Ep. 1645 - Illegal Immigrant Numbers In America Are FAR Worse Than We’ve Been Told
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, it has now been revealed that 55 million foreigners have American visas. If we add the illegal immigrants to that total, how many foreign nationals are currently in the country? Does anyone have any idea? We’ll discuss. Also, fallout continues over Cracker Barrel gate. A British journalist says that the inheritance tax should be 100 percent because your children have no right to inherit your money. The government should inherit all of it. And Disney is now trying to figure out how to attract a male audience, after spending two decades intentionally alienating their male audience.
Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4bEQDy6
Ep.1645
- - -
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:
Good Ranchers - Visit https://goodranchers.com and subscribe to any box using code WALSH to claim $40 off + free meat for life!
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.
you Today in Matt Walsh Show, it's now been revealed that 55 million foreigners have American visas.
If we add the illegal immigrants to that total, how many foreignersign nationals are currently in the country?
Does anyone have any idea?
We'll discuss.
Also, Fallout continues over Cracker Barrel Gates.
A British journalist says that the inheritance tax should be 100% because your children have no right to inherit your money.
The government should inherit all of it, they say.
And Disney is now trying to figure out how to attract a male audience after spending two decades intentionally alienating their male audience.
All of that and more today on The Matt Wall Show.
The Matt Wall Show.
Nothing like firing up the grill for the family on a weekend, but I got tired of wondering if the steaks I was cooking were actually what the label claimed.
Turns out over 4 billion pounds of imported meat can still be labeled product of the USA.
Not exactly what I want on my grill.
So I found Good Ranchers, 100% American meat from actual local farms and ranches.
But I'm grilling ribeye for my wife and kids or making burgers for a camping trip.
I know exactly where that meat came from, plain and simple.
I've been a Good Rancher subscriber.
for a long time now several years and i can tell you the convenience is unbeatable i get 25 off every order free shipping plus they throw in extras like bacon or wagyu burgers perfect for those spontaneous family cookouts and dinners and i can tell you also from uh experience that to me best thing about good ranchers yes it's american uh american meat but it's also just delicious these are the best cuts of meat that you'll find much better than what you'll find at the grocery store and best part on top of that if we're traveling or I'm stocked up,
I can pause deliveries anytime.
Again, convenience is key.
No hassle, no commitment stress.
The difference in taste is real.
I notice it.
My family notices it.
There's no substitute for quality when it comes to the meat that you buy.
Support American ranchers and taste the difference for yourself.
Visit goodranchers.com.
Use my code Walsh for $40 off plus free meat for life.
Again, that's Walsh for $40 off and free meat for life.
Goodranchers.com, welcome to the table.
Normally when fraudsters are running a scam where they fudge the numbers or cook the books, they make some minimal effort to hide their tracks.
Even the guys in office space understood the concept of salami slicing, meaning that they took very small amounts from their employer over time, or at least that was the idea.
The number one goal of a scam artist other than making money is avoiding detection.
You have to make the lie, whatever it may be, somewhat believable.
For example, a consultant or technician who wants to falsify his time sheet probably wouldn't claim to have worked exactly 6.5 hours every day on the dot for several months.
More likely he'd claim that he worked, say, six hours one day, seven hours the next, and so on.
It's more believable that way.
That's the bare minimum of effort that you'd expect.
So it's been fascinating to see how in the case of one of the biggest scams in American history, Precisely zero effort has been made to maintain the ruse.
I'm talking about the lie that precisely 11 million illegal aliens, no more, no less, reside in the United States.
This is a number that you hear all the time from both political parties.
It's repeated verbatim on every cable news network.
But the number has remained unchanged for more than two decades.
It is unquestionably obviously fraudulent.
Now, let's run through the history of this estimate.
Here's a direct quote from the Pew Research Center 20 years ago.
Quote, as of March 2005, the undocumented population has reached nearly 11 million, including more than 6 million Mexicans.
Okay.
Here's a PBS news report from 2013, which of course is eight years later.
Watch.
We return to politics now as lawmakers on Capitol Hill begin to discuss ways to address the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States.
The hearing came two weeks after President Obama laid out his own goals for immigration reform.
They include stronger border security, a pathway to citizenship for some 11 million illegal immigrants already here, and expedited visas for highly skilled workers from abroad.
Okay, that was 2013.
Four years later, Pew again estimated the number of illegals in this country, and somehow it was still 11 million.
Quote, in 2017, there were 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. Three years after that estimate, Joe Biden asserted once again that the magic number was 11 million.
I'm going to, from day one, we're going to have a fund amount.
I'm going to send to the United States Congress an immigration plan to provide a pathway for legalization for 11 million undocumented people.
Now, four years after that, Biden's DHS secretary again went on the record saying that there were 11 million illegals in the United States.
When we took office, I believe the accountability We don't have an update to that number now, but it's been millions and millions.
So this is the one figure that never changes for any reason.
Just from a statistical perspective, even if you know absolutely nothing about anything that's happening in this country, This is obviously a scam.
I mean, you couldn't possibly keep any massive population that steady for that long in any context.
And of course, if you know anything about Democrats' open border policies, or if you've noticed that entire neighborhoods have transformed in this country.
country, crime has increased, housing has become extremely expensive, then the numbers become even more absurd.
So it's a complete farce.
It's intended to obscure just how much demographic replacement has actually taken place in this country in the past three decades.
And it worked.
No one really has any idea how many illegal aliens are in this country.
That's by design.
Is it 20 million?
Is it 30?
Is it 40?
Is it 50 million?
We don't know.
And that's why last night there was a very strong reaction to this story about the Trump administration's latest immigration crackdown.
Watch.
Also breaking this afternoon, the Trump administration.
is reviewing the records of more than 55 million visa holders in the U.S. for potential deportation violations.
This includes checking for visa overstays, criminal activity, and ties to terrorism.
If found ineligible, visas will be revoked and holders may face deportation.
The State Department says this is all part of their continuous vetting process to ensure safety and compliance.
So the lead is a little buried there, so I'll say it again.
There are 55 million visa holders in the United States, according to the Trump administration.
That is more than the entire population of the state of California combined with the population of New York City.
It's a number so high that it seems like it can't possibly be correct.
But even if you account for the possibility this number includes, say, tourist visas, including people living abroad right now, as well as people visiting their family in this country, even if that's it, the number is still far, far too high.
There's no justifiable reason whatsoever for 55 million people to hold any kind of visa for entry into the United States.
For one thing, visa overstays are common, including for tourist visas.
There were something like 800,000 reported overstays in a recent fiscal year.
Many of them involve business or tourist visas from countries in Africa to the point that the Trump administration has begun requiring these people to pay $15,000 bonds before they can arrive in the U.S. But even if none of these people were ever overstaying their visas, 55 million is still an extraordinarily, astronomically, ridiculously high number.
There is no reason to grant anywhere near that number of visas.
And it's yet another very strong indication, as anyone could have surmised, that there are far, far more than 11 million illegal aliens and foreign nationals in this country.
And as aggressive as the Trump administration's deportation efforts have been, We need to intensify them even more.
From a political perspective, this would not be remotely difficult.
Every effort by the corporate press to attack the administration for enforcing immigration law has backfired in spectacular fashion.
The latest example comes to us from a woman named Amy Cho, who identifies as a reporter for NBC News.
And here's what she wrote, quote, Breaking.
Just saw D.C. police and federal agents detain a man on the National Mall.
He appeared to try to escape.
then was quickly tackled to the ground by several agents and was screaming in Spanish, please, I'm not a criminal.
I work here.
I want to be with my family.
She added, quote, I asked the agents what the man was being charged with.
They didn't reply.
I've also reached out to Ice for comment.
But of course, she didn't wait for the reply from Ice.
Instead, Amy Cho posted this video, which had the effect of whipping liberals, especially liberal women, into an absolute frenzy.
Watch.
Watch.
I don't owe anything, Papa.
I don't owe anything.
I don't owe nothing.
screaming for a few more minutes before they haul him away.
There's no context beyond the guy's claims that he's supposedly an innocent family man who's being hauled away to Alligator Alcatraz simply because he's not white or whatever.
But for liberal women, no context was necessary.
The propaganda had its desired effect.
Here's how Fox's Jessica Tarlov responded, for example, quote, this doesn't make DC safer.
It'll just make people not come to DC.
The cruelty is the point.
So all the murdering and carjacking wasn't preventing people from coming to DC, apparently.
Instead, according to Jessica Tarlov, a woman who, again, has no idea why this guy was arrested.
The reason people are avoiding DC is that they might get randomly disappeared by ICE.
You know, you can be walking down the street taking pictures of the Lincoln Memorial and then bam, you're being hauled away.
You're in El Salvador.
None of the people who made this claim, including Jessica Tarlov, can point to a single instance in which an American citizen was wrongfully arrested and deported by this administration.
It has not happened.
The closest example they could come up with is an illegal alien named Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the gangster and alleged wife beater and human trafficker, who was, again, an illegal alien on top of it.
So not exactly a compelling case, but Jessica Tarlov couldn't help herself.
Neither could Miami Herald investigative journalist Julie K. Brown.
Here's what Brown wrote on social media in response to that video.
Quote, his crying hits me in the gut.
And we will probably never be told who he is, why he was stopped, or if he was here illegally.
Now, especially for an investigative journalist, that was a pretty ill-advised tweet.
Because, you know, You're an investigative journalist.
Maybe investigate it before you comment.
Well, here's the update that Amy Cho had to append to the video five hours after she posted it, quote, update.
ICE sent a statement on this man's detention saying his name is David Perez Tiafani and that he was arrested in Fairfax County in 2024 and charged with aggravated sexual battery against a minor under 13.
Well, so much for that narrative.
Jessica Tarlov and investigative journalist Julie Brown quietly deleted their posts.
Of course, they didn't even pretend to learn anything from their humiliation.
They're just going to wait for the next video that they can lie about.
Apparently what happened in this case is that the illegal aliens charges were dropped by the Fairfax County Commonwealth Attorney's Office when the victim and her mother told police that they didn't want to pursue the case and they stopped communicating with law enforcement.
So the man was not exonerated or anything like that.
He was arrested for one of the most serious crimes imaginable on top of the fact that he's illegally in the United States to begin with.
In fact, he entered illegally on three separate occasions.
For the most part, even the dumbest commentators on the left realized how badly this whole situation was going for them.
So they deleted their posts and they changed the subject.
But CNN's Wolf Blitzer did not take that approach.
Instead, he doubled down even after DHS' statement, even after we knew this guy was an alleged child rapist.
Still, this is what he said about it.
Watch.
New video shows federal officers detaining a man on the National Mall.
We want to warn our viewers, some might find this video disturbing.
Watch this.
He was saying in Spanish he was here to work and not to be arrested.
A Homeland Security Department spokesperson said the man is undocumented from Mexico and was arrested before, but NBC4 here in Washington is reporting that a person with the same name who faced similar charges had them dropped without prosecution.
I love that.
He says, you know, well, he said he's here to work and not to be arrested.
Oh, well, he's not here to be arrested.
Well, never mind then.
He should have just explained that to Ice.
Oh, no, gentlemen, I'm not here to be arrested.
That's not, no, oh, no.
I didn't intend to be, I don't, I would, I don't want to be arrested.
I would prefer, that's not my intention.
Oh, well, never.
Okay, then, sir.
Well, you go about your day.
We thought you wanted to be arrested.
We didn't realize it's a bit of, oh, he doesn't want to be arrested, folks.
Never mind.
Yeah, go home.
Let''s back it up.
No, he doesn't want to be arrested.
That's Wolf Blitzer.
So he doesn't even mention what the charge was.
DHS went on record describing the nature of the charge.
Wolf Blitzer doesn't even mention it.
Said he goes out of his way to emphasize that the man wasn't convicted and strongly implies that he's the victim in this scenario.
No matter how low your standards are for these people, somehow they continue to lower the bar.
Now, it's true that because the witnesses wouldn't testify, David Perez Teofoni has not been convicted in a court of law of the crime of molesting a child.
As far as I know, he wasn't convicted of illegal entry either, although he did have removal orders and no one's disputing the fact that he is an illegal alien but that's not the relevant standard when you're talking about non-citizens you don't need to wait until they're convicted of anything they have no right to be in this country period it doesn't matter what other crimes they've committed but given that we probably have around 30 million illegals in this country not 11 the if not more uh the administration has to prioritize certain illegals for
deportation first you know you got to start somewhere And in that context, it makes complete sense to deport the most dangerous and perverse degenerates as quickly as possible.
And if you've got a guy that was accused of child rape and the only reason he's not being charged with it is that the victim's family has decided not to pursue charges for whatever their reason is.
Yeah, that's someone that needs to get the hell out of our country.
You don't let him stay on the off chance that it turns out that, well, let's, you know, there's like a 3% chance that he's not actually a child rapist.
Let's just let him stay here until we figure that out.
Now, it also makes sense, as we discussed earlier this week, for the administration to eliminate as many job opportunities for illegal aliens as they can.
That's another very important way to approach the problem.
American truck drivers are far more reliable and less dangerous than foreigners who can't speak English.
And already it's clear the administration understands that.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced that the U.S. would stop issuing worker visas for commercial truck drivers after that horrifying crash last week on the Florida Turnpike that we've talked about.
These are the kind of steps that should have happened a long time ago.
But for more than 20 years, pretty much everyone in authority lied to Americans about the extent of the foreign infiltration of this country.
They fed us statistics that were obviously false.
knowing that nobody would bother to check them.
But at this point, the cooked numbers don't matter anymore.
Neither do the fake narratives about random Spanish-speaking men in D.C. being thrown to the alligators when those men are actually allegedly pedophiles, it turns out.
The real test for this administration, which to my knowledge hasn't happened yet, will come when they publicly defend the forcible deportation of someone who isn't a depraved child predator or a mass murderer or a Somali warlord.
Because we can't allow those people to stay in the country either.
And it would be a massive mistake to prioritize the worst offenders while then ignoring the so-called non-violent migrants.
We know there are far more than 11 million illegal aliens in this country.
That's abundantly clear.
And as difficult as it may be for women like Jessica Tarlov and Julie Brown to understand, every single one of them has to go back to where they came from.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
You ever wondered why elite athletes, business moguls, and high performers are using Armor Colostrum?
It's because Armor Colostrum packs over 400 natural nutrients that work at the cellular level to build muscle, 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 entire body while supporting your gut wall system for better digestion and less bloating.
Plus, it 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, it's a reason elite athletes have been using colostrum for years.
It enhances endurance, speeds up recovery so that you can bounce back even faster.
Bottom line, Armor Colostrum gives your body comprehensive support to thrive naturally.
We've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 30% off your first subscription order.
Go to armor.com slash Walsh or enter Walsh to get 30% off your first subscription order.
That's armra.com slash Walsh.
Okay, a few stories to talk about on what I guess is sort of a bonus episode on a Friday.
Usually, yeah, usually we're Monday through Thursday, but we missed the Monday show.
And so we're here we are on Friday.
So a little extra bonus show for you.
Most post-millennial reports, staying on the immigration topic for a moment, U.S. citizenship and immigration services.
Officers are expanding how an applicant's good moral character is evaluated in the naturalization process.
The policy outlined in August 15th memo instructs officers to consider applicants' positive contributions to society in a more holistic approach rather than focusing solely on disqualifying factors.
The memo stated, becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen means being an active and responsible member of society instead of just having a right to live and work in the U.S. Among other eligibility factors, aliens applying for naturalization must demonstrate that he or she has been and continues to be an individual of good moral character.
Evaluating GMC, good moral character, involves more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing.
It entails a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.
US CIS spokesman Matthew Tregesser said in a statement of Fox News that US citizenship is the gold standard and should only be offered to the world's best of the best.
Well, I'm obviously hugely in favor of this.
And for one thing, it sets everything right.
It flips the burden back on the immigrant, which is where it should be.
And because the way that we've approached immigration for many decades now is that the immigrant somehow has a right.
So it's like we owe something to the immigrant.
That's the way that we've approached it for decades, is that when immigrants come here, we owe something to them.
They have a right to come and we owe something to them.
We owe them a place to live.
We owe them food.
We owe it to them because they have a right.
And the way the Trump administration is approaching it is exactly the opposite, that you have no right to come here.
If you want to come, then it's not what can we do for you.
It's not what do you have a right to get from us, it's what do we have a right to expect from you?
Because the rest of us who are actual Americans, we have expectations for you if you want to be part of this club.
And the term that was used, the gold standard, that's exactly the right attitude.
We should really start thinking about U.S. citizenship as an exclusive club.
You know, It's like if you want to join a private club somewhere.
I'm not much of a club joiner myself, but in the past I've looked into a few different like cigar lounges around Nashville that offer memberships.
And then you get access to the private lounge and, you know, all that kind of stuff.
And never pull the trigger because it's not worth the money.
The point is if you want to become a member of a private club, there's a pretty high barrier to entry, mostly in this case, like a significant fee that you have to pay.
But they also look at what kind of person you are.
They want to make sure that you're not some low-class shlub, which is another reason why I don't join any of these clubs, of course.
But why don't we treat U.S. citizenship the same way?
Only much more so.
U.S. citizenship is the most sought after, most highly prized membership on the globe.
We've got people knocking on our door constantly wanting to get in.
And so the response to that should be to raise the standard significantly and looking at all these applicants and saying, okay, what do you have to offer?
What are you bringing to the table?
Rather than just assuming that everybody that comes, oh yeah, we need everybody.
Everyone that comes, they all have something to bring to the table.
They all have something to offer.
No, they don't.
Most of them don't.
I mean, the vast majority of applicants, you could just, you could throw those resumes in the bin right away.
You could look at it and say, you're not bringing it.
What are you offering us that we don't already have.
No platitudes about, oh, we'll do jobs, Americans will too.
Now, like, what do you actually, what do you, why do we need you?
That should be the question when an immigrant comes and they want to be an American citizen.
Our question would be like, what do we need you for?
And if we do need you, then make the case.
And if you can't, then why would we invite you in?
That should be the approach and looks like that's the way Trump administration is handling it.
We talked yesterday about Cracker Barrel and its woke rebrand and actually, I've heard a number of conservatives say that the rebrand isn't woke, that it's kind of silly to call it woke.
It's because it's bad and ugly, but it's not woke.
You know, all they did was take all the character and personality and history out of the brand and make it generic and soulless, but that's not woke.
They took the old guy off the logo, but they didn't replace him with a gay furry or an indigenous trans bisexual or whatever.
So it's not woke, is what some conservatives are saying.
But that's a misunderstanding of wokeness.
You know, wokeness does not have to be overtly political.
Wokeness doesn't have to destroy and then replace the thing that it destroyed with a trans person or a gay pride flag.
Wokeness is the act of destruction itself.
It's the emptying of the thing.
It's the hollowing out of something, making something intentionally uglier.
That is wokeness.
That is 100% wokeness.
So this is indeed a woke rebrand of Cracker Barrel.
That is, I think, a perfectly valid way of describing it.
You have a liberal woman who's never eaten at a Cracker Barrel in her life coming in and getting rid of everything traditional and old and charming about the place just for the sake of it.
That's wokeness to a T. So yeah, this is a woke rebrand for sure.
And Fox has the latest Cracker Barrel Old Country Store.
Customers have been vocal on social media about their disdain for the recent transformation of the Tennessee-based restaurant chain.
Those voices grew even louder after Cracker Barrel unveiled its new logo this week.
Cracker Barrel also rolled out a new menu that includes breakfast, lunch, and dinner options, refreshed restaurant remodels.
We talked about that.
The Cracker Barrel spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement, the company is very pleased with the trajectory of our remodeled stores.
Feedback from both guests and team members has been overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic about the refreshed dining and shipping experience.
All the elements of our remodel were informed by direct input from our guests and team members like these changes are for them.
So Cracker Barrel is still in denial.
The entire country is pointing at them and saying this sucks.
This is terrible.
And their reaction is to say, wow, everyone seems to love it.
Everyone seems really like this.
Meanwhile, I guarantee the majority of people who work at Cracker Barrel, including probably in the corporate office, know this is a terrible idea.
That's the thing when you have these marketing people come in with awful ideas.
Most of the rest of the workforce.
are all saying to each other in the breakroom, man, this is awful.
This is going to, people are not going to like this.
But, but hey, we need a Cracker Barrel for today.
is what we were told.
Remember that's what the CEO said on Good Morning America, that we need a cracker barrel for today.
Cracker barrel for today.
This is the arrogant attitude and it is woke.
This is the arrogant woke attitude that these people have.
It's why everything always has to be updated and remade constantly.
Why can't the cracker barrel of 30 years ago be the cracker barrel of today?
Do we need a cracker?
Yeah, if you're a Cracker Barrel customer, you want there to be a Cracker Barrel today, but why can't it be the same one that it's been?
Why does it have to change?
This is pure chronological snobbery to use a term coined by, I think, C.S. Lewis.
It's the idea that today is automatically superior to yesterday just because we are farther along in the chronology of events.
And therefore, we have to change everything.
Not to improve it or fix it or even innovate or anything, but change it just to change it, just to make it different.
I remember last week I saw somebody on Netflix.
They were talking about the new Harry Potter series.
Apparently there's a new, I think on HBO or something, they have a new Harry Potter series coming out.
They're just redoing Harry Potter.
They're doing it again.
They're doing the whole thing again, from what I understand.
And somebody was defending it, saying that, well, you know, kids today, they don't have their own Harry Potter.
You know, the Harry Potter films came out 20 years ago.
And so they didn't grow up with Harry Potter the way that we did.
So we need a new one.
The old Harry Potter, that's for millennials.
And we need a new Harry Potter.
But it's like, hang on, not that I have any attachment to the Harry Potter films, but the movie still exists.
It's not like they're being stored in a vault somewhere inside a volcano, the books also exist.
They're not out of print.
All that stuff is right there.
You can find it on Amazon.
Why do kids need a new Harry Potter?
Why can't they just have the same Harry Potter that we had before?
Why do they need their own new version of it?
And again, it's not like they change.
When we have the constant remodeling and remaking and refreshing going on, They're not doing it.
They're not improving on it.
Yeah, you can have things that have been around for a while and you need to improve it.
You can innovate.
There are good changes you can make to things.
But that's not what usually happens.
They're not improving it.
They're not making it better.
They're not innovating.
They're just making it different.
The new Cracker Barrel is not better in any way.
It's just different.
You walk into a Cracker Barrel now, nothing works.
It's not like it works better functionally.
It's just different.
It's different from what it was before.
And that's supposed to automatically be an improvement.
Because the attitude is that if it's new, it's automatically better.
The fact that Cracker Barrel looked like this 40 years ago means that it is inferior to whatever the new design is by definition.
That's the attitude.
And what ends up happening is that, not to make too much of Cracker Barrel, but this is just Harry Potter, Cracker Barrel.
These are just examples.
These are just, and that's one of the reasons why it's resonated with people, why people are so upset, I think, about the Cracker Barrel thing.
If it was just Cracker Barrel on its own doing this, then I think very few people would care.
But it's just, it's kind of like, it's a...
And that's what people are responding to.
What ends up happening is that every new generation is atomized, isolated.
There's no continuity between generations.
Nothing gets passed from one to another because every generation has its own version of the thing.
A new Harry Potter, a new Cracker Barrel, and a million other examples, of course.
Rather than the way that it used to be, which was that each new generation would discover anew, the same, like you'd have traditions, you'd have things, you'd have stories, you'd have.
And they would just get passed down from generation to generation, not change just for the sake of it, but the same thing, the same thing getting passed down like heirlooms from generation to generation.
and and And now we take the thing and we tear it apart and change it just for the sake of it.
Speaking of things getting passed down, there's been some conversation recently about the inheritance tax or the estate tax.
Both constitute a form of tax which penalizes you for dying.
If you die, you have to pay the government for the privilege of dying.
They come in and pilfer your estate after your death.
They're grave robbers, basically.
These are estate tax, inheritance tax.
It's a form of grave robbery that the government does.
Anyway, this has received some attention.
A guy named Louis lewis goodall on the british network lbc had a proposal he wanted to share and let's listen to it what we've got at the moment is an aristocracy of wealth in this country it's also true of the united states as well so what i would do what i would do and i wouldn't be opposed to by the way i wouldn't be opposed to 100 inheritance tax or maybe let's say 99 you know my my rule might be that if you can put it in two p bags then you can hand it over.
That's fine.
99, 95%.
I'm being provocative, but you see what I mean?
I would not be against a far higher rate of inheritance tax than we have at the moment, which is 40 above a certain threshold.
I wouldn't be opposed to putting that to 50, 60, 70.
Why?
Because I think the quid pro quo should be twofold.
One, that helps fund public services, which actually helps level the playing field in achieving a true meritocracy.
Two, it will help us reduce taxes on income.
Because at the end of the day, I want to incentivize work.
I want to incentivize productivity.
I want to incentivize people to get up off their backsides and do more.
You don't have a right to inherit.
You should have a right to work while you're alive and keep more of your own money.
That to me is more important, way more important than your right to just inherit some money from mommy and daddy that you did nothing to earn.
Okay, let's clarify a few things.
First of all, the point is not that kids have a universal right to inherit money from their parents.
If the parents have nothing to pass down, that doesn't mean that the child's rights have been deprived.
So none of us were born.
you know, necessarily with a God-given universal right to an inheritance, per se.
Although if your parents do have wealth and property, then I would say that you do, in a sense, have a right, a birthright to it, which is why if there's no will, if the parents don't specify who gets it, then obviously the children should receive it before any stranger does.
So I think we do recognize this kind of birth.
Normally, we do recognize a sort of birthright, a sort of right that the child has to an inheritance, if there is an inheritance to be had.
We don't need to talk about this in terms of the rights of the children.
The more important point, the more obvious and direct issue at hand here is that the right.
of the parent to pass down his wealth to whoever he chooses.
Do my children have a right to my money and my property?
That's one question.
Again, I think in a sense they do, but that doesn't really supersede my own right.
Like I have a right to decide who gets what.
But more importantly, do I have a right to give my money and my property?
to my own kids.
Do I have that right?
And there's no question that I do.
Of course I do.
It's mine.
You heard him say it there.
Well, you should keep more of your own money.
Okay.
Yeah.
Agreed.
So it's my money.
So then I should get to decide who gets it.
I have a right to give it to them.
I'm working my whole life in order to be able to do that.
We talked about this recently, that this is one of the primary things that drives me personally, motivates me, drives many people.
It drives, it should drive most people.
It should be the primary motivator for most people is the desire to pass down wealth to your children.
I'm only going to be alive maybe for another 50 years at most, maybe less than, maybe a lot less than that.
I'm not working to provide for my family only during that short time frame.
I want to provide for them far beyond that.
And I have the right to do that.
It's one of the most basic, most fundamental rights that we have as human beings to work hard, acquire wealth, pass it down to the next generation of our families to create generational wealth.
Generational wealth is a good thing.
This idea that we shouldn't have it, that each generation should start over from scratch is insane.
Especially from people who call themselves, and I don't know this guy calls himself progressive or not, but you hear this from so-called progressives.
Well, How do you have progress if you have to start over from scratch with each generation?
If I don't have the right to give my money to my kids, then what right supersedes that right?
Does the government have a greater right to decide what happens with my estate than I do?
Does some government bureaucrat sitting in office somewhere have a right to decide where my money goes?
A right that supersedes my own right?
Where does that right come from?
Well, no, what people on the left actually think, and again, I don't know if this guy would call himself on the left.
I don't know who he is, but generally.
What people on the left believe is that, and this is what makes it all the more absurd, what they believe is that other citizens who are strangers and non-citizens have a right to my money.
So they believe that my children have no right to inherit my money, but some obese EBT welfare queen does have a right to my money.
I don't have a right to pass my money down to my kids, but some 350 pound food stamp jockey.
does have a right to take that money and buy Pringles and Mountain Dew.
That's what they believe.
It's total moral madness.
This, this, you only hear these people that when they say, oh, you didn't earn that money.
This is the kind of thing.
You didn't earn that money.
You have no right to it.
They only will say that about the children of wealthy people.
What about the entire welfare system?
They didn't earn that money.
Did they earn it?
How?
Every single person walking into a.
Did they earn that?
No, they didn't earn it.
What do they do to earn it?
And if we're talking about earning, like who would have a better claim to having earned my money?
Some random welfare recipient or my kids.
Now, I don't think earning is the right way of phrasing it in either case, really.
Because it's not really about that.
Again, it's about who I want to give my money to.
It's mine.
I should be able to give it to whoever the hell I want.
It's not your money.
Back off.
Well, I think you should distribute it.
Oh, well, it's nice that you think that.
Okay, if you want to acquire wealth and then distribute it to charity or give it to whatever, then you go make your own money.
Okay, go make your own money, you deadbeat.
Rather than sitting there saying, well, I think that your money should go here.
I don't give a where you think my money should go.
Go make your own.
How about that?
So I don't think we think of it in terms of earning, but if we did, I mean, if that's the word we're using.
When all is said and done, the EBT recipient versus my children, who has a better claim to having earned my money.
Well, I think clearly my children.
Especially if you raise them right, they're contributing, they're in your family, they make, they're contributing to your family, they're working for your family, they make sacrifices for your family.
I mean, that's what family members should be doing.
And if you raise them right, then they do.
As opposed to somebody on welfare who's done absolutely nothing for me whatsoever, at all, ever, not one, not one thing.
You haven't earned anything from me.
You just haven't.
I'm sorry.
So.
So if that's the way we want to phrase it, you know, when you start using words like that well you didn't earn it but the thing is they'll they'll only use those terms in very limited circumstances they're very careful about when they start using words like earn because that is a loaded term and i don't think you really want to have that conversation i don't think you really want to have the conversation about who's earning what Quick reminder,
new annual memberships are 40% off right now at DLRPlus.com with code Summer.
Here's what you'll get.
Brand new episodes of The Pope and the Fuhrer, the Secret Vatican Files of World War II, blockbuster documentaries like What is a woman and Am I Racist?
Plus.
racist plus every show from the most trusted voices conservative media uncensored and ad free you'll also be first in line for what's next the premiere of the isabel brown show on september 8th and the decade of the daily our anniversary special this fall and when you're watching live you can jump into the chat react in real time debate the big stories and connect with millions of other daily our plus members who actually think like you don't wait go to daily our plus.com use code summer and save 40 today now let's get to our daily cancellation Around
a year ago, a freelance journalist named Amelia Tate decided to conduct an unscientific survey of adults who are creepily interested in Disney, otherwise known as Disney adults.
We've talked about Disney adults many times before, mainly because they're incredibly easy to mock.
They're also a great real-life example of a little-known phenomenon called synesthesia.
This is when the stimulation of one sensory pathway leads to an involuntary stimulation in a completely different sensory pathway.
So, for example, you might see a picture of a sewer with your eyes, and then a short time later, you might smell sewage.
And similarly, when you see a Disney adult, it can be difficult to suppress your gag reflex as various odors seemingly waft from TikTok directly into your nostrils, even though, you know, it's not real.
The stench is.
ultimately unmistakable but amelia tate in a rare example of bravery in modern journalism decided to dive head first into an investigation of this repulsive yet fascinating genre of disney fan and here's what she did she surveyed more than 1300 self-identifying disney adults from all over the world she primarily found these people through facebook pages about disney as well as reddit of course according to tate of these 1300 disney adults quote a third said that they first engaged with the company as a baby when asked Do you think you will be a Disney adult until you die?
91% said yes.
The majority of Disney adults, 71%, are aged between 25 and 44.
80% are female.
Just under half, 49%, identify themselves as left-wing politically, while further 9% are centrists.
18% are right-wing, including 1.5% who said they are far-right.
Now, last part is somewhat interesting.
I guess 1.5% of Disney adults claim to be far-right, whatever that means.
You have to imagine that these particular survey respondents were maybe messing with Amelia Tate or maybe they were undercover FBI agents.
It was really the only two options.
Either way, these are people who clearly need to be interviewed on national television immediately.
This is a Venn diagram that simply can't exist in any way, shape, or form.
On the one hand, you're a childless, obese, 40-year-old woman who weeps at the sight of Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck.
You see men in dresses greeting young girls at Disneyland and you just can't get enough of it.
You feel at home in this environment.
On the other hand, when you get home, you're frantically refreshing 4chan for the latest intel on the Proud Boys meetup.
Makes perfect sense.
But then again, who am I to question an unscientific survey?
The survey says what it says.
So let's pretend it's credible for the sake of argument.
The other noteworthy part of the survey is the gender element.
Around 80% of Disney adults are female.
In other words, Disney is completely missing.
missing out on a very large demographic of losers, specifically the losers who happen to also be male.
It's a sizable share of the market that Disney isn't capturing.
And it's not just their themeeme park attendance that's low among males.
The new Indiana Jones movie, which was apparently supposed to appeal to men, even though it was terrible, earned just $380 million on a $300 million budget, not including marketing, which almost certainly destroyed every cent of the slim profits they would have otherwise made.
And as Variety pointed out, Disney's live-action film business hasn't had a male-oriented hit that's been comparable to the Pirates of the Caribbean in more than a decade.
In the entertainment industry, this qualifies as a crisis that requires all hands on deck.
That's precisely how Disney is handling this developing situation.
They've decided, having alienated most of their customer base, that they want to appeal to men all of a sudden.
And they claim to be serious about it.
Variety reports, quote, leadership of Walt Disney Studios has been pressing Hollywood creators in recent months, multiple sources tell Variety, for movies that will bring young men back into the brand in a meaningful way.
Young men is defined here by sources as ages 13 to 28, aka Gen Z. Article continues, quote, the sources say Disney has been seeking new IP and pitches such as splashy global adventures and treasure hunts, as well as seasonal fare like films for the Halloween corridor.
The calls come as the Star Wars machine struggles to produce any film project and the superhero genre sheds audience by the minute.
While two insiders say the mandate to recruit young males goes as high as the C-suite, the task primarily has fallen on David Greenbough, the former Searchlight Pictures co-head brought on in 2024 to run Disney's live-action film business.
Now, not that I'm in the business of offering unsolicited advice to major corporations, but this seems like a very ill-fated approach.
There's simply no reason to trust anything Disney's saying here.
Disney just blew millions of dollars on their Star Wars hotel, which they also built as a grand, unique adventure.
In the end, it turned out to be a windowless hotel that transported guests around in unmarked trucks, which also had no windows so that the guests couldn't see that they were in a parking lot.
The other problem here, and this really is the central irony, is that Disney now is, they're desperately trying to attract men.
Well, Disney owns both Star Wars and Marvel, as Variety notes.
They shouldn't have any trouble with the young male audience.
You have Star Wars and superheroes.
These are both established franchises with relatable and popular male figures.
These are franchises that historically have been very, very popular with young males.
But Disney, for ideological reasons, spent nearly two decades trying to scare men away from these franchises and replace them with a female audience.
Kathleen Kennedy accused Star Wars fans of hating women because they refused to watch lesbian witches parade around in service of a plot that made no sense.
The lesbian showrunner of The Acolyte boasted that it was the gayest Star Wars movie ever or show.
The lesbian lead actress in The Acolyte recorded a distract directed at the people watching her show after she stated that her goal as an actress was to make white people cry.
It's not even getting into the films, which were obviously box-checking exercises by the lead actress on admission.
Meanwhile, the name of female representation, Disney commanded that we pretend against our better judgment that Brie Larson is capable of acting.
They openly told audiences that they should embrace politics in their films.
This was all a conscious choice.
Well, it did work out apparently.
And now Disney, rather than returning to what it once was, is trying to undo the damage in a very heavy-handed and calculated manner.
But if Disney executives actually wanted to appeal to men or to well-adjusted women, They wouldn't approach the problem with demographics and propaganda in mind.
That's what created their problem in the first place.
Instead, they'd lock every single one of their producers and writers, even the DEI hires in a dark room and force them to watch, you know, a traditional Disney product.
They'd show them something like The Fox and the Hound.
Disney made that film almost 45 years ago.
There's a lot they could learn from it.
And then Disney executives would unlock the door, letting everyone go except the DEI hires.
They can stay trapped in there, tell them it's a windowless ride at the Star Wars Hotel, and they probably won't even complain.
That's how you could course correct the historic downfall of a once-beloved entertainment company.
Because no one at Disney appears to have any degree of self-awareness and because they seem to believe that more gender race obsession is the appropriate remedy to their past gender race obsession.
Disney is very unlikely to pull out of its ongoing death spiral.
and that is why disney along with disney adults for good measure are again today canceled that'll do for the show today and this week talk to you on monday have a great day godspeed Hey there, I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Bickley.
And I'm Georgia Howe, and we're the hosts of Morning Wire.
We bring you all the news you need to know in 15 minutes or less.
