Serving People Not Parties | Joe D’Orsie on Term Limits, Civility, Protecting Kids | TDES - The Dillon England Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
People assume risk every day.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
If I told my wife, Hey, I think I'm going
to want to get into politics, my wife would be like, uh,
could we maybe not make that decision.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
But I have my convictions, I have my disagreements. I
speak up a lot.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Do you want to go federal like national?

Speaker 1 (00:15):
I don't have aspirations to any higher office. I'm thirty
five minutes from the Capitol, so I get to come
home every night when we're in session and see my
kids and wife. Washington is a different beast. I introduced
a resolution last term for congressional term limits that didn't
go anywhere. I think term limits is the best answer,
but it's very hard to campaign.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
I can tell you care for the people you represent,
you know, I can tell you really want to do
good by them.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
I want America to be great. America should be first
place in the world. With several other dads in the
state House, we've introduced the Dads Defending Daughters Act Reserving
girls' sports.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
This should be such common sense, like what are these
people saying when you're talking to them.

Speaker 1 (00:55):
Many Democrats in secret support the bill. The problem is
the politics that go behind and.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
That vote, and none of them have the backbone to
just vote apparently not.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
Yeah, having the dialogue, I mean, we can all set
set a good example, especially in light of all the
vitriol and division, if we can set an example of
just you know, there's going to be disagreements, that's that's natural,
but of just civil discourse. I mean, when emotions are high,

(01:28):
I'm of the opinion you don't. You don't really see clearly.
So yes, not saying I'm totally unemotional, but when I
when I make decisions, when I vote, when I speak
on bills in the House, it's it's fact and evidence based.
It's never emotion.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
So walk me through that. Would you mind? What is
your title? What is your role in the government? That
we get to start there so people kind of know
who you are, maybe like a quick bio, and then
we're gonna jump into the into the pot.

Speaker 1 (01:56):
Yeah. Sure. So I represent the forty seven Legislative district
in Eastern York County, so that's about sixty five thousand people.
I'm one of two hundred and three representatives in the
state House. I'm nearing forty years old. I am in
my second term, so I've only been at this for

(02:16):
a little less than three years. My wife and I, Adrian,
celebrated our twelfth anniversary on the twenty ninth of September.
And I have two kids, eleven year old Jude, seven
year old Evy. And yeah, I've always loved our system
of government. That's one of the reasons, you know, I

(02:37):
ran in the first place. I think it's the best.
The Constitutional Republic is the best system around. I think
it served America very well. And I think we're you know,
we're a really unique state, unique country. And I'm proud
to serve the people of the forty seventh.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
M SO State representative Pennsylvania. Why politics, What got you here?

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, so, when I came in, the timing was very important.
This was on the heels of COVID, and there's opinions
abound about how serious COVID was, you know, the whole
vaccine debate. But one thing I felt extremely strong about

(03:26):
was we saw this wielding of unilateral power from our
executive branches. And in Pennsylvania it was acute. Governor Wolfe
was deciding which businesses were essential. Never told churches in
Pennsylvania that they couldn't meet, but there was that idea
that they couldn't our church met, but the livelihood of

(03:51):
businesses are at stake. And yeah, COVID was, you know,
a spectrum of opinions, but people's people assume risk every day.
And it was preposterous to me that the government was
telling us how we could meet, where we could meet,

(04:13):
in what numbers. And it took a toll. It took
a toll on businesses in Pennsylvania, It took a toll
on frankly, people's mental health, students' success. And I saw
that as a communications director at Praise Community Church in York,
and I thought to myself, this needs to change. And

(04:37):
you know, my predecessor I just didn't see much action
from him. So I ended up challenging him in a
primary and one.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
Wow, what was your the reaction to your wife when
you said, because okay, likely let's play in the picture
from my perspective for the listener. So twenty twenty very
controversial year. Tensions high right, first live vaccines for snow,
vaccine mass for no masks, and then as political discourse, political,
I mean, obviously like it's getting more and more divisive.

(05:08):
If I told my wife, Hey, I think I'm gonna
want to get into politics, my wife would be like, Uh,
could we maybe not make that decision. What was the
reaction when you told your wife, Hey, I'm thinking about
running for state representative.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
So Adrian's pretty a political. So now she you know,
she always votes and she knows where she stands, but
she's pretty a political. So the we don't really have
dinner table conversations about about politics. Maybe goings on of
the day if it was a wild day in Harrisburg.
But the thing that made a difference with Adrian was

(05:46):
on top of being interested, on top of being up
on current events and wanting to make a difference, especially
post COVID, I truly felt like I was called by
God and that was confirmed through people I trust. You know.
I didn't take that lightly. I actually when I first
started to hear that in prayer, I really fought it

(06:07):
for quite a while because I liked where I was working,
and you know, you you went over it. I mean,
there's many things undesirable about politics, but that was the
selling point for Adrian because you know, if if you
flip the script and she was telling me she was
called to this or that, I'm not going to argue
with what God's telling you. So I think it's the

(06:29):
the position of the of the husband or wife to
get behind their spouse if if that's the case, So
it wasn't really hard. I mean, there's there's time management
things that we've had to work through. There's certain it.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
Is a full time gig. Full time.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
Is this full time legislature? So maybe it shouldn't be,
But good luck changing that because two hundred and three
members in the House would be voting to cut their salaries,
up their salaries.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Could you walk me through a data So, I mean
I told you our show is very much of like
I love a learning and a lot of our listeners
love learning new careers, new jobs. And I know I
want to get specifically soon to what you're wanting to change.
We had talked about that. I don't want to get
there specific bills you're working on, specific issues you see
in our culture, in our lives. I want to get

(07:25):
there before do that. Like what is a day in
the life of representative of a stake.

Speaker 1 (07:32):
Yeah, so we're in session probably six or six, seven,
eight days a month. So although we're a full time legislature.
You know, I spend the lion's share of my time
in my district office in Harrisburg. When we're in session,
I mean I'm on four committees, Communications, Communications and Technology, Education,

(07:54):
Labor and Industry, and Commerce. Those are pretty active committees,
so there will often be committee meetings before session starts,
and there's preparation work that go into those committee meetings.
There's bills and resolutions that we're voting on, and some members,

(08:15):
you know, just just vote and don't wish to speak
on matters very often. But I'm not like that. I
like to represent my constituents and voice voice concerns and
objections or support, and I do my best work from
six am to eight am, so I'm up at the
capitol very early. I'm preparing my remarks for committee or

(08:37):
floor debate. So those are long days in the district.
It's filled with meeting with businesses, individuals. Our office exists
to serve our sixty five thousand constituents that might look
like an issue with pen dot or you know, the

(08:58):
Department of Revenue or some other department. So we're pretty
busy helping constituents in that way. And then we have
a pretty robust outreach at our district. I like to
make myself available through many town halls that we call
Java with Joe. We also have Veterans events, Concealed carry events.

(09:21):
We just want to be out there available, educating the
public on what we can do for them. And I
love the people of the forty seventh. I really like
interacting with them, taking their questions, and I love representing them.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
How do those town hall meetings go, because I've seen
some wild town hall videos. Are you guys as pretty
fair and controlled or does it get a little rambuctious?

Speaker 1 (09:46):
Sometimes it often doesn't get rambunctious. Actually, I've known the
people of the forty seventh even if they disagree, to
be really respectful. But what we've done lately is we've
had themed meetings. So the next one we have coming
up is on AI and data centers. So there's a

(10:07):
lot of questions around AIM. I'm bringing in a representative
from Columbia County who's on the state's AI task Force,
So I try to bring in people who know more
than me about the subject. And then the topic of
data centers Pennsylvania is really in an interesting spot. We

(10:27):
had that summit in Pittsburgh a couple of months ago
where Senator McCormick and President Trump announced this giant private
investment in the state in lieu of AI, So that's
starting to translate into some of my townships and municipalities.
There's these proposals for data centers and it's I've heard
both sides from my constituents. You know, the positives are

(10:50):
you know, it's it's tax revenue, of course, but there's
also concerns about you know, developing farmland which isn't good
and then energy use. So you know, we've been told
for a long time that the grid isn't really sustainable,
and it's it's a right concern to have to ask

(11:12):
questions at least about they those gp us eat up
a ton of energy. So I'm excited to have have
that town hall and hear what people have to say.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
Are you leaning towards a certain way right now in
your head or you don't want to you want to
wait until you have the town hall discussion before.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
Yeah, no, I mean I I don't have a strong
position either way. And the reason I don't is because
it's a local decision. So if East Manchester Township wants
to rezone that they're elected officials and they have a
greater pulse of that that locale really as they should.
So I see the benefits, I see the risks. My

(11:58):
ask of these data centers proposals is that they create
their own energy, and that's what we're seeing a lot.
So I don't want, you know, my communities to be
losing out because of you know this, this data center
sucking up energy. But that's a that's a township or
municipality decision. So I I feel like I shouldn't have

(12:19):
a have a stake.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
Dude, what a great answer. I mean, I think, I
just think so this is this is actually a perfectly
time podcast for me. I have a client who is
very liberal, hates Trump, you know, just one of this this,
But we have great conversations and I respect him a lot.
I disagree vehemently with him, but we have great conversations.

(12:43):
And he was just telling me about a representative in
Michigan as a Republican who doesn't live in the district,
never checks into the district, never's at the district office.
And I don't know, again, two sides to every story.
Don't know if this is true not true. But I
just love your pulse. I can tell you care for
the people you represent, you know, I I can tell
you really want to do good by them, which leads

(13:04):
me to this question. And then I want to go
into the bills and some of the things that you've
been working on. So from a layman looking into House
representatives and senators and all this kind of stuff you
see all the time where people will just do whatever
it takes to keep the votes. You see all the
time they're gonna go back and forth and really almost
have no backbone, not really even represent just do whatever

(13:27):
they'll say whatever they need to say to keep their job.
How have you found that to be challenging for you specifically?
Have you seen that happen where people will just flip
flop on issues based on whatever gets them their seat again? How?
And then like, how do you as a representative balance

(13:48):
port like personal morals with like representing a group of
people that might not have the same moral standard that
you might have, If that makes any sense.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Well, I the way our system works, I'm a proxy
for the sixty five thousand people I represent. So there
are issues moral issues, issues where I have convictions where
I am where I am, and the people who voted
me in know that there's some other issues that I
don't really have a strong position, and it's actually much

(14:18):
more valuable that I get a pulse of the district.
I'll give you an example. Open primaries has been something
I've heard about. I remember having a teletown hall on
open primaries, hoping, you know, that it would be eighty
twenty four or against, so that I could get a
clearer picture of where my people stood, and it was
like fifty to fifty, and I was like, come on, guys,

(14:40):
I was actually hoping that you could move the needle.
So it's one of those things, kind of like data centers,
where I see both sides and I can make a
good argument either way, but I am their proxy. As
far as reelection being a out of it happens every

(15:01):
day up in Harrisburg. It's very frustrating. I told people
from when I was campaigning and at first until today,
I'm not there to get re elected. If my voting
record and what I have to say and what I
do is distasteful to the people of the forty seventh,
they can vote me out. I'll work in the private sector.

(15:24):
I'm not tied to this job. There's few few people
in the capital that have that position. Most of the votes,
the more controversial ones are are fueled by what will
get me reelected, what will get me back in this
seat next term. And that's a reality of Harrisburg. But

(15:45):
it's really difficult to watch.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
I mean, I think it's nationwide. You know, you can
see it. How do we fix that? I mean, how
is there a fix to this? Like in some ways
is this model broken, you know? Or or is there
how do we get people two? I mean, do we
just need more good people running? I mean, is it
as simple as that?

Speaker 1 (16:08):
That's part of it. I think term limits would help.
The negative of term limits is is if you have
a really principled, strong person, they you know, you limit,
you limit them.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
I actually like Nancy Pelosi. I'm kidding.

Speaker 1 (16:26):
Josh Hawley is a guy that I really like in
the Senate from Missouri. But yeah, it's uh. I introduced
a resolution last term for congressional term limits that that
didn't go anywhere. But I think term limits is the
best answer. But but yeah, of course, if there's a

(16:48):
lot of people out there that that won't run for
office because of the everything that goes with it, it's
very hard to campaign. There's a lot of hoops to
jump through with the Department of State. A lot of time,
I'm a lot of energy and a lot of times
it's a thankless job. So we're definitely in need of
principled people to step into the field. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (17:11):
I just looked up. I mean, I'm like a Josh
Holly and I look out. Yeah, that dude is a
stud Josh Hollywood. He does like the Senate hearings, and
there's someone that he's you know, I don't know, grilling
for lack of a better term. He comes so prepared. Yep,
he does such a great, great job. I don't know him.
Would love to know him. We'd love to get him on,
we'd love to say hi. But like, he's one of
those people that you watch and I'm like, man, it

(17:32):
like he seems like one of those that he has
his morals, he believes what he believes, and he doesn't
back down from him and that's awesome.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Yeah, he's a guy that I would love to see
run for I mean, he's in the US Senate, maybe
run for president someday. He is, he's sharp, he's thoughtful.

Speaker 2 (17:50):
Maybe a Van's Holly ticket or something.

Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah, sounds good.

Speaker 2 (17:54):
Yeah, I don't have a problem with that, do you
want to go federal like national, you know. I mean,
I'm was saying, did you is that your do you
want to get there? Personally? I like, I don't US
House of Representatives or I don't.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
Have aspirations to any higher office at all. Not saying
it wouldn't happen, but uh.

Speaker 2 (18:15):
You better be careful. Those are sometimes that's how God
sometimes uses those people. That's what I'm going that direction. Yeah,
what why Why is that not aspiration for you?

Speaker 1 (18:25):
Well, so just logistically, I'm thirty five minutes from the Capitol,
so I get to come home every night when we're
in session and see my kids and wife. Washington is
a different beast. I have good relationships with my congressmen
that overlap with my district Smucker and Perry, and they're

(18:46):
they're down there all the time. Not to mention the traffic,
but uh, it's it's it's what I do times ten.
You know, more more hate mail? Uh more more can constituency? Uh?

Speaker 2 (19:01):
And uh what constituency you mean for that?

Speaker 1 (19:05):
Just the amount of people you represent. So they they
represent about three quarters of a million people in the
US House, so you have a bigger staff, of course,
but it's it's a different, bigger swamp in Washington than
it is in Harrisburg.

Speaker 2 (19:23):
How has the hate been on the local level. Has
that been something more than you expected or lesson you expected?

Speaker 1 (19:31):
So everybody gets it, Republican Democrat, it's been less than
I expected. There's certain certain groups and stakeholders that you
hear more stuff from and and it's it's, uh, there's disagreement.
Of course, there's blame, but sometimes there's a viciousness that

(19:51):
is kind of surprising.

Speaker 2 (19:53):
Mhm. Is it normally from the same type of group
of people that it comes from? It is, okay, cool,
I can I can guess to me, you know kind
of what we're talking about here. That's great. Yeah, I
mean even on my side, dude, Like I'm a conservative,
I'm a Christian, and I've had conservatives on. I'm gonna

(20:14):
have liberals on. But the hate that I get, I mean,
like I've lost business opportunities here in Detroit because be like, oh,
you have a podcast, I'm gonna check out your podcast,
and they're like, oh, you've had this person on or
you you said, I mean it is it is even
on a very small podcast local level, like it's very
visceral it's very it's very real.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (20:32):
I mean you can even just scroll through some of
my comments and you're like, whoa, that's wild, And I'm like,
I'm not even like edgy. I'm like, I feel like
I'm one of the the moderates.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
You know.

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Yeah, and even then people still figure out a way
to like have a big beef with you.

Speaker 1 (20:46):
Yeah. I mean, I I really temper my language. Like
there was actually an event on the house floor the
other day, but like a conflict, and I remember thinking
to myself, Man, these these people really lack self control.
When your emotions are so you know, spiraling that you would,

(21:08):
you know, judge someone else or or you know, make
a comment, a derogatory comment about something else. That's very
easy for me to avoid. I mean, I have my convictions,
I have my disagreements. I speak up a lot, but
you know, my constituents don't want me to pick fights
and and you know, use use language that they wouldn't

(21:31):
be proud of.

Speaker 2 (21:32):
Yeah, I mean even and not to like even when
the what's US capital was that, or the US representatives
they tried to had a moment of silence for Charlie Kirk,
and the left just sort of booing and saying no,
I'm like that to me, just like that's I told
my buddy, I'm like, listen, bro, Like, I just don't
know how you watch that and think to yourself, I'm

(21:55):
voting for the right side, like I to say, and
I know the right is I'm perfect. Republics aren't perfect.
There's a bunch of bad Republicans. But like I watched
that and I'm like, how how do you support that?

Speaker 1 (22:06):
Like that?

Speaker 2 (22:06):
Just that's it's it's sickening.

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Yeah, that's intolerable stuff. I mean, I have to think
if the you know, if the fortunes or the events
were reversed, I would never dream And I can't think
of another member in the House on the Republican side
that would dream of shouting you know whoever, if whoever
was assassinated on the Democrat side, that would I would

(22:31):
issue of silence without pause.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
So yeah, it just yeah, and do you have that
type of like so national right now, there's a lot
of rough stuff with with Charlie Kirk being assassinated, and
I mean, has that drifted down to tensions rising all
the way to the local and state level.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
So we had a Charlie Kirk vigil here in my
district in Springettsbury Township. It was very peaceful. I was
at a you know, a service for some police officers. Actually,
we had three police officers officers in York County that
were killed serving a warrant. I knew one of the guys.
Really tough last couple of weeks for York County. There's

(23:16):
you know, people in Unison in York County support our
police and what they do and the risks they take
with the Charlie Kirk thing. I mean, save a few
Facebook comments which don't really mean that much to me.
I mean, no, social media isn't real life, so people

(23:40):
ninety percent of those people that make derogatory comments wouldn't
say that say those things if they were face to
face with me. So in a lot of ways, I
consider it kind of fake. But no, I mean, York
County is a great place. It's you know, people have
their beliefs about Charlie Kirk. We've not seen not much

(24:01):
of that around here. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
I like to think social media is just a window
into people's soul and they don't even really understand that
they're letting you in. But like every comment and reaction
is just a window who they are, and I think
a lot of people with the Charlie Kirk thing particularly
expose who they are. They've exposed that either their hate
for some political values has so clouded their mind that

(24:27):
they're willing to say awful things make fun of that.
You're right, they would never say in person. But I
actually I made a post about it, and I basically said, like,
I would encourage everyone to stop typing, because you are
just getting yourself into trouble. But then someone else commented
and they said, actually, this is great because we get
to know who the good and bad people are right

(24:48):
now and they're just outing themselves as you would never know.
But like, because of social media, like I have so
many people in Michigan that I've seen things. I'm like,
really like you were, I thought you're awesome, and then
you say things like I'm glad he's dead like that.
It just again, I think it just shows you what
sin does does you, what hate does? It shows you.

(25:08):
You mentioned at the very beginning of the podcast emotions
cloud judgment, and I think that's what you're seeing across
the nation right now, and social media does not help.

Speaker 1 (25:15):
Yeah, it's very difficult too for me to not judge
when you see these horrible comments, not to judge those people,
because that to me is intolerable. I mean, you're celebrating
a person's death. And by the way, I believe this
and Nick freydis said it, he was assassinated because he

(25:36):
was effective. Left has enjoyed, you know, a huge percentage
of the voters and the ideologies of college kids for
decades and Charlie. I can't think of anyone more responsible
for the shift that we're seeing, especially with Generation Z
men than Charlie Kirk. And that was a threat to

(26:00):
that establishment. So you know, we're still learning about how
this happened and if there were any accomplices, So I'm
not speaking to that, but I think generally speaking, he's
gone because he was effective.

Speaker 2 (26:14):
On the impact of the of shaping the next generation
cannot be understanding. Like I told my wife when I happened,
I said, this is the Charlie Kirk assassination is more
impactful on a nation than if Trump would have been
assassinated back in Pennsylvania when he was campaigning. And I'm
not saying it would have like obviously if that when

(26:34):
when Trump got that nicked his ear and that shooting happened, right,
that would have been that was very shocking, even the
fact that someone took a chance. But the Charlie Kirk one,
I think was so he was thirty one, he was
a family man, he just wanted Oh, he wasn't even
a political figure. He didn't hold political office. And that's
the difference, I think, because political figures and people that hope,
like presidents like, okay, it's kind of part of the

(26:56):
dangers of the job, right, like you know, okay, if
that happens, you know, or Obama or you know, any
whoever Trump gets assassinated, it's like, okay, like it's awful.
But look at Lincoln, look at JFK like it has happened.
But this is just assassinated like a president. But he
wasn't a president. He was just a dude that had

(27:16):
an organization that wanted people to freethink and free debate.
And I think that's why it hits so hard. And
I'm the same age as Charlie. I have two kids,
and it just I mean, erect so many people and
then to see the people like you were saying, like
make fun of that. It's just I just don't get it,
like it's just one of these I just don't understand.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
Yeah, it's a it's a corruptness of heart really, which
is the most shocking part of it. And you know,
there's a lot of issues like that that really can't
be legislated. I was speaking at an event the other day,
and it seemed like the questions were angled towards, you know,
us legislators solving all of these moral spiritual society problems

(28:00):
and I and I actually gave the example. I asked
everyone in the room if they were familiar with the
Rochester Revival, which was Charles Finney's. He had sparked a
revival just through the preaching of the gospel and you know,
signs and wonders actually and the moral atmosphere of Rochester changed,

(28:26):
so you know, and that includes intact families and and
you know, the sort of things that spell a healthy society.
But but it was a spiritual renewal that occurred in Rochester,
New York, and that that can save us a litany
of of bills that try to take the place of

(28:48):
of of a moral compass, does not.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
Yeah, I agree, And and even the amount of people
that are you know, the right has gotten emotional as
a risk response to these evil things, saying like you said,
we should have legislations shutting down hate speech. Like no, guys, well,
well pause, that's what we've been fighting against this whole time.
Now there might be Matt Walsh actually I think I

(29:12):
think Nick actually did a very similar post of this too.
Nick Freed is about like, there there should be social
consequences for speech, just not government consequences.

Speaker 1 (29:23):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
So like you can say awful, mean and nasty things
and lose your job, there's still free speech happening. You
just had a social consequence because you're a terrible person.
But there shouldn't be necessarily legislative you can't say this that.
That's where we have to stop. Absolutely, that's where we
have to be. And I was very careful. I was

(29:46):
surprised with some people in the Republican Party were going
down that road. And that's a horrible precedent to set,
you know. But it's emotions, though, it is, it's emotions.
That's that's again the thing. You know, we preach so
long free speech like stuff, and then all of a
sudden and it's again he's our guy, and intentions are

(30:06):
so high that we're like, no, hate speech has to stop, legislators,
and emotions get so wild up that we're like, okay, pause,
like wait, we're doing what they're doing, like we have
to stop. Yeah, And I've seen even people like on X,
like people that were like free speech absolutist. We're tweeting
things like we need legislation to keep this stuff from
like whoa, Like where's this coming from? But again, it's emotions.

Speaker 1 (30:30):
That's that's the most important of our constitutional rights and
save a. I think the case law is established that
a specific threat. You know, you're kind of vacating constitutionally
protected speech when you're making a specific threat. But other
than that, I mean, hate are not hate speech. It's

(30:54):
inherently is not violent. It's right not saying people don't
say twisted things, perverted things, and it's horrible, but what
a horrible precedent to say. I mean, UK has has
crossed this boundary. They're imprisoning people for posting, for posting
or sharing. I mean that is.

Speaker 2 (31:16):
Wild, right, right, I mean yeah, UK should terrify US
citizens terrify And if there's a if there's like what
socialism and woke ideology does to a country. Look at
the UK and it should terrify you. Like, this is

(31:36):
why free speech is so important, even speech we hate,
even speech that like I think it's vile and wrong.
Like when you're making fun of Erica Kirk because you
don't think she's grieving in a way you think she
should be grieving. Yeah, Like, I mean it's beyond but
I'm like, hey, you're free to say it, there's might
be social consequences for it. There's this famous TikToker I
don't remember her name. She did this like thoughts in
Prayers video for Charlie Kirk and it was like this

(31:57):
very like like literally right when she got shot, and
it was a fake thing, and basically people found out
that her boyfriend has a company and it just got
rained on like with one star reviews. It's pretty much
out of business now and people are like, oh, these
Republicans have no regard for free speech. It's like no, no,
free speech doesn't mean free without consequences. Right now, we're

(32:20):
not asking the government to shut you down. But as
a result, like because she was so insensitive to a moment,
she pretty much just started her boyfriend's business and personally,
I think that's fair game.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
Yeah, there is a line there. I mean, there's there's
been a handful of people across the state of Pennsylvania,
various vocations, nurses, you know, people in the education space
who who resigned or lost their jobs. And that's not
a breach of free speech, that's a conduct violation. You know,
those policies are worked out and that's they in that case,

(32:54):
they've reaped what they what they sewed. But government intervention
and punishment for saying something even that we regard as vile.
I'll be the first to stand in opposition to that,
especially if it's on the other side. Yeah, people have
a write to free speech unconditional right now.

Speaker 2 (33:17):
There are some things, though, that we can legislate that
are potentially moral issues. And this one that you're really
passionate about right now, and it's or men being in
women's sports. That's been something right now that's been a
hot debate, which the fact that it's even a debate
shows you where we're at. But like, that's something you're
very passionate about. You're putting bills trying to try to
protect you know, women, young girls from terrible situations. I'd

(33:42):
love to say you to talk about what you're doing
that in that movement.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Yeah. So I've with with several other dads in the
in the State House, we've introduced the Dad's Defending Daughters Act,
which is House Bill eighteen forty nine, basically reserving girls'
sports too, you know, biological girls, and reserving you know,
boys' sports to biological boys. It's very common sense. In fact,

(34:11):
there was a New York Times IPSOS poll that showed
seventy nine percent support for this very ideal. I was
a Division one athlete. I have a seven year old daughter.
It's also personal to me. Now, the history of this initiative, Dylan,

(34:32):
is we have a couple of bills that would achieve
this end in the House and the Senate. I sit
on the House Education Committee. There's actually a mechanism called
a discharge resolution. So Senate Bill nine, which was the
Saved Women's Sports Act, passed bipartisan support in the Senate,
came over to the House, it sat and in the

(34:53):
House Education Committee. Actually the chairman of the majority chairman
said he would not consider it. So within our House rules,
if fifteen session days ticks by and the bill has
yet to be considered, we can collect twenty five signatures
either party in this discharge resolution, which in effect brings

(35:17):
it fast forwards it to the House for full consideration.
What the Democrats did was they have twenty four hours
to react to that resolution, and before that time had expired,
they re referred the bill out of education to the
Health Committee, which is not an applicable committee for an
interscholastic bill, and the shot clock essentially started over. So

(35:44):
that was a procedural trick. In my opinion, it was cowardly. Look,
if you, in principle disagree with that, put up the vote,
show your constituents that you'll either stand behind their daughters
and granddaughters and nieces or if you have an ideologically
she with that, fine and vote against it. But instead
of putting up a vote, they're they're pulling these parlor tricks.

(36:08):
And it's currently in the Health Committee, but with the
Dad's Defending Daughters Act that was interestingly referred to Education.
So we're counting down the days and we plan on
a discharge resolution and we'll do anything we can to
bring it up for consideration.

Speaker 2 (36:26):
So have you been able to have like one on
one conversations with the Democrats that are voting against this
or like trying not to let it hit, Like what
are they saying? Like why aren't they like this should
be such common sense that we do not want men
changing in front of our daughters. We don't want our
daughters forced to be in a locker room with a dude,
Like it should be very common Like it's not hard.

(36:46):
I don't want my daughter hurt with a dude spiking
a volleyball three times faster than the average girl, right,
Like what are these people saying when you're talking to
them and why they want to prove this?

Speaker 1 (36:58):
So many Democrats in secret support the bill, support the initiative.
The problem is the politics that go behind that vote
and the the lobby or the activists that are you know,
entrenched in the National Democrat Party that for whatever reason
oppose it and want to want to keep this charade continuing.

(37:23):
That's very frustrating. I know several of the Democrats in
the House Education Committee who have daughters who were athletes.
It was very difficult for me for them in unison
to vote to rerefer that.

Speaker 2 (37:36):
Bill, and and none of them have the backbone to just.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
Vote apparently not you know, I I put tried to
put myself in their shoes. If our, if our leadership
in the House wouldn't be on this issue obviously, but
another issue. If I had such a strong conviction and
they said, hey, I'm just I need you to vote

(38:02):
to rerefer this, I would say absolutely not, And I don't.
I don't care the cost, I don't care the repercussions.
It's I'm not here. You know, my boss isn't the
House Republican leadership. It's it's the six It's the beef
dozen people who sent me here. So that's not how
I operate. I think you see more of that group,
think you know stuff from that side of the aisle.

Speaker 2 (38:27):
How do you deal with the again back to the
word emotions. But like for me, I'd get so frustrated.
I don't think i'd be in politics because I would
just I mean, I like to think that I could.
I would be able to control myself. But like, especially
if I had relationships with his people, like how do
like I would just be calling them being like, bro,
what are you doing? I mean does that happen? And
like are you do you have that type of relationship

(38:47):
where you can just just confront people when it comes
to bills like this.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
Yeah, I with with that particular bill. I mean, you're right.
I was so frustrated. But and I've had a couple
of conversations with some of the members that frankly, it
didn't go anywhere. To give you some a positive here,
I'll tell you a story about about a bill. But

(39:16):
I passed this session House Bill three fifty five, which
increases the penalty or prison time for people in positions
of authority who prey on minors. Corruption of minor sounds great.
I had the bill last session, inspired by a constituent
meeting that I took, and we did a lot of work.

(39:40):
I put it out there, never considered in committee, presumably
because I have an R behind my name. At the
start of this session, I thought to myself, you know,
I want this bill to pass, and I don't care
whose name is on it. And if the method to
get it passed is to partner with a Democrat who

(40:00):
believes who believes in it strongly, then that's what I'll do.
So I started shopping the bill, and I came across
a representative from Chester County, Chris pl who had a
similar instance that happened in his district, and he said, yeah,
let's do it, and I said, we introduced the identical

(40:22):
bill this session, House Bill three fifty five. I was
a coprime that his name was first, and we both
together lobbied for it. We contacted the chair of Judiciary Committee.
We contacted him again and again and again, and we
got a voting meeting. It passed committee unanimously, passed the

(40:46):
House unanimously, and then the Senate unanimously. The governor signed
it into law June fifth. So I'd like to think
that could happen with the girls' sports issue. I don't
know that there's an appetite for that. Now I can
tell you it occurs, and we got more justice for

(41:06):
victims in Pennsylvania because we were able to work together.
So it does happen. I'd like to see more of it.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
Do you think that can happen more? Do you think
what's keeping it from it? We figure out to phrase
this question. Trump is very divisive to where the left
hates him so much. It's like anything the right does,
like you just said, it could be the best bill ever.
We're going to shoot it down because the Republicans say

(41:35):
this is good. Therefore we're just going to buy. We
have to say no to it, even if it's a
good thing for the people. Do you think when Trump
gets out of office, whoever the next person is, if
it's Vans or whoever, do you think it might like
people might come together a little bit more because Trump's
not involved, and the hate for Trump will be there
as much.

Speaker 1 (41:54):
I would say that's probable, Dylan, You're right. I mean,
you know, I just got an email this morning, you know,
blaming me for things that are federal. So some people
conflate the state for federal. I have no control over
over federal matters, but yeah, I think it. I think
it trickles down. It's common, you know, in floridabate to

(42:19):
for for Democrats to associate, you know, what we're doing
with Trump, and it really it's it's kind of irrelevant
at the state level. But to answer your question, I
think it's probable and I'm hopeful of that. I mean,
I think I think you're right. It's it's a fact
that he is divisive. I really like a lot of
the things that he's doing foreign diplomacy wise and with

(42:41):
the economy, but he can't help himself sometimes and sometimes
I cringe. Sometimes I laugh, but he can't. He can't
help himself. And and it is a divisive environment.

Speaker 2 (42:57):
It's interesting because like some times, the things that make
us laugh enrage the other side. Like he would make
am like a funny thing, right, Oh that was kind
of funny. He's you know, he's smart, he's funny, and
then they don't like so this guy was talking about
like he mentioned a joke. It was a joke that
Trump made that was a funny, just you know joke.

(43:18):
And he's like, can you believe Trump said this? It's
like it was a joke.

Speaker 1 (43:22):
Well he was.

Speaker 2 (43:22):
He's funny.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
It's like it's flabbergasting because he was like a darling
of the Democrat party when you.

Speaker 2 (43:29):
Know, when he was the view loved him.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
He was doing the apparentis he was a businessman.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
And then moment that R showed up by his name switched.
Yeah it is. It is a wild thing. And and
I'm not a Trumper, right, Like I'm not one of
the Like I don't even think I'm a maga guy.
Like I'm more or less like a I love small government,
I love the Constitution, I love the Bible. And if

(43:55):
you give me an option between Trump and Hillary Clinton.
I'm going Trump. If you give me an opportunity between
Trump and Biden, I'm going Trump. If you give me
an option between Trump and Kamala, I'm going Trump. Like
It's like, I don't even see how you can see
any other possible option there, right, you know? But I'm
not like a Trump like there. I think there's some
people that just ride his coattails too much, and anything
he says is like almost inspired and like, God, we

(44:17):
need a that's dangerous too.

Speaker 1 (44:19):
But that's where I am making America great is like
why why wouldn't that be like a ninety ten issue.
I want America to be great. I don't want China
to be, you know, eating our lunch with a trade deficit.
Of course, our people come first, you know that would

(44:39):
that would be like me lobbying for for people in
Erie County. No, my people are first to me. Americans
should be first, to the to the to the highest
office in the life.

Speaker 2 (44:51):
We shouldn't be paying four nations all this money and
them not paying us anything like yep, that shouldn't happen.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
Either, right, Like I want our military to be strong,
I want us too.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
We shouldn't have fat general.

Speaker 1 (45:02):
It's like, I want us to wield influence nationally or
globally and prevent wars. Yeah, America should be first place
in the world. And so I think that making America
great in principle is great. I think what's associated with
MAGA though, like you mentioned, is is inevitably divisive. Yeah.

(45:26):
So I'm not like a hat wearing MAGA guy. But
do I agree that America should be great again? Yeah? Yeah.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
One thing you can't argue, man Trump can push merch Dude,
he can he can sell, so he can sell some merchandise.
I mean he's the thing is, dude, he is a
businessman and he can't help it. Like you know what,
president has merch to sell, like, he just cannot help
himself when it comes to like, you know, anything from
crypto to like he sees an opportunity. He's just he's

(45:56):
a business guy. Well, like he was.

Speaker 1 (45:58):
That's one of the reasons I think he's effective is
it's a departure from the model of the career politician
to someone who actually has experience negotiating and getting deals done,
and globally that's been his strength. I mean, he's negotiated
things that are pro American that hadn't been done for
a while, and we want somebody who can negotiate hard

(46:22):
and good and care for our interests, and he does that.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
What do you say to the people though that listen
to you say that, and they're like, nah, you're full
of crab, Like he's a terrible guy. He always lies,
he's doing what's worse for America, He's destroying America. What
do you say to that response?

Speaker 1 (46:38):
In your opinion, well, it's ironic because so he's forward
with you know, what he says, and the legacy media
helps retell every story of every mistake he's ever made.
But you take a look at some of the things
that Biden has done, allegedly done, done said, he's a

(47:00):
I have low character in my opinion. You know, Obama
was very good, he was diplomatic, you know, good public speaker.
But I don't view like Obama or Biden or Bill
Clinton as these moral high ground guys compared to Trump.

(47:21):
So I think it's it's very.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
And a minimum. Trump's equal to that. Like Trump might
not be this like Christian night on shining armor, like
he has stuff in his closet too, absolutely, but like
you can't I think it is what you said. It
is ironic, Like you can't hate on Trump, yeah, and
then vote for Bible.

Speaker 1 (47:41):
The standard changed when he became president for the first
time and certainly the second time. All of a sudden,
the standard for the office was like a pastor. I
remember saying that back in twenty sixteen. I was like,
what happened? Because member in my lifetime, Clinton was a

(48:02):
completely immoral guy. Yeah, it's true. Now Obama Biden not
not high character individuals in my opinion, and then we
get a guy you know that people hate, and all
of a sudden he needs to be a polished pastor.
And I don't agree with that, that double stamp.

Speaker 2 (48:20):
Yeah. M I do also think, like there are people
that are so convinced that Trump is evil that there's
just nothing, There's nothing you can say that will change
their mind. Really Like, I just think they're just convinced.
And that's why. So when Charlie Urkrutz shot, I released
a video and it was emotional, like I was pissed.
I was very angry, and I was angry at people

(48:41):
like joy Reid. I was angry at people like Janine
Hill or whatever her name is, who's a you know,
I'm angry at the people for years that have called conservatives,
specifically conservative white men, white supremacist Stalin Hitler hate like
that rhetoric has consequences and it just when when But

(49:03):
those are the people that they view like they think
they're right and they think we're evil. Like that's just
the reality, and there's no I don't I don't know
if there's any amount of debate that will change their mind,
Like I don't know, like Charlie believe that. I'm starting
to wonder if that's true.

Speaker 1 (49:18):
You have to be humble enough to handle any kind
of rebuke or differing opinion. And if and if someone's
not humble enough to even listen to you, I mean,
I just wipe my hands a bit. I don't judge them.
But look, if if you came to me, Dylan and
you said, I think you're doing the dad's defending daughters
act all wrong. Here's my suggestions, I would say, great,

(49:41):
you might have some good suggestions there that I might
be able to change and do a better job. But
if I just say no, I know everything about the topic,
why proceed?

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Yeah, Or if you go back to them and you say,
would you mind me sharing why we're doing it this way,
and they're like nope, then You're like they're a and
no longer has any validity.

Speaker 1 (50:03):
And that's why, Yeah, it's not necessary to continue the
conversation then, because it's a waste of time.

Speaker 2 (50:10):
And I've been blessed to have actually in the past
two weeks and so I've had two conversations with liberal
minded people that have been wonderful conversations, and I left
feeling blessed, and I was like encouraged, Like Okay, there
can discourse can still happen, and that is encourage You
know what Charlie always said, when talking stops us when
civil war starts. So I do think we need to

(50:31):
keep trying to carry the mental But there are certain
people like specifically Joyread for example, and some other of
those just rhetoric driving, race baiting individuals that just drive
me up a wall. Bro.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
Yeah, like and throw out these terms you mentioned white supremacy.
I've never I've never met someone who I would label
as a white supremacist. I think I think it's a
oh yeah me, it takes a vile, vile thing to believe,
but I've I've never come across one and then the
whole Christian nationalism thing. I often ask when that comes up,
what what is that? I feel like Matt Walsh saying,

(51:04):
what what is that to? You know? What is the clip?
The clip for the women where where he pressed those
interviewers what is a woman? I don't know. I don't
know what that is. I think it's it's this term
that probably was produced in academia. But I'm still on
the hunt for a definition.

Speaker 2 (51:26):
Well, I heard someone say the definition that is, like,
you want this nation to be resembled that it's a
Christian nation that we, you know, respect God, and you
want all people to become Christians. I was like, well,
if that's a definition, call me I'm a Christian nationalist, like
because I'm like, yeah, I like, this nation was founded
in faith and God we trust, and I want everyone

(51:47):
to come to Jesus. I want everyone to believe the Gospel.
So if if if you're like, if you're going to
define it as you want America to be a Christian nation,
a God fearing nation, and you want all people to
repent and believe, Like, sure, if that's your definition, but
I it's it's coined so negatively, I haven't really heard
a definition that like is a terrible thing.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
Yeah, I mean that's so that's my desire too. It's
my desire, but it's it's not it's not something to
be forced. And I know you didn't you didn't mean
that when you expressed sor there's a there's a line
between desiring it h and you know, legislating it.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
What would legislating that you mean like not allowing any
other religions for example, Yeah, and that.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
Would be unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (52:29):
Agreed, absolutely. I do think there's a conversation to be
had for religions that like the UK, that are takeover religions,
Like I do think there's one specific religion that I
do think it's an It's interesting because it is a

(52:49):
death to the West. They they it's a it's a
takeover religion. And I have wondered in legislation, like personally,
like when we say freedom of religion, how does that
go hand in hand with the safety of our people? Yeah,
you know what I mean, because then you look at
the UK and what's happening there, like should should there be?

(53:12):
And I'm just thinking, like should there be freedom of
religion to where you're putting your people in danger.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
Yeah, so that's kind of similar to, you know, the
free speech lane that we didn't want to cross. I
understand what you're saying. You know, the context of of
our founding documents was so you had all of these
people from tyrannical Christian monarchies Netherlands, Germany, England, of course, Spain, Portugal.

(53:51):
So when you know, first of all, separation of church
and state is a line that's thrown out. It's nowhere
in our documents. So that's historically inaccurate that that line
is actually in a in a letter to the Danberry
Baptists Association talking about sects of Christianity denominations of Christianity
from from Jefferson. So I think that needs to be clear.

(54:15):
But I would I would implore the UK people you know,
you can't. It's I would be very slow to judge,
you know, an entire religion, because there's people out there
that that don't hold those tenets of wanting to take
take a government over. But UK and and a lot
of its policies and a lot of their in action

(54:36):
have wrought that. That's that's their fault. They they've allowed
these policies, they've allowed these you know, these the Mayor
of London has allowed, you know, strange things to go on.
That's that's on them. We can't allow that to happen
here for any for any denomination or religion.

Speaker 2 (54:58):
I think it's a slippery slope too, right, because if
you do outlaw one religion or one sect of a religion,
what's to say the next person that comes in there
doesn't like your religion and so they do the same
thing back to you, you know what I mean? Like,
I do think there is a danger to starting that
because it's just never going to stop.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Yeah, you always have to think ahead. There's every bill
that comes across my desk. You know, it's not it's
not a it's not about fleeting feelings or what we
can fix tomorrow. It's as much as that it's in
ten years down the road. How could this piece of
legislation or this statute negatively impact people in my district?

(55:38):
I think we got to be smart, We got to
be long term thinkers. That would apply to what you're
talking about there, but it applies to every every bill.
How could this be exploited? How could it negatively impact people?
If this tax credit goes into place, who would it
penalize would this group be paying more because this group,
this group is getting a handout. Know I'm constantly thinking that,

(56:02):
mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
And I think that's why you're doing so well. Let
me see, like I think it's why you're doing so well.
I mean, I wish we had representatives like you in Michigan, Joe.
I mean, like literally I can. I mean, dude, your
passion bleeds through for your people. You go, you live,
you are in the district, you care, you have town
meetings like that's how this should work. And I just
want to congratulate you and just say, like, job well done. Brother,

(56:24):
Like you, I'm the people should be proud. There's more
of us, and hopefully more and hopefully more and more.
I'd love to see more people like you be in politics.

Speaker 1 (56:37):
Honestly, we we need we need principled people for sure.

Speaker 2 (56:43):
Well wrap up with two more things, because I know
you have a million things to get to the issue
I have with podcasting, Brothers. I love chatting so much
that I could, like, we could riff for another hour,
but then I always have to remember other people have lives,
so we I guess we want to do podcasts. Round two.
I guess is there anything else you have gone on
in your life that you want to, you know, talk
about promot I know you mentioned there are some other

(57:04):
things that you're passionate about. I want to eve an
opportunity to.

Speaker 1 (57:06):
Do that real quick. Yeah. So we had talked about
free speech earlier. So I just want to mention something
I've been working on in the state House. It's called
the Free Speech and Higher Education Bill. So the most
egregious violations of free speech are in academia. So I
just pulled up before we came on the Foundation for

(57:27):
Individual Rights and Expression, the acronym is fire. Their free
speech rankings. They measured two hundred and fifty seven schools,
higher ed schools universities across the US, and the University
of Pennsylvania is two thirty one out of two fifty seven,

(57:48):
pitt is two hundred and nineteen out of two hundred
and fifty seven, and Temple is two hundred and four
out of two hundred and fifty seven. So that's obviously
that's you know, those are three universities here in the
Common and Wealth. What's happening at a lot of our
universities is they quell free speech with these apparatuses called

(58:12):
bias reporting systems or bias response teams. So what happens is,
you know, it can be something as docile as disagreeing
in philosophy class with a left wing idea, and that
student who feels triggered or offended can anonymously report that

(58:33):
student to you know, this this faculty advisor that has
the authority then to reprimand the student. Now there's a
spectrum of things that can happen. Certainly, you would want
some court, some kind of recourse if there's actually like
a threat or you know, a violent incident, that would
be against the university's policy. But what we're seeing with

(58:53):
a lion's share of these cases is and first of all,
an anonymous reporting of a disagreement is like the dangerous,
the antithesis of college. Those are your formative years. It
would be beneficial for that student to speak up in
class and have a dialogue work it out, like that's

(59:13):
how you know your your your worldview develops and is
framed in college. And the antithesis of that is is
this anonymous reporting system. So my bill would eliminate those
I don't think there's any place for them. I think
that would you know, Negate, this this anonymous tattle tailing

(59:37):
that we're seeing. And the other the other thing that
my bill would achieve would sometimes universities with an incoming
speaker like I'm like, we saw it at pitt with
like a Michael Knowles or a Riley Gains. What they
do is they assess a speaking fee that's like a
crazy high speaking fee to discourage them coming. Whereas you know,

(01:00:01):
if it was a liberal speaker, that might not happen.
So my bill would equalize that so that you know
it's the same. It's the same for any.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
Yeah, just the encouraging of free speech, the encouraging of
free talk. Yeah, that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (01:00:15):
So that's that's something I've been speaking out against and
you know, hashing back, parking back rather to what we
had talked about with free speech, with the Republicans even
reacting in an emotional way to Charlie Kirk. I was
the first one to say to my Republican colleagues in
the House, knock it off. You know, hate speech is vile,

(01:00:36):
but it's constitutionally protected. We don't want to go down
that road. Not only is it an unconstitutional but we
don't want to set that precedent because it could. The
pendulum can always swing.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
And you can't be inconsistent. You can't preach one thing
when you don't have power this whole time, then the
moment you might get it, you can't just flip yep.
That's that's how you kill momentum. And you killed trust yep.
So you can't and you can't do that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:03):
Yeah. The other thing that I've been spending a lot
of time on is school choice, just the idea of oh,
state money following a student or family to their school
of choice. What we've seen with public ad and I'm
not against public ed, we're actually constitutionally obligated in Pennsylvania
to fund it. My mom was a public school teacher

(01:01:25):
for thirty five years. I'm a product of the public school.
But the trends speak for themselves. We spend about twenty
three thousand dollars per pupil in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, there has
been no correlation with increased spending in better aptitude, better
test results. What we have seen is an increase in

(01:01:49):
administration hires. So you know, teachers are are remaining, they're sustaining,
they're getting paid the same. You know, they have natural
increases depending on their collective bargaining agreement. But we're adding
all of these administrators. That's where a lot of the
cost is coming from. But also, I think the system

(01:02:11):
that was set up, you know, in the nineteen thirties,
this community school public school model is antiquated. You know.
Generation Z is a very self taught, brand, unloyal, project
based learning group, and I think it's really uncreative and

(01:02:36):
it comes at a detriment to Generation Z and Alpha
Gen behind them to continue doing business as usual. And
I think school choice equalizes that it creates competition, which
we know in the market place. In the marketplace, that
always drives the price down and the quality of the
product up. And you know we're seeing in places like

(01:03:00):
Florida a study was done a couple of years ago
that showed public school outcomes are going up because of
their universal school choice tax credit. So I want all
students in Pennsylvania to succeed, and I know that the
way we do that is school choice. Now. Unfortunately, very

(01:03:21):
part is an issue. The state Teachers Union very opposed
to it. They wield a lot of power, they write
a lot of campaign checks, so they stand in the way.
But I'll never stop fighting for this because this is
one of those Diana Hill convictions I have. I want
all students to succeed, and I know the avenue to
get there is school choice.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
Are you familiar with Erica Donald's. Yes, So that's Byron
Donald's wife. So she's a very very big school choice
advocate in Florida and very monumental in this movement. You actually,
she'd be great for your podcast, by the way, if
you want. She's amazing because I think Byron Donald's is
probably gonna be the next Florida governor if I had

(01:04:03):
a guess. But dude, yeah, my dad is a Christian
school principal, private school principle. I grew up in a small, small,
little school like not this big man, like a small
little like K through K four through twelve, like one
hundred suits right small. But I loved it. It was
the best experience of my life. I was able to
get one on one time with teachers if I needed help,

(01:04:25):
Like it was just the best thing. And what you
said is so true. If you get if you are
a low income family, you live in a city, you
don't have any control of where you get to go
because the pushback for public school is like, well, listen,
if you don't like the public school district, you can
always move to a different city. There is school choice.
It's like, well not not for a low income family.
That is, they're at where they're at. There's there. They

(01:04:47):
can't move like. They are stuck with whatever school system
is in there, and there's zero competition because hey, these
people have to come here. It doesn't matter if we
give them a bad education, good education. They're stuck.

Speaker 1 (01:04:58):
There's school and there's schools in Philadelphia where the reading
and math proficiency levels are in the single digits. Yeah,
those kids don't have a chance to get out. We
have a couple of school choice provisions in the state,
OSTC and EITC scholarship tax credit scholarships that businesses can

(01:05:21):
donate too, but the waiting list is a mile long.
We tried to get Lifeline scholarships done last session. Governor
Shapiro actually campaigned on that it would be a one
hundred million dollar appropriation for kids trapped in the bottom
fifteen percent of schools. There was a factor for income,

(01:05:43):
So these are kids that desperately need to get out
of their public school. And he ended up vetoing that
after campaigning on it. So it's a fun it's an
uphill battle in Pennsylvania, but it's one worth fighting.

Speaker 2 (01:05:59):
Have you guys can that are chartering? Like do you
guys have like can private schools charter and get funding
right now in Pennsylvania?

Speaker 1 (01:06:06):
So that is that's there's a clause in our constitution
that doesn't allow public funding for the private schools. We
do have regular charter schools and cyber charter schools, but
those are those are public schools.

Speaker 2 (01:06:22):
So within because Ohio now allows private schools to charter
and to get funds, yep. And that has been a
game changer for Ohio. Yeah, because it's kind of a
middle ground in the school choice a little bit where
it's like it's not like full choice school choice, but
now you have private schools allowed to you know, get

(01:06:44):
kids that would have been otherwise at a public school
for state paid.

Speaker 1 (01:06:48):
Yeah. So under my bill, it would it wouldn't go
to the private entities themselves, It would follow the student.
They would enroll in the you know, in the program,
and then certain expenses, certain educational expenses would be.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
It would go to the families directly, go to the families.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
Are you concerned with families abusing that money?

Speaker 1 (01:07:11):
It would be something we would need to watch. I
know in Arizona they had a learning curve where they
had to stamp down on some expenses that were not appropriate.
But the luxury we have is that we've gotten to
learn from Arizona's mistakes, Indiana's mistakes, you know, all of it.

Speaker 2 (01:07:32):
So there's other there's other states that have tried this model.

Speaker 1 (01:07:34):
Oh yeah, yeah, Florida has Texas just got it done.
I don't know the mechanics of their bill, but Florida
is a is a tax credit. Arizona has an education
Savings account, which is similar to the bill I've introduced.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
Okay, well good man, Yeah, well how can people support you? Like,
how can my listeners like learn more or support you
even if they don't live in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
Yeah, so I have a podcast of my own, then
they can check that out. I've had really awesome guests
on like Nick Fredis, Riley Gaines, Corey DeAngelis and that's
called Straight to the Point. That's on Apple Podcasts and Spotify,
and I'm on Facebook and Instagram as well. And my

(01:08:20):
website is repjod dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:08:24):
Well, perfect weather. Well, we'll make sure we link your
podcast in the description. I'll definitely try to make sure
all my followers go subscribe, follow you, five stars on Apple,
all that kind of stuff. I'm for sure listening to
the Nick and the Riley episode. There's been two dream
guests of ours since day one has been dream guests
for those Like when I first heard Riley Gaines on
Joe Rogan, I was like, I want her on the podcast,

(01:08:45):
and then I followed Nick for years. So it'll be
fun to hear you guys talk and I'll live vicariously
through you as a hope. That's gonna be amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:08:52):
Riley's Riley's so brave. She has a lot of courage,
and Nick is Nick is the best that I've seen
at explaining something in detail in short form. He just
has a skill for it. He's realized that the legacy
media won't cover anything that he wants to put out,
so he took to social media and now he has

(01:09:14):
millions of followers. That's the way to do.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
It, blown up. Yeah, both of them are great people
and brave in their own right. And it wasn't Nick
like a former Green brave. It was too like he's
just a stut.

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
I wouldn't want to mess with Nick.

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
No, he's a stud dude, he's awesome. Well, we'll definitely
promote your podcast as much as we possibly can. And Joe,
this has been a blast brother, like shutout Cliff introducing
us as well, and thank you man, Thanks for coming
the show. Thank you for chatting with me. I thoroughly
enjoyed it. I could have talked to you for another
hour because you're so down to earth. You explain things well,

(01:09:50):
and I love seeing people like you serve our nation,
so I appreciate that a lot. Man.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
Yeah, thank you, Dylan. It was an honor to join
you and I wish you the best.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Thank you brother. All right, and guys, thank you for
coming to this episode of The Dylan England Show. As always,
sure with a friend, you know, give it to your
mom and make her listen to it. I don't know,
put it on in the car, whateverybody gonna do. And
please go and follow Joe's podcast. Now, go follow Joe
Everything's doing in Pennsylvania and we'll see you guys on
the next episode of The Dylan Show. Thanks cool. Thanks brother,

All Episodes

Serving People Not Parties | Joe D’Orsie on Term Limits, Civility, Protecting Kids | TDES

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Serving People Not Parties | Joe D’Orsie on Term Limits, Civility, Protecting Kids | TDES