MixCollage-21-Aug-2025-04-41-PM-2632

This Case Is An Insane Miscarriage Of Justice

Blacks

carjacking

Colorado

Criminal Justice

Matt Walsh

Murder

Opinion

Teenagers

Whites

Why Illiterate Foreign Truck Drivers Are A Much Bigger Issue Than You Think

Drivers Licenses

illegal immigrants

Immigrants

Traffic

Truckers

Close up of black truck driver behind the steering wheel.

Why Foreign Truck Drivers Are An Extreme Danger To All Americans

Homicide

Illegal Immigration

Safety

Representative Delia Ramirez, from Illinois, was in the news recently for standing in front of a group of Hispanics in Mexico City and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-america-last-left-cuts-loose">declaring</a> that she is a proud Guatemalan before she’s an American. Indeed, she’s so proud of Guatemala that her family fled the country, settled here illegally, and have refused to return. They would rather break the law in this country than live in Guatemala. That’s how proud of Guatemala they are.
That’s the inherent contradiction anytime an immigrant claims to be so deeply proud of the homeland that they desperately don’t want to live in. But the greater problem, of course, is that Congresswoman Ramirez has announced that she is more loyal to a foreign country than to her own. Granted, her loyalty to Guatemala seems rather uninspiring and conditional. She’s loyal from a distance. But her loyalty to the United States is clearly even weaker. She puts it second place to the country that her family have spent decades trying to avoid going back to.
It should be uncontroversial to say that any elected representative who declares a greater loyalty to a foreign country than to this country should be removed from office at an absolute minimum.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1640-the-matt-walsh-show?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=The+Matt+Walsh+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
In Ramirez’s case, it’s obvious that she, and her entire family, should be deported. If she loves Guatemala so much, she can live there. The fact that Delia Ramirez wasn’t on a boat back to Guatemala five minutes after she made those remarks is a disgrace. In fact, we didn’t even have to put her on a boat. She said all of that in Mexico City. All we had to do was lock the door and not let her back in. That’s what she deserves. This woman is a disloyal, backstabbing, ungrateful Judas who never should have been granted citizenship in the first place. There’s no time like the present to rectify that mistake. Especially after her most recent comments.
Yes, Ms. Ramirez is at it again. This time it was the NetRoots Nation conference in New Orleans. During a sit-down discussion on stage at the conference, Ramirez was asked a very simple question. It’s a question that everyone running for elected office should be asked. It’s a question that every immigrant should be asked before we even think about granting them citizenship. It is the question. The new “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman?row=0&amp;elementPosition=4&amp;rowType=Square+Show+Carousel">What is a Woman?</a>” And the question is: “What is an American?” And just as the Left never figured out how to define the word “woman,” they have just as much trouble — if not more — stringing together an even vaguely coherent definition for the word “American.” 
Here&#8217;s Ramirez giving it a shot:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Democrat Rep. Delia Ramirez is asked what it means to be an American: &#8220;For me, being an American recognizes the good and the bad of the formation of this country. To reckon with how we used colonialism and to think about what reparations look like. We haven&#8217;t always been great.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/NxP7KCudZG">pic.twitter.com/NxP7KCudZG</a>
— TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1955305710884954579?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @theblaze
So Representative Ramirez says that being an American means that we can “dream and love,” and also that we recognize all the evils of colonialism and all the bad stuff America did in the past. That’s her answer.
Now, there are a lot of problems here.
First of all, Ramirez, what is this “we” stuff? You’re an anchor baby. You became an American thanks to a paperwork loophole. You have no ancestral ties to this country. You don’t love it. You don’t respect it. You have made no effort to assimilate into our culture. In fact you hate our culture and our people. Your family showed up here illegally. Their very first act as residents (illegal residents) of this country was to break our laws and violate our sovereignty.
You and your family are squatters. Using the word “we” is like if a junkie broke into your house while you were on vacation, refused to leave, and then started referring to it as “our home.” Now imagine if that was a home that your grandfather had built with his own hands. A home that you had lived in since birth. A home built and maintained by your family’s sweat and blood and sacrifice. And now some random vagrant, who broke in through a downstairs window five seconds ago, has announced that it’s just as much his home as yours. You wouldn’t take very kindly to that. And we don’t take very kindly to it either. There is no “we.” This is not your home.
We know it isn’t because if it was your home, you’d be able to speak at length, and with real depth and feeling, when someone asks you what this home means to you. But instead when you were asked what it means to be an American, you started with third-rate, Hallmark pablum about how being an American means that you can “dream and love.” In fact it’s worse than Hallmark. I wouldn’t accept that answer if it was written on a July 4th greeting card. I wouldn’t accept it on a second grader’s book report. You’re a grown adult and an elected representative and the best you can do — in fact the only positive thing you can say about America — is that Americans can “dream and love.”
Does that mean that people in other countries can’t dream and love? Is dreaming and loving unique to Americans? Do your fellow Guatemalans never experience love, or have dreams, until they sneak across the border into our country? I’m pretty certain you wouldn’t make that claim. Which means your definition of an American is generic and meaningless. “Being an American means that you can dream and love and laugh and look at pretty colors and have tickle fights.” If my five year old daughter said something like that I’d be embarrassed. You’re an adult. You should be deported just for saying that, and for about a dozen other reasons.
But somehow it gets worse. We learn that Americans are people who dream and love, whatever that means, and also — and this is the only other qualification you provide — they are people who feel the requisite amount of scorn and resentment for the alleged evils committed by Americans in the past. Never mind that the United States only had slavery for about 90 years while many countries in the world had it for millennia. Never mind that white people — Americans and Europeans — were among the last to adopt slavery and the first to abolish it. Never mind that if we’re supposed to feel bad about slavery, then literally every other nation, race, and ethnicity on Earth should feel even worse. There were countries in Africa practicing legal slavery as recently as the 1970s. Never mind all that. Also never mind the fact that the “colonialism” you decry is the reason why you currently live in a civilized society where you don’t have to worry about being kidnapped by a raiding part in the middle of the night and having your beating heart cut out of your chest to appease the sun god. If not for “colonialism” in the western hemisphere, there would still be slavery here. The entire hemisphere would still be locked in perpetual wars of conquest. And you, as a woman, would be property to be bought, traded, stolen, used, and discarded. Because that’s how it worked among the “indigenous tribes” whose conquest and subjugation you lament, because you&#8217;re a stupid, ungrateful, historically illiterate, spoiled little child.
But as I said, never mind all of that. Even if we pretend that America has all of these unique and terrible sins — which it doesn’t — still, couldn’t anyone, anywhere in the world, recognize those sins? Couldn&#8217;t anyone, anywhere in the world, dream and love, and also hate America as you do? If that’s the qualification to be an American, then by your definition, anyone, anywhere, at any time, at any given moment, can be an American. Considering there are a lot of people in the world who hate America — mostly out of envy, like you — and considering that most of those people are presumably capable of dreaming and maybe even loving, that would mean that there are billions of Americans currently living in the world today. And most of these “Americans&#8221; have never even been to this country. The Middle East is full of Americans. The entire country of China is American. North Koreans are all Americans. Everyone is American. Which means, of course, that no one is American. It means that being an American actually means nothing.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
That’s your real answer, isn’t it, Ramirez? You just don’t want to say it out loud. Being an American means nothing to you. America means nothing. America is nothing. It’s not a country. It’s not a place. It’s not even an idea. It’s nothing. It is, at most, a vague feeling. A fleeting sense of something or other. There is nothing solid that defines it. Now if I were to ask you what it means to be Guatemalan, you would have a lot more to say, wouldn’t you? You would talk about the culture, the people, the pride you feel for Guatemala, the fidelity you have to it. Guatemala is a distinct country to you. In fact every country on the globe that isn’t predominately populated by white people is a distinct country. It’s only white western nations — America principle among them — that is not allowed to have an actual national identity. That’s what you really think. You just won’t say it. Though you’ll come very close.
So let me answer the question, since you can’t, or won’t. America is not a feeling of love, it’s not a dream, and it’s certainly not a set of Marxist claims about the evils of white colonialism or whatever. America is a country. It is a country with borders, and laws, and a language. It is a people. It is a culture, a history, and a tradition. It is also — in addition to those things, not on its own but in addition — a set of values. Values rooted in Christian thought. This land was conquered and this country was established by Christian men who did it for the glory of God and for the sake of spreading the Gospel from sea to shining sea. That’s America. It is a nation. It is a home. My home, not yours. It’s the place where I was born and will die. It’s where my children will have children, and where their children will have children, and all of them will love this country just as I do, and celebrate its history, and fight to preserve its culture and its traditions. Because I’m an American, and I put no country before this one.
You cannot say the same. Because you are not an American. You can’t even convincingly pretend to be one.
So what is an American? Well, to begin with, certainly not you.

US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-DACA

What Is an American? Not Delia Ramirez

Democrats

Guatemala

Illinois

Leftists

U.S. House of Representatives

Around a decade ago, when viral videos were just starting to become commonplace, a woman uploaded a video entitled, &#8220;10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman.&#8221; Like many viral videos, it wasn&#8217;t actually as spontaneous as it looked. It was the brainchild of an anti-harassment organization by the name of &#8220;Hollaback!&#8221; along with an ad agency called Rob Bliss Creative.
The premise, as the name of the video implies, is that a young white woman named Shoshana Roberts would walk around New York — &#8220;all areas of Manhattan,&#8221; they said — wearing jeans and a crewneck. She wouldn&#8217;t say anything to anyone. In front of her, someone would be carrying a hidden camera, which would capture all of the misogynistic men who would inevitably catcall her. It was intended to be feminist propaganda, in other words. You might remember the video, but if not, here&#8217;s some of it. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b1XGPvbWn0A?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: Rob Bliss/YouTube.com
According to the caption on the video, to her horror, this woman was catcalled more than 100 times in just 10 hours. And after releasing this piece of groundbreaking investigative journalism, the feminists who created it were convinced that they had a winner on their hands. It was being shared everywhere. People were horrified by the plight of women in New York City.
But very quickly, the mood changed. Leftists noticed that, inconveniently enough, pretty much every single catcaller in the video was black or Hispanic. There was one white guy who said something like &#8220;Nice,&#8221; although it wasn&#8217;t even clear he was talking to her. In any event, he&#8217;s clearly respectful and keeps things moving. He simply compliments her and continues walking.
By contrast, there were dozens of black and Hispanic catcallers in the video. And they went far beyond saying &#8220;nice.&#8221; One black guy follows her down the street for five minutes, staring at her the entire time. Another &#8220;person of color&#8221; tells her to &#8220;say thank you more.&#8221; Another guy says &#8220;God bless you, Mami.&#8221;
And you know what this means. The video was determined to be highly racist. NPR and Slate, among many other Left-wing publications, ran lengthy pieces on how problematic the video was. The author Roxane Gay, for example, wrote: &#8220;The racial politics of the video are [f*****] up.
Like, she didn&#8217;t walk through any white neighborhoods?&#8221; Never mind the fact that she walked all over Manhattan, which the footage clearly shows.
As the hysteria grew, the organization that produced the video released a groveling (and very confusing) statement of apology, which threw their <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men">own video</a> under the bus: 
<blockquote>We regret the unintended racial bias in the editing of the video that over represents men of color. &#8230; We are committed to showing the complete picture. It is our hope and intention that this video will be the start of a series to demonstrate that the type of harassment we&#8217;re concerned about is directed toward women of all races and ethnicities and conducted by an equally diverse population of men.</blockquote>
On Reddit, the ad agency <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men">added</a>: 
<blockquote>We got a fair amount of white guys, but for whatever reason, a lot of what they said was in passing, or off camera.</blockquote>
Obviously, one of the biggest issues with this claim is that everything in the video was said &#8220;in passing, or off camera.&#8221; So it doesn&#8217;t make sense to claim that the white people were &#8220;edited out&#8221; for that reason. Nor does it make any sense to state that, in the future, they&#8217;ll be committed to demonstrating that catcallers come from a, &#8220;equally diverse population of men.&#8221; After all, they just captured video evidence demonstrating, via a recorded experiment, that catcallers are not in fact diverse. So what&#8217;s the basis for saying that, in the future, they&#8217;ll prove that white people are just as likely to catcall women?
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1641-the-matt-walsh-show?contentProgram=The%20Matt%20Walsh%20Show&amp;contentType=ShowEpisode&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;location=Home%20Tab&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Home%20Featured%20Carousel">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
They don&#8217;t have any basis for saying that, of course, because it&#8217;s not true. Catcalling women to the point that they become uncomfortable — sort of like playing music loudly on a Bluetooth speaker at the park, or committing armed robbery — is one of those behaviors that, from a statistical perspective, simply isn&#8217;t perfectly distributed among various ethnic groups. Even if you tried to stack the deck by conducting this experiment in a neighborhood that’s nearly 100% white, it still wouldn’t work. In fact, that would only prove the opposite conclusion, because we all know that a woman can walk through a predominantly white suburb not just for 10 hours but for 10 years and never get catcalled at all.
That was the real lesson of &#8220;10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman,&#8221; even though the ad agency would never admit it. They proved, rather publicly, that different demographic groups engage in catcalling at very different rates. And so, ever since the publication of this video, in the name of racial justice, Leftists have mostly stopped talking about catcalling. They&#8217;ve left the topic alone.
But as we all know, every lesson of history must be re-learned at some point. It&#8217;s sort of like the old maxim, &#8220;Never fight a land war in Asia.&#8221; Everyone agrees it&#8217;s a bad idea. But eventually, someone else tries again, to disastrous results. And indeed, that&#8217;s the case with catcalling. Once again, Leftists are trying to make a big deal out of it. Specifically, in England, the Surrey Police Department recently sent undercover policewomen out on the streets, in jogging clothes, in an attempt to elicit catcalls. And then, when the policewomen were catcalled, back-up cars swoop in, sort of like a drug bust. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="How these joggers are tackling catcalling | LBC" width="422" height="750" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CbcXB4jY_g4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: @LBCOfficial/YouTube.com
Well, they&#8217;ve convinced me. This policewoman is constantly being told by strangers that she&#8217;s attractive. And that&#8217;s a horrible, horrible thing. It&#8217;s hard to imagine anything worse than receiving unsolicited compliments, frankly. And indeed, you can just see the abject pain and horror in her voice as she&#8217;s having to process all of this. Last week I upset some people by suggesting that female cops shouldn’t be out on patrol because they lack the strength and other attributes necessary for that job. But I guess I should revise my statement. This is one job — walking around and fishing for compliments — that female cops are highly suited for.
It’s enough to make you wonder what would happen if some police officers are assigned to this detail, and they get no cat calls whatsoever. Would they be giving interviews about how happy they are about the fact that no one in the entire city, during their 8-hour shift, bothered to compliment them? Is that the conversation that would take place, back at the station? It seems doubtful, but at this point, we can&#8217;t say.
In any event, in the video, they admit that catcalling isn&#8217;t even criminal, which raises the obvious question of why the police are doing this. They explain that, in truth, they&#8217;re just trying to wag their finger at people who catcall, because catcalling is like a gateway drug to more criminal activity. Apparently, people who catcall are more likely to commit murder, tax evasion, arson, and so on. But even if that&#8217;s true — and there&#8217;s not much evidence that it is — it still doesn&#8217;t come close to justifying a police stop. If the police are allowed to pull you over because you might commit a future crime, in their judgment, then you effectively have a police state. And of course, that&#8217;s exactly what the UK has become.
But as it turns out, contrary to what&#8217;s stated in that video, some people are indeed being arrested in the UK as part of this sting operation. 
The Telegraph <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/12/undercover-officers-pose-as-joggers-to-stop-catcalling/">reports</a>: 
<blockquote>Surrey Police said the approach was designed to protect women and girls in public places. According to the force, the [operation], which lasted a month, led to 18 arrests for offences such as harassment, sexual assault, and theft.</blockquote>
The implication, I guess, is that they picked up people with outstanding warrants for assault and theft, since there&#8217;s no indication that these officers were actually attacked during their runs. But what&#8217;s notable about this report, and every other report like it, is that we don&#8217;t have any information about the identities of the offenders. They also don&#8217;t explain what conduct constitutes &#8220;harassment&#8221; exactly. Instead, they simply state that this was a one-month trial for a sting operation, which has now concluded. So there was more transparency from a viral video produced by feminists a decade ago in New York City, than the British police are willing to provide about their taxpayer-funded catcalling bust.
We can all draw the obvious conclusion here. It&#8217;s almost certain that this particular sting operation backfired, just like that viral video did. They came up with this plan in order to entrap heterosexual white men who shout compliments at attractive women. That&#8217;s the great crime that British police decided to spend their time on — something that isn&#8217;t even a crime at all. In fact, it&#8217;s not even morally objectionable in many cases. And yet, in their bid to criminalize heterosexuality and lock up white men for non-crimes, the British police probably realized, to their horror, that the worst and most aggressive catcallers — the real menaces of the catcalling community — were not white at all. And therefore, this operation will end, and it will never be resumed again.
That&#8217;s not really a guess. This is how things work in Britain. For many years, the British government concealed the systematic sexual abuse of children that was being committed, right out in the open, by foreign gangs in England and Wales. 
According to one recent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo">report</a>, prepared by UK government official Louise Casey: 
<blockquote>We found that the ethnicity of perpetrators is shied away from and is still not recorded for two-thirds of perpetrators. &#8230; We found many examples of organisations avoiding the topic altogether for fear of appearing racist, raising community tensions or causing community cohesion problems.</blockquote>
With the protection of the government, so-called &#8220;grooming gangs&#8221; have operated with impunity in the UK. The normal tactic that these gangs used, as Casey&#8217;s report notes, was for men to target vulnerable adolescent children — &#8220;often those in care, or children with learning or physical disabilities.&#8221; Those children were then drugged, passed among various men and transported via taxis throughout the country to other clients.
The total number of victims is unknown, because most of these perpetrators have never been caught. But a recent <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2r2ejlvm1o">estimate</a> suggests that a minimum of 700 children were victims of &#8220;group-based child sexual exploitation&#8221; in the UK in 2023 alone. Roughly <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9y0lvpyqvo">1,400 children</a> were sexually abused by men in the UK town of Rotherham between 1997 and 2013. In several cases, the police also <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9y0lvpyqvo">participated</a> in the sexual assaults. They also made it clear that they were extremely uninterested when victims came forward. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 UK Grooming Gangs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/82_vZrv78E8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Credit: The Free Press/Honestly/YouTube.com
In response to the latest government report on this scandal, police in South Yorkshire <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn9y0lvpyqvo">told the BBC</a> that they had, &#8220;a dedicated team of detectives working on this case who have worked diligently to explore all lines of enquiry.&#8221; That was their response just a few weeks ago, in July of this year So they&#8217;re claiming it&#8217;s a top priority for them. And yet, just a couple hours away in Surrey, the police are busy trying to arrest catcallers. They&#8217;re chasing down men who honk at women, even though there&#8217;s nothing criminal about it.
Not that we should really be surprised by this. Sociopathic sting operations, in the service of extremely dumb policies that happen to target native white citizens, are becoming the norm in police departments all over the country. In Canada, they&#8217;re <a href="https://x.com/JeffEvely/status/1953971918312251707">rounding</a> up people who try to hike in the woods, and handing out $30,000 fines. In Australia, as we <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5MA8S3ugXQ">discussed</a> a few months ago, they&#8217;ve essentially outlawed prayer. If you try to pray with a man who thinks he&#8217;s really a woman, or vice versa, you could face a decade&#8217;s worth of prison time. In fact, parents can&#8217;t even pray with their children, under that law.
There&#8217;s no way to make sense of any of these crackdowns without recognizing that the governments of the West harbor a deep and abiding disdain for the native populations of their respective countries. And these governments have realized that, if they can&#8217;t completely eliminate the police force and leave the population defenseless, then they can discredit the police, at the very least. They can turn law enforcement into laughing stock and eliminate its legitimacy that way. It&#8217;s the same reason the police chief in D.C. can <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-insanely-incompetent-dei-hire-running-one-of-americas-most-dangerous-cities?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Matt+Walsh&amp;category=Opinion&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=The+Insanely+Incompetent+DEI+Hire+Running+One+Of+America%E2%80%99s+Most+Dangerous+Cities">barely understand</a> English. In other words, the latest war on policing, incredibly enough, is one that the police themselves are participating in. Police departments can either realize what&#8217;s going on, and refuse to participate in the charade. Or they can continue to contribute to their downfall, one extremely ill-advised sting operation at a time.

Demonstrations Held Outside Migrant Accommodations Across The UK

As Migrants Terrorize Britain, Police Wage War On Catcalls

Child Sex Abuse

England

Great Britain

Rape

United Kingdom

Trump Announces Deployment Of National Guard In Washington D.C.

Trump Moves To End D.C.’s Third-World Lawlessness. Democrats Lose It.

Crime

Donald Trump

Federal Government

National Guard

Violent Crime

Washington D.C.

Anxious Teenage Student Sitting Examination In School Hall

The Fake ‘Mental Health’ Test Coming To Your Child’s School

Big Pharma

Education

Health Care

Mental Health

Pfizer

Public Schools

Students

After he graduated from Vanderbilt, a man named Nathan Halberstadt began working at the Boston Consulting Group. This is a familiar path for students who attend schools that are highly ranked. Often they&#8217;re hired by one of the &#8220;Big Three&#8221; consulting companies, which on paper, means that they&#8217;ll provide useful advice for large businesses and the government.
Very quickly, though, Nathan realized what the job actually entailed. In his words, working for a big consulting group meant that you had to promote, &#8220;the bureaucratic optimization of opioid sales, mass migration, off-shoring, and DEI.&#8221; You had to churn out bogus <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLMG7C6oF4">statistics</a> to advance anti-American agenda items — like that fake McKinsey study a few years back, which claimed that &#8220;diversity&#8221; somehow makes companies more profitable. That&#8217;s what &#8220;consulting&#8221; actually means, in practice.
New graduates from Vanderbilt aren&#8217;t really walking into companies like Boeing and Apple and blowing their minds with their unique insights. Instead, in many cases, they&#8217;re simply giving executives a pretext to do exactly what they wanted to do all along.
Seeing all this, Nathan decided to quit. Instead of manipulating data to promote the destruction of the United States, he decided to spend his time identifying statistics that actually matter. He would look through government data and try to find important connections that no one else has made before. And the other day, as you may have seen, Nathan accomplished that goal. He published this remarkable chart, which has already been cited by several members of Congress and seen by millions of people. Here it is:
<div id="attachment_958477" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-958477" class="wp-image-958477 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-1024x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Nathan Halberstadt" width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/MixCollage-07-Aug-2025-05-32-PM-8972-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Credit: Nathan Halberstadt</div>
It&#8217;s a graph that shows the estimated percentage of 30-year-olds who are both married and own a home. The data runs from 1950 all the way through 2025. In the 1950s, the number was more than 50%. In other words, in 1950, well over half of the 30-year-olds in this country were both married and living in a home that they owned.
But as you can see, the percentage has been steadily dropping since then, until it fell off a cliff in the 1990s. And now, in 2025, the percentage is well below 20%. In fact, according to this estimate, only around 15% of 30-year-olds are married and own a home. Something that was once commonplace in this country is now rare. 50% to 15%.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1637-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Right off the bat, it&#8217;s impossible to look at an estimate like this without immediately asking: Why haven&#8217;t we heard these numbers before? For all of the very granular information we have about gross domestic product and unemployment numbers and per capita manufacturing output, it took a random Vanderbilt graduate to produce this particular chart. To be sure, we all knew that these numbers were bad. It was very evident that fewer young people were getting married or owning homes. But the scale, and the timing of the decline, weren&#8217;t remotely clear. Frankly, this is a lot worse than anyone realized, which is why the chart has attracted so much attention.
But the numbers were always available to anyone who wanted to look for them. All you have to do is look up the marriage data from the U.S. Census Bureau, which tabulates the &#8220;median age of first marriage&#8221; — along with Pew surveys on the percentage of people who are married at 30 — and then factor in home ownership data from the Census. It&#8217;s not a perfect calculation; some estimation is involved. We recently covered the problems with Census data and how unreliable it can be. But the overall story is pretty clear, and it&#8217;s corroborated by other sources.
In Ohio, for example, researchers at Bowling Green State University have <a href="https://www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/FP-25-10.html">compiled</a> similar estimates.
Amazingly, though, very few of our political leaders are talking about this. It&#8217;s not a topic of mainstream conversation at all. Making sure that Americans are getting married and acquiring homes by the age of 30 should be the urgent priority of every politician in the country. It&#8217;s hard to think of many other things that could possibly be more important. But it&#8217;s not getting anywhere near the attention it should.
To the extent that some action is being taken in Washington, it raises some unanswered questions. For example, this week a very unusual alliance <a href="https://www.wsaz.com/2025/08/02/sen-kennedy-warrens-new-bill-aims-build-more-affordable-housing/">formed</a> in Washington between Elizabeth Warren — the socialist from Massachusetts — and John Kennedy, the Republican from Louisiana. The two senators have introduced legislation called the &#8220;Build Now Act,&#8221; which would withhold taxpayer funds from states that don&#8217;t build enough housing, while sending taxpayer money to states that build more housing. Unlike most proposed legislation that you hear about, this particular bill actually has a good chance of passing, because it was just unanimously approved by a Senate committee. Here&#8217;s Kennedy&#8217;s explanation of the plan:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It is stunning that the median age of a first-time home buyer in America today is 38.
We’ve got a problem.
By incentivizing cities to slash red tape and start building homes again, my Build Now Act would help open the door to homeownership. <a href="https://t.co/LfCV7k3Y1T">pic.twitter.com/LfCV7k3Y1T</a>
— John Kennedy (@SenJohnKennedy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJohnKennedy/status/1950234826381918263?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 29, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @SenJohnKennedy/X
As a general rule, whenever Democrats and Republicans — and in this case, a conservative like John Kennedy and a socialist like Elizabeth Warren — team up to promote legislation, it&#8217;s usually a good idea to be skeptical. The only ideas that have bipartisan support in Washington are bad ones, generally speaking. And as we all know, socialists are well-known for making housing even less affordable, by introducing high-minded plans to manipulate markets (as New York City is about to discover the hard way).
That said, more housing is obviously a good idea. Increasing the supply of housing usually means that prices will go down. That&#8217;s basic economics. And although it&#8217;s reasonable to be concerned about the federal government throwing taxpayer money around, this is one of those rare times where it makes sense. Certainly, the federal government helped many homeowners in the 1950s, with the GI bill and so on.
At the same time, it&#8217;s reasonable to ask whether this kind of legislation will simply provide incentives for the creation of, say, more dilapidated housing for the homeless to use as drug dens, or more rental units for neighborhoods that are already flooded with them. This is a problem that&#8217;s becoming increasingly apparent, as you may have noticed. Large institutions are buying up homes in suburbs and renting them, instead of putting them up for sale. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Priced out: More Americans renting rather than buying" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5lW0ruPVNbg?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Credit: NBC News/YouTube.com
Constructing new housing doesn&#8217;t necessarily address this particular problem, if the houses are being purchased by institutions and rented out as apartments. A lot depends on why the homes are being constructed, and where they&#8217;re located. Kennedy&#8217;s bill does have provisions that provide incentives for new construction in high-demand areas, but again, you still might wind up with apartment complexes where you actually want single-family homes.
That&#8217;s not to disparage this particular bill, or to declare that it can&#8217;t possibly help matters. But it&#8217;s safe to say that this legislation won&#8217;t come close to solving the underlying problem, which again, is that young people aren&#8217;t getting married and can&#8217;t afford homes. Those are problems with a lot of different causes — probably too many to list. Compared to the 1950s, we have tens of millions more illegal aliens living inside our borders. We&#8217;ve devalued the dollar to an almost unprecedented degree. We&#8217;ve opened up our job market to the entire world, driving down employment. And on and on. There are also many cultural factors that have — in many cases deliberately, by design — make marriage and family life seem less appealing to younger generations.
But there is one aspect of this new data that&#8217;s worth homing in on, because it does suggest one practical way forward. In the 1950s, roughly 90% of 30-year-olds were married, and more than 50% were homeowners. By contrast, right now, only around 50% of 30-year-olds are married, and roughly 30% are home-owners. So both numbers dropped by huge margins. But the marriage decline has been drastically more significant than the drop in home ownership. More than any other time in this country&#8217;s history, men and women are choosing not to get married. And there&#8217;s reason to believe that this broader cultural trend is what&#8217;s convincing a lot of young adults to forgo home ownership, as well.
After all, if you&#8217;re single, the prospect of paying most of your savings to a bank in the form of a down payment for a house isn&#8217;t exactly appealing. You don&#8217;t need all of that space for yourself and your dog. Before I was married, I never even considered trying to buy a home. As soon as I got married, I felt a sudden and very strong pull to buy a home and have a piece of land that we could call our own. Within about three years of getting married, we bought our first home. But for single people the financial sacrifice seems irrational and unnecessary, so if they have any extra money to throw around, they’re more likely to put it into Bitcoin or something else instead. On the other hand, if you&#8217;re intent on starting a family, then the cost of a mortgage makes a lot more sense. People can make it work, in many cases. I&#8217;ve said before that home ownership is attainable for almost anyone with a full-time job and decent credit. It&#8217;s often a matter of priorities. And as we look at the plummeting numbers of homeowners who are young and married, it&#8217;s a fact that needs to be restated. In this case, as in many other cases, decline is actually a choice.
And make no mistake — this is decline. Millions of young adults (who aren&#8217;t even that young at 30) have no skin in the game, no real stake in the country or its future. Getting married, starting a family, and owning property are the basic fundamental pillars of the American dream. They&#8217;re the starting point for a fulfilling and productive life, and a well-ordered society. As this new data reveals, most young people were able to achieve those milestones in the 1950s. But they&#8217;re not achieving them anymore. And those numbers are only getting worse by the year. Things are trending in the wrong direction, and quickly. If we want the kind of country we had in the 1950s — which is to say a country that has the potential to survive for another century — then one way or another, that needs to change.

Suburban homes photo

This One Shocking Stat Proves That The American Dream Is Dying

Economy

Gen Z

Housing

Marriage

Mortgages

Texas Governor Orders Arrest Of Democrats Who Left State To Block Redistricting Vote

The Real Reason Democrats Are Panicking About Redistricting

Census Bureau

Congress

Louisiana

Redistricting

Republicans

Texas

U.S. Politics

MixCollage-05-Aug-2025-04-11-PM-7120

Here’s The Horrifying Proof That All Cultures Are Not Equal

Child rape

Court

gangs

kidnapping

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Somalia

Melbourne at dusk

Leftists Come Up With Insane Solution To Migrant Crime

Australia

Stabbing

Hockey Canada Sexual Assault Trial Verdict To Be Delivered

Feminist Rape Hoax Obliterates Lives Of Canadian Hockey Stars

Canada

false accusations

Hockey

Judges

Sexual Assault

trial

Menu