US SPECIAL ENVOY RICHARD HOLBROOKE ANNOUNCES U.S. ENDING POPPY ERADICATION IN AFGHANISTAN: WHAT A JOKE
When the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, poppy cultivation and trade went way down. As soon as the U.S. took over, it went way back up.
Heroin is illegal in the U.S., and the U.S. has occupied Afghanistan to bring it under the Empire; yet, the heroin trade is flourishing except for the economic downturn. Who controls the trade? Most of it flows through NATO-member Turkey and then on into NATO-Europe. Who finances it all? Who launders all the transactions? The bankers do.
The U.S. wanted to make money spraying farmland with toxic chemicals as a cover even while keeping the trade alive, just like cocaine in Columbia. That ran into some problems such as environmental concerns on the part of not-so-stupid Afghanis, such as Hamid Karzai whom the U.S. has been trying to control or oust.
So, along comes US Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke declaring the program a failure. He said:
The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure. They did not result in any damage to the Taliban, but they put farmers out of work, and they alienated people and drove people into the arms of the Taliban. So I need to stress this: the poppy farmer is not our enemy; Taliban are. And to destroy the crops is not an effective policy, and the US has wasted hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on this program. And that is going to end. We are not going to support crop eradication.
Heroin is not the enemy?
Why do the farmers grow poppies? Heroin and opium are addictive. Why is the trade allowed and encouraged? Those in the trade make huge fortunes off people's addiction. That's sheer evil.
Now, if the U.S. can rationalize bombing babies by predator drone, how can it not stop poppy farming?
If the industrialized nations and others would make life such that people wouldn't want to cave into being hooked but rather be healthy, then the farmers of Afghanistan wouldn't find poppy growing the most lucrative enterprise there.
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)