Rating: 
Summary: AWESOME!
Review: This is the best blueprint for restoring freedom in America I have ever seen. Simple. Profound. On the mark.
Rating: 
Summary: I Expected More
Review: When I bought this book, I couldn't wait for it to arrive at my home. I had heard such wonderful things about this book!When I began to read the book I was left disappointed. I began to wonder how we will ever take back America. It has been so long since we had America. Now I plan to re-read to see if I missed something. Maybe then we will be able to take back America. This is my dream. I come to this country as immigrant. But we must work hard if we are to take back America. It is hard to take back America but I think we can.
Rating: 
Summary: Good ideas flawed by mediocre writing and presentation
Review: ~Taking America Back~ is a political platform for change and a diagnosis of America's cultural and political crisis. Though, I have mixed feelings about this book. I am almost tempted to give the esteemed WorldNetDaily journalist four-stars, but the book is hindered by its simplistic writing style and presentation. I agree and acquiesce with much of what Farah says, but the book is not very well written. Moreover, too many things are just taken for granted as good ideas and are not substantiated. Also, as an avid WND reader, I could not help but to notice that quite a bit of this book is a patchwork of separate articles minced together.
While his reform platform has an aurora of libertarian appeal to it, Farah avows he is not a libertarian. He sees a flaw undermining libertarianism, chiefly its insistence on a cosmopolitian, borderless world. Like it or not libertarians, this view sums up the Left Coast Libertarians who read 'Reason Magazine' in a nutshell. (Perhaps, some venom could be saved for the cosmo-conservatives (i.e. neocons) in orbit around the Beltway that see the world the same way many libertarians do: culture means nothing and mammon is the measure of all things.) Nonetheless, Farah characterizes himself as a revolutionary, NOT a conservative. This is one of my chief misgivings with Farah is his peculiar semantic reading of 'conservative' and 'conservatism.' Farah hints he is NOT a conservative, because basically there is nothing left to conserve. This peculiar interpretation and reductionist rendering of the word undermines what conservatism is about. Such non-sense gives creedence to those who act as if a hardline communist in the former Soviet Union is a conservative. The essence of conservatism- is conserving those things that give many to life: the intangibles: faith, family and community. Moreover, for all of Farah's jawboning that he is a "revolutionary," perhaps he should consider himself a "counterrevolutionary" in the spirit of Edmund Burke.
Notwithstanding my criticism, he conveys some great political truth, which is certain to resonate with Middle America. Did you know America is a republic, not a democracy? Our founders seldom had good things to say about the later anyway. Farah delves into the unconstitutional exploits of the 20th century and offers a blueprint for undoing the damage. He tackles issues of a morality and culture in crisis and sees a restoration of Christian values and revitalizing the family as important. He puts principle over political expediency and dares to propose what many see as politically untenable, namely the repeal of the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve system. He does a good job at analyzing our defense dillema and gives a clarion call for bringing our troops home from globalist peacekeeping missions, strengthening our military and implementing a civil defense program. His chapter on Individual Rights or Group Rights is interesting, albeit flawed since he relies chiefly on invoking MLK, Jr. as our model. When one delves deeper, one sees through King's writings and speeches, that King would not have a problem with the communal or group rights mentality. King was a closet Marxist and pushing for a so called Poor People's Campaign, which called for massive wealth redistribution and social welfare shortly before his tragic assassination. This is one of the darker sides of the 1960s Civil Rights movement and Barry Goldwater was astute in seeing the direction it was headed towards.
All things considered, Farah captures a rising political sentiment amongst Middle America that Beltway elites in power ignore. He articulates a populist conservatism. Its pillars include: eradicating the Welfare State; strengthening the family; a strong defense based on strategic independence; a civil defense initiative; retreating from internationalism in favor of America First nationalism; and restoring the concept of republican self-government by honoring the Tenth Amendment.
| 
