Antiwar Conference in Reston, VA: June 6-8

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. readers will find the slate of 20 speakers rather impressive, including such 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.

31 thoughts on “Antiwar Conference in Reston, VA: June 6-8”

  1. That’s awesome Anthony. I watched your speech last year (via youtube) with much interest, it was great.

  2. 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!

    Member of the
    End the War Now! Coalition

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

    1. 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.

  5. 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?).

    1. 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.

  6. The law of unintended consequences: Congressman Paul just shrunk the antiwar movement?

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. I wish I could make it to this conference, but I’ll enjoy watching it on youtube.

    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.

    1. 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.


      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.

      1. 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.

        1. They are also more Texan that George W. Bush or his carpetbagger father.

        2. 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.

        3. 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.

        4. À l’automne 1835, le Texas, État de la république fédérale du Mexique peuplé en majorité par des colons anglo-américains se révolte contre l’état central mexicain dirigé par le président-dictateur Antonio López de Santa Anna (Siège de Fort-Alamo, 6 mars 1836) et proclame, en mars 1836, la « République indépendante du Texas ».

          Elle aida une autre région séparatiste, la République du Yucatán, dans sa tentative d’indépendance mais en vain.

          Cette république indépendante perdurera jusqu’au 29 décembre 1845, date à laquelle le Texas est finalement intégré aux États-Unis d’Amérique, après neuf années d’indépendance, devenant le 28e État américain. Cette annexion entrainera la guerre américano-mexicaine.

          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.

          Geezus, guess they never teach you damned Gringos about the Republic of Yucatan neither.

        5. 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.

        6. Le territoire du Yucatán, correspondant aux États mexicains actuels de Campeche, de Quintana Roo et du Yucatán, décida de rechercher son indépendance par rapport au Mexique, car les Yucatèques souhaitaient un gouvernement fédéraliste, et non centraliste, comme l’était devenu le Mexique sous la dictature de Santa Anna.
          Depuis 1617, le Yucatan était considéré comme étant une “Capitanía” générale de la Nouvelle Espagne, mais du fait de sa situation géographique, le territoire gardait une certaine autonomie. La province du Yucatán s’étendait alors sur les territoires actuels de Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco et Yucatan, et sur le nord du Petén (Guatemala) et de Belize. En 1786, l’Espagne appliqua au Mexique le régime des intendances et le territoire devint alors l’Intendencia de Yucatán.

          Lors de l’indépendance du Mexique, un groupe de notables citoyens du Yucatan se réunirent dans l’église de San Juan à Mérida, pour discuter les nouvelles sur la guerre d’indépendance qui se déroulait dans le centre du Mexique. Quand la Constitution de Cadix fut promulguée, ce groupe s’unit à un autre groupe fondé par Vicente María Velázquez, prêtre de l’église de San Juan, Manuel Jiménez Solís, Lorenzo de Zavala et José Matías 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 fidélité, reconnaissance et obéissance au gouvernement du Mexique, s’il est libéral et représentatif sous les conditions suivantes: 1.- Que l’union du Yucatan sera celle d’une république fédérée et que pourtant elle aura droit à former une constitution particulière et établir les lois qui conviennent a son bonheur…”

          Lors de l’adoption d’un système central par le Mexique en 1835, la condition de république fédérée qui correspondait au Yucatan disparut. Ceci provoqua le mécontentement au sein de la population de la péninsule où l’on commença à penser à une république entièrement indépendante du Mexique.

          Quand la Nouvelle-Espagne obtint son indépendance, elle prit la forme d’un Empire mexicain dont fut couronné empereur Agustín de Iturbide. Profitant du mouvement de libération, quelques régions s’incorporèrent au nouvel empire, comme l’Amérique centrale, pour s’en séparer peu de temps après. Ce fut le cas du Guatemala, bien que la région du Chiapas s’en sépara ultérieurement par un vote pour être incorporée au Mexique.

          Le territoire du Texas rechercha l’indépendance vis-à-vis du Mexique pour la même raison que le Yucatán : l’aspiration à faire partie d’une fédération et à jouir d’une certaine autonomie. Le premier vice-président de la République du Texas, ultérieurement annexée aux États-Unis, était un Mexicain né au Yucatán, Lorenzo de Zavala.

          Le cas du Yucatán était similaire à celui du Guatemala, il n’avait adhéré à l’éphémère empire d’Iturbide que pour se libérer de l’Espagne et quand cet empire fut dissout et se transforma en république, le Yucatán décida de se joindre au nouveau pacte fédéral, mais d’une manière beaucoup plus sérieuse et moins intéressée. Le Yucatán rejoignit le nouveau pacte tant que la nouvelle république constituerait une fédération et que les décisions du centre “n’affecteraient pas le bonheur des Yucatèques”.


        7. Jeezus if you folks Heavy Metal or before that Metal Hurlant, you’d know all about Quintana Roo too.

        8. 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.

        9. 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 María Martínez, 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”.

        10. 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

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

Comments are closed.