About That DOJ “Right-Wing” Violence and Extremism Grant Story…..

Something about a story is, yet again, sketchy.

Right is right even if nobody does it.
Wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.

Several months ago we busted CNN using bombastic claims about the Dept. of Homeland Security declaring “right-wing” extremism as dangerous as Islamic Jihad.  Actually, it was far more than bombastic claims, it was straight up lying.  Now it appears something within yesterday’s Washington Free Beacon story is not passing a similar sniff test.

It stems from this:


The WFB outline has been shared on numerous sites, including ours. However, similar to the CNN story, a little digging into the source documents and something appears amiss. I can’t find where the Washington Free Beacon is getting the quote “right wing” or “far-right” in the outline.

The hyper-link within the WFB article takes you HERE and the expanded summary is HERE.

In addition we have downloaded the 28 page DOJ/NIJ bid proposal (embed below) and we can’t find anything within the grant construct itself that states a study of “right wing“, or “far right“, or actually “politically” anything.

What gives?

I did send the author a message via Twitter Social Media and have yet to hear any response.

We still want to extend as much benefit of the doubt to WFB as possible. However, similar to the previous CNN report:

CNN propaganda right-wing


…..this WFB report could potentially be much ado about nothing, albeit for the opposite effect:



This entry was posted in Agitprop, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, ISIS, Islam, Jihad, media bias, Notorious Liars, Occupy Type Moonbats, propaganda, Tea Party, Terrorist Attacks, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to About That DOJ “Right-Wing” Violence and Extremism Grant Story…..

  1. IrishMutt says:

    I suppose it would be extremely Pollyannish of me to hope the researchers intend to study ALL intersections of social media and violence, including those involving youths, shopping malls, holiday celebrations, and SJW protests. If that were the case, describing it as such might alarm those on the left at least as much as it does those of us on the right, so a description such as WFB’s might be a useful deception from NIJ’s perspective. It limits resistance to the right “extremists” and Jihadis.

    • lorac says:

      Exactly my reaction. “Oh, let’s study a hypothetical situation of right wing groups coordinating violence on social media, and let’s not worry about the black/far left riots with destruction, deaths, and injuries where social media is actually being used to coordinate the troublemakers”. SMH

    • backwoodsgirl123 says:

      The focus of this solicitation is on all forms of radicalization that lead to violent extremism in the United States. Proposals should develop and analyze information and data that have clear implications for criminal justice in the following focus areas: (1) comparative analysis at the individual (micro-) level; (2) online radicalization to violent extremism; and (3) evaluations of promising practices to prevent or mitigate radicalization.

      Sounds general enough; however, this paragraph gets specific.

      For the purposes of this solicitation, radicalization is the process by which individuals enter into violent extremism. Violent extremists are those individuals who support or commit ideologically motivated violence to further political, social, or religious goals. Further, for the purposes of this solicitation, “domestic radicalization” will limit applicants to focus on radicalization as it occurs in the United States, regardless of the locale of violent extremism that ensues from radicalization. While applicants are encouraged to use comparative approaches in their applications where warranted, applications must focus their findings on how radicalization occurs within the United States.

      Further in, for people that didn’t want to read that far, there is an emphasis on “deradicalization programs”. I think I spell that correctly.

      • bertdilbert says:

        Sundance has basicly posted a bid document or request for grant proposal.
        The RFG document is what we are looking at. We have not seen the winning proposal for the grant which may contain the items mentioned. If I was going to submit a proposal to a democratic leftist government, I would concentrate on right wing groups lol.

        • taqiyyologist says:

          Indeed. If I was going to submit a proposal to a democratic leftist government, and therein focused on black and far-left (OWS, SJW, etc) violence and mayhem, not only would I not get the grant, I would probably be investigated and persecuted and harassed for focusing on their “guys”, and not their enemy.

  2. thesouthwasrght says:

    I don’t consider it absurd to believe lists are being formed.

  3. Lou says:

    the article doesn’t really make clear what “far right extremism” is. I’m not really sure what far right extremism is. are they more dangerous than Islamic extremists? do they behead people? I’m personally baffled.

    • nimrodman says:

      Well, as best I can discern, the whole point of this current thread is Sundance not finding that “far-right” characterization in the cited sources and questioning where that came from.

      But to entertain a hypothetical, if there were to be such a study, I’m sure the current Regime – in conjunction with the drones in academia – would happily agree to define “far-right extremism” as anything two fingers to the right of full-tilt communism and any disparaging of absolute lawlessness by the left’s favored pets and any disparaging of forced confiscation of wealth from the productive to support the unproductive parasite class.

      But I’m only guessing, of course.

    • Armie says:

      They’re worse. They accost you on the public streets and try to sell you a subscription to National Review. Scary, scary people.

    • partyzantski says:

      A far right extremist in today’s climate is:
      -someone who owns real estate
      -has at least 1 nice car
      -earned what he or she has (grades, job, achievements)
      -has some physical silver or gold
      -does not trust banks or central banks
      -wears gender appropriate clothing
      -probably never collected welfare
      -likely owns a few firearms
      -believes in and practices self reliance
      -did not gushingly support gay marriage
      -Strong chance they are a veteran or know one directly

      motorcycles are optional, but are likely considered an intensifier.
      Confederate flags or Gadsen flags are considered outright target markers by the goon squads.

    • backwoodsgirl123 says:

      I do believe that the “definition” of what radical is, will be left up to the group that does the study.

  4. CrankyinAZ says:

    Why do I have the feeling that TCTH is on one of those lists? That I’m on one of those lists?

    • Meyer says:

      Me too!
      I fear donating to causes I care about because some of the groups are on ‘the list’, i.e.: CAPS. I fear potential backlash by the federal government..

    • backwoodsgirl123 says:

      I know I’m on one of the lists. Have to be! I’m outspoken. Don’t back down. Have had my puter trashed a couple of times because of it.

      Had my phone calls listened to, until I shouted at them that we knew they were listening and if they didn’t repent they would go to you know where. They hung up and suddenly our phone calls didn’t repeatedly get dropped anymore and the echo in the background stopped. That lasted for about 2 months and then it started back up again.

      Have had my packages opened.

      IT doesn’t bother me. I’m used to it. Which is a shame to say in one of the supposedly most free nations in the world…but I’m used to it.

      It’s when they can silence you that it becomes a problem and you’ve got to stay courageous in spite of it.

      Heck, sometimes, I think I got my own personal trolls assigned to me, LOL!

    • taqiyyologist says:

      If I’m not on one of those lists, I’m doing something wrong.

  5. Sassy says:

    The only specifics I see are two examples provided within the text of the bid proposal: sovereign citizen groups and eco-terrorists. That last category, for certain, is far LEFT-wing. Not sure how one would classify sovereign citizen groups.

    If it’s left up to the applicants to decide which potentially violent extremists to study, then surely most academics would choose to study (demonize?) their traditional political opponents, such as those potential domestic terrorists in the Tea Party.

    It’s always possible that the media were filled in “on background” about the groups that the DOJ expects to be study, such as sovereign citizens or white biker gangs.

    In this PC world, if the DOJ wants to study the potential for violent Muslim extremists in the U.S., then that effort must be balanced by also studying other groups, just to be “fair”. Similar to how the TSA will screen 80-year-old ladies in wheelchairs in order to avoid profiling more likely potential terrorists.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Maybe profiling Muslims and keeping them out of the country would Help. Why do we need them here anyway?

    • backwoodsgirl123 says:

      They would classify SC’s as far right extremists.

      And the eco terrorists as far left extremists, so I have no idea why they are on the list except perhaps to cover their backsides.

      Everybody should watch the movie, “Not Without My Daughter”. That’ll give you a taste of radicalism.

  6. Sandra says:

    The “far-right” thing is on this page: http://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/pages/award-detail.aspx?award=2014-ZA-BX-0004

    Click on View Description and you’ll see the following:

    Description of original award: There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence. The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements. We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement. […]

    I think this text might be coming from the Michigan State University group which received the grant and will be performing the research. I had posted in a prior thread that there’s an MSU professor who has used the “far-right” term in his biography, I’m wondering if he’s leading the group that received the grant. http://cj.msu.edu/people/chermak-steven/

  7. Be Ge says:

    Anyone holding on to the constitution or having more respect for written laws vs clearly unconstitutional executive orders is an extremist and a dangerous one, much more so than some allakhuakbarred dind00 nuffins terrorist.

  8. Stormy says:

    It sounds like some people need to learn to tell their RIGHT from their LEFT .

  9. TheLastDemocrat says:

    It sure fits to see this all as a plan to outlaw Christian practice and worship. We will get pushed in a corner, and when one individual reacts, we will all be painted with a broad brush.

  10. west1890 says:

    What are the chances that this solicitation is a guise under which government funds can be bestowed upon some Obama favored group that will apply under a front name? It’s not like this hasn’t happened before……….

  11. Perusing Elizabeth Harrington’s Twitter feed, it’s pretty obvious she’s an anti-right liberal prog. I have little doubt that she’s an adherant to the perspective of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who consistently conflates Sovereign Citizen movement with “far right groups” or “right-wing extremism”. The SPLC has authored of several reports of that nature. They blame much of this sentiment, of course, on anti-Obama racism. Co-incidentally, the Missouri MIAC report and the DHS’s report on right-wing extremism both came out in 2009. Janet Napolitano disavowed the release of the DHS report, but SPLC repeatedly refers to it.

    Indeed the Sovereign Citizen movement shares commonality with many of the things many of us, as conservatives believe: The federal as well as state has overstepped its Constitutional mandate, and the SC movement is adamant that the nation is not sovereign, but citizens within it are; many of us believe the United States, as it was envisioned and created as the Founding Fathers, was abolished when the Federal Reserve was created, and that the US is now more a corptocracy rather then a republic. Many on the right supported (and many did not) Cliven Bundy’s claims until he crossed the line and got onto a racist soapbox; SPLC considers a case of far-right extremism.

    Any Constitutionalist, any anti-tax or over-tax complainants, any Patriotic/anti-federal, any anti-illegal immigration, any who can be rightfully or wrongfully claimed as racists – to the rabid left, we are all dangerous right-wing extremists. I think it’s as much an argument of individualist vs collectivist as it is right/left, as Stormy has stated above, or American vs Communist as doodah has posted.

    As for Perez, he was the one that stated too early on that the Ferguson Police Chief was stepping down based on his DoJ contacts. Before covering the DoJ for CNN, he also covered the DoJ for the Wall Street Journal. Can’t see anyone who sees the DoJ for what it really is developing sources there, so I’m pretty sure that Perez’ been immersed in the kool-aid for a long time.

    My conclusion is that the ‘far-right’ inclusion is a matter of perspectives of the authors, whose “credible” sources are places like the SPLC and MediaMatters. But in the end, it’s just a guess.


  12. “It is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right.” Bob Jones Sr

Leave a Reply