BookTV: Thomas Woods "A Politically Incorrect History of the United States", Regnery

How Regnery gets its right wing trash... "We'd like you to write a book, and we'd like the title to be 'A Politically Incorrect History of the United States'"  That's what the VRWC is all about.

Thomas Woods, a history professor and "scholar," attempting to explain how difficult his Professor's job is, says it is "like slave labor."  Of course, its a common phrase, but as a someone who is holding themselves out as an expert on early American history (his book begins with the Colonial history, it is particularly offensive.

He holds himself out as the true inheritor of the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson.  It's a typical Libertarian ploy, similar to the way the Clergy holds itself out as the true inheritors of the philosophy of Jesus the Nazarene.

The discussion of the Alien and Sedition Acts seems entirely mundane, minutes go by without anything resembling non-establishment history.  He discusses Jefferson's support for secession, and nullification.  He extends it to say, ludicrously, that Jefferson believed that without nullification the States would dissapear.  Goes on to recite the standard "died on the 50th anniversary" story.  I have rethought my position on nullification, his position is primitive.

He reveals this thesis, in passing, but I missed the phrasing... something about a "theme."

He compares the debate on whether or not slaves should be allowed in New Mexico territory to a debate on whether slaves should be allowed on Mars.  He supports this by saying that there were only a handful of slaves in one southwestern State.  His reminders that tariffs, free land, and other economic efforts also figured into the slave debate.

He makes a good case that "Civil War" is an unsatisfactory name.  There weren't, he fairly argues, two sides competing for control of one country.  The War of Southern Secession.

He cites someone else's research to talk about price declines in Monopolist's prices falling during the 1870-1910 period.  He neglects to mention three depressions in that period.

He blames WWII on Wilson getting involved in WWI.  Blaming him for the Treaty of Versailles.  He cites someone else who blames Wilson for Stalin, Hitler, et cetera.

Of course he cites the idea that FDR extended the depression, rather than helping.  Again, he ignores the four massive depressions in the seventy years before 1928, and the zero depressions since then.

He says war doesn't create wealth, because so much is destroyed, and he misses an important aspect here, which I shall leave unspoken.

Question from a High School Senior: Notes that he has a teacher whom he presents as exceedingly inept. 
Answer presented in a very discombobulated way.  I guess Woods has very little hope for a good question. 
Question: Same high school kid.
Question: Confused questioner.