How The Primaries Will Go
Why Ron DeSantis Says the Debt Deal Is ‘Totally Inadequate’
Rolling Stone Picked the Weirdest Fight to Have With Ron DeSantis
Why the White House Correspondents' Association Ripped Into Joe Biden This Weekend
Why the FBI Raided a Florida Blogger's Home This Month
The DCCC Is Made Up Of Morons
They’re Conditioning Americans to Hate White People
They Fought For Us – Now It's Our Turn
'What Is She Doing Here?': Report on Feinstein's Health Details Senator's Confusion Over...
Lest We Forget
The Debt Ceiling Deal From Hell
'Odds Are That the Only Person Who Could Beat Sherrod Brown' Is Someone...
Memorial Day Commemorates No Greater Love
How the COVID-19 Pandemic Caused Massive Mental Illness on the Left
Rise of the War on White People

Here's What Worries Tulsi Gabbard About 'Grossly Inaccurate' Rittenhouse Coverage

AP Photo/Paul Sancya

Appearing on Gutfeld! this week, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard sounded off on the damage done to the credibility of the mainstream media and even President Biden due to their smears and lies about Kyle Rittenhouse. 

"I think that from the beginning, we're seeing this thing play out where evidence clearly doesn't matter, facts doesn't matter," Gabbard remarked. "Hearing all of these comments being made — they're grossly inaccurate — and it just shows how politicized this whole thing was from the beginning and, unfortunately, how dangerous this path is if you follow it down its course," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. 

She's right — as soon as Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested, facts and evidence went flying out the window faster than a molotov cocktail from an Antifa rioters' hand. And those lies were propagated by the mainstream media and Democrat officials, including President Biden. 

False narratives about Rittenhouse crossing state lines with a gun — he didn't, being a white supremacist — he isn't, and shooting three black men — they were white, quickly proliferated thanks to a disregard for truth and an embrace of a narrative. 

That narrative meant that even the rap sheets of those Rittenhouse shot didn't matter. And being a pedophile or using the N-word were suddenly excused because after smearing and demonizing Rittenhouse, no one on the other side could have any flaws. And Rittenhouse found himself on the wrong side of the narrative from the start not through any fault of his own, but because he wasn't one of the rioters burning Kenosha. "Innocent until proven guilty" didn't apply to those defending their communities from leftist violence.

As for where the media and Democrats' disregard for facts and evidence — combined with an apparent predisposition to believe all white people are racist — Gabbard gave a look down that "dangerous" path.

"'Every white person is a white supremacist' is essentially the message that they're sending whether you realize it or not," Gabbard pointed out. "And so therefore if you look at our judicial system, you look at jury trials, does this mean that we don't allow white people on juries anymore because they can't be impartial because they're all white supremacists?" she asked.

"If so, they're saying okay, we've got to get rid of the whole system, reform the whole system," Gabbard noted of the left's obsession with fundamentally reshaping the way the government operates from the Supreme Court to the Senate to the Electoral College.

Gabbard's is a fair question. Following the jury's verdict in the Rittenhouse trial, the narrative quickly developed to say he was acquitted not because of the facts of the case that didn't support the charges brought by prosecutors, but because the jury was predominantly white. The mainstream media and Democrat narrative on this, though, also ignores facts. A predominantly white jury deliberating in the trial for three white men accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery just recently reached a guilty verdict for all three — was that white supremacy too?

Let's say the lunatics who believe your skin color makes you racist — a racist argument itself — get their way, what happens then?

"So if you get rid of all the juries," Gabbard continued, "then you have one person who's making the decision about the fate of someone's life and their future? How does that stand up to the ideals of a democratic society? It doesn't."

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Video