Rating: 
Summary: Book is Prophetic about Current Events
Review: Sean Hannity's book "Deliver Us from Evil" is well written and interesting. He uses many examples from history to show us why appeasing despots leads only to more war and a greater loss of life in the long run. The real value of the book, however, is how clearly it demonstrates the Machiavellian mindset of the modern Democratic Party. Using examples like the leaked Democrat memo of November 2003, wherein Democrat members of the United States Select Committee on Intelligence plotted to misuse intelligence for partisan purposes, Sean shows how Democrats care more about their party than they do their country. Indeed, the Machiavellian Democrats would sell out the war on terror if it meant recapturing the White House. As Sean shows, modern Dems have no ethic other than their will to power. Sean states in the book that the Democrats planned many public circuses in which Administration officials would be implicated in wrong doing and publicly grilled in Kangaroo Courts, and that the Dems planned to demand the resignation of a high Administration official on whatever pretext they could find, purely to embarrass and weaken Bush in an election year. The highly partisan 9/11 Commission proved him right. Just this past week, another of Sean's predictions came true when Democrat pundits all over the country demanded the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, in spite of the damage this would do to our war effort. The Democrat attack machine is higly scripted and utterly predictable. Democrats are Democrats first and Americans second. That's why they are no longer in power. Let's keep it that way.
Rating:
Summary: raises your blood pressure
Review: Contains a lot of historical information. Facts you didn't know or had forgotton. A must for seeing the "big" picture. Helps you understand what the duel between the "right" and "wrong (left)" is all about. Reading Sean's book and one called "An enemy hath done this" by E.T. Benson, will have you come out swinging.
Rating:
Summary: Sean Hannity pulls no punches
Review: Benjamin Franklin once said, "The sting in any rebuke is the truth." The reason the left is so afraid of Sean Hannity is because he tells the truth. Hannity's book, "Deliver Us From Evil" does not claim that all liberals are evil. It claims that liberals believe that evil does not exist in this world and that they want to believe that everyone is good and can be reasoned with. Hannity uses many examples of this to prove his point. He explains how Jimmy Carter caused the problems in Iran by forcing the Shaw to release the political prisoners and to allow them trials before a judge. The Shaw of Iran trusted his ally, The United States of America, and did, in good faith, what Jimmy Carter instructed him to do, trusting that the United States would come to Iran's aid if things didn't go the right way. When things did go south for the Shaw and Iran, Jimmy Carter turned his back on the Shaw. Jimmy Carter still felt like he could negotiate with the evil people in Iran (the Ayatollah. Instead they were emboldened by his lack of action and felt like they stood up to the big bully the USA. Hannity also proves his point that appeasement doesn't work by illustrating how Neville Chamberlain made concessions with Nazi Germany and allowed Adolf Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia in order to prevent another war. Hannity argues that this emboldened Hitler and actually made Nazi Germany stronger because Czechoslovakia was a strategic location and contained industry that Germany needed for their war efforts. I would like to quote directly from Hannity's book, page 9, "...[O]ur so-called weaknesses, whether lust or greed, do not excuse our evil actions. As human beings, we're confronted with moral choices every day. And if we choose to concoct excuses instead of making moral judgments, before long our sense of good and evil will disappear altogether." This is really what Hannity's book is all about: recognizing good and evil and calling them what they are, standing up to evil and defeating it instead of compromising and appeasing it. Hannity argues that the republicans have done this and the democrats haven't. He does point out that the democrats used to do this. He mentions FDR and JFK and examples of how they stood up to evil. This book is not an attack on the left as many people think. This book is a book on ethics and morality. It bothers the author, and myself, that America has gotten so far away from it's roots. Our founding fathers recognized the existence of a Creator and recognized that we are all endowed by our Creator. The left do not want to recognize the Creator. A nation that doesn't give God credit for its existence and seek Him for guidance will fail. Satan is using the left to turn us away from God and to be subject to the power of evil. Sean Hannity has struck a nerve because his rebuke contains the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Please give me a -5 star rating
Review: Sadly, Sean Hannity and his neocon machine insist that evil simply exists and that we, American do-gooders, must eradicate it. Yes, his understanding of the world is as profound as a two-dollar comic book. The concept of cause and effect seems to elude men like Sean Hannity, and their pathetic explanations for the horrible deeds committed in the world reduces to "uh oh, it must be evil!" When you have such an utter lack of understanding about human nature, you tend to want to destroy what you do not understand. Hence the wars, hence the bitter invective, hence the rabid jingoism of men like Sean Hannity who have absolutely no desire to make the world anything else but a breeding ground for rich, privileged men. Hundreds of new laws were passed after 9/11 for states to enforce; yet funds are yet to be forthcoming from Washington. Funds for Airport security, State security, Border security, Fire & Police requirements, and tracking aliens have been minimally funded. It is estimated that state taxes will have to be increased at least 12% if Bush's plan to relax immigration from our southern border are passed. The U.S. Department of Labor reports the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent in November, with many of the jobless from the manufacturing and service industries. Actual unemployment, counting those who have given up looking for a job and those no longer carried by state databases puts the unemployment rate at closer to 8.7 percent. Manufacturing jobs have declined for 28 months in a row. "This hardship is concentrated in certain regions and in certain industries," said Bush during his speech. "You know what I'm talking about here in the Midwest. You're showing signs of recovery here, yet many people here and across this country are still looking for work." For every job created during the last three years, 1.2 jobs are lost to overseas manufacturing or outsourcing, which the administration seems unable to address. - "It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." - George W. Bush, June 14, 2001. Speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson.
- "They misunderestimated me."-Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000.
- "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."-Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000.
- "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000. Yeah, vote for dubya again. Bush says he supports the military but not one word was written or said by Han-nutty about the cuts in soldier's pay and benefits, cuts in combat pay and overseas cost of living, etc., etc. Nor did he mention anything about Bush's massive cuts in the Veterans Administration health care system for disabled American Patriotic soldiers. Of course he would have been a draft dodger like his idols during the Vietnam War, just like the conservatives he blindly supports. Even if you believe this nut-case, the book is poorly written and overly-simplistic. Hannity is an avid supporter of Ann Coulter. Both are crazed, mean, and bigots who have lost touch with reality. • "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it....it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."-- Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01 • "...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start."-- Speech, 11/01, rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002 • "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."-- Speech to Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002 • "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause."-- Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 • "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."-- New York Observer interview, 8/20/02 * His hero and frequent guest is Disgraced Ex-House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, GOP presidential prospect, and architect of the Republican Party's failed impeachment of President Clinton. Newt caught and admitted in multiyear affair with young aid, while leading the attack on Clinton, finally served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying of cancer. For fun, if you are open minded and looking for those books begging for its pages to be turned...look no further. I just read a copy of Edgar Fouche's 'Alien Rapture,' which astounded me. Fouche was a Top Secret Black Program 'insider', whose credibility has been verified over and over. I also really liked Dan Brown's 'Angels and Demons.' Want to be shocked, check out Dr. Paul Hill's 'Unconventional Flying Objects' which NASA tried to ban. Sad to see that people actually fall for Hannity the circus clown. But, as P.T. Barnum says "there's a sucker born every minute." Buy this book if you're that sucker.
Rating:
Summary: DELIVER US FROM HANNITY, a national disgrace
Review: Loving wife, devoted mother, community volunteer, liberal -- I'm one of those "evils" Hannity would like to "defeat" along with terrorists and despots. Strange company to be in! American liberalism has long been a beacon to the free world -- the bane, not the ally, of terrorists and despots -- but in Hannity's twisted polemic, it's a great evil to be defeated. Using a combination of tactics -- the Big Lie, flagrant distortions, utter hypocrisy -- Hannity recasts liberalism as one long campaign of appeasement against evil enemies, foreign and domestic. LIBERAL APPEASERS? Who does Hannity think were the appeasers, the foes even, of American's proud revolutionary struggle against aristocratic privilege and oppression? And who fought every step of the way against democratization: the abolition of slavery, votes for women, Social Security, civil rights? Hannity knows: it was conservatives, not "evil" liberals. And oh the laughable contortions Hannity must go through to portray liberals as appeasers in foreign affairs! In one particularly egregious passage, he recounts the history of liberal appeasement from WWII to the present...while carefully sidestepping any mention of FDR's name, or that of Truman (Korean war), Kennedy & Johnson (Vietnam), and Clinton (Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts)!!! He conveniently forgets that conservative Republicans (Taft & Wilkie among them), when they were not outright fascist sympathizers, were among the staunchest opponents of WWII and the fight against fascism. Also forgotten: that Bush Sr and Rumsfeld were big Saddam appeasers right up until the first Gulf War. Still more Hannity amnesia: forgetting GOP opposition to the US war in Bosnia and Kosovo, and ignoring the overwhelming bipartisan support for the invasion of Afghanistan. LIBERAL APOLOGISTS? One of the BIG LIES Hannity tells is that liberals don't want to fight evil, they just want to excuse it. This is damnable slander, but it's slander worth examining. Liberals, it's true, are reluctant to use the word evil as readily as conservatives do. Why? First, because once you pronounce something evil, you're no longer under any obligation to understand it. You don't need insight. You don't need to unravel the implications of your actions. For example, once Dubya decided that Saddam was evil, the invasion of Iraq was just a "no-brainer". Never mind that Iraq had no viable WMD program, or that it had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was pronounced evil, so we took him out. Except that now we're baffled: we find that most Iraqis do not welcome the humiliation of having been liberated by Americans (rather than by themselves), that many believe that their families are in greater jeopardy today than they were under Saddam, and that they fear the prospects of conflict among Iraq's varied ethnic, religious, and tribal groups. A second reason for liberal reluctance to call people evil? When you do, you dehumanize them, making them easier to kill with a clear conscience. What did Hitler tell Germans about Jews? That they were evil, that Germans were doing humankind a favor by exterminating them. What does Coulter say about liberals? "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too." And: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the NY Times Building." Which brings me to the biggest IRONY behind Hannity's words. He talks exactly like the terrorists and despots he says he wants to fight! "You can't negotiate with evil. You can't compromise with it. You can't give ground to it. You can only defeat it or it will defeat you." And you wonder why there's no peace in the Middle East?! Hamas, ultra-right wing Likudniks, and Bin Laden all talk like this, all see the world in black and white. So do the fascist-sympathizers in Japan. Like Hannity, they believe in standing up to the enemy (in this case, us). Like Hannity, they excoriate liberals who have the temerity to bring up wartime atrocities. Says right-wing Japanese nationalist Shintaro Ishihara: The Rape of Nanking never happened. Says Karen Hughes about Kerry: "I was very troubled by the kinds of allegations that he hurled against his fellow veterans." A few more lies, hypocrisies and distortions from this awful book: 1) Hannity claims that "Clinton made Saddam bolder and Iraq stronger." Actually it was Reagan and Bush Sr who did that when they sold him both conventional and chemical weapons. Clinton, by contrast, kept Saddam (and by extension, Iraqi fundamentalism) contained. Similarly, Hannity lies when he claims that "Saddam was working feverishly to produce WMD". Absolutely false. The world knows it; even Hannity knows it. 2) Hannity deliberately conflates liberals with extreme leftists. Chomsky's an anarchist, the antiwar group A.N.S.W.E.R. is Marxist. Both have as much contempt for liberals as Hannity does. 3) Hannity has the gall to attack Wesley Clark for "standing by while the UN refused to stop the genocide in Rwanda." Hannity has a big mouth. Why didn't we hear him so much as whisper a plea for US troops to go to Rwanda? When did Hannity ever give a damn about anyone who didn't look like him, talk like him, or get rich from political opportunism as he does? The fact is, Americans would never have supported US intervention in Rwanda, and Hannity knows it. 4) Hannity claims Kerry lacks the "strong moral compass" to lead this country. Hmmmm. When asked why he didn't serve in Vietnam, Cheney replied: "I had other priorities." So a politician who makes one of the most immoral (not to mention politically autistic) comments in recent American history has a "strong moral compass", while a man who served his country does not? 5) Hannity sees terrorist threats coming only from swarthy foreigners. He fails to note that the FBI's biggest counterterrorist arrest since 9/11 was of Texas white supremacist William Krar! Any wonder that a Pew study found FOX viewers the most misinformed about current events?! Deliver us from Hannity!....PuhLEEZ!
Rating:
Summary: Defeat despotism in the US first!
Review: Just this morning it was announced that Disney has caved in to pressure from JEB Bush, and they are refusing to distribute Micahel Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Is this what the Founding Fathers fought for? Is it not time to remember Voltaire's words: I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will down my life for your right to say it", or even Jesus's words: The truth shall set you free.
Hannity, read your bible!
Rating:
Summary: Boring - Waste of money
Review: Very very boring and dull. I read A. Coulters book which was much better, on the same theme. This is a one note book and is written in an uninteresting style. I found myself skipping around thinking it would get better. Don't waste your money.
Rating: 
Summary: the skeptic times reviewer
Review: After reading this book, like with all books I spent much time searching through the endnotes and footnotes. As with many books some people make up information or take things out of context. I can tell you that from the random information I searched, it looks like all of his facts were straight. This is important because no one wants to read a liar. Good book and I highly recommend it to conservatives. This book may not be a book for liberals however, since the author is a conservative radio talk show host.
Rating:
Summary: Look...
Review: In my little post here, I'm not going to wave flags or espouse the virtues of one party over another, praise or bash Bush. My political orientation is "inactive". I don't care for either party, hence seldom venture out to the poles. I'm far from a flaming "Lib" (unless by "Lib" you mean "libertarian") and lean further to the right philosophically than many of you, probably. I am posting here to give two examples of why this book is a journalistic disgrace, and Hannity should be discredited as an author. For your consideration I give you: Exhibit A)
Page 22. Hannity cites a 10/22/01 New York Times op ed that discusses the US military's action in Afghanistan after 9/11. He claims NYT's opinion is that... "[The US] was not strong enough to conquer these foes, so we might as well compromise before we suffer too much. It was only the latest evidence of how little faith the Times truly has in the resolve of the American military." This is NOT the gist of the NYT op ed. In fact, this article says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what Hannity describes. The op ed states: "Even though the risks are great, President George W. Bush made the right choice". And it concludes, "As [our soldiers] go [to war] they should know that the nation supports their cause and yearns for their success." ->Does this seem to you that the NYT had "little faith in the military" or the President? Hannity's description of the NYT op ed is a blatant lie.<- If that isn't bad enough, let's talk about Neville Chamberlain for a spell. Hannity goes back through time to give us a distorted, outdated and incorrect account of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy toward Hitler prior to WWII. It is THE example he cites of why dictators can't be appeased and how such policies invariably lead to disaster. In Chamberlain's case, according to Hannity, appeasement resulted a bloody world war and millions of deaths. He uses Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement policy" to set-up his strawman arguments against Carter, Clinton, and liberals. That would be all well and good if his history of Chamberlain was accurate. However, his account of Chamberlain is WRONG! I give you exhibits B and C. Exhibit B is a passage from a well-known on-line encyclopedia, encyclopedia4u.com. I selected this to illustrate that this view of appeasement borders on common knowledge, not a fringe view. Exhibit C is from BBC World History. I think the BBC knows a little bit about British History. Exhibit B)
"Chamberlain's professed commitment to avoiding war with Hitler resulted in his controversial policy of "appeasement," which culminated in the Munich Pact (1938). Although contemporaries and scholars during and after the war criticized Chamberlain for believing that Hitler could be appeased, recent research argues that Chamberlain was not so naive and that appeasement was a shrewd policy developed to buy time for an ill-prepared Britain to rearm. Exhibit C)
"Chamberlain, the man who made appeasement famous, was from a family of statesmen...appeasement (however) has seldom been discussed in this light, and most of his critics have misrepresented his position. The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism...He strongly supported sanctions against Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and was a vocal supporter of rearmament after 1934...Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness..." I could cite a dozen souces which all say, basically, that Chamberlain only "appeased" Hitler to stall while he frantically worked to rearm Britain to prepare for an inevitable war. Any cursory research (at, say, an 8th grade level) would show this. Of course, the commonly accepted true account of Chamberlain's appeasement policy doesn't really help Hannity's cause, does it? So, what's the writer of a right-wing screed to do? Twist ths facts. I have illustrated here a blatant lie and a sorry case of fact twisting and half truths on the part of this unqualified infotainer/"author". I won't even get into his laughable cherry-picking of history, that's to be expected from a right-wing AM radio zealot. Don't mind being lied to by a dishonest author as long as what he's espousing is congruent with your political POV? Be my guest. As for me I find such tactics - regardless of political orientation, unconscionable. For those who listen to Hannity daily, what I have created in this post is a "logical argument" based on something know as "facts". Logic and facts may be foreign to you... this is what they look like.
Rating:
Summary: Best on the subject today
Review: I thought this work was his best. It is a fact-based discussion of why Americans are targeted here and abroad and why the efforts to stop evil must remain our responsibility. A must read for all US Citizens, regardless of your political affiliation.
| 
