Friday, April 19, 2024
spot_imgspot_img
Friday, April 19, 2024

Milwaukee Press Club 'Excellence in Wisconsin Journalism' 2020 & 2021 Award Winners

Make Your Ringtone God Bless the USA to Support Judge Bruce Schroeder

spot_img

Wisconsin Right Now suggests: Everyone should make their ringtone “God Bless the USA” in support of Kenosha County Bruce Schroeder. Doing so expresses support for the rule of law. Post on social media when you do! Let’s make this go viral.

As the prosecution’s case against Kyle Rittenhouse spectacularly crumbles, some in the media and left are ridiculously trashing Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder for… strictly adhering to the rule of law. The criticism of the judge has gotten so absurd that he’s actually being attacked for having a cell phone ringtone that plays Lee Greenwood’s iconic tune, “God Bless the USA.”

The judge’s ringtone, which briefly went off in court, made big national headlines in liberal sites that pretend they’re objective, like the Daily Beast and Raw Story. They tried to attach Donald Trump to the apolitical 75-year-old judge (who was appointed by a Democratic governor decades ago) because, non-sequitur here, Trump has used God Bless the USA in rallies!

Guess what? Lots of people like God Bless the USA. It’s a moving song that is about pride in America and freedom. Lee Greenwood wrote it in the 1980s after the Soviets shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007. What’s really going on is that the judge is too old and too close to retirement to care what the New York Times, Daily Beast, and MSNBC pundits think of him. He’s not using this case as a stepping-stone to higher office. That drives them crazy because he’s impervious to public pressure and, thus, he’s kept the case focused on what happened that day in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the Constitution, and the rule of law. It’s also a sign, perhaps, that the left’s “side” in this case is losing.

The criticism is so absurd and over-the-top and Bruce Schroeder has done such a great job adhering to the rule of law (in pretrial hearings he sided both with the defense and prosecution in motions), that we suggest everyone in America change their ringtones to God Bless the USA in support of Schroeder but more so in support of what he stands for: The rule of law. The consistency in his rulings: A desire to cut out the extraneous to keep the jury focused on the defendant’s actions that night. He has expressed repeatedly that he wants a fair trial, not a political show, in either direction.

But that song….

Raw Story’s headline read, “Civil Rights attorney stunned Rittenhouse judge’s phone ringtone is Trump theme song.” Daily Beast pounced, writing,

Judge’s ‘God Bless the USA’ Ringtone Blares During Rittenhouse Trial

They also brought up Trump. The horrors! An MSNBC pundit called on the judge to be removed because of his rulings adhering to the law, and people have falsely called him a racist on Twitter. Vanity Fair snarled, “The Kyle Rittenhouse judge is the actual worst.”

How ridiculous is the public commentary from liberals against the judge? One guy on Twitter called the judge a “Nazi – P***y Grabbing – Cult loving – White Supremacist Dumbas* Judge.” Actually, at a previous hearing on Rittenhouse, the judge soundly rejected an attorney’s attempt to inject a racial argument into the case, telling her firmly that he doesn’t make decisions based on race.

This judge clearly loves America: The Constitution, the rule of law. So what? He lives in America. Why is that controversial? It’s entirely consistent with his ethical mandate as a circuit judge to adhere to the rule of law, to case law, and to the U.S. Constitution.

“Any veterans in the room?” he asked on Nov. 11, 2021, as court started. “It’s Veterans Day.” People, including the jurors, applauded the veterans who stood up. He did the same thing on the Marine Corps’ birthday. That’s surely to cause liberal heads to explode all over Twitter. But so what? He respects veterans. They fought and died to protect the freedoms we all have, including the rights afforded to all defendants in his courtroom, such as due process. It’s interesting how “criminal justice reform advocates” are so quick to dispense with those when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse.

It’s not surprising that the judge’s adherence to the rule of law and love of America would be controversial, though. This situation – starting with Jacob Blake resisting arrest while wanted on a sexual assault warrant and continuing with the rioting and arson fires – has always been about disrespect for the rule of law.

The left, prosecution, and media have constantly tried to shoehorn falsehoods and elements into this case that have nothing to do with the legal questions in the case, namely, self-defense.

Judge Bruce Schroeder Background

“This is not and won’t be a political trial,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said in court. He has a reputation as a tough, no-nonsense judge who keeps control of his courtroom, which is exactly what’s needed here.

He is the longest serving sitting judge in Wisconsin, a position he’s held with distinction and with minimal controversy for decades. He was appointed in 1983 by a Democratic Governor, Tony Earl. What he does believe in is keeping politics OUT of the trial. He’s said repeatedly in court that he is strictly following the rules of evidence.

“He has a reputation for doing what he believes is the right thing and being an independent thinker,” said William Lynch, a retired attorney who served on the board of the ACLU of Wisconsin, to CNN.

According to Ballotpedia, he was a District Attorney in the 1970s and then worked for years in private practice, so he’s practiced law on both sides of the legal equation. He’s been on the bench since 1983.

He has only had a few controversies in almost 40 years on the Wisconsin bench.

Some people are all aflutter that the judge, in the 1980s, ordered “a convicted child molester who also engaged in prostitution to get an AIDS test,” in the words of CNN. He expanded the orders to other sex workers, saying, according to a Chicago Tribune story from the time: ”I’m concerned about the man who patronizes a prostitute who has AIDS and then goes home and transmits the virus to his girlfriend, or to his wife, and there is a baby born who later dies of AIDS. What about the rights of that child?”

Also controversial, his ruling in the case of Mark Jensen, who was convicted years ago of poisoning his wife Julie with antifreeze; Jensen maintains she committed suicide. The judge allowed a “letter from the grave” by Julie Jensen and voicemails she left a police officer. The state Supreme Court and a federal appellate court much later said Jensen had a right to confront witnesses against him. Schroeder ruled that Jensen forfeited that right by killing Julie Jensen so she couldn’t testify against him. An appellate court agreed with him initially; Jensen is now being retried.

In the letter, Julie indicated, “I would never take my life because of my kids – they are everything to me!” and said, “If anything happens to me, he would be my first suspect. She wrote, “I pray I’m wrong + nothing happens … but I am suspicious of Mark’s suspicious behaviors + fear for my early demise.”

Judge Bruce Schroeder Rittenhouse Rulings

Which rulings have the left and media in such a tither? We recap them.

Schroeder strongly chastised prosecutor Thomas Binger for questioning, in front of the jury, Rittenhouse’s post-arrest silence, which is a right afforded by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence,” Schroeder said. “You’re right on the borderline, and you may be over, but it better stop.” Got that? People are angry at Schroeder for adhering to the Constitution. He explained in court on Nov. 11, “I was talking yesterday about the Constitution and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it for 50 years.”

The judge chastised Binger for trying to sneak in references to a video that he ruled couldn’t come into court. Got that? People are angry at Schroeder because he expects lawyers to follow his judicial orders in court. Schroeder ruled the video was too dissimilar to the crimes (it allegedly shows Rittenhouse making a comment about shooting at shoplifters he saw at a CVS drug store, if he had his gun.) But this incident happened before the Kenosha shootings and had absolutely nothing to do with them. Furthermore, you can’t see Rittenhouse on camera; technically the judge withheld a ruling on it. “He (Rittenhouse) doesn’t do anything,” defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said in court. “He doesn’t open his window, he doesn’t honk the horn, he does nothing but passively sit and watch.” He also ruled out a video, before the shootings, that the prosecution claims showed Rittenhouse “striking a girl who was fighting with his sister in June 2020.”

In other words, Schroeder is trying to make sure the jury rules on Rittenhouse’s actions in Kenosha on the night in question, not clouding their judgment with past incidents that aren’t related.

He also, which the left leaves out, for the same reason, barred the defense from bringing up the criminal record of Joseph Rosenbaum (the defense wanted to tell jurors about Rosenbaum’s child molestation history.) Schroeder said no; he wants the jury to make its decision based on what Rittenhouse did THAT NIGHT. This was a victory for the prosecution.

In another ruling that favored the prosecution, Schroeder refused to dismiss the illegal firearm charge against Rittenhouse.

Schroeder said the men shot by Rittenhouse could not be called “victims.” However, this is a long-standing rule in his courtroom in every case, not just for this trial, that he deploys because the word “victims” presumes that the defendant is guilty, and he’s trying to make sure the trial is fair. Got that? People are angry at Schroeder for making sure the trial is fair. “The word ‘victim’ is a loaded, loaded word. And I think ‘alleged victim’ is a cousin to it,” Schroeder said at the time.

They’re equally upset that he, in contrast, allowed the shot men to be referred to as rioters, looters, or arsonists. However, and this is key: The lawyers were only allowed to do so if the men actually participated in those activities. Those terms describe behavior, whereas the word “victim” is a subjective label that applies judgment. If someone starts a dumpster on fire, they’re an arsonist, right?

“Let the evidence show what the evidence shows,” Schroeder said at the time. “And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting — then I’m not going to tell the defense they can’t call them that.”

The left is also trashing the judge for not allowing the jury to learn that Rittenhouse met some Proud Boys in a bar months after the shootings. The defense presented evidence that a thorough examination of Rittenhouse’s cell phone did not “establish that the user belonged to or even had any interest in any militia-style organizations.” Schroeder, who said in court that he had never heard of the Proud Boys before, said a meeting months after the shootings was not relevant. There’s no evidence Rittenhouse had any connection to the Proud Boys before the shootings whatsoever. In fact, the evidence in the trial has indicated no evidence of white supremacy, organized militia membership, or any of the other false narratives used by some in the media and left.

The judge also ruled that he wouldn’t order the defense to turn over a list of Kyle’s donors, when the defense said they didn’t possess it. He said prosecutors could subpoena the information if it was relevant.

Schroeder turned down Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger’s request for an arrest warrant in the case early on, as well, because, he said, the DA was asking him to do something that’s against the law. Binger would have to show that Rittenhouse has committed a new serious crime and hadn’t, said the judge.

That’s the pattern. The judge upholds the rule of law. The left and media go crazy about it. Let God Bless the USA ring.

Eric Hovde TIES Wisconsin Senate Race Against Sen. Tammy Baldwin With Likely Voters

It all adds up to one thing: Tammy Baldwin and Joe Biden are in trouble...

Wisconsin DA Association President Eric Toney Endorses Jim Piwowarczyk for Assembly

Former Republican Attorney General Candidate and Fond du Lac County DA Eric Toney has endorsed...

Senator Ron Johnson to Speak at Concordia University [FREE EVENT]

The Young Americans for Freedom chapter at Concordia University in Mequon, Wisconsin, will host conservative...

Israel & Iran – The War Escalates | Up Against the Wall

Well, like I said, the war would escalate so long as Biden shows a lack...
trump, derrick van orden

We Asked a Wisconsin U.S. Rep., ‘What Is Donald Trump Really Like?’ The Answer Will Make You Tear Up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g0YE9DQNL8 "What is Donald Trump really like?" we asked Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican...
derrick van orden

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden: FISA Amendment Would Have Given Protections to 9/11 Terrorists

https://youtu.be/bzqQ7sgQLec?si=96g0cUP5vc64jCQX Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, a Republican who served as a Navy SEAL, says he...

The COVID Generation: Let’s Stop Scaring Our Kids [WRN Voices]

As a local school board member, I have witnessed firsthand many of the issues of...

Rep. Janel Brandtjen: Threats to WEC Chief Don’t Help

(The Center Square) – One of the biggest critics of Wisconsin’s election administrator says no one should be threatening her and says threats don’t help fix election integrity issues.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, on Tuesday offered her thoughts after the Wisconsin Elections Commission confirmed elections administrator Meagan Wolfe is receiving extra security protection.

"Threatening Administrator Meagan Wolfe, or any election official, is unacceptable and counterproductive. Venting frustrations on individuals like Wolfe, clerks, or poll workers is not only illegal but also harmful to rebuilding trust in our elections,” Brandtjen said. “Threats only undermine our republic and empower the courts and media. It's essential to address any concerns about election processes through legal channels. Threats have no place in our democracy.”

Brandtjen has been one of Wisconsin’s loudest critics of Wolfe. She led hearings as far back as 2021 into Wolfe’s role in the 2020 election. Brandtjen also led the push to get Wolfe removed from the Elections Commission.

“Wolfe’s term has indeed expired, and according to Wisconsin Statutes 15.61(1)(b)1, she should be removed, but Republicans are too worried about the press or too compromised to follow existing law.” Brandtjen said.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission on Monday clarified that Wolfe is receiving extra security but refused to offer any details.

“The Wisconsin Elections Commission has had productive conversations about safety and security with state leadership, including the governor’s office, which is tasked with approving security measures for state government officials,” WEC spokesperson Riley Vetterkind said in a statement. “Those conversations have resulted in additional security measures being approved for Administrator Wolfe and the WEC when the need arises.”

Brandtjen on Tuesday blamed Wisconsin Republicans, and once again blamed Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, for Wolfe’s continued time on the Elections Commission.

“It's disappointing that Sen. Dan Knodl and Rep. Scott Krug, chairs of the election committees, have not exercised their investigative and subpoena powers. This inaction has allowed the neglect of essential laws, such as providing ballots to individuals declared incompetent, lack of checks in military ballot requests, an insecure online system, and improper guidance on voting for homeless individuals without proper documentation,” she said. “The Legislature, particularly Speaker Vos' control, is responsible for the frustration caused by election irregularities due to their inaction.”

Wisconsin’s local election managers have reported an uptick in threats and angry rhetoric since the 2020 election, and some local election offices have taken extra precautions. But there haven’t been any cases in Wisconsin where someone has acted on an election threat.

Wisconsin’s Largest Business Group Sues Over Evers’ 400-year School Funding Veto

(The Center Square) – There is now a legal challenge to Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding veto.

The WMC Litigation Center on Monday asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take up their challenge to the governor’s summer veto that increased per-pupil funding for the next four centuries.

“At issue is Gov. Evers’ use of the so-called ‘Vanna White’ or ‘pick-a-letter’ veto,” the group said in a statement. “The governor creatively eliminated specific numbers in a portion of the budget bill that was meant to increase the property tax levy limit for school districts in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 fiscal years. By striking individual digits, the levy limit would instead be increased from the years 2023 to 2425 – or four centuries into the future.”

The WMC Litigation Center is an affiliate of Wisconsin Manufactures & Commerce (WMC), the combined state chamber and manufacturers’ association.

Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow said while Wisconsin’s governor has an incredibly powerful veto pen, there are limits.

“No Wisconsin governor has the authority to strike individual letters or digits to form a new word or number, except when reducing appropriations,” Rosenow said. “This action is not only unconstitutional on its face, but it is undemocratic because this specific partial veto allows school districts to raise property taxes for the next 400 years without voter approval.”

Wisconsin lawmakers and voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1990 that put limits on the governor’s veto power.

Rosenow and the WMC Litigation Center say the governor’s veto goes beyond those limits.

The legal challenge also raises the constitutional issue that all state spending has to originate with, and be approved by, the legislature.

“In no uncertain terms, 402 years is not less than or part of the two-year duration approved by the Legislature – it is far more,” concluded Rosenow. “The governor overstepped his authority with this partial veto, at the expense of taxpayers, and we believe oversight by the Court is necessary.”

The WMC Litigation Center is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case as quickly as possible.

Let’s Thank Rep. August, Sen. Wimberger, & WI Voters For Ending Zuckerbucks

Remember when Elon Musk challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a cage match? That fight between Twitter/Threads billionaires...
Trump Holds Cash Special Counsel Jack Smith Iowa Victory for Trump Remove Trump From Primary Ballot

‘Scam Trial’: Trump Slams Judge, Says He May Not Let Him Go to Son’s Graduation, Campaign

"This is about election interference; that’s all it’s about" - former President Donald Trump. Former President...
Tammy Baldwin's History

Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin’s History of Going Soft on Iran Draws Renewed Scrunity

In 2012, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, then a U.S....
Part-time Law Enforcement Officer

WILL Says State Agency Acted ‘Unlawfully’ Against Part-time Law Enforcement Officer

"State agency acting unlawfully, enforcing illegally adopted policy to his detriment and potentially hundreds of...
Trump's First Criminal Trial

Five Key Questions Ahead of Trump’s First Criminal Trial

Jury selection is set to begin Monday in the first-ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

Former President Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to charges he paid hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels through a lawyer and covered it up as a legal expense before being elected president.

Trump has attempted to delay the start of the New York state trial several times, including three longshot tactics judges rejected this week.

What charges does Trump face in the New York hush money case?

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to money paid to Daniels and another woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal. Bragg has alleged Trump broke New York law when he falsified with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

Prosecutors allege Trump falsified internal records kept by his company, hiding the true nature of payments that involve Daniels ($130,000), McDougal ($150,000), and Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen ($420,000). Prosecutors allege the money was logged as legal expenses, not reimbursements. Both Cohen and Daniels are expected to testify.

Cohen is expected to be a key witness in the trial. Daniels has said she expects to testify.

Former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Bragg's predecessor, did not bring the case to trial.

What happens on Monday?

Prosecutors, defense attorneys and Donald Trump are expected to be present when the trial before Judge Juan Merchan gets started Monday. The first step will be picking a jury, a process that could take a week or more depending on how things progress. The trial is expected to last six to eight weeks.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys will select 12 jurors and six alternates from a pool of potentially hundreds of people. Each juror will answer 42 questions designed to determine if they can be impartial in the high-profile trial of a polarizing former president. The jurors will remain anonymous because of security concerns.

Once a jury is seated, it's on to opening statements where prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to address the jury about what they plan to show during the trial.

What is Trump's defense to the charges?

Trump has maintained he did nothing wrong and has accused Bragg of bringing a politically motivated case involving conduct in 2016 during a presidential election year as Trump faces incumbent Joe Biden in a rematch of the 2020 election.

Trump has spoken out against the judge, the district attorney and other involved in the case repeatedly. Trump's comments prompted a gag order from the judge who said Trump can't talk publicly about certain people involved in the case and their families.

"The White House Thugs should not be allowed to have these dangerous and unfair Biden Trials during my campaign for President. All of them, civil and criminal, could have been brought more than three years ago. It is an illegal attack on a Political Opponent. It is Communism at its worst, and Election Interference at its Best. No such thing has ever happened in our Country before," Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social this week. "On Monday I will be forced to sit, GAGGED, before a HIGHLY CONFLICTED & CORRUPT JUDGE, whose hatred for me has no bounds. All of these New York and D.C. 'Judges' and Prosecutors have the same MINDSET. Nobody but this Soros Prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, wanted to take this ridiculous case. All legal scholars say it is a sham. BIDEN'S DOJ IS RUNNING THE CASE. Just think of it, these animals want to put the former President of the United States (who got more votes than any sitting President!), & the PARTY'S REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, IN JAIL, for doing absolutely nothing wrong. It is a RUSH TO THE FINISH. SO UNFAIR!"

Will Trump take the stand?

That's not clear yet. Trump said last month that he'd be willing to testify at trial if needed.

Could Trump go to jail?

It's too earlier to tell what will happen if Trump is convicted. Under New York state law, falsifying business records in the first degree is a Class E felony that carries a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

Trump's age and lack of any prior criminal convictions could work in his favor at sentencing if he's convicted. His attacks on the judge could have the opposite effect at sentencing. Before sentencing, the judge would look at sentencing guidelines, recommendations from prosecutors and any other pre-sentence reports.

In late March, Trump said that he wasn't worried about a conviction when asked if he thought a conviction could hurt his chances of returning to the White House.

"It could also make me more popular because the people know it's a scam," he said. "It's a Biden trial, there is no trial, there's a Biden trial."

Whatever happens during the trial, Trump will be protected by the U.S. Secret Service.

Even if convicted and sentenced to jail, Trump could continue his campaign to re-take the White House.

"The Constitution does not bar felons from serving as President," said Richard Hasen, professor of law and political science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Trump could not pardon himself from any state charges, Hasen said.

Ty Bodden

Rep Ty Bodden Announces Candidacy for New 3rd Assembly District

Rep. Ty Bodden has announced his candidacy for the new 3rd Assembly District. Bodden was elected...
Justice Anne Walsh Bradley

Liberal Justice Ann Walsh Bradley Not Running for Reelection

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s next supreme court race could be even more contentious and even more expensive than the last one.

Liberal Justice Anne Walsh Bradley on Thursday surprised the state when she announced she will not run for re-election next year.

"My decision has not come lightly. It is made after careful consideration and reflection. I know I can do the job and do it well. I know I can win re-election, should I run. But it's just time to pass the torch, bring fresh perspectives to the court," Walsh Bradley said in a statement.

She is one of Wisconsin’s longest serving justices, serving her third 10-year term on the court.

“In the 177-year history of the court, only four justices have served longer than my length of service,” she wrote.

Walsh Bradley’s decision means the next election will be open.

Former Republican attorney general, and current Waukesha County judge, Brad Schimel has already jumped into the race. There aren’t any declared Democrats yet.

Schimel on Thursday said Walsh Bradley’s decision isn’t changing anything for him.

“From the beginning of my campaign, I made it clear that I’m not just running against one person, I’m running against this Court’s leftist majority,” Schimel said. “I wish Justice Ann Walsh Bradley well in retirement after decades of public service. I look forward to continuing the fight to bring integrity and respect for the Constitution back to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin’s last race for the supreme court, in April of 2023, set records for spending. The race between Justice Janet Protasiewicz and former Justice Dan Kelly cost more than $56 million. That makes the 2023 Wisconsin race the most expensive judicial race in American history. Many court observers and politicos in Wisconsin say the 2025 race could be just as expensive, or even more expensive.

Protasiewicz’s victory flipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court to a 4-3 liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.

More Inflation on the Way

More Inflation on the Way | Up Against the Wall

More inflation is on the way.  Ok, you may not see it in the government’s...

Evers Veto Harms Wisconsin’s Girls | WRN Voices

By: State Senator Dan Knodl and State Representative Barbara Dittrich Governor Evers often repeats the phrase...

Could Congress Outlaw the Prescription Drug Market As We Know It? | WRN Voices

Are you one of the millions of Americans who have been prescribed at least one...
Death of 3 U.S. servicemembers Biden Impeachment Biden Mandates Artificial Intelligence Biden’s Funding Request 6 Billion to Iran impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden $39 billion biden red background Falling Food Prices

I Call B.S. on Biden | Up Against the Wall

First, Biden’s team is trying to say that inflation is down. Well, yes, the rate...