• "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

Murdoch: Petraeus Resignation Suspicious

On Twitter, Rupert Murdoch says the resignation of CIA director David Petraeus seems suspicious and there must be more to the story. Anyone who follows American government knows there is always more to a story like this. But because Murdoch said it (and I know Murdoch is not one of us, but that’s not the point), left-liberals responded with laughter and scorn, for who could possibly think we’re not getting the full story? Further evidence that QUESTION AUTHORITY is dead as a governing principle for the Left. (Thanks to Robert Wenzel.)

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Jeremy

    Tom, I suspect that the Left was NEVER interested in questioning authority. I think they just wanted to question authority they didn’t like. Take Bush for example. They were so gung-ho antiwar until the next president had a “D” beside his name.

  • http://twitter.com/tomesnyder Tom E. Snyder

    One report I read indicated that the FBI has had him under investigation for some time but held off on the announce until after the election for obvious reasons–it might have tipped the election.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Zebram-Zee/100002539017006 Zebram Zee

    Another story about more evil people. This whole world is sick.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t worry. The left will question authority again when the red devil gets his turn.

  • Zeb

    Tom, I think it has a lot to do with a dead ambassador: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/petraeus-benghazi/

  • Scott Lazarowitz

    Arthur Silber makes the comment that Obama’s possible intention could be to replace Petraeus with John Brennan, who is Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security, for the possible purpose of Obama wanting to bring their current drone-murder terror campaign home to the U.S.

    http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2012/11/seriously-america-its-never-sex.html

  • anon

    Krauthammer spoke truth and good analysis finally. Clearly, it was an intent by both republicans and democrats to manipulate petraeus and have him give false testimony to libya. apparently, there were 2 cia teams. petraeus was probably left in the dark and on the cia team that did not or would not ignore the libyan ambassador’s pleas for protection.
    However, it is not just the “left” that does not want to question authority. Neither does the so-called right, including libertarians. Romney would not speak of libya on the campaign trail ro now, meaning he was in on protecting Obama from revealing on what realy happened in libya. Because of that, republicans staunchly supported romney, which allowed obama to win by a small margin.

  • anon

    It is not just the left that does not want to question authority, it is also most everyone on the right as well. In reality, there is no right or left as you are describing it, as they are virtually the same and bonded together in order to maintain power.

  • screaminkid

    i believe Murdoch is being disingenuous pretending wonder at Petraeus’ resignation? It is entirely possible that said resignation was engineered by Murdoch himself in retaliation for Petraeus’ refusal to do his bidding and accept his offer? Afterall Petraeus would have been a much stronger and genuine candidate than any candidates proffered to the electorate by the REPUBS.