How To Dispel The Lies Most Americans Believe About Abortion
Shawn Carney and Steve Karlen’s guide is a clear and concise roadmap for pro-lifers looking to defend their stance and win hearts for good.
The federal government will release a large amount of economic data this week, including “advance estimate[s] of Q3 GDP growth, non-farm payrolls, the unemployment rate, and JOLTS job openings,” plus “the ISM Manufacturing PMI, CB consumer confidence, the PCE inflation report, and personal spending and income figures,” as Trading Economics reports.
Much of this data will consist of estimates while the rest likely will be subject to the Biden administration’s economically negative revisions. Typically, positive economic numbers are released with fanfare and praise for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris only to be quietly revised downward into obviously bad news later.
The American people understand the reality of their own experiences.
By then, new numbers — also celebrated as evidence of Biden and Harris’ economic wisdom — shift attention from the disappointing revisions. These new figures are often presented as major improvements over the downwardly revised data, creating the impression of continuous economic growth. But comparing overly optimistic preliminary figures with grimly revised data skews the reality of the economy’s performance.
This game of three-card monte with economic data aims to deceive the public, and the legacy media is happy to play along. While some might plead ignorance, professional reporters and commentators have no excuse not to recognize the manipulation. Meanwhile, Americans face rising costs for groceries, clothing, gas, housing, utilities, and other essentials. Many also want to enjoy activities like dining out, going to the movies, attending concerts, and watching sports. For all of these, they now pay much higher prices than they did three years ago.
Joyful claims that inflation has slowed, while technically true over the past year, don't just lower prices to where they were before. Although many people have received pay raises, those raises are in devalued dollars and generally don’t cover the full impact of inflation since January 2021. Most pay increases fall short of keeping up with inflation both in nominal terms and after adjusting for purchasing power.
Income, sales, use, property, and various excise and service taxes all continue to rise as prices, incomes, and housing values increase in dollar terms, though not in real value. This makes Bidenflation an enormous, hidden tax increase at all levels of government, with prices largely holding at higher levels.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris administration’s massive government borrowing in 2021 and 2022, with Harris casting tie-breaking votes on major spending bills, along with the Republicans’ reluctance to push for cuts in 2023 and 2024 drove up inflation and prompted the Federal Reserve to slow the economy to curb dollar devaluation.
This economic tightening has hit most Americans hard as businesses turn to lower-wage immigrant labor, leading to net job losses for native-born American workers.
The dismal result of this miserable game of spend, tax, inflate, stealth-tax, kill jobs for native-born Americans, and repeat has been a decrease in wealth and real income for the great majority of Americans. “The bad news is that over the Biden presidency, earnings are still about 1.3% BELOW inflation,” Unleash Prosperityreports. “It provides further evidence that wage growth under Biden hasn’t kept up with inflation, resulting in a 1.3 percent loss in real earnings.”
The consumer price index has increased by 21% since January 2021.
This economic decline has unfolded even as government agencies have consistently claimed month after month that conditions are improving.
National elections will take place just days after the release of these fantastical figures, with voting already underway in most states. Politicians, reporters, analysts, and others in the media may either be misled by these numbers or pretend to believe them. But the American people understand the reality of their own experiences.
As part of Blaze Media’s three-part mini-documentary series “A Day in the Life of Harry Dunn,” we continue to update readers on how we arrived at this point in our “Truth About January 6” series. You can find part one here.
Despite denials from the U.S. Capitol Police and some congressional investigators, evidence quickly emerged after the January 6, 2021, protests and riots that Capitol Police officers were intentionally under-deployed.
Testimonies from Capitol Police officers in various Jan. 6 trials, along with radio transmissions and whistleblower statements, have provided many answers. These findings also suggest a coordinated cover-up to keep this information from the American public.
If the Capitol Police had been fully deployed that day, the breach likely would not have occurred. Ashli Babbitt and Rosanne Boyland might still be alive, and the Department of Justice’s 1,500 prosecutions — ranging from trespassing to seditious conspiracy — might never have happened. Additionally, members of the Capitol Police, D.C. Metropolitan Police, and several convicted Jan. 6 participants might not have died by suicide in the aftermath.
Although I have long suspected that trained provocateurs manipulated the events of January 6 under the watch of the Capitol Police command center, many believe that frontline, uniformed Capitol Police officers were knowingly complicit and even initiated the violence. Video evidence contradicts that claim.
Here’s a sample of the social media comments that followed my initial blog series — written before my time at Blaze Media — in which I referred to the Capitol Police as “sacrificial pawns” on January 6:
“The Capitol Police were willing participants by following those D.C. fascists’ orders. I have no sympathy for them or their families.”
“Don’t sign up to collect a paycheck defending a corrupt government.”
“They’re a disgrace to the uniform and America. How f***ing dare they.”
“You’re being played.”
These comments came from the political right, but the left wasn’t silent either. Some were quite bloodthirsty, suggesting that every Capitol Police officer should have replicated Lt. Michael Byrd’s gunshot and left us with “a thousand more Ashli Babbitts.” Many who called for defunding the police after George Floyd’s death in 2020 suddenly became strong supporters of “Back the Blue” following the events of January 6, 2021.
In my January 6 writings, I’ve often stressed that I had to reassess some of my initial assumptions as more evidence surfaced. For example, in my first article about January 6, published on January 13, 2021, I misidentified the officers in “fluorescent-sleeved jackets racing down steps toward the first upper tier above street level” as Capitol Police. They were actually members of the D.C. Metropolitan Police.
This may seem like a minor distinction — especially to the “all cops are bastards” crowd — but these details are crucial as we work to uncover and present the full truth of that day. Most importantly, who in the command chain set up or allowed these events to unfold?
When it comes to the many unanswered questions, odd circumstances, and unindicted figures, we don’t need to agree on every detail. We also don’t need to agree on each event, video, or police officer’s actions to find common ground on one key point I’ve emphasized about January 6: I saw bad people doing bad things, good people doing good things, and even otherwise good people doing really stupid things.
This observation applies to both individual protesters and police officers. There were heroes and villains on both sides of that thin blue line on January 6.
My questions about the Capitol Police’s deployment, orders, and actions on January 6 began with my first published article. From the moment my Uber driver dropped me off at the Washington Monument around 9:30 a.m. until I reached the lower west terrace of the Capitol Building at exactly 1:19 p.m., neither I nor my camera saw a single law enforcement officer.
My video captured no police presence at the Washington Monument lawn on January 6.Screenshot/Steve Baker
As the crowd swelled from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, it was hard to imagine not seeing any police presence among such a massive group in the nation’s capital. Police and Secret Service officers heavily guarded the Ellipse stage, where President Trump was set to speak, but the crowd’s density kept me from entering that area. When I eventually started walking from the Washington Monument lawn toward the Capitol Building again, I still didn’t see or capture on camera a single police officer.
As I approached the Peace Monument, sirens signaled the arrival of D.C. Metro Police units. At the Reflecting Pool, I finally spotted Metro Police officers in fluorescent jackets streaming down the Capitol steps toward the lower west terrace.
I then heard the first flash-bang grenades and saw tear gas released on the lower west terrace. No barricades or police lines blocked my way — initial agitators and provocateurs had removed them about 20 to 25 minutes earlier — so I ran to the terrace and began recording the violence at exactly 1:19 p.m., just three minutes after President Trump left the Ellipse stage, more than a mile away.
A screenshot from my video as I approached the Capitol on January 6, 2021.Screenshot/Steve Baker
For a year, I publicly asked: "Why wasn’t there a police presence on the Washington Monument lawn? Why didn’t I see any police on the mile-long walk to the Capitol?" and "Why were so few Capitol Police officers on duty at the Capitol, considering the planned rallies, marches, and legally permitted events on the Capitol lawn that day?"
I initially estimated that fewer than 200 Capitol Police officers were at the Capitol on January 6. A year later, on the anniversary of the event, I returned to D.C. to seek answers. I asked patrolling Capitol Police officers those questions, and I also wanted to know what orders they received that day. I was particularly interested in what seemed like a "stand-down" or "pull-back" order at around 2:00 p.m.
None of the officers I approached on the streets or at the Capitol would answer. At the time, I didn’t know about the nondisclosure agreements Capitol Police had signed under Yogananda Pittman during her seven-month tenure as acting chief of police.
On December 16, 2021, Forbes made a convoluted attempt to answer the question about Capitol Police deployment on January 6:
USCP documents show that at 2 p.m. on that day, only 1,214 officers were “on site” across the Capitol complex of buildings. Congressional investigators concluded, however, that USCP could only account for 417 officers and could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers.
In late 2022, when I first met with former Capitol Police officer turned whistleblower Lt. Tarik Johnson, he confirmed that my initial estimate of “fewer than 200” Capitol Police officers at the Capitol Building during the first wave of violence on January 6 was accurate.
Johnson explained that during previous protest events, the standard operating procedure required an “all hands on deck” approach for Capitol Police. On those days, officers working the night shift were required to stay and work a double shift through the next day. But on January 6, Capitol Police command sent those officers home after their shifts, treating it like a routine day at the office.
In a follow-up phone conversation, Johnson revealed more about the deceptions Capitol Police leadership spread regarding force deployment on January 6. Addressing internal department and congressional investigations that claimed officials “could not account for the whereabouts of the remaining 797 officers,” Johnson said, "It's a bald-faced lie, and you can quote me on that."
Johnson explained that all Capitol Police officers clock in and clock out electronically at the start and end of each shift. Once clocked in, each officer is tracked throughout the tour of duty, making it impossible for their commanders not to know their whereabouts. This information should still be available in the computer logs — assuming the logs haven’t been erased.
When asked why Capitol Police leadership would cover up information about force deployment, Johnson responded, “Because they don’t want to tell you where the officers were or what they were doing. They don’t want anyone to know how many of our officers were on administrative leave that day.”
My investigations, which include interviews with Capitol Police officers and congressional investigators, revealed further embarrassment, as several officers went into hiding once the violence began, locking themselves in offices and closets.
Another key issue involves the “diversion events,” when two pipe bombs were coincidentally discovered within minutes of the first provocateurs breaching the west side Capitol barricade. The pipe bombs were found at both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters — two of nearly 20 buildings under the Capitol Police’s security purview.
Johnson couldn’t estimate how many officers were diverted to the RNC and DNC after the bombs were discovered. However, he emphasized that the emergency response still doesn’t account for the missing whereabouts of 797 officers. He noted that exact records of how many officers were diverted, and precisely who, should be easily retrievable from Capitol Police computer records.
The first Oath Keepers trial featured the testimony of Stephen Brown, a Florida-based event planner hired by the controversial figure Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter and founder of Stop the Steal. Brown’s job was to secure permits from the Capitol Police for an event on the Capitol grounds. He was also responsible for organizing the rental of the staging and public address system and coordinating the scheduling of VIP speakers and stage security, handled by members of the Oath Keepers.
Brown testified that he had previously planned many protest events in the nation’s capital, with attendance ranging from as few as 5,000 to as many as 300,000 protesters.
Under direct examination by Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs’ defense attorney Stanley Woodward, Brown described the surprisingly small presence of Capitol officers during the delivery and setup of the staging and PA system. He noted that at previous events he’d organized on Capitol grounds, he had seen “three, four, even five times the size of police presence, including SWAT teams,” compared to what was present on January 6.
The inconvenient truth is that my camera, Stephen Brown’s testimony, and statements by Lt. Johnson and other Capitol Police officers suggest a deliberate under-deployment of officers that day — a day in which we now know, and as I have previously written:
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Asst. Chief Yogananda Pittman, head of protective and intelligence operations, the D.C. Metro Police, the United States Park Police, the White House, the Pentagon, the National Guard, both the Senate and House of Representative Sergeants-at-Arms, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, the FBI, and other federal agencies all knew that tens of thousands of protestors would be descending upon the Capitol grounds that day.
An unnamed Capitol Police officer, just days after the melee, told the Associated Press, “During the 4th of July concerts and the Memorial Day concerts, we don’t have people come up and say, ‘We’re going to seize the Capitol.’ But yet, you bring everybody in, you meet before. That never happened for this event.”
According to the Washington Post, only a week after the Capitol was breached, “an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and ‘war,’ according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post.”
Instead of “all hands on deck,” frontline Capitol Police officers were somewhere between one-tenth to one-fifth strength when it came time to respond to what was coming their way. Whether an operational failure or deliberate under-deployment, this set up the circumstances enabling the breach of the Capitol Building by a relatively small number of aggressive and violent rioters.
Ultimately, it remains inexplicable why only 200 to 300 violent perpetrators wielding sticks, flagpoles, clubs, and bear spray were able to overpower two fully armed law enforcement agencies, the tactical units of nearly every three-letter federal agency, and an unknown number of undercover law enforcement assets to breach what is supposed to be one of the most secure government facilities in the world.
Unless, of course, they were set up to fail. Most Capitol Police officers on duty that day believe that to be the case.
This would explain why Capitol Police union members gave then-acting Chief Yogananda Pittman a 92% “no-confidence” vote only five weeks after her curiously absent leadership from their command center on January 6.
Cracks are beginning to show in Harris' inner circle, as evidenced by recent leaks to the liberal press. The cause appears to be Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's numerous bald-faced lies — or what Politico has euphemistically referred to as "verbal errors" and "problem[s] misspeaking."
Four individuals in Harris' camp spoke anonymously to Politico, indicating that despite the vetting process, they were blindsided by some of Walz's more egregious whoppers, such as his repeated yarn about being in Hong Kong during the infamous massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989.
Walz "misspoke" at length, for instance, during a congressional hearing in 2014, claiming, "[The Tiananmen Square massacre] certainly had enduring influence on me. As a young man I was just going to teach high school in Foshan in Guangdong province and was in Hong Kong in May 1989. As the events were unfolding, several of us went in. I still remember the train station in Hong Kong."
'I will get caught up in the rhetoric.'
During the vice presidential debate, moderator Margaret Brennan asked, "You said you were in Hong Kong during the deadly Tiananmen Square protest in the spring of 1989, but Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets are reporting that you actually didn't travel to Asia until August of that year. Can you explain that discrepancy?"
After providing Brennan with an unsolicited and scattered biography, Walz said, "I've not been perfect, and I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that."
Walz added, "I will talk a lot, I will get caught up in the rhetoric, but being there, the impact it made, the difference in my life. I learned a lot about China."
When asked once again to bridge the chasm between reality and his account, Walz suggested he "misspoke."
"It's unclear whether Walz's verbal errors will undercut his credibility with voters. But the need to continually clean up those claims could politically hurt Walz and Harris," reported Politico.
Since the debate, Walz has been trying to smooth over the waves his most recently discovered falsehoods have caused, reassuring reporters in Pennsylvania, for instance, "Look, I have my dates wrong."
Walz is not the only Democrat desperately scrambling to limit the damage his mouth has done.
Once the truth came out about the governor's military record and retiring rank, the Harris campaign reportedly had to revise Walz's biography. Whereas it previously listed the governor as a "retired command sergeant major," it was adjusted to indicate that Walz once held the command sergeant major rank — a critical distinction, granted he reverted back to the rank of master sergeant after failing to complete the necessary coursework.
'He sometimes misspeaks.'
Politico noted that the Harris campaign also felt compelled to claim Walz "misspoke" when he said in 2018 that he didn't want "those weapons of war, that I carried in war" accessible to law-abiding Americans. Of course, Walz never served in combat, havingbailed out of the service around the time his battalion received word it would soon be deployed to Iraq.
When Walz was exposed for lying about "us[ing] I.V.F. to start a family," having actually used intrauterine insemination to have children, Lauren Hitt, a spokeswoman for the Harris campaign, once again used the magic word, claiming Walz "misspoke."
Walz also appears to have misspoken when he falsely claimed:
"Any time you are forced to go off message is never welcome," Mike Mikus, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania, told Politico. "But in the end, voters are looking for somebody who is more concerned about what these candidates are going to do to improve their lives than, 'Did he get every single fact correct.'"
The campaign appears to be left with little other option that to recycle this word and insinuate that Walz's ostensibly pathological disregard for the truth is evidence of his normalcy.
"As the governor has said, he sometimes misspeaks," a spokesman for the campaign told Politico. "He speaks like a normal person and speaks passionately about issues he cares deeply about including democracy and stopping gun violence in our school."
In a desperate projection effort, the spokesman suggested Trump and Vance "repeatedly lie and mislead about their plan to ban abortion nationwide" and other topics.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The biggest lie of the modern church has become, “We can’t talk about politics in church.” Many modern pastors have taken the enemy’s bait-and-switch lie that we can’t address biblical issues because they’ve become politicized. Issues like abortion, transgenderism, sexuality, and marriage rarely get a mention from the pulpit because they’re too “political.”
But isn’t that the enemy lying to us? How are we supposed to be salt and light to a dark culture when we as Christians are not equipped for the battles at our own doorstep?
Simply put, the church has believed the lie that we cannot preach truth in love as it relates to our culture.
The church has not gotten more political. Rather, politics has gotten more religious. To say otherwise is a lie to silence Christians, whom God has commanded to speak up.
A Christian friend of mine recently told me she had no idea how to respond to her toddler who asked if the cashier was a “boy or girl.” Another Christian friend told me she believes it’s respectful to use someone’s preferred — yet biologically wrong — pronouns. “Ah, I don’t know what to say,” echoed another Christian friend who didn’t know how to respond to her young daughter who asked about a homosexual couple. And another friend of mine didn’t want to drive through a city’s streets during June because she was afraid her kids would see a rainbow flag and she wasn't ready to address that topic.
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
How did we get here? And why has the church not equipped us to respond to these situations and questions related to what have become “controversial” issues of our day?
Simply put, the church has believed the lie that we cannot preach truth in love as it relates to our culture.
But I would argue this is a cowardly excuse by passive pastors who don’t want to address cultural issues for the sake of rocking the boat, “offending” the flock, or, heaven forbid, losing church members, though I’m convinced they’d gain more.
I’m here to tell you: Jesus called us to be “salt and light” in a dark age, and we must not shy away from speaking truth in love. We must equip Christians on how to raise children and talk about every cultural issue through a biblical lens.
My friend Nate Grasz said it well: “Choosing to do what’s popular is political. Choosing to do what’s right is biblical.”
Jesus was no stranger to conflict. He flipped tables with righteous anger, driving out those buying and selling in the house of God. He used strong language when he called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” which was a serious rebuke. Jesus shared the gospel and convicted people of their sin — but he didn’t leave them in it. Meat offered to idols was an extremely controversial issue, and he didn't shy away from addressing that issue, either.
He said to the adulterous woman in John 8 after the scribes and the Pharisees were eager to stone her to death for her sinful lifestyle, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” Jesus began a conversation with the woman at the well even though, culturally speaking, a Jewish man talking with a Samaritan — let alone a Samaritan woman — was extremely controversial. She was living with another man who wasn't her husband, yet Jesus didn’t skirt around the topic, and he certainly didn’t condemn her. He told her about the true living water by speaking the truth in love.
And so should we.
We see examples all throughout the Bible of courageous men and women involved in their culture and in government — using them in influential ways.
Today’s threats to the family and the church are not 'on the horizon' — they are approaching the gate and coming inside.
Risking her life and reputation, Esther boldly went before King Xerxes, pleading with him to save her people from Haman, who was slated to execute the Jews. Joseph went from being a prisoner to second in command of the powerful nation of Egypt, saving the population from famine. Daniel rose to political power, influencing the kings of his day and interpreting dreams. Rahab put her life on the line to save God’s servants. The many prophets of old boldly confronted kings and their sin.
When the Hebrew midwives Shiphrah and Puah were instructed to kill all Hebrew newborn boys, they defied Pharaoh's orders and instead saved the babies. God’s law always supersedes man’s laws. We must always fight to preserve the most innocent among us, especially the most defenseless in the womb.
So why is it that the majority of American churches dare not touch the topics of life or other moral pressing issues? God has clearly called us to do so.
Gary Hamrick, pastor of Cornerstone Chapel in Leesburg, Virginia, preached a recent Election Day sermon full of conviction and truth. He said, “The culture has hijacked the narrative on social and moral issues that the Bible has already addressed. And then the culture has twisted those things, distorted and perverted those social and moral issues into political issues. And then told pastors like me and Christians like you to stop being so political.”
Hamrick also pointed out that God had the first word on all moral issues before they were ever “political.” The Bible speaks to national borders, immigration, economics, life, justice, prosperity, biological sex, marriage, parental authority, Israel, and even the environment.
Our country is in jeopardy, and we are morally trending downward.
'Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.'
In biblical times, watchmen were placed at the tops of city walls to watch for impending threats in the distance. When a threat was spotted, it was the duty of the watchman to warn the citizens below by blowing the trumpet.
Today’s threats to the family and the church are not “on the horizon" — they are approaching the gate and coming inside. The time to speak and act is now.
Pastors and Christians alike should blow the trumpet on the fact that children are being mutilated, babies are being slaughtered, and children are being bought and paid for and shipped overseas. And all these things are legal in numerous states. God tells us to fight for justice and righteousness. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to get involved, speak truth in love, and be salt and light. We are his ambassadors, after all, and ambassadors don’t sit on the sidelines being silent about moral issues. It’s our right and our duty to vote and be engaged in our country’s decisions and active in our churches.
Though slavery was a highly contentious issue, British politician William Wilberforce courageously led the charge to end the horrors of the slave trade in England. His moral and religious beliefs ignited him to stand up to the most powerful in Parliament in order to stop grave evil. He said, “Let it not be said that I was silent when they needed me.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the well-known German Lutheran pastor and theologian who implored Christians to stand up against the Nazi regime’s actions, wisely said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
Let it not be said of us that we lived by lies and in fear, but rather that we lived by truth, took action, and refused to remain silent.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) appears to be auditioning for a job in a possible Harris administration. Things aren't going too well.
In a Sunday interview on ABC News, Healey was asked to explain one of the various falsehoods that the network initially let Kamala Harris get away with in last week's presidential debate. It quickly became clear that while Healey was heavy on rhetoric, she was short on answers.
During the debate, Harris dodged the question of whether she bore any responsibility for the botched Afghanistan withdrawal during which 13 American service members were slain and many more were left behind.
Before attempting to shift blame onto President Donald, Harris said:
I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war. And as of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.
Martha Raddatz, co-anchor of "This Week," asked Healey about Harris' remarks, particularly her suggestion that there are no active-duty service members in a combat zone anywhere around the world.
"Our fact-checkers found that to be false," said Raddatz. "And I have a lot of experience in that area."
Raddatz was likely referring to her time reporting from Iraq as a national security correspondent and her extensive sources inside the Pentagon.
"There are currently 900 U.S. military personnel in Syria, 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq. All have been under regular threat from drones and missiles for months," said Raddatz. "We also have action in the Red Sea. We also — every single day the Navy SEALs, Delta Forces, special operators can be part of any sort of deadly raid."
'Did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq?'
"So why would she make that claim?" asked Raddatz, undoubtedly aware that Harris' remarks came just days after seven American troops were wounded in a deadly raid in Western Iraq.
Healey desperately tried to evade the question, saying, "What I think what's important here, Martha, is that Kamala Harris, in contrast to Donald Trump, demonstrated herself to be commander in chief."
"We are in a world where there are all sorts of conflicts," Healey continued, apparently referring to the Russia-Ukraine war and the latest Hamas-Israel war that kicked off while Harris was vice president. "It's all the more reason we need somebody who's serious and who supports the military."
Raddatz prevented Healey from retreating to the comfort of well-worn talking points, saying, "Governor, excuse me, but she said, 'There is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone.' That is not true."
"You say she demonstrated her ability to be commander in chief, but did she not know about these people in Syria and in Iraq? Why would she say that?" added Raddatz.
Healey tried passing off the falsehood as a "comment in a debate" and an attempt to make a "broader point," which the Massachusetts governor proved unwilling to share or unable to make up.
'She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt.'
Growing visibly flustered, the governor desperately returned to well-worn albeit debunked talking points. Extra to claiming that "Donald Trump stands with Vladimir Putin," Healey repeated the baseless "suckers and losers" smear first advanced by the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.
Healey continued her verbal flailing until Raddatz abandoned the effort.
Service members currently in war zones and veterans' families have criticized Harris over her false claim.
Brad Illerbrunner, whose son, Chief Warrant Officer Garrent Illerbrunner of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division, was critically injured on Christmas Day, told the New York Post that Harris' lie "really [hit] below the belt. ... She doesn't even recognize that our own troops are getting hurt."
"We're still in war zones," said Illerbrunner, adding that the vice president was "trying to snow the public."
"If you're in Jordan in the middle of nowhere to fight ISIS, and you're getting attacked by Iranian drones and rockets on a daily basis, you're in a war zone," added Illerbrunner.
Three American soldiers were killed in Jordan by an Iranian proxy in January.
Footage has also appeared online of service members reacting to Harris' remarks while stationed abroad.
The Biden-Harris Pentagon has attempted to give Harris cover, noting in a statement obtained by the Wall Street Journal that "just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war. The U.S. is not currently engaged in a war and does not have troops fighting in active war zones anywhere in the world."
This, however, is a deception.
Although Congress hasn't declared a war since 1942, hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members have been killed in war zones in the years since. The technical wording appealed to here by the Pentagon and Harris would mean those who perished in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam don't count.
Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral, recently told Fox News Digital that despite the government quietly shutting down designations of war zones, one need only "ask: 'Is anyone getting combat-related hazardous duty pay?'"
"The answer is yes," added Montgomery.
Robert Greenway, a U.S. Special Forces combat veteran and former senior director for the National Security Council, said that the comment "is especially egregious, as she is the current VP and should know that we recently conducted a raid in Syria, killing a senior ISIS commander. Several U.S. troops had to be medically evacuated after another raid against ISIS in Syria."
"Several service members were wounded in Iraq when Al Asad Airbase was attacked by Iranian-sponsored terrorists less than a month ago, and our ships are under near-daily attack in the Red Sea," he told Fox News Digital.
Harris did not limit herself to falsehoods about the military during the debate.
The Democratic candidate also repeated the "fine people" hoax; claimed that Trump would be implementing the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025; claimed that Trump would ratify a national abortion ban; recycled the "bloodbath" smear; and claimed law enforcement officers died on Jan. 6, 2021, in reference to the Capitol riot.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!