Antiwar movements have existed in this country since its beginnings, and have included all wars.   There has never been, nor will there ever be, a consensus to kill other human beings.  Not all humans are built that way.  However, the reasons for being antiwar vary from morality to practicality.  Morality is the only consistent reason.  Practicality is used of course, when it’s practical.  

This country is now on a permanent war bearing.  The geopolitical actions that have taken place since WWII have developed into a full fledged imperialist nation seeking to stave off would be successors.    The US military has major military commands covering the entire globe, with the latest official command being Africom.  Full Spectrum Dominance is the official Pentagon mission now with the aim to control all land, water, and air spaces on the planet..

The country and the world became quite disgusted with the actions of the Bush administration, particularly with it’s extension of the imperial mission.  Many were fooled, especially those on the right who followed their leader primarily due to patriotism,  party loyalty, and fear.  The fear factor, old as the hills.   But disillusionment had clearly set in at the end of Bush’s tenure,  as indicated by his low twenties approval rating.  

Now we have a President that was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize of all things while he escalates the war in Afghanistan, and continues the Full Spectrum Dominance imperialism across the globe.  Most on the right, as with the left, have no fucking idea what Full Spectrum Dominance is or what it means.  But, they now have a target, President Obama, to vent at fully without worrying about party loyalty.  

The Democratic Party can now be counted out as instrumental to an antiwar movement.  No help there, the party and the loyalists will now support the war policies of Obama just as the party loyalists supported Bush.  We now have the “Obama Doctrine”, new and improved over the “Bush Doctrine”.  The antiwar left has been relegated to the fringe of the democratic party and is seen as a hinderance to the pragmatic, baby step approach the centrists seem to think will work.  While more children are killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  

So what is the antiwar left to do?  Enter the antiwar right.  We know the libertarians are antiwar.  Whatever their other views,  they are antiwar, we can use them.  The disillusioned right of the republican party could be of great help.   They may not have the same sense of morality concerning war and killing as the bleeding hearts on the left, but they  may actually have some common sense.  

http://www.amconmag.com/postri…

The American Conservative, “The Return of the Antiwar Right”   There ya go, better late than never.  

“For eight long years under George W. Bush, conservatives endorsed a don’t ask, don’t tell foreign policy-they did not really ask why their country was at war and Republican leaders did not tell, or bother, Americans with any of the gory details. Missions were accomplished, we fought them over there so we didn’t have to fight them here and troops were supported by simply supporting the wars they fought, with little to no dissent. But why were we fighting? What was “victory?” How many had to die? What was the cost? Conservatives did not ask-Republican politicians did not tell.”

Ya, well fuck that in a way.  Why did you support that shit in first place?  Then again, I can relate, the democrats appear to be doing the same now.  And this:

“The notion of defending one’s country is something patriots of all political stripes can subscribe to. But that every military action our government commits to should automatically be considered righteous and unassailable is a bizarre position for conservatives, given their natural distrust of government in every other sphere.:

No shit Sherlock.  I could have told you that, what, eight years ago!  

But hey, if it takes a democrat to make these republicans realize that our foreign policies are FUCKED UP, then I can go with it.   Let’s get together brothers and sisters and talk, maybe we can find a solution.

Stopping U.S. imperialism, and thus the wars, can’t be done from a democratic party perspective.  Certainly not when Obama is the President, which is for over three more years.  Many can die in three years.  Much treasure will be wasted while it is sorely needed at home.  Antiwar is Antiwar whether advocated by the right or the left, whether it’s practical or ideological.   It’s time for a bipartisan effort against war, and a cessation of U.S. imperialism.  

So we’re still asked to believe the only reason we are in Afghanistan is because of terrorism, specifically because of 9/11 and the threat that it could happen again, only worse, if we don’t eradicate the menace.    President Obama’s justification to American citizens for an escalation of troops in Afghanistan, delivered from West Point, was based solely on the threat of terrorism.  His speech had nothing to do with Russia or China, with permanent military bases and huge embassies, with pipelines for oil and natural gas, or with opium and the money it brings and havoc it reeks.  According to Obama, we are in Afghanistan to eradicate our number one enemy Al Qaida, while keeping the Taliban from gaining power.  This effort, years, perhaps decades in the making and billions, perhaps trillions of dollars in costs, will keep Americans safe and free to stand in umemployment lines without fear of a nuclear bomb going off in a suitcase next to them.    

According to President Obama, as with President Bush before him, the number one reason we are in Afghanistan is because “our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan”.

President Obama is convinced our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  That’s the reason for the escalation.  Our security is at stake.  And to be sure we realize that, the nuclear bombs of Pakistan have been brought into the equation.  Everyone knows that Pakistan is falling into hell in a handbasket and it wouldn’t take much for one of those bombs to fall into the hands of, you guessed it, Al Qaida.  

Ah, Jesus.  I had to live through the Cold War era as a kid in the fifties and early sixties.  I remember clearly the threats of the mushroom cloud going off while we hid under our school desks.  The evil communists were out to kill us so we needed more submarines and aircraft carriers.  We were given lessons from our government on what to do in case of attack.

The game plan hasn’t changed, only the players.

But is that all, Mr. President?  Is that the only reason we are fighting a war, or as some would say, maintaining an occupation in Afghanistan?

Approximately two thirds into President Obama’s speech, he made what I thought was the most accurate statement of the evening.

“And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I do not have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who – in discussing our national security -said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”

At first, it sounded like President Obama was indeed focusing on just one challenge, to keep America safe from future attacks on American soil by Al Qaida as supported by the Taliban. But then he made that statement and it all made sense.  We have many national programs and he must maintain balance among them.  

So what are those national programs Mr. President?  Do they have anything to do with pipelines?  Do they have anything to do with maintaining a significant military presence in Eurasia in order to contain the rise of China and Russia?  Do they have anything to do with the control of the Afghanistan opium crops to supply off the books money to the CIA and create stoned populations in Eastern Europe?  Do they have anything to do with creating a destabalized Pakistan so U.S. interests can intervene and attempt control over India/Pakistan/China relations?  Do they have anything to do with Iran?  Nothing of this sort was mentioned, only terrorism.    

Imperialism is as old as human civilization.  “Yet, an interesting aspect of imperialism is that empires, both ancient and modern, have also tended to regard themselves as spreading order, morality, the true religion and civilization, and have even claimed to occupy the high moral ground.” (New World Encyclopedia).

That sounds quite similar to the United States and it’s supposed spreading of democracy and freedom.  But in the end it’s all about power.  Someone has to be on the top of the hill and in the stage of human civilization we current reside, the U.S. is, albeit tenuously, still at the top.

President Obama was as disingenous as President Bush in his West Point speech.  His rationale to the country for an escalation in war was poor at best.  There is no transparency when it comes to war.  The reasons are well hidden and cloaked in the daggers of fear.  An imperialist nation can’t very well say any different.  The reasons for it’s actions can’t be recognized for what they are, they must be explained in a manner the public will accept.  The public can’t acknowledge the Big Lie.

President Obama said, “Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”

Is that it Mr. President?  Is that the only reason we’re in Afghanistan?  

“They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.”

I thought that was an interesting statement made by Paul Craig Roberts in the following article about how propaganda works on a population. (Why Propaganda Trumps Truth)

http://www.bushstole04.com/new…

Roberts was actually referring to many antiwar writers and internet sites that skirt around the 9/11 issue for fear of being labeled as “terrorist sympathizers” or conspiracy theorists and risk discrediting their opposition to the wars, such as it is. He particularly pointed out antiwar.com and referenced how that site seems to be having trouble with it’s fundraising, with the inference that this skirting around the reason for the wars is hurting their overall message.  

For the public at large, he related that as far as propaganda goes, big lies are the way to go, as Adolf Hitler knew so well.

“In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

It’s pretty common knowledge now that the Iraq war was based on lies and therefore an illegal attack of another country.  9/11 is not mentioned as the rationale for that war except from the most severely ignorant among us, and certainly no longer in mainstream television and internet.  Even though it is not disputed, there still is no significant public outcry for accountability of the architects of this clearly illegal war.   The promises by our new emperor Obama to get out of the country have duly placated the American public and most of the western world.  

But our occupation of Afghanistan is another story, and the story that is now front and center with the antiwar movement because of the possible escalation decision coming from our government.   The antiwar writers and blogs talk about how Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires, that we can’t possibly win there.  As Roberts points out, they don’t talk about the fact that the occupation in Afghanistan is based on lies as well.  For that, 9/11 has to be brought into the discussion, and most antiwar writers won’t go there for fear of being labeled with the red A and becoming null and void.

The 9/11 truth movement has been painted by the propaganda machine as consisting of wackos and flakes.  This wasn’t by accident.  As Hitler said himself,  the people don’t want to believe the big lie so it isn’t hard to tell them they are right to do so and anyone who says differently is simply crazy.  Big lies are simply too hard to believe.  But it’s ridiculous to ignore the many intelligent, professional and knowledgeable people who are questioning the official version of 9/11.  Engineers, architects, pilots, firefighters, police, clergy, Survivors, and even Political Leaders have joined in the effort to find the real truth of the 9/11 incidents.

What is truly amazing about the closed 9/11 book is the fact that history is not stagnant.  It is not written in stone at the time it happens, except of course by the victors.  History is continually being rewritten based on new discoveries and evidence.  Any rational person should agree with that.  An example of this in the political realm is the recent disclosures concerning Sirhan Sirhan and the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.  

https://www.docudharma.com/diar…

Researchers and activists are constantly on the prowl for new information in their quest for the truth.   The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is constantly used in an effort to get information from the government to try and piece together our history.  It should be considered no different than archeologists constantly seeking new information to better define our entire human history.  A example of that is the recent discovery of a possible missing link in the evolution of the human being.

http://news.nationalgeographic…

The only real naysayers to that type of research are the bible thumpers.   Researchers seemingly finding evidence for evolution, that would put in doubt the story of the Bible, are discredited by religious groups because they do not want to consider that possibility.  That is the same mindset Adolf Hitler talked about in Mein Kampft.  Those that believe in the Bible and call themselves Christians can’t bring themselves to believe something they consider a big lie.  There is no truth, no history, except that which they believe.

The general public won’t question the big lie.  As Roberts says,  “The US government’s response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America’s financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country’s prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit..  The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated.”

I would correct Roberts on that last statement.  The 9/11 event was investigated by the 9/11 Commission in 2004, three years after the event.   The case was closed as decreed by our government.  Anyone who further questioned that decision was forever more considered a conspiracy theorist, and not credible.  The public has accepted that because they cannot consider the Big Lie.  If that’s the standard we want to apply, then let’s stop trying to prove evolution.  

Barack, I’m actually sorry to say this.  You seem like a nice guy, your family is pretty cool. I’ve met better, but heck, you’re the President.  As Presidential families go, your’s isn’t too shabby.  But man, and I say it that way because I’m older and of the opinion that no man is better than any other, just equal, you have set yourself up as the biggest hypocrite ever.

First, let’s review what constitutes a hypocrite.  According to Wikipedia:

“Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie. Hypocrisy may come from a desire to hide from others actual motives or feelings”

I am putting a question mark next to “biggest hipocrite ever” because you still have a chance to avoid that.  But to be clear, nothing cements your hypocticial conundrum more than this:

You see, the problem Mr. President, is that many of us know the truth.  We know why our country invaded Afghanistan.  We know all about the practiced imperialism of this country and the reasons behind it.  So you must also know that when history is written, it eventually ends up as the truth.

So it’s your choice Mr. President.  By the way, you can call me Mr. Citizen, because I’ve earned it, just as you’ve earned me calling you Mr. President.  Your choice is to go down in history as the biggest hypocrite in history, or immediately change course and save your reputation, not to mention large numbers of people on this earth.

Any actor can stand at attention, slowly present a choreographed salute, and show a serious sign of concern.  We all know you’re a good actor.  But in the end, it doesn’t mean shit if we continue, and escalate the illegal occupation of Afganistan to establish a compliant government and country sufficient to maintain permanent military bases and a strong CIA backed opium trade.  

Pressure’s on Mr. President, what kind of legacy do you want?      

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the hope and change of a hope and change age. They believe except what is reality. They think that the public option is a victory, when it is not, but which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

No, VIRGINIA, this is not health care reform. Single Payer is the only answer.  That exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist in our politicians and corporate masters, and you know that they as corrupt and boundless in their greed as any humans can be.  Alas! how dreary for our politicians and corporations would be the world if there were real health care reform. It would be as dreary as if there were no BANKS or campaign funds!   There would be no childlike faith in their bonuses and corporate contributions, no mandates assuring their futures, no romance to make tolerable their existence. They would have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight, and their mansions and yachts, and reelections . The eternal light with which money and power fills their world would be extinguished for corporations and politicians everywhere.

Believe in Health Care Reform! You might as well believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch all the televisions in the land to learn about health care reform, but even if they did see Harry or the President say it’s coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees concern for the citizens from our politicians, and that is a sure sign that there will be no health care reform. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.  Because the mainstream media will not let them see.  Did you ever see the truth coming out of a politicians mouth? Of course not, and that’s proof that it isn’t now either Virgina. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the greed that permeates our great halls of Congress and Senate.

You may tear apart the baby’s rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. That is corporate America Virgina.  Only faith, fancy, poetry, love and romance for a President can push aside the truth of that.  Is it all real? Are we that controlled by greed?  Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.

Health Care Reform!  I’m sorry Virginia, that is not to be.  A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, we will be fighting the same battles.  

I noticed a diary over at the GOS came up titled, “Flu Hype?”  I checked it out and it was clearly written to warn of the dangers of the Swine flu, particularly as it is hitting younger people, and to encourage people to take the H1N1 vaccine.

Now I’ve read alot of the conspiracy stuff about the vaccine.  How it hasn’t been properly tested, how the side effects may be worse than the flu itself, how it can cause autisim, etc.  I watched the videos of the 1976 Swine Flu scare and how President Ford urged the entire country to get vaccinnated.  I’ve read where the pharmaceutical companies pay bloggers and others to spread the word so their profits are maximized.

I don’t know what to think really.  I most probably won’t get the shot as I’m not that fricking old yet and I rarely get a cold let alone the flu.  I also don’t work around people and my kids are out of the house so my susceptibility and possible transfer quotients are fairly low.  

But I couldn’t help check out the person behind that diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The person who wrote it appears to have just signed on to GOS on 10/19.  He freely lists his own blog on his DK page.  So I went to his blog, ScienceBlogs, to see what was there.

http://scienceblogs.com/whitec…

OK, strangely or not, sometimes I’ll follow the money on these things.  So I googled, “ScienceBlogs funding”, and I found that the blog was part of the Seed Media Group.  I then googled “Seed Media Group conspiracy”, and this came up.

http://www.ageofautism.com/200…

This blog, Age of Autism, had an article up explaining where the Seed Media Group gets its money.  It appears they get healthy doses (pun intended) of money from pharmaceutical companies like Merck and Shering-Plough and the CEO is a player with those companies and Dupont.  

Why did I write this?  Hell if I know.  We all know there are people who are paid to spread disinformation or special interest propaganda on the tubes.  This one seemed so obvious that I couldn’t help do a little research.  Of course, I haven’t proven my case, and don’t really care to proceed further.  Just wanted to warn others that we shouldn’t take for granted that the blogs are clean from the same propaganda in the MSM.  

There are three things that stand out when looking at the third party issue.  The first is the obstacles preventing progress are so overwhelming they seem insurmountable.  The second is they have no chance without campaign finance reform and election rule changes.  The third is the time is more ripe for a viable third party since they were effectively throttled in the mid nineteenth century.  

I checked out a book written by Micah Sifry, titled, “Spoiling for a Fight, Third Party Politics in America” (copyright 2002), which presents an excellent overview of third party history in this country, efforts by Ross Perot, John Anderson, Ralph Nadar, Bernie Sanders, and the problems and possible solutions for third party success.

http://books.google.com/books?…

“Public opinion surveys since the 1990s consistently have shown a high level of popular support for the concept of a third party. But in spite of such support for a third party, these parties face many obstacles. The most significant is the fear among voters that if they vote for a third-party candidate, they, in effect, will be “wasting” their votes. Voters have been shown to engage in strategic voting by casting ballots for their second choice when they sense that a third-party candidate has no chance of winning.”

However, if you want to get back at the democrats, especially those who’ve betrayed us.

“There is evidence that third parties can have a major impact on election outcomes. For example, a third-party candidate might draw more votes away from the candidate of the party more closely aligned with the position of the third-party candidate, thus enabling the other party to win the election – often without receiving a majority of the vote.”

Part of the problem is the inability of third parties to secure the experienced, prestigious candidates necessary for public attention.  

“There is a striking difference between the political backgrounds of major and minor party candidates. Nearly all (97.2 percent) of the 72 major party presidential nominees between 1840 and 1980 had held the post of president, vice-president, U.S. senator, congressman, governor, military general, or cabinet secretary. Less than 20 percent of the minor party candidates had attained these positions.  By now the reason for this disparity should be clear. The biases against third parties created by the single-member-district plurality system and ballot access restrictions, as well as their disadvantages in organization, resources, and media coverage, all effectively discourage qualified candidates from running under a third party label. Well-known, prestigious candidates know that a third party effort will be hopeless and can end their political careers. Only extraordinary circumstances will push established politicians (and voters) into a third party camp.”

Can you imagine if Obama had run as an independent, with enough money to present the same messages he did during his democratic campaign.   Can a third party get enough quality candidates and support that could counter the two party duopoly?

“All of these constraints, of course, are interrelated. The single-member-district plurality system discourages high caliber candidates from running outside a major party; if a weak candidate runs, he will attract few campaign resources, ensuring that most citizens will learn very little about him. This in turn reinforces the belief that the third party candidate cannot win, so citizens will not waste their votes on him. The weak electoral performance is self-perpetuating. People expect third parties to do poorly because they have always  done poorly, so only weak candidates run-and the cycle continues.”

Which brings it to us and people like us.

“Together these barriers, handicaps, and major party strategies raise the level of effort required for a voter to cast his ballot for an independent candidate. A citizen can vote for a major party candidate with scarcely a moment’s thought or energy. But to support a third party challenger, a voter must awaken from the political slumber in which he ordinarily lies, actively seek out information on a contest whose outcome he cannot affect, reject the socialization of his political system, ignore the ridicule and abuse of his friends and neighbors, and accept the fact that when the ballots are counted, his vote will never be in the winner’s column. Such levels of energy are witnessed only rarely in American politics.”

We are of the rare people.

The plutocratic two party system forced on the American people is a machine that may be too large to seriously challenge.  As Sifry stated in his conclusion, “There are no shortcuts”.  Creating a third party that can compete on the national stage and have influence on the key issues we face will take serious, long term efforts at the local and state levels resulting in elected candidates at all levels.  Without that, the corporate owned duopoly won’t be particularly concerned.  

The United States has officially banned all historical accounts of all U.S involved wars except the officially government sanctioned version.  In a move that many see as one-upmanship over Israel, which has banned anything that disputes the official version of the Holocaust, and Russia, which has banned any unofficial accounts of World War II, the incredible disinformation spread by anarchist historians has been nipped in the bud.  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/816…

President Obama announced the unprecedented move with the following statement:

“This country was founded on the basic premise of freedom and democracy.  I have hope and I know you do as well, that we can continue to maintain that foundation for our country.  The American people fully realize how I am completely devoted to change.  So in the spirit of change and patriotism and in honor of those who fought and lost their lives for these ideals, I hereby declare today “National Historical Accuracy Day”.    This will ensure all Americans, whether they be black or white, male or female, republican or democrat, idiot or imbecile, can rely on an accurate history of this great country.  From this day forward, and in symbolism with the great historically accurate holiday, “Columbus Day”, I hereby declare October 9th as “National Historical Accuracy Day.”

Zogby polls immediately reflected a dramatic increase in favorable numbers for the President, especially among the illiterate and the centrist progressives, i.e., the Obamabots as they call themselves.   One of the leaders of the centrist progressive blogosphere, Micky Molitov, made the following statement on his prominent blog, The Daily Waste of Time (DWOT.  Not coincidentally in consonance with the GWOT, Global War on Terror):

“There is no greater thing that our Dear Leader could have done at this time.  Thing, or action, or whatever, you know what I mean.  It’s kind of like a thing, but also an action.  I’m not sure, but whatever, he is the President.  The trolls have become unbearable on this site and on many others that are seeking the truth simply because of these alternative, tinfoil, conspiracy theories about our great history.  Any true patriot should be proud that our history has been protected by our President  The truth always wins out”.    

It remains to be seen what will happen to all of the bogus historical accounts.  Obama has promised a full review and a possible Czar of Historical Accuracy that could fully address this complex issue.   Senators Baucus and Leiberman have been appointed to explore the way forward.