Sean Hannity: Illegal Alien

This was pointed out to me last week but it took me awhile to summon up the interest to check Wonkette and see if it was true. Besides, the manlove festival at the White House is more interesting. With President Bush holding hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and the whole Gannongate thing, it looks like dick is on everyone's minds right now. For once, though, it's not the Dick Cheney Death Pool. I, for one, find that refreshing. With those great big old girls finally letting their hair down can it be long before TigerBeat publishes photos of Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz sharing a milk shake at the corner drug while making serious googly eyes at each other? Perhaps the truth of the failed Kerry/Edwards campaign will come out and Edwards will finally admit that he's a "pushy bottom."

Given the state of affairs in Washington at the moment, I can completely understand the need for such voracious male bonding. When you've started an endless war on false pretenses, moved to destroy one of the most successful government programs ever developed and your approval ratings have grown smaller than Ann Coulter's waist size, you just need a big, hairy finger up your ass to remind you that you're special.

However, tearing myself away from the gay porn channel that is CNN, I was humorously surprised to discover that Sean Hannity, Professional Irish American Blowhard, is actually a criminal. And the stupid mick let it be caught on tape.

Before we all mix a big pitcher of martinis in celebration of the truth finally revealed, I have to temper this astonishing announcement with reality. He's not going to jail or anything and the infraction isn't really all that severe. It's not like he killed a hooker or anything...that we're aware of.

Apparently Mr. Hannity was just being cute and broke the law on tape. Seems he was down Mexico way, investigating the Minute Man project. For those of you who don't know, the Minute Men are a self-appointed group of "concerned citizens" (two words which should strike fear into anyone sane) who are, out of the goodness of their star-spangled hearts, policing the U.S.-Mexico boarder in an effort to keep illegal aliens out.

Well, everyone needs a hobby.

Hannity was down there giving them undeserved screen time (but on FOX so it's really sort of a wash) and was walking the boarder along with them. Here's where it gets cute. In what can only be described as a fond salute to a junior-high level understanding of borders, Hannity jumped over the U.S.-Mexico border and then reentered U.S. soil to show how easy it was. Mind you, he had to push barbed-wire out of the way to make his point, but Sean's always been a hands-on kind of guy.

In this age of heighted terrorism threat and perma-yellow threat levels which clash with everything, we should all be aware of the seriousness of our boarders. Hannity certainly should be. He's bitched about it enough on his amusing little program. In case someone is unaware, it is illegal to reenter the U.S. from foriegn soil except through a specified "port of entry." And while big business may have you believe otherwise, the entire span of the U.S.-Mexico border does not qualify as a port of entry.

So he's a criminal. He broke the law. It's on tape. Why wasn't he arrested? You would think with all the grousing he does about the border patrol they would be there just waiting to prove their effectiveness to his smarmy self. God help me, maybe he has a point?

Really, this just seems wrong. Petty and insubstantial, sure, but wrong.

Okay, let's get into this...

Since I believe there are only two people at the moment who actually read my blog, that gives me certain advantages. Namely, I can respond to a comment in another entry by creating an entire post on it and not feel weird.

Dave, I read your comment because Tihleigh called me at midnight basically to tell me about it. I'm not particularly sorry if you found some of my remarks offensive. Good on you for having an opinion. I stand by them and don't feel I need to defend them in the least.

Now, let's get into this. In comparison to Pope John Paul II, who took part in anti-Nazi performances in his theater company, Pope Benedict XVI's membership in the Hitler Youth is a perfectly valid point of criticism. I am well aware of his age when he took part in this and I'm also well aware of the fact that membership was compulsory at the time. However, when one is elevated to the position of God's voice on Earth, one is going to be held to different standards.

Pope Benedict's father, also a Joseph, was a staunch anti-Nazi and had to move his family many times due to his activities. When PB joined the Hitler Youth at age 14 in 1941, shortly after it became compulsory, he very quickly received a dispensation from activity as he was at seminary. Later, while serving in an anti-aircraft battery, he got out of active duty by claiming an infected finger. PB and his supporters claim that resistance was impossible, yet other survivors from the time strongly disagree. Traunstein local, Elizabeth Lohner, who's brother was sent to a concentration camp as a conscientious objector, claims, "It was possible to resist and those people set an example for others."

Yes, my post was indeed one sided in that I chose to leave all that out. I did so with the full knowledge of what was going on at the time because I believe it is irrelevant to the point of the man's character that I was attempting to illustrate. When you're the Pope, the voice of God and the leader of millions, your actions, both past and present, are held to a higher scrutiny. Instead of voicing his objections and flat out refusing to serve in a regime he knew and felt to be wrong, he took the easy course. While this is certainly pragmatic as hell, it's not very flattering. Couple this with his strict adherance to outdated church doctrine and the image which emerges is a man who's only willing to do the right thing when there is very little personal risk and who clings to old ways, not because of their validity, but simply because they're standard operating procedure. Not a very comforting thought when you consider he is the defacto moral conscious of millions. If I don't admire this characteristic in our current President, I'm certainly not about to admire it in the leader of the Catholic Church.

Perhaps resistance would have led to his death. However, it seems ironic that the man who is now sworn to uphold the teachings and traditions of the Christ seems to have utterly missed his message.

I completely agree, though, that Benedict XVI will be very popular with the majority of Catholics worldwide. This is itself disturbing and concerns me for a couple of reasons. One, it seems to indicate a build up to a showdown between faiths, specifically Catholicism and Islam. The only real differences between the fanatics on either side of that spectrum is that the Vatican has all the good art. Two, if a man who's supposed to be the voice of a loving God on Earth is okay with violence towards homosexuals, is willing to consign women to the kitchen and would condemn to hell those who support a woman's right to choose, what does that say about the institution, the man and the God?

If Benedict is indeed the "right" man for the job, then that only further illustrates the Catholic Church's continued lessening of relevance to the modern world. Far from making them weak, however, this makes them dangerous. People who are accustomed to holding power and influencing opinion don't like giving it up without a fight and the Catholic church has a rich tradition of shedding blood for its own purposes.

(Another point, here, that strays into personal beliefs. I've never understood the concept of a "living God" in the face of religious dogma. If God is indeed "alive" (which I take to mean active in this reality and aware of the situation), then surely He understands the need for change. Life progresses, new challenges arise and these challenges can not be met with the same exact rules that served hundreds of years ago. The same ideas, certainly, but not the same rules. To defend those rules and demand that they be observed in the face of change which renders them, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, hazardous seems to not only be an insult to God, but a rejection of Him and His evolving creation.)

Of course Catholicism is a heirarchy. I never said it wasn't. Frankly, though, it concerns me when that heirarchy attempts to influence political processes in our country. I'm not okay with our OWN leaders bringing religion into their political work, so it is doubly offensive when the Whore of Babylon sticks in their oar.

As for your last point, I never questioned the man's intellectual prowess. Brilliance, however, is not wisdom, morality or even understanding. Did you know that this man also feels that Jewish doctrine and scripture only reach fulfillment in Christ? Furthermore, in 2000 he added his signature to Dominus Jesus, a document that states, "Only in the Catholic Church is there eternal salvation." So now that he's gotten to a position of power and security, he's willing to stand up for his beliefs. You can call that brilliance if you like. I personally call it cowardice.

At the end of the day, however, he's a public figure who's chosen to take on a public role. Fine. Good for him. I wish him luck. However, that means even those of us who are "out of place and ill informed at best" have a right to criticize him as we see fit. I don't like him. I haven't seen one thing in his history or his words that makes me think this man is a good choice. Furthermore, I don't like the message his election sends. Given, I'm not a Catholic, but I have to live with them and we all have to share this world. I don't believe for a second Pope Benedict XVI is willing to do that.

By the way, I like www.theonetruetiny.com. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I like it.