Obamacare opponents have already run more than 30,000 television ads attacking the health law and Democratic candidates who support it, according to the media tracking group CMAG — a staggering 12-fold increase from four years ago. Many of the ads are being run in states with high uninsurance rates where hundreds of thousands of poor people could benefit from the Affordable Care Act, including Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.
Nearly half of all ads that have been run about the health law in House and Senate races through March 9 are critical of the ACA. And in a reflection of the post-Citizens United political landscape, spending by outside groups without any official connection to a particular organization or party accounts for almost three-fourths of all the commercials, compared to just 13 percent in 2010.
“We knew there would be heightened public awareness around the implementation of the law, and we thought it was important to go up early with a heavy effort,” said Tim Phillips, president of the Koch brother-funded group Americans for Prosperity (AFP), in an interview with Bloomberg.
AFP has run the most anti-Obamacare ads of any political group by a large margin, targeting vulnerable Democrats who are up for re-election, such as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA). The organization’s spots play up misleading “horror stories” related to the health law, such as Americans who have had their insurance policies cancelled or seen their premiums spike. But the ads’ content tends to range from exaggeration to outright misinformation — and AFP has even been caught hiring paid actors to play the roles of “real” local residents.
This is a follow-up to last year’s Page, Homegrown Terrorism Cases, 2001-2012. The New America Foundation appears to have a new site—at least new to me—for their National Security Studies Program with a section dedicated to analyzing homegrown extremism. They list nine major plots in 2013 (individual’s names link to their profiles):
- 2013 Wichita Airport Bomb Plot
Terry Loewen (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Caucasian)
- 2013 Weapons Purchase
Erwin Rios (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Ethnicity/Race Unknown)
- 2013 Nabi and Alsarabbi
Humayoun Ghoulan Nabi (Jihadist, Citizenship Unknown/Other, South Asian)
Ismail Alsarabbi (Jihadist, Naturalized Citizen, Arab/Middle Eastern)
- 2013 Kaliebe and Zea
Marco Alonso Zea (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Hispanic)
Justin Kaliebe (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Caucasian)
- 2013 Fazliddin Kurbanov
Fazliddin Kurbanov (Jihadist, Citizenship Unknown/Other, Uzbek)
- 2013 Eric Harroun
Eric Harroun (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Caucasian)
- 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing
Dzhokhar Tsernaev (Jihadist, Naturalized Citizen, Chechen)
Tamerlan Tsernaev (Jihadist, Legal Resident, Chechen)
- 2013 Basit Sheikh
Basit Sheikh (Jihadist, Legal Resident, South Asian)
- 2013 Abdella Tounisi
Abdella Tounisi (Jihadist, U.S. Born Citizen, Ethnicity/Race Unknown)
As of January 2014 the Homegrown Terrorism Tallies since (but not including) September 11, 2001 are as follows:
- Total extremists: 403
- Jihadists: 226
- Non-jihadists: 177
- Victims killed by Jihadists: 23
- Victims killed by non-Jihadists: 29
The purpose of this database is to provide as much information as possible about American citizens and permanent residents engaged in violent extremist activity as well as individuals, regardless of their citizenship status, living within the United States who have engaged in violent extremist activity. We examine both those individuals motivated by Jihadist ideology, understood as those who worked with or were inspired by al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups, as well as those motivated by other ideologies that are non-Jihadist in character, for example right wing, left wing, or idiosyncratic beliefs. Here we provide some of the core findings including the number of extremists indicted or killed by year, the overall number of extremists indicted or killed since 2001, and the number of people killed by extremists since 2001. This data was last updated in December 2013.
Note: Information is now also provided on terror plots “in which the initiating or key role was played by the bulk collection of American telephone metadata by the NSA” as well as a page that asks the question: Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorism? A detailed description and full copy of the report that attempts to answer the question can be found here. I tried to link directly to the PDF, however it appears that something in the file name (spaces maybe) prevent it from embedding properly.
Last, but not least, you might be interested in the following report, Jihadist Terrorism: An Assessment Report, by the Bipartisan Policy Center.1 Again, I had no success linking directly to the PDF to embed it, so instead I’ve linked it to the thumbnail in the description below:
The New America Foundation National Security Studies Program dataset of homegrown extremists seeks to provide as much information as possible about American citizens and permanent residents engaged in violent extremist activity as well as individuals, regardless of their citizenship status, living within the United States who have engaged in violent extremist activity.
The dataset has been widely cited. Most recently it formed the basis for the Bipartisan Policy Center’s 2013 report Jihadist Terrorism: A Threat Assesment‘s examination of homegrown extremism, a follow up to a 2010 assessment that used an earlier version of the dataset.
The dataset was originally a collaboration between the New America Foundation’s National Security Studies Program and Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. It underwent a full review, update, and expansion in 2013. The review was undertaken by Jennifer Rowland, a Program Associate with the New America Foundation, and David Sterman, a Master’s Candidate at Georgetown’s Center for Security Studies, working together with Peter Bergen.
There’s one main rule at the conservative donor conclaves held twice a year by Charles and David Koch at luxury resorts: What happens there stays there.
The billionaire industrialists and their political operatives strive to ensure the anonymity of the wealthy conservatives who fund their sprawling political operation—which funneled more than $400 million into the 2012 elections—and to keep their plans private. Attendees of these summits are warned that the seminars, where the Kochs and their allies hatch strategies for electing Republicans and advancing conservative initiatives on the state and national levels, are strictly confidential; they are cautioned to keep a close eye on their meeting notes and materials. But last week, following the Kochs’ first donor gathering of 2014, one attendee left behind a sensitive document at the Renaissance Esmeralda resort outside of Palm Springs, California, where the Kochs and their comrades had spent three days focused on winning the 2014 midterm elections and more. The document lists VIP donors—including John Schnatter, the founder of the Papa John’s pizza chain—who were scheduled for one-on-one meetings with representatives of the political, corporate, and philanthropic wings of Kochworld. The one-page document, provided to Mother Jones by a hotel guest who discovered it, offers a fascinating glimpse into the Kochs’ political machine and shows how closely intertwined it is with Koch Industries, their $115 billion conglomerate.
The more than 40 donors courted by the Kochs include hedge fund and private-equity billionaires, real estate tycoons, and executives of top corporations, including Jockey International and TRT Holdings, owner of Omni Hotels and Gold’s Gym. A number of them have never been identified as members of the Koch donor network, including Schnatter, one of the more prominent names on the list. An outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act, he is a longtime Republican donor who hosted a fundraiser for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The document notes that the pizza mogul was scheduled to meet with Ryan Stowers, the director of higher education at the Charles G. Koch Foundation. (Schnatter did not respond to requests for comment.)
The Motor City Madman holds court before his adoring fans. The bad craziness begins at about the 6:00 mark.
I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America. I am heartbroken but I am not giving up. I think America will be America again when Barack Obama, [Attorney General] Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, [Sen.] Dick Durbin, [former New York City Mayor] Michael Bloomberg and all of the liberal Democrats are in jail facing the just due punishment that their treasonous acts are clearly apparent.
So a lot of people would call that inflammatory speech. Well I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.
Hat Tip: Media Matters
Could have put this under “Wingnuts,” but this happened awhile ago, so I thought “History” was more fitting. Anyone on the right who wants to claim Republicans or conservatives never supported the Apartheid regime, here’s something else you can use to debunk them. This was also motivated by profit, so whoever says greed is good, has been proven wrong in this case as well. That also argues against these people simply being Wingnuts. It sounds like the folks at ALEC were motivated more by the fear of the lose of profits than ideology.
As the movement for public and private divestment from apartheid South Africa grew throughout the United States in the 1980s, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) aggressively mobilized against South African divestment, stymying state and federal efforts to sanction, isolate, and divest from the Pretorian regime, according to documents newly uncovered by People For the American Way and the Center For Media and Democracy.
ALEC used state and federal policy papers, monthly newsletters, “fact-finding” missions, panel discussions led by lobbyists on the payroll of the South African apartheid regime, and other means to pursue an anti-divestment agenda, one that relied solely on “corporate beneficence” to pressure the country to reform. This effort, in turn, was funded by corporations that were heavily invested in South Africa and had the most to lose from divestment.
Honestly this guy doesn’t sound too “bright”
Yesterday, we took a look at South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s top-polling Tea Party primary challenger, state Sen. Lee Bright, who thinks the income tax is something out of Nazi Germany and is concerned about women with nice nails and pocketbooks getting food assistance.
It turns out that Bright doesn’t just want to eliminate a host of core federal programs…he’s also itching to refight the Civil War.
In a series of speeches to Republican and Tea Party gatherings this year, Bright has riled up crowds with the states-rights rallying cry, “If the Tenth Amendment won’t protect the Second, we might have to use the Second to protect the Tenth.”
Bright is a proponent of nullification, the unconstitutional idea that states can “nullify” federal laws that they don’t like. This year, he sponsored a bill in the state senate to nullify the Affordable Care Act.
Also make sure you watch all three videos they have posted there of this lunatic at the rally.
A new poll released this week points to troubling public perception surrounding the rainbow flag, historically understood as a symbol of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement.
Public Policy Polling found that the Americans polled were more offended by the rainbow flag than the confederate flag, the latter of which has remained a controversial image since the American Civil War and for many holds oppressive and racist symbolism.
Coffee chain Starbucks Corp has asked U.S. customers to leave their guns at home after being dragged into an increasingly fractious debate over U.S. gun rights in the wake of multiple mass shootings.
While many U.S. restaurant chains and retailers do not allow firearms on their properties, Starbucks’ policy had been to default to local gun laws, including “open carry” regulations in many U.S. states that allow people to bring guns into stores.
In August, this led gun-rights advocates to hold a national “Starbucks Appreciation Day” to thank the firm for its stance, pulling the company deeper into the fierce political fight.
Locations for Starbucks Appreciation Day events included Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were shot dead in an elementary school in December. Starbucks closed that shop before the event was scheduled to begin.
Chief Executive Howard Schultz said in an open letter to customers late Tuesday that Starbucks Appreciation Day events “disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores.”
The coffee chain did not, however, issue an outright ban on guns in its nearly 7,000 company-owned cafes, saying this would potentially require staff to confront armed customers.
The Seattle-based company hoped to give “responsible gun owners a chance to respect its request,” Schultz said.
The right wing response has been predictable, but what’s notable is it’s not just limited to the standard wingnut sites, it’s practically a web-wide attack on Starbucks:
Outdoor seating areas are COMMON AREAS of the strip mall the Starbucks is renting space in. They have control of their property (tables), but NOT THE AREA.
F U, Prez. Schultz, and your far left liberal agenda.
It is my God Endowed Unalienable Individual Right, secured by Our Constitution, to take any firearm I please anywhere I please. “Shall not be infringed, means exactly what it says.
Howard, nut up and post the gun free zone sign… you can be the coffee shop where the next massacre occurs…
Otherwise, stop playing liberal emotional hack, concealed means just that- you don’t know they are carrying. Glad there’s caribou or a host of mom and pop shops, and sorry the idea of self defense makes you squeamish. Consider my coffee dollars spent elsewhere than for your overpriced dreck.
Chick-fil-A is a true American corporation. I knew those Starbucks appreciation days were a complete waste of time. Starbucks does not support the Second Amendment. They just don’t want to lose customers. All the idiots that supported Starbucks obviously didn’t do research on the CEO Howard Schultz. If they had they would have been aware that not only is he a liberal moon bat. But more than half of his political donations go to Democrat politicians And the other portions go to Independence. He also was a big supporter of berry Sataro a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama. Perhaps next time people will research Something before they blindly support it like Sheepole.
If my gun rights are not welcome in the store, neither am I. I can find coffee elsewhere.
If you want me to come into a Starbacks unarmed, then Starbucks, the company, must be in a position to guarantee my safety. Starbucks, are you willing to do that?
I can read it now, mass shooting at Starbucks, no one to fend off the crazed shooter, 13 dead. If only someone was there to stop the mad man from this horror. Carry concealed into Starbucks and they cannot tell you anything if you are licensed to carry concealed. in fact, if you believe in our 2nd Amendment, boycott Starbucks.
This is from the most Liberal City of Seattle. Yes, Howard Schultz, ban guns, but please have a security check before people enter your Starbucks stores. It cannot be fool proof unless all people go thru a metal detector.
That is the only way that a gun free environment can exist.
ridiculous. I’m sure all the criminals and mass murderers will leave their guns home if they want to enter a Starbucks.
I hate to tell you, but the only places that can legally “ban” guns on their premises are federal, state, and local governments. Any restaurant, bar, store, etc, that is a public business that says “we ban guns” is merely reserving the right to ask you to leave if they find you are carrying a gun. They can’t stop you from carrying a gun in, but if they ask you leave you are required by law to leave. So don’t think just because the sign says “we ban guns” that you’re not sitting next to someone like me who is still carrying legally. Oh, and you’re welcome. It’s someone like me that’s going to save your @ss when the next psycho walks through the door with gun intending to cause mayhem.
take your liberal retarded bs and peddle it somewhere else. If you want to bitch about freedom, what would you say if a coffee shop said they were going to ban openly gay people from coming in? Oh I’m sure your pretty pink panties would get all bunched up, like a “rock”….I know..I’m being a butthead, but at least I have a point, freedom of speech baby…this is still America. uuuhhhhh huh huh huh
Put up your signs Starbucks. Gun Free Zone, enter at your own risk
Instead of having a backbone this guy is waffling on the right to protect yourself if a mass shooter decides to target Starbucks. I guess you could throw your iPad at him but that will probably only **** him off. Better to have a gun and not need it that to need it and not have one.
I’ll respect his wishes by never patronizing Starbucks again. He’s a mouthy activist busybody like the Hollywood types - going WAY beyond his sphere of influence to agitate - to the detriment of shareholders.
I’m guessing it’s alright if untreated mentally ill customers come and buy your coffee though, right? I’ve had my last cup of Starbucks coffee.
Citizens with carry and conceal permits don’t go on shooting rampages, they stop them. The moronic Newtown folks who got this ball rolling can only wish one of the teachers there was armed.
Twitter has been busy with response as well:
— Daily Intelligencer (@intelligencer) September 18, 2013
— Alan Colmes (@AlanColmes) September 18, 2013
The attacks have even spread to a blog run by Starbucks itself.
DC has “gun control”.
Military bases have “gun control”.
VA Tech has “gun control”.
Most schools have “gun control”.
Notice a pattern? All those places are where mass murders have happened.
SBX is refusing service to the 80,000,000 or so law-abiding gun owners in the USA.
Not smart to turn away the best customers they could have.
I love how you didn’t mind us bringing our M9’s into the Starbucks at Camp Buehring. (Seriously, thanks for the coffee though.) It’s ok over there, but not stateside? Apparently, there are too many nervous Nellies here that are scared of a piece of steel that once protected their right to be ignorant and fearful.
At least someone has some brains here. You libs keep drinking the cool aide and enjoy having your rights taken away little by little. If Starbucks doesn’t like the second amendment then I can choose not to drink their coffee. Period.
Agree … But, since their CEO asked nicely, I won’t bring my concealed weapon near a Starbucks … or my money, or my loyalty, or my family. As a matter of fact, I’ll let my extended family know as well.
There are two key points in the actions of Starbucks that seem to be completely overlooked or completely ignored by so-called “gun rights” advocates.
1. The company is NOT actually banning anything. You can still bring guns to Starbucks, the CEO is simply stating he would prefer that you didn’t. He’s not outright saying “No one is permitted to enter Starbucks with a weapon ever again.”
2. The U.S. Constitution is meant to govern the interaction between the government of the United States and its people, NOT its people and private corporations. “Second amendment rights” do not exist in the case of a private business. If they don’t want any guns on their property, that is their call. It is not trampling over rights because no one has a right to carry a gun anywhere they want to, despite what the gun nuts would have you believe.
You might notice I didn’t even mention the “good guy with a gun” argument because that was pretty much repeated ad nauseam after the Newtown shootings and there seems little point in rehashing it yet again.
Once again, this demonstrates how ignorant many self labeled “gun fanatics” are when it comes to gun regulations and how the Constitution works.