Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.

Robert F. Kennedy: Criticisms from at least Three Constituencies

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated the people he wants to fill out his Cabinet. This is appropriate because he won the presidential election in November. (His claim of a landslide victory is false. He won 49.81% of the popular vote compared with 48.33% for Kamala Harris, the smallest margin of victory since 2000.) According to our Constitution, the President nominates candidates, and the Senate examines them and then approves or rejects each one, based upon their background, expertise, policies they would pursue, and their moral character. Some of his nominees are well qualified and should sail through the Senate. Nevertheless, other nominees are quite controversial and will probably not get confirmed. Most have not been properly vetted. Some, like Matt Gaetz, will withdraw their nomination or suffer the embarrassment of being rejected by the Republican controlled Senate. One of the most troubling is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who himself was a candidate for president, then threw his support to Trump. As compensation for his “loyalty”, Trump named him to become the Secretary of the powerful, sprawling Health and Human Services Department (HHS). He told RFK to “go wild” on health. Perhaps he is too “wild”. He has received sharp criticisms from at least these three constituencies.

The Medical Community – If he is confirmed, Kennedy would oversee 13 federal agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RFK is so controversial because he has made many affirmations that are contrary to scientific evidence. For example, he is known as an “anti-vaxxer”, who urges people not to get vaccinated. He has claimed (without proof) that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine causes autism. He has just petitioned the FDA, through his lawyer, to revoke approval of the polio vaccine. The Salk polio vaccine has protected an estimated twenty million people from getting this dreaded disease. This past Monday, 77 Nobel laureates, from the fields of medicine, chemistry, physics, and economics wrote an open letter to the Senate, urging its members to reject the RFK nomination. The letter states that “placing Mr. Kennedy in charge of HHS would put the public’s health in jeopardy and undermine America’s global leadership in health science”.

The Pro-Lifers – Some pro-lifers are realizing that Trump’s support of pro-life issues was largely transactional. He manipulated them and he is not a true believer in their cause. An early indication was the platform of the Republican party. Trump promoted a change in the abortion plank which watered down its wording which had endured for decades. Now, the President-elect has nominated Kennedy to head up HHS. RFK has been pro-choice on abortion, yet he tried to walk that back when he was courting Republican voters. Significant pro-lifers are raising their voice against RFK. For example, former Vice-President Mike Pence wrote, “I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of pro-life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades.” He added, “On behalf of tens of millions of pro-life Americans, I respectfully urge Senate Republicans to reject this nomination and give the American people a leader who will respect the sanctity of life as Secretary of Health and Human Services”. (Here I am not weighing in on the morality of abortion; I am just reporting that Pence sees the RFK nomination as a betrayal of the pro-life movement.)

Corn Farmers – RFK has been quite outspoken regarding the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. He denounces that our high consumption of this corn syrup in many food products has been the major factor in childhood obesity and other illnesses. (The medical community largely agrees with RFK on this issue.) In one of his promo videos, he affirmed that high-fructose corn syrup “is just a formula for making you obese and diabetic”. The political controversy swirls around what he might do about corn syrup and how this might negatively affect the jobs of farmers. As Secretary of HHS, he could urge the elimination of farm subsidies for corn production. This would be devastating for rural farmers (rural folk are some of Trump’s most solid supporters). Senators from corn producing states have raised the alarm. Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, “I may have to spend a lot of time educating Kennedy about agriculture”.

U.S. Senators, you are responsible for seriously evaluating the experiential and moral fitness of each nominee and their mental judgment. Next week, Kennedy will be meeting with many of you. Please, do your job of serving the citizens by being rigorous in your evaluation of RFK.

Trump’s Plan to Eliminate the Federal Income Tax: Why would any Sane Person Support It?

Former president and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has recently floated the idea of eliminating the federal income tax. At first glance, this could be seen as a popular plan. I don’t know anyone who enjoys paying income taxes. Nevertheless, sensible people know that we have to pay our bills, as families and as a nation. The federal government annually receives $2.4 trillion dollars from the collection of personal income taxes, about half of the government’s budget. Common sense reminds us that if you cut your income in half, you must increase your money intake in some other way. Trump claims the funding shortfall could be made up with tariffs on imported goods (see below). Government leaders, including prominent Republicans, have repudiated Trump’s plan while others have suggested that Trump was just “kidding”. Trump responded in his recent interview with Joe Rogan on Friday that he was quite serious about his plan.

It is important for us to remember that during Trump’s presidency (2017-2021), the national debt increased by $7.8 trillion dollars, the largest increase in our country’s history! His idea of raising money by 10-20% tariffs on foreign goods is also quite flawed. Foreign companies and countries would not pay a penny to the U.S. government. The tariffs would be a “sales tax” paid for by U.S. importers who would pass on the higher costs to U.S. consumers! In addition, other countries might retaliate and impose their own tariffs on U.S. products, and thereby hurting companies in our nation.

His plan to implement massive deportation of immigrants is inhumane at a moral level. It is also economical lunacy. Many immigrants work for lower than a minimal wage. If they are deported, labor costs would dramatically increase, especially in the fields of construction, agriculture, and food services. Inflation would skyrocket.

23 winners of the Nobel prize for economics recently wrote a letter to the U.S. public in which they stated, “While each of us has different views on the particulars of various economic policies, we believe that, overall, Harris’ economic agenda will improve our nation’s health, investment, sustainability, resilience, employment opportunities, and fairness and be vastly superior to the counterproductive economic agenda of Donald Trump.”

We must also remember that many of his businesses (like Trump University) have failed. He has declared bankruptcy multiple times. He has also been found guilty of cheating on his payment of state and federal taxes.

Given this massive quantity of evidence, why would anyone of sound mind trust Trump with our nation’s economy? There might be some reasons for voting for Trump (although his lying, womanizing, felonies, racism, bullying, etc., disqualify him according to my conscience), his economic strategy is horrible,

Last Night’s Debate: Vance Won on Style, Lost on Truth

Last night’s debate between the vice-presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz was generally respectful, almost downright friendly. Vance came across as polished and spoke a lot of content. He partly improved his unfavorable reputation on the campaign trail where, in addition to many other absurd comments, he has falsely accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio of eating cats and dogs. Nevertheless, he lost the debate on credibility because he told numerous lies and refused to answer several tough questions. Here are some of the most important:

When he was asked about what the Trump/Vance administration would do about Obamacare (ACA- Affordable Care Act), Vance falsely affirmed that during his presidency Trump had “saved” Obamacare from crashing under its own weight. That is a lie. Trump tried to kill the ACA, but Senator John McCain blocked Trump in the Senate. In fact, Obamacare has increased in popularity over the years and more citizens are covered by Obamacare than ever before.
Given the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene, Vance was asked whether global warming/climate change was a “hoax” as Trump has frequently claimed. Vance would not answer the question directly, although he said climate change was “weird science”. He brazenly lied about the United States being one of the cleanest economies in the world. In fact, the U.S.A. is the third dirtiest economy, after China and India.
Vance continued Trump’s claims that immigrants were the major cause for our increasing crime rates. This is a lie on two counts. First, major crime (murder, robbery, violence) rates have gone down over the last two years. Secondly, study after study have repeatedly shown that immigrants in the United States have lower crime rates that nationals. Scapegoating immigrants without credible evidence to back it up has been a shameful practice in our history… and continues to our times.
Vance argued that our economy during Trump’s presidency was the best in the world. He conveniently omitted that Trump increased our national debt by more than any previous four-year administration. When pressed on the issue, Vance refused to answer the question.
The most important moment in the debate occurred near the end. Walz asked Vance if he acknowledges that, in fact, Trump lost the 2020 election. Vance refused to answer the question. He responded, “I want to concentrate on the future.”

Both candidates (and all humans, for that matter) have their flaws. Both have told lies, big and small. But lies seem to roll off the lips of Vance quite easily. Truth still matters and can still set us free.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 4) The facts don’t support his claims about the 2020 election being stolen

For the last four years, former president Trump has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen. He claimed that he actually won the election, but irregularities in key battleground states cheated him out of his victory. In addition, he has required that Republicans who want his endorsement in state elections must agree with him, that is, they must also become “election deniers”. The official results revealed that Biden won the electoral college 306 to Trump’s 232 electors. Biden won the crucial battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona.

Fact #1 – As was his legal right, Trump appealed the election results in courts across the country. Frequently, these courts were headed up by judges that Trump himself had appointed. Trump lost every appeal!

Fact #2 – When he was president, Trump picked William Barr to be his Attorney General. Throughout his presidency Barr consistently favored Trump in every legal decision. Nevertheless, Barr did not agree with Trump about the 2020 election results. After investigating the results in the key states, Barr concluded, “We have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

Fact #3 – The most important example comes from the state of Georgia. Although usually a Republican state, elections have been more competitive in the last decade. The Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, the official in charge of overseeing the election, (and a conservative Republican with an impeccable reputation) announced that Biden won the election in Georgia. Republicans demanded a recount. Raffensperger implemented a hand recount/audit of the 5 million votes that were cast, and the recount confirmed that Biden had won. On January 2, 2021, Trump telephoned Raffensperger and pressured him to overturn the election. Trump begged, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” Not only did Raffensperger refused to become complicit in Trump’s crime, he had taped the phone call as evidence. The transcript of the phone call as well as the tape itself are available online for everyone to see and hear.

The 2020 election was not stolen by the Democrats. Trump’s phone call demonstrates that, in fact, Trump tried to steal the election, but was caught red-handed.

Dear MAGA readers, if you value the truth, do not spread Trump’s lie about a stolen election. Have the courage and integrity to face the facts. Trump lost.

Trump is Unbelievable! (Part 2) The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the budget

In my post yesterday, I addressed Trump’s failed attempt to resolve the “border crisis”. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he promised to build a wall along the 2000-mile U.S. border with Mexico. In fact, he only constructed 52 miles of new wall.

Today I will shine the light on his grandiose claims for the U.S. economy. He affirmed that during his presidency (2017-2021), our country’s economy was the most successful in the history of the world. He promised that during a second term, he would unleash the economy and it would grow even faster. He promised to cut taxes for the wealthy, just like he did in his first term. Although he has made these fantastic, unbelievable affirmations, he has conveniently chosen to omit talking about the budget. What happened to our national budget and our national debt during Trump’s presidency? What happens when you cut your income (via tax breaks for the rich) and continue to spend like a drunken sailor? Here is the sad truth.

Fact #1 – The national debt increased more under Trump than in any other four-year presidential term (Source – The U.S. Department of the Treasury). The debt under Trump increased by 8.18 trillion dollars (Trillion with a T). By comparison, let’s look at the debt increase under the three previous presidencies. These presidents each served two terms for a total of 8 years. Therefore, a four-year average needs to be calculated for comparison purposes.

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) total increase 1.4 trillion dollars. Four-year average 0.7 trillion dollars.

George W. Bush (2001-2009) total increase 6.1 trillion dollars. Four-year average 3.05 trillion dollars.

Barack Obama (2009-2017) total increase 8.34 trillion dollars. Four-year average 4.17 trillion dollars.

Joe Biden (2021 to the present) total increase 6.17 trillion dollars. Extrapolating to four years would lead to about 7.2 trillion dollars. Increases in our debt have happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations. None have been especially good at living within a budget. All have claimed extenuating circumstances (wars, Covid, etc.).

Fact #2 – Trump’s businesses have not generally been successful. Trump University failed and was a disaster. His real estate deals were kept afloat by overestimating properties’ worth to obtain loans and underestimating their value for tax purposes. As a result of this tax evasion, Trump is now barred from doing business in New York.

I invite my readers to check out these figures.

In my post on Monday, I will continue my series on the unbelievable Trump. I will analyze Trump’s affirmations about crime in the United States, especially about crimes allegedly committed by undocumented immigrants.

Trump is Unbelievable! The facts won’t allow us to believe his promises about the border and the budget

Biden and Trump both have records to run on… or to hide from. God has given each of us a brain and a conscience to evaluate their actions as a former or current president. I will analyze Biden’s record in upcoming posts, but in my writings today and tomorrow, I will address Trump’s promises and practice in two areas: the Border and the Budget.

The Border

Ever since his escalator descent when he began his first presidential campaign in 2015, the southern border has been one of Trump’s principal issues. A major thrust of his solution to the “immigration crisis” was his promise to build a wall along the two-thousand-mile border between Mexico and the United States. In fact, the phrase “Build the wall… Build the wall” became the standard chant at MAGA rallies. Last night, Trump promised that he would complete the wall, although he had already “finished most of it”.

Fact # 1 – During his previous four-year presidential administration, Trump built a whopping 52 miles of new wall (according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection report). He had the full authority of the White House and a Republican controlled Congress, yet he only constructed fifty-two miles of new wall. We should evaluate people, and especially presidential candidates, by their “fruits”, that is, by their actions (or in this case, inaction). Given this fact, it is incredible that anyone would believe Trump’s words about the border.

Fact # 2 – Earlier this year, the conservative Republican Senator James Lankford was the main author of a tough immigration bill in the Senate. It included everything that Republicans wanted in immigration legislation. Republicans were in favor of the bill… until they weren’t. What happened? Trump urged Republican officials to vote against the legislation. Trump did not want to solve the “immigration crisis”; he wanted the crisis to continue as a political issue for his campaign. This was pure hypocrisy.

In my post tomorrow, I will analyze Trump’s promises about the budget and the national debt. Meanwhile, seek the truth, follow the truth, live the truth. Do not believe lies, whoever they come from.

Which J. D. Vance should we Believe? The Author of Hillbilly Elegy or the Republican Vice-President Nominee?

Several years ago, I belonged to a reading club. Our group read J. D. Vance’s famous little book Hillbilly Elegy which came out in 2016. It was an excellent book! Vance compelling told his family’s story against the backdrop of people from Kentucky (my dad’s home state) who, for economic reasons, migrated to Ohio (where I was born and raised). His book was intensely personal and factually accurate.

At that time, he also made several sharp criticisms of Donald Trump who was running for president. Given Trump’s comments about immigrants who came from “sh.thole” countries, Vance correctly denounced Trump as a racist. Given Trump’s daily and dangerous lies, Vance said he was “unfit” for office. Vance affirmed, “I am a never-Trump guy” and “I never liked him”.

Somewhere along the way, Vance had a “political conversion”. He retracted all of his criticisms of Trump. Without a shred of credible evidence, he seconded Trump’s claim of a stolen 2020 election. (Remember, Trump appealed to dozens of courts, as was his right, but lost every appeal, even with judges that he had appointed). Vance has changed his positions to match Trump’s on all major issues (the border, Ukraine, abortion, etc.). For Vance’s newly discovered support of Trump, Donald supported him in the 2022 Senate race in Ohio which Vance won. Vance is now Trump’s VP nominee.

I believe that people can, and should, change their minds and their positions when the factual evidence compels them to do so. That is why I write these posts on my blog. Nevertheless, our changes should always be towards greater truth, not towards greater falsehoods. I fear Vance’s changes have been made due to his political ambitions.

So, who should we believe? The younger Vance who wrote and spoke with integrity and with a concern for truthfulness, or the more recent nominee who peddles “stolen elections” due to his personal and political ambition? I prefer the earlier, more honest version.

Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.

I Really Want To Respect The Supreme Court…, But Its Conduct Makes It Difficult

Healthy societies have institutions (schools, local, state, and federal governments, the police, legal courts, news sources, etc.) that are generally respected by the majority of the population. I strive to respect these institutions in the United States, but this does not mean institutions get a free pass. I take their actions and affirmations seriously because we humans, individually and collectively, are responsible for our words and deeds. Our Supreme Court does not have the approval nor respect of our citizens. Polls consistently show that less than 40% of Americans approve of the Supreme Court. Part of the problem is due to its rulings, but there are other issues of “process” that have led to this low respect. I will address the content of unsatisfactory rulings in future blog postings, but I will briefly point out two problematic processes.

In early 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Leading Republican senators (McConnell, Graham, et al) refused to even bring the nomination to the Senate. They argued that nominees should not be approved by the Senate during a presidential election year. In October 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court even though early voting had already begun in some states! Instead of being consistent with their 2016 policy, Republican leaders brought her nomination to the Senate. This was blatant hypocrisy! Instead of denouncing this hypocrisy, many “pro-lifers” applauded it. They appealed to the unethical maxim of the “end justifies the means” (conservative justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade). I am disillusioned with leaders like McConnell and Graham who pushed through this nomination out of season, but also with those “Christians” who supported this double standard.
Over a period of twenty years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received millions of dollars in gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. He was required to report these gifts on governmental financial disclosure forms, but he did not do so. Although every other court in the United States has a Code of Conduct which specifies actions that are permitted or prohibited for their justices, the Supreme Court has no such Code and has repeatedly refused to implement such a code.

Although we affirm that “no one is above the law”, these two examples show how some SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated they are not subject to the norms of everyday citizens. In upcoming posts, I will analyze how Monday’s ruling on Trump’s claim of “total immunity” is extremely dangerous for our country.