Typically the media takes the side of the Radical Left. So you know things are really bad when even the media sides against them.
And now, Democrats have suffered a massive loss after the media betrays them and exposes their dark secrets.
Just over two weeks after Vice President Kamala Harris ascended to the top of the Democratic Party’s 2024 ticket, the media has reluctantly started to turn its attention to the pressing questions surrounding her newly-selected running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.
The move comes amid growing concerns about the authenticity of Walz’s self-described military career, raising significant doubts about his credibility.
During a recent segment, CNN tackled the controversy head-on, shedding light on allegations that Walz had embellished his 24-year service in the Minnesota National Guard.
For years, Walz has carefully crafted an image of a seasoned military man, a narrative that has played well in the political arena. But now, as the stakes rise with his elevation to the national stage, those claims are coming under scrutiny.
One of the most damning allegations against Walz is the accusation of “stolen valor,” a term used to describe individuals who falsely claim military service or exaggerate their experiences to gain respect or advantages.
The accusation stems from comments Walz has made over the years, where he suggested that he had been in combat situations—claims that are not backed by evidence.
In one instance, Walz reportedly told a group that he had carried weapons in a fighting situation. As anyone familiar with the military knows, there is a stark difference between serving during a time of war and actually engaging in combat where lives are on the line. The evidence, or rather the lack thereof, strongly suggests that Walz has never been in such a position.
The controversy gained further traction when a video clip, posted by Kamala Harris’ campaign, began to circulate on social media.
In the clip, Walz attempts to leverage his military background to advocate for an assault weapons ban and stricter gun control measures.
The problem? Walz seemed to imply that he had personally carried such weapons in an active war zone—a statement that raised more than a few eyebrows.
“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt,” Walz proclaimed at a campaign event. “I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can do CDC … We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are carried.”
The assertion that Walz carried “weapons of war” into battle was quickly debunked. Jim LaPorta, a respected journalist with a deep understanding of military affairs, offered a swift fact-check.
“Quick fact check: No, Gov. Walz did not spend 25 years in the Army, it’s 24 years, 1 month and 9 days. No, he did not carry a weapon of war in war. In 2003, he deployed to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom,” LaPorta clarified.
While the media has finally started to ask some questions about Walz, the broader landscape of legacy media remains conspicuously silent on the deeper implications of his exaggerations.
Even more concerning is the lack of scrutiny directed at Kamala Harris herself, the presidential candidate who, despite rising to the top of the Democratic ticket, has yet to face a single hard question or give a meaningful interview since her promotion.
Harris’ selection of Walz as her running mate appears to be more about optics than substance. After all, how could a candidate who has yet to prove her own electability in a primary setting choose someone with a track record of embellishing the truth?
This raises serious concerns about the Democratic ticket’s commitment to honesty and transparency—qualities that should be paramount in any administration.
This isn’t the first time Walz has been caught bending the truth. Throughout his political career, he has repeatedly tried to paint himself as something he’s not—a battle-hardened warrior who has seen the horrors of war firsthand.
The truth, however, is far less glamorous. Walz served honorably in the Minnesota National Guard, but there is no evidence to suggest that he ever found himself in a combat situation or that he carried the kind of “weapons of war” he now wants to ban.
Walz’s misleading statements are more than just harmless exaggerations; they represent a pattern of deception that should concern every voter. If he’s willing to stretch the truth about his military service to score political points, what else is he willing to lie about? His past comments suggest a politician who is more interested in crafting a narrative than in telling the truth.
The decision by Kamala Harris to choose Walz as her running mate calls into question her judgment as well. If Harris is willing to align herself with someone who has a questionable relationship with the truth, what does that say about her own values? More importantly, what does it say about the direction in which she plans to take the country?
The Democratic Party has long been criticized for its embrace of political correctness and its tendency to put style over substance. Walz’s selection as Harris’ running mate only serves to reinforce those criticisms.
Rather than choosing a running mate based on merit and integrity, Harris seems to have opted for someone who fits a particular narrative, even if that narrative is built on shaky ground.
While the media’s newfound interest in Walz is a step in the right direction, it’s clear that much more needs to be done. Both Walz and Harris should be held accountable for their actions and their words. The American people deserve nothing less.
Stay tuned to Prudent Politics.
