I would support antiwar.com, except that Justin Raimundo, friend of human freedom, has banned me making comments.

Just to hammer in the nail, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Teabaggers, who are now running the Republican Party, are in any way, shape or form opposed to the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So why, if he believes all this, is he a member of George Bush's political party (not that Barack Obama's is any better)?

And how about a bit of a backhand to the military industrial complex that keeps it all going.

Justin, next time you see one of your old math teachers, ask for your money back because you can't add.

24% of conservatives "believe we should continue to provide the current level of troops to properly execute the war."

39% believe we can reduce the troop lelevels but continue to fight the war effectively.

That means that a whopping 63% of all conservatives believe we should continue the current policy of mass murder. And it's interesting that 65% of Teabaggers hold the same set of opinions. And non-Teabagging conservatives the figure is 61%. It is reasonable to conclude that there is a consensus among conservatives that the killing should go on.

They'd just like it a little cheaper.

What kind of insane racist are you. Crawl back in your hole and go to sleep.

So Justin labor and labors and comes up with the biggest threat to America is (really) capitalism! Any socialist teenager can tell you that.

The Federal Reserve and all the ponderous mechanisms of control or noncontrol, are endemic to capitalism itself. Capitalism requires a state to regulate itself: something larger and more powerful than the corporations in order to regulate them for their own good. Sort of like a playground monitor.

Any notion that capitalism has fastened on itself a leech called "the state" is a fantasy.

Justin says:

"The League was a left-right coalition, along the lines of what I envision for the antiwar movement of today."

That's not what you said previously. You said, above, "... go and look up the Anti-Imperialist League, who opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies -- they were all laissez-faire libertarian types" No "all" means "all." Not "some" or "two or three." You distorted the facts.

"Two prominent leaders of the League, Moorfield Storey and Edward Atkinson, were officials of the League as well as prominent advocates of laissez-faire." Okay. But, again, you said "all." You deliberately attempted to portray the Anti-imperialist League and the mugwumps as hot-beds of laissez-faire when they were no such thing.

"For a more complete version of the League's history and activities I refer you to my talk archived on the Mises Institute web site, "Anti-Interventionism in American Politics, 1898 to the Present Day."

I listened to it. It contains serious distortions of history. If you provide a transcript, I'll point them out. Just for openers, it fails to point out that (1) the most consistent opposition to US imperialism is the Left, not the Right. And (2) it completely shuts out the racism, anti-labor and pro-capitalism of the Right. You're ideal of an anti-interventionist movement is the America First Committee. I would think twice about that. (Yeah, I know about Norman Thomas.) Also, you scant the organized anti-war movement, such as the War Resisters League, Woman's International league for Peace and Freedom, etc. Not too many laissez-faire types there.

As to the Anti-imperialist League being a left-right coalition, this was a period when American politics as reflecting the American class system, was considerably more fluid than currently. It was not difficult for a movement to straddle the Bryan Democrats, the AIL, the Populists, the Socialist Party even the mugwumps (if you're Mark Twain). If you think that the Left is going to go into a coalition with the Right, which opposes every value the Left holds, because the Right, this week, opposes the current US intervention, you are sadly mistaken.

So let's take a look at what Justin said, above:

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing -- go and look up the Anti-Imperialist League, who opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies -- they were all laissez-faire libertarian types, known as "mugwumps," and expressed all sorts of politically incorrect views that cardboard cut-out "progressives" of today would find appalling."

A little knowledge is indeed dangerous, especially when it's dead wrong.

(1) He says that the Anti-Imperialist League "opposed the Spanish-American war and the acquisition of America's first overseas colonies." Correct. Cool.

(2) He then says that "they were all laissez-faire libertarian types." I assume he means the members of the Anti-imperialist League. Well, first of all, the AIL had about half a million members at its peak, so I don't know how Justin knows that "they were all laissez-faire libertarian types." Secondly, if you look at the leadership of the AIL, it included a bunch of people, including such "types" as Jane Addams, Mark Twain, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, William Dean Howells and Samuel Gompers. None of them, of course, were "laissez-faire libertarian types." in addition, W.E.B. DuBois and Frederick Douglass wrote for the AIL. Neither of them are known to be ... . So, incorrect. Not cool.

(3) Then we get to the mugwumps themselves, who were involved with the AIL. If you look at the prominent mugwumps: Charles Francis Adams Jr., Henry Adams, Carl Schurz, Andrew Carnegie, William Graham Sumner and Mark Twain, none of them could be said to be "laissez-faire libertarian types," except perhaps for Sumner. One of the reasons Justin mentions the mugwumps's "all sorts of politically incorrect views" is that most of them were racist to the core. So, incorrect. Not cool at all.

Justin I pointed out some big fat mistakes you made in your article. How about a response?

Your revisionist history deserves a full reply, but let's start by getting a few facts straight. In your attempt to cast libertarianism back to Adam, you claim that the Anti-Imperialist League was composed of "laissez-faire libertarian types, known as "mugwumps.'"

That statement is false on two accounts: first of all, there were many prominent leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League who were not mugwumps. These include Jane Addams, Samuel Gompers, William James, William Dean Howells, John Dewey and Edgar Lee Masters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Imperialist_Lea...

And, there were plenty of mugwumps who were far from being "laissez-faire libertarian types," including Henry Adams, Carl Schurz and Mark Twain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mugwump

We'll deal with the right-wing support for every war the US has ever been in, plus its active racism and flirtations with fascism, love of McCarthyism, etc., quite soon.