Category: Deceit O’ The Day

The “Freedom From Fear” Ticket for Tyranny

The Democratic Party is championing presidential candidate Kamala Harris as a born-again champion of freedom. Earlier this year, Democrats shifted their focus from democracy to freedom, convinced that the latter word would enthrall voters on Election Day. Providing “freedom from fear” has become one of their most frequent political promises this past century.

Politicians routinely portray freedom from fear as the apex of freedom, higher than the initial freedoms buttressed by the Bill of Rights. While presidents have defined “freedom from fear” differently, the common thread is that it requires unleashing government agents. Reviewing almost a century of bipartisan scams on freedom from fear provides good cause to doubt the latest geyser of promises.

“Freedom from fear” first entered the American political lexicon thanks to a January 1941 speech by President Franklin Roosevelt. In that State of the Union address, he promised citizens freedom of speech and freedom of worship—two cornerstones of the First Amendment—and added socialist-style “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear.” FDR’s revised freedoms did not include freedom to dissent, since he said the government would need to take care of the “few slackers or trouble makers in our midst.” Nor did FDR’s improved freedoms include the freedom not be rounded up for concentration camps, as FDR ordered for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Three years later, FDR amended his definition of freedom by championing a Universal Conscription Act to entitle government to the forced labor of any citizen.

Richard Nixon, in his acceptance speech at the 1968 Republican National Convention, promised, “We shall re-establish freedom from fear in America so that America can take the lead in re-establishing freedom from fear in the world.” Nixon asserted, “The first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.” But with the Nixon scorecard, government violence didn’t count. He perpetuated the war in Vietnam, resulting in another 20,000 American soldiers pointlessly dying. On the homefront, he created the Drug Enforcement Administration and appointed the nation’s first drug czar. The FBI perpetuated its COINTELPRO program, carrying out “a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order,” as a 1976 Senate report noted.

President George H.W. Bush told the National Baptist Convention on September 8, 1989, “Today freedom from fear…means freedom from drugs.” To boost public fear, a DEA informant arranged for a knucklehead to sell crack cocaine to an undercover narc in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Bush invoked the sell a few days later to justify a national crackdown. He informed the American Legion, “Today I want to focus on one of those freedoms: freedom from fear—the fear of war abroad, the fear of drugs and crime at home. To win that freedom, to build a better and safer life, will require the bravery and sacrifice that Americans have shown before and must again.”

Foremost among the sacrifices that Bush demanded was that of traditional liberties. His administration vastly expanded federal power to arbitrarily seize Americans’ property and increased the role of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. In a 1992 speech dedicating a new DEA office building, Bush declared, “I am delighted to be here to salute the greatest freedom fighters any nation could have, people who provide freedom from violence and freedom from drugs and freedom from fear.” The DEA’s own crime sprees, corruption, and violence were not permitted to impede Bush’s rhetorical victory lap.

On May 12, 1994, President Bill Clinton declared, “Freedom from violence and freedom from fear are essential to maintaining not only personal freedom but a sense of community in this country.” Clinton banned so-called assault weapons and sought to ban thirty-five million semi-automatic firearms. Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Citizens would presumedly have nothing to fear after they were forced to abjectly depend on government officials for their own survival. During Clinton’s first term, public housing authorities began mass warrantless searches of apartments to confiscate guns and other banned items. Clinton slammed a federal court ruling blocking the unconstitutional raids. When he visited the Chicago housing projects, Clinton declared, “The most important freedom we have in this country is the freedom from fear. And if people aren’t free from fear, they are not free.” In Clinton’s view, public housing residents had no right to fear the federally-funded housing police storming into their apartments.

In February 1996, Clinton, seeking conservative support for his reelection campaign, endorsed forcing children to wear uniforms at public schools. Clinton justified the fashion dictate: “Every one of us has an obligation to work together, to give our children freedom from fear and the freedom to learn.” But, if mandatory uniforms were the key to ending violence, Postal Service employees would have a lower homicide rate.

Senator Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican presidential nominee, repeatedly promised voters “freedom from fear” via crackdowns on crime. How did Dole intend to provide “freedom from fear”? By proclaiming that “we must…untie the hands of the police.” Dole did not specify exactly how many no-knock raids would be necessary to restore domestic tranquility.

George W. Bush, like his father, alternated promises of “freedom from fear” with shameless fearmongering. Prior to election day 2004, the Bush administration continually issued terror attack warnings based on flimsy or no evidence. The New York Times derided the Bush administration in late October for having “turned the business of keeping Americans informed about the threat of terrorism into a politically scripted series of color-coded scare sessions.” Yet each time a terror alert was issued, the president’s approval rating rose temporarily by roughly three percent, according to a Cornell University study. The Cornell study found a “halo effect”: the more terrorists who wanted to attack America, the better job Bush was supposedly doing. People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for Bush by a 6-to-1 margin.

The most memorable Bush campaign ad, released a few weeks before the election, opened in a thick forest, with shadows and hazy shots complementing the foreboding music. After vilifying Democratic candidate John Kerry, the ad showed a pack of wolves reclining in a clearing. The voiceover concluded, “And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm” as the wolves began jumping up and running toward the camera. At the end of the ad, the president appeared and announced, “I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.” One liberal cynic suggested that the ad’s message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if Kerry won. The Bush ad spurred protests by the equivalent of the Lobo Anti-Defamation League. Pat Wendland, the manager of Wolves Offered Life and Friendship, a Colorado wolf refuge, Colorado, complained, “The comparison to terrorists was insulting. We have worked for years, teaching people that Little Red Riding Hood lied.”

Bush’s campaign to terrify voters into granting him four more years to rule America and much of the world did not deter him from announcing a few months later in his State of the Union address, “We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy, and chief among them is freedom from fear.” This was back when the mainstream media was continuing to hail Bush as a visionary idealist, prior to the collapse of his credibility on the Iraq war, torture, and other debacles.

President Joe Biden milked “freedom from fear” in a Pennsylvania speech earlier this year on what he labeled “the third anniversary of the Insurrection at the United States Capitol.” Biden revealed plans to turn the November election into a referendum on Adolf Hitler, accusing Donald Trump of “echoing the same exact language used in Nazi Germany.” CNN reported that Biden campaign aides planned to go “full Hitler” on Trump. Biden spent half an hour fearmongering and then closed by promising “freedom from fear.” This was the famous Biden two-step—demagoguing to his heart’s content and then closing with a few schmaltzy uplift lines, entitling the media to re-christen him as an idealist.

Biden did not survive the Democrats’ version of the Night of the Long Knives and Vice President Kamala Harris has been designated the party’s presidential flagbearer. Harris painted with an even broader brush than most politicians. At a Juneteenth Concert this summer, she condemned Republicans for “a full-on attack” on “the freedom from fear of bigotry and hate.” Harris implied that politicians could wave a psychological magic wand to banish any bias in perpetuity. How can anyone have “freedom from fear of bigotry” unless politicians become entitled to perpetually control everyone’s thoughts?

In August, the Democratic National Convention whooped up freedom in ways that would qualify as “authentic frontier gibberish,” as the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles would say. A campaign video promised “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” So Americans won’t have true freedom until politicians forcibly suppress any idea they label as immoderate? The Democratic Party platform warned, “Reproductive freedom, freedom from hate, freedom from fear, the freedom to control our own destinies and more are all on the line in this election.” But the whole point of politics nowadays is to preempt individuals from controlling their own destinies. Regardless, a Time magazine headline hailed “How Kamala Harris Took ‘Freedom’ Back from the GOP.”

“Freedom from fear” is the ultimate political blank check. The more people government frightens, the more legitimate dictatorial policies become. Pledging “freedom from fear” entitles politicians to seize power over anything that frightens anyone. Giving politicians more power based on people’s fears is like giving firemen pay raises based on how many false alarms they report.

Politicians’ promises of “freedom from fear” imply that freedom properly understood is a risk-free, worry-free condition. It is the type of promise that a mother would make to a young child. Freedom is now supposedly something that exists only in the womb of government paternalism. “Freedom from fear” is to be achieved by trusting everything that politicians say and surrendering everything that politicians demand. New Mexico Governor Michelle Grisham epitomized that mindset when she proclaimed at the Democratic National Convention, “We need a president who can be Consoler-in-Chief. We need a president capable of holding us in a great big hug.” And continuing to hold us until we formally become psychological wards of the state?

“Freedom from fear” offers freedom from everything except the government. Anyone who sounds the alarm about excessive government power will automatically be guilty of subverting freedom from fear. Presumably, the fewer inviolable rights the citizen has, the better government will treat him. But as John Locke warned more than 300 years ago, “I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away everything else.”

Why not simply offer voters “freedom from the Constitution”? “Freedom from fear” means security via mass delusions about the nature of political power. Painting the motto “freedom from fear” on shackles won’t make them easier to bear. Perhaps our ruling class should be honest and replace the Bill of Rights with a new motto: “Political buncombe will make you free.”

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Guns in This Election

Undoubtedly, most Americans are aware of the mainstream media’s bias when it comes to reporting the “facts.” A recent Gallup Poll revealed that only 31% of Americans say they have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.”

Two topics where the mainstream media is most biased are private gun ownership and the upcoming presidential election. Combine skewed gun and election coverage, and you get media reporting only what they want you to know regarding firearms and your rights.

So, here are a bunch of things they don’t want you to know.

Continue reading “”

Which means; NONE OF THEM were actual MDs, but WERE actual actors

Remember John Kerry going on about deer hunting back in ’04? Just as ignorantly stupid here. One would think they would have learned not to try this after Dukakis’ idiot stunt in a tank back in ’88.

Study: COVID-Vaxxed Kids SIX TIMES Likelier to Die Than Unvaxxed Peers

The ostensible takeaway, per the authors, of a poorly-publicized study from June of this year was that children vaccinated for COVID had much higher rates of asthma — almost double, in fact — post-COVID infection than their unvaccinated peers.

That’s compelling enough of a headline, but what should really have been the lede in any sane world got buried deep in the weeds.

Via Infection (medical journal) (emphasis added):

Two cohorts of children aged 5 to 18 who underwent SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing were analyzed: unvaccinated children with and without COVID-19 infection, and vaccinated children with and without infection. Propensity score matching was used to mitigate selection bias, and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI were calculated to assess the risk of new-onset asthma.

Our study found a significantly higher incidence of new-onset asthma in COVID-19 infected children compared to uninfected children, regardless of vaccination status.

In Cohort 1, 4.7% of COVID-19 infected children without vaccination developed new-onset asthma, versus 2.0% in their non-COVID-19 counterparts within a year (HR = 2.26; 95% CI = 2.158–2.367).

For Cohort 2,COVID-19 infected children with vaccination showed an 8.3% incidence of new-onset asthma, higher than the 3.1% in those not infected (HR = 2.745; 95% CI = 2.521–2.99). Subgroup analyses further identified higher risks in males, children aged 5–12 years, and Black or African American children. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of these findings.

The study highlights a strong link between COVID-19 infection and an increased risk of new-onset asthma in children, which is even more marked in those vaccinated. This emphasizes the critical need for ongoing monitoring and customized healthcare strategies to mitigate the long-term respiratory impacts of COVID-19 in children, advocating for thorough strategies to manage and prevent asthma amidst the pandemic.

However, as Alex Berenson — vindicated “conspiracy theorist” who turned out to be right about all of the things he was censored for since the start of the pandemic — explains, the truly shocking statistical finding, which somehow never made it into the conclusion, is a six-fold increase in death among vaxxed kids in the study as compared to the unvaxxed.

Via Alex Berenson (emphasis added):

The study about Covid and asthma in American kids and teens has gone mostly unnoticed. It hasn’t been cited once since it was published in June.

Which may be why no one has raised an alarm over the stunning figures buried in its appendix about deaths among mRNA Covid-vaccinated kids.

They show that 354 of the 64,000 children and teenagers who received a Covid mRNA shot died within a year after vaccination – a death rate of almost six kids per 1,000.

In contrast, only 309 out of 320,000 unvaccinated kids died, fewer than one per 1,000.

One might assume, again, that finding a drug is implicated in a six-fold increase in childhood mortality might be the headline — but, if it were, these researchers might not get another grant their whole careers. In fact, they might be working at McDonald’s or collecting unemployment within a week.

Why the researchers refused to focus on this statistic, or even mention it in passing in the summary of their work, is obviously a matter of speculation.

But speculate I will.

Scientists rely on grant money, either directly from the pharmaceutical industry or indirectly from the pharmaceutical industry by way of the government, which is often in bed with said industry.

There are, as such, clear financial interests at play, which is why you will notice that, virtually universally, scientists will downplay even the mildest negative effects of pharmaceutical products they study— especially blockbuster ones like the COVID-19 shots — or else rig the research design to produce rosier results, or else never publish any negative research findings in the first place.

Indeed, it’s mildly surprising that the data Alex Berenson unearthed ever made it to publication at all, when it would have been so easy just to scrub it out of existence.

it’s called ‘astroturf’ because the ‘grass roots’ are fake

Well, she is a politician

Oops: MSNBC said the quiet part out loud.

 Kamala Must Lie about Being a Liberal and Pretend to Be a Moderate, Just Like Tim Walz Did.

Hayes Brown, an MSNBC writer and editor, wrote a new column today, entitled “What to make of Kamala Harris’ move to the center.” It’s an eye-opening observation and/or admission from the Democratic Party’s base. As you likely suspect, the Radical Left views the 2024 presidential election differently than Team MAGA: It’s not about making America great again, but tricking Americans into voting for a candidate who’s out of step with the voters’ ethos, goals, fears, and priorities.

And the role model for Kamala Harris’s trickery? None other than Tim Walz.

“[Kamala’s] attention is now fully on barnstorming the purple areas of swing states,” Brown wrote, “focused less on appeasing the progressive base of the party than on winning over whichever voters are still making up their minds about how to vote in November — or if at all. The result has been a campaign that’s burning through the fuel the base provided when she became the nominee.”

Alas, the only way to attract the middle, it seems, is to forego the wackier, more controversial positions of the Radical Left. In Brown’s mind, it’s a risky tradeoff.

“The goal is to convert that [progressive] energy into enough moderate votes to eke out a win against former President Donald Trump,” Brown noted. “In the process, she has steadily shed the stances she took when vying against 19 other candidates to court the progressive left in 2019.”

In a kind, nonjudgmental way, Brown pointed out that Harris has switched positions more often than an OnlyFans model.

If it were a Republican who abandoned key policy positions overnight, then to MSNBC, this would surely be emblematic of a dishonest, Machiavellian, racist politician who’ll say and do anything to get elected, of course. But since it’s a Democrat, well, it’s just par for the course. Just another day at the office!

When in Rome, ya know.

Continue reading “”

So what else is new?

Harris Might Own A Gun, But She Doesn’t Represent Gun Owners

Vice President Kamala Harris shocked a lot of people when she said she owned a gun during the debate last week.

Well, in the most technical sense, sure.

However, that doesn’t absolve her from her many anti-gun sins, so to speak.

ABC News debate moderator Linsey Davis referenced the vice president’s flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, which amount to confiscation, during one question that was more about changing policy positions generally than it was about the Second Amendment specifically.

Near the end of the debate, Davis asked, “You wanted mandatory buybacks for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t,” Davis said before asking Harris why so many of her policy positions had changed, according to The Reload.

Vice President Harris didn’t address the question and was only forced to respond later to a criticism by former President Donald Trump warning voters that if elected, the vice president would have “a plan to confiscate everyone’s gun.” She jumped in with a comment that caught viewers’ attention.

“And then this business about taking everyone’s guns away, Tim Walz and I are both gun owners,” Vice President Harris stated. “We’re not taking anyone’s guns away. So stop with the continuous lying about this stuff.”

The vice president’s remark about being a gun owner drew attention. She practically never mentions being a gun owner in all her calls for more gun control and the only reference before is a glancing mention in a 2019 CNN interview. Not surprisingly, Second Amendment supporters were skeptical of her statement.

“So now Harris owns a gun? Ha, I’d love to know what kind/caliber and how often she trains with it,” competitive shooter, GunsOut TV founder and CNN commentator Shermichael Singleton posted on X.

Now, the truth is that there were previous reports of Harris owning a gun. As a former prosecutor in a city like San Francisco, it’s not overly surprising that she’d have a gun. A lot of prosecutors do, and for what should be pretty obvious reasons. It’s not like there isn’t some potential of such people to be targets, after all.

But there are gun owners and gun owners.

See, no nation has a complete and total gun ban. There’s always a way for some people to have a firearm and Kamala Harris is one of those people who will be able to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

What she’s advocating for are laws that will inhibit regular people, the actual gun owners, from having them. Both she and her running mate might own guns, but they’d gladly see us relegated to revolvers and pump-action shotguns for protecting our family while the criminals are running around with semi-autos and those converted to full-auto.

As for her response to Trump, she might not be taking everyone’s guns, but she most definitely wants to take some of them from us. I don’t care what she says, I’m not buying that suddenly she figures a mandatory buyback is a bad idea. At best, she knows it’s never going to happen so she won’t push for it anymore. It’ll come back the moment she thinks she can get away with it and we all know it.

I think the best way to view it is that Kamala Harris isn’t really a gun owner so much as someone who owns a gun.

The latter group figure they’re the exception, that they can be trusted with one but aren’t so sure about everyone else, so they should be restricted. The former recognizes that in order to protect their right to keep and bear arms, everyone else’s needs to be protected as well.

There’s no world I can imagine where anyone remotely like the Kamala Harris we’ve all seen would fall into that camp.

CDC, FBI Hiding Data Showing Good Guys With Guns Save Lives

The federal government no longer enacts the will of the people. It enacts the will of some people, most of whom seem to be unelected bureaucrats who side with an anti-gun agenda. They do not care about our rights. They simply want to see guns restricted, most likely because an armed populace isn’t one that can be run roughshod over.

Advertisement

But good guys with guns cause them a problem. How can you paint the use of guns as an unmitigated evil if good people use them to stop bad people?

What’s more, the federal government has numbers that back up the claim that good guys with guns save lives. However, as John Lott notes over at The Federalist, the feds are hiding them from us.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under the Biden Administration has sought to suppress data proving that armed citizens help prevent crime by removing its estimates of defensive gun uses from its website. For almost a decade, the CDC referenced a 2013 National Academies of Sciences report noting that people used guns to stop crime anywhere from about 64,000 to 3 million times a year.

This decision was taken after gun control activist Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, lobbied the CDC to remove “misinformation” regarding defensive gun use estimates because of they are cited by “gun rights folks” to stop gun control legislation. Soon after, the CDC took down these estimates and now lists no numbers.

This is probably the most profound case of bias I’ve ever seen. The CDC has the numbers and had enough faith in them to post them, then an anti-gun activist took issue with them and said they prevented gun control from passing, so the CDC took them down.

And they wonder how the Dickey Amendment came into being in the first place.

They knew the truth and suppressed it simply because activists saw the truth as a barrier and asked them to take it down. Would they have done the same with COVID-19 numbers? Would they do the same with drunk driving deaths or childhood drownings?

Of course not. Nor should they. If they believe in the numbers enough to post them, they should have stuck to their guns on this.

But the issue isn’t just the CDC.

Oh no, the FBI has to have its own problems.

The FBI has also shown itself to be susceptible to political pressure. The FBI defines an active shooter attack as occurring when an individual actively kills or attempts to kill people in a populated, public area. This measure includes everything from just one person shot at, even if the target isn’t hit, to a mass public shooting. It doesn’t include, however, shootings involving other crimes, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf.

To compile its list, the FBI hired researchers at Texas State University. Police departments don’t record these cases, so the researchers relied on Google searches to find news stories about these incidents. As such, the FBI’s evidence relies on a dataset that is actively hostile to the truth.

During 2020 and the beginning of 2021, I worked as the senior advisor for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice. My job included evaluating the FBI’s active shooting reports. During my time with the DOJ, I discovered that the FBI either missed or misidentified many cases of civilians using guns to stop attacks. For instance, the FBI continues to report that armed citizens stopped only 14 of the 350 active shooter cases that it identified in the ten years from 2014 to 2023.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list. As such, the CPRC numbers tell a much different story: Out of 515 active shooter incidents from 2014 to 2023, armed citizens stopped 180, saving countless innocent lives. Our numbers even excluded 27 cases where a law-abiding citizen with a gun stopped an attacker before he could fire a shot.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI.

Now, 35 percent isn’t a massive number, but we need to remember that a lot of active shootings are happening in places where there are issues with law-abiding citizens being armed.

Potential mass murderers, for example, tend to favor gun-free zones for their attacks, such as schools like Apalachee High School in Winder. They also like malls, movie theaters, and other places where a large number of people are in one place and are generally disarmed by force of law. That means these incidents are less likely to be met with armed resistance not because good guys with guns don’t stop attacks but because the law makes sure there aren’t any good guys with guns.

Then we have the fact that a lot of other active shooter incidents happen in inner cities. These are often places where gun ownership is discouraged and, in the case of anti-gun states, where the government is outright hostile to the idea of citizens with guns. Before recently, getting a permit might have been impossible, thus making it far less likely a good guy with a gun could be anywhere near the scene of such a shooting.

And this is interesting because Lott wrote this well before the events in Winder.

In that case, school resource officers–good guys with guns, even if it was their job–reacted to the attack and ended the threat with an armed response. They didn’t have to kill the shooter, either. People like that tend to be cowards. Armed resistance scares them and so they surrender, run away, or just about anything else, even if the good guy doesn’t kill them.

For all the talk about gun control in the wake of Winder, I think the more important discussion is putting guns in school staff members’ hands.

Guns save lives, after all.

Most Variation in All-Cause Mortality Explained by Mass COVID-19 Vaccination
Australian Ecological Analysis Points to Vaccine Campaign Causing Rising Death Counts

After a pandemic, all cause mortality should go down due to a culling effect of the frail and vulnerable. We saw acute COVID-19 become the proximate cause of death in many seniors who were in the final year of natural life.

Now an analysis from Allen indicates that all-cause mortality is up in heavily vaccinated Australia and that at least two thirds in the variation per region is explained by mass COVID-19 vaccination. There are numerous well-documented fatal vaccine serious adverse events which are piling up months and years after the shots. Cumulative toxicity is another factor as a single person is not vaccinated just with the primary series (first two injections), but continued dosing every six months. Continue reading “”

Walz Says He Lied About Going To War Because He Struggles With Grammar

Gov. Tim Walz, D-Minn., has made a political career out of “misspeaking.” Why stop now?

The No. 2 on the Democratic Party’s forced dream team campaign ticket, featuring the joyous empty vessel Vice President Kamala Harris, was back to doing what he seems to do best Thursday night. After several weeks of evading actual questions, Harris and her running mate sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for the first semi-substantive interview of their honeymoon campaign — more than a month after President Joe Biden’s political wake.

Bash was anything but browbeating in an edited, open-notebook test that was anything but adversarial. This is CNN after all, the network where journalistic ethics go to die. But when Bash wasn’t watching Harris peeking at her notes to answer basic policy questions, the host of CNN’s “Inside Politics” was attempting to show she could still ask a tough question or two.

“I want to ask you a question about how you described your service in the National Guard. You said that you carried weapons in war but you had never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said you misspoke. Did you?” Bash posed.

First of all, Walz didn’t misspeak about his military bravado. He lied. And, as The Federalist has reported, he has done so in the name of politics.

‘I’m Incredibly Proud’

In 2018, Walz, while talking about gun violence, said, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

Problem is, Walz never served in a combat zone. His unit was called up early in the war in Iraq — to Italy. Later, in 2005, he abandoned his National Guard unit as it was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Walz, who opted to run for Congress at the time, retired not long before the deployment. He claimed to be a “retired Command Sergeant Major,” a top rank for an enlisted soldier. Except he wasn’t.

Walz looked like he was tired of answering the question. He shook his ruddy head as if he hadn’t used the lie for political currency and delivered what some have described as a “bizarre” reason for why he “misspoke.”

“Well, first of all, I’m incredibly proud. I’ve done 24 years of wearing the uniform of my country. I’m equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it’s in Congress or the governor,” the VP candidate blathered. Spoiler Alert: Walz has no intention of answering this question.

He goes on to say that his “record speaks for itself.” It sure does. It’s a record of lies and of extreme left-wing policies in a proud Midwest state shredded by such policies. A record of tyrannical rule during his draconian Covid lockdowns and of Minnesota’s largest cities being set on fire during the 2020 race riots. But no one in the accomplice media wants to ask Walz about any of that.

He told Bash that he speaks “candidly.” Clearly he does not know what the word “candid” means. He “wears his emotions” on his sleeve. So, that’s where the lying comes from? He’s passionate about children being shot in schools. Understandable. Still, no reason for the lies.

“I think people know me, they know who I am. They know where my heart is and, again, my record has been out there for more than 40 years to speak for itself,” Walz said.

So … about the gun in a combat zone thing?

Bad Grammar, Awful Person

To her credit, Bash didn’t demure on this one. She pressed.

“And the idea that you said you were in war, did you misspeak as the campaign has said?” the CNN anchor asked again.

Frustrated and caught in his obfuscation, Walz blustered, “Yeah, I said we were talking in this case, this was after a school shooting, the ideas of carrying these weapons of war.”

And this is where the bizarre comes in.

“And my wife, the English teacher, told me my grammar is not always correct,” he said.

Grammar?! It’s not like Walz mixed up the usage of lay and lie. He LIED.

Because he’s an awful liar and an awful human being, he blamed his political enemies — like some of the National Guard soldiers who served with him — for his shortcomings in “grammar.”

“But, again, if it’s not this it’s an attack on my children for showing love for me or it’s an attack on my dog,” the governor deflected. “I’m not gong to do that. And the one thing I’ll never do is demean another [service] member’s service in any way. I never have and I never will.”

He demeaned the service of members of the military for years by claiming he was something he wasn’t, in places he had not been. It’s called stolen valor, and it’s a really lousy thing to do.

Just ask Kathy Miller, the mother of forever 19-year-old Sgt. Kyle Miller, who was killed in 2006 by roadside bomb in Iraq. He was member of the Guard unit Walz left behind.

“My son wasn’t even 21 years old. He couldn’t even buy alcohol. Yet he took the step to serve our country while Walz found the best way to run away,” Kathy Miller told the Daily Mail earlier this month.  “It was the coward’s way out.”

‘In Common Use’ Can Ultimately be Used to Make the Second Amendment a Moot Point

Far-fetched? Who knows what will be available to the military and law enforcement in 100 years, and what it means to “the people” of the Second Amendment if the government can deny future technology because it’s “dangerous and unusual,” and not “in common use”?

“The Second Amendment Allows a Ban on the AR-15,” Harvard University Professor of Law Noah Feldman once declared in a Bloomberg/Washington Post “opinion” piece.

That it’s an “opinion” is the one truthful admission in this otherwise absurd act of academic gaslighting. Harvard, Bloomberg, and WaPo are all for eviscerating the right of the people to keep and bear arms and routinely spread whatever lies they can get away with (despite the disingenuous caveat that “This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.”)

“Under current law, the Second Amendment extends only to weapons that are not ‘unusual’ and are ‘in common use’ by law-abiding citizens,” Feldman asserts. “Whether that includes AR-15s is a question the Supreme Court has not yet resolved, although the justices have recently been asked to weigh in. A key question today — though not when the Bill of Rights was ratified — is whether a weapon is ordinarily used for self-defense.”

“To give you a sense of how different things were with respect to gun issues 84 years ago, the court held unanimously that the Second Amendment didn’t protect [short barreled shotguns],” Feldman misstates, citing the case of U.S. v. Miller. That’s actually not what they said at all. In the opinion for that case, Justice McReynolds noted:

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

They didn’t have evidence because the case wasn’t argued in front of them. Had it been, the military utility of such weapons could have been decisively established, starting with the flintlock blunderbuss:

Continue reading “”