The following is from a Robert A. J. Gagnon Facebook post, but was originally a post from another guy who's name I just forgot to write down. (Craig's posted one or two things from the dude and I'll amend this post when I get his name.) I saw it and as it was related to a post or two of Craig's on the issue of "who's worse" (my name for it), we see the problems Craig has referenced. Here it is:
The Cato Institute just published a report claiming right-wing violence is far more common than left-wing violence, and they released it in the very month that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
That timing is revolting, but the data itself is even worse!
The Daily Caller exposed how Alex Nowrasteh’s list conveniently left out key left-wing killers that would have changed the balance.
The Waukesha killer in 2021 drove his SUV through a Christmas parade, killing six and injuring dozens more, after a stream of anti-white social media posts, rapping against Donald Trump, and voicing support for Black Lives Matter.
A local BLM chapter even raised money for his bail.
Jessica Doty-Whitaker was shot and killed by BLM protesters after she or someone in her group said “all lives matter.” Her case remains unsolved, yet CATO never counted it.
An anti-natalist bombed an IVF clinic in 2025, killing one person, and that too was ignored.
Those omissions are not small. Adding them would nudge the left-wing category above the right wing category, destroying the entire premise of CATO’s report.
And of course, the other issue with Nowrasteh’s list is that it only counts killings. That means it leaves out some of the most notorious acts of political violence of our time.
It ignores the two assassination attempts on Donald Trump.
It ignores the 2017 Republican baseball shooting that nearly killed Steve Scalise.
It ignores the attempted stabbing of Lee Zeldin on the campaign trail.
It ignores a neighbor’s brutal attack on Sen. Rand Paul that broke his ribs.
It ignores the man arrested outside Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home with plans to assassinate him.
It ignores the bomb planted under a Fox News van that failed to detonate.
Every one of these is political violence, and every one is erased by CATO’s framework.
This is not honest research. It is manipulation to smear the right and excuse the left.
Because the truth is that violence is not accidental on the left, it is built into their philosophy. They believe government is the weapon, mobs are their muscle, and coercion is their road to power.
When the left is angry, cities burn. When the left is challenged, opponents are silenced with threats. When the left loses, violence is the answer.
The right responds to tragedy in an entirely different way. We turn to God, to community, to vigils and prayer. We believe in healing, not burning.
That is the divide CATO refuses to acknowledge.
The left turns to fire.
But the right turns to faith.
And until America faces that truth, no amount of fake statistics will hide where the real epidemic of violence comes from.
I shared it on my Facebook page immediately because these types of "studies" seem to be common today, and rarely without rebuttals which expose the flaws of the studies/reports.
In the comments following the posting of this, one person offered this link:
(4) Is there really more political violence on the right? - YouTube
The examples provided in the video are three which have no relation to politics, but are simply heinous crimes, and the perpetrators are subjectively included among the center-right population because it serves the narrative. It's cheap padding of the list...a not too uncommon tactic of the left.
I also want to point out the person who put together the CATO Inst. list. Alex Nowrasteh. This guy can't seem to publish anything which isn't suspect. Dan's cited his work in the past, which validates my certainty that Dan does next to nothing with regard to due diligence in choosing what to cite. His efforts stop at the title or the conclusion, but nothing in between. That's not just intellectually lazy, but dishonest.
I shared it on my Facebook page immediately because these types of "studies" seem to be common today, and rarely without rebuttals which expose the flaws of the studies/reports.
In the comments following the posting of this, one person offered this link:
(4) Is there really more political violence on the right? - YouTube
The examples provided in the video are three which have no relation to politics, but are simply heinous crimes, and the perpetrators are subjectively included among the center-right population because it serves the narrative. It's cheap padding of the list...a not too uncommon tactic of the left.
I also want to point out the person who put together the CATO Inst. list. Alex Nowrasteh. This guy can't seem to publish anything which isn't suspect. Dan's cited his work in the past, which validates my certainty that Dan does next to nothing with regard to due diligence in choosing what to cite. His efforts stop at the title or the conclusion, but nothing in between. That's not just intellectually lazy, but dishonest.
36 comments:
Which seemingly makes my point that accurate, unbiased data collection is critical to have this conversation
It's pretty sad that we have to verify everything we read, particularly if it is or suggests to be partisan in its presentation. These kind of reports and "studies" definitely seek to draw support to one party over the other, rather than to inform. Indeed, if it was to inform, there would be no concern about which side of the ideological divide is most responsible. The concern should be that such acts are perpetrated at all and work to reduce or eliminate them regardless of the leanings of the offender.
It's distressing, but not new. I think that most people know that these sorts of studies are intended to push a narrative, rather than to accurately measure things. I do think that it is valuable, to the degree it can be accurately ascertained, to know if there was partisan motivation and what that was. However, the value declines significantly when the data is corrupted or incomplete.
As I've said elsewhere. If there is an actual problem with actual "right wing" violence I want to know about at and have it accurately measured, because I want "right wing" political violence eradicated. Lock 'em all up, or kill 'em, I don't care. If they're guilty, that's it.
Agreed. It's the same thing I say about problems in the black community or among any other demographic. If it came to be that those of mine were disproportionately misbehaving, I would demand of my own to cut the crap rather than accuse others of "profiling" or other such BS defense. Why would anyone seek to defend their own when their own is acting badly? How can such not see how their own acting badly reflects badly on their entire demographic? How do things improve by demanding others to stop noticing?
Absolutely, I would much rather "police" people who I shared a common worldview with, than keep score like this. What we have now is a system where people automatically defend their "own" regardless of what they do, and thereby lose credibility. Much like Dan and his reflexive defense of the DsM school district officer who is clearly in the wrong. Dan chooses to make himself look like a partisan hack who's going to defend this idiot no matter what he actually did. Dan could have chosen to acknowledge the failure and that it was motivated by an all women school board trying to check boxes, rather than defend him and make excuses. Had he done so, he wouldn't look like an out of touch lemming.
As someone who believes Scripture when it says that we are all sinners, I don't think it's "who's worse" as much as it is striving for accuracy. I tend to think that the ASPL, at this point, is definitely the side pushing the most vitriolic rhetoric which probably encourages some of the extreme behavior. But political, racial, and religious violence is bad no matter which "side" engages in it. The exception would probably by when the violence is defensive in nature, or intended to protect the innocent.
That opens a whole other can of worms because (in theory) a conservative security person shooting a left wing shooter would be given the same statistical value.
Craig...
I tend to think that the ASPL, at this point, is definitely the side pushing the most vitriolic rhetoric which probably encourages some of the extreme behavior.
Says the guy who's repeatedly voted for a known bad person (in ways that are obvious except to the useful idiots) who is, even now, invading US CITIES and calling them "war ravaged" and other insanely stupid false claims... says the guys who voted for the people who are calling our military "fat generals" and otherwise attacking apparently good, decent, loyal folks* in the military as "unfit for office" and kicking out the ones who aren't loyal enough to one deviant idiot conman... WHILE neither the "master of war" or his boss are anything but cowardly chicken hawks.
* NOTE: as one who leans towards pacifism/just peacemaking, I may not agree with the military's aims and procedures, but I don't demonize them in the slightest degree compared to the chickenhawk, cowardly idiots you all voted for...
In other words: Get serious. You're blind partisanship and allegiance to deviant political causes and distorted extremist religions has made you all unable to see that you have been conned by a very vile and violent man who has for a LONG time endlessly demonized and castigated good and decent fellow citizens.
You're blind and history (and I think, God) will judge you harshly.
"Says the guy who's repeatedly voted for a known bad person..."
Says any honest and actual Christian who's been paying attention and is not prone to swallowing whatever leftist driven "studies" say.
"a known bad person (in ways that are obvious except to the useful idiots)"
I don't think Craig voted for Obama, Harris, Biden, Hillary or anyone from your little Jeff St congregation. All known bad people in ways blatantly obvious to actual, honest Christians.
"who is, even now, invading US CITIES and calling them "war ravaged" and other insanely stupid false claims..."
Your comment is an insanely stupid false claim. Moreover, it demonstrates your willful ignorance regarding the use of federal troops on American soil. It's been done before many times. The only question is whether or not the reasons Trump has sent troops abide the code which regulate such use of federal troops, and whether he's following the terms of his ability to send troops. Indeed, I doubt you did jack shit to get the details beyond swallowing like a hungry hog whatever slop your lefty sources dumped in your sty.
https://legalclarity.org/10-u-s-c-333-when-can-federal-troops-be-deployed/
If Trump called cities like Chicago "war ravaged", clearly it's an analogy referring the conditions in many parts of blue cities because of Dem policies. This is especially true where gangs are most prevalent. Years ago I had co-workers whose territory was parts of Chicago where many places, including schools, would have security who insisted our people park right in front where they can keep an eye on the co-worker's car. That was twenty years ago. Now, along with the typical shootings on any given weekend, gangs of thugs rush into stores and clear them out. Many who live in the most gang-oppressed neighborhoods are are happy to hear that Trump is sending troops to restore order, seeing as how Gov Prickster and Chgo Mayor Brandumb Johnson are doing nothing about it except to exacerbate it by saying cops and prisons aren't the answer. Only Jeff St useful idiots would abide that crap.
"...says the guys who voted for the people who are calling our military "fat generals" and otherwise attacking apparently good, decent, loyal folks* in the military as "unfit for office" and kicking out the ones who aren't loyal enough to one deviant idiot conman... "
There are many generals who are DEI promotions promoting woke bullshit. Our military as suffered severe recruiting shortages due to the detrimental actions of Obama and Biden against the best interests of our military. In just a short time, under Hegseth's leadership (basically doing what any normal pro-American military leader would do), recruitment is way up again. The only people among the upper echelon being "attacked" are those not performing up to the standards necessary to bring about what should be the most lethal and feared military in the world. But Biden and Obama are no longer president, so it's good that Hegseth could be purging woke generals and admirals who were loyal to those deviant con men.
"WHILE neither the "master of war" or his boss are anything but cowardly chicken hawks."
Hegseth spent time in a combat zone. He understands what's important for supporting troops and ensuring their effectiveness., having had men under his command. To call Trump a "chicken hawk" suggests he's pro-war. This is clearly not true and thus another lie one can add to the many Dan likes to tell. Trump, as president, is Commander-In-Chief and as such has a duty to defend the nation. He is obliged to use the military if he has ascertained a legit reason. He's far more intelligent than fake Christian Jeff St pervert and also has access to info and details that Louisville pervert doesn't. "Chicken hawk" is just another term among so many that stupid people like Dan choose to throw at a far better human being.
"* NOTE: as one who leans towards pacifism/just peacemaking, I may not agree with the military's aims and procedures, but I don't demonize them in the slightest degree compared to..."
As Commander-In-Chief, he's part of the military whether it pleases you or not and you certainly demonize him as badly as any pervert can.
" In other words: Get serious. You're blind partisanship and allegiance to deviant political causes and distorted extremist religions has made you all unable to see that you have been conned by a very vile and violent man who has for a LONG time endlessly demonized and castigated good and decent fellow citizens."
"Deviant political causes"??? We do not, nor does Trump, promote deviant causes you support with every fiber of your fake Christian being. LGBTQ++++ "rights" is a deviant cause. Abortion is a deviant cause. Supporting the unchecked flow of illegal aliens with all the many harms and expenses which have followed is a deviant cause.
And just who are these "good and decent fellow citizens" he's demonized and castigated? Your side of the political divide? Give me a break, sister.
You're stupid and we don't have to wait for history to tell us that absolute truth.
What an excellent example of Dan doubling down on the "The other guys do it." fallacy. He's ignoring the ASPL literally engaging in hateful, vitriolic rhetoric to bitch about the crazy notion of expecting those in the military to adhere to some basic level of fitness.
These idiotic appeals to "history" are simply examples of Dan's arrogance and hubris. Him deciding that he gets to make decisions for "history". "History" isn't capable of judging.
It is also amusing when the person who's convinced that YHWH will ignore all sorts of "minor sins", and doesn't actually "judge harshly" uses this type of language.
"But Trump..." is not an excuse. Dan won't call for the ASPL to "be better", I wonder why?
This "invading US cities" claim is simply a baldfaced lie. The fact that crime is down significantly in DC, apparently is something that Dan doesn't give a shit about, because the DFL needs high crime in blue cities as a political football.
You literally have an insurrection happening in Portland right now (people attempting to impede legitimate functions of government through violence of threats of violence), and Dan spews this bullshit.
Dan's choice to ignore Hegseth's actual military record is not surprising.
I'll simply note that for POTUS to fulfill his elected role it is a constitutional requirement that POTUS be CinC of the military. This means that POTUS is constitutionally required to use the military. Therefore I would argue that a pacifist could not legally serve as POTUS, unless they were prepared to set their pacifism aside.
It's not like Dan does not vote for weirdos and creeps to be elected to public office. As far as history is concerned, he will likely end up buried in the graveyard of the left and right-wing extremists who currently run everything.
I just saw another post on the topic of this gathering of military leaders yesterday, and I was reminded of how foolish people like Dan look when they discuss topics about which they know very little. When people who are automatically against the very notion of a military decide to weigh in on matters which are exclusive to the military, they end up looking stupid.
For example, one principle of leadership is that leaders don't ask those they lead to do things they are not willing to do. So, if a general is not willing to maintain the basic fitness requirements what message does that send to those they lead?
That the military leadership has become increasingly political and less mission oriented is a common complaint. If enforcing fitness requirements on general officers is a tool to focus on competence instead of politics, I'm all for it.
It's very hard not to vote for weirdos and creeps when one insists on voting Democrat or socialist. Just look at the Congressional Dems. And Biden was certainly creepy all his life!
Dan engages in the same practices which appear all too common among the leftists I see on social media and elsewhere. That is, they spend all their time demonizing Trump and conservatism while never speaking to anything which has proven to be a success (the various peace deals would seem to be that which would have some appeal for "one who leans towards pacifism/just peacemaking"), nor do they speak of the problems caused by their own nor can they point to anything their own has done which has done any real good. When the progressives have proven themselves to be so impotent, it's no wonder they spend so much time trying to find fault in their betters.
There's a video on FB of JB Prickster giving a presser wherein he projects all manner of ill intent on Trump's desire to send troops to Chicago. Apparently all the crime and murder in his state (particularly in Chicago) are figments of the imaginations of his own citizens, most of whom would love some relief.
Because Dan and his ilk, can't imagine the carnage that their policies have brought, and are delusional enough to think that we should keep doing the same things over and over.
Just like DC, the man/woman on the street will likely have positive things to say if crime goes down.
It really is absurd to assert that the upper echelon are somehow excused from high standards, including physical standards as well as standards of appearance.
June 6, 1944 Theodor Roosevelt Jr (56) was the ONLY flag officer who landed with his troops. From looking at some of the current flag officers, I doubt there are many who could do something similar today. I get that they don't need to be Spec Ops shape, but they should be able to pass the basic fitness tests.
Hey Big Dummby,
This is what happens with Dems in charge...
Studies from groups like the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) and the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) show that the economy generally performs better under Democratic administrations, with stronger growth in GDP, wages, and job creation, and lower unemployment rates, compared to Republican administrations. This trend has been documented consistently since World War II, though economists note that factors beyond presidential policies, such as global economic conditions, influence outcomes.
Key Economic Indicators under Democratic Administrations
Job Growth:
Studies consistently show higher rates of job creation and growth under Democratic presidents.
Economic Growth (GDP):
The economy has shown faster GDP growth under Democratic leadership.
Unemployment:
Democratic administrations tend to have lower unemployment rates.
Wages and Productivity:
Research indicates faster wage and productivity growth during Democratic presidencies.
Recession Frequency:
The economy is in recession less often under Democrats.
Contributing Factors
Democratic Policy Focus:
Democratic administrations often prioritize policies designed to support the middle class, create jobs, and expand opportunities, which contributes to economic growth.
External Factors:
It's important to acknowledge that other significant factors, such as demographic trends, foreign economic conditions, and Federal Reserve actions, also impact the economy.
"Good Luck":
Some economic performance differences have been attributed to a combination of effective policies and favorable circumstances, sometimes referred to as "good luck," like lower oil prices.
In Summary
While economic performance is influenced by many factors, historical data and analysis consistently point to a positive correlation between Democratic presidencies and stronger overall economic performance.
The U.S. Economy Performs Better Under Democratic ...
Oct 7, 2024 — The U.S. economy has performed much better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents in the modern era. In almost every measure of the U.S. economy...
favicon
Joint Economic Committee (.gov)
New report finds that the economy performs better under ...
Apr 10, 2024 — For well over a decade economists and other social scientists have documented a strong advantage in economic performance during Democratic administrations. A ne...
favicon
Economic Policy Institute
Why does the economy do better when Democrats are in the ...
Jun 20, 2016 — There are other ways to measure the health of the economy besides GDP, but almost no matter which one is used, the economy seems to do better under Democratic p...
favicon
American Economic Association
I don't know of if this is Dan or his partner in perversion, feo (I'm going to assume it's feo since he likes to insert his own topic into posts speaking of something else), but this has all been discussed before, and it is even self-refuting in acknowledging "other significant factors" in determining the state of the economy. In short, the results are after the fact. Were they due to Dem policies or those of the GOP which came before them.
One funny part from the JEC is this gem under "Contributing Factors":
"Democratic administrations often prioritize policies designed to support the middle class, create jobs, and expand opportunities, which contributes to economic growth."
I wonder which policies those would be exactly, because higher taxes, more regulations, attacking fossil fuels...things like these do NOT result in economic growth.
Anyway, no more on this issue. I will not publish comments from "anonymous", especially when it is so far off topic.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/10/02/data-doesnt-lie-political-violence-is-an-overwhelmingly-left-wing-problem/
The above appeared in the Federalist today and it mirrors the theme of this a posts at Craig's blog. The left is desperate to demonize the right and it shows in these "studies" which are all skewed to "prove the point" progressives want people to swallow without question. The punchline is especially reflective of the very point Craig made and I echoed.
And it should also be noted that both the American Economic Association and the Economic Policy Institute are indeed quite left-wing. No doubt Dan will insist that's not a concern, nor does it overshadow the JEC, which is equal parts GOP and assholes. But then, what Dan chose to post, without the attendant link to the source of his offering, doesn't really do more than say "Yeah, Dems are better". Not good enough for honest people with a sincere desire for truth.
CORRECTION: There are four more Republicans than assholes on the JEC.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/10/02/why-the-left-lionizes-communist-cop-killer-assata-shakur/
The above is another example of what likely wasn't included in any of the "studies" purporting to prove the right-wing are the violent ones. She's alleged to have murdered more than the one cop for whose murder she was eventually convicted. But did the studies count even that one?
More important, however, is the progressive outpouring of sorrow for her passing, as if she was some kind of actual hero, rather than the commie thug she truly was. The freakin' teachers union, for pete's sake!
Leftism is the clear and present danger we face in the United State today, and that's not hyperbole.
The problem with these sorts of surface level analysis, is that the policies enacted by the various administrations generally don't always achieve their full effect under the same party's administration. This applies to both positive and negative. It's foolish to pretend that the economic cycle syncs with presidential terms.
I'm shocked.
The love for Shakur demonstrates the ASPL infatuation with violent thugs, and how they reward them.
A lot of white guilt behind the praise and beatification of this murderous thug.
They did the same sort of beatification to Angela Davis and other '60/'70s left wing violent thugs. Strangely enough, they artificially manipulate the data to avoid counting this violence and choose to pretend that they haven't been beatifying these thugs (and rewarding them) for decades.
And yet, these same progressive thug-lovers wail and moan when Trump acknowledges the leadership of a Russian or Chinese president. Except Trump isn't praising their deeds or intentions, but only their leadership abilities.
More which speaks to the question of the source of political violence if you have a hour and a half to spend. It's a one on one discussion which was apparently a practice which Steven Crowder had suspended for a few years for reasons he'll explain (hint: left wing violence).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqYDHuUKQPk
Wha'dya know? There's a part two to the above. I'll watch part of it and post it below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya5wG-elrEE
Post a Comment