I had known that the Left - which is a massive and incredibly influential (and money-backed) subset of American Society, was not happy with this book, but I had not read any of the critiques until today. I decided that the furor and panic demonstrated by opponents of what the United States was and is should be mentioned.
The Left has invested an immeasurable amount of time and energy both in denigrating and outright falsification the best aspects of American history (as well as that of Western Europe). What they found difficult to twist or lie about, they excise by burying - acting as if it doesn't exist. If they cannot do that, they causally dismiss it as something of little or importance. If an author that does not conform to their agenda is able to get his work published and the book is a success, they lose what little is left of their minds.
Following the cited piece on the outcry against his award ( and one that notes that the Left was opposed to Limbaugh even being finalist in the voting) are quotes from some reviews written by those who clearly have an ax to grind against anything that does not portray US history as a series of crimes committed by rapacious racists. Their attempts to nitpick the book, Limbaugh's historical research (it is certainly not presented by the author to be a scholarly piece, and what seems to be a fair usage of literary license are incredibly weak. They would be simply laughable if not for the fact that they apparently truly hope that readers will believe that their objections will have an effect with those who have not already made the decision to follow the Leftist narrative of the US.
"The Associated Press even has a story. Snerdley found it. I don't read the AP. The AP is his responsibility. And he says, "Yeah, the AP, they've got this real long story," he said, "Rush, it doesn't matter. They spell your name right in it in every instance." Yeah, I know. But the AP didn't even know I had a book out. See, these people are the ones out of touch. They're the ones not aware of what's going on. ...................
So AP has this long story today where they got hold of Robin Adelson, the Children's Book Council, and they just demand for her to admit that the vote was fraudulent. They just demand that she tell them that the vote was something they couldn't police and it really may not be legitimate..........
They are really confused. It's not that they're mad. They're just genuinely confused. They really believe. Talk about the low-information crowd, this is it. They really believe what they've been told. They believe that over half of their fellow citizens are really subhuman, when you get right down to it, when you look at the things that they believe about conservatives.
So anything that upsets that applecart is difficult for them to process and comprehend. And so it can't be real. Therefore there has to be fraud involved or there has to be cheating involved. And of course that's just projection because that's in large part how they arrange things for themselves, stacking the deck, you name it........
RUSH: Can you imagine these leftists driving around hearing this, just in stunned shock? It's fun. Now, there were six or seven other winners. They had winners in categories by age, you know, books for 6- and 7-year-olds and then first and second graders. I forget all the categories. There's six or seven other winners. Have you heard about any of them? (interruption) You haven't? I mean, you saw 'em listed in your AP story? (interruption) You haven't? Yeah, you don't know who they are, right?
There's six or seven -- well, it was funny because the one network that I've banned here and don't mention anymore devoted almost their whole day yesterday to the concept that voter fraud was involved here and that there is no way that I would ever win Book of the Year in a legitimate vote among kids. And it wasn't Book of the Year. It was Author of the Year. I didn't win the award for Book of the Year.......
RUSH: Listen to this. You want to hear how funny this is, the AP story, this very, very long AP story on the potential illegitimate result that saw me win Author of the Year, Children's Book Council, the potentially illegitimate result. Listen to this from the AP story.
Quote, "An individual voter can vote multiple times and does not need to provide a verifiable e-mail address or proof of his or her age." You're kidding? The AP is outraged over no voter ID in the children's book awards? What, we have to have voter ID for the children's book awards but not for political office? ..........
"A book that landed high on the best-seller lists of Amazon.com and other outlets despite limited mainstream coverage." They're admitting they ignored it. They admit they don't review it, and yet it's there. And they're perplexed. Now, to you and me it's only common sense. You have the most popular, most listened to radio program in the country, to them it's not mainstream......."
"Liberals are in an uproar over a contest for the most popular children's book author because conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been chosen as one of the contestants.....
Consequently, along with three other authors, Limbaugh's momentous book sales landed him in the CBC's Children’s and Teen Choice Book Awards author of the year contest.
Liberals cried foul, demanding that the CBC remove Limbaugh from the contest. The book group, however, is refusing to bow to demands to excise Limbaugh from its list of popular authors.......
CBC said that some complainers insist that Limbaugh can skew the results of both the best sellers list as well as the CBC contest with his millions of fans from his nationally syndicated radio show. CBC said that it may take such thoughts into consideration in the future but that it would not change its criteria this time.
The group also pointed out that it is kids who vote and kids are the final arbiters, not them.
"Ultimately, kids and teens (over one million of them if as many vote this year as did last year) will decide who wins in all 6 Children’s Choice Book Awards categories on May 14, so encourage them to vote starting March 25 at ccbookawards.com. We have procedures in place to eliminate duplicate, fake, and adult votes during the voting period as much as possible," CBC writes..."
It is far more likely that Limbaugh, a well-known drug addict who pled guilty to criminal prescription fraud in 2009, merely dry-swallowed a bunch of Vicodin and hallucinated that he traveled through time.
Because this is a book about drug abuse, it is inappropriate for children to read.
2. Rush Limbaugh made extremely graphic and sexually suggestive statements regarding Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified in support of health care before Congress. He called her a "slut" and a "whore."
Sandra Fluke is thirty years younger than Limbaugh; he is old enough to be her father. If I had a daughter, I would not want her to be exposed to a book written by Mr. Limbaugh.
So, I will reiterate that it is inappropriate for a man known for drug abuse and graphic and lascivious public statements about the sexuality of young women to be writing books for children.
3. Rush Limbaugh and the publishers of this book are uniquely unqualified to teach children about history, and here's why: This is ostensibly a book about the "brave pilgrims," but the cover of this book shows Rush Limbaugh wearing a tricorn hat and standing with a horse.
Here is what I found out in approximately ten minutes of research: Tricorn hats were first adopted by French solders during their conflict with the Spanish in the Netherlands in 1677, and the style spread from France throughout Europe after that.
The Pilgrims traveled from England to the New World on the Mayflower in 1620, long before the invention of the tricorn hat Limbaugh is wearing on the cover, which wouldn't have been prevalent in England for another 80 years. .........
The horse Limbaugh is standing next to on the cover is also anachronistic for a story about the pilgrims, because there were no horses on the Mayflower.
Limbaugh also appears to be wearing a powdered wig in the cover image. But it wasn't popular for English men to wear wigs until decades after the pilgrims sailed to America.
Despite this being a book about "Rush Revere" traveling to "the deck of the Mayflower," he is represented not in pilgrim garb, but, rather, in colonial garb more appropriate to a period a hundred and fifty years after the time of the "Brave Pilgrims."
This is not some minor point, but, rather an indication that the author is not well-enough informed about the historical period he is writing about to distinguish it from an entirely different historical period.
It is inappropriate to drop a time-traveling character wearing late eighteenth century garb onto "the deck of the Mayflower" ...........
So this is an author who can't even fact-check the cover illustration of his own book, and a publisher who can't be bothered to subject a text that purports to teach children about history to even the most superficial factual scrutiny.
The level of irresponsibility on display here is extraordinary.
4. Mr. Limbaugh's dress in the cover image actually resembles the garb of the colonial militia who fought for American independence against the British Crown during the American Revolution from 1776-1781.
However, despite the patriotic military garb Limbaugh wears on the cover of this book, he was actually deemed physically unfit for service in the US Armed Forces during the Vietnam war because of a pilonidal cyst on his backside.........