Rating: 
Summary: DELIVER US FROM HANNITY
Review: A reviewer wrote:"Hannity weighs in on three subjects seen in the headlines since 9/11 - terrorists, dictators, and liberalism." Good God, liberalism named in the same category as terrorists and dictators? Now I'm convinced that the right wing are ultra-paranoid and ultra-ignorant. The Bush administration has played on peoples' greatest fears: WMD, 9/11 and terrorism. The greater the insecurity and the more fearful a person is, the greater their vulnerability. Bush's administration is a master at exploiting and manipulating those vulnerabilities. Hannity is a coward at best; caught in the time warp of the McCarthy and Reagan era's where we fought the relatively non-existent enemy known as "communism" that Hannity now equates with "liberalism." Remember how many innocent American boys died in Vietnam to fight the enemy "communism?"; communism, an entity, that by brainwashing we were taught to be so terrified of and in reality, had no basis of ever existing within America. How tragically sad. Liberals don't hate America, terrorists do. Focus on the real enemy; defeat those that hate us and wish to destroy us. For those that are so paranoid so as to claim that Liberals are out to destroy America, are not only ignorant, but they are dangerous. America was founded on the principle that each of us has a right to think/believe what and how we wish. As a moderate-to-liberal, I am no less patriotic than a neoconservative and I deeply resent the implication by conservatives that I am. The hatred and distortions that Hannity perpetuates are the real enemies. Hannity and other paranoid types like him are destroying the fabric of our country by pitting liberals and conservatives against each other. In that light, if we permit such a thing to happen, we truly are our own worst enemy. Shame, shame, shame.
Rating: 
Summary: ChickenHawk Fare
Review: Mr. Hannity was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq and he really has no choice but to keep on keepin' on.
I recalled hearing him say things like "WE are coming to get you Saddam". The last time I checked, Mr. Hannity was planted safely and securely behind a microphone while American soldiers were being blown up by roadside bombs. Like the President he supposedly idolizes, Mr. Hannity apparently had other interests than volunteering to serve his country in the military.
He is an adequate writer but why bother when you can turn on the radio or TV and watch him use his McCarthy-like "patriotism" to educate (berate) those who dare suggest that some of America's problems are of her own making. He has cleverly titled his two books with well known phrases from any baby-boomers childhood, "Let Freedom Ring" and "Deliver us from Evil".
He has a guaranteed audience with the delusional "Leave it to Beaver" crowd as long as he keeps on keepin' on.
Rating: 
Summary: OPINION WORTH HEARING
Review: Sean Hannity rings in on some important issues. In his first book, _Let Freedom Ring_, Hannity warned readers about liberalism invading the press, government and classrooms. In _Deliver Us From Evil_, Hannity weighs in on three subjects seen in the headlines since 9/11 - terrorists, dictators, and liberalism. Using written history Hannity shows how he feels the evils of dictatorship and terrorism reached our shores. He more or less lays the blame at Clinton's feet, in that he neglected foreign affairs for eight years and knowingly let Ben Laden slip into the evil abyss where his army strengthened and came back with 9/11. Carter is seen as a president soft on dictatorship and terrorism, a man who even now avoids conflict at the risk of the US. The written facts and history are enlightening, not to mention informative. His opinions are worth consideration. They read like warnings, but this being an election year his book will most likely be lumped with those spouting political rhetoric. In Hannity's case, his book may be seen as political pandering for President Bush. All the same, those concerned with their country's safety should give this a good read through.
Rating: 
Summary: Convincing and well-written book!
Review: "Deliver Us from Evil" is an excellent, well-written book, which I think any conservative, moderate, and not too far left liberal could enjoy. Those on the far left will probably not enjoy the book. Unfortunately, they are the ones who really need to read it. This book is not deep political analysis, but a great book for understanding the "big" picture. Trust me! Many people, especially those on the far left are clueless, so read it! The book is logical, understandable, well researched, and a great history lesson. Some angry reviewers (whom I don't think really read the book) claim that this book is hate speech against liberals. This is false. Sean Hannity is not the Al Franken of the right (yes, I read Al Franken's silly diatribes as well). I used to be left-leaning myself, among my friends and family there are many left-wingers whom I love, and I did not think this was anti-liberal hate speech. However, the book will demonstrate, convincingly, why many of the tenets and attitudes of the far left, not only are wrong, but dangerous and aids evil. This book will cause some leftist to change their minds, but those with a lot of pride vested in their beliefs might get angry. Hannity convincingly explains and demonstrates the dangers of appeasement. He is using many examples from history to do so. One of these examples was based on Neville Chamberlain's "appeasement policy" toward Hitler before WWII. The problem with this example is that it is likely that Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler as a stall tactic. Some negative reviewers use this "mistake" to "prove" that Hannity is a fool, a liar, etc, and claims it negates the entire premise of his book, and that it renders it laughable, etc. First, what the motivation behind Chamberlain's "appeasement policy" really was is not nearly as important to Hannity's thesis, as the effect it had on Hitler's actions. So, what is the big deal? Secondly, a single bad example (if it is bad at all) among many good examples hardly disproves Hannity's thesis, and it does not render his book laughable. Use a little common sense, and try to understand the "big picture". In chapter eight Hannity describes how he uncovered a conspiracy concocted by Democratic staff members of the SSCI, to use the committee's ongoing review of intelligence activities for their own political purposes. I did not realize how bad this was. Horrible! I understand that both parties are playing politics, but today it seems that the Bush hate in the Democratic Party can excuse anything. Where is the outrage? On page, 266 and 267 Hannity's is discussing "internationals from Sweden". I am Swedish but I am sorry to say I have to agree with Sean Hannity. I can also add (regrettably) that Swedes are often indoctrinated, prejudiced, deluded, socialists, who have no business telling American leaders what to do (I said that, not Hannity). Sweden is often hailed by the far left as a "cute, beautiful, fantastic place", and that made me feel proud once. Unfortunately, it is a lie, and the Swedes themselves have no clue. I am very happy my kids will grow up in America. Please you on the left, stop hailing this lost, ultra-appeasement nation. It is nothing but bad news for your children's future. In addition, Sweden's so often admired, but savings-crazy, low quality national health care, most likely killed my mother. Lastly a few inspirational quotes from the book: P.9 Even after 9/11, some voices have charged that one man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter. To that I ask: How many noble freedom fighters target innocent women and children? How many build torture chambers in the basements of their official buildings? P.12 (Ronald Reagan)
We have the power to conquer any nation, but we do not. We have the power to enslave any people, but we don't. We have the power to loot any nation of its natural resources, but we don't. Instead, America sends her young men and women to war to defend the weak. P.26
The left-wing elites in this country have pushed their obsessive anti-Americanism so far that they've lost all perspective on the real evils being perpetrated around the world. P.122
Shame-based cultures, found mostly in the Islamic Middle East, are most likely to attack an enemy who appears weak, rather than strong and threatening. P.138
Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong. P.147 After all, the U.S. Constitution makes clear that protecting the nation is the number one responsibility of the federal government. It is not the job of any international body. P.234
Despite the overheated rhetoric from the left, no one is being prosecuted for his political opinions.
Rating:
Summary: Can Hannititoids Handle The Truth?
Review: Hannity hangs his entire, and entirely lame, "git them before they git us" argument on the appeasement policy of Neville Chamberain. According to Hannity, Chamberlain did not have the "moral clarity" to confront Hitler, and instead "appeased" him, which resulted in WWII, and millions of deaths and atrocities. Had Chamberlain had the "moral clarity" to defeat Hitler, WWII would have been avoided, in the (neocon ,chickenhawk, dream-) world of Hannity. To make his case, Hannity conveniently omits or distorts the facts regarding Chamberlain and his appeasement policy. Below, I've selected passages from various encyclopedias and the BBC to illutrate that these views are widely held - not some obscure view found in a scholarly dissertation, and to show just how blatant Hannity's sins of omission are: Wikipedia:
However, this view (my note: view described is similar to Hannity's) has been criticised as being inconsistent with the historical facts. Under Chamberlain, the United Kingdom undertook a massive expansion of its military and war industry and instituted a peacetime draft. According to some historians, Chamberlain was under no illusions about the aims and goals of Nazi Germany, but was informed by his military advisers that Britain was in no condition to fight Germany over Czechslovakia. Seen from this vantage point, Chamberlain's actions in Munich were less a cowardly and ignorant cave-in, but rather a calculated and necessary tactic to buy time so that Britain could rearm against the Nazi menace. The rearmament program accelerated after Hitler's seizure of Czechoslovakia, and by the time Hitler's armies attacked Poland, Britain was well on its way to building its own war machine to confront Nazi Germany' Grolier Encyclopedia
most of his critics have misrepresented his position. (my note - that "position" being the one Hannity prescribes to...) The urgent desire to negotiate with Hitler and Mussolini did not, in Chamberlain's case, spring from pacifism... Nor was he ignorant of the menace of the dictators. Few people linked the need for rearmament more strongly with the ambitions of Germany. Chamberlain's willingness to negotiate with Hitler was thus more than a result of a sense of military weakness Encyclopedia (dot com...)
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. BBC World History
Chamberlain's policy of appeasement was seen as a failure by many at the time, and for many years to follow. Current thinking has shifted, however, believing Chamberlain to have shrewdly agreed to appeasement to give the British armed forces the time they desperately needed to prepare for full-blown war. So I've presented facts and evidence that just about negates the entire point of Hannity's book. The view of Chamberlain's fearful appeasement of Hitler being a cause for WWII has been debunked for many years. Do you think Hannity came up with this all on his own? LOL! This argument has been part of the neocon chickenhawk playbook since the 60's. They don't even dare trot this one out anymore. Modern historians view Chamberalin as a shrewed tacticician who desperately needed time to complete the aggressive re-armamant initiative he had started. Notice that Churchill inherited (pun intended) a nice battle ready military - including trained soldiers, as Chamberlain had instituted, despite opposition, a peace time draft. Britain's military readiness didn't happen by accident, and to have confronted Hitler PREMATURELY would have had disasterous consequences. I didn't cite something from the "liberal media" here folks, nor some obsure scholarly dissertation, nor some partisan rant. I don't think Viacom owns the BBC, who would know a little about British history. Chamberlain was their Prime Minsiter, after all. So, some questions for the Hannitoids: 1. If Hannity's case was so air tight, why would he omit the modern, widely-held perspective of Chamberlain's appeasement policy in favor of the outdated and inaccurate perspective? 2. If Hannity straw man case against liberals is based on an innacurate view of Chamberlain's appeasement policy, doesn't that render his entire case against liberal appeasement meaningless?Don't you think this widely-held perspective should be addressed, or an attempt be made to negate it since it effectively nullifies Hannity's entire aniti-appeasement case? 3. Do you accept everything someone says as fact just because they're on radio and TV? 4. Do you think that, since the research here took all of 10 minutes on Google, that Hannity was aware of it and INTENTIONALLY ignored it? Whould he have ignored it since it nullifies his entire argument, and he thinks his fans are morons and wouldn't be the wiser anyway? I'll answer question 1 for you. Although liberals may lack the "moral clarity" to defeat evil; Hannity lacks the "moral clarity" to be truthful. Sean? I know you're out there (begging, pathetically, for 5 star reviews...) I'm calling you out, boy, for an intellectual spankin'.
Rating:
Summary: Why does the left disparage the truth?
Review: Sean Hannity is a "great American" who loves this country. His book is a ecumenical look at the forces at work inhibiting the democratization of the global community, including the liberal base of politically charged radicals living within our borders. Three cheers for Mr. Hannity, for his boldness and convictions, and for his decisive attempt to tell the world the truth about evil.
Rating:
Summary: Truth Hurts!
Review: To read this book is to open ones eyes and realize that evil exists and we can not sit by and hope nothing will happen if we just make nice. If it is possible to talk to rational people, then real peace can be found. However as Sean points out in many ways we are not dealing with rational people...
His book lays out clearly what we are dealing with on every level, it is a true eye-opener.. I would suggest everyone reads this... I also dare say.. had such a book been written prior to WW2... The war may not have happend and millions would not have been lost.
A great read in my veiw... try it.. you just may like it and actually learn something!
Rating:
Summary: DELIVER US FROM ARROGANT, HYPOCRITICAL SMEAR TACTICS
Review: Hannity claims that MOST liberals aren't evil, but rather misguided people who make Americans more vulnerable to terrorism and sow moral confusion in our children. His solution? Not to have a productive dialogue with them but to DEFEAT them. That's right, Sean, you're innocent of any malicious intent. And so would I be if I titled my book: Deliver us from Evil: Defeating Chickenhawks, Racists and Conservatives. (NOT!) No, actually, I'd be resorting to the old smear by association, a technique perfected by Lee Atwater and his acolytes among the GOP right wing. I refuse to do that, because I'm proud to live in a nation of laws and reason; like the founding fathers, I dread the consequences to our democracy if we give in to ugly passions like hatred and spite. Limbaugh might call Daschle "Hanoi Tom", Rep. Tom Davis might accuse Daschle of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy". But when GOP lawmakers publicly opposed the war in Bosnia even as our troops were over there fighting, we liberals didn't call the war critics traitors. I'm proud of that. That's as it should be in this great republic of ours. Now why doesn't Hannity want a debate? Easy. Because then he might get called on his cherry-picked "facts", his distortions, outright lies and ludicrous lapses in critical thinking. Too bad. Critical thinking is what has made America the greatest of nations. We like to roll up our sleeves and solve problems. It's why we lead in science and technology, medicine, entrepreneurship, academia, etc. It's what Americans need to practice more of in politics if we're to break the current gridlock. No, I don't believe in retaliating against Hannity-supporters by smearing conservatives as evil. As I've suggested that would cause hate-filled divisions in America, preclude the possibility of cooperating, finding common ground or learning something of value from conservatives. It would also mean that I couldn't make distinctions between kinds of wrongdoing... I'd just take a big sledgehammer to anything I found morally repugnant. For example, I'd be compelled to call Pat Robertson evil for working with depraved Liberian tyrant Samuel Doe and other African despots in an effort to make a killing in the gold and diamond mines. And if Robertson is evil, and Doe is evil, how'd I even begin to distinguish between them? Osama Bin Laden sure doesn't know how. He thinks we Americans are evil; every last one of us. He can't distinguish between a serial killer and a little girl sitting with her parents in row F on a United Airlines flight. Right-wing zealot Timothy McVeigh didn't know how, either. Once he called something evil, he didn't have to examine the consequences of his actions anymore. Now there's a big difference between smearing people and fighting evil. Hannity misses this distinction. He says liberals just aren't interested in fighting evil. Tell that to John Kerry, Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, and Daniel Inouye. Tell that to the families of liberals who went down South to help in the civil rights movement and got themselves murdered or savagely beaten. And what about all those Republicans in WWII who didn't want to fight fascism? What about chickenhawks like Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Jeb, Neil and Marvin Bush, and "no-show" Bush? I don't say they're evil, but they sure are towering hypocrites. When Bush mocked born-again Christian, death-row inmate Karla Faye Tucker, ("Pleeez, don't kiiiilll me"), I don't call that evil. I call it revoltingly inhumane. When Bush -- asked in 1988 what he and his father talked about while they were alone -- answered, "Pu**y", that wasn't evil.It was vulgar and adolescent. When Michael Savage says of Arab Muslims: "I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity... It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings", I don't call that evil either (although it is). I call it pathological, vicious, bigotry: the precursor to genocide. When Limbaugh criticizes Americans for getting upset over Abu Ghraib, and punishing the soldiers responsible just "because they had a good time", that's not evil. Just depraved. When Cheney, the neocons, and Bush deliberately lied to Americans to get us into war with Iraq, resulting in the needless deaths of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of civilians, that's not evil... though its pretty darn close. No, I call it a case of contemptible arrogance mixed with avarice. When Bush permits old-growth logging and calls it the Healthy Forests Initiative, or allows big polluters to spew more mercury into the air and calls his plan "Clear Skies", it's not evil. It's a corruption, a betrayal, of the American people. When Bush and the Republicans in Congress do their level-best to bankrupt government by racking up huge deficits, that's not evil. It's a deliberate, long-term plan to shift the tax burden on to the middle class and, at the same time, to castrate their health care, social security and other services, because after all, they're just losers anyway if they need that stuff. When Cheney refuses to name those who attended his Energy Task Force meeting, that's not evil. It's just an outrageous, elitist violation of the public's right to know. When Oliver North lied before Congress, accepted illegal payments and destroyed evidence, that wasn't evil. It was a crime that showed contempt for democracy. So let me be clear: I welcome a dialogue with conservatives who're willing to enter into one. But I know a nasty smear when I see it, and that's Hannity's stock-in-trade. Fair and balanced, my keister! Want to read outstanding books by erstwhile Republicans? Try "Worse than Watergate" by John Dean and two by Kevin Phillips: "Wealth and Democracy" & "American Dynasty."
Rating:
Summary: Great book, full of the truth leftists cannot stand to read
Review: Its funny reading the leftists reviews of this tome. They rant and rave about this lie and that lie. They are unnerved by someone they really want to believe is lying to them, or they want you to think is lying to you. Sean does an excellent job laying out his thoughts in this book and leaves no doubt about where the left stands in this country. They are livid, as you can see from their supposed reviews of this book. They never seemed to let lies bother them when they were leaving the lips of Bill Clinton, but now all of a sudden, they are concerned with lies. Its pretty halarious. Read the book, its great information and lays out exactly what you see the liberal "reviewers" doing here on Amazon. This is what they do. This is who they are. Good job Sean. Great book.
Rating:
Summary: Read this book and decide for yourself....
Review: Instead of listening to the very biased liberal views from readers who obviously have an agenda, read the book yourself. I think you will find the book makes some very legitimate points. Even the review from Publisher's Weekly appeared to be biased by calling people who enjoyed this book "neocons". My point is read the book with an open mind...then decide what you believe. Too many people are trying to influence what we think, read and believe. I believe we should make our own decisions by being informed with books from all points of view.
| 
