• "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

Someone Finally Loves Bruce Bartlett

Bruce “Won’t Someone Please Love Me” Bartlett finally has an admirer. And it’s Paul Krugman. (Thanks to Bob Wenzel.)

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Francis P

    I recently subscribed to The American Conservative based solely on your recommendation, Dr. Woods. I just received my first issue (the one with the Barlett article), and I feel like I deserve a refund for false advertising. Aside from the ode to Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics, there was also a screed against a small Catholic college in Florida (which looked like a personal vendetta, wrapped in a book review) as well as a complaint about the 1% and an attack on an Austrian perspective book.

    I was hoping to read a magazine that puts conservatism above Republicanism, but instead it just seems to be a magazine that puts liberalism over conservatism. Hopefully this was an aberation and future issues will be more informative.

  • Gamble

    I think Republicans now realize that Ron Paul had as good or
    better chance as anybody and they would not even had to compromise all their principles (assuming they have any). Too late now.

    Next time, don’t exile your most rabid tent goers, you need
    them.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t read the comments on that article. You will either laugh, cry, get angry, or just become really depressed. In the end you’ll likely just be depressed by the cries of the sheep praising their master(s).

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690825795 Don Wills

    I just posted this message (which is currently awaiting moderation) in response to Mr. Bartlett’s article -

    “A well written article by a man seemingly with fewer core principles than Romney, if that’s even possible. Mr. Bartlett, maybe you would have some friends if you stuck by some principles, any principles. Your description of bouncing around from Ron Paul to Bush to Keynes to Krugman was nauseating to read.”

  • JohnD

    I thought the blow up quote about Krugman being right about everything was a joke at first. We really need the Murphy Krugman debate to counterbalance this bizarro-world stuff.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick
  • Jimi

    I understand Bartlett’s frustration with the Republican Party. I largely agree with him on that part. But it seems like his frustration with big spenders within the party he’s identified with has made him side with big(ger) spenders in the other party. To me it’s like a chick who turns lesbian because she had a really bad experience with her ex. It doesn’t make sense, unless he now truly believes in Keynesian economics.

    At the end of the day Republicans and Democrats are really not that much different though.

    These days the way I see it is would you rather shoot yourself in the head with a .45 (vote Democrat), shoot yourself in the chest with a .22 (vote Republican), or not shoot yourself at all and vote Libertarian?

  • Michael W

    I second Francis P.’s comment below. I’ve actually been a subscriber to The American Conservative for many years now. I’ve usually just ignored their protectionist leanings as an attempt to reach out to the “Middle American Radicals” Sam Francis used to talk about.

    This latest issue though was disastrously bad. Krugman loving, Keynesian kowtowing, the Bartlett “article” (if we can call that word vomit an “article”); I’m very seriously considering cancelling my subscription. I get my genuine conservatism nowadays from Chronicles and many blogs (including this one), I don’t see the need to support Ron Unz’s new regime nonsense.

  • Robert Roddis

    More treasure from my attic. Libertarian Review 1980. Supply-sider Bruce Bartlett seems to love gold:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/4161210353/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/4161210375/in/photostream/

    So, after all these decades and the complete failure of Keynesian money dilution and debt programs, Bartlett decides that Keynes was right. There just wasn’t enough “aggregate demand” in the 1930s. Who knew?

    No one had ever before thought about why so many business people made
    decisions that resulted in so much of the wrong stuff being made which no one wanted to buy. It’s such a mystery.