12-4-24 - 8am - Issues with FEMA and SCOTUS on Gender Care for Minors

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Seven to seven.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Michael, Not very much has ever been said about the
one hundred and twenty seven million dollar payout from the
FBI to the Parkland school shootings families. It was very
little said. I haven't heard anything about it, but they did.
They paid one hundred and twenty seven million dollars because
the FBI is totally inept.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Thank you.

Speaker 3 (00:27):
Okay, we know the FBI is inapt, and so was FEMA.
This next story is a real bugaboo to me, not
just simply because of the double standard, but because of
the media is absolute lack of interest in it. You know,

(00:50):
I should have pulled up, but Rush had a Rush
had this. He called it the limb Ball theorem. And
the Limbaugh theorem was that you need a focal point,
You need an event, a place, a geographical location, something

(01:12):
for the media to focus on, and they would use
those focal points to go after conservatives. Well, I'm a
great example of that. The focal point that I refer
to is the New Orleans Superdome during Hurricane Katrina, and

(01:34):
that became the focal point. And even though it was
a shelter of last resort that had not been approved
by me, was approved by Mayor Ray Nagan, long after,
I mean long after every decision had been made about
how we were going to try to get them to evacuate,

(01:55):
how we were trying to get the governor to work
with the mayor, because those two were political opponents. All
of this stuff. People showed up at the New Orleans
Superdome when when Nagan first talked about using a superdome
as a shelter, we immediately jumped all over him and

(02:16):
provided him with engineering reports from our own engineering department
that and there, and from their own reports that showed
that it would it couldn't withstand a category three, let
alone a category five hurricane, which is what Katrina was
while it was still out in the Gulf of Mexico,

(02:36):
and that it was like much of that area of
part of New Orleans was below sea level. So in
a worst case scenario, the area that you were going
to use as a place for shelter was going.

Speaker 1 (02:51):
To be flooded and inaccessible.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
So we we objected and told him he couldn't use it,
saying for the convention center, and he went ahead and
did it anyway. Well, that became under Limbaugh's theorem, that
became the focal point. So everything that was wrong as
opposed to looking at well, how did that end up

(03:16):
being used? Oh, well that was the mayor's decision. No, Instead,
it was blamed on me, and it became it became
I mean, every media outlet around the world that was
covering Katrina covered that focal point. And so one time
I was on air with and I would have pulled

(03:39):
it up and played it for you, but you had
to claimed that I was just being egotistical, which would
be a surprise. But I was on Neil Cavudo's show
one time and I forget, I don't even remember what
the topic was, but I said, well, this is an
example of the Limball theorem and the reason that Obama

(04:00):
is not doing something. And I think it had to
do with Obama going to the border. I said, because
according to the Limball theorem, that would provide a focal point,
and then the media would almost be required to cover it,
and so they are. They're going to ignore it, and
he's not going to go. So it's a win win.
Obama won't get blamed for anything going on.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
At the border.

Speaker 3 (04:23):
The media, you won't have to cover it because he
won't go. And that's a perfect example of the limball theorem. Well,
Rush heard that, or somebody on a staff heard it.
So the next day Rush spends a considerable amount of
time for him talking about, oh my god, Brownie knows

(04:44):
the limb ball theorem. And listen to him, and he
replayed the interview between me and Cavudo and then went
on to talk about and talk about Brownie is exactly right,
he knows exactly what this is and blah blah, and
this is how it works, and he's a great example
of that blah blah blah. I mean, in fact, I
think that's where we get him using the term brownie
in the show intro. Well, the same thing is happening now,

(05:09):
and I would say it's even worse. And I'll tell
you why it's worse.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
In just a minute.

Speaker 3 (05:17):
House Republicans are trying to get the Department of Homeland
Security Inspector General to start an inquiry into FEMA over
reports of obviously the anti Trump discrimination that took place.
According to reports that are well cited in the media,

(05:39):
FEMA relief workers ignored the homes of Trump supporters in.

Speaker 1 (05:42):
Florida in North Carolina.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
Now they tried to pass it off as they were
threatened by some of these people, which they indeed may
have been. Congressman Sam Graves, a Republican from Missouri, chairman
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, along with
the Congressman Scott from Pennsylvania, sent a letter to Joseph KAfari,
the IG for Homeland Security. They called for a thorough

(06:07):
investigation in reports that fired FEMA supervisor Marnie Washington instructed
workers to bypass residences displaying Trump campaign signs in Lake Placid, Florida.
Conservat were raised that these actions might indicate a broader
pattern within the agency. And in fact, I do believe

(06:27):
that there is a broad pattern within the agency of
discriminating based upon politics, and I think it's worse than that.
These lawmakers in this letter cite reports suggesting that FEMA

(06:48):
employees in North Carolina deliberately avoided neighborhoods marked with signs
such as, you know, make America great again, or drain
the swamp. Or they might still have a they might
have a Confederate flag flying, they might have the don't

(07:09):
traddle me the Gadsden flag flying, but they just might
be poor white trash and they might live in a
in a trailerhouse. The allegations describe instructions to abandon entire
areas without notifying residents of hurricane aid if three or

(07:33):
more such signs were present. The House Committee is emphasizing
their growing concern where have you been that this avoidance
could be more extensive than initially reported? Say it ain't so, really, God,
Congress is such a bunch of dumbasses. And now we've

(07:55):
got victims unaware of available federal aid. We have victims
that are not receiving aid for which they are legally entitled.
And we have entire swaths of western North Carolina where
people are being left homeless, that are living in tent

(08:18):
literally living in tents.

Speaker 1 (08:21):
And now you have private.

Speaker 3 (08:22):
Organizations that are initially being denied entry into these disaster zones,
which I think in and of itself is illegal. You know,
there were times when we would shut off a neighborhood,
for example, because I might have an urban search and
rescue team going through a cordant off area, and I'd

(08:44):
have homeowners screaming at me, you can't deny me entry,
And I would say, well, in this case, I can,
and I can because I have urban search and rescue
team members that are going house to house searching for victims,
trying to do it as minimally invasive as possible. We're
only doing you know, certain blocks at a time, and

(09:07):
once they have cleared, say a four block area, we'll
open that area up and you can go in.

Speaker 1 (09:13):
But I can't have you going in while.

Speaker 3 (09:16):
We have you know, people with search dogs, and you know,
there might be you know, structural damage, any number of things,
and so no, you can't go in and we have
cordoned it off. No different than if you've got a
you know, a hostage situation and the cops come and

(09:38):
tell people to either shelter in place, which will obviously
be unreasonable in this situation because there is no sheltering
in place, or to stay out of this four block
area while we negotiate with this hostage. Law enforcement can
do that. You may not like it. I don't necessarily
like it, but it can be done.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
Well.

Speaker 3 (09:59):
Now we've reached point, we've reached the stage where some
private organizations are basically saying f you and going in
and providing trailers and providing, you know, building tiny homes,
doing whatever they can, doing what the federal government should
be doing. I have searched the search trying to figure

(10:20):
out why in God's name can you not provide a
FEMA trailer? And the only answer I get from people
on the inside as well, because it's in a flood zone. Really,
that's why there's a disaster. Because a hurricane came through,
turned into a tropical storm, drunk buckets of rain, and

(10:43):
because it's in a flood zone, it flooded. And now
you're saying you can't help because it's in a flood zone.
That's why you should be there helping. Well, the other
thing that's going on is the media, and I'm sure,
at the spoken request of the Biden administration is ignoring

(11:04):
all of that. Oh you'll find it in conservative media,
and every once in a while, like when Dianna chris Well,
the current FEMA director, might testify, it might break through
the news blackout a little bit. Monti Washington, the whistleblower,

(11:26):
says that she's being made a scapegoat and that FEMA
teams across Florida and North Carolina took similar avoiding actions.
And there's no doubt in my mind that they probably did.
But we're witnessing in real time, and here's Here's why
this particularly bothers me. The hypocrisy of this administration in

(11:56):
ignoring these voters went heavily, even even the midst of
a disaster, voted heavily for Donald Trump and helped him
carry North Carolina. They continue to loot the treasure to
the detriment of American taxpayers. Now, we can have a

(12:18):
debate all day long about the role of FEMA. We
can have a debate in in fact, you might be surprised.
I think FEMA's mission has greatly expanded beyond what it
was originally intended to do, and I think that it
needs to be paired down. And we are making American
citizens all across the country more and more dependent upon

(12:40):
FEMA when a natural or a man made disaster occurs.
Instead of first responders, we're letting states off the hook.
We're nationalizing. What we're doing is we're nationalizing nine one one.
Now I don't mean that literally, I mean that hypothetically
or theoretically. What we're doing is when a disaster occurs,

(13:03):
we automatically look to the federal government. Well, that's a
state responsibility, and FEMA's role was only to step in
when a disaster was beyond the capability of a state
to handle it.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
On itself on its own.

Speaker 3 (13:18):
Well, now every governor knows that, Well, whatever happens is
beyond my capability because my budget sight. Why it's your
budget tight. Well, because we're spending so much money on
the illegal aliens. Oh well, and that's your problem. You
created this problem, and now we don't have any money,
so you've got to come in and do it. See,
it's just it's just this vicious cycle. But why do

(13:44):
I particularly get upset about Western North Carolina Because under
existing rules and regulations, under existing law, under the Stafford Act,
those people that are living in tents are in aled too.
Under the law some basic assistance for shelter up to

(14:06):
an including a FEMA trailer. They're not getting anything. They're
not even getting I mean, they might be getting a
seven hundred and fifty dollars cash allowance on a debit
card or something to buy some food or to buy
some clothing or something. But no, they're also titled rental assistance. Now,
geographically and logistically, there may not be any rental units

(14:29):
available that's you know, anywhere near that area. Because I
don't go to Western North Carolina. That much. And when
you get into the boonies, when you get into the
into the hill country, there probably isn't a lot of
rental property available, including hotel rooms by alone, apartments or

(14:49):
or houses to rent. But that doesn't mean they're not
entitled to the money. But this administration continues to loot
the taxpayers to the detriment of its own citizens. And
they only have until January twentieth to finish looting this
country and to oblivion. Fortunately for the Democrats Africa. Who's

(15:17):
in Africa right now? Who's an Angola? Yeah, Joseph Robin F.
Biden Jr. Ostensibly the President of the United States of America.
Biden announces one billion dollars to help African nations. But
wait till you hear why.

Speaker 4 (15:40):
And oh, that's the right thing for the wealthiest nation
in the world to do. And today I'm announcing over
one billion dollars in new humanitarian support for Africans displaced
from homes by historic droughts and food insecurity.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
To rebuild homes hit by natural desasters.

Speaker 4 (16:03):
And oh, that's the right thing for the wealthiest nation
in the world to do. And today I'm announcing over
one billion dollars in new humanitarian support for Africans displaced
from homes by historic droughts and food and security. Now
African leaders and citizens are seeking more than just aid,
you seek investment. So the United States has expanding our

(16:25):
relationship all across Africa, from assistance to aid to investment
to trade, coming from patrons to partners, help bridge the
infrastructure gap. I was told, by the way when I
got elected, I could never get an infrastructure bill passed.

Speaker 1 (16:44):
What a dirtbag.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
So they're being unhelpful to Americans. Following Helene and Milton.
In two months after Helen, hundreds of Americans spent Thanksgiving
intents in western North Carolina about food, water, electricity. But
they're gonna go flush down your mind any man go
in the name of disaster. Really despicable, Absolutely despicable. Hey,

(17:13):
just go talk to Jerrif's from their time at Planning
sear of the Rockies. Jerof's, I got a question for you,
you know, coming up on the end of the year,
what are a few of the things that my listeners
ought to be thinking about when it comes to their
own personal finances year end.

Speaker 5 (17:29):
Hey, that's a great question, Michael, and good to talk
to you. Today. So there's a few things that I'd
like to mention. First of all, just a real simple
one is to make sure that their IRA or four
oh and K contributions are maxed out as much as
they would like to make them for the year. Technically,
most people have until the fifteenth of April when they
file their taxes to get that done, but it's never

(17:49):
too early to get started now. And if you've got
a plan at work where you can go talk to
the HR department and have them bump it up temporarily
between now and the end of the year, that could
help get you a little bit more contribution made. Or
if you're an employer, those contributions on an employer site
have to be made by the end of the year.
If you're self employed and want to put money into
a plan for yourself. Beyond that, there's a lot of

(18:12):
tax things that I'd like to mention. One of them,
and one of them primarily is related to charitable giving,
And in fact there's a couple of things with teritable
giving I wanted to mention this morning. You know, it's
a great time of year to pull out your wallet
and help the organizations that make a difference in the community.
And one issue that a lot of people deal with, though,
is that they don't make enough charitable contributions or have

(18:34):
enough other itemized deductions to get over the IRS limit
of twenty nine thousand dollars for a married couple of
itemized deductions. So let's say you make ten thousand dollars
contribution to charity each year. That's not enough to surpass
that twenty nine thousand dollars limit. So there's a couple
of things you can do. One of them is called
the don and donor advised fund, where if you're planning

(18:54):
on giving ten thousand a year for the next five years,
you could go make a contribution to a donor advice
fund now fifty thousand dollars. Let's say stick money into
that account, and that'd give you a fifty thousand dollars
tax deduction this year, and you can spread the ten
thousand dollars contributions out over the next five years, so
it allows you to like prepay your charitable contributions. That's
a really popular strategy.

Speaker 3 (19:16):
I think I misunderstood you. So you can you can
make a fifty thousand dollars contribution to it this year,
but you can still take the you can take the
full fifty thousand this year.

Speaker 5 (19:28):
Yeah yeah. And you can make a fifty thousand dollars
contribution to a charity and take the full full deduction.
But if you're planning on spreading it out over five
years rather than doing ten thousand a year for the
next five years, put it all into this donor advice
fund now. That allows you to take the fifty thousand
dollars deduction now and then and then pay it out
of the fund to the charity for the next five years.

Speaker 1 (19:49):
You can pay it out of me okay.

Speaker 5 (19:51):
Yeah, yeah. One other option that you know, if somebody
is over seventy and a half years old, there's another
strategy called the qualified charitable distribution where they can actually
pay money straight from their IRA to a charity and
that avoids them having to claim it as income and
having to pay income taxes on it, and if they're

(20:12):
of age, it'll also count towards their required minimum distribution.
So it's another really popular strategy a lot of people
aren't aware of. So beyond that, there's a lot of
other things we could certainly talk about, but I can
look at tax lost harvesting, right now we could look
at you know, this is a good time of year
for people that just take an overall look at their
financial picture. What's changed? Are there any goals they want

(20:33):
to make for twenty twenty five. That's really what we're
good at is helping our clients hit the ground running
in the new year with a set of objectives that
they're going to do to be more efficient going forward.
And really we want to help them sleep well at
night because they've got a good plan, they've got someone
in their corner guiding them along the way. That's what
we love to do.

Speaker 1 (20:52):
Let's go back to the four old one Carrol, the
retirement plan.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
If I want so, Yeah, the general rule is you
can you can make that contribution up to April fifteen.
But could I start making for I guess two part question?
Is there a limit on the amount I can do
between now and April fifteen? And can I do a
sequence of contributions between now and April fifteen and then

(21:19):
have that total amount K?

Speaker 5 (21:21):
Yeah, as long as you're when you contribute it to
the IRA, you're telling the IRA custodian or the four
oh one K custodian that applies towards twenty twenty four.
It can apply as long as it's done by April fifteenth,
and the amount you're able to contribute depends on number one,
the type of plan you're putting it into. For example,
if you're going to put it into a four O
onin K, the maximum you can stick into a four

(21:43):
O onin K if you're under fifty years old is
twenty three thousand, five hundred. If you're over fifty, twenty
twenty or thirty thousand, five hundred somewhere in that range.
If you're putting into an IRA, the limits are lower.
So it just depends on a number of factors on
how much you can get.

Speaker 3 (21:59):
In there, and do you try to calculate them. So
let's say it's just an IRA, do you try to
calculate how much to put in offset any taxes you
might ow?

Speaker 1 (22:09):
Is that is that kind of the theory behind it?

Speaker 5 (22:12):
Yeah, we yeah, we can definitely do that. And the
IRA limits are a little bit lower anyway. So I
want to say seven thousand, I don't have the numbers
off seven thousand if you're under fifty eight thousand if
you're over, So you know, it's all it'll make a
limited difference in your taxes. But it can certainly help
if you've got the money there and you can make

(22:32):
that contribution that I'll reduce your taxes accordingly.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
So they're just all sorts of options. That's why people
need to give you a call, just to find out
what what might be applicable to their particular situation.

Speaker 5 (22:43):
Yep, lots and lots of options. We're here to help.
We'd love to do it. We'll love to talk to
anybody that wants to have some conversations.

Speaker 3 (22:49):
Well, okay, then take advantage of what Jared's just offered.
Pick up the phone, call the retirement planning some of
the rockies. You're telling that Michael Brown sent you. These
are great guys. I love them. The work they do
is fantastic. Call them at this number nine seven zero
sixty six three thirty two eleven. Nine seven zero sixty
sixty three thirty two eleven, or go check out their website.

(23:09):
It's Rpcenter dot. The Supreme Court today is waiting for
the first time. To me, it's a pretty clear question,
but hey, what do I know whether a state can
restrict access to gender affirming care for miners that are
experiencing genderdice for you. So this is and actually I

(23:35):
think you heard Dan's going to talk about this this
afternoon too. It's putting the Supreme Court right in the
middle of the whole transgender youth issue. Now, before I
say anything else about it, let me just say this.
I'm adamantly opposed to transgender surgery, even with parental approval,

(24:00):
for anyone under the age of eighteen. I actually think
that going to surgery, having your penis removed, your breast removed,
your ovaries, I mean basically getting a hysterectomy, having your
testicles cut off, getting castrated, or however you want to
describe it. We ought to be really brutal in our

(24:24):
description of it, because this is body mutilation. This is
a mutilation of a child in order to satisfy a
psychological or psychiatric problem. I don't think that While I
believe that parental rights have certainly been diminished by the

(24:47):
progressive agenda in this country, I do think there's a
limitation on printal rights. And just because your child wants
to have their penis cut off, wants to get castrated,
and you feel sorry for your child, I don't know
that you should be allowed to do that, because one

(25:07):
you don't have as a parent unless you happen to
be a psychiatrist. And then if you're a psychiatrist and
you think it ought to be done, then I question
your psychiatric abilities. I just don't think this is one
of those things that that kind of life altering surgery
or drug treatment ought to be allowed. I just think

(25:31):
it ought to be outlawed. And I know that goes
against my libertarian leanings, but there are just some things
that are so permanent, so disfiguring, so disruptive and damaging
to the mental capacity of an individual that I don't
think it ought to be done. So the Supreme Court's

(25:51):
going to rule, I mean, they won't rule. They're hearing
arguments today. There are maybe I think forty two the states,
maybe it's not quite forty two that prohibit puberty blockers
or hormone therapy under the age of eighteen. The case
is Us versus Scremetti, and they'll be streaming. In fact

(26:17):
that I don't know whether the course go in see
eight ten forty one. They may have already gone into
session on it, whether this is the first case up
today or not. But I just think it's a situation
where it shouldn't be allowed. Yesterday, scrolling through my Twitter
my ex feed, I came across Jake Tapper interviewing the

(26:43):
lawyer who's going to argue the case on behalf of
this child that he ought to be allowed to have
the surgery.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
Listen to this.

Speaker 6 (27:00):
The US Supreme Court, Chase Strangio, Chase, thanks so much
for being here.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
Really appreciate it.

Speaker 6 (27:04):
So the case comes at a time when twenty six
states have passed laws restricting healthcare treatments for transgender youth,
according to a scene in analysis of data from the
nonprofit think tank Movement Advancement Project. So how do you
plan to argue before the US Supreme Court in a
case that could have wind ranging implications beyond the state
of Tennessee.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
Now I just want to warn you I was not
mentally prepared to hear this trans lawyer's voice. But this
is a trans individual dressed like a man, has a
little tiny mustache. This is the guy that will be arguing.

(27:46):
This is the individual that we'll be arguing the trans
case before the Court this morning.

Speaker 7 (27:51):
Well, thank you for having me, Jake. And obviously this
is a critical inflection point for transgender people across the country.
We're coming off of an election season where transgender people
played an outside role in people's consciousness in terms of
the way in which we were situated as a threat
to others. And when we look at the map of
states that ban this type of evidence based healthcare, we
went from zero states that had these bands in twenty

(28:12):
twenty to now more than half the country. So before
the Court tomorrow, the question is really a simple one
as I see it, it's really this is a lot
that bans medical treatment only when it is prescribed inconsistent
with an individual sex. Our argument is that that treats
people differently because of their sex, and therefore the court
has to treat it like all other forms of sex discrimination,

(28:33):
and that's why it's unconstitutional.

Speaker 6 (28:35):
So attorneys representing the state of Tennessee told the US
Supreme Court, quote, if the government's theory holds, men who
identify as women could claim constitutionally based access to women's bathrooms,
women's locker rooms, and women's sports. Accepting that theory would
perversely erode women's rights and jeopardize landmark statutes protecting women's

(28:58):
equal access to school winners, podiums, and beyond.

Speaker 1 (29:02):
What's your response to that? And you'll hear his response
after this.

Speaker 3 (29:07):
Michael, I think we need to check Joe Biden's pockets
for diamonds when he gets back from Africa. No, check
his shoes, diamonds in his shoes. Get diamonds in his shoes.
So Jake Tapper's talking to the lawyer that's going to
argue the case, the transgender case in the Supreme Court
this morning, and Tapper is reading from part of the

(29:31):
statement from the from the appellants in the case, and
their argument is that accepting this theory that the transgender
folks who oppose this limitation is that it would perversely
erode women's rights, jeopardized landmark statutes that protect women's equal

(29:51):
access to schools, winners, podiums, and beyond. In other words,
it basically obliterates Title nine and allow unfettered access of
guys that have their penises cut off to access women's restrooms,
women's sports, and that this is indeed a sex discrimination

(30:12):
case in addition to the legal aspect of whether or
not a state can prohibit certain types of medical procedures.
His answer to that, the trans lawyer's answer is this, Well.

Speaker 7 (30:27):
I obviously disagree with that premise that allowing transgender women
into women's sports or women's bathroom is a threat to women.
But it is also not the question before the court
in this case, and in fact, it is a totally
independent question about whether a law that bans medical care
for transgender adolescence discriminates against people based on sex versus
These separate cases that preceded any of these healthcare bands

(30:49):
will continue to be litigated in the courts regardless of
the outcome here, so that clearly is conflating a bunch
of different questions. The question before the court tomorrow is
about whether banning medical care over riding the consent of
parents the recommendations of doctors is a violation of equal protection?

Speaker 3 (31:06):
What do you and I do agree with you? That
is the question before the court. Is this prohibition which
overrides printal consent doctor's recommendations, is that a violation of
eqal protection clause? No, we plib it all sorts of

(31:28):
things medically and otherwise.

Speaker 6 (31:30):
Say to physicians who are sensitive and supportive of trans kids,
obviously don't want suicidal ideation, et cetera. But wonder if
there is enough data as of now to prove that
it is beneficial to allow these sort of treatments before
the age of eighteen.

Speaker 7 (31:50):
So I would say three things, And the first is,
we have decades of both clinical experience and research data
showing that this is medical treatment that provides benefits to
adolescents who need it. And so this is not new
This is not new medication, and so we have that information.
We have long term studies that track people for five

(32:10):
six years. The Supreme Court this week our arguments for
in an FDA case which the FDA referred to long
term as being six months of follow up. Here we
have years, six.

Speaker 3 (32:19):
Months of follow up. What about the twelve year old,
the fifteen year old who then ten years later, not
six months later, ten years later, realizes what a tragic
mistake they made, or the parents realize what a tragic
mistake they made. So this sighting of studies is a

(32:41):
bunch of bull.

Speaker 5 (32:42):
Crops a follow up.

Speaker 7 (32:43):
And so that's the first thing. And then the second
thing I would say is nobody has to provide this
medication to adolescents. These are not doctors being forced to
provide this medication. These are doctors who are wanting to
treat their patients in the best way that they know how,
based on the best available evidence to us. And these
are young people who may have known since they were
two years old exactly who they are. Who suck?

Speaker 3 (33:06):
Do you really buy that? I've know a lot of
two year olds in my life. Now, obviously I can't
get into their heads, but I've never run across a
two year old who wasn't naturally curious about obviously genitalia, but.

Speaker 1 (33:25):
Oh I'm not.

Speaker 3 (33:26):
I've got the wrong body part. How can a two
year old possibly conceive of that? We're forcing this on
people our culture. The Democrat Party, the medical establishment, and
parents who don't want to parent their child are forcing

(33:51):
this kind of abomination on our culture, and I think
it's wrong.