Daniel Friedman's Reviews > Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims

Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims by Rush Limbaugh
Rate this book
Clear rating

's review
Sep 05, 2013

did not like it

As far as any of you know, I received an advance copy of this book from the publisher, and I have read this steaming pile of words, and I am writing this review entirely in good faith based on my firsthand knowledge of the text. There is no reason at all to believe this review is based solely on the cover of "Rush Revere."

Indeed, the only reason my discussion of the book might be limited to the cover, the jacket copy and my opinions about the author is because I am a good and moral and God-fearing person who does not spoil books for people. I have read this book, and you have no information to the contrary.

And if you want to call me a liar, you had better come and say it to my face. And then you and I will fight, because I don't cotton to those who disparage my honor.

Now, having dispensed with the disclaimers, on to the relevant material:

Since I am an author, I generally avoid posting reviews of books online, particularly books I feel negatively about. But in this case, I must make an exception, because there are people who actually think it is a good idea for Rush Limbaugh to teach children about history, and those people are deeply misguided.

If you are considering using this book to teach your children about the pilgrims, please consider the following points:

1. Scientists have not yet perfected any reliable mechanism for traveling back in time. Many physicists believe that time travel is impossible. Given that the world's foremost experts have not solved the mysteries of time-travel, it is unlikely that talk-show host/"fearless middle-school history teacher" Rush "Revere" Limbaugh can travel back to 1620, to visit the "brave pilgrims" on the Mayflower.

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.

Here is a more historically accurate depiction of period-appropriate headwear:

Most third graders know what a pilgrim hat looks like. Rush Limbaugh doesn't.

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" the same way it would be anachronistic to drop a character into the Victorian England of Charles Dickens dressed like this:

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.

I would strongly discourage anyone from ever performing a Google image search for "pilonidal cyst." This is the least upsetting illustration of one that I could find:

Such a cyst would make it difficult or impossible for Mr. Limbaugh to ride the anachronistic horse shown in the illustration.

Thank you for your attention,
Daniel Friedman
116 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

09/05/2013 marked as: read

Comments (showing 1-50 of 79) (79 new)

message 1: by Tiffany (new)

Tiffany Reisz I had no idea about the butt cyst. I thought that was just Rush's personality.

Great review, Dan. Good bullying!


message 2: by Navessa (new) - added it

Navessa This. Is. Awesome.

message 3: by Mlyn (new)

Mlyn Mr. Friedman, you have rendered me speechless, breathless & urineless - hence I must now wipe down & sanitize the chair I am sitting upon. Unfortunately, since the tears of laughter will not stop flowing from my eyes, this process will take much longer than it should. Many thanks for throwing my Friday night into chaos.

message 4: by Tim (new)

Tim This was such a great review that I'm now going to buy all your books, Daniel Friedman! Naah.

message 5: by AnnaLund (new)

AnnaLund *happy sigh*

That, dear Sir, was a treat.

message 6: by Della (new) - added it

Della Scott I think I've skimmed through enough of your obnoxious review to get as much of an idea of it as you evidently did this book. People like you ruin literary social sites. Stick to reviewing the book, not personal attacks.

message 7: by Leila (new)

Leila This was hilarious.

Squilliam Fancyson If you read the book how many chapters are there? Can you name a single chapter title? Can you give away anything that may prove that this is a fair book review and not just a lame attempt at drawing attention to your one book?

message 9: by RJ (new)

RJ @Squilliam - did you read the review? Can you name the medical condition that prevents Time Travelling Rush from riding a horse?

Great review, I just wish it didn't have to be written

message 10: by Rick (new) - rated it 4 stars

Rick You obviously have not read the book. The historical inaccuracies you claim are actually worn by a character who travelled back in time.

message 11: by Harold (new)

Harold Holmyard The tricorn hat is not to imitate the Pilgrims' dress but Paul Revere(Rush Revere). Paul Revere lived much later when tricorn hats were popular (the 18th century).

Tiana Harris I will make sure in the future to never read a book written by you. Or maybe I should just 'pretend' to read your book and then make nasty comments about it.

message 13: by Alex (new)

Alex Walker This is not a review, it is simply someone with a hatred for Rush Limbaugh. It is amazing how many low information Lemmings agree with this commentators bile.

In-built political bias is no base from which to critique an author you so obviously hate.

message 14: by Well (new)

Well Read Congrats! It's not often anyone could make me feel that Rush Limbaugh had been abused and treated unfairly but you have succeeded.

How about sticking to your comic circles where you can draw attention to yourself appropriately, instead of a site where one expects to actually read a book review, hopefully from a human being who has actually read the book itself.



message 15: by Alex (new)

Alex Walker Well,well,well,
How about leaving insults where they belong. Away from these pages. Go read the book, you may learn.

message 16: by Paige (new) - added it

Paige So in other words, you hate Rush Limbaugh. Your review is hilarious, because that is so blatantly obvious. Wasn't much of a book review.

message 17: by Jday (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jday Alex wrote: "Well,well,well,
How about leaving insults where they belong. Away from these pages. Go read the book, you may learn."

Hi Alex, I think "Well" was commenting on the review, not your comment, and that "Well" actually holds the same opinion of the review as you do. :)

message 18: by Jday (new) - rated it 5 stars

Jday Mr. Friedman, after reading this review, I know more about you than I do about the book.

Bitter much?

I wonder how well YOUR life or the lives of those you hold in esteem (ahem) would stand up to the scrutiny you focus on this author.

Surely there are better ways to show off your talent and wit than writing a nasty (yes, nasty) review that doesn't even address the content of the book.

Family Nehila This was a fresh idea for a book and my fifth grader actually read and enjoyed it. This is a children's book - not fodder for your political diatribe. We live in the amazing country with a unique history. We have freedom of speech which allows others to spew hateful ad hominem attacks. There are a lot of authors with personal demons, Hemmingway comes to mind. However, for this venue, we are interested in the book, not the personal attacks on the author.

message 20: by Rob (new)

Rob When author A outsells author B, author B resorts to butt diagrams.

message 21: by Bob (new) - rated it 3 stars

Bob Shaw You never read the book, Mr. Friedman. That much is obvious. And I'd be more than happy to say it to your face. If you want to fight, that's your choice. How disappointing to read this garbage from you. How childish. You sir, need to grow up.

Alyse Morris Well, I can see that you obviously did NOT read the book because you're railing off on topics that don't even pertain to the book. I can see you're only giving a bad review based on the fact that you hate Rush Limbaugh, which I fine you're entitled to your own opinion. You fail to see that this an imaginative book meant for an audience of 10-13 year olds and in those books, even books for adults, time travel is fine! And actually Stephan Hawking said one-way time traveling to the future IS possible but there's no way to build a machine that wouldn't get burned up in the process which makes it improbable. And Rush did not call Sandra a slut he said she must have a lot of sex if she needs tax payers to fund her birth control. And another reason I know you did NOT read the book is because in the book a kid asked why he dressed like that, and you're right the colonial attire was not present in 1620, but Rush Revere said his hero is Paul Revere hence why he changed his name to match his hero. If you're going to trash something two things: first more power to you but second get your facts straight and THEN you can come up with a compelling argument. And one more thing, how can you possibly be an author if you can't look past your bad opinion of someone and see the imagination and creativity?

message 23: by Docwill (new)

Docwill So predictable, a typically ignorant Leftist cheap-shot replete with ad hominem, red herrings and a further panapoly of logical fallacy.

You guys really are out of ideas..

message 24: by Suzy (new)

Suzy Why do you hesitate to post negative reviews of books online? We need to know as much information as possible about books we may want to read-positive as well as negative!

Laurel This was not helpful, a waste of time for both the author and reader and I wish I'd never bothered to read it.

message 26: by Alex (new)

Alex Walker Negative reviews are fine, reviews with hate and spite, no thank you.

message 27: by Alex (new)

Alex Walker "Not helpful"???
What does that mean?
You only read a book if it is helpful????

Laurel I wasn't commenting on the book, I was commenting on the review. Yes, reviews should be helpful, they should help you decide whether to read the book.

message 29: by Alex (new)

Alex Walker A review is a review, looking at some people's comments like this reviewer his was not a review it was simply an attack and was neither helpful or appropriate.
It is fine to write an unhelpful review, as long as it avoids being vindictive.

message 30: by Andy (new)

Andy Armento This is what happens when left wing liberals cannot produce substantiative arguments to validate their point. They instead reduce themselves to name-calling and character-bashing in an attempt to create an irrational thought that their superficial cohorts will support. These are individuals that Limbaugh deems "Low information voters."

This is not a review of a book, but rather a pre-determined opinion of an individual. The writer of this review has no interest in reviewing the content of a book, but is interested in expressing his disgust and hate of someone that desires for children to learn the true history of the founding of our country. Daniel Friedman is not a book critic, but an ideologue. He deserves to be exposed as such.

Briansmom Wow! You sound so bitter! Do you perhaps have your own pilonidal cyst? Hmmm?

message 32: by Vlad (new) - rated it 5 stars

Vlad Z. Impaler Dear Mr. Friedman: Having failed to meet the minimum requirement for either wit or wisdom, please preserve the literary gene pool by exiting the world wide web immediately.

Debra Baker You obviously just hate Rush Limbaugh. This is a children's book remember? My kids love it. Tell me what textbook describes the little known fact that the Pilgrims tried socialism and it didn't work.

message 34: by Kurt (new)

Kurt O'brien Squilliam wrote: "If you read the book how many chapters are there? Can you name a single chapter title? Can you give away anything that may prove that this is a fair book review and not just a lame attempt at drawi..."

You're not very bright, are you, Squilliam?

message 35: by Lisa (new) - added it

Lisa What a sick review. Not funny!!

message 36: by Scarlet (new)

Scarlet Dove Alex wrote: "This is not a review, it is simply someone with a hatred for Rush Limbaugh. It is amazing how many low information Lemmings agree with this commentators bile.

In-built political bias is no base fr..."

Alex, I am in total agreement with you, thank you for your strong comment which also reflects my thoughts!

message 37: by Scarlet (last edited Nov 30, 2013 11:12AM) (new)

Scarlet Dove This is really a book review? Seems like an opportunity for Friedman to vent his political venom against the author, Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Actually the review was rather disgusting and Friedman's scattered mind must stray to strange places to find this kind of garbage for a review, not even relevant to the book content. Some of the distorted history shoved into our children in public school today is distressing and I want them to hear the truth about American history from people who love this country. Shame on you Friedman, this is a childs book which I found humorous and delightful and it was gifted to my grandson.

Briansmom Scarlet wrote: "This is really a book review? Seems like an opportunity for Friedman to vent his political venom against the author, Mr. Rush Limbaugh. Actually the review was rather disgusting and Friedman's sca..."
Bravo, Scarlet! Dittos here!!!!

message 39: by Billy (new)

Billy Sahlen Note to self don't read any Daniel Friedman books because there is obvious Hate there

message 40: by Matt (new)

Matt The political screed notwithstanding, the saddest thing about this review, is that's it attempts to be funny and satirical, yet fails miserably at both.

I don't mind funny, snarky reviews that take shots at the book or its author - but this was just lame. You know why? Because until I got about halfway through, I thought he was poking fun at people who review books without having read them - which *would* have been a great topic - but then I realized that he was just taking the opportunity to blast Limbaugh... and the first part was just an attempt at being "witty".

I also realized that he's not being unfunny on purpose, but rather he's genuinely unfunny. And that's sad.

message 41: by Scarlet (new)

Scarlet Dove Mlyn wrote: "Mr. Friedman, you have rendered me speechless, breathless & urineless - hence I must now wipe down & sanitize the chair I am sitting upon. Unfortunately, since the tears of laughter will not stop f..."

Mlyn, you just revealed much about yourself!

message 42: by Dave (new) - rated it 5 stars

Dave Geez, what a politically-correct moron writing a stupid review...

message 43: by T (new) - rated it 5 stars

T your review shows more than once how you didn't read the book, or if you did, did not retain what you read. You put a lot of words into showing everyone that. too bad for you...

message 44: by Chris (new)

Chris Henk I think I will read one of his books and give my review. Better yet, I won't read it and I'll review it anyway as he has done here. If you are ever in Bucks County PA and are free I'll call you whatever you find most offensive to your face, sir.

message 45: by D (new) - added it

D I think the goal of this book is to try and salvage any shred of American pride in our children--which is referred to as a bad thing in schools now adays. You should give thanks daily that you can write shitty reviews about a book without being beheaded or thrown in a labor camp. Fucking moron.

message 46: by Sandra (new) - added it

Sandra Well, I'll never read another review of any book by D. Friedman. It's one thing to go off on a blog--have at it. But one would expect a reviewer to comment on the contents of the book being reviewed.

Most conservative authors are simply grist for personal attacks, though. When liberals talk about being tolerant, the only thing to do is laugh anymore. Liberals make the most personal and hateful attacks of all. It's a sad thing.

message 47: by RJ (new)

RJ @Sandra - personal attacks? You mean like 80% of Rush's radio show?

message 48: by Dave (new) - rated it 5 stars

Dave What personal attacks from Rush's radio show?

message 49: by Smonsen (last edited Mar 12, 2014 10:37PM) (new)

Smonsen Mr. Friedman, if you have indeed read this book, then you would know why the cover shows the principle character in "colonial garb." You are a liar, you have never read this book, or you would understand the cover. By the way, Rush Limbaugh never called Sandra Fluke a slut or a whore nor is he a drug addict. But since nobody on this site is going to verify your so called fiction posted as fact, I suppose you will get away with it. When you read Rush Limbaugh's book you come away uplifted. When you read Mr. Friedman's review you come a way disgusted. I'm not going to pee my pants nor will I have to sanitize my chair, but I might vomit.

message 50: by Smonsen (last edited Mar 12, 2014 10:41PM) (new)

Smonsen RJ wrote: "@Sandra - personal attacks? You mean like 80% of Rush's radio show?"

RJ, when was the last time Rush Limbaugh personally attacked anyone? I would like you to site the date, and quote the actual attack. Or in other words, prove it. I might have to wait until the 12th of never since it never happened, so I won't hold my breath.

« previous 1
back to top