New Rasmussen Report Finds 63 Percent of Americans Fear Anti-police Rhetoric Going Too Far

New Rasmussen Report Finds 63 Percent of Americans Fear Anti-police Rhetoric Going Too Far



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s conviction of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the killing of George Floyd, anti-police rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. A new Rasmussen Reports survey, released this week, has found that 63 percent of American adults are concerned that this “growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers and reduce public safety in the community where they live.”

Thirty-seven percent told Rasmussen pollsters that they are “very concerned.”

They have good reason to be. During the 1919 Boston police strike, citizens there experienced a wave of hooliganism, strong-armed robberies, smashed store windows, and criminal activity, when the criminal element of the city realized there were was little to no police presence.

According to the Rasmussen poll, only about 10 percent expressed no concern at all about the negative effects on public safety of anti-police rhetoric.

The poll questioned 1,000 likely U.S. voters on April 13 and 14, asking, “How concerned are you that the growing criticism of America’s police will lead to a shortage of police officers and reduce public safety in the community where you live?”

U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said last week, “Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. I am done with those who condone government-funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can’t be reformed.” Despite such vitriolic rhetoric, which is not unique to radicals such as Tlaib, a majority of black voters — 52 percent — also said that they are very concerned about the anti-police rhetoric.

Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) challenged Tlaib’s remarks during an interview with Fox News. “No fair-minded person believes that cops, many of whom are racial minorities, get up every day and go to work hoping for the opportunity to be able to hurt someone, including but not limited to people of color. That’s nonsense. But the ‘woke-a-reestas’ like the congresswoman, they really believe that. They really do hate cops, just because they’re cops. They really do want to defund the police.”

Kennedy added, “The ‘woke-a’reestas’ really do believe that when a cop shoots a criminal, it is always — every single time — the cop’s fault, but when a criminal shoots a cop, it is always — every single time — the gun’s fault. These folks really do have contempt for America.”

In a way, the hatred of police, as expressed by Tlaib, is based on a radical leftist view of the purpose of government. Whereas government’s purpose, according to Scripture and the Founders, is to protect our lives, our liberty, and our property, leftists see government as a tool to redistribute wealth and impose their radical vision. Obviously, if there were no police and no incarceration, then there would be no way for a person to defend his life, liberty, and property, except to defend it himself.

At the same time that radicals such as Tlaib wish to end policing and incarceration, they also call for more and more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms. With no police and no guns in the hands of private citizens, life would become intolerable, and the private economy would deteriorate. We can already see this happening in major cities of America. Who wants to open a business in, or even live in, a community in which life, liberty, and property is subject to frequent attacks by the mob?

Actually, those who call for the abolition of local police forces are not really calling for the abolition of all law-enforcement agents. What they are calling for is the nationalization of police. Local police departments are often harassed by the U.S. Department of Justice now. The end-game for these anti-police radicals is for all policing to be in the hands of the federal government.

Nationalization of police is always the goal of totalitarians. One of the first actions taken by National Socialist dictator Adolf Hitler was to nationalize the police forces of Germany. Anyone who has ever heard of Hitler’s Gestapo can understand that nationalization of police does not lead to less abuse of power by police, but more.

Certainly, any time a person is handed power and authority, as is the case with local police, there is a danger of abuse. However, the alternative to local police is not desirable, and procedures are in place to weed out the tiny minority of bad cops.

Hopefully, those who advocate removing police protection from the productive and law-abiding segment of society will be repudiated at the polls, as the Rasmussen poll indicates is a strong possibility.

E-mail: Biden DOJ Nominee Might Have Lied to Senate About Knowledge of Cop Killer

E-mail: Biden DOJ Nominee Might Have Lied to Senate About Knowledge of Cop Killer



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Kristen Clarke, President Joe Biden’s hard-left, anti-white nominee to run the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, is more than a black supremacist who would defund the cops.

The nominee for assistant attorney general peddled the lie that convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent, and she apparently thinks cops are comparable to Klansmen, an e-mail she sent in 1999 shows. Even worse, the e-mail suggests that she lied during her confirmation hearing when she said she was clueless about Abu-Jamal, a much-celebrated hero to the radical left.

Unearthed by the American Accountability Project, the latest on Clarke comes weeks after the AAP produced proof that Clarke helped organize a conference to defend cop killers that same year.

The e-mail by Clarke confirms a simple truth: Biden has nominated an anti-cop radical to help run the Justice Department.

The E-mail

The email, produced at AAP’s, included an unhinged rant by the late Amiri Baraka. Baraka was an anti-white, anti-American “poet” who spent his life in brooding resentment.

“Most American white men are trained to be fags,” the pro-Castro Baraka wrote in 1965, but anyway, Clarke forwarded Baraka’s bizarre offering to a professor, Manning Marable, who edited a radical magazine.

Among the gems Clark thought were fit for publication were these:

• “The Klan is now the Police, with Blue uniforms replacing the sheets and hoods.” 

• “The corrupt racist Ludges, are petty Klan administrators, The ‘Kleagles’ of the bourgeois state’s ‘Klaven’, their courts, the midnight torch burning torture sessions, before the neck stretching and black corpse burning.”

• “Black Churches are still being burned by the sons and daughters of the Confederacy.”

Included in the piece — a long string of gibberish, false accusations, and racialist nonsense — was the inevitable defense of Abu-Jamal, who murdered Philadelphia cop Daniel Faulkner in 1982:

Mountains of evidence and testimony show clearly that Mumia is another Black scapegoat, another Lynch victim. The Kleagle, Judge [Albert] Sabo, who like traditional Kleagles, wears no hood, is the leading butcher of black people, by thinly disguised Lynch law.

In fact, “mountains of evidence” show that Abu-Jamal brutally murdered Faulkner, but anyway, Clarke wanted Marable to publish the piece and use it in a panel discussion on race and the death penalty

Always Backed Cop Killers

Two weeks ago, AAP passed documents to Fox News that showed Clarke, as a law-school student in 1999, helped organize an anti-cop, anti-law-and-order conference.

Conference organizers called murderers such as Mumia “political prisoners,” Fox reported of the revelatory documents. 

Other so-called political prisoners were Assata Shakur (Joanne Chesimard), who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper 1973. The murderess escaped prison and is still on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist List

Another favorite of Clarke’s conference speakers and attendees was Susan Rosenberg, a member of the May 19th Communist Organization, that bombed the U.S. Capitol on November 7, 1983. Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years in prison when she was caught with explosives. President Bill Clinton pardoned her.

Reported Fox, “multiple speakers at the conference referred to the death row inmates as ‘political prisoners,’ or ‘POWs.’”

One of them, of course, was Abu-Jamal, whom Marable actually believed was innocent because, he told conference attendees, he “never received a fair trial and was tried by a racist judge.”

At her confirmation hearing on April 14, Clarke claimed she knows nothing about Abu-Jamal and only provided “logistical support” for the conference. How she could be unfamiliar with Abu-Jamal given the piece from Baraka, which she sent to Marable, we are not given to know.

The claim raises obvious questions: Despite her ideological disposition, wasn’t Clarke curious about the high-profile Abu-Jamal after reading Baraka’s screed? Did she learn nothing about it despite being at Columbia Law School and in the ensuing 20 years, and, as president of the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights Under Law, does she still know nothing?

Can she really be that out of touch, and if she is, what kind of assistant attorney general will she make?

That aside, Clarke’s record of racialist activities goes back to her college days. At Harvard, Clarke wrote that blacks are genetically superior to whites. 

“Human mental processes are controlled by melanin — that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities,” Clarke believed. “Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities — something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards.”

In Newsweek last year, again, she advocated defunding the police.

Mumia Abu-Jamal

As for Abu-Jamal, few if any serious observers believe a conspiracy of racist cops, prosecutors, and judges framed him.

Still, the cop-killer has long been a cause célèbre for the radical left, including the usual Hollywood busybodies. Although Abu-Jamal dodged the hot squat when a judge overturned his death sentence, courts have repeatedly upheld the conviction.

Even if Clarke doesn’t support the cop-killer today, even if she were to disavow her association with advocates for revolutionary violence who think cop-killing terrorists are “political prisoners,” there remains her view of police.

Biden’s nominee to help run the Justice Department wants to defund them.


Iran: Advanced centrifuges discovered at nuke facility, again proving Islamic Republic violated 2015 deal~Israel retaliates after missile fired by Syrian forces targets Israeli aircraft and nuclear reactor



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Jihad Watch has reported repeatedly on Iran’s violations of the 2015 nuke deal. Iran has even admitted this. This is a slap in the face to all the countries that are in Vienna to discuss a renewed nuke deal. Iran will continue to brazenly violate any deal. Globalists will blindly ignore the Iranian regime’s deception, to their own detriment. What Marxists fail to grasp is that Iran will use them, but will never accept them as equals. The Sharia, in Iran’s view, is the highest authority. Any system of government that is not compliant with the Sharia is viewed as part of infidel territory (dar al harb) to be conquered. It is only a matter of time before the great divide appears in the red-green axis.

“Iran installed more advanced centrifuges at Natanz – IAEA,” Reuters, April 22, 2021:

Iran has installed extra advanced centrifuges at its underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz that was hit by a blast last week, a report by the U.N. atomic watchdog on Wednesday showed, deepening Iran’s breaches of its nuclear deal with major powers.

The explosion and a power outage damaged an unknown number of centrifuges and Iranian state TV has shown footage of machines that it says were replaced there. Iran has blamed Israel for the explosion. Israel has not commented formally on it.

The International Atomic Energy Agency report was not clear on how many centrifuges are in use but it gave “up to” numbers of advanced machines installed at the plant that were higher than previously indicated. The report made no mention of the explosion or its effect on the plant’s activity.

“On 21 April 2021, the Agency verified at FEP that: … six cascades of up to 1,044 IR-2m centrifuges; and two cascades of up to 348 IR-4 centrifuges … were installed, of which a number were being used,” the IAEA report to member states said, referring to the underground Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. The report was seen by Reuters.

According to a previous report, the IAEA verified on March 31 that Iran was using 696 IR-2m machines and 174 IR-4 machines at the FEP.

Wednesday’s report is the latest evidence that Iran is pressing ahead with the installation of the advanced machines, even though it is not allowed to use them to produce enriched uranium under the 2015 agreement….


Israel retaliates after missile fired by Syrian forces targets Israeli aircraft and nuclear reactor



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Israel is forced to be more vigilant since the Biden Administration took over. Trump kept Iran at bay via sanctions, and he commanded respect, even from enemies.

All this is happening while a so-called nuclear deal is being worked out, one with which Iran has never complied; nor will it ever. The goal of Iran (and its proxies) remains the obliteration of the State of Israel. Ditto for surrounding jihadists, including the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Hizballah, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

“Israel retaliates after Syrian missile lands near nuclear reactor,” Reuters, April 21, 2021:

A Syrian missile exploded in southern Israel on Thursday, the Israeli military said, in an incident that triggered warning sirens near the secretive Dimona nuclear reactor and an Israeli strike in Syria.

An Israeli military spokesman identified the projectile as an SA-5 surface-to-air missile fired by Syrian forces against Israeli aircraft. He said it overflew its target to reach the Dimona area, 200 km (125 miles) south of the Syrian border.

The missile did not hit the reactor, exploding some 30 km (19 miles) away, the spokesman added.

The sirens that sounded overnight in the Dimona area followed weeks of heightened tension between Israel and Iran, a close ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, amid renewed global negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme.

For weeks, Israeli media have said air defences around the Dimona reactor and the Red Sea port of Eilat were being strengthened in anticipation of a possible long-range missile or drone attack by Iranian-backed forces.

In public remarks on Thursday’s incident, Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz said the anti-aircraft missile was fired from Syria during an Israeli strike there against “assets that could be used for a potential attack against Israel”.

Gantz said Israel’s anti-missile systems had attempted to intercept the SA-5 but were unsuccessful.

“In most cases, we achieve other results. This is a slightly more complex case. We will investigate it and move on,” he said. Israeli security sources said the missile exploded in mid-air.

In response, Israel launched further overnight attacks inside Syria, the military spokesman said, targeting several missile batteries, including the one that fired the SA-5.

Syria’s state news agency said the country’s air defence system intercepted Israeli rockets over the suburbs of Damascus “and downed most of them”. Four soldiers were injured and there was some material damage, it said…..

House passes bill stopping any future president from imposing ‘travel ban on the basis of religion’



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The list of countries of concern that the Trump administration outlined in an executive order was based on the document devised by the former Obama administration. Despite the fact that it was Obama who set the foundation, it is Trump who is persistently criticized as being discriminatory against Muslims. Obama restricted visa waivers for seven Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. The restriction was based on security issues. But we didn’t hear any Leftist outcry about Obama being “racist” against Muslims or discriminatory.

This new bill is nothing but virtue-signaling, and wouldn’t even have stopped Trump’s bans, for they were not based on religion, but on security.

It just happens to be the case that among the world’s most egregious violators of human rights and hotbeds of terrorism are many Muslim countries. Does this new bill now mean that such countries when they are Muslim-majority are no longer dangerous? Does it mean that America should permit open immigration from any country, no matter how violent, as to not offend Muslims and the woke crowd?

As absurd as all this is, it is the premise of the irrational policies that are being instituted by the Biden administration. The administration is willing to put national security at risk as to not offend Islam. America continues a rapid descent downwards; Sharia tenets are being institutionalized, while the strictures and policies of Communism are being increasingly normalized.

“US House passes bill to prevent another ‘Muslim ban,’” by William Roberts, Al Jazeera, April 21, 2021:

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill that would limit the ability of any United States president to impose a travel ban on the basis of religion, a move that was welcomed by civil rights advocates as “a major step forward”.

The legislation, known informally as the NO BAN Act, comes in response to former President Donald Trump’s controversial “Muslim ban” that barred travel to the US from several Muslim-majority countries.

The bill, which must also pass in the US Senate to become law, was approved by a 218-208 vote in the House on Wednesday.

“The Muslim ban tore families apart, put lives on hold for years and labelled Muslims, Africans and other targeted people as threatening outsiders,” said Madihha Ahussain, counsel to Muslim Advocates, a US civil rights group.

“We must ensure that no president can enact discriminatory bans like this ever again and with the passage of the NO BAN Act in the House, we are taking a major step forward to ensuring that they won’t,” Ahussain said in a statement as the bill was passed…

Democrats Pushing a Truly Radical Gun Ban Agenda in 2021, & You’re the Target



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

USA – -( The fabricated “epidemic of gun violence” is “so severe and so desperate”, and the need “to take action” to address it is so urgent, that Democratic politicians from Joe Biden to Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi to state representatives, mayors, and city council members are using gun control as a lever to try and force the destruction of the Senate filibuster.

Of course, there’s not an “epidemic of gun violence,” and the tragedies that these politicians are using to justify their calls, would not – could not – have been prevented or mitigated by the gun control laws they are pushing. But why let reality get in the way of a good crisis? And it’s not that these politicians don’t know that they’re blowing smoke. They know all too well. They know that the proposals they’re putting forward are “mostly symbolic,” but that doesn’t matter to them, because they have other proposals waiting in the wings. They know that “gun crime” had plateaued in recent years after falling steadily for almost 3 decades. It only surged up over the past year, almost exclusively in large, Democrat-controlled cities, after politicians told police to stand back and let rioters and looters have their way, then turned around and slashed police budgets. The vast majority of the US has violent crime rates comparable to, or lower than, the UK or most European countries.

But crime isn’t the issue. Control is the issue, and the Democrats want total control.

If Democrats can take out the filibuster, killing the only tool already weak Republicans have of keeping a one-vote majority from riding rough-shod over them, they have no intention of settling for the “modest,” “reasonable,” “commonsense gun safety reforms” that they’re currently touting. Sure, they’ll pass deadly “red flag” laws (that abridge due process and compromise at least the Fourth and Fifth Amendments along with the Second), “universal (sic) background checks” (that criminalize private transfers and create a gun registration framework), and restrictions on “ghost guns” (that is gun parts), but then they’ll keep going.

They’ll not only prohibit the manufacture and sale of “assault weapons” and normal, or what they call in their world, “high-capacity” magazines, but they’ll also prohibit their transfer and possibly ban their possession altogether, requiring that they all be turned in or destroyed. California already passed a total ban on possession of “high-capacity” magazines, but that confiscation law has been blocked by the courts so far.

This isn’t some crazy conspiracy theory or the Chicken Little hype that comes from too many gun rights groups in their fundraising letters. This is over 40 years of experience researching, debating, and writing about gun control and politics, reading the current situation, and clearly seeing the true objectives.

Democrats are literally power-mad. They believed that they had a permanent lock on the strings of power back in 2016, but the American electorate disabused them of that mistaken notion. They then pulled out all the stops in 2020, managing to secure a narrow victory that many people still question, but they’re determined to lock up their hold on power this time no matter what.

The filibuster is all that stands between them and permanent control in Washington.

Once the filibuster is gone, Democrats will add DC and Puerto Rico as new states – with 2 new Democratic senators each – and they’ll add 4 more seats to the Supreme Court to negate the current conservative majority. Then, with a solid majority in both houses, they’ll push through more and more gun control. With a blatantly political Court to do their bidding, we’ll see Heller neutered, and every gun control scheme currently in the legal pipeline declared to be constitutional.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act will be repealed, opening the door for cities, states, and special interest groups to resume their war on gun companies using a weaponized judiciary to drive the civilian arms industry into bankruptcy.

Cap it all off with major new immigration reform, granting citizenship to the millions of people currently in our country and still pouring in illegally, and Republicans will lose any hope of ever regaining the majority in either house.

This is what Democratic leaders are currently pushing for.

What they intend to do with that consolidated power is genuinely frightening.

There was a time that Americans could identify as Republican or Democrat, “conservative” or “liberal,” “right” or “left,” and still genuinely believe that the United States of America was a special place worth preserving. The Republic was Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” or Kennedy’s “Camelot,” founded on Jefferson’s “unalienable rights,” that despite its flaws, contradictions and tragedies, had firm principles to aspire and rise to. There was a time that Americans of every mainstream political stripe agreed that those principles and aspirations were something worth defending, even fighting and dying for.

Something has changed. Sometime in the past twenty years – maybe even less – the American consensus has faded to be replaced by ideology owing more to Marx and Engels than to Hume and Locke. (Do most Americans under 50 even know these names, aside from Marx?)

We like to think that even the most strident Democrat wants our nation to continue and our people to be prosperous and happy, but looking at what they are trying to do, and the lengths they’re willing to go to in order to get what they want, it’s hard to envision anything less than a repeat of the mistakes and failures of the USSR, played out right here in the USA.

This isn’t hype or bluster. This is clearly what Democrats are trying to do, and they’re getting closer every day.

There are currently just two or three Democratic Senators objecting to the idea of deleting the filibuster, but it’s quite possible that they could fold or a Republican or two could make a deal and jump the aisle, giving Dems the simple majority they need to change the rules. If that happens, the writing is on the walls. Remember the push for Obamacare back in 2010. Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “we need to pass the bill so we know what’s in it,” and the tremendous pressure brought to bear to get their caucus in line in support of the bill, in spite of massive protests at the Capitol and in state capitols around the country.

That was only a warm-up for what’s going on right now. This is the biggest opportunity Democrats have seen since Lyndon Johnson convinced them that they could lock up the black vote by passing the Civil Rights Act, even though it betrayed the founding principles and history of their party, and meant they’d have to publicly turn their back on their direct action wing, the KKK.

I have to admit that I’m stumped as to what the average Democrat thinks America should or could look like with this bunch of power-crazed vultures in total control, but I can pretty much guarantee that it won’t go well.

It’s easy to talk about banning certain guns and accessories, but enforcing such bans is a much bigger challenge. So I ask Joe Biden, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and the rest of the DC elites: How many Americans are you willing to kill or incarcerate for failing to comply with gun laws that have been shown to not actually save lives?
How many Americans are you willing to see killed or incarcerated for one too many rounds in a magazine?

How many police officers are you willing to see killed or wounded trying to enforce laws that are “mostly symbolic,” but which millions of Americans believe are blatant violations of their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights?

The political divide is deep and getting deeper. Trust in the election process is almost completely destroyed. The balance of power in DC teeters on a single vote, making it very hard to advance any agenda. Rather than following the American tradition of working to build support for their ideas, and thus gain the majorities needed to advance them, Democrats are choosing to try and change the rules and rearrange the board.

Putting forward better ideas and selling those ideas to voters in order to win more seats in the next election, thus allowing you to advance your agenda, is just too slow, old-fashioned, and risky for this current crop of Democratic leaders. They demand change. Now. And they will justify any action that puts them on top. Many Republicans respond almost as poorly, by making ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims and engaging in the same sort of “Hooray for Our Side!” politics that the Democrats are guilty of.

Both the radical Democratic leadership and the benighted “business as usual” GOP establishment are playing with fire. Neither side seems to understand that pushing people to the extremes will breed more extremism. The radical Democrats want to defund the police and expect those same police to protect them and execute their gun confiscation orders. They turn a blind eye to “mostly peaceful” protests that burn cities down while expecting their Antifa shock troops to intimidate veterans of real wars of insurgency.

For its part, the GOP establishment whistles in the dark hoping they can make a deal with people who clearly intend to bury them.

By looking the other way, the establishment has given an opening to the fringes of their own parties. The investigations that should rightly be a bi-partisan affair have become the province of only conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, guns are flying off the shelves, and ammunition isn’t even making it to the stores.

We seem to be living under the old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times.” Perhaps men and women of goodwill on both sides will join hands across the political aisles. Perhaps the American Experiment will emerge from this crisis stronger and more resilient and with better safeguards for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than ever.

For now, the spoiled children have taken over the school and they’re doing their best to lock the doors to keep the adults outside. It’s tragic and terrifying.

Keep contacting your elected servants (Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121).

Pray for the Republic. And keep your powder dry.

Jeff Knox
Jeff Knox

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit:

Alternate Juror on Chauvin Trial Says She Feared Riots, People Turning Up At Her Home


"I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict."



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A woman who sat as an alternate juror on the Derek Chauvin trial told a local news station that she was concerned about “rioting and destruction” as well as people turning up at her house if they were angry at the verdict.

Lisa Christensen also revealed to KARE 11 how the riots that preceded the verdict were close to her house and that she routinely witnessed them after the trial had concluded for the day.

“When I came home, I could hear the helicopters flying over my house… I could hear the flash bangs going off,” Christensen said. “If I stepped outside, I could see the smoke from the grenades. One day, the trial ran a little late, and I had trouble getting to my house, because the protesters were blocking the interstate, so I had to go way around.”

Christensen said she had no idea she would be dismissed by the judge and not be a part of deliberations, something that happened “right before the 12 jurors were sequestered.”

The alternate juror said she was disappointed to be dismissed and that she would have found Chauvin guilty if she had been part of the final 12 jurors.

Judging by Christensen’s remarks, that guilty verdict would clearly have been influenced not primarily by the evidence, but by the threat of mass rioting and threats to her own personal safety.

“I did not want to go through rioting and destruction again and I was concerned about people coming to my house if they were not happy with the verdict,” she said.

The comments clearly suggest that members of the jury were swayed by the threat of nationwide civil unrest, violence and looting that would have undoubtedly occurred had Chauvin escaped any of the charges.

“This is the clearest picture yet of the terroristic intimidation jurors faced to ensure Chauvin was found guilty in what was fundamentally a rigged show trial,” comments Chris Menahan.

“That the trial was not moved out of Minneapolis is a sick joke but since Charlottesville this has become the new normal.”

Other individuals who testified in defense of Chauvin also had their homes attacked before the jury was sent away to reach a verdict.