August 25, 2025 • 62 mins
When does patriotism cross the line into restricting our fundamental freedoms? That's the question at the heart of tonight's episode as we dive into Donald Trump's controversial executive order criminalizing flag burning with a one-year jail sentence.
As a military veteran who's attended funerals where flags draped the coffins of fallen soldiers, I understand the visceral reaction many have to flag burning. It's offensive. It's provocative. But should it be illegal? The Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling established flag burning as protected free speech—a principle that transcends political loyalties and speaks to the very heart of American liberty.
Tonight, I break down the constitutional framework, explain why even deeply offensive symbolic speech deserves protection, and explore the dangerous precedent this executive order could set. What happens when we start allowing the government to criminalize forms of protest because they offend our sensibilities? Today it's the American flag; tomorrow it could be criticism of government institutions or burning flags with different political symbols.
The conversation broadens to examine how echo chambers have degraded our ability to engage with opposing viewpoints—from Cracker Barrel's tone-deaf rebranding response to Amanda Seals' inability to handle disagreement on Jubilee. When did we lose the ability to separate personal offense from constitutional principles? When did challenging someone's opinion become an attack on their identity?
Freedom isn't always comfortable. The true test of our commitment to liberty comes when we're asked to defend expression we personally find repugnant. Are we still capable of that nuanced thinking, or have we surrendered to political tribalism? Join the conversation and subscribe to hear more thought-provoking discussions that challenge conventional wisdom and defend timeless principles.
RyanFSamuels.com
https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=1&affid=176&source_id=RyanSamuels
https://theryansamuelsshow.myshopify.com/
https://twitter.com/RyanFSamuels
https://www.facebook.com/TheRyanSamuelsShow/
https://rumble.com/user/RyanFSamuels
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ha_kVpgTc6K2cvbPVKGjQ
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
no-transcript.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Welcome to the show.
We're going to have a reallygood show tonight.
I have a new setup here forwhen I'm on the road, so
hopefully things look and soundpretty good.
I got a new microphone.
Leave a comment in the commentsection if the microphone is off
or doesn't sound good.
But tonight we have threetopics that we are going to
(04:07):
discuss.
Earlier today I had responded toan executive order that Donald
Trump had put out which wasmaking it what he says is making
it 12 months in jail forburning the American flag, to
which I opposed.
So everybody went crazy.
(04:33):
Okay, listen, I am here toreport and give you guys the
truth.
I am not here to placate and,you know, be a shill for the
Republican Party.
That's not what I am here for.
(04:54):
What I am here for is to findthe truth and report on it
accurately.
Now I understand that for someof you, you're not happy with
that situation, and that's quiteokay.
Okay, that is quite all right.
The burning of the American flagis free speech.
(05:16):
Okay, it is protected freespeech.
It is already ruled on by theSupreme Court in a case called
Texas v Johnson.
The United States Supreme Courthas declared burning the
American flag as free speech.
It is free speech and it'simportant that it remains free
(05:37):
speech.
I think that burning theAmerican flag is vile.
I think that burning theAmerican flag is disgusting and
you should not do that, but I donot think that if you're going
to burn the American flag inprotest, the federal government
should lock you in prison forone year.
So we're going to talk aboutthis.
(06:02):
First I am going to pull thisup here.
We're going to learn about theSupreme Court case, ok, and then
we are going to look at theruling itself, and the First
Amendment protects free speech,including expressive conduct,
but does it shield someoneburning the American flag in
(06:22):
protest In Texas versus Johnson?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
the United States Supreme Court answered that
question.
In 1984, gregory Lee Johnsonparticipated in a protest of the
Republican National ConventionOutside the Dallas City Hall.
Johnson doused an American flagwith kerosene and set it on
fire.
As the flag burned, protesterschanted quote and set it on fire
.
As the flag burned, protesterschanted quote America, the red,
(06:46):
white and blue, we spit on you.
Unquote.
Johnson was charged withdesecration of a venerated
object under Texas law.
The trial court convictedJohnson, fining him $2,000 and
sentencing him to one year inprison.
The Court of Appeals for the5th District of Texas affirmed.
However, the Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals reversed,
(07:08):
concluding that Johnson'spunishment violated the First
Amendment.
The United States Supreme Courtaccepted the case.
To determine whether statescould criminalize burning the
American flag, the courtconcluded that flag burning is
expressive conduct protected bythe First Amendment.
As a result, state lawscriminalizing flag burning were
content-based speechrestrictions that didn't survive
(07:31):
constitutional scrutiny.
Writing for a five-justicemajority, justice Brennan
concluded that the FirstAmendment protected flag burning
because it contained asufficient level of
communication.
By burning the flag, johnsonintended to convey a particular
message and it was likely thatanyone who witnessed his conduct
would understand that message.
(07:51):
For First Amendment purposes,the government has more leeway
in regulating expressive conductthan it does in regulating
written or spoken words.
When speech and non-speechelements are combined in a
single course of conduct, asufficiently important
governmental interest inregulating the non-speech
element can justify anincidental limitation on First
(08:13):
Amendment freedoms.
To qualify for this morelenient standard, the state has
to assert an interest unrelatedto the suppression of expression
.
Texas asserted two possibleinterests to justify Johnson's
punishment.
First, flag burning causedbreaches of the peace.
Second, texas wanted topreserve the flag as a symbol of
(08:34):
national unity.
The first interest wasn'timplicated in Johnson's case.
Texas admitted that no actualbreach of the peace occurred.
The second interest wasdirectly related to Johnson's
political message and thereforedidn't qualify for the more
lenient standard.
Because the restriction onJohnson's speech was
content-based, the courtsubjected Texas' asserted
(08:56):
interest to the most exactingconstitutional scrutiny.
Under that scrutiny, thestate's interest in preserving
the flag as a symbol of nationalunity didn't justify Johnson's
punishment.
The court didn't object toTexas' goal, only its means.
Preserving the flag as a symbolof national unity was a
legitimate state interest thatcould support laws regulating
(09:18):
how the flag may be displayed,but it couldn't justify criminal
punishment for burning the flag.
But it couldn't justifycriminal punishment for burning
the flag.
The ideal way to preserve theflag's special role in society
was not by punishing those whoexpressed contrary views, but by
attempting to persuade themwith further dialogue.
Therefore, the court affirmedthe judgment of the Texas Court
(09:38):
of Criminal Appeals, holdingthat the First Amendment barred
criminal punishment for burningthe American flag in protest.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Justice Kennedy concurred, opining that while he
found it hey, melinda, thankyou for your comment, guys, I
don't mean to interrupt thevideo, but she brings up a great
point.
Is it a hate crime when youburn a rainbow flag?
Yeah, it is, and it should notbe.
(10:06):
We're going to go over all ofthat.
Okay, I appreciate you guys.
List content Right now is thetime to hit that like, share and
subscribe button.
Okay, subscribe to it.
We're going to get to that,melinda, in just a second.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Flag burning distasteful.
The facts and applicable lawcompelled the majority's result.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joinedby Justices White and O'Connor,
dissented.
Rehnquist argued that Johnsonhad many ways of making his
point and that Texas lawcriminalized just one of them.
Johnson remained free toexpress his viewpoint in a
(10:35):
myriad of ways.
For Rehnquist, flag-burning wasa form of fighting words, which
is speech that inflicts directinjury or incites an immediate
breach of the peace.
Any expressive benefit derivedfrom flag burning was clearly
outweighed by the publicinterest in maintaining peace
and order.
Rehnquist also pointed out that48 states and the federal
(11:00):
government agreed with thisreasoning, as they had statutes
prohibiting flag burning ontheir books too.
Justice Stevens also dissented,reasoning that Johnson wasn't
prosecuted for his message butfor the method he used to convey
it.
Permitting flag burningtarnishes the flag's value.
In contrast, criminalizing flagburning was only a trivial
burden on free speech,particularly in light of the
many alternative methods one hasfor communicating political
(11:23):
ideas.
Texas versus Johnson remains asource of deep disagreement.
In 2006, congress tried toamend the constitution to
prohibit flag burning and fellshort by only one vote.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Okay, this has been an issue forever.
This flag burning whether it'sa crime, whether it's free
speech has been an issue foryears.
Okay, it is free speech.
You're allowed to burn theAmerican flag.
You should be allowed to burnthe American flag.
I hate it.
I think it's reprehensible.
You should be allowed to burn atrans flag, a Palestinian flag,
(12:02):
whatever flag you want inprotest, just like you should be
able to burn a trans flag, apalestinian flag, whatever flag
you want in protest.
Just like you should be able toburn the quran or the bible.
I don't think you should dothat.
I'm a religious catholic person.
Don't burn burning the bible.
But when it comes to the unitedstates and your rights as a
citizen, you have a right to dothat.
(12:22):
And this is not a good step,because what we're doing is that
we're putting restrictions onfreedom of speech.
That's literally what'shappening.
The Republican Party is nowputting restrictions on freedom
of speech.
So now I'll propose thisquestion to everybody in the
(12:45):
audience and thank you so muchfor tuning in.
I appreciate all of you.
I do but say some.
You know, extraordinarily farless communist gets elected
president and he wants to changethe American flag to have a
communist logo in it with thestar and sickle.
Okay, you would not be able toburn that flag in protest
(13:12):
because of what Donald Trump didwith his executive order.
If you put the shoe on theother foot, is it right to you?
Is it fair to you?
I'm not saying that that'sgoing to happen, but it could
happen.
There should be no restriction,especially if you own the
property.
Now, if I go out and I purchaseanything an American flag or a
(13:33):
you know whatever Navy flag, airForce flag, united States
Marine Corps flag that's myproperty.
That's my property.
I have property rights to that.
If I want to light it on fire,then I can light it on fire.
It's my property and Iunderstand this is a super
(13:53):
touchy issue for all of you.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
I'm a conservative, I really am, and I hate it.
I think it's disgusting.
I'm a military veteran.
I'm a wartime military veteran.
I've been to many a funeralwhere military members were laid
(14:14):
down with a flag draped overthem.
I think it's reprehensible, butI think that freedom and First
Amendment rights supersede that.
Sorry, that's how I feel.
I'm not here to give you guyswhat you want to hear.
I'm here to tell you the truth,and the truth is it's protected
free speech, and I think thatDonald Trump is going to have a
(14:35):
very hard time enforcing thisNow.
There is a little bit ofconfusion here.
Not necessarily confusion, butthe way that he wrote the
executive order is a little bittricky.
Okay, I have a picture of itsomewhere, but pull it up here.
(14:56):
Here is Donald Trump talkingand signing the order.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
Lastly, sir, this is an executive order on flag
burning.
It charges your attorneygeneral, would you?
Speaker 5 (15:09):
listen to this.
This is very important Flagburning All over the country.
They're burning flags All overthe world.
They burn the American flag and, as you know, through a very
sad court I guess it was a fiveto four decision they called it
freedom of speech.
But there's another reasonwhich is perhaps much more
important.
(15:29):
It's called death.
Because what happens when youburn a flag is the area goes
crazy.
If you have hundreds of people,they go crazy.
You could do other things.
You can burn this piece ofpaper.
You can and it's, but when youburn the American flag, it
incites riots.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
That's why it needs to be protected, because when
you burn the American flag youget the most amount of attention
.
That's why they do it.
So things of free speech thatis not offensive in burning the
American flag is probably one ofthe most offensive things that
you can do.
But if it's not offensive itdoesn't need constitutional
(16:14):
protection.
You know, during the AmericanRevolution, the colonists, the
colonies, were burning Britishflags in the street.
They were hanging King Georgein effigy Stuffed dolls of King
George.
They were hanging from trees inprotest.
They would disagree with youhere.
(16:36):
They would disagree with thisentire situation.
This is the First Amendment tothe Constitution we're talking
about here, the First Amendmentand I'm sorry, but I believe
that Donald Trump is wrongLevels that we've never seen
before.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
People go crazy In a way, both ways.
There are some that are goingcrazy for doing it.
There are others that are angryangry about them doing it.
Do you want to discuss that?
Speaker 4 (17:05):
What the executive order does, sir.
It charges your Department ofJustice with investigating
instances of flag burning andthen, where there's evidence of
criminal activity, that whereprosecution wouldn't fall afoul
of the First Amendment, andinstructs the Department of
Justice to prosecute those whoare engaged in these instances
of flag burning.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
And what the penalty is going to be.
If you burn a flag, you get oneyear in jail.
No early exits, no, nothing.
You get one year in jail.
If you burn a flag, you get.
And what it does is incite toriot I hope they use that
language, by the way, did theyIncite to riot?
And you burn a flag, you getone year in jail.
(17:44):
You don't get 10 years, youdon't get one month, you get one
year in jail and it goes onyour record and you will see
flag burning stoppingimmediately, just like when I
signed the Statute and MonumentAct.
10 years in jail.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This is the equivalent.
This is the equivalent ofputting you in jail for posting
critical things online.
This is in the same category.
I feel like.
I feel like this is absolutelyin the same category.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
You heard any of our beautiful monuments?
Everybody left town.
They were gone, never had aproblem after that.
It's pretty amazing we stoppedit.
But this is something that's Idon't know.
In a certain way, it's equallyas important.
Some people say it's moreimportant because the people in
this country don't want to seeour American flag burned and
spit on.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
No, I don't want to see it either.
But I don't want individualrights eroded either.
You know this is disappointingto see for me.
I don't like it.
I also don't like when peoplewho disagree with what I have to
(19:01):
say online call me a lowlife ora loser, or they send me a
picture of my house and myaddress and tell me to watch my
back.
I don't like those thingseither.
But this is the country that welive in.
You have freedom to do thesethings.
(19:23):
You know, back during whenBarack Obama was president, they
were making it like stringentlaws that people were burning
Korans or YouTube was takingdown people.
There was a dude that had thisYouTube channel and it was
really funny where he would takea Koran and say here's a great
use for your Koran and he woulduse it as a doorstop or a toilet
(19:45):
plunger or just completelydisrespectful things.
But I mean he has a right to dothat.
I mean I think it disrespectssomebody's religion.
I wouldn't want somebody doingthat with my Bible or any Bible,
but I wouldn't want the federalgovernment locking them up for
expressing their opinion,whether it's vocally or through
(20:06):
action.
Now, I had a ton of people whenI posted today, a ton of people
say a couple of things that arejust completely wrong.
Number one what are you talkingabout when you say free speech?
This is lighting the flag.
It's an action.
It's not words.
Okay, free speech is actions.
You know, when you have asit-in, when you know the
(20:31):
African-Americans in the Southunder Jim Crow would have
sit-ins, that's free speech,it's an action.
They didn't use words, they satthere in silence.
That's free speech.
You know you get up and do awalkout and protest, that's free
speech.
That's free speech.
When the police officer in NewYork City was killed and the
(20:52):
mayor of New York City came inand all of the police officers
turned their back on him, it wasan action.
That's free speech.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Now, that's not something that government can
punish you for and by peoplethat are, in many cases, paid
agitators.
They're paid by the radicalleft to do it.
You talk to these people.
They don't even know, half ofthem don't even know what
they're doing.
They say I don't know, theygave me money to do this.
I see the same things that youdo.
They're bad people that aretrying to destroy our nation.
(21:30):
That's not working, because Ithink our nation now is the most
respected nation anywhere inthe world by far.
You saw that with the Europeanleaders on Friday.
You saw that with NATO, wherethey agreed to go from 2 percent
no pay to 5 percent fully paidup, trillions of dollars paid.
(21:52):
Where they respect yourpresident to a level that they
jokingly call me the presidentof Europe.
They call me the president ofEurope, which is an honor.
I like Europe and I like thosepeople.
They're good people, they'regreat leaders and we've never
had a case where seven plusreally 28, essentially 35, 38
countries were represented herethe other day, 38 European
(22:12):
countries were European andother countries were represented
.
That was a great meeting, butyour country is respected.
Again, I say it all the timeOne year ago our country was
dead.
Everybody said it.
We had a dead country, we werenot going to survive.
Now we have the hottest countryanywhere in the world country
we were not going to survive.
Now we have the hottest countryanywhere in the world.
It's an honor to be involved.
(22:33):
This group has a lot to do withit, right behind me.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
So imagine this same thought process is used about
the stuff you post online andnow they can say oh well, you
incited a riot and just forshits and gigs.
(23:04):
You know the left is talkingabout how they're against this
and whatever.
It's BS.
The left doesn't know whatthey're against until they're
told.
So here is a clip of Joe BidenOur diversity naturally pushes
us apart, not together.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
What holds us together as a nation, mr
President, is not a commonlanguage, although I think that
is necessary.
Nation, mr President, is not acommon language, although I
think that is necessary.
It is the national symbol.
The reason it is worthpreserving is because it unifies
this diverse nation.
The flag's unique place in ournational life means that we
should preserve it against allmanner of destruction.
(23:49):
A statute making it unlawful toburn, mutilate or trample upon
any flag of the United Statesperiod.
It doesn't matter who burns ormutilates or tramples the flag,
and it doesn't matter why.
Under my proposal, it will beunlawful to do the flag harm.
No ifs, ands or buts.
I think that we can and that weshould tell everyone they can't
(24:13):
burn the flag.
Their amendment would make it acrime to walk on the flag at a
college campus sit-in, but notat the war memorial.
My amendment would criminalizeboth.
In my view, it doesn't matterwhy you burn or mutilate or
trample on the flag.
You should not do it.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Hey, jd, welcome in, man.
Glad to see you bud.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
Period.
I don't care whether you'remean to protest a war or praise
a war or start a war.
You should not do it.
I agree.
Our interest in the flag is inthe flag itself as a unifying
symbol.
And, I might add, the personriding down Constitution Avenue
watching the veteran burn theflag to memorialize his
(25:02):
colleagues has no notion why.
All he knows is that thenational symbol is being burned.
I don't want anybody burningthe flag, Whether they're doing
it to praise me or condemn me.
They should not do it.
But don't take my view for it.
(25:23):
Ask a Boy Scout If a Scout seesa flag dip in the ground, he
runs to pick it up, doesn't he?
And now we train.
That's what I train my boys andmy daughter.
Yeah, and you know what you dowhen you retire a flag dip in
the ground, he runs to pick itup, doesn't he?
And now we train.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
That's what I trained my boys and my daughter.
Yeah, and you know what you dowhen you retire a flag, you burn
it.
So how are you supposed to dothat now?
How are you supposed to retirean American flag?
Speaker 6 (25:44):
That's what I was trained as a scout from the time
I was a little kid.
Doesn't matter why it fell,don't let it touch the ground,
correct.
He doesn't care why the flag'sin the ground, he doesn't care
who let it fall.
He doesn't care whether or whatsomeone might have been trying
to say when he let the flag fall.
All he knows is that the flagis something special and it
(26:07):
shouldn't be on the ground.
So it should be with all of usis if it in fact is the unifying
symbol of a diverse nation andit serves a greater government
purpose of holding us together,reminding us how we are the same
and not different.
Hey, cad, welcome on.
(26:28):
My national symbol means.
This is a national symbol, thisis the national government, and
the national government shouldhave unifying role about the
national symbol.
This amendment would not letsome violate the physical
integrity of the flag, but notothers.
Under this amendment, no onewill be able to do the flag harm
(26:53):
.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
I hate it.
I hate when people do the flagharm.
I hate when they light it onfire.
I do, but you have aconstitutional right to do it.
Sorry, end of discussion.
That's not how this works.
We don't allow the federalgovernment to trample your right
to speak freely or to do anaction in protest.
(27:14):
If you own the flag, you canburn the flag.
I'm sorry, that's it.
So Cracker Barrel has decidedto finally finally respond.
Now.
I've been waiting for CrackerBarrel.
(27:34):
They hadn't posted a singlething on Facebook in about 10
days.
Now today they finally posted aresponse and it's not what you
think.
It's going to be okay.
I would have thought that theyhad overwhelming just negativity
(27:57):
and they would, you know, chewon their words a little bit and,
you know, maybe apologize,which they did.
But here let's look at this.
Here's what Cracker Barrelwrote today, and they got
(28:25):
roasted in the comments.
So this is on August 25th.
They hadn't posted anything in10 days.
They just posted this today.
They're trying to backpedal alittle bit, but they're super
sly and creepy with this.
A promise to our guests If thelast few days have shown us
anything, it's how deeply peoplecare about Cracker Barrel.
(28:46):
We're truly grateful for yourheartfelt voices.
You've also shown us that wecould have done a better job
sharing who we are and who we'llbe.
What has not changed and whatwill never change are the values
(29:08):
this company was built on whenCracker Barrel first opened in
1969.
It's not true.
They're lying Hard work, familyand scratch-cooked food made
with care, a place whereeveryone feels at home, no
matter where you're from orwhere you're headed.
That's the Cracker Barrel, youwill find.
(29:30):
It goes on.
It goes on because I don'tthink you're going to go past
the first page.
The things people love mostabout our stores aren't going
anywhere Again, that's not true.
Rocking chairs on the porch, awarm fire in the hearth, peg
games on the table, uniquetreasures in our gift shop and
(29:53):
vintage Americana with antiquespulled straight from the
warehouse in Lebanon, tennessee.
We love seeing how much youcare about our old-timer.
We love him too.
Uncle Herschel will still be onour menu.
He's not staying on the logo.
Welcome back Uncle Herschel'sfavorite breakfast platter On
(30:14):
our road signs and featured inour country store Road signs and
featured in the country storeand on the menu.
Notice how they did not say thelogo on the store.
He is not going anywhere.
He's family, except on the logoon the store.
He is not going anywhere he'sfamily except on the logo.
(30:34):
While our logo and remodels maybe making headlines, our bigger
focus is still right here, whereit belongs in the kitchen and
on your plate serving generousportions of the food you crave
at fair prices, and doing itwith the kind of country
hospitality that brightens yourdays and creates lasting
(30:56):
memories Meatloaf, chicken anddumplings, country fried steak
sides that taste like Sundaysupper and, yes, the world's
best pancakes.
They're all still here, with afew new dishes joining the menu.
Whether you're a long-term fanor first-time guest, we want you
to feel at home around ourtable.
We also want to be sure CrackerBarrel is here for the next
(31:18):
generation of families just asit has been for yours.
That means showing up on newplatforms and in new ways, but
always with our heritage at theheart.
We take that responsibilityvery seriously.
We know we won't always geteverything right the first time,
(31:40):
but we'll keep testing,learning and listening to our
guests and employees.
At the end of the day, ourpromise is simple You'll always
find comfort, community andcountry hospitality here at
Cracker Barrel.
Uncle Herschel would havewanted it.
Wouldn't have wanted it anyother way.
I'm willing to bet that UncleHerschel would not have wanted
(32:02):
to be eliminated from the logoof the company that he was part
of.
Just saying Thank you forcaring so much and come see for
yourself the country hospitalitythat makes Cracker Barrel feel
like home.
They basically just told you togo screw yourself.
We're doing it anyway.
(32:25):
We're doing what we want to doand we're not going to kowtow to
any consumer.
This is a textbook example ofliving in an echo chamber.
Now, for those of you who don'tknow who an echo chamber is,
some of you may even be victimsof it, and it happens.
I was at one point in my lifewhen you live in an echo chamber
(32:48):
.
That means you are surroundedby everything that essentially
you like and you don't hear anyother opinion.
You'll walk into a room andyou'll say you know what I
really like?
Donald Trump.
I think he's great andeverybody agrees with you.
Nobody disagrees Becauseeverybody around you has the
(33:13):
exact same thought process, soyou just echo it to each other
and you never hear anydifferentiating opinion.
So these elitists who sit atthe corporate headquarters, who
gas each other up, who don'tever hear any opposing arguments
(33:41):
or any opposing viewpoints,think that all of this, that all
of this backlash, is just, oh,it's a loud minority.
That's all that it is.
It's just a loud minority, it'snothing else.
But there are a couple things.
We're going to listen to whatshe said.
(34:04):
This is the CEO, julia Massino.
We're going to listen to whatshe said.
Just a second I can pull it uphere and this was really kind of
this wasn't major controversyat the time.
So there's a couple of thingsthat we need to understand with
this.
(34:24):
Number one, the controversy.
There's a lot of misinformationout there, which I think is
actually a good thing, and I'llexplain why.
But this is her on televisionand let's hear what she has to
say about the remodel and therebrand.
Speaker 7 (34:42):
Honestly, the feedback's been overwhelmingly
positive, that people like whatwe're doing.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I'll give you another soundbite, so the feedback is
overwhelmingly positive of whatwe're doing.
So this is textbook.
Echo chamber okay, give youanother soundbite.
So the feedback isoverwhelmingly positive of what
we're doing.
So this is textbook.
Echo chamber okay, nobody isaround you, nobody's opposing
you.
You're the CEO.
Everybody's kissing your rearend, telling you what a great
idea this is.
This is phenomenal, to thepoint where your head is so full
(35:07):
of nonsense that when yourentire customer base finds out
about it, loses their mind andyour stock value loses $100
million that you don't believeit.
Well, no, we've been talkingabout doing this for five years
and everybody it's perfect, it'sgreat.
(35:29):
There's nothing wrong with this.
It's a textbook example ofalienating your customers and
alienating your client base.
And the next section that we gointo we're going to talk about
the echo chamber again, butlet's finish what she has to say
.
Speaker 7 (35:47):
I actually happened to be in Orlando last week with
all of our managers.
We bring them together everyother year and the number one
question that I got asked,Michael, was how can I get a
remodel?
When can I get a remodel?
How do I get on the list?
Speaker 8 (35:59):
Oh really.
Speaker 7 (36:00):
So because the feedback and the buzz is so good
, not only from our customers,but from our team members, no,
they're kissing your ass.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
You're the CEO of the company.
They're trying to get FaceTimewith you, to get recognized so
that they can move up.
A way to do that is to go up toyou and say after the meeting
and the summit and you'restanding there meeting people,
they tell you how great you areand how great this idea is, and
I'm so excited.
Did you run any scientificpolls?
Did you run any data?
(36:34):
I went to Cracker Barrel today.
By the way, I'm not boycottingCracker Barrel, they're amazing.
I went to Cracker Barrel todayand I just asked the hostess.
I said so what do you think ofthis remodel?
She's like I hate it.
All of the customers hate it.
Nobody likes it.
I don't know what they youthink of this remodel?
She's like I hate it.
All of the customers hate it.
Nobody likes it.
I don't know what they're doing.
Granted, this is one CrackerBarrel with a teenage girl who's
(37:00):
really not in the know, but sheis the face of the company that
is dealing with every customerwalking in and I could tell you
it was a ghost town, but it wasalso three or four o'clock in
the afternoon, so take that witha grain of salt, but I
guarantee they didn't run anyscientific data or any polls?
None.
Speaker 7 (37:20):
Guarantee it.
We want to work in a wonderfulrestaurant, so we're doing
everything for our guests andour team members.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Well, Julie Messina, it's wonderful to have you Just
stop.
You're not doing anything foryour guests or your team members
.
You're doing it to make money.
Stop it.
That's the whole point of whatyou're doing is to make money.
Stop BSing everyone.
What are we doing for our teammembers?
We want to have the best teamand the greatest customers in
(37:46):
the world.
So here's a video.
It's an AI video of Julie.
It's pretty funny Obviously notreal AI video of apologizing
for what she has done.
Speaker 7 (38:07):
I'm Julie, ceo of your favorite Southern theme
restaurant, and I want all ofyou to know that we hear you.
We fucked up, so we're going tofix it, starting with Uncle
Herschel.
Don't you dare move from thatrocking chair, sir.
You're back in the logo.
You said we went woke.
Fuck that.
Not only did we go back to ourSouthern roots, we doubled the
(38:29):
fuck down.
How are those pancakes tasting?
Speaker 2 (38:34):
It's like a kid rock concert in my mouth.
Speaker 7 (38:39):
You own a certain red hat.
Well, guess what?
25% off.
How do you like them?
Pancakes, I'll take it, but I'mstill gonna call you woke.
Please, please, please, comeback to Cracker Barrel, I beg of
you.
I just lost this company $100million over a logo made in
Canva.
I thought you fuckers likedthat Chip and Joanna shit.
Well, lesson fucking learnedHelp a sister out, please.
(39:01):
Hi, I'm Julie.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
I thought that was pretty funny.
Sorry, I thought that wasdefinitely pretty funny.
No-transcript.
(39:42):
Let's look at their stock.
Here's Cracker Barrel stock Now.
What you're seeing is just oneday.
So today it went down a quarterof a percent.
(40:02):
Over five days.
It's gone down almost 11%.
Over one month.
It's gone down 17.5%.
Over six months.
It's up 18.5%, okay, year todate.
They're now down 1%, but lookat this Over five years, okay.
(40:27):
So when you look at all of thesememes and you see all of the
memes and they're like oh,cracker Barrel lost 60% of its
share.
It's down $85.
That's over the past five years, okay, which is precisely why
they're trying to remodel.
They're trying to remodel andstay relevant because their
(40:53):
stock is down astronomicalamounts before they even
considered remodeling.
So they're trying to stayrelevant and trying to do
something to fix it, to keep itopen, and trying to do something
to fix it, to keep it open.
This isn't a situation wherethey're like, oh, I'm just going
to be woke, we're going to getrid of that cracker Uncle
(41:14):
Herschel.
I think they should have leftUncle Herschel on the logo.
I do.
I wouldn't mind a white coat ofpaint.
The white kind of looks nice,but to get rid of all the stuff
on the walls.
That's tough, that's hard.
The problem with Cracker Barrelis that Cracker Barrel is
supposed to be a place that isnostalgic.
(41:34):
It's not supposed to change,it's supposed to be like ancient
Cat.
No Cracker Barrel even close tome.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
Awesome Country Cafe with atrain going around the diner.
That's kind of cool.
I've never been in one of those.
(41:54):
And the people that are like onFacebook or Twitter or X and
they're like oh hey, yeah, I'mokay with this Cracker Barrel
Like they don't even have aCracker Barrel.
They live in freakingCalifornia or New York.
You don't have Cracker Barrel,bro, shut up.
You never had a dumpling inyour life.
You don't even know whatbiscuits and gravy is.
Okay, mind your business, stayup there and eat your bagels,
(42:18):
all right.
And I'm a New Yorker.
I'm originally from New York,but I'll tell you what I now
claim the South.
I gone for too long, too longI've been gone, but in other
news we'll see what happens withCracker Barrel.
I think that they should take astep back.
I don't think that statementdid them any any.
(42:40):
Any favors, okay.
So a lady by the name of AmandaSeals went on to a show called
Jubilee.
Now, jubilee is a show that'sdesigned to take you outside of
your comfort zone, specificallyoutside of your echo chamber,
where you sit in a chair andthen boom, it's like a lightning
(43:03):
round of people who sit acrossfrom you or around you and they
ask you questions and theychallenge you and they challenge
your thought process and youhave to respond intellectually.
This woman was not able to dothat.
This woman went to ColumbiaUniversity and got a bachelor's
degree or, I'm sorry, a master'sdegree in hip-hop yes, hip-hop.
(43:29):
You go to Ivy League schools toget a master's degree in
African-American culture andhip-hop.
Our education system is a joke.
So before we get to the Jubileepart, here is her talking about
Kamala Harris during theelection.
Speaker 9 (43:53):
First question to Kamala Harris would be is this a
racist country?
That's my first question.
It doesn't make sense for themto put Jasmine Crockett on a
ticket.
Why ask that question?
Because it is the root of allevil in this country.
And if you are coming into thisposition and you want to do
(44:16):
something different and you wantto be the antithesis, that's
going to be.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
her question is do you believe that this country is
racist?
And of course kamala harris,yes, she does exactly what she
believes believe that thiscountry is racist?
And of course Kamala Harris,yes, that's exactly what she
believes.
Speaker 9 (44:28):
That's her most leftist belief, Then you need to
already address the antithesis,because they are loudly saying
not only is this country racist,it should be racist.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
This woman is out of her mind and she gets like
shellacked, like it'sembarrassing.
It's freaking embarrassing.
Here is her on the Trumpassassination.
Okay, let's listen to her onher brilliant coverage on the
(45:04):
attempted assassination ofDonald Trump.
Speaker 9 (45:10):
That shit was more staged than a Tyler Perry
production of Medea Runs forPresident.
I lived in Harlem long enoughto know that gunshots do not
sound like making popcorn on thestove.
Get down, get down, get down,get down, sound like making
popcorn on the stove.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
Well, I will tell you who has been around gunfire
that, yes, anybody who's everbeen around gunfire can tell you
that that's that's gunfire andit sounds like an AR-15.
Right, I know that.
Now you don't know what you'retalking about.
You're never in harlem.
You never get shot at at harlem.
Harlem is actually a prettynice area nowadays.
It's not.
Speaker 9 (45:54):
It's not washington dc where'd the blood come from?
The bullet that hit his ear soin theater, in movies, they have
what's called blood pellets.
They even you know people usethem in Halloween.
It's basically a pellet of fakeblood that's in your mouth and
when you crush it the bloodcomes out.
(46:14):
To be frank, small hands.
Trump would not respond byraising his fist in the air
triumphantly were an actualattempt made on his life.
This was, I believe, done totry to show his strength counter
(46:38):
to Biden's fragility Ba-dum-bum.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
Oh my God, IQ of a potato, iq Of a friggin potato.
Anyway, she goes on Jubilee andthe best thing about this Is
this racist lady Getsannihilated by black people.
Speaker 10 (47:12):
So why is that fair for people who never had slaves,
who fought against slavery, tohave to pay for people that had
slaves?
Speaker 9 (47:23):
One.
From my understanding, you aremore interested in preserving
the fairness of those who didn'thave slaves than the fairness
of those who are the descendantsof slaves.
That is priority to you, then,finding a fair way to
accommodate those who have beenthe descendant of slaves.
Speaker 10 (47:40):
Well, our ancestors wasn't asking for handouts, they
were asking for equalopportunity, and we have equal
opportunity in this country.
We had a black president, justin case you didn't know.
We had a black president and wehad a black vice president.
I mean, I think she was black.
They said she was black, Idon't know.
So we had a black president andyou know who voted for that
(48:02):
black man White people, becauseyou can't win a popular election
in this country without whitepeople.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
That is a great point that I've never really thought
of before.
You can't win an electionwithout white people voting, so
white people voted for BarackObama, white people elected
Barack Obama, and then, all of asudden, we're more racist now
than we were under Jim Crow.
Speaker 10 (48:30):
So Barack Obama is the product of white people.
So so let's, let's get off thisthing.
Where, oh America is so racist?
What's making America so racistis people that continue to talk
about racism and continue tofocus on racism instead of
focusing on unity and bringingour country forward.
People that have this liberalmindset are infecting our
(48:53):
communities, black people, andmaking us victims and not
victors.
I refuse to embrace a victimmentality, because that's not
what our grandparents andHarriet Tubman and those people
fall for.
They fall for equal opportunity.
Speaker 9 (49:05):
Do not bring up Harriet Tubman's name in vain
baby, please.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Harriet Tubman.
God forbid he mentions her name.
That's offensive to her.
Speaker 10 (49:18):
Harriet Tubman.
Harriet Tubman.
Speaker 9 (49:21):
Harriet Tubman was literally, literally, saving her
family and others from slavery.
Speaker 10 (49:29):
Yeah, you know who helped her White people.
Speaker 9 (49:32):
You know who helped her.
Speaker 10 (49:33):
They were on the Underground.
Speaker 9 (49:34):
Railroad.
Speaker 1 (49:35):
You know who helped her.
Speaker 9 (49:37):
No, you know who helped her God People who
benefit from white supremacy.
It's a lie.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
People who benefit from white supremacy it's a lie.
People who benefit from whitesupremacy.
How on God's green earth wouldpeople help free slaves if
they're benefiting from keepingthem as slaves?
Just a question.
Just a question, that's all.
(50:06):
Feel free to answer it there.
Amanda Seals.
Speaker 9 (50:12):
Lie no sir.
Speaker 10 (50:13):
That's simply not true.
Speaker 9 (50:15):
If that were not the case, then we wouldn't see the
continued effort of colonialismand white people placing
themselves in positions of powerwhen they do not have the power
Because their culture, blackculture, is toxic.
Speaker 10 (50:30):
The Black culture is toxic.
We have produced a culture thatis toxic.
Let's get on the fact thatthere's no fathers in the Black
culture.
Speaker 9 (50:38):
Let's talk about that .
Stop, stop, stop.
Let's talk about that.
None of this is going to workif y'all are just going to sit
here and make up shit.
It's not going to work.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
If y'all are just going to sit here and make up
shit.
It's not going to work.
Is she saying that there are anoverwhelming amount of fathers
in the black community?
Is that what she's saying?
I don't understand.
Stop, this isn't going to workif you guys are going to lie it
has to be.
Speaker 10 (51:03):
In fact, you're putting off emotional liberalism
.
I am not putting off emotionalliberalism.
You're, you're, you're, in fact, you're, you're, you're
literally emotional liberalism.
Speaker 9 (51:06):
I am not putting off emotional liberalism.
You're putting off unfoundedlies based in misinformation.
Remember they did themisinformation thing all summer
where everything conservative ofan apartheid nation that
actively wants to harm blackpeople and not Jewish people.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
But let me bring it back, let me bring it back.
This woman went to an Ivy Leaguecollege Ivy League, columbia,
one of the best colleges in theworld, new York City.
She went there as a blackperson.
But this is an apartheidcountry who wants to eliminate
black people, yet we're sendingthem to the best schools in the
(51:48):
country.
But this is an apartheidcountry who wants to eliminate
black people, yet we're sendingthem to the best schools in the
country.
Clearly she's not qualified togo to an Ivy League school
because her intellect is notthere.
She's not smart enough to go toan Ivy League school.
This is a DEI result.
Who's been sitting in an echochamber screaming it at the wall
?
And the same voices have beencoming back.
Speaker 9 (52:08):
Selling black people in Africa.
That was not happening in thecontext that you're saying, and
they were selling their ownpeople.
Black people still sell theirown people today too by the way,
I don't know if I'm going tolast.
We're selling our own peopletoday too.
I don't know if I'm going tolast.
You probably won't last with me.
I won't, because your ignoranceis so overwhelming.
Speaker 10 (52:23):
That's liberal.
Y'all start name-calling wheny'all get defeated in an
argument.
No, it's not name-calling.
Speaker 9 (52:26):
You won't have an argument because you keep
cutting me off.
Well, that's fine if they don'tlet me cut you off.
Speaker 10 (52:31):
I made my point, you didn't make your point.
I made my point, you haven'tmade your point and I'm okay
Speaker 9 (52:34):
with being thrown out .
Speaker 2 (52:36):
He definitely made his point, In my opinion.
So here's another kid and he'smy favorite Because he just
rocks her world.
And I mean, just look at herright here.
Her freaking head is imploding.
She can't even handle what ishappening.
She can't even process this.
(52:57):
She cannot process that peopledisagree with her.
She cannot process andunderstand that people disagree
with her.
Speaker 8 (53:07):
So she is emotionally destroyed you can give everyone
here like a fifty thousanddollar check, especially people
that are in the streets who arecommitting violent crimes
consistently a fifty thousanddollar check.
It's not going to fix anything.
It's not going to increase themedian household income the next
10 years by 10 percent or 20percent.
For example, we have thechinese exclusion act of 1882.
We prevented Chinese peoplefrom getting citizenship and
(53:28):
even entering the country.
We discriminated against themand basically put them under
apartheid, even here in theUnited States.
Yet they have the highestmedian household income.
How is that possible?
How come they don't complainand feel entitled consistently
to beg for reparations and begfor this when they are killing
each other 90% of the time,which is the rate that black
people kill each other,according to the FBI?
Speaker 9 (53:46):
Oh, young man.
Speaker 8 (53:47):
Yet white people are the oppressors.
Speaker 9 (53:49):
I'm not sure where your education came from, but
they lied to you.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
Stats don't lie though.
Speaker 9 (53:54):
Statistics lie all the time.
So let's start there,particularly when the statistics
are coming from the sourcesthat gain from the statistics
being shown a different way.
So how do you even have adebate if you can't even agree
that the statistics being showna different?
Speaker 2 (54:06):
way.
So how do you even have adebate if you can't even agree
that the statistics exist?
There's nothing to argue aboutthat, then your statistics that
you're trying to argue areinvalid.
Does government skew numbers100%?
We talked about in this showwith DC and my experience as a
police officer yes, they do.
(54:27):
Do they always do it?
No, sometimes they do.
I don't think there's reallyany benefit to lying about
especially when Democrats havebeen in power so long about the
crime in the black community.
I don't think they need to lieabout that.
I think that's self-evident.
But if you can't admit it andeven have a discussion about it,
(54:53):
like even her, she can't evenhave a discussion about it.
She's blocking out allinformation that is not already
decided in her mind.
She's blocking it out whoa,whoa, whoa, stop, stop, stop.
Don't even say anymore, becauseyou're going to take me off of
my beliefs and that's not what Iwant.
Speaker 9 (55:17):
If you're going to start your argument on stats,
don't lie, you've already lostthe argument.
They lie all the time One.
Comparing Chinese people, whoare immigrants that made a
choice to come to the UnitedStates, and comparing the
continued effort of black peopleto ground themselves in a
nation that continues to makeimpediments for them to show and
(55:38):
live and exist in their truecitizenship is a false
equivalency.
Speaker 8 (55:41):
I don't believe that happens at all, but no one here
is.
Speaker 9 (55:44):
Are you acting right now?
Do you really believe this?
I'm telling the truth.
Speaker 8 (55:46):
There's no systemic racism that I've experienced
here in America.
Speaker 2 (55:49):
Look at their face.
Oh my God, you're not a victim.
You're not a victim Like she'snever heard.
She's never been exposed toanybody who disagreed with her.
That's a friggin' problem.
Speaker 8 (56:11):
What system is racist ?
I think the only racism we'veactually seen recently systemic
racism.
That we've seen is theapplication of systemic racism
against white people.
The University of WesternWashington, for example, has
been trying to segregatedormitories using black-only
dormitories, because blackpeople feel safer amongst each
other, but they're more likelyto kill each other than white
people are ever to kill them.
That's just the truth.
You have king von rapping aboutkilling other black men.
(56:33):
Why should I think that thewhite man is the oppressor when
black men are more?
Speaker 9 (56:36):
likely to kill me.
Oh my god, this is scary.
Speaker 2 (56:39):
You need it's scary that you don't believe how I
believe.
Now listen to this response,which is just stupid, because
he's being very respectful right, he's being incredibly
respectful.
So this next response by her isjust downright confusing to me.
I don't understand what theheck she's talking about.
Speaker 9 (57:01):
To think about me as your mama.
Do not talk to me in thatfashion.
So let's check that now, okay,okay.
So on's check that now, okay,okay.
So on a basic level, we have tounderstand that systemic racism
is grounded in the realitiesthat black people have not been
considered an equal human beingin this country since its onset.
So there's simply no way tomake the argument that there
isn't systemic racism and wehave seen in very clear ways
(57:23):
system operate in an organicallyracist way.
Do not cut me off.
Speaker 2 (57:31):
She's got to come from a position of authority.
She's got to come from aposition of authority.
You can't disagree with her.
She's better than you, she'ssmarter than you, and that she's
like just gassed up, like, oh,I went to an Ivy League school.
I know what I'm talking about.
Let me tell you something whenI my experience in college is
(57:51):
that people with PhDs are notintelligent at all.
There was like I couldn't nameone, I really couldn't name one
who was fair or who listened toother people.
Maybe one, yeah, maybe one ofmy PhDs in political science
(58:12):
class, because he didn't hold itagainst my conservative views.
And a lot of times I had anargument with this guy, one of
my professors in politicalscience, and he's telling me
that MSNBC is not biased, thatthey're telling the truth and
that Fox News is biased.
And I had said to him well,actually they're both biased and
(58:45):
he said, no, they're not.
I said, yeah, well, fox news isbasically propaganda for
conservatives and msnbc ispropaganda for democrats, like
they both have the same freakingrole, they both do the same
damn thing.
And he couldn't even grasp thefact that a student would even
(59:07):
challenge him.
He even said that to me Are youchallenging me?
Yeah, I am challenging you.
That would be a good thing todo as a professor to have
students who want to learn.
Challenge you on yourviewpoints Number one.
If you're going to haveviewpoints Number two, you
shouldn't have any viewpointpolitically.
When you're teaching a class,your students shouldn't know
(59:33):
which way you swing politically.
You're teaching aboutgovernment, about the founding
fathers, about politicalphilosophies.
You shouldn't be declaringwhich ones are right, which ones
are wrong.
You know how many students haveto change their beliefs in
(59:55):
college for so long that theyjust become Democrats.
This is how you get turned outto Democrat mill.
It's just a diploma mill forDemocrats.
Man, we're going to take you,we're going to turn your mind to
our political philosophy andwe're going to spear you out
back into the world so that youcan't handle even somebody
having a different opinion.
(01:00:16):
I mean that we've come to and Ihope that this all gets resolved
(01:00:36):
because we have finally gottenrid of the Department of
Education.
That's a big one.
That was a friggin' disasterand a waste of money.
They weren't doing anything.
I'm going to start doingsomething a little bit
differently.
We're going to start doing abook club Not anything you have
to pay for, but I'm going tostart reviewing books separately
, outside of the live videos.
(01:00:57):
As you know, our live videosare Monday through Friday at 9
pm, eastern Standard Time, 9 to10.
You can also download thepodcast.
The podcast is on Apple,spotify, podbean, basically
anywhere you can get a podcastBuzzsprout, spreaker it's
everywhere.
Listen to it, download from thepodcast and thank you very much
(01:01:18):
for tuning in.
I will see you guys tomorrow at9 pm.
We'll see you next time.
no-transcript.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
Welcome to the show.
We're going to have a reallygood show tonight.
I have a new setup here forwhen I'm on the road, so
hopefully things look and soundpretty good.
I got a new microphone.
Leave a comment in the commentsection if the microphone is off
or doesn't sound good.
But tonight we have threetopics that we are going to
(04:07):
discuss.
Earlier today I had responded toan executive order that Donald
Trump had put out which wasmaking it what he says is making
it 12 months in jail forburning the American flag, to
which I opposed.
So everybody went crazy.
(04:33):
Okay, listen, I am here toreport and give you guys the
truth.
I am not here to placate and,you know, be a shill for the
Republican Party.
That's not what I am here for.
(04:54):
What I am here for is to findthe truth and report on it
accurately.
Now I understand that for someof you, you're not happy with
that situation, and that's quiteokay.
Okay, that is quite all right.
The burning of the American flagis free speech.
(05:16):
Okay, it is protected freespeech.
It is already ruled on by theSupreme Court in a case called
Texas v Johnson.
The United States Supreme Courthas declared burning the
American flag as free speech.
It is free speech and it'simportant that it remains free
(05:37):
speech.
I think that burning theAmerican flag is vile.
I think that burning theAmerican flag is disgusting and
you should not do that, but I donot think that if you're going
to burn the American flag inprotest, the federal government
should lock you in prison forone year.
So we're going to talk aboutthis.
(06:02):
First I am going to pull thisup here.
We're going to learn about theSupreme Court case, ok, and then
we are going to look at theruling itself, and the First
Amendment protects free speech,including expressive conduct,
but does it shield someoneburning the American flag in
(06:22):
protest In Texas versus Johnson?
Speaker 3 (06:25):
the United States Supreme Court answered that
question.
In 1984, gregory Lee Johnsonparticipated in a protest of the
Republican National ConventionOutside the Dallas City Hall.
Johnson doused an American flagwith kerosene and set it on
fire.
As the flag burned, protesterschanted quote and set it on fire
.
As the flag burned, protesterschanted quote America, the red,
(06:46):
white and blue, we spit on you.
Unquote.
Johnson was charged withdesecration of a venerated
object under Texas law.
The trial court convictedJohnson, fining him $2,000 and
sentencing him to one year inprison.
The Court of Appeals for the5th District of Texas affirmed.
However, the Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals reversed,
(07:08):
concluding that Johnson'spunishment violated the First
Amendment.
The United States Supreme Courtaccepted the case.
To determine whether statescould criminalize burning the
American flag, the courtconcluded that flag burning is
expressive conduct protected bythe First Amendment.
As a result, state lawscriminalizing flag burning were
content-based speechrestrictions that didn't survive
(07:31):
constitutional scrutiny.
Writing for a five-justicemajority, justice Brennan
concluded that the FirstAmendment protected flag burning
because it contained asufficient level of
communication.
By burning the flag, johnsonintended to convey a particular
message and it was likely thatanyone who witnessed his conduct
would understand that message.
(07:51):
For First Amendment purposes,the government has more leeway
in regulating expressive conductthan it does in regulating
written or spoken words.
When speech and non-speechelements are combined in a
single course of conduct, asufficiently important
governmental interest inregulating the non-speech
element can justify anincidental limitation on First
(08:13):
Amendment freedoms.
To qualify for this morelenient standard, the state has
to assert an interest unrelatedto the suppression of expression
.
Texas asserted two possibleinterests to justify Johnson's
punishment.
First, flag burning causedbreaches of the peace.
Second, texas wanted topreserve the flag as a symbol of
(08:34):
national unity.
The first interest wasn'timplicated in Johnson's case.
Texas admitted that no actualbreach of the peace occurred.
The second interest wasdirectly related to Johnson's
political message and thereforedidn't qualify for the more
lenient standard.
Because the restriction onJohnson's speech was
content-based, the courtsubjected Texas' asserted
(08:56):
interest to the most exactingconstitutional scrutiny.
Under that scrutiny, thestate's interest in preserving
the flag as a symbol of nationalunity didn't justify Johnson's
punishment.
The court didn't object toTexas' goal, only its means.
Preserving the flag as a symbolof national unity was a
legitimate state interest thatcould support laws regulating
(09:18):
how the flag may be displayed,but it couldn't justify criminal
punishment for burning the flag.
But it couldn't justifycriminal punishment for burning
the flag.
The ideal way to preserve theflag's special role in society
was not by punishing those whoexpressed contrary views, but by
attempting to persuade themwith further dialogue.
Therefore, the court affirmedthe judgment of the Texas Court
(09:38):
of Criminal Appeals, holdingthat the First Amendment barred
criminal punishment for burningthe American flag in protest.
Speaker 2 (09:45):
Justice Kennedy concurred, opining that while he
found it hey, melinda, thankyou for your comment, guys, I
don't mean to interrupt thevideo, but she brings up a great
point.
Is it a hate crime when youburn a rainbow flag?
Yeah, it is, and it should notbe.
(10:06):
We're going to go over all ofthat.
Okay, I appreciate you guys.
List content Right now is thetime to hit that like, share and
subscribe button.
Okay, subscribe to it.
We're going to get to that,melinda, in just a second.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Flag burning distasteful.
The facts and applicable lawcompelled the majority's result.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joinedby Justices White and O'Connor,
dissented.
Rehnquist argued that Johnsonhad many ways of making his
point and that Texas lawcriminalized just one of them.
Johnson remained free toexpress his viewpoint in a
(10:35):
myriad of ways.
For Rehnquist, flag-burning wasa form of fighting words, which
is speech that inflicts directinjury or incites an immediate
breach of the peace.
Any expressive benefit derivedfrom flag burning was clearly
outweighed by the publicinterest in maintaining peace
and order.
Rehnquist also pointed out that48 states and the federal
(11:00):
government agreed with thisreasoning, as they had statutes
prohibiting flag burning ontheir books too.
Justice Stevens also dissented,reasoning that Johnson wasn't
prosecuted for his message butfor the method he used to convey
it.
Permitting flag burningtarnishes the flag's value.
In contrast, criminalizing flagburning was only a trivial
burden on free speech,particularly in light of the
many alternative methods one hasfor communicating political
(11:23):
ideas.
Texas versus Johnson remains asource of deep disagreement.
In 2006, congress tried toamend the constitution to
prohibit flag burning and fellshort by only one vote.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
Okay, this has been an issue forever.
This flag burning whether it'sa crime, whether it's free
speech has been an issue foryears.
Okay, it is free speech.
You're allowed to burn theAmerican flag.
You should be allowed to burnthe American flag.
I hate it.
I think it's reprehensible.
You should be allowed to burn atrans flag, a Palestinian flag,
(12:02):
whatever flag you want inprotest, just like you should be
able to burn a trans flag, apalestinian flag, whatever flag
you want in protest.
Just like you should be able toburn the quran or the bible.
I don't think you should dothat.
I'm a religious catholic person.
Don't burn burning the bible.
But when it comes to the unitedstates and your rights as a
citizen, you have a right to dothat.
(12:22):
And this is not a good step,because what we're doing is that
we're putting restrictions onfreedom of speech.
That's literally what'shappening.
The Republican Party is nowputting restrictions on freedom
of speech.
So now I'll propose thisquestion to everybody in the
(12:45):
audience and thank you so muchfor tuning in.
I appreciate all of you.
I do but say some.
You know, extraordinarily farless communist gets elected
president and he wants to changethe American flag to have a
communist logo in it with thestar and sickle.
Okay, you would not be able toburn that flag in protest
(13:12):
because of what Donald Trump didwith his executive order.
If you put the shoe on theother foot, is it right to you?
Is it fair to you?
I'm not saying that that'sgoing to happen, but it could
happen.
There should be no restriction,especially if you own the
property.
Now, if I go out and I purchaseanything an American flag or a
(13:33):
you know whatever Navy flag, airForce flag, united States
Marine Corps flag that's myproperty.
That's my property.
I have property rights to that.
If I want to light it on fire,then I can light it on fire.
It's my property and Iunderstand this is a super
(13:53):
touchy issue for all of you.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
I'm a conservative, I really am, and I hate it.
I think it's disgusting.
I'm a military veteran.
I'm a wartime military veteran.
I've been to many a funeralwhere military members were laid
(14:14):
down with a flag draped overthem.
I think it's reprehensible, butI think that freedom and First
Amendment rights supersede that.
Sorry, that's how I feel.
I'm not here to give you guyswhat you want to hear.
I'm here to tell you the truth,and the truth is it's protected
free speech, and I think thatDonald Trump is going to have a
(14:35):
very hard time enforcing thisNow.
There is a little bit ofconfusion here.
Not necessarily confusion, butthe way that he wrote the
executive order is a little bittricky.
Okay, I have a picture of itsomewhere, but pull it up here.
(14:56):
Here is Donald Trump talkingand signing the order.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
Lastly, sir, this is an executive order on flag
burning.
It charges your attorneygeneral, would you?
Speaker 5 (15:09):
listen to this.
This is very important Flagburning All over the country.
They're burning flags All overthe world.
They burn the American flag and, as you know, through a very
sad court I guess it was a fiveto four decision they called it
freedom of speech.
But there's another reasonwhich is perhaps much more
important.
(15:29):
It's called death.
Because what happens when youburn a flag is the area goes
crazy.
If you have hundreds of people,they go crazy.
You could do other things.
You can burn this piece ofpaper.
You can and it's, but when youburn the American flag, it
incites riots.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
That's why it needs to be protected, because when
you burn the American flag youget the most amount of attention
.
That's why they do it.
So things of free speech thatis not offensive in burning the
American flag is probably one ofthe most offensive things that
you can do.
But if it's not offensive itdoesn't need constitutional
(16:14):
protection.
You know, during the AmericanRevolution, the colonists, the
colonies, were burning Britishflags in the street.
They were hanging King Georgein effigy Stuffed dolls of King
George.
They were hanging from trees inprotest.
They would disagree with youhere.
(16:36):
They would disagree with thisentire situation.
This is the First Amendment tothe Constitution we're talking
about here, the First Amendmentand I'm sorry, but I believe
that Donald Trump is wrongLevels that we've never seen
before.
Speaker 5 (16:54):
People go crazy In a way, both ways.
There are some that are goingcrazy for doing it.
There are others that are angryangry about them doing it.
Do you want to discuss that?
Speaker 4 (17:05):
What the executive order does, sir.
It charges your Department ofJustice with investigating
instances of flag burning andthen, where there's evidence of
criminal activity, that whereprosecution wouldn't fall afoul
of the First Amendment, andinstructs the Department of
Justice to prosecute those whoare engaged in these instances
of flag burning.
Speaker 5 (17:24):
And what the penalty is going to be.
If you burn a flag, you get oneyear in jail.
No early exits, no, nothing.
You get one year in jail.
If you burn a flag, you get.
And what it does is incite toriot I hope they use that
language, by the way, did theyIncite to riot?
And you burn a flag, you getone year in jail.
(17:44):
You don't get 10 years, youdon't get one month, you get one
year in jail and it goes onyour record and you will see
flag burning stoppingimmediately, just like when I
signed the Statute and MonumentAct.
10 years in jail.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
This is the equivalent.
This is the equivalent ofputting you in jail for posting
critical things online.
This is in the same category.
I feel like.
I feel like this is absolutelyin the same category.
Speaker 5 (18:18):
You heard any of our beautiful monuments?
Everybody left town.
They were gone, never had aproblem after that.
It's pretty amazing we stoppedit.
But this is something that's Idon't know.
In a certain way, it's equallyas important.
Some people say it's moreimportant because the people in
this country don't want to seeour American flag burned and
spit on.
Speaker 2 (18:40):
No, I don't want to see it either.
But I don't want individualrights eroded either.
You know this is disappointingto see for me.
I don't like it.
I also don't like when peoplewho disagree with what I have to
(19:01):
say online call me a lowlife ora loser, or they send me a
picture of my house and myaddress and tell me to watch my
back.
I don't like those thingseither.
But this is the country that welive in.
You have freedom to do thesethings.
(19:23):
You know, back during whenBarack Obama was president, they
were making it like stringentlaws that people were burning
Korans or YouTube was takingdown people.
There was a dude that had thisYouTube channel and it was
really funny where he would takea Koran and say here's a great
use for your Koran and he woulduse it as a doorstop or a toilet
(19:45):
plunger or just completelydisrespectful things.
But I mean he has a right to dothat.
I mean I think it disrespectssomebody's religion.
I wouldn't want somebody doingthat with my Bible or any Bible,
but I wouldn't want the federalgovernment locking them up for
expressing their opinion,whether it's vocally or through
(20:06):
action.
Now, I had a ton of people whenI posted today, a ton of people
say a couple of things that arejust completely wrong.
Number one what are you talkingabout when you say free speech?
This is lighting the flag.
It's an action.
It's not words.
Okay, free speech is actions.
You know, when you have asit-in, when you know the
(20:31):
African-Americans in the Southunder Jim Crow would have
sit-ins, that's free speech,it's an action.
They didn't use words, they satthere in silence.
That's free speech.
You know you get up and do awalkout and protest, that's free
speech.
That's free speech.
When the police officer in NewYork City was killed and the
(20:52):
mayor of New York City came inand all of the police officers
turned their back on him, it wasan action.
That's free speech.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
Now, that's not something that government can
punish you for and by peoplethat are, in many cases, paid
agitators.
They're paid by the radicalleft to do it.
You talk to these people.
They don't even know, half ofthem don't even know what
they're doing.
They say I don't know, theygave me money to do this.
I see the same things that youdo.
They're bad people that aretrying to destroy our nation.
(21:30):
That's not working, because Ithink our nation now is the most
respected nation anywhere inthe world by far.
You saw that with the Europeanleaders on Friday.
You saw that with NATO, wherethey agreed to go from 2 percent
no pay to 5 percent fully paidup, trillions of dollars paid.
(21:52):
Where they respect yourpresident to a level that they
jokingly call me the presidentof Europe.
They call me the president ofEurope, which is an honor.
I like Europe and I like thosepeople.
They're good people, they'regreat leaders and we've never
had a case where seven plusreally 28, essentially 35, 38
countries were represented herethe other day, 38 European
(22:12):
countries were European andother countries were represented
.
That was a great meeting, butyour country is respected.
Again, I say it all the timeOne year ago our country was
dead.
Everybody said it.
We had a dead country, we werenot going to survive.
Now we have the hottest countryanywhere in the world country
we were not going to survive.
Now we have the hottest countryanywhere in the world.
It's an honor to be involved.
(22:33):
This group has a lot to do withit, right behind me.
Speaker 2 (22:41):
So imagine this same thought process is used about
the stuff you post online andnow they can say oh well, you
incited a riot and just forshits and gigs.
(23:04):
You know the left is talkingabout how they're against this
and whatever.
It's BS.
The left doesn't know whatthey're against until they're
told.
So here is a clip of Joe BidenOur diversity naturally pushes
us apart, not together.
Speaker 6 (23:24):
What holds us together as a nation, mr
President, is not a commonlanguage, although I think that
is necessary.
Nation, mr President, is not acommon language, although I
think that is necessary.
It is the national symbol.
The reason it is worthpreserving is because it unifies
this diverse nation.
The flag's unique place in ournational life means that we
should preserve it against allmanner of destruction.
(23:49):
A statute making it unlawful toburn, mutilate or trample upon
any flag of the United Statesperiod.
It doesn't matter who burns ormutilates or tramples the flag,
and it doesn't matter why.
Under my proposal, it will beunlawful to do the flag harm.
No ifs, ands or buts.
I think that we can and that weshould tell everyone they can't
(24:13):
burn the flag.
Their amendment would make it acrime to walk on the flag at a
college campus sit-in, but notat the war memorial.
My amendment would criminalizeboth.
In my view, it doesn't matterwhy you burn or mutilate or
trample on the flag.
You should not do it.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Hey, jd, welcome in, man.
Glad to see you bud.
Speaker 6 (24:38):
Period.
I don't care whether you'remean to protest a war or praise
a war or start a war.
You should not do it.
I agree.
Our interest in the flag is inthe flag itself as a unifying
symbol.
And, I might add, the personriding down Constitution Avenue
watching the veteran burn theflag to memorialize his
(25:02):
colleagues has no notion why.
All he knows is that thenational symbol is being burned.
I don't want anybody burningthe flag, Whether they're doing
it to praise me or condemn me.
They should not do it.
But don't take my view for it.
(25:23):
Ask a Boy Scout If a Scout seesa flag dip in the ground, he
runs to pick it up, doesn't he?
And now we train.
That's what I train my boys andmy daughter.
Yeah, and you know what you dowhen you retire a flag dip in
the ground, he runs to pick itup, doesn't he?
And now we train.
Speaker 2 (25:32):
That's what I trained my boys and my daughter.
Yeah, and you know what you dowhen you retire a flag, you burn
it.
So how are you supposed to dothat now?
How are you supposed to retirean American flag?
Speaker 6 (25:44):
That's what I was trained as a scout from the time
I was a little kid.
Doesn't matter why it fell,don't let it touch the ground,
correct.
He doesn't care why the flag'sin the ground, he doesn't care
who let it fall.
He doesn't care whether or whatsomeone might have been trying
to say when he let the flag fall.
All he knows is that the flagis something special and it
(26:07):
shouldn't be on the ground.
So it should be with all of usis if it in fact is the unifying
symbol of a diverse nation andit serves a greater government
purpose of holding us together,reminding us how we are the same
and not different.
Hey, cad, welcome on.
(26:28):
My national symbol means.
This is a national symbol, thisis the national government, and
the national government shouldhave unifying role about the
national symbol.
This amendment would not letsome violate the physical
integrity of the flag, but notothers.
Under this amendment, no onewill be able to do the flag harm
(26:53):
.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
I hate it.
I hate when people do the flagharm.
I hate when they light it onfire.
I do, but you have aconstitutional right to do it.
Sorry, end of discussion.
That's not how this works.
We don't allow the federalgovernment to trample your right
to speak freely or to do anaction in protest.
(27:14):
If you own the flag, you canburn the flag.
I'm sorry, that's it.
So Cracker Barrel has decidedto finally finally respond.
Now.
I've been waiting for CrackerBarrel.
(27:34):
They hadn't posted a singlething on Facebook in about 10
days.
Now today they finally posted aresponse and it's not what you
think.
It's going to be okay.
I would have thought that theyhad overwhelming just negativity
(27:57):
and they would, you know, chewon their words a little bit and,
you know, maybe apologize,which they did.
But here let's look at this.
Here's what Cracker Barrelwrote today, and they got
(28:25):
roasted in the comments.
So this is on August 25th.
They hadn't posted anything in10 days.
They just posted this today.
They're trying to backpedal alittle bit, but they're super
sly and creepy with this.
A promise to our guests If thelast few days have shown us
anything, it's how deeply peoplecare about Cracker Barrel.
(28:46):
We're truly grateful for yourheartfelt voices.
You've also shown us that wecould have done a better job
sharing who we are and who we'llbe.
What has not changed and whatwill never change are the values
(29:08):
this company was built on whenCracker Barrel first opened in
1969.
It's not true.
They're lying Hard work, familyand scratch-cooked food made
with care, a place whereeveryone feels at home, no
matter where you're from orwhere you're headed.
That's the Cracker Barrel, youwill find.
(29:30):
It goes on.
It goes on because I don'tthink you're going to go past
the first page.
The things people love mostabout our stores aren't going
anywhere Again, that's not true.
Rocking chairs on the porch, awarm fire in the hearth, peg
games on the table, uniquetreasures in our gift shop and
(29:53):
vintage Americana with antiquespulled straight from the
warehouse in Lebanon, tennessee.
We love seeing how much youcare about our old-timer.
We love him too.
Uncle Herschel will still be onour menu.
He's not staying on the logo.
Welcome back Uncle Herschel'sfavorite breakfast platter On
(30:14):
our road signs and featured inour country store Road signs and
featured in the country storeand on the menu.
Notice how they did not say thelogo on the store.
He is not going anywhere.
He's family, except on the logoon the store.
He is not going anywhere he'sfamily except on the logo.
(30:34):
While our logo and remodels maybe making headlines, our bigger
focus is still right here, whereit belongs in the kitchen and
on your plate serving generousportions of the food you crave
at fair prices, and doing itwith the kind of country
hospitality that brightens yourdays and creates lasting
(30:56):
memories Meatloaf, chicken anddumplings, country fried steak
sides that taste like Sundaysupper and, yes, the world's
best pancakes.
They're all still here, with afew new dishes joining the menu.
Whether you're a long-term fanor first-time guest, we want you
to feel at home around ourtable.
We also want to be sure CrackerBarrel is here for the next
(31:18):
generation of families just asit has been for yours.
That means showing up on newplatforms and in new ways, but
always with our heritage at theheart.
We take that responsibilityvery seriously.
We know we won't always geteverything right the first time,
(31:40):
but we'll keep testing,learning and listening to our
guests and employees.
At the end of the day, ourpromise is simple You'll always
find comfort, community andcountry hospitality here at
Cracker Barrel.
Uncle Herschel would havewanted it.
Wouldn't have wanted it anyother way.
I'm willing to bet that UncleHerschel would not have wanted
(32:02):
to be eliminated from the logoof the company that he was part
of.
Just saying Thank you forcaring so much and come see for
yourself the country hospitalitythat makes Cracker Barrel feel
like home.
They basically just told you togo screw yourself.
We're doing it anyway.
(32:25):
We're doing what we want to doand we're not going to kowtow to
any consumer.
This is a textbook example ofliving in an echo chamber.
Now, for those of you who don'tknow who an echo chamber is,
some of you may even be victimsof it, and it happens.
I was at one point in my lifewhen you live in an echo chamber
(32:48):
.
That means you are surroundedby everything that essentially
you like and you don't hear anyother opinion.
You'll walk into a room andyou'll say you know what I
really like?
Donald Trump.
I think he's great andeverybody agrees with you.
Nobody disagrees Becauseeverybody around you has the
(33:13):
exact same thought process, soyou just echo it to each other
and you never hear anydifferentiating opinion.
So these elitists who sit atthe corporate headquarters, who
gas each other up, who don'tever hear any opposing arguments
(33:41):
or any opposing viewpoints,think that all of this, that all
of this backlash, is just, oh,it's a loud minority.
That's all that it is.
It's just a loud minority, it'snothing else.
But there are a couple things.
We're going to listen to whatshe said.
(34:04):
This is the CEO, julia Massino.
We're going to listen to whatshe said.
Just a second I can pull it uphere and this was really kind of
this wasn't major controversyat the time.
So there's a couple of thingsthat we need to understand with
this.
(34:24):
Number one, the controversy.
There's a lot of misinformationout there, which I think is
actually a good thing, and I'llexplain why.
But this is her on televisionand let's hear what she has to
say about the remodel and therebrand.
Speaker 7 (34:42):
Honestly, the feedback's been overwhelmingly
positive, that people like whatwe're doing.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I'll give you another soundbite, so the feedback is
overwhelmingly positive of whatwe're doing.
So this is textbook.
Echo chamber okay, give youanother soundbite.
So the feedback isoverwhelmingly positive of what
we're doing.
So this is textbook.
Echo chamber okay, nobody isaround you, nobody's opposing
you.
You're the CEO.
Everybody's kissing your rearend, telling you what a great
idea this is.
This is phenomenal, to thepoint where your head is so full
(35:07):
of nonsense that when yourentire customer base finds out
about it, loses their mind andyour stock value loses $100
million that you don't believeit.
Well, no, we've been talkingabout doing this for five years
and everybody it's perfect, it'sgreat.
(35:29):
There's nothing wrong with this.
It's a textbook example ofalienating your customers and
alienating your client base.
And the next section that we gointo we're going to talk about
the echo chamber again, butlet's finish what she has to say
.
Speaker 7 (35:47):
I actually happened to be in Orlando last week with
all of our managers.
We bring them together everyother year and the number one
question that I got asked,Michael, was how can I get a
remodel?
When can I get a remodel?
How do I get on the list?
Speaker 8 (35:59):
Oh really.
Speaker 7 (36:00):
So because the feedback and the buzz is so good
, not only from our customers,but from our team members, no,
they're kissing your ass.
Speaker 2 (36:11):
You're the CEO of the company.
They're trying to get FaceTimewith you, to get recognized so
that they can move up.
A way to do that is to go up toyou and say after the meeting
and the summit and you'restanding there meeting people,
they tell you how great you areand how great this idea is, and
I'm so excited.
Did you run any scientificpolls?
Did you run any data?
(36:34):
I went to Cracker Barrel today.
By the way, I'm not boycottingCracker Barrel, they're amazing.
I went to Cracker Barrel todayand I just asked the hostess.
I said so what do you think ofthis remodel?
She's like I hate it.
All of the customers hate it.
Nobody likes it.
I don't know what they youthink of this remodel?
She's like I hate it.
All of the customers hate it.
Nobody likes it.
I don't know what they're doing.
Granted, this is one CrackerBarrel with a teenage girl who's
(37:00):
really not in the know, but sheis the face of the company that
is dealing with every customerwalking in and I could tell you
it was a ghost town, but it wasalso three or four o'clock in
the afternoon, so take that witha grain of salt, but I
guarantee they didn't run anyscientific data or any polls?
None.
Speaker 7 (37:20):
Guarantee it.
We want to work in a wonderfulrestaurant, so we're doing
everything for our guests andour team members.
Speaker 2 (37:26):
Well, Julie Messina, it's wonderful to have you Just
stop.
You're not doing anything foryour guests or your team members
.
You're doing it to make money.
Stop it.
That's the whole point of whatyou're doing is to make money.
Stop BSing everyone.
What are we doing for our teammembers?
We want to have the best teamand the greatest customers in
(37:46):
the world.
So here's a video.
It's an AI video of Julie.
It's pretty funny Obviously notreal AI video of apologizing
for what she has done.
Speaker 7 (38:07):
I'm Julie, ceo of your favorite Southern theme
restaurant, and I want all ofyou to know that we hear you.
We fucked up, so we're going tofix it, starting with Uncle
Herschel.
Don't you dare move from thatrocking chair, sir.
You're back in the logo.
You said we went woke.
Fuck that.
Not only did we go back to ourSouthern roots, we doubled the
(38:29):
fuck down.
How are those pancakes tasting?
Speaker 2 (38:34):
It's like a kid rock concert in my mouth.
Speaker 7 (38:39):
You own a certain red hat.
Well, guess what?
25% off.
How do you like them?
Pancakes, I'll take it, but I'mstill gonna call you woke.
Please, please, please, comeback to Cracker Barrel, I beg of
you.
I just lost this company $100million over a logo made in
Canva.
I thought you fuckers likedthat Chip and Joanna shit.
Well, lesson fucking learnedHelp a sister out, please.
(39:01):
Hi, I'm Julie.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
I thought that was pretty funny.
Sorry, I thought that wasdefinitely pretty funny.
No-transcript.
(39:42):
Let's look at their stock.
Here's Cracker Barrel stock Now.
What you're seeing is just oneday.
So today it went down a quarterof a percent.
(40:02):
Over five days.
It's gone down almost 11%.
Over one month.
It's gone down 17.5%.
Over six months.
It's up 18.5%, okay, year todate.
They're now down 1%, but lookat this Over five years, okay.
(40:27):
So when you look at all of thesememes and you see all of the
memes and they're like oh,cracker Barrel lost 60% of its
share.
It's down $85.
That's over the past five years, okay, which is precisely why
they're trying to remodel.
They're trying to remodel andstay relevant because their
(40:53):
stock is down astronomicalamounts before they even
considered remodeling.
So they're trying to stayrelevant and trying to do
something to fix it, to keep itopen, and trying to do something
to fix it, to keep it open.
This isn't a situation wherethey're like, oh, I'm just going
to be woke, we're going to getrid of that cracker Uncle
(41:14):
Herschel.
I think they should have leftUncle Herschel on the logo.
I do.
I wouldn't mind a white coat ofpaint.
The white kind of looks nice,but to get rid of all the stuff
on the walls.
That's tough, that's hard.
The problem with Cracker Barrelis that Cracker Barrel is
supposed to be a place that isnostalgic.
(41:34):
It's not supposed to change,it's supposed to be like ancient
Cat.
No Cracker Barrel even close tome.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
But I have the one and only RedCaboose.
Awesome Country Cafe with atrain going around the diner.
That's kind of cool.
I've never been in one of those.
(41:54):
And the people that are like onFacebook or Twitter or X and
they're like oh hey, yeah, I'mokay with this Cracker Barrel
Like they don't even have aCracker Barrel.
They live in freakingCalifornia or New York.
You don't have Cracker Barrel,bro, shut up.
You never had a dumpling inyour life.
You don't even know whatbiscuits and gravy is.
Okay, mind your business, stayup there and eat your bagels,
(42:18):
all right.
And I'm a New Yorker.
I'm originally from New York,but I'll tell you what I now
claim the South.
I gone for too long, too longI've been gone, but in other
news we'll see what happens withCracker Barrel.
I think that they should take astep back.
I don't think that statementdid them any any.
(42:40):
Any favors, okay.
So a lady by the name of AmandaSeals went on to a show called
Jubilee.
Now, jubilee is a show that'sdesigned to take you outside of
your comfort zone, specificallyoutside of your echo chamber,
where you sit in a chair andthen boom, it's like a lightning
(43:03):
round of people who sit acrossfrom you or around you and they
ask you questions and theychallenge you and they challenge
your thought process and youhave to respond intellectually.
This woman was not able to dothat.
This woman went to ColumbiaUniversity and got a bachelor's
degree or, I'm sorry, a master'sdegree in hip-hop yes, hip-hop.
(43:29):
You go to Ivy League schools toget a master's degree in
African-American culture andhip-hop.
Our education system is a joke.
So before we get to the Jubileepart, here is her talking about
Kamala Harris during theelection.
Speaker 9 (43:53):
First question to Kamala Harris would be is this a
racist country?
That's my first question.
It doesn't make sense for themto put Jasmine Crockett on a
ticket.
Why ask that question?
Because it is the root of allevil in this country.
And if you are coming into thisposition and you want to do
(44:16):
something different and you wantto be the antithesis, that's
going to be.
Speaker 2 (44:20):
her question is do you believe that this country is
racist?
And of course kamala harris,yes, she does exactly what she
believes believe that thiscountry is racist?
And of course Kamala Harris,yes, that's exactly what she
believes.
Speaker 9 (44:28):
That's her most leftist belief, Then you need to
already address the antithesis,because they are loudly saying
not only is this country racist,it should be racist.
Speaker 2 (44:40):
This woman is out of her mind and she gets like
shellacked, like it'sembarrassing.
It's freaking embarrassing.
Here is her on the Trumpassassination.
Okay, let's listen to her onher brilliant coverage on the
(45:04):
attempted assassination ofDonald Trump.
Speaker 9 (45:10):
That shit was more staged than a Tyler Perry
production of Medea Runs forPresident.
I lived in Harlem long enoughto know that gunshots do not
sound like making popcorn on thestove.
Get down, get down, get down,get down, sound like making
popcorn on the stove.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
Well, I will tell you who has been around gunfire
that, yes, anybody who's everbeen around gunfire can tell you
that that's that's gunfire andit sounds like an AR-15.
Right, I know that.
Now you don't know what you'retalking about.
You're never in harlem.
You never get shot at at harlem.
Harlem is actually a prettynice area nowadays.
It's not.
Speaker 9 (45:54):
It's not washington dc where'd the blood come from?
The bullet that hit his ear soin theater, in movies, they have
what's called blood pellets.
They even you know people usethem in Halloween.
It's basically a pellet of fakeblood that's in your mouth and
when you crush it the bloodcomes out.
(46:14):
To be frank, small hands.
Trump would not respond byraising his fist in the air
triumphantly were an actualattempt made on his life.
This was, I believe, done totry to show his strength counter
(46:38):
to Biden's fragility Ba-dum-bum.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
Oh my God, IQ of a potato, iq Of a friggin potato.
Anyway, she goes on Jubilee andthe best thing about this Is
this racist lady Getsannihilated by black people.
Speaker 10 (47:12):
So why is that fair for people who never had slaves,
who fought against slavery, tohave to pay for people that had
slaves?
Speaker 9 (47:23):
One.
From my understanding, you aremore interested in preserving
the fairness of those who didn'thave slaves than the fairness
of those who are the descendantsof slaves.
That is priority to you, then,finding a fair way to
accommodate those who have beenthe descendant of slaves.
Speaker 10 (47:40):
Well, our ancestors wasn't asking for handouts, they
were asking for equalopportunity, and we have equal
opportunity in this country.
We had a black president, justin case you didn't know.
We had a black president and wehad a black vice president.
I mean, I think she was black.
They said she was black, Idon't know.
So we had a black president andyou know who voted for that
(48:02):
black man White people, becauseyou can't win a popular election
in this country without whitepeople.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
That is a great point that I've never really thought
of before.
You can't win an electionwithout white people voting, so
white people voted for BarackObama, white people elected
Barack Obama, and then, all of asudden, we're more racist now
than we were under Jim Crow.
Speaker 10 (48:30):
So Barack Obama is the product of white people.
So so let's, let's get off thisthing.
Where, oh America is so racist?
What's making America so racistis people that continue to talk
about racism and continue tofocus on racism instead of
focusing on unity and bringingour country forward.
People that have this liberalmindset are infecting our
(48:53):
communities, black people, andmaking us victims and not
victors.
I refuse to embrace a victimmentality, because that's not
what our grandparents andHarriet Tubman and those people
fall for.
They fall for equal opportunity.
Speaker 9 (49:05):
Do not bring up Harriet Tubman's name in vain
baby, please.
Speaker 2 (49:09):
Harriet Tubman.
God forbid he mentions her name.
That's offensive to her.
Speaker 10 (49:18):
Harriet Tubman.
Harriet Tubman.
Speaker 9 (49:21):
Harriet Tubman was literally, literally, saving her
family and others from slavery.
Speaker 10 (49:29):
Yeah, you know who helped her White people.
Speaker 9 (49:32):
You know who helped her.
Speaker 10 (49:33):
They were on the Underground.
Speaker 9 (49:34):
Railroad.
Speaker 1 (49:35):
You know who helped her.
Speaker 9 (49:37):
No, you know who helped her God People who
benefit from white supremacy.
It's a lie.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
People who benefit from white supremacy it's a lie.
People who benefit from whitesupremacy.
How on God's green earth wouldpeople help free slaves if
they're benefiting from keepingthem as slaves?
Just a question.
Just a question, that's all.
(50:06):
Feel free to answer it there.
Amanda Seals.
Speaker 9 (50:12):
Lie no sir.
Speaker 10 (50:13):
That's simply not true.
Speaker 9 (50:15):
If that were not the case, then we wouldn't see the
continued effort of colonialismand white people placing
themselves in positions of powerwhen they do not have the power
Because their culture, blackculture, is toxic.
Speaker 10 (50:30):
The Black culture is toxic.
We have produced a culture thatis toxic.
Let's get on the fact thatthere's no fathers in the Black
culture.
Speaker 9 (50:38):
Let's talk about that .
Stop, stop, stop.
Let's talk about that.
None of this is going to workif y'all are just going to sit
here and make up shit.
It's not going to work.
Speaker 2 (50:47):
If y'all are just going to sit here and make up
shit.
It's not going to work.
Is she saying that there are anoverwhelming amount of fathers
in the black community?
Is that what she's saying?
I don't understand.
Stop, this isn't going to workif you guys are going to lie it
has to be.
Speaker 10 (51:03):
In fact, you're putting off emotional liberalism
.
I am not putting off emotionalliberalism.
You're, you're, you're, in fact, you're, you're, you're
literally emotional liberalism.
Speaker 9 (51:06):
I am not putting off emotional liberalism.
You're putting off unfoundedlies based in misinformation.
Remember they did themisinformation thing all summer
where everything conservative ofan apartheid nation that
actively wants to harm blackpeople and not Jewish people.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
But let me bring it back, let me bring it back.
This woman went to an Ivy Leaguecollege Ivy League, columbia,
one of the best colleges in theworld, new York City.
She went there as a blackperson.
But this is an apartheidcountry who wants to eliminate
black people, yet we're sendingthem to the best schools in the
(51:48):
country.
But this is an apartheidcountry who wants to eliminate
black people, yet we're sendingthem to the best schools in the
country.
Clearly she's not qualified togo to an Ivy League school
because her intellect is notthere.
She's not smart enough to go toan Ivy League school.
This is a DEI result.
Who's been sitting in an echochamber screaming it at the wall
?
And the same voices have beencoming back.
Speaker 9 (52:08):
Selling black people in Africa.
That was not happening in thecontext that you're saying, and
they were selling their ownpeople.
Black people still sell theirown people today too by the way,
I don't know if I'm going tolast.
We're selling our own peopletoday too.
I don't know if I'm going tolast.
You probably won't last with me.
I won't, because your ignoranceis so overwhelming.
Speaker 10 (52:23):
That's liberal.
Y'all start name-calling wheny'all get defeated in an
argument.
No, it's not name-calling.
Speaker 9 (52:26):
You won't have an argument because you keep
cutting me off.
Well, that's fine if they don'tlet me cut you off.
Speaker 10 (52:31):
I made my point, you didn't make your point.
I made my point, you haven'tmade your point and I'm okay
Speaker 9 (52:34):
with being thrown out .
Speaker 2 (52:36):
He definitely made his point, In my opinion.
So here's another kid and he'smy favorite Because he just
rocks her world.
And I mean, just look at herright here.
Her freaking head is imploding.
She can't even handle what ishappening.
She can't even process this.
(52:57):
She cannot process that peopledisagree with her.
She cannot process andunderstand that people disagree
with her.
Speaker 8 (53:07):
So she is emotionally destroyed you can give everyone
here like a fifty thousanddollar check, especially people
that are in the streets who arecommitting violent crimes
consistently a fifty thousanddollar check.
It's not going to fix anything.
It's not going to increase themedian household income the next
10 years by 10 percent or 20percent.
For example, we have thechinese exclusion act of 1882.
We prevented Chinese peoplefrom getting citizenship and
(53:28):
even entering the country.
We discriminated against themand basically put them under
apartheid, even here in theUnited States.
Yet they have the highestmedian household income.
How is that possible?
How come they don't complainand feel entitled consistently
to beg for reparations and begfor this when they are killing
each other 90% of the time,which is the rate that black
people kill each other,according to the FBI?
Speaker 9 (53:46):
Oh, young man.
Speaker 8 (53:47):
Yet white people are the oppressors.
Speaker 9 (53:49):
I'm not sure where your education came from, but
they lied to you.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
Stats don't lie though.
Speaker 9 (53:54):
Statistics lie all the time.
So let's start there,particularly when the statistics
are coming from the sourcesthat gain from the statistics
being shown a different way.
So how do you even have adebate if you can't even agree
that the statistics being showna different?
Speaker 2 (54:06):
way.
So how do you even have adebate if you can't even agree
that the statistics exist?
There's nothing to argue aboutthat, then your statistics that
you're trying to argue areinvalid.
Does government skew numbers100%?
We talked about in this showwith DC and my experience as a
police officer yes, they do.
(54:27):
Do they always do it?
No, sometimes they do.
I don't think there's reallyany benefit to lying about
especially when Democrats havebeen in power so long about the
crime in the black community.
I don't think they need to lieabout that.
I think that's self-evident.
But if you can't admit it andeven have a discussion about it,
(54:53):
like even her, she can't evenhave a discussion about it.
She's blocking out allinformation that is not already
decided in her mind.
She's blocking it out whoa,whoa, whoa, stop, stop, stop.
Don't even say anymore, becauseyou're going to take me off of
my beliefs and that's not what Iwant.
Speaker 9 (55:17):
If you're going to start your argument on stats,
don't lie, you've already lostthe argument.
They lie all the time One.
Comparing Chinese people, whoare immigrants that made a
choice to come to the UnitedStates, and comparing the
continued effort of black peopleto ground themselves in a
nation that continues to makeimpediments for them to show and
(55:38):
live and exist in their truecitizenship is a false
equivalency.
Speaker 8 (55:41):
I don't believe that happens at all, but no one here
is.
Speaker 9 (55:44):
Are you acting right now?
Do you really believe this?
I'm telling the truth.
Speaker 8 (55:46):
There's no systemic racism that I've experienced
here in America.
Speaker 2 (55:49):
Look at their face.
Oh my God, you're not a victim.
You're not a victim Like she'snever heard.
She's never been exposed toanybody who disagreed with her.
That's a friggin' problem.
Speaker 8 (56:11):
What system is racist ?
I think the only racism we'veactually seen recently systemic
racism.
That we've seen is theapplication of systemic racism
against white people.
The University of WesternWashington, for example, has
been trying to segregatedormitories using black-only
dormitories, because blackpeople feel safer amongst each
other, but they're more likelyto kill each other than white
people are ever to kill them.
That's just the truth.
You have king von rapping aboutkilling other black men.
(56:33):
Why should I think that thewhite man is the oppressor when
black men are more?
Speaker 9 (56:36):
likely to kill me.
Oh my god, this is scary.
Speaker 2 (56:39):
You need it's scary that you don't believe how I
believe.
Now listen to this response,which is just stupid, because
he's being very respectful right, he's being incredibly
respectful.
So this next response by her isjust downright confusing to me.
I don't understand what theheck she's talking about.
Speaker 9 (57:01):
To think about me as your mama.
Do not talk to me in thatfashion.
So let's check that now, okay,okay.
So on's check that now, okay,okay.
So on a basic level, we have tounderstand that systemic racism
is grounded in the realitiesthat black people have not been
considered an equal human beingin this country since its onset.
So there's simply no way tomake the argument that there
isn't systemic racism and wehave seen in very clear ways
(57:23):
system operate in an organicallyracist way.
Do not cut me off.
Speaker 2 (57:31):
She's got to come from a position of authority.
She's got to come from aposition of authority.
You can't disagree with her.
She's better than you, she'ssmarter than you, and that she's
like just gassed up, like, oh,I went to an Ivy League school.
I know what I'm talking about.
Let me tell you something whenI my experience in college is
(57:51):
that people with PhDs are notintelligent at all.
There was like I couldn't nameone, I really couldn't name one
who was fair or who listened toother people.
Maybe one, yeah, maybe one ofmy PhDs in political science
(58:12):
class, because he didn't hold itagainst my conservative views.
And a lot of times I had anargument with this guy, one of
my professors in politicalscience, and he's telling me
that MSNBC is not biased, thatthey're telling the truth and
that Fox News is biased.
And I had said to him well,actually they're both biased and
(58:45):
he said, no, they're not.
I said, yeah, well, fox news isbasically propaganda for
conservatives and msnbc ispropaganda for democrats, like
they both have the same freakingrole, they both do the same
damn thing.
And he couldn't even grasp thefact that a student would even
(59:07):
challenge him.
He even said that to me Are youchallenging me?
Yeah, I am challenging you.
That would be a good thing todo as a professor to have
students who want to learn.
Challenge you on yourviewpoints Number one.
If you're going to haveviewpoints Number two, you
shouldn't have any viewpointpolitically.
When you're teaching a class,your students shouldn't know
(59:33):
which way you swing politically.
You're teaching aboutgovernment, about the founding
fathers, about politicalphilosophies.
You shouldn't be declaringwhich ones are right, which ones
are wrong.
You know how many students haveto change their beliefs in
(59:55):
college for so long that theyjust become Democrats.
This is how you get turned outto Democrat mill.
It's just a diploma mill forDemocrats.
Man, we're going to take you,we're going to turn your mind to
our political philosophy andwe're going to spear you out
back into the world so that youcan't handle even somebody
having a different opinion.
(01:00:16):
I mean that we've come to and Ihope that this all gets resolved
(01:00:36):
because we have finally gottenrid of the Department of
Education.
That's a big one.
That was a friggin' disasterand a waste of money.
They weren't doing anything.
I'm going to start doingsomething a little bit
differently.
We're going to start doing abook club Not anything you have
to pay for, but I'm going tostart reviewing books separately
, outside of the live videos.
(01:00:57):
As you know, our live videosare Monday through Friday at 9
pm, eastern Standard Time, 9 to10.
You can also download thepodcast.
The podcast is on Apple,spotify, podbean, basically
anywhere you can get a podcastBuzzsprout, spreaker it's
everywhere.
Listen to it, download from thepodcast and thank you very much
(01:01:18):
for tuning in.
I will see you guys tomorrow at9 pm.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.