During the BLM riots in the summer of 2020, an armed citizen was attacked by violent rioters, and he defended himself successfully. Kyle Rittenhouse used his firearm to repel three attackers, killing two of them and injuring a third. The white BLM rioters all had disturbing criminal histories, and threatened, chased, and physically attacked the armed teen before being shot. At least one of the attackers had a pistol and raised it to Rittenhouse before being shot. Rittenhouse demonstrated exemplary trigger and muzzle discipline, far exceeding what we’ve come to expect from American law enforcement officers, who often fire dozens of rounds at peaceful people, shoot the wrong people, and handle their firearms with extreme carelessness. 

The state of Wisconsin government charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree homicide, and first-degree reckless homicide. During the trial, the prosecutor (the government lawyer) told the jury that Kyle acted recklessly with his AR-15. Binger even picked up the rifle used in the incident, aimed it at the jury, and put his finger on the trigger, demonstrating that he was the reckless one. Binger also earned the scorn of the judge for multiple acts of malfeasance, including berating Kyle for invoking his 5th amendment right to remain silent when he was arrested. 

The media coverage was so biased throughout the case that even many leftists are now waking up. The anti-freedom Pravda media has been so biased that they never showed pictures of the attackers, mentioned that they were white, or mentioned that they were not saints (they were child rapists and violent felons and mental patients). Everybody assumed that the attackers were black! Maybe because the media persistently referred to Rittenhouse as a white supremacist?

The one attacker who survived admitted to the jury that Rittenhouse did not shoot him until he raised his pistol to him, which sealed the deal for a self-defense case.

After four days of deliberation, the jury returned with a verdict of not-guilty for all counts.

This story has been analyzed by countless authors, and there is no need for me to re-litigate it. 

I will simply mention my unique thoughts about this case. 

Throughout the trial, the prosecutors made it clear that they were seeking to punish guns and self-defense, not just Rittenhouse.

The radical leftists made it very clear that they were trying to intimidate the jury. They said that if the jury did not convict, they would burn down everything. Many anti-freedom activists stalked the jurors and tried to reveal their identities. An MSNBC reporter was caught following the jurors and was banned from the courtroom. These threats alone should have caused the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice.

For decades, leftists and feminists have been shrieking that women can wear whatever they want, regardless of the venue or even of their age (they encourage school children to dress like prostitutes, because it’s ‘empowering’). Whenever a conservative mentions that maybe a girl should not wear a miniskirt and a bra to a frat party and get drunk if she wants no sexual experience, the feminist attacks them for insinuating that the girl was ‘asking for it’. “Just because she is sexy and wore provocative clothing and got drunk at a frat party and made out with 17 guys doesn’t mean she was asking for anything! Sexual assault is still wrong!”, they say. And they are right. Violations of a person’s body are wrong under any circumstances. 

However, because Kyle did bring a firearm with him to protect a local business from being looted like it was during a previous BLM riot, he was responsible for putting himself into that situation. So, he deserved to be killed, and he was wrong to fight back against his assailants. That is now what the left is saying. “Who brings a gun to a riot?!?! He must have wanted to kill someone!”

Do you know why journalists always make sure to call suspects “alleged/suspected/defendant” and never “murderer/felon/convicted” unless and until they are actually convicted by a jury? Because such a clear-cut and malicious lie is grounds for a lawsuit for libel, a type of defamation. At least that’s how the world used to work. In the ‘new normal’ of 2021, though, all of the old rules no longer apply. Not only have anti-freedom leftists been calling Kyle a murderer for months while he was only a defendant in a homicide case and legally innocent until proven guilty, but they have continued to do so after the jury found him to be innocent. Under normal circumstances, this would be grounds for an easy libel case. But what happens when the president of the united states says that he is “angry and concerned” that the jury didn’t convict Rittenhouse? What happens when the Party in control of the government says that the jurors are idiots who got it wrong and that Kyle Rittenhouse is an evil murderer? Meanwhile, the other half of the people in the united states are lauding Rittenhouse for standing up to violent BLM rioters when they attacked him. 

And this brings us to my conclusion: One nation cannot survive if its people are so divided on such important matters. As I have said countless times over the past few years, and I have explained in multiple books and hundreds of articles, the citizens of the united states are as divided as any people could possibly be. 

Right now, Democrat leaders and voters want Rittenhouse, and probably every gun owner to be punished or killed. Conservatives and libertarians want the natural rights to self-defense and gun ownership to be unrestricted by tyrants. How could 330 million people live together peacefully in ‘one country’ when the laws are guaranteed to be intolerable to at least half of the people?