Popular Posts

America, for some folks, they're just getting to know Coach Walz's story. He is a veteran who served our nation in uniform for more than two decades as a member of the Army National Guard. For 24 years, I proudly wore the uniform of this nation. The National Guard gave me purpose. It gave me the strength of a shared commitment to something greater than ourselves. And as the Harris campaign highlights Walz's military service, well, they left out a major detail. When his battalion deployed to Iraq in 2006, he wasn't with them. He retired. He said he wanted to run for Congress. But some of the men serving in his battalion say he abandoned them and only retired once he found out they were getting deployed. Now, when he was asked about it late today, well, Walz adopted Kamala's M.O. and simply refused to answer the question. Governor, the fans of Fuseo's stolen valor, their response. Governor. Joining me now is Thomas Barron's retired command sergeant major for the Minnesota National Guard. Thomas, good to have you with us tonight. Now, J.D. Vance is saying this is a case of stolen valor. He obviously served in the Marine Corps in active duty. What is your take on this? Is this just, you know, a casual mistake? Is this something far darker? That's far way far darker than a lot of people think. I mean, it is stolen valor. He's used he's used the rank that he never achieved in order to advance his political career. He's done it for decades now, basically, maybe not decades, but damn close to it. I mean, he's he still says he's a retired command sergeant major to this day. And and he's not he he he uses his rank, uses rank of others to make it look like he's a better person than he is. He still does it even, you know, just however long ago. Well, to that point, so everyone understands what we're talking about here. On his biography, on his campaign website, and even on the Minnesota website, it lists him, Governor Walts, as a for as a retired command sergeant major. And his governor's bio says the same thing. It even says that that is the rank he retired at. I mean, that's just a fact you did or didn't. But again, the Minnesota National Guard told the angle he retired as a master sergeant. Now, for people who don't have any military background, they might think, oh, command sergeant major, master sergeant. Why is that such a big deal? Tell us why that's such a big deal. Well, it's a big deal for the simple fact that in order to you when you get conditionally promoted to command sergeant major or sergeant major, you're signing a document that states that you will complete the United States Army Sergeant Majors Academy, which is technically a two-year course, two-year college course almost. And if you don't complete that, you don't get the rank. So you basically get reduced, you know, it's conditional. You get pinned with E9, but then it gets taken away from you when you either quit or you end up having having, you know, don't complete the course. So what he did basically was he quit. He didn't complete that condition. He didn't complete the condition of doing two years after graduation. So he gets reduced to a master sergeant. That's what he is right now as a retired master sergeant. Well, I think the issue here is that in some of the statements that were published in some of the comments that were made, when you say you were deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, it indicates to people something. And the implication is you were deployed in, I guess, Iraq or Afghanistan. And that's what most people think. And maybe it's something that that's just wrong, but that's what a lot of people think. But how long did your unit spend in Iraq or and what was it like when you were there? Because, again, for people who believe that he was deployed in Iraq, people should understand what that was like. Well, going back on what you said, I mean, technically in the old days, Operation Enduring Freedom was Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom was Iraq. And he spun this, you know, where we were in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and and the people in the unit that he was at in Italy were supposedly going to get deployed to Afghanistan, Afghanistan. I mean, there's documents out there that that state some of those lies. And the 173rd Airborne was in Italy. That's their base home base. And they actually they actually air assault or they parachuted into Iraq at that time. So, I mean, his spin was a lie then. But back then, you know, some of the some of the party would basically say that they wanted to wanted to, you know, Afghanistan was like the real war and Iraq wasn't. So if you're in support of that enduring freedom, you know, you are in the you are in the war. You should be in an Iraqi freedom was was kind of Bush's war. But, you know, that's how that all unfolded. Well, when we ended up in Iraq, I mean, we we trained for six months and then we ended up, you know, going overseas, we're supposed to be in Iraq for a year. And then we got we we got extended and did the did the whole surge. And we were there for six more months or 17 months total. Yeah. 2006 was I was there in February of 2006, just for two weeks. And it was getting very real and extremely, extremely dangerous. I know so many men were lost and and and you were there. He he also made a comment about going to war, which, again, the implication being, well, what it was for most people. Listen, I spent 25 years in the army and I hunt and I gave the money 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. Now, Thomas, weapons of war that I carried in war. Right. Again, what does that mean to most people? I mean, in the in language matters to most people, that would mean that he was actually in combat carrying a weapon in a combat zone and getting combat pay and in a dangerous and hostile environment where he is getting shot at. I mean, if he if he thinks Italy was a combat zone or a war zone and he was carrying that in war, he's delusional. I mean, that was all said, just like him saying he was a command sergeant major, just another way to embellish his career beyond what it was stolen valor for the people that actually were in war. And he's acting like he was in war. Well, yeah, he carried an M16 back when we were in I don't know, maybe you never even had the thing out of the supply room in Italy. I I would really doubt if he ever did. I don't think I ever had my weapon out in England by my soldiers did. But I was out there making sure that they had food and making sure that they had a good place to sleep and make made sure to leave. I mean, that's what a first sergeant does in a in a in a deployment like that. I mean, you're in charge of leave and passes and be rostered and different things like that. I don't even took his damn rifle out in Italy. Thomas, you lost men, I believe, when you were deployed. Yes, we did. And how devastating of a loss was each life deployed without having to play around with the language here? Well, it is something that is with the person every single day to this day and will be with us with all of us in that unit until the day we die. Thomas, the campaign put out a statement saying that after 24 years of military service, Governor Walsh retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he chaired the veteran affairs and was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform. And as vice president of the U.S., he will continue to be a relentless champion for our veterans and military families. He has not addressed this charge of stolen valor. Do you think the men and women who deployed when he decided not to and did not embellish or casually kind of misstate or misrepresent his record, do they deserve a response to these charges? I would say from what I get from the soldiers that I went to Iraq with, you know, probably 98 percent of them are, you know, completely against him embellishing his record. You know, it was, you know, yeah, he was in for 24 years and he quit. Well, OK, so that's what you did. But don't try to make it look like you were a command sergeant major. Don't make it try to make it look like you were going to some place that was in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I mean, granted that, you know, there's that that's just all all embellishment and lies to try to make things look better. Well, Tom, there's a few out there that's still back. You know, yeah, he could retire yet 20 years in. I mean, that that he served. There's no doubt about it. He served. But there's no need to embellish your embellish your record or leave out key details. And Tom can serve 24 24 mediocre years and and be in a frumpy uniform and do your do your 24 years. But that's not turning you into a super soldier that that did what he thinks that makes it look like he did. Well, Tom, all I know is that every command sergeant major I've ever had the privilege of meeting. The coolest, highest ranking enlisted officer. Am I getting that right in the army? Am I getting that right? And they just get it done. You're humbling me by saying that, but you know, that is that is the point. And that's the point that he he knows that. And that's why he wants to use that that title as his as his campaign rank, because that people look like you said right there. People know that in the movies and everything. I mean, if you're the CSM, you're the guy that get the hell off the grass and, you know, and you're you're a right hand man with the Colonel doing his thing. I mean, it's really unbelievable. You can do so much for your soldiers and and so much for your country at that rank. It's unbelievable. And for somebody to step down a position and claim they still were that, that's just absolutely terrible. That's appalling. Tom, thank you so much for your service to the country and all those who served with you and those who did not return and their families tonight. Thank you so much.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

When it comes to the question of whether the man who tried to end American democracy should face trial before voters decide if they Want to elect him to finish what he started? It appears for now the magazine court just doesn't appear to be in much of a rush But today in the year 2023 this Supreme Court has decided the no rush to judgment argument is good enough for them Not why would the special counsel want to move so fast? But why would the former president not want to resolve this so fast in the heat of a presidential election and to your point? He's trying to delay and trying to stop. That's a thorough investigation into him The media melting down after the Supreme Court rejected Jack Smith's request to hear Trump's immunity dispute It's a move that will likely delay his trial here to react Fox News contributor Joe Concha, Joe That's the first time I've seen some of that reaction I didn't know that we had moved toward the MAGA Supreme Court and such an open antipathy towards due process Come on. Just hurry up. Let's get on with this Isn't that amazing? I mean during that montage the MAGA Supreme Court I hadn't heard that one before and they want a rush to judgment in this situation And by the way MAGA Supreme Court as if Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barron aren't immensely qualified for that job And look the question is why is Jack Smith trying to fast food this process so urgently guys I mean unless of course he's trying to directly impact and interfere with the presidential election and you read and listen to sane and sober legal analysts and scholars like Jonathan Turley and they make a very simple argument that Jack Smith does not have the right to deny due process because he says so we can't simply demand the Supreme Court to put everything else aside and hear his case and it's very clear right now to many Americans even independents and some Democrats that the Democratic Party is in a full-blown panic because they have an 81 year old president that is Wants to seek reelection and is in the worst position of any president seeking reelection in the modern era. He's on a timeline Joe He's Jack Smith is on a timeline He needs to hurry this up because of that March trial start date And it's interesting you raised that because the tip for the Supreme Court to take case You have to have at least four and say yes, we'll do it now. There's three liberals on the court That means all six conservatives said no. Thanks. We're not gonna give in to this political badgering. Is that you read of it? That's exactly what we see here And now the argument will be and just like with Colorado guys, right because that's gonna go to the Supreme Court as well And and they will make a decision on that before the ballot Becomes binding on January 5th and they're gonna rule most likely maybe even 9-0 Hopefully that Donald Trump should be back on the ballot in Colorado And if it does happen that way where it's 6-3 for example and only conservatives vote that way You'll see the MSNBC's and CNN's and New York Times is of the world saying that wow This is a weaponized court only there to support Donald Trump So the hope here is that that comes back Nine to zero as far as putting Donald Trump back on the ballot in Colorado this way It strips away any political bias that we may hear or see from the court system or more importantly the media That covers it. Well, and Joe Jack Smith and the DOJ really they continue to intervene They're trying everything they can because Biden is not doing well And they're worried about the 2024 election, but at what point do we say that hey, you know This is a violation of the Hatch Act by it's completely forgoing due process Like why don't they just allow it is they allow it to happen at the ballots like let Americans decide who they want for president Exactly Nicole. We have an election. That's less than 11 months away at this point if you don't want Donald Trump to be president then fine go to the ballot box and make your voice be heard if you want him to Be president then do the same but give Americans the choice to vote for who they believe should be president. Don't let the courts come in here and decide I mean, could you imagine if the Colorado ruling holds up then in states that matter states that decide elections Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, I could go down the line if he's pulled off the ballot there What's this country gonna look like what will be 30 reaction particularly with Trump in the lead right now? There's 31 section 3 litigation cases out there right now 31 efforts to remove him for being an insurrectionist a charge for which he's not been officially charged in any of his indictments Or obviously convicted now let Americans buy their voice censorship changing the voting manner Inditing him four times on criminal charge I mean just kind of go down the list of things that are done to ensure that the democracy doesn't choose Donald Trump you start What asking yourself? What's left? What's left on the list of things that they haven't done to stop Donald Trump?

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A bar chart graphic comparing average 2025 year-to-date residential electricity prices between "Blue states" and "Red states". A blue bar labeled "23c / kWh" represents Blue states, and a shorter red bar labeled "15c / kWh" represents Red states.

Text in image: BLUE STATES DRIVE HIGH ELECTRICITY PRICES (average 2025 YTD residential electricity prices, cents per kWh) 23c / kWh 15c / kWh Blue states Red states

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

And I'm here today with a message of hope for all Americans. With your vote in this election, I will end inflation, I will stop the invasion of criminals into our country, and I will bring back the American dream. I'm going to bring it back very quickly. Our country is being destroyed and tripled by Kamala Harris, a person that got no votes, therefore she's a threat to democracy. But together we're going to fix our nation and we're going to fix our nation fast. With your support on November 5th, America will be bigger, better, bolder, richer, safer and stronger than ever before. This election is a choice between whether we will have four more years of incompetence, failure and disaster, or whether we will begin the four greatest years in the history of our country. After all the catastrophes she has caused, Kamala Harris can't say one thing that you do differently. You saw that? What would you do differently? I can't think of anything. This is the worst president in the history of our country and the worst vice president in the history of our country. And wrong track just came out, 89% wrong track. I want to know who are the 11%, who are they, where are they? I'm asking you to be excited about the future of our country again. This will be America's new golden age. And remember every problem facing us can be solved but now the fate of our nation is in your hands. In Georgia, you have to stand up and you have to tell Kamala Harris that Kamala, you've done a horrible job, you're the worst ever, there's never been anybody like you, you can't put two sentences together, the world is laughing at us because of you and Crooked Joe. Kamala, you're fired, get out, get out, get out, you're fired.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

Our next guest says, "The deck is stacked against the former president in this politically driven case." Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett wrote about it on foxnews.com. Here to explain it now, Greg, your thoughts, barring a last minute reprieve, the show starts Monday. Yeah, and Trump is fighting for a fair trial, Brian, and an impartial jury. That's his constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. But in Manhattan, as you say, the deck is stacked against him. You've got a biased judge, a jury pool dominated by Trump-hating New Yorkers. He's right, I think, to demand that the trial judge recuse himself because his adult daughter has a vested interest in her father's case. She runs a Democrat consulting firm that solicited tens of millions of dollars by citing her father's case. She has a financial interest in the outcome, and under ethical rules, that's a disqualifying conflict of interest. And Trump's other challenge is based on immunity, which is, of course, under review by the US Supreme Court. Some of the allegations and evidence against him in the New York case took place while he was president. Why not wait until the high court decides that issue? Oral arguments are in just a couple of weeks. But there is a rush to convict Trump in advance of the election. Right. So you say he's accused of falsifying company records to hide the nature of payments to his former lawyer as it relates to Stormy Daniels. This is something that they had to extend the statute of limitations to try and upgrade the charge from misdemeanor to a felony. Now, do you think that President Trump's legal team is up for the challenge? Could they be ready to defend the president in a way that could convince at least one juror? Well, I would hope so. I think they're a fine team of lawyers, and their argument is quite valid. You know, paying somebody for silence is not a crime. So instead, the DA Alvin Bragg accuses Trump of falsely accounting for it. At best, that's a mere misdemeanor, as you point out. That was barred long ago by the statute of limitations. So Bragg is trying to circumvent that by twisting the law and claiming, "Oh, it's an illegal campaign donation and thus a felony." No, it's not. The federal election commission concluded it doesn't qualify as a campaign expenditure to the Department of Justice said, "Hey, there's no crime here. Alvin Bragg doesn't care. He's decided to charge Trump criminally, even though he has no authority as a local prosecutor to charge federal crimes in a federal election." Greg, just do this. Look at this trial. See the 76-year-old CFO of a Trump organization back in Rikers while illegal immigrants, shoplifts and ransacked stores beat up cops. No one gets charged for crimes. There seems to be a nonstop bail reform cannot be penetrated. But we have to go and arrest Donald Trump and his CFO to keep New York safe. Are they that oblivious to how bad this looks around the country, around the world? They are oblivious, and I think they're delusional. These indictments all have one common denominator, Brian. They're politically driven. We didn't see this for what it is, an abuse of our legal system meant to interfere in the presidential election. But polls show it's backfiring, only solidifying Trump's support. Voters see him really as a villain, not as a villain rather, but as a victim of unscrupulous political enemies who are weaponizing the law. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out. More on this on foxnews.com, you have your legal analysis there. One thing is for sure, the president's got to be in court most of the time for the next six weeks, which will not help his campaign. Greg, thank you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A campaign-style graphic on a blue-to-dark-red gradient background with a white border. It features close-up cropped photos of Donald Trump (stern, unsmiling expression, wearing a dark suit and blue tie) on the left and a blonde woman in a dark blazer with a white top and pearl earrings/necklace, smiling, on the right. At the bottom center is a "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" logo framed by a rectangular border with stars above and below.

Text in image: LAND COMMISSIONER OF TEXAS DAWN BUCKINGHAM WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

when you think about Donald Trump as a candidate for office and as a political athlete, I say often he's as gifted a political athlete as I've ever seen. I don't agree with a lot of his things, but you have to respect the business and understand how politics is that the art of politics is litigated. This move here, Dana, we had a conversation about this a day or so ago. Here he is in New York. He goes to a bodega. He was at, I think, at a gas station a day or so before. This is as good a campaigning as you can do. Now, whether they, some may argue or say that the crowd was scripted, whatever happened there, it looked good. This is the kind of theater you want when you're in a campaign. And he was able to highlight, in addition to that, an issue that is on the forefront of a lot of voters' minds, not just in New York, but everywhere, law and order and crime. I'll refrain from some of the conversation and analysis around DA Brack, but if you look at what, to the judge's point, this juxtaposition of Donald Trump there versus the trial, this is what's going to be talked about over the next day. So as a political move, as a political athlete, this was a very, very smart thing for the president to do. Now, I don't think it's going to necessarily have an impact on the trial itself, but on the campaign itself, there's no doubt this is one of the smarter things the president could be doing.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.

A campaign-style graphic with a blue-to-red gradient background bordered in blue. It shows a photo of Donald Trump (left, serious/stern expression, blond hair, dark suit and blue tie) standing beside a bald, smiling man in a dark suit with a red tie, identified by the headline as Pete Ricketts. A "TRUMP VANCE / MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" campaign logo with stars appears at the bottom between them, with a small American flag pin visible on Ricketts' lapel.

Text in image: U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA PETE RICKETTS WINS! ENDORSED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP! TRUMP VANCE MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.

A screenshot of an official letterhead document from the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), addressed to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The letter, signed by Paul A. Perez (National President), announces the NBPC's endorsement of Senator Markwayne Mullin as President Trump's nominee for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and urges the committee to advance his nomination to the full Senate.

Text in image: NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL PAUL A. PEREZ / President PROTECTING THOSE WHO PROTECT OUR BORDERS March 17, 2026 The Honorable Rand Paul Chairman Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Gary Peters Ranking Member Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate 340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Chairman Paul and Ranking Member Peters: The men and women of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) are excited to provide our support for President Donald J. Trump's nominee to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Senator Markwayne Mullin. We have no doubt that Senator Mullin is the right person to lead DHS and continue the Trump Administration's focus on keeping America safe. Thanks to President Trump's vision and leadership, we now have the most secure border in our lifetime and Border Patrol agents are again able to do the job of protecting our great nation. While much has been accomplished, there is still work to be done and Senator Mullin will ensure we never let our guard down. Threats emanating from overseas remain persistent and the cartels operating south of our border continue to try and smuggle narcotics, people and weapons across our borders. The brave men and women of the Border Patrol deter and stop these threats every day and we know Senator Mullin will have our backs as we execute our mission. Senator Mullin has spent valuable time on the ground at the border and met with frontline agents to understand our mission and challenges. We have gotten to know Senator Mullin and his no-nonsense leadership style means Border Patrol will remain focused on public safety and enforcing our nation's laws. In addition to his more than a decade of leadership and public service in Congress, Senator Mullin brings much needed private sector experience that will allow him to cut through bureaucratic red tape and ensure agents in the field have the resources and equipment we need to secure our borders. The NBPC is proud to endorse Senator Mullin to be the next DHS Secretary, and we urge the Committee to swiftly pass and move his nomination to the full Senate. Sincerely, Paul A. Perez National President

Described automatically. The words above are a machine's reading of the picture, not Trump's.