The verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was rendered on Friday 19 November, by a courageous jury that ruled on the evidence and not on the prosecution’s or the media’s false narrative.
Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five counts, meaning the jury understood fully that he was acting in self-defense. As numerous commentators said on Friday, this was obvious to anyone who actually watched the trial.
Those who watched the actual Rittenhouse trial on television should not have been surprised at the not guilty verdict. But those who got their information about the trial from biased commentators on CNN or CNBC may well have been shocked and surprised.
Sometimes a comparison is the best way to illustrate a point.
Suppose, after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri a year ago, the Obama administration had decided – as it in fact did – that the Ferguson police and courts needed to be investigated for their history of law enforcement practices.
But instead of the Obama Justice Department conducting an investigation itself, the federal government called in a third party to negotiate an agreement with the city of Ferguson as to how it would be investigated.
Perhaps it’s technically the New York Times that’s saying a “flaw” is what allowed Roof, the Charleston church killer, to buy a gun. “Flaw” is the word used in the NYTheadline. The actual communication from the FBI is summarized this way in the text:
A loophole in the system and an error by the F.B.I. allowed the man, Dylann Roof, to buy the .45-caliber handgun despite having previously admitted to drug possession, officials said.
A campaign against religious freedom – the central purpose for which America came into being – had been underway for some time before the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage case, on 26 June. But the campaign went into overdrive with the news of that ruling, and it’s becoming increasingly furious and determined.
The principal method of the anti-freedom campaign is owning the terms in which it is discussed. The anti-freedom contingent insists, in essence, that what traditionalist Christians want is not legitimate freedom, but a license to hurt people.