Speaker 1: Hey, kids, did you know that a lawsuit was filed
Speaker 1: by Texas Attorney General Paxton? Can Paxton to be actually
Speaker 1: accurate and challenging the inclusion of gender dysphoria under section
Speaker 1: five O four of the Rehabilitation Act of seventeen ry
Speaker 1: not seventeen nineteen seventy three. Yeah, that's the greed.
Speaker 2: That's the year.
Speaker 3: People.
Speaker 1: Let's go with that. Let me start talking before I
Speaker 1: start putting my foot in the mouth, and let AJ
Speaker 1: tell your story.
Speaker 3: HEYJ think you Cindia? Your correct? A lawsuit was filed
Speaker 3: by my very own taxes Attorney General Ken Paxton, and
Speaker 3: as you said, he wants to challenge the inclusion of
Speaker 3: gender dysphoria under Septune five O four. This act, the
Speaker 3: Rehabilitation Act of nineteen seventy three, protects individuals with disabilities
Speaker 3: from discrimination in federally funded institutions such as schools or hospitals.
Speaker 3: And while the lawsuit primarily targets gender identity protections, it
Speaker 3: also argues that section five O four itself is unconstitutional,
Speaker 3: given judges the option to eliminate it entirely. Now the
Speaker 3: gender This four year class was added by President Biden
Speaker 3: and with the administration, the administration change the lawsuits. Future
Speaker 3: is currently uncertain, but in Texas alone, the outcome could
Speaker 3: impact over four hundred thousand students that rely on these protections.
Speaker 3: So this story is from KHU dot com by Victor
Speaker 3: Jacobo and Chris Hannah on February fifteenth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: That's a lot of people that you mentioned that could
Speaker 1: be affected. And I would even conjecture adversely concerning the
Speaker 1: outcome of how Section five or four is interpreted. So, AJ,
Speaker 1: I'm going to pick your brain a little bit if
Speaker 1: you would allow me, what would be the real world
Speaker 1: consequences if Section fible for were declared unconstitutional, particularly for
Speaker 1: students and patients relying on these protections.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of stake, you know. This protection applies
Speaker 3: to any organization that receives financial assistance from the federal government.
Speaker 3: It can be public schools, public colleges, universities. There's even libraries, museums,
Speaker 3: public parks, recreation programs. I don't know local government agencies
Speaker 3: that we said, hospitals, clinics, mental health facilities, nursing homes
Speaker 3: that receive Medicare, Medicaid, anything that receives a grant from
Speaker 3: the federal government or contract from the federal government has
Speaker 3: to comply with these non discrimination rules from Section faber four.
Speaker 3: So this is so that people with disabilities can have
Speaker 3: equal access to services, education, employment opportunities. It offers so much.
Speaker 3: It offers things like wheelchair rems, elevators, UH, being able
Speaker 3: to sit up at the front in school because you
Speaker 3: have a visual impairment, material braier for fully blind students,
Speaker 3: a cel interpreters for deaf people like myself, other accommodations
Speaker 3: for for hearing impairments, classroom accommodations for things like taking
Speaker 3: a long break. My kids had a fib or four
Speaker 3: plant because they're autistic and have a hard condition, so
Speaker 3: these accommodated things like being able to go to a
Speaker 3: cool down area when they were felt like they're hard anxiety,
Speaker 3: things like being able to take a break during PE
Speaker 3: classes if they frow out of bread, all kinds of
Speaker 3: things for people with medical needs, like being able to
Speaker 3: carry your your insulin pump okay if you're diabetic, being
Speaker 3: able to carry on epipene if you have life threatening allergies,
Speaker 3: being able to go to the nurse. It's not just
Speaker 3: about the gender. UH dysphoria issue that they that they're
Speaker 3: trying to target again and this is just about erasing
Speaker 3: transgender people. But they don't realize that if they were
Speaker 3: to succeed in taking away these vibl form protections, they
Speaker 3: will be affecting so many children and adults, not just children,
Speaker 3: but adults as love that benefit from all of these
Speaker 3: amazing protections.
Speaker 1: Norm all sounds like they're trying to turn the ADA
Speaker 1: upside down. Yeah, because like the ADA of itself, that
Speaker 1: particular legislation that came out, I want to say in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety two does exactly what you say gives people
Speaker 1: who are you know, Americans who are living with disabilities,
Speaker 1: the ability to quell some of the things that they
Speaker 1: may be experiencing that may not necessarily affect, you know,
Speaker 1: the general populace of the United States. Right. So I
Speaker 1: can carry my EpiPen, I can carry my insulin pump.
Speaker 1: I can get special accommodations when I'm taking tests because
Speaker 1: I'm living with autism or I'm living with add you know.
Speaker 1: And I think that if you just allow me just
Speaker 1: like a little room just to kind of just say
Speaker 1: what's on my mind, just oftentimes think about like people
Speaker 1: who happen to be on the right of these issues,
Speaker 1: and they don't really realize the real world implication taking
Speaker 1: away protections that have been fought for since the fifties
Speaker 1: and sixties can be even in their perview, I don't
Speaker 1: necessarily think that they understand that, like everything has been
Speaker 1: regulated to CRT woke in DEI bad And if this
Speaker 1: five oh four section five oh four, it's because it
Speaker 1: has a caveat of protections for transgender people in that
Speaker 1: same area. They are willing I'm specifically talking about the right,
Speaker 1: are willing to throw the baby out with the bath
Speaker 1: water until it gets to the point where you realize that, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not transgender. Yeah, but you may be living with
Speaker 1: a disability. You may be diabetic, you may be you know,
Speaker 1: a person that is susceptible to anaphylexics. You may be
Speaker 1: a person who you know requires like durable medical equipment
Speaker 1: in order for you to be able to move through
Speaker 1: your day to day. So if this is you and
Speaker 1: this section protects you, are you willing to throw it
Speaker 1: out too? And as of late, I would conjecture that
Speaker 1: a lot of people would say yes to prove what
Speaker 1: type of point. I don't know, but Glenn, I'm coming
Speaker 1: to you. I'm wondering how does targeting gender dysphoria in
Speaker 1: section five or four reflect broader legal, legal, and political
Speaker 1: trends regarding disability rights and LGBTQ protection.
Speaker 2: Well, fir Cynthia, I have to say that I think
Speaker 2: a lot of these people, what really happens is is
Speaker 2: they're going, yeah, yeah, yeah, kill that DEI, get rid
Speaker 2: of that woke garbage, get rid of that, and until
Speaker 2: they realize that they just sabotage their own self interest
Speaker 2: and then they're like, oh I. And we see this
Speaker 2: time and again happening with the things that are going
Speaker 2: on with people who have voted for certain people and
Speaker 2: then when they got an office go oh, I didn't
Speaker 2: mean you know, you're gonna men fire me, and this
Speaker 2: type of mentality. It's the same thing with these types
Speaker 2: of programs. We see people who, yeah, let's get rid
Speaker 2: of that woke trash, let's get rid of that, until
Speaker 2: it affects them and oh, that's what this does. Oh,
Speaker 2: because they've accepted someone telling them that this label belongs
Speaker 2: to this program, and so it's all garbage because it's
Speaker 2: all woke, So let's get rid of it. It's all DEI,
Speaker 2: let's get rid of it.
Speaker 4: And so they don't do any actually in depth digging
Speaker 4: because most of these new politically aware people that we've
Speaker 4: seen come on seen in the last ten years have
Speaker 4: no They couldn't tell you the basics of how it
Speaker 4: build gets passed through Congress, much less the nuances of subcommittees,
Speaker 4: there are all the other things that how things actually
Speaker 4: work in the real world.
Speaker 2: They just hear this, oh, and that sounds terrible, so
Speaker 2: let's go that way. And that's what's going on with
Speaker 2: this bill, because I don't think that when you got
Speaker 2: down to it, if most people really understood many of
Speaker 2: the things we're talking about with this would be far this.
Speaker 2: My child goes to school under one of these plans
Speaker 2: as well because of their spinal cord injury. So when
Speaker 2: it comes down to it, this isn't a right left issue,
Speaker 2: but it's been framed in a way that certain people
Speaker 2: on the right see it as a wright left issue.
Speaker 2: So until it impacts them personally, Yeah, it's at the
Speaker 2: stick it to the libs. Let's go ahead and show
Speaker 2: those libs. Let's let's get rid of this woke stuff.
Speaker 2: Let's let's show them oh wait, wait what, I'm not woke.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm not woke at all. What's
Speaker 2: going on? Why? Why did it cost me something? And
Speaker 2: I think that that's what it's going to take before
Speaker 2: these people realize just held terrible the bill of goods
Speaker 2: they've been sold, because they've been sold in this concept
Speaker 2: that one tenth or less of one percent is ruining
Speaker 2: their world, so we need to make sure we do
Speaker 2: something about it, when in reality, all they're doing is
Speaker 2: being sucker punch and go and hit me again.
Speaker 3: Sam, I think you're brought out a really good point
Speaker 3: in that they don't understand the bill and they don't
Speaker 3: understand what is going on here because if you look
Speaker 3: at the gender or dysphourier protections that are offered in
Speaker 3: the File four brand, it isn't anything out there. It
Speaker 3: isn't anything worke. It's like having a flexible schedule for
Speaker 3: a medical appointments, having been able to access to medical devices,
Speaker 3: having seed in preference, if you want to sit, you
Speaker 3: know away first centred people being respecting change in names
Speaker 3: or pronouns, which I guess that's where they see the
Speaker 3: big issue. I don't know or like being able to
Speaker 3: go to the nurse restaurom instead of like the gender
Speaker 3: rest I'm just like, what is the big fucking deal
Speaker 3: about that. It's just like barely anything and they're completely
Speaker 3: put everything out because of these couple of things that
Speaker 3: are like.
Speaker 1: Oh, everything that you have said is the woket a
Speaker 1: woke of Wokan and woking on them.
Speaker 2: DEI in there too, Yeah.
Speaker 1: And CRT just to make you know, like you know,
Speaker 1: people like Matt Watches go absolutely insane. Cups Yeah, yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a mixture, people, It's a cake. We're gonna put
Speaker 1: two cups CRT, three cups DEI, and then a pinch
Speaker 1: of inclusion with a uh splammoring of wokeness and there
Speaker 1: goes your marginalized community cake. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean like I just look look at like all
Speaker 1: this particular stuff, and I'm just like, you just gonna
Speaker 1: fuck around and find out any person that is going
Speaker 1: to be, you know, with those who happen to be
Speaker 1: in power, and and let's let's let's keep it a buck.
Speaker 1: The people who are now deciding these particular policies are
Speaker 1: the oligarchs, the kleptocracy, and the robber bearns this. These
Speaker 1: are the people who are doing it right, and at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the only thing that they
Speaker 1: are concerned about is their own personal agenda, and their
Speaker 1: personal agenda is to make sure that their bottom line
Speaker 1: is actually maintained and continued under the administration that we
Speaker 1: are looking at right now. And if that means that
Speaker 1: a few people are going to be burned in the
Speaker 1: fray because of the policies that we are espousing, so
Speaker 1: fucking be it. I mean, like, I don't see I mean, like,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe my viewpoint when it comes to like
Speaker 1: things like this may be a bit on the data
Speaker 1: side of life. I will admit that, but according to
Speaker 1: like my own observation, I don't see any other way
Speaker 1: outside of that. And if that means that I need
Speaker 1: to work on myself, fine, I'll take that. You know,
Speaker 1: I'll call a therapists tomorrow and battle health and we
Speaker 1: can go ahead and go at it. But until then,
Speaker 1: unless like any other empirical data has been presented to
Speaker 1: me to actually say otherwise, I don't see it. So, Aaron,
Speaker 1: I'm coming to you. My question for you is how
Speaker 1: does targeting gender dysphoria in section five O four reflect
Speaker 1: broader legal and political trends regarding disability rights and lgbt
Speaker 1: LGBTQ protection.
Speaker 5: Well, now is the perfect time for anybody that's that
Speaker 5: wants to be dogmatic around the other stuff to bring
Speaker 5: your lawsuits because we have a corrupt Supreme Court. We
Speaker 5: have a Supreme Court that is no longer using law
Speaker 5: and case hate histories. I can't remember what that's called,
Speaker 5: actually called, but his story Decisives I think, is the
Speaker 5: name where the Supreme Court defers to previous decisions and
Speaker 5: doesn't tend to reverse itself. We have a court now
Speaker 5: that doesn't really care that they want to depend on
Speaker 5: traditions as the basis for laws instead of the actual
Speaker 5: laws and the actual previous decisions. So now is the
Speaker 5: perfect time to go after any one of your pet issues,
Speaker 5: especially gender and gender dysphoria. I have no doubt whatsoever
Speaker 5: that if this reaches its way to the Supreme Court
Speaker 5: that it will it will strike this down. Because what
Speaker 5: happens is the law. I think from what I researched,
Speaker 5: the law states that reasonable accommodations have to be made,
Speaker 5: and then it's the government, I camera which department, If
Speaker 5: it's the Department of Education or what. But one of
Speaker 5: the departments actually outlines what this means, right, so they
Speaker 5: published documents telling everybody, this is what this law means.
Speaker 5: It means that you can't discriminate it for and it
Speaker 5: just you know, itemizes it. It goes off for tens dozens,
Speaker 5: hundreds of pages. I couldn't get through it all, it
Speaker 5: was so long. And so what they're going after is
Speaker 5: this this explanation of what the law means, analogy to
Speaker 5: be interpreted. And if that gets struck down, and then
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court is already struck down the Chevron doctrine
Speaker 5: Chevron difference, where the where courts and judges were instructed
Speaker 5: to defer to experts in their fields when determining things,
Speaker 5: which which gave the government the ability to write regulations. Well,
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court said, sorry, if it's not passed by
Speaker 5: a legislature, it doesn't count. So I have no doubt
Speaker 5: that that if this gets overturned it makes it to
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is going to say, sorry,
Speaker 5: if it's not in law, you can't write it down.
Speaker 5: And so they're gonna have to get They're gonna be
Speaker 5: stuck with the literal words in Section five O four
Speaker 5: at best and at worst, they're just going to they're
Speaker 5: going to strike it down. And so this is the
Speaker 5: perfect time for getting these kinds of dogmatic religious issues
Speaker 5: struck down instead of by a corrupt Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: So gay them.
Speaker 1: I guess, well, it's kind of like what Justice Soda
Speaker 1: Mayra said, the lemon test is dead.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, yes it is. And what do they replace
Speaker 5: it with?
Speaker 2: Tradition?
Speaker 5: That literally, that's what I can't remember says in his
Speaker 5: decision that we need to use traditions to determine what's
Speaker 5: what's legal and what's not. Oh my gosh, well that's
Speaker 5: that was true. We'd still have a lot of horrible
Speaker 5: things going on in this country.
Speaker 1: But if you use traditions, then you're going to be
Speaker 1: regulated to the same way that Oh my god, Justice
Speaker 1: what is his name, Scalia? I think Scolia used his
Speaker 1: you know, moniker for tradition when he came up with
Speaker 1: his concurrence for overturning the dops kit. He used laws
Speaker 1: written in England in the freaking sixteen hundreds to cite tradition.
Speaker 1: I like, my dude, the United States wasn't even form yet.
Speaker 1: What are you doing right now.
Speaker 5: Yeah, people that aren't lawyers can see the corruptness of
Speaker 5: their decisions. If I can read the decision and look
Speaker 5: and see and know how corrupt it is. If a
Speaker 5: regular citysen can see that, it's it's just ridiculous, it's awful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm sorry, No, it wasn't. It was a
Speaker 1: Scali was corsage. That's that that that fucker. But you know, regardless, heyday,
Speaker 1: I want to come back to you. I'm asking this
Speaker 1: question basically saying, should state have the power to challenge
Speaker 1: federal civil rights protections or does this set a dangerous
Speaker 1: precedent for rolling back other anti discrimination laws.
Speaker 3: That's a tough question because I mean, I do think
Speaker 3: that states should have the ability to challenge these things, Okay,
Speaker 3: But at the same time, you have right now, like
Speaker 3: this lawsuit came from these states and to challenge the whole,
Speaker 3: the whole protection of fiber four plans. So, I mean,
Speaker 3: I guess the only thing that I see positive from
Speaker 3: the research that I was doing while looking for information
Speaker 3: this article was an update on this and I saw
Speaker 3: that last week it was announced that the lawsuit has
Speaker 3: been paused because the original lawsuit was against the previous
Speaker 3: Secretary of Health Time Human Services, who has now been
Speaker 3: replaced with Ara of k Junior. So because of that,
Speaker 3: they decided that they were gonna they were going to
Speaker 3: continue to wait and see what happens. And one of
Speaker 3: these states that was included in the lawsuit Iowa, their
Speaker 3: attorney general, Brenda Bird. She said she came out with
Speaker 3: a statement trying to reassure the public that despite the
Speaker 3: world on the lawsuit, the target was, you know, only
Speaker 3: the gender dysphoria rule and not the entire fible for
Speaker 3: as a whole, and that she wouldn't make sure that
Speaker 3: the Act didn't get dismantled in the process. She claims
Speaker 3: that Biden and Harris forced transgender ideologists into schools at
Speaker 3: the expense of kids with disabilities.
Speaker 1: But Ken, we all know that's a fucking lie. We
Speaker 1: are as a fucking but continue.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but like, can we really trust that that what
Speaker 3: she's saying, Like, is she gonna be able to protect
Speaker 3: that because the loss of is already out there and
Speaker 3: the warding is already out there. So if they get
Speaker 3: a judge that decides that the warding, you know, is correct,
Speaker 3: and that they want to throw away them, like you
Speaker 3: said throw the baby with the bad water, then that
Speaker 3: they will do that. It's not up to her now,
Speaker 3: So like it's is frustrating.
Speaker 1: As an aside, I'm sorry, I just got to say this, guys,
Speaker 1: because like this is really something that really grinds my
Speaker 1: gears that you know. I listened to a bunch of
Speaker 1: different political pundits talk about why did the Democrats lose
Speaker 1: in twenty four and a lot of them were citing
Speaker 1: that Democrats overly talked about transgender issue, They overly you know,
Speaker 1: show their support to transgender people, transgender rights, transgender sensibilities,
Speaker 1: you know, and to the point where, you know, some
Speaker 1: even went to the you know, to the stream to
Speaker 1: say that everybody needs to go ahead and put in
Speaker 1: their emails a signature line with their own pronoun and
Speaker 1: that is such a fucking lie. I know that one
Speaker 1: of the things that Kamala Harris did is not mentioned
Speaker 1: her race, not mention her gender, and not mention where
Speaker 1: she actually falls on the gender spectrum as far as
Speaker 1: like her support.
Speaker 2: Never did it, not.
Speaker 1: One time, And even if you happened to look at
Speaker 1: some of the other campaigns that were running at the
Speaker 1: time with Democrats, a lot of them tried to escape
Speaker 1: that issue as well, and even you know, run to
Speaker 1: the point where they were trying to say that sports
Speaker 1: should be separate and that you know, any biological man
Speaker 1: should not be participating in women's sports. You know, you
Speaker 1: actually had people who were running for federal positions that
Speaker 1: called themselves democrat that actually said that. So this whole
Speaker 1: lit that the right is espousing that. You know, you
Speaker 1: know that the left is like, you know, completely did
Speaker 1: you know, debase themselves and has rolled themselves up into
Speaker 1: this ideology when it comes to gender. It's absolutely false,
Speaker 1: and I wish it really stopped doing that. But you know,
Speaker 1: we live in an area where misinformation leads to narrative,
Speaker 1: and I think there's an old adage that says that
Speaker 1: a lie travels the world ten times before the truth
Speaker 1: can get up and put its pants on. Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 2: One one thing I wanted to say is that I
Speaker 2: agree that I don't think that the left lost because
Speaker 2: of their position on gender, but I do think that
Speaker 2: the right was very successful in putting gender very much
Speaker 2: in the forefront of people's minds. And you would think
Speaker 2: that we were about to be invaded by transgender aliens
Speaker 2: from outer space coming through Mexico the way they acted.
Speaker 2: But the reality is is that it's such a negligible
Speaker 2: amount they created. They fabricated an issue, just like they've
Speaker 2: done time and time again. They've used the LGBTQ people
Speaker 2: in the past, they use the Southern strategy, they use
Speaker 2: African Americans with it. This isn't anything new. This is
Speaker 2: the thing, but this won't last forever. And as far
Speaker 2: as litigating why one side one and why one side loss,
Speaker 2: it's important to understand those things. But I have to
Speaker 2: say that in the future, I just don't think that
Speaker 2: there are the legs under making this minute proportion who
Speaker 2: need to be considered, not othered, but this minute proportion
Speaker 2: of people that they're taking and trying to make it
Speaker 2: act like everything in the world that happens falls on
Speaker 2: the transgender as some of them would use the term.
Speaker 2: Because I feel like I'm listening in animal farm to
Speaker 2: blame the snowball for everything that happened bad in the
Speaker 2: entire farm because it's snowball. It's snowball. That's absolutely as
Speaker 2: absurd as they are with this issue, and I'm really
Speaker 2: hoping it where its thin. I'm not exactly sure how
Speaker 2: But the first thing I say is is that I
Speaker 2: don't want to fight them on their territory. I'm not
Speaker 2: going to argue with them about that, because the issues
Speaker 2: that really face the US is not just that issue.
Speaker 2: It's that and others, And it starts with the way
Speaker 2: we treat people. And if we learn to treat people
Speaker 2: with respect, then whether you're trans, whether you're head noormative,
Speaker 2: whether you're white, whether you're African American, whether you're Latino,
Speaker 2: whatever you are, is not relevant. If we can get
Speaker 2: people to understand that there's a level of human decency
Speaker 2: that we need to return to and push back against
Speaker 2: this other ring and making an insign statistically insignificant portion
Speaker 2: of the population the boogeyman that everything is their fault.
Speaker 2: That's what we had to push back against.
Speaker 3: Their platform always run on picking on minorities, starting with
Speaker 3: people of color way back when. Okay, that was like
Speaker 3: always always speaking on minorities, And currently I guess their
Speaker 3: obsession is with genitals at this point.
Speaker 5: So yeah, guess what it works in the world and
Speaker 5: look at history. Yeah, and it works and until people
Speaker 5: until the electric decide that not for it not to
Speaker 5: work anymore, it's going to continue to work.
Speaker 1: You know, guys, I had a whole, like written down,
Speaker 1: noted assistant commentary to say at the end of the segment,
Speaker 1: but I can't do it now because all of you
Speaker 1: have got me thinking about one of my very favorite
Speaker 1: movies in the entire world, School Day. I love that
Speaker 1: damn movie. The music, the dance scene, that acting, all
Speaker 1: of it was absolutely spectacular. But I think that one
Speaker 1: of the things it was actually like written and directed
Speaker 1: by Spike Lee and produced by him and forty acres
Speaker 1: in the meal, and one of the things that he
Speaker 1: was trying to, you know, use even though he used
Speaker 1: like the elements of the musical and the dance scene
Speaker 1: and the part and the performance and the end the
Speaker 1: presentation two in order for him to be able to
Speaker 1: present this art form, it was also an underlining message
Speaker 1: that was not necessarily so subverb but very overt about
Speaker 1: waking up. And at the very end of the movie,
Speaker 1: the protagonist named Dak ran out of a dormitory in
Speaker 1: the middle of the quad and screamed, way God. He
Speaker 1: ran to his compatriots and went to their bed, their
Speaker 1: their specific beds, wake up, wake up, wake up, you know,
Speaker 1: shaking them to the point that they had to like,
Speaker 1: you know, get the slumber off of their eyes in
Speaker 1: order for them to rise, to get him to get
Speaker 1: off the hell but get the hell off of him, right,
Speaker 1: And then you have another shot of you know, I
Speaker 1: would say, like the Spike Lee special where you have
Speaker 1: your antagonists and then all of a sudden, like the
Speaker 1: background is moving, but the protagonist is still as they're
Speaker 1: screaming whatever the hell of they're screaming. In this particular case,
Speaker 1: it's wake up. And also at the very end of
Speaker 1: the movie, after he has screamed, wake up to his compatriots, scream,
Speaker 1: wake up to the quad, scream, wake up to the
Speaker 1: person that he woke up next to, scream, wake up
Speaker 1: to his roommate. He rang a bell. He rang a
Speaker 1: bell that looked very muscle, like the Liberty bell that's
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. That's crack. And all of a sudden, you
Speaker 1: had the administration, students, staff athletes, the whole nine spill
Speaker 1: out from their various dormitories into the crowd and formed
Speaker 1: a crowd. Rather next thing, you know, you had the
Speaker 1: antagonists meet Dap in the middle of the quad and
Speaker 1: looked at him without saying anything, and then both of
Speaker 1: them happened to turn their faces into the camera and said,
Speaker 1: please wake up. And that is the only thing that
Speaker 1: I can tell our fellow electorate when it comes to
Speaker 1: any of these particular narratives that we are experiencing now,
Speaker 1: I totally totally need you, voter, need you, citizen, need you,
Speaker 1: mom and pop, need you who have a dog in
Speaker 1: this fight, to wake up.