Thorough analysts have done yeoman’s work to expose what appears to be evidence of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D) projecting an unreal history of his time in the U.S. National Guard.
As Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Walz’s former battalion co-member Retired Command Sgt. Maj. Thomas Behrends, and the New York Post have noted, Walz’s implication that he carried weapons of war during “war” in Iraq is untrue.
Others have pointed out that Walz not only didn’t ask for a correction to a 2008 book called “The Wellstone Way” that claimed Walz served in Afghanistan, he openly endorsed the book on its cover.
Others have unearthed indicting videos, one of which shows Walz visually nodding when others on C-Span misled audiences by puffing up his military record and another, from 2009, that shows Minnesotans visiting Walz’s state congressional office to inquire about his slippery implication that he served in Afghanistan during “Operation Enduring Freedom” – the unconstitutional US occupation of that aforementioned nation – when he never went to Afghanistan, he was working in Italy, in support of the operation.
And much of the well-deserved umbrage stems from a video that acted as the proverbial tip of the sphere, footage of Walz that has been posted by commentator and lawyer Mike Cernovich showing Walz repeating the claim that he carried “weapons of war in war” as part of his rhetorical push for more gun grabs and attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.
And, while detectives studying these Democrat demagogues are right to cite Walz for reiterating his false claim that he saw action and “carried weapons of war in war,” many of these justified critics appear to have overlooked other important problems with Walz’s statements in that video.
The complete text of his statement in the clip commits more unscrupulous acts than misleading people about his military record.
His finely-tuned propagandistic statement reads:
“I’ll take my kick in the butt from the NRA. I spent 25 years in the army, and I hunt, and I gave the money (campaign contributions?) back, and I’ll tell you what I have been doing. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks, we can do CDC research, we can make sure we don’t have reciprocal carry among states, and we can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.”
Clearly, his claim of carrying weapons of war in war is to be cited as obnoxious nonsense.
But he’s packed a lot of other insulting and dangerous rhetoric inside his little brag, and the word choice shows how much he loathes the right to keep and bear arms and how much he despises the U.S. Constitution.
First, Walz claims to "protect the Second Amendment" with what he calls "common sense" legislation. What he actually proposes are a series of attacks on the Second Amendment, which is a federal prohibition of ALL INFRINGMENTS of the right to keep and bear arms.
Whether the government mandates are “background checks” (which also folds-in unconstitutional searches of personal info, contrary to the Fourth Amendment), or CDC research that assumes, first, that man-on-man violence is like a viral pathogen that spreads -- rather than human action based on human choice -- ALSO assumes that the CDC should collect “gun violence” data (and falsely call it a “public health problem”) and, overall, assumes that the CDC is constitutionally sanctioned in the first place, every item on Walz’s checklist is an ATTACK on the Second Amendment.
It’s pretty easy to understand that something in the Constitution that overtly states, “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” is NOT “protected” by INFRINGEMENTS to the right to keep and bear arms.
Does Walz think people are that stupid? Does he honestly think he can offer without any kind of pushback the equivalent of “I’m going to support your car alarm by… disconnecting your car alarm and carjacking you”?
And, finally, Walz states he wants to prevent "reciprocal carry" – in other words, when people in their home states get gun "licenses" (which already are infringements on their rights), he doesn't want to see other states respect those licenses.
It must be frustrating for this war hero to face the fact that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution requires any state to offer reciprocal validity to any legal document from any other state.
Related: ABC Doesn't Think Most Americans Care About Walz's Military Embellishments
Evidently, this man who repeatedly has sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not familiar with that very clear, easily readable portion of…the U.S. Constitution.
Walz seems to have a bad memory. If one were to be less charitable, one might think he speaks in order to deceive. But one thing is certain, his statements do not comport with history, or the U.S. Constitution.
That makes him a danger, and manifestly corrupt, and as the Harris team tries to wave magic wands to cover his tracks, claiming he merely misspoke, we can remember, and beware.