Kyle Rittenhouse
Dan Z. for TTAG
Previous Post
Next Post

Literally nothing Kyle Rittenhouse does escapes notice. All of the usual suspects do literally everything they can to paint anything he’s involved in as somehow dark, nefarious, and deeply, deeply concerning. An easy tipoff is the apparent self-imposed minimum quota editors place on the use of terms like “far right” in any article they publish about him.

The latest spate of news of note is that Rittenhouse has founded a new gun rights org here in Texas. The left-leaning Texas Tribune made sure to use all of the requisite tropes in their report.

Now, Rittenhouse is creating a nonprofit in the state — with help from well-connected, far-right political actors.

They managed to jimmy in the term “right-wing,” mention two dead BLM-ers, secessionism, “ultraconservative,” un-named (and by implication somehow shady) “far-right political actors,” and tied Rittenhouse to Texas’s impeached Attorney General…all within three very brief paragraphs. Impressive.

The UK’s Independent took much the same slanted tack on the story.

None of these hit pieces reports shed much light on what the newly founded Rittenhouse Foundation’s raison d’être really is beyond quoting a blurb the new nonprofit filed with the state . . .

In a July 23 filing with the Texas secretary of state’s office, he described “The Rittenhouse Foundation” as a nonprofit that “protects human and civil rights secured by law, including an individual’s inalienable right to bear arms” and “ensures the Second Amendment is preserved through education and legal assistance.”

Uh huh. Since we were curious about how Kyle and the new foundation’s directors envision The Rittenhouse Foundation’s goals and mission, we talked to TRF board member Chris McNutt last night. McNutt is also the president of Texas Gun Rights.

We wanted to know how The Rittenhouse Foundation will be different from other gun rights orgs that are already out there doing very good work. It turns out that TRF’s mission will be very different from those of orgs like FPC, SAF, GOA, NAGR. The Rittenhouse Foundation’s work will be much more narrowly focused on supporting individuals after they defend themselves with firearms.

Kyle obviously endured a seismically high-profile and arduous battle in defending himself against the murder and other charges against him after his defensive gun use on the streets of Kenosha. Some deep-pocketed individuals and gun rights orgs supported him through that process, but it was a long, very difficult slog. And while he was found not guilty on all charges, he’s still fighting the battle to this day in civil court cases brought by Gaige Grosskreutz and others).

McNutt told us that TRF will look for and give financial support to worthy individuals who have similarly defended themselves using their Second Amendment rights, but who are now fighting criminal and civil battles as a result of their defensive gun use. It’s still very early days for the new org (they don’t have a web site up yet), and it’s possible that TRF’s mission may expand to other areas of Second Amendment advocacy and support as the org gets up and running.

We’re told TRF has attracted substantial funding from some very deep-pocketed individuals who care about and support the Second Amendment and don’t want to see others put through the wringer the same way Rittenhouse was. None of the new org’s funds will be going to help Rittenhouse defend himself in the civil suits he’s facing.

In the mean time, it will be interesting to watch how The Rittenhouse Foundation gets up and going and how they choose the individuals they’ll decide to back. We’ll be watching to see what that looks like in practice. Stay tuned.

 

 

Previous Post
Next Post

44 COMMENTS

  1. Has he sued CNN and the rest of the left MSM and received beaucoup bucks?? Haven’t seen anything. I hope he’s working on it.

    • George Zimmerman’s lawsuit against NBC showed that even when they alter the evidence to paint one as a racist, the court lets them get away with it.

      • Side note – there was an attempt to generate a fake road rage incident – twice. An ambush, if you will. At the second incident, a shot was fired. The shooter was convicted and imprisoned. Global media wrote the story as a “another” road rage incident involving the TARGET, and implied a firearm was “recovered” from the TARGET’S truck. Even years after the conviction and imprisonment of the shooter…

        Further – BOTH ambushes occurred while the target was on the way TO a DOCTOR’S APPOINTMENT. The shooter worked in the mall that housed the doctor’s office. It is unknown how the shooter knew when the TARGET’S appointments were. And that is a shame…

        The depravity of the global media (and those who protect them to shape their agenda) is extreme…

        Rittenhouse needs all the help he can get, is my thought. That other guy does, too.

        • Convicted George Zimmerman attempted assassinator/stalker, rabid Bernie Bro, Matthew Apperson, the recidivist porch-pooper who liked to relieve himself outside his neighbor’s front doors and allegedly kill their pets is enjoying his 20 year stay in one of Florida’s “big houses”, hopefully the most violent one

        • Too bad the presumed spy in the doctor’s office was never caught. Had the porch-pooper understood that glass can deflect projectiles, his plan might worked. Came within an inch or two, I hear.

      • “when they alter the evidence to paint one as a racist,“

        When “they alter evidence”,that is the government district attorney. A lawyer who is allowed to lie in court. Which is allowed according to firearms trainer Massad Ayoob. He has said the DA will lie all the time to win a case.
        And yet I keep hearing people complain about qualified immunity for cops???

        Im far more concerned about a DA, George Soros or not, who will create false evidence, and get away with it. And no one really cares. Unless it was a cop who lied. Only then do they care.

  2. I wish him all the best, but attracting more attention to himself will bring out Leftist/Fascist/Brown Shirt brigade in force… 🙁

      • He was going to be a target anyways. Might as well embrace it, and try to help other people in similar situations.

        • Yessir. Keeping a low profile does not mean the fascists won’t come after our 2a rights. He needs to just keep swinging.

    • I’ve had similar thoughts. It sucks, what happened to him in Kenosha. But, it’s never gonna stop happening. He is using and/or allowing events to shape who and what he is. I won’t be around to see him grow old. I can only hope that his persecutors don’t get to throw him in prison for some imagined crime in years to come. Or worse – some transgender creature assassinates him.

    • Guarantee they have people watching him 24/7, just waiting for him to fuk up or, give them an opportunity to set him up… “Trust No One”…

  3. The kid’s all right. He’s an excellent barometer too. Anyone who has the slightest problem with him and his ordeal is either a libtarb banmer or a complete and total Fudd.

  4. Re: “Kyle Rittenhouse, the right-wing activist who was famously acquitted of killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is stepping up his involvement in Texas politics.”

    Obviously sneaky marxist media propagandists are attempting to make the deceased appear to be Black when the deceased were White as rice. This is America and Rittenhouse is free to speak his mind.

  5. Have read that in some jurisdictions, an acquitted felony defendant can be immune from civil suits based on the acquitted felony. A quirk seems to be that the immunity begins only after the DA officially “closes” the case, which is not done immediately following the trial. Also, in some places, a civil suit filed prior to verdict is permitted, regardless of the verdict.

    This is justice in action?

  6. Kyle Rittenhouse is absolutely correct. The libertarians liberals on the left supported shutting down, his private fund raiser to pay for his lawyers.

    The three L’s really don’t believe you have a right to have a lawyer representative in court.

    They are content that the right only exists on a piece of paper. If you are prevented from being able to pay for your lawyer, they’re quite comfortable with that.
    After all, the government is now prosecuting the lawyers that Donald Trump has hired to defend him in court.

    So yes you’re right to have a lawyer only exists on paper. It was never really meant to be a reality.

    • So just as the rich, criminal or law abiding, will always have machine guns. The rich criminal or law-abiding, will always be able to afford lawyers.

      Unless the government doesn’t like you, in which case they will simply prosecute your lawyers. Like , they’re prosecuting President Trump’s lawyers.

    • “The three L’s really don’t believe you have a right to have a lawyer representative in court.”

      Can you name a libertarian or libertarian organization that opposes the right to representation?

      • Chris T in KY seems to be one of the conservative types who believes libertarians in general have more political power than they actually have CarlosT. When goes on his diatribes its the TTAG equivalent of an old man yelling at the clouds because he hates the weather.

        • Libertarians are very comfortable with Multi-billion dollar private tech companies stopping you and Interfering in your daily life.

          Unless the government does it. Then they complain. It was just a few years ago when you were very comfortable with, these companies were shutting down gun businesses. Private Banks stopping financial transactions.

        • It’s what I expected.

          I highly doubt you will find any examples of libertarians out there saying they are “very comfortable” with any of these things. Probably what you would find is skepticism of proposed cures, especially those that would give government more power.

          Over the probably not that long run, that would yield Big Tech and Big Banks that are still hostile to guns, and with the government bureaucracy having even more power. Yay.

      • Can you name me a libertarian who was against a private company, stopping Kyle Rittenhouse from raising money to pay for his lawyers???

        They come out of the woodwork to proudly say these multi-billion dollar Tech companies have every right. to stop you from raising money to pay for your lawyers.

        And stop you from being able to communicate with your customers.
        And stop you from being able to conduct financial transactions with your customers.

      • “Can you name a libertarian or libertarian organization that opposes the right to representation?”

        You are avoiding the issue. I am specifically talking about raising the money to pay for a lawyer. Which if you had read what I said you would know that.

        And the libertarians were comfortable. Having his private fundraiser shut down.

        News flash to you
        You don’t get a lawyer unless someone pays for it. You pay, your family pays. Or the government pays for your lawyer.

        But somebody is paying the bill. For you to have a lawyer in court to represent you.

        • Or perhaps libertarians believe in slavery???Where lawyers will put in hours upon hours for no pay at all.

          You see, Kyle Rittenhouse is like the Second Amendment Foundation. Both require private donations to help pay for lawyers.

          So if you’re intellectually honest, you will support the private banks. Stopping all financial transactions for the Second Amendment Foundation, correct???

        • well I’m an ancap, but I have asked the question how much governmental involvement and/Or how many government contracts does a company have to have before it is no longer ‘private’ ? Sort of a 922R game for companies and business.

          I would classify all the social media companies as government shops and therefore subject to the constitution.

  7. I am tired of Rittenhouse. This not for profit is the first thing he has done that I actually think is worth a damn.
    The other stuff? Paxton needs to go, there are other good conservative attorneys in Texas that are NOT crooked politicians that could do his job better. Too bad many of those “ultra” conservatives are also fools that back the crooked AG. But I think this will be a Rittenhouse thing, throw his opinion out and count on his notoriety making it heard even if it has nothing to do with anything he has a clue about.

    • The only reason the “PRETEND-CONSERVATIVES” in TEXAS wanted Paxon out cause he called out the Drunk on the Job Republican!!!

    • v4lu3s, Be tied of Rittenhouse all you want. It won’t do you any good. He still knocked off one of your ANTIFA thugs and wounded another in SELF DEFENSE. To me that makes him a HERO!

  8. WTF is “ultra conservative” anyway? Either you’re conservative, or you’re not. Ultra? Ooooh, sounds EVIL! Oh – wait – anyone who objects to child grooming in schools is an ultra conservative? Huh – imagine that. Don’t want adult men loitering in the little girl’s room? Well, just call me Mr. Ultra then.

    • Used to be “staunch” years ago. I never heard the word “staunch” used ever except when describing conservatives.

      Uber, ultra, extreme, far right wing, etc. Leftists aren’t deep thinkers, which is why they try to scare the shit out of people with language and/or force. They couldn’t convince anyone to join their cause otherwise.

    • An “ultra-conservative” (when applied to a person in a political context) is a person who is ‘inflexably’ extremely conservative in political or religious beliefs. When used as an adjective in a ‘something context’ it means preservative or resistant to change – which means, oddly enough, in a sociopolitical context, that, for example, the trans movement is “ultra-conservative” because they resist a change to their ideology to accept that there are only two biological genders and they seek to preserve their own ideology.

      • “right-wing activist”

        A person who seeks to protect, preserve, embrace, exercise, one of the first 10 of the constitutional rights is not right wing or an ‘activist’ for such -they are simply being a ‘natural human’. These are rights which pre-existed the constitution, and are inherent natural individual rights and are part of us just as our body parts and/or ability to ‘think’ are – they were simply written down to ‘codify’ them in writing. Its so difficult to understand for some that those opposed to this actually had to invent these terms and move them into a ‘political’ arena to describe our opposition to having part of us amputated.

        In terms of their ‘identity-politics’ and this inherent natural right of the Second Amendment my pronouns are “Second Amendment” and “USA”, and if you don’t use these pronouns when addressing me I promise not to get all ‘i feelz’ emotional about it because at the end of the day this is an actual part of me and not an ‘imagined fairy tale’ like the trans folks have in their DSM-5, actually written down, mental illness. But if you try to ‘amputate’ this natural inherent “Second Amendment” part from me I’m going to resist and fight just as you would if someone tried to ‘amputate’ one of your body parts against your will.

        Now, some would say I’m ‘ultra-conservative’ when it comes to the Second Amendment – to the contrary, I’m simply trying to keep my natural inherent human integrity intact.

    • Raised in California, Bloomberg-financed Attention Hogg is the offspring of a FBI “crisis simulator” (father/since retired) and now “former” Very Fake News CNN “producer” (mother/now a “media teacher at Marjorie Stoneman-Douglas High School), he had a leg-up in dealing with the media having learned from a young age how to spin, lie, obfuscate, manipulate, and exploit the system. Kyle Rittenhouse on the other hand is new to the game but has been forced to acclimate himself to the dishonest “news industry” and crooked judicial system, thankfully he’s a quick learner. It helps that Rittenhouse is “genuine”, a young man of integrity, I wish him the best in his pursuits, hopefully he’ll run for office soon as we need people like him in politics.

  9. Glad you came to Texas, Kyle.
    Since when is the Constitution far right? Again, Marxists like to gain level footing by creating a dualistic polarity with their conflict theory. The Constitution is central. Anything else is skewed off center and is then outside the boundaries of reality.

    • JRB

      Yes – the Revolution of Individual Rights occurred in 1776 – not 1917. The Left is not revolutionary, but counter-revolutionary. Collectivist ideas did not originate w/ Marx, they are much older – but examples of successful, stable societies based upon them do not exist, AFAIK.

      Leftist philosophies offer great ways to establish drab and deadly dictatorships.

      Who needs it?

  10. @Carlos T
    “Probably what you would find is skepticism of proposed cures,…”

    Always thought of Libertarians as closet anarchists.

    Maybe they understand something the rest of us don’t.

Comments are closed.