Thomas E. Woods


Thomas E. Woods, author of Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse, discusses Ron Paul’s preference for a joint police action to arrest and try Osama bin Laden, rather than a covert military operation/execution; Paul’s unhesitating subversion of the popular propaganda line, even though support for the rule of law is a political liability right now; why this may be Paul’s “Giuliani moment” for the 2012 presidential campaign; the conservatives who think civil liberties are touchy-feely Leftist artifacts and don’t see the connection to the Constitution; corporate America’s generous political contributions to Republicans and Democrats but not to the libertarian Paul (meaning they prefer the status quo of corporate welfare and regulatory capture instead of real free markets); the economics of prohibition and the futile War on Drugs; and the May 28 NullifyNow! event in Los Angeles with Woods, Anthony Gregory, Scott Horton and others.

MP3 here. (31:18)

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse. A senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University.

16 thoughts on “Thomas E. Woods”

    1. He'd get mine, too.

      In a District of Corruption that's filled to overflowing with crooks, sociopaths, and scumbags, Doctor Paul is a force for good.

  1. Apply the rule of law to bin Laden? Due process? Evidence? Trial by jury? How dare people even harbor such traitorous thoughts! Why use the criminal justice system when we can send in the SEAL team and punch this guy's ticket?

    It's a sad commentary on American society when the rule of law is seen as a outmoded and obsolete.

    1. Damn straight. If the U.S. Government had captured Bin Laden and brought him to trial, it would have set an enormously favorable example for the world.

      Of course, the lawless, imperialistic U.S. Government can't take the moral high ground. . . .

  2. How does the rule of law apply to a military target? As for a trial, bin Laden convicted himself on tape over and over. No, this was a necessary killing to save lives, American and Muslim. Nothing to celebrate, but a job wel done.

    1. if YOU became a US military target, would you want the "rule of law" to apply to you? what you condone today will be used against you, or your posterity tomorrow. should rule of law have applied to the american indians when the military was wiping them out and dislocating them? by your definition…no. they were justified military targets. nothing to celebrate, but in the end, a job well done.

      convicted himself? for what? 9/11? he had nothing to do with it.

      he even said so himself.

      kenyan and tanzanian embassy bombings? not enough evidence or the taliban would have tried him after the US embassy in islamabad gave them what evidence they had. regardless, if you suspect anyone of a crime, you present the evidence, show it to a jury, and try the man. you don't kill them. that's murder.

      and now we have a precedent where ANY country can go about and whack people if they suspect them of a crime. and these folks are sick enough to boast about it. to a country that has NUKES no less!

      whatever you sow, you reap.

  3. I wouldn't stress the "why are no corporations funding Ron Paul?" argument too much. Its too vulnerable to the "No point wasting money buying influence on a no-hope candidate" response.

    1. Your point might have relevance if the voice of the mainstream was not diminishing. However, it is diminishing, and a new generation of people appreciate a candidate who is not part of the establishment…. and that is the direction of the political future.

  4. Anyone who thinks being a doc in today's U.S. is equivalent to slavery belongs in a mental institution, not the WH.

    1. You're not too bright, are you? First, it was Rand Paul making this argument, not his father. Rand is not running for president, and unless Ron makes him his VP, he won't be in the White House.

      As for slavery, if someone can force you to provide a service against your will in order to receive his "right" to something, what would you call that? It's probably too difficult a concept to penetrate your thick skull, but you don't have to be in chains on a plantation to be a slave. And making this argument hardly makes one worthy of a stint in a mental institution.

        1. From your link:

          WALLACE: Congressman, it [Constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid]’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

          PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

          Is this really the basis for your suggesting that Ron Paul "thinks being a doc in today's U.S. is equivalent to slavery"?

  5. Bu$h OPEX hire Mos$sad to run WBdev/kill (200 sealSKYBE kingFarmz) is Mafia everyday.

    When Ron will get his Nobel G6reed pribe to FOX..Geng already got rich($15T+) to keep killinc Muslims

  6. Had we arrested Osama bin Laden and brought him to a public trial – what dark secrets would he have revealed about our gangster CIA?

    How quickly we have forgotten that it was our gangster CIA that recruited, trained, armed, funded, supported radical Islamic terrorists like bin Laden to fight against the Russian invaders of Afghanistan – those 'freedom fighters' as Reagan then called them and those 'insurgents' as we now call them.

    Ron Paul would get my vote – BUT – my prediction is four more years of Obama that will bring America closer to collapse!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.