Best of The Program | Guest: Andrew Branca | 4/20/21

Trip Planner by Expedia.

You were made to outdo your holiday,

your hammocking,

and your pooling.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.

Welcome to the podcast.

Today we spent a good amount of time on the Derek Chauvin trial talking about what's going to happen and how it's going to happen.

What do the charges actually look like here?

Who's done a good job?

The prosecution or the defense.

We talked to Andrew Branca, who makes a case about the idea that maybe the jury might consider not coming back with a guilty verdict.

And I mean, you know what that looks like.

It's not going to be a pretty picture.

We also

talked about Maxine Waters and her latest bit of crazy.

And how about the left continually saying the Georgia laws and other voting laws are like the Jim Crow laws?

What were the Jim Crow laws like?

What?

I mean, this is incredibly offensive to someone who actually had to deal with Jim Crow laws.

We go through all of that today on the podcast.

Make sure to subscribe to blazetv.com/slash Glenn.

The promo code is Glenn.

You get $10 off your subscription to Blaze TV there.

And take a minute, hit subscribe to this podcast, and click on over to Stu Does America, that podcast as well.

New episodes for free every single day.

Just click subscribe and check it out.

Here's the podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

Can you imagine being a juror in this chauvin trial?

I mean,

what is it that you're going through?

Have you ever been on a jury before?

for anything important, Stu?

I went through jury selection on a

some sort of healthcare trial.

And once they found out that I worked with Glenn Beck,

they were not interested anymore in me serving on the jury.

Yeah.

Hey, the easiest way, everyone out there, if you're ever wanting to get out of a jury, jury duty, just say you work with Glenn Beck.

You are clear.

They do not want you anywhere near the jury.

Actually, one side really did.

One side was like, yeah, yeah, no, this guy seems pretty good.

The other one's like, absolutely not.

I went through the jury selection for a jury on an attempted murder, and the

prosecution knew exactly who I was, but the defense had no idea.

And

when the defense said, yeah, I'm okay with this with this juror, the judge kind of looked at me, then looked at the prosecution, and then looked at the other guy and went, okay.

And so, I mean, good luck.

But, you know, we really tried to be fair.

And it was, I think it was an attempted murder charge.

And it was really frustrating because

we couldn't get the background of this guy.

And

we called the judge in several times or, you know, sent for, you know, clarification on things several times.

And it kept coming back.

Can't tell you that.

Can't tell you that.

And so you had to, I mean, your gut told you one thing, but the evidence wasn't there.

And

it was arguable evidence.

And it was really very difficult to come to a decision.

It was really hard.

Imagine this one.

You're also weighing, my city is going to be burned down.

Yeah, I don't think it's hard if you are

thinking, okay, this guy's guilty.

He did it.

We're going to convict him of everything.

That's probably pretty easy because you're going to think of yourself probably as a hero,

and that's understandable in the context.

But wait, if that's what you think, I mean, this is how the media has played this, right?

Like, this is an evil cop versus innocent person.

I don't think you're taking into consideration when it comes down to 12 people in a room,

hopefully,

you're not going in

with just that arrogance.

You are, at least when you get in there, you now have to sit down with 11 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 and this?

And you going over the testimony and you're really picking it apart.

It's really difficult because the other thing is, you realize if it's true, you're setting free a bad guy.

If it's not true, you're sentencing a guy

that shouldn't be there.

Yeah, going back to your trial for a second, it's been a while, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of these details, but

my memory of you being on the jury was that everyone kind of had an idea that this was a really bad case, but the evidence in front of you limited you to say, to really consider and struggle with

the verdict, right?

This guy was an abusive guy,

tried to kill his girlfriend.

We found out afterwards that it had happened multiple times and that he showed up in the trial.

We didn't see it, but the sneakers that he wore were the sneakers he wore when he tried to kill her.

And apparently, there was blood splatter on the shoe.

Okay, there was red splatter on parts of the sneaker.

And we couldn't, we didn't know any of that.

But we couldn't go into the past.

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 as sin.

Right.

However.

However.

However.

Right.

And that's what I mean.

What is the evidence?

So the work of a jury is, that's hard work, right?

The easy thing for you to do is be like, look, he's a bad guy.

The evidence doesn't quite add up, but he's a bad guy.

And

there's 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 a juror.

The opposite is true here when you talk about George Floyd.

Obviously, times a thousand from your case,

the overwhelming current, and every one of them knows this.

Of course, they're way too aware of what's going on in the news.

They all know about the story.

They all know that, number one, everyone's going to think they're terrible if they let this guy off, Chauvin.

Number two, if they let him off, their entire city will be flat.

There will be no buildings left in it, and none of their property will have any value.

And it is a catastrophe for the city they probably love.

And I'm telling you, like, they're human beings.

That's not supposed to enter their mind, but they have to be aware of this.

And it is completely 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, you know, the most extreme charge, the highest punishment levels,

then you're going to have this type of reaction, and most of the media will sit there and justify it.

You know, I mean, we saw this clip.

Did you see this clip?

I don't think we have it here in front of us to play, but it was a clip of CNN who had reporters on the scene get attacked, basically.

Was this last week, right?

Yeah, I think it was last week.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was.

And they talked about it and they said, well, look, I understand why they're angry.

And, you know,

it's understandable that they'd be this angry.

And we were getting pelted with, you know, water bottles and whatever else people could pick up.

And it's understandable why they're angry.

Like, what are you talking about?

What kind of...

That's not justifiable because you're angry.

Because someone you may or may not know had an interaction with police that may or may not, we don't even have the verdict yet, be a crime,

although it looked pretty bad to me.

Then

it's justified to throw things at reporters?

Like, what world are we talking about here?

This is supposed to be a civilization.

You certainly don't say that about Trump supporters when they just say bad things to them.

Yeah, when Trump supporters would be like, you know, they would be chanting fake media, there would be like terrified reporters on the Airbnb.

These are death threats.

These are death threats.

Our lives are in danger.

We are the free press.

Why is he calling us the enemy of the people?

I mean, these are words.

These reporters are actually getting hit, and the reporters getting hit were saying they understood it.

You know, I'm glad you said these are words because I,

in our three today, I'm going to go over words.

and the power of words and what we who are fighting this onslaught of 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 the supposed Jim Crow laws, the latest assault on the right to vote.

And those who are are

testifying, Raphael Warnock, so he's the new Georgia senator, stacey abrams

uh burgess owens thank goodness he's one uh sharilyn eiffel from the naacp

uh carol anderson for um

uh she's a professor of african american studies and chair of african american studies at emory university the secretary of state of new hampshire the uh speaker of the georgia house of representatives they're all going to testify today

on Jim Crow laws.

And let me tell you something.

This is an absolute insult.

An insult to this is

everything the ADL has ever said when anybody on the right brings up, hey, this is fascistic.

These are the same kinds of seeds that started, you know, in Germany.

They go crazy.

That's an insult to the memory of all of those in Auschwitz and the other death camps.

Yeah, I actually think it's more of an insult.

I think those people would say, hey, if you see the seeds, you might want to point them out so it doesn't happen again.

I think ignoring things, or worse yet, ignoring them only on one side or the other.

Not ignoring consistently.

But ignoring on one side or the other.

That's an insult.

Now, where are the people who say, how dare you?

How dare you say that

Joe Biden or any of these things could be compared to Hitler?

That's horrible.

After they spent four years calling worse names than Hitler, Hitler was their starting point with Donald Trump.

Where are they now on Jim Crow laws?

Where are the people that actually lived through some Jim Crow laws?

And not even Jim Crow laws, the remnants of Jim Crow laws.

Where are the people that actually know what Jim Crow laws were?

Is there any outrage?

I'm going to give you

the evidence that every time somebody says, that's Jim Crow,

I want you just to repeat a few words.

And

those words will have power.

Nobody's going to hear them.

Nobody's Nobody's going to like them.

But it's the words that need to be spoken every time.

We need to start.

We need to stake out our, you know, we are so close to the cliff and so many people are going over it right now.

You have to refuse not to go over the cliff with the rest of humanity.

So you need to start staking out your position.

And when I say drive stakes into the ground and tie yourself to these positions, to these stakes, you're everything is going to want to push you over the edge stake yourselves in a few truths

the best of the Glen Bank program

Hey, if you're a small business owner, let me ask you something.

How badly is HR killing you right now?

The average salary for an HR manager alone is around 70 grand a year.

Seems a little steep, but God have mercy on you if all of a sudden you need an HR manager and you don't have one.

From minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and the ugly specter of things like wrongful termination suits, it is necessary to have HR 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 HR policy, and maintain your compliance all for just wait for it, $99 a month.

Now, I'm not a math genius, but I think it's a little less than $70,000 a year.

From bringing on new employees to terminations, Bambi will customize your policies to fit your business, and then they'll help manage your employees day to day.

So, let Bambi help.

Get your free HR audit today.

Right now, go to Bambi, B-A-M-B-E-E dot com/slash/Glenn.

Andrew Branca, he is an attorney specializing in self-defense law.

He is the founder of lawofselfdefense.com.

He is a guest instructor in Quantico for the FBI.

I mean, his resume is very, very long.

He recently won the UC 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, what should we know?

And what's happening perhaps in the jury room?

What are they wrestling with now?

Andrew, welcome to the program.

How are you?

I'm very pleased to be here.

Can you hear me okay, Glenn?

I can.

I can.

So

let's start with the charges that Chauvin has been charged with because murder, it seems, in Minnesota, murder in the third degree and murder in the second degree are different in Minnesota.

Is that right?

They are.

Yes.

So Minnesota uses the label murder in a way that other states don't.

In other states, a murder is an intentional killing.

Chauvin's not been charged with any intentional killing whatever.

He's 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 murder.

So the use of the label murder here is somewhat misleading.

Okay, so

why is that, first of all?

Does it carry the same weight as murder, or is it like manslaughter in other charges?

It's like manslaughter.

So these charges should be thought of as basically manslaughter charges, reckless homicide charges.

And the take-home message from this really is that it tells us that even the state itself does not believe that this was an intentional killing.

If they believed that, they would have charged him with intentional murder, which they have not done.

They've only charged him with reckless murder, reckless killing.

So can we go over, I mean, just let's look at the charges here.

Murder in the second degree while committing a felony.

That's what he's charged with.

What felony was he committing?

The underlying felony there is third-degree assault, which is an assault that causes serious bodily injury or, of course, death.

And that's a felony under Minnesota law.

So that's the predicate felony for the felony murder charge, what they call second-degree murder, but most states would call felony murder.

Okay.

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.

Now, this is where the medical examiner kind of pulls some weight here because he said it did.

He wrote the murder down as cause of death murder, didn't he?

Well, it's more complicated than that.

He actually does not say that explicitly.

He says that the death occurred, the cardiopulmonary arrest occurred in the context of the police restraint.

He doesn't explicitly say that the police restraint caused the cardiopulmonary arrest.

He's letting other people draw that conclusion and make those statements.

That's why the prosecution brought in their expert witness, Lindsey Thomas, an alternative.

forensics pathologist to interpret Dr.

Baker's report, even though Dr.

Baker himself came in to testify about his report.

They needed someone else to make that explicit connection that Dr.

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 he's prepared to say is that these things happened at the same time.

Well, I mean, does that hurt the prosecution?

I mean, I would imagine it would.

Well, the prosecution recognized that weakness.

I mean, obviously, they've had access to Dr.

Baker from the very beginning, and if he was willing to explicitly make that statement, they needed only him.

There's a reason 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 cumulative, overwhelmingly cumulative

evidence being brought in on essentially the same argument over and over and over again.

Normally, that's not permitted in court.

Normally, you make your argument, you bring in a witness to testify about it, and that's it.

You don't get to bring in eight people or ten people to make effectively the same argument over and over again to the jury, which is what the prosecution did in this case.

So,

why did the judge allow that?

You would have to ask the judge why he would allow that.

Most judges, in my experience, would not.

There's a lot that this judge allowed that would simply not have been permitted in most criminal courts, in my experience.

But of course, we've seen judges go off the rail before, right?

We all were of a certain age.

We were familiar with the O.J.

trial and Judge Lance Ito in that case, who lost control of his courtroom.

Cahill was nowhere near that bad, but he certainly allowed a lot of conduct that would not have been considered permissible in most criminal courts, including Prosecutor Blackwell's rebuttal closing yesterday, which was full of,

frankly, lies, misrepresentations of the evidence, misrepresentations of the defense argument, to the point where, in my opinion, and the defense made a motion for this, which was denied by the judge, but in my opinion, that was prosecutorial misconduct worthy of a mistrial right there and certainly of a reversal of conviction after the fact.

Wow.

Holy cow, well, that just set the country on fire, or at least Minneapolis for sure on fire.

I want to get to that here in just a second.

Let's just...

I'm clear.

Judge Cahill denied the motion for a mistrial, so there is no mistrial.

Right, I know.

No, I know.

There were grounds for it, in my opinion.

Right.

But I mean, if it goes back for a second hearing

and they reverse this verdict

or, you know, they

go back later and say,

this is invalid.

I mean, that's just going to set everything on fire.

Odds of that happening, Andrew?

I'm a legal professional, so I don't place those kinds of paths.

But there are very, very solid grounds for a robust appeal in this case on many fronts, not just on Blackwell's closing.

Okay.

Let me just finish up with the charges, and then we'll come back to some other things.

Murder in the third degree.

They have to prove the death of George Floyd.

Then defendants' actions were a substantial causal factor in Mr.

Floyd's death.

The fact that other causes contributed to the death does not relieve the defendant of criminal liability.

The defendant caused the death of George Floyd by an intentional act that was eminently dangerous to other persons.

But

is the kneeling on the back, is that

a legal procedure in Minnesota or was it at the time?

Well, that's a matter of factual dispute.

So certainly the Minneapolis Police Department trains its officers to use their knee on the back and neck of suspects,

but mostly for the purposes of getting them handcuffed.

Whether you're allowed to keep your knee there is ambiguous.

They don't tell you you can't, but they don't explicitly 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 it was kept in place.

But just because it's not trained doesn't mean it's not permitted or doesn't mean that it's unlawful.

So that's where we get into the ambiguity of whether Chauvin should have known, for example, that that conduct was criminal conduct.

He'd never been told he can't do that.

Okay, so

in murder in the third degree,

he doesn't have to intend to cause the death, and he...

He may not have been specifically directed at the particular person whose death occurred.

What does that mean?

Well, 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 get in your car, you drive down the road, you're not trying to hit anybody in particular, but you are creating a danger to the public generally.

And then, if you do cause injury, you're obviously responsible for that injury.

That would be under third-degree murder if you'd killed someone while drunk driving.

It used to not apply if you were creating a danger only to a single individual.

It was required that it was a group threat, a general threat.

But the Minnesota appellate courts recently rewrote that legal doctrine so that it can now apply to even a threat to only a single individual.

That's why when

Chauvin was originally charged with third degree, the judge in the case threw it out.

He says, no, this is not a case where there's a general threat.

But then the Court of Appeals changed the law, the prosecution came back, and the third degree murder charge was reinstated.

Wow.

All right.

And the last one is manslaughter in the second degree.

Defendant caused the death of George Floyd by culpable negligence.

Defendant created an unreasonable risk, consciously took a chance of causing death or great bodily harm.

Defendant may not have intended for his conduct to be harmful.

This seems like that one's easy to hit out of the park.

And we're just going over the charges over the last few minutes.

So let's talk about all three of these charges and

where you think they made the case or missed making the case.

Let's start with murder in the second degree.

Murder in the second degree, that's the felony murder charge.

It has to be predicated on whether or not he committed a third degree assault.

And frankly, it's open to factual interpretation whether or not you think he committed an assault.

Do you think that use of force was unauthorized under the circumstances?

I expect that, in fact, Chauvin and other officers in the MPD have been using that exact same technique on suspects their entire careers, and nobody has ever died as a result.

I expect that no one was more surprised when Floyd died than Chauvin was.

That's why he has not been charged with an intentional killing.

Even the prosecutors don't believe he believed that he was killing George Floyd.

If they thought that was the case, they would have charged him simply with straight-up intentional murder instead of these variety of reckless killing charges.

So the question becomes, was his restraint of Floyd 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 manslaughter charge.

And do you think that the prosecution made the case or do they even need to?

That,

they played the video over and over again and it's excruciating to watch.

I mean, I don't think there's a single American watching that that isn't emotionally filled with horror on what's going on.

Does he have a chance of

anybody actually saying, no,

that wasn't a felony in the third degree?

Well,

if the argument had been made more effectively, frankly, I think he would be in a better position.

Now, his defense attorney, Eric Nelson, I think, largely did a very good job.

And, of course, he's the guy in court actually doing the job.

So I hate to come across like an armchair quarterback.

There were 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 29 seconds that they keep talking about, because Floyd was alive for almost all of that.

It's not until the last 90 seconds that any of the officers have a reason to believe that he might not be breathing or there might not be a pulse the last 90 seconds before the paramedics show up.

That's the real

sensitive point for the defense.

Why was he still restraining him then and not providing CPR in that 90 seconds?

If I were on the jury, that's the question I would want to answer.

Because up until that point, Floyd was still alive.

He wasn't dead yet.

And did anybody answer that?

Did the defense answer that at all?

The defense raised facts that were relevant to answering that question, but they never seemed to pull it together into a cohesive answer for the jury.

It's almost like they see it, so they expect the jury will see it.

But any of us who have conversations on 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 events that you have.

So you say that murder in the second degree, if he was, if they do find that he was committing a felony, then murder in the second degree is likely to happen.

Yes, if they conclude that he committed the felony of third-degree assault under Minnesota law, then

felony murder is done.

That's all they have to prove for felony murder.

So

my gut would say that that's the way it's going to come down.

If it comes down to that one question

on whether or not

that last 90 seconds

was answered for correctly,

I think it's just too much emotion and

as you point out, not enough

answering of that question.

I think he gets that.

I mean, if it were me on the jury, I would have no hesitation in voting not guilty on this.

I have more than sufficient reasonable doubt.

But as an attorney with some expertise in this area, I perhaps see things differently than we could reasonably expect those jurors to see things.

They're not legal experts.

Why would you vote not guilty?

Because I don't think the use of force was unauthorized.

I don't think it 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 don't believe he was choking the life or crushing the life out of George Floyd.

I don't think there's evidence of that.

The only evidence of that is that Floyd ended up dying.

But there are alternative explanations for Floyd's death that are consistent with it not having been caused by Chauvin's knee, including the 90% blockage of coronary arteries, the pathological hypertension, the enlarged heart, the fentanyl, the meth, the decision to fight police for 10 minutes.

Any of those things could have killed Floyd.

without Chauvin's knee having been a substantial contributing factor to Floyd's death.

Aaron Ross Powell,

okay, so murder in the third degree.

Did they make this case?

What were the strengths and weaknesses of that?

But again, that all hinges on the use of force being unauthorized.

And if you don't believe that Chauvin was killing Floyd with his knee, using excessive force with the knee, but merely holding him in place, waiting for paramedics to arrive,

and you don't believe there was a causal link of death, you don't believe the knee killed him.

You believe, at least there's a reasonable doubt that those other factors, the heart disease, the fentanyl, the meth, the tumor in Floyd, that there's a reasonable doubt that those other things could have been the drivers of Floyd's death, not the knee, then it's not third-degree murder either.

And is the same to be said about manslaughter then?

Yes, because manslaughter, the question is, was the use of force reckless?

Did he recklessly create a risk of death?

And if you don't believe he was grinding him to death with his knee, then he wasn't doing that.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program, and we really want to thank you for listening.

So I just want to read two articles for you.

You know, people have said that the United States, and

this is coming from the business community.

This is coming from the big big businesses around the world.

They say that China is the new model.

So the way China does its business is the way these big businesses want to do business in their countries and in the Western world.

And you're hearing, whenever you hear people talk about infrastructure, we've got to invest in our future.

That used to mean roads and bridges and things like that.

But that's not what that means now.

What that means is putting the United States in a position where we're advantaged because the Chinese are advantaged because the government invests in so much new technology.

Well, that's fine and dandy, but we really haven't had a problem until the government started getting involved with everything.

So your tax dollars are going to be directed into businesses and into future technology like solar panels, et etc.

But the economy becomes controlled.

This is Marxism and socialism and eventually communism, which let's not forget, that's what China is, a controlled communist society that now has a capitalist market, if you will.

Okay, so I want you just to listen to these two stories and tell me we're not already there.

This is from Daily Mail Online.

China launches an app for citizens to report anyone who has mistaken opinions.

Released by China's cyber regulator, along with a similar hotline, the app aims to crack down on historical nihilists ahead of the party's 100th anniversary in July.

An arm of the Cyberspace Administration of China said the app and hotline will allow and

encourage netizens, instead of citizens netizens, to report fellow internet users who spread mistaken opinions in order to create a good public opinion atmosphere.

Now, such offenses would include distorting the party's history,

attacking 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 America, the app is called Twitter.

Distorting the party's history.

If you mention anything at all about the history of the Democratic Party, you are

a pariah.

You're lying.

You're a liar and lying lies about all the lies about the lying liars of the Democratic Party.

You attack the leadership.

If you said anything about Barack Obama, you're a racist.

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 George Floyd.

Don't you point out his record or anyone else that the evil police have

gone off on or have killed one way or another.

Don't talk about any of that.

They're heroes.

Or if you deny the excellence of advanced socialist culture,

we're already there, gang.

Except this one is being done specifically by the government, and the app is required for everyone to have.

For now, for a while, they say some people have had ulterior motives and they have

spread this historically nihilistic false statements online, maliciously distorting, slandering, and denying party, national, and military history in an attempt to confuse people's thinking.

We hope the majority of internet users will actively play their part in supervising society and enthusiastically report harmful information.

Ya vol

the notice didn't specify what punishments would be dealt with for people who are reported through the hotline.

China already faces jail time, 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 insults, 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 punished at least 2,000 people who have had the wrong response

to the coronavirus pandemic and questioned the authorities.

Do you see how close we are to this?

Now, let me give you a story that came out the first day.

I mean, the same day.

This came out yesterday.

Alien is now non-citizen or migrant, and legal alien is now undocumented, non-citizen, undocumented individual or migrant, according to the 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 the mandates is that border crossers 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 administration's 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 great story

that I read today from the Federalist.

Ten politically correct but false words you need to stop using right now.

They are changing our language and they are policing it, and it will become an app.

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 are mainstream media.

What that means is that they reflect mainstream America.

And I don't believe they do.

They may be coastal

media.

They may express the views of those in California and New York, but they don't, they do not represent mainstream America.

Big media is what we should, corporate media is what we should call them.

60 Minutes

invented a scandal about Ron DeSantis.

They edited

video for an interview.

They haven't really covered Andrew Cuomo's cover-up of the COVID-19 nursing homes.

RussiaGate.

Notice that we spent how many years?

Four years on RussiaGate?

Now nobody seems to be interested in RussiaGate.

Why?

Because it's been proven to be inaccurate and they won't even admit that now.

The cover-up of Hunter Biden, the laptop story, that's not mainstream.

None of these things are mainstream.

Stop calling them mainstream media.

It's the corporate media or big media.

The next word we have to stop using is gender.

What we mean is sex.

Words have gender.

But people are one sex or another.

Male or female.

That refers to sex.

Sex is a biological category that reflects a personal's physical characteristics and reproductive systems and manifests in certain broad behavioral differences that distinguish men and women.

My son was having a hard time arguing with his friends, and I didn't know how to help him until I contacted Dr.

Deborceaux and said, okay, how do you win this argument?

You stop using using the word gender.

It's sex.

Part of this is biological.

Gender is how you feel.

Well, you can feel anything you want,

but the facts are

you're male 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 assigned at birth.

It's not assigned during a surgery.

It's not assigned.

It can't be reassigned if it's never been assigned.

Surgicals or

procedures that remove or conceal the outward appearance of a woman or man's reproductive organs should 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.

And I used to mock these people, and I'd go, I know, I know, I know.

But I want you to listen to what the Federalists wrote about this next one.

Stop using the word democracy.

It's a republic.

And they go into

what Plato wrote about.

And I completely forgot about this.

When's the last time you read

Plato?

The Republic.

I need to reread it, because listen to the way Plato in the Republic lists democracy.

He says, democracy is the social structure directly followed by tyranny.

Democracy, according to Plato, comes into being when the poor, winning the victory, put to death some of the other party, drive out others, and grant the rest of the citizens an equal share in both citizenship and offices.

That is 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 U.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 because I think it is really, really

well thought out.

And if we're going to be in the fight, there are things that we do have to do.

And

and being accurate with our language look at how much they are bullying people for language it 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

instead 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 average person doesn't, but they do.

This article, again, you can find at the Federalist top 10 politically correct but factually false words to stop using right now.