Transcripts: Brave(r) Conversations and Course-Embedded Consulting, or Once More unto the Breach

Melania Plagiarizes Michelle Obama

M. Obama: Barrack and I were raised with so many of the same values, like you work hard for what you want in life. That your word is your bond, that you do what you say you’re going to do.

M. Trump: My parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life. That your word is your bond, and you do what you say and keep your promise.

M. Obama: That you treat people with dignity and respect even if you don’t know them and even if you don’t agree with them.

M. Trump: That you treat people with respect. They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life. That is a lesson that I continue to pass along to our son. And we need to pass those lesson on to the many generations to follow.

M. Obama: And Barrack and I set out to build lives guided by these values and to pass them on to the next generation because we want our children and all children in this nation to know that the only limits to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and the willingness to work hard for them.

M. Trump: Because…because we want our children in this nation to know that the only limit to your achievement is the strength of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.

Return to Article

Khizr Khan’s DNC Speech

Tonight we are honored to stand here as parents of Captain Humayun Khan and as patriotic American Muslims—with undivided loyalty to our country.

Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed. We believed in American democracy; that with hard work and goodness of this country, we could share in and contribute to its blessings.

We are blessed to raise our three sons in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams.

Our son, Humayun, had dreams too, of being a military lawyer, but he put those dreams aside the day he sacrificed his life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers. Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son ‘the best of America.’

If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in America. Donald Trump consistently smears the character of Muslims. He disrespects other minorities; women; judges; even his own party leadership.

He vows to build walls, and ban us from this country. [Linked video begins here.] Donald Trump, you’re asking Americans to trust you with their future.

Let me ask you: have you even read the United States constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. [he pulls a small Constitution booklet out of his coat pocket] In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’

Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America.

You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.
We cannot solve our problems by building walls, sowing division. We are stronger together. And we will keep getting stronger when Hillary Clinton becomes our President.

In conclusion, I ask every patriot American, all Muslim immigrants, and all immigrants to not take this election lightly.

This is a historic election, and I request to honor the sacrifice of my son—and on election day, take the time to get out and vote.

And vote for the healer. Vote for the strongest, most qualified candidate, Hillary Clinton, not the divider. God bless you, thank you.

Return to Article

Access Hollywood Video

D. Trump: I moved on her actually. She was down in Palm Beach, and I moved on her, and I failed. I’ll admit it.

B. Bush: Whoa.

D. Trump: I did try and [beep] her. She was married.

B. Bush: That’s huge news there.

D. Trump: No, no. Nancy. No this was—And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture, I said, “I’ll show you where there is some nice furniture.”

B. Bush: [laughs]

D. Trump: I took her out for furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her. She’s go the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.

B. Bush: Sheesh. Your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.

D. Trump: Whoa! Yes! Whoa!

B. Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!


D. Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.

B. Bush: [laughs]


D. Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

B. Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It her…

D. Trump: Yeah, that’s her in the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs in case I start kissing her [mint container rattles]. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I don’t even wait.

B. Bush: [laughs]

D. Trump: And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

B. Bush: Whatever you want.

D. Trump: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

B. Bush: [laughs] Yeah, those legs. All I can see is the legs.

D. Trump: Oh, it looks good.

B. Bush: Come on, shorty.

D. Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?

B. Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.

D. Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford. Gerald Ford, remember? [knocks on bus window]

B. Bush: Down below. Pull the handle.

D. Trump: Hello, how are you? Hi.

A. Zucker: Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Nice to meet you.

D. Trump: Terrific. Terrific. You know Billy Bush?

B. Bush: Hello nice to see you. How are you doing, Arianne?

A. Zucker: How are you? I am doing very well, thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?

D. Trump: We’re ready. Let’s go. Make me a soap star.

B. Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.

A. Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?

D. Trump: Absolutely. Melania said this was okay. [kisses her on the cheek]

Return to Article

Justice Or Murder?


The Information Literacy group project allowed our group to explore the Eighth Amendment and its relation to the death penalty. Thorough research showcased various arguments and cases in regards to the death penalty; some in support whilst others were fully against it. The further investigation of a recent botched execution in Oklahoma led to the discovery of an interview with the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his personal opinion on the death penalty.

The previously mentioned video clip was used to form a dialectical discussion surrounding the issue of the eighth amendment and the implementation of the death penalty. The script below depicts proper use of evaluated sources to dissuade from logical fallacies to a sensible civic discourse between characters in an effort to define the limits of cruel and unusual punishment.

The Script

Enxhi: Good evening everyone! Welcome to The Talk Show, I’m your host, Enxhi Hyska. Today we will be discussing the Eighth Amendment and how it relates to the death penalty. Is the death penalty considered Justice or Murder? I would like to start off today’s show with a clip from President Barack Obama with his views on the death penalty in response to a botched Oklahoma execution and how developed countries around the world view the United States differently due to the death penalty.

Video Clip of President Obama’s Views Plays

Enxhi: Joining us today, we have Dr. Ivan Alexander from Ochiltree Hospital, Pastor Dieu Ngo from the Hillside Parish and finally, Senator Kavita Ramnath. As we know, there’s been much debate on this topic in recent years. It’s been trending on Twitter, check out the popular hashtag #DeathPenaltyFail. One of the main issues surrounding this debate is the possibility of innocent people being wrongfully accused. Dr. Alexander, what is your opinion on this?

Ivan: Well Enxhi, according to the, there has only been 0.0275% of people wrongfully executed. Now this is only a small percentage considering there’s a factor of human error in any situation.

Dieu: Well respectfully, I believe if you don’t want people to be wrongfully executed, then you can just use capital punishment. But I’m telling you there is another solution, you can just get rid of the death penalty so that no innocent person is executed. It makes logical sense.

Ivan: Okay don’t be hypocritical, you Jesus Freak! Doesn’t your own Bible state “An eye for an eye” in Exodus 21:24?

Dieu: Well, I’m telling you, if you know the Bible well, then you would know that there are ten commandments and the fifth one states, “Thou shall not kill.”

Kavita: World renowned philosopher, Mahatma Gandhi even quoted, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” By executing someone, it’s just an additional murder on our hands, not even justice.

Ivan: Okay well how would you feel if your 15-year-old sister was picked up at a bus stop and raped and murdered by somebody? How would you want that person to be punished?

Dieu: Well I’m telling you that God forgives us for our sins and throughout the Bible, he also teaches us to forgive others. Then we should be able to forgive others for their actions. We’re all humans and we make mistakes.

Ivan: Okay a mistake is like being late to work or forgetting to pick up your kids. It’s not killing someone.

Dieu: Well…

Kavita: Come on guys! Come on! I mean you don’t even have to be religious to know that killing someone, no matter what they did, is wrong. I mean, you’re just fighting fire with fire. We’re just going to get burned.

Dieu: Yes, forgiveness and love brings people together.

Ivan: Okay love, not love for crime.

Kavita: Love has nothing to do with it!

Ivan: That’s not a fact!

Enxhi: Okay, okay. Now, I want to ask a question sent in by an anonymous viewer. If the death penalty were to be abolished, do you believe the rate of heinous crimes would decrease?

Ivan: Yes, it would definitely decrease. The harsher the punishment, the less likely one would be to commit the crime.

Kavita: Well actually, based on the website,, the statistics prove that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime since states like Texas and Oklahoma that allow executions still have a higher murder rate than the national average in comparison to states like Wisconsin that stopped it.

Dieu: Also, life in prison will guarantee no future crimes committed by the convicts.

Ivan: So you want us, taxpayers, to spend our taxpaying dollars on somebody who’s just going to sit in a jail cell for the rest of their life?

Kavita: The Death Penalty Information Center provide unbiased statistics on the death penalty in the United States and it states that the cost of maintaining a prisoner on death row can cost taxpayers a whopping $90,000.00 more a year than a regular prisoner in the general population.

Enxhi: So Senator Ramnath, you stated earlier in the discussion that execution is murder but not justice. Do you believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional?

Kavita: In fact, I do because it is a cruel and unusual punishment. How much crueler can it get than ending someone’s life?

Ivan: It is not unusual because they deserve it for the crime of brutally murdering someone. Compared to what they did to that person, it’s not cruel or unusual.

Enxhi: I think that begs the question, what is considered cruel and unusual by the Constitution? You can tweet us @TheTalkShow with your response. Well I’d like to take this time to thank you all for taking this time out of your busy schedules to accommodate the show. Goodnight everyone.

Return to Article

Grace talk: Illegal Surveillance and the 4th Amendment

Grace the host: Ok, welcome, everybody, welcome to Grace talk show, today’s topic is illegal search and seizure and the Fourth Amendment. I am Grace, I am your host, and I want to you Ms. Presley, she’s an expert in criminal statistics, and Kair is a social media icon, and Mr. Broonin, he is a an expert on the US. V. Jones, and last but not least, of course, Mr. Adam, he is a web­blogger, and expert on Riley v. California. So, Mr. Broonin, would you like to get us started?

Broonin: Yeah I would like to start, by referring to the case United States v Jones. you can find a pdf copy of this case on the fact­checking website Titled United States v. Jones: GPS Monitoring, Property, and Privacy where it shows Mr. Jones was illegally prosecuted by the Police Department because they didn’t follow the law by getting a proper search warrant. In return, they took him to court accusing him of drug trafficking. Now
granted, I understand that what he was doing was wrong by selling drugs in the District of Columbia, but the way the police went about charging him with a crime was illegal because they didn’t follow the proper format in charging him, therefore, the evidence they presented in court was inadmissible and couldn’t be shown in order to charge Mr. Jones with a crime. Also, you know Mr. Jones was an African American male, therefore since Mr.
Jones was unfairly prosecuted by the cops, it just goes to show that all African American are unfairly treated by the police.

Grace: Those are some excellent points Mr. Broonin, Ms. Presley anything you would like to say?

Presley: I would like to say that this is not an argument about race; this is an argument about whether the actions of the of the police, in this case, were unconstitutional. And though Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated, it was validated by…

Adam: Validated?! I’m sorry, I’m gonna have to cut you off right there Ms. Presley. Did you say it was validated, Ms. Presley? I know where you were going with that, and I don’t like it. Presley, police need to follow proper procedures. If you just read the Supreme Court of the United States’ blog over the Riley v. California hearing, they point out that police officers have the right to search a person under arrest for only two reasons: to prevent the individual from pulling out a weapon that they’re carrying and to prevent the individual from destroying evidence within their reach. If a person under arrest is put in handcuffs and in the back of a cop car, neither of these two incentives apply, do they? So why should police get to search through that person’s phone? Are they just allowed to invade our privacy, for no reason? Come on, Grace, that violates our constitutional protection… And another thing. Huh?

Grace: Adam, while we appreciate your commentary this is Presley’s turn to talk…we will get back to you in a few minutes. Presley, would you like to continue?

Presley: Yes, I would. As I was saying, the actions of the police were validated by the normal, steady incline of crime in Washington DC alone after his arrest and the drastic rise in crime by 36% in 2012 to the present after his release, showing even more validation as to why he should have been convicted. Obviously, Jones should not have been released on a technicality.

Kaira: Wait, wait, wait…why are you trying to get our 4th Amendment rights violated. There is a whole movement of people on Reddit under the heading restorethefourth who are against you. You have no right to try to violate those rights!

Grace: Kaira, I don’t believe that Presley was suggesting that we no longer have 4th Amendment rights… That is impossible—the Constitution has been part our lives since1800’s. Even in the Philippines, we adopted your Constitution.

Presley: I’m agreeing with Grace. I’m am not at all saying your 4th Amendment rights should be eradicated; I’m am saying that they do not apply in all cases.

Adam: Wrong.

Presley: The well­being of the People is more important than the rights of one, who, let’s not forget, does not follow the laws himself.

Broonin & Adam: Oh please, Ms. Presley, I’m gonna have to cut you off right there, once again. First of all, and Grace knows this because she’s had you on her show so many times, you’re boring. It’s embarrassing. Secondly, I just feel like it’s the police’s job to protect our rights. Realize this is the digital age, you know, these are different times. Phones contain personal information that’s found only in our homes and even information that wouldn’t be found in a homes in any form. Just like I don’t want cops breaking into my house looking through my stuff and touching my underwear, on that note, I don’t want them searching through my phone without a warrant! That’s absurd! What do you think Broonin? Also, the police shouldn’t have the right to be above the law just because they are assigned the tasks of keeping citizens safe. So in return police should be doing their jobs in protecting the citizens through properly following the law and rather than accusing people without proper use…

Kaira: It doesn’t matter what the cops do… You know, according to an article shared by The Mind Unleashed on Facebook, we no longer have a fourth amendment! We have no protection, so let the cops do what they want.


Grace: [talking over the arguing] I want to thank everyone here for their efforts, Kaira. Presley, Adam, and Broonin. That is our show for today. Thank you and goodnight.
This is a representation of the way civil discourse can devolve into chaos in today’s sensationalized media. So, if you are confused by this short discussion to consider how the average citizen is confused during discussions of real importance.

Return to Article

“Liberty and Justice For All” Presentation

Host – Good morning, welcome to Liberty and Justice for All Talk Show. Today’s topic is over the controversial issue of gun reform. The Second Amendment states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Host – Our guests today are [Student/Lobbyist] a member of the lobbyist political group Guns Second Safety First and [Student/NRA Member] a famous member of the NRA with years of gun knowledge and opponent of gun reform.

Host – Our first question is: Do we need gun reform?

NRA Member – Gun control is strict enough as is, if we permit the passing of legislation regarding gun control we will open the “Pandora’s box” leading to the eventual ban of the Second Amendment.

Host – [Student A], what are your thoughts?

Student A – That’s just a slippery slope, just because we introduce more gun control laws does not mean we are going to ban all guns. Not to mention the fact that some states do not require private vendors to perform background checks on gun show patrons. This is a big problem because it allows for anyone, including those with a criminal history or a mental illness, to just purchase these firearms.

NRA Member – I would like to add on to that real quick, just a quick fact. Only 2% of felons actually purchased a gun from a gun show and committed a crime.

Host – On the topic of criminals purchasing guns, is there a relation between gun ownership per capita and violent crime?

Student A – Well actually, according to the New York Times in 2015, gun related homicides per 100,000 residents have fallen in Australia since 1996 after they introduced strict gun control laws.

NRA Member – Yes, however, Australia may not be applicable on a global scale. For instance, Great Britain instituted firearm laws and regulations in 1997 pushing to decrease the homicide rate, only to increase it from 11.5 per million in 1997 to the record level of 18 per million in 2002.

Student A – Good Point.

Host – Ok [Lobbyist], what gun control laws would introduce to protect citizens from becoming victims to gun violence?

Lobbyist – There are so many, but I believe it would be beneficial to place strict gun control laws on extended magazines for handguns.

Host – [NRA Member], do you believe [Lobbyist]’s policy would infringe upon the Second Amendment?

NRA Member – Although handguns accounted for approximately half of the total homicides of 2014 according to the FBI database, my Second Amendment rights should not be infringed upon do to other individual’s actions.

Host – Well I want to thank you both for being here today and discussing both sides of this argument but we will leave America to decide.

Return to Article