As soon as the polls opened this morning, skullduggery was a foot.
How many times were we told, admonished (!), that the voting machines were not connected to the internet?
As soon as the polls opened this morning, skullduggery was a foot.
How many times were we told, admonished (!), that the voting machines were not connected to the internet?
Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson ended her argument at the Supreme Court admitting both parties can’t be allowed to ballot rig.
There was never a purer demonstration of how traitorous Democrats are about “defending democracy,” or whatever corny phrase they like to use, than what just happened at the Supreme Court.
At the very end of oral arguments in the Colorado case determining whether the state had the right to remove former President Donald Trump’s name from the 2024 ballot, Justice Samuel Alito asked the state’s solicitor general, Shannon Stevenson, what’s going to happen if other states “retaliate” by, say, removing Joe Biden from theirs. Elected officials in at least six states have suggested it as a course of action.
It’s an obvious question that Stevenson either wasn’t prepared for or knew it would expose her state’s case as a tragic joke. “Your honor, I think we have to have faith in our system that people will follow their election processes appropriately, that they will take realistic views of what insurrection is under the 14th Amendment,” she said. “Courts will review those decisions, this court may review some of them.”
What she said next should have resulted in her being laughed out of the room. “But,” she said, “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously in its resolution of this case.”
Alito challenged Stevenson on whether she thought the suggestion of retaliation, coming from places like Florida, Arizona, and Georgia, all potentially swing states in the next election, was truly unfounded.
“Um, I think we have processes—” she said, before being interrupted.
“We should proceed on the assumption that it’s not a serious threat?” said Alito.
Stevenson said there are “institutions in place” that should “handle” such matters. Asked to specify which institutions, she said, “Our states, their own electoral rules, the administrators who enforce those rules.” She also said voters would have to rely on “courts.”
In essence, to believe this entire case by Democrats is an effort to safeguard democracy, rather than rig an election, is to trust that Republicans would never dare try doing the same. If they did, it would ruin Democrats’ plot. Alternatively, if such threats were made good, we should expect enough opposition to render them neutral.
In fairness, a lot of Republicans are naive morons who time and time again respond to Democrats politically kicking their teeth in by saying, “Well, if we do anything back, we’re no better than them.” So, Stevenson’s is not a terrible gamble.
But there’s a long way to go before the election. Attitudes change, and they will rapidly if Colorado is successful and other Democrat states decide to follow the example of unilaterally determining Trump is ineligible to run for a second term, all because he rejected the accuracy of election results (as Democrats do on a routine basis).
The media’s fixation on the Colorado case has focused solely on the legal merits of the case, when the more urgent matter has always been not what happens if it’s ruled legal to keep Trump off a ballot, but what it means for future democratic elections if he is.
There’s a reason until recently it was not only abnormal but unthinkable in America for one political party to use the justice system to exterminate its opponent. The reason is self-evident— mutually assured destruction. If they can do it to us, we can do it to them. It’s what they do in the Congo and every other war-torn state across the globe.
Alito intentionally invoked that perilous likelihood. Stevenson’s response — “I don’t think that this court should take those threats too seriously” — showed just how seriously Democrats take “defending democracy.”
There you have it…demographic change to a one party state.
— Hereward the Wake (@AlanGeraldWard2) February 5, 2024
Update: After speaking with election integrity expert Garland Favorito, we discovered the courtroom display was much more serious than originally reported. J. Alex Halderman demonstrated in court how Dominion machines were hacked and altered their tabulations.
On Friday, in a Federal Court In Atlanta, Georgia, University of Michigan Professor of Computer Science and Engineering J. Alex Halderman testified in front of Judge Amy Totenberg’s courtroom about the Dominion voting machines used in the Georgia elections since 2020.
As reported earlier, during his testimony, Halderman was able to HACK A DOMINION VOTING MACHINE and change the tabulations in front of U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg and the entire courtroom!
Halderman USED ONLY A PEN TO CHANGE VOTE TOTALS!
The plaintiffs seek to remove what they say are insecure voting machines in Georgia in favor of secure paper ballots.
Following The Gateway Pundit’s explosive report on Saturday night, we spoke with Georgia reporter Amber Connor, who has been sitting in the courtroom during the trial for the past two weeks.
Amber confirmed what was reported earlier about Halderman’s demonstration live on how to hack a Dominion voting machine and change the totals using only a pen. In fact Halderman borrowed a pen from the defense attorneys for his demonstration.
The mainstream legacy news media has decided to ignore this historic case taking place in Georgia for some reason. Why is that?
Vivek Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after a deflating Iowa caucus result on Monday, throwing his weight behind his onetime opponent, former President Donald Trump.
The Ohio biotech entrepreneur, who promised his far-right and anti-establishment policy proposals could unite the country around a shared identity, garnered less than 8% in Iowa’s caucuses.
He trailed far behind Trump, who pulled in more than 51% of the votes, and Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, who garnered 21% and 19% respectively, with 97% of results reported as of 11:30 p.m. Monday.
“We are going to suspend this presidential campaign,” Ramaswamy said. “There is no path for me to be the next president, absent things that we don’t want to see happen in this country.”
I’ll shut down the FBI & ATF and here’s one more reason why. A voter in Iowa recently reminded me of the story of Ruby Ridge & the Weaver family. In 1992, Randy Weaver sold a sawed-off shotgun to a federal informant & was then surrounded at his cabin for refusing to appear in… pic.twitter.com/jfbzem7L7D
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) January 9, 2024
From today’s order in Trump v. Anderson:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The case is set for oral argument on Thursday, February 8, 2024. Petitioner’s brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Thursday, January 18, 2024. Respondents’ briefs on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before 5 p.m., Monday, February 5, 2024.
Fair Fight et al v. True the Vote et al | Case No. 2:20-cv-0302-SCJ
HOUSTON, TX, January 2, 2024 – True the Vote (TTV) declares a decisive triumph in their legal battle against Stacy Abrams’ Fair Fight, legal teams led by Marc Elias, and the Biden Department of Justice. A federal court in the Northern District of Georgia today affirmed that citizens have the right to lawfully petition their government in support of election integrity without fear of persecution or prosecution.
In a resounding vindication, TTV successfully defended its actions of December 2020, aiding Georgia citizens in filing elector challenges based on data showing over 364,000 voters appeared to be ineligible to vote due to change in residency.
This victory is a testament to every American’s constitutional right to free speech and the importance of actively participating in the electoral process.
True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht affirmed, “Today’s ruling sends a clear message to those who would attempt to control the course of our nation through lawfare and intimidation. American citizens will not be silenced.”
True the Vote lead attorney Jake Evans stated, “After almost three years of litigation and a two-week federal trial with plaintiff calling 12 witnesses, Judge Steven Jones awarded a complete defense verdict for all defendants. This decision is monumental. It vindicates True the Vote in totality and establishes that eligibility challenges under Section 230 are a proper method to ensure voter rolls are accurate. I am grateful to help achieve this great victory.”
Engelbrecht added, “This is an answer to the prayers of faithful patriots across America.”
True the Vote remains steadfast in its mission to support trustworthy elections and looks forward to assisting citizens in future such lawful efforts.
A federal judge finds after a non-jury trial that election watchdogs making voter registration challenges did not violate the Voting Rights Act.
The conservative vote-monitoring organization True the Vote’s challenges to Georgia voters’ eligibility didn’t amount to voter intimidation in the 2020 election, a federal judge ruled on Jan. 2.
U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones, in a 145-page ruling that was issued a little less than two months after the end of a civil trial, found that the defendants didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act.
Like spoiled trust fund babies living an opulent lifestyle off the profits of a company grandpa built, but they don’t understand, many Americans (including many Americans with power) simply have never put any thought into why our society has succeeded or what makes it work.
My friend Glenn Reynolds, who also has an excellent Substack you may want to subscribe to, just released a piece called Civilizational Jenga. The main focus of it was the Colorado Supreme Court’s foolish decision to pull Trump’s access to the ballot in Colorado over his supposed “insurrection” on January 6, 2021.
Setting aside the fact that a large percentage of the country, myself included, doesn’t believe the Jan 6. riot was an “insurrection,” it puts the cart before the horse. Trump has yet to be put on trial for insurrection.
For a handful of leftwing judges (and yes, they’re all Democrats) to just arbitrarily decide that he committed insurrection without him being convicted of it at a trial is not much different than deciding he committed murder without proving it at a trial. It’s an obvious attempt to misuse the court system for political reasons and if it were to stick and Trump were to become the nominee, it would practically demand that Republicans pull the same dirty trick against Joe Biden. Does it seem like a healthy precedent for political parties to be trying to win elections by default by illegitimately kicking their potential opponents off the ballot? No, it does not.
This column is not going to attempt to litigate Trump’s various court cases and rule on which ones may be justified and which ones may be political, but there is a very good reason that Americans have diligently avoided charging former presidents with crimes. That’s because it’s inevitably going to be highly controversial, polarizing and it’s dangerous to a Republic for a political party to believe that the only way they can get justice is to be in charge.
If one political party in a country concludes that their choices are to be in charge or be in jail, democracy suddenly becomes a very secondary concern. As Glenn Reynolds notes in his column, Abe Lincoln was kept off the ballot in 10 states back in 1860. Of course, that year is best remembered as the year before the Civil War.
Michigan is one of a number of states in which anti-Trump forces have argued that he is barred from running for the presidency by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That claim was rejected earlier this month by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Earlier today, Michigan’s Supreme Court, in an unsigned opinion, denied plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ ruling. The Supreme Court stated its rationale briefly:
The application for leave to appeal the December 14, 2023 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
One judge dissented, arguing that the Court should have taken the appeal and ruled that Trump is, at a minimum, entitled to run in Michigan’s GOP primary.
Republicans on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, led by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), have introduced legislation that would give states the power to verify the American citizenship of applicants registering to vote via mail.
This week, Britt and fellow Republicans introduced the “Citizen Ballot Protection Act” which would give states the ability to more accurately verify that only American citizens are being approved for voter registrations.
Britt said the legislation is necessary as several blue states, counties, and cities pass ordinances opening voting rights to foreign nationals — at least for municipal elections.
“Voting in our country is a sacred right that must solely be limited to American citizens. To allow States to uphold this principle should be simple commonsense,” Britt said:
We are seeing certain cities across our nation begin to openly allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. This effectively disenfranchises hardworking American citizens, insults those American citizens who came to our country legally and took the time and effort to go through the citizenship process, and undermines faith in our entire electoral system — which is a cornerstone of our nation that we cannot allow to crumble. [Emphasis added]
It should not be controversial that states have the legal right to prevent noncitizens — including illegal migrants and official representatives of foreign adversaries — from voting in state and federal elections. I’m proud to work with Representative Palmer and my Senate colleagues to ensure that we pass this legislation and stand up for the right of Americans – and only Americans – to vote in American elections. [Emphasis added]
The legislation would amend the National Voting Rights Act to allow states to require proof of citizenship for those applicants registering to vote in state and federal elections by mail.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as well as Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV.), Roger Wicker (R-MS.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) are co-sponsoring the bill.
Last week, Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) accused New York City officials of attempting to register to vote newly arrived border crossers and illegal aliens living in city shelters.
That accusation came after New York City Democrats sought to give municipal voting rights to nearly a million foreign nationals living across the city in 2021. That effort, though, was struck down last year by the New York Supreme Court.
At a time when divisive American political rhetoric drives the headlines, and sentiment on elected officials and the direction of the country is bleak, it’s hard to find solutions in which Democrats, independents, and Republicans agree. However, in looking at “age limits” or “term limits” for federally elected officials, it’s clear these are two issues that gain vast amounts of support from across the political spectrum.
In the most recent Bullfinch Group National Survey of 1,200 American adults, respondents were asked if they “support or oppose ‘term limits’ for members of Congress and the U.S. Senate, which would limit the amount of terms an elected official is allowed to serve?” While some may be surprised to see that more than 8 in 10 adults support term limits (81%), what may be more striking is the near identical support shown by self-identified Democrats, independents, and Republicans:
What with WWIII brewing like a much-needed pot of coffee after a night of swilling Mad Dog (don’t judge), I thought today would be a groovy time to point out what our future looks like if we don’t wake up the “communism can’t happen here” crowd. And I do not have to go far because a lot of it is already taking place.
We already know the federal government colluded with Big Tech to censor Americans who dared question the origins of COVID and the efficacy of the clot-shot and even shut down the New York Post for breaking the Hunter Biden laptop story. We’ve seen pro-lifers have their doors kicked in by FBI SWAT teams. This will get even worse if We the People don’t raise our voices.
Your environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score will light up like Hunter’s crackpipe if you tweet that “a man in a dress isn’t a woman,” and your digital currency card will be denied when you try to buy toilet paper.
FACT-O-RAMA! A woman I know, now 81, who moved from Poland to the U.S. in 1974 told me Stalin would stop sending toilet paper to Poland when he was angry at the nation for not falling in line.
Your three-bedroom home will be deemed an extravagance now that your kids have moved out and may be confiscated and handed over to a large family from Sudan. After all, building more housing than necessary is a threat to “climate change.” Besides, you’ll be comfy-cozy in your federally approved living pod.
Check out this Canadian commie prag stating that “you don’t have an absolute right to own private property in Canada.” Stop saying “It can’t happen here.”
Your dog will be killed because we all know puppy kibble makes the weather bad.
Unless you have a herd of cattle, your Sunday steaks will be replaced with a tempting cricket salad.
Enough of my bloviating. Watch this video by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is nothing more than a group of wealthy, unelected jackpuddings who are “predicting” that by 2030 you will be a serf. Your enslavement includes such greatest hits as:
— World Economic Forum (@wef) April 9, 2018
FACT-O-RAMA! The mass migration to the West began decades ago. Do you see how far along the WEF plan has come along? Are you waking up yet? If you are reading this, Im sure you are. Now let’s work on our “normie” friends and relatives.
According to KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov, the first step we see after the fall of liberty won’t affect true Americans. Antifa and knuckleheads like the professors who are now waving Hamas flags will be the first to be purged. That “BLM” shirt your lavender-haired, non-binary sibling-in-law wears won’t protect zher from prison, or even a firing squad. It will actually push zhim to the front of the line.
Bezmenov put it this way:
Your leftists in the United States. All these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed anymore. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power, obviously they get offended, they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.
I won’t get into what our Jewish friends and gay community will face if Islam takes over the Western world.
With Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry’s stunning victory in the gubernatorial jungle primary over the weekend, the state will soon have a GOP trifecta; majority control of both chambers of the legislature as well as the governor’s office. That should help clear the way for the passage of Constitutional Carry, though I’m not quite as confident as FPC’s Rob Romano is.
I think this definitely improves the chances that Louisiana will become the 28th Constitutional Carry state in 2024, but it’s important to remember what happened with permitless carry this year. While the House overwhelmingly approved Rep. Danny McCormick’s bill, the legislation never got to the desk of Gov. John Bel Edwards because it died in the GOP-controlled State Senate back in early June.
House Bill 131 would have eliminated all training and permitting requirements to carry a concealed firearm, provided gun owners are over 21 and aren’t barred from owning a gun under state or federal law. But its sponsor, Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, pulled the measure after lawmakers on the Senate Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Committee sought to amend it heavily.
Amendments proposed Tuesday by the committee would have let people carry concealed weapons only if they took education courses and were entered in a state database to show completion of those courses.
“My supporters wouldn’t want any required training or a government list that their name would go on,” McCormick told the committee.…
Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards in 2021 vetoed similar legislation that both chambers had approved with veto-proof, two-thirds majorities. But when it came to overriding Edwards’ veto, the state Senate couldn’t corral enough votes.
The bill will likely come before the Legislature again in future years.
Oh, it’s definitely coming back. McCormick has made it clear that he’ll once again be introducing a permitless carry bill for the 2024 session. In fact, he tied that measure to a gun raffle he hosted in August as part of his re-election campaign. Like Landry, McCormick won the jungle primary in House District 1 outright over the weekend, pulling in 66% of the vote to Democrat Randall Liles’ 34%.
With McCormick heading back to Baton Rouge and Landry moving into the governor’s mansion, the pressure will be on state senators to finally get on board with permitless carry, especially since Landry made passage of the measure one of his campaign issues.
“The current governor of this state has vetoed constitutional carry but we’re going in and passing that,” Landry told Breitbart, referring to Democrat John Bel Edwards. “The problems are not the guns; the problems are cultural. The problems are broken families, the problems are poor educational opportunities, the problems are not supporting programs that teach the proper use and handling of firearms.”…
Landry told Breitbart that he would be “focused” as governor on strengthening Second Amendment rights in the state.
“I support further strengthening the rights of our citizens, their ability to exercise the Second Amendment of the constitution, and I will be focused on any way that we can strengthen that at the state level,” he told the news outlet.
The odds are definitely in gun owners’ favor now, but Louisianans can’t take it for granted that permitless carry is going to make it to Landry’s desk for his signature. Second Amendment supporters in the Sportsmen’s Paradise turned out to vote for a pro-2A candidate this past weekend, but now they need to contact their state reps and senators and urge them to get with the program and back McCormick’s bill in order to get it across the finish line and enshrined into law.
At a time when everything is stupid and things are only getting worse, I guess I should thank Ryan Busse for providing me with a genuine belly laugh. The longtime gun salesman-turned-anti-gun activist, who recently announced his bid to become the Democratic candidate for governor in Montana next year, claims in a new interview that he’s not running on a gun control platform or proposing any new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
The entire reason anyone outside of his immediate circle of friends and family would be aware of Busse is because he’s incessantly retold his narrative about becoming disgusted with the state of the firearms industry and leaving Kimber in high dudgeon over the “radicalization” of gun makers (though it took him nearly 20 years to do so), becoming an advisor to the Biden campaign in 2020 not long after walking out the door.
After the 2020 election cycle was over Busse signed on with Giffords, and over the past few years has served as a high-paid expert witnesses for anti-gun states like California and Illinois, become the author of a memoir that once again rehashes his beefs with the gun industry, and has served as one of the go-to spokespeople for the gun control movement when they need to trot out a gun owner to claim that their policy proposals are eminently reasonable and chock-full of common sense.
But if the supposedly moderate proposals from groups like Giffords really are as popular with American voters as Busse has claimed they are, then why is he running from his gun control stances instead of running on them? Continue reading “”
This is the fully left wing Washington Post. If their propaganda is this bad for SloJoe, his real numbers must be truly aweful. Best bet is that they’re slowly pounding nails in his political coffin.
Troubles for Biden not just his age in reelection campaign: https://t.co/WClxnNMXjj
— W. Joseph Campbell (@wjosephcampbell) September 24, 2023
The head of the United States Concealed Carry Association’s (USCCA) new political advocacy group has a new plan for expanding gun rights.
Katie Pointer Baney, executive director of the group’s new Action Fund, spoke exclusively with The Reload to explain her vision for the 501(C)(4) non-profit. She emphasized USCCA’s commitment to using the group for in-person activist training and political rallies. But she said the idea is to empower gun owners themselves.
“We’re focused less on saying ‘gun owner vote for A, B, or C,’” Baney told The Reload. “Instead, we’re saying, here are the critical policies; here are the tools and resources necessary for you to make the decision on who you think is best to vote for.”
She said the goal is to build a “2A citizens army.” That’s not an uncommon mission among gun-rights groups. But USCCA’s scale, with over 800,000 paying members, makes it a more realistic short-term goal in the race to shore up the movement as the NRA shrinks in the face of mounting financial and legal issues.
“What we really want to do is create this grassroots 2A citizen army. I think people are generally dismayed and frustrated at the political process. They don’t know where to start. They don’t know how to make a difference. They kind of throw their hands up and are frustrated.”
Baney said a significant focus of the group will be activist training, but that doesn’t mean it will merely sit back and hope the activists they train can figure everything out on their own. Instead, the Action Fund hopes to differentiate itself from the others with its ground game. Instead of focusing entirely on legal fights or national elections, as most other non-NRA gun groups have done, it is planning a more expansive push.
“I think this is where we’re going to be different and complementary to some of the other Second Amendment advocacy groups, and maybe their lead focus is on launching legal challenges, or others are really only focused at the federal level,” she said.
Before joining USCCA, Baney spent a dozen years as a Republican staffer in Congress, including with the House Committee on Homeland Security and former Speaker Paul Ryan’s office. She plans to draw on that political experience and understanding to guide the group’s operation at each level, even in deep blue states.
“For example, the USCCA has a pretty large presence in California, and we’re looking at county-by-county restrictions,” Baney said. “That would be an area where we understand the political realities of winning. A statewide race isn’t necessarily the goal. The goal is being able to make a difference even on a local or county level.”
That doesn’t mean they aren’t going after the swing states, too.
“Of course, it’s different when we look at a state like Wisconsin where we’re headquartered, which is an incredibly purple state, a swing state integral to the 2024 presidential election,” she said. “When we look at gun owners here, when we’re hosting events and having important policy conversations, it’ll be much more geared to a statewide and federal level.”
Baney argued the key to the group’s success will lie in changing the narrative on gun ownership and incorporating the people who bought a gun for the first time in recent years, a cohort that defies many political and demographic stereotypes for who owns a gun in America.
“We know there are millions of new gun owners. We know that we need to change the perception of gun ownership,” Baney said. “And I think the best way to do that is to elevate the voices of everyday gun owners, of their stories. To elevate them in communities with, again, the resources and tools necessary to make a difference.”
In a movement filled with groups that lead with bomb throwing and serving up political red meat, Baney said the Action Fund will focus on common grounds.
“I think you ultimately alienate people if you dive into those hyperpartisan political games,” she said. “I don’t think that’s a win for the Second Amendment. I don’t think that’s a win for gun owners.”
But that doesn’t mean Baney can’t see the obvious breakdown between where the parties stand on guns, with national Democrats having moved to the left and Republicans to the right since even as recently as the Obama Administration.
“Are there political realities to one party over the other largely supporting Second Amendment rights? Yes, of course. We acknowledge and understand that,” Baney said. “But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t Democrats or Libertarians or Green Party or however else you identify your political party affiliation, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t others who support the Second Amendment. And with all of our efforts, what we’re trying to do is broaden this tent of gun ownership.”
Still, despite the group’s growth and incorporation of new demographics, the NRA lost more members last year than the USCCA has ever had. And most of those USCCA members joined before it was doing any political work at all, instead likely looking for the benefits of the group’s “concealed carry insurance.” It remains to be seen whether an approach focused on building a big tent with newcomers as a focus can outperform a more polarizing approach that seeks to extract as much funding and support from your core demographic, even at the cost of those at the fringes of your position.
Baney is confident the USCCA Action Fund can leave a mark.
“The Second Amendment is part of the founding document of our country. It really shouldn’t be partisan or political at the end of the day,” she said. “You take an oath of office when you’re elected to uphold the Constitution. The Second Amendment is part of that.”
Montana needs to wake up and cancel this bad actor’s campaign for state Governor …and fast.
“Hi there, I’m Ryan Busse, [Senior Advisor, Giffords, gun Control Org], and I’m running to be the next Governor of Montana. I’m a father, a husband, a hunter, and a proud Montanan who wants our great state to be a place where all of our freedoms are protected.” ~ Ryan Busse X.
Conman, Busse, might try to fool uninformed Montanans that he is all for protecting freedoms. But his track record on the Second Amendment is a Freedom-Gutting horror show.
NSSF’s Larry Keane continued in a second OP-ED: “Busse likes to pass himself off to adoring gun control media types as a firearm industry “expert” but make no mistake…he’s nothing of the sort. He dresses up in Fudd-ish plaid flannel, hunts with expensive shotguns and spends more time dabbling in blue-anon progressive politics than he does actually concentrating on things like the facts. Don’t believe him. He’s nothing more than a modern-day snake oil salesman hawking gun control as a miracle cure-all elixir.”
“Busse is a charlatan. He’s a paid shill for gun control who has yet to find a media outlet that won’t fawn over his “Saul-to-Paul” conversion from defender of firearms to shotgun-toting, plaid-wearing doomsday prophet shouting repentance admonitions at anyone who dares to disagree with his gun control crusade.”
Those are pretty tough words from the starched-shirt, National Shooting Sports Foundation, which spends more time in board rooms and government offices negotiating with bureaucrats and not throwing verbal bombs at freedom haters.
Blah, blah blah, but where is your proof Busse is a two-faced shill against your right to keep and bear arms you might ask?
How about this proof: 18+ times, Ryan Busse has appeared in lawsuits to defend gun control in attempts to kill your second amendment rights.
Wake up, Montana!