Welcome to a pot Cassidy. We spent a good amount of time on the dark, Chauvelin trial, talking about what's going to happen and how it's going to happen worthy were the charges actually look like here. Does ruse done a good job, the prosecution or the defense? We talk to your Branca, who makes case about the idea that maybe the jury might consider not coming back with a guilty verdict and media that looks like it's not gonna be a pretty picture. We also talked about Maxine Waters and her latest a bit of crazy and help at the left continually saying the Georgia laws and other of voting laws are like the gym pro loss. What were the Jim Crow losses? Really like what I mean. This is incredibly offensive to someone who actually had to deal with Jim Crow lost. You go through. All of that today, on the pot cast, make sure to subscribe to police tb. Dot com, Slash, Glenda Promo Code is Glenn. You, ten bucks offer subscription ablaze tv there and take a minute subscribe to his podcast and click on over to stew. Does America that Pakistan well knew episodes for free every single day? Just click subscribe and check it out here spot cast.

the only thing to be major in this shows trial I mean well what Is it the you're going through you ever been honoured a jury before for anything important stu? I was it. I went through jury selection on a Hogan, some sort of health care trial at they'd. They found out that I worked with Glenn back. They were not tat, they were not. rested anymore and in me serving on the truth easiest way. Everyone out there, if you ever wanted to get out of a jury, jury duty just say you with one back.

You are clear. They do not want any letter to hear a jury. Actually, once I'd really did once I was lucky, I add this guy seems pretty good Europeans, like an absolutely not went through the jury, selection for a jury on attempted murder and the the execution knew exactly. Why was, but the defence had no idea, and when, when the defence said yeah, ok with this, sir, with his you're, the guy, kind of, looked at me, the looked at the prosecution and then did the other guy went ok at all good luck, but you know we really tried to be fair. It was, I think, was an attempted murder charge and it was really frustrating because we couldn't we couldn't get back. round of this guy and and

we called the judge in several times or you know, sent for you. No clarification nothing several times and it kept coming back. Can't tell you that I can tell you that, and in so you had to you coming, you got told you one thing, but the evidence Wasn't there. and it was, it was arguable, evidence and it was really very difficult to come to a decision. It was really hard Imagine this one! are also weighing my city is going to be burned down, I don't think it's hard. If you are thinking, Ok, this guy's guilty. He did it runic we're going to convict above everything. That's we're pretty easy, because you're gonna, think of yourself, probably as a hero and and that's understand a more in the way to act, because that way, if you, if that's what you think, I mean this is how the media has played this right like this is a useful cop,

verse innocent at sea? I don't have thing, I don't think you're too king into consideration. When it was down to twelve people in a room Hopefully, you're you're not going in with joy, that arrogance you're? At least when you get in there you? I'll have to sit down with with eleven other people, and you have to have a conversation and go well wait. A minute, though, I don't see it that way, because what about this in this and you going over the testimony and you're really picking at apart? It's it's really difficult because the other thing is you realize it, true you're setting free a bad guy. If it's a true you're. Sentencing got Shouldn't be there yet,

back to your trial. For second, it's been a while so correct me if I'm wrong and entities details, but my my my memory of you being on the jury was that ever What kind of had an idea that this was a really bad case, but the evidence in front of you live? did you to say were to really consider and struggle with the with the with the verdict. Right and the sky was this guy was an abusive guy, to kill his girlfriend, we found out afterwards that it had happened multiple times and that he showed up the trial we didn't see it but hid the sneakers that he wore were the snow because he wore when he tried to kill her, and apparently there was blood splatter on the shoe ok, there was read the splatter on parts of the sneaker and we could We didn't know any of that. I am, it was, but we couldn't go, in to the past gripe and

We could only consider what was in front of us, and so I think most of us walked in going. The guy is guilty of sin, however, How aware of, however, right and that's what I mean is the evidence so that the work of a jury is that's hard work rate, the easy thing for you to do as we like look he's a bad guy. The evidence of quinine operates a bad guy and when we there is, there is a little bit of a momentum behind that sort of side of it right and you had to fight that instinct to look at the evidence and do your job as someone on a jury right as adjure the opera, It is true here when you talk about George Floyd, obviously times Thousand from your case, the the overwhelming current. Every one of them knows, this still weak kneed course. There there dwelt way too aware of what's going on in the news. They all know about the story. all know that number one everyone's go. Their terrible. If they let this guy off Jovan number two

if they let him off, their entire city will be flat. There will be no buildings left it and none of their property, will we have any value and it is a good time. Stir fee for the city they probably love and I'm tellin you like human beings, that's not supporting entered there, they're mine, but they have to be aware of this, and it is plainly ridiculous that we sit here in a world where this is the assumed and correct certainty that if there is, not a guilty verdict of the. I think, honestly of the most extreme, the most extreme charge. The high punishment levels. Then you're going to have this type of of reaction and most of the media will sit there and justify it arriving at. We saw this could It is clipper gonna, think we have it here in front of us but to play, but whose Cnn, who reporters on the scene get attacked. Basically,

and with this less last week, right again ethically last week, yeah yeah and that they stay talked about it and they said well, look I understand whether angry and you know the understandable that they be this angry and we were getting pelted within a water bottles and whatever else people could pick up and is understandable why their angry like what are you talking about, but what? What? What kind of that's justifiable, because your way, because someone, you may or may not know had bad interaction with police that may or may not. What do you have the verdict yet being a crime, although a looked pretty bad to me, then we its justified to throw things at reporters like what what world are we talking about here? This is, was to be a civilization, Similarly, don't say that about tribe tromp supporters when they just say bad things to them. When went when Trump support, it would be like you know, they would be chanting. Fake media there would be like

terrified reporters on the urban areas or death rattle day our lives are endangering the free press. Why is all it does the editor of the people? I mean these are words these pay. These reports are actually getting hit and the reporters getting hit or saying they understood it. You know I'm glad you said these are words because I in our three today I'm gonna go over words: the power of words and what we who are fighting this onslaught. insanity need to understand about words and the power of our own words, you know there is a hearing going on in the Senate, The judiciary committee is holding a hearing today on these supposed Jim Crow Laws latest assault on the right to vote And those who are our testifying

Rafi are Warnock, so he's the New Georgia centre stage. See, Abrams, Burgess Owens, thank goodness he's one Cheryl in I fell from the end. W c p Carol Anderson Fur, he's a professor of african American studies and sheriff of african American studies at Emory University. The secretary of State of New Hampshire the speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives thereon. Testified today on The Jim Crow laws, and let me tell you something- this is in absolute insult, an insult to this Is everything the eighty AL has ever said when any body on the right brings up hey this as fascist. These are the same kinds of seeds that started you know in Germany, they go crazy, that's an insult

the memory of all of those in Auschwitz and the other death camps, yeah away. I actually think it's more of an insult. I think those people would say hey if you see the seeds yet my a point amounts to a Dutch again, ignoring things or worse yet ignoring them only on one side or the other, ignoring consistently ignoring on one side or the other, that's an insult now, where are the people who say how dare you, how ere. You say that that's oh Biden or any of these things could be compared die at large that's horrible, Do they spent four years, calling worse names than Hitler. Hitler was their starting point with Donald Trump. Where are they now and Jim Crow laws? Where are,

People that actually lived through Sir Jim Crow laws and then not even Jim Crow us the remnants of Jim Crow laws where the people actually know what crow laws were. Is there any outrage. I'm gonna give you ve the evidence. that every time somebody so TAT, Jim Crow. I want you just repeat a few words. and, in those words will have power noise. I hear him now. I come. But it's the words that need to be spoken every time, We need to start We need to stake out. Aren't you know? close to the cliff in so many people are going over it right now. You have to referee feels not to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity. So you

He D starts staking out your position and when I saved drives stakes into the ground and tie yourself to the positions to these stakes, your Everything is going to want to push you over the edge stew.

yourselves in truth, the best of the Glen Bank Programme behaviour, small business owner. Let me ask you something: how badly is h our killing your right now, the average salary for an age our manager alone is around. Seventy grand a year seems a little steep, but God have mercy on yeah. If all of a sudden, you need an age, our manager- and you don't have one from minimum wage requirements, labour regulations and the ugly spectre of things like wrongful termination suits. It is necessary to have a job for your business. So let me tell you about a service called Bambi with Bambi. You can get a dedicated hr manager put together your age, our policy and maintain your compliance, all four. Just

Wait for it ninety nine dollars a month! Now, I'm not a math genius, but I think. get some little less than seventy grand a year from bringing on new employees. Determinations Bambi will customize your policies to fit your business and then up manager employs day to day. So let Bambi help it you're free H. Our audit today, right now go to Bambi, be I am bp dot com, Slash Glenn, Andrew Branca. He is an attorney specializing in self defense law. Here, the founder of LAW of self defence dot com. He is a guest instructor in in Quantico, for the FBI he's. I mean his. These resume is very very long. He recently won the you see Berkeley LAW, school debate on stand your ground, which Berkeley really we wanted to talk to him about what was going on in Minnesota. What is coming, what

Happened during the trial should we know and what's happened perhaps in the jury room. What are they wrestling with now? Andrew look into the programme. How are you some very pleased? you can hear me, ok glance. I can I so, let's let's start with the charges that Chauvelin s been charged with because murder, seems in Minnesota, murder and the third degree and murder and the second degree are different in Minnesota Tsar right. They are yes, Minnesota uses the label border in a way that other states don't in other states. A murder is intentional killing Charlotte Not been charged with any intentional killing, whatever been charged with in effect, reckless killing. So in most states these would be called manslaughter or reckless homicide. They would not normally be called murders or the use of a label murdered here is somewhat misleading. Okay, so,

why is that? First of all They carry the same weight as murder, or is it like manslaughter. in others life's manslaughter, so these charges should be thought of its basically manslaughter charges are reckless harmless. Charges, to take our message- and this really is that tells us Even the state itself does not believe that this was an intentional killing if they believe that they would have charged him whip. Intentional murder, which they have done made only charge him with reckless, smarter reckless So? Can we go over? I mean just list. Look at the charges here: murder, in the second degree, while committing a felony that's what he's charge with but what felony was he committing the length only. There is a third degree of salt is an assault by causes serious bodily injury or, of course, death

It's a felony under Minnesota. Last. That's the predicate felony forker, felony murder charged what they call second degree murder, but more states would call felony martyr, ok, So the first element is the death of George Floyd has to be proven. I think we got that. One second element, defendants actions were a substantial causal factor in Mr Floyd's death. This is where the medical, examiner kind of does it some weight here because he said it did. He wrote the murdered down as cause of death mirth any while it's me complicated the mad. He actually does not say that explicitly. He says that the death occurred, The cardiopulmonary arrest occurred in the context of the police. Restrained. It explicitly say that the police restraint cause The cardiopulmonary arrest, cheese, letting other people drawback Inclusion and make those statements, that's why the prosecution brought

in their expert, Witness Lindsey, Thomas and alternative forensics pathologist, to interpret doktor bakers report. Even though Doktor Baker himself came, it testify about his report. They needed someone else to me: that explicit connection that Doctor Baker was unwilling to make so wait a minute. Wait! A minute wait, a minute so the coroner himself did not say he would not make the connection on the stand. No, so all these prepared to say that these things happened at the same time, what I mean did, does that hurt the prosecution I mean I imagine it would, while the prosecution recognize that weakness I mean. Obviously, they had access, got Baker from the very beginning and if he was willing to explicitly make that statement, they needed only him. There

he's why the prosecution brought in a great many additional medical and forensic expert witnesses. Frankly to the point: where I think it definitely should not have been allowed because it becomes a cumulative overwhelmingly cumulative Bob evident being brought in on us. Essentially the same argument over and over and over again. Normally that's not permitted court. Normally you make your argument. You bring in a way to testify about it and that's it you don't get to bring in eight people. Ten people to make effectively the same argument over and over again to the jury, which is what the prosecution didn't case. So why did the judge? Why did judge, allow that you would have to ask judge why he would allow men most most judges, my experience would not there is. There is a lot that this judge allowed back would simply not have been

permitted in most criminal courts my experience, but of course we seen judges go off the rails before right. We all were up of a certain age we, familiar with the OJ trial and Judge glance veto. In that case, we lost control of its courtroom is nowhere near that bad certainly a lot a lot of conduct that would not have been consider permissible in most criminal courts, including prosecutor Well so rebuttal closing yesterday, which was full of frankly lies this rapid innovations of the evidence misrepresentations, that's argument to point where, in my opinion and the defence made a motion for this, which was denied by judge, but in my opinion, that was put prosecutor, misconduct worthy of a mist I'll write? Their and certainly ever reversal of conviction, after the fact wow holy cow will that you set the country on fire, or at least Minneapolis for sure on fire,

get to that here and in justice, analyse this, can make clear Judge K held the night the motion for MR. So there is no more I don't know. I know I know we're grounds for it. In my opinion, right I mean if it did, it goes back for a second hearing and, and they reverse, this verdict- or you know they- They go back later and say this In valid I mean that's just gonna set everything on fire. Odds of that happening, Andrew I'm a legal professionals, so I dont places kinds of bank, but there are very, very solid grounds for a robust appeal in this case and on many fronts, not just on black was closing ok, We just finish up with the charges, and then they will come back to some other things. Murder in the third degree. They have to prove the death of George Floyd, then defend its actions were a substantial causal factor of in Mr Floyd's death

fact that other causes contributed. A death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability, the defendant, the death of George Floyd by an intentional act that eminently dangerous to other persons. What is is the kneeling on the back is that a legal procedure in in Minnesota, or was it at the time, that's a matter of factual dispute. So certainly the Minneapolis Police Department its officers to use their knee on the back and neck of suspects, but mostly for the purpose. getting them handcuffed, whether you're alive To keep your need, there is ambiguous, they dont tell you, you can't, but they dont Ex post we train you to do it either. That's why you always heard the prosecutors repeat over and over again this was not a trained technique and that's true for how long was kept in place, but just because it's not true

it doesn't mean it's not permitted, or does it mean that its unlawful? So that's where we get into the ambiguity of whether Chopin now the for example that that conduct was criminal conduct, you ve never been told. He can't do that so in the in murder. In the third degree he'd, he doesn't have to intend to cause the death he he may I've been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occur What does that mean? while traditionally third degree murder under Minnesota LAW meant that you were not creating a threat to some specific individual in particular, but a threat to people generally, so the example I would use is drunk driving, you're drunk you getting your Are you drive down the road you're not trying to hit anybody particular? But you are correct. A danger to the public generally and then, if you do cause injury, you're, obviously response book about injury that what the under third degree murder, if you killed them,

one wall drunk driving. It used to not apply. If you creating a danger only to a single individual it was. It was require that it was a group threat, a general threat, but the the Minnesota Appellate courts recently re wrote that legal doctrine so that it can now fly to even a threat to only a single individual. That's why, when Shovin was originally charge with third degree. The judge in the case do it out. He says no. This is not a case where there is a general grant them the court of appeals. Change the law, the prosecution came back and the third remark charge was reinstated. Wow or in the last one is man slaughter in the second degree d? and caused the death of George Floyd by culpable negligence defended created only reasonable risk consciously. A chance of causing gather gray bodily harm defendant, may not have intended his conduct to be harmful. This seems like that ones.

easy to head out of the park and where going over the charges over the last few minutes, so let's Let's talk about all three of these charges and and where you think they made the case or missed making the case. a start with murder in the second degree Murder and the secondary that's fatality murder charge. It has to be predicated on whether or not committed, a third degree, assault and, frankly, its opened a factual interpretation, whether or not you think he committed. So do you think that use affords was unauthorized under the circumstances? I expect that in fact, Chopin and other officers and the impunity had been using. That exact same take me on suspects there. Higher careers, and nobody has ever died. As a result, I'd like that one was more surprised when Floyd died. Ben children was

That's why he has not been charged with an intentional killing. Even the prosecutor scope believe he believed that he was killing George floor if they thought that was the case, they would have charge him simply with straight up intentional murder. Instead of bees, variety of reckless killing charges. So the light organs was his restrained deployed criminally reckless did. He know he was creating a risk of death and did it anyway. That's really. The basis, for example, of the man saw her job, and do you think that the prosecution made the case or do they even need to that that you know they played the video over and over again in its excruciating to watch I mean there's a single American watching that that isn't emotionally filled with horror on what's going on, does a chance of of of of anybody actually saying no, that that wasn't

that wasn't felony in the third degree. Well, if the italy- argument had been made more effectively. Frankly, I think that he would be in a better position now, his defence attorney else, and I think a large did a very good job and, of course, he's the guy. In court actually doing the job, so I hate to be overcome. Like an armchair quarterback, but your work, arguments to be made here that I think, would have been much more effective that were not made. I mean the critical period that really matters here is not the nine minutes and twenty nine seconds, but they keep talking about because It was alive for almost all of that. It's not So the last ninety seconds that any of the other there's have a reason to believe that he might not be breathing or there might not be a pulse. The last may be seconds before the paramedics show up. That's the real sense, point for the defense. Why was he still restraining him then, and not providing c p?

In that ninety seconds of our and the jury. That's the question I would want to answer because up until that point, Floyd was still he wasn't dead, yet did anybody answer that. Indeed, the defence answer that, at all the defence raised, facts were relevant to answering that question, but they never seen to pull it together into a cohesive answer for the jury. It's almost like there. They see it, so they expect a jury we'll see it, but any of our nations are complicated topics. You know you have to build the narrative, you have to hand the jury, a completed explanation. You can't expect them to do the work to arrive at the view of it, And let you have so You say that murder and the second degree if he was, if they do find that he was committing a felony then, murder and the second degree is likely to happen yesterday

clearly that he committed the fallacy of third degree assault undermine a subtle law. Then then, fellow emerged on that's all they have to prove a felony murder, so I used my will. God would say that that's the way it gonna come down. If it comes down to that one question: on whether or not you At last ninety seconds, was answered for correctly. I just I think, it's just too much emotion and and and is who point out not enough Answering of that question it's that. I mean a bit were me on the jury. I would have no hesitation in voting not guilty on this. I have more than sufficient reason about, but as an attorney, what some experts, in this area. I perhaps see things differently than we could reasonably expect so's jurisdiction. There are not more lax works, well, Would you vote not guilty because

don't think the use of force was unauthorized. I dont think was unlawful. I think it might not have been trained, but that's different than being unlawful conduct. I think that was a reasonable use of force. Under the circumstances I dont believe he was choking the life or crushing the life out of George Floyd. evidence that the only evidence that is employed ended up dying, but there are all turn The explanations were pointed out that are consistent with it having been caused by Japan's knee including the ninety percent, blockage of coronary artery Vista Pathological, Fortunately, in large part, the sentinel, but met the decision of fight least for ten minutes. Any of those things could have killed Floyd without a shovel having been a substantial contributing factor to flights that ok so murder in the third degree, did they make This case, where were the strengths and weaknesses of that?

but again it that all hinges on the use of force being unauthorized them? If you don't believe that Chopin was killing Floyd with his me using excessive force within eight, but merely holding him in place waiting. Four paramedics to arrive, and you don't believe there was a causal link of death. You dont believe the knee killed him, you believe There is a reasonable doubt that those other factors the heart disease. Granted all the math, but the tumor employed. that is a reasonable doubt that those other things could have been the drivers of Lloyd's death, not beneath Ben it's mine or degree murder, eater,. and is the same to be said about manslaughter. Then? Yes, because manslaughter the question is: what is the use of force reckless? Did he records

create a risk of death, I've you don't believe he was driving him to death with this me than he was doing. This is the master, the Glen Back Programme, and we really want to thank you for listening. So I just want to read to articles for you. You know people have said that the United States- and this is this coming from the business community. This is coming from the big businesses around the world. They say that China is the new model, so wait. China does its business is the way these big businesses want to do business in there. countries and in the western world. and your hearing, whenever you hear people talk about infrastructure, we ve got to invest in our future. That you stu mean roads and bridges, and things like that, but that's not what that means now what means is putting

the United States. position where we're advantaged, because the Chinese are advantage to because the government invests in so much new technology. Well that fine in in dandy, but we really haven't had a problem until the government started getting involve breathing so your tax dollars are gonna, be directed in to businesses and into future technology. Like so panels, etc, etc, but they cut economy becomes controlled it. This is marxism and socialism, and eventual communism, which, let's not forget, that's what China is a controlled commune society that now has a capitalist market? If you will ok, So I want you just to listen to these two stories and tell me where not already there.

this from daily mail online China launches an app for citizens to report any one who has mistaken opinions, relief by China's cyber regulator along with a similar hotline, the app aims to crack down on historical nihilists. I had the parties, one hundredth anniversary in July and our of these cyberspace Administration of China said the app an hotline will allow any courage and encourage net medicines instead of citizens medicines to repay. Urge fellow internet users who spread mistaken opinions in order to create a good public opinion atmosphere. Now such offences would include. Distorting the parties history, packing its leadership, its policies?

defaming national heroes and deny the excellence of advanced socialist culture online Aren't we already there by the way here in Amerika. The app is called Twitter. Distorting the parties history If you mention anything at all about the history of the Democratic Party you are pariah. You're lying you're, a liar and lying lies about all the lies about the lying liars of the democratic party. Tat. The leadership If you said anything about Barack Obama, you're a racist if you set any, if you say anything about Joe Biden, you're, just a Donald Trump Nazi. But they can say anything if you defame the national heroes.

Well, who are our national heroes now. don't you dare say anything about jobs. Urge Floyd Don't you point out his record or any one else. the evil police have gone off. I got off on or have killed one way or another. Don't talk about any of that: their heroes. If you deny the excellence of advance socialist culture. we're already there gang except this what is being done specifically by the government and the app is required for everyone to had for now for a while they say some people have had ulterior motives and they have spread this.

Historically nihilistic, false statements on line maliciously distorting slandering and denying party national and military history in an attempt to confess whose peoples thinking we hope, the majority of internet users will actively play their part in supervising society, Enthusiastically report harmful information Jove. Full noticed in specify what punishments would be dealt with for people who are reported through the hotline. China already faces a jail time. Ebbed will give you jail time if you're somebody online and you say, something they don't like you'll get legal punishments for posting content that is critical of the country's leadership policies or history anyone who insult slander or infringe upon the memory of China's national heroes and martyrs will go to jail for up to three years by the way they have put in

at least two thousand people who have had the wrong response to the corona virus Pandemic an quest Jim, the authorities, see how close we are to this. Now let me give you a story: they came on the first day for the same day. This came out yesterday lion is now non citizen or migrant and legal alien is now undocumented, non citizen, undocumented, individual or migrant according to, a border patrol. Immigration officials have now been directed to use new, inclusive terminology to describe people who illegally cross the. U S border seeking to establish new homes, among them mandates is that border crossing can no longer be described as alien or illegals

the memorandum, establishes updated language and assigns our communication or aligns our communication practices with the Biden Administrations guidance regarding immigration terminology according to the new policy. Alien is now non citizen or migrant. The term illegal, alien, undocumented, non citizen, undocumented, individual or migrant elsewhere in the chart assimilation is now integration or civic integration they say the words we use matter. Oh, yes, they do. Oh, yes, they do There is a will, there is a rate story that I am that I today from the Federalist And politically correct but fall the words you need. Stop using right now,.

They are changing our language and they policing it and it will become a nap. It's only a matter of time. The New York Times: the Washington Post, CNN, CBS Msnbc. The first word that we need to stop using the first two words or mainstream media. What that means is that they reflect me the stream Amerika, and I I believe they do? They may be coastal media they may May I express the views of those in California in New York, but they don't they do, not represent main stream America B media is what we should call. For its media is what we should call them. sixty minutes in vain

hid a scandal about Rhonda Santas. They edited. the for an interview they haven't really covered. Andrew Cuomo cover up of the covert nineteen nursing, nursing homes, Russian Eight notice that we spent many years for years on Russia Gate now. Nobody seems to be interested in Russia Gate. Why? Because it's been proven to be an accurate, and they won't even admit that now the cup, of hundred Biden. The laptop story- that's not me, in stream. None of these things are mainstream STAR calling them mainstream media. It's the corporate media or big media. The next word: we to stop using is gender we mean is sex. Words have gender

but people are one sex or another. May or female Add refers to sex set is a biological category that reflects a personal physical characteristics and reproductive systems and manifest in certain broad behavioral differences that distinguish men and women. My my son was having a hard time arguing with his friends, and I didn't know how to help him until I contacted Doktor debars silence it. Ok, how d you in this argument it with you, stop using the word gender, it sex. Part of this is biological. Gender is how you feel what can feel anything you want, but Facts are your me or female That leads to the next series of words that we need to stop using sex reassignment surgery, sex is not assigned

it's not a signed at birth, it's not assigned during a surgery. It's not a signed it be reassigned if it's never been assigned, articles or procedure to procedures that remove conceal the outward appearance of a woman or man's reproductive organs. She be called what we ve always called them in the past. Genital mutilation or amputation. This one. I am so sick of. it is so important. It is so important. Used to mark these people- and I go- I know I know I know but I want you to listen what the Federalist wrote about this next one stop you using the word democracy. It's a republic and they go in two. Plato wrote about and I come legally forgot about this when's. The last time you, you read

plato- the republic did I need to rewrite a re. Read it because, listen to the way Plato in the republic list accuracy. He says domain accuracy is the social structure directly followed by tyranny. Democracy according to Plato. Comes being when the poor, winning the victory put to death of the other party drive out others and grew the rest of the citizens, an equal share in both citizenship and offices. That the constitution of democracy alike, whether it is established by force of arms or by terrorism. We have a constitutional republic. The highest law of the land is the Eu S constitution, to which all public servants are or should be held accountable.

The american system is a federal republic, meaning the power is divided between the federal state and local governments, all of whom serve as the guarantors of the people's sovereignty and rights. We are the king. We are the king, they are there to protect us and our rights, not the other way around. I want you to read this article cause. I I I think it is really really well well thought out and if we're going to be in the fight there are things that we do have to do and being accurate with our language? Look at how much they are bullying people for language, clearly is important. so why aren't we fighting back on that. We lose if we say gender when we

Actually mean sex. We lose when we say sexual reassignment surgery stead of mutilation or amputation. We lose when we say democracy, because that's what the left is using and they know what the. They know what the result of a true democracy is the person doesn't, but they do. this article again, you can find at the federalist top ten politically correct, but factually false words to stop using right now