News

New British Prime Minister nicknamed ‘Two-Tier Keir’

With massive anti-immigration protests erupting across the United Kingdom in recent weeks, the British government has falsely labeled nationalist demonstrators as violent “thugs” who must be brought to justice.

Newly elected UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised to keep the Muslim community safe and that he’d unleash facial recognition technology and other spy state devices on citizens protesting the invasion of their country.

The UK government and media have told the country the English Defense League is rioting across Great Britain, but the group has been defunct for over a decade.

The British police reaction to Monday’s protests highlights why people have labeled Starmer “Two-Tier Keir.”

In Plymouth, England, police in riot gear with canine units were rolled out to squash a “right-wing” demonstration.

Police dogs out for the Enough is Enough protest in Plymouth as leftists smash a church wall and hurl rocks at locals.

No dogs.

No riot gear.

No arrests for leftists. pic.twitter.com/8XHbZOtfKp

— Turning Point UK ?? (@TPointUK) August 5, 2024

Leftist protesters allegedly hurled rocks and other projectiles at nationalist citizens as police stood by and watched.

Locals in Plymouth say enough is enough!

UKIP leader @NickTenconi joins patriots in Plymouth as they peacefully stand up to two-tier Keir’s tyranny.

The people will not be ignored.

The people demand change. pic.twitter.com/gK3rWwSnRd

— UK Independence Party (@UKIP) August 6, 2024

While police watched the left throw objects at the protesters, one cop also used her baton to whack a man’s leg.

As leftist thugs tear stones out the wall of Minster Church of St. Andrew in Plymouth and launch them at Enough Is Enough locals, riot police target and beat patriots despite the leftists causing the violence.

We have to end two-tier policing. pic.twitter.com/nVojnLpPuc

— Turning Point UK ?? (@TPointUK) August 6, 2024

An officer in Plymouth was filmed repeatedly smacking a man in the head using a riot shield, knocking the guy to the ground.

BREAKING: A police officer just used his shield to knock over a British man who was protesting in Plymouth.

The British police are traitors who have chosen to side with the invaders. This is truly shameful. pic.twitter.com/lS3Y9Fy02u

— Cillian (@CilComLFC) August 5, 2024

Today the people of Plymouth peacefully stood up to Two-Tier Keir and despite being hounded by leftists and the police did not surrender.

We will not be bullied.

We will not be silenced.

We have a right to protest. ?? pic.twitter.com/YWP1DJ7Zu8

— Turning Point UK ?? (@TPointUK) August 5, 2024

When the sun set on Plymouth big groups of Muslim men shouting, “Allahu Akbar” and carrying knives roamed the streets and parks looking for “EDL” supporters.

??? Holy Shit Plymouth This is Terrifying

Plymouth is a sleepy Devonshire City right in the South of England.

These scenes will not just shock the UK but should shock the entire World.

Something has gone terribly wrong.

This all has to be socially engineered on purpose. pic.twitter.com/ill1oHQTwj

— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) August 5, 2024

Meanwhile, the Islamic community in Birmingham was allowed to take over the streets, attack vehicles and citizens, and vandalize a local pub.

Islamic savages have attacked British families in Birmingham, and, unsurprisingly, were holding the Palestinian flag while doing so.

This flag ?? is the roots of all evil in the world as we know it.

Mass deportation is a must.

pic.twitter.com/aiswUIWxZ7

— Vivid.?? (@VividProwess) August 6, 2024

Just in:

Birmingham, England, Aug . 5 — Armed “Muslim patrol” members surrounded and attacked a pub after marching around the area looking for white right-wingers to attack. (The rumored “far-right” protest never materialized.)

The Muslim rioters attacked journalists and… pic.twitter.com/Rm6mHqiOk1

— Andy Ngô ?️‍? (@MrAndyNgo) August 5, 2024

Gang of Muslims in Birmingham attack a pub and viciously beat a British man in the beer garden

This is on you @Keir_Starmer #TwoTierKeir pic.twitter.com/upyG7ZkO4J

— Brian Joyce (@brijoyce) August 5, 2024

The armed thugs scared a Sky News reporter into cutting her live feed before reportedly puncturing the news van’s tire with a knife.

The police in Birmingham admitted on camera following the attack on the pub and locals that they were not given any dispersal orders and wouldn’t stop the Muslim riot.

Birmingham Police

Wow .. just Wow pic.twitter.com/my1KO8qgi7

— WeGotitBack ??????????? (@NotFarLeftAtAll) August 6, 2024

One Muslim man bragged he “beat up” a right winger in Solihull who dove into ditch in the ground.

Another live @tiktok_uk @TikTokSupport video of Muslims boasting about attacking the loan poor man in Solihull that had to barricade himself in the road works. It’s amazing what TikTok allows and @Keir_Starmer in the UK @Ofcom pic.twitter.com/5NkBtUmnHD

— HJB News (@HJB_News__) August 5, 2024

Footage of the man’s alleged assault was posted online.

After massive backlash from the community and online, a group of local Muslims shot a video alongside the owners of the pub that was damaged and apologized for the behavior of the “youths.”

I commend Muslim elders led by Naveed Sadiq @@NsSadiq taking the lead and visiting The #ClumsySwan in #Birmingham last night to apologise to the staff for Muslim youths who attacked innocent customer. These are real men who will stand up for you, not the rioters or their… pic.twitter.com/TqlYQ4xcY8

— Abbasi  (@MohammedAbbasi) August 6, 2024

However, Tommy Robinson pointed out one of the people standing with the group appears to have taken part in the assault on the establishment.

? https://t.co/keKmFkHVM9 pic.twitter.com/MbU1s9WGvx

— Tommy Robinson ?? (@TRobinsonNewEra) August 6, 2024

The hypocrisy of the British government was widely blasted online:

Plymouth genuine people having a peaceful protest, riot police everywhere.
Birmingham muslims have taken over a roundabout, blocked the road & driving like idiots for around 2 or 3 hrs now, shouting alla ahkbar…not a single police officer. Fckin fed up of the 2 tier policing pic.twitter.com/pR9K5qycvn

— ???? (@jomickane) August 5, 2024

Compare these two scenes.
Men and women stood about in Plymouth are met by a fleet of Riot Police and dangerous dogs.
Meanwhile in Birmingham a Palestinian flag-waving gang is left to smash up cars without police in sight.
But there isn’t remotely an issue, right? #TwoTierKeir pic.twitter.com/JDSWAptSYW

— Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes_) August 5, 2024

The people who did this were either not arrested, let off with a conditional discharge (Astrophel Sang the would-be arsonist), or acquitted (the four arrested for the criminal removal of the Colston statue).

Two-tier policing. pic.twitter.com/7oyeyZPPSb

— Alex ??????? (@eraiwo) August 5, 2024

This patriotic English woman says it as it is and calls out two-tier policing right to their faces…
‘I am sick of being scared every day when I leave my house. I haven’t got a baton or a taser like you. If someone wants to stab me – I’m dead.’ pic.twitter.com/K9ElyVMSZY

— Britain First (@BFirstParty) August 6, 2024

The UK is falling into a globalist trap where foreign invaders are pitted against natural born citizens so the government can swoop in with its tyrannical police state.

---

As military planners have woken up from the fevered dream of imagining that modern war consisted of chasing the Taliban through the hills with complete and overwhelming airpower, they have similarly started to wake up to the idea that industrial war has vast manpower requirements and that seemingly the only way to fill these requirements is by forcing young people into the ranks.

The following analysis was written in September 2023. Infowars is republishing this work due to its relevance today.

---

The most recent edition of the US Army War College’s academic journal includes a highly disturbing essay on what lessons the US military should take away from the continuing war in Ukraine. By far the most concerning and most relevant section for the average American citizen is a subsection entitled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions” which, to cut right to the chase, directly states, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”

An Industrial War of Attrition Would Require Vast Numbers of Troops

The context for this supposed need to reinstate conscription is the estimate that were the US to enter into a large-scale conflict, every day it would likely suffer thirty-six hundred casualties and require eight hundred replacements, again per day. The report notes that over the course of twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US suffered fifty thousand casualties, a number which would likely be reached in merely two weeks of large-scale intensive combat.

The military is already facing an enormous recruiting shortfall. Last year the army alone fell short of its goal by fifteen thousand soldiers and is on track to be short an additional twenty thousand this year. On top of that, the report notes that the Individual Ready Reserve, which is composed of former service personnel who do not actively train and drill but may be called back into active service in the event they are needed, has dropped from seven hundred thousand in 1973 to seventy-six thousand now.

Prior to the Ukraine war, the fad theory in military planning was the idea of “hybrid warfare,” where the idea of giant state armies clashing on the battlefield requiring and consuming vast amounts of men and material was viewed as out of date as massed cavalry charges. Instead, these theorists argued that even when states did fight, it would be via proxies and special operations and would look more like the past twenty years of battling nonstate actors in the hills of Afghanistan. In a recent essay in the Journal of Security Studies, realist scholar Patrick Porter documents the rise of this theory and the fact that it is obviously garbage given the return of industrial wars of attrition.

As military planners have woken up from the fevered dream of imagining that modern war consisted of chasing the Taliban through the hills with complete and overwhelming airpower, they have similarly started to wake up to the idea that industrial war has vast manpower requirements and that seemingly the only way to fill these requirements is by forcing young people into the ranks. That has certainly been the only way Ukraine has been able to maintain its forces, although it has required increasingly draconian measures to do so as conscripts face attrition rates of 80 to 90 percent by Ukraine’s own admission.

Obviously, the reintroduction of conscription is an extremely disturbing prospect given America’s propensity for getting involved in meaningless wars that accomplish nothing other than empowering our enemies, killing and maiming our soldiers, and wasting vast resources.

This is especially true given the unstated assumptions implicit in this paper. Who is the enemy that would be inflicting thirty-six hundred casualties a day? A war in the Pacific against China would primarily be a naval and airpower war with an extremely limited role for the army (even the current inept regime seems unlikely to be stupid enough to try and wage a land war against China) which obviously leaves Russia as the main adversary that would require the US Army to round up conscripts to feed into the attritional meat grinder.

There Is No American National Interest That Requires a Standing Army

However, while these manpower shortages may be a valid concern for someplace like Russia, Ukraine, or Poland, we here in the US are quite fortunate that we have no compelling national interest that would require us to engage in an industrial war of attrition in Eastern Europe.

To the extent we are at risk of becoming involved in such a disastrous mess, it is entirely of our own doing via the entangling alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our leader’s own messianic gnostic crusades for democracy or whatever pseudo religious ideology is presently in vogue.

The US is blessed as being the most secure power in history. We are the hegemon of the western hemisphere, with vast moats in the form of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that no other state has the capability to project military force across, and all our neighbors are weak and relatively friendly. We are not at any risk of being forced to fight an industrial land war on the home front. Any war the army would be used in would be as an expeditionary force fighting in the eastern hemisphere, where we have no compelling defensive need to do so.

From the beginning of the US, there have been warnings against the dangers of both entangling alliances and standing armies. The best solution to the military recruitment crisis is to simply abolish the standing army and not plan to wage a costly and pointless war on the other side of the planet that would result in trillions of dollars down the drain and who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, maimed, and psychologically scarred.

---

Economist Warns Warren Buffett Deliberately Triggered Stock Market Crash— Major Collapse Imminent

---

It’s time to trust in the power of American innovation and the free market.

In an era of global uncertainty and volatile energy markets, the United States stands at a crossroads. Our nation’s energy policy has long been a patchwork of regulations, subsidies, and political compromises that have stifled innovation and hindered our path to true energy independence. It’s time for a bold new approach: unleashing the power of the free market to secure America’s energy future.

For decades, government intervention in the energy sector has created a landscape of inefficiencies and missed opportunities. Well-intentioned regulations have consistently slowed the development of new energy sources and technologies. Subsidies meant to bolster emerging industries have instead created a culture of dependency and market distortions. This results in higher energy costs for consumers, reduced competitiveness for American businesses, and a dangerous reliance on foreign energy sources. The solution lies not in more government control but in less. By deregulating the energy sector, we can unlock the full potential of American ingenuity and resources.

The current system is filled with red tape that can delay projects for years. For example, the permitting process for new power lines takes an average of 7.5 years, while some can take up to 10 years. By setting clear, consistent standards and reasonable timelines, we can accelerate the development of traditional and renewable energy sources.

Energy growth is also hindered through intrusive energy subsidies. These artificial supports have created an uneven playing field, propping up inefficient technologies and companies while inhibiting upstarts. A genuinely free market in energy would allow the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to rise to the top, benefiting consumers. According to the American Enterprise Institute, subsidies for wind power, solar power, biofuels, and various “energy efficiency” standards distort the market by favoring these technologies, leading to misallocation of capital.

Historical data shows that deregulation and free-market policies can increase economic and job growth. During the Trump administration, the United States became a net energy exporter for the first time in almost 70 years, increasing energy exports to 23.6 quadrillion thermal units and reducing energy imports to their lowest point since 1995. This period also saw record renewable energy production and consumption, with solar-generated electricity doubling and wind production increasing by 48.6% from 2016.

Critics may argue that advancing renewable energy sources is only possible through government intervention. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. In recent years, solar and wind energy costs have plummeted, mainly driven by technological advancements and economies of scale—not government mandates. For instance, the International Energy Agency (IEA) notes that the United States has seen a nearly 60% surge in clean energy investment over the past four years, creating more than 310,000 jobs in the sector. This investment boom supports progress toward energy security, affordability, and decarbonization goals.

A free market approach creates a flexible, adaptive energy sector that can quickly respond to technological advancements, changing consumer preferences, and evolving environmental concerns. This resilience ensures America’s stable, affordable, and secure energy future. 

The benefits of this approach extend far beyond the energy sector. Lower energy costs would boost American manufacturing, making our goods more competitive globally. Energy independence would strengthen national security, reducing our vulnerability to foreign supply disruptions and geopolitical pressures. The United States already has made significant strides in energy independence and security. As the world’s largest oil and gas producer, the country plays a vital role in global energy security. Oil and gas exports from the United States have eased pressure on international markets, especially following geopolitical events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Continuing to pursue domestic energy innovations and progress in the private energy sector will only strengthen this independence.

Of course, transitioning to a free market energy policy will require political courage. Entrenched interests will resist change, and short-term disruptions will occur as the market adjusts. But the long-term gains – a more robust, innovative, and independent energy sector – far outweigh these temporary challenges.

It’s time to trust in the power of American innovation and the free market. By reducing government intervention and unleashing the full potential of our energy sector, we can give our economy a much needed dose of shock therapy.

---

Economist Warns Warren Buffett Deliberately Triggered Stock Market Crash— Major Collapse Imminent

---

The current trajectory of American imperialism is, ironically, counterproductive to the perpetuation of the empire itself.

For nearly two centuries the United States has been an expansionist power. Though it was the War of 1812 when the U.S. solidified its dominion over the Americas, it was at the twilight of the Spanish-American War when the American Empire finally came of age. The first two decades of the 20th century marked America’s transition — for better or worse — into a global superpower.

By the end of the First World War, the United States had solidified itself as an emerging global power until finally asserting itself as the world’s dominant ascendancy in the aftermath of World War II. From 1945 and over the course of the next fifty years, the U.S.’s sphere of influence would continue to expand its global network of military installations in order to curtail Soviet influence. Now, nearly three decades following the USSR’s collapse, there are still 800 formal U.S. bases across eighty countries worldwide. Not only is this unacceptable, but it is also needlessly wasteful. Since 2001, close to $6 trillion has been spent on wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan alone. The utility of the empire’s foreign military infrastructure is simply not worth the cost required to sustain it; therefore, the number of bases worldwide should be strategically reduced to only those installations that are essential to defending the homeland and protecting international commerce.

Though the USSR no longer threatens liberal hegemony, U.S. foreign policy is still rooted in a Cold War mindset. While an official plan for base realignment and closure was presented in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, only a select few installations were shut down; most were simply repurposed and assigned to deter other perceived threats to U.S. primacy. However, very few of these installations actually do much to help secure the homeland. In fact, this was not even their original intended purpose! They were designed to defend liberal hegemony, which is no longer the centralized bloc it once was. While American primacy may have made logical sense in the post-war era, in order to halt the spread of communism (although that too has been subject to debate), there is no longer any practical need for the extent of its power to be so expansive.

Today, the single largest concentration of U.S. foreign bases is located within the eurozone, where there exist roughly 300 military installations. Since 1942 the U.S. has maintained a permanent presence in Europe and, after the Second World War, played a significant role in stabilizing the continent, which would go on to serve as the key focal point for NATO. Since then, the EU has become incredibly self-sufficient; the combined European armed forces and nuclear arsenals are more than capable of deterring potential threats without the need for U.S. assistance. Every major European nation is wealthy enough to afford its own defense. It is therefore strategically useless for the U.S. to maintain such a gargantuan military presence in the EU, whose members are already among America’s closest allies.

Having more military bases does not automatically create more deterrence. The U.S. currently has several dozen forward operating bases in the Middle East, hundreds of smaller outposts, and a combined garrison of over 30,000 military personnel. If deterrence were a certainty, then a force of that magnitude would be able to ensure stability in the region. Having more soldiers does not equate to more stability; more likely is that there is a maximum threshold of marginal utility. Depending on how one chooses to define a “military installation,” the U.S. currently has somewhere between four and nine bases in Iraq. In a country that size, having, say, seven bases and nine thousand soldiers is no more effective than having only three bases and three thousand soldiers. The U.S. armed forces possess a far greater technological advantage over other militaries as well. This means that fewer soldiers are thus required for an occupation to be successful. Regarding defense of the homeland, a high-tech defense system would be enough to deter potential aggressors; bases and outposts on islands throughout the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans would be the only foreign installations needed in order to supplement that.

While the purpose of military occupation is to produce deterrence, such endeavors often have the exact opposite effect in contrast to the intended result. It often makes a population more wary and resentful toward the occupying force. Attempts to exhort hegemony have undermined the sovereignty of some countries, resulting in the rise of reactionary elements that oppose Western influence. The rise of ISIS, for example, was something that happened largely in response to the invasion of Iraq. Additionally, Russia expanded into Georgia and Ukraine partially in retaliation to NATO expansion.

As of 2024, the national debt sits at nearly $35 trillion. The military budget accounts for close to 15% of all U.S. federal spending, and since 2016, over $600 billion has been spent every year on “national defense” alone, making it the largest of all discretionary budgets at nearly 50%. Up to $120 billion of this is spent on the upkeep of foreign bases, and an additional $70 billion on contingency operations. Even if just half of all nonessential U.S. bases were closed, the United States would save billions of dollars — money that would better be allocated toward paying off the national debt, a third of which is owned by foreign entities such as China. If America cannot afford to sustain its own military, then there is no reason for her military to be that large. Unrestrained militarism and high levels of deficit spending have contributed to the demise of countless great powers throughout history. Having a military is important, but it is also important that the U.S. only finance what it can afford; this requires relegating spending to focus on funding only the essentials. The simplest way to start would be by closing foreign bases that are of no importance to national defense.

A common concern among interventionists is that base closure will create power vacuums in unstable regions; this, they argue, leads to more violence and war, especially in the Middle East. A popular belief is that the military does not just deter U.S. adversaries but its allies as well. Without America to keep them in check, it has been argued, nothing would stop even Western-aligned authoritarians from violating human rights or invading other countries. While closing bases in Europe would be an effective means of cutting spending, some argue against doing so, as these bases provide the U.S. military with quick and easy access to Eurasia in case there were ever need for intervention.

Geopolitical primacy is not necessarily a byproduct of military supremacy; in order to remain an influential superpower, all America has to do if she is to remain a powerful world power is to place a primary focus on the defense of its immediate sphere of influence and securing economic interests.

The extent of America’s presence in the Middle East (if anything) would pragmatically best be relegated to only a handful of installations. Finally, the United States European Command’s area of responsibility should be reduced to encompass only a fraction of its current size, both in relation to the number of U.S. bases there are and the percentage of military personnel that are currently stationed in the eurozone. If the U.S. is to maintain a presence at all, there should not be any more soldiers stationed than are needed to sustain a pragmatically formidable presence. Other than that, there is little need to maintain such a vast network of military installations around the world; not only are many of these bases relics of a bygone era, but they are also a serious drain on resources and taxpayer dollars.

The current trajectory of American imperialism is, ironically, counterproductive to the perpetuation of the empire itself. Military supremacy is inherently unsustainable and is an inadequate premise upon which to assert international hegemony. American internationalists would do best to recognize that it can only survive if it is restrained. If America hopes to remain a superpower, it can no longer afford to cannibalize its economy in the name of wanton imperialism.

---

Economist Warns Warren Buffett Deliberately Triggered Stock Market Crash— Major Collapse Imminent

---

Gov. Walz’s radical record comes to light after Kamala Harris taps him as running mate.

The wife of Kamala Harris’s VP pick Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) once gushed over the violent Black Lives Matter riots of 2020 following the death of crackhead criminal George Floyd.

Minnesota First Lady Gwen Walz in an interview said she relished in the caustic smells of burning tires emanating from the destructive BLM riots.

“Those first days when there were riots…I could smell the burning tires, and that was a very real thing. I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening,” she said on “Nightcast.”

This clip of Minnesota First Lady Gwen Walz is making the rounds.

Her reflection on the 2020 riots:

“I could smell the burning tires…I kept the windows open as long as I could because I felt like that was such a touchstone of what was happening.”

pic.twitter.com/YcxgFIi5QN

— Philip Melanchthon Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) August 6, 2024

Her remarks circulating on social media drew criticism from conservatives.

“Everything you need to know about leftist elites can be found in this short clip. Tim Walz’s wife sat by the window enjoying the smell of poor neighborhoods burning during the Floyd riots. She did everything but pull out a fiddle,” noted The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh.

Everything you need to know about leftist elites can be found in this short clip. Tim Walz’s wife sat by the window enjoying the smell of poor neighborhoods burning during the Floyd riots. She did everything but pull out a fiddle.

pic.twitter.com/IVJYORX4vu

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) August 6, 2024

While Gwen was doing that, his daughter was telling rioters that the National Guard wasn’t going to be deployed and that they were free to keep burning buildings. pic.twitter.com/6Gvw8q0fYb

— Nick Majerus (@njmajerus) August 6, 2024

When Americans speak derisively about political elitists, this is exactly who they’re referring to.
This horrible woman, her husband and their limousine liberal comrades are the bane of the USA.

— Mike J. Shea (@Shea1Mike) August 6, 2024

“I could smell the burning” is the most cheese-and-wine-liberal thing I’ve ever heard

— Tim (@TimTheWitness) August 6, 2024

She wanted to smell the burning businesses so they could be her touchstone of what was happening? Fuck communism is evil.

— SamanthaJBryant (@SamanthaJBryan1) August 6, 2024

Tim Walz’s radical history, particularly his support for the widespread BLM riots in 2020, has come into sharp focus after Kamala Harris tapped him as her 2024 running mate on Tuesday.

In 2020, Tim Walz allowed for BLM and ANTIFA to riot all across Minneapolis. Kamala Harris used her X account to help bail the Minneapolis rioters out of jail. Ironically, Tim and Kamala will call President Trump a “threat to democracy.”
pic.twitter.com/y6AM09VXK1

— Charles R Downs (@TheCharlesDowns) August 6, 2024

This was Minnesota under Gov Tim Walz: pic.twitter.com/6CCbhyOPca

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) August 6, 2024

Harris picking Walz as her VP candidate appeared to be such a political miscalculation that even former President Donald Trump issued a statement thanking Harris for choosing him as her running mate.

The nationwide looting and vandalism from the George Floyd Riots resulted in an unprecedented $2 billion in damage, costing the insurance industry more than any other violent demonstrations in recent history, and left at least 19 people dead.

---

Follow Jamie White on X | Truth | Gab | Gettr | Minds

Walz’s clear socialist leanings is matched only by his equally atrocious track record.

Current Democrat Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris in all of her lunacy has chosen the most radical VP candidate imaginable, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

Aside from Walz’s clear socialist leanings is his equally atrocious track record.

Walz oversaw the destruction of Minnesota during the George Floyd riots, claiming that the carnage that did billions in damage to small Minnesota businesses was peaceful.

Walz has also overseen the influx of a non-assimilated Somalian refugee population that has cheated elections, bribed jurors, and alarmed the quiet Minnesota community with their own rioting.

And in a cowardly measure, Walz changed the age old Minnesota Flag to one representing the Somali Flag.

---