Many observers watching the Wisconsin-based trial of 18-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse and his subsequent acquittal on all counts likely see the rabies-like froth of leftists who seem determined to make foolish claims about the case and about the right to self-defense he exercised. From dangerous inversions of reality like the Washington Post’s assumption that defensive action is actually aggressive action, to Keith Olbermann’s seemingly insane invitation of a defamation suit when he Re-Tweeted a picture of Rittenhouse being acquitted and the original publisher’s note that he was found NOT GUILTY of all charges, but Olbermann decided to write, “F*** This Murderer” (yes, literally on the finding that he wasn’t), the socialist zeitgeist is bloated with antagonistic falsehoods and echo-chamber bilge.
But observers also are seeing that all this perverse sentiment is not just rhetorical. It’s meant to effect policy, to move the levers of the state and make that machine further crush rights.
In the Rittenhouse case, the manifestation of this “rhetoric-pushes-aggressive-government-action” is rising in the form of hardcore leftist Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) calling on shady Attorney General Merrick Garland to pursue federal charges against Rittenhouse, for, of course, things that Rittenhouse was proven in court not to have done.
Retweeting a November 19 New York Times story announcing Rittenhouse’s acquittal, the ill-informed Nadler took time away from taking cash from us and our progeny in order to write:
This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest.
Which is astoundingly wrong, even for Nadler.
After reminding Olberman that the man he claims is a murderer was JUST ACQUITTED of the charges, one might want to tell Nadler that Rittenhouse did NOT cross state lines with a firearm.
They also might want to remind Nadler of something more important: He swore an oath to uphold his lovely little Constitution, and even IF Rittenhouse had done what Nadler falsely claims he did, any statute restricting the peaceful ownership or defensive use of a firearm is strictly FORBIDDEN by his rulebook.
Simply put, Jerrold, there is no such thing as a peacefully acquired “illegal firearm” or “illegal transportation” of a peacefully acquired firearm, and if you support statutes that make these illegal, you are a predator and a threat to others.
And, of course, one might remind Nadler of the difference between protest and property destruction, between protest, and criminal threatening and assault with a deadly weapon – the latter of which are all things Rittenhouse experienced while rioters and convicted criminals pursued him on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, on August 25, 2020.
And, as Austin Williams notes for FoxNews13, in Tampa Bay, Florida, the idea that Garland has any footing here is absurd. Williams refers to the LA-based Shouse Law Group, which lays out what its staff see as the parameters for federal involvement in the prosecution of capital murder crime:
According to the law group, these include when:
- the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official
- the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official
- the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official
- the killing is committed during a bank robbery
- the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution
- the murder was designed to influence a court case
- the killing takes place on federal property
The feds also go after criminals if a murder took place during the commission of another crime that took place over state borders (hence, likely, why Nadler attempted to throw the false smoke-screen of “across state borders” for the gun), and they have poked yet another hole in the Constitution by claiming there is such a thing as a “hate crime,” steering courts dangerously close to prosecuting based on Orwellian “Thought Crime.”
As Williams observes:
Rittenhouse was not accused of a hate crime and because he is not a member of law enforcement, he cannot be charged with depriving anyone of their civil rights as a federal agent. Rittenhouse was also not accused of a robbery on federal property or involving a federal business.
And, despite the awkward phrasing in the above, we get it, and already got it as we watched the trial unfold.
But some, like Nadler, either don’t get it, or don’t want people to get it. Instead, they promulgate falsehoods, so let’s get a few things straight.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s AR-15 was not an “automatic” rifle (and, even if it had been, he had a right to own and use it for self-defense).
Kyle Rittenhouse did not transport the firearm over state lines (and, even if he HAD, he had a right to do so, regardless of what politicians proclaim – ever).
Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of the firearm conformed to Wisconsin statute (again, he has a right to own it, regardless of any Wisconsin statute). Furthermore, he did not OWN the gun himself (though, again he had a right to).
Rittenhouse’s father, the actual owner of the firearm, lives in Kenosha.
Rittenhouse was trying to offer first aid to those in need (including protesters, because, of course, we all know such behavior is the HALLMARK of a “white supremacist”, right?) and was attempting to put out fires, defending locations owned by people who were not white-skinned, if skin color is what really matters to a guy like Nadler.
Rittenhouse was being pursued by violent attackers.
And some of those violent attackers already had criminal records for acts of…
There is little doubt that Kyle Rittenhouse will have numerous opportunities to collect massive settlements from media and political hacks who have defamed him. But it also is likely that he will face civil suits from the families of those he killed in self-defense.
And, though it should not be in the cards, the like of Nadler and Merrick Garland might just target the young man for persecution, using OUR tax dollars.
In the end, regardless of what people like Nadler think, we always retain our God-given rights. And, in the end, like Rittenhouse, we will defend them and teach others about what mutually-respected, God-given rights are.