Unless you’re living under a rock, you should be aware of the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense case and his subsequent not guilty verdict. If you’re one of those individuals that’s tapped into the news nearly 24-7, the news tickers on your smart devices should have been going bananas on November 19th when the jury’s verdict was announced. Interesting thing to note was that the New York Times and CNN all used the verbiage “acquittal” in their hooks, while FOX and other right to center sources said Rittenhouse was found “not guilty”. Perhaps this is semantics but plays right into the hand of the progressive anti-freedom agenda.

The not guilty verdict for Rittenhouse was exactly what the progressives wanted. They have a new bogeyman when it comes to self-defense. The stage has been set and it’s being set at a pivotal time in our history. The act of self-defense has been vilified by the mass media in order to sway public opinion on the topic. Why this is important is due to the Supreme Court having heard the NYSRPA v. Bruen case, one which directly correlates to one’s individual right to possess firearms for self-defense outside the home. The media has and continues to run interference on that case and Rittenhouse gives them the ammunition they need to scare the public at large, whom might not be as in tuned to the laws of self-defense. This is what happens to you when you self-defend. You become ensnared in a media circus.

Almost a week prior to the verdict announcement, the New York Times put out an article setting the stage for what they probably knew was coming down. This is no different than the progressive media bracing for impact on the New York carry case. The article entitled “Can Self-Defense Laws Stand Up to a Country Awash in Guns?” is worth exploring.

As two closely watched murder trials played out in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men took up guns in the name of protecting the public, and when they wound up killing unarmed people, they claimed self-defense.

In one case, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded a third in the unrest following a police shooting in Kenosha, Wis.

[…]

“The problem is that with a citizenry armed with guns, we have blurred every line,” wrote Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, arguing in the Texas Law Review that a potent mix of “stand your ground” provisions and citizen’s arrest statutes has given people license not just to defend themselves but to go after others. “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?”

The article starts out by immediately pegging the Rittenhouse case as a “murder trial”, instead of a self-defense situation. The questions asked by Ferzan are fine and dandy, to which the answers were quite clear when the verdict came out. Never mind the fact that Rittenhouse was not immediately arrested or charged after the situation, as the situation was proven in a court of law to be self-defense. The Times along with others have been getting ready for that day and it came. The best damage control the progressives could do would be to keep their mouths shut, but that Pandora’s box is already open.

Take for example two pieces aggregated on Yahoo! The first “Rittenhouse verdict sets new legal precedent on White Privilege” and second “Jury acquits Gifford man who claimed self-defense after girlfriend killed by sheriff’s SWAT team in 2017 raid“. Two different situations contradict another. Both posted in the same feed. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s pull from the first:

Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all counts after more than 24 hours of deliberations can be summed up with one simple phrase: White privilege. It’s an all too familiar theme we witness when White defendants are on trial for killing us.

“White defendants are on trial for killing us”? Who is “us?” The author of the piece seems to be black based on her headshot. Those Rittenhouse defended himself against were white. So what gives? Why conflate different cases? The Rittenhouse story is not that of a white man killing a person of color, is it? The opinion piece continues:

The Rittenhouse Privilege weaved its way into the cracks of the courtroom in Kenosha. We knew the tactics that would be played, he’s White, he’s male and, to use the words of Judge Schroeder Rittenhouse, he is brazen. He walked his way into the courtroom. Just as he audaciously walked past the brigade of police vehicles while carrying an AR-15 across his body, crossed state lines and went home while Rosenbaum and Huber lay dead on the streets of Kenosha.

The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent. There is now legal precedent which permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases. Be forewarned – this precedent will only extend to individuals who can claim the Rittenhouse privilege.

The irony of discussing all this whiteness and privilege needs to be appreciated in context of the other piece mentioned:

A Gifford man who claimed he was defending himself and his girlfriend when he fired shots at deputies during an early-morning raid in 2017 was acquitted Friday of charges that carried a life prison term.

A jury found Andrew “A.J.” Coffee IV, 27, not guilty of second-degree felony murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer by discharging a firearm and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile.

[…]

During his March hearing, Coffee IV said he thought he was being robbed when he saw what appeared to be a rifle sticking through the open window pointed at him. He insisted he didn’t know the raid was underway when he fired a .45-caliber pistol out his bedroom window, shooting it two or three times.

Deputies in turn shot more than a dozen rounds toward the bedroom window, court records show.

[…]

In June, Vaughn denied Coffee’s bid for immunity under the state’s “stand your ground” law. An appeals court in October declined to overturn Vaughn’s ruling.

Taylor Friday said he respect the jury’s verdict but still rebuffed Coffee IV’s claims of self-defense.

“Obviously, we believe that the state’s case was righteous, we proved our case beyond a reasonable doubt but the jury did not see it that way for the first part of the trial,” he said. “But we are glad that justice was done and he was found guilty of the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.”

The thing that makes this ironic is by looking at the picture of Coffee, we’re not greeted with “whiteness”, but with the complexion of a person of color. The Coffee case is actually more complex than Rittenhouse’s in many ways because it calls into question any possible rights convicted felons have to self-defense. Potentially a bigger question revolves around no-knock raids, as what seemed to be the situation in Coffee’s case. Clearly the matter of self-defense is not just owned by whiteness or privilege when a black felon can get a similar outcome. An outcome that involved firing a weapon at the police and the alleged sale of drugs.

To note, pundits and social justice warriors are scrambling to get their narrative cemented. How can this “whiteness” claim be taken seriously when a few articles down we have this piece about a black man’s acquittal (from shooting at the police).

Who else is running their mouth? The ACLU took the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon by reportedly tweeting the following:

Despite Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police, he was not held responsible for his actions.

In a statement, The Second Amendment Foundation weighed in on the ACLU’s tweet to try and set the record straight:

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb was stunned at the ACLU’s reaction.

“While the ACLU should have been complaining about the conduct of prosecutors in the Rittenhouse case,” Gottlieb stated, “the organization instead is calling Rittenhouse a deliberate killer, perpetuating the myth that he deliberately crossed state lines to kill people. It is shocking for the ACLU, which has a long record of defending the rights of individuals against government prosecution to make such an outrageous statement.

“Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted by a jury of seven women and five men for defending himself against multiple attackers in the middle of a riot,” Gottlieb continued. “By being tried in court, he essentially was being held responsible for his actions, which the jury’s verdict clearly indicates were justified under the circumstances.

“We saw the same video evidence everyone else did,” he added. “Any reasonable person who viewed the videos and heard the testimony would easily conclude Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.”

Gottileb’s comments are needed in this current climate and lawful self-defense should not have to be defended, but apparently it does in 2021.

The commentary is pouring out of every crevice in society. Even the NJEA (New Jersey Education Association, the teacher’s union in the Garden State) decided to throw its hat in the pile of commentary. Why the teacher’s union saw it fit to bring this up is beyond many. Does New Jersey educate on the intricacies of self-defense in the public schools? If the answer to that is “yes”, well then proceed NJEA, with your flawed opinion. Otherwise, perhaps your opinion should be kept to yourself. To not seem biased in a state that’s already overrun by the anti-freedom caucus’s agenda, hush. What did they have to say?

NJEA’s officers, President Sean M. Spiller, Vice President Steve Beatty and Secretary-Treasurer Petal Robertson, released this statement following today’s verdict in Kenosha, Wisconsin:

“Today we share the dismay of all those who see the brokenness of our justice system.

“Today we share the fear and frustration of all those who are reliving the trauma of previous miscarriages of justice.

“Today we share the anger of all those who know that our communities are less safe, because this verdict sent a harmful message that vigilante violence is a reasonable response to constitutionally protected protest.

“But more than that, today we share the determination of those whose commitment to true equality, liberty and justice for all people – regardless of race, religion or creed – has only been strengthened by the clear reminder of how far our country still has to go.

“Our thoughts and deepest sympathies go out to the families, friends and loved ones of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber – as well as Gaige Grosskreutz – who were victimized again by the failure of our legal system to deliver justice and accountability for the violence perpetrated against them.”

This is the rhetoric that the leadership of our educators are putting out there. This is the belief structure and every New Jersey resident, really every citizen of the Union, should take note. Was the trial a show of a “broken justice system” when all jurors unanimously found Rittenhouse not guilty? Is that the miscarriage of justice? Or is it the fact that the right of individual self-defense is not a concept that is aligned with the socialist ways of your organization? The NJEA should mind their own house, which has been full of plenty of scandal and dirty secrets. NJEA think people have such short memories?

In a recent episode of Mark Walter’s Armed American Radio, the president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Alexander Roubian was asked about the Rittenhouse case prior to the verdict being delivered. The episode aired on 11/18 and what he had to say about the situation speaks volumes to what’s going on in the United States right now. In the interview Roubian says “The process is the punishment, and that’s exactly what they’re doing.” and he’s right. More from Roubian:

Roubian: And that you [Mark] touched on this earlier about when people are like, “Well, how could this make any sense?” When we look [at]  when we discuss New Jersey gun laws, it’s not supposed to make sense. This is part of their agenda. And with this prosecutor [in the Rittenhouse case], it’s part of his agenda. Anybody in their minds, anybody that owns or [has] possession [of] or [is] carry guns are automatically terrorists. “There’s no reason why anybody any civilian, to ever possess a firearm, or even be able to own one.” We have, we have videos, look at all of our undercover videos we’ve had, you know, the prosecutors, you know, the cops, the civilians, you name it. Throughout New Jersey, these people are so indoctrinated, they firmly believe guns are bad. Nobody ever owns them. And if you own a gun, you’re a terrorist.

[…]

Roubian: And that’s exactly why they push this narrative that people like you and I that want to own guns for self-defense, and for any other reason we don’t have to give a reason, right? It’s our inalienable God given right just that codified in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t provide those rights. God does…our natural rights to and, and that’s why they want to demonize us. […] They want to sway public opinion. “You” want to manipulate people they want to brainwash people, Eric Holder’s own words, you want to [brain] wash people. It’s not speculation. I’m not fear mongering here.

Walters: Listen, I wish I had another hour my brother I could keep going with you. We’ve only got 30 seconds left. But I’m gonna leave that with you because you’re spot on. This is agenda over rights. It’s agenda over freedom. It is agenda over the over the people and the safety of the people.

Roubian brings up some important and compelling concepts with Walters capping off the sentiments quite well. Things to seriously think about.

Looking at the Rittenhouse case, many have said it was not Rittenhouse that was standing trial. What was standing trial was the concept of self-defense. The eddies, waves, and currents are going to continue through progressive disinformation and temper tantrums. The Rittenhouse verdict is exactly what they wanted. It allows them to fuel the fire and convert opinion to alleged Gospel. It’s going to backfire though. After all, we do have rights, and they’re on our side. Cut through all the noise and garbage and ask “Do we have a right to self-defend?” And that answer is a big “yes!”

The full interview with Roubian and Walters can be listened to HERE or in the below embed:

Author’s Note: After the publication of this article I had the chance to chat with Bill Frady on his Lock N’ Load Radio show about this article and more. Take a listen HERE.