Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace

Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace


The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace is a public policy think tank and library located on the campus at Stanford University in California. Founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, the Institution was originally known as the Hoover War Library, the “largest library in the world dealing with the Great War.” [1]

In 1946, as its agenda expanded to include more research activities, it was renamed the Hoover Institute and Library on War, Revolution and Peace. In 1956 it reached the name it holds today: the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. [1]

According to the Hoover Institution’s mission statement, the primary tenets of the organization are representative government, private enterprise, and to “limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.” [2]

In 1959, the Institution stated that “the purpose of this institution must be, by its research and publications, to demonstrate the evils of the doctrines of Karl Marx — whether Communism, Socialism, economic materialism, or atheism—thus to protect the American way of life from such ideologies, their conspiracies, and to reaffirm the validity of the American System.” [3], [4]

According to their website, the Institute’s overarching purpose is to: [1]

  • “Assemble the requisite sources of knowledge pertaining to, and to understand the causes and consequences of, economic, political, and social changes in societies, at home and abroad
  • “Analyze the effects of government actions relating to public policy
  • “Generate and disseminate ideas directed at positive policy formation using reasoned arguments and intellectual rigor, converting conceptual insights into practical policy initiatives judged to be beneficial to society”

Climate change skeptic Thomas Gale Moore, author of “Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry About Global Warming” is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and he has also written a number of publications on their behalf.  [5]

Research Teams

The Hoover Institution maintains a number of research teams and task forces, including the following: [6]

  • Arctic Security Initiative
  • Economic Policy Working Group
  • Energy Policy Task Force
  • Working Group on Foreign Policy and Grand Strategy
  • Health Care Policy Working Group
  • Immigration Reform Initiative
  • Working Group on Intellectual Proprerty, Innovation and Prosperity
  • Working Group on Islamism and the International Order
  • K-12 Educational Task Force
  • Working Group on the Role of Military History and Contemporary Conflict
  • National Security and Law Task Force
  • Property Rights, Freedom, and Prosperity Task Force
  • Virtues of a Free Society Task Force

Stance on Climate Change

September 2015

“Regardless of whether global temperatures follow the historic trend and take half a millennium to rise by 4°C or follow a ‘hockey stick’ upturn predicted by the IPCC and take one half of a century to rise by 4°C, we have the time to adapt.” [7]


“We agree with most scientists who have seriously studied the issue on the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and a changing climate, and we also accept that it would be preferable to avoid the broad impacts that would likely result were global climate change to occur rapidly. Reaching such a conclusion, however, does not lead us to align with the global-warming alarmists who want us to precipitously abort our use of fossil fuels. To do so in the United States using current technology would be economically disastrous domestically and, on a worldwide basis, environmentally inconsequential. Climate change concerns should be an important input to our energy policies, not an overriding determinant. ” [8]

June 2014

“In other words mitigation to slow or halt GHG emissions will be costly today with little payout over the next 100, if not 1000, years, making it unlikely that large mitigation projects have a positive net present value. And for these results to occur, the United States would have to be joined by the rest of the industrialized nations as well as the developing ones, something that is not going to happen.” [9]

July 30, 2004

“Because rich economies sequester more carbon than poor ones, stored carbon must be subtracted from emissions to determine an economy’s net addition to greenhouse gas emissions. McCormick’s data show that ‘rich countries take more carbon out of the air than poorer ones’ and that ‘the growth rate of net carbon emission per person will soon be negative in the United States.’ Put differently—richer may well be cooler.” [10]

July 2001

“The proposals to curb industry and energy consumption to avert global warming echo the ‘limits to growth’ alarms of the 1970s. Back then, groups like the Club of Rome proposed Draconian curbs on industrialization and urbanization because the world was supposedly about to run out of petroleum and other natural resources. These arguments resonated with the oil crises of the decade (even though these crises were, in fact, created by strategic, political, and economic factors, not true scarcity). Eventually deregulation and a saner foreign policy exposed these arguments for the shams that they were.” [11]


The following is based on data archived at the Conservative Transparency project as well as research from publicly available 990 tax records. Note that not all individual funding records have been verified by DeSmog. [12]

View the attached spreadsheet for additional information on Hoover Institution funding by year (.xlsx).

Sarah Scaife Foundation$13,704,500
Howard Charitable Foundation$9,250,000
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation$6,911,000
Charles and Ann Johnson Foundation$6,893,059
Walton Family Foundation$5,398,826
John M. Olin Foundation$5,190,660
Smith Richardson Foundation$4,430,257
The Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation$3,625,000
National Philanthropic Trust$2,421,000
Schwab Charitable Fund$2,092,411
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation$1,927,261
Charles D and Frances K Field Fund$1,635,000
Marcus Foundation$1,609,070
William E. Simon Foundation$1,490,000
The Randolph Foundation$990,000
The Carthage Foundation$898,400
Bochnowski Family Foundation$692,500
The Weiler Foundation$645,000
Earhart Foundation$596,779
JM Foundation$540,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation$435,000
Fairchild-Martindale Foundation$355,000
Searle Freedom Trust$337,500
Exxon Mobil$335,000
William H. Donner Foundation$334,000
Jaquelin Hume Foundation$250,000
Stuart Family Foundation$182,000
Barney Family Foundation$165,000
National Christian Charitable Foundation$138,820
Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation$137,500
The Helen Diller Family Foundation$130,000
The Whitcomb Charitable Foundation$82,000
The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation$65,000
Apex Foundation$55,000
George Edward Durell Foundation$50,000
American Chemistry Council$30,000
Albert and Ethel Herzstein Charitable Foundation$25,000
Castle Rock Foundation$25,000
ExxonMobil Foundation$20,000
The Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation$15,000
Lovett & Ruth Peters Foundation$10,000
Richard Seth Staley Educational Foundation$7,050
Woodhouse Family Foundation$6,000
Abstraction Fund$5,000
Aequus Institute$2,500
Donors Capital Fund$2,000
Grand Total$74,780,943

SourceWatch lists the following additional funding sources: [13]

ExxonMobil Funding

Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets reports that the Institution has received at least $295,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [14]

990 Forms

Key People

The Hoover Institution has been influential in the American conservative and libertarian movement with a number of notable scholars and fellows having connections to various Republican administrations.

High-profile conservative fellows have included Edwin Meese, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Amy Zegart. In May, 2007 retired U.S. Army General John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, became the Institution’s first Annenberg Distinguished Visiting Fellow where he served until 2010. [15][13], [16]

Below is a list of notable individuals present in the Hoover Institution’s staff list between 2004 and 2016. View the attached spreadsheet for a complete list of Hoover Institution people by category (.xlsx).

Board of Overseers


Herbert M. Dwight  Y 
Peter B. Bedford Y  
Thomas J. Tierney   Y
W. Kurt HauserY   

Vice Chairs

Boyd C. Smith  YY
David T. Traitel Y  
Peter B. BedfordY   
Robert J. Oster  Y 
Thomas F. Stephenson   Y

Key Board Members (Overseers)

Barbara Barrett  YY
Burton J. McMurtryYYYY
David B. KennedyYYY 
David M. Rubenstein Y  
Donald L. Lucas Y  
George E. McCownY   
Heather R. HigginsY YY
Howard H. Leach YYY
James E. PieresonY Y 
James Q. WilsonY   
Jay A. Precourt  YY
John E. SwearingenY   
John W. MadiganY   
Kenneth T. DerrY   
Lewis W. ColemanY   
Margaret Hoover YYY
Martin AndersonYYY 
Michael Gleba  YY
Paul M. WythesY Y 
Peter A. Thiel YY 
Richard M. ScaifeYYY 
Robert J. HerboldYY  
Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. YY 
Thomas F. StephensonY YY
Thomas J. HealeyYY  
Thomas J. TierneyYYYY
Wendy H. BorcherdtYYY 
William D. Walsh Y  
William E. Simon Jr. YY 
William H. Draper III Y  
William J. HumeYY  
William K. Bowes Jr.YYYY

Key Fellows

Name2004[38]2007[28][29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34], [35]2012[19]2016[20]
Abbas M. MilaniYYYY
Alberto Mingardi  Y 
Alejandro Toledo YY 
Alex InkelesYY  
Allan H. Meltzer  YY
Alvin RabushkaYYYY
Anne Applebaum  Y 
Boaz Ganor  Y 
Bobby InmanY YY
Charles Blahous  YY
Charles HillYYYY
Chester E. Finn Jr.YYYY
Clint Bolick YYY
Condoleezza RiceYYYY
Daniel Pipes  Y 
David DavenportYYYY
David R. HendersonYYYY
David W. BradyYYYY
Deborah Amos  Y 
Dennis L. BarkYYYY
Diane RavitchYY  
Dinesh D’SouzaYY  
Donald Rumsfeld Y  
Douglass C. NorthYYYY
Edward Paul LazearYYYY
Edwin Meese IIIYYYY
Fouad Ajami  Y 
Fred Barnes  Y 
Gary S. BeckerYYY 
George P. ShultzYYYY
Helene Cooper  Y 
Henry A. Kissinger   Y
Henry I. MillerYYYY
Henry S. RowenYYYY
Herbert J. WalbergYYY 
Herbert Weiss  Y 
Jack Goldsmith   Y
James C. Miller IIIYYYY
James E. Goodby  YY
James L. SweeneyYYYY
John A. BohnY   
John A. FerejohnYYY 
John Abizaid YY 
John B. Dunlop Y  
John B. TaylorYYYY
John E. ChubbYYYY
John H. BunzelYYYY
John Podhoretz  Y 
John RaisianYYYY
John ShovenYYYY
Kanan Makiya  Y 
Kenneth AndersonY   
Kevin M. MurphyYYYY
Kiron K. SkinnerYYYY
Kori Schake  YY
Larry J. DiamondY YY
Laura E. HugginsYYY 
Lawrence ChickeringY   
Lawrence Silberman  Y 
Mara Liasson  Y 
Marc Alexander Thiessen  Y 
Mark Harrison Y  
Martin AndersonYYY 
Michael A. McFaulYYYY
Michael Goldfarb  Y 
Michael H. ArmacostYYY 
Michael J. BoskinYYYY
Michael Mcconnell  YY
Milton FriedmanYY  
Morris P. FiorinaYYYY
Newt GingrichYY  
Niall FergusonYYYY
Nick Schmidle  Y 
Paul E. PetersonYYYY
Paul T. HillYYY 
Pete WilsonYYYY
Peter BerkowitzYYYY
Peter Jones   Y
Philip J. RomeroY   
R. James Woolsey  Y 
Richard A. EpsteinYYYY
Richard Cummings  Y 
Richard SousaYYYY
Richard V. AllenYYYY
Robert E. HallYYYY
Robert ZelnickYYY 
Sam Nunn   Y
Sarah Anderson Y  
Seymour Martin LipsetYY  
Shelby Steele Y  
Sidney D. DrellYYYY
Stewart A. Baker  Y 
Terry L. AndersonYYYY
Terry M. MoeYYYY
Terry RyanY Y 
Thomas Bethell  Y 
Thomas Gale MooreYYYY
Timothy Garton AshYYYY
Timothy Kane   Y
William DamonYYYY
William J. PerryYYYY
Williamson M. EversYYYY
Spencer Abraham Y  
Bruce Berkowitz Y  
Robert J. MyersYY  

Other People [14], [36]

Donald RumsfeldY 
Gale NortonY 
James M. PoterbaY 
Richard GeddesY 
S. Fred SingerYY
Sallie BaliunasY 


March 16, 2020

The Hoover Institution’s Richard A. Epstein wrote an article titled “Coronavirus Perspective.” In the article, Epstein estimated deaths from the virus at under 5,000 (he later revised this guess to 50,000) and claimed that “even though self-help measures like avoiding crowded spaces make abundant sense, the massive public controls do not. In light of the available raw data, public officials have gone overboard. To begin with, the word pandemic should not be lightly used.” [39]

It was reported that “Conservatives close to Trump and numerous administration officials have been circulating an article by Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution, titled ‘Coronavirus Perspective,’ which plays down the extent of the spread and the threat.” [40]

In the article, Epstein made the comparison to the standard flu: [40]

“The World Health Organization recently declared coronavirus a pandemic at a time when the death count was at 4,000, presently being just over 6,500. It will surely rise no matter what precautions are taken going forward, but what is critical is some estimate of the rate. [40]

By way of comparison, the toll from the flu in the United States since October ran as follows: between 36 to 51 million infections, between 370 thousand to 670 thousand flu hospitalizations, and between 22 thousand to 55 thousand flu deaths. That works out to between roughly between 230,000 to 320,000 new infections per day, and between 140 to 350 deaths per day for an overall mortality rate of between 0.044 percent to 0.152 percent.”

According to Epstein, “ Good news is more likely than bad, notwithstanding the models that predict otherwise. The deaths in Washington have risen only slowly, even as the number of infections mount. The New York cases have been identified for long enough that they should have produced more deaths if the coronavirus was as dangerous as is commonly believed.” [40]

He added that he believed shutting down public facilities was not called for (Emphasis added): [40]

“Clearly, the impact on elderly and immunocompromised individuals is severe, with nearly 90% of total deaths coming from individuals 60 and over. But these data do not call for shutting down all public and private facilities given the extraordinarily low rates of death in the population under 50. The adaptive responses should reduce the exposures in the high-risk groups, given the tendency for the coronavirus to weaken over time. My own guess is that the percentage of deaths will decline in Korea for the same reasons that they are expected to decline in the United States. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be a repetition of the explosive situation in Wuhan, where air quality is poorer and smoking rates are higher.” [40]

On April 6, 2020, after facing what he described as a “torrent of criticism,” Epstein wrote a correction where he described his previous article as having “the single largest unforced intellectual error in my entire academic career, when I included numerical estimates about the possible impact of the coronavirus in terms of life and death. Those estimates were obviously ridiculously too low.” [41]

“Unfortunately, those responses detracted from the main purpose of that initial essay, which was to question some of the basic assumptions of the standard model. I regret those mistakes, and of course, I retract them,” Epstein wrote. However, he reiterated: “It is, however, important to stress that those errors were in no way essential to the central point that I made there, and continue to put forward—namely the serious overprojection of cases and deaths found in the New York Times graphic below, and in similar studies that predict tens of millions of coronavirus cases, and upwards of one million deaths.” [41]

January 28, 2015

Hoover Institution senior fellows Edward Paul Lazear published an article in the Wall Street Journal (republished in the Hoover Digest ) which suggests that we should adapt to climate change, rather than follow “far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change” suggested by the Obama administration. [21], [22]

“Carbon math makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck,  we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary. It is time to end the delusions and start thinking realistically about what can and will be done,” Lazear writes. [22]

December 20, 2014

Jeremy Carl, Research Fellow and Energy Policy Task Force member at the Hoover Institution, writes at CNN: [23]

“[T]he new ban on hydraulic fracturing in New York has nothing to do with public health or good science. Instead, it’s an anti-scientific, political decision that will harm the country as it panders to far-left environmentalists.” [23]

New York became the first state to ban Fracking in the U.S. However, Carl says he is “reflexively hostile to deception, especially when undertaken by people who cloak themselves in the mantle of science. And that’s exactly what is happening here.” [23]


A number of the Hoover Institution’s fellows have been actively skeptical of man-made climate change. Take the example of Thomas Gale Moore who has produced a large number of articles suggesting that global warming may actually be “good for you.”

Here is a PDF capture and summary of Moore’s publication profile, courtesy of Greenpeace. The original web page here.  His papers and presentations include: [24]

Moore’s “Global Warming: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals” (1995) and “In Sickness or in Health: The Kyoto Protocol versus Global Warming” (2000) were both published in the “Hoover Essays in Public Policy.” [14]

December 1995

The Hoover Institution launched what it called the “Program on American Institutions and Economic Performance.” According to a Greenpeace web capture of the program (PDF), the aims of the project included:  [25]

Documenting the strengths and weaknesses of the American economy.
Identifying changes in social norms and institutions.
Examining the direct effects of government policies on economic performance.
Investigating the indirect effects of government policies.
In particular, the program will examine the ways in which government policies toward families, schools, and which government policies toward families, schools, and other basic American institutions provide incentives or disincentives for economic growth. Recommending public policy reforms that seek greater prosperity for Americans.

According to the Institution, the study’s findings would “shape public
policy debates well into the next century,” and that to disseminate the program findings they would “employ books, television, videotapes, essays, and editorials to make their work known to policy makers and the public alike.” [25]

One of the additional research projects under consideration included a project titled “The Burden of Government Regulation” which would examine the question of “How much do agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cost private enterprise? Are there more efficient ways of pursuing their aims?”  [25]

Another of their research projects proposes to search for evidence that “In dealing with problems such as pollution and health care costs, much work in the field of economics suggests that market solutions are far more efficient than government solutions.”  [25]

The individuals participating in this study would all be from the Hoover Institute’s resident and visiting fellows. They would be directed by the advisory board, which at the time included director of the Hoover Institution, John Raisian, Hoover fellows Gary S. Becker and Milton Friedman, and Hoover fellow and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz.  [25]

Hoover Institution Contact & Location

As of June, 2016, the Hoover Institution listed the following contact information in its website: [37]

Hoover Institution
434 Galvez Mall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6003

Hoover Institution in Washington
The Johnson Center
1399 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005

Hoover Publications and projects include:

Social Media


  1. About Herbert Hoover,” Hoover Institution Standford University. Archived April 5, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/dgftS
  2. Mission Statement,” Hoover Institution Stanford University. Archived April 5, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/p4UGy
  3. Cited in Paul Dixon, (1971) Think Tanks, New York: Atheneum, p. 304.
  4. George H. Nash. Herbert Hoover and Stanford UniversityHoover Press Publication, 1988. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/CTzTe
  5. Thomas Gale Moore: senior fellow,” Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Archived April 5, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/1ufhT
  6. Hoover Research,” Hoover Institution. Accessed April 6, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Sl73s
  7. Terry Anderson. “Climate Change And Human Ingenuity,” Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution Journal), September 10, 2015. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/eiUuz
  8. Thomas F. Stephenson. “A More Balanced Approach to Climate Change Policy” (PDF), Hoover Institution, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
  9. Terry Anderson. “Hot Air on Climate Change,” Defining Ideas (Hoover Institution Journal), June 12, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/ZxT1R
  10. Terry Anderson. “Cooling the Global-Warming Debate,” Hoover Digest, July 30, 2004. Archived April 5, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/q7zHf
  11. Bruce Berkowitz. “The Pseudoscience of Global Warming,” Hoover Digest, No 3 (July 30, 2001). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/2wUiA
  12. Hoover Institution,” Conservative Transparency. Accessed May 18, 2017.
  13. Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace,” SourceWatch. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/goevX
  15. Former U.S. Central Command Chief General John Abizaid Appointed Hoover Distinguished Visiting Fellow” (Press Release), Hoover Institution Stanford University, May 7, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/tMAof
  16. Former U.S. Central Command Chief General John Abizaid Appointed Hoover Distinguished Visiting Fellow” (Press Release), Hoover Institution Stanford University, May 7, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/4CejY
  17. Board of Overseers,” Hoover Institution. Archived November 2, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/4CejY
  18. Board of Overseers,” Hoover Institution. Archived April 5, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/o0ucL
  19. 2010 Report: Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived October 21, 2012. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogblog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/SQd7Z
  20. Hoover Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Accessed April 5, 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/ufyJk
  21. Edward Paul Lazear. “Climate Change Realism,” Hoover Digest No 1. (Winter 2015) pp. 74. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/5ETkF
  22. Edward P. Lazear. “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality,” The Wall Street Journal, September 2, 2014. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/ityxl
  23. Jeremy Carl. “Why New York is wrong about Fracking,” CNN, December 20, 2014. Archived April 6, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/TSS8G
  24. Recent Publications and Working Papers:Thomas Gale Moore,” standford.edu. Archived April 6, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/jwdx2
  25. “The Hoover Institution Program on American Institutions and Economic Performance,” (PDF), December 6, 1995. Retrieved from Greenpeace USA. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmogBlog.
  26. Board of Overseers,” Hoover Institution. Archived November 10, 2007.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/VYc94
  27. About Hoover: Board of Overseers,” Hoover Institution. Archived October 12, 2004. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/8MSmK
  28. Senior Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 16, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/XRwrD
  29. Research Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 16, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/aGbEj
  30. Distinguished Visiting Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 17, 2007.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/1Jrp3
  31. National Security Affairs Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 13, 2007.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/6WKtw
  32. Senior Research Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 16, 2007.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/p1nKm
  33. W. GLENN CAMPBELL AND RITA RICARDOCAMPBELL NATIONAL FELLOWS,” Hoover Institution. Archived October 29, 2007.  Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/MhwZt
  34. Distinguished Fellow,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 13, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/Y2FfX
  35. Honorary Fellows,” Hoover Institution. Archived September 16, 2007. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/eZjuI
  36. S. Fred Singer,” Hoover Institution. Archived April 6, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/oJwBv
  37. Contact Information,” Hoover Institution. Archived June 8, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/ke5Wu
  38. Fellows: Index By Title,” Hoover Institution. Archived November 4, 2004. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/d0bqd
  39. Richard A. Epstein. “Coronavirus Perspective,” defining ideas (Hoover Institution), March 16, 2020. Archived April 9, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/4PgbW
  40. Isaac Chotiner. “The Contrarian Coronavirus Theory That Informed the Trump Administration,” The New Yorker, March 30, 2020. Archived April 9, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/A5pSg
  41. Richard A. Epstein. “Coronavirus Perspective—Revised,” Hoover Institution, April 6, 2020. Archived April 9, 2020. Archive URL: https://archive.vn/i4vZv

Other Resources

Related Profiles

APCO Worldwide Background APCO has been described as “one of the world's most powerful PR firms.” [1], [2] According to its agency profile at O'Dwyers, “APCO Worldwide is a...
Hugh W. Ellsaesser Credentials Ph.D., Meteorology. [1] Background Hugh W. Ellsaesser, born in 1920, is a meteorologist by training and retired “guest scientist” at the Lawren...
Alfred (Al) Pekarek Credentials Ph.D., University of Wyoming (1974). [1]B.A. University of Minnesota-Twin (1965). [1] Background Alfred (Al) Pekarek is a former ass...
Benny Josef Peiser Credentials Ph.D. , University of Frankfurt (1993). Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science. [1], [2] Background Benny Peiser is a sports ...