The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 2001 - Woke Supergirl May Top Snow White Disaster

Episode Date: June 24, 2026

Prominent Democrats seethe as an Antifa cell is sentenced to prison for trying to murder a cop, a federal judge rules that the government can’t use a database to check citizenship in elections, and the lib actress playing Supergirl may dethrone Snow White in her record of needlessly insulting conservative audiences before opening weekend. Ep. 2001 - - - Today's Sponsors: Mount Titano Media - Go to MountTitanoMedia.com to get your copy of Finding Our Words: Words That Made America. Rho - If you'd like to try RHO's Liposomal NAD+, head to HTTPS://RHONutrition.com. Use promo code KNOWLES for 20% off.  - - - DailyWire+: Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://dailywire.com/subscribe Becoming a Daily Wire member allows you to see all of our content ad-free. 📲 Download the free Daily Wire app today on iPhone, Android, Roku, Apple TV, Samsung, and more. 🕯️🍹 The My Suit & Mai Tai candle is now available! https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles/products/knowles-seasonal-candle ☀️🪕🌴 This candle comes with a QR code leading you to the exclusive original My Suit & Mai Tai music video - a true gift from paradise. 🕯️ Get your Michael Knowles candles: https://thecandleclub.com/collections/michael-knowles 📘 My book "Speechless: Controlling Words, Controlling Minds" is available here: https://dwplus.shop/Speechless 👕 Don’t dress like a squish. Shop my merch here: https://dwplus.shop/MichaelKnowlesMerch - - - Socials: YouTube — https://youtube.com/@MichaelKnowles Facebook — https://www.facebook.com/michaelknowlesshow Instagram — https://www.instagram.com/michaeljknowles TikTok — https://www.tiktok.com/@notmichaelknowles X — https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles - - - Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Still waiting in line? Again? That's time you will never get back. Save time and money with Stamps.com. Over 4 million businesses have skipped the line with Stamps.com. Join them to save up to 90% off carrier rates from your computer or phone right now. Print postage for certified mail, registered mail, and packages in seconds. Then schedule a pickup right from your home or office.

For a limited time, go to Stamps.com and use code podcast for a free welcome gift. Taxes and fees apply. Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things. So why waste time sending important documents the old-fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want, with Stamps.com. Print postage on-demand 24-7 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping.

That's why over 1 million small businesses trust Stamps.com. Go to Stamps.com and use code podcast to try Stamps.com risk-free for 60 days. Prominent Democrats are beside themselves with sorrow as a Texas antifacell is sentenced to prison for trying to murder a cop. A federal judge rules that the government can't use a database to check citizenship in elections because it might purge voters. Wait a second. What? Hold on. Wait, what? You can't. Also, the actress playing Supergirl is on a quest to dethrone that liberal chick from Snow White in her record of needlessly insult. consulting conservative audiences before opening weekend. Get ready for a big supergirl bomb. I'm Michael Knowles. It's the Michael Nulls show.

Welcome back to the show. Smash that like button and subscribe. Also check us out on Spotify, where you can download full episode audio and video to watch or listen whenever you want without using your data. Do not miss an episode. Guys, the Democrat Party is the chief threat to political stability and flourishing in the U.S.

I don't mean that as just like a hack, partisan. This is the most important election in my lifetime. Something has actually fundamentally changed in the Democrat Party. You see this in the Antifa sentencing in Texas and the reaction to it. You see this especially with the wins of major Mamdani-backed candidates in New York last night. You see this in the way that they speak about the United States. You see this in the way that Democrat regular rank and file voters now prefer socialists to Democrat members of Congress. Something has fundamentally cracked.

We're now past the Rubicon of the Democrat Party, and it constitutes a far greater threat to the long-term flourishing of the United States than any foreign adversary than any discrete threat overseas. We'll get to that in a moment. First, though, some good news. We don't always get good news in politics, but here's some really good news coming out of the judiciary. We almost never get good news out of the judiciary. So let's enjoy the win while we can get it. A Texas antifacell was just sentenced to a lot of prison time, a cumulative 450 years in prison, but per person, you're looking at up to 100 years in prison for a terrorist attack that they committed on an ice facility. last year. What happened? I'm going to get with my friend Andy No, who is the expert on Antifa. We're going to do a longer interview about this. So I'll just give you the highlights here momentarily. The DOJ announced that eight North Texas Antifa cell operatives were sentenced for their roles in rioting, using weapons and explosives, providing material support to terrorists, obstruction, and the attempted murder of an Alvarado police officer at the Prairieland Detention Center last July 4th.

This was on Independence Day, symbolic in itself. The leader of this was Benjamin Haneel Song. He was convicted of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. He shot a cop. He was sentenced to 100 years in prison. There were a bunch of other people here, too. You have Maricella Rueida sentenced to 70 years in prison, Cameron Arnold, 50 years. in prison. Another 50 years to Savannah Batten, Zachary Evitz, Bradford Morris, Elizabeth Soto.

Another 30 years for Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada. It's a lot of names. There are others, though, in addition to the eight that were sentenced. There are seven others who already pled guilty prior to trial, so they will be sentenced on July 1st. Now, how is this being covered in the press? We have the Guardian here. Here we go. A Guardian article, Texas anti-ice protesters convicted of terrorism charges. Okay, that's simple enough. We have here from the New York Times a little more spin on it. Protesters accused of Antifa ties sentenced to up to 100 years in ice attack. Hold on, hold on. Protesters. People who, shooting a cop now is a protest. That's a legitimate form of protest, according to. to the New York Times, setting off explosives at a federal facility. That's a protest now, according to the New York Times. Traditionally in America, we distinguish between protests, which are peaceful, and acts of terrorism and other kinds of violence, which are not protests. Do you remember Chris Cuomo? I was just on Chris Cuomo's show a couple days ago. Chris Cuomo

infamously joked when he was on CNN. He said, during the George Floyd rights, he said, show me where in the Constitution it says that protests have to be peaceful. You say, the First Amendment, I think that's where it says it. It says the people have a right peaceably to assemble. You don't have a right to violently assemble. You certainly don't have a right to shoot cops. So the New York Times right off the bat legitimizing terrorism and attacks on police officers. So they're accused, they're protesters.

That's the first one. Then the second error here, they say they're accused of antipatize. No, no, no, they're not accused of antipatize. They were convicted of crimes using evidence that prove their antifa ties. What did they do? According to the guardian, let's go back to the guardian piece for a second. Although the charge does not require prosecutors to prove a connection to any kind of terrorist ideology. So the prosecutors, they did prove the connection in as much as they showed the evidence and the connections between all of the defendants.

But the charge, the things that they were actually convicted on, don't require them to prove the connection. Yeah, it just requires to prove the crime. Only that a defendant provided support for one of a list of several crimes, the Justice Department spun the convictions as proof that Antifa was a terrorist organization. Hold on, hold on. Yeah, when you go to trial and you're convicted of a crime, all you have to do is prove that you committed the crime. That's true. There's nothing nefarious about that.

There's nothing novel about that. That's just how the justice system works. But here the guardian is skeptical. They say, you know, come on. They're trying to spin this as proof that Antifa is a terrorist organization. Antifa has uniforms. Antifa has flags. Antifa members refer to themselves as members of Antifa.

I have personally been the target of Antifa, and two of the Antifa members were prosecuted for it, although they didn't receive anywhere near a just sentence. They received far, far, two lenient sentences. But these are card-carrying members of Antifa. How does the Guardian spin this? They say, the defendants in the case are a collection of activists who were loosely affiliated with one another through a local left-wing book club and gun group. What a euphemism for the ages. No, they're not part of a terrorist organization. They're just

part of a local political book club and gun group. So they train in radical political ideas and shooting. But it's not a terrorist organization. They're just, they're a group that meets at a place and they identify themselves as a member of a group, and they discuss radical political ideas and coincidentally shooting people. But it's not like a terrorist organization or anything like that. During the trial, prosecuted highlighted many of the zines.

These are left-wing radical political pamphlets that the group read as evidence of the conspiracy and ideology that linked the demonstrators. So the prosecutors, can you believe they did this? The prosecutors pointed to all of the ideological material that the terrorists shared with one another as proof that they shared an ideology. Can you believe that? How crazy. How radical. The evidence was met with widespread criticism from legal observers. They don't name the legal observers. What is a legal observer, by the way?

You mean a lawyer? You mean a scholar? You mean a historian? No, no. Just a legal observer, whatever that is. Widespread criticism from unnamed people. Sources say, who said that it amounted to criminalizing freedom of speech? Did they say that? This is an amazing defense of Antifa coming from the Guardian, coming from the left-wing press, because the way that the federal government is now considering Antifa is precisely the same way they consider all other kinds of domestic terror groups. This would be like saying there's a prosecution of the Ku Klux Klan for lynching a black guy. And they say, you know, these prosecutors, they were trying to suggest that these activists and demonstrators, and protesters shared an ideology.

And just because they all passed around Minkf and other materials, you know, if we're really going to prosecute them this way, it's tantamount to prosecuting freedom of speech. Well, kind of, it's just looking at speech as it pertains to political ideology. And you can't understand political ideology without looking at the kinds of things people are saying and reading and writing. And you're not even only prosecuting them for the ideology. you're prosecuting them for the crimes that they are committing, which are nevertheless connected to the ideology.

Look, it's good news. It's good news that these people are being prosecuted. I'm glad it's finally happening. This is the first big prosecution since President Trump issued an executive order declaring Antifa a domestic terrorist organization, which should have been done 10, 15 years ago. But it's at least happening now. We have prosecuted left-wing anarchists for precisely these kinds of crimes. even related to immigration, as this one was, going back over 100 years in the United States.

This was happening during the Wilson administration. This was happening in the early 20th century. Then we kind of lost our nerve for a little bit. But Republicans and Democrats alike in American history have prosecuted precisely these kinds of people, precisely because of how they destabilize the country. And because there are just crimes in themselves. What's changing here, though, is that now you have mainstream elected prominent members of the Democrat Party who are defending the terrorists, who are defending killing cops. We'll get to Rashida Talib in a second. First, though, I want to tell you about Mount Titano Media.

Go to Mount Titano Media.com. As we get closer to America's 250th anniversary, it's a simple question on a lot of people's minds. How much of our own history do we actually remember? Not the dates, not the trivia, the words, the speeches, the arguments, the ideas that shape the country in the first place. because one of the strange realities of modern education is that Americans are constantly told what to think about their history while spending very little time actually reading the people who made it. This is one of the most important things you can do. It was absolutely crucial in my own education, such as it is, is to read speeches. Read speeches, read great quotations. Winston Churchill said this. He said, the best thing for a guy without an education to do to start getting an education, read a great book of quotes. And this does it. It was very influential in my political.

education. And there's a great book out right now called Finding Our Words, the Words that Made America. I actually read one of the speeches in the audiobook of this, so I encourage you to get the audiobook. There's also Andrew Claven, Spencer Claven, Bill Whittle, who cares about any of those, with really, really important commentary from Tracy Lee Simmons and editor Alice and Ellis. Go check it out right now. Go to Mount Titano Media.com. Get your copy of Finding Our Words, Words That Made America. Mount Titonomedia.com. How does very prominent Democrat congressman Rashida Talib react to the sentencing of terrorists who shot a cop? She says these sentences are a travesty. It's a travesty to sentence a left-wing terrorist who shot a cop.

And totally unjustified. But that's the point. Americans hate the fascist Trump regime. So the only way they can try to cling to power is brute force. What are you talking about brute force? This isn't the Trump White House that was doing this. This was the judiciary in our system of checks and balances, separation of powers, exactly as the Constitution lays out. The prosecutors presented evidence, and many of the terrorists played guilty to the crimes of which they were accused. Then she goes on, she goes, NSPM 7 is a grave threat to all of us, and more BS terrorism charges like these are coming.

Now, what is N.SPM 7? NSPM 7 is the National Security Presidential Memorandum titled Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence. The left and the right have agreed for many, many decades that we need to prosecute domestic terrorism. There's nothing novel about that. There's nothing partisan about that. But furthermore, these terrorists were not prosecuted for violating NSPM 7. They were prosecuted and convicted. sentenced based on long-standing crimes that they demonstrably committed.

Like shooting a cop. President Trump did not issue an executive order that criminalized shooting cops. That was already a crime. That's what they were convicted of. It's not just her. The Texas Observer, a totally mainstream media outlet, says, this can happen to you. And if they can do it to you, they will.

from Stephen Zetti in March, the convictions of the Prairieland activists puts everyone's right to protest at risk. Today, they were sentenced to over 50 years in prison. Now, I want to just tell you what that means. When they say everyone's right to protest, what they mean by protest here is shoot cops. So it's true. The convictions here that the convictions do put everyone's right to shoot cops at risk. That's true. And the left clearly considers shooting cops a legitimate form of protest.

More broadly, the left considers political violence, a legitimate form of protest. This is why they largely minimized and even celebrated the murder of Charlie Kirk last September. They did that. They did that at all levels of the left, from elected representatives to members of the media, to the lady who sits next to you at work, not just fringe radicals, not just members of the Antifa group, Normie Libs. Mainstream media outlets, elected members of Congress defending this stuff. These guys were all convicted of normal crimes, and particularly heinous crimes, particularly

politically relevant crimes, and the mainstream left justifies it. Something has really changed. I guess I should have a caveat here. The Democratic Party has been moving in this direction for many decades. So to say that something has fundamentally changed might be arguing. too far. I guess what we would have to say is not that the underlying circumstances have changed, it's that they've just crossed the line now. For a long time, even if they were

implicitly supporting this kind of political violence, they would always stop short of admitting it in public. They would at the very least have public disavowals from their most prominent members of political violence, even as they implicitly encouraged it. But now you're getting

an explicit embrace from elected members of the party. This is the Democrats now. Look to no less a source than CNN. The CNN pollster Harry Anton goes on to describe how the Democrats have now shifted. They are no longer merely implicit socialists. They are now openly embracing socialism. Socialism in the Democratic Party is now more popular. Radicalism tied to anarchism and now openly socialism are more prominently embraced by the Democrat Party than elected Democrat members of Congress. Well, among Democrats themselves, the Democratic Socialists of America have a higher net favor than the Democratic Party does, at least those who members of Congress.

I mean, just take a look here. Dem Socialists of America plus 17 points. Democrats in Congress plus four points. No wonder that Dem Socialists are getting nominated across the political map in different primaries because simply put, they are more popular than the Democrats currently in charge. charge. How do Democrats today view socialism compared to capitalism? Match up socialism, capitalism, capitalism among Democrats. You go back 16 years ago, 2010. Capitalism and socialism right there, favorable rating, 51%, 50%. Look at it now. Socialism,

clearly in the lead among Democrats. Sixty-six percent of them view socialism favorably. Just 42 percent view capitalism favorably. So major, major shift, at least in the honesty here, at least in the candor from the Democrats. And socialism, lest anyone be confused, is not merely wishing to raise taxes a little. It's not merely wishing to expand the welfare state. Socialism is inextricable from all other forms of leftist radicalism. Socialism is not merely a more collectivist economic policy. It is a radical, revolutionary political ideology that always ends up with violence, with upending the political system. Look at Rashida Talib, who is one of the most prominent socialist members of Congress.

Rashida Talib is not merely calling for raising taxes on rich people. Rashida Talib is lamenting the fact that left-wing terrorists are being sentenced for shooting cops. That's what socialism is. It's encouraging violence against America and ordinary Americans. And this is why, when you see this shift in the mainstream Democrat Party, this is a point I have been harbored. on for many, many months now, and I have been pilloried for doing so. But nevertheless, I am totally right about this. And I will be proven right. I am being proven right day after day. Hate to say I told you so. The chief threat that you face, you, an ordinary person, whether you are a serious, conservative, ideological person, whether you are just a normy, regular person

who likes to have a good, normal way of life. The chief threat that you face is, you're a is not from some podcaster. Some podcasters have stupid ideologies, annoying ideologies. Some of them sound like total schizos. I'm not denying any of that. I'm just pointing out, the chief threat that you face

is not from some guy who has a microphone on the internet. The chief threat that you face is not from even some more normal faction of the American right that has been debating some other faction of the American right for many decades.

I'm not even saying there aren't threats there. I'm just saying the chief threat that you face is from the elected Democrats and the large constituency that elects those Democrats who are openly calling for violence against you and for killing cops and for letting terrorists off the hook and for bombing ice facilities. That's the threat. That's the chief threat that you actually face. And we can bury our heads in the sand and we can navel gaze and we can focus on relatively lower order political issues. But these guys are winning elections. These guys are

gaining power. Look what happened in New York last night. The Mamdani backed candidates won. They beat these supposedly more moderate normal Democrats. By the way, the more moderate normal Democrats were already embracing a lot of this stuff anyway. And they got blown out of the water by the Mamdani backed candidates like this person, Aber Kawas, who just won a state Senate primary and who says America is responsible for deserving 9-11. And so like, and finding that like, you know, the system of capitalism and racism and white supremacy, etc., have all, and Islamophobia have all been used to colonized lands, right, to take resources from other people. And so this is like a long trajectory.

And we're just seeing the manifestations of that continuation, right, with 9-11. And so a lot of times when people are asking us to respond about, you know, attack, right? If you look back historically, right, you know, a lot of us come from lands that were colonized, lands where wars are being waged, right? A lot of times because of U.S. policy or the policies in Europe. And so I find that we can connect over that, but then also that the idea that we have to apologize for, like, a terror attack that, like, a couple people did. And then there is no apologies or reparations for genocide and for slavery, et cetera, is something that I kind of find, like, reprehensible. And notice this argument here. Notice when she says, you know, the U.S. is responsible for 9-11, this is not the usual kind of conspiracy theorizing that you've heard from various fringe movements for 25 years now.

She is not saying that Muslim terrorists were not responsible for 9-11, that they didn't commit 9-11. She's not saying, you know, it was an inside job by George W. Bush, it was a false flag. That's not what she's arguing. she's saying yeah Muslim terrorists perpetrated 9-11 and killed 3,000 innocent New Yorker civilians

and the New Yorkers deserved it yeah no the Muslim terrorists did it for sure and they slaughtered 3,000 innocent New Yorkers but actually it was the New Yorker's fault this is a woman who just won a political primary in New York

with the endorsement of the mayor of New York who ordinary Democrat voters just voted for. It would be a lot better, actually, if this woman were coming on saying, actually, the Muslims didn't do 9-11. It was George Bush or whatever. You know, it was a false flag. It was, she's not saying that. It's much worse than that. She's saying New Yorkers deserve 9-11. I am justifying the Muslim terrorists who I believe did it. Thank you, Mayor of New York, 25 years after 9-11, for giving

me your endorsement. Not just her. Another one, Dari Elisa Chevalier, another Democrat who got Mamdani's endorsement. Here's a picture of her wearing a defund police face mask. COVID never ends. Then separately in some other picture wearing a hijab. She's not wearing a hijab with the face mask. She's wearing the hijab. I guess it's the face mask substitutes in for the hijab. It's the secular kefia. I don't know. In any case, she posts, I forgot to get napkins. So I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me, smiley face. Someone who's saying, I hate the symbol of America. I disrespected the symbol of America because I don't respect America because I hate America. She just won an election. These people should not be allowed to vote. I don't mean that

with any hyperbole or intentional provocation. It's just a fact. If you hate the country, if you think the country deserves destruction, no coherent political philosophy would suggest that you should be able to vote in that country, to participate in the civic life of that country, much less being elected official. This is not, we're not some weird parliamentary system like you have in continental Europe where crazy fringe radical parties get one or two seats.

These are Democrats. And these particular kinds of Democrats are now more popular among the normal mainstream Democrat Party than the old school suit and tie Democrats. the mask hijab burn down America Dems are more popular among the base than the suit and tie Democrats, who were already bad enough. That is the state of the American electorate right now. That is the state of the Democrat Party.

And meanwhile, we all naval gaze and we talk about things that are largely trivial, that are largely, at the very least, I should say, secondary as political threats. And we do so at our own peril. Okay. Now, speaking of voting, a federal judge has just ruled that the Trump administration cannot use a database to check citizenship because they might end up purging voters. Come again? Hold on. Wait, what? Come again.

We'll get to that in a moment. First, I want to tell you about Roe. Go to roo nutrition.com. Use code Knowles. That's R-H-O-Nutrition.com code Knowles. Modern health culture has become oddly complicated. Every week there's a new protocol, a new supplement stack, a new morning routine that apparently requires waking up at 4 a.m., plunging yourself into freezing water, and tracking 17 different biomarkers before breakfast. Couldn't be me. Mr. Davies does that stuff, ain't going to be me. Most people don't need more complexity. They need a few simple things they can actually do consistently. One of the many reasons that people are turning to rose liposomal NAD plus. N80 plus is one of the most important molecules in the body and plays a role in cellular energy production and recovery. The challenge is that NAD plus levels

naturally decline over time, especially when you're dealing with stress, travel, disrupted sleep, basically my entire life trying to sleep on airplanes. What I like about Rowe, especially you think about you, you're going to be traveling with your family this summer. You're going to be juggling the kids. You know, it's going to be rough. It's going to be fun, but it's going to be rough. So let Rowe make make it simple for you. It's a liposomal liquid, one quick teaspoon, and you're done. If you'd like to tri-rose liposomal NAD plus, go to R-H-O-Nutrition.com, use promo code Noles for 20% off. R-H-O-Nutrition.com, promo-code Noles for 20% off. I'm not even going to read the Daily Wire headline.

I'm not going to read the Fox News headline. This is the Associated Press headline. This is the regular newswire that is the most left wing of all of them. So this should be the most favorable to the federal judge, toughest on the Trump administration, says, breaking A federal judge has blocked the use of a federal database to check citizenship, saying it could wrongly purge voters. I don't think that headline is proving what they want it to prove. I don't think that headline is proving what the judge wants it to prove.

There was this case adjudicated by judge, I kid you not, Sparkle Suknananan. That's the judge's name. We now live in a country with Judge Sparkle. We have judges named Sparkle. Sparkle Suknananan. I don't know where Suknanan comes from. Don't think it came from the Mayflower. Frankly, so many of the wasps became radical libs and enablers of radical leftists. I don't know that it would improve it. But in any case, whatever the etymology of Suknanan and the ethnic origin, I don't think it bears any relation to Sparkle. But we have Judge Sparkle now. Someone named Sparkle passed the bar and became a judge. and Judge Sparkle Suknananan says that the government is not allowed to check citizenship in databases because they might purge voters. Maybe I'm a little dumb. Maybe I'm a little uneducated. I didn't go to law school. I certainly didn't go to the law school that Judge Sparkle went to. Seems to me that if a citizenship database purges voters, that would be a good thing. That would actually be one of the main purposes of a citizenship database. And one of the main purposes of voter rolls for that matter is to make sure that only people who are eligible to vote.

That is, by and large, should be 100% of the time. Citizens, only those people get to vote. That's the situation we're in. And all of these issues relate to one another. Without mass migration, you would not have Mayor Mamdani. Mayor Mamdani only won, the only one that Democrat primary, because of mass migration. and you would not have mass migration without an abuse of the law by the judiciary. You would not have Democrats rigging and stealing elections in some cases to this degree without the mass migration, muddying the waters,

and without the judges coming in and stopping the government from enforcing the law. They all work together. If you didn't have all of those things, you would not have the radicalization of the Democrat Party, and you would not have elected Democrats justifying shooting cops. Now, how are we getting all of these new citizens and voters who are not citizens? Well, according to CBS News,

just reporting now, President Trump has a plan to increase the U.S. citizenship application fee by $570. So there's a fee. If you want to apply to become a citizen, you have to pay a fee. The liberal media is freaking out because Trump is going to increase the fee to apply to become a citizen.

But there's one little caveat. See if you pick it up. Applying for American citizenship could soon get much more expensive. The Trump administration has released a new plan that would dramatically increase application fees in the U.S. citizenship process. For example, the fee for paper-based applications would increase from $760 to $1,330. The fee for all-in applications would jump from $710 to $1,200. That is a difference of $570. Thank you for doing that much for us.

And importantly, the plan would also eliminate fee waivers and fee reductions for low-income immigrants who are, again, requesting U.S. citizenship. Now, it's important to underscore that the changes will not take effect immediately and the public will be able to weigh in during a public comment period for and against a rule in the next 60 days. The Trump administration argues that the fee hikes are necessary to fully recover the costs of adjudicating and processing. and processing applications. But critics say the administration is erecting yet another barrier for legal immigrants who are trying to secure American citizenship. Okay, so it says, this is crazy. You want to apply for U.S. citizenship?

You have to pay $1,300. It's crazy. Hold on. No one has a right to just gain U.S. citizenship, to acquire U.S. citizenship, first of all. U.S. citizenship confers on it untold financial benefits to say nothing of legal privileges. And for that, the government asks, we used to be $7,800 now it's about $1,300 to apply for that. That would be the greatest investment anyone could possibly make. Forget about buying Bitcoin in 2006.

Forget about buying Tesla in 2010. $1,300 to acquire U.S. citizenship. If you're a citizen of Uzbekie, Becky, Becky, Stan, Stan, if you're a citizen of some African or East Asian backwater, that is the greatest investment anyone could possibly make, the ROI is higher than anything Warren Buffett's ever gotten. And they're saying, well, it's too high. Thirteen hundred bucks is too high. But then that's not even the craziest part. The craziest part is what he says there at the end. He goes, and this policy would eliminate fee waivers for lower income people who want to apply to become citizens. In other words, we currently have a welfare program for foreigners.

to become citizens. We, I have to, I haven't had a cigar this morning. I need, I can't let, I'm, I'm doing a lot right now. I've got a little bit of stress. I don't want my blood pressure to get up too high. We have a welfare program for foreigners to become citizens to get more welfare. The purpose of immigration, the chief purpose of an immigration program in a state, the chief purpose, is to bring in people who will contribute to the country. It is when a group of citizens, when the citizens and the body politic say, we would like to bring these people in because they will be good for our country, they will help us. There are other minor secondary matters like political asylum or temporary refugee status or whatever. We're talking about citizenship here. He said, we want you to help us.

We have now flipped that on its head. we say we're going to take in people and not just even take them in and give them residency, we're going to give them citizenship. People who we know will immediately be a net cost to our country. We will have to forget about criminality. We're going to have to pay them. We're going to bring them in here so that we have the privilege of giving them more of our money so that they can mooch off of us.

But no, that's not even enough. We're going to give them welfare just to get them here. And almost more shocking than that, the mainstream liberal media are whining about it, that we might reduce the welfare for the foreigners to come here to get more welfare. Boy, oh boy. Boy, oh boy. Seems to me we have, whenever you think America's political problems, we've reached like peak political dysfunction for a first world global hegemon, you don't, you have, take a seat. take a seat and keep reading. Okay, speaking of poor financial decisions,

I need a little palli-cleancer to some of these political issues. Let's turn to culture. There's a new Supergirl movie coming out. I don't even really know what Supergirl is. You know, I'm not the biggest cartoon comic book guy in the world, but these are very big movies. They're kind of the last big movies that anyone makes anymore. And the star of Supergirl is doing her level best

to make this movie the biggest box office bomb since that chick decided to promote Snow White by offending every normal person in America. We'll get to what the actresses named Millie Alcock. We'll get to that momentarily first. So flash deals are live now at dailyware.com slash shop. Huge discounts and select Dailyware classics like my best selling yes or no game. The conspiracy politics and relationships expansion packs. The deals are so big.

Some might even call them prime these discounts. only last until Thursday. That's tomorrow. Midnight Eastern. Do not wait. Dailywire.com slash shop order now. My favorite comment yesterday is from Dovey, who says, whoa, didn't realize how much I missed the old intro music.

Yeah, that was fun. I actually, I couldn't see it at the open of the show yesterday. So at the end, it caught me by surprise. Yeah, this show's been on a long time, man. Isn't that crazy? Isn't that great? Much to Ben's consternation. No, Ben came on the show yesterday.

We had a good time. this show's been on for like eight or nine years now, 2,000 episodes. And that old music, it goes hard, man. Dun, dun, dun, da, da, da, da, da, da. I agree. Should we bring it back? Should we bring it back?

Is everything old new again? Is it vintage now? I don't know. Maybe we'll bring it back. Let me know in the comments if we should bring it back. Speaking of popular media, Supergirl is coming out. This is supposed to be the big movie release of the year.

Maybe other than Toy Story. This is supposed to be the big, big movie release. here is the star of Supergirl explaining what the movie is about. Question online about Cara's queerness in the comics. Was that something that you explored when you were preparing for the wrong? It wasn't, but in honor of Pride Month, as I'm getting all these questions. I don't know. I think that what makes this film so beautiful is that it's not centered around a man.

It's not centered around love it. If anything. But we'll see. I don't really. I think no, but I don't know. I don't know. It's great. She'll probably go both ways.

Now, this is almost a perfect repeat of what that girl, Rachel Ziegler, did when she was, she was starring in the live action, Snow White, and they insisted upon racially diverse casting. So that's why we called it sand beige instead of Snow White. But that was the least of the leftism, frankly, because she went out and went viral for saying, you know, this Snow White movie, this isn't about love. This isn't about Prince Charming. This is about a strong, independent woman being a girl boss. That's what audiences want to see in Snow White.

But this is almost a perfect repeat of that from this lady, Millie, Alcock. But she has a little Freudian slip here where she says, look, in honor of Pride Month. Because this is Pride Month. I just want to point out this movie has nothing to do with love. And I love this because I was on Pierce Morgan Show when I was in the UK a few weeks ago. And I was debating pride with a more LGBT activist type. And he said, Michael, you're wrong when you say Pride Month is about promoting weird sex stuff. It's not about promoting weird sex stuff.

It's about love. It's about love. That's why we have the weird leather parades in the streets with the paddles and the freaky stuff. And it's about love. But then this gal just admitted it's not. She goes, in honor of Pride Month, this has nothing to do with love. This is just about sexual ideology. There are no men. This is a superhero movie. Why would you have men in a superhero movie? This is about brute strength and battles. And why would you have men in that? That has nothing to do with men. And why would you have love in a narrative story in a movie and especially in a movie about salvation? What does love have to do with salvation? Now, I recall hearing that love is actually one of the theological virtues and the greatest of them without which we have nothing. That God, God himself,

self is love. I remember hearing that. She's a way, we don't need love. Okay, so she does that bit. Then, speaking of the battles and the man and the brute force, she's asked, who, who wins in a battle? Supergirl or Superman? Who's going to win? You versus Superman? I'm going to win, but it's because he's going to let me win. Because he is. No, I'm not working. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But you're also stronger. But I'm stronger. Objectively. Objectively stronger, so I'm in a Because this is this obviously contradictory, but there was a little bit of reality there. With her, there are a little reality peaks out in these comments. Who would win in a fight?

Supergirl or Superman? Supergirl? Okay, it's kind of cute. She's all my character would win, and it's ironic because everyone knows that isn't the case. But then she goes, but I'd win because he would let me win. Okay, well, that makes more sense. Yeah, I guess that's true. But then she goes, no, but I am stronger.

And now you can't, now she's contradicting herself. You can't tell. But whatever she thinks about the character, this has been the argument. from all these big superhero movies and sci-fi movies for the last 10 years. This is really what destroyed Star Wars is, and South Park parodied this. And they had Kathleen Kennedy as Cartman, right, and say like, I know what we'll do to the movie. We'll put a chick in it. We'll put a chick in it and make it lame and gay.

And we're going to put a chick in it. And that's how they changed all the movies to the point that in the new Star Wars movies, you get some little girl who's fighting the new Darth Vader character, and she's winning on strength. I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't, it's just not true. I remember asking this of a millennial, a younger millennial, but a millennial, this was 10 years ago. We were talking about gender equality and fighting and all this stuff. And I said, hold on. You don't, you know that men are stronger than women, right? You know that. And he looked at me like I was crazy. This is a guy who was somewhat conservative.

He goes, no, are we, no, I mean, some men are stronger than some women. I said, hold on, that's not what I said. Men, just men, are stronger than women. Full stop. Like the strongest woman ever, like maybe, maybe could kind of push around the weakest man ever. Maybe, but like even then, probably not. They said, no, what are you talking about? He didn't believe that. Younger millennials and Gen Z largely believe that men and women are physically, basically indistinguishable. That's why they've embraced the transgender ideology. But it's not true. Someone even said, well, women in many ways are stronger than men. Okay. She goes on. she was being criticized for all of this wackiness and for potentially destroying the box office on this movie. And what did she say? Did she say, oh, yeah, my bad. I don't mean it.

I'm just getting a little over my skis. No, no, but it's going to be a fun movie for everybody. No, no, no. She derides her critics as Christian dads of four. She saw all these people, forget about them. They have these social media accounts. It says, like, Dad of Four, Christian. So the enemy for the superhero movie are Christian dads of four,

Christianity, obviously the biggest religion in the country, and dads, people who have kids, kids, the people who go see these movies. She says, those are the people I hate. And she goes further. She goes, I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? If you're pissing off the right kind of people, you're doing okay, the right kind of people being the audience for this movie. I am really excited to see the box office come in for this movie. Don't forget, Snow White, which pushed in some ways a tamer version of this same thing. kind of press tour. Snow White was a box office nuclear bomb. It was Hiroshima and Nakasaki combined. It bombed. It got $205.6 million globally. It had a production budget of $336.5 million. That's not counting all of the P&A, everything else that went into it after the fact. Snow White, which we call sand beige, cost the studio an estimated $170 million in losses.

And that might be scratching the surface for Supergirl, which I don't intend to see. I will go see Toy Story because my kids love Toy Story, and I hope they didn't ruin Toy Story. It was fear with the new movies that come out of beloved older franchises. You just fear that they're going to ruin it. But maybe I'll have a review next week. I'm hoping they don't ruin Toy Story. In any case, Supergirl ain't reserving my ticket. So much more to get to.

I have so much more to get to, but I don't have time because we're about to have a very exciting member of segmentum. I have a very fine, very wonderful guest on. The show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code, NOLES, KNAW-L-A-S, at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.