top of page

What's wrong with Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense?

During the last week or so and several days after Trump defeated Harris, several prospects for Trump’s cabinet positions were mentioned in the news. One possible proposal is Pete Hegseth, a co-host of “Fox and Friends” as Defense Secretary. Let’s see, he's a military veteran, has spoken plenty in the media that America shouldn't be pushed around internationally, and is a right-wing advocate. So why is there some grumbling about him not being qualified for this position? Let’s explore.


First, some print and news critics claim Pete is too young to run the Secretary of Defense, being born in 1980. I disagree; if Americans elected a VP who's only 40, why can't Pete take a shot at this position? It didn't matter to voters that VP-elect Vance only served in the US Senate for 1.5 years, so why not Pete? He's also aligned with Trump in another way: he's been married three times (and, like Trump, while married, had an extramarital relationship). If Trump is loved, adored, and married three times, why should Pete get the short stick?

Those MSNBC and CNN left-wingers hate Fox News because of people like Pete, a dedicated loyalist in Trump's first term defending Trump's "America First" agenda. And it's because Hegseth wants to eliminate "woke" policies because they don't align with freedom, God, or the U.S. Constitution. He's following in the "Messiah's" footsteps. Trust them. After all, they've been saying that Trump will root our military leaders who won't do whatever the President wants. The commander-in-chief is immune from prosecution while engaged in official acts of the office. This is something the U.S. Supreme Court decided this past summer. History tells us that the Supreme Court is an independent body and committed to the Constitution, so indeed, their choices are independent. There is no need to dust off the Constitution; the Court will do that.


This week, the Trump camp was surprised to learn that a woman accused Mr. Hegseth of sexual assault from an incident several years ago. Even though Pete claims it was consensual, a settlement was made, although it’s unsure how much he paid to keep the woman quiet. (What could go wrong with an intoxicated male and female in a hotel bar?) Not sure what to believe, but remember, Pete is originally from Minnesota, so let’s not forget about the “Minnesota Nice” reputation. I don’t know why that should surprise Donald, as he’s pretty familiar with cutting deals with those who sued him so that the story would go away. Is this a situation where the mentee is following the mentor?


If Pete is nominated, some skeptical democrats will say that the "Peter Principle" is in play here! Are they talking about nominating Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense? Why pick on Pete? He loves this country, has served in the military for many years, and has seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or are these corrupt skeptics talking about someone rising to the top who is not competent or prepared to do such a job?  I'm not sure why a new person who claims to be well-read and is involved with the domestic and international news at Fox News wouldn't be qualified for such a position. For those still skeptical, and if you don't believe that, ask Trump – he'll tell you the truth. Some say it's a controversial choice, especially considering Pete's support for combat veterans accused of war crimes. Pete would say, "When it's war, why should Americans care about war crimes? It's a dirty business anyway." Besides, "The Bush administration got away with it, so I guess it's morally acceptable in time of war."


According to the WSJ, Trump's transition team is compiling a list of military officers to be fired. As a lover of the Constitution, Trump may want to create a "warrior board" of retired senior military officials to review three and four-star officers for dismissal. I don't understand this publication in the WSJ; they are owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporatists), so why should we trust them if they publish an article contrary to what Pete and the Fox News folks say about "America First?" Murdoch may likely fire any WSJ journalist who writes in his newspaper to contradict anything said on Fox News.


Pete

We can't question their loyalty – especially if they say they're loyal. If a Fox News person says they are loyal to the Constitution, they must be so. Otherwise, Murdoch and other Fox people wouldn't hire a person who's a left winger – being a profit center isn't their primary objective; it's to uphold the Constitution. What proof do I have? They supported Trump in 2020 and went after Dominion Voting Systems, trying to do the honorable and transparent thing to get Trump in office. The biased courts said they were wrong, sued, and had to pay roughly 787 billion dollars. 787 sounds like a jet Rupert uses to fly worldwide to keep tabs on his media empire. Perhaps a conspiracy against right-wing media by the deep state? Was getting sued by Dominion Voting Systems possibly a conspiracy designed by the evil Democrats?


Let's get back to Pete – he loves the Constitution. People have asked why that's the case. Well, he does have "We the People" tattooed on his forearm. No one would ever go through that inconvenience and cost if they didn't want to serve and protect the Constitution. It just wouldn't make any sense! Above this tattoo, he has a U.S. Flag (16 stars) and a machine gun below. Some believe he's not qualified because of his tattoos, in my mind, many young people have tattoos so what's the issue? Besides, it's good for the American economy. He still has work to do on his other arm. It's not as though he's a showman, something that is uncharacteristically American, to help sell what he's selling. This isn't about business; it's about the proper American way. Perhaps he's right to hate Democrats because they are in a place that wants to eliminate "law and order," support "defund the police," and instill a radical left-wing agenda to destroy our nation. Over the last few years, Trump has loved Pete because Pete will take Trump's call and allow him to talk about anything that's on his mind. Those cynics who think this relationship is transactional are merely haters. Remember, their cause concerns freedom, God, and the U.S. Constitution.


Again, what's wrong with Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary?

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page