The Right Wing Extremist Lie

Back at the end of January, CNN announced a job opening for a Senior Writer dedicated to uncovering Fake News. So when on Feb. 4th an article by Reza Aslan entitled, “Facts still matter on US terror threat,” appeared on CNN’s website, I wondered if this article would be one of the first to be exposed by the nascent Fake News department.

In the article, Aslan makes the claim that “Americans are almost seven times as likely to be killed by a white extremist than by an Islamic one” and he links this stat to a New York Times article entitled, “The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat.” First off, I’m not exactly sure how he got to this number. Here is what I think happened: The New York Times article Aslan links to references a few studies, two of which are important here. One is a 2013 study by Arie Perliger, published when he was with the Combating Terrorism Center, that tracks right wing violence in America. The other is a 2015 study by UNC’s Charles Kurzman that tracks Muslim-American violence. The former study claims American right wing extremism was responsible for 254 fatalities in the “decade after 9/11.” The latter study claims Muslims Americans have been responsible for 50 fatalities since 9/11, a stat which covers the time period from right after 9/11 to 2014. Then the average fatalities per year were calculated for each group: 254/10 years = 25.4 fatalities per year caused by right wing extremists and 50/13 years = 3.85 fatalities per year caused by Muslim Americans. 25.4/3.85 = 6.6. Thus, the stat offered by Aslan that “Americans are almost seven times as likely to be killed by a white extremist than by an Islamic one.”

This of course, is horrific statistics and completely dishonest. In statistics this is called “discarding unfavorable data,” and “data manipulation.” First, he uses selective time frames for each group. For right wing extremists, he chooses a study covering year 2002-2011 and for Muslims he chooses a study that covers post-9/11 to 2014. In both studies, the number of people killed is calculated starting after 9/11. Now it’s silly that we aren’t including 9/11. Can data not occur in clusters? This is not how stats work. If we include the victims of 9/11, deaths caused by right wing extremists are dwarfed when compared to deaths caused by jihadists.

Then, the New York Times article, and studies therein, that Aslan’s article links to is from 2015. More jihadist attacks have been perpetrated since the studies came out that the article references, such as the Orlando nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino attack.

The New America Foundation, a source behind some of Aslan’s information, actually now list the post-9/11 kill count at 94 perpetrated by jihadists to 50 by right wing extremists (the disparity in violence by right wing extremists between studies has to do with the liberal way in which Perliger’s study defines “right wing extremist”). So, Aslan’s information ignores at least 44 fatalities caused by Islamic jihadists. In all, Aslan gets his stat by starting his count after 9/11 and then eliminating any attacks that have happened after the beginning of 2015, despite his article coming out in February 2017.

By the way, what I think actually happened is this: after a quick Google search, whoever did Aslan’s research for him, or Aslan himself, found this article from Think Progress, also from 2015, which has the “7 times” statistic in its headline and references the same New York Times article Aslan references. Aslan then bypassed the Think Progress article and linked the “7 times” stat in his article directly to the New York Times article. Now you see how fake news is made.

Continue reading “The Right Wing Extremist Lie”

Let’s Discuss Walls

“The Great Wall of China, built 2,000 years ago, is 13,000 miles long, folks. … And they didn’t have … tractors, they didn’t have cranes, they didn’t have excavation equipment.” – Donald J. Trump

When the question arises, as it often does, “Was the Great Wall of China a success or failure?” one may answer one way or another, but undoubtedly any response to such an inquiry would have to contain something along the lines of “it’s complicated.” You’d have to compare Qin walls with Ming walls, you’d have to weigh the cost, in material dollars and human life, against the effectiveness of the Wall(s) in meeting its objectives, you’d have to consider variables such as strength of armies defending the wall at any given time, you’d have to take into account that when invaders evaded the wall they were still slowed on their path to potential conquest, and so on and so forth. It’s complicated, really complicated. Of course, it was all for naught when Ming general Wu Sangui just opened the gates for the invading Manchus, but alas, that’s not what this post is about.

See I have mixed feelings about the Trump wall, but, like many other things, regressive liberals have pushed the conversation to a point where I have to defend it. It’s not so much that there shouldn’t be a debate about the wall, it’s just that arguments against it have been simplified into: “wall, bad, no wall, good.”

Shouldn’t the conversation really surround the question “is the wall a good idea?” That’s the question I ask myself. It’s a legitimate question. Will the wall really stifle the cartels? Will the wall stop drugs from coming into the country? Will the wall have a national security application in the distant future (possible migrant crises?), Can the wall be built cost/time efficiently? If we believe the answers to those questions are “mostly yes,” then the wall is worth a try. After all, we’ve failed to secure our border for the three or four decades that border security has been a national issue.

And yet, if you support the wall today you are a hateful bigot according to leftists. This is despite the fact that ten years ago a wall was not seen as such a radical idea, despite that there is almost 700 miles of fence and wall along our southern border already, and despite the fact that Hillary Clinton once supported a border barrier and stated that she is “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Leftist rhetoric pertaining to the wall is derived from one thing: leftism… obviously, it has nothing to do with a rational debate about the wall. Few wall opponents stop to consider what they are arguing against. Though, many on the right don’t ask the critical questions about it that they should be asking either before shouting, “BUILD IT!”

Continue reading “Let’s Discuss Walls”

The Immigration Ban Examined

I want to talk about the immigration ban.

However, in doing so, I don’t plan on spending any time on the question, “Is Trump Hitler?” He signed an order temporarily shutting down immigration from certain countries in order to improve the vetting process for said immigrants and thus, make sure Americans are safe. Anyone who doesn’t think the president of the U.S. is well within his right to do that is being hysterical. Furthermore, just because  we pride ourselves on being a country of immigrants does not mean that anyone and everyone should be able to come in at anytime or else we are hateful. That has never been the case. That’s not to say that parts of the Executive Order’s design shouldn’t be critiqued.

But let’s backtrack for a second.

In 2011, after two Iraqi immigrants in Kentucky were revealed to be Al-Qaeda (in Iraq) connected terrorists, President Obama ordered the records of 58,000 Iraqi immigrants to be reexamined and instituted a stricter vetting process for Iraqi refugees. The more thorough vetting process seemed to delay visas to Iraqi refugees. Although there was no official order to delay visas, we can infer that it was the result of the new process by looking at the numbers of Iraqi refugees entering the U.S. by year: 18,251 in 2010, 6,339 in 2011 and 16,369 in 2012. As you can see, visas to Iraqis were slowed dramatically in 2011. Thus, President Obama, determining there to be a potential threat from the refugees, instituted a stricter vetting process, and in doing so slowed the influx of Iraqis. President Trump determined a similar threat, but decided to delay visas completely to seven risk countries President Trump’s action was much more aggressive and wider in scope. Nonetheless, and as much as the media wants to deny it, these are very similar behaviors: both seek to improve the vetting process for refugees from Muslim-majority countries due to fears of terrorism.

But I digress, let’s discuss the Executive Order entitled, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”
So the Order does a few things, let’s approach the important aspects one-by-one.
1. Bans entry to the US for people born in seven countries for 90 days: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen
So, this provision, as explained in the Order, is based on 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) (or H.R. 158) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, signed into law by President Obama in December of 2015. This all has to do with the Visa Waiver Program which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without a visa. Given the threat of Islamic terrorists infiltrating the country through the program, Congress passed the above mentioned law in order to restrict the Visa Waiver program. The law prohibited people who traveled to Iraq or Syria (or dual citizens of Iraq and Syria) on or after March 1st, 2011 from participating in the program (“Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern.”)  The law also invested power in the Secretary of Homeland Security (Jeh Johnson) to add countries to this list at his discretion. Thus, within the next couple of months Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia were also added to the restricted list.
So whereas the Obama administration didn’t ban nationals from these countries from coming to the U.S. they did force them to get visas, and more importantly, pinpoint them for a stricter vetting process, due to worries about Islamic terrorism.
As for countries left out of the Order, I agree it’s bothersome. But, there’s two obvious reasons countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan were left out. First, we need them as allies in the region and secondly, they have secure centralized governments that we can rely on for refugee screening….supposedly. I say supposedly because I doubt the diligence with which these countries actually provide us with information on their own people, especially given the attacks we’ve seen around the world from their citizens, but better some countries on the list than none. Afghanistan is really the worst omission given the terrorist groups situated there and it’s lack of power relative to these other countries. Nonetheless, the list was produced by the Obama administration and for reasons that perhaps are better off remaining secret, Afghanistan was excluded.

Continue reading “The Immigration Ban Examined”

Looking Back at Trump’s Victory

I have no reason to gloat. President-elect Trump now has to follow through on his message to better this country and the world. In his victory speech he extended a hand to those who opposed him and he promised to address the problems in our inner cities. This is a good start.

While the hysteria that has plagued this election has persisted on social media, with many Hillary supporters declaring the onset of the apocalypse, I have to say, I have also seen quite a few Hillary supporters and Never-Trumpers make statements about uniting and working together. Credit to those people. Hillary supporters should know, they are not my enemy, and I admit to there being plenty of stupidity on both sides this election.

However, now the divisive, hyperbolic, defamatory rhetoric needs to stop.

Americans voted against the far left. They were tired of being called racist and sexist simply for holding opinions contrary to what democrats believe. They were tired of having their words policed while real problems are ignored. They were tied of regressive groups that disseminate untruths and neglect actual victims of suffering. They were tired of an overwhelmingly leftist mainstream media that looks down on them and presents them as stupid and uninformed. The American people also rejected the establishment politicians who have perpetuated the same wasteful, gluttonous, corrupt system that has plagued our country for decades. They rejected convention and they voted for change.

What Trump did is miraculous. He was an outsider who came in with no political experience and won the GOP nomination for president. He then went on to take out the Clinton machine, all the while contending with fierce opposition from the left and from his own political party, and with an entire mainstream news media telling the country he couldn’t win. Trump did what few believed he could do, and what neither John McCain or Mitt Romney could do: he beat the Democrat to win the presidency.

In the end, Hillary lost because like President Obama in 2008, Trump became a symbol, a symbol representing the fight against PC culture, against corruption, and against the demonization of America and Western Culture. And whether fair or not, Hillary became a symbol of the opposite.

America has spoken: Donald Trump is to lead us. You can now choose to be part of the solution or the problem. I hope most people choose the former.

-Ben Sweetwood

Griffwood Post Endorses Donald Trump for President

America needs a revitalization of its confidence and its resolve. For eight years, President Obama has introduced domestic legislation that relies on government-centered solutions, and a foreign policy that sows resentment around the world through hesitancy to act and broken promises.

Hillary Clinton promises more of the same and worse. A Clinton Presidency means America continues to decline both on the world stage and in the minds of the American people.

Abroad, the world has always looked to America to do the right thing. Syrians are caught in the middle of a bloody civil war, many residents of the Middle East live under brutal regimes, and anxious world observers of the rise of China and Russia are looking for reassurance that the world won’t devolve into global chaos. Thousands in the bloody path of the Islamic State desperately seek a lifeline. There is no hope for these victims under a Clinton presidency. As Secretary of State, Clinton demonstrated a severe lack of judgment in her support of the Iran deal, the shifting Syrian red-line on chemical warfare, and the disastrous intervention in Libya. Obama spent eight years doing as little as possible on the world stage, and Clinton supported him. Clinton also demonstrated a willingness to lie to the American people when she told the world a video spurred on the attacks in Benghazi. Clinton’s time as Secretary of State was only a preview of the Clinton foreign policy doctrine, which we at Griffwood are terming ‘The Nero Doctrine’. A Clinton administration would mean a world that continues to burn.

At home, our economy suffers under the weight of an expensive, burdensome government. At her rallies and within her policy proposals, Clinton only offers government as a solution to the country’s economic concerns.

Trump recognizes the power of the free market and innovation to build society and empower individuals.

Continue reading “Griffwood Post Endorses Donald Trump for President”

Noncompliance of the Condorcet Criterion: Does Plurality Voting Justify a Contested Convention?

In the current election, spectators have often wondered why someone like Trump, who has a 64% negative rating by likely voters according to the latest WSJ/NBC poll, has been dominating the primary season so far. For political scientists the answer is simple: plurality voting is not Condorcet compliant. In political science, a Condorcet method, is one in which a candidate that wins in a 1v1 matchup with each of the other candidates wins overall. If such a candidate exists, that person is called the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, a Condorcet loser is a candidate who loses to each opposing candidate in a 1v1 matchup, and the Condorcet criterion says that if such a candidate exists, he cannot win. If these criterion are satisfied, then the voting system is what is known as Condorcet consistent. Trump is a Condorcet loser because he loses to every other candidate in a head-to-head matchup. The question thus arises, do the flaws of plurality voting justify losing candidates remaining in the race past their point of feasible victory, in pursuit of a contested convention? First, I digress.

 

Condorcet winners and losers are very simple concepts in their most basic sense but are really difficult to apply to the United States system. The Condorcet criterion is an extension on majority rule and is compliant in majoritarian voting systems. In terms of this election the Condorcet loser violates the majority loser criterion because a majority of voters prefers every candidate one-on-one to Trump but Trump still wins. This is a great example of noncompliance of plurality voting to the Condorcet method. Here it doesn’t work because of the plurality. Trump can beat the lot when the entire field of candidates exists (by a margin of about 14 points).

Continue reading “Noncompliance of the Condorcet Criterion: Does Plurality Voting Justify a Contested Convention?”

John Kasich is Bothering Me

As of Sunday March 13, 2016, There are 1,368 delegates left to be won in the Republican presidential primaries. It takes 1,237 delegates to lock up the party’s nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich has currently won 63 delegates, leaving him needing 1,174 more delegates to win the nomination. Now, 17 of the 30 states/territories remaining in the primary election season have winner-take-all delegate election systems, meaning candidates who win those states take all of the delegates from that state. Those 17 winner-take-all states comprise 901 of the delegates remaining. So basically, in order for John Kasich to win the nomination pre-Convention, he would need to win every single winner-take-all state and then on top of that dominate in the states with proportional delegate election systems. In other words, there’s a 0% chance John Kasich wins the nomination before the National Convention. Actually, given just how low Kasich is in the polls, it can be stated with 100% surety that Kasich will not even be able to take the lead either. Marco Rubio is on the verge of being in both of these categories too.

 

Yet, Kasich claimed as late as February 28th that if he wins Ohio he’s “off to the races.” Then last Friday, March 11th at an MSNBC town hall, he claimed that he can “absolutely win enough and go into the convention with the greatest number of delegates,” and reaffirmed, “That absolutely can happen.” Um, no Governor Kasich, no it can’t and you are not serving the American people well by telling them it can.

Continue reading “John Kasich is Bothering Me”

Statistical Outlook: Can the GOP Candidates Really Beat Hillary?

(In the graph above, anything below zero means Hillary loses)

All the GOP candidates say that they beat Hillary in the polls. This is true and untrue. It’s true because each has at least one major poll that has them beating Hillary in the general election, it’s untrue because they disregard average margin of error, which is based on sample size. The only one who REALLY has a legitimate claim is Marco Rubio, who even only slightly exceeds the average margin of error. My point is this: it’s a virtual tie across the board  right now between any GOP candidate and Hillary. As a note, there is almost no polling data on a Kasich v. Clinton general election, so he’s discluded from this. Let’s run it down:

 

Trump vs. Hillary:

 

Trump beats Hillary in one of the last six major polls. In all, the average of the polls gives Hillary a +6.3 lead. The average margin of error is 3.13, For a percentage interval of +3.17 – +9.43 for Hillary. Trump fares worse than the other GOP candidates, and yet in terms of electoral history, this too is a virtual tie.

Continue reading “Statistical Outlook: Can the GOP Candidates Really Beat Hillary?”

Super Tuesday Breakdown: Trump and Clinton Dominate

Here’s the likely winners for Super Tuesday states with avg. of polls lead in parenthesis:

GOP primaries:

Alabama: Trump (+17)

Georgia: Trump (+14)

Tennessee: Trump (+18)

Oklahoma: Trump (+11)

Massachusetts: Trump (+27)

Vermont: Trump (+15)

Virginia: Trump (+15)

Alaska: Trump or Cruz (Trump + 4 but only from one poll)

Arkansas: Trump or Cruz (Cruz +4)

Minnesota: Rubio (+2 but only from one poll)

Colorado: Trump or Rubio (Carson led in last major poll from Nov)

Wyoming: Any

Texas: Cruz or Trump (Cruz +9)

 

Democratic primaries:

Alabama: Clinton (+48)

Georgia: Clinton (+37)

Tennessee: Clinton (+26)

Oklahoma: Clinton or Sanders (Clinton +2)

Massachusetts: Clinton or Sanders (Clinton +7)

Vermont: Sanders (+74)

Virginia: Clinton (+22)

Arkansas: Clinton (+29)

Minnesota: Clinton (+34)

Colorado: Clinton (+28 but last major poll from Nov)

Texas: Clinton (+30)