The Hannity truth — I mean scam, and prostitute lover!

I have an overwhelming distrust of the corporate media, and it isn’t because they have a college education in journalism and I don’t (I do this blog because it is a better way to vent my political opinions as opposed to dumping them on my family).  But then again, neither does Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck.  And these guys sit in front of a camera and tell you how to think.

I distrust the corporate media because they have no free speech.  They say or do the wrong thing and sponsors get pulled (as in the case of Glenn Beck), they get fired or suspended (as in the case of Imus when he called the girls Rutger team “nappy headed ho’s”).  Which I really don’t understand because Ludicrous can have a song saying you bitches ain’t some niggas…you some ho’s, and the women love it.  There’s that song out called Crazy Bitch, and it is really demeaning to women and they love it too.

You have more of a chance of getting truth from someone who has a radio show from his basement as opposed to these guys (take Alex Jones for example). 

Sean Hannity a lover of prostitutes?

Now the pictures on the right are of Sean Hannity with prostitutes in a whore house in Nevada.  I found these on a website and thought, this can’t be right.  These have got to be photoshopped.  For all I know they still could be.  But it doesn’t look that way to me.  According to sources the photos were leaked by Hannity himself to distance himself from the Glenn Beck 1990 rape scandal.

According to Wanda Cyprian, a scheule coordinator, she had this to say of Hannity:

 “Sean was no stranger to the Bunny, he was actually one of our most valued customers, right behind Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas and Billy Mays, you know the guy with the beard from those infomercials who OD’d on coke.” Cyprian went on to say: “I’ve gotten to know Sean pretty well over the past couple of years, and I can honestly say- yes, the man had an insatiable thirst for paying top dollar for raunchy sexual services- however, that doesn’t mean he might have been a rapist in 1990, or a co-conspirator to a rape in 1990.” She also said the reality of his recovery from his legalized prostitution addiction, “has been kind of bitter sweet you know, because on one hand we lost one fourth of our yearly revenue- boom! gone in one shot, but on the other hand I’m happy to see that he’s recovered and is leading what appears to be a normal life free of hookers.”

Now understand this section does not pertain to the blog post, I just wanted to explain the photos before someone said, “those are fake!”  And thus far I haven’t seen anything to suggest they are.

Sean Hannity the scam artist…

Fox News viewers who see the likes of Hannity and Beck as “telling the truth” operate under a serious case of illusion.  What I am about to write, and what has been circulating around the internet for a while now, may go over their heads and through their ears.  As one Hannity fan told me when I told her that the Freedom Alliance foundation as fronted by Sean Hannity and Oliver North is a scam, she said, “I don’t believe it.”  But here it goes.

Conservative columnist and radio show host writes on her website:

But it’s all a huge scam.

In fact, less than 20%–and in two recent years, less than 7% and 4%, respectively–of the money raised by Freedom Alliance went to these causes, while millions of dollars went to expenses, including consultants and apparently to ferry the Hannity posse of family and friends in high style. And, despite Hannity’s statements to the contrary on his nationally syndicated radio show, few of the children of fallen soldiers got more than $1,000-$2,000, with apparently none getting more than $6,000, while Freedom Alliance appears to have spent tens of thousands of dollars for private planes. Moreover, despite written assurances to donors that all money raised would go directly to scholarships for kids of the fallen heroes and not to expenses, has begun charging expenses of nearly $500,000 to give out just over $800,000 in scholarships.


The guy went on to tell me about Hannity’s “Freedom Concerts,” which are staged across the country with the proceeds going to children of slain soldiers. Of course, as the guy tells it, there’d be a lot more money every concert to go to the cause if Hannity didn’t demand–and get–use of a Gulfstream 5 plane to fly him and his family/entourage to the concerts; a “fleet” (that’s the word the guy used) of either Cadillac or Lincoln SUVs for him and his family/entourage; and several suites at really expensive hotels for him and his family/entourage. The promoter apparently values Hannity’s star demands at well over $200,000 per event. The source says he heard that Oliver North pulled Hannity aside at one of the concerts and told him that this had to stop. But that may mean that, from now on, Hannity has to fly on a G4 instead of a G5, gets only a few luxury SUVs, and two or three suites.

In 2008, Freedom Alliance raised $8,781,431 in profits and gave only $1,060,275.57 (just 12%) to wounded soldiers and to scholarships for the children of fallen soldiers.  Other expenses included: $1,055,791 on postage, $925,392 on printing, $157,041 on travel.  2007 reveals that they spent only 7% on scholarships and wounded soldiers, while in 2006 when the Alliance brought in $11 million dollars only $400,000 went to the scholarships and wounded soldiers.

It is a “Golden Rule” of charities that they spend 75% of their money on the charities mission.  This is something that Oliver North and Sean Hannity have obviously missed.  Christian logic would tell Sean Hannity that this is all wrong, but then again, it would say the same about torture.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission and the IRS calling Freedom Alliance and Sean Hannity as “deceptive”.

 “illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts he sponsors each summer goes to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members.”

“At the concerts, they [even] sell tour collectibles under Premiere Collectibles. So basically, the whole thing is a money-making enterprise for Premiere Marketing.” Crew says that after the concerts, Premiere Marketing then offers an as-yet unidentified cut of the money it takes in to the charity.

Those who see Hannity as a friend to the people, our soldiers, the Constitution, and they go buy his books with that smug smart-ass grin on his face, would see this as a blatant attack from the liberal left, and no other explination would suffice.


Kagan no fan of the First Amendment

It should come as no surprise in the hype of the anti-government rhetoric from the American people that Barack Obama would nominate someone that says government should have the right to censor free speech if it deems it offensive.

I’ve said it before that Republicans and Democrats only select someone to folow their agenda’s, not that of the U.S. Constitution.  By the way, I was thinking the other day, can someone tell me what happened to Barack Obama’s position of being against NAFTA?

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010

President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.

We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.

But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.

Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.

Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

My letter to Barack Obama

President Obama blasted antigovernment sentiment as a path to violence.  Sure Fox Nation commenters called for “violent” acts, and one Fox News pundit called for the death of President Obama.  Sure the Tea Party has enraged people against the government.  But isn’t that what makes America, America?

What kind of world would we live in if we walked around and said, “Yes, government.”  Granted taxes are needed to pay for roads, teachers, police, and other public servants.  But like in the days of Biblical times, can’t taxes be used for corrupt purposes?  Funding our enemies and the enemies of Israel?  Propping up the fat politicians and oil men in Mexico just to watch that country sink lower and lower.  Mexico doesn’t need the United States’ help, Mexico needs us to stop funding them so the politicians can stop getting fat, and a true revolution can come to that country.

What about the government’s secret nature, or in another term; the shadow government.  Documents, evidence, and people are protected from prosecution for illegal and un-Constitutional acts.  Take Oliver North into consideration.

Here is just a list of things that people do not trust about the government: the intelligence apparatus, the military industrial complex (Eisenhower warned us of this), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, last but not least and most importantly, the government itself.

A person would be a fool to hate government based on taxes, taxes are needed, but to what extent?  Should they go to pay for a $1 trillion dollar foreign empire that is breaking the bank and makes us no safer than what we were before 9/11?  Or what about Congress constantly voting themselves in raises?

“What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It’s the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, “when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.”

Corporatism led to the near collapse of our economy, Mr. President, not the free market.  All you will bring is more corporatism.  The banker “bailout fund” that you have been parading around and anyone who disagrees is a “party of no” or has no interest in preserving the American peoples trust will do nothing to stem corporatism in this country.

You, like all president’s who have inhabited the White House for the last 100 years, are corrupt as hell, Mr. President.  You pay lip service to the Constitution, the American people, and to the free market.  But, oh yeah, I forgot, you’re just another puppet like the rest of them.

People don’t hate government because of the taxes that go to pay for roads, Mr. President.  They hate the government because of its intrusive nature.  You want to investigate us, Mr. President, well, how about we investigate you?  Read this definition on the word constitution.  It might educate you.

A constitution is a set of rules for government—often codified as a written document—that enumerates and limits the powers and functions of a political entity.  By limiting the government’s own reach, most constitutions guarantee certain rights to the people. The term constitution can be applied to any overall system of law that defines the functioning of a government, including several uncodified historical constitutions that existed before the development of modern codified constitutions.

A government that governs less, governs least.  Thomas Jefferson

Here’s to Joseph A. Stack – Thanks, Asshole!

People who have conspiracy theories about the government are thought to be “crazy”.  The Bilderberg Group, the CFR, the some odd intelligence agencies, Bohemian Grove, the Freemasons – it’s all hogwash right?  Hollywood has done a great job in making people think that one well conditioned, muscle ripped man can take on terrorists or the guv’ment.  But in reality we can’t.

Only a person who really has their heads buried in the sand would say that there is no corruption in government.  As for me, our nations example of foreign policy is just one example of a corrupt system.  Corporate bailouts, the support of an evil Wall Street system – am I a crazy conspiracy theorist, or am I right?

Take a look at the back of your one dollar bill – an unfinished pyramid with a blazing eye capstone, Novus Ordo Seclorum (New Order of the Ages) written underneath it, George H.W. Bush’s proclamation of a new world order.  Globalist organizations look to make power grabs anywhere they can.

Take into consideration that the United Nations in New York sits on a tract of land donated by the Rockefeller family, and David Rockefeller years ago made this startling confession.

“Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.” – David Rockefeller from his book, David Rockefeller: Memoirs.

Is there some sort of global government conspiracy raging against the United States and the American people?  Afterall, it was Glenn Beck that was going to report on FEMA camps in the U.S. and at the last second reversed course.  And if there is some sort of inner circle conspiracy in the dark halls of Washington, do the American people want to know?  Would we be able to handle it?  Would it be worth weeding out the guilty parties?

“I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a Dictatorship – and those plans are there!” – Congressman Ron Paul at an event near Austin, Texas on August 30th, 2003

Somewhere in the mind of Joseph A. Stack, he did what he felt he had to do.  Land a blow to the imperial presence of ‘big brother’.  But this is a wound that hasn’t hurt the beast whatsoever.  Joseph A. Stack is a murderer.  Tonight when children lay down their heads and wonder why mommy and daddy aren’t coming home and cry themselves to sleep, we can thank Joseph A. Stack.  Let me say this – Joseph A. Stack is no hero! 

Men and women in our armed forces are the heros.  Paramedics are the heros.  And, yes, even men and women who devout their lives to state militias with the sole purpose to protect the American people and the Constitution, and yet they don’t take lives without reason, are heros too.  Joseph A. Stack had this to say:

I have had all I can stand.   I choose not to keep looking over my shoulder at `big brother’ while he strips my carcass.

He would also rant against ‘big brother’, corporate wellfare, taxation, and “thugs and plunderers”.  All of these things he was tired of.  I don’t know if it escaped Stack’s notice, but most Americans are tired of the lies.  Government polls are at an all-time low.  No one trusts the government.

That to secure these right, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive at these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers to such form, as to them shall seem to them to most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So is it incumbent upon the American people to overthrow the government?  If you take this excerpt from the Declaration of Independence seriously, yes.  But when the American people have it in their head that their vote don’t count and they cannot change anything is Liberty in her grave. 

In recent years thanks to the running of Ron Paul for president, the lies of government have been exposed.  Tea Parties and the Campaign for Liberty have invigorated the American people to a new-old way of thinking.

Joseph A. Stack’s desperate attempt to land a crippling blow to the Beast of government has gone in vain and the cause for Liberty will reap the repercussions.  That is why I say, “Thanks, Asshole, and burn in hell!”

President of the United States – Commander-in-Chief?

A friend of mine sent me an email not long ago explaining that he heard on the radio of a man saying that the president being “Commander-in-Chief” is a twentieth century myth.  That he is only the C-in-C in times of war.  War that is given to the Congress in the Constitution under article one, section eight, paragraph eleven.

This got me to thinking.  What if he was right?  What wars, entanglements, and back alley deals when considered under the Constitution would be illegal?  Would the Korean War be one?  No declaration of war under Congress was ever made.  Maybe Vietnam also?  What about the Iran-Contra scandal?  Or the bombs, bullets, and biological weapons that the CIA gave Iraq in the ’80s?  What of George W. Bush’s borrowed billions from China just to turn around and give to a military dictatorship?

When held under the microscope, would these violations in contrast to the Constitution be illegal?  More importantly, would the men accountable be tried for violating the “Supreme law of the Land”?  Treason perhaps?

The very fact that the two long-lasting engagements (Iraq and Afghanistan) that were created under the same sort of circumstances, is proof that the same ignorance of the Constitution is alive and well.

Every politician pledges to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and most Americans believe them, but hardly anyone knows what it means.

War Ain’t Cheap

In the last year President Obama has come under stiff criticism over spending, deficits, borrowing – they’re all going higher.  So why does he get the blame and George W. Bush is let off the hook?  Afterall, it was Bush who borrowed billions from China just to turn around and give it to Pakistan.

It would be wonderful if the United States government printed the necessary amounts of money to bring our debt to a flat zero, but in a world where monetary policy has been monopilized by the Federal Reserve, a solution such as this doesn’t exist.

Do you ever wonder why your brand new car/truck deprecates so much when you drive it off the lot?  It’s because there are so many in circulation.  Three-hundred thousand Toyota Prius’ can by no means hold the same value as that of a ’70s muscle car with only, let’s say twenty ever made.

I have heard many people – media pundits and family – say that President Obama’s spending and deficits are going to be higher than that of Bush’s.  This I don’t doubt, and here’s one of the reasons why.  War ain’t cheap.

The online Webster dictionary defines deficit as this: an excess of expenditure over revenue.  Thusly meaning, a deficit is money that the government has to spend that they don’t have.  At this rate the United States is spending over $1 trillion dollars on an overseas presence.  The Afghanistan conflict is costing the American taxpayer $57,000 a minute.  If you want the government to finish what they started in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, you’d better be ready for tough times ahead.  

Not to mention that many are calling for disciplinary actions against Iran.  If that happens, put another log on the fire and watch our economy go up in smithereens.  Also, just because the president wants to pull out every troop from Iraq does not mean that we will be expenditure free.  The government will continue to send millions to Iraq to support the established government.

But like I said, war ain’t cheap.