).

3. Like all production costs, the cost of labor must always be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices (which is to say that businesses cannot serve as charities).

4. Regardless of any legislated minimum wage, the default minimum wage is always zero. This is the hard reality created by minimum wage laws that effectively make it illegal for employers to hire low-skill workers at a fair market (sub-minimum wage) price.

5. The minimum wage law is a stealth welfare program funded by employers and customers.

Proponents often make the argument that were it not for minimum wage laws the vast majority of Americans would be working for sweat-shop wages. This emotional and poorly thought out argument is easily demolished, however, by recognizing that the vast majority of workers including most of these proponents) earn significantly more than the minimum wage. (As an extreme counter-argument, there are no minimum wage brain surgeons.) The larger reality, however, is that wages are set by markets rather than by employers.

Proponents also argue that there is no (or minimal) down-side to minimum wage laws, citing questionable (mostly union-sponsored) “studies” that show such laws do not significantly increase unemployment or raise prices. If this were truly the case, then why not raise the minimum wage to $20/hr., $30/hr., or even $50/hr.? Once proponents concede that such elevated minimum wages could never be absorbed, their argument immediately crumbles.

The best argument one can make for a minimum wage law is that it raises the standard of living of certain marginal workers whose jobs cannot easily be eliminated, outsourced, or replaced with capital (i.e., automated). Cases in point are jobs are found in the restaurant, hospitality, and other direct manual service industries.

Nonetheless, the truth is that minimum wage laws cause serious market distortions that result in commensurate collateral economic damage. Although the proponents invariably argue that minimum wages do not significantly increase unemployment, any reasonable person with any economic awareness would have to know that this not the case.

To amplify on this unemployment issue, when faced with minimum wage hikes, employers are forced to take steps to remain competitive and profitable. As a case in point, outsourcing (often to offshore domiciles) becomes more attractive. Similarly, employers will replace legal with illegal workers and labor with capital (i.e., rely more on automation). They will also reduce benefits to help offset the higher wages. Finally, many marginally profitable businesses will become unprofitable and will be forced to close.

If the price of beef goes up, people buy less of it. Ditto cars, refrigerators, TVs, movies, electricity, fuel, and video games. Given this incontrovertible reality, it would take real chutzpah for someone to walk in the room and claim with a straight-face that the same is not true for labor. Clearly, if the price of labor goes up, employers will buy less of it.

It is equally disingenuous to argue that minimum wage laws do not raise prices. As per Axiom #3 above, all costs of production (including labor and taxes) must be passed along to the consumer. The hard truth is that businesses exist to produce goods and services for society at a profit and cannot be expected to serve as charities. Readers looking for hand-outs should visit the Red Cross or Salvation Army to see if there is a program available for them.

Minimum wage proponents often try to frame the debate with the “fair wage” argument. As per Axiom #1 above, however, this is sophistry. In economics, there is no such concept as a “fair wage” over and beyond that resulting from the interaction of the forces of supply and demand in a free market place. In this context then, a “fair wage” is really a market wage.

Those promoting a “fair wage” are really arguing for a living wage. Although the merits of a living wage law are beyond the purview of this brief essay, its burdens should be borne by society as a whole rather than unfairly thrust disproportionately on the backs of employers.

Minimum wage proponents also argue for elevating the minimum wage based on its not having kept up with inflation, claiming that if the Federal minimum wage had been indexed to inflation since 1969, the current minimum wage would exceed $10/hr. However, this inflation indexing argument can cut both ways since if 1938 (the year the Federal minimum wage was enacted) is used as the base year, the current minimum wage would be only $4.08. Also, if the minimum wage law is bad social policy, the inflation adjustment argument is moot.

Before continuing, let’s frame the debate by posing this very reasonable question: What greater social good do proponents hope to accomplish by legislating a minimum wage law?

I think it’s fair to say that the only principled argument for a minimum wage law is to improve living standards of at least some low-skill and other marginal workers.

The corollary questions then are: 1) Does a minimum wage law accomplish this social goal? 2) Do the benefits of a minimum wage law outweigh the collateral social costs?

Addressing the first question, the answer clearly is “not very well.” Although some workers will benefit, other workers will lose their jobs for the reasons discussed above. Also, minimum wage laws make it very difficult for teenagers and others to find entry level work at all since employers cannot afford such inexperienced and low-skill workers (see Axiom #2 above). As a result, many young people are deprived of an early opportunity to learn valuable on-the-job work skills that everyone must eventually acquire in order to become productive workers.

Addressing the second question, the high collateral social costs (higher unemployment, higher prices, and marginal producer shutdowns) are a very high price to pay for the very marginal benefits of minimum wage laws. Clearly, there are many more losers than winners.

This begs the obvious question: Given the high social costs versus the meager social benefits, why does the Left champion minimum wage laws so vigorously? Although readers likely understand that the Baracks, Nancys, and Harrys of the world are not brilliant thinkers, neither are they stupid. They have to be aware of the above-mentioned economic realities.

It should come as no surprise to readers that this is an issue where politics trumps good economics resulting in poor governance. As per Axiom #5 above, the minimum wage law is a really a stealth welfare program packaged as an unfunded mandate at the expense of employers and consumers. Since its collateral social damage is mostly invisible to an inastute public, minimum wage law advocacy is a sure political winner for unprincipled politicians.

Given that it is driven by crass politics rather than sound economics, it is doubtful that a minimum wage law is a well-crafted answer to raising living standards. In fact, there is no doubt that its social costs far outweigh it social benefits, and that its primary virtue is that it buys votes for cynical statist politicians more interested in winning elections than promoting good governance.