Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are currently presenting themselves to American voters as qualified to assume the responsibilities of the positions of commander-in-chief and next-in-line commander-in-chief.  What leads them to that conclusion eludes those who examine the evidence.  Let’s take a look at the evidence, particularly as to whether Harris and Walz will provide protection against violence and terrorism.

Violence and terrorism reared their ugly heads in the May 2020 riots in Minneapolis and other cities, precipitated by the circumstances surrounding the death of George Floyd.  The protests were characterized by many (including Kamala Harris) as protests which should be perpetuated and even encouraged.  Minnesota governor Tim Walz has confirmed that the resulting property damage in Minnesota exceeded $500 million. It is helpful when attempting to understand the scope of those dollar losses to also understand the equivalent real physical damage.  Minnesota did not lose the World Trade Center Towers as did New York, but Minnesota did lose the equivalent of three of the tallest building in Minneapolis (the renowned 57-story IDS Center), based on current assessed value. Unfortunately, the riots spread across the country.  One report concludes that the riots have caused insurance losses which make the George Floyd riots the most expensive in U.S. history. That report provides an estimate that total related insured losses across the country may reach or exceed $2 Billion.

Since the nomination of Walz as a candidate for Vice President, many are examining in detail whether he failed to perform his duties as governor to protect the property and lives of Minnesotans by his delayed action in the face of serious and obvious threats and risk.  Many have concluded that Walz failed to plan for, and in fact, delayed the deployment and mobilization of the Minnesota National Guard which failure and delay caused much of the property loss, including the loss of the MPD 3rd Precinct building.

Notwithstanding Walz’ nomination acceptance speech statement that leaders “don’t spend all day... blaming others,” Walz has said that Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey did not initially provide the specific information necessary for deployment, so he (Walz) did not activate until city officials submitted a formal written request and a more detailed plan.  Actually, investigators determined Walz had the authority to activate the Guard without any request from Mayor Frey or any other local authorities and as commander of the Minnesota National Guard had the ability by law to use force and law enforcement to stop criminal violence, but he did not.

The enormous losses and the outrage of concerned citizens motivated legislators to take action to investigate and determine what had allowed the damage to occur. The MN Senate convened several joint committee hearings consisting of members of various committees (the Joint Committee).  The purpose of the Joint Committee was to compile the facts and reach conclusions.  The Report of the Joint Committee was issued on October 8, 2020.  The following are a portion of the Report findings relevant to the action and inaction of Walz:

1. Governor Tim Walz and elected local leaders identified with the causes promoted by the demonstrators, causing them to lose sight of their responsibility to protect the public from criminal acts committed during the riots.  (p.1)
2. Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey initially chose to negotiate with and appease the rioters rather than give law enforcement the authority to confront criminal acts with enough force to restore law and order. A primary responsibility of the Office of the Governor of the State of Minnesota and local elected officials is to protect the public. Inaction on the part of state and local officials led to an increase in violence.  (p.1)
3. Both Governor Walz and Mayor Frey failed to act in a timely manner to confront rioters with necessary force due to an ill-conceived philosophical belief that such an action would exacerbate the rioting.  (p.3)
4. Governor Walz and Mayor Frey initially chose to negotiate with and appease the rioters rather than give law enforcement the authority to confront criminal acts with enough force to restore law and order.  (p.5)
5. Governor Walz was more concerned about his popularity and tweeting than he was about stopping the riots.  (p.18)
6. Governor Walz and his administration decided to plan for “frontal battles,” refuse aviation support, hold the Minnesota National Guard in reserve, and blame rather than support the cities.  (p.22)
7. Governor Walz had the ability and duty to use force and law enforcement to stop criminal violence, but he did not. Governor Walz was not willing to do what was necessary to stop the rioting right away because he was having a philosophical debate about whether the use of force should be used to stop violence.  (p.22)
8. But he then stated he was trying to strike a balance between more law enforcement and appeasing the rioters.  (p.23)
9. When asked by a reporter if the Minnesota National Guard should have been present physically during the rioting that occurred on Thursday, May 28, Governor Walz blamed the mayors and said it was their decisions to not have the Minnesota National Guard out.  (p.24)
10. Governor Walz and his administration were more concerned with the “current environment,” the “climate they were under,” “community and cultural concerns,” and “diversity and inclusion training” than they were about stopping the riots that were destroying Minnesota.  (p.27)
11. Protesting is a First Amendment right; rioting is a criminal act. The first is protected while the second needs to be stopped.  (p.27)
12. Governor Walz stated he was to wait for cities to request troops before preparing the Minnesota National Guard.   There is no state statute or law requiring the governor to wait for cities to request troops before authorizing the use of the Minnesota National Guard. (p.29)
13. The request was sent for at least 600 guardsmen at 9:11 p.m. Wednesday, May 27. Governor Walz eventually produced 100 guardsmen for the City of Minneapolis late in the evening on Thursday, May 28. (p.30)
14. According to police, if the Minnesota National Guard was called in to assist, then the Third Precinct and many of the businesses on Lake Street could have been saved. (p.34)
15. Only Governor Walz had the legal authority to mobilize the Minnesota National Guard as he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Minnesota National Guard. Governor Walz chose not to fully mobilize the Minnesota National Guard while rioting overtook the state on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.  (p.35)
16. Governor Walz did not lead, thereby failing the cities, the state, and citizens when they needed him most.  (p.35)
17. Governor Walz believes it is not his job to protect citizens of Minnesota. (p.35)
18. While stating arrests were an important part of controlling the riots, Governor Walz and his administration also chose to only arrest and prosecute 2% of those caught rioting.  (p.40)

The incompetence and inaction of Walz in his duty to protect the public is obvious.  The incompetence, action, and inaction of Kamala Harris was equally culpable.  Referencing the protests and protestors in Minnesota, Harris announced that “they’re not going to let up, and they should not, and we should not.”  She claims she intended only to refer to peaceful protests, but she did not wisely and competently limit her support of the protestors, as did President Trump by limiting his encouragement of J6 rally attenders to the words: "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  Harris also provided additional encouragement to violent protestors by encouraging contributions to help post bond for those arrested for violence.

Harris and Walz should not be considered by voters as qualified or competent for appointment, election, or re-election to any office having the responsibility to protect America and the American people, especially to the offices of commander-in-chief and next-in-line commander-in-chief.

Image: Lorie Shaull