‹ Dan Senor Demolishes (Gently) Feith and Wolfowitz •
Come to the wonderful Future of Freedom Foundation conference this June, 6-8, at the Hyatt in Reston Virginia. Here’s my article today discussing why I’m excited. Antiwar.com readers will find the slate of 20 speakers rather impressive, including such Antiwar.com regular and featured writers as Justin Raimondo, David Henderson, Ron Paul, Andrew J. Bacevich, Glenn Greenwald, James Bovard, Karen Kwiatkowski, Alexander Cockburn, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Robert Higgs, Jacob G. Hornberger, Laurence Vance and me. The rest of the list is as impressive. Go here for details, including registration info.
come visit us : http://www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
Radio home of http://www.Revolutionmarch.com
Featuring the march on DC July 12th with Dr Paul
Live radio and true news without the MSM spin.
LIVE CHAT ROOM to interact with other fellow marchers and Ron Paul supporters.
That’s awesome Anthony. I watched your speech last year (via youtube) with much interest, it was great.
Sounds like this is politically motivated and not in the interest of stopping war.
Opportunists like this suck. Sorry not going and since its in Virginia, doubt anyone will go either. Maybe a bunch of feds will make the trip out of langley, enjoy folks. Bring your masks! Why is Ron Paul still in this anyways? VOte for Cynthia McKinney a true antiwar candidate that will be on the ballot in all the states in November representing the Green Party! http://www.mckinney2008.com http://runcynthiarun.org
Member of the
End the War Now! Coalition
Opportunists? The Future of Freedom Foundation has been solid on war and foreign policy for its whole existence, and back when many leftists were bending over backwards to support the early war on terror, FFF heroically opposed Bush’s immoral attack on Afghanistan.
What’s the purpose of this conference? More speeches about how bad war, torture, etc. is? lol :D
Is the “Anti-War” movement actually a COINTELPRO operation designed to obfuscate and string us along until it’s too late to act? Why couldn’t it be?
The Ron Paul Antiwar Foundation, established with $30 million dollars of campaign contributions, will guarantee that there is a well-financed, vibrant anti-war movement for many years to come.
The Law of Opposites is just a variation of the Law of Unintended Consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal – like, “make the world safe for democracy,” a grandiose scheme of World War I – one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation.”
Wow, that’s “philosophy” for you. Does that apply to gynecology and obstetrics too? Anyway, ATTACK IRAN! BOMB FRANCE! OBLITERATE MOSCOW!
(There–is the war over yet?).
Oh, the quotation in italics is Congressman Ron Paul’s.
At this rate, and with Paul’s energetic, cunning quietism, Cheney should already be impeached.
The law of unintended consequences: Congressman Paul just shrunk the antiwar movement?
And I went up there, I said, “Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and
guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,
KILL, KILL.” And I started jumpin up and down yelling, “KILL, KILL,” and
he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down
yelling, “KILL, KILL.” And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me,
sent me down the hall, said, “You’re our boy.”
Arlo Guthrie
Thanks for this announcement from Anthony Gregory. Nine months ago I had here bet that we would attack Iran in about April. I understand that IsraelUSA’s attempt to do so last month was foiled. I would not be surprised if our guy’s did it by the date of this anti-war event. Too little efforts to prevent war on Iran, too late.
This was initiated by the republican party! Why would we go to this? Probably will be flooded by feds, undercover feds everywhere snapping pictures and trying to practice being antiwar. This is scary, real scary. Isnt the cia hq and fbi hq nearby? i dont even want to use my name in this posting but think we have been
Ron Pauls largest donors to his campaign are the military industrial machine. The largest donors are the air force, army, navy, and the DOD. This should tell you something.
I wish I could make it to this conference, but I’ll enjoy watching it on youtube.
@anon
Ron Paul biggest donors were from soldiers who want to end the war thats why those are the top contributors. Give me a break. You don’t get more antiwar than Ron Paul. Alot of these posters are just leftists who dislike Ron Paul simply because there is an R next to his name, so they make things up and twist reality.
Couldn’t agree more–can’t get any more “antiwar” than Ron Paul, nosirree. Why in New Hampshire, having garnered millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and having encouraged any number of Democrat antiwar voters to cross over to vote for him he ran anti-immigration commercials on New Hampshire television.
This man is a prophet, at least three steps ahead of anyone else in the race.
Not only does he recognize the French Canadian invasion of the American Northeast, but he is rightly preparing for the war against Mexico to overthrow the dictatorship that is threatening Israel with WMD.
You can’t get more antiwar than that.
And consider his subtle working around the law of unintended conequences: just as he was about to become a major force in the antiwar movement, he suspended his campaign, just so he did not risk getting the exact opposite of what he wanted.
Genius!
By the way, you imply that Paul is indeed “Rightwing” and “Republican”, which he has been subtly trying to hide from the electorate, which he gulls with “Libertarian.”
Ron Paul is about as “Libertarian” as he is Texan.
How many Spanish-speaking Tejanos in Texas (actually most are bilingual)? Anyone of them, even a newborn, is more Texan than Ron Paul. In fact, any one of them is more Texan than some of the white trash that came at the invitation of Santa Ana, and who were given land on the condition they convert to Roman Catholicism and take Mexican brides.
Real religious people they were, yessir! Salt of the earth.
They are also more Texan that George W. Bush or his carpetbagger father.
Didn’t the migrating “white trash” make the above-mentioned deal with the Government of Spain (i.e. with fellow white Europeans), not with the (unfortunately for them) anti-Spanish people and government of Mexico ?
In my opinion, Mexico will find her true happiness when she looks once again to the benevolent rule of Spain. This will also help to solve the border problems with the US, to the good of both countries.
The true name of Mexico is Nueva Espana. Spain is ready to welcome Mexico back into her embrace.
Just my two pesetas.
Have a great day.
Didn’t the migrating “white trash” make the above-mentioned deal with the Government of Spain (i.e. with fellow white Europeans), not with the (unfortunately for them) anti-Spanish people and government of Mexico?”
Vous dites quoi? Avec Espagne? Votre histoire, mon ami, est comme ils disent en francais, le science fiction.
Ă€ l’automne 1835, le Texas, État de la rĂ©publique fĂ©dĂ©rale du Mexique peuplĂ© en majoritĂ© par des colons anglo-amĂ©ricains se rĂ©volte contre l’Ă©tat central mexicain dirigĂ© par le prĂ©sident-dictateur Antonio LĂłpez de Santa Anna (Siège de Fort-Alamo, 6 mars 1836) et proclame, en mars 1836, la « RĂ©publique indĂ©pendante du Texas ».
Elle aida une autre rĂ©gion sĂ©paratiste, la RĂ©publique du Yucatán, dans sa tentative d’indĂ©pendance mais en vain.
Cette rĂ©publique indĂ©pendante perdurera jusqu’au 29 dĂ©cembre 1845, date Ă laquelle le Texas est finalement intĂ©grĂ© aux États-Unis d’AmĂ©rique, après neuf annĂ©es d’indĂ©pendance, devenant le 28e État amĂ©ricain. Cette annexion entrainera la guerre amĂ©ricano-mexicaine.
Cette indĂ©pendance a eu aussi comme consĂ©quence de retarder de 29 ans l’abolition de l’esclavage sur son territoire, celle-ci Ă©tant adoptĂ©e par le Mexique en 1829.
Geezus, guess they never teach you damned Gringos about the Republic of Yucatan neither.
The quotation is from wikipedia
Cette indépendance a eu aussi comme conséquence de retarder de 29 ans l’abolition de l’esclavage sur son territoire, celle-ci étant adoptée par le Mexique en 1829.
Jes’ so mutch durned heestwa yall jes nevah getz n thim durned prihzones yclept Merkin schules eh collegia, publeek ou privaht.
Le territoire du Yucatán, correspondant aux États mexicains actuels de Campeche, de Quintana Roo et du Yucatán, dĂ©cida de rechercher son indĂ©pendance par rapport au Mexique, car les Yucatèques souhaitaient un gouvernement fĂ©dĂ©raliste, et non centraliste, comme l’Ă©tait devenu le Mexique sous la dictature de Santa Anna.
Depuis 1617, le Yucatan Ă©tait considĂ©rĂ© comme Ă©tant une “CapitanĂa” gĂ©nĂ©rale de la Nouvelle Espagne, mais du fait de sa situation gĂ©ographique, le territoire gardait une certaine autonomie. La province du Yucatán s’Ă©tendait alors sur les territoires actuels de Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco et Yucatan, et sur le nord du PetĂ©n (Guatemala) et de Belize. En 1786, l’Espagne appliqua au Mexique le rĂ©gime des intendances et le territoire devint alors l’Intendencia de Yucatán.
Lors de l’indĂ©pendance du Mexique, un groupe de notables citoyens du Yucatan se rĂ©unirent dans l’Ă©glise de San Juan Ă MĂ©rida, pour discuter les nouvelles sur la guerre d’indĂ©pendance qui se dĂ©roulait dans le centre du Mexique. Quand la Constitution de Cadix fut promulguĂ©e, ce groupe s’unit Ă un autre groupe fondĂ© par Vicente MarĂa Velázquez, prĂŞtre de l’Ă©glise de San Juan, Manuel JimĂ©nez SolĂs, Lorenzo de Zavala et JosĂ© MatĂas Quintana, père de Andres Quintana Roo. Ce groupe sera connu après par le nom des sanjuanitas.
Le terme République apparut pour la première fois dans la Constitution politique du Yucatan de 1825 :
“… Le Yucatan jure fidĂ©litĂ©, reconnaissance et obĂ©issance au gouvernement du Mexique, s’il est libĂ©ral et reprĂ©sentatif sous les conditions suivantes: 1.- Que l’union du Yucatan sera celle d’une rĂ©publique fĂ©dĂ©rĂ©e et que pourtant elle aura droit Ă former une constitution particulière et Ă©tablir les lois qui conviennent a son bonheur…”
Lors de l’adoption d’un système central par le Mexique en 1835, la condition de rĂ©publique fĂ©dĂ©rĂ©e qui correspondait au Yucatan disparut. Ceci provoqua le mĂ©contentement au sein de la population de la pĂ©ninsule oĂą l’on commença Ă penser Ă une rĂ©publique entièrement indĂ©pendante du Mexique.
Quand la Nouvelle-Espagne obtint son indĂ©pendance, elle prit la forme d’un Empire mexicain dont fut couronnĂ© empereur AgustĂn de Iturbide. Profitant du mouvement de libĂ©ration, quelques rĂ©gions s’incorporèrent au nouvel empire, comme l’AmĂ©rique centrale, pour s’en sĂ©parer peu de temps après. Ce fut le cas du Guatemala, bien que la rĂ©gion du Chiapas s’en sĂ©para ultĂ©rieurement par un vote pour ĂŞtre incorporĂ©e au Mexique.
Le territoire du Texas rechercha l’indĂ©pendance vis-Ă -vis du Mexique pour la mĂŞme raison que le Yucatán : l’aspiration Ă faire partie d’une fĂ©dĂ©ration et Ă jouir d’une certaine autonomie. Le premier vice-prĂ©sident de la RĂ©publique du Texas, ultĂ©rieurement annexĂ©e aux États-Unis, Ă©tait un Mexicain nĂ© au Yucatán, Lorenzo de Zavala.
Le cas du Yucatán Ă©tait similaire Ă celui du Guatemala, il n’avait adhĂ©rĂ© Ă l’Ă©phĂ©mère empire d’Iturbide que pour se libĂ©rer de l’Espagne et quand cet empire fut dissout et se transforma en rĂ©publique, le Yucatán dĂ©cida de se joindre au nouveau pacte fĂ©dĂ©ral, mais d’une manière beaucoup plus sĂ©rieuse et moins intĂ©ressĂ©e. Le Yucatán rejoignit le nouveau pacte tant que la nouvelle rĂ©publique constituerait une fĂ©dĂ©ration et que les dĂ©cisions du centre “n’affecteraient pas le bonheur des Yucatèques”.
Wikipedia
Jeezus if you folks Heavy Metal or before that Metal Hurlant, you’d know all about Quintana Roo too.
Hey, ah knows all you folks all wrapped up in like the Middle East and Israel and all, so ah betcha, lack you know, you missed this little item, that, you know, Belize became independent in September 21, 1981 but them Guatemalata cats dint recognize it until 1991.
Determined to start over again, Austin rode to San Antonio de Bexar in 1820 to request an empresarial grant in *Spanish Texas.* The governor, Antonio MarĂa MartĂnez, refused to listed to Austin’s proposal and ordered him to leave the territory immediately. While departing, Austin encountered an acquaintance, Felipe *Enrique Neri, Baron de Bastrop. Bastrop listened to Austin’s plan, and, using his influence, persuaded the governor to approve the request.[3] He established his headquarters in Natchitoches, the oldest settlement in Louisiana, located near the Red River in the north central portion of the state.*
In January 1821 Austin left for Missouri with a grant to bring 300 colonists into Texas. On his way home he was attacked by highwaymen and badly beaten. The thieves stole all of his possessions and left him alone in the wilderness. Austin eventually made his way back to Missouri, and, before he died, asked his son, Stephen Fuller Austin, to fulfill his dream.[4]
Moses and Mary Austin are entombed at the public cemetery in Potosi, Missouri.
wikipedia “Moses Austin” This is the origin of the famous “old three-hundred”.
Not sure what a failed anti-Spanish movement has to do with the perhaps niggling question of what government Moses Austin made a deal with, …
But in any event, let’s move on to the larger substantive moral point.
Mexico has been Independent for– what—180+ years? Since that time she has failed to attain the minimum level of justice, peace, and prosperity necessary to be called a half-way decent body politic. In fact, millions of her citizens vote with their feet by leaving Mexico. This 180+ years of history adding up to little good and much evil is a sign that Mexico is a failure as an independent nation. Perhaps some peoples have the gift of government and some peoples don’t. The weight of evidence suggests that Mexico may not (at least at present) be capable of good self-government.
Mexico should look to Spain for guidance once again. Just my two pesetas.
–Rodrigo the Old Sevillano
In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, LAND! And a cute little Senorita to boot!
God bless you, Padre–where’s that Holy Communion flapjack yall were referring. Ah’s famished! Them there wafers taste anything like grits?
Why would anyone hold, or attend, an antiwar conference in Reston, Virginia? Why not pick a major city, like Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, or San Francisco? Unlike Reston, VA, those are places where there already is a functioning antiwar movement, and don’t require an extra bus ticket, and spend $495 plus airfare and accommodations? I’m glad you at least include meals in that price, but who exactly do you think you’ll be talking to?
I could easily get to this since my friends live in Reston and one of them lives in Reston Town Center. What I don’t get is that its 495 for anyone that wants to go. Whats the point of spending that much money to hear people talk about what we already know. And why is everyone so damn old?
If you think 495 is a lot of money just think about the cost of attending a conference in any of those other cities. Also this is most likely geared towards policy makers since the location and price really takes out a lot of people that I know….$495 is quite a few hours at work.