Ep. 1644 - This Case Is An Insane Miscarriage Of Justice
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a man will spend the next 50 years of his life in prison after shooting and killing a car thief. This case is an absurd miscarriage of justice. We’ll do a deep dive into it today. Also, is war with Venezuela brewing? We’ll discuss. And a man is left beaten and bloodied after asking a group of “teens” to quiet down in a movie theater. Plus, Cracker Barrels unveils their exciting new rebrand. Of course, as always, rebranding just means making everything ugly and generic.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1644
- - -
DailyWire+:
Join millions of people who still believe in truth, courage, and common sense at https://DailyWirePlus.com
Ben Shapiro’s new book, “Lions and Scavengers,” drops September 2nd—pre-order today at https://dailywire.com/benshapiro
Get your Matt Walsh flannel here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today's Sponsors:
Vandy Crisps - MASA Chips - Go to https://MASAChips.com/WALSH and use code WALSH for 25% off your first order.
Grand Canyon University - Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Visit https://gcu.edu today.
American Financing - Visit https://americanfinancing.net/walsh to learn more. NMLS 182334, https://nmlsconsumeraccess.org. APR for rates in the 5s start at 6.327% for well qualified borrowers. Call 866-569-4711, for details about credit costs and terms.
Kikoff - Start building credit with Kikoff today, and you can get your first month for as little as $1. Go to https://getkikoff.com/walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
- - -
Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
These are questions that take cultures thousands of years to answer.
During Answer the Call, I take questions from people just like you about their problems, opportunities, challenges, or when they simply need advice.
How do I balance all this grief, responsibility?
How do you repair this kind of damage?
My daughter, Mikaela, guides the conversations as we hopefully help people navigate their lives.
Everyone has their own destiny.
Everyone.
Thank you.
Today at Mowell's show, a man will spend the next fifty years of his life in prison after shooting and killing a car thief.
This case is an absurd, mistake of justice..
We'll do a deep dive into it today.
Also, is war brewing with Venezuela?
We'll discuss, and a man is left beaten and bloodied after asking a group of teens to quiet down in a movie theater.
Plus, Cracker Barrel unveils their exciting new rebrand.
Of course, as always, rebranding just means making everything ugly and generic.
We'll talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
The Matt Walsh Show.
Right now, DailyWirePlus stream brand new episodes of The Secret Vatican Files.
Be here for the premiere of the Isabel Brown Show on September 8th.
And don't miss the decade of the DailyWire Anniversary special coming soon, plus so much more.
And here's why you should do it.
Now, you'll save 40% on new annual memberships when you join today.
Use code summer at dailywireplus.com.
Did you know that all chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap processed seed oils that cause inflammation?
So NASA decided to actually do something about the garbage that passes for tortilla chips these days.
They ditched all the seed oils and went back to just three ingredients, organic, nix stemalized, organic nix stemalized corn.
We'll go with it.
Sea salt and 100% grass feed beef tallow.
And here's the kicker.
They don't taste like some sad health food compromise.
These chips are crunchier, tastier, sturdy enough that they won't snap in half when you dip them.
Plus, unlike regular chips that leave you feeling bloated and sluggish, Massa actually makes you feel satisfied and energetic.
The beef tallow makes them way more filling too.
So you're not mindlessly demolishing the entire bag and still feeling hungry.
These are, I've told you, these are the best potato chips I've ever had.
They truly are.
If you don't believe me, try them out.
You have my guarantee.
And I'm never wrong about anything.
You know that.
I'm always on the go with the kids.
So I need stacks that actually fuel me instead of leaving me feeling worse.
Massa Chips keep me satisfied.
whether I'm packing lunches or needed something quick after a busy day and they don't crumble all over my car.
Massa Chips is beloved by tens of thousands of customers and has been endorsed by industry leading health and nutrition experts.
So ready to give Massa a try?
Go to Massa Chips.com slash walls.
Use code walls for 25% off your first order.
That's masachips.com slash walls and code walls for 25% off your first order.
If you've ever been forced to take a concealed carry class, the odds are pretty good that you thought the entire thing was a waste of time.
These classes are designed to make firearm ownership more of a hassle and more expensive so that you give up on the idea of owning a gun.
To the extent you receive any instruction at all, you're told some very basic rules of self-defense.
And the most important rule of all, of course.
is that you can't use lethal force unless you have a reasonable belief that you or someone else is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
So if someone is running away with your property, even if it's your car, you can't shoot them.
This is one of those rules that pretty much everyone is familiar with.
If you watch crime shows or pay attention to the news, you understand the concept as well as anyone.
You're led to believe that this is one of those fundamental common law principles that we carried over from England and that Western societies have always had some kind of general rule like this.
But that's not remotely true.
In fact, the opposite is true.
As recently as the 1980s, Yes, the 1980s.
The law of self-defense was very different in this country.
Now, until the commentator Jeremy Kaufman mentioned this the other day, I didn't really realize this, but it's an incredible piece of history that everyone should be aware of.
So here's where it started.
A little before 11 p.m. on October 3, 1974, two Memphis police officers were dispatched to a residential neighborhood to investigate a prowler.
And once they arrived, a witness told them that someone had just broken into a house next door.
One of the officers went around the back of the house to investigate.
And at that point, the officers saw someone named Edward Garner running across the backyard and attempting to scale a six-foot high chain link fence.
Now, from the officer's perspective, Garner was about 5 foot 7 inches tall, roughly 17 years old, and unarmed.
In reality, it turned out he was 15.
He wasn't directly threatening anyone at that precise moment as far as the officer could tell.
But nevertheless, the officer was concerned that Garner, who had probably just broken into a house, would escape into the neighborhood if he made it over the fence.
The officer recognized that burglary is a serious crime and it was important to prevent the suspect from getting away.
So within seconds, the officer shot Garner in the back of the head and killed him.
Now, very quickly, the Memphis Firearms Review Board and a local grand jury looked at this case and they cleared the officer.
That's because Tennessee at the time.
had a law which allowed police to use any means necessary, including lethal force, to effect a lawful arrest for a serious crime.
Years later, when the case wound up in a federal district court because the burglar's family filed a lawsuit, the law was upheld.
The court held that Garner had, quote, recklessly and heedlessly attempted to vault over the fence to escape, thereby assuming the risk of being fired upon.
That was the law of the United States, as understood by federal courts, as of 1985.
If you run away after committing a felony, then it's legal for the police officers to shoot you.
Period.
End of discussion.
The idea was that even if you weren't pointing a gun at someone at a particular moment, the mere fact that you had committed a serious crime by itself made you a threat as you ran away from the scene.
And more than half of the states in the country had similar laws in the books.
And indeed, the common law tradition dating back centuries was that felons were fair game, even if they were running away.
In fact, all the way back in the year 1285, there was a famous law in Winchester, England that actually required communities of private individuals to chase and apprehend felons who fled the scene.
And if the private citizens didn't catch the felon one way or another, the community itself would be held liable for the damages caused by the felon's crime.
So it wasn't just the police who had this obligation, everybody did.
Now, deterrence, of course, was the main rationale for this kind of policy.
That's been true for centuries.
And it was true in states like Tennessee prior to 1985.
After all, if felons know they can be killed on the spot if they commit a serious crime, then they'll commit fewer crimes.
And the idea was that is criminals have no right to commit crimes in the first place.
So the moment they make the decision to commit the crime, they forfeit most of the legal protections that law-abiding citizens enjoy.
Which is why in most places in the world for most of history, including in this country, it was perfectly legal to shoot someone who was in the middle of committing a crime or who had just committed a crime.
And that made a lot of sense.
The logic was, okay, don't want to get shot.
Well, don't commit a crime.
Don't want to get shot.
Don't try to steal my car.
Don't break into my house.
You decided to do that.
Now the law's not going to protect you.
Sorry.
And that was the attitude for really most of the history of human civilization.
And it's pretty simple.
But on appeal in 1985, the Supreme Court decided to overturn all of this precedent.
They held for the first time.
that under our constitution, fleeing suspects can't be shot unless they're posing a clear imminent danger, as in pointing a gun directly atly at somebody's head or running with a gun, brandishing it into a crowd of people, carrying a nuclear bomb or whatever, something like that.
This ruling had the effect of instantly overruling half of the states in the country on this point.
It was arguably as undemocratic as some of the worst decisions in the Supreme Court's history, including Roe v.
but no one really talks about it.
And indeed, this is a decision that It places a constitutional burden on police officers to carefully assess whether a violent criminal is supposedly an imminent threat at any particular moment.
If you shoot a second too early or too late, then your life is over.
So what has happened is that the burden, you know, when someone decides to commit a crime, they've created this burden.
They've created this very difficult situation.
They've created it through their own actions.
But now, whereas before, the burden was on the criminal and the attitude was, well, you decided to do this.
So if you get shot, that's your problem.
Now we've taken that burden and we transit it from the criminal over to the police officer or the private citizen, which means for the most part, you're expected to watch as thugs commit crimes with impunity.
Meanwhile, some of the worst people in the country were given a massive incentive to commit more crimes, knowing full well that no one's allowed to shoot them.
They get the benefit of the doubt under this new system.
That really is what it is.
For most of human history, in a case where someone gets killed while committing a crime or after committing a crime, the benefit of the doubt is always going to go to the police officer or the private citizen who was trying to apprehend them or prevent them.
Now the benefit of the doubt goes to the criminal and the criminals take full advantage of it.
This is a ruling that made this country far more dangerous than it ever was before and everyone can understand why while the court's decision in garner's case only applied to police officers it had a significant impact on how states saw the private right of self-defense as well as how they handled citizens' arrests and that sort of thing and it laid the groundwork for a new pattern of discrimination in the judicial system specifically it led to a wave of prosecutions of police officers and private citizens who use deadly force against fleeing felons.
It also contributed to the decline of citizens' arrest laws all over the country.
And it just so happens that again and again, white defendants who violate the Supreme Court's revised ru rule on self-defense as of 1985 tend to face extremely long prison sentences.
But non-white defendants are often given much more lenient sentences, even when they commit indefensible acts of violence.
And here's the latest example.
It involves a 29-year-old former Space Force sergeant named Owers Schur.
Around 11 p.m. on July 5th of 2023, Schur, who is not a police officer, was sleeping in his home in Aurora, Colorado near the Buckley Space Force base.
And that's when he heard the car alarm going off on his wife's Hyundai Elantra.
Now, this is important., this was the third time that someone had tried to steal a car from his home.
So sure grabbed his pistol, went outside where he saw two people dressed in all black trying to break into his wife's car.
And so far it's a story that sounds very similar to what happened to Jamie White, the Infowars reporter who was recently murdered in Austin when he tried to confront his car thieves.
But when sure confronted the people trying to break into his wife's car, there was a different outcome.
The criminals fled in a separate stolen vehicle.
Now in pre-1985 America, which is to say for the vast majority of the history of this country and the world, sure would have had every right to pursue those two criminals.
And in this case, that's exactly what he did.
He didn't want to wait for a fourth attack on his home.
He was tired of this constantly happening.
He's tired of living with this lawlessness as most law-abiding citizens are.
So he got into the Elantra and he chased them.
And as he did so, he fired several shots into the getaway car, ultimately causing it to crash just a few blocks away when the occupants attempted to escape on foot.
uh he continued to fire and at that point he killed 14-year-old xavier daniel kirk and injured his 13-year-old accomplice um and neither of the teenagers were carrying firearms apparently.
Now, whatever you think of this man's actions, it shouldn't be controversial to point out that in all likelihood, he probably saved the community from having to deal with a lot of future criminal activity and violence.
The two teenagers he shot were habitual car thieves.
Their parents completely failed them.
The criminal justice system would have given them a slap on the wrist, assuming the police ever got around to arresting them, which they probably wouldn't have done.
And then most likely they would have continued committing more crimes into adulthood until until one way or another somebody died.
I mean, that's how these things always go.
And we all know that's true.
And if we're living in a country that values the rule of law, then we should be able to acknowledge that say that out loud without any reservations even if you condemn what sure did legally or morally, you should still be able to acknowledge this.
It's just a statistical reality.
But states like Colorado see things differently.
Therefore, in one of the most farcical court proceedings you'll ever see, Orest Schur was just sentenced to 54 years in prison.
He's not going to be eligible for parole until his 70s.
For shooting these two criminals, his life is now over.
Because he was fed up of three times people trying to steal his car, finally did something about it, his life is over.
And as we'll discuss in a minute, this is a wildly disproportionate sentence when you compare it to other cases.
But before we get into that, it needs to be said that this whole trial was nauseating in every possible respect.
People in Colorado had to watch several pouty-faced news anchors lamenting the death of this, you know, 14-year-old boy as if he was a treasured asset of the local community.
And then came the victim impact statements at sentencing.
Watch.
54 years in prison.
That's the sentence handed down today for the U.S. Space Force sergeant who shot and killed a 14-year-old boy in July 2023.
Prosecutors say Orashore chased and then gunned down 14-year-old Xavier Kirk and his 13-year-old friend on the night of July 5th, 2023 after reporting they stole his card.
Good to have you with us.
I'm Micah Smith.
And I'm Jessica Porter.
Kirk later died from a gunshot wound to the back and neck.
The 13-year-old was also shot in the back and survived.
And Arapahoe County jury found Schur guilty of second degree murder two months ago back in June.
And today we heard victim impact statements from family members of Kirk.
We also heard from Xavier's friend who was there that night and also shot by Schur for the first time today.
Take a listen.
Today was a hard day.
I mean, it's been a long two years.
I just keep thinking like everybody was going up there talking about how great he was and how good of a father he was.
But then the thought that crosses my mind right after is, if that's the case, then why isn't Xavier here if he was just such a great person?
The whole sentencing went like this, of course.
Watch.
Yeah, Xavier Kirk's family and friends packed the courtroom today.
They say they feel like this, a 54-year sentence was justice served, though they will still have to live with the grief that they carry with them every day for the rest of their lives.
We got to hear some of those emotional statements today.
I'm happy that he's finally put behind bars for killing my son, even though I wish he would have got 80 years, but at the end of the day, he's still locked up and my son got justice.
A sense of justice for Xavier Kirk's family and friends after former U.S. Space Force sergeant Orist Shore was sentenced to 54 years in prison.
Well, you know, a sense of justice would actually involve that mother being thrown in prison.
She somehow managed to raise a career criminal who wasn't even 15 years old.
I mean, it cannot be overstated just how horrible of a mother you have to be for your 14-year-old son to already be a habitual career criminal.
And that is or should be a crime all by itself.
It doesn't happen without an extraordinary amount of terrible, unforgivably bad parenting.
But again, this woman is telling us how to define justice, and we're supposed to listen to that.
And things didn't end there.
Somehow the victim impact statements, as they're called, became even.
more embarrassing as the proceedings went along.
Watch.
Shackled and in an inmate striped jumpsuit, Oras Schur heard from those he devastated.
I can't express enough how much pain and grief that we're going to for two years to pass by and still having the absence of my nephew and the memories that we have of him will be cherished forever.
Each recounted July 6, 2023, the night Xavier Kirk, just 14, was shot and killed.
His friend survived a gunshot in the back.
The duo had attempted to take a car that wasn't theirs, a car owned by Orash Shur.
You know, kids make mistakes.
And so I always teach my kids and my family, like my nephews and nieces, about consequences and repercussions.
We're not trying to excuse any wrongdoing that Xavier or wrong we're involved in.
The part that's messed up is that Orashur's car was never stolen.
Yes, the part that's messed up is that Orishur's car was never stolen.
So that's...
The fact that Orashur woke up, went outside and interrupted the car thief is what's messed up.
That's the part of the story that, you know, really is supposed to blow our mind, I guess.
Meanwhile, the fact that you have a 14-year-old and a 13-year-old dressed in all black stealing every car they can find is just a mistake, an innocent little blooper.
What kid that age doesn't make a mistake like that, after all?
One minute they're hiding the silverware and taking cookies from the cookie jar, and next minute they're committing grand theft auto.
What are you going to do?
What could the parents possibly have done to prevent this?
Aside from just like being parents, being actual parents.
And practically everyone at the sentencing made that same claim.
They suggested it was all just a big mistake.
Watch.
Though they never took the car, sure chased them down, shooting down the unarmed teens.
Even the judge said, Sure, a discharged soldier should have known not to take lethal action that night.
Kids make mistakes, but adults are supposed to be the ones to guide us through it.
The prosecution read a statement from the boy who survived.
That night my friend and I made a mistake.
We took a car that didn't belong to us.
I'm not proud of that, and I've had to live with the consequences of that choice.
But no mistake, especially one that didn't involve any violence, should ever lead to someone being hunted down, shot, and killed.
And no matter what we did that night, I didn't deserve to be shot, and Xavier didn't deserve to die well that's the whole issue isn't it that's the big question right there what punishment do you deserve if you dressed up in all black and try to steal someone's car if if you don't deserve to get shot then then what should happen to you what may what what should the consequence be if you take someone's car in many cases you're you're seriously impacting their life so what should the punishment be for doing that repeatedly to other people uh and
if there were real and as an extension of that question, if there were real punishments, like maybe part of the problem is that there aren't, there aren't, so you're saying, well, the punishment shouldn't be this.
this okay what should it be because the problem right now is that there's no punishment that you got these you know kids these teens quote unquote running around committing crimes and there's zero punishment there's zero consequence and so then it leads to this so maybe we need to take a look at that as well what is clear is that western nations are suddenly having a very difficult time answering all these questions.
In Canada, a 44-year-old homeowner is now facing aggravated assault charges for beating up a thug who broke into his home.
They arrested a man for defending himself against a home invasion.
Apparently the idea is that the man who lived in the home took things too far by sending the home invader to the hospital.
He should have just allowed himself to get murdered, I guess.
That's the position that the CBC, which is Canada's state media, is taking.
Now, for his part, Doug Ford, who runs Ontario, just spoke out about the case.
Listen.
Everyone hear about the story in Lindsay?
So this criminal that's wanted by the police breaks into this guy's house.
This guy gives him a beating, and this guy gets charged.
And the other guy gets charged.
But something is broken.
I know someone breaks into my house or someone else's, you're going to fight for your life.
This guy has a weapon.
You're going to use any force you possibly can to protect your family.
I'm telling you, I know everyone would.
I'd be scared to break into Kevin's.
He's like a linebacker.
He beat the living crap out of the guy as he should.
Because no, enough's enough here.
violence and breaking in people's homes, putting guns at their heads.
And guess what?
Some bleeding heart judge, little Johnny, he didn't have a good upbringing.
So we're going to let him out on bail five more times.
because he's on his fifth, you know, being let out on bail five times just to go do the same thing the next day.
I'll tell you one thing, I get more calls than anyone in the country.
People are done with this.
They're absolutely done.
They're finished.
Yeah, people are tired of this.
That's true everywhere in the West.
So what's going to change and how is it going to change?
Exactly.
In 1985, when the punishment for committing felonies was lethal force, the Supreme Court explained that we were savages.
Okay, fine.
So what system do we have now in the United States?
Do we have an improvement over the system from 1985?
That's a rhetorical question, obviously.
Watch.
New Development, a story we've been covering closely for months.
A judge handed the youngest girl in that deadly carjacking near Nats Park the maximum sentence.
Two girls killed Uber Reed's driver, Mohammed Amwar, in that crash.
She was 13 at the time, now 14.
She'll be in youth detention for the next seven years.
And as our Bruce LeShan reports, she has to be released when she turns 21.
Prosecutors say that the girl has shown no remorse, even muttering to herself when she thought no one was listening about the man she had just killed.
If you'd just given me my blanking phone, you'd still be alive.
But no, you wouldn't put my damn phone in your pocket.
Prosecutors say she may have been the younger of the two team carjackers, but they say she was just as responsible lying to bystanders who had come to help Mohammed Anwar, they say, grabbing the steering wheel, jamming the Honda out into the pier, and yelling at the other girl to go.
Prosecutors say Anwar was crushed when the car drawer slammed into a tree box and killed when he was thrown to the sidewalk right in front of the ballpark when the girls made a sharp right turn and flipped the car on its driver's side.
Her lawyer says she is remorseful.
He asked the judge to detain her for just four more years until she turns 18, suggesting she has impulse control issues and has become more thoughtful about her actions since the tragedy.
So she brutally murders a Uber Eats driver in broad daylight and steals the car.
One of the most horrific crimes imaginable.
The man's dragged to his death on camera.
Entire families destroyed.
She has no remorse whatsoever.
Her lore's best offense is that she has issues with impulse control.
And after all that, she gets a seven year sentence.
She'll be out by 21 years old at the latest.
Can anyone defend that?
I mean, even if you're playing devil's advocate, is there any logic behind this whatsoever?
And there are many, many cases along these lines.
Here's a recent story from Yahoo, for example.
This is about a shooting that took place shortly after the George Floyd hysteria began.
Quote, William Wilson, a biracial black man, fired his legal handgun at a pickup truck of white teens who he says were yelling racial slurs at him and trying to run him off and his white girlfriend off the road near Statesboro, Georgia.
One of those bullets struck and killed 17-year-old Haley Hutchinson, who was in the back seat of the truck.
The shooter told police that he had seen, quote, a truck full of white males driving the car at me and are flipping me off and yelling racial slurs.
So in response, he shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old woman, someone who was in the back seat of the truck.
So then what happened next?
Did the shooter receive 54 years in prison?
44, 34, 24, 14?
As it turns out, he received 10 years in prison with the potential to be released several years earlier.
So on the one hand, you have a Space Force sergeant shooting criminals committing grand theft auto.
On the other hand, you have a black man shooting a white 17-year-old woman who, by his account, was a passenger in a car that was shouting nasty words at him.
One of those crimes is punished by 54 years in prison.
The other barely gets less than 20% of that sentence.
Here's another example.
Who could forget the case of CC McDonald?
CC McDonald is a man who identifies as a woman.
He stabbed and killed an unarmed 47-year-old man named Dean Schmitz.
after an altercation involving allegedly transphobic insults and some physical contact.
CC used scissors to penetrate the victim's chest three inches deep, puncturing his heart.
When police arrived, CC reportedtedly claimed that the man had charged into the scissors and impaled himself, which happens all the time, as we know.
And guess how that turned out?
CC MacDonald was offered a plea bargain.
He pleaded to manslaughter and received just 41 months in jail.
Not 54 years, 41 months.
He got fewer months than Oris Schur got years.
And now he's received a whole bunch of awards from the LGBT industry and all of that.
Now here's the point.
Even if we can see that the Space Force Sergeant's case doesn't qualify under the current law of self-defense, which it doesn't.
We would concede that.
I mean, that's pretty clear.
There's still a very obvious problem here.
Our system of laws provides that prosecutors and judges have an extraordinary amount of discretion when they're deciding how to charge and how to sentence criminal defendants.
And this discretion is used all the time in the name of compassion for violent criminals, but it's never used for men like Orist Scherb.
In every case, compassion only applies to the worst and most dangerous kinds of people.
In this country, you'll be punished more severely for killing someone who's trying to steal your car than you'll be punished for killing someone while trying to steal their car.
That's the whole dynamic.
And if you don't see the fundamental problem with that dynamic, I don't know how else to explain it.
So even if you think that this guy shouldn't have done it, it was terrible.
Okay, well, why can't he get the same kind of slap on the wrist, compassionate sentence that we give to actual violent murderers all the time?
Probation, time served, manslaughter, pled down.
Why doesn't he get that?
The worst people in the country get those kinds of deals all the time.
And then they let out back on the street and they kill more people.
Does anyone really think that if Oris sure was released that he'd be a threat.
Let me ask you this.
This is a good test.
No matter how you feel about what he did, you condemn it, you think it was wrong.
Would you be worried about living next to him?
Would you?
I wouldn't.
You know why I wouldn't be worried about it?
Because I'm not going to steal his car.
I'd be worried about living next to him and then breaking into his house or stealing his car.
But I wouldn't be worried at all about having a guy like that in my neighborhood.
I mean, this is a guy that's shown that he's willing to use violent force to defend himself against people that are trying to commit crimes against him.
I'm not going to do that.
So, in fact, if anything, I'd probably feel safer with a guy like that in the neighborhood.
And yet we give these light sentences all the time to people who we all agree no one wants to live next to those people.
Right.
The kind of person that where they commit a crime that you, okay, you release them like they're almost certainly going to commit more crimes.
Is that the system of justice that the Supreme Court had in mind 40 years ago when they ruled that criminals should be allowed to rob houses and then jump fences to escape?
It's hard to say.
But that's the system of justice we have now.
And if there's ever been a moment to revisit this travesty, as the Supreme Court has revisited many other terrible rulings in its history, then the case of Space Force Sergeant Orashur presents the perfect opportunity.
54 years in prison for this crime when so many other violent degenerates are walking free is so obviously absurd and unjustifiable that it violates our constitution as well as our basic sense of morality and justice.
Oras Schur may not be a paragon of virtue.
He may have violated the laws as it currently stands, but if you're pretending to put on a sad face when you talk about the criminals he shot as you defend the constant release of violent carjackers into American communities, then you're more culpable than he ever will be.
The law should recognize that.
The law used to recognize that.
And therefore, before more lives are destroyed for the benefit of anarchists and criminals with low impulse control, the law must change.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.
GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promotes human flourishing, creates a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.
By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.
Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God, whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree.
GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.
With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.
The pursuit to serve others is yours.
Let it flourish.
Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable.
Visit gcu.edu.
If you've been living on credit cards just to cover groceries, gas, and bills, you know those interest rates are brutal.
Why keep paying 20% or more to the banks when you could call my friends at American Financing?
They have mortgage rates in the fives and they're showing people every day how to keep more of your hard-earned money in your pocket and out of the hands of credit card companies.
Right now, American Financing is helping homeowners save an average of $800 a month by using their home equity to wipe out high-interest debt with no upfront fees, no obligation, and just a 10-minute call to a salary-based mortgage consultant.
Here's the kicker.
If you start today, you could delay two mortgage payments, putting in even more cash in your hands right away.
Don't wait.
Call American Financing now.
866-569-4711.
That's 866-569-4711 or visit americanfinancing.net slash Walsh.
CNN reports, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro announced on Monday the deployment of 4.5 million militiamen throughout the country assuring that no empire will touch the sacred soil of Venezuela after the U.S. doubled the reward for information leading to his arrest and increased the number of troops sailing around Latin America and the Caribbean.
Last week, the U.S. government confirmed to CNN that it had ordered naval movements in the region to contain the threat from drug trafficking groups.
On Monday, Reuters reported that three U.S. Navy destroyers and some 4,000 military personnel would arrive at the edge of Venezuela's territorial waters within the next 36 hours.
On Tuesday, a U.S. Department of Defense official said there are currently no ships in the area, although that's apparently changing.
White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt was asked Tuesday about a possible troop deployment to Venezuela.
She said, President Donald Trump has been very clear and consistent.
He's prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into our country and to bring those responsible to justice.
So tensions are rising between the U.S. and Venezuela.
Trump is sending U.S. warships to the waters just off Venezuela.
The Venezuelan dictator, Maduro, is not happy telling us that we better not dare step on the sacred soil of Venezuela.
And the media are claiming that we're on the verge of war.
Drudge had a big headline yesterday, war with Venezuela?
Question mark.
And I will say as the non-intervention.ist guy who famously doesn't care about other countries and doesn't want to get involved in their problems as the American chauvinist, not just America first, but America chauvinist, I fully support what Trump is doing here because this is America first.
This is American chauvinism.
American chauvinism is not just we're first, it's we're better than all of you.
which is the attitude you should have about your own country.
And in our country, it happens to be true.
So we're going to use our strength, our power to impose our will for the sake of our national interests and to protect our country and our people.
That's how it should be.
That's how American might, American force should be used.
And I made this point a week or two ago.
There's a reason I've never described myself as anti-war.
There are a lot of non-interventionist types who I often agree with.
And I find myself agreeing with them on issues all the time.
But they will call themselves anti-war.
They'll frame the argument against, say, U.S. involvement in Ukraine or U.S. attacks on Iran at the behest of Israel.
They'll frame it as an anti-war position.
And I think that's wrong because being anti-war is stupid.
War is sometimes necessary.
It's like claiming that you're anti-violence.
It's a meaningless position.
Obviously, sometimes violence is necessary.
I'm against someone getting robbed and killed, but that's not because I'm anti-violence.
I'm anti-unjust violence inflicted against innocent people.
That's what I'm anti.
But if the guy doing the robbing and killing was himself killed in the process, I'd be in favor of that violence.
The violence inflicted on him, that violence would be good.
And war can be good.
Now, I don't think the U.S. will go to war with Venezuela.
Venezuela will have no choice but to do what we tell them.
They're a small, weak, pathetic, puny, poor country.
And so they just have to do what we say, but war with Venezuela would last about four minutes.
I don't think it will come to that, but I am in favor of using force, using American might, American warships to get what we want.
Because in this case, what we want is to protect ourselves, our homeland, our people, which is very different from getting involved in, you know, far-flung conflicts for the sake of the national interests of other countries.
Clear distinction there.
All right, a Harvard researcher found himself bruised and bloodied after trying to tell a group of quote-unquote teens, just teens as the media calls them.
them to stop being loud in a movie theater.
Told them to stop being loud and they didn't like that.
And so apparently they waited for him after the movie and they blocked his exit and they beat him to a pulp.
Here's a local news report about that.
Just punch at me.
I didn't fight back.
That's why 35-year-old Thiago Rentz, a Harvard researcher from Brazil, has this black eye.
He says it happened early Thursday morning inside the Boston Common AMC Theater.
A group of teenagers were being loud, clapping and screaming.
So he asked them to be quiet.
When that didn't work, he tried again.
I asked them for respect.
For respect, I asked them to leave the theater because we just wanted to watch the movie.
After the 9:45 pm horror movie Weapons finished, the violence off screen started as the crowd was leaving the second floor theater.
They made like a wow.
So I tried to pass, to leave, and they couldn't let me pass.
His friend didn't want to show her face, but tells us what she remembers seeing and hearing.
Let's go outside to solve this.
That's what I remember.
When I looked back, they were already like hitting him.
In the head.
In the head, and like I saw four, I think there were more, I think five maybe.
I was like scared and I just faced the wall and I just protected my face and my head.
His friend ran for help but had no luck at first.
Eventually she found a cleaning lady who led them to a security guard.
Then after thirty minutes or more the police came to get my statement.
According to the police report, Rent said he was assaulted at 12:15.
When officers arrived around 12:45, they noticed a minor injury to his nose.
The report also says it should be noted the victim was already seen by Boston EMS prior to the officers' arrival.
The theater doors were locked when police arrived so they couldn't get a statement.
So the quote-unquote teens were being loud and obnoxious during the movie, during the movie Weapons.
Decent film, by the way.
I actually saw that last week.
And interesting story told in a creative and unique way.
Surprisingly funny, actually.
It's a build as a hard movie.
I didn't think it was.
really that scary, disturbing, more disturbing than scary in certain parts.
If you're squeamish about violence in movies, if you're squeamish about gore, then definitely don't watch it.
There's not a lot of violence, but it's...
Overall, though, I give it a two thumbs up.
It's a net positive when original films, original stories are doing well in the box office.
I'm always happy to see that.
Even if I don't like the movie, just to have an original film doing well is a good sign.
And I did like this movie.
I thought it was good.
Anyway, what were we talking about?
Well, it's...
It's net positive to have a movie like this in theaters.
Not a net positive, though, when you can't watch the movie because teens are ruining the experience for everybody.
And here's my question.
Thank you.
Anyone who's been to a theater recently has probably experienced something like this, hopefully not getting assaulted, but the theater going experience has been ruined because of this sort of thing.
And if you've ever been in a theater where there's an unruly group of quote unquote teens, you've looked around and you've asked the same question that everyone else is asking.
that I'm sure this guy was asking before he decided to speak up, which is, why is this being allowed?
Why are you allowing this?
You're a theater.
this is your private property why are you just letting this happen Where is security?
Where are the police?
Why aren't these people being escorted out of the building?
Instead, they're allowed to carry on this way while everyone else just sits and takes it.
Or you can speak up and say something, but then you run the risk of getting gang tackled and pummeled, which is what happened to this guy.
So it's really, it puts everybody else, the good, normal, decent people, in an impossible situation.
Because you can sit and...
And so now you just paid for a movie that you can't even watch.
Your night is ruined, right?
You wanted to go out on a date with your girlfriend and your wife.
You got the babysitters.
And now you got, your night has to be over because of these hoodlums.
Really?
So that's not a great solution.
Or you can try to ignore them and just sit there and not say anything.
But now it's rooting movie experience.
And also now you feel like, you know, you feel like a wimp because you're not speaking up.
On the other hand, you know, if you do speak up.
You know, it's going to be seven on one and you're not John Wick.
So this is not an action movie and you're just going to get your ass beat.
Like that's what happens in real life when seven people decide to assault you.
So it puts normal, decent people in impossible situations.
And it doesn't have to be this way.
That is what makes it so incredibly frustrating.
It doesn't have to be this way.
It would be easy to solve these kinds of problems.
Easy, actually.
It's not one of those things where it's a difficult problem to solve.
It's not difficult.
It's actually really easy.
When people are...
We could do that overnight easily.
No problem.
When people are being public nuisances.
It says, causing a disturbance, you kick them out.
And if they refuse to leave, which probably they will, then you arrest them.
We have prisons in this society.
We have police officers.
We have prisons.
We have jail.
We have a way of dealing with this.
And so we could do that as a society.
We could arrest these people, charge them with crimes, real crimes, real consequences.
I don't care if they're unruly teens.
Oh, he's only 16 years old.
Okay, you're part of an unruly crowd causing a disturbance, refusing to leave.
There's, I mean, be creative.
You could come up with like 20 different charges to put on someone like that if you wanted to.
Get creative.
Rather than being creative the other way to find ways to not charge these people, find ways to charge them.
Find extra things to charge them with.
Find a way that if someone causes a scene like that at the movie theater, that they're going to be in jail for like the next year.
That they just like cause real problems in their lives because they decided to act this way.
We could do that as a society.
That's easy.
When you have someone acting like this, charge them with crimes, real crimes, real consequences.
And the next time you have a group of teens causing a disturbance in a movie theater, arrest them too.
Just keep arresting them.
Punish them.
Punish them severely.
And if you do that and you do it consistently, the behavior will stop.
It really is that simple.
It is a choice to allow this stuff.
We can make a different choice as a society.
We can.
We can talk about cultural factors and other things leading to this sort of behavior.
No fathers in the home and blah, blah, blah.
You know, that's not a, that's real.
Those are real problems.
But.
The most basic problem, the reason we get this bad behavior is that it is not punished.
So when we're trying to assess why is this happening, why are people acting like this, why can't I go to a movie theater anymore without having to deal with this kind of stuff, we could spend all day dissecting all the reasons.
But the number one reason, we don't need to get past number one on the list, which is the behavior is not being punished.
So punish it and it will stop.
And it really is that simple.
we don't What's going to happen to these teens who not only caused the disturbance but physically assaulted someone?
What's going to happen to them?
Will any of them face any real consequences at all?
Will any of them spend more than a night in jail?
I think we all know the answer is no to that.
Doesn't have to be no.
Doesn't have to be.
You could make an example of them.
You could say, okay, guess what, guys?
Congratulations.
We're going to do everything we can to make sure you're in jail for the next 10 years.
Oh, but you can't do that.
I had plans for my life.
I wanted to go play.
Sorry.
Well, plan's over.
plan's canceled.
Yeah, you just screwed your life up.
Sorry, too bad.
Go cry about it.
We don't care.
We're going to make you an example to the next group that comes along.
We could do that.
We used to do that.
Speaking of crying, over the weekend there was an emotional scene at a University of Nebraska football press conference.
One of the players, the punter named Archie Wilson, started crying because he missed his family.
He's far away from his family and he misses them and he got emotional about it.
Let's watch that.
Yeah, I love him a lot.
Yeah, I've got two little brothers and my mom and dad and I. Yeah, that's the tough part about being here.
I love them a lot and I miss them.
But it's, I mean, they know this is what's best for me and it's good.
I can still talk to them plenty over the phone and they're coming here to see the first few games.
So I'm looking forward to that.
Thanks, guys.
Great meeting you all.
Now, a number of people reacted to this on X, including some women like Taylor here, who will put up on the screen.
She wrote, wish men understood how attractive it is when they can feel and openly show their emotions.
instead of acting like a sociopathic brick wall.
And that comment has 4 million views, thousands of likes.
A bunch of women are echoing that sentiment, that idea.
That idea that they find it attractive when men cry like Archie did in the video.
Now, I just want to be clear.
I'm not going to give Archie a hard time.
I'm not making fun of the kid.
He loves his family.
He misses him.
It's good.
I mean, it's good that you love and miss your family and you're close to them.
So I'm not picking on him at all, just to be clear.
What I want to do is respond to the comment from Taylor and other women saying similar things.
And so I'm just playing the video as a setup for the comments because we need to know what she's responding to.
And I feel like I have to respond to it because it was just yesterday that we talked on the show about the newly minted term called mankeeping, which is a word that liberal women came up with to describe their frustration with men who rely on them for emotional support and burden them with emotional labor, as they call it, unpaid emotional labor, if you can believe it.
And here's the problem.
It's the same women who complain about mankeeping who also say that they want men to cry and open up more.
These are the same women, the same people who make both claims.
In both cases, these are things that liberal feminist women say.
Now, traditional conservative women don't.
They don't use terms like mankeeping, and they also don't claim.
usually that they like to see men cry.
So there's no contradiction there.
Liberal women make both of these claims.
They say they want men to be more emotionally vulnerable, but also they're exhausted by men who are emotionally vulnerable.
How could both be true?
How could that be?
Well, they aren't both true.
It's a trap.
And it's unfair.
It's unfair to guys, especially young guys who are trying to figure all this out.
The age-old question of what do women want?
which has not always been the easiest thing for men to answer.
It's never been harder than it is now because now you have this kind of messaging.
One day, it's like all the women on social media are saying, yeah, we want men to cry.
The very next day, it's all the man-keeping.
We don't want to keep your emotions to yourself.
Well, it's like, which is it?
So, um, So I just want to warn men about this and let you know that.
It's a trap.
Don't fall for it.
They're trying to lure you into opening up and showing your emotions just so they can turn around and accuse you of being a needy man child.
I mean, that's the game that women like this are playing.
That's the game.
I'm afraid to say that's the game that liberal women play.
Because here's the reality.
No matter what any woman claims, none of them, none of them, period, zero of them actually find it attractive to see a man cry.
Now, they may find it understandable in certain limited circumstances.
Right?
You lost a close family member, that sort of thing.
I'm not saying that they'll hate you for crying in that situation, unless they're just awful people.
But, you know, they'll understand it in a case like that, but they won't actively find it attractive.
And in most cases, seeing you cry will be repulsive to them.
They are repulsed by it.
Now, sure, if you aren't in a relationship, that's another source of the confusion here, is that if you're not in a relationship with them and you're just a stranger and they see you cry about something, then maybe you'll get a kind of, oh, poor guy reaction.
But if they're in a relationship with you, your tears, most of the time, there are always exceptions, most of the time your tears will be actively disgusting to them.
Okay.
Now, how do I know that?
How could I just say that given that I'm not a woman?
Well, because it's nature.
They're biologically wired to find a man's tears grossly unappealing.
And that's because every woman is looking for a man who is stable, strong, and who makes her feel safe.
Men are not looking for that in a woman, which is why we are not disgusted by women crying.
It may be annoying sometimes.
I mean, if women cry over dumb things and cry too much, it could get annoying, but a little irritating, but generally it's fine.
It doesn't, it's, it's, it's, you know, it's expected because we aren't looking for a woman to make us feel safe and protected.
No man is looking for that in a woman.
It's just not a quality that a man's looking for.
We aren't looking for a woman to provide a sense of security and stability in our lives.
And so these unbelievers, But the problem with crying is that if you're a man, is that you are making yourself look weak, unstable, and unsure.
Again, most of the time, I'm not going to keep, I said most of the time, that's the qualifier, I'm not going to keep saying it.
And so there's just no way that a woman can find that attractive.
It would be like if a man claimed that he finds it attractive when a woman is cruel or uncaring to children, right?
It's impossible for, unless you're, I mean, if you're insane or something, but if you're a healthy, sane man.
There's no way you could find that trait appealing in a woman because it's the opposite of what you as a heterosexual man want.
You want a kind, sweet woman who has maternal instincts.
We want a woman who will be a good mother.
This is biological.
This is natural.
We're human beings and that's what you're looking for.
And anything that advertises the opposite of that is disgusting to us.
It's just going to be.
It's nauseating.
Women are looking for men who will be strong providers and protectors and good fathers.
Anything that advertises the opposite of that is going to be disgusting to them.
That's the reality, no matter what they claim, no matter what they say.
That's the reality.
It's, you know, just like there are liberal guys.
who will say, you know, I'm attracted to women who are tough, no nonsense, CEO, boss babes.
No, you aren't.
No, you aren't.
Are you telling me what I'm attracted to?
Yeah, I am.
You're not actually attracted to that.
Yeah, whatever.
You're not.
You're lying.
You think you're supposed to be attracted to that.
That's the difference.
You think you're supposed to be, but you aren't really.
And the same goes for women the other way around.
You know, I've used this example before.
I'll tell you, I think this is the perfect way to illustrate it.
I'll tell you the most unattractive and disgusting thing you can do in your wife's eyes right now.
of them, right?
Something that will change her opinion of you forever, as unfair as it sounds.
I mean, forever, seriously.
Like it's going to be a hit on her respect for you that you'll probably never recover from.
And I'll tell you what that thing is.
Go home tonight and cry because you had a stressful day at work.
Now, I don't mean because you work in emergency services and you saw a child die or something horrible, horrific happened.
Okay.
I don't mean a tragedy occurred.
I mean, you go home and you just had a tough, overwhelming day at the office.
That's all.
Lots of stuff going on.
You know, it's a lot of pressure.
And it's just, it's an overwhelming day.
And you go home and you cry about it.
Now, If men and women are really the same, if gender roles are social constructs as liberals claim, then there should be no problem with you doing that.
There should be no problem.
And if the tailors of the world are being honest when they say, yeah, we want men to stop being a brick wall, open up, be vulnerable.
Well, then you should be able to do that.
You should be able to go home tonight and, you know, you start sobbing.
And when your wife asks you what wrong, say, I just had a stressful day.
It was such a tough day.
You should be able to do that.
And it should be fine.
After all, your wife does that, right?
Wives do that.
There have been plenty of times when your wife cried because she was stressed out and overwhelmed.
Most husbands, that's a, that's, we've seen that before.
A wife gets teary, gets starts sobbing, starts sobbing, starts crying a little bit.
And there's not even any specific reason.
It's just, it's a tough day, stressful, overwhelming.
Like we've seen that, perfectly normal.
So why shouldn't you be able to do the same?
You're opening up, you're being vulnerable.
Isn't that good?
Well, it isn't.
Your wife will be absolutely disgusted.
Absolutely disgusted.
She probably won't tell you that.
She probably won't say, well, this is disgusting.
What is wrong with you?
You disgust me.
But she won't say that, but she's never been less turned on by you than she will be in that moment.
Why?
Well, because she needs you to be the person who handles stress and conflict and turmoil and a calm.
and resolute way.
That's why she married you.
That's why she's attracted to men in the first place.
So seeing you in that state would be like, it'd be like if you were on a plane, right?
And you hit turbulence and the pilot came over the intercom and was sobbing because he's stressed out by it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry.
I'm just really stressed.
I don't care how sympathetic and compassionate you think you are.
You would not be sympathetic and compassionate in that moment because you need the pilot to get his act together.
Okay.
You can be nervous, but you need him to be unbothered and stoic.
That's what you need that guy to be.
Is it unfair?
Yeah, I guess.
Everyone else could be freaking out in the back, but you cannot be bothered by this.
I cannot see you bothered because you're the pilot of the plane.
And that's how it is for men.
You're the pilot of the airplane.
You're the captain.
And everyone in the family's looking over to you during turbulent times.
They're looking to you to know that they're okay.
that they're safe.
And if you're sobbing like a baby, it's a problem.
And that's why when men get married, they get frustrated sometimes because they notice that whenever they get emotional uh not even just cry like angry when they get when they get overly emotional about something their wives will will often get will will start mirroring those emotions so you're angry now she's angry you're stressed now she's stressed and to a man it may seem like well she's making it all about herself but
But really, she's reacting to the fact that her rock, her stability, which is you, has have suddenly gone shaky.
And that's why you need to be the man.
You need to be strong and confident and in control.
That's that's.
Heterosexual women are looking for men, and that's what and that is what is attractive about men to women.
So it really is that simple.
Now, I will say.
The one one of the one of the big problems here is that yeah for men you got you get you you're the pilot you're the captain of the ship you're the pilot of the airplane and so you can't start crying when you hit turbulence everyone else can but you can't and i think that to men that that that kind of idea makes sense.
But the issue is that a lot of modern liberal women, every liberal woman, will, she agrees like, yeah, you can't start crying when you hit the turbulence, but she won't acknowledge that you're the pilot of the plane.
So she wants to also be the pilot and get all the credit and wear the captain's hat, but she still needs you when the turbulence hits to be the, so in those moments, now she needs you to be the, be the.
uh the captain and that's also confusing to men which is all the more reason to just avoid liberal w a lot of these problems.
Did you know that roughly 36% of Americans have below average credit scores, which can make borrowing more difficult and expensive?
That's where Kickoff can help.
Users with credit under 600 grew an average of 84 points in their first year with on-time payments.
You can start building your credit right away for just a dollar in your first month.
Best part is that AutoPay takes care of everything automatically.
So you're building credit even while you sleep without ever having to worry about missing a payment.
The whole signup process only takes a few minutes.
right from your phone.
There's no credit check required.
You can cancel whenever you want.
With over a million users and hundreds of thousands of positive views, it's no wonder it's the number one credit builder on the App Store.
Start building credit with kickoff today and you could get your first month for as little as $1.
That's 80% off the normal price when you go to get kickoff.com slash Walsh today.
That's kickoff without the C. Get kik off.com slash Walsh must sign up via get kickoff.com slash Walsh to activate offer.
Offer applies to new kickoff customers first month only subject to approval.
offer subject to change average first year credit score impact of plus 84 points vantage score 3.0 between january 2023 and january 2024 for kickoff credit account users who started with a score below 600 who paid on time no delinquencies or collections added to their credit profile during the period late payments may negatively impact your credit score.
Individual results may vary.
Do you have the Daily Wire Plus app on your phone or TV?
If not, you should because when you tap follow under my picture, you'll get notified the second I go live or drop a new episode.
Need to step away.
No problem.
You can jump right back in where you left off.
Want something quick?
Watch my shorts, the clips everybody is sharing in social media right there on the app.
And with the Explore tab, every show and every episode is all in one easy place.
And you can find it easily.
This is where our community actually lives, chatting during live shows, sharing ideas, debating big questions.
And since it's our app, we can't be canceled, filtered, or censored.
Don't just listen.
Join us.
Download the Daily Wire Plus app now in the App Store, Google Play, Roku, Samsung, and more.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Cracker Barrel has always held a special place in my heart.
My wife and I lived two hours away from each other when we first met.
And so for dates, we used to meet in the middle at a Cracker Barrel and we would, you know, eat country-fried steak and play that little triangle board game with the colorful pegs.
Suffice it to say, I was really spoiling her in those early days of our relationship.
It was a first-class experience.
It did raise some concerns.
I worry that she might be marrying me just for my Cracker Barrel rewards points.
I'm not saying she was a gold digger, but she knew that I was a man with enough points to buy like three pancakes and a keychain from the gift shop and that kind of wealth that can really entice a woman.
All that to say, we have a history with Cracker Barrel, which is why I read with interest about the controversy surrounding the restaurant chain's new remodel and rebrand.
The company started remodeling the interior of their restaurants last year.
As you recall, Cracker Barrel used to look like a combination of kind of like your grandma's house and a hunting cabin on the inside.
It was warm.
It was inviting.
It had character, it had personality.
And here's what it looks like now.
As you can see, the downhome.
country feel has been entirely expunged from the place.
Now it looks and feels sterile and generic.
It went from your grandma's house to the house of a suburban white woman who buys all of her furniture on Wayfair.
Looks like the kind of house where the kitchen is decorated with wall decor that says kitchen.
Cracker Barrel has gone from downhome to home goods, basically.
The interior looks like every home that's ever been remodeled on any HGTV show ever.
The Joanna gainzification of American life continues.
And it gets worse somehow.
Yesterday, Cracker Barrel unveiled their newly revamped logo.
We'll put that up on the screen.
And the old logo's on the left, of course, the one the company has had for about 50 years.
It's distinct.
It's recognizable.
It's iconic.
You see the old guy and the barrel.
Now the old guy's gone and even the Cracker Barrel barrel is gone.
Once again, everything unique and distinct has been removed.
They went out of their way to make the logo as bland and generic as they possibly could.
The marketing gurus at Cracker Barrel looked at the old logo and said to themselves, hmm, this is charming, visually pleasing, lots of personality.
How can we fix those problems?
And after months of deliberations and brainstorming sessions and Zoom calls, They finally came up with the idea to just make the Cracker Barrel logo look like every other logo for every other product or business in the country.
As everyone has noticed, most major brands have done the same thing.
They're all going for this minimalist look, which simply means removing everything unique and aesthetically interesting from their logos and their buildings and making it all bland, ugly, and uninspired on purpose.
Now, we should note that according to an article in AdWeek, Cracker Barrel enlisted not one, not two, but three marketing agencies to help them come up with their new look.
Three agencies collaborated for months.
to come up with a logo that is in every way less appealing than the old one.
The combined efforts of three high-powered marketing firms came up with this.
One can only imagine the buzz in the boardroom when they dropped the curtain and unveiled the exciting new concept.
After working on this for 450 combined bilable hours, we've decided that Cracker Barrel's new logo should be the word Cracker Barrel.
And that's it.
Thank you.
That'll be $30 million.
This is, of course, just more evidence that the entire marketing profession is completely fake.
It is a $500 billion industry staffed and run by people, mostly women, who have no clue how to market anything.
The marketing industry exists primarily as a jobs program for talentless women with useless degrees and lots of college debt.
That's what it is.
And speaking of talentless women, the CEO of Cracker Barrel is a woman, of course, we kind of already knew that, named Julie Massino.
And she went on Good Morning America yesterday to explain why the company decided to make all these changes that are sure to appeal to precisely none of their customers.
Watch.
The Cracker Barrel needs to feel like the Cracker Barrel for today and for tomorrow.
And again, the things that you love are still there.
We need people to choose us and we want people to choose us because people love this brand.
They've loved it.
Everybody's got a story, right?
Did you go to Cracker Barrel on the way to your grandma's when you were playing traveling soccer or whatever those things are.
Our job is to make Cracker Barrel a place that they want to be today and tomorrow.
The Cracker Barrel of today.
That's exactly the kind of meaningless corporate speak that you expect to hear from a female CEO who looks and sounds like someone who would never be caught dead actually buying the product that her company sells.
It reminds you of Alyssa Heinerscheid.
Remember the former VP of marketing for Bud Light?
She's the genius who decided to enlist Dylan Mulvaney because she didn't want the brand to appeal to frat boys anymore.
Alyssa never had a sip of Bud Light in her life.
Julie has never been inside a Cracker Barrel.
Doesn't even know what country-fried steak is.
She's probably vegan.
These are the people who are now in charge of basically every beloved American brand in existence.
And that's why they've all been stripped of everything that made them beloved in the first place.
But does this really matter?
I mean, should we care that Cracker Barrel redesigned its logo and its restaurants to make them all sterile and soulless?
Should we care that every American brand is like doing the same thing?
Yeah, we should.
I mean, it's easy to look at one little piece of the problem and shrug it off as no big deal, but you put it all together.
You see a deliberate and far-reaching campaign to drain our culture dry, basically.
An effort to make everything ugly and empty.
An effort that even extends to Cracker Barrel.
And so yes, that does matter.
And it's why Julie Massino and her team of marketing geniuses are all today canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Godspeed.
*Dramatic Music*
Democrats are getting annihilated in voter registrations.
Rabbi Shmuli Botaek is challenging me to a debate.
