Ep. 1647 - The Left Still Won’t Let Go Of Their Worst Poster Boy
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats continue to rally around Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He's a bad person, none of these people would want him in their neighborhood, but they can't drop him now. They're in too deep. We'll discuss. Also, Cracker Barrel tries to clean up the PR mess they've created for themselves. Southwest Airlines announces that fat people will have to pay for a second seat if they're too bulbous to fit into one. And Donald Trump makes a move to stop people from desecrating the American flag.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1647
- - -
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:
Ammo Squared - Take the work out of buying ammo. Visit https://ammosquared.com today for a special offer.
Tax Network USA - For a complimentary consultation, call today at 1 (800) 958-1000 or visit their website at https://TNUSA.com/WALSH
BAERSKIN Tactical Supply Co. - Text MATT to 36912 and get 60% off BAERSkin today.
ARMRA - Receive 30% off your first subscription order when you go to https://armra.com/WALSH or enter code WALSH at checkout.
- - -
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 Matt Walsh Show, Democrats continue to rally around Kilmar Obrego Garcia.
He is a bad person.
None of these people would want him in their neighborhood, but they can't drop him now.
They're in too deep.
We'll discuss.
Also, Cracker Barrel tries to clean up the PR mess they've created for themselves.
Southwest Airlines announces that fat people will have to pay for a second seat if they're too bulbous to fit into one.
And Donald Trump makes a move to stop people from desecrating the American flag.
All of that and more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Matt Wall Show.
You remember the great ammo shortage of 2020, shelves were bare and even online options were wiped out.
Well, there's a company that makes sure that never happens again.
It's called Ammo Squared and they've been helping over a hundred thousand members.
Stockpile ammo automatically since 2015.
Here's how it works.
You sign up, pick your ammo from over seventy different calibers, set an auto buy budget and choose a shipping frequency or just let it grow over time.
Your ammo accumulates and is stored for free in Ammo Squared's climate control facilities in Texas and Idaho until you're ready to ship.
No minimums, no extra fees.
It's perfect for small budgets or anyone who wants to build up a stockpile without spending thousands or hundreds of dollars up front.
I'm in the process of setting up an account right now and it's been so simple and straightforward.
Plus, they've got so many different ammunitions to choose from for my needs and that it practically negates ever needing to visit a store that may or may not have what I need in stock.
Everything is right there waiting for me when I need it.
Easiest way to stay prepared without the hassle.
Head to ammo square.com and take the work out of buying ammo.
100,000 members and thousands of five-star reviews.
Can't be wrong.
That's ammo square.com.
Check them out today for a special offer.
If you were around in the late 90s, you probably remember the saga of Ilion.
Ilean Gonzalez.
When he was six years old, Gonzalez's mother attempted to bring him to the United States on a boat with other refugees.
The boat sank, the mother drowned, and Gonzalez was rescued by the Coast Guard.
His father wanted him to return to Cuba.
His relatives in Miami, though, refused.
And thus began an infinite stream of weepy cable news segments about this child and how Americans should care deeply about his fate for some unknown reason.
Eventually, after several months of this nonsense, the Clinton administration ended the standoff.
Janet Reno sent in heavily armed agents who seized the child at gunpoint, threw him on an airplane, and transported him out of the country.
It was beyond any doubt the single best decision the Clinton administration made in their eight years in office.
Whatever you think of the merits of the case, it was an all-time decision simply because it put an end to months of relentlessly annoying television coverage.
It also probably changed the course of U.S. history.
I mean, you can make a strong case that this raid led to George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 presidential election.
Cubans in Florida were furious that Elliot Gonzalez was sent back for obvious reasons.
because Florida was decided by something like 500 votes in the 2000 election was a pretty big deal.
At the time, Republicans were seen correctly as the party that would refuse to deport an innocent looking foreign child, even if he had no right to be in this country.
Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York, went so far as to call federal agents stormtroopers for removing Ilian Gonzalez from the country.
Democrats, meanwhile, were seen as heartless thugs for returning this boy to his father in Fidel Castro's Cuba.
Now, fast forward a quarter century, and pretty much every aspect of this story is now being repeated, except it's all completely inverted.
This time around, of course, Democrats are universally opposed to deportation in every imaginable scenario.
Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani, are much more interested.d in enforcing immigration law and defending law enforcement.
And instead of a sympathetic young child whose boat capsized, the main subject of everybody's attention against our will is a 30-year-old illegal alien, suspected human trafficker, and alleged wife beater and gangster by the name of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
This is someone who simply will not go away no matter how annoying he may be.
Democrats are intent on keeping him in the new cycle.
He is the new Ilian Gonzalez.
Now, right away, that doesn't bode well for Democrats.
I mean, it's one thing to use a six-year-old child to garner sympathy for your platform, whatever it may be.
But in this case, they're using one of the least sympathetic, most grotesque foreign nationals that they possibly could have picked.
They couldn't find, say, a teenager who was deported while seeking cancer treatment or something like that.
Instead, they're trying to force feed us a narrative about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, someone no rational person would want living anywhere near them.
There's a mountain of evidence which was reviewed by several judges that he's a member of MS-13.
Police think he was involved in human trafficking.
His own wife says he physically abused her.
And that's not all.
Let's put this up on the screen from a recent DOJ filing, quote, one of the most troubling facts that the government learned in its investigation was how the defendant got into MS 13.
According to a co-conspirator, the defendant stated that he participated in the murder of a rival gang member's mother in El Salvador, specifically the mother of an eighteenth Street gang member.
Later, as part of his immigration proceedings to the United States, the defendant claimed that he could not return to El Salvador because he was afraid of retribution from the eighteenth Street gang.
While partially true, the defendant, according to information received by the government, was afraid of retaliation by the eighteenth Street gang.
The underlying reason for the retaliation was the defendant's own actions in participating in the murder of a rival eighteenth Street gang member's mother.
Close quote.
Yes, according to DOJ.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is worried about going back to El Salvador because he helped murder the mother of a rival gang member.
He wants asylum in this country because he killed a woman and he's afraid that the relatives of that woman might be upset about it.
So we've come a long way from Ilian Gonzalez, but this is what they're going with.
The desperation is palpable and it's also pathetic.
Watch.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident whose deportation sparked scrutiny of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, was arrested again this morning during a meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Baltimore.
Back in March, Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador and held in the notorious SICOT prison for months.
Under judges' orders, he was returned to the U.S. in June, then immediately jailed by federal officials on human smuggling charges.
Three days ago, he was released, again under judges' orders.
And this morning, complying with the conditions of his release, he reported to an immigration check-in in Baltimore and was again arrested by ICE.
Before his arrest, Abrego Garcia spoke to a crowd of supporters.
to all the families who have suffered separations and who live constantly under the threat of being separated.
I want to tell you, even though injustice is hitting us hard, we do not lose faith.
The administration now says he's being processed for deportation to Uganda, a country he has no connection to.
So he's been in this country for a decade.
And on top of all the other problems, he still can't speak English.
That's the extent of his interest in assimilating into this country.
Do you know how difficult it is to live in a country for 10 years and not learn the language?
You have to try not to learn it.
I mean, if you just live in a place for 10 years, you should by osmosis just sort of pick it up as you go along.
And he has no, he's, he's, he's gone out of his way to not assimilate.
He came here illegally, allegedly committed a bunch of crimes, never bothered to learn the language.
What a catch this guy is.
But we're supposed to feel sympathy for this.
Maryland resident, as they call him, because he has no connection to Uganda.
Various outlets, as you'd expect, have repeated this framing that Garcia is a Maryland man or something along those lines, almost like they were all handed the same talking point because they were.
They're all telling us that it would be the worst thing imaginable for this Maryland man to be banished to East Africa where he doesn't have any friends to hang out with on the weekends or any gangs to be affiliated with or any mothers to go kill.
Now, first of all, it does look like this particular Maryland man does indeed have some connections to Uganda, it turns out.
As you can see here, Garcia quoted, expressed fear of persecution and torture in Uganda.
So we can only guess why that might be.
Perhaps he was involved in some more murderous gang activities there.
I mean, this guy really gets around.
This guy's committed crimes all over the world.
It's amazing, allegedly.
In any event, he certainly isn't going to Uganda with a totally clean slate.
It would seem.
And regardless, even aside from this case, the Trump administration needs to do a lot more than this, a lot more of this, rather.
I would say that they need to send many, many more illegal aliens to countries they have no connection to.
I think that's a great idea.
If they do that, I'll tell you why it's a good idea.
It's a very powerful incentive for illegal aliens to self-deport because if you're, say, a Mexican who's living illegally in the United States right now, there's really no reason for you to voluntarily inform ICE of your status, leave the country, and go back home.
You could just wait until you get deported.
Worst case, you just end up going back home, which is what you would have done anyway by yourself.
Best case for you is they never deport you.
But if you know that ICE will send you to Siberia if you fail to self-deport, then you have a very good reason to come forward and self-deport.
Millions of Mexicans would much rather be back home in Mexico than shipped to some hellhole overseas where they'd never been.
They'd rather go to the hellhole that they've been to and that they used to live in, not some other one.
As for Kilmar Garcia himself, the fact is he has a connection to El Salvador since that's where he's from.
But he doesn't want to go back there because according to the DOJ, he may have committed a homicide that the local gangs wouldn't approve of.
According to Garcia, he'll be hunted by the gangs for reasons that have nothing to do with his own actions.
That's according to him.
But really, there aren't a whole lot of options here.
He suggested that he wants to be deported to Costa Rica because the government there has offered to protect him, but the DOJ won't allow him to go to Costa Rica unless he pleads guilty to human trafficking charges and serves time, which he refuses to do.
Watch.
It was reported earlier, Simon, that there was a plea deal put before your client that if he pled guilty, he would serve his time and then be deported to Costa Rica and if he wouldn't plead guilty he might otherwise be deported to Uganda which the administration now says it's working on so can you confirm that offer was made and did Abrego Garcia reject that deal so I don't represent him in his criminal matters I'm his immigration counsel but the notion that they're using the immigration system and
even more specifically the decision of which country someone is going to be deported to to you know to sort of try to weaponize and gain leverage in a criminal prosecution is just flatly unconstitutional it's very punitive well yes it is punitive he's absolutely right about that that's what happens when you enter this country illegally.
You don't get to dictate the terms of your exit.
When you're caught breaking into someone's home, you don't get to tell the police what jail you want to be transported to.
And when you break into the United States, you don't get to tell us where the deportation flight should go.
You don't get to just like look at the map and say, hmm, you know, I'd really like to visit this place.
Can you take me to Costa Rica and I'll try it out for six months?
If I don't like that, then pick me up and take me somewhere else.
No, it doesn't work that way.
No, you will go wherever is convenient for us to send you.
You have made yourself into a problem for us.
And so we're going to handle it in whatever way is most convenient.
And if it's most convenient to round a bunch of you up all at once and ship you off to Mongolia or something, then that's what we'll do.
Don't like it?
We'll get the hell out of the country then.
That's precisely the message that the Trump administration should be sending in order to deter other criminals from entering the United States.
To be clear, just because something is punitive doesn't make it illegal, obviously.
We have punitive damages and lawsuits that are awarded all the time by juries in this country.
Punitive damages are often very, very large.
The point of these large damage awards is to make people think twice before they do something illegal.
And more to the point, the government offers incentives for defendants to plead guilty all the time.
That's why people plead guilty.
In return for admitting guilt, defendants can get more lenient sentences.
They can get some other charges dropped and so on.
Happens every day to American citizens.
That's not pressuring anyone into taking a guilty plea.
It's giving them incentive to do so if they choose.
Now, it'd be different if the government said, plead guilty or else we're going to do something to you that we otherwise could not legally do, like beat you up in your jail cell.
But that's not what's happening to Kilmar Garcia.
Instead, the government is saying, plead guilty or we'll do something that we have every legal right to do, which will also make your life worse.
That's completely fine.
That happens constantly to American citizens and no one says a word about it.
We cannot allow, and what Kilmar or Breggarcia's lawyers want to happen is for illegal aliens to assume even more rights and protections than U.S. citizens have.
But that's already happening.
As the lawyer Will Chamberlain pointed out, the District of Maryland has imposed a standing order which prohibits the federal government from deporting any illegal alien as soon as that alien's lawyers or the alien himself files a petition in federal court.
Doesn't matter what the petition says.
The circumstances of the case are irrelevant.
Essentially, the courts and the aliens themselves get veto power over deportations, which is the kind of power that none of us have as American citizens.
This is the standing order that Obama Judge Paula Zinnis pictured here is enforcing in this case.
It's obviously unconstitutional.
The federal government doesn't have to check with a random feminist judge on some district court before it carries out its responsibilities, nor could the federal government possibly function if it had that obligation.
None of the hyperventilating on network news and none of the crying pundits who call this a constitutional crisis, they can do that all they want, but it's obviously intolerable.
There's no chance that this remains on the books for very long because if it does, then the federal government will have no choice but to defy the courts and destroy the court's legitimacy forever.
Now, the confusing part of this story is that at some level, you have to assume Democrats understand that they have no case here.
This is yet another 80-20 issue where the vast majority of Americans are opposed to the Democrat Party.
Every sane person wants Kilmara Brega Garcia to be deported.
The only people taking the opposite position are a handful of paid political operatives and useless journalists and lunatics, but I repeat myself, who have now gathered together to form something they're calling a rapid response choir.
Watch.
The Trump administration says he will be deported to Uganda, sparking protests and even a song from a group that calls itself the Rapid Response Choir.
Kilmar is our neighbor, you can't have him Trump.
No!
Kilmar is our neighbor, you can't have him Trump.
Hey!
Now the irony of course is that despite what they're singing, Kilmar is not their neighbor.
None of these people would live anywhere near that guy in a million years, whether they'll admit itmit it or not, every low testosterone male and unhappy woman in this rapid response choir would immediately move out of their homes the instant that Kilmar, Breggar Garcia, or anyone like him moved in next door.
So what we're seeing here, as I said in the beginning, is desperation.
Democrats' plan for demographic replacement is failing because of the Trump administration.
This administration was never supposed to take office.
There were a lot of criminal cases and assassinations to stop Donald Trump, as you may remember.
But now that all those efforts have failed, Democrats are in a lot of trouble.
As the New York Times reported last night, quote, in the next decade, the Electoral College will tilt significantlyly away from Democrats.
Deeply conservative Texas and Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats in the red states of Utah and Idaho, where each expected to add a seat.
Those gains will come at the expense of major Democratic states like New York and California across all the possible scenarios in the nine states that would be considered battlegrounds in the 2032 election.
Democrats would see about a third of their current winning electoral college combination disappear if population projections hold.
However, when looking only at the most feasible winning combination based on voting behaviors in the 2024 election, the outlook is far worse.
Of course, of Democrats' 25 most plausible paths to victory in 2024, only five would remain out of 25.
In other words, Democrats are losing population in their power centers, the states they've destroyed with their mismanagement like New York and California.
And people are moving.
And on top of that, of course, they've also killed millions of their own children, which is really hurting their population numbers.
And they're not adding enough new illegal aliens to make up for the shortfall because many of those illegal aliens are being turned around at the border or deported if they're here already.
And therefore, Democrats will have a very big problem.
winning any national elections after the 2030 census takes effect.
As we discussed before, the previous census also accidentally overcounted Democrats.
So if that problem gets fixed, then that's another problem for them.
And this is why they're flailing about and using Kilmar Obrega Garcia of all people as their rallying cry.
They don't know what else to do.
Looking at the numbers, they understand that they're about to lose most of their political power.
Their only hope is to ensure that every gangster and thug in this country is allowed to remain here and vote Democrat.
With every unhinged song and dance defending this man, Democrats are basically admitting that.
They have no other options.
They can't even find a sympathetic six-year-old like Ilion Gonzalez to make their case.
Instead, they have to defend Kilmar Abrega Garcia because they know that if they don't, that before long...
Now let's get to our five headlines.
If you're still stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline or your books are a mess.
Don't wait any longer than you already have.
The IRS is cracking down penalties add up fast, five percent per month up to 25 percent just for not filing.
But there's help.
Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.
They've helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years.
Messy books, no problem.
They've seen it all and know exactly how to clean it up.
With direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side, Tax Network USA knows how to win.
You'll get a free consultation.
And if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.
More importantly, they'll help protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies.
So don't wait for the next IRS letter.
Call 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Walsh to talk to a real expert at Tax Network USA.
Take the pressure off.
Let Tax Network USA handle your tax issues.
You guys have heard me talk about the bearskin hoodie on this show and you know how much I love it.
Well, these smart people are locking in their winter gear now because this is hands down the best time to prep for the coming winter and bear skin has an offer that you that you need bear skin is running a 60% off deal right now but only if you get your hoodie early this hoodie is built like a tank uh ten pockets clean rugged fit that looks just awesome plus it zips right into the heavy storm rain jacket to become 100% waterproof when you need it so when it turns cold wet and
windy you're not scrambling at the last minute here's some photos of me wearing my hoodie out in uh out in nature which is where I like to to to wear it and what I love about this hoodie is that it's practical you.
You got all the pockets.
You know, you can throw it into the back of your car, into the back of your truck.
You bring it wherever you go.
And it looks great.
I got, now I've got, I'll tell you one thing.
Well, this is a good, this is a good endorsement.
I got a bear skin hoodie and then I went out and bought another thing from bear skin, which I rarely do with clothing items, but that's how much I love bear skin.
You'll get free US shipping, fast delivery, and you've locked in your winter gear already.
That's a win-win.
So do yourself a favor, text the word Matt to 36912 to lock in your 60% off.
Again, text Matt to 36912.
You get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now.
Don't wait till you're freezing to realize your hoodie is not getting the job done.
Get a bear skin now while it's 6% off text mat to 36912.
Cracker Barrel has responded to the backlash over its rebrand attempt and here's their statement that they just published on their website.
Headline of the statement or the title is Our Promise to You.
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.
Sure they are.
You've also shown us that we could have done a better job sharing who we are and who we'll always be.
What has not changed and what will never change are the values of this company was built on when Cracker Barrel first opened in 1969, hard work, family, and scratch-cooked food made with care.
Blah, blah, blah.
The things people love most about our stores aren't going anywhere.
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 our warehouse in Lebanon, Tennessee.
We'd love seeing how much you care about our old timer.
We love him too.
Uncle Herschel will still be on our menu, on our road signs, and featured in our country store.
While our logo and remodels may be making headlines, our bigger focus is still right where it belongs.
Yada, yada, yada.
We also want to be sure that 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.
So after they get through four or five paragraphs, they finally get to the justification.
We want to make sure that Cracker Barrel is here for the next generation.
Well, was it not here before?
So you had to change the logo and make your stores generic to make sure that it's here for the next.
It was here.
It was already here.
The next generation could go to Cracker Barrel the same way that, well, were they not able to see it?
Was there some sort of, what are you saying exactly?
But, you know, it's always a good sign when you have to write an entire novel to explain your company's rebrand.
Isn't that a good sign?
Isn't that what you're going for?
No, I think actually, no, I don't.
I think, you know, a rebrand is like a joke.
I mean, this rebrand was a joke, but...
If you have to explain it, then it didn't work.
You want to do a, most rebrands are a mistake.
Like most of the time, if there's a rebrand happening in general doesn't matter the context any company any product most rebrands are bad um and that's because one of the reasons why a rebrand happens is because you have a bunch of people in the corporate office and in the marketing department who need to justify their jobs and a rebrand is just a way it like gives them something to work on for a while and that's that's one of the main reasons why a rebrand happens in the first place so But
if it's going to work at all, then it should be intuitive.
It should just sort of click and you shouldn't have to explain it.
If you have to explain it, then it means that it didn't.
work.
And now Cracker Barrel is screwed.
Everyone hates the new brand.
You become a punchline.
You can't really scrap the whole thing and backtrack because that's incredibly embarrassing.
I mean, you should do that.
You should just backtrack.
You should apologize and say, hey, this was a terrible idea.
We're going to fire everybody responsible for it.
Clearly, if you're on a marketing team and this hat and you have some sort of great marketing idea and this is the response, if it leads to a PR catastrophe, then everybody associated with it should be fired the next day.
I mean, this is obviously.
So that's what they should do.
They should say, look, we fired everybody.
We're starting over and we apologize.
We're going to go back to how it was before.
And that's it.
But they're not going to do that.
They also can't really double down.
So they're stuck sort of apologizing and begging everyone to be nice to them and give them a chance.
And so it's just an all-around catastrophe, a catastrophe for Cracker Barrel anyway.
But it was also inevitable.
And, you know, this was inevitably going to happen.
Cracker Barrel was destined to alienate its customer base.
base in the same way and for the same reason that so many other major corporations and products and entertainment companies have alienated their customer bases.
This is happening all across the corporate world, as we know.
And the reason, put aside ideology for a moment.
I mean, ideology plays a part, obviously, but the real reason, before you even get to the politics of the people that are in charge of these companies.
The reason is that these companies have basically banished straight white males from their ranks.
And you really have to understand and appreciate the extent of this campaign.
Okay.
Keep in mind that corporate America, as most people know, used to be run almost exclusively by straight white males.
That's how it used to be.
Cracker Barrel 20 years ago was almost certainly run.
I don't know who was in charge of it, but if you went back and looked at a flow chart of Cracker Barrel 20 years ago, 30 years ago, I'm guessing you're going to find that there's a whole bunch of straight white males.
Maybe a few women here and there, but straight white males.
Now, in recent years, that demographic has been run out of town, not just at Cracker Barrel, but in the corporate world generally.
You're familiar with the phrase demographics or destiny.
Well, that's true.
And it's not just true of countries.
It's true of companies too.
If you radically and intentionally change the demographics of your leadership structure, it will end up radically changing the services and products that your company provides.
And now these companies, Cracker Barrel is a prime example, don't know how to appeal to their own target audience.
They don't know how.
The new Cracker Barrel doesn't know how to be the old Cracker Barrel.
That's not to make an excuse for them.
them but the people running this company like they can't you know cracker barrel was this kind of downhome americana sort of thing and the people running the company they don't know how to do that and in particular the people that are in charge of the marketing and pr at these kinds of companies they don't they literally don't know how to appeal on those lines to that sort of crowd Now,
when I first saw the rebrand, how they got rid of the old white guy on the logo, how they decluttered the restaurants, made them all look like a Joanna Gaines house.
When I first saw that, like so many other people, before I even saw anything about the CEO or anything else, I saw that my first thought was, okay, well, they put a bunch of women in charge.
It's very obvious.
This is very obviously the work of upper class urban liberal women, mostly under the age of 50.
Like this is the, this, this is the way you see that.
You look at the restaurant.
You see what they've done with it.
You look at the logo.
And you immediately know, okay, this is, yeah, this is liberal urban women from corporate America, 50 to 55 and younger.
and also probably some gay men.
That is who is responsible for this.
And that is the group, by the way, that runs like everything now.
I mean, they're in charge of everything.
They've taken over everything.
And not because they've earned it or they've achieved it, but because they've been put into these positions artificially in the name of DEI and feminism and, you know, girl boss feminism and all that sort of thing.
And when I say that this group of, that this group, you know, these liberalsal urban corporate women when i say they've taken over everything it it really it's even worse than you think and it's worse than i thought but you have to sort of dig into any particular example to really see it so again just using cracker barrel as a microcosm as an example i want to show you just how radical and and and
total this takeover is so i spent like five minutes on google And this is what I found.
Just to show you the people who we can assume were primarily responsible for this rebrand.
So first of all, as we all know by now, we have the CEO, female, Julie Fels Massino.
Woke woman, comes from the corporate world, probably never eaten at a Cracker Barrel in her life.
So we know about her.
Next, we have the CMO, the chief marketing officer.
Obviously, this person very heavily involved in everything that's happened.
This is a person who just came on recently in the last year.
And that person's name is Sarah Moore.
a female another key player presumably is uh cami spillards schaefer senior vice president chief restaurant and retail operations officer female.
I'm not cherry picking, by the way.
I mean, there are some men on the management team.
If you go to the website, you can see that.
But they mostly have positions like CFO.
You know, their financial supply chain officer is run by men presumably not as involved in marketing and branding.
Cammy Spillyard Schaeffer, on the other hand, is one of the Cracker Barrel executives who's been on the record issuing statements to justify and explain the rebrand.
So we can assume also she's in operation.
So we can assume that she's involved in this.
So we have.
Julie Massino, Sarah Moore, this other woman, all women.
Now, in fairness, there's one guy, Chris Edwards, who's the chief strategy officer.
Sounds.
like a title that may be involved in something like this i have no idea if chris edwards is a straight male or not i have no clue but uh he is a male so that's one but then you keep going so let's take let's take this deeper like i said this is five minutes on google cracker barrel is something called the marketing and customer engagement team and if you go to theorg.com which is a website that you know the whole point is transparency for corporate uh for companies and organizations and you can see you can look at their leadership
structure so you go to org.com you look up this marketing and customer engagement team for cracker barrel And it tells you that this team, quote, focuses on enhancing brand visibility and customer loyalty through targeted marketing strategies and companies.
Led by the chief marketing officer, the team leverages customer data to personalize experience, drive engagement through digital marketing initiatives, and develops loyalty programs that resonate with guests, all while ensuring that the Southern Country theme is consistently communicated across all channels.
Okay, so this team, we can assume.
probably helped to mastermind this whole initiative.
I mean, that's their job.
They come up with stuff to enhance brand visibility.
So this is a team that, you know, this is like, this is the team for this.
Well, the org then lists the eight people on this team and again i'm not cherry picking this is just what the website says not being arbitrarily selective the entire team the whole team are women the entire team all eight of them there's our eight of them on this marketing and engagement team all women run by the cmo also a woman who reports to the ceo also a
woman I mean, that doesn't happen naturally.
That doesn't happen.
That's not like, you know, you.
you know, Darwinian evolution in the corporate world.
This is not dog eat dog.
This is not the dog eat dog corporate world that we're used to where just the best, most ruthless person rises to the top.
But we're still not done because Cracker Barrel had help in coming up with this brilliant marketing pivot.
In fact, they brought on a very expensive PR firm called Blue Engine.
Blue Engine also has a female CEO.
So the CEO of the company is a woman, chief marketing officer, woman, operations woman, marketing engagement team, all women, head of the PR firm.
They hired woman.
Again, that doesn't just happen, okay?
You don't end up with women running everything unless you set out to make that happen.
And actually, I have to tell you, to be honest, I was trying to look up Blue Engine.
And it was a little confusing because there's like three different organizations with that name.
And they all kind of do, they all sound fake.
Like they all sound like not real companies.
And so it's very similar.
It's like very similar branding, very similar sounding organizations.
And I don't know if they're somehow facets of the same or whateatever.
But looking into them, like I don't know which blue engine it is, all three of them have heavily female leadership teams with very few white males.
Like, for example, I was looking at blue engine.
The first one I found was this one.
I'll put it up on the screen.
This is a different blue engine.
This is not the PR firm.
As far as I know, this is as far as I can tell.
This is not the PR firm that worked with Cracker Barrel, but I'm just putting it up because I just happened to be the first place I googled.
all this.
And it just, So this is a group that works with classrooms, actually.
Unfortunately, they bring equity into the classroom or some such nonsense.
And anyway, what do you know?
Look at the almost entirely women in leadership, 16 people, like two white men, 10 or 11 women, and the rest are Hispanic guys.
But that's a different blue engine.
Our blue engine does have a female CEO, apparently, no surprise.
So women are in charge of this thing at like every level.
Woke, you know, corporate, urban women.
in charge, you know, it's insane.
Actually, it's not insane.
It's exactly what you'd expect.
And to be clear again, take any other example of some corporation going woke, alienating their customers, destroying whatever made them beloved and iconic.
Any other example and do this same exercise and you'll find the same results.
You'll find that straight white men in leadership have been wiped out and they've been replaced by women, gays, and minorities.
I mean, that's what's happening.
There's a reason why I could just assume that this was the case with Cracker Barrel without even looking at it.
Like, okay, yeah, women run the whole damn thing.
And then you look it up and it's like, yeah, it's almost exclusively women in charge of this.
These companies can't stay true to their own traditions, their own identities.
They can't appeal to their own customer base because the leadership of the companies have been specifically structured to destroy those traditions and alienate the customer base.
And, you know, any company.
Just take another random example.
I was curious about this because the NFL has been in the news.
Again, well, the NFL season is almost upon us.
The NFL has been in the news again for like woke nonsense.
I'm an NFL fan, I admit, unashamedly so.
But I'm not a fan of corporate NFL.
And they've been doing a bunch of woke stuff recently.
They're putting the dumb slogans like that said end racism and, you know, be nice and don't hate people, whatever.
They had those slogans on the field for a couple of years.
They took them off.
Now apparently they're putting them back on.
And then also they're introducing male cheerleaders.
I'm sure you've seen this on social media.
And when I first saw that, I thought, well, haven't we always had male cheerleaders?
That's not new.
Well, this is new because it used to be the male cheerleader played the male role.
And so those were just the guys that were basically there to throw the women in the air, right?
But the male cheerleaders that some of these teams are bringing on now are playing the female role.
Now they're not like trans.
So they are males but well trans are male too but they're not pretending to be women but they are playing like the feminine role so this is this is a woke cheerleading thing so i was curious um and i looked up the nfl's leadership team the first thing that popped up was this now this is not the team that that would decide to put end racism on the field at least i don't think they would This is the football operations team.
So they have a more important job in the NFL.
They are actually in charge of the game itself, in charge of the football operations themselves.
And this team, according to the website, works to honor the game's rich traditions and position the sport for long-term success.
Now, this is football we're talking about.
This is why I think this is an instructive example.
No woman has ever, ever played football in any kind of actually competitive capacity.
No woman's ever done that.
There have been a few women who were place kickers at the college level for a couple of games and...
then they washed out and there was that one i forget her name but they made a big deal of it as well she's a woman she's playing ncla um and then she goes to do a kickoff and she kicks it like 30 yards.
They tried to claim that it was a squid kick, even though it was a situation where you would never squid kick it.
And then we never saw that woman ever again.
So in reality, no woman's ever contributed anything meaningful to the game of football ever.
Women contribute meaningfully to society in many ways.
They've never contributed to football ever in any meaningful way.
Every single person in the country who has significantly contributed to the game of football has been a man, every single one.
Now, Let's look at the people entrusted to honor the game's rich traditions.
And you scroll down and you look at this.
Look at all these women.
I mean, this is NFL.
operations.
None of these women could possibly have any meaningful football experience.
There is no way in hell.
There's no possible way that any of them were more qualified than the hundreds of male candidates that were passed over for their sake.
And look at all these women.
This is a team of like 18 or 19 people.
Almost half of them are women.
How many straight white males?
Keep in mind, many of the most iconic figures in the history of football have been straight white males.
Players, coaches, owners.
How many are on this leadership team?
I count three, maybe four out of 19.
The highest ranking one is eight rungs down the ladder vice president of replay training and development and this is football so if this is happening to this extent in football it's so much worse everywhere else straight white men have just been run out everywhere and um not because of lack of performance i mean there there's no demographic in the country or in the entire western world that's achieved more than white men i'm sorry it's just a fact And I've said before,
you could test me on this, go down a list of the 500, let's say a thousand greatest innovations, achievements in the history of Western society.
And how many of them were not done by white men?
Two percent at most.
So we've taken this group and we've said, no, we don't need you anymore.
We don't need you running Cracker Barrel.
We don't need you running football.
Even the places where you would think you'd be most suited, we don't even need you there.
A decision was made to eject this group and ostracize them and um Has it made ever anything better?
Has it made anything better?
Take any organization that has gone out of its way to bring down the number of white males in leadership?
Have any of those organizations improved as a result?
Any of them?
And we all know the answer is no.
All right.
Well, we go from woke corporate madness to slightly less woke or a reversal of something that is something more reasonable anyway.
This is the best we're going to do for a bright side today.
This is Newsweek.
Southwest Airlines is ending its longstanding customer of size policy that allowed plus-sized travelers to secure extra seating without upfront costs.
Beginning January 2026, passengers who cannot fit comfortably within one seat will be required to purchase an additional seat in advance with refunds only granted under stricter conditions.
The significant change to a popular policy that allowed large travelers to book two seats for the price of one.
The shift marks a dramatic reversal for the carrier, which had been praised for inclusivity and for offering one of the most accommodating policies for larger passengers in the U.S. Advocates warn the changes could make air travel prohibitively expensive for many while longtime loyalists say the policy undermines Southwest's identity as a customer-friendly airline.
Okay, so they're still offering refunds to fat people with a few extra qualifications, it sounds like, but fat flyers are not happy.
They're especially unhappy over on TikTok.
Listen.
My body isn't the problem.
The system is.
When you're forced to buy two seats or squeeze into a space that wasn't designed for your body, it's not just inconvenient, it's dehumanizing.
This isn't a luxury.
It's a basic human right to travel with dignity.
This plus-sized woman believes it's a basic human right to travel with dignity, and she's standing up for change.
With every journey, Jalen challenges the uncomfortable realities that many larger travelers face, from cramped seats to insensitive policies, and she demands a change.
You deserve to be comfortable flying, and you deserve to live your best life just like everybody else.
Airline seats are too small for many people, regardless of their size or weight.
So there's that word again, that cursed word, my least favorite word in the English language, deserve.
Fat people deserve to be comfortable, she says.
No, they don't.
They don't deserve that.
You chose to pack hundreds of pounds of additional fat onto your body.
You chose to consume thousands of calories above the healthy limit.
You chose discomfort.
There is no way to be comfortable while eating yourself to death.
It's like taking your shoes off and standing on a bed of hot coals and then saying you deserve to not burn your feet.
Doesn't make any sense.
Burning your feet is exactly what you deserve if you stand on hot coals.
That's precisely what you deserve.
You can't stand there on the hot coals and say, I don't deserve this.
No, I mean, yeah, it's like 100% what you deserve.
It's the logical and really only possible outcome of your choices.
You deserve the logical outcome of your choices.
Really, you deserve whatever the outcome is of whatever you chose to do, you deserve that outcome.
That is because that's the, there's no other possibility.
That's the only thing you can deserve, actually, is the outcome of your choices.
The logical outcome of being massively overweight is discomfort and bad health and an early death.
So yeah, you deserve that.
Is that a cruel thing to say?
To say, oh, fat people deserve to die.
They deserve to die early.
Yeah.
I mean, they do.
That is the logical consequence of the choices that you've made.
Somebody jumps off the roof.
Do they deserve to hit the ground?
If you jump from 20 feet up and you break both your legs, do you deserve that?
Would it be cruel for me to say you deserve that?
No, it's not cruel.
Yes, you deserve that.
I'm not saying I'm happy that you chose to do that.
I'm not saying I delight in watching you suffer.
But yeah, you deserve that.
And to say otherwise is to say that you deserve for the laws of physics to be suspended for your sake, you deserve to have magic powers, basically, which makes no sense.
But I do appreciate the fat acceptance people for one reason, which is that they prove something, something important.
And what they prove is that being morbidly obese is a moral failing.
If you're that fat, it says something about your character.
Now, it doesn't mean that you're an evil person.
It doesn't mean that you're morally irredeemable.
We all have flaws, okay?
But morbid obesity is a moral failing.
It's a reflection of a weakness of your character.
It just is.
Gluttony and sloth, those are two of the seven deadly sins.
And that's what causes morbid obesity.
But there's also, and this is where the fat acceptance people are so helpful, there's also narcissism and selfishness.
And the fat acceptance people really embody that.
They put that on display.
They demand that everything in society be reorganized, refit.
torn down and rebuilt literally in many cases to accommodate their gluttony and and that is like a psychotic level of narcissism almost on the level of I'm a man who wants to pretend to be a woman, so you got to change the bathrooms for me.
It's almost on that level.
Now, not every fat person is narcissistic like that, but here's the test.
Okay, here's the test.
There are two kinds of fat people.
There's the kind that, you know, they go to someone's house, they sit in a chair, the chair breaks, and they feel embarrassed.
and apologetic because they broke someone's chair.
There's that kind.
And then there's the kind that they go to the friend's house and the chair breaks, and then they blame their friend for not providing sturdier chairs to sit in.
The fat acceptance people, they fall into the second category.
And if you're fat and you ever find yourself crossing the threshold from the first category to the second, you need to pull back because then you are becoming an awful, evil person.
Being fat doesn't make you that necessarily, but being fat and demanding that everyone else make special accommodations for you, that does make you awful and evil.
But you can see how someone would cross that threshold.
And this is actually kind of my theory.
My theory is that the villain origin story for every fat acceptance.
activist is that they sat on a chair and it broke.
And then they had their villain turn because of that.
That's kind of like their joker falling into a vat of acid moment.
Because when the chair breaks, that should be a moment of coming to terms with reality, a come to Jesus moment, a moment where you say, oh my gosh, I can't fit in a chair.
They designed this chair for human beings and dozens of humans have sat in this chair without a problem.
And I just broke it.
I am not able to fit in a chair that was designed for a person.
I need one of those chairs that they, you know, elephants sit on at the circus.
That's what I need.
And that's awful.
And that's why I a thing that is made for a person and it doesn't work for me because I have made myself larger than any human should ever be, that is now I got a, now that's really, this is a wake up call.
So you could say that.
That takes a certain amount of integrity and moral courage.
So the fat acceptance people, they have that moment.
where the chair breaks, proverbially or literally like the proverbial chair breaking moment, and they can't bring themselves to be honest with themselves.
So instead they blame everybody else.
I assume you have to have this moment.
I mean, you have multiple moments.
It'll be like that first moment when you're getting really, really fat, when something happens and you go, oh my gosh, this is like, yeah, I got big problems here.
I can't fit in an airplane.
Okay.
I can't fit down the hallway.
This hotel has like slightly narrower hallways than others and I can't fit down it.
That should be a wake up call.
But I think for the fat acceptance people, they have that moment.
And instead, they can't face it.
They can't accept it.
And so they just blame everybody else.
It's a moment where they could say, okay, the problem is me.
But they can't bring themselves to make that, to draw that conclusion.
So instead they decide, no, the problem is everybody else.
Everyone else is the problem.
And then they become, that's when they become supervillains or supersized villains at any rate.
You ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using armoreklostrum?
It's because armoreklostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular levelular level to build muscles, speed recovery and boost performance.
No artificial stuff, just pure fuel for whatever you're tackling.
Think of it as your body's natural defense system upgrade.
It strengthens your immune barriers throughout your body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion, less blooding, plus helps your body absorb nutrients more effectively and keeps your metabolism running smoothly.
You also notice the difference in your skin's radiance thanks to natural antioxidants and collagen boosting compounds.
Plus there's a reason elite athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance, speeds up recovery so you can bounce back faster.
Bottom line, Armored Colostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
Naturally, we've worked out a support offer, a special offer rather from my audience, receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to armora dot com slash Walsh or enter Walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's a r m ra dot com slash Walsh.
Sure you notice we've been rolling out a lot of new content on Daily Wire plus Journey to the UFC, Dr. Jordan Peterson's Answer the Call, Michael Mowles' The Pope and the Fury, just to name a few.
Plenty more on the way as well.
The Isabelle Brown Show premiere september 8.
On top of it all, our brand new show, a Friendly Fire brings the whole crew back together live september 10 as we celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire.
No scripts, no filters, just the entire Daily Wire crew debating live clashing over the biggest stories of the day and it's going to get loud plus that night we'll be announcing even more that's coming to Daily Wire plus what I'm telling you is don't miss what's coming next go to dailywire plus dot com use code summer and save forty percent on a new annual membership now let's get to our daily cancellation The other day we talked about laws
concerning appropriate use of deadly force and how those laws changed very abruptly in the mid nineteen eighty up until around 1985 it was perfectly legal for police officers to shoot fleeing suspects in the back even when those suspects were unarmed and posed no imminent threat to anybody, this is something that's obviously unthinkable now, but for most of this country's history, believe it or not, it was completely normal.
But one day, in 1985, six justices on the US Supreme Court decided to change the rules.
And from that moment forward, unless there was some clear imminent threat to somebody, police officers could no longer shoot unarmed suspects as they ran away.
Now there are a lot of cases like this, as it turns out.
And unless you were paying attention in the 1980s, you might not be aware of them.
Another example involves the laws concerning flag burning.
Now in recent decades, you've probably been told that flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.
It's supposedly an act of political expression and therefore you can't be prosecucuted for doing it.
This is now the accepted consensus view in America to the point that most conservatives would react with abject horror if you told them that you think flag burning should be outlawed.
But this was not always the mainstream position.
It wasn't until 1989 in a five to four decision in the case Texas v Johnson that the Supreme Court determined in its infinite wisdom that flag burning is in fact protected political speech.
They struck down a Texas law banning flag burning prior to that ruling.
Forty eight of the fifty states had laws against desecrating a flag on the books.
Yes, forty eight of fifty states up till nineteen eighty nine had outlawed flag burning.
Pretty much everyone in the country thought it should be illegal.
So when that Supreme Court ruling came down, which again was decided by the narrowest possible Supreme Court majority, the president, George H. W. Bush, declared that flag burning was dead wrong.
It was a major issue that galvanized the entire country.
Congress immediately passed a federal law banning flag burning.
A year later, again by a five to four vote, the Supreme Court struck down that federal law also.
In other words, in an instant, the Supreme Court overruled the judgment of the vast majority of Americans.
And in the years since that ruling among the political right, the Supreme Court's ruling has become gospel.
No one has really questioned it for decades, unlike, say, Roe v.
Wade.
Conservatives haven't tried to get Texas v.
Johnson overturned.
It's been taken for granted that, contrary to what everybody thought just a few decades ago, flag burning is now protected political speech.
Well, that is now changing.
Donald Trump, as you may have seen, just signed an executive order that effectively outlaws flag burning.
Watch.
So the president today signing an executive order requiring the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people for burning the American flag.
It's an activity that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is legitimate political expression protected by the U.S. Constitution, protected by the First Amendment here.
So if you didn't catch this earlier today, this was the moment President Trump brought this up in the Oval Office.
Let's watch this.
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 5-4 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.
But when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we've never seen before.
People go crazy.
What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing.
Specifically, the order states that, quote, in cases where the Department of Justice or another executive department or agency determines that an instance of American flag desecration may violate an applicable state or local law, such as open burning restrictions, disorderly conduct laws, or destruction of property laws, the agency shall refer the matter to the appropriate state or local authority for potential action.
And to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney Gener General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American flag.
Now, the order also directs the Secretary of State to quote terminate or revoke visas, residence permits, naturalization proceedings, and other immigration benefits or seek removal from the U. S. whenever there has been an appropriate determination that foreign nationals have engaged in American flag desecration activity under circumstances that permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to federal law.
Now, as you could probably tell, the order was written to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling as much as possible.
The idea is that in the eyes of the Trump administration, they're not outlawing flag burning per se so much as disorderly conduct that results from flag burning.
This is obviously a novel approach.
And if we're being honest, it probably doesn't work in the current framework that has been given to us by the Supreme Court.
But the real question is, why should that framework exist?
Was that case decided correctly?
It's pretty much impossible to get anyone to address that question.
Instead, they'll just cite the Supreme Court's ruling in 1989 as if that's the end of the discussion.
Here's how that Fox segment continued, for example.
They brought in an expert from FIRE, the free speech group, and watch.
How does a president make this illegal unilaterally via an executive order?
Can he do that?
Well, he can't do it legally.
It's a subtle question constitutionally.
The Supreme Court has not once but twice made it clear that not only does the First Amendment protect this burning a flag as an expression of political protest, but when Congress tried to pass a law, that too was found to be unconstitutional.
And so you can't taper over that with an executive order.
Quote, it's a settled question.
The Supreme Court has not once, but twice made it clear.
Well, all right then.
I mean, it's not as if the Supreme Court recently overturned Roe v.
Wade, which has supposedly been a settled question for generations.
It's not as if the Supreme Court recently overturned the so-called Chevron doctrine, which had given enormous power to unelected bureaucrats.
We have a situation right now where the Supreme Court is approaching some of its old decisions, specifically its old decisions that are really bad, and overruling them.
So why exactly do we have to treat this 5-4 decision from 1989 as if it's the Bible?
Isn't it possible the Supreme Court got it wrong?
Just as they've gotten dozens of other important cases wrong in recent decades.
I mean, it blows my mind that we still have people saying it's a settled, it's a settled, it's a settled question.
What are you talking about?
No, it's not settled.
No, it's never settled, okay?
They can be wrong.
They can be wrong.
Did you know that?
And if they're wrong, you can try to overturn it.
Do we have to pretend that it's not even possible that they got it wrong?
Well, the answer is that we don't.
And the more we look at the kinds of people who are burning flags in public, the more obvious it becomes that.
We probably shouldn't treat that ruling like the Bibi.
Here's a video somebody uploaded the other day, for example, in defiance of Trump's order.
Watch.
The Secret Service is currently detaining Jay Kerry is a 20-year Army veteran combat veteran who just burnt a flag in front of the White House in protest of Donald Trump's executive order prohibiting the burning of flags.
My name is Jay Kerry.
I'm a retired naval combat veteran serving over 20 years in the United States Army.
I fought for every single one of your rights to express yourself in however you feel that you may want to express yourself.
This is a First Amendment right to burn the American flag.
Arch Jesus in that house right there signed an executive order saying that it was illegal to burn the American flag.
No president can make a law, period.
No Congress can make a law.
infringing on First Amendment rights.
I'm burning his flag as a protest to that illegal fascist president that sits in that house.
Guys, we're going to check the lines.
We're going to check the lines.
We're doing this for every single one of you American citizens.
We burn this flag in protest to that president.
who feels that it's his right to do whatever he wants, make whatever law he wants, that President Trump put forward today.
According to that executive order, I could be in prison right now serving one year.
Now that video is pretty much the definition of disorderly conduct.
Yes, he's communicating a message with his words, but he's also freaking everybody out because he's just started a fire in front of the White House with tons of families and children around.
That's not speech.
After all, if the flag burning amounted to speech and if flag burning really communicated a meaningful thought, then he wouldn't have to scream like a lunatic about fascism or whatever in addition to lighting the flag.
He only feels the need to supplement the flag burning with a rant because he knows that torching the flag isn't saying much at all.
And let's be honest, the fact that he's been being as obnoxious as possible does not help his case.
He's making the Trump administration's argument for them.
Nobody wants to deal with random fires popping up like this as random people claiming to be veterans scream at the top of their lungs in public places.
And they shouldn't have to put up with it.
This is yet another 80-20 issue where Democrats are on the losing side.
And at least when it comes to whether it's like most people.
Even if they're confused about the settled law and the constitutionality thing, and even if most people have been sort of tricked at this point into thinking that it says it in the constitution somewhere, that you're allowed to burn flags, there's confusion on that point.
But the vast majority of people don't think.
it's wrong to burn the flag.
That's for sure.
And yet Democrats once again are falling right into the trap that the Trump administration has set.
Late last night, a radio host in Seattle named Ari Hoffman reported that, quote, In response to President Trump calling to ban the burning of the American flag, Seattle activists are calling for a massive flag burning event this Sunday at Callahanterston Park, site of the deadly 2020 autonomous zone, and most recently the No Kings rally.
They just can't help themselves.
They're going to stop at nothing to ensure that by next week, everybody in the country supports a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
Just imagine the optics of this.
Every degenerate.
unkempt mouth-breathing communist in Seattle is going to set fire to the American flag on Sunday.
What's that going to do to Democrats' chances in midterms next year?
It's almost like the Trump administration baited these morons once again.
So no matter how the legal battle turns out, the White House has already won.
That said, in the abstract, in the abstract, I can understand the principled free speech absolutist argument here.
I'm not totally opposed to the idea that in certain contexts burning a flag could constitute a political statement and not an act of civil disturbance.
And personally, I would reject any attempt to criminalize the burning of the American flag if we lived in some kind of radical, libertarian, free speech, absolutist society.
If we lived in that society, then I would say, well, yeah, burning the flag is just another one of those things that you're allowed to do, even if it's bad.
But we don't live in a society like that.
We don't.
In our country, things like hate speech laws exist.
People are routinely prosecuted for desecrating the sacred symbols of gay pride.
We've talked about dozens of cases like this on the show.
If your truck leaves a tire mark on a pride crosswalk, the police will launch a dragonet and hunt you down.
So it's obviously an unequal application of law.
And I refuse to live in a country.
I refuse to live in a country where the symbols of the LGBT religion are protected by law, but the symbols of my own nation are not.
You cannot have it both ways.
So whether I'd support the right to burn the flag in a country with radical, absolutist free speech rights is one's question.
But whether I support the right to burn the flag in the actual country we live in is another.
And in that country, our actual country, the answer is no, I don't support it.
Burning the flag should be illegal.
Also, it's interesting to note that flag burning is an activity that is pretty much exclusive to the left.
It's people like this wacko who will scream about fascism in front of the White House who are burning flags.
And yet plenty of conservatives defend it.
And on the other hand, it's impossible to think of something that only conservatives do, but that leftists will defend.
So conservatives are going out of their way to defend leftists for engaging in a certain kind of conduct when.
Now, you could say, well, that makes us principled.
Maybe it does.
But you could also say that it makes us suckers who still haven't figured out what time it is.
These people are our enemies.
The ones burning the flag are our enemies.
Every single person who burns the flag is an enemy.
All of them.
They hate you.
They hate your family.
They hate your country.
They want it all destroyed.
Every single one.
So am I going to defend these people and stand up for their right to desecrate the flag?
No, I'm not.
We're in a war.
If you haven't figured that out yet, you're hopeless.
Okay.
These people want to destroy you and your family.
And you're going to sit there and say, well, I don't.
Well, but if they want to burn the flag, they should have the right to express themselves.
No, sorry.
We don't live in a country like that anymore.
We don't live in a country where that kind of attitude is possible.
It's just not.
Many conservatives simply don't want to admit that it's not 1989 anymore.
We don't have to blindly follow old 5-4 Supreme Court rulings that never made much sense in the first place.
We can actually legally protect our national symbol.
We can do that.
A huge number of countries all across the world do that.
We used to do that.
We don't have to accept the idea that deranged activists should be able to torch objects in public.
Any more than we have to accept the idea that abortion is a constitutional right.
The Supreme Court is not the Constitution.
The Constitution is the Constitution.
And now, more than any other time in recent history, it appears we have a Supreme Court that actually recognizes, most of the time, that very basic and fundamental fact.
And that is why anyone who has prejudged the Trump administration's new executive order outlawing flag burning and assumed that it has no chance of success nor any reason to exist is today.
canceled.
That'll do it for the show today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
Don't just get the news, understand what the news means on the Michael Knowles Show.
I will take you beneath the surface of daily political events to see their historical, philosophical, even religious roots.
