TrueValueMetrics ... Impact Accounting for the 21st Century

Date: 2025-08-22 Page is: DBtxt003.php txt00028968

FELLOW TRAVELLERS ... MAGA PETE HEGSETH ... SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Senator Elizabeth Warren just lit up Secretary Hegseth like a Fourth of July firework PLAY YOUTUBE VIDEO Original article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHKbfRLiu7Y
Pete Hegseth FREAKS OUT after Elizabeth Warren yells SHUT UP MORON Liberal Pulse 7.37K subscribers ... 36,775 views ... 1.6K likes Aug 2, 2025 UNITED STATES Pete Hegseth FREAKS OUT after Elizabeth Warren yells SHUT UP MORON Senator Elizabeth Warren just lit up Secretary Hegseth like a Fourth of July firework, and honestly- #petehegseth #elizabethwarren #hollend Peter Burgess COMMENTARY Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of my favorite politicians / legislators. Sadly, in the USA. there are very few politicans that are deserving of respect. American politics is in a very dark place ... and the risks are substantial ... and likely almost impossible to recover from! Secretary Hegseth does not appear to have the qualities needed to be a successful Secretary of Defense of the United States. From my perspective, he is a clear and imminent danger to the national security of the United States, together with President Donald Trump. The fact that these two men hold important positions in the United States should be a major embarrassment to the people of the USA I am worried more at my advanced age than I have ever been before. I only have a rather primitive knowledge of the systems of government in different countries ... it has never been a priority interest for me until I was old and essentially unemployable in any conventional work. I have slowly learned the rather fundamental differences between the way the UK functions and the USA functions. I like the British system way more than the US sysem. It appalls me that the people of America are 'stuck with Trump' until the next Presidential election which is scheduled four (4) years after the previous one. In the UK, a new election for the governing party happens every time there is a 'vote of no confidence' in parliament. An new election must happen at least no later than 5 year after the previous one. Prime Minister Liz Truss held the position of PM for period of just a few weeks, before she lost aote of no confidence in Parliament and had to resign! The timetable in the US political system is very different ... a system that enables the country to lurch from one misstep to the next at four yeat intervals! A lot of damage can be done in four years. Most of the world will applaud as the power of the United States evaporates. While the USA has a big economy, it has a rather small population ... and not many countries like the way US leadership has behaved going back my whole lifetime. After the 'Axixs' powers were defeated, the USA dominated the world economy. Over timme.that domination has ended. Trump and his administration wants to reassert US power that is long gone ... but sadly Trump, his administration and most Americans don't understand that a new and very different reality. is now in play! People like Secretary Hegseth in the Trump Administration are enablers of what Trump wants to do ... and it cannot work out well! Peter Burgess Transcript 0:00 Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, President Trump has deployed the National Guard and then the US Marines to Los Angeles over the objections of state and local officials, saying that the troops are needed to support immigration detention operations carried out by ICE. On Sunday night, the president went further, threatening to send ICE agents to other cities around the country that he sees as quote the core of the Democrat Power Center, end quote, specifically naming Chicago and New York. At a tense Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Senator Elizabeth Warren had one pressing question for Secretary Hegs. President Trump has deployed the National Guard and then the US Marines to Los Angeles over the objections of state and local officials, saying that the troops are needed to support immigration detention operations that are being carried out by ICE. On Sunday night, the president threatened to deploy ICE agents to other cities around the country that he sees as quote the 1:01 core of the Democrat power center end quote. Specifically mentioning Chicago and New York. Secretary Hegsth, if the president wanted to deploy Marines to Chicago and New York City like he did in Los Angeles, would you carry out that order even if the local governors and mayors objected? Well, Senator, because Governor Nuomo was unwilling to address protecting federal law enforcement agents in Los Angeles, President Trump had all the authorities and the Defense Department happily supported defending our ICE agents in the conduct of their job. They have the right as Americans to be able to do their job without being attacked by mobs. Uh, and we will protect them in that process. Other states needed it, we would provide that. I know that you heard my question. So you would be willing to send troops if the president ordered it to Chicago, New York City. That's right. 2:00 Well, thankfully New York City, unlike California, unlike Gavin Newsome, is willing to step up and address the issue with their local law. I'll take that as a yes. How about if the president says he wants to send troops to 15 cities? Would you be willing to do that? Senator, I don't accept your hypothetical because it's that's hypothetical. That's the question. You're the Secretary of Defense. Would you send troops to 15 cities? If the president thought said, 'Do it.' Would you do it? 15 cities. Again, Senator, it's a complete hypothetical lacking no lacking any context at all. You're the And I refuse to box myself in based on questioning on a hypothetical. You're here asking for a trillion dollars and I want to know how you're going to spend it. And so my question is, if Donald Trump tells you to send troops to 15 American cities, are you going to spend the money and send the troops? Thankfully, we're spending money on securing our southern border a way the previous administration abandoned and 3:00 allowed 21 million illegals to enter our country. So defending our homeland is a real serious priority under this administration, and we're doing it. Understand the question about defense. Secretary Hegth, about 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines have been sent to LA. Is there a number of troops deployed to American cities over the objections of governors and mayors at which you would be concerned that we are undermining our national defense? Senator, we've spent two decades guarding other people's borders. Uh we think at the Defense Department, it's about time we shore up ours. So that's my question. Is there a number at which sending those troops to Los Angeles or Chicago or New York starts to undermine our ability to defend ourselves around the globe? Is there a number? Senator, we look at capabilities and readiness around the globe all the time and we're quite satisfied with our 4:00 capabilities to defend the homeland and we'll provide more if and when it's necessary. So you are satisfied with our capabilities. Let me just ask, have you actually done the analysis and figured out how many troops you can deploy domestically before you start to undermine readiness around the world? Have you done that analysis? Yes, ma'am. Then would you let the rest of us in on it? We are the Senate Armed Services Committee and you're here to ask for a trillion dollars. What's the number? We've got contingencies and plans for any number of capabilities should governors be uh unable as Gavin Gavin Newsome has been to actually secure his own federal agents in their cities. How many troops can you deploy domestically before you start to cut into our readiness internationally? As I've said, previous administrations deployed our National Guard all around the globe in numbers far beyond what we were capable of supporting. So limited 5:00 contingencies inside the United States to protect federal law enforcement is court orders you to remove troops from American city streets. Will you do so? I uh can you repeat the question, please? Yes. If Supreme Court orders you to remove troops from American cities, will you do so? As I've said, Senator, I don't believe district courts should determine national security policy, but if the Supreme Court rules on a topic, we will abide by that. Okay? You know, during her press conference last week, Secretary Gnome said, 'We are staying here to liberate the city from its mayor and its governor. People who were elected by a majority of voters.' Secretary Hegth is saying he is ready to deploy more troops and won't tell us what the implications are for our national defense. This is unamerican. If the president wanted to deploy Marines to Chicago and New York City like he did in Los Angeles, would he carry out that order even if the local governors and mayors objected? 6:00 Secretary Hegs responded by blaming local leadership. He claimed that Governor Gavin Nuome in California was unwilling to address protecting federal law enforcement agents in Los Angeles and that the president had all the authorities to act. He said the Defense Department happily supported the operation. Warren didn't let that slide. Her point was crystal clear. Sending military troops into American cities without local consent is not just unprecedented, it's dangerous. She pressed Hegs, asking if he would be willing to send troops to Chicago and New York if ordered. Hgs is dodged but admitted that other states needed it. We would provide that. Warren, not missing a beat, said, 'I'll take that as a yes.' Then she pushed even harder. What if the president ordered troops into 15 American cities? would hexes obey. He refused to give a straight answer, calling it a hypothetical. But the exchange made one thing obvious. He wasn't willing to set any limit on how far the president could go in militarizing American streets. And this 7:00 is where Warren lit him up like a Fourth of July firework. She framed the entire plan as a reckless power grab that undermines both our national security and the principle of local governance. Think about it. Using federal troops to override local leaders turns US cities into occupied zones. It's federal overreach dressed up as law and order, but it reeks of political showboating, not strategy. Shakes's defense, he argued that ICE agents have the right as Americans to be able to do their job without being attacked by mobs and that the military will protect them. But Warren wasn't buying it. Her follow-up hit the real national security concern. How many troops can be deployed domestically before we start to undermine America's global readiness? This is not a small question. Every Marine guarding a city street is a Marine not stationed where we might face real threats abroad. Warren asked if the Defense Department had actually analyzed how many troops could be deployed domestically before cutting into global capabilities. Hegs has said yes, but 8:02 refused to share details even though he was sitting in front of the Senate asking for a trillion dollars in defense funding. The hearing exposed the shaky legal and strategic foundation of this plan. Warren also asked Hegsist if he would follow a Supreme Court order to remove troops from American streets. His response, he wouldn't follow lower court rulings, but he reluctantly said he would abide by the Supreme Court. That admission tells you everything. This entire operation is hanging by a legal thread. Meanwhile, the political undertones couldn't be clearer. Secretary Hegs has repeatedly criticized Governor Nuome and praised states like New York for stepping up, framing this as a partisan issue rather than a genuine security decision. Warren called it what it is, unamerican. Deploying troops to US cities without local consent doesn't make anyone safer. Its intimidation dressed up as policy. And here's the most alarming part. Hegs and the administration have no clear answer for the limits of this approach. There's 9:01 no set number of troops they wouldn't deploy. There's no transparency about how it affects global readiness. And there's no acknowledgment of the damage done to the fundamental principle that states and cities have a voice in how they're governed. Elizabeth Warren's grilling was more than just political theater. It exposed a dangerous gamble with America's safety. Amilitarizing our own streets may play well in a political rally, but it weakens us at home and abroad. It diverts resources from real threats, invites legal chaos, and tramples over the freedoms we claim to protect. Imagine the precedent this sets any president could sidestep local leaders send in troops and justify it as protecting federal property. That's not the America most of us recognize. That's not the balance of power the Constitution was built to preserve. Warren summed it up in a way that cut through the noise. You can't claim to defend freedom while sending troops to intimidate the very citizens you're supposed to protect. This isn't leadership. This is political theater 10:00 with the US military as the stage props. And that's why this hearing matters. It's not just about Los Angeles. It's about every city in America that could find itself under military occupation because a president wants to score political points. It's about whether Congress and the courts will stand up for the rule of law or let the line between democracy and authoritarianism blur in real time. So, what do you think? Should the president have the power to send troops into American cities against the will of local leaders? Is this protecting the homeland or is it a dangerous overreach that puts politics over people? Drop your thoughts in the comments below. And if you found this breakdown helpful, hit that like button, subscribe for more deep dives, and ring the bell so you don't miss the next one.

SITE COUNT