This Affects Us All... The Three Branches & Project 2025

The second episode of This Affects Us All... takes a deeper look into Project 2025!
 
In this episode, co-hosts Serenity Bryce and Kailah Ruffen speak to Professor Emeritus Dr. William Boone and Georgia State Representative, Derrick Jackson to unpack a few of the crucial elements of this document.
 
Together they explore how its potential implementation could impact YOU, focusing on NCBW's key areas: health, education, and economic empowerment.

The guests in this episode provide insight and historical knowledge that will help listeners break down the Project 2025 proposals and how they could drastically change the structure of the America we know today. 

Our mission is to empower you with the knowledge to research and make informed voting decisions.

Don’t miss out—tune in now!

NCBW Presents "This Affects Us All"

Transcript

Copy

Serenity Bryce: 0:07

The duties of our country's president, the Supreme Court and Congress are unofficially on the ballot this year. This podcast isn't about the left, it isn't about the right. It's about our rights you're listening to this affects us all the three branches in Project 2025 This podcast is presented by the National Coalition of 100 black women. My name is serenity Bryce. I am the national program associate for ncbw, HQ. I'm also a recent graduate of Clark Atlanta University, I came up with an idea of this podcast series because I want people to not only be aware of the issues that will affect our communities, but also know how voting can resolve those issues. And I think it's about time we know what's really going on. This program is about our voice and our democracy. We have the power to mold what our future looks like, and I'm not here by myself. Joining me today is Kayla Ruffin, an ncbw member from the Polk County Florida chapter. She's a former public school educator, and she taught civics to middle schoolers and brings research and analysis to today's conversation. Hey Kayla.

Kaillah Ruffen: 1:19

Hey serenity. Thank you so much, and hello everyone. I'm here because there are a lot of questions concerning a proposal entitled project 2025 we can't answer all of the questions raised, but we can shed light on our understanding of the intent of this document for three specific areas.

Serenity Bryce: 1:38

We're certainly not experts, and each generation has a different understanding about how the government is supposed to work. But for today's podcast, we want to have an open and honest conversation. We have two guests today. First, please welcome. Dr William Boone. He is an educator of 50 years in political science, professor from my alma mater, Clark Atlanta University. Hi. Dr Boone,

Unknown: 2:01

good to be with you. I'm Professor Emeritus, not really retired. Okay,

Kaillah Ruffen: 2:06

he's still active. Our second guest is elected official, Mr. Derek Jackson, representing the 68th District in Georgia.

Unknown: 2:14

It's great to be here with you all, and it's always great to be part of a national coalition of 100 Black women conversation.

Kaillah Ruffen: 2:23

Thank you for joining us. Well, gentlemen, we're actually going to tackle two topics today. First, we're going to spend a few minutes talking about the three branches of government, for those who may be unaware, they are the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Dr Boone, I want to start with you. How were these three branches supposed to function together?

Unknown: 2:44

That's an excellent beginning. Let me say this as a preference. They were all friends, so to speak, right? And they came together in 1787, and they had come from an experience of having a monarchy, right? So they wanted to make sure that there could not be that kind of concentration of power in one branch of government or in one person. So they fractured this government into a legislative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch. And the genius of the document, they incorporated a checks and balance system in this document, one that had a kind of shared component. In terms of the President, the executive gets to nominate people to the courts, judicial court system. The US Senate, you see, gets to confirm those nominations. So that kind of fractured relationship in terms of between the House and the Senate, the house starts bills in terms of money. Right? One cannot pass a bill without the other's cooperation. So all of this kind of checks and balance going on the executive branch is limited to in terms of the power spelled out in Article Two of the Constitution that tells exactly what the President can and can I do now, if I may, inject here at a very early point, the recent Supreme Court decision sort of undermines that checks and balance system, because it almost gives the President unlimited power. And that was not the idea. The idea was to have a check and balance on all of it, because they had been through the experience of a monarchy and desperate, so they didn't want that. Kayla,

Serenity Bryce: 4:22

how do you interpret kind of just what he said on like a boom, boom, boom level.

Kaillah Ruffen: 4:29

So boom, boom, boom. All right, historically, there was an absolute monarchy that they came from. That's where one person has the power. So by the time this constitution is created, we now have the separation of powers, which are those three branches. And then the purpose of this phrase that he's using checks and balances, it is to ensure that even though that power is separated, that one does not overpower the other still. So even though you have the power to do this, I can come behind. From another branch and check that power to make sure it's not autonomous, if you will. But in light of some of the newer decisions, like he said, you're almost headed back to an absolute monarchy, where one person has complete control, more so than the intention of separating that power to keep it from being in that way,

Serenity Bryce: 5:25

representative. Derek Jackson, so I know that you served in the military. How did that affect your understanding of what the government was supposed to do for the people? So

Unknown: 5:34

as a service member, as a retired military officer, after doing 22 years, there are parts of the Constitution that we hold near and dear, especially when it comes down to the oath right to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It means a living document when we take that oath, it sort of resonates differently for men and women who put on that uniform. We do not give homage to an individual. And so if you think about the early framers, when they were getting away from this monarchy type system that creates a homage to an individual, a king, a queen, it's about a document. It's to say that this democracy, this republic, we are going to defend it, even if it's to the detriment of us giving our lives to protect a constitution, a way of living, a democracy, a set of rules, a set of amendments, Bill of Rights, if you will. And so as a retired military officer and now as a state legislature, those same values and principles still hold true to me. And so when I take the oath every two years, it's not just simply, you know, restating a paragraph or a sentence or two, I take that oath seriously, and

Serenity Bryce: 7:03

I think more important, like you said, it's not just about the piece of paper, it's about what it represents the now America that we have shaped. We are we the people we are part of the structure. And there are some people that would like to change the structure and change how we view democracy and how far we've come. And that kind of brings me to our next topic. But before we get started on this big project, 2025 How do we know what will even be implemented? Because it's not an official document from the party. And Dr Boone, I'll just let you say some of your thoughts about that.

Unknown: 7:34

I think you have to be very careful, because it can be implemented. Remember now in the executive branch of the United States. In this country, the President does have a lot of power and authority over the executive branch. Let's give you an example out of 2025 there's a discussion about doing away with the Department of Education, and that can be done. I mean, it can be done. I mean, the Congress may balk a bit, but the President and person who serves in that office can certainly delay appointing people doing things and to make sure that it's not political, you probably will not see a whole thing where everybody decides all of a sudden, this is it. When you're going to have an authoritarian government, and that's it. The president is at the head of it, and all the other people that fall in line. But you see it in stages. You see Department of Justice doing certain things. All of these are the kinds of steps that can be taken to bring components of 2025 into reality. Have to be very careful about that. If you have someone in the executive office, President, office of president who decides that they will let's say, I want to be too contemporary here. Want to go after their enemies. That can happen, that can happen. They can begin to try to prosecute people, bring cases against folk whom they believe are not in the national interest, which is another way of saying, not in the interest is a particular administration. So these things can happen. And I think one of the difficulties that folk in this country have is that is this kind of unspoken idea that it cannot happen here. It can happen here in 100 years ago, let's say in 1934 1935 it did happen, and it's happening all over the world. And you have the view that indeed, if this is America, this has been America since 1787 1776 whatever date you'd like to use. But things can happen, but it can happen, and it can be implemented in increments that you really are not all that aware of. This is something like removing all regulations to do with businesses. Let's give a mundane example, OSHA halls of Safety and Health Administration, right, which regulates the safety conditions on the. Which they work, etc. Some businesses find those rather obstructive and bad for their bottom line, so they want to get rid of these rules. So you'll be very, very careful about falling into the idea well, that they can't do it, they can do it, and I can point out other ways in which they can do it, and it may happen.

Kaillah Ruffen: 10:20

And Dr Boone, I want to tell you thank you, because you mentioned something just now. You talked about how it's not always about this huge document happening at one time, that it can happen in increments, in stages, right? And so before we take a deeper dive into this document, we want to set a couple of ground rules. I want our listeners today to recognize that you're not going to hear us name drop. You're not going to hear us talk about any of the major players, and that's because the National Coalition of 100 black women is a non partisan organization. That means we don't endorse any candidate, nor any political party. And so now we can kind of take that deeper dive into those smaller sections,

Serenity Bryce: 11:02

exactly Kayla, because ncbw is an advocacy organization that supports informed voting. So this is why we're having this podcast, so you all can have the information. So when you go to the polls in November, you know how to cast your vote and you know how to cast it with something that's in your best interest. Ncbw represents 1000s of black women throughout their 62 chapters across the chapters across the country. Ncbw wants to continue to see programs that uplift black women and girls, specifically in the areas of health, education and economic empowerment. Project. 2025 is a 922 page document project. 2025 was published by the Heritage Foundation, and it aims to promote conservative and right wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and to consolidate executive power. Which goes back to what you were saying about the checks and balances. There are several things that we could go into, and we could probably be talking here for days, but for the sake of time and just breaking everything down, we're going to stick on our areas with our health, education and economic empowerment, and how that impacts our communities. So our goal is to have you, the listeners, be informed about this proposal by the end of the episode,

Unknown: 12:10

if I may add just a few more points. Project 2025 is not a brand new document. In fact, it was first created in 1981 for that president at that time. I know this is nonpartisan, but it was a conservative document to mandate what they refer to as a mandate for leadership. And in this 1981 document, it was 3000 pages, and their pillars around these 3000 pages was around small government to be fiscally conservative, family and patriotism, those were the four. Now fast forward in 2020, when a particular President lost the Heritage Foundation, as you articulated, went to work to update this document. It went from 3000 pages and condensed it down to 922 pages, because you have to ask, why? What's the, what's the, what's the what's the impetus of this, what's the motivation, right? And if this gentleman by the name of Kevin Roberts, you have to look at what he was the author in doing this update to transition it from a 3000 page document to a 922 page document, this gentleman in 2003 did a PhD thesis on the enslavement of Negroes in Louisiana, how to control Negroes. So out of all the things you can do your PhD thesis on, he did a PhD thesis on how to control Negroes. And why is that important? Because now you can answer your question, why are they going after the safety nets of those who need it the most, the least of these predominantly black and brown communities? So those programs that you highlighted, Project 2025, is going at it specifically because they realize education, which is the reason why they want to remove pre K and the Department of Education. They want to just dismantle it. Some elements of project 25 already started, the removal of Roe v Wade, banning books right of the 4300 books in the United States right now, 90% of those 4300 books are all about either slavery or they are black authors, because the Founding Fathers said, in order for you to keep this republic, this democracy, if you will, you need to have a informed electorate, which is the reason why. I the first editation of the document was to remove civics. You now have to get that in college. And now they're going after the college things that are dei talk about those things that made this country great, diversity, equity, inclusion, they're also going after CRT, not even knowing what CRT is.

Serenity Bryce: 15:26

And just really quick, I just wanted to briefly just share the definitions, because I think it's important that we see what the Heritage Foundation views as critical race theory, as well as what the scholarly definition of critical race theory. So according to the Heritage Foundation, the critical race theory makes race the prism through which its proponents analyze all aspects of American life, and do so with a degree of persistence that has helped CRT impact all of American life. CRT underpins identity politics, an ongoing effort to reimagine the United States as a nation driven by groups each specific claims on victimization. So pretty much they're just saying CRT is an excuse for black and brown people to be victims. That's what I interpreted from it. But education weekly defines critical race theory as an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of an individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. So I feel like those two definitions are very different, and then one makes it seem like it's scary and that it is something that is discriminatory to white males, and one just basically acknowledges the history of race throughout this country, would you agree? Yeah, without

Unknown: 16:43

doubt. You know, it's interesting those of us in the academy, CRT has been used for decades in terms of interpreting American law, American history and all that goes on in this country, because it has been an integral part of it. Race as a concept is constructed right in order to move certain things forward early on, or to make sure that I could enslave you one way or the other later on, to make sure that you don't move so far so fast. So it's a structural kind of problem here. So if one overlooks that essential part of American life and explaining American life, explain American history, explain the American public policy, then you're being deceitful. You really are not telling the whole story here, right and there, you know. But if you move from the idea that America is not a racist country, well, there's nothing to talk about, you know, it's not racist. We're all the same here. In other words, you deny the structural concept that upholds race and that embeds itself into everything that a country does.

Kaillah Ruffen: 17:51

One of the things that you and I both feel about this document is that it sounds like it's calling for the end of diversity, equity and inclusion. I want you all to listen to a quote found on page 258 it says the next conservative administration should dismantle the United States Agency for International development's dei apparatus by eliminating the chief diversity officer position, along with the DEI advisors and committees, cancel the DEI scorecard and dashboard, remove dei requirements from contracting grant tenders and awards. Issue a directive to cease promotion of the DEI agenda. It's funding for partners that promote discriminatory dei practices and consider debarment in egregious cases. So the next question I have for our guests is this. Does this mean that companies could be prosecuted for having too many non white male employees, or that even keeping track of that data is problematic. If you just look at particular items,

Unknown: 18:54

Project 2025, you're going to miss the point of what we want to do here is to change American society at its root. If you don't understand that, then you're going to miss this whole business here. Because if we fight just individual projects, let's say I'm going to zero in on maintaining Department of Education. Cool. That's great. But the problem here is that that's not what their goal is. The goal is to turn American side the inside out, you know, take the whole business about LGBTQ in terms of the family structure. See, we want to turn the idea about going back to where we were is not an empty slogan. It has a great deal embedded in it for certain groups of people in this country. I mean, a woman, a man, right? Two children, that's it. The man works, the woman stays home. All of these are the kinds of things they want to bring back, right? Of course, now that excludes a lot of other folk. That excludes African Americans, that excludes that. Needle people, right? And certainly LBGTQ plus people altogether. But those groups of folk are considered to be aberrational to the construct that we're trying to build here through the implementation of certain elements of project 2025, and I appreciate Dr Boone framing it that way. We thought, you ain't going to touch affirmative action. It's been around for five decades. We no longer have affirmative action because there was a party that thought that everything was driven by a quota. They didn't say that this quota, those individuals, those black and brown folks still had to be qualified to be able to get into those schools right, and had nothing to do with disqualifying. So now you remove affirmative action, affirmative action that produced 5.7% of black medical doctors, 3.4% of black dentists, 1.7% of black lawyers. And so now you remove affirmative action, you think those numbers are going to improve? No, the next thing that they're going after, and it's in Project 2025. Is HBCUs that they want to consolidate HBCUs or dismantle or remove them all together. Don't lose that point that's in his home, because once you begin to talk about removing any qualifications or any requirement having to do with certain segments of the population, HBCUs in this instance, or Latino serving colleges, and you say, Well, you know, if you want to remember that, we want to make sure that everything is colorblind, right? So if you begin to remove that, so programs that are designated specifically for these particular institutions do not meet the criteria because they single out a particular race or single out a particular group of folk, and we don't want to do that, so everything is colorblind. Now HBCUs will no longer get that money because that becomes a racist kind of criteria.

Serenity Bryce: 22:08

It appears that in this document, they're interpreting diversity as discrimination. So in order to justify removing HBCUs and Latinx community spaces, they're saying, Well, hey, since it's not centered around a certain demographic that no one can have it.

Unknown: 22:23

Oh, without a doubt,

Kaillah Ruffen: 22:25

one of project's 2025 goals is to prioritize married father engagement in the Health and Human Services, messaging and policies listed on page 476 and 482 of the document, there's detail on how they plan to eliminate Temporary Assistance for the needy family program and head start a program which subsidizes child care for low income families. So my question here is, would this affect single parent family assisting programs such as welfare, WIC, food stamps in Section eight? And gentlemen, why do you believe something like this is in writing

Unknown: 23:03

project 25 talks about the role and responsibility of the man, but it also talks about the role and responsibility of the woman, and they have marginalized the role and responsibility for a woman since we're talking to The National Coalition of 100 Black women. Audience here to three things. They say a woman should be a grandmother, a wife and a mother. Now we all know a value of our women brings much more than just being a grandmother, mother and a wife, but when you look at the essence to Dr Boone's point, the ideology is they're going after the 19th Amendment, yes, the idea here in this country, there is the kind of myth building that indeed only a mother and a father is the ideal family, and We as a society must encourage males to take responsibility for their families. And that is that monopoly. And I think I'm going to stretch this just a bit for you here, because there is the question here, is that it gets kind of mixed up here, I am not responsible for your family. You're the one who had the baby, so you two are responsible. And I think that wraps around other questions we could talk about, like capitalism, but that's a different kind of story. But I'm not responsible for your family, so I want to encourage you to have a two family household. I want to encourage the men in that family to take responsibility. See, once again, you have a kind of ideology here about what constitutes a family, and if you do not have a male there, then you don't have really a family going if you know anything about the social service or welfare, before the temporary assistance needed families, states and cities handled them individually. They were. Generally across the country's idea, but of the man in the house room, you cannot receive welfare benefits, social service benefits if there was a man in the house, and the policy was so invasive, there were welfare workers who would go into the homes and women and look through their closets, looking for men's clothing or whatever to show that there's a man there. Therefore we have to withdraw these services from your family. So there is this kind of thing here, I think that we have to call in mind that all this is built on a foundation a certain kind of ideology, a certain kind of approach that has been established as to what comes to ask a family, what are my responsibilities of family, and what are society's responsibility to family? And in some and in some ideologies, just be careful, the capitalist ideology is very limited. I

Serenity Bryce: 25:55

think one of the most concerning parts of this document is their education, because that deals with, you know, the future of our country. And on page 319 of project 2025 they detail their plans not only to end federally funded public education, but to also eliminate the Department of Education. I know you both touched on that. We know the implications of how that will affect most likely the people in lower income, as well as black and brown women. But I also want you guys to speak on the clause on page 102 that requires all students who are enrolled in state funded schools to complete an Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test, stating that they will improve military recruiters access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Service vocational aptitude. So first of all, why don't private school students have to take this test? What is this test about? Exactly?

Unknown: 26:46

So, you know, one of my favorite pastimes, I play chess, and on the front line are pawns. And so they're simply saying, if you can afford to go to a private school, you don't have to worry about your children, your son or your daughter, if they attend a private school, but if they go to a public school, this is another clever way of saying we're going to mandate you to serve in our armed services, and the same armed services, if this power is consolidated, will be at the will of the President, and if that President has them go after their own family and friends and organizations that they may be affiliated with, if they have to go after another foreign country that may be our NATO allies, that it will not be the children that we put through private school. The second part to that serenity is this, if I may say it in a way that is non political and nonpartisan, who gets the rules and the power because the Supreme Court just said that the President will have blanket immunity. That means there was a time that no one's above the law. And so if you consolidate this power, and if you have a force of citizens in the armed services to take out your opponents, and if they must die and sacrifice, so be it. There's a class dynamic to this as well. If those of us who are in public schools have to sign up and take this test and be a ready pool to draw from in terms of the honored services, and that other folk in a different class will not be subject to such enrollments, that is certainly a class dynamic that I think of the whole in mind when he talks about 2025 the class dynamic is inescapable.

Kaillah Ruffen: 28:48

Dr Boone, we're going to take our conversation forward, because we've had some heavy conversations today, super heavy serenity. I want you to kind of touch on Sesame Street, because we

Serenity Bryce: 28:59

all know project 2025, plans to cut funding for a lot of things, one of them being the funding for Sesame Street, along with other PBS programming due to their woke agenda. So my question is, do you think this could lead to a bigger issue of censoring the media that doesn't align with a certain party's views? Why are they attacking Elmo? Yeah, quite

Unknown: 29:20

clearly, the whole business, this whole kind of notion about some sort of woke agenda, right? And woke agenda one that talks about the inclusion of people in society, and to get rid of that. But the idea here, and I think we can use Sesame Street, as, I suppose, as our kind of board to rip on. I haven't seen Sesame Street in such a long time, but time, but when I did see it, or was aware of it, it does raise questions that the ultra conservatives are objecting to, and you know, one would be the fact that you're different. I think the song that always comes about, I'm green. You. Which carries a lot of metaphors within it. So the whole idea here is that we're going to stifle those kind of ideas, that any and everything's acceptable, so called left wing ideas about marriage, about differences, and if you're not in step with the larger or prevailing views, then you're okay to be that way, right? So you're going after that and PBS. Now, you know, this gets to the large question that conservatives in this country, for a number of years have argued that the media is biased to the left. Now, of course, one of the things I always talk about is the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and they certainly are not biased to the left, and that the media generally is not biased to the left, but they call that because if you do not agree with us or in lockstep with us, or portray us in a very, very positive light, then you are promoting certain kinds of genders that are anti American because they go that far that you're anti American.

Serenity Bryce: 31:05

And I think it's important that in society, not everyone is going to have the same views. That's the power of democracy choices. It seems like this document is written to take away choices. It almost seems like they're trying to undo a lot of the progress that we've seen in the past decades. They want to do more than just undo it. I'm still renting right now, but eventually I do want to purchase a home. This document literally says they're going to eliminate programs like the pave, which is the property appraisal and valuation equity and the affirmative further than fair housing. And these programs are implemented to end bias in home evaluation. And we know this is still an issue because just in 2021 a Business Insider reported a black couple's home value skyrocketed 50% after a white one pretended to be a home owner during an appraisal. So we know this is still an issue, and there's data for it. It almost appears as if they're trying to make it seem like none of these issues exist. But why do you all think that they're trying to take away these progressive programs?

Unknown: 32:04

I always believe that anytime there's progress, especially for black and brown citizens, there's a backlash. Right? I know we're not here today to give a history lesson, but if you think about the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for example, the backlash was Thomas Woodrow Wilson. In fact, Thomas Woodrow Wilson was the first one to start talking about make America great again. And during that time, the backlash that Woodrow Wilson was trying to rectify was the Reconstruction period right. Because during Reconstruction, the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the 14th Amendment to give us citizenship, and the 15th Amendment that allowed for black men to vote, we got to be clear, because black and white woman didn't get it into the 19th Amendment. So it's always a backlash, and that's what we're seeing.

Kaillah Ruffen: 33:10

And so there's a lot of conversation that we can have, but I want to take this conversation in another direction. And Representative, Jackson, you talked about this a little bit earlier when you hinted on issues in conjunction with women. So let's talk about the topic of health care as far as gender equity and women's rights. Okay, I want to start with page 450 This is what the project reads, word for word. The federal government should not limit providers ability to innovate through government pricing controls or irrational Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement schemes. Does this mean that we can expect medical care pricing to go up? Yes,

Unknown: 33:53

and here's the reason why, if I may use Georgia as an example, right in the state of Georgia, out of 159 counties, 82 counties, 82 counties do not have a OB GYN. Out of 159 counties, 61 counties do not have a pediatrician. And it's expensive to do a mammogram, it's expensive to go to your OBGYN. It's expensive to do all these various labs and tests to make sure everything is working properly, because her anatomy will go through a metamorphosis when it's time for her to go through childbearing years, right? And there's a cost to that. Two years ago, 169 women in the state of Georgia lost their lives trying to give birth. 772 infants died simply try to come into this world. Black and brown women, three to four times greater will lose their lives than their white counterpart in Georgia, well across the United States, so. Black maternal health and infant mortality is great as it relates to black and brown women, but my point is to answer your question, it is very expensive, but it's a cost that these United States should take on. It's a cost that we should say to our women, because you're the only passage to give birth, to keep our society going, that we should invest in women's health. In the state of Georgia, Women's Health is ranked number 4747 out of 50 states, and so we have to invest in women's health. It's only right for us to invest in women's health, and there is a reason why. In Project 2025 they're going after women. And so it's just incredulous to me that they take on this stance, and they take on a stance in the manner to where they'll put it in writing to say how they do not value a woman's life.

Serenity Bryce: 36:02

This seems like it's almost an attack on people that don't make that much money, because if I know medical prices are already high, and this document is saying that we can pretty much expect them to go up, I feel like that would discourage me to want to go to a hospital if I have issues, or even if I'm feeling the type of way, because I know the bill will be greater. So

Kaillah Ruffen: 36:21

let's switch this conversation just a little bit. And if you look at page 28 there's a proposal for the President and who the ideal person for the White House Counsel appointment is. Here's what it says, the president should hire counsel with extensive experience with a wide range of complex legal subjects. Moreover, while a candidate with elite credentials might seem ideal, the best one will be, above all, loyal to the President and the Constitution. And so we talked about this earlier. Our Constitution calls for the three branches of government. This creates the separation of powers, right? But if one is trying to balance their loyalty between the president, a person, and the Constitution, our nation's highest governing document, could this disrupt our system of checks and balances?

Unknown: 37:16

Yes, so it will consolidate all the powers to the executive branch Period. End of story. Just that paragraph alone, and I'm very familiar with that chapter. It will go after the heart. It will take a sledgehammer to the Constitution. It will terminate the Constitution. It will consolidate all the powers to the executive branch downward, saying, forget, you know, the experience and qualification of a person if you are just simply loyal to me right now we that's really talking about autocracy, right? And so it will dismantle the life in which we all enjoy today and we take for granted today. It will remove the provisions of checks and balances, the main Keystone, I believe, to having a democracy to survive. Let us not forget those things that we thought were just out of the realm of ever happening in this modern day time. January 6 should remind us all that if they're willing to overthrow their own government, one that was in the Oval Office, the one was sworn to protect and defend the democracy in which he was in charge of as the commander in chief, sent 4000 people to overturn and stop and interrupt and disrupt this government process. That's what will happen, that individual will have no guardrails.

Kaillah Ruffen: 38:52

And I want to pause right there, because I want to give Dr Boone a space. Do you want to add anything to that

Unknown: 38:57

we're moving towards that already with certain decisions, out of the US Supreme Court. And I think the other thing you have to hold in mind is that anytime you talk about being loyal to an individual, as opposed to the institutions and the constitutions that did that, you're really indeed trouble. You're really in deep trouble. Anyone who adheres to that. You see some of that floating around now you were not loyal to me, so right? The constitution is under threat.

Kaillah Ruffen: 39:23

We haven't even touched on 50 pages of this document, and there's certainly so much more that we could say. So I'm going to leave us with this closing statement, though, just a thought for us to consider. We've spent an entire episode discussing a document that is more conservative in nature, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there are some things that are alarming that could impact our society within this document, however, I have to take note of the fact that there is at least something in writing that shows some type of planning that has been done and a plan of. This magnitude hasn't really been presented from a liberal standpoint, but let's not forget that that's what a democracy is all about. We as a people may not always agree as a whole, and every day we may not agree on how to accomplish certain goals, but at least we have a starting point, and we work to provide the people with what it is that they need and what they want,

Serenity Bryce: 40:21

I think, also what I think is important. We're talking about this document now, but how many people wouldn't have known this document was even in place until it actually came into fruition? Google transaction reported on July 5, that project, 2025 was the fifth Top Google search that, like you said, it has publicly been in the works in 2023 according to Google, but since you said, it's been dated way longer before that. So it's scary to me. Is, if it was never trending, how many voters would have went to the voting polls unaware this project was even going to be in place. Laws would have been passed, rights would have been taken, and by the time the American people realized it would have been too late. This is why we vote, and not just any vote. Informed voting, it's time we do the research and know what issues are important to us, and to make sure we know how both candidates and their parties feel about them, I want to thank Georgia State Representative Derek Jackson from District 68 and political science professor emeritus, Dr William Boone for spending time with us. We end each of our podcasts with a final thought from the president of the National Coalition of 100 black women. Here is Miss Virginia Harris, attention.

Unknown: 41:32

All voters read project 2025 and decide for yourself before casting your vote this November, take time to read at least a few pages of project 2025 then ask yourself, Is this the future you want for our country? Policies shape our lives and provide the roadmap for how goals are achieved. Project 2025 doesn't just outline goals, it proposes a blueprint to redefine the American government. It covers many topics, education, worship, military, the justice system, health care, economic equity, with 922, pages of proposals, Project 2025, aims to reshape the core systems of American life. More than 140 high ranking conservatives worked for years to put this together, and while it is not official policy, yet, it could become the framework for future legislation. Your vote will determine whether these ideas gain traction a fade into the background. This is not just another political document. It is a potential turning point. Stay informed. Be vigilant. What is in Project 2025. Affects us, all, our families, communities and our nation's future. Know what is at stake. Your choice at the polls this November will decide whether these proposed changes become reality. Let your voice be heard. This affects us all.

Serenity Bryce: 43:12

Virginia Harris is the President for the National Coalition of 100 black women, which is the organization that funds this podcast. You have just listened to the second episode of This affects us all. Our topic today was the three branches of government and how they could be impacted by the proposals of project 2025 we touched on some heavy topics today. We talked about some of the proposed policies that would affect the core values of ncbw, HQ, economic empowerment, health and education. We were fortunate to have two guests to share perspectives on these very complicated topics. I want to thank Georgia State Representative Derek Jackson from District 68 and political science professor emeritus, Dr William Boone. Thank you also to Kayla Ruffin, who has been my co pilot and has helped me represent the younger voices of ncbw, HQ Kayla came to talk to us from Polk County, Penn, Florida. Our audio engineer for this episode is John Beale. We recorded this session at the orange room studios of the Russell Innovation Center for entrepreneurs. Our audio editor is provided by marchas co productions, and our executive producer is Marty Covington. We want to thank the ncbw Public Policy Committee for green lighting this project and our supervising coordinator, national treasurer, Saritha Tinsley. My name is serenity Bryce, the national program associate for the National Coalition of 100 Black women. It has been my pleasure to moderate this episode of This affects us all our three branches of government in Project 2025,

Unknown: 44:51

you.