There's a long article in the New York Times written by a former U.S. senior counternarcotics official named Thomas Schweich of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs who faults Hamid Karzai for not wanting glyphsate sprayed by crop duster airplanes on the poppy crop there.

Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?
By Thomas Schweich
New York Times
July 27, 2008

This Schweich doesn't mention that glyphosate is Mansanto's Roundup herbecide. Schweich writes about it as if it's harmless. It's far from harmless. Monsanto lab results were falsified. Not only that but Roundup is a mixture and not pure glyphosate. It is thought that the mixture is more dangerous than glyphosate alone. Spraying Roundup is just a way for Monsanto to make huge profits. They also developed Agent Orange that was used in the Vietnam War that made millions of people sick and still pollutes the land there.

This guy also writes about the FARC and Columbia from a purely propogandist's position. He says nothing about the billions of dollars the CIA has made by trafficking. He says nothing about the billions in money laundering the plutocrat bankers make off the trade.

He doesn't mention that the Taliban had greatly reduced the trade but that after the U.S. took over, crop production set a record.

He doesn't talk about treatment in the U.S. and E.U. and elsewhere to end the demand for the drug rather than trying to stop it at the source.

This is a hit piece on the Taliban that doesn't have the kind of control the piece suggests. Schweich is just doing the U.S. government's bidding in trying to get the American public to believe that the people who radically reduced poppy cultivation are the problem. This is so American's will be duped into the U.S. doing more killing in the area for the sake of pipelines and to counter Russia and other powers increasing their influence.

If the U.S. had worked with the Taliban rather than caring just about pipelines and then Iraqi oil, everything there would be different.

It's also a hit piece on Karzai. He was chosen for his Chevron work; however, he doesn't go along with everything the U.S. wants to do. They are setting him up so he won't be viewed kindly in the U.S. Karzai complains too much when the U.S. kills innocent men, women, and children. This piece doesn't mention all the bombings by the U.S. that kills so many innocents, just calling them collateral damage.

This piece is just a ploy for ramping up the U.S. imperial occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. shouldn't deal with people this way. It's evil.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.