Sean Hannity In Serious Military Charity Scandal (what a DOUCHEBAG!!!)

[Facial_King]

God, this guy is such an evil creep - using the war and its tragedies to enrich himself and promote his worthless, empty agendas....



http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2010/03/20/sean-hannity-in-serious-military-charity-scandal/

Excerpt:

Given the serious nature of Schlussel’s accusations, I went to the source for all information on charities – the tax returns. I began with the organization’s 2008 tax filings which were filed in November of 2009.

It’s not a pretty picture. While I encourage you to go through the return on your own, here’s the bottom line –

In 2008, the charity raised $8,781,431 in revenue and gave out just $1,060,275.57–or 12%–to seriously wounded soldiers and for scholarships to kids of soldiers who have died. About 80% was spent on expenses, including $1,055,791 on postage, $925,392 on printing and $157,041 on travel.

Folks, when a charity’s expenditure on stamps equals the amount they spent fulfilling the actual mission of the charity, something is seriously wrong.

It is a well established rule of thumb that a legitimate charity is expected to spend 75% of its revenues on the mission of the charity. In 2008, Freedom Alliance spent 12%

And that was a good year!

=====

Hannity makes me hope that there is a horrific place called Hell - yes, even if I end up there, there will be an undeniable grin on my face knowing that Hannity burning next to me!

 

[Jack Davenport]

I know you are jizzing yourself over this but did you bother to read the Freedom Alliance response?

Your thread title is misleading.

Surprise.

 

[Philbert]

The Combined Federal Campaign is managed under — and included charities must follow fairly strict public disclosure requirements from — Title 5 USC 950: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title05/5cfr950_main_02.tpl

This means CFC charities are at least “screened”. And a section of Part 950 requires that charities included in CFC have their overhead calculated using the IRS tax form you linked to.

The Freedom Alliance is included in the Combined Federal Campaign, with an *officially calculated* overhead rate of (drum roll)… 11 PERCENT: https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=freedom+alliance&s=LNI&o=0,110

Another BS post and raving lie by the Left and Facial-King...

From 88% to11%...anyone see an agenda here?:eek:

 

[Hot Mega]

I know you are jizzing yourself over this but did you bother to read the Freedom Alliance response?

Your thread title is misleading.

Surprise.

The Combined Federal Campaign is managed under — and included charities must follow fairly strict public disclosure requirements from — Title 5 USC 950: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title05/5cfr950_main_02.tpl

This means CFC charities are at least “screened”. And a section of Part 950 requires that charities included in CFC have their overhead calculated using the IRS tax form you linked to.

The Freedom Alliance is included in the Combined Federal Campaign, with an *officially calculated* overhead rate of (drum roll)… 11 PERCENT: https://www.cfcnca.org/donate/?results&q=freedom+alliance&s=LNI&o=0,110

Another BS post and raving lie by the Left and Facial-King...

From 88% to11%...anyone see an agenda here?:eek:

Uh, wait a minute. The beef is being lodge by a so-called conservative, Debbie Schlussel. :rofl:

 

[CunningStunts]

Never could stand the guy... strikes me as a complete asshat. That said, we'll see if he actually committed any kind of misconduct, hard to tell at this point with the varying assertions out there.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Uh, wait a minute. The beef is being lodge by a so-called conservative, Debbie Schlussel. :rofl:

Another talk show host who most people have never heard of.

Now they have.

Nice PR move.

The FA has responded. And certainly Hannity is aware that people would love to pin something on him. Too early to tell if there is anything to this.

I just got a kick at the OP gloating when nothing has been proven.

 

[jod0565]

Is he still doing his "Freedom Concerts" now that Obama's in the House?

 

[Facetious]

Uh, wait a minute. The beef is being lodge by a so-called conservative, Debbie Schlussel. :rofl:

Yesterday, Schlussel was a spent tampon in a garbage bin and today because of her objectiveness she's merely a ''so called conservative" ?

If Debbie Schlussel, a conservative blogger not much different than, say, a Michelle Malkin for instance, happens to blow the whistle on a fellow household name conservative . . GOOD ! although it would appear that she's taking on great risk if this thing doesn't pan out !
. . so, what do you think Debbie's motives are ? Well, for one, she couldn't possibly be principled being a conservative which I know she is, so why did she do it ?

 

[Red Spyder]

Never could stand the guy... strikes me as a complete asshat. That said, we'll see if he actually committed any kind of misconduct, hard to tell at this point with the varying assertions out there.

And what if it's proven that he actually didn't? Will you be able to stand him now? Will you acknowlege that you were wrong about him?

But of course, because he's a conservative, he has a political opinion that you guys don't like, so if there's an accusation that hasn't even been proven as true go ahead and find him guilty, right? Kick him out of his radio show, shut him up, take away his First Amendment rights even before he is actually tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just grasping at straws to find just one little appearance of misconduct to discredit him to try to make everything he says as false. Question, if Hannity says "2 + 2 = 4", will you liberals actually believe him? Or will you insist that "no, 2 + 2 = 5 because it's not fair that it's only 4". If someone who committed some misconduct but still says the truth, will you guys ignore the truth?

But of course, Charlie Rangel, well, he's a very honest and stand up guy, not corrupt at all, clean as the wind driven snow.

 

[Jack Davenport]

And what if it's proven that he actually didn't? Will you be able to stand him now? Will you acknowlege that you were wrong about him?

But of course, because he's a conservative, he has a political opinion that you guys don't like, so if there's an accusation that hasn't even been proven as true go ahead and find him guilty, right? Kick him out of his radio show, shut him up, take away his First Amendment rights even before he is actually tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just grasping at straws to find just one little appearance of misconduct to discredit him to try to make everything he says as false. Question, if Hannity says "2 + 2 = 4", will you liberals actually believe him? Or will you insist that "no, 2 + 2 = 5 because it's not fair that it's only 4". If someone who committed some misconduct but still says the truth, will you guys ignore the truth?

But of course, Charlie Rangel, well, he's a very honest and stand up guy, not corrupt at all, clean as the wind driven snow.

Phenom post.

 

[Hot Mega]

Never could stand the guy... strikes me as a complete asshat. That said, we'll see if he actually committed any kind of misconduct, hard to tell at this point with the varying assertions out there.

Another talk show host who most people have never heard of.

Now they have.

Nice PR move.

The FA has responded. And certainly Hannity is aware that people would love to pin something on him. Too early to tell if there is anything to this.

I just got a kick at the OP gloating when nothing has been proven.

Yesterday, Schlussel was a spent tampon in a garbage bin and today because of her objectiveness she's merely a ''so called conservative" ?

If Debbie Schlussel, a conservative blogger not much different than, say, a Michelle Malkin for instance, happens to blow the whistle on a fellow household name conservative . . GOOD ! although it would appear that she's taking on great risk if this thing doesn't pan out !
. . so, what do you think Debbie's motives are ? Well, for one, she couldn't possibly be principled being a conservative which I know she is, so why did she do it ?

She just went by the tax returns. What's ambiguous about that? The article acknowledges no specific laws were being broken. It just appears to lack ethical grounding and spending more to operate than it's mission.

I don't know what Schlussel's angle is..frankly don't care. How is it relevant...oh..I "ferget", in the beat it to fit, paint it to match world of so-called conservatives..where any square notion can be pounded into any round rationalization it matters more "why" as opposed to "what" in con on con hits:crash:

And what if it's proven that he actually didn't? Will you be able to stand him now? Will you acknowlege that you were wrong about him?

But of course, because he's a conservative, he has a political opinion that you guys don't like, so if there's an accusation that hasn't even been proven as true go ahead and find him guilty, right? Kick him out of his radio show, shut him up, take away his First Amendment rights even before he is actually tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just grasping at straws to find just one little appearance of misconduct to discredit him to try to make everything he says as false. Question, if Hannity says "2 + 2 = 4", will you liberals actually believe him? Or will you insist that "no, 2 + 2 = 5 because it's not fair that it's only 4". If someone who committed some misconduct but still says the truth, will you guys ignore the truth?

But of course, Charlie Rangel, well, he's a very honest and stand up guy, not corrupt at all, clean as the wind driven snow.

"Didn't" do what?? The woman just went by the tax returns and reported it.

 

[titsrock]

When "Conservatives" and money are involved it never adds up. Haven't we seen enough evidence from 01-08 that, when money's involved, Conservatives always fuck up?Plain and Simple.

To be honest, I always suspected Hannity would "screw" himself in some kind of sex scandal which would get him fired. This seems appalling that he would abuse a military charity, but I guess I'm still holding out hope that the sex scandal will come...

:glugglug: to the whistle blowers of the world. Without them, corruption would reign supreme....(if it already doesn't already I suppose)...

 

[~~whimsy~~]

We will see what happens in the coming weeks. So far it is just accusations.

 

[Hot Mega]

We will see what happens in the coming weeks. So far it is just accusations.

:1orglaugh It's the tax returns from the organization. We're they filed incorrectly or something??

 

[CptHa]

As much as think Hannity is a tool bag, I'm going to wait and see what happens. If this turns out to be true, Hannity should be tossed into the streets to a very angry mob.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

:1orglaugh It's the tax returns from the organization. We're they filed incorrectly or something??

Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following. While I have always found her to be over the top – particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric – she certainly has the respect of the conservative community.

I never heard of her. Now at least people on this site have now heard of her. I guess she's doing something right for publicity. Throwing someone else under the bus for....

Note that Schlussel does not accuse Hannity or the charity of doing anything illegal....

Nothing illegal. Just accusations.

Sean Hannity has nothing to do with this charity personally; working for it, or even around the actual money. He just supports it. Of which he gives to other charities too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2475155/posts

On a side note, this is why I do not give to charities. I don't care what it is. What they get only a little bit of it goes to the actual purpose.

 

[Hot Mega]

Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator with a large radio and online following. While I have always found her to be over the top – particularly with her anti-Muslim rhetoric – she certainly has the respect of the conservative community.

I never heard of her. Now at least people on this site have now heard of her. I guess she's doing something right for publicity. Throwing someone else under the bus for....

As worldly as you may seem ~~whim...the world doesn't revolve around you and who you've heard of. After all, she's described as "a reasonably well-known conservative commentator" (allot of adjectives there). You only heard of her now because someone on FOs posted a story citing her blog entry...She didn't do anything special, she just posted to her blog as she typically does. She didn't run out and demand a camera. So maybe the publicity stunt angle is not quite founded.

Again, I don't know what her motives are and they're not particularly relevant as in this case, if it's true then it's truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Note that Schlussel does not accuse Hannity or the charity of doing anything illegal....

Nothing illegal. Just accusations.

No. She doesn't accuse him of ANYTHING but what the tax records reflect and Media Matters backs up. In fact, Daily Kos actually broke the story in '07 according to the article.

Sean Hannity has nothing to do with this charity personally; working for it, or even around the actual money. He just supports it. Of which he gives to other charities too.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2475155/posts

On a side note, this is why I do not give to charities. I don't care what it is. What they get only a little bit of it goes to the actual purpose.

"nothing to do with this charity personally"?? According to the records...the "charity" has spent on helluva ton of money on this guy for him to have "nothing to do with it".

 

[~~whimsy~~]

And they said he pays for every thing by himself out of his own expenses. So it's he said she said nonsense. Like I said originally: in the coming weeks (or sooner if it's all BS) we will see where every thing lands and what's really going on. It states it all in the link I provided from Freedom Alliance.

And every thing you quoted up there from me is from the original article with exception for a few opinion statements I put in there. My view on what I quoted.

Apparently not a lot of folks heard of her until now from reading other peoples posts. It's not a world revolves around me I don't know why you went there, but ok.

 

[LaLiLuLeLohan]

Just in case Roger Ailes is reading, John Stossel with a 9PM FNC timeslot would be pretty fucking cool thing...:o

 

[CunningStunts]

And what if it's proven that he actually didn't? Will you be able to stand him now? Will you acknowlege that you were wrong about him?

But of course, because he's a conservative, he has a political opinion that you guys don't like, so if there's an accusation that hasn't even been proven as true go ahead and find him guilty, right? Kick him out of his radio show, shut him up, take away his First Amendment rights even before he is actually tried and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is just grasping at straws to find just one little appearance of misconduct to discredit him to try to make everything he says as false. Question, if Hannity says "2 + 2 = 4", will you liberals actually believe him? Or will you insist that "no, 2 + 2 = 5 because it's not fair that it's only 4". If someone who committed some misconduct but still says the truth, will you guys ignore the truth?

But of course, Charlie Rangel, well, he's a very honest and stand up guy, not corrupt at all, clean as the wind driven snow.

Actually, I'm very conservative, especially when it comes to fiscal and personal responsibility. I do NOT like people like him trying to tell me how to live my life, but I actually agree with a lot of his policy positions. I just don't like the guy personally, he comes across as a know-it-all douche. If he's not guilty of these allegations, great for him. Won't make me like him any more than I do now... Rangel is another story... he's a crook and should be put in the pokey.