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.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.