NY Times: ‘Right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America’

Posted by on Jun 17, 2015 at 7:08 am
isisferguson

Let’s just completely ignore the constant threat of Islamist terror and the leftwing street marauders rioting around the country. We’ve got the New York Times helpfully cherry-picking and twisting some statistics to help pretend there’s some right-wing plot to undermine America. Yes, nearly 14 years after 9/11, the “right” are still the greatest threat facing America.

The stupid, it hurts.

THIS month, the headlines were about a Muslim man in Boston who was accused of threatening police officers with a knife. Last month, two Muslims attacked an anti-Islamic conference in Garland, Tex. The month before, a Muslim man was charged with plotting to drive a truck bomb onto a military installation in Kansas. If you keep up with the news, you know that a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists, are engaging in violence here in the United States.

But headlines can mislead. The main terrorist threat in the United States is not from violent Muslim extremists, but from right-wing extremists. Just ask the police.

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.

Now who exactly is this Police Executive Research Forum, unknown to us until just now?  Well, they receive generous funding from one MacArthur Foundation. And who, pray tell, are they? Glad you asked.

In at least one case, Fanton said that leftist donors had gone too far. In 2002, Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, announced that he was going to spend millions on an organization with the working title of “The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy,” which he said would be the left-wing counterpart to Americans for Tax Reform. Fanton said that it was a bad idea for donors to give money to an organization that thought it already had the answers to public policy problems. “To go all the way to where a foundation thinks it has the answer and it’s going to try to work that answer through to a solution, that’s a more difficult question,” Fanton told the Wall Street Journal.
It is true that a small amount of MacArthur’s money goes to center-right organizations. Between 2001-2004, MacArthur gave three grants to the Center for Strategic and International Studies totaling $1.25 million for research into nuclear nonproliferation, Russian missile development, and biological weapons. The American Enterprise Institute received two grants totaling $100,000 for research into presidential succession in the event of a terrorist attack.

But this small amount given to the Right has been dwarfed by MacArthur’s stalwart support of the Left. For instance, the MacArthur Foundation showers money on arms controllers, including in the 2001-04 period the Arms Control Association ($650,000), the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation ($575,000), the Center for Defense Information ($650,000), the Federation of American Scientists ($2.5 million), the Pugwash Conferences ($350,000), U.S. Pugwash ($150,000), and the Union of Concerned Scientists ($1.4 million).

A subsection of MacArthur’s funding of research on “pursuit of security here and abroad” is labeled “protecting fundamental values.” Here all of the grants go to left-wing groups including the American Civil Liberties Union ($1.25 million), the Center for Democracy and Technology ($250,000), the Center for Investigative Reporting ($250,000 “for support of a documentary film entitled No Place to Hide: Stories from a Surveillance Society”), the Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law ($65,000 “for work designed to reduce the evidence of hate crime and likely landlord and employer discrimination toward persons of Middle Eastern ancestry”), the League of Women Voters Education Fund ($225,000 “for support of the project called Local Voices Citizen Conversations on Civil Liberties and Secure Communities”), and Physicians for Human Rights ($200,000 “to send three two-person teams to the Afghanistan region to monitor and document the human rights situation there”).

Weird how these obscure groups all operate for leftwing causes, huh? Now back to the idiocy from the Times:

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.

Meanwhile, terrorism of all forms has accounted for a tiny proportion of violence in America. There have been more than 215,000 murders in the United States since 9/11. For every person killed by Muslim extremists, there have been 4,300 homicides from other threats.

Never mind the fact that residents of our cities, completely owned and operated by the Democratic Party, are mostly responsible for vast majority of those homicides in America.  But let’s pretend it’s some out-of-control right-wing mob.

Public debates on terrorism focus intensely on Muslims. But this focus does not square with the low number of plots in the United States by Muslims, and it does a disservice to a minority group that suffers from increasingly hostile public opinion. As state and local police agencies remind us, right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America.

Absurd. Completely absurd. Oh, and you’ll never guess whose names pops up in relation to this study.

The article also cited the George-Soros funded New America Foundation, as their list of consultants for the findings. Bergen’s reports also cited NAF’s findings, which used inconsistent and absurd presumptions on what makes a person “right-wing.” For example, the New America study lists clear examples of domestic violence as cases of “right-wing terrorism” because of fragmentary details of hearsay.

Now the frothing left has some handy new talking points to hammer the right with. Never mind it’s completely bogus.

Tags: , ,

17 Responses to “NY Times: ‘Right-wing, anti-government extremism is the leading source of ideological violence in America’”

  1. RoyL on 17/17/15 at 9:26 am

    I am really curious about these 254 deaths. Browsing that report it looks like it is including Oklahoma City, which is hardly since 9/11, but the nature of the other hundred is not very clear.

  2. Eddie Baby on 17/17/15 at 9:49 am

    When was the last time the authorities locked down a metropolitan area and went house to house looking for a right-wing extremist?

  3. bobbymike on 17/17/15 at 9:53 am

    If I recall correctly they use any crime committed by someone right of center (as the article above notes bases on here say or that fact they liked guns or think they pay too much tax, hate Obamacare, etc.) as right wing extremist violence even thought that was IN NO WAY the motivation for the crime.

    A hypothetical example, if a pro-2nd amendment person kills his wife in a domestic dispute, NOTHING to do with his supposed ‘anti-government’ beliefs he is considered a ‘right wing’ extremist criminal by their calculations.

    A Muslim shouts ‘Allah Akbar’ and the media says “don’t you dare connect to Islam” I guy who thinks we pay too much tax commits a crime and he’s an ‘anti-government’ extremist.

  4. RoyL on 17/17/15 at 9:59 am

    The 254 number is found on page 100 of that Perliger report, which has created a CTC dataset to quantify right wing violence. I would be very interested if anyone could direct me to the raw data and methodology.

  5. Joel on 17/17/15 at 10:30 am

    I don’t doubt that NYT’s 254-deaths number is bogus. But some evidence would be useful in making your point. It’s really not enough just to declare, “Absurd, completely absurd.” If you know that, please share the reason for your certainty.

  6. Darth Chipmunk on 17/17/15 at 10:39 am

    Clearly, these right-wing extremists are not allowed enough room for smashy-smashy. If we simply gave them space to destroy, I’m sure we’d see peace and harmony. Or something. Because equality! And justice! …

  7. Ray Van Dune on 17/17/15 at 10:45 am

    You would think the layers of editors at the NYT would ensure that the sources and validity of data in an article like this would be clearly established, but apparently you would be mistaken in ascribing professionalism to these journalists when they get the chance to slag someone they dislike.

    What would we do without our guardians in the media? I am not sure, but I would be more than willing to find out.

  8. Patrick McCloskey on 17/17/15 at 11:15 am

    If I recall correctly they use any crime committed by someone right of center (as the article above notes bases on here say or that fact they liked guns or think they pay too much tax, hate Obamacare, etc.) as right wing extremist violence even thought that was IN NO WAY the motivation for the crime.

    A hypothetical example, if a pro-2nd amendment person kills his wife in a domestic dispute, NOTHING to do with his supposed ‘anti-government’ beliefs he is considered a ‘right wing’ extremist criminal by their calculations.

    ————-
    This can’t be denied.

    Some, would probably call that a specious claim based on nothing but conjecture. Anyone who has been paying attention, would know otherwise. In our perfect world scenario, data is analyzed objectively. Once again, you would have to be asleep, or a $oro$-funded troll, to believe that.

  9. Mark Dietzler on 17/17/15 at 11:31 am

    If we went by sheer number of assaults/murders/rapes, the number one leading source of violence in the United States is black males between the ages of 15 to 25. Has been for decades now.
    But the NYT doesn’t like to talk about that. Doesn’t fit the narrative (or sell papers).

  10. Dave smith on 17/17/15 at 12:11 pm

    Carlos Slim, Mexican billionaire, is a majority shareholder in the NY as well. Don’t discount his hand in steering these types of stories.

  11. GWB on 17/17/15 at 8:26 pm

    “a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by overseas extremists”
    FIFY:
    “a small but steady stream of American Muslims, radicalized by ISLAM”

  12. Speechlesstx on 18/18/15 at 10:14 am

    Has the Slimes done a study on how many stories they’ve published on Islamic terror attacks vs those on all those right-wing attacks?

  13. Mac on 18/18/15 at 2:29 pm

    I read the report. I think the writer tries to be intellectually honest but his biases create mental shortcuts called heuristics that essentially lets him draw conclusions he wants from the onset. Setting that aside it is a report long on history and thin on analysis.Regardless, in an operating environment where the TSA is giving free body cavity checks in case you are smuggling an Al Q butt bomb, where police are doubled up in NY because of axe attacks of unknown origin that coincide with rhetoric out of the AG on Ferguson, where Boston Police are still stinging from those dirtbags, the average Joe on the force may not be focused on the old lady in tennis sneakers outside the abortion clinic. By focusing only on right wing extremists, and they do absolutely exist, the author does at a minimum two things; he fails to gain an understanding of the culture. That is a fatal flaw in any number of his conclusions. For example: he looks at the spike in the 60s but fails to look at the rise of FALN, the Weathermen, or the Black Panthers to name a few. More importantly all those left wing groups and the myriad of others go down the memory hole and the Times et al can run with a nonsensical theme that the only thing we have to fear is racist angry white males who got fired from the gas station. I am not trying in any way shape or form to create a tit-for-tat argument. I am not throwing down a Colin Ferguson or a John Lee Malvo for every racist idiot and hateful white guy like this dirtbag in Charleston and say that the score is tied or something as absurd I am asserting that the left creates hate and stokes the anger of the cop killing ax wielding maniacs when they perpetuate the myth of a racist society when it is really a country of 300 million people and with that many it must include absolutely loathsome people of all stripes.