In another instance, the media have created misleading narratives surrounding Joe Kent, a U.S. Army veteran and Trump’s candidate for the National Center for Counterterrorism.
A recent article titled “Who gets it Panzer Tattoo on your arm?” fails to directly address the question. Instead, it insinuates that Kent is linked to Nazi ideologies, implying that both Kent and the MAGA movement share those beliefs.
This kind of journalism seems misguided. Articles that pose questions in their headlines often lack a clear stance or factual reporting. Yet, this is a hallmark of the Atlantic, so we are not surprised.
The basis of this outrage stems from Kent’s tattoo that reads “Pantzer.”
“Panzer” translates to “tank” in German, indicating a simplistic conclusion that Kent must then be associated with Nazism. This stretches logic a bit thin.
However, there’s a significant issue here.
As pointed out by a former colleague, Kent’s tattoo simply does not have Nazi connotations. In fact, “Panzer Jäger” was well regarded among Americans, particularly in NATO contexts and during the Cold War, often symbolizing anti-communism rather than anything related to Nazism.
On top of that, Kent served in the anti-tank division of the 2nd Ranger Battalion from 1998 to 2001.
Moreover, veterans are well aware that military regulations often require tattoo inspections to ensure service members aren’t tied to extremist views. Kent held a top-secret clearance for about 20 years, which would have involved thorough background checks.
So, despite extensive resources and 1,800 words dedicated to this narrative, the Atlantic overlooked crucial details that could have clarified the situation. Instead, they quoted “experts” from groups with dubious credibility, resulting in speculations that Kent’s tattoos could indicate Nazi admiration without solid evidence.
What makes this smear even worse is that it targets a decorated veteran who has faced personal loss in service to the country. It’s disheartening.
Some left-leaning outlets seem to imply that tattoos are acceptable only when they align with their narratives. For example, a Maryland resident faced deportation due to accusations linked to his tattoos, despite his legal standing in the U.S.
On a brighter note, sources indicate Kent is considering serious legal responses to these allegations.
The Trump administration’s reaction was somewhat dismissive, as they chose to joke about the tattoo accusations rather than take them seriously.
It raises an eyebrow, doesn’t it? Certainly an approach that might be applauded by figures like Joseph Goebbels.
