Two actresses became victims of nude-photo scandals over the weekend — or at least that’s what some hackers would like you to believe. “Mad Men” star Christina Hendricks and her “I Don’t Know How She Does It” co-star Olivia Munn reportedly had nude photos leaked.

Hendricks’ rep denies that any scandalous photos you see of the star on the Internet are real. “Christina’s phone was in fact hacked and photos were stolen,” Hendricks’ rep told E! News. “The proper authorities have been contacted in hopes of rectifying this situation.” The rep added, “The topless image is fake and not an image of Christina.”

Meanwhile, Munn laughed off photos that anyone might believe are of her au naturel. “If you ever hacked my phone, these are the photos you’d find,” she tweeted along with shots of a kitten and a baby.

TMZ reported that sources close to Munn confirm that while some of the shots floating around — namely ones in which she isn’t naked — are real and have previously been tweeted by the actress, the completely nude photos in which you can’t see the model’s face aren’t her. Someone is apparently trying to pass herself off as the TV personality.

Munn and Hendricks are hardly the first actresses to get caught up in leaked-photo controversies. Scarlett Johansson, Mila Kunis (along with her “Friends With Benefits” co-star Justin Timberlake), Ashley Greene and Blake Lively are just a handful of A-listers who have been tied to photo scandals in the last few years.

Source: MTV.

Photos HERE.

Newt Gingrich’s big applause line in the South Carolina CNN debate is coming back to bite him.

When moderator John King opened the debate with a question about allegations that his ex-wife made in an interview. Gingrich fired back, saying that his campaign offered several friends familiar with the situation to rebut ABC’s interview, but that the network refused to talk to them.

That wasn’t really true, his campaign now says.

Gingrich’s spokesman R.C. Hammond has told CNN that the only witnesses it offered to ABC were Gingrich’s two daughters from his first marriage. Not exactly the scores of “personal friends” that Gingrich promised as character witnesses in the debate, and promised again in a follow-up interview with King.

Mitt Romney came down against Gingrich’s treatment of the media, and John King in particular, in an appearance on FOX News Wednesday, The Hill reports.

“It’s very easy to talk down a moderator,” Romney said. “The moderator asks a question and then has to sit by and take whatever you send to them. And Speaker Gingrich has been wonderful at attacking the moderators and attacking the media.”

Ultimately, the legacy of Gingrich’s big moment might not matter, as Gingrich’s South Carolina boost seems to be shrinking fast. Already the conservative media is uniting to sink Gingrich’s campaign, and new polls show that Gingrich is rapidly losing his lead in Florida.

Source: Business Insider.

After huge volume of complaints, Fox reporter was forced to do-over post debate breakdown revealing that Ron Paul blitzed the debate in every category.

The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the floor with the other candidates.

During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers.

The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.

Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out.

“John, you caused a fury in my world.” Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. “I have a bone to pick with you. You left off Ron Paul.” she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact hat he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!

Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject.

“John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.

Watch the unbelievable footage below:

The fact that Ron Paul was the outright winner of  the debate was remarkable, given the fact that the moderators had done their utmost to exclude, smear and misrepresent the Congressman earlier in the night.

The opening portion of the debate was exclusively reserved for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney in an atmosphere that more resembled The Jerry Springer show than a coherent political debate.

Refraining from joining in with such pantomime ridiculousness, Ron Paul patiently waited to be addressed by the moderators… and waited… and waited.

Indeed, during the first 40 minutes Ron Paul was only asked one question, and that was about “scathing attacks” on the other candidates in campaign ads. Refusing to be drawn into what was rapidly becoming something resembling an opening segment of WWE Smackdown, Paul succinctly noted that he believed pointing out legitimate flaws in the other candidates voting records was fair game.

As the exclusion of Paul continued, it even triggered a commercial break discussion between the Fox political panel about how Paul was being sidelined. Analyst Ed Rollins commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side.”

When Paul was finally asked further questions, they were so leading and laced with underlying venom it defied belief.

With almost every question the Congressman had to begin his answer by correcting the moderators for grossly distorting his position on multiple issues.

Firstly, Paul had to once again explain that there is a significant difference between “defense spending” and Pentagon waste, and that he is not about to decimate military funding, as the moderators suggested.

“You don’t understand there’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend — spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad bigger than the Vatican — you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste.” Paul said to thunderous applause.

“I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,” Paul said. “I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do,” he contended.

Following that, Fox Moderator Bret Baier then essentially called Paul a terrorist-sympathizer by suggesting that he was opposed to the capture of Osama Bin Laden and that international law should have prevented US forces from tracking Bin Laden down.

“Obviously no, and I did not say that.” Paul retorted, explaining that he voted for provisions to go after Bin Laden following 9/11, and even introduced legislation to keep focused on the target, rather than become embroiled in nation building.

Paul then explained that “there are proper procedures, rather than digging bigger holes for ourselves”, noting that a ten year campaign of bombing Pakistan and repeatedly violating their sovereignty was not something he supported.

Watch all of Ron Paul’s debate answers below:

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: Prison Planet.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step. As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. “We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.” Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step. – PressTV/YouTube/Washington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Iran is evil. War is in the offing.

Free-Market Analysis:  Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Iran was not seeking to make nuclear weapons. OK, we can all relax now, right? Not quite. Panetta went on to caution that Iran was seeking a “nuclear capability” and that this “concerned” him – and presumably others as well.

Who are the others, we ask? President Barack Obama? The military? The CIA? Israel? No, we have another hypothesis. We think the current crisis is a manufactured one and that Iran’s “capability” – whatever it is – has little to do with any contemplated war.

There will be war, if there is war, between the West and Persia because the West NEEDS a war. Already, in the West, the alternative media – often a beacon of truth and hope – is explaining there will be war because ISRAEL feels threatened.

But this is not quite true, either. Israel is a creation of the power elite and it is the Anglosphere power elite that is currently seeking war, in our view. It seems to need or want a war to prop up its failing central banking system.

It is the failure of the financial system, proceeding apace, that gives rise to this talk of war, to the military tensions, to the tendentious statements made by Washington, DC and to a lesser extent by European and Israeli leaders.

What other conclusion can be reached? Iran HAS no nuclear weapons. And even if it did, is Iran somehow more evil or unstable than North Korea, which is evidently bent on increasing a nuclear arsenal that it already has built?

But Iran, it is said, can target Israel with nuclear weapons. Yet North Korea can do the same with South Korea. Compare the “tensions” and rhetoric and one has to conclude that a double standard is being applied. It is seemingly a situation where Iran’s ongoing nuclear program is simply a tool designed to unlock wider rhetoric. Here’s a further excerpt from a Washington Post on the subject:

The comments suggest the White House’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Iran says its nuclear program is only for energy and medical research, and refuses to halt uranium enrichment.

Several Republican candidates have called for a tougher line against Iran, saying they believe it is committed to building the bomb. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said Mitt Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Rick Santorum has said that the U.S. should plan a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and “say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.” Iran has opened two dozen of its facilities to international inspectors, but has refused in defiance of the U.N. Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Panetta did not rule out launching a pre-emptive strike. “But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing,” he said. “And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

We can see from the above excerpt how strongly the drums of war are beating. Panetta, while admitting that Iran has no weaponized nuclear program, will not rule out a “pre-emptive” strike. The entire scenario seems to be some kind of power elite dominant social theme.

These fear-based themes are essentially tools used by the elites to stampede Western middle classes into giving up wealth and power to global institutions specially constructed for that purpose, such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.

In this case, we are not quite sure why the Pentagon – an elite-oriented institution – has decided to focus so intently on Iran. We are sure, however (as we have pointed out previously), that the powers-that-be are creating an Islamic crescent arc in the Middle East by destabilizing secular regimes and replacing them with Islamic ones.

This is ongoing … and perhaps the malicious rhetoric surrounding Iran is merely part of a propaganda process intended to further demonize the region preparatory to a full-on regional war.

Modern wars need years, even decades, to foment, in our view. In the Internet era, this is even harder because people’s natural skepticism about being manipulated will surely be fueled by the fodder provided by various alternative ‘Net news.

Iran/Western tensions seen through this lens are perhaps preparatory and do not indicate an immediate state of hostilities. On the other hand, the amount of weaponry now emplaced in and around Iran certainly gives rise to concern. Even a war planned for later can be generated sooner by mistake (intentional or not). View the video below and make up your own mind.

*Taken from RiseAgainstState’s YouTube Channel.

A YouTube video shot during the November 9 student rally in London allegedly shows plainclothes police acting as agents provocateurs among the protesting crowds.

The video uploaded by the user “noshockdoc” shows two people who first engage in rough handling of one of the rally protesters. Then, reportedly, the same people are shown along with six others detaining someone behind a police cordon.

The media dubbed the November 9 march against tuition fees and education cuts one of the most intensively-policed events to take place in London. The force had 4,000 officers on duty on the day, and they were authorized to use rubber bullets if necessary. This was never needed, however. The Met reported that 24 arrests were made on the day.

Some of the protesters reported incidents of violence which they said had been caused by the security forces. “The police tried to provoke people to react violently, and some people had to act in self-defense against police attacks, but we all supported one another and prevented the police from causing a riot,” one of the activists, identified only as ‘Dan’, told the Oxford University student newspaper Cherwell.

*Taken from Prison Planet. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Establishment favorite and former Federal Reserve insider Herman Cain brazenly lied during last night’s Republican debate when he denied that he had opposed an audit of the Fed, a claim that was proven false within hours by Ron Paul’s campaign team.

Pointing out that the majority of Americans want to see a full audit of the Federal Reserve, Congressman Ron Paul asked Cain if he stood by his position that it would be frivolous to audit the Fed on a regular basis, as well as his characterization of those who are calling for such measures as ignorant.

Cain responded by claiming he never dismissed Ron Paul or his supporters as “ignorant” for asking about the Federal Reserve, and that the error was down to Paul believing what he read on the Internet. Technically Cain is correct, because he didn’t call Ron Paul supporters “ignorant,” worse still, in his own book Cain dismissed them as “stupid” and ludicrously suggested that the Paul campaign was deliberately sending out supporters to harass Cain with questions about the Federal Reserve.

CONTINUED..

My Two Cents: Since when do presidential candidates hold press conferences in Staples? End Two Cents.

*Taken from Wake Up 1776.

The Fox News commentator tells everyone who just got done watching the Republican Presidential debate in Iowa to go on FoxNews.com and vote.  So then Hannity comes on and brings his hired propagandist Frank Luntz and then interviews several candidates except Ron Paul.  I don’t even remember Hannity showing a video clip of Ron Paul during the entire show.

The announcement of the poll results was supposed to be done during the hour long Hannity post-debate show.  The entire show was a propaganda piece saying nice things about everyone but Ron Paul.

Well, it turns out Ron Paul won the FoxNews.com poll handily.  He won it by several thousand votes.  Here is a screenshot and a breakdown of the poll results shortly after 12 am ET (after Hannity’s show concluded).

1st Place: Paul with 7,796 votes
2nd Place:  Gingrich with 4,751 votes
3rd Place:  Cain with 2,425 votes
4th Place:  Romney (the supposed front-runner) with 1,870 votes
5th Place:  Bachmann (the other so-called front-runner) with 1,818 votes
6th Place:  Santorum with 835 votes
7th Place:  Huntsman with 303 votes
Last Place:  Pawlenty with 250 votes

Here is a state breakdown of the poll.  Ron Paul takes almost every state in the union except Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, and Mississippi.

Shortly after Hannity’s show, Fox News pulled the poll off their website:

It was somewhere in the yellow area before it was pulled down.

So what does this mean?  This means that Ron Paul got over 7,000 votes in less than an hour from all 50 states from an audience that is mostly conservative that watched Fox News.  It also shows that he almost doubled the 2nd place contender’s votes.  It also shows he won Iowa – the main purpose for the Iowa debate and an early primary state.  It shows that Fox News is scared and that Frank Luntz is a liar.  It shows that Ron Paul has a real good shot at winning this election.

*Taken from the Huffington Post. Video at link.

UPDATE: The Enquirer has now posted video proof that Hansen did indeed cheat on his wife with Caddell, which you can see here.
_____

PREVIOUSLY:

Looks like the sting tactic that made Chris Hansen famous may have come back to bite him — big time.

The National Enquirer is reporting that they’ve caught the “To Catch A Predator” host cheating on his wife with Kristyn Caddell, a Florida NBC affiliate news reporter twenty one years his junior, with a hidden camera. Hansen is married with two children and lives in Connecticut.

The Enquirer says that they have footage of Hansen out with Caddell, having dinner at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Manalapan, Florida, and then returning for the night to her Palm Beach apartment. The host has been spending time in Florida investigating the disappearance of James ‘Jimmy T’ Trindade, the Enquirer reports (via the Daily Mail).

“To Catch A Predator,” a Dateline series, features Hansen and an advocacy organization called Perverted Justice posing as younger women and communicating with older men online, and then catching would-be sex offenders at a location that they and the almost-offender agreed upon.

CONTINUED..