The US turned to the Cocaine cartel for money for the Contras fighting against the Nicaraguans.
They send billions of dollars to the dictatorship in Columbia.
The US spends billions on military equipment and chemicals to spray Monsanto herbicides of unknown chemical content all over Columbia. Monsanto Corporation, as we noted in the main body of our work, has produced terminator seed, Agent Orange, PCB, rBGH, Roundup, and work on BT crops, to name just a few of the things from hell, from Monsanto.
The spraying is indiscriminant. The pilots don't avoid spraying animals, food crops, or people, including children and pregnant women.
The US sends in the CIA and Pentagon under cover of private military contractors to avoid Congressional oversight.
They do little to nothing about the drug problem within the US. That is to say, the US doesn't work on the demand side of the problem, which approach is much more cost effective than attacking the poor farmers of Columbia.
The US hides its war against the indigenous rebels (who have been fighting against rightwing dictatorships since the 1940's) behind the faÃ§ade of the war on drugs. The US deliberately doesn't work on prevention at home, because if that were to succeed, the military-industrial complex wouldn't be making as much money and the rightwing in Columbia would be put down by the revolutionaries who are not drug based.
The rightwing paramilitary is actually more involved in narcotics trafficking than the left. They are also more inclined to act as death squads and assassins after their American training that has heavily promoted such abominable activities since time immemorial, since those of the White man who love violence and blood lust first showed up on the shores of the Western Hemisphere.
The point of the death squads is to destroy the opposition to the dictatorship.
They are driving the people off the land so the rich can steal it.
They are run by the Columbian military which is in turn run by the US.
The US wants to dominate the Columbian economy for the sakes of the superrich in the US. To hell with the peasants is their view. Peasants aren't worth anything. They are inferior—subhumans. The US policy is very racist, even though there are token Blacks and Latinos now being bought off by the Republican Party, the main Party of property and not people.
Also, the civil war is now over oil, of course. Columbia produces about half as much oil as Venezuela and ships the vast majority of it to the US. While Venezuela is looking at keeping fifty-one percent of the proceeds for the Venezuelan people, Columbia's dictatorship is lining its private pockets with kickbacks on sweet deals demanded by US oil companies which take seventy-five percent of the proceeds while millions of Columbians are living in abject poverty as civil-war refugees in their own country thanks directly to US foreign policy.
Of course, the drug trade is big business for the money-laundering US bank such as Citibank for one. As we've written elsewhere herein, the profit margins for this private-banking and shell-game racket is much higher than for so-called legitimate transactions. So while the local drug dealer of even small amounts of marijuana serves time in prison, the international bankers sip cocktails on their yachts. Blacks in the urban decay zones die of crack addiction. The bankers snort their coke with the politicians upstairs after their dinner parties.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)