Comment: Col. Wilkerson is

(See in situ)


Col. Wilkerson is

on Dr. Paul's new Institute's advisory board!

Does our Gray Champ know how to pick 'em, or what?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/about-us.aspx

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON

Col. Wilkerson is Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy, College of William & Mary. He is the former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell.

---------------

Check out Tom Woods' rebuttal vs. the fake-tarian Fcuker Carlson's TheDailyCaller's resident neoCon Likudnik chicken shiite momma's boy pansy, AIPAC-whore Jamie Sweinstein knocking/smearing foreign policy GIANT Eric Margolis and libertarian SCHOLAR Walter Block for questioning official govt fairytale on 9/11:

Neocons Attack Ron Paul Peace Institute

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperit...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/136513.html

Tom Woods
April 24, 2013

The Daily Caller wags its finger at the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity because of the two libertarian professors it has on its board, Butler Shaffer and Walter Block. (Thanks to Lew Rockwell for the link.)

The problems with these men are many:

(1) For some reason, they seem to think the U.S. government may not be altogether trustworthy.

(2) They believe in the absolute right to private property against all forms of aggression, a principle that informs their thinking on all other issues.

(3) Consequently, they do not look at the world through a jingo’s glasses. They do not say, “We are awesome and everyone hates us for our awesomeness.”

(4) Their starting point for evaluating the justice of war is the private-property analysis of Murray Rothbard. This is wrong. Their starting point should be, “USA! USA!”

(5) They do not believe that if someone is murdered, they may walk down the street shooting every which way, hoping to get the murderer. They do not believe they may do this even if they wear a U.S. flag lapel pin, or a military uniform, while doing it. They believe that the killing of innocents is a moral evil and a violation of rights.

(6) That’s another thing: they hold to a very strict view of individual rights to life, liberty, and property.

(7) Consequently, they judge the rightness or wrongness of military intervention not according to the maxim “I’m an American and you’re a stupid towelhead, so eat lead,” but on the basis that the initiation of aggression against innocent parties is not allowed, by any party.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul