• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

Mark Levin Attacks Mr. Libertarian

I don’t respond to Levin’s attacks on me. His listeners won’t even remember my name, and if they do, honest ones will find this site and learn about me for themselves. But when he attacks people whose boots he is unfit to lick, I do respond.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • George Leroy Tirebiter

    Tom–you are right about the general human instinct to go out and read what they are told is forbidden, but that doesn’t apply to levin’s lemming-like followers. They
    1) don’t read
    2) are intellectually lazy and will just parrot what “the grate one” tells them

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Swaringen/100000250965440 Jonathan Swaringen

    Are you posting stats on weight loss or anything else after your 21 day Primal test.  I’m guessing you’ll continue with it after the 21 just curious because your lookin good.

    Enjoyed the video as always sorry about the off topic question about going Primal but noticed a decent change from before you started.

  • JRT

    I used to listen to Levin’s radio show but stopped when I realized he’s just another BIG Government conservative attacking Ron Paul and his supporters and endorsing Santorum! Pat Buchanan is right when he says that the neocons took control over the conservative movement. It’s quite amazing how little sceptikal conservatives are towards government if foreign policy/war is the issue. BTW I’m currently reading ‘American Empire’ by Andrew Bacevich! You had him as a guest on the Peter Schiff show! 

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    My wife has been chronicling the whole thing at primalcooks.blogspot.com.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddie-Davis/100002484598013 Eddie Davis

    Tom, Thanks so much for responding to the cretin, Levin, and for ‘letting him have it’ in such a subtle and civilized fashion to boot! While I’m sure that this underhanded sellout merits more expletives and color metaphors, doing so would only serve to lower us closer to his depraved level. 
    I do wonder though, just how much filthy lucre it took for him to sell his dignity. Maybe I should ask Sean and Rush, eh?….lol

  • http://centanium.com/ P.S. Huff

    What did Levin say about Rothbard? Did he actually say not to read him, or was he just saying Rothbard was wrongheaded on a lot of stuff?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Eddie-Davis/100002484598013 Eddie Davis

     In the short time that I was listening to Levin the other night, he was saying that Ron Paul wasn’t a conservative because he’s a follower of Rothbard. He also stated that Rothbard wasn’t a conservative because William F. Buckley said so, and that the libertarian followers of Dr. Paul and Rothbard are ‘creepy’ and ‘cultlike’, saying that we’re like ‘Dave Koreshs’ gang’.
     The man’s a lowlife, imo.

  • http://twitter.com/Framus4 Eric Terwill

    I used to listen to Mark very often but after I have moved to the constitutional/libertarian view I can no longer tune in. How anyone can not just dismiss people like Ron Paul and Rothbard but to call RP a kook and an anarchist is just not logical. I will never understand why people are against the correct application of the constitution especially if you are a so-called conservative.

  • http://twitter.com/Framus4 Eric Terwill

     I guess once you work for the gov. you have the gov. in your blood.

  • http://www.droiddoes.com/ Norm

    Mark Levin is the reason people like Obama get elected.  Completely out of touch with the times and the constitution they claim to love.

  • http://www.facebook.com/iamtheslack Jeremy Fink

    I am not here to bury anyone but I listened to the Levin show in question and what he was talking about was the difference between Conservatism and Libertarianism form this article 
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/conservatives_and_libertarians_1.html .. I agree that Rothbard was a great thinker but Levin was simply trying to debunk the “Ron Paul is the most conservative” .. He never said not to learn about Murray Rothbard which I went out and did and of course respect the man jsyk .. just a difference in ideologies

  • Kevinallen01

    Levin also claims that World War II ended the Great Depression in his book Liberty and Tyranny.

  • Pastor Ko-Rect

    Sometimes it seems like the most popular talk show hosts are required to sign a “hate America first” agreement to keep thier jobs.

  • JP

    At Jeremy Fink. Libertarians are way more conservative than what’s passed as conservatism now a days. When compared to Levin and Rush that argument doesn’t hold water. Also he definitly is not fit to lick Rothbard’s boots. Heck he’s unfit to lick Paul’s boots.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    Jeremy, I’m not quite buying this. The average person would not have walked away from that segment saying, “Murray Rothbard, although Levin disagrees with him on this and that, is a great and important scholar.”

  • Jay

    Mark Levin is a lying statist, and a feckless dullard.

  • Jay

    …beacuse he does not read Rothbard.

  • jen

    Levin does talk like a thug at times – perhaps he gets bonuses from the Bain like bosses whenever he hits a level of nastiness.

    I do see some overlap between Levin and libertarians as well common grounds.  I know libertarians and Levin would have a ‘ick’ reaction to having anything in common.  In fact, Levin and libertarians might have more in common with each other than they do with the vile elites, who are brilliant at manipulative and secretive co-opting, so that noone strays too far away from their control.

    Based on listening to a couple of clips of Levin on elitists Rove, Romney, etc, he does despise them to a good extent, which is impressive as most Republicans are clueless or lack morality to say much negative against the elites. Levin is contradictory as I don’t know he lives with voting to live under elitist rule while at the same criticizing them.

  • Brutus

    Tom, isn’t it time to sweep the floor with a different neocon? Levin has already been destroyed. Whatever happened to Jeffrey Lord by the way?

  • http://centanium.com/ P.S. Huff

    A YouTube search turned up this clip, which I’m guessing is the one at issue:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lET-x-TzFjs

    He does come surprisingly close to saying Rothbard shouldn’t be taken seriously. He attacks Ron Paul for praising the guy, which makes sense only if you think Rothbard was an across-the-board crank.

  • Anonymous

    Marxist Levin doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the genius Murray Rothbard. I used to listen to Levin and enjoyed his passion, but since Ron Paul has been running, I now see Levin is a sleazy liar no better than the Soros funded hacks at MediaMatters. By the way; all of Rothbards works are available for free as PDF downloads or podcasts at http://www.mises.org. A good starter is Rothbards brilliant ‘For A New Liberty’ which is even more relevant now than when he wrote it.

  • Anonymous

    Because Marxist Levin is okay with any fascist government policies as long as they are implemented by the neocon right.

  • Augie

    I could be wrong here but, I think a lot of conservative talk shows are listened to just to see what’s coming down the pike. I mean to sit back and talk into a microphone about fighting for freedom  with pause only to advocate this or that government swindle. It’s transparent isn’t it? I  think most people see it for what it is and would rather be somewhat informed, than listen to communist country radio of the latest Lady Gaga. Maybe not most, but a strong minority?

  • neocontrotsky

    Great video article showing how misguided Levin is being once again.  Of course, his attacks might be out of desperation considering how much his ratings have continued to slide.  I haven’t seen anything more recent, but I know last year that Rush/Hannity/Levin were all having ratings decrease by anywhere from 25 to 30% compared to the same periods before. 

      

  • neocontrotsky

     Because he knows as much about economics as he does the Constitution. 

  • dick clark

    Also, libertarians seem far more conservative than actual conservatives. (In that they actually seem serious about conservatism.)

  • jen

    I am wondering if Levin’s problem is more with people he considers anarchists or is it with moderate libertarians or those that are anti-empire.  He hates Ron Paul, but says that Rand Paul would make a great VP – I find that bizarre as they are both have the same staff and advisors and are under the same people.

    After listening to a clip of Levin today, it would have been great if Paul or the others would have put repealing Bush’s policies, like no child left behind and medicare part d – the only reason being that Romney voices support for those programs and it would be a one way to get at him.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    They buy his books, though.  Which, more and more, seems to be the reason to have a radio show…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    Marx Levin likes to play the race card a lot, too.  He equates criticism of neocons to anti-Semitism.  Weird.

    And his #1 reason for hating Ron Paul is Israel.  Marx Levin is a Israel-firster with a massive paranoia that if the US doesn’t fork over its anual billions that regualr Americans won’t voluntarily send their support.

    I’m wondering how he squares Rothbard and Mises with the anti-Semite schtick?  Weren’t they BOTH Jewish…?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    I think the internet is sucking away their readership.  It’s so much easier to go online and listen to Woods or Schiff than it is to tune in a radio for Levin’s cognitive dissonance.

    Also, the pause button.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    Levin deserves to be brow beaten into obscurity.  He is the most vile.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    If you remove the Israel issue, Levin would 100% support Ron Paul.

  • Lou Bjostad

     Wow, that last line sounds like Murray Rothbard’s characterization of Karl Marx’s personality in Austrian Perspective.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XXUI2U5IPS7IABBMSM4I27BYDA chris

    …that is only true if you think conservatives do not want to use force (government legislation) to push their agenda on the public.

    Any political affiliation can be libertarian, so long as they eschew force.  Conservative, liberal, communist, anarchist, monarchist… so long as it’s voluntary.

    Unfortunatly, almost ALL people, conservatives not the least, want to use that force.

  • Greg

    i doubt that Rothbard was the first to argue that some of the New Deal policies prolonged the great depression.  for example Hayek was talking about this stuff in the 1930s.  so Woods is wrong on that one.

    since when are light entertainers considered intellectual leaders?  the daily show and sean hanity are very entertaining to watch but no one should ever take any of that seriously, after all comedians are in it for the laugh not the truth!!!  USA is very strange Oprah: is more trusted than doctors.

    also did anyone notice that Woods is Rothbard’s heir apparent?!  just a minor point i guess.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    Greg, you are absolutely wrong. One need not be the very first person to work in an area to be a pioneer! Do you know how academic research takes place?

    Hayek never uttered the name “Hoover” in print, as far as I know. Rothbard took on Hoover as an interventionist at a time when the conventional wisdom still had him as a laissez-faire ideologue.

    Of course talk show hosts shouldn’t be treated as intellectual leaders. Why would you think I’d disagree with that? Hollywood shouldn’t be where people learn their history, either, but are you saying I therefore shouldn’t point out historical errors in Hollywood propaganda pieces? What an odd position to take.

  • neocontrotsky

    A huge percentage of GOP voters and “conservatives” rely on what Rush, Levin, Hannity (though all have been suffering declining ratings), O reilly, Foxnews, etc all say and repeat the talking points verbatim. 

  • jen

    Interesting that I said Levin fears anarchy and hence, it is one of the reasons (minor) that he does like Paul and Rothard, because O’Reilly said that  Santorum’s belief that policy should be dictated by religions beliefs will lead to ‘anarchy’:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/28/oreilly_rick_santorum_goes_further_than_reagan_on_religion_in_politics.html

    Now, how does Levin feel about his candidate, Santorum, having political and religious beliefs that even his friend, O’Reilly, says will lead to anarchy.  And, I think that even if Rothard was an anarchist, it would not be violent.  Santorum’s anarchy (as well as Hagee/Beck/Bachman) would be violent. Interesting on how OWS is supposed to be rioting eventually into violent anarchy.

  • Citizen

    Levin is a decent lawyer and defended Newt Gingrich back in the 90′s during the RINO backlash. As an attorney, he’s a decent guy, but his politics are pure RINO STATIST.

    He has no problem with the FED’s monetizing the debt with “QE2″ “Twist” and other such creative financing schemes that Fleece the American Sheeple.

    The “Great One” is a economic ignoramous and has NO cred to disparage RP.

  • Greg

    constitution of liberty, ch 16, sub chaper 6 (my copy has sub chapters, i dont know about you) for example.  ok he doesnt mention hoover directly and he does not say “1930s depression was caused by hoover’s econ policy” but he certainly spends all the book pointing out why the policies implemented in 1930s are undesirable.  my point was that Rothbard did not invent classical liberalism and i highly doubt that he was literally the first one to talk about the great depression from a more liberal angle. road to surfdom certainly advised against everything which the new deal was doing.  i think hayek maybe was less confrontational than rothbard.  

    rothbard was a great thinker and certainly a great writer but i do not think he was the most important liberal of the 20th century as you seem to think.  to be honest i only know of rothbard because of his connection to hayek through mises.  i guess you do not like hayek as much as i like hayek and i do not like rothbard as much as you like rothbard.  

    anyway.  i don’t think there is much point in pointing out errors in comedy shows or light entertainment which all radio is.  radio talk shows are just intellectual chewing gym.  people tune in to hear some noise which once in a while makes them think that they are learning something.  for example i do not agree with a lot of the daily show and certainly i could spend hours on each episode writing a long letter correcting them, but what’s the point?  they made people laugh, i laughed at a few jokes myself, everyone is happy, everyone goes home and everyone forgets about it after two days. just my take on it.  i think there is quite a bit of “heat” in the political debate in america.  everyone is so angry with everyone for everything.  hollywood does not make propoganda, it just makes what sells.  same for MSM.  

  • Anonymous

    Please capitalize the first letter in each new sentence as well as each “i”. The image you are putting out is that of sloppiness. If you are sloppy in that manner, then your viewpoint and the research that went into it is probably just as sloppy. Just helping you out.

  • http://bastiatscorner.blogspot.com/ Daniel

    Levin is awful.  I made the mistake of reading his book a couple of years ago, and while much of it was pro-market ok stuff.  The rest of it was muddle-headed statist crap.  There’s simply no reason he should be well known – he clearly doesn’t know much.