Connect with us

Wire

Rittenhouse Tears Into Prosecutor Binger: ‘A Corrupt Person Who Just Wants to Make a Name for Himself’

Western Journal

Published

on

Newly acquitted teen Kyle Rittenhouse has been the victim of a nationwide smear campaign on the part of the establishment media and even the now-president of the United States, but worst of all, he was the victim of what appears to have been nothing more than a crooked, political stunt on the part of the prosecutors who originally brought charges against him.

Leftist celebrities would have you believe that Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber — the two men who Rittenhouse shot and killed in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020 after they rushed at him during violent riots that broke out after a black man was shot by police — are martyrs and heroes. They’re anything but.

Both were convicted violent felons and were in the act of chasing down and, in Huber’s case, violently beating Rittenhouse when the teenager was forced to defend his life.

The prosecution, one has to believe, honestly knew this, but they wanted Rittenhouse’s head on a stake.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

At least, this is essentially how the now-18-year-old sees it, and you probably can’t help but agree.

“In my belief, the prosecutorial misconduct in this case is ridiculous. They knew I was innocent but they still decided to bring these charges to have a name. They wanted my head on their shelf,” Rittenhouse told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in an interview that aired Monday, just days after he was found not guilty on all counts after being charged with multiple felonies.

The prosecution indeed, to put it bluntly, made royal fools of themselves in the courtroom during the trial. In addition to Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger’s display of courtroom gun safety that made Alec Baldwin appear firearm competent by comparison, Rittenhouse’s defense and the judge himself made numerous complaints about how the entire case was handled.

One of the biggest issues was the state purportedly providing Rittenhouse’s legal team with critical drone footage of the night of the shooting that was of inferior quality to the footage they had.

Rittenhouse addressed this during the interview.

Nothing that “it is illegal to surveil U.S. citizens,” he explained to Carlson that nevertheless, there had been an FBI drone up in the air above Kenosha on the night of Aug. 25, 2020.

“There was this FBI surveillance plane,” he began, adding as an aside, “may I remind you it is illegal to surveil U.S citizens” and explaining that “the FBI still had a plane up.”

The state “tried to twist it and say that I was chasing down Mr. Rosenbaum. Never happened,” Rittenhouse said.

“And the funny thing is, we were not provided that drone footage until October, and they had it way before and the FBI gave it to them and they compressed that FBI drone video and gave it to us. They gave us a compressed version of that file. So they had a 4K drone that showed the shooting of Mr. Rosenbaum,” he continued.

“We got an extremely decompressed version of the drone video,” Rittenhouse said.

Carlson speculated that would have been grounds for a mistrial.

“Exactly,” Rittenhouse replied.

Indeed, his legal team certainly thought so — they filed a motion for a mistrial over the drone footage.

When Rittenhouse was asked what he thought about Binger, specifically, the wrongly accused young man really let loose.

“What do you think motivated Binger?” Carlson asked.

Rittenhouse didn’t miss a beat.

“Assistant District Attorney Binger is a corrupt person who just wants to make a name for himself and not look at the facts,” he said.

“I used to be a fan of the prosecutors. Not anymore,” he continued. “I believe there are still good prosecuting attorneys out there, but he is a prosecuting attorney that wants to make a name for himself, and he’s supposed to speak the truth and nothing but the truth, but he decided he wanted to lie and try to put me in prison for the rest of my life for defending myself.”

“That must be shocking for you, as a kid, to realize the system can destroy someone who they know doesn’t deserve to be destroyed just for political reasons,” Carlson said.

“It’s sickening,” Rittenhouse replied. “This is a case that had nothing to do with politics but politics were brought into it for people’s own agenda.”

Bam.

Well, we can certainly say the kid has the lay of the land in his own high-profile, hyper-politicized trial, and has drawn the same conclusions that many of us have as we watched the whole thing unfold in horror and continue to observe the outrageous lies and misinformation that are still being pushed about an innocent kid who tried to help out during a violent riot and was forced to defend his life.

If Binger and the rest of the state attorneys wanted to make a name for themselves, they most certainly have — as abusers of the justice system who are a disgrace to their career.

One of the most shameful political stunts over the last few years (which is really saying something) has backfired.

We should be very grateful that Rittenhouse was acquitted, and that he’s now telling the blunt, brutal truth about what happened to him.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Wire

Store Apologizes After Employee Sign with Instructions on How to Deal with Africans Goes Public

Western Journal

Published

on

An Australian store has been forced to apologize for a sign that warned staff to sound an alert if an African customer entered the store.

An IGA store in Melbourne was pilloried on social media because of a sign behind the counter that read, “If an African customer comes to the bottle shop, presses [sic] the button for assistant immediately! Minimum two staffs in front while we serve Africans,” the sign read, according to Australia’s News.com.au.

In its reporting on the sign, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the sign had been in place for three years before it was noticed by anyone and became a social media furor.

“Sure they’re independently owned but the African community should be allowed to feel safe and comfortable at their local supermarket,” a TikTok comment read.

The ABC report quoted the store manager, who it did not name, as offering apologies for any offense.

“We don’t really mean for this, we apologize for what we’ve done. I’m sorry it will never happen again like that,” he said. “I’ve done the wrong thing for the public, we should not do like this.”

The manager said he should have told employees to hit the button if they saw a group of strangers in the store.

“It is my mistake. Big mistake,” he said.

A poster using the name Jack he on Twitter said he was the store manager and offered an explanation.

“Im store manager iGA sunshine west, we got robbed by 5 African men, one of the staff had a gun put to our head, we were scared, Im sorry for that i done,i told the ABC news all the reason behind this, But i don’t see any main point been reported, this is unfair, unfair news,” he tweeted.

ABC reported that a spokesperson for wholesaler Metcash, which operates the IGAs, said the company had the offending sign removed.

“This type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in any IGA store across the country,” a spokesman said.

“As part of our ongoing commitment to supporting local communities across Australia, we will ensure ALL IGA employees continue to create a shopping environment where all are welcome and equal,” the spokesman said.

The store now has a new note.

“We would like to apologies [sic] to anyone that got offended by the note we had … it was not our intention to offend,” the note says.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

An Australian store has been forced to apologize for a sign that warned staff to sound an alert if an African customer entered the store. An IGA store in Melbourne was pilloried on social media because of a sign behind the counter that read, “If an African customer comes to the bottle shop, presses [sic] the button for assistant immediately! Minimum two staffs in front while we serve Africans,” the sign read, according to Australia’s News.com.au. In its reporting on the sign, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. said the sign had been in place for three years before it was noticed by anyone and became a social media furor. “Sure they’re independently owned but the African community should be allowed to feel safe and comfortable at their local supermarket,” a TikTok comment read. ‘Completely unacceptable’: IGA supermarket under fire for sign racially profiling African customers https://t.co/83nMJg7SgU — Natalie Spencer (@natscloset) December 2, 2021 The ABC report quoted the store manager, who it did not name, as offering apologies for any offense. “We don’t really mean for this, we apologize for what we’ve done. I’m sorry it will never happen again like that,” he said. “I’ve done the wrong thing for the public, we should not do like this.” The manager said he should have told employees to hit the button if they saw a group of strangers in the store. “It is my mistake. Big mistake,” he said. A poster using the name Jack he on Twitter said he was the store manager and offered an explanation. “Im store manager iGA sunshine west, we got robbed by 5 African men, one of the staff had a gun put to our head, we were scared, Im sorry for that i done,i told the ABC news all the reason behind this, But i don’t see any…

Continue Reading

Wire

NYT Writer Argues Adoption More ‘Dangerous and Potentially Traumatic’ Than Abortion in Op-Ed

Western Journal

Published

on

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers around Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy.

With a conservative majority in the Court, the right’s pipe dream of overturning Roe v. Wade, or at least rolling back abortion rights, appears to be within reach. Naturally, this development has escalated the public debate over what is, arguably, the most divisive issue of our time.

An op-ed in The New York Times written by Elizabeth Spiers, a Democratic digital strategist who was adopted as an infant, argues that adoption is “infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.”

She criticizes Justice Amy Coney Barrett for suggesting that “adoption is some kind of idyllic fairy tale.” Spiers writes, “My own adoption actually was what many would consider idyllic. I was raised by two adoptive parents, Alice and Terry, from the time I was an infant, and grew up in a home where I knew every day that I was loved. A few years ago, I found my biological mother, Maria, and three siblings I didn’t know I had via a DNA test and Facebook.”

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The first time I spoke to Maria on the phone — she lives in Alabama, not too far from my parents, and I live in Brooklyn — she apologized repeatedly for giving me up and told me she loved me and that I would always be family. ‘You are blood,’ she would say later. I told her, and continue to tell her, every time she brings it up, that the apology is unnecessary. I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision. But she remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”

Spiers “resent[s] being used as a political football by the right. I believe that abortion is a form of health care and that every woman should have access to it if she needs it … I resent it on behalf of Maria, who found the choice she made traumatizing and still feels that pain, 44 years later.”

Does Spiers think Maria would be less traumatized if she had aborted her?

Maria had several children already and felt it would be too difficult financially and perhaps emotionally to raise another child, so she delivered Spiers and turned her over to parents who could (and did) offer her a childhood of abundance and attention.

Does Spiers op-ed convince you that having an abortion is easier than suffering through the trauma associated with adoption?

I would argue that Maria’s heartbreak would be greater if she’d opted to abort Spiers.

I know several women who had abortions with men they later married and raised families with. Each has told me they often think about the child who would have been their first born.

Spiers continues: “While pregnant, they will undergo the bonding with a child that happens by biological design as an embryo develops into a living, breathing, conscious human. And then that child will be taken away.”

“The right likes to suggest that abortion is a traumatic experience for women — a last resort, a painful memory. But adoption is often just as traumatic as the right thinks abortion is, if not more so, as a woman has to relinquish not a lump of cells but a fully formed baby she has lived with for nine months. I’m a mother myself … As anyone who has gestated a human will tell you, there is a vast difference between the fourth week of pregnancy and the 40th.”

I have three children. Rather than viewing them as “a lump of cells” in the early months of pregnancy, I was awestruck by the knowledge that a new life was growing within me. And that was long before I felt the first little flutters of movement, the point at which Spiers believes “a kind of biological brainwashing” begins which “happens whether you want to be a parent or not.”

FYI, Ms. Spiers, most women would call it bonding or even love, rather than “a kind of biological brainwashing.”

“She [Justice Coney Barrett] blithely seems to assume that a mother can simply choose not to bond with the child she’s gestating solely on the basis that she is not ready to be a mother or believes that she is unable to provide for the child,” Spiers continues.

The mother/child bond is real, and I would argue it starts long before quickening begins. Is it really easier to end that life than to deliver the child and give them to parents who yearn for a child and have the financial means to provide for them?

“The trauma doesn’t just affect mothers, either,” she writes. “Researchers have a term for what children who are adopted, even as infants, may suffer from later in life: relinquishment trauma. The premise is that babies bond with their mothers in utero and become familiar with their behaviors. When their first caretaker is not the biological mother, they register the difference, and the stress of it has lasting effects.”

Ms. Spiers, we all experience some form of trauma in this life. Truth be told, many who have been raised by their biological parents have experienced trauma and would have been far better off being raised by adoptive parents who truly welcomed parenthood and loved them.

During his 1992 presidential campaign, former President Bill Clinton said, “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” While the number of abortions in the U.S. has declined since that time, Democrats have pushed for unlimited access to abortions, with state lawmakers in New York and Virginia fighting for late term, partial-birth and even taxpayer funded abortion.

Then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was so delighted after his state’s passage of the Reproductive Health Act in Jan. 2019, which expands abortion rights, that he ordered the One World Trade Center building, two major bridges in the state and the Alfred E. Smith Building in Albany, to be lit up with pink lights, according to The Washington Times.

Yes, they were celebrating a new law which eliminated “most of the state’s previous restrictions on abortions after 24 weeks,” legalizing the most heinous and cruel procedures conceivable to kill babies.

Ms. Spiers should consider the trauma experienced by the victims of these procedures. And perhaps the trauma of the mother after the reality of what she just allowed a doctor to do to her child sinks in.

Sorry Ms. Spiers, the argument that killing a child in the womb (or even out of the womb as some states now allow), simply because life is difficult and potentially full of suffering, is sheer madness.

In a lengthy Twitter thread, conservative podcast host Ben Shapiro savages Spiers op-ed in his signature fashion. It’s worth a read.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers around Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy. With a conservative majority in the Court, the right’s pipe dream of overturning Roe v. Wade, or at least rolling back abortion rights, appears to be within reach. Naturally, this development has escalated the public debate over what is, arguably, the most divisive issue of our time. An op-ed in The New York Times written by Elizabeth Spiers, a Democratic digital strategist who was adopted as an infant, argues that adoption is “infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.” She criticizes Justice Amy Coney Barrett for suggesting that “adoption is some kind of idyllic fairy tale.” Spiers writes, “My own adoption actually was what many would consider idyllic. I was raised by two adoptive parents, Alice and Terry, from the time I was an infant, and grew up in a home where I knew every day that I was loved. A few years ago, I found my biological mother, Maria, and three siblings I didn’t know I had via a DNA test and Facebook.” “The first time I spoke to Maria on the phone — she lives in Alabama, not too far from my parents, and I live in Brooklyn — she apologized repeatedly for giving me up and told me she loved me and that I would always be family. ‘You are blood,’ she would say later. I told her, and continue to tell her, every time she brings it up, that the apology is unnecessary. I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision. But she remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.”…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week