Because conservative groups aren't violent… continued...

Can someone explain to me why we're giving $800,000 to counter violent extremist Islam, and the people who we try to give the money to won't take it?! Great comment here: there's something to be said for knowing that the Muslims that are extremist want to behead you, while the ones that are moderate Muslims want someone else to behead you! I think I need to start a counter conservative violent extremist ideology group and take $800,000 to prevent that from happening. Pretty easy, because conservative groups aren't violent… Yet. Who approves this waste of tax payer money? Comments please! http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article132146279.html

Take out the "Yet." There are some rather violent right-wing groups. Eric Rudolph was in one, for instance. It may seem to have been awhile. The Montana sect of the Minute Men might seem violent, although, they have n't. But I think the Right-to-Lifers are quite violent.

I believe you should post. It's worth mentioning because of the sheer irony and disregard the Muslim community has for creating a message of anit-extremism. Clearly they condone such behavior, as you put it, silently admitting permission for someone else committing murder, female genital mutilation, or other. It's the "fourth" Muslim group, mind you. How many are really out there? How many are in "Sanctuary" cities behaving as such. Not simply bystanders, but advocates for such behavior, which is condoned in the Quran and many fatwas published since.

As I mentioned about Eric Rudolph's crowd: the US gov't never threw money like that at the problem and that was "grass roots". The insistence of these so called Muslim groups who obviously, clearly speak for the population turning away federal efforts to at least get an understanding at this problem speaks louder in terms of advocacy. These programs were started under a Democratic Administration, not Trump's.

Somebody is "in denial" if they refuse to admit the true circumstances to themselves. By definition these Muslim communities are firmly or stubbornly adhering to their purpose of condoning jihad; not yielding to the argument, persuasion, or entreaty made by the US gov't. Delusional would mean they were not aware that they are wrong; thus, it is on purpose and with intent. Stubborn is more like it showing a determination not to change one's attitude or position on this problem, especially in spite of good reasons to do so.

Psychologically speaking, the phenomenon actually described in the article could be called "cognitive dissonance." Which is experienced by a person who has two conflicting thoughts in his or her mind at the same time, each of which is struggling to be recognized and dealt with. It has been said that you can't believe you are crazy and, at the same time, not crazy, without feeling some dissonance, or to use a more familiar term, discomfort. What do you do then? You choose one or the other (crazy or not crazy) and begin to come up with reasons why you are one or the other (the term for this is "clustering").

Some people struggle very little with cognitive dissonance. I guess you could say they are "dissonance tolerant." Other people, however, are very much "dissonance intolerant," and they seek to resolve that dissonance by deciding, by making a choice.

As for people who are dissonance tolerant (or sensitive) and are therefore eager to admit, for example, that they are wrong and need to go in a different direction, the dissonance that would be created and aggravated by NOT admitting things are indeed going badly is simply untenable and would cause them some sort of pain; therefore, they make a dissonance-resolving decision. In other words, they come to the following conclusion: extremism is your (the outsider) problem, and not within our community.

Democrat elites have sought to make us feel ashamed of our heritage, contemptuous of our freedom, and willing and eager to settle for any kind of "peace" at any cost, which only encourages extremist groups, permitted by the bribery: multiculturalism, the welfare state, and the European project are melting this Republic. Most Muslims who come to this country are living on subsidies already. Unequivocal condemnations of terrorists are now replaced by sympathetic accounts of their supposed motives. As mentioned in the New York Times a while ago a Muslim was interviewed: "I don't approve of what they did, but I understand it." That is the usual formula now to address Islamic extremism. This behavior is rooted in an antipathy for democratic pluralism and tolerance and a desire to institute a caliphate and that their loyalty belongs to the ummah and not with any nation-state..