Pelosi's overhaul of House rules institutionalizes wokeness, targets conservatives & Trump admin

January 06, 2021

Wikimedia Commons

CEO/Founder

Nancy Pelosi and her growing ensemble of radical leftists are making sure that 2021 will be just as terrible as 2020 — terrible, and forcefully gender-neutral. The 117th Congress convened on Sunday, and on Monday, they shifted the goalposts by approving a 45-pages rules package, "H. Res 7," in a 217 to 206 vote. The Rules Package is the brainchild of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee Chairman James McGovern (D-MA).

Yesterday, in a speech to the House, Republican Rep. Tom Cole described the proposals as "some of the harshest and most cynical that I've experienced during my time in Congress." Congressman Steve Scalise accurately called it a "Soviet-Style rules package. ... designed to take away the voice of 48% of this chamber."

Some of the many wild rule changes include a continuation of proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a ban on lawmakers convicted of certain crimes from visiting the House floor, and of course what would Democrats be without their hatred for Donald Trump? With the rule changes, they've found a way to attack Trump even after he's left office. They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House staff long after their administration has left the White House.

They've added provisions that allow them to send subpoenas to former Presidents, former VPs, and former White House...

Pelosi called the plan a "visionary rules package" which "reflects the values of her diverse Democratic majority," framing the proposal as a departure from ignorance, with that elitist under-handed way of condescending to non-woke Americans. She called them "future-focused proposals," as if conservatives and Republicans aren't worried about the future. Democrats honestly believe this. Believe that we pray to God for the destruction of the future, whatever it means. Although, Democrats are certainly not the authority on prayer: They can't even say one without jamming it full of woke inanity. And "inanity" is the word for it. Because the Democrats have devolved into utter nonsense.

In the news cycle, stories get buried. It feels like we're all constantly putting out fires. Politicians love this: Just about every controversy vanishes quickly. Shady legislation goes unnoticed. The mainstream media isn't going to report on this, not with any semblance of honesty or critical thought. As always, they're more interested in attacking Donald Trump. So it's up to us to ask, "Wait a minute, you're doing what now?"

You may be thinking, "How do the rules for the House of Representatives affect me?" Because you can tell a lot about a person by the way they run their house, or in this case their workplace. If this is how they want to conduct their workplace, I'm terrified to see how they'll run the country. Because, even though it will require ethical breaches and severe overreach, that's exactly what they're about to do, including a rule that keeps the House Minority from amending legislation on the floor.

In true leftist fashion, Democrats have projected their own injustices on Republicans. Like how the bill refers to the new rules as "sweeping ethics reforms," the implication being that there were ethical violations that demanded reforming.

Yesterday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said it best, delivered a scathing rebuke of House Democrats. I recommend watching the whole thing. In particular, he took umbrage with the way the rules violate our freedom of speech, the most important right that we have as Americans.

He's right: This hatred for free speech began in academia. Specifically, from the Marxist radicals who promote and adhere to Critical Theory. We conservatives have spent so much time on Critical Race Theory, but we're missing the bigger picture. Critical Race Theory is just a wart on the looming monster known as Critical Theory. If you think the riots were bad, if you thought sports had become overrun by woke politics, if you thought colleges were bad already — you better get ready for the ideological tidal wave, because it's so about to be much worse. The whole thing is Critical Theory gone wild. I'll tell you why in a moment. First, let's look through the details.

Gender

The resolution aims to "make this House of Representatives the most inclusive in history," and opens by formally establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. An entire department within the lower house of Congress devoted to bringing Critical Theory to life."Inclusion and diversity," two concepts entrenched in Critical Theory inanity. The left would call them "dog whistles," seemingly innocuous words that signal something evil. Apparently, inclusion and diversity are the reason House Democrats felt the need to change the name of the Office of the Whistleblower Ombudsman, "to the gender-neutral Office of the Whistleblower Ombuds."

Then they really lose it in subsection e: "Gender-Inclusive Language." This section "modernizes the use of pronouns, familial relationship terminology, and other references to gender in order to be inclusive of all members, delegates, resident commissioners, employees of the House, and their families."

In other words, the standing rules will now be gender-inclusive. ''Seamen'' will now be ''seafarers." ''Chairman'' is ''Chair." And one clause of House rules removed the terms father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother" — you get the idea.

The new rules also require "standing committees to include in their oversight plans a discussion of how committee work over the forthcoming Congress will address issues of inequities on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, age, or national origin; honor all gender identities by changing pronouns and familial relationships in the House rules to be gender-neutral."

Free Speech

One of the most egregious parts of the rules changes is the way they'll compromise free speech. Democrats want to protect free speech only if it's something they agree with. They've taken this to villainous extremes.

Deep Fake Media

●The Democrat rules package also made it an ethics violation for members to knowingly distribute "deep fake" media.

●The wording is vague, and could easily encompass conservative media. What do they mean by fake media? Memes? Articles? Jokes? Op-eds? "regulations addressing the dissemination by electronic means of any image, video, or audio file that has been distorted or manipulated with the intent to mislead the public.

●It applies not only to Representatives' official accounts but also to their personal accounts, a clear violation of free speech. "They would penalize any member who shares news or views that liberals and their allies in the media deem 'fake.' They actually make it an ethics violation, which is usually reserved for such unbecoming conduct as bribery and corruption."

Pay As You Go (PayGo) Exemptions

●The new rules also weaken PayGo, a budgetary-control measure that limits "Tax and Spend" policies and requires Congress to offset spending on bills that would increase the deficit.

●They are the payment rules on legislation related to the virus and climate change that previously required lawmakers to identify new revenue sources or spending cuts to fund their priorities.

●Democrats will now be able to force through any legislation regardless of the cost, and for legislation like the Green New Deal. Yet AOC actually had a problem with this caveat, but of course, her reason for opposing it is as asinine as you'd expect.

The Motion to Recommit (MTR)

Congress is a majoritarian institution. They govern themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. Since Democrats regained the majority two years ago, they have treaded that line and I would say that they've been downright unconstitutional. For those entire two years, they boasted that in 2020 they'd sweep Congress, all of it, but especially The House of Representatives. They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years. And I'm positive that their hubris is largely responsible.

They were wrong, and now they have the slimmest majority in years.

Since the creation of the modern party system shortly before the Civil War, there have been 18 House majority changes, with Democrats in power the most.

●The motion to recommit provides one final opportunity for the House to debate and amend a measure, typically after the engrossment and third reading of the bill, before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage. ... The motion does not delay or kill the bill. MTR gives the Minority, and by extension their constituents, a voice by denying them the chance to debate a bill on the floor.

●It's been around since the House was founded, and in its present form since 1909. In 1919, Rep. Abraham Garrett said that "The Motion to Recommit is regarded as so sacred, it's one of the few rules protected against the Committee on Rules by the General Rules of the House."

●When Pelosi was in the Minority, she described the MTR as grounded in the Free Speech guaranteed by our constitution. Anytime the Republicans had the majority, they never even considered cutting off MTR.

Democrats shifted the goalposts by redefining words, by degrading the current meanings, and by trying to convince us that we are fundamentally immoral. It's textbook Critical Theory: attack our sense of reality, our understanding of knowledge, our guiding beliefs, and, now, our most fundamental rights.

We've entered the era of Critical Theory. Wokeness is the new law.

Literally.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy. They're still not saying the quiet part aloud. Critical Theory allows for this. Saddle up to the new normal. The new authoritarianism. Just like how nobody took 20 seconds to hop on Wikipedia and check the etymology of "amen", none of the Democrats have really thought out their plan.

Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution delineates the powers granted to the Congress, one of which is "to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions."

Well, lately, America has been overrun by insurrections and invasions and Congress can't do much about it because they're in on the insurrection. Significant factions within the legislative branch have encouraged these insurrections, they have validated the invasive radicals who threaten to destroy our country. And they've done it under the auspices of furtherance. Of being progressive. Of not being racist, or transphobic, or whatever insult is trendy on woke Twitter.

The time for metaphors is over; the House of Representatives just instituted wokeness into policy.

They're saying, "surrender some of your rights, some of your luxuries, some of your privileges — you have so many, you don't deserve them — and you'll make the world a smidge better." It's the kind of ideology that shreds through people like they're nothing and it is swallowing America whole. Once they change the rules and they change the words, you're living a real-life version of Orwell's 1984. What we need in a moment like this are strong people willing to face the wrath of a Leftist establishment that is all too happy to watch the world burn.

McCarthy talked about how people were feeling this indignation. Well, Kevin, I want you to know, it's not just you. I feel it. I think more than 70 million Americans feel it.

WATCH HIS FULL SPEECH HERE:

Leader McCarthy Slams Democrats' House Rules Packageyoutu.be

It's not going away any time soon.

And today, I ask that you just prepare mentally, for a rough road ahead. But one that we win in, in the end. And I can say it with confidence because I know the truth, will always set people free.

The truth will always prevail.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?