Search 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.

So let's just look at it historically though, the numbers and what that means. Over a thousand illegal entries a day takes away the border patrol's ability to proactively patrol the border. They literally over a thousand, they go into a response mode and they're just dealing what's coming across. The reality of that is it gives the cartels complete control of what's crossing the border because they control the crossings to include that second wave. The Biden administration understands and knows this. I've briefed many of the people in the administration several times. And then now, even when we're talking about thresholds, they're more than doubling that to trigger this new authority, but they shut off the authority at 1500 is what I've heard. So that ensures that the cartels still maintain control. This is all political theater. It's not going to change anything on the border. So once they hit the 2,500 person threshold, it's not like they put a big sign up to say the border's closed. Try again tomorrow, people are going to continue to come across the border and they'll continue to go to the border patrol and they'll be apprehended and they'll get into the system and maybe their asylum claims might not be valid because we're above the 2,500 threshold. But it's not like you can send them back because a lot of these people are coming in from places like Mauritania. We had Bill Molygian talking to people who are coming in from Nepal, China, Pakistan, India, you can't hold them. There aren't the facilities to do it. So does the Biden administration have any other choice than to maybe they don't go into the asylum claim processing system, but can they do anything else other than parole them into the United States? There's a lot of things they could do. The Biden administration created this border crisis with the stroke of a pin by shutting down the Remain in Mexico program and shutting down the asylum cooperative agreements we're building out with a host of other nations. They could turn that back on, but you, you hit the nail on the head. As long as people get released into the United States, the flow will continue. And this mediocre response is not going to send the message that we need to actually get control of the border again. We literally need to stop this massive flow. It's like stopping the flow of a river, if you will. But you got to stop the flow before you can clean up the flood. So there's really my understanding is Mexico has not agreed to take these people back. So they are still going to have to go through the regular system, even if expedited. Yeah, and with current law, we can't return people from Nepal to Mexico because the no Remain in Mexico agreement. So they'd have to be returned to Nepal. And how long does it take to do that? There's one other really curious aspect to all of this. Even when you hit the threshold, according to our bill of illusion, you can still apply through the CBP one app. Is this just some grand plan to push people to that app? So I think the grand plan has been to allow as many people into the country as possible while still getting reelected. The only reason that they're announcing this executive of action now, in my opinion, is to try to sound tough on the border. But when you look at the numbers, it doesn't really mean anything. And I'm glad you highlighted this. They're bringing in another 1,000 to 1,500 a day through the CBP one app. So we're basically locking in now over two million illegal entries a year between these two processes, assuming this new executive action authority is actually implemented. We simply just we can't sustain this. And remember, vetting is against U.S. databases, not against some made up global database. So we really still have no idea who we're allowing into this country. I mean, when you.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.