by Ungekürzt (which means unabridged in German, an oblique reference to freedom of speech)
In Frank Capra’s 1939 film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, there’s a battle between the independent media (Boy Stuff) and the mainstream media owned by a corrupt power broker named Taylor.
Taylor is trying to defame newly appointed Senator, Jefferson Smith after Smith threatens to expose his corruption — in particular, that he bought off Senator Payne to approve a dam through graft (a term that’s now out of fashion because the practice of campaign donations from rich donors to politicians is so commonplace now).
Just as Taylor’s newspapers prints lies about Smith to turn public opinion against him, the Democrat political machine is now lying about Kyle Rittenhouse. See “Misinformation About Kyle Rittenhouse Case Floods Social Media, TV Networks” in the Epoch Times.
The mainstream/legacy media (MSM) is following the same pattern we’ve witnessed since 2016 when they attempted to unseat Donald Trump after his surprise win that year. Their main tactic was to smear him with an endless stream of ad hominem attacks and false allegations (e.g., “kids in cages” – which the Trump administration inherited from the Obama era). The MSM now resemble propagandists more than journalists.
Trump famously referred to “the swamp” of corrupt Washington insiders. Some say that Trump’s most important legacy was to expose this corruption, especially in the media, by flushing them out into the open: his “biggest accomplishment may very well be his destruction and exposure of the mainstream news media. A once-trusted fourth estate now lay in self-inflicted ruin.” The more they smeared him, the worse they looked.
Bari Weiss, a former NYT reporter, wrote an excellent criticism of the way the media has fallen to the ‘woke’ ideology and Leftist political bias. She writes “If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
“Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it.”
Indeed, it was the backtracking on the Senator Tom Cotton op-ed, in the NYT, that perhaps more than any other event exposed the new political bias of the MSM. The op-ed called for the use of troops if police were inadequate to quell the 2020 riots. The NYT initially defended the practice of airing different opinions, but then apologized for printing it after a backlash by ‘woke’ staff at the paper. This retraction was a sign of increasing censorship in the media.
Now the MSM is exposing its corruption and duplicity again by smearing Rittenhouse as a “white supremacist” who shot “black men” – even though both allegations are blatantly untrue The race-baiting smear is taken directly from the playbook of Black Lives Matter (BLM), the anti-American Marxist revolutionary group.
Below: In Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Boy Stuff is like the independent conservative media today (e.g., Epoch Times, and in Canada, True North, and Rebel News): a David going up against the Goliath of the Democrat political machine. Boy Stuff reports”Jeff [Smith] Tells the Truth!” while Taylor’s media machine smears him by saying “Smith lies, says Senate.”
The MSM today shamelessly prints lies and censors the truth, to fit a self-serving narrative. An example is the Independent, which falsely reported that he shot three black men:
A famous example (below) of Leftist media bias during the 2020 riots. How can a protest be called “peaceful” when mobs commit arson and assault people?
Adding to the confusion is the fact that the so-called ‘fact checkers’ are co-conspirators in these well-financed propaganda campaigns. They are set up the power brokers to hide the truth, not expose it.
Why is CNN, MSNBC, etc. resorting to such blatantly false smears? They did the same to teenager Nicholas Sandmann a few years ago, and he successfully sued them for libel. You would think they’d have learned their lesson by now, but apparently not.
It is not just the power of ‘woke’ mobs. There is also a lot of money changing hands. The MSM is being paid either directly or indirectly by globalists and the CCP, intent on seeing the destruction of the traditional U.S. Perhaps what the MSM stands to lose in libel cases is much less than what they earn from China to betray American principles?
As one independent journalist who investigated the CCP connections noted, “A number of major US media outlets have financial ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it shows in their coverage. Despite the CCP’s record of oppression, corporate media outlets are parroting the authoritarian government’s propaganda, even in the midst of an outbreak the CCP worsened through a cover-up. Many of those media outlets have financial ties to Chinese companies with intense oversight from the CCP
“You often see representatives from American companies with financial ties to China naturally become defenders of the CCP’s policies and spreading the CCP’s propaganda,” said Helen Raleigh, an author and senior contributor at The Federalist who emigrated from China. “The financial tie means these Americans will be much less likely to challenge China’s human rights record or unacceptable demand such as technology transfer.”
Why would the CCP want the MSM to smear individuals as racists? We know from KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov that inflaming racial tensions through allegations of “racism” and by labeling people as “white supremacists” (even when they’re not) is a key tactic in asymmetrical warfare conducted by Communist regimes (including China) against the U.S, going back to the 1960s.
Below: Chinese propaganda posters from the 1960s, promoting black people to revolutionary struggle against imperial capitalist’ oppressors.’ The one in the middle is directed at black Americans, to encourage protest against the Vietnam war, being waged against Communists in that country:
To smear someone perceived as a political opponent is de rigueur for the legacy media today – but it is nothing new. The roots of the practice are as old as history itself. Scapegoating has been identified by theologian Rene Girard as a root cause of sacrificial violence in religious traditions.
The Left is a religion of a kind, one that relies on scapegoating. It demands unconditional surrender, much like traditional religion: “Leftism is not just against traditional religion; it has replaced it. It is its own religion. And, like all religions, it excludes adherence to any competing value system. It is its religious nature that has made its believers so fiercely defensive. It is why they cannot stand disagreement. Those who disagree are not just wrong, they’re blasphemers, heretics, and apostates who must be dealt with accordingly.”
Scapegoating as a political ritual
Scapegoating is a central ritual for Leftists; without it they become very frustrated, even to the point of creating hoaxes to feed their narrative because “the demand for bigots exceeds the supply.“
It irks the Democrats that Rittenhouse was acquitted because Leftist ideology depends on scapegoating to vent aggression and to maintain their power. For them, he was the perfect scapegoat: he shot three BLM rioters, he is white and male, and was armed.
The fact that the initial shooting was of a violent mentally deranged man who was threatening to kill everyone at the riot is immaterial to them. The other two shootings happened after the first one, as a mob formed to beat up Rittenhouse. All three were in self-defense.
Conservative pundit Matt Walsh picked up this when he tweeted: “The verdict is right and just but Kyle Rittenhouse never should have been on trial at all. Now the media will go to work, like the demons they are, to ensure that Kenosha burns because they did not get their blood sacrifice.”
Just as the fictional Taylor political machine exposed itself by becoming desperate to smear Smith, an innocent man, we can media corruption exposed when they try to smear Rittenhouse.
Scapegoating the innocent is always the undoing of tyrants, far more than the use of force because no power on Earth is as strong as the truth. Tyrants, for a time, will try to claim they are good and speak the truth, but they always fall in the end when their lies are exposed.
Rittenhouse carried a rifle (legally) because he was defending a car lot in Kenosha, Illinois. He ended up doing did what many Americans wanted the police to do: stand up to the mobs. He was unafraid. He is also politically neutral, from a working-class background, hardworking, and seemingly honest – much like Jefferson Smith, as revealed in the interview below, Appendix E.
Communism, which is wholly evil, only maintains its power by fear and use of force and through lies. We are witnessing an attempt by the Democrats and media to turn the U.S. into a Communist nation, and the effort of American patriots to oppose them. The Rittenhouse trial is symbolic of that struggle, which is why it’s so politically divisive.
Exposing the tyranny of political elites by showing their persecution of the innocent is a power that tyrants fear. It marks them as evil, though they try desperately to appear good.
Below: Ayanna Pressley is a Congresswoman who called for violent unrest with the phrase “There needs to be a riot in the streets.” Also below: a tweet from Joe Biden attempting to scapegoat both Trump and Rittenhouse, posted in the summer of 2020, prior to the U.S. election.
Many are advising Rittenhouse to sue all those who have defamed him in this way.
A pandemic of media lies
Since 2020, the MSM has lied to us about Covid-19 in an orchestrated propaganda campaign to make us believe it was a deadly pandemic that justified destroying all our lives through lockdowns and now medical segregation. Social media and so-called ‘fact checkers’ are also full participants in this propaganda and censorship campaign.
Their desperation to promote lies made many of us wary of what lay behind the push for the ‘vaccine.’ The media propaganda made millions of people worldwide question why they would go to such lengths for what should be a voluntary medical treatment, no different (theoretically) than a flu shot.
We are daily exposed to MSM propaganda about Covid-19, which later turns out to be false. Here is an example:
“The Washington Post has become the latest media outlet to reverse its earlier insistence that the Wuhan lab leak theory was a “debunked conspiracy theory. The newspaper published an article in February 2020 . . . labeling the explanation a “debunked conspiracy theory” but has now been forced to issue a retraction:
“Earlier versions of this story and its headline inaccurately characterized comments by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) regarding the origins of the coronavirus,” states the retraction. “The term “debunked” and the Post’s use of “conspiracy theory” have been removed because, then as now, there was no determination about the origins of the virus.”
The MSM also lies by omission, as for example, their decision not to report on a study critical of the lockdowns (which the MSM promoted as necessary): “Academic Study Critical of Lockdowns Largely Ignored by Media, Professor Says.“
The MSM ran endless headlines promoting fear and panic over an unremarkable disease, creating mass hysteria in the process, called “fear porn” in one story:
“Over the past year and a half, hysterical media reporting on matters Covid-19 has reduced some people to a fearful state of unquestioning compliance – including a great number of otherwise critically-thinking journalists.
“With screaming headlines in bold and large font such as, ‘Will this nightmare ever end?’ and ‘Mutant virus skyrockets…’ and ‘Fear grows across the country: VIRUS PANIC’, and ‘Coronavirus horror: Social media footage shows infected Wuhan residents ‘act like zombies’, it is no wonder many people are in a state of panic.”
Who exactly was served by MSM lies regarding Covid-19? The CCP, pharmaceutical corporations that profit from the ‘vaccine’, Democrats (in the U.S.), and globalist elites such as those in the so-called Good Club. Together they formed a strong enough coalition (or ‘axis of evil’, to borrow a title from WWII) to control the media response and suppress the truth.
Anyone notable who challenged this narrative was smeared or censored including numerous physicians and scientists who bravely spoke out, even if it meant an end to their careers.
These dissidents exposed the real medical misinformation put out by the media at the behest of pharmaceutical corporations and all those who politically or financially benefit from the Covid restrictions.
The power of the dominant narrative is typically defended by tyrants through censorship and force. Anyone who resorts to censorship has something to hide.
Below: corrupt police, paid by the Taylor machine, in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, turn water cannons on a rally of Montana citizens supporting Smith. They are similar to the police used in Australia, Germany, and Austria to enforce lockdowns and medical tyranny.
Police in Berlin, Germany, used water cannons against a freedom rally (Nov. 2020):
Ordinary citizens at that protest who are sick of medical tyranny.
The importance of historical statues
If statues were not important, Antifa would not have torn them down. The very statues that Jefferson Smith visited and was in awe of (because they venerated America’s founding fathers and represented the principles they stood for — freedom, liberty, democracy, equality) were torn down and defaced by violent mobs in 2020, with impunity.
Police were told not to stop them. The Democrats allowed this to happen in order to demoralize ordinary Americans, as part of a psychological operation to gain power for themselves.
Rittenhouse is a lone hero who prevailed against a powerful and corrupt political machine – a machine that supports the desecration of America and the rule of law. His actions resonated with millions of patriotic Americans sick of watching revolutionary mobs destroy the symbols of a great country and get away with it.
The Democrats were also on trial
The Rittenhouse case is important for the domestic enemies of America (Democrats, MSM) because his acquittal sends a message that an armed defense against Antifa/BLM mobs is lawful.
Rittenhouse is symbolic, for those on both sides of the culture war, of the lone American hero who stands against a corrupt system, the stuff of movies (e.g. Gary Cooper in High Noon; Clint Eastwood in Pale Rider). The American hero is an older and better myth than the Marxist mythology spun by Bernie Sanders.
Rittenhouse punctures the Democrat’s cultural Marxist narrative, just as Smith threatened to expose the graft of the Taylor machine. This is why they have tried to smear Rittenhouse (falsely and unjustly) as a “white supremacist” — to hide their own treason.
The Democrats have become the domestic enemies of America. Lawmakers are sworn to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, but they have failed. Many have said that a 17-year-old boy did more to protect the country in a few moments than anyone else.
Police were told to stand down by corrupt, fearful politicians. Militias declined to not get involved, not wishing to take the bait, knowing the media would falsely smear them as “white supremacists.”
In 2020, the CCP strategists were so desperate for a race war to erupt in the U.S. that they sent AK-47s to a black militia in Kentucky, in order to provoke the largely white militias to respond (they did not). Some of the arms were intercepted by officials and some made it to the black militia, who paraded with them:
Rittenhouse walked into the vacuum left by the absence of the police (who were told to do nothing) and patriotic militias. For this, he is a national hero, but also a divisive figure because the USA is a nation divided between those who believe in its founding principles and ideals (as enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights) and those who want it to become a socialist nation — which inevitably will mean a Communist nation run by tyrants.
While many Democrat voters and young people who supported Bernie Sanders envisage the future of the country as something like Scandinavia (Democrat Socialism), that’s just wishful thinking. It will be more like Communist China, run by a partnership of large corporations and a corrupt authoritarian state that can only maintain power through terror.
Gulags and genocide could well be the future of the U.S. and Canada if this trajectory is not stopped in its tracks now. Rittenhouse, though personally unassuming and seemingly apolitical, is a symbol for many of hope for the free world.
The CCP model is what’s really being planned for the entire world, though the U.S. is certainly a key objective, inasmuch as it symbolizes freedom for the world.
I am reminded of the great film Red Dawn (1984) in which a group of teens defends America from an outright Communist invasion. The actual Communist invasion is taking place now but many are not aware of it because it’s hidden behind the trojan horse of a public health scare.
Just as “the Taylor machine” wants to tear down Smith because Taylor’s corrupt empire is threatened by him, the Leftist media is against Rittenhouse because the Democrat political machine is seen as being on trial.
The Democrats supported the BLM/Antifa riots, even bailing them out of jail, deciding to not prosecute them, and then making sure they got positive media coverage.
Democrat hypocrisy was apparent to all when the Democrat machine came down hard on the Jan. 6 protestors but cleared all those who perpetrated the much more violent 2020 rioters. The Jan. 6 debacle was then later exposed as a false flag event, as America’s Reichstag fire.
Before that they also demonstrated hypocrisy during the riots; as James Woods said, “Democrats were literally arresting Americans for opening their businesses, but now are silent as protesters burn them down. You were fined for worshipping in your church, but now cheered for marching in screaming crowds.”
The Second Amendment
The current federal government, which is taking the U.S. on a Communist trajectory, in cooperation with the CCP’s asymmetrical war on America, seeks to disarm Americans and remove their ability to defend themselves.
Looking at the medical tyranny now taking place in Australia (endless lockdowns) and Austria (medical segregation) persuades a good many Americans that arming themselves defensively against violent mobs and the state is the right thing to do, and is consistent with the spirit of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The “right to bear arms” is considered a threat by Democrats; they want a population that’s disarmed and subjugated, the better with which to impose dictatorial rule.
When Rittenhouse was cleared of the weapons charge, that was as important as the acquittal itself because it affirmed the validity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights.
The McCloskeys defend their home from the violent BLM/Antifa mobs who burned down several American cities and murdered dozens of people during the 2020 riots. They were brought up on gun charges by a Democrat-influenced prosecutor, just as Rittenhouse was.
Many online comments say, Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, did what grown men have failed to do: stand up to the thugs destroying American cities. Those thugs (BLM/Antifa) were paid to do this by Democrats and they received logistical support from the CCP.
The Rittenhouse trial not guilty verdict is just not just because he had a right to self-defense against three men seeking to harm him. It is just because of what it means politically for the U.S. and the world. His actions and trial are a symbol to the world of the right of the individual to defend himself and his right to a fair trial.
The Democrats and media wanted a “blood sacrifice” and did not get it, because the jury stood up for truth, despite the fear of the mob they must have experienced.
The right to a fair trial is one of the cornerstones of a decent society (see Appendix D below). There have been two high-profile trials in the U.S. that ended in unjust verdicts because the jury was afraid of the mobs threatening to burn down cities: the O.J. Simpson trial and the Derek Chauvin trial.
Simpson was acquitted even though there was substantial evidence of his guilt, and in the second the conviction was unjust because a fentanyl overdose killed George Floyd. Chauvin’s was a political show trial and his conviction was an appeasement to the Left. The jury knew that an acquittal would have resulted in more race riots.
I would not have been surprised had Rittenhouse been convicted by a jury that was terrified of the Democrat political machine. But, to their credit, stood up to the mob and the corrupt MSM by rendering a verdict based on the facts.
There is a concerted attempt to disarm Americans, to pave the way for a corporate Communist dictatorship, similar to China’s. Everything endorsed by the Democrats in the last few years points to that conclusion: lockdowns and medical tyranny, orchestrated riots, the Jan. 6 show trial (America’s Reichstag Fire, resulting in political prisoners).
Militias are necessary to protect against the rise of real tyranny — such as what we’re witnessing now — have been silent and inactive. Why? They believed that if they showed any force against the rioters, for example, that the corrupt MSM would label them terrorists — just as the Jan. 6 protestors were labeled. They were probably right. Even for just doing open carry demonstrations they were falsely labeled “white supremacists” and terrorists – just as Rittenhouse was in the media.
The right to bear arms is an important part of American law and its political identity, and what’s been called “American Civil Religion.” It’s important for one reason only: to stop tyrants from taking over, just as they are trying to do now.
Every tyrant of modern times (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot) has disarmed the population as a prelude to despotism. They raided the McCloskey home and took their firearms. They put Rittenhouse on trial for murder. The sub-text of the Rittenhouse cases is whether citizens are permitted to arm and defend themselves.
The Democrats, like the Communists and fascists of the 20th century, would prefer that they not have that right. It would make their job of turning the USA into a Communist country much easier.
Right now, medical tyranny has descended on Australia, and many there and in the U.S. lament the disarmament of that country a few years ago. It has given police the ability to subjugate an entire population. Australia, New Zealand, Austria, and many other countries are now under fascist rule.
The USA has always been different. The population is well-armed and there is a strong feeling among some 75 million Americans against the attempts of the Democrats to turn the country into a dictatorship. Many have spoken of the possibility of secession and civil war. It might happen.
The alternative is the slow death of the U.S. due to the endless culture war, which the Democrats, with the help of the CCP, want to end by labeling 75 patriotic Americans “insurrections.”
But it is the right of all Americans to resist tyranny. The U.S.A. was founded on principles of freedom and liberty, which are now being threatened. The Second Amendment was written just for this reason.
Thomas Jefferson endorse periodic resistance against state tyranny when he wrote: “what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms . . . The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
When Jefferson Smith visits the Lincoln Memorial he reads the Gettysburg Address, inscribed there in stone, for the ages, in defense of liberty:
We now risk losing a “government of the people by the people for the people” if Communism is successful in conquering America. As Ronald Reagan said, “We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
Fortunately, the jury in the Rittenhouse cases was not cowed by the threat of violent riots. They stood for truth and the freedom to defend oneself. The acquittal meant there are still fair trials in America, not only political show trials — like the Chauvin trial or Jan. 6 trials.
The 2020 riots were not about racism at all; that was a lie. They were acts of domestic terrorism designed to destabilize American society. They were acts of asymmetric warfare that got sanctions from the corrupt Democrats and logistical support from the Chinese Communist Party. That’s why the Chinese Embassy in Houston TX was raided.
Before the verdict was in, political hopeful Jackson Lahmeyer, who is running for Congress, lamented that “our nation is living upside down right now” because a “mass murderer” like Dr. Anthony Fauci is walking around free while “an American hero” like Kyle Rittenhouse might wind up in prison.” He lamented that BLM had “threatened the jurors,” he said (based on reports of the same).
“Kyle Rittenhouse, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of people, is an American hero,” Lahmeyer added. “He’s a patriot. He defended his community. He defended himself.”
Rittenhouse was acquitted, despite the best efforts of the corrupt, anti-American media to smear and convict him in the court of public opinion. That acquittal is a symbol of hope for many Americans who have despaired at the loss of their country to Communism and medical tyranny.
A: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, transcript of a key scene and links to film
B: David and Goliath
C: email from Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother thanking supporters
D: essay on the right to a fair and open trial
E: Tucker Carlson commentary and interview on Rittenhouse case
F: Statements from President Trump
G: Babylon Bee satire
H: Epoch Times article on media defamations against Rittenhouse
Appendix A: Mr. Smith Goes to Washington scene in which Saunders inspires Smith to get back into the fight. The movie can be viewed in full, online, at these three links: one, two, three.
[Saunders meets Smith at the Lincoln Memorial]
Saunders: I had a hunch I’d find you here when you weren’t anyplace else . . . Well, I see by the papers you certainly got to be a Senator. [a reference to the fact that he was railroaded by false allegations, a campaign of dirty tricks to discredit him]
Smith: You had the right idea about me when you told me to go back home and fill those kids full of hooey. [I’m] just a simple guy, still wet behind the ears, full of a lot of junk about American ideals. A lot of junk all right.
Saunders: Now look, Senator…
Smith: This is a whole new world to me. What are you going to believe in when a man like Senator Joseph Paine gets up and swears that I’ve been robbing kids of nickels and dimes? A man I’ve admired and worshipped all my life. There are a lot of fancy words here [at the Memorial]. Some of them are carved in stone, some of them men like Taylor put up there. So suckers like me could read them. Then you find out what those men actually do. I’m getting out of this town so fast. Away from all the words, the monuments, the whole rotten show.
Saunders: I see. What will you tell the kids back home?
Smith: The truth. They might as well find out now as later.
Saunders: I don’t think they’ll believe you. They’re liable to look at you with hurt faces and say: “Jeff, what did you do? Quit? Didn’t you do something about it?”
Smith: What do you expect me to do? An honorary stooge like me against the Taylors and Paines, the machines, and the lies.
Saunders: Your friend Mr. Lincoln had his Taylors and Paines. So did every man who ever tried to lift his thought up off the ground. Odds against them didn’t stop them. They were fools that way. All the good in this world came from fools with faith like that. You can’t quit now. Not you. They aren’t all Taylors and Paines. That kind just throws big shadows. You didn’t just have faith in Paine or any other man. It was bigger than that. You had plain, decent, everyday common rightness. This country could use some of that. So could the whole cock-eyed world. A lot of it. Remember the first day you got here? What did you say about Mr. Lincoln? You said he was sitting there waiting for someone. You were right. He was waiting for a man who could see his job and sail into it. A man who could tear into the Taylors and root them out into the open. I think he was waiting for you, Jeff. He knows you can do it, so do I.
Smith: Do what, Saunders?
Saunders: Say you won’t quit and I’ll tell you. I’ve been thinking about it all day. It’s a forty-foot dive into a tub of water, but I think you can do it.
Smith: Clarissa, where can we get a drink?
Saunders: Now you’re talking.
[and they go to plan the filibuster which Smith uses to shame Paine into admitting the truth of the graft he’s involved in with Taylor, exposing the corruption of Washington – which today is still a normal practice in American politics, unfortunately]
Appendix B: David and Goliath 1 Samuel 17:41-51
. . . the Philistine, with his shield-bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”
David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”
As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground. So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand, he struck down the Philistine and killed him. David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
Appendix C: email from Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother thanking supporters
“Kyle was just ACQUITTED and is now officially FREE! This was a victory for the truth, for justice, and for every American’s God-given and unalienable right of self-defense. We are so overcome with emotion, and as hard as that was, we are thankful.
“We are thankful for the millions of Americans who stood with Kyle from the start. We are thankful for the many others who watched the trial with an open mind, realized that they had been lied to for a year and a half, and spoke out. And we are thankful to the jury which put aside bias, considered the facts, and came to the right decision.
“Now, we will try to return to something that resembles a normal life – however that requires one more major push to settle our case-related debts and pay off what we hope will be our final legal bills. So please, take all that positive energy I know you’re feeling and make an urgent donation to help us close this very ugly chapter in our lives . . . for now, and from the bottom of our hearts – thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Appendix D: The Right to a Fair Trial from Fairtrials.org
Fair trials are the only way to prevent miscarriages of justice and are an essential part of a just society. Every person accused of a crime should have their guilt or innocence determined by a fair and effective legal process. However, it goes further than protecting suspects and defendants, without fair trials, victims can have no confidence that justice will be done. Without fair trials, trust in government and the rule of law collapses.
The Right to a Fair Trial is recognized internationally as a fundamental human right and countries are required to respect it. Despite this, it is being abused across the world with devastating human and social consequences. We are working to put an end to these abuses, towards realizing our vision of a world where every person’s right to a fair trial is respected.
The right to a fair trial is not new, but the scale and nature of the challenge is. The number of people directly affected by criminal justice is growing with new offenses created every day and increasing numbers being jailed. Countries are developing swifter ways of imposing punishments, often without a trial; the global “war on terror” and flawed political talk of “rebalancing” criminal justice systems to make us safer has had a corrosive effect; dictators and authoritarian regimes are finding new ways of using criminal justice as a tool of oppression, and human rights face new threats from increasing cross-border cooperation to fight crime.
The Rule of Law ensures every person is subject to the same laws and that nobody, however rich or powerful, is above the law. This basic principle is crucial to the right to a fair trial because it creates a level playing field and guarantees equality.
In countries governed by the Rule of Law, actions are only criminal if they are prohibited by laws that have been created publicly following a proper process. This gives people clarity about what is and is not permitted in society and avoids arbitrary punishment. The Rule of Law means that new criminal laws can only apply to future actions and cannot have retrospective effect. In other words, if your actions are not prohibited when they are carried out, they are not unlawful.
The Rule of Law requires criminal laws to be enforced in a uniform way. For some suspects, this can mean that special measures are needed to give them a fair chance to present a defense. Non-nationals, for example, may need interpretation and children may need additional support so that they can participate effectively in the trial.
Impartial and independent courts are at the heart of the right to a fair trial. This ensures that those deciding whether a person has committed a criminal offense are neutral and are making a fair assessment of the facts. The courts must themselves be created by and subject to the law to ensure independence and prevent arbitrariness.
While the right to a fair trial exists to minimize mistakes, no justice system invariably produces the right outcome. For this reason, people must have the right of appeal to a higher court. This is needed to redress injustice and to uphold society’s faith in the integrity of the justice system. It is also fundamental for ensuring consistency, fairness, and uniform interpretation of the law.
Liberty is central to what it means to be human and is a fundamental human right in itself. It is also at the heart of the right to a fair trial because, in most countries, imprisonment (the deprivation of liberty) is the ultimate criminal sanction. This punishment can only be justified following a fair and equal legal process.
The start of criminal proceedings is often marked by police arrest. This temporary loss of liberty may be entirely justified and authorized by law, but arbitrary arrests have long been a feature of dictatorships and remain common today. To protect against this, people taken into custody must be given reasons for their arrest and be taken promptly before a court. The right for detainees to test the legality of their detention in court (sometimes known as “Habeas Corpus”) is also an important safeguard against torture.
Extended periods of pre-trial detention are also common for people that have not been convicted of any criminal offence, many of whom will ultimately be cleared of any wrongdoing. This can be justified to ensure vital evidence is preserved or to protect witnesses but if not strictly necessary, pre-trial detention violates the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence. People also have a right to be tried without undue delay to minimise pre-trial detention and reduce the human impact of criminal proceedings.
People in detention are entitled to humane conditions where their essential needs are met and, except in extreme circumstances and for a limited time, have a right of access to the outside world, including the right to communicate with family and a lawyer. This is not only crucial to a person’s well-being, but is an important safeguard against mistreatment, which is common for people in incommunicado detention and is crucial to give people a fair chance to present a defense.
A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty. Therefore, the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence.
Due to the presumption of innocence, a person cannot be compelled to confess guilt or give evidence against themselves. It is for the state to produce evidence of guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence. In general, therefore, a suspect’s silence should not be used as evidence of guilt.
Because of the serious consequences of conviction, the state must prove guilt to a high standard. If doubt remains, the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt and cleared because the state’s “burden of proof” has not been met.
Given the massive human impact of criminal proceedings on defendants, and the presumption of innocence, trials should take place without undue delay. It would be unfair to allow states numerous attempts to try to secure a conviction. If a case goes to trial and guilt is not proved, unless exceptional circumstances exist, the person should not be tried again. This requires the state to do the job of prosecution properly in the first instance.
The presumption of innocence is why, before conviction, any restrictions on a suspect’s basic rights, for example, the right to liberty, should only be imposed where absolutely necessary. People awaiting trial have not been convicted of any offense and many will ultimately be cleared.
Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. This is one reason why, except in rare cases, people are entitled to a public hearing. Open justice enables the public to see how justice is administered and by subjecting it to public and press scrutiny, safeguards the fairness of the trial. This is also why people are entitled to a reasoned judgment that has been made public.
Open justice requires people to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and any pre-trial detention (to safeguard liberty). They must also be given information on their rights as a suspect. Without this information, conveyed in a language the person understands, rights that exist in law are illusory in practice.
People should be told what they are being prosecuted for and shown the evidence against them, in a language they understand. Without this information, a person will not have a fair chance to present a defense, for example by gathering evidence to counter claims made against them or providing alibi evidence.
The right to a fair trial also requires that people charged with offenses be allowed to attend court and to participate effectively in the trial. This enables the court to interact with them and allows the person to hear and respond to the prosecution case. Defendants are entitled to give evidence and, except in exceptional cases, are also entitled to call witnesses and cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
A person charged with a criminal offense faces the overwhelming power of the state. The right to a fair trial, therefore, requires that the defendant be given a fair chance to present a defense in order to counteract this imbalance. This requirement for “equality of arms” is inherent to the presumption of innocence and the Rule of Law.
Access to a lawyer is crucial to this and this right starts from the point of arrest and through the trial itself. People need access to legal advice so that they can understand the case against them. If a defendant has the means to pay, they should be able to choose their own lawyer. If the person cannot afford to pay for their own lawyer, where the interests of justice requires, the state should provide free legal assistance.
A person facing criminal charges must have the time and facilities to prepare a defense. This right exists at all stages of the proceedings and encompasses the right to documents, files, and information as well as a guarantee of confidential communication with counsel (see Open Justice). Although undue delays in criminal proceedings often contradict the right to a fair trial, fast-track trials can also deny people a fair chance to present a defence.
Crucially, during the trial itself, people must have a fair chance to present a defense under conditions that do not place them at a disadvantage versus their opponent. This will require the free assistance of an interpreter if the person cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The person should be allowed to be present at hearings which is also crucial to open justice and should be given the chance to make a statement. Except in exceptional circumstances, people must also be given the right to call witnesses and examine or have examined witnesses in the same manner as the prosecution.
Appendix E: Tucker Carlson commentary
Appendix F: Statements From President Trump
Of course, the irony is that if the National Guard had been deployed during the BLM riots, it’s unlikely that Rittenhouse would even be in this position. Democrats and their allies in the media have pushed the narrative that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. However, all the evidence (including the eyewitness testimonies of the prosecution) proves that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Do not be surprised if this is a unanimous “innocent” verdict.
GREAT NEWS FOR KYLE RITTENHOUSE, who we knew was innocent all along.
This trial was nothing more than a WITCH HUNT from the Radical Left. They want to PUNISH law-abiding citizens, including a CHILD, like Kyle Rittenhouse, for doing nothing more than following the LAW.
Biden and his cronies are trying to DESTROY all the great progress we made under President Trump’s administration, but TODAY, THIS CASE has shown them that America is a Nation of LAW AND ORDER.
Let us be clear, Friend, we cannot allow the Democrats to RUIN all of our great progress. That’s why President Trump is calling on YOU to step up and STAND WITH US.
President Trump wants a list of EVERY Patriot who contributes to this email in the NEXT HOUR.
Appendix G: Babylon Bee satire – Media Found Guilty On All Counts
In a verdict that surprised both the prosecution, defense, and judge, the jury for the Rittenhouse trial declared that the Media be found guilty on all counts.
The courtroom fell silent as the jury foreman stood to read the verdict, “We the jury find the media guilty on all counts, including the egregious use of its influence to lie to the American people.”
The jury then listed guilty verdicts for the following allegations:
- Painting an innocent American teenager as a white supremacist terrorist.
- Painting violent, communist criminals as peaceful, innocent victims.
- Using its influence to sow painful divisions in the greatest nation on Earth.
- Using minorities as pawns in race-baiting schemes just for ratings.
- Inciting violence on vulnerable neighborhoods and minority-owned businesses.
- Giving an entire show to Brian Stelter.
Upon hearing the verdicts, the judge summarily sentenced the Media to continue its inevitable decline in viewership and trust, until they either strive for objective journalism or disappear entirely.
Following the verdicts and sentencing, the Media immediately reported to the American people that a murderous white supremacist terrorist was set free, given a KKK outfit and bazooka, and told to kill, kill, kill
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Appendix H: “Misinformation About Kyle Rittenhouse Case Floods Social Media, TV Networks” by Zachary Stieber, Epoch Times, Nov. 22, 2021
“Kyle Rittenhouse shot three black men.”
“Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines with a gun.”
“Kyle Rittenhouse had an AK-47.”
These are three examples of false information being spread about Rittenhouse, whose trial ended last week with his acquittal.
Prominent influencers, including lawmakers and reporters, are sources of some of the misinformation—possibly disinformation—leaving experts troubled.
On CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, reporter Mark Strassman falsely said Rittenhouse “drove in from Illinois armed for battle.” On CNN’s “Cuomo Prime Time” on Friday, Harvard University professor Cornell William Brooks falsely said Rittenhouse was carrying an AK-47. The Independent falsely reported late last week that Rittenhouse shot three black men.
Rittenhouse, 17 years old at the time, shot three men, two fatally, with an AR-15 in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020. All were white, as is Rittenhouse. The gun was bought by a friend and was picked up by the teenager, who resided in Illinois, from a home in Kenosha.
Rittenhouse claimed self-defense and the jury agreed, clearing him of all charges after video footage and witness testimony during the trial showed he was attacked by all of the men he shot.
“As soon as the Rittenhouse situation happened in Kenosha, the establishment media immediately created a narrative that would work with their particular, preferred narrative. As we now know, that led to a good many mischaracterizations and errors at that time,” Jeffrey McCall, a communications professor at DePauw University, told The Epoch Times in an email.
[NB – It should be noted that the ‘preferred narrative’ is anti-American, anti-white, anti-individual rights, anti-Christian, anti-male, and Marxist collectivist revolutionary. It feeds off of false stereotypes.
Leftism is a political ideology that has been likened to a religion.
Journalism has been corrupted by this political bias and worldview, to the extent that most mainstream media ‘journalists’ are now little more than propagandists committed to ‘social justice’ rather than the truth. These are mutually exclusive goals. ‘Social justice’ stems from a set of ideals that on the surface sounds good, and lures many in, but in practice ends up contributing to Communism: the violent rule of an elite over the masses.]
“By now, those media outlets are so committed to that narrative that they can’t drag themselves to correct previous errors or provide accurate details today. This not only reflects that some media outlets work with predetermined, ideological narratives, but that they are also too lazy to report facts as provided in the actual trial,” he added.
Ryan Chittum, a former journalist, and media critic with the Columbia Journalism Review, said that some of the legacy news outlets have done excellent journalism on the Rittenhouse case, including the New Yorker, “but it’s been like a few drops in a firehouse of tendentious, false, and often malicious press coverage intended to fit an ideological narrative.”
“On balance, the press has been a destructive force on this story, from its beginnings in the coverage of the Jacob Blake shooting that set the whole thing off and which we know was justified, to the downplaying of the $50 million in destruction done by rioters in Kenosha, to the libelous portrayal of Rittenhouse and the particulars of what happened,” he told The Epoch Times in a Twitter message. “There have been innumerable journalistic disasters in the Trump era, but this is the most blatantly reckless one of them all.”
Rittenhouse shot the men during riots that followed a police officer shooting Jacob Blake in the same city.
Blake was armed with a knife. Video footage showed he resisted arrest after visiting the home of an ex-girlfriend who had previously accused him of sexual assault.
Prosecutors decided not to charge the officer in January because he appeared to act in self-defense and the Department of Justice last month announced it was closing a probe and filing no charges. The sexual assault charge was dropped last year.
Blake survived the shooting, though he is partially paralyzed. Some people falsely said last week that he died, including ESPN’s Jalen Rose and ABC’s Terry Moran.
“I misspoke and quickly corrected myself, on the air, as soon as I could. I apologize for the error,” Moran wrote on Twitter.
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, claimed Blake died and that he was unarmed.
The committee later sent out an updated statement from Maloney. “Apologies,” Chris Hayden, its communication director, wrote on Twitter.
The Maloney statement stood out to Jeffrey Blevins, a professor in the University of Cincinnati’s Department of Journalism who is working on a book about how misinformation is spread.
“I think a lot of times the political left tend to think that false information, fake news, misinformation, is something that is only attributable to the political right. And that’s just simply not the case,” Blevins told The Epoch Times.
While people with small followings may put forth misinformation, much more damage is done when higher-profile influencers such as lawmakers do.
“When we think about influencers—and politicians fit into this category, certainly the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee—their official account would be seen as a credible source,” he said. “When they put something out like this, it tends to stick with people’s minds.”
The false claims have had the potential to reach tens of millions of people on Twitter, where they were spread far and wide. The ESPN, CBS, CNN, and ABC shows combined have millions of viewers.
Among those falling prey to the misinformation or dubious claims were two professors who have been cited by media outlets as experts in identifying it.
Lisa Fazio, a Vanderbilt psychology professor, shared a video of Amber Ruffin, who has her own show on NBC, making multiple false or evidence-free claims, including the assertion that Rittenhouse brought a rifle across state lines. That video has been watched over 7.7 million times since Nov. 19, getting boosted by the likes of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
Shannon McGregor, a professor at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, shared a tweet that called Rittenhouse “openly white supremacist,” a claim that has no evidence supporting it.
Blevins said the situation reminds him of what happened in 2019 when a brief, tightly edited video clip from Washington was disseminated widely by media and others.
Nick Sandmann, a Kentucky high school student, was in the nation’s capital with classmates. The clip was used to falsely state Sandmann confronted a Native American, Nathan Phillips, but video footage that later emerged showed the exact opposite was the case. Many media outlets issued corrections, and some paid Sandmann to settle defamation lawsuits.
The person who initially posted the clip had a small following, but it was widely spread, Blevins noted.
“People seem to be so eager to bring their hot take to social media, which is probably what happened in this case, and then you miss important pieces of context, and it can really do some damage,” he said.
Blevins encouraged people to be more cautious, recalling what he did when the clip initially emerged. He waited, instead of sharing it or posting about it, knowing that in the past unconfirmed material was spread wildly but was later shown to be incorrect.
CBS couldn’t be reached. ESPN declined to comment. Twitter, CNN, Brooks, The Independent, Fazio, McGregor, and Omar did not respond to requests for comment.