Predator-In-Chief Trump Tweets About Leeann Tweeden Groping Ass Of Mark Wills

According to Democratic Underground poster groundloop, country music artist Mark Wills (during a 2006 USO performance in Iraq) "was playing a song when she [Tweeden] started rubbing her butt on him, looks like he was trying to gently push her away. She moved on, but grabbed his ass as she walked away" (comment #83 in the thread).

This widely disseminated picture of Wills being groped by Tweeden (unwelcomed ass grab) was surprisingly commented on by predator-in-chief Trump. The predisent implies that Tweeden goes on to grab Willis by his junk, perhaps slipping her hand down his pants first? At least he wonders if that might be what happened (or, so this tweet implies to me, at least).

But I think it unlikely that Tweeden's assault of Wills went any further, as I think this is something we would have heard about. Just as I think it's as unlikely that Al Franken did anything other than mime groping Tweeden's boobs while she slept. You'd have to ask Mark Wills if he felt violated, though. We already know that Tweeden felt violated by Franken's actions (kissing her in a rehearsal for a skit and posing for a picture in which he pretends to grab her breasts as she sleeps).

For the record, while the picture is real, the tweet by the hypocrite-in-chief was photoshopped by me. "Tweedenstien" was actually "Frankenstien" (which should be "Frankenstein"). And Trump, the sexual predator who admitted on tape that he grabs (or has grabbed) women by their privates, wondered if Al Franken further groped Tweeden after the first picture was snapped.

Over on Democratic Underground commenters are theorizing that Franken called for an investigation into his actions because he can't disclose all the facts without looking bad. Those facts being the fact that everyone involved in the tour was engaging in sexually suggestive behavior.

Or Tweeden was, at least. As per another commenter, Tweeden (during an earlier 2005 USO tour), "introduces Robin Williams, humps him, then he pretends to zip up his pants after. It's just the nature of these shows for the troops, they get rowdy" (comment #8 in the thread by BevMarie).

Now, I'm absolutely not saying that (if Tweeden's description of the kiss is what really happened) that gave license to Franken to unexpectedly stick his tongue in her mouth (gross) when the pretense was to rehearse a pretend/stage kiss. Franken apologized, as he should have. And he should have been able to figure out that the picture might not be a good idea. Because it wasn't funny and could come back to haunt him at a latter date (as we know it has).

But I think there are some questions to be answered here. Like (as Shaw Kenawe of Progressive Eruptions noted) "political operative Roger Stone knew about the Weeden accusation and tweeted about it before it became public". Leeann Tweeden is a Conservative Trump supporter who has appeared on Sean Hannity's program.

Additionally, as twitter-er Puesto Loco points out, in the picture of Franken "groping" a sleeping Tweeden's breasts, she is seated in military "jump seats" and military planes that transport civilians have regular seats for such passengers. Puesto Loco's conjecture is that the photo is a joke that Tweeden was in on (she posed for the picture and wasn't sleeping).

Now, you'd think that Franken, if Tweeden had posed for that picture, would have said so. Or maybe he thought "a picture is worth a thousand words", nobody would believe him, and decided that he'd call for an investigation in which the truth would come out. I have no idea, although I'm inclined to believe that Tweeden is recounting the events as she remembers them.

As least as far as the unwanted kiss is concerned. That picture, while she might find it humiliating (and to humiliate her and show his dominance might be why he mugged for it), there clearly was no "groping". As Conservative blogger Silverfiddle points out on FreeThinke's blog "you cannot feel a woman's boobs through kevlar body armor. You'll just have to trust me on that one".

Although the trumpy Silverfiddle goes on to say (in a later comment) that "Al Franken calling for himself to be investigated by the senate ethics committee is a pander. It's a scared man [offering an] apology so he can hold on to his power". A comment to which my response would be "bullshit". But I might be wrong. Either Franken knows (or hopes) the truth will exonerate/allow him to hold on to his Senate seat and/or contriteness will. Certainly running for a Senate seat is a lot of work and he doesn't want to see that flushed away.

SNL alum Jane Curtin said "If he did that, that's really stupid, but I have never seen him in a situation where he has been sexually aggressive with anybody". Larine Newman tweeted in support of Franken, one tweet pointing out that "former female staffers of Franken... issued a statement in support of the senator that noted he treated us with the utmost respect" (WaPo article says "the statement is co-signed by eight former [female] Franken staffers who have worked for him since he was elected to the Senate in 2008").

My opinion thus far is that Franken absolutely should not resign. Certainly when the Republicans just sent a serial sexual assaulter with more than a dozen accusers to the White House AND when it looks like the Republican voters of Alabama are going to send a dater and assaulter of underage girls to the Senate.

Surely when Franken himself has said there should be an Ethics Committee investigation into his digressions and who knows how that might turn out (as per my commentary above). I say this knowing that a 2nd accuser has come forward, btw. Some woman who says Franken grabbed her buttocks in 2010 when she posed for a picture with him (taken by her husband). Lindsay Menz, a Trump voter (as per the NYP) "wasn't sure if she voted for Franken in Minnesota". Yeahhh... she doesn't remember if she voted for Franken and then for Trump.

Franken says he doesn't remember. Grabbing the butt of a constituent, that is. Maybe she's just mistaken? I say this as a Franken fan. Scratch that, make that a SUPER fan. I'd watched him on SNL, read his books and listened to his Air America radio program prior to him being elected to the Senate. Perhaps it's a conspiracy concocted by the Right to turn the #metoo movement against the Left. That is surely not outside the realm of whats possible.

Roger Stone, the "dandified dirty trickster" (as per Vanity Fair), is about to have HIS time in the barrel. Although it is in regards to his time with the Trump campaign and what he knows about Russia collusion and being questioned by the House Intelligence committee. How he knew ahead of time that Leeann Tweeden was going to "tell her story" about Franken likely won't come up.

Gloria Allred representing Roy Moore accuser Beverly Young Nelson is enough to convince trumpanzees Freethinke and Lisa of WYD (with 100% certainty) that the GOP Alabama Senate candidate is being framed. Silverfiddle (whose quoted comment on Franken I agreed with) writes that "Roy Moore got rolled by a well-planned attack" (it was just "creepy" that Moore dated teens and that he doesn't consider any of them victims).

So, Roger Stone being involved (info shared by Stone-associated and now suspended twitter account Enter the Stone Zone), as well as Tweeden's association with slimebag Trump sycophant Sean Hannity (and the other woman being a Trump voter), does give me PAUSE. I'm not saying I know AT ALL that this is a conspiracy against Franken, but I think it warrants looking into. And, yeah, I'm a Democrat who'd have voted for Franken if I live in MN, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Roy Moore (a hate-filled "good Christian man" who has been twice removed from the AL Supreme Court and is supportive of laws to make homosexuality illegal) is obviously guilty, what with his multiple accusers (accusing him of a LOT worse, btw).

(Image: Tweeden and Franken kissing on stage during the performance of his skit. Note that Tweeden has her arm around Franken's neck. She is not turning her head, or placing her hand over her mouth to avoid the kiss as she says was her plan. Does this pic exonerate Franken re her rehersal kiss story?).

Youtube Videos

USO Show 2006 Part One, Camp Phoenix Afghanistan (12:41) Leeann Tweeden rubs her butt against the leg of Mark Willis (5:50). Now that I watch the video I'm thinking Mark Wills probably wouldn't describe it as a "sexual assault". But you can judge for yourself. This video proves, contrary to what I write above, that Tweeden does not next grab Wills by his ding-a-ling.

Leeann Tweeden republican evidence of lies revealed! (3:26) This is a video that says Leeann Tweeden's body language says she is lying about Al Franken. While I don't place much stock in novice body language analysis, Lisa of WYD put up a photo on her blog that, according to her, proves that when Obama cried re the Sandy Hook shootings he was faking it because he's a psychopath. And his body language gave him away. But behavior analyst Lillian Glass says her quote "when people cry genuine tears they cry with both eyes, and so tend to wipe both eyes at once" being applied to this meme is "unequivocally false" (pic is of Obama wiping one eye. See SWTD #370).

Melanie Morgan: Al Franken harassed me after TV appearance (11:13) Laura Ingraham covers Tweeden revelations, interviews Melanie Morgan (2:59) who says Al Franken "stalked and harassed her" and is "not surprised at all" by the Tweeden allegations. Brian Maloney of MediaEqualizer says he warned that Dems would be sorry that they brought him forward as a political candidate. "So much of what he's done hasn't even been mentioned today". Laura and guests laugh at predisent's "where does his hands go" tweet. Laura calls it "humorous commentary", totally ignoring the fact that Trump himself has over a dozen accusers.

SWTD #394

On Juan Williams Defending Condi Rice Re Rutgers U Profs Opposed to Her Being Invited To Speak There

Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going. If she starts talking... her instinct is to start with this blame America, you know, I'm the victim. If that stuff starts coming out, people will go bananas and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross ~ Juan Williams (dob 7/6/1946) in a 1/26/2009 comment to Bill O'Reilly while appearing on the O'Reilly Factor.

H/T to Lester Nation of rAtional nAtion United States of America for his highlighting of Juan William's defense of the ex Secretary of State regarding her invitation to speak (and receive an honory degree from) Rutgers U, and some professors with a "political agenda" speaking against it.

Juan Williams, who Mr. Nation describes as a "a rational and reasonable liberal", cites Condi's credentials (including a PhD, college teaching, provosting at Stanford U, and working her way up from a working-class family in the segregated South) and concludes that "only partisan hatred can blind the faculty to her extraordinary level of accomplishment for herself and her country".

rAtional strongly agreed, and several Liberally inclined commenters also weighed in and said they said Condi should be allowed to speak. I attempted to submit two comments citing Rice's involvement with an administration that mislead the American people into a war based on cherry-picked faulty intelligence and outright lies, but rAtional was having none of it. No doubt because bringing up such things would fall into the category of "gnawing on old bones".

"Gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional likes to use when anyone brings up crimes or misdeeds of Republicans. This makes rAtional uncomfortable so he dismisses such talk by implying there is a problem with the person who brings up these things. The point being that I agree with the faculty's objections and (if I worked there) would sign their petition (my Liberal colleague's disagreement not withstanding).

It isn't "partisan hatred" to be concerned about misdeeds and lies of prior presidential administrations. That such things are swept under the rug explains why current and future administrations will continue to push the envelope. The Obama administration continued the policies of spying on the American people that began under bush (rAtional professes to be opposed). And the drone strikes in a country we aren't at war with (Pakistan and elsewhere) have only increased (but two examples).

I think "gnawing on old bones" is a phrase rAtional uses to express his opinion that the idea that we could learn from past misdeeds or "mistakes" (and not repeat them) is BAD. So, we disagree on that, as well as the belief that Juan Williams is a "a rational and reasonable liberal".

This time Mr. Williams defends Condoleezza Rice. Previously Juan defended Clarence Thomas when Thomas was accused of sexual harassment. If Williams were a Conservative defending Black Liberals, I think other Conservatives might say he was doing so only because they're Black. I won't say that because I can't think of an example where Williams has defended a Black Liberal. He seems to have a habit of exclusively defending Conservatives.

And remember he was fired by NPR for Islamophobic comments on Bill O'Reilly's "Factor", and then hired by Fox. Because he played to the Islamophobia of their base, IMO. Frankly I question whether Williams is either rational or reasonable. And I have questions regarding how Liberal he really is. Williams agreed with the Rutgers Profs that Rice had a role "in pushing the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and supported "using enhanced interrogation techniques to get information from terror suspects", but says she should still be allowed to speak.

Allowed to speak, in Juan's opinion because "all of that is [not] negated by her service in President George W. Bush's administration". No, Condi's accomplishments aren't "negated". We simply should not ignore her participation in the lying-into-war and supporting of war crimes, Juan! "Rational" my ass.

The article by Williams is under a header (on the Fox site) that asks "why do liberals have so much hate Black Conservatives"... even though the text of Williams' article does not mention this "hate". The "hate" is brought up by Sean Hannity in a video (at the top of the article).

According to one protesting prof interviewed by Fox Nooz, it's not about Republican and Democrat. Said prof says "I have good Republican friends who are members of the Tea Party. That's not the issue. For me it's the morality of what was done during the war".

Rudolph Bell, a history professor who signed on to the petition, agreed (who knows why) to be interviewed by Sean Hannity says he is concerned about the choice of Condi to give the commencement speech in regards to her role in misleading the American people concerning WMD Iraq didn't have, as well as her support for EITs (i.e. torture).

Some excerpts from the Hannity program...

Hannity: Did Barack Obama mislead the American people when he said if you like your [insurance] plan you can your plan? Rudolph Bell: She's absolutely welcome to come. I think $35,000 would be a little high. We normally pay at the most $2,000. Anyway, on academic freedom grounds I would never protest her coming to Rutgers. As a commencement speaker, that is different. That is a faculty governance issue. I'm not trying to silence her. She is entirely welcome to come as anything other than a commencement speaker.

Sounds very reasonable to me, and not "partisan hate", hatred for Black Conservatives or "Liberal lunacy". Allow her to speak, just not in a commencement capacity. That way people who want to listen can attend and those who don't can skip it. This way, people who wish to protest can do so by not attending and not have to miss their commencement. Also, we can avoid an "ugly" scene of people turning their backs on her (as has happened previously). Not that I'd be against that form of protest, but I'd have thought the University might want to avoid that. And I surely would not be OK with giving her 35k either.

As for Hannity claiming that Obama mislead the American people about keeping their insurance policies if they like them... that is a false claim. The ACA contains a provision that grandfathers in plans that do not meet the ACA minimum requirements.

Grandfathered health plans do not have to meet all of the law's new coverage requirements. But in order to be grandfathered, health plans must have existed on March 23, 2010. Those with individual grandfathered plans had to have them before the law took effect. And to maintain their grandfathered status, the plans must not be changed to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers through deductibles or co-pays. (Source).

The insurance companies changed plans to cut benefits or significantly raise prices for consumers and therefore those plans did not maintain their grandfathered status. Obama told the truth. It was the insurers who (in my estimation) changed the plans ON PURPOSE so they couldn't be grandfathered in (so they could try to trick people into paying more) while blaming Obama.

But that is another topic entirely. I only wanted to address it because Hannity lied about misrepresenting - misrepresenting that, it should be noted (even if you think Obama misrepresented) - is not comparable. Telling people they can keep crap insurance plans (plans that do not meet minimum requirements) when some didn't meet the grandfather requirements is NOT the same as lying about WMD in order to hoodwink the public into supporting an illegal war!

In conclusion I must say that Juan Williams is a poor "Liberal" for attempting to give Condi a pass (even given her impressive resume prior to lying to the American people). Also, when the rAtional dude said "I would be most interested in hearing what my more liberal leaning readership has to say about the New Brunswick Faculty Council of Rutgers University request to nix the invitation" he lied. I submitted 3 comments (2 critical of Condi and one of Juan) and rAtional declined to publish either.

Video Description: Proof Condi Rice lied about WMD Iraq destroyed.

SWTD #238, lDel #16.

George Zimmerman Guilty of Premeditated First Degree Murder (Theory)

One must never set up a murder. They must happen unexpectedly, as in life ~ Alfred Hitchcock (8/13/1899 to 4/29/1980) an English film director and producer who pioneered many techniques in the suspense and psychological thriller genres. After a successful career in British cinema in both silent films and early talkies, billed as England's best director, Hitchcock moved to Hollywood in 1939 and became a U.S. citizen in 1955.

Note: This is just a theory (all hypothetical). I'm not saying I know this is what happened at all. This post is PURE speculation. I decided to go with it based on the number of replies my last post on the subject got (which is more than any post I've written before). A commentary as (purposefully) inflammatory as this one should do even better!

Second degree is all the prosecution is going for, but I think the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman could have been premeditated. I'm not saying I think Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon specifically; just that he was looking to murder an unarmed Black youth. What I think happened was that Zimmerman was frustrated because the police department wouldn't accept him, so he decided to do something to get famous by making himself into a hero. Which many Conservatives think of him as... going by the comments left in response to my prior post on this subject.

Part two of GZ's plan would be to get off scott-free by claiming he shot his victim in self defense. We know that almost worked. The police had already decided to let him go (not do an investigation AT ALL). It wasn't until the Black community and the Left leaning media outlets (like MSNBC) started protesting that the police finally realized they'd actually have to do their job!

But all was not lost! All GZ needed to do was claim self-defense, be acquitted, and then the fame (and money that comes with it) would all be his! Why do I think this? I think it because Zimmerman lied about being aware of the "stand your ground" law in Florida. He feigned ignorance when asked if he knew about it prior to the shooting by that a-hole Hannity.

That is why his lawyers quit (he has a different legal team than the one he started out with). It was Zimmerman himself who contacted the producers of Hannity's Fox Nooz show (they didn't contact him). He didn't consult with his lawyers because they would have advised him not to give any interviews! But the attention and fame seeking Zimmerman disobeyed their advice (didn't even ask for it because he knew what they'd say) because of his desire to be in the spotlight. He also knew he needed to stir up the ire of the racist community. Then they'd rally to his side and eagerly offer him mucho dinero to help pay for his defense... and enrich him after he was found not guilty (or so he thought/still thinks).

We also know Zim lied about the severity of his "beating". The medical examiner said she did not believe Zim's head was slammed repeatedly against the concrete as he claimed. Because the injuries he suffered were "very insignificant" (her words). The testimony of Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville FL medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties was that "the injuries were not life-threatening". Zim exaggerated the number of times Trayvon "slammed" his head on the concrete because he KNEW his actions (shooting and killing Trayvon) were not justified!

Zim lied to cover-up the truth; the truth that he stalked Trayvon with the INTENT to kill him! He was angry that the police department had rejected him, so he decided to go for fame (and the money that comes with fame). After the break-ins by "Black youths" he thought back to those college courses he took where "stand your ground" was discussed. NBC News reports that Zim "received high marks in a criminal litigation course that touched on Florida state law regarding when it's appropriate to use self-defense and the so-called stand your ground statute".

This is proof Zim lied to Hannity and knew about "stand your ground". Not only that, but "a former professor of Zimmerman's who gave Zimmerman an A in criminal litigation [said Zimmerman was] one of the better students in the class". The professor (who testified at the trial) also said the "2010 course addressed criminal law and procedure, as well as self-defense".

So, my question is... is this when the seed of the idea to murder someone for fame and money was first planted in Zim's sick diseased mind? Surely it didn't occur to him at the time, but AFTER the police wouldn't hire him, AFTER he joined the neighborhood watch, and AFTER the burglaries that were committed by "Black youths"... was it THEN that a bitter GZ decided he would stalk and kill the next Black youth he encountered and claim self defense?

Things may not have gone entirely according to plan, as Zim thought he could get off with no trial by claiming "stand your ground". At first it looked like the plan was working, until that damn Liberal media demanded the police actually do their job (the nerve)! Now that he's on trial his lawyers have decided to go with self defense instead of "stand your ground". Why? Turns out there is a reason. According to the same NBC article, "if Zimmerman is acquitted, the defense could ask the judge to decide whether he deserves the immunity which would protect him from a civil lawsuit".

This shows that Zim is thinking this out. He remembers that OJ Simpson was found not guilty at the conclusion of his murder trial, but then sued by Ronald Goldman's family for wrongful death and lost. The jury in that trial declared that OJ should pay Ronald Goldman's family 33.5 million dollars. Zimmerman does not want that happening to him, which is why he didn't go with "stand your ground". This is why I think that, if any of this is even remotely true, George Zimmerman is one evil and devious SOB.

Other lies of GZ include "how much money he had when his bond was originally set in April. Prosecutors say he had $135,000 at the time Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, told the court, under oath, that they were indigent". Also, and I believe this shows premeditation, GZ (before the shooting) lied and reported his passport as stolen. This allowed him to obtain a second passport. Then when the judge ordered him to turn over his passport he gave him the one he said was "stolen" (holding back the replacement).

The court looked into the matter of his passports, discovered that a second one was issued, and ordered him to turn it over. This makes me wonder, was GZ planning for contingencies? Maybe he only thought the passport was stolen, but then why not turn them both over when the judge asked for his passport? Or, at least why not turn over the second one? As far as premeditation goes, this is very damning in my opinion.

Of course we will never know, as this theory concerns thoughts in Zimmerman's mind. Thoughts (if he had them) that he never articulated to anyone or wrote down. And, the prosecution went for second degree, so being convicted of first degree murder isn't even on the table. But I say the possibility is very real that George Zimmerman intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and therefore should be facing the death penalty for his depraved act. So what do you think? Is this theory of mine remotely plausible? Please comment and let me know if you agree or disagree.

A Summary of George Zimmerman's Lies
->Lied about the severity of his "beating".
->Lied to Sean Hannity about not being aware of FL "stand your ground" law.
->Lied about (tried to hide) money supporters had sent him via Paypal.
->Lied when he surrendered his passport to the court.

See also: George Zimmerman Is Lying by Conceptual Guerilla. The Daily Kos, 7/2/2013.

SWTD #176

Hannity Zero

Now there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them ~ George W. Bush (b. 7/6/1946) 43rd President of the United States (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009) revising history, and warning others not to call him on HIS revisions.

The debate is over whether we want the government to serve the needs of the bulk of the population or just the purposes of the rich and powerful. Progressives must stop helping the Right hide its real agenda ~ Dean Baker (b. 7/13/1958) American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, referring to the Left's acceptance of the legitimacy of the Right's belief in the "free market".

Hannity Assists Citizens United In Financial Sector Crisis History Rewrite

The Conservative spin machine went into overdrive following the economic crisis and bailout. It was obvious to (almost) everyone that deregulation, as championed by Republicans and Conservative Democrats, was what allowed the thieves on Wall Street to rob us blind. But the Republicans were determined to place the blame elsewhere. One of the ways the "popular notion" that deregulation was the culprit was countered was with a faux documentary titled "Generation Zero". According to Sean Hannity, the fact that "massive deregulation caused the economic downturn and, as liberals say, capitalism failed" is completey refuted by this film.

On 2/23/2010 Hannity invited the film's producer, David Bossie of Citizens United Productions, onto the show. He called it "A Hannity Special", and touted it as an "exclusive first look".

David Bossie, who currently serves as President AND Chairman of the conservative non-profit organization, has a long history of attacking Democrats by manipulating the facts to fit his narrative. During the Whitewater Investigation Bossie attempted to use "selectively edited transcripts" to smear President Clinton. Bossie was fired from his investigative position by Newt Gingrich, who described the episode as embarrassing. (The transcripts were culled from "tapes that were routinely recorded last year while Hubbell, Clinton's first associate attorney general, was serving a federal prison term for defrauding his Little Rock law firm").

A 4/25/2008 CBS News story reported that Mr. Bossie's GOP Dirty Tricks Dupe Media. The dirty trick was to produce political attack ads containing dubious information, then, instead of paying to air these ads, they would post them on Republican websites or YouTube. Eventually, after receiving enough exposure, the videos would be picked up by the news media and covered as if they were actual stories. The CBS News article points out that the news media "[running] the ad over and over is tantamount to giving free air time to smear machines...".

During the 2008 Democratic primaries Bossie attempted to circumvent campaign finance laws by airing an "advertisement" for "Hillary: The Movie", even though the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold") specifically prohibits the airing of "broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election". Citizens United argued that their obvious hit piece, which included clips of all the most incendiary attacks against Mrs. Clinton, was not a political ad. It was a advertisement for their "documentary", and so was not subject to McCain-Feingold. Instead of ruling against Citizens United due to their blatant violation of the law, the ultra-right leaning activist Supreme Court struck down (a portion of) McCain-Feingold as "Unconstitutional", overturning 100 years of settled case law.

With "Generation Zero" Bossie continues the Conservative propaganda campaign. Utilizing all his old dirty tricks, he, along with writer/director Stephen K. Bannon, attempt to shift the blame from the Conservative economic philosophies which unquestioningly caused the financial sector crisis to "a frightening alliance between the Democratic Party and big business". When Hannity claims that banks and insurance companies failing is a "myth", Bossie responds, saying "Certainly. It's hubris and greed at the same time that it's the cultural and social breakdown from the '60s that is really taken that 30, 40 years that led up to September 18th crisis".

According to the filmmakers it is the baby boomers who we should be blaming. Specifically, the Democratic Baby Boomers, although, in my reading of the Hannity Special transcript, I see no facts presented on which that conclusion could possibly be based. It was Liberal greed and hubris that lead to the economic collapse, and not Republican greed or hubris? Nevermind that Libertarianism holds that it is personally responsible to act in your own self-interest, and according to (Libertarian and Con hero) Ayn Rand it's a virtue. Does Bossie think that Conservative greed is good and Liberal greed is bad?

In describing the "sociopathy that is at the heart of the far-right worldview", author Tim Wise, in his Daily Kos diary explains that the Conservative "worldview holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed".

And everyone knows that it is the Republican Party which is in the pockets of big business. Hannity himself points this out, in an obvious setup for Bossie, who counters by claiming that, while that WAS true, "the Democratic Party has truly taken over that position of power on Wall Street". What's going on here is that Bossie is twisting the facts, as he is prone to do. Wall Street did make significant contributions to Barack Obama's campaign, but that was because they saw how badly bush had screwed the economy. Wall Street shifting more of their contributions to the party they believe is going to win the election does not an "alliance" make. If they had thought the Republicans were going to win - their contributions would have gone to the GOP.

Republicans have been in the pocket of big business for decades. It is why they've been defending BP and referring to President Obama negotiating with Tony Hayward for a $20 billion victim's compensation escrow account as a "shakedown". It is why they objected to, and forced the removal from the financial reform bill of a provision designed to set up a $50 billion fund allowing the industry to pay for the dissolution of insolvent banks (instead of the taxpayer). Despite the fact that this fund would ensure the exact opposite, Republicans lied and said the reason for their objection is that the fund would "institutionalize bailouts".

As for the Wall Street's alliance with Democrats? It appears as though they feel the Democrats have not "put out" to their satisfaction. A 2/7/2010 New York Times story says, "in a message to Democrats, Wall Street sends cash to GOP" as part of their "campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations". According to the article, "Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's buyer's remorse with the Democrats".

Who Needs Regulation When We Have Personal Responsibility?

Regarding Hannity's claim that Republican deregulation did NOT lead directly to the economic downturn - this ridiculous claim proves that the people behind (and promoting) this propaganda film are complete idiots. Because, even if selfish risk taking Liberals ARE who we should hold responsible, wouldn't regulation have been the best method by which to stop them? Bossie suggests that those responsible lack personal responsibility. Presumably, the solution, in his mind, would be more "personal responsibility".

Wikipedia states that "moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk". The Republican solution is to get rid of the moral hazard problem by refusing to engage in bailouts. Which leads to increased personal responsibility, less overly risky behavior, and a self-regulating free market. Because people realize that they, instead of the taxpayer, are on the hook if anything goes wrong.

The primary flaw in this theory is that it does not take into account greed coupled with human stupidity. The character Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's Wall Street acted in a way that he thought was in his own self interest, and ended up in prison. Greed, aside from being a negative character trait for many other reasons, is most definitely not good (regardless of what Ayn Rand thought, or Conservative ideology holds) because it often causes people to only consider the short-term benefit and ignore any possible future risk.

Certainly BP did not act in a personally responsible way. Their risky corner cutting netted them an increase in short term profits but ended up causing the greatest ecological disaster in US history. Since the explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon BP's stock has lost half it's value - and market analysts continue to speculate as to whether the company will survive.

Personally I am sick of hearing this idiotic meme that "personal responsibility" is a legitimate alternative to sensible regulation. We're supposed to cross our fingers and hope that everyone behaves themselves, because it is in their own best interest to do so? It is total insanity. Bernie Madoff's actions were hugely personally irresponsible. And Bernie Madoff was not an aberration. According to a 10/2/2009 USA Today article, "ponzi schemes are the most prevalent type of investor fraud". This, despite the fact that ponzi schemes are always eventually uncovered. The perpetrators go to prison, and the victims are left to litigate for the possible return of a portion of what they lost. Certainly ponzi schemers don't expect to be bailed out if (or when) their scams are uncovered. So, shouldn't "personal responsibility" have stopped them? That IS the Con theory, is it not?

I think that those in the financial sector making money hand over fist during the lead up to the meltdown and bailout cared as much about the possibility that everything may eventually come crashing down about as much as those arrested for running ponzi schemes. Yes, for some it may have been something they thought about, but I seriously doubt that an expectation of no bailouts would have prevented this crash. The only thing that could have prevented it was regulations enforced by competent government employees.

Free Market Fundamentalism Or Fakery?

And don't forget that it was Con hero Ronald Reagan who set up the moral hazard dilemma by deregulating the S&Ls, causing his successor to have to bail them out when they came crashing down (thanks, in part, to his sons Jeb and Neil). Economist Paul Krugman, in a 5/31/2009 article titled "Reagan Did It" points out that "Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending - restrictions that... limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down".

Further deregulation shepherded through Congress by former Republican Congressman and McCain Campaign financial advisor Phil Gramm blew away the remaining FDR era protections.

There is a reason the Cons keep pushing the laissez faire fairy tale of deregulation and personal responsibility leading to a self-regulating free market, and it isn't because they actually believe in this nonsense. The real reason they continue to insist that economic liberalization is the pathway to nirvana is that they want to turn our economy over to the wealthy elites. They believe that our economic system should not exist for the benefit of everyone, but only serve to make the rich richer. It is about time people wise up and realize that, whatever position the Republican part takes, it is always because that position will best serve the interests of the wealthy and corporations.

Unfortunately a lot of people have been fooled by the Con's insincere rhetoric concerning their "opposition" to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Even though a Republican president signed the bill into law, they were actually against it. Baloney. They knew that the Democrats, being the responsible party, would make sure the bailout went though. Because a collapse of the financial sector would have been extremely bad for the country.

The bailout, claims economist Paul Krugman, saved us from a second great depression by "averting the worst". And, it should be noted, that the Republican solution of eliminating the moral hazard problem (the one that Reagan set up) by allowing the financial sector to fail and thus virtually guaranteeing a depression - would only work (if it did) the next time. This time we would have suffered the dire consequences. In essence the Republicans were "demanding that the government stop standing in the way of a possible depression".

But it isn't as if they would have actually let this happen. Economist Dean Baker points to irrefutable proof that the Republicans are faking their allegiance to the free market with an essay titled "Free Market Fundamentalism Is an Invention of Progressives". It seems that the House Republicans recently put forward legislation to "discourage" strategic defaults.

Even though it many states non-recourse loans - which allow you to discontinue payment after turning your property over to the bank - are completely legal. Obviously the goal of the Republicans was to protect the banks from the terms of their own contracts. So much for letting the free market do it's thing.

Bottom line when it comes to "Generation Zero" or any instance of a Republican politician, pundit, or other insider lecture regarding the "free market" - is to not take anything they say at face value. Any argument put forward is most likely a deception or twist of the truth designed to help out their wealthy constituency while pulling the wool over the eyes of the average voter - and convince them that they should vote Republican even though it isn't in their best interest to do so.

The goal of "Generation Zero" is just that. Defend the wealthy elites and argue that they should be left to run our economy as they see fit (with no oversight), shift blame to the Democrats, and make money telling deluded voters what they want to hear.

Notes, Clarifications, & Additional Points
[1] Thanks to Sue, who brought this "documentary" to my attention with a post on her blog. A Conservative calling himself "Silverfiddle" said, "It's all true, and verifiably so. Of course, you can argue with his conclusions, but he uses facts to make his case". Seeing as the "documentary" is a huge lie I felt obligated to respond.
[2] Regarding Wall Street's "alliance" with Democrats - I stand by what I wrote above, even though the financial sector IS receiving favors in return for their contributions to Democrats (The Goldman Sachs-Obama Administration association is particularly troublesome). The financial regulation that is about to pass Congress has been watered down in an effort to gain a few Republican votes - but it wasn't strong enough to begin with. I still would not characterize this as an "alliance", but a very unfortunate reality of the political system as it is. The real alliance was and still is between Wall Street and the Republican Party.
[3] In the GWB quote at the top of this post ex-president doofus was referring to his illegal invasion of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein posed zero threat to the US, although I think it can very easily be applied (ironically) to his entire presidency.
[4] In regards to the financial sector bailout, you may have surmised that I am a fan. You would be wrong. While acknowledging that the government did need to take action, and that the action they took did work (to a certain degree), I disagree with exactly how they went about it. (See "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Alternate Proposals for more information).

Further Reading
[1] Bernie Madoff, Free at Last: In prison he doesn't have to hide his lack of conscience. In fact, he's a hero for it. By Steve Fishman, New York Magazine 6/6/2010.
[2] Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks by Thom Hartmann, The Huffington Post 7/27/2009.

SWTD #47