Rating: 
Summary: Read This Book, and be enlightened!
Review: Sean Hannity, without a doubt, provides insight into the minds of the Democratic party. If you have ever had any doubts about the course of the country, and what we need to do to protect the USA, then you need to read this book. It will truly open your eyes to the dangers we as Americans face. We must not let the Democratic Party, the Party of Appeasement, back into office. To do so would be giving victory to the terrorists.
Rating:
Summary: Hannity Thoroughly & Eloquently Explains the Brutal Truth
Review: Hannity points out the pragmatic and post-9/11 ideology of this global war on terror. He said imagine for a second that Bush decided not to go into Iraq or instead continued diplomacy via the UN (after 12 years and 17 resolutions), and Saddam Hussein continued his WMD program that EVERYONE knew he had...and then in 2006 Al Qaeida manages to kill 30,000 US citizens with biological weapons which we later find out originate from Iraq. OH how the liberals would criticize Bush then for not taking out Saddam in 2002. Now if the issue is solely about getting the French, Germans, and Russians to join (which of course would have been better) is because they chose not to for political reasons. Oil for Food.And although Saddam didn't kill 7+ million people like Hitler, he did murder hundreds of thousands of his own people - many with WMD - and still would be today had we not stepped in. And I thought the Democrats were the "compassionate" party? Do you really think the Iraqis want tyranny over democracy? They want to be free like us...which we all too often take for granted. Right now the majority in Iraq is scared of the extremists in the rebellion that we are successfully quelling. And remember, democracy can't be accomplished over night. We occupied Germany for something like 7 years after the fall of the Nazis. Japan's also doing pretty well these days...despite our wrath after Pearl Harbor. If you still think Bush "mislead" or "betrayed" us or "rushed to war" in Iraq, Hannity asks if Saddam didn't have WMD then why did he act in defiance? He says the more intellectually honest question is "where are they?" Many Democrats are still in this Pre-9/11 mindset. However I think the majority of people understand why our new PROactive approach to terrorism is the only way to ensure long-term peace and prosperity in not only this country but the whole world. If there's one thing we learned from 9-11 it's that the same old "wait and see" or "hope for the best" policies are not only naive but also dangerous. We don't have the luxury to wait until a threat is "imminent" which is why preemptive force was used on a "gathering" threat.
Rating: 
Summary: Dull, Simplistic Read that has Everything in Black and White
Review: This book was really dull. I mean really, really dull. Especially if, like me, you have already read Ann Coulter's book Treason. Both books have two themes, as far as I can tell (1) all liberals are treasonous lying weasels and (2) Ronald Regan was an inspired genius, and George W. Bush bodes well to follow in his shoes. Actually, I can really only say this about the first half of this book, as I then decided that life is too short to read any more of it.
If you already believe the mantra above and want to feel justified by reading it in print, you will like this book. Alternately, if want an example of how conservatives are simplistic thinkers whose heavy handed arguments lack any coherency, much less finesse, this book should work for you just fine as well. Anyone else should just skip this book and read the Da Vinci Code; you'll get as much enlightenment.
The sad thing is, I've voted Republican all my life and even I can't stand this stuff. How does boring, plagiarized drivel like this become a bestseller?
Rating:
Summary: Best Book ever
Review: If you are tired of receiving half of the story from CNN, I advised you review this book. The fact speaks for itself. You owe it to yourself to know the truth, and that my friend, will 'Deliver You From Evil'
Rating:
Summary: Historical cherry-picking of the worst sort
Review: In regards to the historical research in this book, I will give Sean Hannity the benefit of the doubt here. It is possbible that he is honestly ignorant of the vast amounts of historical research of which he could have availed himself while writing this book, but he strikes me as being overall a pretty intelligent perceptive individual. If one rules out base ignorance & stupidity as a cause, then one is left with only one other option: Sean Hannity is deliberately and knowingly engaging in historical cherry-picking to forward his agenda. Now, this may be just fine in a talk-radio format or forensics, where you put forth the data that best shores up your argument. However, when you venture into the field of history (and whether Hannity likes it or not, his book is as much a history as it is a discussion of current events), the academic discipline of history as we now practice it demands that certain standards of scholarship be met. In this Hannity has failed abysmally. Historical cherry-picking, of course, is the selective use of some facts (and the deliberate omission of others) to construct a historical record that (usually) conforms to pre-conceived ideological notions. In more extreme cases (such as David Irving & other Holocaust deniers, for example) this is known as pseudohistory, where the actual history is totally re-written. Holocaust deniers will latch on to specific data, which is proveable in and of itself (but is taken out of context), and from that selectively employed data, extrapolate that the Holocaust never happened. Hannity of course comes nowhere near doing something that extreme, but his selectively interpretive history uses the same basic methodology as Holocaust deniers. In particular, he uses as the basis for most of his arguments the spectre of appeasement, particularly Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of Hitler in the 1938 Munich Pact. Clearly Hannity has no knowledge of the current historical treatment of this event, or he simply chooses to ignore it. Chamberlain's strategy has been significantly re-evaluated in recent years, and it is now quite apparent that Chamberlain, far from being the naive optimist, knew perfectly well that the Munich Pact would not avert war. Chamberlain, aware that Britain was in no way prepared to launch a war on the continent, was actually buying time with the Munich Pact, time that allowed him to begin the rearmament of Britain for the war he knew was coming. The reason Hannity brings up Chamberlain and appeasement is that he professes to believe that if Britain and France had just opened a can of whup-ass on the Nazis in 1938, the horrors of the subsequent global war might very well have been averted. Unfortunately, it ignores the logistical realities: neither France nor Britain was materially prepared to fight a prolonged war, and neither country had the means to get troops easily to the Sudetenland, which is where all the action was at. When Hannity's argument is subjected to this sort of scrutiny (something he generally does not have to deal with on his radio show), it collapses in a heap. Since it is in large part the basis of all of his subsequent arguments, the book as a whole falls apart. Other cherry-picking can be written off to your standard-issue partisan interests. Any resistance to a call to arms, when it comes from the Democrats or the (apparently monolithic) "liberals" is condemned universally by Hannity as further examples of "appeasement," with its attendant results. However, similar behavior by conservatives or the Republicans are either ignored (GOP isolationism from 1920 to just prior to World War II) or are deftly palmed off on the ineptitude of the Democrats (Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair). Again, tactics of this sort may be acceptable in talk radio or in a debate format, but historians have worked hard to establish firm standards of scholarship within the discipline. If Hannity were to submit his appeasement argument as a master's thesis, for example, he would be eaten alive. If this something he is unable to do, perhaps Hannity should restrict his activities to talk radio and columns on only the most current affairs, which is more suited to his methodology. However, when he ventures into writing history, Hannity should be held to the same standards as a legitimate, professional historian.
Rating: 
Summary: An important book for our morally confused times...
Review: One need not even begin the table of contents of this book to get some glimpse into its author, Sean Hannity, because the two pages before say it all. Hannity dedicates his book to his wife and children, "The greatest gift G-d ever gave me," and the following page is a prayer beseeching that G-d "deliver us from evil." Those two pages alone speak volumes into Hannity's character and value system. Throughout the book, Hannity's message is clear and simple- "evil is real. It exists. It cannot be negotiated or compromised with; evil must be defeated, before it defeats you" (paraphrased from page 6.) Equally central is the notion that morality is not relative, but rather emanates from a transcendant G-d who gave mankind an absolute system of good and evil, right and wrong, one that's symbolized in America's Judeo-Christian belief system. Because liberals tend to not affirm this absolute standard, Hannity rightly contends they often fail to see moral questions clearly. Drawing upon history, including chapters on two of the greatest evils known to the 20th century-- Nazism and Communism, Hannity demonstrates the dangers of appeasement. He applies these lessons to the today's current fight against the evils in our own times as displayed in the US led "War on Terror." In articulating the mind set of liberals (page 85), I was delighted that Hannity drew upon one of the most influential individuals in my life, Dennis Prager, to do so. However, I do take issue with a point made in the chapter dealing with the presidential candidates of 2004 wherein Hannity downplays the candidacies of men like Sharpton and Kucinich due to the fact they had no chance of securing the nomination. I disagree. The very fact that a bigot and anti-Semite of Al Sharpton's caliber was welcomed into the tent of Democratic Party is revealing of the party and is most noteworthy. It begs commentary into a party, that while once historically a haven for Jews, has increasingly begun to alienate Jews for many reasons, including, perhaps most notably, the lack of moral-clarity on the Left regarding the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Incidentally, Hannity discusses this conflict in the last pages of this book. His moral clarity and affirmation of Israel's right to exist and defend herself from terror is utterly refreshing. As a Jew, I thank you Sean Hannity for your defense and love of the Jewish people, and her homeland, the State of Israel. G-d bless you and this important book.
Rating:
Summary: Wow!!!!
Review: If someone wants to know what a real whacko is thinking then they should read this book. Here's a guy who never did anything but see something wrong in everybody that doesn't think the same way he does. Here's a guy that thinks we should "go over there" and get 'em, while he sits behind a desk somewhere. Here's a guy who quit, and is telling the rest of us never to quit. Come on now....we must all be stupid. I'm telling you this guy's got a screw loose and he keeps prooving it by writing books.....and making money....
Rating:
Summary: Great Read
Review: This is a great read... (...)
Rating: 
Summary: Younger Rush
Review: As a far right-wing, Christian reverend, one might think I'd be behind this guy. After reviewing the work, this cannot be the case. Although Hannity does indentify a lot of the problems, much like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Acoulter, the solution is "vote reuplican.". As if the republicans hold some better track record then democrats. Jesus never choose the lesser evil, why should we? He succesfully indentifies the problems, gives the root of them(hate and money), but the best he can really offer is that if we get out and vote; somehow things will change. As if the majority of Americans are "truely" Christians and or share the same beliefs. He uses God for inspiration but fails to heed any of God's solutions. God certainly wouldn't advocate voting republican anymore than voting democrat. Hannity really fails to find fault with his solution. If the republicans as a whole, were moral, ethical or even simply Christian, then maybe there would be a change and things could be reclaimed. Given the fact he skims over Bush's failed policies, politics and shady dealings, he's provided nothing more than a one sided argument. If one ignores fault on his own side, he can't be expected to be a good leader. If one has listened to his radio or tv show for sometime, most of it will seem like old material. Having read many other conservative books and being familiar with other conservative shows, Hannity isn't unique. New name and face, same old arguments. No solutions that don't involve circular reasoning(voting) or that haven't been said before. All in all, simply a younger Rush Limbaugh.
Rating:
Summary: Sean Should Have Finished School...
Review: Hannity uses Neville Chamberlain' s "appeasement" policy as the lynchpin of his whole book. He blames this policy for WWII and millions of deaths... etc., then later ties appeasement to Carter, and Clinton, etc. (Though, curiously, Uncle Ronnie's Iran Contra scandal is left out. Hmmmm. Wonder why?) However, his whole retelling of Chamberlain's appeasement policy is just WRONG! It's not the commonly held view of MODERN WWII scholars - and what is thought in general! Look below, the Columbia Encyclopedia. I cite an encyclopedia to illustrate that this is a commonly held view, not some flake academic's opinion. Look, see? "During the 1930s, 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." I could easily cite a dozen sources all saying the same thing.
Hannity builds his case on a faulty premise and very dated history. IT NEGATES THE WHOLE PREMISE OF HIS BOOK! (...)
|
