Hello again, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to another episode of Freedom's Creed. Today is Tuesday, May the 24th, 2022. I hope it's a fabulous day for you. And if you're listening to this on another day besides Tuesday the 24th, then I hope you're having a great day as well. Undoubtedly, we live in some perilous times. We have high gas prices, we have inflation that seems to be out of control. And frankly, I think we're headed toward a recession. I hope that that doesn't happen, but it's looking more and more like that every day. Now, I'm not an economist, but I know how to read. The definition of a recession, according to the government, is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. However, a recession that impacts the likes of you and me is better defined as a general slowdown in the economy, rising prices, that feeling that we can't seem to afford as much as what we used to be able to afford. Those are typical in any sort of recession or even an inflation, which is what is happening right now with the high cost of gas and the high cost of food and every other service that we depend upon for living our lives on a daily basis. I truly wish things were different right now, but they're not. And wishing them away is not going to change anything. We do have the power as citizens of this great nation to be able to vote. And hopefully we'll be able to vote our conscience in the next major election, which is coming up in November, and vote people into office who are going to respect and defend the Constitution. And speaking of the Constitution, I did talk about that in my last podcast episode last week. And I mentioned in that episode that I would be talking about the rules that Congress makes for itself. And I said that I would devote a podcast episode to talking about the rules. And well, that episode is today. Listen, I understand the need for rules. We have to have rules. Rules have to be in place to govern behavior so that all of us are on the same level playing field. That's kind of how I look at the way rules should work. And yes, Congress has to have rules as well. I alluded to this in the last episode where I talk about or I talked about Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2, which states in part, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. And I mentioned how I was a little bit put off, I guess, by the fact that the founders included this in the Constitution. So it's something that I kind of wish they wouldn't have done, but it's there, so we just have to deal with it. Certainly any discussion about rules can be probably quite boring, but it's the way that the current Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, have bastardized this rulemaking process, and that's what I want to get into today. And I'm probably, okay, not probably, I will get a little passionate about this because I believe that this current Congress, and not to leave any other Congress out of the mix, but this Congress specifically, again, the House of Representatives, have taken great liberty with this ability to make rules. And of course, I'm talking about the 117th Congress. By far, I think this will be the longest podcast that I've ever done. So let's buckle it in, folks, and get to it. I want to start off by pointing out the fact that the rules are different between the two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. And some of those reasons I think for the difference is that in the House there's 435 members, in the Senate, only a hundred members. There are two senators for each state, whereas there are smaller districts in the House of Representatives, at least for states that have larger populations. In the Senate, it's almost as if it's a type of fraternity where it's a very exclusive club, and they have a little more, well, I was gonna say proper decorum, but sometimes that can get out of hand too. But in the House of Representatives, the terms are shorter. There's six years in the Senate, two years in the House, and so it's almost like they're in a constant state of campaigning, which we all know campaigning can be rather nasty. So I think that the rules, the way that they govern themselves in the House in making these rules is much different than that of the Senate. In fact, if you were to go to www.rules.senate.gov, you'll find that as you peruse through those rules of the Senate, that they're actually rules, and for the most part, anyway, they're rules that govern the oath of office, the mourning business, order of business, voting procedure, amendments and motions, debate. So there's a lot of topics that you would understand why there would need to be certain rules made to govern behavior in the Senate. The House is a whole nother story. In both the House and the Senate, there are tons of committees. They do everything by committee there, of course. There are standing committees, special committees, select committees, even other committees and joint committees. So they have a ton of committees in both houses of Congress. But let's turn our attention solely to the House of Representatives. And again, this is the 117th Congress. These rules can be found at www.rules.house.gov if you ever want to look at it and get as upset as I did. And I must apologize in advance for reading a lot of what I'm going to present today. And the commentary, of course, will be, for the most part, extemporaneous, because it will be something that as I go on in this episode, I'm sure I can already feel it bubbling up inside me. Oh, geez. In any case, hey, ladies and gentlemen, just look at it as something that this is what I will do, and you don't have to do it unless you just absolutely want to. So just sit back and listen away. It's no secret that both houses of Congress have a super low approval rating amongst the American people. I want to say it's around 20%, and that is really pathetic. What I'm about to say, of course, you'll understand why it's that pathetic. Not that you need me to tell you that, because if you have a brain, and I know you do, then you already know that the United States Congress is a pathetic group of people, and they have the worst rating it there is. It's even lower than the president's right now, if you can believe that. Here's a bit of sarcasm for you. I just love how the Congress, and specifically the House, likes to portray itself. They say that the Rules Committee asked elder members uh for their ideas about what should go into the rules that they make. They have a progressive caucus, a black caucus, Hispanic caucus, the Asian Pacific American caucus, the blue dogs, and the problem solvers. That's a funny one right there. They say they also worked with uh offices of the parliamentarian and the general counsel and gathered feedback from many outside groups who work on these issues. And my question to all of that is what about asking the American people? What about asking the people that you actually represent in Congress? Did that ever occur to you, ladies and gentlemen of the House? And what about all these caucuses? I mean, is this something that we really need? Do Hispanics or blacks or Asians or any other culture need anything different than any other culture? Do we not all need to eat, need to live somewhere with a roof over our head, need to have shelter, need to have income, need to have clothing, basic essentials, be able to travel from one place to another? What does having all these different caucuses even mean? Why can't we just have an everyone caucus or an everybody caucus? Why has it got to be splintered up into so many different groups? These factions are something that the founders talked about, especially James Madison. In fact, I'll read a quote from James Madison at the end of the podcast that I think you will enjoy. I know I did. Well, the people who are in charge now seem to think that the reforms that they're making uh have made the house wait for it, uh, more accountable. Please, are you kidding me? More accountable? They're about as accountable as a two-year-old. A two-year-old's got an excuse because they're two. These people my goodness. Moving along, they said that they modernized the House of Representatives in five key ways when it comes to the Rules Committee and the package that they put together, which they're so proud of. The first one is listening to the people's voice. Okay, just a minute. Excuse me for a second. I mean, is that not laughable or what? The number two they have here is returning to regular order, whatever that means. I'm not even going to go into that. Three is strengthening oversight and ethics. Again, laughable. The House already thinks it's the overseer of the other two branches of government, so that's a very troubling statement right there. And it says that members indicted for serious crimes should resign from leadership roles and committee assignments. Ah, yeah, for sure. Let's uh resign from those uh committee uh assignments and leadership roles, but you can continue to keep your seat in the house as kind of the implication there. Article one, section six, clause one talks about the fact that members cannot be punished, quote, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, end of quote. I imagine if we really looked into it that we could find some members of the House who have made treasonous statements or who have committed felonies and that they have had access to insider trading and made millions of dollars where average citizens don't have the same opportunity. And breach of the peace, oh my gosh, want to go back to the summer of twenty twenty and see what members of the House of Representatives incited riots among the people? What a joke. The fourth of five keys talks about bolstering budget rules, and under that heading, it says that quote, this rules package also ended the sham budgetary policy of cut go that pretends that tax cuts somehow pay for themselves. Seriously? How about looking at cutting spending and being more responsible with the taxpayers' funds, which you do have a fiduciary responsibility there, members of the House of So called representatives. Unbelievable. And finally the fifth key, which I don't really understand what this has to do with modernizing the house, but here it is fighting for inclusion and diversity. Underneath this heading it says quote, this included banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and creating a first ever diversity office. This also clarified the rules so that members and staff are officially allowed to wear religious headwear on the house floor and required members to reimburse taxpayers for discrimination settlements. Okay, that's the end of quote. I would like to know what any of that has to do with modernizing the House of Representatives with respect to rules. Listen, I'm all for inclusion and not discriminating against other people. But this idea of fighting for inclusion and diversity as a rule? What what is going on here? It's it's unconscionable what these people do with their time. Well, this amazing rules committee, they are taking credit for getting the House to be able to debate once more. Get it back to the way it used to be. Unbelievable. Moving right along, they say that they created an office of diversity and inclusion, that the one hundred and sixteenth Congress was the most diverse Congress in American history, and they say that's why our rules package established the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. To identify the scope of this institution's diversity deficit, the House administered a compensation and diversity survey to 10,356 employees of the house, with 10,356 employees of the house. Are you kidding me? 10,356 employees of the house. Let that sink in, people. Oh, golly. Anyway, with 51% participating, so 5,290 people evidently participated in this survey, the diversity office submitted a diversity plan to direct and guide house employees. Blah blah blah, blah. I can't, I can't go on. I can't read, I can't finish reading that. Look, this is all well and good, but what does any of it have to do with rules? It's disgusting. I promise, I promise, I'm gonna really try to make it through this. Uh it's just extremely hard to uh to stomach. But one of the things that helps me, ladies and gentlemen, is humor. Laughter. There are a lot of things in this life that you just have to laugh about because it it can be so mind blowing and infuriating that there's not much else you can do about it. So here we go. Next, in what I would consider a long line of obscenities is this one. The rules package created a select committee on the climate crisis tasked with developing climate policy recommendations. Again, I understand that this has nothing to do with rules. It amounts to nothing less than usurping the Constitution, which I did allude to in my last episode. These power hungry people are using a constitutional mandate, Article I, Section Five, Clause II, on determining the rules of its proceedings to completely pervert the legitimate reasons for establishing rules designed to govern behavior of members of the House of Representatives. It's shameful. They go on to say under the heading of returning to regular order that quote, the new rules also implemented a rule that required text to be available for 72 hours before the bill could proceed to the House floor for a vote. This was followed nearly 90% of the time, even amid a Republican-led government shutdown and the coronavirus. So, yes, in talking about rules, we must never miss an opportunity to exploit and denigrate the opposing party. Again, what does this have to do with rules of either House of Congress, but in this case, this House of Representatives? It's the most egregious form of rulemaking that I can think of. You know, it's as if they seem to believe that just saying all of the right words and making all the right gestures and things like that is legitimate and that it's something that they'll think that people will believe that they truly are giving a voice to members and the legislative process. When in reality, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a way to pull the wool over the eyes of ignorant people who don't have the inclination or the time to look into this kind of stuff. Some people are just ignorant and that's the way they choose to be, and so be it. Other people, they don't want to be ignorant, but they have to sometimes because they don't have time to do anything else. They're too busy working, too busy making enough money to put gas in the car, to buy food, to put on the table. All these people, they talk about this all the time. They talk about the the idea that we're gonna help the little guy, we're gonna help the average American. That's bull. They don't do anything to help the average American. In fact, I would argue that they do everything to put down the average American and make it harder for the average American to live. It's ridiculous. Oh boy, uh, here's a fun one. Restoring accountability for the American people. Are you kidding me? This is just laughable. These people, they ought to be on some comedy night show, night after night, talking about this stuff. And under that uh juicy heading, they say from the rules package to subpoenas, the 116th Congress used every tool to fulfill its constitutional duty to hold the Trump administration accountable to the American people. Hurrah. Hurrah for the 116th Congress. Well, what about holding themselves accountable to the American people? Remember, Congress, you got like a 20% approval rating. So many of these people think that they are above the law. And in their minds, I guess they really are. They're of the mindset that, hey, we can't be touched. You need us to govern. You need us to be here for you so that your life won't be miserable. Well, guess what? During the wonderful Carter years, they actually came up with a thing called the Misery Index. I bet you if you were to put that in place today, that misery index would be well above the sorry approval rating that Congress has right now. Guarantee you. You talk about a group of people being out of touch with average Americans. Well, you have 435 or whatever it is, members of the House who are truly out of touch with the American people. They talk about their constitutional powers, and that's a scary thing, ladies and gentlemen. When you give people like this power, it goes to their head and they don't know how to conduct themselves. They may be super nice people, otherwise, some of them I rather doubt it, but hey, I'm a Christian, so I'm trying to be nice. They say that they are the first branch of government. Fine, whatever. I don't care if you consider yourself the first, second, or third branch of government. The Constitution allows for three coequal branches of government, but yet they say the Congress was entrusted by the founders to be the voice of the people and to oversee the other branches. No. No. Congress does not oversee the other branches of government. Show me in the Constitution where it says that, and I'll eat the paper that it's written on. It doesn't exist as far as I know. They do not oversee the other branches of government. This is again, it's unbelievable. That they would conduct themselves in this way. They say that on March 2nd, 2020, the Rules Committee held a bipartisan hearing. Bipartisan, one of their most famous words that they love to use. It means nothing to them. Bipartisan hearing to outline the responsibilities of the legislative branch. Really? You had to form a committee to determine what the responsibilities of the legislative branch of government are? Goes on. To understand how Congress ceded some of those responsibilities to the executive branch and discuss ways to bolster Congress's constitutional authority. What in the Congress doesn't need any more authority. No more than what the Constitution allows. Yet these wonderful children of God think that they can get more authority. They don't need more authority. They don't need to bolster their authority. F too much as it is, it's gone to their doggone heads. Hold on, hold on. There's more. Under the heading Building Climate Resilient Communities, they say they want to weatherproof America. Yes, you heard me right. Weatherproofing America, that's what it actually says, weatherproofing. They talk about extreme weather events are increasing in frequency and affecting communities across the country. Now, whether one wants to believe that there is a serious climate crisis or that the climate is just naturally changing from decade to decade, that's fine. No big deal. But including this as part of the rules committee is it it's irresponsible. I'm sorry, it's totally irresponsible. As most of the idiotic things that I've read throughout with this so-called rules committee, they honestly believe that they must make a rule on climate change. Good grief. What's gonna happen next? I'll tell you what, though, this 117th Congress seems to think that they can talk all they want about the importance of making rules, but they want you to know that they have the power to impeach a president, and they include this as part of their historic hearing, the oversight of the Trump administration. Well, that's all well and good. But is this 117th Congress that we are in now? Where have they said anything about oversight for the Biden administration? Whereas the equity, they're always talking about equity, where is it? It's not to be found. They're the most partisan people that you're ever going to want to meet. And frankly, I wouldn't want to ever meet any one of these people. I don't care what party they're in. Well, all of these so-called rules are now in place for the 117th Congress. And they say that this rules package is the result of extensive conversations with members as well as feedback from the staffs of all House committees, the office of the parliamentarian, the clerk of the house, the sergeant at arms, blah, blah, blah. What about the American people? Did they ask the American people what they thought about any of these proposed rules? No, I highly doubt it. Again, let me read some of these so-called rules, and I ask you, do they sound like rules to you? Promotes inclusion, highlights committee's work combating inequities, honors all gender identities anyway, creates a select committee on economic disparity and fairness in growth. Really? They say ensuring that no one is left behind in the twenty-first century economy. Well, I hate to break it to you people. That's not possible. Government can't force people to be successful. That's what freedom of choice is all about. Stop trying to make everybody equal. It doesn't happen. Now, when I say equal, I mean economically. It's unfortunate that not everybody is at the same level economically. It's the way it is. Nothing we can do about that. We are, however, all equal in terms of we are all God's children. Moving on. Continues developing solutions to combat the climate crisis, preserves and reforms the motion to recommit. Okay, fine. That sounds like a pretty decent rule. Protects federal whistleblowers. Yeah. Codifies our return to regular order, whatever that is, strengthens witness disclosure requirements, and of course, continues ongoing oversight of the federal government's response to the coronavirus, Nuff said, Allows Congress to safely continue its work during the coronavirus pandemic, supports increasing witness diversity. And under this head, they say to ensure that the House tracks the diversity of witnesses as a next step in the effort to increase witness diversity. I don't know about you, but this seems like an effort to homogenize witnesses who appear before the congressional committees. In other words, homogenizing witnesses becomes the end goal as opposed to providing witnesses that are well qualified to testify before Congress, which should be the objective. My goodness. I can't go on, ladies and gentlemen. I am finished. I am done with this episode. I cannot say anything more about it. I don't know about you, but it seems to me that our liberty and freedom is being encroached upon on a regular basis. And on that note, I want to end with this quote from James Madison from Federalist Paper Number 10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. It's a good dose of equity, you might say. James Madison said this, quote, but it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. End of quote. The thing we need to guard against, in my opinion, is that faction, fine, but tyranny, no. So let's defend liberty. Let's defend the sacred right to disagree with one another, but let's not go down this road of tyranny. It's not going to be good for anyone. Ladies and gentlemen, with that, if you can think it, you can plan it. If you can plan it, you can do it.