Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rush Limbaugh – An Army Of One
NoisyRoom.net ^ | 6-8-2010 | Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Posted on 06/09/2010 1:47:29 PM PDT by Whenifhow

Book Review:

Rush Limbaugh – An Army of One by Zev Chafets

Rarely does a book come into my life and across my desk that I just can’t put down. This is one of them and I highly recommend you get a copy and read it. Chafets did a masterful job in writing this book.

I have been listening to Rush Limbaugh since 2000. Being a political blogger, Rush has kept me sane, optimistic and motivated even when the going got tough. Always the scrapper, Rush Limbaugh gave me the strength to go on many times when I did not want to and has given me more real news than anyone in the mainstream media. He’s blunt, brilliant, articulate, courageous and honest. I am sure I feel just like most of America when I say that Rush feels like family.

Though this is an ‘unauthorized’ biography, you can tell that it is cemented in truth and it is captivating. The book takes you from Rush’s boyhood into present day and does so with humor and aplomb – by inviting you into Rush’s life and by showing you that he is just like any one of us – just more intensely so… You’ll share his struggles, his victories, his defeats and his battles. His journey is the American journey and one that is the adventure of a lifetime.

Hard work, dedication and the habit of picking himself up again and again has made Limbaugh hugely successful and voraciously hated by the progressive left. In my book, that damn near makes him a saint. Rush knows that given a chance, the current regime will destroy him and take him down one way or the other. And it won’t just be Rush and Beck, they are coming after the bloggers too. And soon… We are just too dangerous to be allowed to exercise free speech and stand up to our government masters. Rush will be there to lead and guide as long as he can and America will always turn to him. He is beloved and has forever earned a place in our hearts.

This book goes into many of the real beliefs that Limbaugh has. He is hugely misunderstood by liberals and many times, deliberately so. Rush is not a racist and he is not homophobic. He admires women, but is not a sexist. He is definitely not an anti-semite. He may be wealthy, but he is generous to a fault. He’s a kind and good man who stands up for what is right, just as his father and grandfather did before him. Read this book and you will gain an insight into the man behind the persona.

Limbaugh will be the driving force behind the 2010 and 2012 elections. He can pull conservatives together as no other can in this country and Ronald Reagan was right to call him the most dangerous man in America. To liberals and Obama he is the ultimate adversary and rightly so. To America and conservatives in general, he is a lovable fuzz ball who brightens our lives with hope and humor. Rush is a gentleman who does not stoop to calling other talk show hosts names or disparages others without valid cause. I personally, have never heard him be rude and he has far more patience than I do. I love his show, because I love listening to him.

Limbaugh says that all we need is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He’s absolutely right as always. We don’t need change – we don’t need to fix what was perfect in its inception. Go back to what works and don’t try and ‘fix’ what isn’t broken.

This book is simply one of the best biographies I have ever read. Here’s to Zev Chafets – can’t wait to read your next book!

On a personal note, congratulations to Rush and his new bride Kathryn Rogers! May you have many happy years together…


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Education; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: authors; books; politics; rushlimbaugh
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

1 posted on 06/09/2010 1:47:29 PM PDT by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

Hope Rush has a food taster - it’s going to get lethal in the next few months.


2 posted on 06/09/2010 1:51:20 PM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Limbaugh says that all we need is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He’s absolutely right as always. We don’t need change – we don’t need to fix what was perfect in its inception.

LOL. He really believes that?

3 posted on 06/09/2010 1:52:04 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

And you believe in... what?


4 posted on 06/09/2010 1:53:59 PM PDT by Noumenon ("Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?" - Julius Caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon; Huck
Huck thinks that the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution while an admirable attempt, was doomed to fail from the very start.

I think that history has shown that the Anti-Federalists were indeed correct in most, if not all, of the arguments they made against the Constitution.

From what I've gleaned from readings Hucks posts he's a big fan of the Articles of Confederation.

Huck, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

5 posted on 06/09/2010 1:57:22 PM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Believe that and in the Lord and not man and you will be a lot better off. Obama and his ilk are the ruination of this country as we know it.
6 posted on 06/09/2010 2:00:49 PM PDT by fish hawk (the)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow

bttt


7 posted on 06/09/2010 2:10:42 PM PDT by ADemocratNoMore (Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Huck thinks that the Anti-Federalists were right and that the Constitution while an admirable attempt, was doomed to fail from the very start.

I'm not even convinced it was all that admirable. The antifeds weren't right on every point, but the points that they were right about were decisive. The Constitution should have been rejected.

It certainly needs fixing, and is far from perfect.

8 posted on 06/09/2010 2:24:06 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
It certainly needs fixing, and is far from perfect.

What fixes would make it "perfect?"

9 posted on 06/09/2010 2:34:35 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of the ages - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Ah yes, ol' chum, but we have the advantage of watching its subversion through the lens of history while those that crafted it (as the 'art of the possible' compromise that it was) were only able to anticipate based upon their lifetime and history up to their time.

Were we afforded the chance to make it more resistant to subversion, the compromises needed for current ratification would be so crippling that we would end up with a document far less resilient when measured by those that follow us by 220 years.

Paraphrasing the old bumper sticker, "Subversion Happens".

With a constrained view of mankind, with man being inperfectable, we as a nation can only be faulted for having too little fear of the weakness of our fellow men. I certainly hope that this fault of being hopeful about our countrymen will begin to bear fruit this election cycle. The new Henry, Washington and Adams cousins may be sitting around FR and the various Tea Parties as we talk -- we can always plan that it may be so.

10 posted on 06/09/2010 2:38:58 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
Decentralization--the Constitution did the opposite.

Expressly delegated powers only--Constitution changed expressed powers to implied powers.

Federalism--Constitution created phony sham federalism.

Unromantic view of government--Preamble to Constitution reads like a love poem. Totally inappropriate aggrandizement of government.

Clear, precise language--there are numerous instances of vague generalizations that lead to expanded national power. I believe this was intentional on the part of the consolidators.

11 posted on 06/09/2010 2:40:34 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I don’t believe in perfection. I use that term because the article claims that the Constitution is perfect, and because the framers absurdly placed the word in the preamble as if perfection or near-perfection were a realistic goal of government.


12 posted on 06/09/2010 2:42:12 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Huck

With what would you replace the Constitution?


13 posted on 06/09/2010 2:46:15 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of the ages - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Ah yes, ol' chum, but we have the advantage of watching its subversion through the lens of history while those that crafted it (as the 'art of the possible' compromise that it was) were only able to anticipate based upon their lifetime and history up to their time.

That's why the antifederalist essays are so important. (particularly #31, 39, 78-84.) They demonstrate that the most egregious aspects of the Constitution could be detected at the time and were detected at the time.

Were we afforded the chance to make it more resistant to subversion, the compromises needed for current ratification would be so crippling that we would end up with a document far less resilient when measured by those that follow us by 220 years.

I agree. I think the framers blew it. They were the ones with the golden opportunity. The consolidators, the empire-builders won. It's all ancient history now. I just have to laugh any time someone says the Constitution is perfect, when that is so obviously untrue.

With a constrained view of mankind, with man being inperfectable, we as a nation can only be faulted for having too little fear of the weakness of our fellow men.

I agree. I argue that the framers had too little fear.

"This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. "

Patrick Henry, June 5th, 1788

14 posted on 06/09/2010 2:49:45 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I would settle for fixing some of the more glaring errors.


15 posted on 06/09/2010 2:50:14 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Huck

And how would you specifically correct the errors?


16 posted on 06/09/2010 2:53:12 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of the ages - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I made a comment on the text of this thread. I’m not going to get into a whole red pencil session on the Constitution. I stand by my original comment that the idea that the Constitution is perfect is laughable. It flies in the face of reality and experience.


17 posted on 06/09/2010 2:57:56 PM PDT by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Ah. That makes your comment clear. There’s powerful material for discussion amongst all of us - one that needs to happen since it’s likely that we - those of us who survive the coming animated contest - will be called upon to restore our Republic after the worst and most barbaric times this nation has seen.

The question of course, is restore what, exactly? Is it the the inexactitude of the document itself that has led us to our present state of affairs? Or is it the will of men to make the most of it for their own ends that lies at the root of the problem?

More importantly, can we do a better job this next time around? I think we can. But we must first ALL pay a terrible price to arrive at that point. This I believe beyond a doubt.


18 posted on 06/09/2010 3:03:55 PM PDT by Noumenon ("Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he has grown so great?" - Julius Caesar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Our Framers sought a more perfect union. They achieved their goal.


19 posted on 06/09/2010 3:04:00 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Let us remember that we should not disregard the experience of the ages - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Do you think the Articles of Confederation were closer to a perfect government?


20 posted on 06/09/2010 3:10:03 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Nothing which is contrary to nature is good. - Aristotle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson