Look again, again, or why I pulled my support for Rusk

by Wallace Smith, Pastor Emeritus, Stevensville

When a person is presented with new and better truth backed by facts, there is one of two ways to respond. 1. Acknowledge this new truth internally yet, do nothing due to pride, ego or for whatever rationalization employed. Or 2. Acknowledge this new truth then openly and publicly adjust your behavior to reflect your newfound truth. It’s called, “changing one’s mind.” However, in the political world the term “flip-flop” is employed connoting a negative character trait.

The following are some truths backed by facts regarding our two Republican candidates for House District 88, Alan Lackey and Wayne Rusk (alphabetical order). I am personally acquainted with both men having had in depth conversations with both.  

Both men have “changed their minds” or “flip-flopped” if you must. Both men were un-regenerate, worldly, individuals that were, in their own way, each introduced to our Savior Jesus the Christ and entrusted Him to be the Lord of their lives. Both men are Christians and I have even attended worship celebrations with Mr. Rusk. Thus:

A personal political litmus test is the stand a candidate takes on the issue of abortion. Simply put, if a candidate will allow for the shedding of innocent blood in the premeditated slaughter of a pre-born baby, that candidate forfeits the right to represent me. I am happy to say that both Alan and Wayne are identical regarding this all-important issue. Both recognize that a baby in the womb is a ‘person’ from the moment of conception and is thus due all the Constitutional rights and protections afforded to all citizens of the United States.

That said, there are political differences and thus more truth to be told because it affects all of Montana.

“Truth” – In the March 30th issue of the Bitterroot Star, Susan McCreary correctly penned that at the Ravalli County Fair, Alan Lackey “had a booth promoting ‘Tactical Civics’’’ as well as his bid for HD88.  

“More Truth” — Sorry, Susan but had you done your homework you would have discovered that Alan Lackey, in early October 2021, denounced and disavowed Tactical Civics and all the absurd positions that this group, which purportedly has a foundation of white supremacy. Mr. Lackey, after due diligence (sifting through the information that sounded good) rationally and correctly changed his mind. When I shared this with Rusk, Wayne immediately employed the negative term “flip-flopped.”

“Truth” – Mr. Rusk has appeared before the Legislature in Helena rightly speaking in opposition of an Article V or COS (Convention of States).  

“More Truth” – However, Rusk has reported that Lynette Band, Montana Region 7 Leader at Convention of States, in-other-words, a lobbyist in favor of a COS, has financially supported the Rusk campaign with a $350 donation.  

“More More Truth” – Now moving ahead a few weeks: I have in my possession an audio recording of a recent Republican meeting held after the Band contribution. In this recording Wayne states that he might reconsider a COS. To be fair, this is circumstantial but, considering the timing, the question arises, is there a COS “change of mind” in the near future? 

 “Truth” – every Republican, to the point that the term has lost meaning, has bantered around the word ‘conservative’. Sharon Greef represented HD 88 in the 2021 Legislature. She has a D rating, meaning that she, as a member of the Conservative Solutions Caucus, was not opposed to voting with liberal Democrats and did so to the point of earning her rating.

“More Truth” – Rusk has stated that Sharon Greef supports his candidacy and this is backed by both Sharon and her husband Ed’s financial support. It is only logical that the Greefs’ desire to see a candidate of like mind replace them in HD88.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Alan Lackey and Wayne Rusk is on the issue of ‘nullification’. Alan understands that our nation was actually founded on the people’s right to make null and void laws that are unconstitutional. This right was employed even before there was a US Constitution. See the “Stamp Act” as one historical example. 

“Truth” – Rusk espouses that “Nullification is rebellion at the state level, just as insurrection or anarchy is at the individual, and tyranny is at the executive.” (personal post on April 5th). Wayne believes in Federal Supremacy and that the 10th Amendment was just tacked on as appeasement to the Southern States. Sorry, Wayne, but you’ve been listening to the wrong YouTube scholars. 

On April 13th, Doug Bohn authored a very good opinion of the 10th Amendment for Mr. Rusk. I encourage all to read his opinion in that issue of the Star, therefore, I do not need to repeat those points here.

“Truth” – Nullification is a fundamental part of the American political system. The Boston Tea Party was an act of citizen nullification. “States’ Rights” does not equate to Slavery or Civil War as Rusk intimates. Indeed, legislative nullification was enacted by most all of the Northern States in the 1850’s against the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. The Northern States legislatively and the citizens practically by action like the Boston Tea Party, (“making something of no value or consequence”) nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, which in reality forced all US citizens into acting as slave hunters and disallowing any due process to the former slave that escaped to freedom just on the word of the slave owner or his agent (the slave hunter). The North fought against the heinous act of owning another human being and treating such as chattel. Let’s never forget that it was the Democratic Party that prevailed in the South and always supported slavery, just as they support abortion on demand today and now even to allow for infanticide after the baby is born.

Montana has recently passed legislation that is Federal nullification at its core. See HB702 and HB258. And there is the recreational marijuana legislation that nullifies the federal laws of marijuana being a Schedule 1 controlled substance. I personally do not agree with the new marijuana legislation but the people have spoken and thus we have weed shops springing up all across our state.

In the beginning I supported Wayne Rusk as a professed Conservative but I have discovered that, in my opinion, he is a moderate at best. Yes, I even financially contributed to his campaign but after due diligence and speaking to both candidates I was left with no other option than to “change my mind.” I tried to calmly reason with Wayne as to our differences of political opinion yet embrace one another as a Christian brothers. I am heartbroken to say that it didn’t end as well as I had hoped when Wayne arrived to pick up his big 4×8 sign. His vitriol was so intense that it is now my wife’s and my belief that Wayne does not have the temperament for the intense rigors of Helena.

Alan Lackey is “THE” Christian Constitutional Conservative. He has a firm grasp of the issues and he is NOT a single-issue candidate as stated in Wayne’s article of March 30, which was just more bitterness and sarcasm from the Rusk camp. 

Once you speak to him you will discover that Alan possesses the temperament for the challenges of the State House and you will see and hear his convictions on the vital issues facing Montana. Alan’s desire is to serve the people of Montana and not just use the State Legislature as a springboard to the US Congress as Wayne, in his anger, did indeed let slip. 

Your vote for Alan Lackey is a solid vote for Montana!