Select Page

“Woke” Actors, Politicians, and Leftist Activist Go Into Meltdown Over Rittenhouse Acquittal

“Woke” Actors, Politicians, and Leftist Activist Go Into Meltdown Over Rittenhouse Acquittal

After Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts Friday afternoon in his Kenosha, Wisconsin murder trial, the liberal media were apoplectic and despondent over the verdict. But of all the shows that day, MSNBC’s The ReidOut was must-see TV to behold the liberal lies and serious attempts to divide Americans on political party and race to spark racial tensions gleefully. Of course, they didn’t disappoint.

Host Joy Reid had already jetted off for Thanksgiving. Still, she joined fill-in host Jason Johnson as a guest in the A-block for a murderer’s row of vile racists, declaring Rittenhouse to be like “slave catchers” of yesteryear that give “white men” extra “freedom” to kill Black people and allies at will with nothing to stop them “legally.”


“[W]e have to keep in mind, when we’re watching the criminal justice system at work, that it was designed to do exactly what it did today. Gun laws helped to enhance the design to allow this verdict to happen today. This country was built on the idea of — that white men had a particular kind of freedom and a particular kind of citizenship that only they have that gives, you know, from the slave catchers on, the right to inflict violence in the name of protecting property. That’s, like, the foundational creation of the United States.”

It turns out what Joy is failing to mention, although she is doing her best to make this all about race, it was not a white on black or a black on white crime. This was a group of white attackers against a young kid that was not attacking them; after they attacked him multiple times, fired a gun in the air, then came back for more, he defended himself.

Also, no one denies BLM’s right to protest, but we disagree that they have a legal right to loot, riot, and burn their way through towns. This verdict showed if they do this and attack citizens; they have a right to protect themselves from these people acting like domestic terrorists.

Others joined in:

“What you must also factor in is that, even when the George Floyd murder happened, it has now come out some of the violence in Minneapolis was done by right-wingers who pretended to be burning down places in Minneapolis that they were part of the movement and they were not, which means that now we can see people baiting violence to have a reaction to justify doing what Rittenhouse got away with today.”

— PoliticsNation host Al Sharpton

“The first that occurred to me after this ruling is, oh, well, okay, now it’s open season. Like, if I’m walking around and I’m white nationalist, you know, coward little kid with an AR-15 and I see somebody drive by with a Black Lives Matter bumper sticker and I feel threatened, I can open fire. If I go by a youth group standing outside the local Target chanting “Black Lives Matter” and I feel threatened, I — I can open fire.

— Johnson

“[T]his GOP has mainstreamed white nationalism. Now, they’re mainstreaming and celebrating political violence…This emboldens. It tells people, hey, if there is a Black Lives Matter movement, get your AR, drive over. If you fear anyone, kill them, go on the stand, repeat what Kyle did, cry on queue and you walk and everyone should be concerned there’s a gathering, violent storm. The GOP is seeding and nurturing — it’s right in front of us. Red flags are going off. This is a scary time.”

— SiriusXM host and NBC News columnist Dean Obeidallah

“[A]t some point, someone is going to weaponize the self-defense and when I say weaponize it, I mean, they’re going to have a designated Kyle Rittenhouse. And when you can anticipate or precipitate an attack, whether it’s bottles thrown at you, then not only can that person go back and defend himself, others can turn their weapons and carry out a massacre and say it was in defense of another person. This is going to get out of control.”

— MSNBC counterterrorism analyst Malcolm Nance

Here a protestor is saying that Rittenhouse should never have made it alive to the trial; this is Progressive Justice, or is it vigilantism?

Not to be outdone, our governor, Governor Evers, stood up for the domestic terrorists and attacked that Rittenhouse had a right to defend himself; it seems like he agreed with the defense, I guess for the greater good, we have to accept a beating sometimes.

But the scariest of all, the government’s reaction to this.

The media lied relentlessly about Rittenhouse and the facts (the outstanding exception being the work of the “Visual Investigations Team” of the New York Times, see my post In a Bizarre Turn of Events, NYT Investigation of Kenosha Shooting Makes a Strong Case for Self-Defense). The prosecution conspired to violate Rittenhouse’s constitutional rights by concealing evidence from the defense and claiming that the jury could infer guilt from his pre-trial silence. A mob, seemingly composed of BLM and Antifa wannabe thugs, threatened violence in the event of an acquittal. A news organization…sorry, I stand corrected, MSNBC…tried to dox the jurors. Joey SoftServe, himself, referred to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist.

Now that the jury has spoken and Rittenhouse is a free man, people who think they govern us will attempt to haul Rittenhouse into federal court to face related charges there. This is from Fat Jerry Nadler, the goober who chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

Legally, this is just stupid. Crossing state lines does not make something a federal offense. A crime has to be involved. As Rittenhouse was acquitted of all state crimes, it isn’t easy to see how crossing a state line amounts to anything. The people shot by Rittenhouse might, arguably, have been participating in something that isn’t constitutionally protected; the act of rioting, larceny, assault, and arson falls into those categories. Crossing state lines with the intent, now that is something the federal government could investigate.

The jury found that all the people shot that night had it coming. For a jury to accept self-defense as an acceptable plea to a murder charge, it had to find Rittenhouse reasonably believed his life to be in danger. In the case of Huber, he responded to an assault intended to kill or incapacitate him. Lefty Grosskreutz admitted, under oath, that he was only shot after he pointed his illegal firearm at Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum was a child rapist who quite possibly was driven mad by lust when he attacked Rittenhouse.

The only “dangerous precedent” that could have been set–that would be making it illegal to defend yourself when someone is trying to kill you–was averted by a jury that stood fast against threats and intimidation.

Just because Nadler’s tweet is idiotic doesn’t mean it won’t happen.


Here is what Brandon had to say about this:

I have no doubt the Department of Justice is looking for some way to intervene here. Merrick Garland, you’ll recall, is the guy who labeled parents who attended school board meetings as “domestic terrorists” and sicced the FBI on them in response to urging from the White House. A statement like this will likely have AG Garland trying to scramble to find something, anything to charge Rittenhouse with.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.

Visit Our Sponsors

Visit Our Sponsors