February 24, 2014 - The Constantine Report    
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading
March 5th 2020 12

Are you using the best credit card when ordering food for delivery?

The key to more success is to have a lot of pillows. Always remember in the jungle there’s a lot of they in there, after you will make it to paradise. Egg whites, turkey sausage, wheat toast, water.

Continue reading

Ohio Legislature Passes Supersized Voter Suppression Bills

This is a modified py-6 that occupies the entire horizontal space of its parent.

Governor Kasich Has Duty to Veto Bills Which Impose Barriers to the Ballot Box for Hundreds of Thousands of Ohioans

February 22, 2014

The national civil rights organization Advancement Project and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative today voiced strong concerns regarding a series of bills passed in the Ohio legislature that will make it harder for eligible Ohioans to vote. The groups urged Governor John Kasich to immediately veto the bill.

“Election officials and lawmakers have an obligation to keep our voting system free, fair, and accessible to all Americans,” said Advancement Project Voter Protection Director Katherine Culliton-González. “Apparently, this is a principle not shared by some members of the Ohio legislature, whose actions place them among the ranks of states shamefully going out of their way to make it harder for certain people to vote.”

“Instead of working to create a just democracy, where all people have an equal opportunity to make their voices heard, Ohio lawmakers have passed bills that will eliminate ’Golden Week,’ the period where voters can register to vote and cast an in-person absentee ballot on the same day; and place new restrictions on mail-in absentee ballots,” said Advancement Project Staff Attorney Leigh Chapman. “To protect the franchise, Governor Kasich must immediately veto these bills.”

“The harmful elimination of Golden Week and the changes to absentee balloting will make it harder for African Americans, seniors, and Ohioans with disabilities to vote,” said Ohio Organizing Collaborative Co-Chair, Pastor Michael Harrison.

The bill to eliminate Golden Week reduces the number of in-person absentee voting days — from the current 35 days before an election down to 29 days before an election. Under current law, the voter registration period ends 30 days before Election Day, and any overlap between the voter registration and in-person absentee voting period would be removed. Under the new bill, Ohioans would no longer be allowed to register to vote and cast an in-person absentee ballot on the same day.

The Ohio legislature adopted in-person absentee voting in 2005 in response to Ohio’s seven-hour lines during the 2004 presidential election—the longest in the country. Since its implementation, an increasing number of Ohio voters have taken advantage of early voting each year. In 2012, 600,000Ohioans – 20 percent – voted early, and in Cuyahoga County, 41 percent of voters voted early. Many of those voters were voters of color, as Cuyahoga County is nearly 30 percent African-American and nearly five percent Latino.

In 2008, over 77 percent of people who voted early in Ohio were African-American. Early voting is embraced by all voters, but voters of color are more likely to vote early during popular programs, such as “Souls to the Polls” that encourages voters to vote on the Sunday before Election Day.

“To add insult to injury, the legislature took their changes one step further and changed the rules for absentee balloting,” Pastor Harrison added.

In 2012, over 1.25 million Ohioans, or 22 percent of the electorate, voted by mail. The bill limiting absentee balloting would prevent county boards of elections from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications to voters and stop government entities from prepaying the return postage for absentee ballots and absentee ballot applications.

This change could have a large impact on low-income voters, in particular voters of color, who wish to vote absentee but cannot afford postage to return the absentee ballot by mail. “Preventing boards of elections from prepaying return postage for absentee ballots would create unnecessary additional hurdles for voters; in particular the 14.8 percent of Ohio residents who live below the poverty level – 40 percent of whom are African-American, and 42 percent whom are Latino, as compared to 15 percent of Whites,” Pastor Harrison said.

“Ohio is better than the politically manipulative actions taking place in the state legislature today,” Culliton-González continued. “If the Buckeye State wants to live up to its promise to provide all citizens with equal opportunities, then its legislatures cannot pass laws that block some eligible Americans from voting.”

Screen shot 2012-10-02 at 4_45_00 PM

“… By serving as an echo-chamber for ideologues like Abrams … outlets like the Post deflect attention from real threats posed to the population by the protection given to drug cartels by greedy, profit-crazed right-wing governments, many of whom have themselves enjoyed the support and protection of high-ranking U.S. officials like Abrams dating back to the Iran Contra Scandal. …”

February 1, 2014

In its January 5 Sunday opinion page, the Washington Post published a piece by Elliott Abrams slandering left-leaning Central American leaders, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically-elected President of Honduras who was ousted by a military coup in 2009, and El Salvador’s current Vice-President, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, who is ahead in the polls leading into the February 2 presidential elections as candidate for the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) party.

Though the Post simply credits Abrams as “a deputy national security adviser in the George W. Bush administration and assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs in the Reagan administration,” he was a key Reagan-era official in the Iran-Contra Scandal. He faced multiple felony counts for his role in lying to Congress to cover up the illegal funding of the Contras, but escaped justice by pleading guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding material information from Congress.

Abrams’ source for his claim against Zelaya is an AP wire reporting that Enrique Ortez, the foreign minister of the coup government that forced Zelaya into exile at gunpoint, accused the deposed President of allowing cocaine shipments to transit through Honduras. However, in the same AP report, even Roberto Micheletti, the president of the coup regime, didn’t back this accusation. Ortez was removed from office shortly afterwards for referring to President Obama as a “a little black man who knows nothing about nothing.”

Abrams’ case against Sánchez-Cerén is even flimsier.  Abrams relies on discredited files allegedly found by the Colombian military on a laptop in a Colombian guerrilla camp in 2008 after a CIA-supported assassination of guerrilla leader Raul Reyes in Ecuador. Abrams’ purported “evidence” is that the name of a senior official from Sánchez-Cerén’s political party appears in the documents. These same laptop files were similarly used by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe in politically motivated attacks against respected Colombian human rights activists who denounced his regime’s atrocities because their names also appeared in the documents. However, as Latin American experts Greg Grandin and Miguel Tinker-Salas explained in a 2011 article about the files:

what Interpol actually said, in its 2008 report on the documents, was that the Colombian military’s treatment of the files “did not conform to internationally recognised [sic] principles for the ordinary handling of electronic evidence by law enforcement.” Interpol noted that there was a “one-week period between the computer documents’ capture by Colombia, and when they were handed over to Interpol, during which time the Colombian authorities actually modified 9,440 files, and deleted 2,905, according to Interpol’s detailed forensic report.”

Abrams piece also includes startling examples of historical revisionism concerning democracy and human rights in Central America. Today, because of the National Security Archives’ declassified documents collection, we know that the Reagan Administration supported, covertly and overtly, a Salvadoran regime that used death squads to massacre thousands of civilian activists and their families. Additionally, the Reagan administration created, trained, and funded—in large part through illegal methods—the Contra forces, which engaged in an intense violent paramilitary campaign against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, even after it won free and fair elections in 1984. Abrams played a central role in these tragic events. As Mark Danner reported in his 1993 investigation of the 1981 massacre in El Mozote, El Salvador, Abrams publicly dismissed reports of mass killings of villagers by the Salvadoran military as communist propaganda to ensure that military aid to the country would continue unabated.

So Abrams’ op-ed could easily be dismissed as the ideological bluster of a neo-con with a morally-sullied reputation. But there are dangers in doing so.

First, Abrams’ op-ed—its content, its timing, and its placement—needs to be understood as part of an international electoral strategy to help El Salvador’s right-wing ARENA party, and the financial elite it represents, get back into office. In the two months leading up to the February 2 presidential elections in El Salvador, the majority of recent polls have given the FMLN a healthy and increasing lead in the polls. ARENA is also besieged by a major embezzlement scandal involving former President Francisco Flores, who just recently stepped down as ARENA’s campaign manager. On January 8, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador confirmed that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is investigating Flores for a money laundering scheme involving $10 million in foreign aid from the Taiwanese government that was circulated through U.S. banks and pocketed by Flores’ private foundation.

In a last-ditch effort to divert attention from the ARENA party’s corrupt history and the real possibility that at least one of its most prominent leaders will be indicted for money laundering a month before the Presidential elections, they turned to an old friend who had helped them cover up past crimes.

Second, by allowing Abrams to present his unsubstantiated allegations about the Salvadoran FMLN, the Colombian guerrillas, and the Venezuelan government, the Post‘s editorial board is perpetuating a false and dangerous narrative. This narrative, disseminated by right-wing think tanks and parroted by right-wing pundits, seeks to justify aggression against countries in Latin America that elect left-leaning leaders.

But perhaps more concerning is that by serving as an echo-chamber for ideologues like Abrams, rather than doing rigorous investigative reporting on Latin America, outlets like the Post deflect attention from real threats posed to the population by the protection given to drug cartels by greedy, profit-crazed right-wing governments, many of whom have themselves enjoyed the support and protection of high-ranking U.S. officials like Abrams dating back to the Iran Contra Scandal.

Héctor Silva, journalist and current research fellow at American University, recently presented a scathing rebuttal to Abrams in an editorial for El Faro. He identifies the U.S. government’s illegal support for drug traffickers as part of the Iran-Contra Scandal-era illicit fundraising as one of the roots of El Salvador’s current challenges. Specifically, he notes that they helped Salvadoran drug traffickers, with ties to the Texis Cartel, and Chapo Guzmán, former head of the Sinaloa cartel, to get their start.

Silva specifically raises questions about Abrams’ own involvement in supporting drug traffickers, much as David Corn did in his 2001 article for The Nation:

When Oliver North was campaigning for the Senate in 1994 and was accused of having ignored contra ties to drug dealers, Abrams backed North and claimed “all of us who ran that program … were absolutely dedicated to keeping it completely clean and free of any involvement by drug traffickers.” Yet in 1998, the CIA’s own inspector general issued a thick report noting that the Reagan Administration had collaborated with suspected drug traffickers while managing the secret contra war.

It is incredible, but it appears that no one at the Post uncovered these facts or fact-checked Abrams claims. Alternatively, if the article was fact-checked then it raises suspicion about the Post’s complicity in this internationally-coordinated attempt to influence El Salvador’s democratic process.


Defiant Yanukovych likens opposition to Nazis

Euronews, February 22, 2014

President Viktor Yanukovych remained defiant on Saturday despite the Ukrainian parliament declaring him constitutionally unable to carry out his duties and setting an early election for May 25.

Yanukovych likened the opposition to Nazis who were staging a coup d’etat.

He said: “I am absolutely confident that this is an example – which our country and the whole world has seen – an example of a coup d’etat. I’m not going to resign. I’m a legitimately-elected president. I remain in Ukraine. I will continue to call on all international observers, all mediators who took part in this political conflict so they can stop gangsters. They are not the opposition, they are gangsters.”

‘‘We are witnessing the return of the Nazis, the time when in the 1930s the Nazis came to power in Germany and Austria. It is the same now.” he added.

Leaders of mainly Russian-speaking regions of eastern Ukraine gathered in Kharkiv to challenge the legitimacy of the national parliament. They also said they would take control of their territories in a move that appears to increase the possibility of a split in the former Soviet republic.

Mykhailo Dobkin, head of Kharkiv Regional State Administration, said: “Our task is to, without aggressive rhetoric and without allowing those who call us separatists to celebrate, to make a number of necessary decisions on how we can involve local governments, to prevent bloodshed and destruction.”

Reports emerged soon after his speech at the convention that Dobkin and Kharkiv Mayor Hennadiy Kernes have now fled Ukraine with Russia being the most likely destination.


Known for a viral video depicting Obamacare as Big Government gynecology, Generation Opportunity bills itself as independent and apolitical. That’s not the whole story

By Mike Spies

vocativ, February 23m 2014

Back in September, Generation Opportunity, a “liberty-loving,” “non-partisan,” “youth advocacy group,” made a name for itself with two viral videos, each featuring a character named Creepy Uncle Sam.

The clips were a minute long, and offered the group’s take on what would happen after Obamacare—officially known as the Affordable Care Act—went into effect. In one scene, a woman in her twenties sits back on a gynecological exam table, her feet set in stirrups. The doctor leaves her alone in the room, and Creepy Uncle Sam rises from between her legs, causing her to shriek. In the other, a man of the same age is inexplicably told by his general practitioner to drop his pants, get on the table and bring his knees to his chest. Again the doctor leaves, only this time Creepy Uncle Sam rises from behind, as if he were about to check the patient’s prostate. Both videos end with the same warning: “Don’t let government play doctor.”

Generation Opportunity Opt Out CampaignCreepy Uncle Sam (YouTube)

These ads, ironically a kind of reverse-communist agitprop, were part of the group’s “Opt Out” campaign, which suggested to uninsured young people that it would be better not to enroll in the new healthcare exchanges.

The videos’ dark, mixed metaphor and the campaign’s message caused an uproar. But in terms of publicity, both were a success. Collectively, they’ve been viewed more than 3 million times.

At one point, the noise reached such a fever pitch that President Obama felt compelled to comment. “Some of the wealthiest men in America,” he said, “are funding a cynical ad campaign trying to convince young people not to buy health care at all.”

The men in question were Charles and David Koch, two conservative billionaire brothers who, since Obama’s election, have been supporting conservative libertarian causes—often covertly—through layers of benignly named non-profits. One of these non-profits is Freedom Partners, a trade group that provided more than $5 million to Generation Opportunity.

 The Koch’s strategy, according to Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive, is “not about healthcare,” but rather “to continue to try to make the Affordable Care Act unpopular and tied to Democrats,” who, historically, are less likely to support their overall business interests.


Vocativ reached out to representatives for the Koch Brothers and Freedom Partners. Neither commented in time for publication. But this position may stand at odds with what is best for young Americans, and that is Generation Opportunity’s challenge: to reach a typically liberal demographic and convince them that Obama’s agenda is harmful.


On a recent Wednesday afternoon, Evan Feinberg, the president of Generation Opportunity, stood before a dry erase board at the group’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. His hair was impeccably coiffed, as if the gel had held firmly since his senior prom. And his attire—blue blazer and tan corduroy pants—reinforced the notion that he was a figure of maturity in the room.

Evan Feinberg (Vocativ/Lindsey Leger)

“You know the rules,” he said, holding a marker in one hand and a Ping Pong ball in the other. “No judging. If you judge, you get a ball thrown at you.”

Around 10 members of his staff were seated in front of him on boxy leather furniture, and they all chuckled. The group was fresh-faced and eager, full of earnest, post-college spirit. The boys were either dressed in form-fitting khaki pants or the rumpled tech attire made familiar by Mark Zuckerberg. The girls, however, were more uniformly well put-together, tending toward business casual—skirts and power suits—except one, who wore designer jeans and equestrian boots.

The staff of Generation Opportunity (Vocativ/Lindsey Leger)

The theme of today’s meeting was government spending, and how it adversely affects young men and women. “So what are the problems that face our generation?” Feinberg asked.

There was a freeform exchange, the staff members calling out a barrage of answers. “Generational theft,” one said. “The Federal Reserve,” said another. “Cronyism.” “Credit cards.” “Student loans.” “What about the Chinese threat?” one girl asked.

Feinberg recorded the answers on the wall and said, “Okay. Do you guys think there are any underlying messages here? Anything that could be the backbone of a campaign?”

They all seemed to agree on “generational theft.”

“So what does that mean?” Feinberg prodded.

“I think it means there’s someone stealing from another,” a young man volunteered. “It’s like what the left does with women’s issues. The left does a really good job at identifying that. We could say it’s like a war on youth.”

The staff nodded. “But no one thinks this is grandma’s fault, right?” Feinberg asked. “Who is waging the war?”

“Politicians!” someone yelled.

David Pasch (Vocativ/Lindsey Leger)

“I’d be wary of any kind of generational warfare language,” cautioned David Pasch, Generation Opportunity’s 25-year-old communications director. “We don’t hate our grandparents or our parents, like maybe our parents hated their parents.”

The whole team erupted in laughter, and Feinberg chimed in: “It really is the politicians. They’re the ones choosing to pay off certain constituencies that they can’t keep.”

“From a design and marketing perspective,” a girl said, testing the waters. “The ‘you’ jumps out at me in the ‘youth.’ So it’s kind of like many against the singularity—against the individual.”

After another 10 minutes of call and response, Feinberg brought the meeting to an end. “This is a lot of fun,” he said. “But I will say that it lacks pizzazz. Someone’s gotta come back to me and the team with something that really sizzles.”

The meeting broke, and nearby two young men in khakis began playing Ping Pong.


In December, Feinberg appeared on Fox to discuss the Opt Out campaign. At one point in the segment, the host, Greta Van Susteren, pointedly asked him about who was backing Generation Opportunity.

Screen Shot 2014 02 23 at 5.53.59 PM(Fox News)

“Oh,” he said. “We’ve got a variety of donors.”

Van Susteren, seeming to know better, persisted: “I’m wondering if there is some very influential group that funds you” and, “as a consequence, you’ve got to take some marching orders from some other group.”

“Oh no,” Feinberg said. “We’re an independent organization that’s able to fight for our peers. These ads are really creative opportunities to very inexpensively reach millions of young people.”

Van Susteren, perhaps not wanting to shake the tree too hard, let the matter drop. Feinberg, a former Republican candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania, was being opaque, as Freedom Partners does technically consist of “a variety of donors”—roughly 200 in all. The $5 million that they gave to Generation Opportunity between November 2011 and October 2012 accounted for a small fraction of the quarter-billion donated to various conservative causes within the same timeframe. Still, none of them have been disclosed except for the Koch brothers. Shortly before the Creepy Uncle Sam videos began, Marc Short, the president of Freedom Partners, told Politico that the they “provided a ‘minority’” of the money.

The acknowledgement seemed to be a half-hearted bid at transparency.What he didn’t say, though, is that the vice president of Freedom Partners is Richard Fink, a man whom Jane Mayer, in a story for the New Yorker, once called “the central nervous system of the Kochtopus,”— the vast network of tentacles dispatched to jam up holes that might leak liberalism.

Generally speaking, “liberalism” accounts for any government regulation that potentially poses a threat to the business interests of Koch Industries—a multi-national corporation that deals in petroleum, energy, chemicals and gas liquids.

None of this, however, is mentioned on the website of Generation Opportunity. Instead, the page offers a tour of the personalities of the group’s staff. A headshot of every team member appears on a page accompanied by a quirky Q&A. One question asks, “If you could have a beer with one historical figure, it would be?” The replies vary, and include James Madison (“I already named my dog after the man”), Richard III (“I’m a huge British Monarchy dork!”), and Tina Fey (“Should probably say Margaret Thatcher”).


After the brainstorming session, I sat with Pasch and Feinberg in Feinberg’s sparsely decorated office. There was a big window, a bare blonde wood desk, and a golf putting mat rolled out on the floor, beside which was a putter. Feinberg drank from a bottle of Poland Spring water and crossed one leg over the other, briefly exposing a brown loafer.

Evan Feinberg, president of Generation Opportunity, a youth-focused nonprofit based in Arlington, VA, leads a brainstorming meeting on Wed. February 19, 2014, for their next ad campaign, tentatively called "The War on Youth." The group gained notoriety after their ads against the Affordable Care Act - which featured an Uncle Sam character in a doctor's office - went viral.Feinberg (Vocativ/Lindsey Leger)

“What we want to figure out is how we cut through the noise,” he said. “We’re not a political group, we’re an advocacy group. It requires us to do things differently.”

Feinberg was referring to Generation Opportunity’s status as a 501(c)(4) non-profit. In IRS code, it is labeled as a “social welfare” organization, which means it is tax-exempt and under no obligation to reveal its donors. Because the law governing such organizations is loosely defined, it remains unclear when a group stops getting social and starts getting political.

This is the cause of much consternation at the IRS. Last year, the agency came under fire for attempting to narrow the criteria, which happened to ensnare a number of conservative groups, though liberal ones were caught up in the mix as well. As a result, the guidelines still haven’t been refined.

Generation Opportunity is aware that it could jeopardize its status if its members explicitly advocate for a particular candidate during an election season. The IRS, at least in theory, might flag them for potentially running afoul of the rules. But the group is, it seems, within its rights to thwart, and advocate against, the agenda of a sitting president and his party, which ultimately amounts to the same thing.

Opt Out Obamacare Ad 02Another Creepy Uncle Sam ad (YouTube)

Its Facebook page, for instance, is a virtual cornucopia of anti-Obama propaganda, which is almost certainly why it is crucial, both in its tax filings and on its website, that it maintains that it is “non-partisan” and avoid drawing attention to its affiliation with Freedom Partners. But what allows the group to conceal its donors’ identities is an inadvertent benefit of 1958 Supreme Court case involving the NAACP. The judges ruled, wisely at the time, that the organization did not have to reveal its members because disclosure could lead to harassment.

For the next hour Feinberg detailed the myriad ways in which our generation is under attack. He was polished and practiced, seemingly groomed for politics. For him, the word “freedom” is synonymous with “laissez-faire”—the bedrock of traditional conservative thought.

But Feinberg sees his mission more through the lens of revolution. “The opportunity to reshape this country,” he said, “is going to come from young Americans saying, ‘We want our country back; we want freedom.’”


Conservatives, whatever the strain, are not known for connecting with young Americans. In the 2012 Presidential election, for instance, Barack Obama captured 60 percent of the votes from those between the ages of 18 and 29. Generation Opportunity, then, is a sort of bridge, spanning the abyss between Grover Norquist and spring break in Acapulco.

Staff meeting at Generation Opportunity (Vocativ/Lindsey Leger)

At 5 o’clock, Pasch cut into our conversation and said, “Want to grab a beer and continue this in the lounge? We don’t have an actual clock on our beer fridge, but we try not to dip in too early in the afternoon.”

As we walked to the lounge, where the brainstorming session had taken place, Feinberg offhandedly mentioned the group’s State of the Union Party. The event was reminiscent of the Opt Out tour that took place last fall. Generation Opportunity travelled to 20 colleges around the country, spreading their message. In November, they threw a tailgate party at the University of Miami. “We rolled in with a fleet of Hummers, F-150’s and Suburbans, each vehicle equipped with an 8’ [foot] high balloon bouquet floating overhead,” Pasch wrote, in a press release. “We hired a popular student DJ…set up Opt Out cornhole sets, beer pong tables, bought 75 pizzas, and hired eight ‘brand ambassadors,’ aka models with bullhorns to help out.”

In one photo, Creepy Uncle Sam has an arm around a female student, his hand on her stomach, seemingly moving toward her waistline. In another, a girl has the words “Birthday Bitch” scrawled on her bare midriff.

Feinberg took a Sam Adams, and the three of us sat down. I asked him about the meaning of the Creepy Uncle Sam ads.

“There’s nothing more private than an exam between a young person and their doctor,” Feinberg said. “And having the government sort of interject itself in the middle of that relationship, visually, would communicate just how intrusive Obamacare is in a young person’s life.”

I pointed out that the law had several commonalities with past proposals from conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, where he once worked. But Feinberg brushed off my comment.

“Our goal,” he said, “is not really to undermine Obamacare. Our goal is to educate and empower young people to make a good decision.”

“But you were literally telling people to ‘opt out,’” I said. “Isn’t that, by definition, undermining? Isn’t that subversive?”

“I would not, in any way, classify the Opt Out campaign as subversive,” Feinberg countered.

“Okay,” I said. “Then what about the ads? Did it occur to you that there might be a rape connotation?”

Feinberg took a pull off his beer and answered in an even tone. “We were a little surprised by what I would classify as the MSNBC attacks on the videos—the ones that suggested we were insinuating anything other than Creepy Uncle Sam playing doctor.”

“We don’t make videos for Rachel Maddow,” Pasch said, adding: “Getting young people to pay attention to healthcare is something that’s very difficult. So we like to think we’ve come up with a way to get young people engaged.”

There was a long silence, and I decided to change the subject. “You guys really consider yourselves non-partisan?”

The employment history of the staff of Generation Opportunity reads like a tribute to the Republican Party. Pasch himself worked for Rick Santorum’s national advance team, and just about everyone else in the organization has paid their dues in the conservative cause, too—from the Republican National Committee to the Charles Koch Institute, where Feinberg worked until January of last year, when he took the job at Generation Opportunity.

“We’re non-partisan in every way, shape, and form,” Feinberg said.

I mentioned their relationship with Freedom Partners, and Feinberg acknowledged the link, but declined to discuss the matter further.

“We are offering an opportunity to get the next generation involved and motivated,” he said. “We advocate for their future.”