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.”

This brings back up ‘The Great Replacement Theory‘, but it appears to me to change the ‘why’ from mere political power to an actual hate of the normal average American who can’t be fooled all the time and can never be considered a reliable toady.

The Anti-Children Crusade

Depending on which sources you choose to believe, on or around the year 1212 A.D. there was a “crusade” made up largely of children. Supposedly it was a peace-minded movement to travel to the Holy Land and convert the Muslims there to Christianity. No, it didn’t work. Indeed, a great many of the participants were captured and sold into slavery. Others died of exhaustion before they got anywhere near the Holy Land.

Well, today there’s an ongoing “crusade” of another kind: an anti-children crusade. Those active in it will do just about anything to discourage live births, especially the births of white children. I’ve compiled a book of essays that touch on the subject. Also, Pascal and I write about it here now and then. It’s part of the reason for the decline of birth rates in Europe and North America.

The crusade against children has several parts. My fiction colleague Hans Schantz delineated some of its aspects here, in a passage from his novel The Hidden Truth. There are others beyond those Hans touches on, though. One emerged recently, from an unusual source:

     There’s a new U.S. surgeon general’s warning: Parenting can be harmful to your mental health.
     An advisory issued Wednesday by Dr. Vivek Murthy, the nation’s doctor, said parents in particular are under dangerous levels of stress.
     The report cites the American Psychological Association, saying nearly half of parents report overwhelming stress most days, compared with 26% of other adults. They’re lonelier, too, according to cited data from health insurer Cigna. In a 2021 survey, 65% of parents said they were lonely, compared with 55% of those without kids.

How about that, Gentle Reader! Taking responsibility for the life of a helpless human being comes with stress! Who could have guessed that before the Surgeon-General told us?

(By the way, how do we define “overwhelming stress?” Is there a metric of some sort? The number of antidepressants taken per week, perhaps? Or must we wait for the sufferers to commit suicide before we can confidently diagnose it?)

The stresses that impinge upon a household with minor children to care for are real enough. Yet our grandparents coped with them rather well. Generations before them did even better. That suggests that some, at least, of the stresses are of recent vintage. Rather than explore the matter in detail here and now, I’ll simply say “more anon” and proceed with my main point: the convergence of disincentives and discouragements against the bearing of children, which are most visible in First-World nations.

     A healthy fraction of those discouragements are deliberate. The people behind them don’t want white Americans to have children. White Americans – the people who built this country, and are still overwhelmingly responsible for keeping it going – are being out-reproduced by just about every other identifiable demographic. I leave the consequences to your imagination.

Who would find such a trend desirable, and why? Why does Vivek Murthy, “the nation’s doctor,” find it appropriate to add his voice to it? Anyone? Bueller?

More anon.

Gun Owners for Harris Highlight Lie of ‘Second Amendment Democrats’

“We can prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment,” a Giffords-sponsored “sportsmen’s” effort lies. “Gun Owners for Safety unites hunters, sport shooters, and collectors who want commonsense gun laws.”

Giffords, of course, along with all the other major gun prohibitionist groups, has endorsed Kamala Harris, who will sign whatever anti-gun legislation the Democrats succeed in passing and go for what they can’t through executive action. And then she’ll reshape the Supreme Court. That’s some “commonsense support.”

It’s never hard to find “Fudds” who are enthusiastic about voting for citizen disarmament pushing politicians and throwing fellow gun owners under the bus. A prime example is Harris’ Vice President pick, Tim Walz, once “A” rated and endorsed by the NRA. But while low information voters are being gaslit into thinking the Second Amendment can be ‘respected’ while it’s being eviscerated, a striking inequity is being revealed.

There is no parallel “pro-Second Amendment Democrat” movement happening. That’s because there’s no such thing as one.

Where are Second Amendment Democrats for Trump?

Experience shows they prioritize other issues above the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they really don’t understand it to be a right at all. This was unequivocally proven years ago, when I conversed with the head of the Second Amendment Democrats.

After all kinds of weasel-wording and Molon Labe-ing, he finally could not deny the one truth that ultimately defines them:

Under no circumstances will Amendment II Democrats support Republican candidates who run against anti-RKBA Democrats. We are, after all, Democrats.

I don’t know (or care) whatever happened to them, but do note there is a Facebook group that goes by that name, a group you can join with all of 19 members that doesn’t look like it’s been active for years. They offer further confirmation that there’s no such thing as what they claim to be:

Hello everyone. Who do we all think will be best on the 2nd Amendment of the current field? My guess is Bernie Sanders, though I suppose Amy Klobuchar has represented the most constituents with guns.

I agree that Bernie is the best bet. Not sure if Buttegeig would prioritize gun control like Booker or Warren.

Personally I feel like Buttigieg is the best candidate for president and to run against Trump, but not sure how I feel about any of their stances on gun control. There are so many issues.

It’s not my top priority either…

Obviously.

It’s not for the Giffords Fudds, either:

The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900
Restrictions on carry, minors, and misuse were the norm — not bans

Controversial arms are nothing new in the United States. During the 19th century, there were widespread concerns about criminal use of arms such a Bowie knives, slungshots, blackjacks, and brass knuckles. The full history of state, territorial, and colonial laws about controversial arms is detailed in my recent article for Notre Dame’s Journal of Legislation, The History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900, coauthored with Joseph Greenlee.

Because the article is thorough, it is enormous: 163 pages of text, and 1,563 footnotes. The student staff for volume 50 of the Journal of Legislation was spectacular. Not every law journal has staff who could handle such a megillah, let alone a staff that whose meticulous cite-check would improve the article.

The mainstream American approach to controls of the above arms were: 1. bans on concealed carry; 2. limits on sales to minors, such as requiring parental permission; and 3. extra penalties for misuse in a crime. Sales bans were the minority approach, and possession bans very rare.

From 1607 through 1899, sales bans for nonfirearm arms were:

  • Bowie knife. Sales bans in Georgia, Tennessee, and later in Arkansas. Georgia ban held to violate the Second Amendment. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
  • Prohibitive transfer or occupational vendor taxes in Alabama and Florida, which were repealed. Personal property taxes at levels high enough to discourage possession by poor people in Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.
  • Dirk (a type of fighting knife). Georgia (1837) (held to violate Second Amendment); Arkansas (1881).
  • Sword cane (a sword concealed in a walking stick). Georgia (1837), held to violate the Second Amendment. Arkansas (1881).
  • Slungshot or “colt” (most typically, a lead weight held in the tip of a flexible bludgeon). Sales bans in nine states or territories. The Kentucky ban was later repealed. Illinois also banned possession.
  • Sand club or blackjack. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
  • Billy. New York (1881), (1884), (1889), (1899).
  • Metallic knuckles. Sales bans in eight states, later repealed in Kentucky. Illinois also banned possession.
  • Cannons. No bans. Restrictions on discharge without permission in a variety of municipalities.

American bans on possession or sale to adults of particular types of firearms were:

  • Georgia (1837), all handguns except horse pistols. Held unconstitutional in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846).
  • Tennessee (1879) and Arkansas (1881). Bans on sales of concealable handguns. Based on militia-centric interpretations of the state constitutions, the laws did not ban the largest and most powerful revolvers, namely those like the Army or Navy models.
  • Florida (1893). Discretionary licensing and an exorbitant licensing fee for carry of repeating rifles. Extended to handguns in 1901. The law was “never intended to be applied to the white population” and “conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring).

Earlier this month, the en banc Fourth Circuit, by a 10-5 vote, upheld Maryland’s ban on common rifles dubbed “assault weapons.” Judge Wilkinson’s majority opinion cited the article 16 times, and Judge Richardson’s dissent cited it 9 times. Bianchi v. Brown, 2024 WL 3666180 (4th Cir. 2024) (en banc).

The article has also been cited in three U.S. District Court opinions supporting the claims of Second Amendment plaintiffs. Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Platkin, 2024 WL 3585580 (D.N.J. July 30, 2024); Miller v. Bonta, 699 F.Supp.3d 956, 981 n.86, 987 n.107 (S.D. Cal. 2023); Duncan v. Bonta, 695 F.Supp.3d 1206, 1242 n.177 (S.D. Cal. 2023). And in a Third Circuit dissent disagreeing with Second Amendment claims. Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, 91 F.4th 122, 144-45, 147 (3d Cir. 2024) (Restrepo, J., dissenting).

As the cites indicate, judges can disagree about how strictly or broadly to draw historical analogies, and about what sorts of laws create an established tradition at a given level of generality. It is at least helpful, I hope, that judges can have access to a common set of facts about the historical regulation of controversial arms.

Cincinnati gas station clerk shoots, kills alleged would-be robber

PADDOCK HILLS, Ohio (WKRC) -A man who allegedly attempted to rob a convenience store in Paddock Hills is dead after the clerk apparently shot him.

The incident happened just before 3 a.m. at the BP station on the corner of Reading Road and Tennessee Avenue. Police are saying very little other than a man was shot there at about 2:50 a.m. Paramedics arrived and tried to save him, but were unsuccessful.

The details that Local 12 dug up came from the people who work at the store, radio traffic, and court documents. The first call came in at 2:49 a.m.

Surveillance video from the Gold Star across the street showed police arriving within two minutes. Inside the BP, 57-year-old Dana Bruenton lay on the floor, dying from a gunshot wound.

“Channels, clerk saying he just shot someone,” said one policeman.

“Right now, it’s extremely life-threatening,” said the policeman. “Sounds like they’re going to transport possibly.”

Bruenton would be taken to UC Medical Center, but was pronounced dead shortly after.

Clerks at the BP station said that Bruenton came in demanding money. They said that their co-worker opened the register, but when Bruenton demanded the clerk get on the ground, he refused, and a struggle ensued. They said that the owner keeps a gun behind the counter. The clerk then grabbed it and shot Bruenton.

JJ Wilbon is a BP patron who said she normally hangs out with friends into the early morning hours in the parking lot there.

“Normally, I’m here, but I wasn’t here [this time],” said Wilbon.

She said that the clerk involved in the shooting is a good-natured guy.

“[A] sense of humor. Pretty much minds his business,” said Wilbon.

Local 12 asked her if the clerk was someone she would think would be involved in something like this.

“Not at all,” said Wilbon. “Not at all.”

Bruenton, on the other hand, has a rap sheet dating back to the 1980s, including at least two crimes that sent him to prison: an aggravated robbery in 1992 and an assault in 2007. Then, a month ago, police arrested Bruenton for allegedly attacking someone with a wrench. Three weeks ago, officers arrested him for allegedly attempting to steal groceries from a Kroger.

Wilbon said that she thinks the clerk was justified in shooting Bruenton.

“Sometimes you gotta pick and choose your battles,” said Wilbon. “And this time he chose to battle,” Local 12 said. “He chose to battle,” said Wilbon.

Local 12 then asked her if she thought that it was the right decision.

“I do. I do,” said Wilbon. “I hate for someone to lose their life like that, but it is what it is.”

Police aren’t confirming the clerk’s rendition of what happened. The owner of the store told us that his employee was questioned by police after the incident and then released.

For some reason, we don’t see any of this around Southwest Missouri.
I wonder why…………

Gang’s Takeover of Apartment Complex is Why People Need ‘Assault Weapons’

When people ask why we need so-called assault weapons, most of us default to point out that we don’t have to illustrate a need to exercise our rights. That is completely true and I’m one of those who has said it time and time again. We don’t, nor should we. If we’re required to show a need, then it’s not a right in the first place. That was the core issue at the heart of the Bruen case, really. The state demanded someone show a need and the Supreme Court said you can’t do that.

That extrapolates out to things like AR-15s.

But from time to time, we also see a situation where it makes it very clear that yes, there is a need for such firearms.

In this case, we’re going to talk about an armed gang taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colorado.

New video has surfaced showing alleged gang violence at an apartment complex home to some migrants in Aurora.

The video shows the group entering an apartment building with several weapons and then making their way through a door. The scenario took place at The Edge at Lowry apartments, which became a reported crime hotspot in that city.

In the video, men can be seen walking up a stairwell carrying weapons. They can be heard speaking Spanish.

The owners of the video said it was taken shortly before a shootout at the complex that left one person seriously injured. Several vehicles were also damaged by gunfire.

All of the people appear to be carrying rifles and handguns, except for one of the men who can be seen talking on a cell phone. They all then gather around a door and go in.

Another video clip shows what appears to be two men forcing a door open. But what or who they were searching for is not clear.

The video was shot in the building where Cindy and Edward Romero lived until Wednesday. FOX31 caught up with them as they loaded up their stuff and moved out.

“It’s been a nightmare and I can’t wait to get out of here,” former resident Cindy Romero said.

The gang appears to be made up of Venezuelan “immigrants” who have taken to terrorizing the residents of this complex, which houses a lot of other immigrants. There’s no mention of whether they’re legal or not, though I think we all know what the gang’s status actually is.

Yet there are also a lot of Americans there who are being terrorized by this gang.

While this appears to be a complex where people aren’t exactly flush with cash, the truth of the matter is that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms and our financial status is irrelevant. These people have a right to defend themselves, and with the numbers of bad guys we’re seeing here, and the level of armament–all of which is likely illegally obtained–if these bad guys decide to get even rowdier than they already are, it’s not likely to be a good thing to be relegated to defending yourself with a 10-round magazine, much less a bolt-action rifle and revolver like some people want to relegate us to.

For all the vilification of so-called assault weapons we see in the media, they do fill a niche in a self-defense strategy. It might not necessarily be ideal for a lot of circumstances, but when it is ideal, nothing else will do the job nearly as well.

An armed gang taking over and terrorizing your apartment complex sure looks like one of those jobs.

So About Those Oceans That Were Just About to Boil Away…

It seems like only last year [it was only last year, Steve —Editor] that we were all going to die because the oceans were literally figuratively boiling away. I’m not sure whether it was the massive amounts of steam that were supposed to kill us or the resulting Sharknado. I just know that whatever the oceans are doing, it’s a VERY BAD THING, even though the Great Barrier Reef seems to love it. Seriously, the GBR is in better shape than it’s been in for years.

But now, “surface ocean temperatures are plunging rapidly around the world with scientists reported to be puzzled at the speed of the recent decline, according to Chris Morrison at The Daily Sceptic this week. “Less puzzlement was to be found when the oceans were ‘boiling’ during the last two years,” Morrison dryly noted.

When things are getting worse, climate scientists enjoy the certainty of knowing exactly what’s going on and why. When the trend lines improve, it’s a much less newsworthy mystery.

“Until recently, the surface sea temperature (SST) graph below showing measurements up the Arctic and down to Antarctica was rarely out of the public prints… This year the temperature shown by the black line flatlined until April compared with the substantial rise in orange for 2023. It then fell more sharply than last year and is now 0.2°C lower.”

You can play with the interactive chart here if you like.

For whatever reason, ocean temps are up a full degree Celsius or so since the mid-’80s but 2024 is showing cooling like we’ve never seen before. Then again, if our data only goes back to the mid-’80s, how much do we really know about oceans that are billions of years old, and surround continents that slowly drift around?

As I wrote way back in 2014, before we start panicking, a few questions need to be answered in this order:

  • Is whatever is going on detrimental or beneficial to the human habitat?
  • Do we understand the how and the why?
  • Do we have the technical means and know-how to make things better instead of worse?

We’re still iffy on big parts of the first question, but we have a lot of people in Washington and other places telling us that we need to tax and regulate as though we have perfect answers to all three.

Let’s go back to the Great Barrier Reef for a moment. In 2016 the GBR was pronounced dead at the ripe old age of 25 million, but by 2022 parts of it showed the highest coral cover in 36 years. Last year the panic mongers had to admit that “the truth is complex.” This would be a great time for climate scientists to admit that on the Rumsfeld Epistemological Scale when it comes to how our planet works, we still have a great many unknown unknowns. But don’t hold your breath.

The only certain thing for sure, as Lyle Lovett once sang, is that whatever is going on, it’s the worst thing ever and it’s because of something you did, comrade.

You can also be sure that the freezing oceans will be what kills us next.