“Kyle Rittenhouse, in an unusual move for a defendant, took the witness stand Wednesday. He cried. His defense team then made a motion for a mistrial with prejudice, which means Rittenhouse couldn’t be retried.” Who would have thought that, in a murder trial, a tearful moment on the witness stand was all one needed to get out of trouble? Issac Bailey, evidently – for that’s who wrote those words. But Mr. Baily’s astute analysis doesn’t end there. No, he weaves into his story martyrdom, systemic racism, and even those white voters who “were trying to defend their freedom, so they flocked to an open bigot like Donald Trump and stormed the U.S. Capitol.”
What began as a completely inaccurate portrayal of a highly politicized murder trial quickly devolved into an unhinged leftist rant truly worthy of a Leftist Lunacy lambasting by Liberty Nation. And what outlet published the work of this enraged editorialist? Not our old friend Salon. It was neither Slate nor Vox. No, it was NBC.
In his piece for the Peacock, which he titled “Kyle Rittenhouse sobbing shows what’s wrong with America,” Mr. Baily didn’t bother testing the waters of political bias; he jumped right off the deep end fully clothed, shoes and all. The previously quoted misrepresentation of how mistrials work was the first part of the opening paragraph. Concluding that intro was the absurd statement: “But whatever the court rules, he has already won.”
How much time and how many words could we devote to that one sentence alone? Kyle Rittenhouse faces several felony charges, including one that would require a life sentence, should he be found guilty. To say that Rittenhouse, who only just became an adult, would still win even if sentenced to life in prison is pure insanity. More specifically – as will become evident as we progress through the progressive propaganda pawned off as thoughtful analysis – it appears to be a symptom of the author’s Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We’ll skip the background information on the case. For detailed coverage and excellent analysis, both legal and political, see the work of LN’s Scott D. Cosenza, Esq. and Graham J. Noble. But we, dear reader, must join Issac Bailey in the pool of progressive propaganda, so, without further ado, let us dive right in.
“If Rittenhouse is convicted, he will likely stop being a right-wing mascot and become a right-wing martyr,” Baily lamented. “If he isn’t convicted, he will set a precedent for others like him to pick up guns they shouldn’t have and thrust themselves into the middle of unrest they should avoid – confident in knowing that prison won’t be in their future.”
(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Rittenhouse is a mascot who may well become a martyr. What does our intrepid reporter believe will happen should this young man be convicted? Might the right rampage about, setting cities ablaze and looting local businesses in his name for a year and a half or so? Maybe Rittenhouse’s followers will wade into traffic, pull people out of their cars, and beat them mercilessly – who can say what insanity may ensue? Clearly, that’s what he believes will happen should there be no conviction.
“To his supporters, and even many of his detractors, Rittenhouse isn’t a monster. Not really,” Bailey continued. “He was a young, dumb kid hyped up on the Foxification or Fox News effect of American discourse on the Black Lives Matter movement in a country that fetishizes guns – for show, for sport and for killing – not a white supremacist, like, say, Dylann Roof. Not really.”
Such language certainly implies Rittenhouse and his supporters are, in fact, white supremacists and monsters.
Not much farther down, he once again brings up the point of who should or shouldn’t have a gun. Recall the words “pick up guns they shouldn’t have.” That’s from the fact that Rittenhouse was 17 when the shooting occurred. Our next mention of folks who shouldn’t have guns, however, is in reference to the other characters in this tale: “Had ‘criminals,’ whom many of us prefer to call Rittenhouse’s victims – though the judge said they can’t be called that during the trial – not rushed him, had not provoked him, they would be alive and he would never have been charged.”
All three of Rittenhouse’s “victims” had criminal backgrounds, though, to be fair, that has nothing to do with the actual protest itself. Even Snopes, after many, many words dedicated to an attempt to mitigate the fact, had to admit, near the very end of a very long “fact check” article, that, at age 19, Joseph Rosenbaum had been convicted of sexually abusing five children, Anthony Huber was charged with strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment after apparently trying to kill his brother and grandmother at age 18, and that Gaige Grosskreutz was found guilty in 2016 of a misdemeanor for being “armed while intoxicated.”
(Photo by Mark Hertzberg-Pool/Getty Images)
A minor illegally possessing a firearm, at least in Wisconsin, is a misdemeanor. Add the state’s hunting laws into the mix, which allow minors to carry shotguns and rifles, just not handguns or short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and it becomes even more confusing as to whether Rittenhouse is guilty of that misdemeanor. Judge Bruce Schroeder even said that after spending hours with the state’s gun law, he couldn’t state with certainty what it means to this specific case.
But why would the judge not allow these men to be called Rittenhouse’s victims? Could it be political bias? Perhaps it’s a racist thing. Remember that both Rittenhouse and the judge are white, and this all happened at a protest against a police shooting of a black man. Then again, maybe it’s for the same reason we used words like “accused” and “alleged.” Whether or not Rittenhouse murdered these men, making them his victims, is the entire point of the trial. Labeling them as such before the conclusion is essentially declaring the young man guilty without any need for the jury.
At this point in the story, however, the underlying rage, which roils just beneath the skin of every rabid leftist – the fuel which fires their engines – boiled over, and Mr. Baily laid bare his feelings of injustice to the world:
“Those protesters made him shoot them. It was their fault, and only theirs, not Rittenhouse’s. He was trying to do good, to protect this dying nation.
Predominantly white voters were trying to defend their freedom, so they flocked to an open bigot like Donald Trump and stormed the U.S. Capitol. Angry parents, most of them white, are storming school board meetings demanding an end to critical race theory lessons to protect white children from feeling ‘guilty’ about America’s violent racist history and how it has created the foundation of inequity we still see today. Politicians and local officials – again, many of them white – have stoked this by framing the teaching of race and books that explore its context as something constituents should defend their communities from.
The truth is that too many white Americans probably see themselves in Rittenhouse – afraid of anyone, whether white or of color, who wants to live in a more equitable country – even if some don’t want to say so out loud.”
It continued on for another few paragraphs in much the same way. This country is racist, and Rittenhouse is the proof – or, if not the proof, per se, then at least a sign – an outward symptom of an underlying illness. In conclusion, Mr. Bailey suggests that, regardless of the verdict, it’s up to the rest of us to guarantee different outcomes. “We need to make sure the disparity of who is afforded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is honestly and continually discussed (regardless of how uncomfortable it is for people to confront the truth) and see to it that those tenets of American democracy are extended to those who have historically been left out.”
That plea for racial equity seems like a good time to point out that the only two people at all involved who aren’t white are the guy whose death inspired the “mostly peaceful protest” – so, backstory, I suppose – and our trusty narrator, Issac Bailey, a contributor to Politico, CNN, and Time, amongst others, the author of Why Didn’t We Riot? A Black Man in Trumpland and My Brother Moochie: Regaining Dignity in the Face of Crime, Poverty, and Racism in the American South, and a “race relations seminar creator and facilitator.” Mr. Bailey, of course, is alive and well – and not on trial for murder.
All of the actual characters in this tale, however – from the shooter to those who were shot – are, of course, all white. How’s that for equity?
~ Read more from James Fite.
