Free Speech or Flag Burning?

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.

Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!

Chapters

• 0:00 Show Introduction
• 6:29 Flag Burning & Free Speech
• 11:49 Texas v. Johnson Supreme Court Case
• 18:59 Trump's Executive Order Analysis
• 29:37 Cracker Barrel Rebranding Controversy
• 42:07 Echo Chambers & Public Discourse
• 56:02 Final Thoughts & Announcements

Transcript

Speaker 1: 1:37

no-transcript.

Speaker 2: 5:21

Welcome to the show. We're going to have a really good show tonight. I have a new setup here for when I'm on the road, so hopefully things look and sound pretty good. I got a new microphone. Leave a comment in the comment section if the microphone is off or doesn't sound good. But tonight we have three topics that we are going to discuss.

Speaker 2: 5:46

Earlier today I had responded to an executive order that Donald Trump had put out which was making it what he says is making it 12 months in jail for burning the American flag, to which I opposed. So everybody went crazy. Okay, listen, I am here to report 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. What I am here for is to find the truth and report on it accurately. Now I understand that for some of you, you're not happy with that situation, and that's quite okay. Okay, that is quite all right.

Speaker 2: 6:50

The burning of the American flag is free speech. Okay, it is protected free speech. It is already ruled on by the Supreme Court in a case called Texas v Johnson. The United States Supreme Court has declared burning the American flag as free speech. It is free speech and it's important that it remains free speech. I think that burning the American flag is vile. I think that burning the American flag is disgusting and you should not do that, but I do not think that if you're going to burn the American flag in protest, the federal government should lock you in prison for one year. So we're going to talk about this. First I am going to pull this up here. We're going to learn about the Supreme Court case, ok, and then we are going to look at the ruling itself, and the First Amendment protects free speech, including expressive conduct, but does it shield someone burning the American flag in protest In Texas versus Johnson?

Speaker 3: 8:02

the United States Supreme Court answered that question. In 1984, gregory Lee Johnson participated in a protest of the Republican National Convention Outside the Dallas City Hall. Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. As the flag burned, protesters chanted quote and set it on fire. As the flag burned, protesters chanted quote America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you. Unquote.

Speaker 3: 8:29

Johnson was charged with desecration of a venerated object under Texas law. The trial court convicted Johnson, fining him $2,000 and sentencing him to one year in prison. The Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Texas affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, concluding that Johnson's punishment violated the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case.

Speaker 3: 8:52

To determine whether states could criminalize burning the American flag, the court concluded that flag burning is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. As a result, state laws criminalizing flag burning were content-based speech restrictions that didn't survive constitutional scrutiny. Writing for a five-justice majority, justice Brennan concluded that the First Amendment protected flag burning because it contained a sufficient level of communication. By burning the flag, johnson intended to convey a particular message and it was likely that anyone who witnessed his conduct would understand that message. For First Amendment purposes, the government has more leeway in regulating expressive conduct than it does in regulating written or spoken words. When speech and non-speech elements are combined in a single course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element can justify an incidental limitation on First Amendment freedoms. To qualify for this more lenient standard, the state has to assert an interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.

Speaker 3: 10:00

Texas asserted two possible interests to justify Johnson's punishment. First, flag burning caused breaches of the peace. Second, texas wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. The first interest wasn't implicated in Johnson's case. Texas admitted that no actual breach of the peace occurred. The second interest was directly related to Johnson's political message and therefore didn't qualify for the more lenient standard.

Speaker 3: 10:28

Because the restriction on Johnson's speech was content-based, the court subjected Texas' asserted interest to the most exacting constitutional scrutiny. Under that scrutiny, the state's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity didn't justify Johnson's punishment. The court didn't object to Texas' goal, only its means. Preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was a legitimate state interest that could support laws regulating how the flag may be displayed, but it couldn't justify criminal punishment for burning the flag. But it couldn't justify criminal punishment for burning the flag. The ideal way to preserve the flag's special role in society was not by punishing those who expressed contrary views, but by attempting to persuade them with further dialogue. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that the First Amendment barred criminal punishment for burning the American flag in protest.

Speaker 2: 11:22

Justice Kennedy concurred, opining that while he found it hey, melinda, thank you for your comment, guys, I don't mean to interrupt the video, but she brings up a great point. Is it a hate crime when you burn a rainbow flag? Yeah, it is, and it should not be. We're going to go over all of that. Okay, I appreciate you guys. List content Right now is the time 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: 11:52

Flag burning distasteful. The facts and applicable law compelled the majority's result. Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices White and O'Connor, dissented. Rehnquist argued that Johnson had many ways of making his point and that Texas law criminalized just one of them. Johnson remained free to express his viewpoint in a myriad of ways.

Speaker 3: 12:14

For Rehnquist, flag-burning was a form of fighting words, which is speech that inflicts direct injury or incites an immediate breach of the peace. Any expressive benefit derived from flag burning was clearly outweighed by the public interest in maintaining peace and order. Rehnquist also pointed out that 48 states and the federal government agreed with this reasoning, as they had statutes prohibiting flag burning on their books too. Justice Stevens also dissented, reasoning that Johnson wasn't prosecuted for his message but for the method he used to convey it. Permitting flag burning tarnishes the flag's value. In contrast, criminalizing flag burning was only a trivial burden on free speech, particularly in light of the many alternative methods one has for communicating political ideas. Texas versus Johnson remains a source of deep disagreement. In 2006, congress tried to amend the constitution to prohibit flag burning and fell short by only one vote.

Speaker 2: 13:17

Okay, this has been an issue forever. This flag burning whether it's a crime, whether it's free speech has been an issue for years. Okay, it is free speech. You're allowed to burn the American flag. You should be allowed to burn the American flag. I hate it. I think it's reprehensible. You should be allowed to burn a trans flag, a Palestinian flag, whatever flag you want in protest, just like you should be able to burn a trans flag, a palestinian flag, whatever flag you want in protest. Just like you should be able to burn the quran or the bible. I don't think you should do that. I'm a religious catholic person. Don't burn burning the bible. But when it comes to the united states and your rights as a citizen, you have a right to do that.

Speaker 2: 13:59

And this is not a good step, because what we're doing is that we're putting restrictions on freedom of speech. That's literally what's happening. The Republican Party is now putting restrictions on freedom of speech. So now I'll propose this question to everybody in the audience and thank you so much for tuning in. I appreciate all of you. I do but say some. You know, extraordinarily far less communist gets elected president and he wants to change the American flag to have a communist logo in it with the star and sickle. Okay, you would not be able to burn that flag in protest because of what Donald Trump did with his executive order. If you put the shoe on the other foot, is it right to you? Is it fair to you? I'm not saying that that's going to happen, but it could happen. There should be no restriction, especially if you own the property.

Speaker 2: 15:04

Now, if I go out and I purchase anything an American flag or a you know whatever Navy flag, air Force flag, united States Marine Corps flag that's my property. 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 I understand this is a super touchy issue for all of you.

Speaker 2: 15:33

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 funeral where military members were laid down with a flag draped over them. I think it's reprehensible, but I think that freedom and First Amendment rights supersede that. Sorry, that's how I feel. I'm not here to give you guys what you want to hear. I'm here to tell you the truth, and the truth is it's protected free speech, and I think that Donald Trump is going to have a very hard time enforcing this Now. There is a little bit of confusion here. Not necessarily confusion, but the way that he wrote the executive order is a little bit tricky. Okay, I have a picture of it somewhere, but pull it up here. Here is Donald Trump talking and signing the order.

Speaker 4: 16:42

Lastly, sir, this is an executive order on flag burning. It charges your attorney general, would you?

Speaker 5: 16:46

listen to this. This is very important Flag burning All over the country. They're burning flags All over the world. They burn the American flag and, as you know, through a very sad court I guess it was a five to four decision they called it freedom of speech. But there's another reason which is perhaps much more important. It's called death. Because what happens when you burn 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 of paper. You can and it's, but when you burn the American flag, it incites riots.

Speaker 2: 17:27

That's why it needs to be protected, because when you burn the American flag you get the most amount of attention. That's why they do it. So things of free speech that is not offensive in burning the American flag is probably one of the most offensive things that you can do. But if it's not offensive it doesn't need constitutional protection. You know, during the American Revolution, the colonists, the colonies, were burning British flags in the street. They were hanging King George in effigy Stuffed dolls of King George. They were hanging from trees in protest. They would disagree with you here. They would disagree with this entire situation. This is the First Amendment to the Constitution we're talking about here, the First Amendment and I'm sorry, but I believe that Donald Trump is wrong Levels that we've never seen before.

Speaker 5: 18:31

People go crazy In a way, both ways. There are some that are going crazy for doing it. There are others that are angry angry about them doing it. Do you want to discuss that?

Speaker 4: 18:43

What the executive order does, sir. It charges your Department of Justice with investigating instances of flag burning and then, where there's evidence of criminal activity, that where prosecution wouldn't fall afoul of the First Amendment, and instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute those who are engaged in these instances of flag burning.

Speaker 5: 19:01

And what the penalty is going to be. If you burn a flag, you get one year 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 to riot I hope they use that language, by the way, did they Incite to riot? And you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don't get 10 years, you don't get one month, you get one year in jail and it goes on your record and you will see flag burning stopping immediately, just like when I signed the Statute and Monument Act. 10 years in jail.

Speaker 2: 19:35

This is the equivalent. This is the equivalent of putting you in jail for posting critical things online. This is in the same category. I feel like. I feel like this is absolutely in the same category.

Speaker 5: 19:56

You heard any of our beautiful monuments? Everybody left town. They were gone, never had a problem after that. It's pretty amazing we stopped it. But this is something that's I don't know. In a certain way, it's equally as important. Some people say it's more important because the people in this country don't want to see our American flag burned and spit on.

Speaker 2: 20:17

No, I don't want to see it either. But I don't want individual rights eroded either. You know this is disappointing to see for me. I don't like it. I also don't like when people who disagree with what I have to say online call me a lowlife or a loser, or they send me a picture of my house and my address and tell me to watch my back. I don't like those things either. But this is the country that we live in. You have freedom to do these things.

Speaker 2: 21:00

You know, back during when Barack Obama was president, they were making it like stringent laws that people were burning Korans or YouTube was taking down people. There was a dude that had this YouTube channel and it was really funny where he would take a Koran and say here's a great use for your Koran and he would use it as a doorstop or a toilet plunger or just completely disrespectful things. But I mean he has a right to do that. I mean I think it disrespects somebody's religion. I wouldn't want somebody doing that with my Bible or any Bible, but I wouldn't want the federal government locking them up for expressing their opinion, whether it's vocally or through action. Now, I had a ton of people when I posted today, a ton of people say a couple of things that are just completely wrong.

Speaker 2: 21:52

Number one what are you talking about 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 a sit-in, when you know the African-Americans in the South under Jim Crow would have sit-ins, that's free speech, it's an action. They didn't use words, they sat there in silence. That's free speech. You know you get up and do a walkout and protest, that's free speech. That's free speech. When the police officer in New York City was killed and the mayor of New York City came in and all of the police officers turned their back on him, it was an action. That's free speech.

Speaker 5: 22:46

Now, that's not something that government can punish you for and by people that are, in many cases, paid agitators. They're paid by the radical left to do it. You talk to these people. They don't even know, half of them don't even know what they're doing. They say I don't know, they gave me money to do this. I see the same things that you do. They're bad people that are trying to destroy our nation. That's not working, because I think our nation now is the most respected nation anywhere in the world by far.

Speaker 5: 23:14

You saw that with the European leaders on Friday. You saw that with NATO, where they agreed to go from 2 percent no pay to 5 percent fully paid up, trillions of dollars paid. Where they respect your president to a level that they jokingly call me the president of Europe. They call me the president of Europe, which is an honor. I like Europe and I like those people. They're good people, they're great leaders and we've never had a case where seven plus really 28, essentially 35, 38 countries were represented here the other day, 38 European countries were European and other countries were represented. That was a great meeting, but your country is respected. Again, I say it all the time One year ago our country was dead. Everybody said it. We had a dead country, we were not going to survive. Now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world country we were not going to survive. Now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. It's an honor to be involved. This group has a lot to do with it, right behind me.

Speaker 2: 24:18

So imagine this same thought process is used about the stuff you post online and now they can say oh well, you incited a riot and just for shits and gigs. You know the left is talking about how they're against this and whatever. It's BS. The left doesn't know what they're against until they're told. So here is a clip of Joe Biden Our diversity naturally pushes us apart, not together.

Speaker 6: 25:02

What holds us together as a nation, mr President, is not a common language, although I think that is necessary. Nation, mr President, is not a common language, although I think that is necessary. It is the national symbol. The reason it is worth preserving is because it unifies this diverse nation. The flag's unique place in our national life means that we should preserve it against all manner of destruction. A statute making it unlawful to burn, mutilate or trample upon any flag of the United States period. It doesn't matter who burns or mutilates or tramples the flag, and it doesn't matter why. Under my proposal, it will be unlawful to do the flag harm. No ifs, ands or buts. I think that we can and that we should tell everyone they can't burn the flag. Their amendment would make it a crime to walk on the flag at a college campus sit-in, but not at the war memorial. My amendment would criminalize both. In my view, it doesn't matter why you burn or mutilate or trample on the flag. You should not do it.

Speaker 2: 26:13

Hey, jd, welcome in, man. Glad to see you bud.

Speaker 6: 26:16

Period. I don't care whether you're mean 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 in the flag itself as a unifying symbol. And, I might add, the person riding down Constitution Avenue watching the veteran burn the flag to memorialize his colleagues has no notion why. All he knows is that the national symbol is being burned. I don't want anybody burning the 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. Ask a Boy Scout If a Scout sees a 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 and my daughter. Yeah, and you know what you do when you retire a flag dip in the ground, he runs to pick it up, doesn't he? And now we train.

Speaker 2: 27:09

That's what I trained my boys and my daughter. Yeah, and you know what you do when you retire a flag, you burn it. So how are you supposed to do that now? How are you supposed to retire an American flag?

Speaker 6: 27:21

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's in the ground, he doesn't care who let it fall. He doesn't care whether or what someone might have been trying to say when he let the flag fall. All he knows is that the flag is something special and it shouldn't be on the ground. So it should be with all of us is if it in fact is the unifying symbol of a diverse nation and it serves a greater government purpose of holding us together, reminding us how we are the same and not different. Hey, cad, welcome on. My national symbol means. This is a national symbol, this is the national government, and the national government should have unifying role about the national symbol. This amendment would not let some violate the physical integrity of the flag, but not others. Under this amendment, no one will be able to do the flag harm.

Speaker 2: 28:31

I hate it. I hate when people do the flag harm. I hate when they light it on fire. I do, but you have a constitutional right to do it. Sorry, end of discussion. That's not how this works. We don't allow the federal government to trample your right to speak freely or to do an action in protest. If you own the flag, you can burn the flag. I'm sorry, that's it. So Cracker Barrel has decided to finally finally respond. Now. I've been waiting for Cracker Barrel. They hadn't posted a single thing on Facebook in about 10 days. Now today they finally posted a response and it's not what you think. It's going to be okay.

Speaker 2: 29:31

I would have thought that they had overwhelming just negativity and they would, you know, chew on their words a little bit and, you know, maybe apologize, which they did. But here let's look at this. Here's what Cracker Barrel wrote today, and they got roasted in the comments. So this is on August 25th. They hadn't posted anything in 10 days. They just posted this today. They're trying to backpedal a little bit, but they're super sly and creepy with this.

Speaker 2: 30:17

A promise to our guests If the last few days have shown us anything, it's how deeply people care about Cracker Barrel. We're truly grateful for your heartfelt voices. You've also shown us that we could have done a better job sharing who we are and who we'll be. What has not changed and what will never change are the values this company was built on when Cracker Barrel first opened in 1969. It's not true. They're lying Hard work, family and scratch-cooked food made with care, a place where everyone feels at home, no matter where you're from or where you're headed. That's the Cracker Barrel, you will find. It goes on. It goes on because I don't think you're going to go past the first page. The things people love most about our stores aren't going anywhere Again, that's not true. Rocking chairs on the porch, a warm fire in the hearth, peg games on the table, unique treasures in our gift shop and vintage Americana with antiques pulled straight from the warehouse in Lebanon, tennessee. We love seeing how much you care about our old-timer. We love him too. Uncle Herschel will still be on our menu. He's not staying on the logo. Welcome back Uncle Herschel's favorite breakfast platter On our road signs and featured in our country store Road signs and featured in the country store and on the menu. Notice how they did not say the logo on the store. He is not going anywhere. He's family, except on the logo on the store. He is not going anywhere he's family except on the logo.

Speaker 2: 32:11

While our logo and remodels may be making headlines, our bigger focus is still right here, where it belongs in the kitchen and on your plate serving generous portions of the food you crave at fair prices, and doing it with the kind of country hospitality that brightens your days and creates lasting memories Meatloaf, chicken and dumplings, country fried steak sides that taste like Sunday supper and, yes, the world's best pancakes. They're all still here, with a few new dishes joining the menu. Whether you're a long-term fan or first-time guest, we want you to feel at home around our table. We also want to be sure Cracker Barrel is here for the next generation of families just as it has been for yours. That means showing up on new platforms and in new ways, but always with our heritage at the heart. We take that responsibility very seriously. We know we won't always get everything right the first time, but we'll keep testing, learning and listening to our guests and employees. At the end of the day, our promise is simple You'll always find comfort, community and country hospitality here at Cracker Barrel. Uncle Herschel would have wanted it. Wouldn't have wanted it any other way. I'm willing to bet that Uncle Herschel would not have wanted to be eliminated from the logo of the company that he was part of. Just saying Thank you for caring so much and come see for yourself the country hospitality that makes Cracker Barrel feel like home. They basically just told you to go screw yourself. We're doing it anyway. We're doing what we want to do and we're not going to kowtow to any consumer.

Speaker 2: 34:11

This is a textbook example of living in an echo chamber. Now, for those of you who don't know who an echo chamber is, some of you may even be victims of it, and it happens. I was at one point in my life when you live in an echo chamber. That means you are surrounded by everything that essentially you like and you don't hear any other opinion. You'll walk into a room and you'll say you know what I really like? Donald Trump. I think he's great and everybody agrees with you. Nobody disagrees Because everybody around you has the exact same thought process, so you just echo it to each other and you never hear any differentiating opinion. So these elitists who sit at the corporate headquarters, who gas each other up, who don't ever hear any opposing arguments 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's nothing else.

Speaker 2: 35:35

But there are a couple things. We're going to listen to what she said. This is the CEO, julia Massino. We're going to listen to what she said. Just a second I can pull it up here and this was really kind of this wasn't major controversy at the time. So there's a couple of things that we need to understand with this. Number one, the controversy. There's a lot of misinformation out there, which I think is actually a good thing, and I'll explain why. But this is her on television and let's hear what she has to say about the remodel and the rebrand.

Speaker 7: 36:19

Honestly, the feedback's been overwhelmingly positive, that people like what we're doing.

Speaker 2: 36:23

I'll give you another soundbite, so the feedback is overwhelmingly positive of what we're doing. So this is textbook. Echo chamber okay, give you another soundbite. So the feedback is overwhelmingly positive of what we're doing. So this is textbook. Echo chamber okay, nobody is around you, nobody's opposing you. You're the CEO. Everybody's kissing your rear end, telling you what a great idea this is. This is phenomenal, to the point where your head is so full of nonsense that when your entire customer base finds out about it, loses their mind and your stock value loses $100 million that you don't believe it. Well, no, we've been talking about doing this for five years and everybody it's perfect, it's great. There's nothing wrong with this. It's a textbook example of alienating your customers and alienating your client base. And the next section that we go into we're going to talk about the echo chamber again, but let's finish what she has to say.

Speaker 7: 37:24

I actually happened to be in Orlando last week with all of our managers. We bring them together every other 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: 37:37

Oh really.

Speaker 7: 37:37

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: 37:48

You're the CEO of the company. They're trying to get FaceTime with you, to get recognized so that they can move up. A way to do that is to go up to you and say after the meeting and the summit and you're standing there meeting people, they tell you how great you are and how great this idea is, and I'm so excited. Did you run any scientific polls? Did you run any data? I went to Cracker Barrel today. By the way, I'm not boycotting Cracker Barrel, they're amazing.

Speaker 2: 38:18

I went to Cracker Barrel today and I just asked the hostess. I said so what do you think of this remodel? She's like I hate it. All of the customers hate it. Nobody likes it. I don't know what they you think 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 Cracker Barrel with a teenage girl who's really not in the know, but she is the face of the company that is dealing with every customer walking in and I could tell you it was a ghost town, but it was also three or four o'clock in the afternoon, so take that with a grain of salt, but I guarantee they didn't run any scientific data or any polls? None.

Speaker 7: 38:57

Guarantee it. We want to work in a wonderful restaurant, so we're doing everything for our guests and our team members.

Speaker 2: 39:03

Well, Julie Messina, it's wonderful to have you Just stop. You're not doing anything for your guests or your team members. You're doing it to make money. Stop it. That's the whole point of what you're doing is to make money. Stop BSing everyone. What are we doing for our team members? We want to have the best team and the greatest customers in the world. So here's a video. It's an AI video of Julie. It's pretty funny Obviously not real AI video of apologizing for what she has done.

Speaker 7: 39:45

I'm Julie, ceo of your favorite Southern theme restaurant, and I want all of you to know that we hear you. We fucked up, so we're going to fix it, starting with Uncle Herschel. Don't you dare move from that rocking chair, sir. You're back in the logo. You said we went woke. Fuck that. Not only did we go back to our Southern roots, we doubled the fuck down. How are those pancakes tasting?

Speaker 2: 40:11

It's like a kid rock concert in my mouth.

Speaker 7: 40:16

You own a certain red hat. Well, guess what? 25% off. How do you like them? Pancakes, I'll take it, but I'm still gonna call you woke. Please, please, please, come back to Cracker Barrel, I beg of you. I just lost this company $100 million over a logo made in Canva. I thought you fuckers liked that Chip and Joanna shit. Well, lesson fucking learned Help a sister out, please. Hi, I'm Julie.

Speaker 2: 40:44

I thought that was pretty funny. Sorry, I thought that was definitely pretty funny. No-transcript. Let's look at their stock. Here's Cracker Barrel stock Now. What you're seeing is just one day. So today it went down a quarter of a percent. 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 to date. They're now down 1%, but look at this Over five years, okay.

Speaker 2: 42:04

So when you look at all of these memes 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 and stay relevant because their stock is down astronomical amounts before they even considered remodeling. So they're trying to stay relevant and trying to do something to fix it, to keep it open, and trying to do something to fix it, to keep it open. This isn't a situation where they're like, oh, I'm just going to be woke, we're going to get rid of that cracker Uncle Herschel. I think they should have left Uncle Herschel on the logo. I do. I wouldn't mind a white coat of paint. The white kind of looks nice, but to get rid of all the stuff on the walls. That's tough, that's hard.

Speaker 2: 43:04

The problem with Cracker Barrel is that Cracker Barrel is supposed to be a place that is nostalgic. It's not supposed to change, it's supposed to be like ancient Cat. No Cracker Barrel even close to me. But I have the one and only Red Caboose. But I have the one and only Red Caboose. But I have the one and only Red Caboose. Awesome Country Cafe with a train going around the diner. That's kind of cool. I've never been in one of those.

Speaker 2: 43:31

And the people that are like on Facebook or Twitter or X and they're like oh hey, yeah, I'm okay with this Cracker Barrel Like they don't even have a Cracker Barrel. They live in freaking California or New York. You don't have Cracker Barrel, bro, shut up. You never had a dumpling in your life. You don't even know what biscuits and gravy is. Okay, mind your business, stay up there and eat your bagels, 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 long I've been gone, but in other news we'll see what happens with Cracker Barrel. I think that they should take a step back. I don't think that statement did them any any. Any favors, okay.

Speaker 2: 44:20

So a lady by the name of Amanda Seals went on to a show called Jubilee. Now, jubilee is a show that's designed to take you outside of your comfort zone, specifically outside of your echo chamber, where you sit in a chair and then boom, it's like a lightning round of people who sit across from you or around you and they ask you questions and they challenge you and they challenge your thought process and you have to respond intellectually. This woman was not able to do that. This woman went to Columbia University and got a bachelor's degree or, I'm sorry, a master's degree in hip-hop yes, hip-hop. You go to Ivy League schools to get a master's degree in African-American culture and hip-hop. Our education system is a joke. So before we get to the Jubilee part, here is her talking about Kamala Harris during the election.

Speaker 9: 45:30

First question to Kamala Harris would be is this a racist country? That's my first question. It doesn't make sense for them to put Jasmine Crockett on a ticket. Why ask that question? Because it is the root of all evil in this country. And if you are coming into this position and you want to do something different and you want to be the antithesis, that's going to be.

Speaker 2: 45:57

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 this country is racist? And of course Kamala Harris, yes, that's exactly what she believes.

Speaker 9: 46:05

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: 46:17

This woman is out of her mind and she gets like shellacked, like it's embarrassing. It's freaking embarrassing. Here is her on the Trump assassination. Okay, let's listen to her on her brilliant coverage on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Speaker 9: 46:47

That shit was more staged than a Tyler Perry production of Medea Runs for President. I lived in Harlem long enough to know that gunshots do not sound like making popcorn on the stove. Get down, get down, get down, get down, sound like making popcorn on the stove.

Speaker 2: 47:13

Well, I will tell you who has been around gunfire that, yes, anybody who's ever been around gunfire can tell you that that's that's gunfire and it sounds like an AR-15. Right, I know that. Now you don't know what you're talking about. You're never in harlem. You never get shot at at harlem. Harlem is actually a pretty nice area nowadays. It's not.

Speaker 9: 47:31

It's not washington dc where'd the blood come from? The bullet that hit his ear so in theater, in movies, they have what's called blood pellets. They even you know people use them in Halloween. It's basically a pellet of fake blood that's in your mouth and when you crush it the blood comes out. To be frank, small hands. Trump would not respond by raising his fist in the air triumphantly were an actual attempt made on his life. This was, I believe, done to try to show his strength counter to Biden's fragility Ba-dum-bum.

Speaker 2: 48:27

Oh my God, IQ of a potato, iq Of a friggin potato. Anyway, she goes on Jubilee and the best thing about this Is this racist lady Gets annihilated by black people.

Speaker 10: 48:50

So why is that fair for people who never had slaves, who fought against slavery, to have to pay for people that had slaves?

Speaker 9: 49:00

One. From my understanding, you are more interested in preserving the fairness of those who didn't have slaves than the fairness of those who are the descendants of slaves. That is priority to you, then, finding a fair way to accommodate those who have been the descendant of slaves.

Speaker 10: 49:17

Well, our ancestors wasn't asking for handouts, they were asking for equal opportunity, and we have equal opportunity in this country. We had a black president, just in case you didn't know. We had a black president and we had a black vice president. I mean, I think she was black. They said she was black, I don't know. So we had a black president and you know who voted for that black man White people, because you can't win a popular election in this country without white people.

Speaker 2: 49:46

That is a great point that I've never really thought of before. You can't win an election without white people voting, so white people voted for Barack Obama, white people elected Barack Obama, and then, all of a sudden, we're more racist now than we were under Jim Crow.

Speaker 10: 50:07

So Barack Obama is the product of white people. So so let's, let's get off this thing. Where, oh America is so racist? What's making America so racist is people that continue to talk about racism and continue to focus on racism instead of focusing on unity and bringing our country forward. People that have this liberal mindset are infecting our communities, black people, and making us victims and not victors. I refuse to embrace a victim mentality, because that's not what our grandparents and Harriet Tubman and those people fall for. They fall for equal opportunity.

Speaker 9: 50:42

Do not bring up Harriet Tubman's name in vain baby, please.

Speaker 2: 50:47

Harriet Tubman. God forbid he mentions her name. That's offensive to her.

Speaker 10: 50:55

Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman.

Speaker 9: 50:58

Harriet Tubman was literally, literally, saving her family and others from slavery.

Speaker 10: 51:07

Yeah, you know who helped her White people.

Speaker 9: 51:09

You know who helped her.

Speaker 10: 51:10

They were on the Underground.

Speaker 9: 51:11

Railroad.

Speaker 1: 51:13

You know who helped her.

Speaker 9: 51:14

No, you know who helped her God People who benefit from white supremacy. It's a lie.

Speaker 2: 51:22

People who benefit from white supremacy it's a lie. People who benefit from white supremacy. How on God's green earth would people help free slaves if they're benefiting from keeping them as slaves? Just a question. Just a question, that's all. Feel free to answer it there. Amanda Seals.

Speaker 9: 51:49

Lie no sir.

Speaker 10: 51:50

That's simply not true.

Speaker 9: 51:52

If that were not the case, then we wouldn't see the continued effort of colonialism and white people placing themselves in positions of power when they do not have the power Because their culture, black culture, is toxic.

Speaker 10: 52:07

The Black culture is toxic. We have produced a culture that is toxic. Let's get on the fact that there's no fathers in the Black culture.

Speaker 9: 52:16

Let's talk about that. Stop, stop, stop. Let's talk about that. None of this is going to work if y'all are just going to sit here and make up shit. It's not going to work.

Speaker 2: 52:24

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 an overwhelming amount of fathers in the black community? Is that what she's saying? I don't understand. Stop, this isn't going to work if you guys are going to lie it has to be.

Speaker 10: 52:40

In fact, you're putting off emotional liberalism. I am not putting off emotional liberalism. You're, you're, you're, in fact, you're, you're, you're literally emotional liberalism.

Speaker 9: 52:44

I am not putting off emotional liberalism. You're putting off unfounded lies based in misinformation. Remember they did the misinformation thing all summer where everything conservative of an apartheid nation that actively wants to harm black people and not Jewish people.

Speaker 2: 53:03

But let me bring it back, let me bring it back.

Speaker 2: 53:06

This woman went to an Ivy League college Ivy League, columbia, one of the best colleges in the world, new York City. She went there as a black person. But this is an apartheid country who wants to eliminate black people, yet we're sending them to the best schools in the country. But this is an apartheid country who wants to eliminate black people, yet we're sending them to the best schools in the country. Clearly she's not qualified to go to an Ivy League school because her intellect is not there. She's not smart enough to go to an Ivy League school. This is a DEI result. Who's been sitting in an echo chamber screaming it at the wall? And the same voices have been coming back.

Speaker 9: 53:45

Selling black people in Africa. That was not happening in the context that you're saying, and they were selling their own people. Black people still sell their own people today too by the way, I don't know if I'm going to last. We're selling our own people today too. I don't know if I'm going to last. You probably won't last with me. I won't, because your ignorance is so overwhelming.

Speaker 10: 54:00

That's liberal. Y'all start name-calling when y'all get defeated in an argument. No, it's not name-calling.

Speaker 9: 54:04

You won't have an argument because you keep cutting me off. Well, that's fine if they don't let me cut you off.

Speaker 10: 54:08

I made my point, you didn't make your point. I made my point, you haven't made your point and I'm okay

Speaker 9: 54:11

with being thrown out.

Speaker 2: 54:13

He definitely made his point, In my opinion. So here's another kid and he's my favorite Because he just rocks her world. And I mean, just look at her right here. Her freaking head is imploding. She can't even handle what is happening. She can't even process this. She cannot process that people disagree with her. She cannot process and understand that people disagree with her.

Speaker 8: 54:44

So she is emotionally destroyed you can give everyone here like a fifty thousand dollar check, especially people that are in the streets who are committing violent crimes consistently a fifty thousand dollar check. It's not going to fix anything. It's not going to increase the median household income the next 10 years by 10 percent or 20 percent. For example, we have the chinese exclusion act of 1882. We prevented Chinese people from getting citizenship and even entering the country. We discriminated against them and basically put them under apartheid, even here in the United States. Yet they have the highest median household income. How is that possible? How come they don't complain and feel entitled consistently to beg for reparations and beg for 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: 55:23

Oh, young man.

Speaker 8: 55:24

Yet white people are the oppressors.

Speaker 9: 55:26

I'm not sure where your education came from, but they lied to you.

Speaker 1: 55:30

Stats don't lie though.

Speaker 9: 55:31

Statistics lie all the time. So let's start there, particularly when the statistics are coming from the sources that gain from the statistics being shown a different way. So how do you even have a debate if you can't even agree that the statistics being shown a different?

Speaker 2: 55:43

way. So how do you even have a debate if you can't even agree that the statistics exist? There's nothing to argue about that, then your statistics that you're trying to argue are invalid. Does government skew numbers 100%? We talked about in this show with DC and my experience as a police officer yes, they do. Do they always do it? No, sometimes they do. I don't think there's really any benefit to lying about especially when Democrats have been in power so long about the crime in the black community. I don't think they need to lie about that. I think that's self-evident. But if you can't admit it and even have a discussion about it, like even her, she can't even have a discussion about it. She's blocking out all information that is not already decided in her mind. She's blocking it out whoa, whoa, whoa, stop, stop, stop. Don't even say anymore, because you're going to take me off of my beliefs and that's not what I want.

Speaker 9: 56:54

If you're going to start your argument on stats, don't lie, you've already lost the argument. They lie all the time One. Comparing Chinese people, who are immigrants that made a choice to come to the United States, and comparing the continued effort of black people to ground themselves in a nation that continues to make impediments for them to show and live and exist in their true citizenship is a false equivalency.

Speaker 8: 57:18

I don't believe that happens at all, but no one here is.

Speaker 9: 57:21

Are you acting right now? Do you really believe this? I'm telling the truth.

Speaker 8: 57:24

There's no systemic racism that I've experienced here in America.

Speaker 2: 57:27

Look at their face. Oh my God, you're not a victim. You're not a victim Like she's never heard. She's never been exposed to anybody who disagreed with her. That's a friggin' problem.

Speaker 8: 57:48

What system is racist? I think the only racism we've actually seen recently systemic racism. That we've seen is the application of systemic racism against white people. The University of Western Washington, for example, has been trying to segregate dormitories using black-only dormitories, because black people feel safer amongst each other, but they're more likely to kill each other than white people are ever to kill them. That's just the truth. You have king von rapping about killing other black men. Why should I think that the white man is the oppressor when black men are more?

Speaker 9: 58:13

likely to kill me. Oh my god, this is scary.

Speaker 2: 58:17

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 is just downright confusing to me. I don't understand what the heck she's talking about.

Speaker 9: 58:38

To think about me as your mama. Do not talk to me in that fashion. So let's check that now, okay, okay. So on's check that now, okay, okay. So on a basic level, we have to understand that systemic racism is grounded in the realities that black people have not been considered an equal human being in this country since its onset. So there's simply no way to make the argument that there isn't systemic racism and we have seen in very clear ways system operate in an organically racist way. Do not cut me off.

Speaker 2: 59:09

She's got to come from a position of authority. She's got to come from a position of authority. You can't disagree with her. She's better than you, she's smarter 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 when I my experience in college is that people with PhDs are not intelligent at all.

Speaker 2: 59:33

There was like I couldn't name one, I really couldn't name one who was fair or who listened to other people. Maybe one, yeah, maybe one of my PhDs in political science class, because he didn't hold it against my conservative views. And a lot of times I had an argument with this guy, one of my professors in political science, and he's telling me that MSNBC is not biased, that they're telling the truth and that Fox News is biased. And I had said to him well, actually they're both biased and he said, no, they're not. I said, yeah, well, fox news is basically propaganda for conservatives and msnbc is propaganda for democrats, like they both have the same freaking role, they both do the same damn thing. And he couldn't even grasp the fact that a student would even challenge him. He even said that to me Are you challenging me? Yeah, I am challenging you. That would be a good thing to do as a professor to have students who want to learn. Challenge you on your viewpoints Number one. If you're going to have viewpoints Number two, you shouldn't have any viewpoint politically.

Speaker 2: 1:01:03

When you're teaching a class, your students shouldn't know which way you swing politically. You're teaching about government, about the founding fathers, about political philosophies. You shouldn't be declaring which ones are right, which ones are wrong. You know how many students have to change their beliefs in college for so long that they just become Democrats. This is how you get turned out to Democrat mill. It's just a diploma mill for Democrats. Man, we're going to take you, we're going to turn your mind to our political philosophy and we're going to spear you out back into the world so that you can't handle even somebody having a different opinion.

Speaker 2: 1:01:53

I mean that we've come to and I hope that this all gets resolved because we have finally gotten rid of the Department of Education. That's a big one. That was a friggin' disaster and a waste of money. They weren't doing anything. I'm going to start doing something a little bit differently. We're going to start doing a book club Not anything you have to pay for, but I'm going to start reviewing books separately, outside of the live videos. As you know, our live videos are Monday through Friday at 9 pm, eastern Standard Time, 9 to 10. You can also download the podcast. The podcast is on Apple, spotify, podbean, basically anywhere you can get a podcast Buzzsprout, spreaker it's everywhere. Listen to it, download from the podcast and thank you very much for tuning in. I will see you guys tomorrow at 9 pm. We'll see you next time.