PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Hannity's Freedom Concert a money-bilking scam using troops as props?


Taco John
03-19-2010, 12:39 AM
This doesn't look so good if true. Using dead soldiers and thier kids to create a money machine for your friends? Yuck.

If this stuff is right, it looks like they've got a $48 million dollar operation that has given $1,781,782 to the causes that it uses to raise the money.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/6938/sean-hannitys-freedom-concert-scam-only-7-of-charitys-money-went-to-injured-troops-kids-of-fallen-troops-g5s-g6s-for-vannity/

oldandslow
03-19-2010, 08:18 AM
Wow...that is ugly.

Hannity is frickin' con man. Not that it surprises me.

banyon
03-19-2010, 08:30 AM
This would be a perfect end to this pompous clown.

oldandslow
03-19-2010, 08:33 AM
I had never heard of Debbie Schlussel, but from the looks of her web site she is a fire breathing conservative????

Heads must be exploding.

Mr. Kotter
03-19-2010, 08:33 AM
You seem surprised, Isaac.... :shrug:

Taco John
03-19-2010, 10:15 AM
You seem surprised, Isaac.... :shrug:

I do?

I guess now that I think about it, I am suprised. I think Hannity is the biggest dope in media, but I didn't think he was a crook.

bkkcoh
03-19-2010, 10:19 AM
I do?

I guess now that I think about it, I am suprised. I think Hannity is the biggest dope in media, but I didn't think he was a crook.

It may not be him that is the crook. I am sure, but have no proof, that he isn't directly involved in handling and distributing the money that is raised through these concerts. That would be a very time consuming job and given his radio and tv programs, it would be almost impossible for him to be in charge of that also.

I am not absolving him of responsibility, if he lends his name and/or time to something like that he needs to be aware of where and what percentage of the funds are sent to where it needs to go.

He shouldn't be charging the group his expenses for the concerts. That is totally wrong.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 10:22 AM
It may not be him that is the crook. I am sure, but have no proof, that he isn't directly involved in handling and distributing the money that is raised through these concerts. That would be a very time consuming job and given his radio and tv programs, it would be almost impossible for him to be in charge of that also.

I am not absolving him of responsibility, if he lends his name and/or time to something like that he needs to be aware of where and what percentage of the funds are sent to where it needs to go.

Indeed. But I would think that he's be on top of knowing how much they've donated to their cause vs. how much they've pulled in. Crook is maybe a strong word at this point. But it doesn't look good. If I were a Hannity head, I don't think that I'd be participating in these events.

Radar Chief
03-19-2010, 11:48 AM
Wow. False patriotism, Hannity, false patriotism. :shake:

Calcountry
03-19-2010, 01:20 PM
rules for radicals. Isolate the enemy, personalize it, and destroy it.

Chiefnj2
03-19-2010, 01:24 PM
"Over a year ago, when I began looking into this story, I contacted both Sean Hannity and the Freedom Alliance seeking comment and an accounting for where the money went. Both declined to answer any of my questions. Hannity refused to respond to an inquiry I sent to his personal private e-mail address asking him about the lavish expenses described in the e-mail above."

Direckshun
03-19-2010, 01:27 PM
This would be a perfect end to this pompous clown.

You'd think, but that's not how propaghanda works.

RaiderH8r
03-19-2010, 02:47 PM
http://www.freedomalliance.org/images/pdf_and_largepics/freedom_alliance_response.pdf

And here's the American Spectator piece. http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/19/freedom-alliance-statement-on

For all the bullshit that goes flying around here I knew innocent until proven guilty was tossed out the window a long time ago but I figured at least somebody might do even a remedial google search to get the other side of the argument. But well played outrage ladies, well played indeed. Did Hannity piss on Ron Paul's boot or something?

RaiderH8r
03-19-2010, 02:48 PM
You'd think, but that's not how propaghanda works.

So that's how Keith Olbermann gets to keep dumbing down America with his half witted tripe?

Taco John
03-19-2010, 02:55 PM
"program activities"

It still looks like thousands going to the connected organizers and "consultants" and hundreds going to those that the program was presumably put on to benefit. It's a nice volley back, but they're going to need to do more to establish their credibility here.

orange
03-19-2010, 02:58 PM
And here's the American Spectator piece. [url]http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/19/freedom-alliance-statement-on


But how does that explain their tax filings? Or any other specific claim that Schlussel makes?

They've divided ALL their spending into three categories - fundraising, management, and "Program Activities" i.e. everything else.

A breakdown of that "Program Activities" is called for before they're absolved of any of the charges.

Chiefshrink
03-19-2010, 03:00 PM
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease use your brain. If this were true Obama's Alinsky staff(MSM) would have exposed this aloooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago to get rid of Hannity. Obama's Alinsky staff wait on "pins and needles" for guys like Hannity,Beck and Limbaugh to "F' up".:rolleyes:so they can silence their critics

Taco John
03-19-2010, 03:00 PM
And for what it's worth, I'm not trying to judge Hannity except to say that the reported information makes this Freedom Concert effort look suspect. I'd be happy to learn that the prima facie evidence doesn't tell the whole story. Private charity is a great thing. I'd hate to see it abused, especially in the case of American Troops.

ClevelandBronco
03-19-2010, 03:02 PM
Have any of these concert ideas ever worked? It seems that as far back as the Concert for Bangladesh these things have always been inefficient and ineffective at best and absolute train wrecks at worst.

orange
03-19-2010, 03:11 PM
2007 Program Activities - $5,434,538 total of which only $397,900 went to "Grants and Allocations."

Right there in black and white. http://207.153.189.83/EINS/541411430/541411430_2006_038152CD.PDF

Whether Hannity is on the gravy train here, I couldn't say. But this "charity" is a racket.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 05:34 PM
If true, this would be an incredible breach of trust. So incredible, in fact, that I have a hard time believing it's true.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 06:34 PM
2007 Program Activities - $5,434,538 total of which only $397,900 went to "Grants and Allocations."

Right there in black and white. http://207.153.189.83/EINS/541411430/541411430_2006_038152CD.PDF

Whether Hannity is on the gravy train here, I couldn't say. But this "charity" is a racket.

At the very least, you're ignoring the $3.7 million increase in "net assets or fund balances" during the course of the year.

And as for the article's criticism about the sizes of the awards, no one should be confused into thinking these scholarships are supposed to be total compensation for the loss of limb or life of our fallen service personnel. They are scholarships. There are tons of scholarships that make awards in the range from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. Why this scholarship source is held to a higher standard on that count evades me.

I'm not saying that the expense to charitable bang for the buck is necessarily a good one, but it's apparent to me that Schlussel has missed the mark here and missed a huge part of the picture. It kind of makes me wonder is Hannity "big timed" Schlussel or something and ignited a passion for retribution in her.

Thig Lyfe
03-19-2010, 06:39 PM
If true, this would be an incredible breach of trust. So incredible, in fact, that I have a hard time believing it's true.

It can't be true. Sean Hannity would never do this to the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 06:41 PM
It can't be true. Sean Hannity would never do this to the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth.

You're right. As I pointed out in my last post, it wasn't true.

orange
03-19-2010, 06:58 PM
At the very least, you're ignoring the $3.7 million increase in "net assets or fund balances" during the course of the year.


Okay, here's a comparison - admittedly incredibly narrow, but just as an example off the top of my head. I searched for American Cancer Society on this website: http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=133615529&Year=2002&Cobrandid=0&sourceid=

2002 (latest) $7,075,401 Grants and Allocations out of $8,916,645 Total Functional Expenses

Clearly, the Freedom Alliance numbers are out of whack. And if they're pumping money into "net assets," I'm not sure empire-building makes them any better.

p.s. this FA doc seems to be separate from their scholarship fund.

RNR
03-19-2010, 07:00 PM
You're right. As I pointed out in my last post, it wasn't true.

Something else that I found strange was him teaming up with Lynyrd Skynyrd, just a strange pairing :spock: That and the whole flip flop with God Guns and Country. When Ronnie fronted the band he said the song Saturday Night Special was a anti gun statement and he thought hand guns should be outlawed. He was shot one time but would not go into details in the interview I heard~

patteeu
03-19-2010, 07:08 PM
Okay, here's a comparison - admittedly incredibly narrow, but just as an example off the top of my head. I searched for American Cancer Society on this website: http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Form990&EIN=133615529&Year=2002&Cobrandid=0&sourceid=

2002 (latest) $7,075,401 Grants and Allocations out of $8,916,645 Total Functional Expenses

Clearly, the Freedom Alliance numbers are out of whack. And if they're pumping money into "net assets," I'm not sure empire-building makes them any better.

p.s. this FA doc seems to be separate from their scholarship fund.

There is nothing wrong with a charity building up an income bearing asset for purposes of grants and allocations of the future. I see no reason to believe that something nefarious is going on here. I do see a reason to be skeptical of the OP article since it exclusively focused on in-year grants and allocations and since it tried to make scholarship size an issue as if the scholarship amounts were supposed to make up for the full price paid by the fallen serviceman.

jettio
03-19-2010, 08:45 PM
Is this really that big a deal?

Freedom ain't free. Right?

max sleeper
03-19-2010, 10:35 PM
Something else that I found strange was him teaming up with Lynyrd Skynyrd, just a strange pairing :spock: That and the whole flip flop with God Guns and Country. When Ronnie fronted the band he said the song Saturday Night Special was a anti gun statement and he thought hand guns should be outlawed. He was shot one time but would not go into details in the interview I heard~

This! Lynyrd Skynyrd lost this fan the day I heard them on his show! And John Rich??? The whole time I was thinking were was Big? Big would kick Hannity's ass and take names! It's about the $. Crooks all of them!

jjjayb
03-20-2010, 06:31 AM
It can't be true. Sean Hannity would never do this to the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth.

Yep. Hannity donated over $300,000 personally. Paid all his own expenses to travel to these events. What a slime ball! How dare he! :rolleyes:

Reaper16
03-20-2010, 06:35 AM
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease use your brain. If this were true Obama's Alinsky staff(MSM) would have exposed this aloooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago to get rid of Hannity. Obama's Alinsky staff wait on "pins and needles" for guys like Hannity,Beck and Limbaugh to "F' up".:rolleyes:so they can silence their critics
LMAO

ILChief
03-20-2010, 07:38 AM
This would be a perfect end to this pompous clown.

only if Beck and Limbaugh were involved too

Saul Good
03-20-2010, 08:22 AM
This would be a perfect end to this pompous clown.

Yep. Hopefully his selflessness and generosity bring him down.

stevieray
03-20-2010, 08:29 AM
only if Beck and Limbaugh were involved too
liberals and progressives are like Chavez, they can't stand it when citizen's free speech doesn't contain what they want to hear...meanwhile the CIC and SOH are on TV everyday, basically telling people they know what's best for them, and circumventing and marginalizing the process set forth by the Constitution..

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 08:34 AM
lol at idiots defending Hannity. That guy has been lying to you for years.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 09:04 AM
lol at idiots defending Hannity. That guy has been lying to you for years.

What was I thinking? It doesn't make any sense to defend people from apparent lies if you're not a huge fan of theirs to begin with.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 09:06 AM
What was I thinking? It doesn't make any sense to defend people from apparent lies if you're not a huge fan of theirs to begin with.

Who else would push the phoney war? Well atleast you'd still have Laura Ingraham who sounds like Kenny from South Park.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 09:24 AM
Who else would push the phoney war? Well atleast you'd still have Laura Ingraham who sounds like Kenny from South Park.

What phoney war are you talking about?

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 09:25 AM
What phoney war are you talking about?

Iraq.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 09:37 AM
Iraq.

You think Iraq was a phoney war? What happened to the 4385 people who supposedly died there?

BucEyedPea
03-20-2010, 09:58 AM
Iraq.

It's funny how those who accuse others of lies, fabrications believe some of the biggest liars in recent history. Takes one to know one.

RJ
03-20-2010, 09:59 AM
Here is a helpful guide.

1) I like Hannity and/or his politics, therefore he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

2) I dislike Hannity and/or his politics, therefore he is guilty of theft and hypocricy.

I hope that clears things up a little.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:41 AM
It's funny how those who accuse others of lies, fabrications believe some of the biggest liars in recent history. Takes one to know one.

If this were true, wouldn't it damn you as much as anyone else?

Baby Lee
03-20-2010, 10:43 AM
I had never heard of Debbie Schlussel, but from the looks of her web site she is a fire breathing conservative????

Heads must be exploding.

Has she been gone that long? Time was she made the rounds as regularly as anyone. Mostly she's plain 'ol uber-hawkish everyone either had a secret plan against the US or a secret plan against Isreal. Think she got tired of live media after the umpteenth-time Howard Stern had her on and wouldn't let her make her schpeil opting to pepper her with sex questions instead.

Of course, I could just be getting old. We were looking over the NCAA brackets in Micro-Electronics Thursday, and one guy had NEVER heard of UNLV basketball.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 12:02 PM
You think Iraq was a phoney war? What happened to the 4385 people who supposedly died there?

The people who died for a lie? Wasn't Hannity aginst the war in Kosovo? I guess his support for war just depends on what party runs the white house. That's smart.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 12:16 PM
The people who died for a lie? Wasn't Hannity aginst the war in Kosovo? I guess his support for war just depends on what party runs the white house. That's smart.

You're drifting from the topic again. Are you ADD? Was the war in Iraq real or phoney? And if it was phoney, what happened to those people who we're told died there?

max sleeper
03-20-2010, 06:23 PM
You think Iraq was a phoney war? What happened to the 4385 people who supposedly died there?

you mean 100,000+ Iraqis that died and then your 4385 right? :thumb:

patteeu
03-20-2010, 06:31 PM
you mean 100,000+ Iraqis that died and then your 4385 right? :thumb:

Apparently no one really died there because it was a phoney war.

max sleeper
03-20-2010, 09:06 PM
Apparently no one really died there because it was a phoney war.

phoney= reason for going to war

Direckshun
03-20-2010, 09:09 PM
Patteeu doing his best Donger impression.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:19 PM
phoney= reason for going to war

Hmmm. Let's review some of the reasons for going to war.

Was Iraq in violation of it's cease fire agreements from the first Gulf War? YES

Did Iraq have a history of pursuing WMD and of successfully hiding their WMD programs from the US (see for example, their surprisingly advanced nuclear weapons program discovered after Gulf War I)? YES

Did Iraq have a history of sponsoring terrorists and using terrorist proxies as a tool of foreign policy? YES

Had Iraq demonstrated it's hostility toward the US during the period between Gulf War I and the Iraq invasion by attempting to assassinate a former POTUS and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces? YES

Did Iraq have a history of harboring terrorists within it's territory? YES

Were al Qaeda present in Iraq prior to our invasion? YES (Some would argue that people like Abu Musab al Zarqawi were not card carrying members of al Qaeda's inner circle, but his Afghanistan terror training camp operation was at least partly funded by Osama bin Laden so the distinction is far from convincing).

Did Iraq refuse to cooperate fully with the UN arms inspection program on multiple occasions, including on the last chance offered after the Bush administration went to the UN for final resolution? YES

Did Iraq have WMD stockpiles or active WMD production operations? NO

Had Iraq retained much of it's WMD program capabilities and the ambition to resume production of WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted? YES

Was the sanctions regime on the verge of collapsing due to conflicts of interest in some foreign capitals? YES

Did Iraq have a history of beligerence toward it's neighbors and a history of using WMD against it's enemies? YES

Did Iraq have a history of violence against it's own people including the use of WMD? YES

Had Saddam demonstrated a desire to expand his control over the oil fields of the middle east? YES

Would it be desirable to establish a free society in the heart of the middle east to demonstrate an alternative to the repression of the typical middle east governments on the one hand and the false hope offered by islamist revolutionaries? YES

It looks to me like most of the reasons for going to war were pretty valid.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:20 PM
WMDS + Ties to Al Aqeada. Nice try Patteau.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:21 PM
WMDS + Ties to Al Aqeada. Nice try Patteau.

Thorough response, as usual.

dirk digler
03-20-2010, 10:22 PM
Shocking. Who didn't know Hannity was a fake and a POS?

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:23 PM
Thorough response, as usual.

When you posted your diatribe you forgot to mention the WMD's Saddam had with the U.S.A sales receipt still attached to them.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:25 PM
Shocking. Who didn't know Hannity was a fake and a POS?

Keep reading, dirk.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:27 PM
When you posted your diatribe you forgot to mention the WMD's Saddam had with the U.S.A sales receipt still attached to them.

Even if that were true (and it's only partly true, at best, as we sold Saddam dual use materials that could be diverted to WMD use, but we never sold him WMD), what would it have to do with whether he was a threat or not?

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:28 PM
Even if that were true (and it's only partly true, at best, as we sold Saddam dual use materials that could be diverted to WMD use, but we never sold him WMD), what would it have to do with whether he was a threat or not?

We do business with China and Pakistan who are bigger threats so that argument is BS.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:34 PM
We do business with China and Pakistan who are bigger threats so that argument is BS.

That makes no sense for at least 2 reasons:

1. There's no reason why the presence of a different, perhaps even greater threat, should mean that you can't take action against a lesser threat. Reagan invaded Grenada because the Cubans were building a military base there despite the fact that the Soviet Union had a ton of ICBMs aimed at us at the time.

2. What was this "argument" you're talking about anyway? I asked you a question, which you completely ignored.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:35 PM
That makes no sense for at least 2 reasons:

1. There's no reason why the presence of a different, perhaps even greater threat, should mean that you can't take action against a lesser threat. Reagan invaded Grenada because the Cubans were building a military base there despite the fact that the Soviet Union had a ton of ICBMs aimed at us at the time.

2. What was this "argument" you're talking about anyway? I asked you a question, which you completely ignored.

Ronald Reagan helped put America in the mess it is.


What was your question?

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:36 PM
We do business with China and Pakistan who are bigger threats so that argument is BS.

Are you naive enough to believe that we have one set of standards for every situation involving a foreign country? We weigh all factors (most importantly, I hope, "What's in it for us?" "What's likely to be the downside?," and "What are our chances for success?") and act according to individual evaluations. Our decision regarding Iraq had little or nothing to do with Pakistan, which has little or nothing to do with Kosovo, which has little or nothing to do with China, which has little or nothing to do with Darfur.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:38 PM
Ronald Reagan helped put America in the mess it is.


What was your question?

I asked you why your post had relevance. I mentioned it only because you called my question an "argument", not so much to get you to answer it. I know you don't have a good answer.

dirk digler
03-20-2010, 10:38 PM
Keep reading, dirk.

I just did. It appears they take in alot of money but give very little to the wounded troops like they should because they are paying Sean and his entourage. ;)

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:38 PM
Are you naive enough to believe that we have one set of standards for every situation involving a foreign country? We weigh all factors (most importantly, I hope, "What's in it for us?" "What's likely to be the downside?," and "What are our chances for success?") and act according to individual evaluations. Our decision regarding Iraq had little or nothing to do with Pakistan, which has little or nothing to do with Kosovo, which has little or nothing to do with China, which has little or nothing to do with Darfur.

We were told that the invasion was nessecary because Iraq had ties to Al Aqeada. Yet we do business with Pakistan who has ties to the Taliban.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:39 PM
I asked you why your post had relevance. I mentioned it only because you called my question an "argument", not so much to get you to answer it. I know you don't have a good answer.

Patteau it's funny watching you deflect.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:39 PM
Ronald Reagan helped put America in the mess it is.


What was your question?

As long as we're dealing in ridiculous oversimplifications, let's include every single U.S. president's responsibility for the "mess." If only Chester A. Arthur had chosen a different course for us when we had the chance.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:40 PM
As long as we're dealing in ridiculous oversimplifications, let's include every single U.S. president's responsibility for the "mess." If only Chester A. Arthur had chosen a different course for us when we had the chance.

And you call me naive.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:40 PM
We were told that the invasion was nessecary because Iraq had ties to Al Aqeada. Yet we do business with Pakistan who has ties to the Taliban.

And you're back to setting one standard for all foreign nations. Way to miss the point entirely.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:42 PM
And you call me naive.

Do you really think our present situation is due to what happened during the Reagan administration? I'd say you need to bone up on much earlier 20th century history.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:42 PM
And you're back to setting one standard for all foreign nations. Way to miss the point entirely.

Maybe your point is a poor one? Explain was the reason for going to war in Iraq beause of ties to Bin laden?

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:43 PM
I just did. It appears they take in alot of money but give very little to the wounded troops like they should because they are paying Sean and his entourage. ;)

http://images.despair.com/products/demotivators/failure.jpg

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:43 PM
Do you really think our present situation is due to what happened during the Reagan administration? I'd say you need to bone up on much earlier 20th century history in the region.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:44 PM
Patteau it's funny watching you deflect.

I'll bet you get a similar kick out of seeing people solve math problems that are beyond your comprehension.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:44 PM
I'll bet you get a similar kick out of seeing people solve math problems that are beyond your comprehension.

You can't make a point so now you have to go with ad hominem. Nice.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:45 PM
We were told that the invasion was nessecary because Iraq had ties to Al Aqeada. Yet we do business with Pakistan who has ties to the Taliban.

Read the authorization to use force and you'll see what you were told and it involves a much more than ties to al Qaeda. Alternatively, you can re-read my earlier post that came largely from the ATUF. BTW, the limited assertion in the ATUF of ties to al Qaeda (i.e. that al Qaeda members were in Iraq) ended up being true.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:47 PM
Maybe your point is a poor one? Explain was the reason for going to war in Iraq beause of ties to Bin laden?

Post 51 covers this.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:47 PM
Read the authorization to use force and you'll see what you were told and it involves a much more than ties to al Qaeda. Alternatively, you can re-read my earlier post that came largely from the ATUF. BTW, the limited assertion in the ATUF of ties to al Qaeda (i.e. that al Qaeda members were in Iraq) ended up being true.

The 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia who we do business with. So are you saying they had ties to Al Aqeada too? We should invade them.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:48 PM
Maybe your point is a poor one? Explain was the reason for going to war in Iraq beause of ties to Bin laden?

See post 51 and try to understand that your question is meaningless because we didn't go to war because of Iraq's "ties to Bin laden" as you so childishly put it.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:48 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

Yes, Reagan helped to prevent Iran from engulfing Iraq. Good for him.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 10:49 PM
You can't make a point so now you have to go with ad hominem. Nice.

When my audience doesn't have the intellect to follow a point, I'm left with little else.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:49 PM
See post 51 and try to understand that your question is meaningless because we didn't go to war because of Iraq's "ties to Bin laden" as you so childishly put it.

I didn't say it that way the Bush adminstration did.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:49 PM
Yes, Reagan helped to prevent Iran from engulfing Iraq. Good for him.

lol.

patteeu
03-20-2010, 10:49 PM
The 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia who we do business with. So are you saying they had ties to Al Aqeada too? We should invade them.

No, re-read ClevelandBronco's excellent post 61 which covered this territory nicely.

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 10:52 PM
No, re-read ClevelandBronco's excellent post 61 which covered this territory nicely.

it's a pretty vague explaination. Define what you mean by what's in it for us. Us being The United States as a nation? Us as in the Bush campagain? Explain.

dirk digler
03-20-2010, 10:56 PM
Haha. DailyKos actually wrote about this years ago of course they are a kook site so no one paid attention until this conservative blogger called him out on it.

And a fellow diarist came up with these numbers from a report he gained access to.
Statement of Functional Expenses-2006 (certain examples on 990 Form page 2) The 990 Report is 30 pages long.
$14,503,615 Net assets or fund balances at end of year:
$306,500 Scholarship Grants
$ 97,400 Grants and Contributions
$1,414,215 Printing and publications
$641,411 Consultations
$242,042 Compensations of current officers
$604,310 Salaries and wages not included above
$1,703,232 Postage and Shipping
$246,232 Educational Outreach Consultant
$457,622 Other Expenses
$9,098,290 Scholarship Fund at end of year
$791,555 Temporarily Restricted Net assets (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/4/105532/2606)
So basically the group began the year with 14.5 million, spent $306,500 on scholarship grants (no guarantee they go to a worthy applicant, they go directly to the college which may or may not use it that way.) and ONLY $97,400 went directly to military families. And where's the rest of the money? So the Freedom Alliance at best gave anywhere from 2% to 8% of its expense money to children of military personnel who died in service. Using the high number, 8% of 8% is less than 1%. So there it is, LESS THAN 1% of the money from Sean Hannity's Concert goes to helping the children of military families yet Hannity bills it as a concert to help these families.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 11:01 PM
it's a pretty vague explaination. Define what you mean by what's in it for us. Us being The United States as a nation? Us as in the Bush campagain? Explain.

I assure you that I was not officially involved in the campaign, so I would not call it "us."

Chocolate Hog
03-20-2010, 11:03 PM
I assure you that I was not officially involved in the campaign, so I would not call it "us."

You said "us" in #61 so i'm asking you to be more specific when you say what's in it for us.

penchief
03-20-2010, 11:04 PM
Yes, Reagan helped to prevent Iran from engulfing Iraq. Good for him.

He also sold weapons to Iran. Reagan played both sides of the fence.

ClevelandBronco
03-20-2010, 11:11 PM
You said "us" in #61 so i'm asking you to be more specific when you say what's in it for us.

"Us" differs in every situation. At its best, "us" is the individual citizens of the U.S. At its worst, "us" could be something such as the Bush campaign, which would be a far too narrow and ill-deserving "us" to justify all the costs of war.

Saul Good
03-21-2010, 09:24 AM
Haha. DailyKos actually wrote about this years ago of course they are a kook site so no one paid attention until this conservative blogger called him out on it.

It's a scholarship fund for children of the troops. What do you expect to be done with the money before the children are of college age? It's being set aside for when they get older, oh the humanity.

VAChief
03-21-2010, 09:43 AM
It's a scholarship fund for children of the troops. What do you expect to be done with the money before the children are of college age? It's being set aside for when they get older, oh the humanity.

I don't have a problem with setting money aside...however $400,000 going toward some form of scholarship support seems incredibly low compared to the amount collected. $242,000 for an educational outreach consultant? $800,000 for salaries? It doesn't seem like too much was donated, it sounds more like an excuse to get paid.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 10:12 AM
it's a pretty vague explaination. Define what you mean by what's in it for us. Us being The United States as a nation? Us as in the Bush campagain? Explain.

That answer is contained in post #51. Just keep re-reading #51 and #61 until you come up to speed and then get back to me.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 10:19 AM
Haha. DailyKos actually wrote about this years ago of course they are a kook site so no one paid attention until this conservative blogger called him out on it.

Even in the brief quote you posted, DailyKos screwed it up. They didn't start the year with $14.5 million, they ended the year with that amount. They started the year with $10.8 million. That's $3.7 million that didn't go to expenses, wasteful or otherwise. $3.7 million that remains available for charitable purposes and should be counted as such.

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fail-owned-entrance-not-an-entrance-fail.jpg

patteeu
03-21-2010, 10:20 AM
He also sold weapons to Iran. Reagan played both sides of the fence.

Yes, Reagan brought about the downfall of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Good for him.

Saul Good
03-21-2010, 10:31 AM
I don't have a problem with setting money aside...however $400,000 going toward some form of scholarship support seems incredibly low compared to the amount collected. $242,000 for an educational outreach consultant? $800,000 for salaries? It doesn't seem like too much was donated, it sounds more like an excuse to get paid.
$400,000?

I'm getting $25 million in grants, contributions, and other funds plus another $800,000 that might be (but it's difficult to tell without more detail).

$14,503,615 Net assets or fund balances at end of year:
$306,500 Scholarship Grants
$ 97,400 Grants and Contributions
$9,098,290 Scholarship Fund at end of year
$791,555 Temporarily Restricted Net assets



$1.5 million in human capital

$641,411 Consultations
$242,042 Compensations of current officers
$604,310 Salaries and wages not included above
$246,232 Educational Outreach Consultant


$3.5 million in expenses

$457,622 Other Expenses
$1,414,215 Printing and publications
$1,703,232 Postage and Shipping




I don't know a lot about charities, but it was always my understanding that efficient charities donate about $0.50 on the dollar collected. At worst, they have $9.5 million for scholarships and grants, $5 million in wages and expenses, and $15 million that has not yet been allocated.

penchief
03-21-2010, 05:38 PM
Yes, Reagan brought about the downfall of the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Good for him.

As I recall the Sandinistas were a democratically elected government as of 1984. And Reagan's covert war against the Sandinistas was an illegal war that violated the constitution.

He sold arms to Iran and Iraq simultaneously. Even sold WMD to Saddam that he used both on Iranians and his own people. Reagan said he would never negotiate with terrorists but then sold arms to terrorists in Iran so he could arm terrorist death squads in Central America.

Yeah, Reagan saved the world. He was a real standup guy. Not to mention a liar and hypocrite.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 06:35 PM
As I recall the Sandinistas were a democratically elected government as of 1984. And Reagan's covert war against the Sandinistas was an illegal war that violated the constitution.

He sold arms to Iran and Iraq simultaneously. Even sold WMD to Saddam that he used both on Iranians and his own people. Reagan said he would never negotiate with terrorists but then sold arms to terrorists in Iran so he could arm terrorist death squads in Central America.

Yeah, Reagan saved the world. He was a real standup guy. Not to mention a liar and hypocrite.

No, Reagan's covert war against the Sandinistas was not a violation of the Constitution. Some argue that parts of it were a violations of statute after the Boland amendments were passed, but that's debatable.

In any event, he succeeded and we were better off because of it. Sorry your commie pals got turned out.

penchief
03-21-2010, 06:43 PM
No, Reagan's covert war against the Sandinistas was not a violation of the Constitution. Some argue that parts of it were a violations of statute after the Boland amendments were passed, but that's debatable.

In any event, he succeeded and we were better off because of it. Sorry your commie pals got turned out.

No it's not debatable. The thing he succeeded at most was perpetuating the hatred and resentment that both regions harbor for the U.S. because of our meddling ways.

And there's no need for you to get nasty about it. The Sandinistas weren't my commie friends. I just think that it's not the place of the U.S. to overthrow democratically elected governments.

The Sandinasta's won a democratic election in 1984 and when they later lost by the ballot they turned over power peacefully. Maybe the Reagan death squads helped create an environment that contributed to their loss but to say that it was Reagan who got rid of the Sandinistas is somewhat of a stretch.

I understand that both you and Reagan felt that the Nicaraguan people were much better off under the brutal dictatorship of Somoza. But the Sandinistas overthrew that dictatorship and transformed their government into a democracy. Seems odd for you to condemn that.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:07 PM
No it's not debatable. The thing he succeeded at most was perpetuating the hatred and resentment that both regions harbor for the U.S. because of our meddling ways.

And there's no need for you to get nasty about it. The Sandinistas weren't my commie friends. I just think that it's not the place of the U.S. to overthrow democratically elected governments.

The Sandinasta's won a democratic election in 1984 and when they later lost by the ballot they turned over power peacefully. Maybe the Reagan death squads helped create an environment that contributed to their loss but to say that it was Reagan who got rid of the Sandinistas is somewhat of a stretch.

I understand that both you and Reagan felt that the Nicaraguan people were much better off under the brutal dictatorship of Somoza. But the Sandinistas overthrew that dictatorship and transformed their government into a democracy. Seems odd for you to condemn that.

It's the place of the US to overthrow any government that threatens our security, whether it's democratically elected or spontaneously created by God himself.

LOL, it's a stretch to credit Reagan with getting rid of the Sandinistas, but it's not a stretch to talk about Reagan's death squads. Too funny.

BTW, I didn't realize you'd consider my comment about "your commie pals" to be nasty. I assumed you'd agree with it.

penchief
03-21-2010, 08:26 PM
It's the place of the US to overthrow any government that threatens our security, whether it's democratically elected or spontaneously created by God himself.

LOL, it's a stretch to credit Reagan with getting rid of the Sandinistas, but it's not a stretch to talk about Reagan's death squads. Too funny.

BTW, I didn't realize you'd consider my comment about "your commie pals" to be nasty. I assumed you'd agree with it.

How were the Sandinastas more of a threat to the U.S than the Somoza dictatorship? What were they going to do, attack us? It seems like they were quite reasonable by abiding by the will of the people and stepping aside peacefully. A lot more reasonable than Reagan's funding of the Contra death squads, don't you think? And don't you think that the Nicaraguan people had the right to overthrow a tyrannical governent?

As far as "Reagan's death squads," that was just a return volley on my part. However, considering that Reagan contracted the death squads to do his dirty work I suppose it's not that much of a stretch. That said, if the Sandinistas hadn't stepped aside peacefully I doubt you'd be attempting to put another bogus tally in Reagan's column.

Looking back on Reagan's interventionist policies in the Middle East and Central America, it's folly to suggest that they were anywhere near successful when taking into account the resentment they inspired and all that has transpired since. Some legacy.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 08:38 PM
How were the Sandinastas more of a threat to the U.S than the Somoza dictatorship? What were they going to do, attack us? It seems like they were quite reasonable by abiding by the will of the people and stepping aside peacefully. A lot more reasonable than Reagan's funding of the Contra death squads, don't you think? And you don't think that the Nicaraguan people had the right to overthrow a tyrannical governent if they wanted?

As far as "Reagan's death squads," that was just a return volley on my part. However, considering that he contracted them to do his dirty work I suppose it's not that much of a stretch. That said, if the Sandinistas hadn't stepped aside peacefully I doubt you'd be attempting to put another bogus tally in Reagan's column.

Looking back on Reagan's interventionist policies in the Middle East and Central America, it's folly to suggest that they were anywhere near successful when taking into account the resentment they inspired and all that has transpired since. Some legacy.

The Soviets are no more. Some legacy, indeed.

penchief
03-21-2010, 08:50 PM
The Soviets are no more. Some legacy, indeed.

Reagan had about as much to do with that as I did. The Soviet Union had run it's course and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time. I'll give Reagan Kudos for his Cold War rhetoric but that's about all. Afghanistan may have exposed the cracks that were already there but that would have happened with or without the U.S. enabling al Qaeda.

It seems like the only thing his interventionist policies did was enable third world dictators and plant the seeds for later foreign policy debacles such as bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Like I said, some legacy.

patteeu
03-21-2010, 09:37 PM
Reagan had about as much to do with that as I did. The Soviet Union had run it's course and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time. I'll give Reagan Kudos for his Cold War rhetoric but that's about all. Afghanistan may have exposed the cracks that were already there but that would have happened with or without the U.S. enabling al Qaeda.

It seems like the only thing his interventionist policies did was enable third world dictators and plant the seeds for later foreign policy debacles such as bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Like I said, some legacy.

Yeah, I know that's the new story you lefties like to tell yourselves, but it's nothing more than that.

penchief
03-21-2010, 10:37 PM
Yeah, I know that's the new story you lefties like to tell yourselves, but it's nothing more than that.

Maybe you could answer some of the questions I've asked. Your silence on those questions leads me to believe that you don't have good responses.

If not that's fine. I'll just respond in kind and say that you can keep telling yourself that Reagan was right to sell weapons to Iraq and Iran at the same time, sell WMD to Saddam to use on Iran and which he used on his own people, and sell weapons to Iranian terrorists so he could arm death squads in Nicaraugua in violation of the constitution.

Keep telling yourself that all of that was noble. But I think most reasonable people would agree that they would not want our government conducting foreign policy like that behind the backs of the people.

patteeu
03-22-2010, 05:33 AM
Maybe you could answer some of the questions I've asked. Your silence on those questions leads me to believe that you don't have good responses.

If not that's fine. I'll just respond in kind and say that you can keep telling yourself that Reagan was right to sell weapons to Iraq and Iran at the same time, sell WMD to Saddam to use on Iran and which he used on his own people, and sell weapons to Iranian terrorists so he could arm death squads in Nicaraugua in violation of the constitution.

Keep telling yourself that all of that was noble. But I think most reasonable people would agree that they would not want our government conducting foreign policy like that behind the backs of the people.

Reagan was, and remains, a pretty popular President even though people know all about his foreign policy activities.

BTW, he didn't sell Saddam WMD. He sold Saddam dual use materials that Saddam converted and used to make WMD.

Your questions didn't seem all that interesting or sincere, but if you want some answers, here you go:

How were the Sandinastas more of a threat to the U.S than the Somoza dictatorship? They were allied will the Cubans and Soviets
What were they going to do, attack us? Doubtful. No, they would just give the Soviets and expanded base of operations in the Western Hemisphere.
A lot more reasonable than Reagan's funding of the Contra death squads, don't you think? No, I don't. And I don't accept the premise that Reagan was specifically funding death squads.
And you don't think that the Nicaraguan people had the right to overthrow a tyrannical governent if they wanted? Sure they did. It's not that they overthrew the government that upset us, it's that they ended up with a pro-Soviet communist in charge after the smoke cleared.

orange
03-29-2010, 12:55 PM
CREW, VoteVets File IRS, FTC Complaints Against Sean Hannity Charity Freedom Concerts
First Posted: 03-29-10 11:13 AM | Updated: 03-29-10 02:29 PM


Freedom Concerts, Sean Hannity's scholarship charity for the children of fallen soldiers, has violated its charitable tax status, according to a Washington advocacy group.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington alleges that Hannity's Freedom Concerts has "engaged in deceptive and illegal marketing practices by suggesting that all concert ticket sale revenue goes directly to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members."

CREW will host a joint press conference Monday with VoteVets.org discussing complaints with the IRS and the Federal Trade Commission about Freedom Concert, Freedom Alliance, and Lt. Col. Oliver North.

Freedom Concerts is managed by Freedom Alliance whose honorary chairman is Lt. Col. North. The group organizes performances by bands Like Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Charlie Daniels Band, and Michael W. Smith.

A little more than a week ago, conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel called out Hannity's charity for what she described as a "huge scam":


...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.

Freedom Alliance denied Schlussel's "false and malicious allegations" in a statement to The American Spectator:


Freedom Alliance has never provided planes, hotels, cars, limos, or anything else to Sean. Sean gets nothing from Freedom Alliance except our gratitude for his personal generosity and for all he has done to help the troops and our organization. We have never had to ask Sean for anything, he always generously offers his help before we have a chance to ask him. But to be clear Sean pays for all his own transportation, hotels, and all related expenses for himself and his family and friends and staff, which over the years has added up to tens of thousands of dollars. He does not use any Freedom Alliance Funds or Concert funds in any way, period.

Last week, Media Matters reported that Schlussel's figures "check out," but witheld judgement because Freedom Alliance's mission is broader than just scholarships.

Daily Kos first reported on this story in 2007.

Hannity's new book "Conservative Victory" will be released on Tuesday, March 30.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/washington-watchdog-veter_n_517096.html

patteeu
03-29-2010, 01:38 PM
CREW, VoteVets File IRS, FTC Complaints Against Sean Hannity Charity Freedom Concerts

A leftwing activist group filing a PR lawsuit against a conservative isn't what I'd call "hitting the fan".

HonestChieffan
03-29-2010, 03:25 PM
A leftwing activist group filing a PR lawsuit against a conservative isn't what I'd call "hitting the fan".

Well you dont get your talking points from the right places.