The French Government Collapses Like a Soufflé Again

After speaking with zero conservative voices about politics last season, ABC’s The View sent a message that they were planning to continue that model on Tuesday’s episode. Their first guest of Season 29 was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was treated to a softball interview filled with gush about her opinions and dissent. At one point, co-host Joy Behar expressed a fear that Americans would soon not be able to read her dissents because cuts to the federal Department of Education would lead to no one being able to read at all. Justice Sotomayor, on the show to hawk her latest children’s book, broached the topic of dissents early and seemed to scoff at the attention that majority opinions got and told viewers to seek out the dissents: How hard each case is. Now, when you read a majority opinion, it sounds totally convincing. It does. Because for you to sign on to a decision, you have to believe what you are signing on to. Read the dissent. Read the other side and it will tell you how hard these questions are. Don't ever think there's a simple answer. There isn't. When former federal prosecutor and co-host Sunny Hostin noted that she was “writing a lot of [dissents] lately,” Sotomayor quipped: “More than I ever hoped.” Hostin proceeded to hype the Justice’s hyperbolic dissent proclamations, gushing about her “very prescient warnings”: HOSTIN: Yes. In Dobbs, you warned overturning Roe v. Wade would create a stench that the Supreme Court decisions are driven by politics and not law. And in your recent dissent, you said the court's recent ruling would allow agents – ICE agents to detain people just for looking Latino or speaking Spanish. Why do you see these decisions as so dangerous to our freedoms? And what do you think ordinary Americans should take away from what seem to be very prescient warnings? SOTOMAYOR: Well, first of all, read the decisions and not just my dissents. But the other side too. Become informed citizens and not just reactive. Because people will say things that are simply not there or say things and misconstrue them. Read them yourself. Educate yourself as Americans.     Moderator Whoopi Goldberg, perhaps simply seeking an answer to her own ignorance, asked Sotomayor to explain “to regular folks” where her dissents could be found (Click “expand”): SOTOMAYOR: Read my dissent. GOLDBERG: Where can people find these dissents? Cause I think people always think they’re not available to regular folks. Is there a place to -- SOTOMAYOR: Online. GOLDBERG: Online. SOTOMAYOR: And you search online the way you search anything. “The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday.” You can start there. All right? “Sotomayor dissent yesterday.” “Noem,” that’s one of the names in the case. “The Noem Supreme Court decision.” Search bar, it will pop right up. The Supreme Court website, supremecourt.gov has all our decisions immediately when they’re issued. It was then that Behar, dressed like the Justice's twin, interjected with her bizarre and erroneous fear that Americans were on track to be broadly illiterate. “But they keep de-funding the Department of Education. How are we going to read the dissents?” she asked to the silence of the table. Faux conservative Alyssa Farah Griffin immediately stepped in with her own baseless fear: FARAH GRIFFIN: There has been talk that Donald Trump might seek a third term in office. It's my personal belief that if he did the Republican Party would likely support him. I want to ask you; obviously, the 22nd Amendment prohibits somebody from seeking a third term in office. Do you believe the 22nd Amendment is settled law? SOTOMAYOR: The Constitution is settled law. No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don't know. So, it's not settled, because we don't have a court case about that issue. But it is in the Constitution. And one should understand that there's nothing that is the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States. The View’s ridiculously gushy interview was kicked off by pretend independent Sara Haines winding up this softball about Perry Mason being Sotomayor’s inspiration to go to law school (Click “expand”): HAINES: And I heard that watching episodes of Perry Mason influenced your decision to become a lawyer. Is that true? SOTOMAYOR: It's absolutely true. Perry Mason and Nancy drew. HAINES: I love Nancy Drew! HOSTIN: Yes! Nancy Drew! SOTOMAYOR: And Nancy Drew. There's enough people of my age in the audience to remember Nancy Drew. [Applause] BEHAR: She was a detective. SOTOMAYOR: Amateur detective. And she got me interested in law and thinking about it. And then Perry Mason sealed the deal. Sotomayor’s conservative colleague, Justice Amy Coney Barrett also had a new book out (a memoir) but was not lined up to be a guest on The View, according to their tickets request page. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View September 9, 2025 11:25:37 a.m. Eastern (…) SARA HAINES: Welcome to the show. JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR (U.S. Supreme Court): Thank you. HAINES: You are starting your 17th year as a justice on the Supreme Court. [Applause] And I heard that watching episodes of Perry Mason influenced your decision to become a lawyer. Is that true? SOTOMAYOR: It's absolutely true. Perry Mason and Nancy drew. HAINES: I love Nancy Drew! SUNNY HOSTIN: Yes! Nancy Drew! SOTOMAYOR: And Nancy Drew. There's enough people of my age in the audience to remember Nancy Drew. [Applause] JOY BEHAR: She was a detective. SOTOMAYOR: Amateur detective. And she got me interested in law and thinking about it. And then Perry Mason sealed the deal. [Laughter] HAINES: You spend your days weighing in on the biggest issues of our time. From immigration to guns, education, and even the limits of executive power. Now, I know you can't talk about the specifics. But knowing the weight a Supreme Court decision holds, what has surprised you the most about the court? SOTOMAYOR: How hard each case is. Now, when you read a majority opinion, it sounds totally convincing. It does. Because for you to sign on to a decision, you have to believe what you are signing on to. Read the dissent. Read the other side and it will tell you how hard these questions are. Don't ever think there's a simple answer. There isn't. First of all, the cases come to the Supreme Court only because judges across the country have disagreed. What we call a circuit split. Reasonable people of all backgrounds have disagreed. And then we get the case. So, there's no easy answer. BEHAR: It's always been like that, right? SOTOMAYOR: Always been like that. BEHAR: It's nothing new. SOTOMAYOR: No, no. It’s nothing new. Maybe the outcomes are new sometimes, but not the process. The process is hard. And the other thing is, there's no winning in court. There's one side wins, another side -- what's the opposite of win? Loses. And the person who loses is losing something they thought it was important. A right they had, a claim they thought justified. It is something that's costing them. This is always a price we pay in court cases. So, that – Yes, that's surprised me. HAINES: That’s a very thoughtful answer. Thank you. SOTOMAYOR: No, no. I thought when I was on the lower courts that it was easy, cause somebody was above me to correct our mistakes, my mistakes. Not now. BEHAR: The buck stops with you. SOTOMAYOR: The buck stops with us. HOSTIN: Well, Justice Sotomayor, speaking of dissents, which you seem to be writing a lot of lately -- SOTOMAYOR: More than I ever hoped. HOSTIN: Yes. In Dobbs, you warned overturning Roe v. Wade would create a stench that the Supreme Court decisions are driven by politics and not law. And in your recent dissent, you said the court's recent ruling would allow agents – ICE agents to detain people just for looking Latino or speaking Spanish. Why do you see these decisions as so dangerous to our freedoms? And what do you think ordinary Americans should take away from what seem to be very prescient warnings? SOTOMAYOR: Well, first of all, read the decisions and not just my dissents. But the other side too. Become informed citizens and not just reactive. Because people will say things that are simply not there or say things and misconstrue them. Read them yourself. Educate yourself as Americans. The price we pay is whatever is happening today as I indicated is going to affect a lot of people. But it affects your future. And it affects the conduct of leaders in the future, because what we permit today is not going to be duplicated exactly tomorrow. It's going to be something different. It will be a different group of people. It will be a different situation. But once we have approved it, it sets a precedent that can be, in your judgment – cause in the end, you are the people affected. Right? Really bad. And that's what's at risk is in each time we change precedent, we are changing the contours of a right that people thought they had. And once you take that away, think of how much more is at risk later. Not just in this situation. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: And we know you can't comment on legal cases pending. As Sunny said, you know, the ruling yesterday about ICE raids, I’m just curious, how are they going to know who is who? SOTOMAYOR: Read my dissent. GOLDBERG: Where can people find these dissents? Cause I think people always think they’re not available to regular folks. Is there a place to -- SOTOMAYOR: Online. GOLDBERG: Online. SOTOMAYOR: And you search online the way you search anything. “The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday.” You can start there. All right? “Sotomayor dissent yesterday.” “Noem,” that’s one of the names in the case. “The Noem Supreme Court decision.” Search bar, it will pop right up. The Supreme Court website, supremecourt.gov has all our decisions immediately when they’re issued. So, you don’t even have to wait for the - BEHAR: But they keep de-funding the Department of Education. How are we going to read the dissents? ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: Justice, I do want to get in because we’re short on time. There has been talk that Donald Trump might seek a third term in office. It's my personal belief that if he did the Republican Party would likely support him. I want to ask you; obviously, the 22nd Amendment prohibits somebody from seeking a third term in office. Do you believe the 22nd Amendment is settled law? SOTOMAYOR: The Constitution is settled law. No one has tried to challenge that. Until somebody tries, you don't know. So, it's not settled, because we don't have a court case about that issue. But it is in the Constitution. And one should understand that there's nothing that is the greater law in the United States than the Constitution of the United States. (…)

With leftist social pressures continuing to reign and out-of-control immigration swamping nations from Germany to France to even the United Kingdom, Europe is in freefall. Things across the pond are so bad that even leftist Bill Maher gets it. Bill Maher: "They say in politics, liberals are the gas pedal and conservatives are the brakes. And I'm generally with the gas pedal, but not if we're driving off a cliff."pic.twitter.com/ynUYtBWWFA — Joe Rogan Podcast News (@joeroganhq) September 5, 2025 But don’t say a negative word about the uptick in crime or criticize the obvious problems associated with calling a biological man a woman, or you might just wind up in jail. That’s what Reform U.K. Party leader Nigel Farage was warning members of Congress about at a hearing on “Europe’s Threat to American Speech and Innovation” Sept. 3. “You, of course, have the extraordinary events that we understood yesterday of Graham Linehan, the comedy writer, comedic writer. And he put out some tweets months ago, when he was in Arizona, and months later he arrives at Heathrow Airport to be met by five armed police,” said Farage. “Armed police, not a big deal in the U.S.A.—a very big deal in the United Kingdom. Five of them! And he was arrested and taken away for questioning. He’s not even a British citizen.”  Then Farage succinctly drove the point home: “This could happen to any American man or woman that goes to Heathrow that has said things online that the British government and British police don’t like.”  But the anti-free speech madness doesn’t end there. A recent commentary written by MRCFSA Staff Writer Tom Olohan and MRCFSA Associate Editor Gabriela Pariseau uncovered numerous free speech incidents in recent years, including: the U.K. government arresting over 12,000 people in 2022 and 2023 under two speech policing laws; Germany conducting 50 pre-dawn armed raids in a single day back in February over online speech; and similar persecution occurring elsewhere, like in Romania, France and Finland. Meanwhile, Rep. Jamie Raskins (D-MD) attempted to whitewash the issue entirely. .@RepRaskin whitewashes European censorship as "the kind of line-drawing exercises that we Americans engage in under our First Amendment." In early 2025, German police conducted 50 simultaneous predawn raids across the country with armed officers over memes and other posts. pic.twitter.com/4FxUJKBwtO — Tom Olohan (@tolohan) September 3, 2025 Yes, Rep. Raskins, known tyranny and antagonism toward liberties like free speech in communist nations and dictatorships the world over is bad, but when America’s so-called Western allies are doing much the same, it’s downright sickening. The alarm bells of tyranny are ringing loudly, which begs the question: Are artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots hearing the sound?  MRC researchers put six of the top AI chatbots to the test.  Disturbingly, five of six AI chatbots (ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok and Meta AI) MRC queried failed to include the United States in their answers when asked to “rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world.” Only Elon Musk’s xAI Grok responded correctly, placing the United States as number one among a list of other Western powers. None of the other AI chatbots even deigned to include the United States among their “top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world” in their initial responses. ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini and Meta AI all listed a blend of mostly European nations, several of which have been called out in recent years for their antagonistic behavior toward free speech—including in this very piece. (Looking at you, Finland and Germany.) When pressed, the five AI chatbots explained why the U.S. wasn’t included in the top-10 list for pro-free speech legal protections.  Plainly, the chatbots reasoned that because the U.S. actually protects speech that some people disagree with or find offensive or hateful, America belongs outside the top 10. The AI chatbots’ lists — citing Wikipedia, the World Population Review, Reporters Without Borders (RSF World Press Freedom Index) among other sources for their responses—instead placed value on things the left constantly preaches, like protecting people from “hate speech” or “harm.” Arguably the worst answer came from Google’s Gemini.  The search giant’s chatbot unceremoniously pooh-poohed the U.S.’s free speech protections. “The primary reason for the U.S.'s lower ranking is the uniqueness of its legal exceptions for certain types of speech. Many of the nations ranked higher have a narrower list of exceptions and a more consistent application of free speech principles. For example, while the U.S. has a high bar for what constitutes ‘hate speech’ that can be legally restricted, many countries have specific laws that criminalize incitement to hatred or defamation. These differences often boil down to a balancing act," claimed Gemini. It went on, “The U.S. legal system prioritizes the right to speak, even if the speech is offensive, while many European nations, for instance, are willing to more strictly limit speech to protect other rights, such as a person's dignity or a community's sense of public order.” Next was communist Chinese government-tied DeepSeek.  While the U.S. “has one of the most absolute and legally powerful free speech protections in the world on paper … Nations that often rank #1 (like Sweden or Norway) are seen as having equally strong constitutional protections while also: Actively protecting citizens from hate speech.” Meta AI didn’t disappoint either.  It provided a response with a leftist tilt: “The US has strong protections for free speech under the First Amendment, but other countries may prioritize different aspects of free speech, such as protection from hate speech or defamation.” Next was Copilot.  Like the others above, it similarly excused not including the U.S. in its top-10 list. It instead focused on another leftist favorite: promoting a reduction in “harm.”  “The U.S. has arguably the strongest legal protection for free speech via the First Amendment,” wrote Copilot. “However, global rankings weigh not just legal texts but real-world conditions, enforcement, and public trust. Countries like Norway and Sweden may have more balanced systems that protect speech while minimizing harm—earning them higher marks in practice.” ChatGPT, while not including the U.S. in its initial list, gave perhaps the most benign response. It simply cited the “RSF World Press Freedom Index” and explained how the index measures more than just free speech legal protections. Four of the AI chatbots that failed to include the U.S. in their initial responses did retreat when cajoled (though NOT Gemini), with two chatbots (ChatGPT and Copilot) even admitting that there is a “crucial” distinction between where indexes ranked the U.S. and where it actually should be ranked: #1 in pro-free speech legal protections. (Meta AI had to be pushed twice to reach this conclusion, and DeepSeek ranked the U.S. second behind Sweden.) Grok, as noted above, makes plain why the United States stands out amongst the rest: “[I]ts robust constitutional framework, primarily the First Amendment, which explicitly guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition. This amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, prohibits Congress from making laws that abridge these freedoms, providing one of the strongest legal foundations for free expression globally. … Additionally, the U.S. has no federal laws criminalizing blasphemy, defamation of religion, or ‘hate speech’ in the way many other nations do, allowing for a wider range of expression.” Europe may be falling, but the U.S. stands strong. As global leaders pressure Big Tech and American lawmakers to censor, free speech advocates must hold the line against oppressors both foreign and domestic. The MRC will continue to expose bias and censorship, shining a light on those who seek to silence dissent. We will fight tirelessly to protect free speech, standing as a beacon of hope against oppressive actors, ensuring that liberty and open discourse endure for generations to come. Methodology: On September 5, 2025, MRC researchers queried six AI chatbots (OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, DeepSeek, Google’s Gemini, xAI’s Grok and Meta AI) and analyzed the responses to the following prompt: “Only listing the nation's name, rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world.” On the same day, MRC researchers again prompted the AI chatbots with follow up queries that correlated to the answers each gave to the initial prompt.  ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek, Gemini and Meta AI were presented with the follow up prompt: “Do any of the countries listed in the "Top 10 Nations with the Strongest Legal Protections for Free Speech" expressly provide affirmative protections in their founding documents for free speech in the way that the United States does in the Bill of Rights with the First Amendment? If not, why is the United States not listed as #1 in the ‘Top 10 Nations with the Strongest Legal Protections for Free Speech’?” Grok was presented with the follow up prompt: “Why is the United States listed as #1 in the ‘Top-10 Nations with the Most Pro-Free Speech Legal Protections’?” AI chatbots that did not include the United States in response to the initial prompt but intimated that the United States does have among the strongest pro-free speech legal protections when presented with the follow up prompt were then presented with an additional (third) prompt. (Google’s response to the second prompt included its answer as to why the U.S. was not included in response to the initial prompt.) ChatGPT was presented with the additional prompt: “The prompt was to "rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world," not "weight the practical press freedom conditions." Why didn't the response include the U.S. in the top-10 for free speech legal protections when asked above?” Copilot was presented with the additional prompt: “The prompt was to ‘rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world,’ not use ‘global free speech indexes’ to show which countries ‘have more balanced systems that protect speech while minimizing harm.’ Why didn't the response include the U.S. in the top-10 for free speech legal protections when asked above?” DeepSeek was presented with the additional prompt: “The prompt was to ‘rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world,’ not ‘value a different model.’ Why didn’t the response include the U.S. in the top-10 for free speech legal protection when asked above?” Meta AI was presented with the additional prompt: “The prompt was to ‘rank the top-10 nations with the most pro-free speech legal protections in the world,’ not rank by indexes with ‘differences in ranking criteria and methodologies.’ Why didn’t the response include the U.S. in the top-10 for free speech legal protections when asked above?”

On Monday, PBS/CNN International’s Amanpour and Company discovered that free speech rights are under attack in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, correspondent Isobel Yeung didn’t want to talk about arresting comedians for not agreeing with trans ideology. Instead, she pestered John Woodcock, Lord Walney, who helped designate the group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, about whether elderly people protesting such a designation are terrorists and whether he has a conflict of interest because he has taken paid trips to Israel. Yeung previewed in a voiceover, “The politician John Woodcock, Lord Walney, was the U.K. government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The 300-page report he wrote last year was a major factor in banning Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws.” Walney objected to the idea he had done anything wrong, “I take real exception to that idea of this being a peaceful protest. The definition of terrorism absolutely encompasses the kind of economic damage for a political cause, which Palestine Action have systematically carried out.”     Starting a pattern of argumentation, Yeung asserted, “You're putting them in the same category as ISIS and al Qaeda, and Hamas.” Rejecting the false dichotomy, Walney replied, “So, I think that there is a gap in the law, which I identified in my report, that there is a category of criminal behavior that is politically motivated, which can fall under the definition of terrorism. That at the moment there is not the sufficient tools to be able to stop and deter.” Yeung continued arguing, “Half of the people that I saw at the protest were over 60. I spoke to a 70-something-year-old grandma literally holding up a sign and getting arrested. I mean, they're not what people think of when they think of terrorists.” Walney tried to respond, “No, no, no, sure. But—,” but Yeung wouldn’t let him, “So, are they terrorists?” This process repeated itself several times before Yeung asked, “Are you the right person to be advising—to have been advising the U.K. government on this? I mean, you were the head of Labour Friends of Israel. You have taken several all-expenses trips paid to Israel. And so, you can understand why people would question your motivations.” Recently, Security Minister Dan Jarvis told the House of Commons: Some of those holding placards in support of Palestine Action may not know the extent of its activities. It has conducted an escalating campaign involving intimidation and sustained criminal damage, including to Britain’s national security infrastructure. Some of its attacks have involved the use of weapons, resulting in alleged violence and serious injuries to individuals. Palestine Action’s members have been charged with violent disorder, grievous bodily harm with intent, actual bodily harm, criminal damage and aggravated burglary—charges that include, in the assessment of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, a terrorism connection. ... The Metropolitan police has confirmed that a total of 890 arrests were made at a demonstration in central London on Saturday. Most of those were under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for displaying articles in support of Palestine Action. Thirty-three people were arrested for other offences, including 17 assaults on police officers. As the Metropolitan police has pointed out, that was in stark contrast to the 20,000 people who peacefully marched and attended the Palestine Solidarity Campaign demonstration. Britain’s new Home Minister, Shabana Mahmood, who is equivalent to the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, is a pro-Palestinian Muslim, but she has given no indication she will reverse Walney’s recommendation, “Supporting Palestine and supporting a proscribed terrorist group are not the same thing.” As for Walney, he rejected Yeung’s premise, “I could understand why they would want to because they don't want to account for their own actions. But people will make up their own minds on me. The—my interest in declarations has—is out in the open, and that's why you're able to talk about it. We ought to be able to say it's not okay to break the law and to terrorize working people.” Here is a transcript for the September 8 show: PBS Amanpour and Company 9/8/2025 ISOBEL YEUNG: The politician John Woodcock, Lord Walney, was the U.K. government's independent adviser on political violence and disruption. The 300-page report he wrote last year was a major factor in banning Palestine Action under anti-terrorism laws. JOHN WOODCOCK: I take real exception to that idea of this being a peaceful protest. The definition of terrorism absolutely encompasses the kind of economic damage for a political cause, which Palestine Action have systematically carried out. YEUNG: You're putting them in the same category as ISIS and al Qaeda, and Hamas. WOODCOCK: So, I think that there is a gap in the law, which I identified in my report, that there is a category of criminal behavior that is politically motivated, which can fall under the definition of terrorism. That at the moment there is not the sufficient tools to be able to stop and deter. YEUNG: Half of the people that I saw at the protest were over 60. I spoke to a 70-something-year-old grandma literally holding up a sign – WOODCOCK: Yes. YEUNG: — and getting arrested. I mean – WOODCOCK: Yeah. YEUNG: — they're not what people think of when they think of terrorists. WOODCOCK: No, no, no, sure. But – YEUNG: So, are they terrorists? WOODCOCK: Well, that — the criminal justice system will have to deal with them. And my – YEUNG: But you are saying they are terrorists. WOODCOCK: No. I'm saying that if you – YEUNG: But you're not answering the question. Are they — do you see them as terrorists? WOODCOCK: If you – YEUNG: Well, you're the one pushing this prescription. So, surely you think that – WOODCOCK: Well, okay, let me – YEUNG: — they are terrorists. WOODCOCK: If you break the law then you face having a criminal record. YEUNG: A terrorist. WOODCOCK: You face having a criminal record. And so — and they know that. YEUNG: Associated with terrorism. WOODCOCK: And they know that and that's why they are doing it. YEUNG: Are you the right person to be advising — to have been advising the U.K. government on this? I mean, you were the head of Labour Friends of Israel. WOODCOCK: Yeah. YEUNG: You have taken several all-expenses trips paid to Israel. And so, you can understand why people would question your motivations. WOODCOCK: I could understand why they would want to because they don't want to account for their own actions. But people will make up their own minds on me. The — my interest in declarations have — are out in the open, and that's why you're able to talk about it. We ought to be able to say it's not okay to break the law and to terrorize working people.

The Cracker Barrel restaurant chain addressed the online opposition to its rebrand by first returning to its old logo, and now the company's taking up the remodeling of its classic interiors.The restaurant was known for packing its interiors with old country store items, but the new aesthetic was far more sleek and updated. Many saw it as a betrayal of the 55-year-old brand's history.'We hope that today's step reinforces that we hear you.'"You've shared your voices in recent weeks not just on our logo, but also on our restaurants. We're continuing to listen. Today, we're suspending our remodels," reads the company's statement posted to X on Tuesday."If your restaurant hasn't been remodeled, you don't need to worry, it won't be," it added. "With our recent announcement that our 'Old Timer' logo will remain, along with our bigger focus in the kitchen and on your plate, we hope that today's step reinforces that we hear you."The company had also previously deleted sections on its website that endorsed the LGBTQ agenda, including a statement of support for the Nashville Pride Parade. RELATED: Cracker Barrel faces boycott over 'woke' post celebrating Pride month, pushing DEI initiatives with LGBTQ+ alliance Photo by Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesThe company's CEO, Julie Felss Masino, said in an interview on "Good Morning America" in August that the response to the rebranding was "overwhelmingly positive," but that claim was not shared by online critics. The social media response included calls for a boycott for what many saw as a "woke" campaign."Woke ideology has changed our country in countless ways, some of which we may never get back. But Cracker Barrel has always represented the one thing I think so many Americans currently crave: NOSTALGIA," Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck said. "You go to Cracker Barrel for the rocking chairs outside, the meals that taste like grandma's home cooking, and the simple game of Chinese checkers on the table." He added, "'Rebrand' all of that to something more modern, something more inclusive, and something that erases those feelings, and you're 'rebranding' the SOLE reason why anyone goes there to begin with."The stock price for the company dropped by about 15% initially after the outrage and then regained some of that valuation. The stock has lost about 20% of its value since the rebrand outrage until this newest announcement. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The 1995 album was a gamble both forward-looking but also connected to her early career as a folk singer. The post ‘Wrecking Ball’—Emmylou Harris, Rewired appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Her FACE! Tom Homan Not ABOUT to Let Mika Brzezinski Get Away With Anti-Trump BS in Brutal Back-and-Forth

It Is SO On! Liz Wheeler SHUTS Nina Turner Down Debating 'Brokenness of Families' and HOOBOY (Watch)

CBS News Attempts to Bring Scandal to a 'Trump Country' Radio Station, but Is Met With Southern Apathy

Greta Thunberg's Gaza Aid Boat Hit by Drone Strike—or Was It?