jump to navigation

Tim Walz: Stolen Valor and the Dishonesty of Claiming Combat Service August 10, 2024

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , ,
3 comments

EDIT(I have so little respect for this dummy I had his name as TOM). it is TIM…like…little Timmy the coward….

Recently, the Harris campaign attempted to assuage concerns over Tom Walz’ lying about his service by saying he simply “misspoke”. For those who are not veterans I feel it is appropriate to give some context to his lies. First, “Turn Tail Tom” claims, through the Harris campaign that: “Governor Walz would never insult or undermine any American’s service to this country —” Yet, through his lies he has done exactly this.

Before I go on let me be clear. EVERY veteran who has served our great nation is to be applauded regardless of the job. That $100 million jet does not fly without a technician fixing the computer system. As a former Scout Sniper, if there was not an armorer to keep my rifle in match condition, my job was degraded. While we all like to make jokes, there is a truism in the quote: “Bullets don’t fly without supply”.

Within the veteran community there are three basic groups. Those who have been in direct combat (Combat veterans), those who have served in Combat zones but NOT seen direct combat, and those who are in support roles who have not deployed (in the rear with the gear). For every ‘front line’ or ‘combat’ troop there are about 10 support personnel in the US Military. Only about 10% of the Army, Marines etc. actually are doing the fighting. This is NOT to denigrate those who provide the support rather to show how important those jobs are to the war effort.

Every veteran knows that to be a combat veteran is considered the pinnacle of respect. It is so pronounced in the USMC that the MarineTimes actually wrote an article in 2015 about the infighting called No CAR,No Respect detailing how, within the Marine Corps, those who had earned the Combat Action Ribbon were perceived to look down upon those who had not seen direct combat. In short, Tom Walz did NOT misspeak about having been a war veteran. He intentionally lied about having been in ‘war’. The question is why? We know why. He wanted the respect and cache that comes from putting oneself in harm’s way.

Being a combat veteran is so revered within the military services that each service has specialized medals, ribbons or badges that enable one to immediately identify whether a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine is a combat veteran. In the USMC and US Navy we are issued a Combat Action Ribbon (CAR). In the Army they are issued either a Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB) or the Combat Action Badge (CAB) and so on for each service.

Tom is a progressive liberal who hates guns. That is fine. By stating his ‘credentials’ (avid hunter (sure he is), war veteran), he is demonstrating his authority on the subject. This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. Tom Walz, in a public statement advocating for stricter gun control measures, asserted,

“We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.”

This statement was intended to bolster his argument for restricting civilian access to certain firearms by drawing on his purported personal experience in a combat setting. By claiming firsthand knowledge of the destructive power of military-grade weapons, Walz aimed to position himself as an authoritative voice on the issue, suggesting that his experience granted him a unique and legitimate perspective on the dangers of such firearms in civilian hands.

However, it was later revealed that Walz had never served in a combat role, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of his claims. This revelation not only called into question Walz’s integrity but also highlighted the problematic nature of using appeals to authority based on false or exaggerated credentials in policy debates.

I have investigated numerous stolen valor claims and have reported a number of people on the claims. The vast majority of stolen valor claims are for people who simply want to impress a person of the opposite sex. In some cases it becomes more sinister such as in Tom Walz case where he is using the claims of combat earned by few to attempt to demonstrate authority on a subject in which he has no authority.

Shame on the Harris campaign for attempting to divert attention away from Tom Walz’ fraudulent claims of valor. In their defense, the Harris campaign stated: “In making the case for why weapons of war should never be on our streets or in our classrooms, the Governor misspoke. He did handle weapons of war Well, I supposes that makes him a combat veteran. I like fast cars. I have a fast car. I drive a Maserati. Based upon that, I suppose I can tell people I raced in the Monaco Grand Prix and am a race car driver? No, of course not. My ‘handling’ a fast car (BTW…it is NOT a race car any more than the AR 15 Tom is trying to ban is a weapon of war) does not make me a ‘race car driver’ any more than Tom is a war veteran.

He has stolen valor and should apologize personally for his shameful actions.

Suddenly, EVERYONE is a SNIPER July 20, 2024

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , ,
1 comment so far

With the attempted assassination of former President Trump on July 13, 2024, it seems as if everyone has become a firearm’s expert and self proclaimed ‘sniper’ or expert on precision shooting. Today, FoxNews ran a story lauding the Secret Service Counter Sniper who took out the wanna be assassin and called the shot “1 in a million”. This blog post is simply an opportunity to educate people on ballistics and shooting and to correct some misconceptions. First things first. I have read people say that the assassin wanna be (won’t name him) ‘intentionally shot Trump in the ear’. Uh….no! Let’s talk about rifles, ballistics and accuracy. First a couple of terms:

Precision- Refers to how close a measurement is to a true or accepted value. (Rifles are measured by their precision)

Accuracy- Refers to how consistently a measurement produces the same results under unchanged conditions. (Shooters are gauged by their accuracy on a given platform)

Rifles are typically ‘rated’ or measured in terms of precision of angular measurement known as Minutes of Angle or MOA. 1 MOA is equal to 1/60th of 1 degree of a circle or 1.0472 inches PER 100 yards. For simplicity’s sake we simply use 1 inch per 100 yards. So a rifle guaranteed to shoot 1 MOA will shoot most (nearly all…but it is a statistical distribution) within 1 inch.

So, if the rifle is put in a vice, with match ammo and under perfect conditions (no wind, no temperature fluctuation or other variables during the shooting), the 1 MOA rifle will shoot nearly all rounds within 1 inch at 100 yards(not all rounds as it is a statistical measurement). This does not account for shooter ability or environmental variables. Even a world class shooter shooting a 1 MOA rifle will only be able to shoot 1 inch per 100 yards consistently as that is the capability of the rifle. This is why benchrest and other competition shooters get high precision rifles that shoot much tighter than 1 MOA.

According to news accounts, the wannabe assassin was using a DPMS or similar model AR 15 type platform. These generally only shoot about 3-4 MOA even with Match ammo. So…..the wanna be assassin at 130 yard would likely (given a 3.5 MOA rifle) only be capable of, at best, a 4.55 inch group. now…it looks like he was shooing without optics, he was wearing glasses and, being 20 years old, likely did not have a ton of shooting experience. The adrenaline and other environmental factors would have likely played a major role. I could not see the shooter being capable, under those conditions, of better than a 5 inch group (likely much more). I short, that shot in Trump’s ear was likely as much luck, as skill.

Now…the FoxNews Article talking about the SS Sniper taking a “1 in a million shot” is really reaching. That sniper likely had a high precision rifle (shooting at least 1/2 MOA if not 1/4 MOA) and that sniper had been through some top tier sniper training and had high quality optics and many thousands of rounds of experience in urban shooting scenarios taking no reflex shots. It is highly likely that sniper could shoot to the capability of his rifle and was using match ammo and was very familiar with the platform. His shot was in an estimated 2 inch spot above the shooter’s left eye. While certainly a good shot, it would have been a ‘day at the job’ for a sniper of that skill level shooting that type of platform.

Remember, shooting is a craft that is a combination of art and science. The limitations come from both the shooter and the inherent accuracy of the platform. So the next time you hear someone tell you that “years ago my mom used to drive tacks with an old .30-.30 with open sights at 100 yards” (I actually read that and was derided for correcting that statement online) it is simply not true.

President Trump and the Goldwater Rule February 15, 2024

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
4 comments

300px-Goldwater_fact_magazineOriginally posted in 2018 but, given the current events, I have updated with a podcast to discuss Goldwater and Biden…

On December 8th, 2017 the President opened the doors to allow press to watch the bipartisan discussion over immigration.  Dr. Brandy Lee of the Yale School of Medicine conducted apparently watched the testimony and conducted an interview in which the resulting article was titled “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” .  In this gripping article, the esteemed Dr. Lee (notice I use the honorific while she excludes such courtesy when talking about the President of the United States).  In her interview Dr. Lee sounds alarm bells about President Trump’s mental fitness to be president, etc. etc.

In fact, Dr. Lee was invited to “brief” members of congress on December 5th and 6th.  The group included “at least 1 Republican who they would not name.”  No doubt.

This is on course with the current Democratic position of applying the 25th Amendment to remove the President from Office.  As one example, in May 2017, the NY Times (surprise) wrote an article extoling the virtues of leveraging the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office (and not doubt try to replace with Hilary).

In May 2017, the same Dr. Lee was commented in an article on Liberal Outpost (no kidding) titled: “Yale Psychiatrist says Trump (again..no honorific) has a grave ________disability”.  Interestingly (to those of us who care about the rule of law and actual process) the article begins with the following:

“Psychiatrists in the United States are blocked from commenting on the psychological wellness of politicians due to the 50 year old Goldwater Rule, which states that they cannot openly diagnose the mental health of public figures who they have not personally examined.

However, the case of President Donald Trump is so extreme and potentially consequential that some noted psychiatrists have felt compelled to speak out despite the rule.”

Then, in an admitted violation of the Goldwater Rule, Lee (honorific removed) states definitively:

“This situation has come to such a critical level. In fact, a state of emergency exists and we could no longer hold back. We have an obligation to speak about Donald Trump’s mental health issues because many lives and our survival as a species may be at stake.”

So what is the Goldwater Rule?  For a short history, (thank you Wikipedia) Barry Goldwater was running for President in 1964 when a magazine named Fact published an article The issue arose in 1964 when Fact published the article “The Unconscious of a Conservative: A Special Issue on the Mind of Barry Goldwater”.[3][5] The magazine polled psychiatrists about U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater and whether he was fit to be president.[6][7] The editor, Ralph Ginzburg, was sued for libel in Goldwater v. Ginzburg where Goldwater won $75,000 (approximately $592,000 today) in damages.[3]

Does this sound familiar?  There are experts trying to “diagnose” a sitting president for no other reason than their adorned queen did no win and ascend to the presidency.  This is nonsense. Now…the “argument” by those on the left are that the Dr. is not making a “diagnosis” under the DSM rather is simply expressing an opinion that any citizen can express.  Let me ask you.  If I said someone was crazy would you give it the same weight as a professor of Psychiatry from Yale with a DM and who has briefed congress? Of course not.  This is nonsense and we all know it.

I will be at the Javits center next week. (where Hillary was to have her coronation…sorry…her “acceptance speech”)…I will look up at the large glass ceiling and thank God (yes GOD) that it was not Hillary that broke that ceiling. 

JavitsCrying

“Dr” Heal Thyself or at least go…..”something” thyself.

Ms. Frederica Wilson; Politicizing our warriors who died…shameful! October 20, 2017

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

wilsonRecently, a Special Forces team was attacked by an estimated 50 ISIS fighters in Niger.  Unfortunately, 4 US Service Members paid the ultimate price and are not coming home.  President Trump made a call to the wife of one of the fallen soldiers.  This has created a very unnecessary political storm.  I have heard numerous pundits comment on President Trump’s comments.

Before I comment further, let me understand the situation.  So the President of the United States (the Commander in Chief) calls the wife of one of his soldiers who died and who happens to be in her car with a US Representative and nobody says: “Mr. President…by the way we are on speaker phone and the Honorable Representative Wilson is in the car.”?  Not doing this certainly smacks of some ulterior motives on behalf of Ms. Wilson.  Who does this?  Nobody…. unless they have ulterior motives.

While Ms. Wilson wears ridiculous hats as part of her persona, she is NOT and NEVER HAS, been in combat.  She is NOT a veteran and, in fact, she has voted numerous times against veterans’ issues.  According to VoteSmart.org:

“…measures that Wilson opposed included a bill that could have ensured that families of four soldiers slain in Afghanistan in 2013 received death and burial benefits. […]

Despite Wilson’s claim to be “committed to honoring our service members, not only with words but with deeds,” she has voted against most bills ensuring continued funding for veteran benefits, including payments to widows of fallen soldiers, the vote-tracking site shows.

She has also opposed measures designed to improve the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In March 2013, Wilson opposed the “Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,” which prevented a government shutdown and provided funds for the U.S. military and the VA.

The bill, which passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by the Obama administration, provided funding to the military and the VA until the next government shutdown showdown. […]

Later in the year, Wilson again voted against a resolution aimed at ensuring benefits paid to the veterans and their families would not be affected by the government shutdown in October that year. […]

The congresswoman also opposed numerous bills aimed at improving VA services provided the veterans and their families. (FoxNews.com)”

So while Representative Wilson feigns disgust at President Trump actually calling the wife of a slain soldier, she does not appear to actually support veterans.  Acta Non Verba, Ms. Wilson, Actions not Words!

With regard to the point that President Trump said that the soldier…his soldier.  (As the Commander in Chief, this soldier was under the command of President Trump): “Knew what he signed up for…” is irrelevant.  In fact, it is a nod to the bravery of the soldier.  While Representative Wilson goes to great lengths to state that soldiers “…sign up to serve and not to die…” is facile and ignorant.  She has never served and she does not understand.

Many people are taking this supposed comment as an insult or insensitivity on the part of the President…that is, in my opinion, objectively wrong…a warrior…any warrior…knows that their job has the risk of injury or death. It is the warrior ethos that enables that person to do their job in spite of the risk…that young driver in Niger was a true warrior…He KNEW the risks…but he did not cower in the face of the risks…he did his job…that is the true test of courage. As the incomparable Mark Twain said: “Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear–not absence of fear.”…I say to all four of those killed…”

While you laughingly referred to yourself as a Rock Star in response to General Kelly’s very pointed commentsGeneral Kelly’s very pointed comments, you ma’am are NOT a rock star.  You are a shameless human being and a blight on our system.  (I am starting the clock to see how long it takes someone to call me a racist….par for the course).  Mr. Wilson has already played the race card…. Please contact Ms. Wilson here.

 

 

A Lesson on Losing by Dominick Cruz – Former Bantamweight UFC Champion January 20, 2017

Posted by Chris Mark in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , ,
10 comments

In light of the responses to the recent presidential election and the bombardment of media commentary and celebrities acting like petulant children who lost at a game of checkers, I felt it was appropriate to post a very insightful interview by a classy fighter.  Dominick Cruz has been a top tier fighter for over 10 years and was a two time bantamweight UFC champion until his recent loss.  During the interview Dominick showed immense class when asked about his loss.  This is a lesson for us all and for our children.  As Mr. Cruz so eloquently states: “Loss is part of life.  If you don’t have loss you don’t grow. This (losing) isn’t tough…this is life.”