Right-Wingers Kill More Than Islamists or Leftists?

This story has popped up at times, even since it’s debunking. So I thought I would add a bit of my own “swerve” to the fun. PJ-MEDIA (part one and part two) has a great response to this issue that I will merely add (adapt) to and from. So these are the issues I think undermind the idea that more violence and death are caused by “right-wing” extremists:

  • The perpetrators used as examples do not kill IN THE NAME OF an ideology;
  • The perpetrators noted as part of the data set are often NOT “right-wingers”;
  • The data set starts AFTER 9-11;
  • The data sets DO NOT INCLUDE world-wide statistics.

This entire post can be summed up in one cartoon, to allow the person with low-attention-spen-deficet-disorder the opportunity to “get it” and click out:

Just a quick note before beginning — that explains shortly (see the longer explanation here) — why almost all KKK’ers and “white supremacists” are socialists (a LEFT leaning political economic system):

RECAP

Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:

  • They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).

This is why a majority STILL supported Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. She is a socialist at heart, wants a big welfare state, and does not like Israel as much as Trump, who has kids practicing the Jewish religion. Thee ONLY issue a racist could want to vote for Trump on is his immigration policies… hardly a racist position. It has only now become an issue of bigotry and racism because the Left has moved the goal post in the use of language. Racists no longer means “genetically superior,” rather, it mean you disagree with a Democrat and/or hurt their feelings. Otherwise, these people would be RACISTS!

…Continuing…

Even the EL PASO SHOOTER is not a right-winger… even though every media outlet labeled him such:

So, as an example[s] of the bullet points at the top of this post. VOX uses the following example:

  • JAMES HODGKINSON: In June, a 66-year-old white man from Illinois shot at Republican Congress members during an early morning baseball practice, severely wounding several people including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House of Representatives Majority Whip.
  • STEPHEN PADDOCK: Sunday night, a 64-year-old white man from Nevada opened fire on a crowd of more than 22,000 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 and wounding more than 200.

(BTW, I am not one who thinks NOT NAMING these cucks is helpful, so be aware. I am sure the media would like to obfuscate their roots by making it impossible to track them down to “test” their narrative.) Here is a good example of the obfuscation of “being a white-man” versus an “ideology” or belief you are doing your crime in the name of or for some twisted reasoning.


JAMES HODGKINSON (LEFTIST)


I posted on this in more depth, but here is an excerpt OF THAT POST:

The Shooter of Rep. Steve Scalise is a radical Leftist. He was deeply involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He railed against the one-percent. Was a long-time fan of Bernie Sanders years before he ran for election. Mind you. the media has a role in egging people on that may have these radical tendencies. On my Facebook, I noted this:

  • If Republicans are “worse than terrorists”… why wouldn’t Leftists shoot them [us]? Yes, the Democrats (Bernie Sanders intimated this as well as others) say we are worse than ISIS due to rejecting the idea that mankind is driving in a significant manner climate change. The shooter had many posts on climate. I mean Democrats are seriously considering jailing Republicans for denying AGW (anthropogenic global warming).

These are some of the group the Shooter belonged to (BELLVILLE-NEWS DEMOCRAT):

  • “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans”
  • “Donald Trump is not my President”
  • “President Bernie Sanders”
  • “Illinois Berners United to Resist Trump”
  • “Boycott the Republican Party”
  • “Expose Republican Fraud”
  • “Terminate the Republican Party”

This shooter was also egged on by Democrat politicians (the following is adapted a bit from FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE):

What made James Hodgkinson believe that stopping the repeal of ObamaCare was a matter of life and death? Or, as he put it, “Republicans Want to Deny Most All Americans Health Care”?

It was Bernie Sanders who claimed that “thousands of Americans would die” if Republicans repealed ObamaCare. “Families will go bankrupt. People will die,” Elizabeth Warren had tweeted.

James Hodgkinson was a big Bernie supporter. And he was a fan of Elizabeth Warren.

  • Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe — “People are going to lose lives.” Instead of trying to push gun control, he might have revisited his own rhetoric.
  • Congressman John Lewis claimed that the repeal would kill.
  • Congressman Ruben Gallego insisted that he didn’t have to be civil to Republicans because their “policies that are going to kill people”.

It’s a short step from accusing Republicans of killing people to suspending civility to wishing them dead.

[….]

And Democrat politicians were downright restrained compared to some of their media allies.

  • Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald wanted to see every Congressional Republican who voted for ObamaCare have a family member perish. “It should be their loved ones who die,” he ranted. “The goprs in congress didn’t just send out a tweet wishing for me to face my own death. They actually voted to do it. If people don’t give a damn about the consequences of what they do, they should face those consequences,” Eichenwald wrote in a statement. 

James Hodgkinson was a fan of the Rachel Maddow show. Eichenwald was an MSNBC contributor and his work had been touted by Rachel Maddow. 

Calls for violence against Republicans had become normalized. 

  • A few days before the attack, the Huffington Post ran a piece calling for executing Trump “and everyone assisting in his agenda”. It has since come down, but a similarly themed piece defending a “violent response” to President Trump is still up.
  • Julius Caesar reimagined as Trump and leftist activists as his heroic assassins made headlines. “Killing Republicans” in neighboring Brooklyn did not. 
  • “They should be lined up and shot,” Professor John Griffin posted of Republicans over the ObamaCare repeal. Professor Lars Maischak at Frenso State proposed “the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant.”

And it didn’t end after the shooting.

  • “If the shooter has a serious health condition then is taking potshots at the GOP house leadership considered self defense?” Malcolm Harris, a regular at the New Republic, whose work has appeared at the Washington Post and Salon, inquired.

[….]

  • “Noam Chomsky calls the Republican Party the Most Dangerous Organization in Human History!” was one of the messages on his Facebook page. According to Chomsky, appearing on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Republicans are committed “to the destruction of organized human life on Earth.” Forget health care. Republicans are actually trying to wipe out the species by denying Global Warming.

James Hodgkinson participated in the People’s Climate March. Its theme, like Chomsky’s, was that Trump and Republicans were a threat to the entire planet. 

If that’s true, shouldn’t someone save the planet by doing something about those Republicans?

Hodgkinson was taught by the left that all problems were reducible to Republican evil. He quoted Robert Reich, a Sanders Institute fellow, claiming that the poor economy was due to tax cuts for the rich. 

[….]

“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co,” Hodgkinson ranted. Trump isn’t destroying our democracy. The leftists trying to bring him down are.

The left has whipped up an angry mob and promised them that if they scream and shout enough, President Trump will be forced out of office. They manufactured a crisis and now it’s exploding on them. If they can’t deliver a coup, there will be more shootings like this one. 

The Democrats are sleepwalking into a civil war. They want power, but like leftists from Russia to Cuba, they haven’t seriously contemplated the price that will have to paid for their bloody utopia.

In her “Resistance” video, former Attorney General Lynch spoke of blood, marching and dying….

(READ IT ALL!)


STEPHEN PADDOCK (WHITE vs. BLACK CRIME RATES)


And to this day there was no motive known behind the Vegas shooter. If the idea is that he is merely white, and this leads to mass shootings… then African nations should be peaceful. Yet, in 100-days 800,000 people were killed. Not by whites. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10-people. And? Chicago is a shit show:

TO DATE:

  • Shot & Killed: 350
  • Shot & Wounded: 1712
  • Total Shot: 2062
  • Total Homicides: 383

One city., again, one city. Almost all black-on-black (similar to Paddocks white-on-white). Similarly, in the U.S., the Black murder rate and violent crime rate is much higher than white (DAILY WIRE):

1. Data shows that 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other blacks.

The left’s rebuttal is that that 84 percent of white homicide victims are killed by other whites, but The Wall Street Journal‘s Jason Riley points out that the white crime rate is “much lower than the black rate.”

2. According to Riley, “Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do.”

Blacks committed 52 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, despite composing just 13 percent of the population. Across the same timeframe, whites committed 45 percent of homicides while composing 77% of the population, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Here are some more statistics from the FBI:

In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

3. Black crime is even more prevalent in the country’s largest cities and counties.

Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city’s population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city’s population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Hispanics, who compose 30 percent of the city’s population, committed 19 percent of its homicides and 18 percent of its juvenile arrests. (Another eye-opening fact from Mac Donald’s research is that only 26 percent of murder cases were solved in Chicago.)

Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city’s population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies.

In New York City, blacks committed “75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime,” despite only composing 23 percent of the population, said Mac Donald in a Hillsdale speech. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, “blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.”

4. There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015.

By contrast, only 258 blacks were killed by police gunfire that year….

(READ IT ALL)

51% of the mass shootings (if all are considered — i.e., gang violence) are by black people, and only 29% by white. AND? Paddock (except the Muhammad and Malvo case) is one of the few that didn’t do the killings in the “name of something.” (Yes, killing in the name of a gang is technically an ideology… but as we will see, Leftism far outstrips conservatism as a factor.)

On one site, the top ten White Terrorists are listed, with connections to the “right-wing.” I will go through a couple to exemplify the “base” thinking of such connections.

  • Stack took Tea Party anger at taxes to a new level when he flew a plane into the Austin, Texas, IRS  building, killing himself. He left behind a manifesto attacking the IRS, taxes, and government bailouts.

Andrew Joseph Stack (“RIGHT WING”)

This is from my post entitled:

There was no evidence that Stack belonged to a Tea Party organization, even though the media immediately made the connection.

Another guy the press immediately tried to connect to the T.E.A. Party. It was pointed out that much of what the IRS Joseph “the bomber” Stack talked about was directly from Michael Moore movies.

The man suspected of intentionally crashing an airplane into a Texas office building today appears to have posted a lengthy online diatribe attacking the Internal Revenue Service and declaring that, “I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand.”

The things said in his manifesto seem to all be taken straight from Michael Moore movies?

  • Anti-health care system= SICKO
  • Anti-Capitalism= CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY
  • IRS cronyism with businesses= CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY
  • Anti-Bush= FAHRENHEIT 9/11
  • Blames Big Corporations for job issues= THE BIG ONE

(lots of debate here at the above quotes source) For a well thought out story string of stories, see Verum Serum’s insights: Herehere, as well as the excerpt you see here:

One – Joe Stack was a liberal. As I pointed out recently ~ Stack:

  • Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
  • Hates Big Pharma
  • Hates Big Insurance
  • Hates GM executives
  • Hates organized religion
  • Refers favorably to communism
  • And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

read more

MICHELLE MALKIN had some great posts on him… here are some excerpts:

But as I reported at the time, Stack’s ranting suicide manifesto:

targeted “puppet” George W. Bush, murderous health care insurers and the pharmaceutical industry.

The “manifesto” ended:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

(MALKIN)

In February 2010, ticking time-bomb professor Amy Bishop gunned down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville and suicide pilot Joseph Andrew Stack flew a stolen small plane into an Austin, Texas, office complex that contained an Internal Revenue Service office. Mainstream journalists from Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to Time magazine reporter Hilary Hylton leaped forward to tie the crimes to Tea Party rhetoric. Never mind that Bishop was an Obama-worshiping academic with a lifelong history of violence or that Stack was another Bush-hater outraged about everything from George W. Bush to the American medical system to the evils of capitalism to the city of Austin, the Catholic Church, and airlines.

(MALKIN)

Nope. Not a righty TEA Partier. Here is another person mentioned on the LIST:

James von BrunN (“Right-Winger”)

Now isn’t this fascinating. James von Brunn , the white-supremacist suspect in the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He’s obsessed with “genetics.” He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America. (Here’s the PDF version of Von Brunn’s “manifesto.”)

This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.

The below is some more news on James von Brunn. As they sift through his life more and more of his reasoning (or lack thereof) is coming to light and I feel I must share it with you. The following is from NEWSBUSTERS:

The perpetrator, James von Brunn, has far more in common with Rosie O’Donnell’s conspiracy theorist views of the world than say the politics of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News fans (emphasis mine):

While Mr. von Brunn is currently being made out to be the poster child of the Republican Party, even a cursory look at his professed views shows he is the avowed enemy of the GOP in its current incarnation. Among many others, Mr. von Brunn hates Rupert Murdoch, Fox News (that means you, too, Shep!), George W. Bush and John McCain. And according to the FBI, Mr. von Brunn even had in his vehicle the address of the Weekly Standard, home base of the dreaded “neo-cons.”

Seems Mr. von Brunn wasn’t a big fan of the Iraq War and also believed that 9/11 was an “inside job.” Given this political sketch, Mr. von Brunn would feel at home at Camp Casey, Cindy Sheehan’s antiwar outpost in Crawford, Texas, and at the Daily Kos convention, rather than partaking in a National Review cruise with pro-Israeli war hawks Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hanson. 

It’s not Charles Lindbergh’s Republican Party any more. And it hasn’t been for more than a half-century. But don’t tell that to the facile minds at the DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and CNN. 

An interesting aside. Dr. George Tiller, who was a women’s health physician, and performed legal abortions. was gunned down in his church by an anti-abortion zealot. Here is how NewsBustrers wrote about the story then:

First Day Contrast: Keith Olbermann Called Tiller Shooting ‘Terrorism’ And A ‘Jihad,’ But Avoided Those Terms For Fort Hood.

On June 1 of this year, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann devoted most of his hour of Countdown to his withering outrage at the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller in Kansas (and how it was caused by Fox News).

The tone was dramatically different than his tone on November 5, the night of the Islamic terrorist shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. Here’s Olbermann’s very dry opening: “Nightmare at Fort Hood: How could a soldier kill at least 12 other soldiers and wounded at least 31 more? And why?”

read more

We know Mr. von Brunn HATES:

  • RUPERT MURDOCH
  • FOX NEWS
  • GEORGE W. BUSH
  • JOHN MCCAIN
  • WEEKLY STANDARD
  • IRAQ WAR
  • BELIEVED THAT 9/11 WAS AN “INSIDE JOB.”

The bias is palpable.

MICHELLE MALKIN notes what Kathy Shaidle wrote about the shooter — a 9/11 Truther who hated “neo-cons:”

The man accused of opening fire at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, James W. von Brunn, left a trail of unhinged writings around the internet.

The anti-semitism of von Brunn is the first thing one notices when visiting these bizarre websites. However, like those of most “white supremacists”, many of von Brunn’s political views track “Left” rather than “Right.” Clearly, a re-evaluation of these obsolete definitions is long overdue.

For example, he unleashed his hatred of both Presidents Bush and other “neo-conservatives” in online essays. As even some “progressives” such as the influential Adbusters magazine publicly admit, “neoconservative” is often used as a derogatory code word for “Jews”. As well, even a cursory glance at “white supremacist” writings reveals a hatred of, say, big corporations that is virtually indistinguishable from that of anti-globalization activists.

James von Brunn’s advocacy of 9/11 conspiracy theories also gives him an additional commonality with individuals on the far-left.

I think this guy fails the “right-wing” category given to him “willy-nilly.”

Here is another guy from the “top-ten” list:

John Patrick Bedell (“Right-Winger”)

The gunman identified by authorities in the Pentagon shooting, harbored intense anti-government feelings.

FoxNews has the recent story:

….Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was “determined to see that justice is served” in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up. 

The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was “a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions.”

That same posting railed against the government’s enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author’s 2006 court case in Orange County, Calif., for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell suspected in the shooting….

read more

After the Christian Science Monitor and Talking Points Memo (TPM) connected Bedell to the Tea Party… real evidence started coming out in which I asked this question: “How many Tea Partiers or conservatives…”

  • Shoot at the Pentagon and hate the military?
  • Are registered Democrats?
  • Hate George Bush and the whole Bush family?
  • Think 9/11 was perpetrated not by Muslims but by Republicans?
  • Grow and smoke marijuana?
  • Read left-wing anti-Bush books?
  • Are anti-war?
  • Talk about “economic justice”?
  • Think the Vietnam War and the Iraq War were not merely mistakes but were part of a government conspiracy?

Michelle Malkin uncovered a key inconvenient fact which doesn’t quite fit this predictable “right-wing extremist” narrative — that bedell was a registered democrat

Ooops!

Bedell was also a marijuana smoker, grower and activist, as documented at Gateway Pundit.

Ooops!

Patterico has now posted a full transcript of one of Bedell’s internet rants — the same one cited by Talking Points Memo as evidence of his right-wing leanings — which has Bedell uncorking phrases like “economic justice” and paragraphs like (writing in 2006 during the Bush presidency) “This organization, like so many murderous governments throughout history, would see the sacrifice of thousands of its citizens in an event such as the September 11th attacks, as a small cost in order to perpetuate its barbaric control. This collection of gangsters would find it in their interests to foment conflict and initiate wars throughout the world in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality. The true nature of such a regime would find its clearest expression in Satanic violence currently ongoing in Iraq.” and anti-war conspiracy theories like “The political and military disasters such as the wars in Vietnam and Iraq that an illegitimate coup regime uses against the people…”.

Ooops!

Add all that to the previous discovery already linked above that Bedell’s Amazon “Wish List” featured the the left-wing conspiracy-theory books The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family and Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America.

Ooops!

And finally, from GATEWAY PUNDIT:

So, which state-run media outlet will be the first to claim this Bush-hating Truther is a tea party activist?We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the Christian Science Monitor was the first to call the pot smoking, Bush-hating, Truther a right wing extremist. For the record, 35% of democrats believed Bush knew about the 9-11 attacks in advance. 99.9% of the left were Bush-haters.

UPDATE: SoWill the state-run media report this? The Pentagon shooter is linked to several gay rights groups along with PETA, NPR, various drug legalization orgs, Greenpeace and Al Franken. Hmm. So when was the last time you ran into a “right wing extremist” who was a big fan of Al Franken?

UPDATE: The media’s “right wing extremist” is a registered democrat.

BIAS DRIVES MISLABELING

Some “right-winger,” so right-wing he registered as a Democrat! The problem is, as IJR points out that the LEFT merely uses a low-threshold definition of right wing:

…However, when right-wing terrorist attacks are coded by New America, those are attributed in a loose manner to mere statements made by the perpetrators that fit the left-wing’s shibboleth that racist or anti-government views define someone as a “right-winger.”

Thus, the conclusions are not only questionable, they are borderline deceptive. The professor concludes:

Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1.

Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.

Back to PJ-MEDIA’S article… they note that “Bloomberg[‘s] View columnist Megan McArdle noted several ‘right-wing’ cases in New America’s data set that were dubious at best.” Continuing with Megan’s column:

Counting the other types of extremist terrorism is a little murkier. Some of them are fairly obvious: When a white supremacist starts shooting people at a Sikh temple, I don’t think we need to wonder too hard what his motives were. On the other hand, the data set The Times relies on also includes Andrew Joseph Stack, who you may remember piloted a small plane into an IRS building in Austin. Stack left a manifesto behind, and it doesn’t exactly read like an anarcho-capitalist treatise. Oh, he’s mad at the government, all right, but he’s mad about … the 1986 revision to Section 1706 of the tax code, which governs the treatment of technical contractors […]

Its closing lines are “The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.” Labeling this as a “deadly right-wing attack” is beyond a stretch; it’s not even arguably correct.

McArdle identifies several other eye-rolling examples of New America’s “right-wing” killers.

The PJ-MEDIA article goes on to quote Florida State Professor Andrew Holt who looked at New America’s data… of which the below is an extended quote from. BUT FIRST, the graph he used is old… HERITAGE FOUNDATION notes recently that the 114th Islamist terror plot was thwarted:

  • Law enforcement arrested a 19-year-old New York man before the Labor Day weekend and charged him with plotting a terrorist attack in New York City. It was the 114th Islamist terrorist plot or attack against the U.S. homeland. 

Here is the professors ending and addendums to the linked article:

The Global Terrorism Index also notes, for example, that since 9/11 only 0.5% (half of 1%) of all terrorist related deaths took place in western countries, to include the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, etcThis number includes not only deaths due to attacks by right wingers, racists, nationalists, etcbut also Islamic terrorists operating in Western countries who were often responsible for the most deadly attacks. So “right wing” terror attacks account foronly a portionof only halfof 1%of all worldwide related terrorist deaths in 2014, based on the GTI study.

Again, as I noted in the introduction, this is not to dismiss the threat of right wing terrorism and its very deadly consequences for some, but only to add perspective to the claims being made. Right wing terrorism is more deadly for Americans only if you add a number of very limiting parameters (e.g. excluding the victims of 9/11, ignoring “lone wolf” attacks without solid connections to groups like al-Qaeda and their affiliates, etc). But if you lift those limitations, and apply equal standards, then the raw and unfiltered numbers of deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism in the United States over the last fifteen years dwarf the numbers attributable to right wing extremism by a ratio of over 62 to 1. Even if you leave out 9/11 victims and just focus on the ideological statements and goals of the attackers, then the deaths of Americans due to Islamic extremism still outnumber the deaths attributable to right wingers (which reveals an even greater disparity when compared with population groups). If we move beyond America’s borders, then the disparity becomes far greater, with somewhere around 90% of the world’s terrorism related deaths attributable to Islamic extremism, and only a fraction of 1% attributable to right wing extremism.

————–

Addendum (June 14, 2016): Since the attack on a gay bar by an Islamic State supporter in Orlando that resulted in the deaths of 50 people, New America has updated their numbers to now show that jihadists have killed almost twice as many Americans since 9/11 (and excluding 9/11) than “Far Right Wing-Terrorists.” See my recent analysis for The College Fix.

Addendum (Feb. 28, 2017) Screen shot of current count on the New America website showing 94 deaths due to jihadists, with 50 due to right wing extremism.

SHORT LIST

Here is a quick listing from an OLDER POST of MINE discussing some of my research:

  • Elliot Rodger (“UCSB” shooter): Fan of the left-wing political talk show, The Young Turks.
  • James von Brunn (Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter): von Brunn hated Rupert Murdoch, Fox News, George W. Bush and John McCain.
  • Nidal Hasan (Ft Hood Shooter): Reg¬istered Democrat and Muslim.
  • Aaron Alexis (Navy Yard shooter): black liberal/Obama voter.
  • Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech shooter): Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
  • James Holmes: the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu¬py guy, progressive liberal, hated Christians.
  • Amy Bishop: the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
  • Andrew J. Stack (IRS bomber, flew plane into IRS building in Texas): Leftist Democrat, hated Bush and capitalism.
  • James J. Lee (who was the “green activist”): leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
  • John Patrick Bedell: (Pentagon Shooter) registered Democrat, talked about economic justice.
  • Nkosi Thandiwe (Shooting spree targeting white ppl): Accepted “white priveledge.”
  • Floyd Corkins (LGBT Chic-Fil-A shooter): hated conservative and Christians.
  • Karl Pierson (school shooter): loved communism, self-avowed Keynesian, hated Adam Smith and supported gun-control.

As you can tell from ALL of the above… this is a LIE perpetrated on the public — on a regular basis in fact. The Democrats push for violence in fact:

See more about this here:

Totalitarian/Fascist Fits – Violence from the Democrat Left

Larry Elder Interviews Professor Malcolm On Gun-Control

Larry Elder interviews Joyce Lee Malcolm, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, a few days after the Mandalay Bay Sniper (sprayer) killed 59-people in Vegas. As usual, this 2nd Amendment historian sheds light on this right enumerated in the Constitution. You can listen to a previous interview with Dr. Malcolm via Larry Elder (May, 2014).

Gun-Control Advocates Bump Up Against Hard-Facts

Funny how “Putting politics aside” means “Advancing the Democrat Left Agenda.”

| GAY PATRIOT |

I would be remiss to NOT add this by BEN SHAPIRO (for the transcript read THE DAILY WIRE):

Some must read articles and stats — the first is an article by GAY PATRIOT, who quotes a WAPO article (which I will include in full, below). Here is GP referencing about the Washington Post article:

In a rare moment of honesty on the left, a left-wing statistician went through the evidence scientifically and without bias and came to the conclusion that none of the left-wing’s favored policies would put a dent in gun deaths.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

It’s like us Right-Wing Nut Jobs were saying all along. The policies of the left will fail, and may perhaps even be designed to fail so that their failure will make the case for ever increasing levels of gun control leading ultimately to what the left actually wants: to outlaw the private ownership of firearms.

By the way, the correlation between gun ownership and homicides is actually inverse.

There are actually two policies that would make a difference, but they are politically unpalatable to the Progressive Left.

The majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicides – about two-thirds of all of them….

I want to pause here and break down the suicide numbers a bit… and this is really for all the people that support assisted suicide. Why does it have to be assisted? The biggest demographic that shoots themselves are the geriatric. Many of whom are in the throes or chronic pain or were diagnosed with a life threatening disease with no hope of overcoming. Here are the suicide by gun numbers:

It is sad, but using the Left’s argument FOR suicide… why is this bad? CONTINUING with Gay Patriot

…The great majority of the gun homicides in the USA are committed by young male criminals in urban areas. The Democrats who run these urban areas are loathe to crack down on this violence for fear of riling “community activists” who claim that stopping young urban males from committing crimes is a conspiracy to re-enact slavery via the “Prison Industrial Complex.”

So, for whatever reason, the only “politically palatable” solutions involve restricting the rights of non-criminal people to possess lawful means of self-defense…..

Mmmm… that brings up a different stat. I wouldn’t know where to look for such a study, but, I bet if one were to quantify those who are Democrat and those who are Republican using guns in homicide activity… I wonder what the comparative percentages would be.

For instance, one can see many more Republicans own guns, but more inner-city gang members use them illegally.

Last I remember from being in jail myself, most minority criminals are Democrats in regard to who they support.

Also, as people buy more guns, the death rate has dropped. If one were to believe the rhetoric of the Left… this should be the exact opposite:

Dennis Prager is right… this and other arguments from the Left are driven by emotions:

Here is the promised article… Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, and a Leftist!

I Used To Think Gun Control Was The Answer My Research Told Me Otherwise

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

In this meme a point is made that I think is worthy… and that is…. there are already laws on the books to make murder illegal. What law can you pass that will stop a person from really committing this horrible act? If laws like this work, why haven’t they?

More than 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. Over 11,500 deaths by homicide are gun related each year [+/-]. Has the war one drugs and all the regulations and laws (local, county, state, and federal) stopped this? No. The answer is no. NEITHER would any law have helped less people die in Vegas. The next media presentation is prefaced by POLITISTICK:

Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar from Texas admitted something tonight on FOX News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight that you will rarely — if ever — hear from a modern-day Democrat that has taken a hard-left turn the past eight years under Obama, funded by anti-American globalist billionaire George Soros.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre in which dozens of people were murdered and hundreds more injured by a madman shooting from a high-rise hotel — at a time when most progressive leftist’s knee-jerk reaction was to blame Second Amendment rights — Henry Cuellar admitted that gun control doesn’t work…..

The following is from an family friend-of-a-friend who was in law enforcement for 35-years:

Here are some very interesting statistics on gun violence, gun deaths, and lots of other causes of death that we deal with every day. Yet no one gets too concerned unless the cause of death is by a firearm. And yes the math is correct. 

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

  • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
  • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
  • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
  • 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

  • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
  • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
  • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
  • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year?

  • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
  • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
  • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

  • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
  • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides, simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

Pundits Saying Polling Must Be Fixed! (UPDATED)

No, two polls got it right, copy their models:


SOME POLLS


A couple polls that match up:

Final IBD/TIPP Poll Results:

  • As voters go to the actual polls to cast their ballots in what has been an unprecedented presidential election, Republican Donald Trump held onto a 2-point lead over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton — 45% to 43% — in a four-way matchup, according to the final IBD/TIPP presidential tracking poll. Libertarian Gary Johnson captures 8% support from likely voters, while Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets 2%. In a two-way matchup, Clinton leads Trump by 1 point — 43% to 42%.


Electoral College Guesses


November 3rd

Election Day

 

CNN Poll Shenanigans: They Say Tied but Sampled Dems at +11 and Didn`t Factor In the 22-Point Lead with Indies

Via Twitchy. from Drudge Report:

The poll, released earlier tonight, shows a 49-49 tie among likely voters. But to get that result CNN had to use one of the most skewed samples we’ve seen this campaign (see page 29):

Among those likely voters, 41% described themselves as Democrats, 29% described themselves as Independents, and 30% described themselves as Republicans.

A D+11 sample! By comparison, the electorate in 2008, when Obama-mania was at its peak, was merely D+7, according to exit polls.

There’s more. The poll shows Mitt Romney beating President Obama among Independents 59-37, an incredible 22-point lead.

Does anyone seriously believe Romney can win Indies by more than 20 points and still come out tied in the popular vote?

Some more Drudge poll links:

ABCWASHPOST: O 49% R 48%...
GALLUP SWING: O 48% R 48%...
CNN: TIED [WITH D+11]...
PEW: O 48% R 45% [WITH D+6]...
FL: R 52% O 47%...
MI: R 47% O 46%...
VA: O 48% R 47%...

Karl Rove and Dick morris Dissect the CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac Poll (Florida, Ohio, Virginia)

CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac poll:

  • (Florida) Democrats sampled at 37%/ Republicans sampled at 30%/Independents sampled at 29%
  • (Ohio) Democrats sampled at 37%/Republicans sampled at 29%/Independents sampled at 30%
  • (Virginia) Democrats sampled at 35%/Republicans sampled at 27%/Independents sampled at 35%

Hot Air shows how this poll and the mixing of 2008 stats (enthusiasm levels) do not jive. Dick Morris as well does a bang-up job on discussing this poll as well, “Why The NY Times Poll Is Wrong.”

—————————–

Another aspect is the voting blocks. Obama has all his blocks down. A great video to make the point is this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTihf2_GGM&feature=share&list=UUKCXRhi-1Z4eCnsNJujlbmQ). I think many are finally — hopefully — realizing in the inner cities (even Michigan was tied up in the polls) that the monopolies of union control over education and liberal policies in inner-cities that have been in place for 40/50 years are to no avail. That they merely create a victim class that are rendered powerless, except as pawns for political purposes.

More: the Jewish vote is down (http://tinyurl.com/98ok3yo), the black vote (http://tinyurl.com/9uwyxmf), women (http://tinyurl.com/c62xfa8), young (http://tinyurl.com/925xenw)… they are all down for the Dems. It doesn’t mean they will vote for Romney. It may mean they won’t vote at all. But Republicans are more jazzed about this vote than Dems (http://tinyurl.com/9joxzgj).

 

Dick Morris is right for once!:

….Here’s the deal. The Times is weighting the raw survey data to reflect the ratio of Democrats to Republicans who voted in 2008.  True, if we get the same massive turnout among minorities and young people that propelled Obama to victory in 2008, he will win this election and carry these states. But we won’t. All the polling shows that the electorate is now much more Republican and that GOP voters are much more motivated to turn out than their Democratic counterparts.

If we weight the Times results for the average turnout of the past four elections: 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010, we find Romney winning all three states. Republican pollster (the best of them all) John McLaughlin and I used exit polls from the past four elections to figure out how many Democrats and Republicans actually voted and then we averaged them together. Here are the real numbers:

FLORIDA

  • NY Times results: Obama +1
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +7
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 8 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

OHIO

  • NY Times results: Obama +5
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Dems +2
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 6 points

Correct poll result: Romney +1

VIRGINIA

  • NY Times results: Obama +2
  • Dem/Rep ratio in Times poll: Dems +8
  • Average ratio Dem/Rep past four elections: Reps +1
  • Times overstates Dem vote by 9 points

Correct poll result: Romney +7

And even these results don’t tell the full story. The Gallup Poll finds that the 2012 election will actually have more Republicans and fewer Democrats voting than any of the past four elections. In 2008, the electorate had 12 points more Democrats and Republicans….

…read more…

By The Numbers ~ Digging in the Weeds of the Recent Much Touted Polls (Combined Posts from my FaceBook)

RECENT POLLS BROKEN DOWN:

The Ohio poll (Cincinnati Enquirer/Ohio News Organization Poll) that has the 49% vs. the 49% close race, is a great example of what I have been talking about here-and-there about the disparity of proper representation of Party affiliates in these polls. For instance, in the poll used by many to show the tie, here is the breakdown:

★ The party breakdown of the randomly selected respondents: 47 percent Democrats, 44 percent Republicans, 10 percent independents.

We know that Independents are tracking more with the Republicans this year, about 54 percent (R/R) to 40 percent (O/B). And of course the difference is obvious in Democrat/Republican, as shown above. If there were a more even sampling between all three… Romney would be up, and by a few percentage points!

Likewise, the Minnesota poll that shows a statistical dead-heat is broke down thusly:

★ The poll comes as more Minnesotans identify as Republicans, which could add to Romney’s support. A month ago, the poll’s sample was 41 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican and 31 percent independent or other. In this survey, 38 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 29 percent independent or other.

NOW, the important part for my California readers. Yes, this state will go blue… but it is a duty for all Republicans to vote. Why? Because I believe that we will win this election, but a larger popular vote win will give R/R a moral high road for their agenda. The wider the gap the better.

[….]

Okay, the Gravis Marketing Poll (Ohio) which has Obama up 1 in Ohio ~ 50 Obama, 49 Romney… Dems are sampled 8% more (also remember Independents are going for Romney in larger numbers). Here is how the poll breaks down:

⚑ Democrat – 40
⚑ Republican – 32
⚑ Independent or in another party – 28

[….]

PPP’s newest Ohio poll finds Barack Obama leading Mitt Romney 51-47, up from a 49-48 margin a week ago. How does this newest poll break down?

⚑ Democrat – 43%
⚑ Republican – 35%
⚑ Independent/Other – 21%

[….]

Two new polls out that are nationwide averages (not specific state polls) are the Rasmussen poll and the Washington Post-ABC News Poll

The Washington Post-ABC News Poll has Romney at 49, Obama 48. Here is the break down:

⚑ Democrats sampled – 35%
⚑ Republican sampled – 28%
⚑ Independents sampled – 34%

Rasmussen has Romney at 49% and Obama at 47% — nation wide average. I can never find the in-depth breakdown… I think you have to be a paying member to do so. At any rate, here is one of their articles in part:

———————————————-

The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be competitive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 50% of the vote to Obama’s 46%. Two percent (2%) like another candidate in the race, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.

Romney has now led for 11 straight days with margins of four to six points most of that time.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

Nationally, Romney remains at the 50% level of support in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll….

(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_swing_state_tracking_poll)

————————————

Its all about the swing states!

(OHIO) Romney 50% ~ Obama 48%

The race for Ohio’s Electoral College votes remains very close, but now Mitt Romney now has a two-point advantage.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Ohio Voters shows Romney with 50% support to President Obama’s 48%. One percent (1%) likes some other candidate, while another one percent (1%) remains undecided. 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/ohio/election_2012_ohio_president

And, from the Weekly Standard:

New Projection of Election Results: Romney 52, Obama 47

The bipartisan Battleground Poll, in its “vote election model,” is projecting that Mitt Romney will defeat President Obama 52 percent to 47 percent. The poll also found that Romney has an even greater advantage among middle class voters, 52 percent [Romney] to 45 percent [Obama].

While Obama can close the gap with a strong voter turnout effort, “reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory,” says pollster Ed Goeas.

Should Romney win by 5 percentage points, it would increase Republican chances of gaining control of the Senate. His coattails would help elect GOP Senate candidates in Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. “Republicans are now certain to hold the House,” Goeas said, “regardless of how the presidential race turns out.”

The poll’s election model takes into account variables including voter intensity, age, and education, and voters who are certain in their vote. The race “remains very close in the surface,” Goeas said, “but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney.”

The projected outcome by the Battleground Poll is close to that of the Gallup Poll. Last week, Gallup said Romney leads Obama 49 percent to 46 percent in its model of the electorate’s composition on November 6.

The Battleground Poll is conducted by Goeas of the Tarrance Group and Celinda Lake of Lake Research Partners. Goeas is a Republican, Lake a Democrat. The survey is affiliated with Politico and George Washington University.

Taken last week, the poll found that only 37 percent of voters believe the country is headed in the right direction. For an incumbent president to win reelection, that number normally must exceed 40 percent. “Everyone but the core Democratic constituencies holds the strongly held feeling that the country is off on the wrong track,” Goeas said.

For the first time this year, Romney has a majority favorable image. His favorability rating is 52 percent, Obama’s is 51 percent. According to the poll, Romney is viewed favorably by a majority of independents (59 percent), seniors (57), married voters (61), moms (56), college graduates (54), middle class voters (56), and middle class families (61).

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-poll-projects-romney-52-obama-47_658066.html

Mitt Romney Storms Into The Lead Over Obama

Business Insider zeroes in on this LARGE jump

In a shocking one-month swing, Mitt Romney stormed into the lead over President Barack Obama in a new  Pew Research poll conducted after Romney’s consensus victory in the first presidential debate.

The poll finds a 12-point swing among likely voters. In Pew’s last poll, conducted in the middle of September, Obama led Romney 51-43 among likely voters. Now, Romney leads 49-45. 

The shift is due to Romney shoring up key areas of strength among likely voters and improving his overall image, much of which can be attributed to his strong debate performance. Sixty-six percent of voters thought Romney won the debate, compared with just 20 percent who said Obama won. Among Independents, Romney won by an astounding 78-14 margin.

…read more…

Business Insider notes as well Andrew Sullivan’s despair:

Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan is not happy about the latest Pew Research poll, which shows Republican presidential candidate surging 12 points to hold a 49 percent to 46 percent lead over President Barack Obama. 

Here’s what Sullivan had to say about the poll: 

“The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 – 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 – 45 lead. That’s a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in all of them. Obama’s performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.

Romney’s favorables are above Obama’s now. Yes, you read that right. Romney’s favorables are higher than Obama’s right now. That gender gap that was Obama’s firewall?”

He continues: 

“Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That’s terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney – even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president’s ass.” 

He ends: 

“I’ve never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate – and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 1984 than Obama last week. Even Reagan’s meandering mess in 1984 was better – and he had approaching Alzheimer’s to blame.”

Sullivan, a moderate conservative-turned-Obama fan, was one of the harshest critics of the President’s debate performance last week, and the Pew numbers bear out his doomsday take on Obama’s onstage collapse. 

…read more…

Survey: `55% of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36% support Obama`

The America’s Medical Society mentions that some questioning should happen at the debates:

Mr. President, please explain how you plan to maintain the same level of  medical acuity and acumen, when, within a mere two years, there will be tens of  millions of additional patients added to waiting rooms nationally?

They continue,

The President should have a prepared answer to this key concern of healthcare  providers and patients. It’s inconceivable that any question could be more  primary to the intrinsic workings of our health systems in the United States.  With all other concerns aside, nothing really matters if there are not properly  trained physicians available to evaluate and treat the added influx of thirty  million new patients.

Let’s assume that the polls are wrong, and that anywhere from thirty to  sixty-five percent of practicing doctors will not, indeed, cut back their hours or retire early in the next decade. Let’s answer this question then, honestly,  for the President in a stand-alone textbook-style essay response. There is  really only one–albeit vague and evasive–answer that the President can  give:

“…We will rely on ancillary healthcare personnel [non-physicians: nurses,  technicians, physician’s assistants] to step up and do more of the supporting  work now done by doctors.”

This is the answer that Mr. Obama’s handlers have likely prepared for him.  There is only one problem, however, with this answer: it is disingenuous and  factually incomplete.

First of all, the President’s men know very well that the decades-old slow  decline in inflation-adjusted income of physicians has already squeezed every  ounce of efficiency out of non-physician helpers in the workforce. There is no  way these ‘non-M.D.s’ can be asked to simply ‘give more’ without sacrificing  quality.

What will really happen in Obama’s new world medical order is that  non-physicians will be charged with higher levels of functioning in patient  care—assessment, treatment, and even prescription-writing, as more nurse  practitioners and (state law depending) others are required to practice medicine  without the benefit of a medical training and degree. Essentially, some will be  given the equivalent of a medical degree through legislative and executive fiat.  In other words, time-honored requirements and benchmarks for medical training  will be lowered.

…read more…

Obama-Care, however, is already crumbling and has two more times to visit the Supreme Court (HHS and the “Exchanges” between states). Here is one state that took the law into their own hands, as Walter William would say, Constitutionally:

Missouri voters dealt Obamacare a significant setback yesterday, approving a statewide ballot measure with an overwhelming 71 percent of the vote.

The vote was the first time citizens had an opportunity to cast a ballot on the unpopular health care law. Missouri’s measure prohibits the federal government’s enforcement of the individual mandate to buy health insurance. The victory sends a strong message about Obamacare in a bellwether state.

…read more…

A recent survey from the the third largest health care staffing company in the United States shows that most doctors are for either “repeal and replace” or “implement and improve.” These feelings work out towards the candidates in the following way:

A new survey shows Mitt Romney with a commanding lead over President Barack Obama among doctors, with Obamacare helping to sway their votes.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama, according to a survey released by Jackson & Coker, a division of Jackson Healthcare, the third largest health care staffing company in the United States

Fifteen percent of respondents said they were switching their vote from Obama in 2008 to Romney in 2012. The top reasons cited for this change was the Affordable Care Act and the failure to address tort reform.

Leadership style, failure to follow through on campaign promises, unemployment and the general state of the economy were also factors.

“Doctors are highly motivated this year to have their voice heard, particularly after passage of the Affordable Care Act,” said Sandy Garrett, president of Jackson & Coker. “No doubt, the health care law has stirred many passions in the medical community.”

Fifty-five percent of physicians said that they favored “repeal and replace” Obamacare, while 40 percent said “implement and improve”.

A Gallup poll from July found that 46 percent of Americans feel Obamacare is more harmful than helpful to the economy; 36 percent responded the opposite.

…read more…

Romney Up In Ohio!?

Libertarian Republican has a good post showing that multiple polls actually has Romney up in Ohio:

In Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average of the public polls currently favors Obama by 6 points. Supposedly, Obama is going to win this state by a wider margin than he did four years, when he won the state by 5 points….

NOT!

Based on my average of thirteen polls conducted during the prior thirty days in Ohio, I have Romney currently ahead by 2.2 points, 47.6 to 45.3, with the remainder undecided or in favor of a third-party candidates.

…read more…

The Coach is Right has this astounding post that also shows their is some fuzzy math going on in the legacy media:

Media fraudulent pollsters you’ve been busted. Your fake numbers have been exposed by two very unlikely and probably unwilling sources. Last Friday the Leftist cheer leaders at the Third Way “think tank” made what had to be a very sad announcement for them. They told the world their researchers had found Democrat registration has fallen by 490,000 in just Ohio alone and without going into finer numbers had also declined by significant numbers in other important states. Florida Democrat registration is down 4.9% Iowa Democrats have lost 9.5% and remember that “thisclose” swing state of New Hampshire, the one that flipped its entire government just two years ago – Democrat registration is down 19.7%! More than this Third Way also found Republican registration was down only a 10th of the Democrat decline and that Independents (who favor Mitt Romney by 14 points) had grown in numbers.

The full story from Ohio must be chilling for Democrats because 44% of these Democrat registration drops come from the Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) area cutting deeply into their lead over local Republicans. Hamilton and Franklin counties, both huge Democrat strongholds have seen steep declines in the number of registered Democrats as well. The combined decline of all three counties accounts for about 79% of the now “missing” Ohio Democrats.

[…]

The second blow to the false polls we constantly see is the just released Gallup report showing Republicans 16% (64/48) more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats are. Remember these numbers when you read the next fraudulent poll. Added to the sharp drop in Democrat registration they prove Barack Obama is on his way to a landslide defeat next month.

…read more…

And the Daily Caller is reporting that an internal Ohio Romney memo says the state is up for grabs.

Polls Lie ~ Sorta: You Have To Dig To Find Poll Information (Are Republicans Really Down 10% In Ohio?)

Misleading Stats ~ You Have To Dig To Find the Real Stats!

A good example of this is the recent poll my boss came in and disparagingly said “Romney’s down 10% in Ohio.” I waited till I got home and found out that the poll sampled Democrats at 35%, and Republicans at 27%. So while the race is close however, Obama is not leading by 10% — which is why it is categorized as a swing state.

See also:

More Fuzzy Math from the Polls: http://tinyurl.com/9df4a99
Karl Rove Explains the 1980 Polls Regarding the Carter/Reagan Race (3-weeks before the Election, Carter was at 47%, Reagan at 39% ~ Reagan won 44-states): http://tinyurl.com/925t9uh