Peter Hegseth’s Confirmation Hearing: Fartstain GOPFuckPuppet

Unfaithful, UnAmerican, and UnFucking Real..

A No-Bullshit Breakdown

Let’s dive headfirst into Peter Hegseth’s confirmation hearing. The guy walked in with more hot takes than a freshman philosophy major, and honestly, the spectacle was almost too much to process. So here’s the deal: Hegseth’s statements were wild, controversial, and full of contradictions. Buckle up, because this ride is gonna be as bumpy as his FBI background check.

---

Hegseth’s Stance on War Crimes

"Hegseth does not believe in war crimes.."

Holy shit. This is some next-level nihilism masquerading as military pragmatism. Hegseth basically told everyone that war crimes are a fake concept. According to him, if you’ve got boots in the mud and a rifle in hand, the world is your goddamn oyster—kill whoever, however. This isn’t just morally bankrupt; it’s a full-on ethical dumpster fire.

This line of thought directly undermines the Geneva Conventions—you know, the thing that says, "Hey, maybe don’t murder civilians or torture prisoners." But no, Hegseth's philosophy is more like "rules are for losers." His stance is dangerous, reckless, and frankly, fucking terrifying if you’re on the receiving end of American military power. To his mind, The Geneva Convention is bullshit, and we should just ignore it. Our enemies do not follow those rules, why the fuck should we? Well, Peter, it is because we are human fucking beings, who give a shit about other people, that’s why, you fuckwaffle.

What makes this even worse is the implication for U.S. military credibility abroad. If leaders like Hegseth openly dismiss the idea of war crimes, it sends a message to allies and enemies alike that the U.S. doesn’t care about basic human rights. That’s not just short-sighted; it’s a strategic blunder that could make future alliances impossible to maintain. War crimes laws exist for a reason, and throwing them out the window isn’t just irresponsible—it’s a betrayal of the moral high ground America claims to stand on.

---

Meritocracy: A Convenient Buzzword

"Hegseth affirms a strong belief in meritocracy."

Sure, meritocracy sounds great on paper—the idea that the best and brightest rise to the top. But Hegseth’s version of meritocracy has about as much credibility as a used car salesman’s pitch. He claims to love the idea of rewarding hard work and talent, but let’s not forget that the guy spent half his career yelling into a Fox News microphone rather than demonstrating actual leadership.

And here’s the kicker: meritocracy is a favorite buzzword of people who’ve already gamed the system to their advantage. It’s easy to talk about earning your spot when you’ve already got a platform handed to you on a silver platter.

To make matters worse, Hegseth’s supposed belief in meritocracy seems to conveniently exclude the structural barriers that prevent many talented individuals from rising. Whether it’s systemic racism, sexism, or economic inequality, these barriers aren’t addressed in Hegseth’s worldview. He talks a big game about rewarding talent, but his policies and rhetoric suggest he’s more interested in maintaining the status quo than leveling the playing field.

---

The Nuclear Arsenal Flex

"Our nuclear arsenal should be used."

Christ on a cracker, this one’s rich. Hegseth’s philosophy on nuclear weapons is basically “bigger, louder, scarier.” He framed America’s arsenal as a giant dick-measuring contest on the global stage. That’s his whole argument: "We’ll deter war by having the biggest and baddest toys."

Look, nuclear deterrence isn’t a new idea, but packaging it with middle-school locker room energy is a special kind of absurd. This isn’t strategy; it’s ego-driven madness. You don’t de-escalate potential nuclear conflicts by bragging about your arsenal like it’s the fucking Oscars.

What’s worse is that this attitude ignores the real-world consequences of escalating arms races. Building more nukes doesn’t just drain resources—it increases the likelihood of accidents, miscommunication, and outright disaster. If your entire strategy is based on the idea that no one will call your bluff, you’re setting yourself up for a catastrophic failure when someone inevitably does.

---

Trump Worship on Full Display

"Hegseth constantly praises Trump."

Of course he does. Hegseth is practically Trump’s hype man. During the hearing, he couldn’t go five minutes without referencing the former president. "Trump this, Trump that." He made it clear that he sees himself as a torchbearer for Trump’s America First policies, which… surprise, surprise, often put allies and international cooperation on the chopping block.

The non-stop Trump worship was nauseating. It’s one thing to align with someone’s policies; it’s another to turn a political hearing into a fanboy convention.

What makes this even more problematic is the implication for bipartisan cooperation. Hegseth’s unwavering loyalty to Trump alienates anyone who doesn’t share that view, making it harder to build consensus on critical issues. Leaders should be able to separate their personal loyalties from their professional responsibilities, but Hegseth seems incapable of doing so.

---

Weaponizing Faith

"Hegseth constantly praises God."

Look, I’m all for personal faith if that’s your jam. But Hegseth wasn’t just praising God; he was weaponizing religion to justify his policies. He framed every one of his controversial stances as though they were divinely ordained.

Want to militarize Silicon Valley? God told him it was cool. Think women shouldn’t be in combat roles? Jesus apparently agrees. It’s one thing to have faith; it’s another to use it as a shield for regressive policies.

Also, how can someone who asserts such a belief and validity in God, cheat on his wife, sire a child out of wedlock (while also committing adultery), and then in turn, divorce his then wife, and marry the woman who sired this child, as his 3rd wife? Anyone wanna answer this one? Follower of Jesus? no.

The problem with this approach is that it alienates anyone who doesn’t share Hegseth’s religious views. In a country built on the separation of church and state, using faith as a justification for policy decisions isn’t just inappropriate—it’s dangerous. Leaders should base their decisions on facts and evidence, not on personal interpretations of divine will.

What makes this hypocrisy even more glaring is Hegseth’s own personal life. While publicly touting family values and religious devotion, he has been embroiled in scandals involving an extramarital affair and fathering a child out of wedlock. This isn’t just personal—it’s a direct contradiction to the moral authority he tries to wield.

---

Silicon Valley’s Role in Defense

"Silicon Valley should make tech weapons for the Dept Of Defense"

Here’s a rare moment where Hegseth almost made sense. Yes, tech innovation is crucial for national defense. But the way he talked about it, you’d think Silicon Valley was some kind of messianic force here to save America from itself.

He completely ignored the ethical concerns that come with giving tech companies a blank check to create weapons. Ever hear of accountability, Pete? Or are we just gonna hand Elon Musk a tank and call it a day?

What’s even more concerning is the lack of oversight Hegseth seems to advocate for. Silicon Valley has its own problems—privacy violations, labor exploitation, and monopolistic practices, to name a few. Handing them the reins to our national defense without strict regulations is a recipe for disaster.

---

Flip-Flopping on Women in the Military

"Hegseth affirms women make the US military weak."

The flip-flopping here is Olympic-level. Before his nomination, Hegseth was all about how women weakened the military. Now, he’s suddenly a champion of "effective" female soldiers. What changed, Pete? Did the data magically shift overnight? Or are you just playing politics to save your ass during the confirmation process?

Calling him wishy-washy is an understatement. It’s blatant pandering, and it’s insulting to the women who’ve dedicated their lives to serving this country.

What makes this even more frustrating is the lack of accountability for these sudden shifts. If Hegseth truly believed in his earlier statements, he owes the public an explanation for his change of heart. Otherwise, it’s just more evidence that he’ll say whatever he thinks will get him confirmed.

Yup, there it is. He’s backpedaling on his backpedal. Hegseth’s America First bullshit isn’t just bad policy; it’s dangerous. Removing women from combat roles doesn’t make the military stronger. It’s a step backward, based on outdated notions of gender roles.

Women have proven their effectiveness in combat time and time again. To dismiss that is not only ignorant but also a slap in the face to every woman who’s ever put her life on the line.

Beyond the moral implications, this policy has real-world consequences. It undermines morale, creates division within the ranks, and limits the pool of talent available for critical roles. If Hegseth truly cared about the effectiveness of the military, he’d be advocating for inclusivity, not exclusion.

And the Quota Thing….Let’s call this what it is: a sneaky, underhanded way to push women out of the military without saying it outright. By raising quotas to an unattainable level, Hegseth’s basically building a glass ceiling and calling it a feature.

This isn’t about merit or effectiveness; it’s about gatekeeping. It’s about keeping the old boys’ club intact while pretending it’s for the greater good.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is that it creates a facade of fairness while perpetuating inequality. It’s a classic tactic: raise the bar so high that only a select few can reach it, then claim it’s about maintaining standards.

---

The FBI Background Check Fiasco

"Hegseth’s FBI background check is problematic, and incomplete, for lack of supplied documentation."

Well, isn’t that convenient? Hegseth’s FBI background check is about as solid as wet tissue paper. Incomplete documentation? For a role as crucial as this? That’s not just lazy; it’s a giant red flag.

If you can’t even get your paperwork in order, how the hell are you supposed to oversee national defense? This should’ve been a dealbreaker, but apparently, the bar is so low you’d need a shovel to find it.

What’s especially troubling is the precedent this sets. If Hegseth can skate by with incomplete documentation, what does that say about the vetting process as a whole? This isn’t just about one individual—it’s about the integrity of the entire system.

---

Conclusion: Eight Reasons Hegseth Should Not Be Defense Secretary

1. Dismissal of War Crimes: Hegseth’s belief that war crimes don’t exist undermines international law and damages U.S. credibility.

2. False Meritocracy: His meritocracy rhetoric ignores systemic barriers and serves as a smokescreen for maintaining inequality.

3. Reckless Nuclear Policy: Hegseth’s “bigger is better” approach to nuclear weapons is a dangerous escalation strategy.

4. Blind Loyalty to Trump: His inability to separate personal loyalty from professional duty hinders bipartisan cooperation.

5. Weaponization of Religion: Using faith to justify controversial policies while living a contradictory personal life is hypocritical and divisive.

6. Unchecked Silicon Valley Influence: His reliance on tech giants for defense innovation lacks oversight and invites ethical issues.

7. Regressive Gender Policies: Hegseth’s stance on women in the military is outdated and detrimental to inclusivity and effectiveness.

8. Incomplete Vetting: His problematic FBI background check raises questions about his fitness for such a critical role.

For all these reasons, Peter Hegseth’s confirmation as Defense Secretary would be a catastrophic mistake for the nation.

---

Citations

1. Geneva Conventions: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions

2. "Meritocracy Myth" – Brookings Institute: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/10/07/the-myth-of-meritocracy/

3. Nuclear Deterrence Theory: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2021-03/features/nuclear-deterrence-theory-outdated

4. Hegeth Cheated Repeatedly https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-a-fked-up-individual-pete-hegseth-admitted-to-5-affairs-in-first-marriage-per-report/

5. Women in Combat Effectiveness: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR579.html

6. Silicon Valley’s Role in Defense: https://www.defensenews.com/2021/08/10/the-growing-role-of-tech-in-national-defense/

7. FBI Background Check Requirements: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks