Penna Dexter
Whenever there’s a new session of Congress, the House of Representatives adopts a new set of rules to govern the way it conducts business. Four years ago, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced, and the House passed, a resolution aimed at making all House rules “gender inclusive.”
The resolution expunged sex-specific words from House rules.
So where the terms “father” and “mother” had previously appeared in the House Code of Official Conduct, they were replaced with “parent.”  “Husband” and “wife” became “spouse.” ”Son” and “daughter” became “child.” And “brother” and “sister”: ”sibling.”
It really gets awkward: “Aunt” and “uncle” were replaced with “parent’s sibling” and “cousin” became “sibling’s child.” For in-laws, the terms are “parent-in-law”, “child-in-law” and “sibling-in-law.” The absurd list goes on. There’s even a section that eliminates all gendered terms.
To be clear, these changes only affected the rules document and do not prevent the House members from using gendered language in floor speeches or legislation. But this hat tip to the far Left’s desire to eliminate every distinction between the sexes is silly and just makes it harder to communicate clearly.
This ridiculous action by the 117th Congress should have been reversed two years ago by the 118th Congress, But, with extended wrangling over who would be speaker, this crucial task was skipped
The Wall Street Journal recently published an op-ed by Washington attorney Eileen O’Connor calling on members to now complete what she calls “The House’s Unfinished Gender Business,” and restore the “pre-117th Congress’s language.”
That language, Ms. O’Connor argues, is the opposite of gender inclusive. “It denies the existence of the sexes and the words used to describe their relationships to each other.”
She writes, “When even elected officials can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the basic facts of life, it is no wonder the rest of society loses its nerve as well.”  The House should restore clarity to its rules and eschew all gender-blending nonsense.

Kerby Anderson
We have learned over the last few years how the government and various media outlets have engaged in systematic censorship. It is one thing to talk about the problem of censorship. It is quite another to do something about it. A recent commentary by Katelynn Richardson provides a glimpse into what the incoming Trump administration plans to do about censorship.
Andrew Ferguson has been nominated by Trump as the new Federal Trade Commission chair. He said in a recent interview that Trump can cut off some censorship outright by prohibiting officials from participating with platforms and by cutting off funding for entitles that suppress speech.
Brennan Carr will head the FCC and has addressed concerns about censorship. In one of his interviews, he explained that one of his top priorities would be to “smash this censorship cartel.”
Harmeet Dhillon has been nominated to run the DOJ’s civil rights division. She worked with her firm on a case challenging the California Secretary of State’s Office coordination with Twitter to suppress speech.
Even Trump appointees who aren’t working directly on free speech will likely have an impact. Trump’s nominee for NIH is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration that challenged COVID-19 lockdowns and responses. And HHS nominee Robert F. Kennedy filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for alleged First Amendment violations.
Of course, much of the fight against censorship will come from Donald Trump himself. In one campaign video he promised to “shatter the left-wing censorship regime.” He will likely sign an executive order banning agencies from collaborating with social media to suppress speech.
This is good news for free speech in America.