Response to Kelly Scoles' "Second Opinion":
A while back, in one of my responses, I mentioned how important facts are to me. This week, after reading your Opinion twice, the absence of facts makes it difficult for me to respond.

We can't have a meaningful debate if facts are missing. You refer to some law. Carl Sandburg was not a lawyer, but as a poet he was a keen observer of human nature, with a sense of humor. He once advised: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” ― Carl Sandburg. I think most liberals prefer the last option.

First, let's use a common definition of a fact. "A fact is something that is true. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability." Here is where problems begin with your Opinion. Here is a quick rundown of the culprits - pseudo facts, those disgusting verbal creatures which lie to us about Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted on all charges (2 shooting deaths, one wounding) related to the looting, arson, and general rioting which occurred following the police shooting of a 29-year-old black man named Jacob Blake.

Blake was falsely reported as having been killed. False - a lie. Rittenhouse accused of being a "vigilante," false, another lie according to the jury verdict. He was an outsider to Kenosha, wrong, another lie. His father lived in Kenosha and he and his mother lived just across the border in Antioch. "Rittenhouse was staying with his friend Dominick Black, who was dating the defendant's sister and testified for the prosecution." Thanks to more media lies, the public was allowed to believe Rittenhouse killed two black men and wounded another - thus false allegations of racism. All persons were white. Rittenhouse brought an illegal gun across the border. Wrong. The rifle was of legal length, and the defendant legally possessed it.

You state that “Rittenhouse wished to provide medical assistance, services for which he had no training." But, "He had worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha, was part of a police explorer program and knew CPR and basic life support, according to his testimony."

"Rittenhouse testified he acted in self-defense when he shot four times at Rosenbaum, who he said had threatened him earlier, chased him, thrown a bag at him and lunged for his gun." All true."Every person who was shot was attacking Kyle. One with a skateboard, one with his hands, and one with his feet [a flying kick to the head], one with a gun," [defense attorney] Richards said.

Kelly, listing each non-fact in your attack on Kyle Rittenhouse is monotonous. The sleazy (unelected) president defamed Rittenhouse, labeling him a ‘White Supremacist’(not "nationalist"). By the way, the man from La Mancha was a good guy - just a little confused. I do agree that Rittenhouse was egregiously over-charged because the videos of the incident clearly show he was acting in self-defense while being unlawfully threatened with death or grievous bodily harm. Besides being a traditional part of the criminal codes of every American state, the idea of self-defense is straight from Natural Law. Civilization would disappear without it - and perpetual governmental genocide would be encouraged.

"Racist, racist," the radical Left would be tongue-tied without this word. Race had nothing whatever to do with this case. As all the tapes clearly showed, this was a clear case of self-defense. The prosecution in this case was outrageously unethical and acted unlawfully. Every member of the DA's prosecution team should be disbarred. This will end up in a law school criminal law case book as an example of unconstitutional conduct and flagrant abuse of process.

Your description of the June 1, 2020, Lafayette Park incident (as you describe) has been thoroughly debunked - another media lie. The President, Bill Barr, Mark Milley (in "field-fatigues") et. al., were completely legitimate, as found by all investigating authority.

Your philippics against then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse have been found wanting in facts. And, without those facts nothing is left but unsubstantiated allegations and emotional political bias. Twelve courageous jurors scrutinized the plentiful evidence and brought a unanimous verdict of NOT GUILTY!

I say Huzzah! Long live our Judeo-Christian Constitution (1787) - and the rule of self-defense. See also: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) and Magna Carta (1215). I know it's just history, but Blackstone's work remains monumental; for example: "...no human law has any moral validity or force against a natural law, and that no human law can affect the content of a natural right as such." i.e., the right to self-defense.

Though hardly Woke, it all seems to fit nicely together, and I'm happy for that.