XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.atheism, alt.politics.immigration   
   XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: bflatt3xz2@gmail.com   
      
   After the Sept. 10, 2025, assassination of conservative political activist   
   Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump claimed that radical leftist groups   
   foment political violence in the U. S. , and "they should be put in jail. "   
      
   "The radical left causes tremendous violence, " he said, asserting that   
   "they   
   seem to do it in a bigger way" than groups on the right.   
      
      
      
   Top presidential adviser Stephen Miller also weighed in after Kirk's   
   killing,   
   saying that left-wing political organizations constitute "a vast domestic   
   terror movement. "   
      
   "We are going to use every resource we have ... throughout this government   
   to   
   identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks and make America   
   safe   
   again, " Miller said.   
      
   But policymakers and the public need reliable evidence and actual data to   
   understand the reality of politically motivated violence. From our research   
   on extremism, it's clear that the president's and Miller's assertions about   
   political violence from the left are not based on actual facts.   
      
   Based on our own research and a review of related work, we can confidently   
   say that most domestic terrorists in the U. S. are politically on the   
   right,   
   and right-wing attacks account for the vast majority of fatalities from   
   domestic terrorism.   
      
   Trump aide Stephen Miller says the administration will go after "a vast   
   domestic terror movement" on the left.   
   Political violence rising   
      
   The understanding of political violence is complicated by differences in   
   definitions and the recent Department of Justice removal of an important   
   government-sponsored study of domestic terrorists.   
      
   Political violence in the U. S. has risen in recent months and takes forms   
   that go unrecognized. During the 2024 election cycle, nearly half of all   
   states reported threats against election workers, including social media   
   death threats, intimidation and doxing.   
      
   WATCH: Trump conspiracies inspire threats against judges, jurors and   
   election   
   workers   
      
   Kirk's assassination illustrates the growing threat. The man charged with   
   the   
   murder, Tyler Robinson, allegedly planned the attack in writing and online.   
      
   This follows other politically motivated killings, including the June   
   assassination of Democratic Minnesota state Rep. and former House Speaker   
   Melissa Hortman and her husband.   
      
   These incidents reflect a normalization of political violence. Threats and   
   violence are increasingly treated as acceptable for achieving political   
   goals, posing serious risks to democracy and society.   
   Defining 'political violence'   
      
   This article relies on some of our research on extremism, other academic   
   research, federal reports, academic datasets and other monitoring to assess   
   what is known about political violence.   
      
   Support for political violence in the U. S. is spreading from extremist   
   fringes into the mainstream, making violent actions seem normal. Threats   
   can   
   move from online rhetoric to actual violence, posing serious risks to   
   democratic practices.   
      
   But different agencies and researchers use different definitions of   
   political   
   violence, making comparisons difficult.   
      
   The FBI and Department of Homeland Security define domestic violent   
   extremism   
   as threats involving actual violence. They do not investigate people in the   
   U. S. for constitutionally protected speech, activism or ideological   
   beliefs.   
      
   Domestic violent extremism is defined by the FBI and Department of Homeland   
   Security as violence or credible threats of violence intended to influence   
   government policy or intimidate civilians for political or ideological   
   purposes. This general framing, which includes diverse activities under a   
   single category, guides investigations and prosecutions.   
      
   Datasets compiled by academic researchers use narrower and more operational   
   definitions. The Global Terrorism Database counts incidents that involve   
   intentional violence with political, social or religious motivation.   
      
   These differences mean that the same incident may or may not appear in a   
   dataset, depending on the rules applied.   
      
   The FBI and Department of Homeland Security emphasize that these   
   distinctions   
   are not merely academic. Labeling an event "terrorism" rather than a "hate   
   crime" can change who is responsible for investigating an incident and how   
   many resources they have to investigate it.   
      
   For example, a politically motivated shooting might be coded as terrorism   
   in   
   federal reporting, cataloged as political violence by the Armed Conflict   
   Location and Event Data Project, and prosecuted as homicide or a hate crime   
   at the state level.   
   Patterns in incidents and fatalities   
      
   Despite differences in definitions, several consistent patterns emerge from   
   available evidence.   
      
   Politically motivated violence is a small fraction of total violent crime,   
   but its impact is magnified by symbolic targets, timing and media coverage.   
      
   In the first half of 2025, 35% of violent events tracked by University of   
   Maryland researchers targeted U. S. government personnel or facilities –   
   more   
   than twice the rate in 2024.   
      
   Right-wing extremist violence has been deadlier than left-wing violence in   
   recent years.   
      
   READ MORE: How recent political violence in the U. S. fits into 'a long,   
   dark   
   history'   
      
   Based on government and independent analyses, right-wing extremist violence   
   has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of fatalities, amounting   
   to approximately 75% to 80% of U. S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001.   
      
   Illustrative cases include the 2015 Charleston church shooting, when white   
   supremacist Dylann Roof killed nine Black parishioners; the 2018 Tree of   
   Life   
   synagogue attack in Pittsburgh, where 11 worshippers were murdered; the   
   2019   
   El Paso Walmart massacre, in which an anti-immigrant gunman killed 23   
   people.   
   The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, an earlier but still notable example,   
   killed   
   168 in the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in U. S. history.   
      
   By contrast, left-wing extremist incidents, including those tied to   
   anarchist   
   or environmental movements, have made up about 10% to 15% of incidents and   
   less than 5% of fatalities.   
      
   Examples include the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front   
   arson   
   and vandalism campaigns in the 1990s and 2000s, which were more likely to   
   target property rather than people.   
      
   Violence occurred during Seattle May Day protests in 2016, with anarchist   
   groups and other demonstrators clashing with police. The clashes resulted   
   in   
   multiple injuries and arrests. In 2016, five Dallas police officers were   
   murdered by a heavily armed sniper who was targeting white police officers.   
   Hard to count   
      
   There's another reason it's hard to account for and characterize certain   
   kinds of political violence and those who perpetrate it.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)