“RULES FOR THEE, BUT NOT FOR ME”
It’s amazing the hypocrisy that some of those in authoritative positions delve into. They give the orders, but don’t follow it themselves. They state one thing, but flip their opinion on the same subject when it suits them. To be sure, Nancy Pelosi is not the only one, and surely not the last, sadly, but being the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and surrounded by much controversy, puts her in the spotlight. And with so many civilians caught up in the middle of it, it was only fair to shed some justifiable material on this topic.
This post does not come from a place of hate or disdain. Merely an objective view of misconduct from those in a leading position.
Praises, then Condemns – (2011 / 2021)
Thank goodness for the enduring quality of internet content that preserves our most important and heartfelt memories, right? (Other than all the ones that big tech has decided to delete, for one reason or another…)
Let’s take Pelosi’s tweet ~10 years ago making this statement:
This tweet came after 100,000 people stormed the Wisconsin State Capitol as an effort to fight for union’s rights. At the time, Nancy Pelosi was all for it.
Then we have how Nancy Pelosi addressed the destruction of several long-important monuments destroyed by mob groups in July 2020:
Interviewer: “Shouldn’t that be done by a commission or the city council, not a mob in the middle of the night throwing it into a harbor?“
Nancy Pelosi: (dismissively shrugging the question off) “People will do what they do.“
Then, fast forward to actions done on her very own property:
– YouTuber Arrested for Livestreaming Himself Defecating in Driveway of Nancy Pelosi’s Mansion — Says It Was a ‘Peaceful Protest’
– Report: Nancy Pelosi’s California Home Vandalized with Pig’s Head, Fake Blood
And now, this year (2021) after the capitol riots (of which her and her team were allegedly in charge of security… and who, ironically, are accused of actually letting the rioters in) her stance on “democracy in action” is vastly different:
Interesting that during this case, “democracy in action” is now called an “assault”, out of many terms Nancy Pelosi has used. And yes, one can counter this argument with the tragedy that did erupt out of the Jan 6. riots as opposed to the 2011 riots, but again, one has to ask, was this set up from the beginning just to spin a sordid view on the Trump protestors? After all, as word has gotten around (and video proof), it seems as the security detail simply opened the doors and allowed the rioters to enter the building.
And as most of us (should) know, it wouldn’t be the first time that outside agencies (such as Antifa, perhaps?) has been hired to disrupt what was supposed to be a peaceful protest. False flags and hired guns (to put it frankly) are becoming more and more known thanks to investigative research and more video surveillance/coverage.
Inciting Violence – (2020 / 2021)
And speaking of “inciting violence” and/or condemning/supporting it, we have the below comment from Pelosi made in August of 2020:
“We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States. But again, let’s just get out there and mobilize, organize, and not let the President deter anybody from voting.”
The above quote, if one were to choose to in such context, could imply that Nancy Pelosi was inciting violence. Calling out these “domestic enemies” and even providing the address for her constituents to take action. After all, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. has deleted/banned/censored for less than this while continuously decrying that it was only for the “benefit of the users”.
Now, we can take a look at Donald Trump’s speech and the violence that he was, apparently, encouraging:
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.
You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
‘Yes, it does because the constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our constitution and you can’t vote on fraud,’ and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you’re allowed to go by very different rules.
Honestly, I could go on and on with this, because truthfully, you can take any statement, put a spin on it, and claim that you thought it was an attempt at someone trying to “incite violence”.
To be honest, this video is terrifying and could be
misconstrued as someone threatening Tubby… (if we are to follow the vague procedures and guidelines of big tech/media/authority leaders who make up the rules as they go along).
Nancy Pelosi: “Refusing to accept reality” – (2017 / 2020)
Back in 2017, Nancy Pelosi and a huge number of her colleagues contested the results of the 2016 election. Claiming that there “was no question” that it was stolen.
However, now that 2020 has arrived, and their newly elect leader, Joe Biden, is at the helm (supposedly…), any question of election results being manufactured is ridiculous and couldn’t possibly happen. At least, according to the very same people that complained about it to begin with in 2016 and refused to believe Donald Trump was elected fairly.
In November (2020), the House Speaker slammed Republicans for their response to the election results.
“They’re engaged in an absurd circus right now, refusing to accept reality,” Pelosi said.
“Stop the circus and get to work on what really matters to the American people — their health and their economic security.”
Chuck Schumer echoed Pelosi’s sentiments, urging Republicans to “stop their shenanigans.”
Regardless of who cheated when, or even if both parties did, (or none, for that matter), the amount of hypocrisy on this point is outrageous. One can’t whine and complain for 4 years that their election was stolen, but then refuse that it can even happen in the next one. That’s basically saying that they were lying for 4 years and knew that the previous election was won fairly this whole time. (As long as we can believe that this election was won fairly…)
Keeping up the Image (just the wrong one) – (2020)
When the coronavirus first started making its rounds, it, indeed, caused massive confusion and chaos with seemingly no one being on the same page. To add to that confusion, we have the very political leaders who were relaying these rules and guidelines, not following it themselves. Creating a double-standard and making the public worldwide wonder why those in specific positions were allowed to do the very thing they announced was not allowed.
Nancy Pelosi was called out on this after being caught at a hair salon (which was allegedly shutdown and only opened to take care of her, personally – since there was an outdoor mandate only) and walking around without a mask covering her mouth even though there was a mask mandate in that city during the time, in which “the average citizen” could be fined for not following the policy.
There is a lot of debate and “she-said / she-said” (if these gender-terms are still allowed… which we will sort of address in the next section) between Nancy Pelosi and the hair salon owner, Erica Kious. But seeing as how Erica herself stated, “It was a slap in the face that she went in, you know, that she feels that she can just go and get her stuff done while no one else can go in, and I can’t work,” Kious said. “We’re supposed to look up to this woman, right?“.
And when you add into that the other numerous accounts of government officials that are defying these mandates that THEY THEMSELVES ordered (whether at the behest of other higher mandates or not…) and this emotional and heartbreaking plea from Angela Marsden (one of many) that echoes Erica Kious’ sentiments, it would not be a stretch to “presume” who may be at fault here.
Identity Crisis – (2021)
And here we have the latest in controversies and contradictions that Nancy Pelosi has been involved in. Honestly, it’s incredible that she’s in the position she’s in while engaging in the duplicitous behavior and actions she’s been behind. Even if not from a malignant stand point, the fact that those in governing positions are entitled to defying the very orders they’re mandating, yet expecting everybody else to fall in line is unethical and untrustworthy. (And then they wonder why they’re not trusted.)
On Jan 1, 2021, a press release was announced detailing a few of the new House rules that were proposed and unveiled to be voted on. Among these rules was this statement:
It promotes inclusion and diversity. That includes changes that would: establish the Select Committee on Economic Disparity and Fairness in Growth; 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; make permanent the Office of Diversity and Inclusion to facilitate a diverse workforce that is reflective of our Members and the districts they represent; and survey the diversity of witness panels at committee hearings to ensure we are hearing from diverse groups of experts as we craft legislation.
In clause 8(c)(3) of rule XXIII, strike ‘‘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, stepsister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter’’ and insert ‘‘parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild’
In the wise words of Rep. Kevin McCarthy: “This is stupid.“
Then he smartly followed up with “Signed, – A father, son, and brother“
It’s funny, because he wasn’t the only one throwing some shade on this confusing proposal:
This happened just a few days after the proposal:
“I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. A daughter whose father served in this congress.” – Nancy Pelosi
So let me get this straight…
Just a few days after Nancy Pelosi proposed to remove all gender specific pronouns from Congress (even if, as some “fact-checkers” claim, it was from just one document – whatever the heck that means, and allegedly wouldn’t have to be followed in speeches and such – because, you know, only government officials are allowed to bend the rules for themselves but that everyone else has to follow… do I have that right?) Nancy Pelosi herself still mentioned, in her own speech – (because she’s allowed to do that, of course) – FIVE different pronouns that are recommended to be changed to gender neutral (due to “equality”), in a matter of less than TEN SECONDS?
Does she even believe the own rules she’s trying to set forth? Is she for gender-equality, or not? Is she willing to admit that this is a silly proposal and she, quite obviously, prides herself on identifying as a “wife, a mother, a grandmother, and a daughter”?
I guess I just don’t understand the ever-changing rules and unfair guidelines that certain government officials impose on others but don’t have to follow themselves.
Unfortunately, the unfair treatment of others by those in a higher authority has been an ongoing conflict, and the injustices that we are subjected to are only exacerbated by the laws placed in order to protect those very same people. The corruption of this system needs to be addressed.
This is just one person in a sea of many. And again, this post is not meant to condemn, harass, or ridicule any individual, but just to point out the hypocrisy and biased dichotomy between authority figures and everyone else.
Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.
Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.