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.
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....
|
