Biden Two-Faced Over Rittenhouse Verdict

How can someone say two entirely different things about the same occurrence in a little over an hour and be held credible? That’s one of the big questions I would ask Joe “Brandon” Biden if he would actually answer it, which he wouldn’t. He’d turn around and walk away. Oh, it’s OK to call someone “Fats” during the campaign and challenge them to a push up contest when they disagree with you. But once elected, you just ignore them.

What I’m talking about is the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict. The jury of his peers found Rittenhouse Not Guilty on all four of the counts against him. Most people in and around law felt that the prosecution blew the case wide open and basically handed the win to the defense, and though I didn’t watch the trial, what I did see of it, I’d be inclined to agree.

Moments after the verdict was read, Biden was talking to reporters. He said, “I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works. We have to abide by it,” That seems like a pretty cogent and simple statement. And, I think most of us would be in agreement with the president in this case.

However, about an hour later, the communications team at the White House, realizing that Biden had just pissed off most of the Democrats who called Rittenhouse anything but human during the weeks leading up to, and including the trial, issued the following statement from the president. “While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken. I ran on a promise to bring Americans together, because I believe that what unites us is far greater than what divides us,”

Whoa! Wait a second. That’s a far cry from “standing by what the jury has concluded and we have to abide by the jury system”!

This is yet another in a very long line of examples the Joe “Brandon” Biden is out of touch with reality. He’s not in control of the Oval Office, much less the country. If you’re telling me that in the hour it took between statements, he had a change of mind, my answer would simply be, “What mind?” This was a blatant attempt by the liberal socialist snowflakes in the Biden White House to spin the verdict they way they wanted it. Innocent until proven guilty? Not even close. Innocent when found not guilty? Try again.

According to the idiots in the White House, and I would include Joe Biden as one of them at this point, there is no trial by jury. There is only “trial by Democrats”. And if you don’t bow to their wishes, you get slammed, even if you are the President of the United States. Oh, I’m sure there was a hell of a meeting in the Oval after his first comment. And I’m sure Ron Klain had a lot to say about how Biden had just turned his back on 13% of Americans who viewed this as a racial trial. Let me say this…this was not a racial trial. This was a trial of self-defense.

When things don’t go the way Democrats want them to go, they want to change the rules to fit their narrative. That’s exactly what happened in this case. They didn’t get the verdict they wanted, so it became about race. But wait a minute. Wasn’t the guy that was injured in the shooting and not killed, the guy that testified that yes, he charged Rittenhouse before getting shot (in self-defense), wasn’t he white? And the two guys that got killed, Huber and Rosenbaum, they were white too weren’t they? So, how in the world could Rittenhouse’s self-defense be termed “racist”.

Actually, and I probably should do a whole other blog about that, but let’s just say, where the left has accused the right in this country of usurping the word “woke”, I think the left has usurped and over-used the word “racist”. Racism does exist to some extent in this country, and I believe that’s serious. I think they do that word a terrible injustice when they want to call everything and everybody racist. They have turned the word into Jello. Just like the communications team at the White House has done with Joe “Brandon” Biden.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

5 thoughts on “Biden Two-Faced Over Rittenhouse Verdict

  1. On 26 October 1881, four lawmen stepped into the vacant lot behind the OK Corral to demand that six other men surrender their weapons, on account of the fact that a city ordinance prohibited carrying weapons inside the town’s limits. In the split second after the Cowboys (all Democrats) went for their guns to resist the demand, there was no holding back the tide of what happened next. In thirty seconds, thirty rounds were fired, three Cowboys died, and two officers were wounded. Hardly anyone heard about this fight until around forty years later, after Wyatt Earp published his biography. Now, 140 years later, it’s become one of the celebrated stories of the Old West.

    Part of the reason no one ever heard about that fight in 1881 was that there was no 24/7 propaganda machine back then, and even if there had been an out-of-control news media in 1881, would anyone in Hackensack NJ give a damn? My guess is, “no.” So, I am fascinated by the fact that anyone not living in Kenosha, Wisconsin cares about Kyle Rittenhouse, or who he shot, or why he shot them. If you lived in Chicago on the day of the Rittenhouse affair, you probably heard that between 10-15 people were shot that day, some of those were teenage boys, half of them died, all were black, and none of it was a big deal because Chicago is the murder capital of the United States. And, since we’re all on information overload just now, local news would receive priority over something that happened in another state.

    President Chester A. Arthur made no statements about the Earp/Clanton/McLaury affair. Neither did Acting Territorial Governor John Gosper. Both Arthur and Gosper had more important matters in front of them. Besides, it was a local problem. In fact, the only reason Tombstone Mayor John Clum mentioned the incident was because he was also the owner of the conservative-leaning Tombstone Epitaph.

    Like you, I marvel at the fact that the chief executive of the nation would mention Rittenhouse at all. It isn’t that he has his fingers on the pulse of the nation. And, I think, if he knew as much about our energy and transportation problems in this country, as he thinks he knows about the Rittenhouse trial, the country might be in better shape. But more to the point, as someone who has the power to issue pardons to people who commit heinous crimes, which places him at the top of the judicial system pyramid, was it prudent or appropriate for him to comment at all? Don’t we live in a country where justice is blind?

    As to the popular modern-day catchphrase, “You be racissss,” doesn’t that fall within the same category of claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a Nazi-fascist? I fall back on the rhetorical question, “Really? Is that all you’ve got?” Because what that means is, there is no room for civilized dialogue in America today and my question would then become, “If we can’t even speak to one another in measured tones, what is left for us to do in our ‘always angry’ modern society?” The answer must surely point back to the only value of the Rittenhouse trial — and, if we had a president who understood anything at all, then what he might say from the Bully Pulpit might actually benefit someone living in Hackensack, or Chicago …

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Geez, I love your stuff. And having been to Tombstone (what a tourist trap!!!), I know exactly what you’re talking about. The point I can’t fathom is, why everyone is calling the whole Rittenhouse trial racist? Rittenhouse shot three men, ALL WERE WHITE. Rittenhouse was white. Are you saying because they were there to protest the shooting of a black guy, that everything associated with that is racist? If that’s so, then everything that happens in this country that’s affiliated with two people of different races is also racist, which makes no sense. Time to RETIRE the word “racist”. Oh, just as an aside, but somewhat relevant to the topic, I got banned from Twitter (not my Lone Cactus account), because I called Juan Williams from Fox News racist for his views and said he would not keep his job on The Five for a year. It happened. And now, Williams is facing backlash and calls for his firing for his comment on the Rittenhouse trial. Imagine that, Jack Dorsey!!!

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Are you saying that because they were there to protest the shooting of a black guy, that everything associated with that is racist?

      Actually, I hadn’t made that connection until just now. I was speaking more generally of our “always angry” society within which some people think you can win the argument (ala Alinsky) by accusing them of being something not nice (the list of possibilities is too long by far), but since you brought it to my attention, I think you’re right. It doesn’t make sense, but it is a well-worn leftist strategy. And, as I pointed out, my response to all such allegations is “Really? That’s all you’ve got?” We don’t have merit-based conversations anymore. We just have “shout and shoot” — and I’m one of those people who think that this deplorable situation will only get worse.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s