Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the day—Norbert Michel

Posted on by

For those unfamiliar, Choke Point consisted of bureaucrats in several independent federal agencies taking it upon themselves to shut legal businesses – such as payday lenders and firearms dealers – out of the banking system. Given the nature of the U.S. regulatory framework, this operation was easy to pull off.

Officials at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for instance, simply had to inform the banks they were overseeing that the government considered certain types of their customers “high risk.” The mere implication of a threat was enough to pressure banks into closing accounts, because no U.S. bank wants anything to do with extra audits or investigations from their regulator, much less additional operating restrictions or civil and criminal charges.

…

It is now clear that these unelected government officials set out to harm law-abiding citizens. Yet many of the government officials named in these documents are still employed by the same government agency. Most of these folks work at the FDIC, and one has even moved up from a regional director position to FDIC Ombudsman.

Norbert Michel
November 5, 2018
Newly Unsealed Documents Show Top FDIC Officials Running Operation Choke Point
[That these people aren’t currently in prison making little rocks out of big rocks shows you “the swamp” still needs to be drained.—Joe]

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

Posted on by

It’s nice to see the NRA and SAF working together.

From the Second Amendment Foundation web site:

SAF, NRA FILE FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING INITIATIVE 1639

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging gun control Initiative 1639 in Washington State, on several grounds.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In addition to SAF and NRA, plaintiffs include gun dealers and young adults in the affected age group.

The lawsuit challenges the measure on the grounds that it violates the commerce clause by banning sales of rifles to non-residents, and that it unconstitutionally impairs the rights guaranteed by the First, Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article I Section 24 of the Washington State constitution by preventing the sale to otherwise qualified adults under age 21 of certain rifles.

“We are also considering additional legal challenges,” SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb confirmed. “We are disappointed that too many Evergreen State voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition. This initiative is an affront to the constitutional rights enshrined in the Second Amendment and the Washington state constitution, especially for young adults.

“We’re determined to fight this egregious measure because constitutionally-protected rights should never be subject to a popularity vote,” he stated. “The wealthy elitists behind I-1639 want to turn a right into a regulated privilege. This measure was only designed to have a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right by honest citizens while having no impact at all on criminals, and we cannot let it go unchallenged.”

“The NRA is committed to restoring the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding Washingtonian,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “I-1639 violates the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and puts people at risk. This lawsuit is the first step in the fight to ensure that Washingtonians are free to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense.

“The NRA will fight to overturn this unconstitutional initiative. We will not sit idly by while elitist anti-gun activists attempt to deny everyday Americans their fundamental right to self-defense,” concluded Cox.

“While a handful of billionaires spending millions of dollars were able to buy votes, it is our hope they can’t buy the judges,” Gottlieb said.

I find this very interesting. I don’t think anyone has challenged it on the grounds of the initiative violating Washington state law such things as being limited to only one subject, the font was too small to read, the strikeout and other formatting of deleted versus new text was incorrect. It’s possible this was deliberate and we won’t be seeing such a lawsuit for many years and only if this lawsuit fails.

If they can defeat it in Federal court on constitutional grounds it is gone for good so we won’t have to fight it at the ballot or legislature again and it protects other states. But if it is defeated on the basis of ballot procedures and formatting then we won’t be able to fight it on a constitutional until it is passed again. The biggest downside to this is that we will have to live with it until the Federal Courts rule on it. If the district court doesn’t rule in our favor it probably will have to go all the way to SCOTUS because it is unlikely the Ninth Circuit court of appeals is going to rule in our favor on all the aspects of this law.

Quote of the day—Jen Zamzow

Posted on by

Anyone serious about building consensus on gun policy needs to be slower to judge and quicker to listen to those who disagree. I understand why gun-safety advocates might not want to listen to those who are skeptical of gun-safety laws. People are being killed in their places of worship and kids gunned down at school; this kind of crisis can make people feel they don’t have time for dialogue.

However, listening to those who are resistant to gun-control laws is more than just a sign of respect. Understanding what motivates people can help us come up with better solutions that are more likely to stick. Instead of focusing on what motivates us, we need to ask what motivates them. We don’t all need to take the same path to get to the same destination. We can get more people to the destination if we can find a path they’re willing to take.

Jen Zamzow
November 14, 2018
Why we can’t agree on gun control
[Great advice! The truth cannot be learned if people do not listen. Listen to others on the condition they listen to you and then see where you both end up. To see if both sides are really listening try a role reversal in your second session. If you can’t argue your opponents side then you probably aren’t listening.

Numerous studies have shown that conservatives understand progressives far better than the other way around. So this actually something of a “trap” for progressives. —Joe]

Something to keep in mind

Posted on by

Washington state law has some interesting things to keep in mind:

State law defines malicious harassment — a felony commonly referred to as a “hate crime” — as intentionally injuring, damaging property or threatening someone “because of his or her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical or sensory handicap.”

In Seattle a misdemeanor malicious harassment law extends those protections to include gender identity, homelessness, marital status, political ideology, age and parental status.

Detective Beth Wareing investigates bias crimes for the Seattle Police Department and coordinates its response.

She said the department tracks three types of bias:

• Malicious harassment;
• Crimes that have a bias element, such as when hatred toward a protected group or class is a secondary motivation;
• Bias incidents, in which “someone shares their nasty opinion about someone’s membership in these groups.”

Although bias incidents are not crimes, Wareing said tracking them helps SPD understand how people are being treated in a particular area or neighborhood and ensures that someone who feels threatened is heard.

Emphasis added.

So… if you are in Seattle you can’t insult the communists (in some areas you can just close your eyes and point in a random direction to find them) without being at risk of being reported to the police. But perhaps just as important is that if you go for a walk downtown wearing your NRA jacket and/or hat and people express their hatred those haters can be reported as well. Open carry is legal in the state too, but that probably would be considered hunting over bait and the fish and game department generally frowns on that.

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

Posted on by

If resistance to gun-control laws is based on guns, or the enjoyment of guns, rather than our inalienable right to life and the sovereignty of the people, if we are consistently perceived as concerned only that we be left undisturbed to enjoy target shooting, hunting or collecting fine firearms, if, in fact, that is all that we do care about the resistance by an angry few will likely prove futile, and we will lose — not secure — the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, The Line in the Sand, page 161
[This book should be required reading in school. And since it is not every gun owner must be strongly encouraged to read it.

I can open the book to any page and easily find something worthy of a QOTD. Sometimes there three or four QOTD are clearly available on a single page and even the titles of the essays alone can qualify as a QOTD. It is an amazing book.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ralph Fascitelli

Posted on by

The major gun safety groups like Brady have done very little to promote a technology approach. … This we “believe” is because of a small group of naïve well-heeled idealists on the left don’t want a safer gun to be the solution to gun violence. The idealists on the left, who supported the New Jersey mandate, and right have prevented a pragmatic solution for a long time.

Ralph Fascitelli
October 31, 2018
A Former Remington Exec Takes On A Challenge: Building A Smart Gun That Can’t Be Hacked
[I don’t think I would be likely to purchase a “smart gun”. I don’t think they will be an good solution to most, or even many, firearms needs and should never be mandated. But I do have a sense of loss that the technology has been indirectly prevented because of crazy politics.

Fascitelli has been president of Washington Ceasefire and I don’t think I have ever said anything nice about him in public before. And that goes back at least nine years.

But recently I listened to a podcast where he was interviewed and claimed that murder of a gun control advocate was unlikely to have been committed by a gun rights advocate. Paraphrasing, he said, “They have a code. They respect and obey the law. I don’t think this was done by one of them.” This is a recognition of what we have been saying for decades, “If gun owners were as bad as the political left claims anti-gun activists would have all been shot years ago.”

And now, here, we have Fascitelli saying “smart gun technology” has been prevented, in part, by anti-gun activists. That is an insightful and almost certainly correct observation about a failure of “his people”. I think I could almost sit down with him over lunch and chat without either of us feeling the other was evil incarnate.—Joe]

Democrats, sex, and violence

Posted on by

Justin Lehmiller wrote a book, Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life. I participated in his research survey but haven’t read the book the book yet. He has been writing a few articles about his research and I found this one particularly interesting:

Republicans and Democrats Don’t Just Disagree About Politics. They Have Different Sexual Fantasies.

…

While self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats reported fantasizing with the same average frequency—several times per week—I found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about a range of activities that involve sex outside of marriage. Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 1970s-style “key parties” to modern-day forms of swinging. Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as “cuckolding,” which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else.

By contrast, self-identified Democrats were more likely than Republicans to fantasize about almost the entire spectrum of BDSM activities, from bondage to spanking to dominance-submission play. The largest Democrat-Republican divide on the BDSM spectrum was in masochism, which involves deriving pleasure from the experience of pain.

The BDSM thing is consistent with the Democrat goals of acquiring complete power. And, as we fear, inflicting pain, suffering, and submission. This claim is further exemplified by Karin Jones on Twitter who, after reading Lehmiller’s article said:

A fun read by @JustinLehmiller. He’s right! As a Democrat I often fantasize about BDSM activity – like crushing Donald Trump’s balls in my bare hands until he falls to his knees and begs me to impeach him.

In contrast, my most far out political fantasies involve the government obeying the constraints imposed upon it by the constitution and politicians who violate the law being prosecuted.

Never give up your guns. If you do what follows will be the wildest fantasies of the Democrats and it will be extremely unpleasant.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

It’s written in a way that puts a chilling effect on gun ownership, but quite frankly, it’s unenforceable. There’s a giant loophole in this law. If they go to Oregon or Idaho, they can bring [a rifle] back. It’s totally legal. They just can’t buy it in Washington state.

Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
November 7, 2018
Second Amendment Foundation: Loopholes aplenty with I-1639
[There are other loopholes as well. I was at a gun store recently and suggested a loophole they might use. The clerk behind the counter said, paraphrasing, “That should work. But most of the time I expect we will just do it like….” and he explained a simpler approach. I had considered his suggestion weeks ago but figured it was clearly violating the spirit of the law even though it was complying with the letter of the law and that might be too risky. But, he didn’t seem bothered by it so I’m not going to worry about it. I make so many trips to Idaho I will just buy my guns there and not subject myself to the risk.

I’m a bit torn between keeping loopholes like this quiet and openly mocking the ignorance and stupidity of the people that write these laws. On the one hand we get more time to get more guns into the hands of more people. On the other we embarrass the anti-gun activists and cause them to lose face and status in the eyes of those who donate millions of dollars.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

Posted on by

Just getting a vote in the House on background checks, which hasn’t happened in more than a decade, would be “monumental.”

We’ll know by Nov. 7 whether it really has changed or not and I think we’ll wake up and find that it has.

Kris Brown
October 25, 2018
Co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control, once a third rail, now a key issue as Democrats seek to control House
[See also this QOTD by Brown as well.

I queued up this post on October 26th for publication on November 8th. So… how well did Ms. Brown predict the future? Did she get it right or, as usually is the case, are the anti-gun people routinely waking up in an alternate reality?—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Schussler

Posted on by

No, the difference is that the Republicans controlled the Senate in both cases and thus could both prevent Garland from getting a hearing and force a hearing and vote for Kavanaugh, forcing the Democrats to get as dirty as possible to have any chance at influence.

And the assertion that these are empty accusations is just wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. There’s no conspiracy here, the guy’s pretty clearly an infantile little douchebag — and hanging on to him was a big mistake. Women in both parties are now incandescent with rage and will make what was a likely moderate turnover of Congress into a landslide. After which point they’ll impeach Kavanaugh for perjury (his lies are now well documented…that testimony the other day will be the rope they hang him with) and the Republicans will have both lost Congress and the SOTUS seat they want so badly.

John Schussler
September 29, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—Matt Walsh‏ @MattWalshBlog
[My response in the comments:

It’s interesting to read your viewpoint on the situation. It is quite different from some others. I talked to a big Trump supporter (best president EVER!!) last week who saw the fallout from the Kavanaugh confirmation process to be a huge win for Republicans in the elections next month.

As Scott Adams puts it (paraphrasing), “People are watching the same screen and seeing different movies.” My QOTD post for tomorrow has a lot more related information but I think you probably get the idea.

To determine who is “watching” the movie which most closely matches reality we only have to wait a month until the elections and see which is the better match. I’m going to make your comment my QOTD post for the day after the elections to remind us to review the predictions. This will also allow us to explore the predictions made by the book “When Prophecy Fails“. Either my Trump supporter will have their “prophecy” fail or you will have your prophecy fail. It will be a great test! I’m really looking forward to it.

Today is the day we evaluate the test results.

So…. which person has the better grasp on reality?—Joe]

It looks like #I1639 will pass

Posted on by

At 8:30 PM with 63.45% of the precincts reporting I-1639 is passing 60.69% to 39.31%. Unless eastern Washington hasn’t sent in any results yet and they voted something like 90% against it means the next step is to take it to court.

The last time I talked to someone in the office of the Second Amendment Foundation they expected to win in court but I’m not quite as confident as they appeared to be.

Quote of the day—Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell

Posted on by

The answer is simple.

Ban civilian firearms and make illegal possession a capital crime.

The public execution of a few hundred thousand illegal gun owners and dealers will curtail the problem quite nicely.

Vote Blue November 6‏ @AlvardoMitchell
Tweeted October 6, 2018.
[See what Miguel has to say about this guy and Say Uncle as well.

Vote like your life depends on the right to keep and bear arms. Because it does.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Matthew Knott

Posted on by

Gun control is now a winning issue for US Democrats – in the key swing state of Florida it’s shaping up to be critical. Could it be the “Gunshine State” that helps end America’s love affair with firearms?

Matthew Knott
November 4, 2018
How gun control went from a vote loser to a vote winner these midterms
[In Washington state the anti-gun people have the mindshare they need but they may not have the passion to vote in sufficient numbers to win. I suspect it is also the case in many other states.

Gun people need to vote and get others of a similar mind to vote.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jordan B. Peterson

Posted on by

No political experiment has ever been tried so widely, with so many disparate people, in so many different countries (with such different histories) and failed so absolutely and so catastrophically. Is it mere ignorance (albeit of the most inexcusable kind) that allows today’s Marxists to flaunt their continued allegiance—to present it as compassion and care? Or is it, instead, envy of the successful, in near-infinite proportions? Or something akin to hatred for mankind itself? How much proof do we need? Why do we still avert our eyes from the truth?

Jordan B. Peterson
November 1, 2018
The Gulag Archipelago: A New Foreword by Jordan B. Peterson
[Via a text message from daughter Jaime.—Joe]

Democrats then and now

Posted on by

Via email from Chet:

DemocratsKkkAntifa

Found here.

It’s not just guns they hate

Posted on by

Gab is essentially a Twitter clone without shadow bans and account suspension of non-liberal viewpoints. It prides itself on free speech but does have terms of service which say that users are not allowed to advocate violence. This resulted in their phone apps being refused by Apple and Google.

That was until yesterday.

The murderer in Pittsburg had an account on Gab.com. As soon as they were notified the murderer was one of their users they took action. I can’t find the exact tweet right now but as I recall it they said:

  • They immediately suspended the account
  • They archived the content
  • They contacted the FBI.

Here is a tweet that says essentially that:

This is your big question? lol okay.

1. We suspended the account after backing up the data to give to the FBI and DOJ
2. When we did this, the username became availible for a short time.
3. Someone created a new account and got the username.
4. We then locked down the username

Here is what you see if you go to gab.com or gab.ai now:

Gab.com is under attack. We have been systematically no-platformed by App Stores, multiple hosting providers, and several payment processors. We have been smeared by the mainstream media for defending free expression and individual liberty for all people and for working with law enforcement to ensure that justice is served for the horrible atrocity committed in Pittsburgh. Gab will continue to fight for the fundamental human right to speak freely.
As we transition to a new hosting provider Gab will be inaccessible for a period of time. We are working around the clock to get Gab.com back online. Thank you and remember to speak freely.

They made a public statement published on medium.com. That page no longer exists.

From here:

BREAKING: http://Gab.com is now banned from Paypal “just because.”

PayPalToGab

From here:

Breaking: @joyent, Gab’s new hosting provider, has just pulled our hosting service. They have given us until 9am on Monday to find a solution. Gab will likely be down for weeks because of this. Working on solutions. We will never give up on defending free speech for all people.

JoyentToGab

From here:

BREAKING: @stripe is likely going to ban us. We gave them plenty of documented and detailed evidence. The no-platforming continues.

StripeToGab

From here:

BREAKING: @GoDaddy is threatening to suspend our domain (which is worth six figures) if we do not transfer to a new provider by tomorrow. This is madness. @realDonaldTrump @parscale I hope you are paying attention.

GoDaddyToGab

It’s not just guns the political left hates. It is free speech. It is you.

They want you disarmed. They want you silenced. They what you dead.

Next week, vote their representatives out of power.

Quote of the day—Kris Brown

Posted on by

You are seeing more candidates at the margin like Fitzpatrick who will come out and be champions of the cause. I think this election cycle is a proof point that more will be doing that in the future.

Kris Brown
October 25, 2018
Co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Gun control, once a third rail, now a key issue as Democrats seek to control House
[I find it interesting how anti-gun people talk about the future versus how pro-gun people do. This is Chris Cox of NRA-ILA on September 5th:

The fate of our freedom hangs in the balance in this November’s elections for the U.S. Senate. The good news is that gun owners can once again make the difference in the fight for our rights. The bad news is that if we don’t—if we just sit on the sidelines and leave the battle to others—we will lose our rights for generations to come.

Chris Cox on September 20th:

There is no question that our liberties are at stake on November 6th.

The Democrat leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives has become completely radicalized when it comes to the Second Amendment. Our constitutional freedoms are standing in the way of the extreme big government control that these anti-gun politicians want to impose.

Add that to the unbridled hatred that many on the left have for President Donald Trump, and it could not be clearer for NRA members and gun owners that we have to do everything we can to protect our pro-gun majority in Congress.

The threat is stark. Current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is an outspoken opponent of the Second Amendment. If Democrats take control of the House, Pelosi would return as Speaker. Her key lieutenants, Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and James Clyburn (D-S.C.), stand shoulder-to-shoulder with her in their support of gun control.

This difference isn’t just for this election cycle. This is typical.

The anti-gun people always say, paraphrasing, “This election is going to be the turning point and we will win.”

The NRA always say, paraphrasing, “This sky is falling! Give us money! Vote for your gun rights!”

I suspect part of the difference is that the NRA is far more experienced in politics. But more importantly the anti-gun people, for all intents and purposes, don’t have any grassroots members to talk to. They are talking to the media. The NRA has millions of members and they are talking to their members telling them what they can do to make a difference.

This year, do your part to make that difference.—Joe]

Saving face

Posted on by

For several years in the early and mid 2000’s I worked for a government laboratory and occasionally had contact with the CIA. One of the things I remember more clearly than any other is talking to a manager who had a team of psychologists working for him. They studied the psychology of Arabs and Muslims and how people in the west might influence them. I asked if he could share any insights with me.

He told me, “They think very differently than we do. Perhaps, more different than we can think.”

I don’t know if this came from that same team but the timing is pretty good. It was first published in 2007 and I found it absolutely fascinating:

‘Face’ Among Arabs

…

In Western cultures a fact is an objective absolute not subject to mutation through human interpretation. But the Arab mentality treats fact and truth as relative, to some extent a projection of the mind for the benefit of the self or ego. With this subjective processing the facts become what the Arab emotionally wants to believe is true. They can thus be made to mesh harmoniously with criteria which stand higher on the value scale because connected with the maintenance of face. Neither facts nor their connotations can stand up against the Arab’s facade of personal dignity or be arrayed to form an attack on his surrogate of face.

…

Knowledgeable Arabs realize that their people and countries fall in some measure short of the progress and development that some other nations have achieved. Unable to find themselves at fault for this, they are naturally led to seek the cause of their troubles in outside sources-the will of Allah, the imperialists, Israel, family and personal obligations, and many real wrongs which have been done them. This saves the collective face from appearing defective and allows those who can accept subjectively interpreted facts to maintain their sense of personal dignity and self-confidence.

…

In any situation in which shame or guilt threatens the Arab he will be able to explain away whatever impinges on his personal dignity with an array of facts that are meant to be accepted by the listener and not challenged. Whether the story is believed or not and whether the facts are objective or logical are secondary considerations; it is considered quite unmannerly to embarrass him by challenging his explanations. Many of the stories of Juha and his donkey which abound in Arabic folklore have their point for the Arab not in the happenings, logical or illogical, they portray but rather in the quick wit and inventive genius with which the hero survives each incident.

In many phases of the Arabic cultural setting the Westerner with his fetish for objectivity is decidedly out of place, for a subjective interpretation of facts and truth is most suitable in a milieu where face and personal dignity are the things of prime importance.

In summation, the face concept can be said to have three interrelated aspects. The Arab’s extreme effort to show himself blameless, an effort which seems too transparent and unrealistic to Westerners, is the product of the high value his culture puts upon personal dignity, of his feeling answerable for his conduct to society rather than to any divine conscience within himself, and of his sense of the subjectivity of fact.

While reading this I was struck by the similarities between the psychology described and people and organizations which advocate for socialism, gun control, and other causes of the political left. Think of the sexual scandals of Bill Clinton and the responses by him and his supporters. Think of Hillary Clinton claiming she dodged sniper fire. Think of the Fast and Furious, IRS targeting conservatives, Solyndra, and  Benghazi scandals of the Obama administration and yet today many in the political left claim there were zero scandals.

Distinguishing good from evil

Posted on by

Suppose there were people or organizations which worked to enable, encourage, and train ordinary people to defend themselves from predators. Can this work be categorized as anything but good? These are good people doing good work, right?

If the above characterization is true then it must follow that people or organizations which work to disable, discourage, and make difficult or expensive self-defense training are doing the opposite of good—even though they may claim they are advocates of good they are actually evil. Further evidence of this is their culture of lies and deception.

Apply these rules to the NRA, SAF, GOA, and the politicians which seek the support of these organizations.

Now apply these rules to Everytown for Gun Safety, The Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and the politicians which seek the support of these organizations.

Vote accordingly.

Professional agitators

Posted on by

I work in security. Part of my job is to see the world a little different from most people. I review a lot of material with a different view that most people and some of it is not available to the general public (unless you want to spend a lot of money).

The following is an alternate, and I believe more accurate, view on the state of politics in our country:

Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova is alleged in the indictment to have participated in a conspiracy to “sow discord in the U.S. political system and to undermine faith in our democratic institutions.

The government says that the conspiracy is also part of a 2016 influence operation that dates back to at least May 2014.

Forty-four-year-old Khusyaynova, of St. Petersburg, was the chief accountant of “Project Lakhta,” an effort funded by Russian oligarch Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin and two companies he controls, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, and Concord Catering, the indictment says. Prigozhin is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and is often referred to as “Putin’s chef.”

Khusyaynova is accused of overseeing a $35 million budget from 2014 to 2018 that covered spending on activists, social media advertising, and promoting news postings on social networks. The Justice Department says that the proposed operating budget for 2018 alone was over $10 million.

…

Those involved in the conspiracy made extensive efforts to appear to be American political activists, and hide the fact that they were Russian. According to the indictment, the conspiracy “inflamed passions” on topics including immigration, gun control and the Second Amendment, the Confederate flag, race relations, LGBT issues, the Women’s March, and the NFL national anthem controversy.

The conspiracy advised social media writers on how to write for U.S. audiences, suggesting in one instance that people of color who are LGBT are “less sophisticated” than those who are white. “Colored LGBT are less sophisticated than white; therefore, complicated phrases and messages do not work,” the guidance said, according to the indictment. It went on to suggest that infographics “work well among LGBT and their liberal allies,” but not so well with conservatives.

…

Earlier in the day, in a rare joint statement, the nation’s top law enforcement and intelligence agencies issued a warning against what they described as “ongoing campaigns by Russia, China and other foreign actors, including Iran, to undermine confidence in democratic institutions and influence public sentiment and government policies.”

The old adage, “consider the source”, is good advice. But what if it is extremely difficult to know the source?

A lot of the political tension in our country is not due to citizen advocates of actual extremist positions. It is due to well funded outside agitators.