成人X站

The Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, went as expected, with Senate Democrats feigning outrage over alleged conduct they claimed was disqualifying. As the hearing progressed, they focused heavily on allegations of excessive drinking, questioning his suitability for the role.

It was an odd position for them to take, not just because, as Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma) expertly pointed out, Democrats have shown up to vote while inebriated. Their outrage stands in stark contrast to the legislative efforts championed by many of these same Democrats to reintegrate individuals with criminal backgrounds into society. These efforts include policies like “Ban the Box,” restoring voting rights for felons and even housing ordinances that prevent landlords from discriminating against applicants with criminal records.

Why are potentially dangerous criminals getting a pass from Democrats while they indicate having one drink too many at a holiday party renders someone ineligible to hold an important job?

More from Jason Rantz: Phony 鈥榗onservative鈥� ditches job she shouldn鈥檛 have had, for inevitable failure

If Pete Hegseth having one too many is wrong, what about actual criminals?

In both Washington and California, for instance, “Ban the Box” initiatives prohibit employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history until after an initial interview. This policy aims to reduce employment barriers for those with prior convictions, facilitating their reintegration into the workforce. It’s about helping them redeem themselves. Meanwhile,听New York City has adopted the “Fair Chance Act,” which restricts employers from asking about criminal histories before making a conditional job offer. This legislation is designed to combat discrimination against felons in order to promote equal employment opportunities.

When it comes to housing opportunities, Democrats have聽蹿辞谤肠别诲听property owners to rent their property to hardened criminals.

Seattle’s “Fair Chance Housing” law requires landlords to rent to the first qualified applicant, aiming to prevent discrimination, including against those with criminal backgrounds. Never mind being forced to rent to someone who is an actual alcoholic. The law landlords to accept sex offenders in most circumstances.聽The Los Angeles City Council is currently a similar ordinance that prevents landlords from asking prospective renters about their criminal history.

Similarly, the City of Detroit forces landlords to offer condition leases before they can look at an applicant’s criminal history. If the applicant evidence of rehabilitation, the landlord must rent to the applicant under threat of misdemeanor charges.

Democrats fight against deporting criminal illegal immigrants, embrace felons currently serving time being able to vote in elections and push to reform Pell Grants to make the incarcerated eligible. Pennsylvania even many felony and misdemeanor criminal records to help give criminals second chances in employment. But getting drunk a few times is disqualifying?

More from Jason Rantz:听Outrage and disgust after Rep. Pramila Jayapal mocks victims of Los Angeles fires

The contradiction here is striking

On one hand, Democratic lawmakers advocate for policies that offer second chances to individuals with criminal records, recognizing the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration. On the other hand, they subjected a decorated veteran and public servant to insensitive and intense scrutiny over past personal conduct allegations, despite his denials.聽This raises questions about consistency and fairness.

If Democrats are encouraging us to forgive and provide opportunities to those with criminal pasts, shouldn’t the same grace be extended to someone like Hegseth, who hasn’t broken any laws, has served his country and seeks to continue doing so?

It’s essential to hold public officials to high standards, especially for positions as critical as the Secretary of Defense. However, the focus on unproven personal conduct allegations, juxtaposed with legislative efforts to support individuals with documented criminal histories, shows a double standard.

The core of the issue lies in the balance between accountability and redemption. If the goal of policies like “Ban the Box” and “Fair Chance” is to allow criminals to move beyond their past mistakes, then it’s only fair to apply a similar perspective when evaluating public servants who haven’t come close to engaging in criminal behavior.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the聽podcast here. Follow Jason Rantz on聽,听,听听补苍诲.