Alright, y'all welcome to the show.
Back to it.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton, and on the line is Tom Woods.
He's at the Ludwig von Mises Institute at mises.org, and his own website is tomwoods.com.
He's written a ton of books, Rollback, Nullification, Meltdown.
He's the co-editor of We Who Dared Say No to War, a collection of American anti-war writing from 1812 to now.
Also 33 questions you're not supposed to ask about American history and the politically incorrect guide to American history, etc.
And he's back on the show today to talk with us about the restart of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Welcome to the show, Tom.
How are you?
Doing great, Scott.
Thanks.
Well, I'm very happy to have you here, and I'd like to get your comment on Ron Paul's statement yesterday about the killing of Osama bin Laden.
I'd like to go ahead and play that clip for the audience here real quick.
Cool, you said.
Then, are you asking us to believe that a President Ron Paul could have ordered the kill of bin Laden by entering another sovereign nation?
No, I think things would be done somewhat differently.
I would suggest that the way they got Khalid Mohammed, who was the real ringleader, and the people who did prove he's probably the ringleader on 9-11.
And we went and cooperated with Pakistan.
They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison.
And matter of fact, the same thing happened on the release of the people who had to do with the bombing in 1993, I believe, when they first attempt.
And they were all captured and tried in a civilian court, and they've all been punished.
So no, what's wrong with that?
Why can't we work with the government?
I just want to be clear.
A President Ron Paul would therefore not have ordered the kill of bin Laden, which could only have taken place by entering another sovereign nation.
I don't think it was necessary, no.
No, it wasn't necessary to do it.
It was absolutely not necessary.
And I think respect for the rule of law and international law.
What if he had been in a hotel in London?
I mean, if we wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the helicopters into London?
And because they were afraid the information would get out?
No, you don't want to do that.
I think you've been very clear, sir.
You've been very clear.
I definitely do not want to put words in your mouth.
But you're telling me a President Ron Paul would not have ordered the bin Laden kill to take place as it took place in Pakistan.
Not the way it took place, no.
I mean, he was unarmed and all these other arguments that came up.
All right, let's take a quick phone call, and then we'll take another break and finish off with some phone calls.
Dennis on the cell phone.
So we're back.
That was a clip of Ron Paul on a radio show in Iowa.
I guess it was yesterday, maybe the day before yesterday.
Anyway, disavowing, saying that his policy would not have been to send in the SEAL team to kill Osama bin Laden, but to work with the Pakistani police to arrest him.
Your initial impression of this, and maybe your secondary one too, if you will, please, Tom Woods.
Okay, well, a couple thoughts about this.
First, you know, his point that I think he maybe could have accentuated a bit more at the end about contrasting what was done in Pakistan to what would have been done in a similar situation in London is a good point.
I mean, if bin Laden's in a London hotel room, what are the chances that in complete defiance of all the authorities of England, the U.S. military just performed a raid?
I mean, zero, right?
I mean, of course you would coordinate that with the British government.
Yeah, they're English or white, Tom, and that's different, right?
Yeah, right.
So what he's implicitly saying is, we have this view that, of course, you know, we're the indispensable nation, and USA, USA, and we're cool, and we get to sort of run the world and do whatever we want, and anybody who has any dissent here is just some commie pinko idiot who should be made fun of, and he's sort of questioning that and saying that there seems to be like a two-tier system here, that if it's Pakistan or any of these other countries, well, these are just what Moe and the Simpsons call loser countries, so we can just treat them any way we want to as long as the end in mind is good, and that's not his view.
And then in terms of nabbing bin Laden, well, I mean, obviously this could have been done in that way, and what he's asking us to consider is that, you know, maybe it might not be the best policy in the history of mankind to give one man the power to just go around the world in defiance of every other authority in the world and just say, sorry, look, we're going to undertake a raid here, a raid there, we're going to do this, we're going to do that, we're going to insult you, we're going to humiliate you.
You know, maybe that's not the only way that foreign policy can be run, and moreover, what he might have said and has said a little bit is that if it had been up to him, Ron Paul, well, I would have nailed bin Laden years earlier.
I mean, I would have nabbed this guy years earlier because, for one thing, I wouldn't have wasted my time and precious treasure and lives and resources on this ridiculous, immoral, unconstitutional war in Iraq to go after a guy who obviously had nothing to do with 9-11.
I mean, even the biggest idiot on earth knows that.
So I wouldn't have done that.
I would have focused on this guy, and I would have pinpointed the target.
I would have used the letters of mark and reprisal, and we would have done this much more efficiently and much faster.
Meanwhile, it takes these doofuses almost 10 years of keystone cops operations to finally get this guy, and I'm supposed to stand up and cheer?
Definitely.
Well, and you know, the thing is, too, what I like about it is the fearlessness, and you can just hear in his voice.
It's not like he even thinks he's being really brave.
I mean, he's got to know.
He's got to know that this week, the American people are all about SEAL Team Six raiding and killing terrorists.
You know what I mean?
And he just doesn't care.
He goes, look, you know, I think we ought to do like a rule of law instead.
Yeah, let me say something about that because all over the internet, you know, the usual neocon blowhards are going after him for this, but you know what?
It never even occurs to them to stop for just five seconds and ask themselves, you know, he obviously knows he's going to take some major hits for saying this.
He obviously knows that if he just kept his mouth shut or just went along with the propaganda everybody wants him to repeat, then he would be doing fine.
It would be no problem.
And yet he speaks his mind anyway, despite the fact that 99% of the American public is of one mind and he is of the other.
He still speaks his mind.
When was the last time one of their candidates ever, ever in their entire lives, I mean, from the moment they were running for class president to now, when was the last time anyone they've ever met ever acted like that?
This doesn't even occur to them.
But to me, that's the most interesting part of this story is that this is routine for him.
It doesn't matter that I'm talking about heroin in South Carolina.
You asked me a question.
I'm going to give you an answer at some level.
How can you not respect that?
I mean, how brainwashed would you have to be that you can't even at least respect this aspect of Ron Paul's character?
Yeah.
Well, and especially as you say, in contrast to the rest of them, I mean, think about somebody like Newt Gingrich, who the only reason he's running is because he's so sure he's better than everyone else and wants to make them somehow at gunpoint recognize that fact.
And that's it.
He just wants to be our boss.
Simple as that.
Everyone knows it's written all over his big, ugly face.
You know?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, are we just doomed to sit here and I mean, in other words, if we had if we were to have the world of the Ron Paul haters, not just people who don't support him, but I mean, like the real haters, if we were to have their world, every candidate would be the whole speech.
Twenty four hours a day would be this is the greatest country in the history of mankind, in the history of the universe, in the history of 15 universes.
You guys are the best people who ever walked in the face of this earth.
And everybody should should just let you, you know, just step all over them and their head should be under your heel and USA, USA.
And we're I mean, can we just not be insulted like this anymore?
I mean, presumably we're not all such a bunch of losers that the only meaning and value we find in life is the idea that, well, you know, we have more aircraft carriers than some other country.
You know, I mean, presumably we don't have to have our intelligence insulted over and over and over and over and over by politicians who want to curry favor with us by making us feel awesome because we have a cool military.
I mean, really, at some point you have to graduate from the fifth grade.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, that's also the hidden value of this, too, is the timing on this whole thing, too, right?
As he's declaring for president officially this morning on Good Morning America.
The first question he's got to resolve with these people is how could you be for the rule of law in this instance?
And, you know, I think maybe this whole thing about no, I would have opposed I would have not done the getting of Osama bin Laden this way statement.
I think this may be the Giuliani moment of this campaign already right before our eyes here, Tom, and that this is the one he's going to have to keep answering and everybody's going to eventually realize that, jeez, he's right, you know?
You know, I thought that, Scott, too.
I actually, in fact, I thought it as we were talking this morning, confirming our discussion today.
I thought the same thing because I thought there isn't likely to be the same type of I mean, that was his breakout moment in 2007 was when Giuliani went after him, you know, typical vicious, you know, I want to say empty head, but, you know, Giuliani is a smart guy in his own way.
I don't think he's a particularly bright foreign policy analyst by any means, but that's that snooty response, that mean, mean-spirited thing.
And then Ron stuck to his gun.
He just looked into the camera and he's in the most, you know, he's the audience.
There's like the most inhospitable, inhumane group of savages imaginable.
And yet he looks them in the eye and says, nope, this is my opinion.
Go ahead.
And he recalled later that he was very, very down about the situation.
They just thought, you know, golly, how hard it is sometimes to bear this burden.
And then the next day he finds out, you know, millions of people are saying, well, finally, somebody who doesn't treat us like a third grader.
But I don't think there's going to be a moment quite like that because now that he's had that moment, well, now we know where he stands on foreign policy.
But this one, this is different.
This differentiates him from everybody on any debate stage, basically, every single one of whom would just be pandering, pandering, pandering.
But I mean, if I were him, I would capitalize on this a little bit by actually explicitly saying, look, you know, I'm not a fool.
I know that it'd be a heck of a lot easier for me to just say what every, to utter every flattering statement of the American people and of this particular mission that's going to come from every other candidate.
Well, you think I'm a fool?
I know that.
But I'm just, I'm telling you my opinion, and I believe it's well-founded.
I believe my own foreign policy views would have made this country a heck of a lot safer than we've been for the past 40 years.
And I'm going to tell you the truth, regardless of what it does for my popularity, because I respect the American people too much to treat you like a bunch of idiots who need to be spoken to in bumper sticker slogans.
I would look into the camera and say that, and he would get cheers all over the country.
Yeah, well, and you know, it really helps too that his radicalism is the radicalism of the American Bill of Rights.
It's the radicalism of what's supposed to be what's going on here and what we're all about and what we all, you know, share our agreement on as Americans.
It's all we need to have in common.
We all like the Bill of Rights and want to keep it.
That's basically the contract we have here, right?
Yeah.
And I mean, I think that, you know, they just had this hearing on the renewal of certain aspects of the Patriot Act just two days ago in, I guess, in the House.
And Bruce Fine was there, and he testified, of course, against renewing the whole thing.
I mean, not just the parts that are up for renewal.
And the fact that, I mean, of course, Bruce Fine is going to be Bruce Fine regardless.
I mean, he's a great guy in many ways, and I respect him very much.
But I think the fact that there is any presence at all on the so-called political right of people who are against the Patriot Act for good, serious, constitutional Bill of Rights-related reasons, I wouldn't say it's entirely attributable to Ron Paul, but he's made cogent arguments that make it clear that you don't have to be in, you know, the ACLU to support it, to support his argument.
I mean, that's the unfortunate thing, that any time you talk civil liberty, there are conservatives who actually feel like, well, this sounds like some kind of subversive idea.
Well, what's the matter with you?
Subversive?
It's the freaking Constitution.
He's made it seem kind of okay to say, hey, maybe the government is going too far.
Maybe they shouldn't be snooping around in people's affairs and not tell them about it, whatever.
And he's almost to the point of making it okay, and perhaps he has reached that point, to be skeptical of all the wars.
I mean, he has opened up vistas of ideological possibility that simply did not exist before.
Right, yeah, absolutely.
You don't have to be Michael Moore.
You could be a conservative, married, Protestant, Christian, Republican from Texas, and be even more consistent and better on wars than somebody like Michael Moore is certainly the kind of thing that forces people.
They have no choice but to reconsider these old definitions.
And I think, you know, this is why people like me constantly fight this uphill battle of the political realignment and try to, you know, get the best of the left and the right to agree with the libertarians on the most important issues like world empire and the end of the Bill of Rights and welfare for billionaires and the military-industrial complex and all this kind of thing.
Civil liberties, generally speaking, for example.
And it's because we understand that really at its core, conservatism is about conserving the classical liberalism of the beginnings of this constitutional era, you know what I mean?
Back then, anyway, the era of the American Revolution.
And so really there's the common ground that we have is the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as the first law of this federal government.
If the American people can't form a new kind of a realigned political understanding based on that, then it's way too late for us.
Well, along those lines, let me take 30 seconds to just share one of my favorite Ron Paul moments ever.
I think it was 2007.
He was speaking before an Arab-American group, maybe in Michigan, and they asked him, so okay, do you have a special speech prepared for our group?
And he said, no, it's the same speech I give everywhere.
No other candidate would ever say that because, of course, for the Arab-American group, well, you flatter them and you give them various promises and goodies and loot, but he gives the same speech to everywhere because the same speech is exactly what you just said.
All these various principles of peace, freedom, prosperity, civil liberties, all the rest of it, and that's good enough for everybody.
It doesn't matter what your background is, who you are, that's good enough for everybody.
That's my message.
No one else will do that.
That has to count for something.
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, and, you know, thinking back to on 2007 and 2008, the greatest thing about, and even today we see, the greatest thing about the support for Ron Paul is that it's, you know, deep and wide, but it doesn't go up to the top.
You know, it's regular working people and middle class people who support Ron Paul with small donations from all over the place who run their own local campaigns, their own little Ron Paul revolutionary clubs, you know, making signs and putting them up and these kinds of things, very decentralized, very self-motivated all across the country, and it really kind of shows the principles that he's espousing that, you know, this really works.
You don't have to donate just to the central campaign.
You can sit there and spend your money on signs and paint and, you know, building up a little phone tree and getting some people involved to go and campaign yourself, and that really shows, you know, the values that he represents really are Main Street as compared to Obama's Wall Street, you know, because that's where we come from.
That's where the Ron Paul revolution is, is in the neighborhoods of the entire country, you know.
Absolutely, and I think it's also worth noting that, you know, a lot of people think, you know, oh, he's such an extreme libertarian.
He'd bring us back to a time when there was no regulation at all and the working people were ground down, blah, blah, blah.
Well, then how come all the major companies, all the billionaires would rather die a thousand deaths than donate ten cents to Ron Paul?
You know, I mean, stop and live in this world, not your fantasy world, but in this world, they're pretty unhappy with the system as it is now.
They kind of like the Federal Reserve.
They kind of like the foreign policy as it exists.
They like the federal government as it is.
They like the regulatory bodies that screw their competitors.
They like what exists now.
That's why they donate to Hillary Clinton.
That's why they donate to John McCain.
That's why they don't donate to Ron Paul.
Yeah, well, I think that's one of the most important truths that will be gotten across to many people in this campaign is, I mean, that's an obvious question and the conclusion is unavoidable.
The big business in America doesn't want Ron Paul style free market capitalism.
They are a bunch of Republicans and Democrats.
They want welfare.
They want to be safe from competition by way of their regulatory capture, sort of, as they call it, partnership with the federal government.
That goes for medicine and for agriculture and, of course, for airplanes and bombs and for banks.
And I think, I really hope, because, you know, that's one of the major myths that Americans are brought up with is, you know, how great it is that we have a democracy so we can use the government to protect us from corporations, when really it's the corporations using the so-called democracy to protect themselves from our pressure in the marketplace against them.
You know, I think, you know, millions learned it last time.
Why not millions and millions more this time by watching Ron Paul in action as the perfect example right in front of you?
Where are the Koch brothers when it comes to financing this pure libertarians campaign?
They're nowhere to be found.
None of the rest of them either.
Yeah, it's true.
But, you know, I've already said if there's anything I can do, whatever I can do, I mean, I'm going to be writing my usual articles and making my videos and doing whatever.
But whatever it is, that if there's anything that service I can be put to, I'm more than available and would be glad to help.
Yeah, that's good to hear.
And, you know, I mean, I think back to when Harry Brown was running in 1996 and, you know, I just caught him on C-SPAN in the middle of third party debates, whoever heard of that or whatever.
And he just gave a clear constitutional message.
You don't have to be a liberal or a conservative.
You could actually be anti-government.
We got a name for that and a group of people pushing it and, you know, a body of philosophy and history and ethics and all the rest behind it.
And, you know, here's what we believe, that the left and the right are all wrong about what they want to do to people.
And they're pretty much right about what should not be done.
And so, you know, let's forge this consensus and move on and have a free society instead of the one we got now.
Yeah.
And I mean, worked on me.
It's going to work on a lot more people this time, too.
You know, this is 100,000 times the Harry Brown campaign in 96, you know?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, look, you have to, you know, every we all have different friends who have different concerns.
We've got to think of, you know, how can I take this message?
And I don't want to mislead anybody.
I want to give them the pure message.
But, you know, as with me, when I was first persuaded of it, you know, people spoke to me about issues that matter to me.
And they explain, well, for these issues, this is why it's better to follow the kind of approach that, you know, like a guy like Ron Paul would would follow.
And there's case after case after case.
There are examples of this.
And, you know, we each in our own sort of entrepreneurial way need to think of how do I reach this?
These friends, these neighbors, what are the issues that they would be most interested in?
Because a lot of times you and I think of the issues we're most interested in.
Darn it, they ought to be the issues other people are interested in.
And, you know, they should.
But they're not always.
But the beauty of Ron Paul is no matter what issue they're interested in, we have a great thing to say to them.
Yep.
Well, and, you know, part of it is, too, just rhetorically, although he's not the most talented orator of all time or anything, he pretty much comes down on, you know, outflanking the right and the left in all the right ways.
This is how he handled the line about heroin in the debate was he said, you know, this is the same power to outlaw heroin and control the consumption and trade in heroin is the same power that they claim to tell you how much salt you can have in your dinner at the restaurant or any of the rest of this.
And are you really so afraid of yourself?
You need government to take care of you to prevent you from being a junkie.
And basically he called those right wing Republicans in South Carolina.
He asked them, are you guys a bunch of sissies?
And they said, no, we sure aren't.
We're tough enough to not need heroin to be illegal.
Bam.
He got them just like that outflanked him on the right.
Yeah.
And I mean, look, there are ways to argue these.
I mean, I was a very middle of the road Republican for a long time.
I supported the war on drugs for a long time.
But, you know, there are ways to explain these things that get people thinking.
I mean, it's hard to get to get people to think in ways other than the way they've been programmed to think their whole lives.
I've been programmed, you know, to believe all kinds of things to try to be exactly the opposite of the truth in regard to drugs and health and safety and all this.
I believe the I believe all the propaganda about, you know, you smoke marijuana for six months and your lungs disintegrate.
I mean, like that we got it.
I remember a film strip in the old days of film strips in the first grade.
I remember being propagandized from age six.
And then I find out that everything I've been told about marijuana is totally false.
It is completely made up.
I have no interest in smoking it, but I really don't want to lock some poor soul up in prison for it or for doing it a few times or something.
And to think that how could I think that was the most compassionate way to interact with a fellow human being is to is to crack his skull and throw him in a cage.
I mean, really, that's I mean, that's the most creative thing you can come up with.
And then we've got the most people in prison in the whole world.
I mean, like, there's nothing nothing strikes you as odd about this.
And we blow a trillion bucks on it.
Or my favorite example, I put this in rollback, because one of the things I want to roll back is the war on drugs.
And so one of the things I put in there is I think it was Judge Gray, James Gray was a judge out of California who's turned out to be really, really a great activist on the war on drugs.
And he was talking about I may have the name wrong, but he was talking about a case where he was he back in the Nixon years, he was on some drug task force, and they were involved with law enforcement.
And they had pinned down I think it was San Diego, who the great heroin dealers were.
And so they had been watching and watching and planning for months and spending loads of money.
And then finally, they had their raid.
And they nailed all these guys, they took him in, and they cleared the streets of heroin for like a month.
And then a month later, it was right back to where it was just the same prices before, except this time, they had no idea who was distributing.
So in other words, they had it was an unprecedented I mean, the scale of it of this effort was unprecedented.
And after an unprecedented effort, all it had done was made heroin slightly more difficult to get for about a month.
And then exactly the same kind of infrastructure was immediately back in place.
The thing is futile.
Yeah.
And this is a story from back then.
It's been going on the very same story this whole time between now and then.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, you know, and they can't even keep it out of prisons.
You know, at some point, these are the same people, the conservatives who talk all about the free market and how stupid it is to try to interfere with the free market.
And you know, you can't wish away supply and demand schedules.
Well, yeah, why don't you bear these principles in mind when you look at the drug war and how utterly inane it is and all the things they've done to other countries and Colombia and defoliants and everything else?
I mean, if people want this stuff, they're going to get it, period, period.
That's the starting point of any rational discussion of this issue.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, I think I propose that perhaps a good way to to explain it to a right winger would be to use guns instead of drugs as the example.
If the Democrats outlawed guns, would all guns in America disappear?
No, those law abiding people who too afraid to go toe to toe with the state over it are going to give up their guns.
And then there will only be a black market trading guns and only the most ruthless gun trading criminals will end up controlling that black market.
All our neighbors who are law abiding gun dealers right now who we used to buy guns from, they won't be in that business anymore.
It'll be turned over to ruthless, throat slitting murderers and whatever.
And it's just a simple matter of economics.
If you have if you prohibit guns, this is what America will look like.
It's the exact same thing.
Yeah, it's that I think that's a great analogy.
And I would also point out and you might be able to use the analogy the other way to a left winger about guns, you know, by telling them about the drug war and saying, see, it's the same thing that way.
That's the beauty of a good analogy.
Well, I would say that I found it interesting when California, where you live for for some time, when they had that whole 2005, the Supreme Court ruled on medical marijuana.
What was interesting to me about that was that it was three of the most conservative states in the union.
It was Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana that came out in support.
They actually filed amicus briefs in support of the position that California had the right to have this medical marijuana law.
Now, in those states, it's got I'm pretty sure you don't want to be caught with marijuana in Alabama.
I'm like, I have no personal experience with this, but I'm pretty sure you don't want that to happen.
But their view in these states was we don't like California's law, but California has the right to be California.
And if those three conservative states were willing to stand with California at that critical moment in the Supreme Court, then Ron Paul, if he is cornered on this issue, should be able to point to this and say, look, we can at least agree on constitutional grounds as these three conservative states did.
The federal government has no business in this.
That's another important starting point.
We start there.
Get the federal government out of it.
Some states will be different from other states.
That's not an ideal situation, but at least we might see some kind of rational approach to this problem if the DEA would just leave us alone for 10 minutes.
Yeah, well, and you know, I want to ask you, you know, you and I and Anthony Gregory, too, we're doing this nullify now thing.
And I guess I got to figure out how to make my speech about nullification of war, which I think means figure out how to encourage state governments to try to bring their guards home in defiance of the national government.
I wonder if you have any thoughts directly on that.
I haven't gotten that far yet.
I've been busy moving.
Well, you know, understood.
Interestingly, I really got to learn much about that by reading by listening to your interview with now I can't think of his name from Wisconsin, who in the bring the guard home movement.
I mean, I got to know about that specific issue because of your interview.
And well, isn't this something it goes to show that there's an interest in in using decentralization of power, that principle against the empire.
Well, that's very good.
That's a good thinking.
Yeah.
So we've got this event going on May 28th in L.A.
And it's in the upcoming events thing on my main page at Tom Woods dot com.
You can get all the details, but you're going to be there.
It's going to be great.
Anthony Gregory is going to be there, who's somehow more radical than either one of us.
And I don't even know how that could be, but somehow it is the case.
We have a huge, just a huge, fantastic event with with with with music and speakers and just going to be out of this world.
And we're going to be talking about the Patriot Act and war and all this.
And we are going to be so out lefting the left and out righting the right in all the correct ways.
It's going to.
And I've got some remarks prepared that I really hope will resonate with with people there.
But we're going to have I mean, the last time you and I were together on a on a program was like a year and a half ago in New Hampshire.
And that was great.
But this is going to be like that squared, because the energy in this in this building is going to be it's going to be fantastic.
So the nullify now event in Los Angeles, we're going to have people across the ideological spectrum there, which is precisely what makes it so glorious.
Boy, well, I'm really going to have to get to work on that.
Ben Manski again, Ben Manski, his answers.
Yeah, wow.
So I'm glad your speech is already written.
Partly written in my head.
We'll see.
All right.
Well, yeah, I'll certainly be in good company.
I'll have to step up my game for this thing.
Can't wait to see you again.
And and Anthony Gregory, too.
It seems like that'll be a great event.
Of course, I got to move out of L.A. a month before I got to be back there.
But that's the way things go.
And of course, I moved back to Austin a month after you guys did the nullify now thing in Austin.
Yeah, I know.
It's almost like you're trying not to see it, Scott.
But I know that can't be the case.
Bad timing like that sometimes.
All right.
Well, listen, I'll go ahead and let you go, Tom.
I really do appreciate your time on the show today and look forward to seeing people look to you for help in their answers.
And they're part of the Rumpel and otherwise revolution going on around here in the near and long term future.
Well, Scott, I'm always glad to talk to you.
Thanks for having me.
All right, everybody.
That's the great Tom Woods, Mises dot org, Tom Woods dot com.
And the latest book is Roll Back.
