CONservative Freedomwonks Produces Soft Porn

Allegedly - - - - - -
But - who would make this crap up.

For it's own viewing pleasure.
Wonder where the video ended up?  Wonder what they are using it for  ... 

Hostile work environment? Definitely
Could also be considered  "on the job" training for quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Could it be considered a new type of sexual harassment training session?
Could also be considered a primer on how CONservatives break down the spirit of women?

Can't help wondering:
      Did the interns get extra credit for this?
      Will the interns put this on their resume'.
      Did the interns report this part of their internship to their academic supervisor?
      Did the school that supplied the interns support this type of "behavior".
AND MOST OF ALL
      Did the interns get paid for doing this?
THAT - my friends, puts a whole new spin on this - producing and distributing soft porn.
But then those CONservatives love defending everyone's first amendment rights - hah!

This story is meant to shock and amaze.
But it is also meant to show you how hypocritical the Bible thumping CONservatives are.

An internal investigation of FreedomWorks—the prominent conservative advocacy group and super-PAC—has focused on president Matt Kibbe's management of the organization,   ...   One potential topic for the inquiry is a promotional video produced last year under the supervision of Adam Brandon, executive vice president of the group and a Kibbe loyalist. The video included a scene in which a female intern wearing a panda suit simulates performing oral sex on Hillary Clinton. [Author's note: The previous sentence contains no typos.]

In one segment of the film, according to a former official who saw it, Brandon is seen waking from a nap at his desk. In what appears to be a dream or a nightmare, he wanders down a hallway and spots a giant panda on its knees with its head in the lap of a seated Hillary Clinton and apparently performing oral sex on the then-secretary of state. Two female interns at FreedomWorks were recruited to play the panda and Clinton. One intern wore a Hillary Clinton mask. The other wore a giant panda suit that FreedomWorks had used at protests to denounce progressives as panderers. (See here, here, and here.) Placing the panda in the video, a former FreedomWorks staffer says, was "an inside joke."

Another FreedomWorks staffer who worked there at the time confirms that "Yes, this video was created."

Days before the FreePAC event, the video was screened for staff. "My mouth was wide open," a former official recalls. "'What the hell is this?'" Several FreedomWorks staffers were outraged and stunned that Brandon, the group's second-in-command after Kibbe, had overseen the video's production, appeared in it, and intended to show this film at the conference, which would be attended by many social-conservative activists. They raised objections to the film.

 And - it had some girl on girl action:

"How was that not some form of sexual harassment?" a former FreedomWorks official asks, noting that two female interns had been requested to act out a pretend sex scene. "And there were going to be thousands of Christian conservatives at this thing. This was a terrible lack of judgment."

“the staffers who made it remain with the organization”

I wonder if they told their parents.
Did they tell their grandparents?
 
And hidden in the article - are links to Freedomwonks "panda"

So this story may very well be true.

>>>Freedomwonks PANDA HERE<<<<

and

>>>>HERE<<<<<

where "Intern Steve was quickly suited up"
(was it really - girl on girl?????)

And at minute 2:03 of this FOX report

>>>>HERE<<<<

And Freeedomwonks is against VAWA – one of the leading opposition groups 

– why does that NOT surprise me.

The conservative grassroots is pushing lawmakers to vote against the Senate’s reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which has 62 cosponsors and is slated for a final vote early this week.

Heritage Action and FreedomWorks, two well-financed right wing activist groups, are lobbying to scuttle the reauthorization. In short, they lament the expanded provisions, which beefs up funding for local law enforcement to prosecute domestic abusers while expanding coverage to gays, illegal immigrants and Native Americans. They claim VAWA hasn’t proved to be effective and argue that federal funding for law enforcement is both redundant and unconstitutional.