Ep. 61 dissects Sarah Palin’s Trump endorsement as a desperate Tea Party pivot, exposing white working-class despair over lost manufacturing jobs and opioid crises amid Obama-era QE wealth hoarding. It contrasts Clinton’s unpunished SAP email leaks—despite Inspector General McCullough’s confirmation of deaths-risking breaches—with Petraeus’ prosecution, hinting at a targeted smear campaign. Palin’s populist rhetoric, despite Trump’s elite ties, signals the GOP’s collapse under economic betrayal, leaving figures like Cruz and Rubio obsolete unless they address voter rage. [Automatically generated summary]
You know, friends, this is a strange and often frightening time.
Islamists are murdering people around the world while our leaders refuse to call them what they are.
In politics here at home, the Democrat frontrunner is ever more deeply involved in scandal, while a Tea Party leader is endorsing a Republican frontrunner who's really a Democrat frontrunner.
At times like these, it's easy to become confused and begin to wonder, who am I supposed to hate the most?
Should I hate my enemies for trying to kill me?
Should I hate my opponents for being corrupt?
Or should I hate my friends for betraying their principles and stabbing me in the back?
Do I blame poor blacks for complaining instead of getting their acts together?
Or do I turn on rich whites for being blind to the problems of the middle class?
Or should I just hate the Jews because, well, because they're the Jews?
It's times like this when I like to remember the words of Jesus Christ, who said, all you people suck.
And when I come back, I'm going to blow your butts to kingdom come so fast you'll think you're on a rocket ship to hell.
Maybe that wasn't Jesus Christ.
Maybe that was me.
It was right before I lost consciousness last night, so I no longer remember very clearly.
But the point is, if we all just stand together as one and move hand to hand into the future, it's going to be very hard to fit through the door.
So basically, it's every man for himself.
Good luck.
Watch your back, because if I get even half a chance, so help me, you're a dead man.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Oh, if you folks only knew how hard we work to bring you these monologues.
It only took about 10 readings to get that one right.
And it's so true.
What a day yesterday was.
What a mess.
I mean, really.
So we have, we're going to have to talk about this whole Sarah Palin thing.
Very, very upsetting, I think, for a lot of us.
And also, you know, it could be a dramatic turning point.
It could be a change of pace.
But before we get to that, one of the things that really annoyed me more than anything about the Sarah Palin thing is it took the attention away from the fact that yesterday was one of Hillary Clinton's worst days ever.
I mean, it was a genuine mess.
So I have a take on both these things that I think is different than you're going to hear elsewhere.
I haven't heard anywhere else.
So let's take a look and maybe it'll be original and have something to say.
You know, obviously Hillary Clinton had this terrible day.
It started out with this Fox News exclusive.
Fox got hold of this letter from the intelligence community, Inspector General Charles McCullough III.
So here's their report on their website.
Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.
Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter sent January 14th from intelligent community inspector general Charles McCullough III, or I Charles McCullough III.
It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified several dozen additional classified emails, including specific intelligence known as special access programs, SAP.
And these SAP things are the top, this indicates a level of classification beyond even top secret, the label previously given to two emails found on her server and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.
This is SAP, the special access program, is stuff that like if you find out about it, people get killed and some agent in some foreign land gets killed.
So the left is trying to play this down and say, well, she didn't send these emails.
They were just in her email batch and they weren't classified SAP at the time.
But of course, that's utterly beyond the point.
The whole point of using government email servers is that they're supposed to be protected instead of leaving this stuff out that we don't know.
You know, she didn't know whether it was going to be classified or not, leaving this stuff on a private server that we know was hacked by China and Germany and all this stuff.
So this is just like another example of Clinton's kind of royal privilege that she is going to do this stuff her way no matter what.
Okay, so first of all, we go back and there's the lie.
Remember last year, we have a clip of her and this is where she started.
This is the position she started from when this first came out about her private server.
I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.
There is no classified material.
So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
Okay, so that's the first thing.
So we see that, you know, she's backed off of that as the stuff has come out.
But we see that she's taken a position, she's taken the furthest position, and she comes inching out every time she has to say something.
And now it's all she's back at the vast right-wing conspiracy.
They're just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, blah, This is not why I thought it was such a bad day for her, though.
Listen to this, okay?
This is still from the Fox Report.
According to court documents, former CIA director David Petraeus, we all remember General David Petraeus, he was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs, these SAPs, with his biographer and mistress, Paula Broadwell.
At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs with the understanding, quote, unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.
Okay, so he signed a document saying this.
This is the guy who won the war in Iraq before Obama lost it.
This guy who engineered the surge.
He signed a document swearing he would keep these things protected.
Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement January 22, 2009.
So both Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, you know, signed this document and Petraeus lost his job over this.
Now, the same day this falls, this letter falls into the hands of Fox News, the same day, the Daily Beast gets this leaked scoop.
This is a Daily Beast exclusive.
The Pentagon is considering retroactively demoting retired General David Petraeus after he admitted to giving classified information to his biographer and mistress while he was still in uniform.
Three people with knowledge of the matter told the Daily Beast.
The decision now rests with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who is said to be willing to consider overruling an earlier recommendation by the Army that Petraeus not have his rank reduced.
Such a demotion could cost the story general hundreds of thousands of dollars and deal an additional blow to his once pristine reputation.
The Secretary is considering going in a different direction from the Army, a defense official told the Daily Beast, because he wants to be consistent in his treatment of senior officers who engage in misconduct and to send a message that even men of Petraeus' fame and esteemed reputation are not immune to punishment.
Okay, so this is four years later, right?
And this is the general, probably right now, the most accomplished general in America, most accomplished living general, one of the most important generals since World War II.
He took the hit.
He confessed that he did wrong.
He, you know, lost his job.
He stepped down.
And now four years later, and the Army said, this, look, don't, like, don't torture the guy.
You know, he's taken his punishment.
Leave him alone.
Four years later, a leaked story hits the Daily Beast that they're considering demoting him.
Okay, on the same day that this letter is leaked to Fox News saying that Hillary Clinton, who signed the same document as General Petraeus, leaked, you know, leaked the same kind of information.
So in other words, Petraeus is about to be punished even worse for doing essentially the same thing, but not as bad as what Hillary Clinton did.
And this is all suddenly being linked.
At the same time, today, a story hits the New York Times that is on a different Clinton scandal.
90s scandal threatened to erode Hillary Clinton's strength with women.
And this thing is on the front page, and it contains to me what is an enormous stab in the back to one of the New York Times' big icons, Lena Dunham, right?
I mean, this is the left's darling, Lena Dunham.
And it says, this month, Lena Dunham, wearing a white blue and sweater dress, whatever, whatever, with the word Hillary blazoned across the chest, told voters how Hillary Clinton had overcome sexism in her political career.
So she's making a speech about Hillary Clinton and saying, you know, they were always trying to attack her for being a powerful woman, blah, And then the Times goes on, but at an Upper East Side dinner party a few months back, Ms. Dunham expressed more conflicted feelings.
She told the guests at the Park Avenue apartment of Richard Plepler, the chief executive of HBO, that she was disturbed by how in the 1990s the Clintons and their allies discredited women who said they had had sexual encounters with or been sexually harassed.
The conversation relayed by several people with knowledge of the discussion who would speak about it only anonymously captures the deeper debate unfolding among liberal-leaning women about how to reconcile Mrs. Clinton's leadership on women's issues with her past involvement in her husband's effort to fend off accusations of sexual misconduct.
So Lena Dunham goes to a party where friends of the editors of the New York Times, if not the editors themselves, because let's face it, these are all the same people.
They're all going to the same parties.
They're all in the same place.
I mean, New York City, remember, is basically four blocks in the middle of Manhattan.
You know, the rest of New York City is just where those weird little people live.
You know, that's not where the people of the New York Times live.
They live on 57th Street, you know, in Midtown, basically, 57th down to around 32nd.
That's it.
And they're all going to the same parties.
So Lena Dunham is blabbing off the record at a party.
And the New York Times is now reporting that she herself, this big Hillary supporter, is having problems with the way Hillary acted.
And then the Times goes back and details this.
Now, remember, this is Hillary Clinton who sent out that tweet.
Every woman who complains about being sexually harassed deserves to be heard and deserves to be believed, okay?
Now listen to the Times report on how she behaved during the Clinton sex scandals.
Much of her involvement played out behind the scenes.
This is Hillary Clinton.
Much of Hillary Clinton's involvement played out behind the scenes and was driven in part by her sense that right-wing forces were using the women and salacious stories to damage her husband's political ambitions.
Her reflex was to protect him and his future.
And early on, she turned to a longtime Clinton loyalist, Miss Wright, to defend him against the allegations, according to multiple accounts at the time, documented in books and oral history.
So this is stuff they've had all along, right?
But suddenly it's on the front page.
We have to destroy her story, Mrs. Clinton said.
You have to picture that with a German accent.
We have to destroy her story, Mrs. Clinton said, of one of the first women to come forward during her husband's first presidential campaign, Connie Hamsey, in 1991.
According to George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton administration aide who described the events in his memoir.
Three people signed sworn affidavits saying Ms. Hamsey's story was false.
When Jennifer Flowers later surfaced, claiming that she had a long affair with Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton undertook, quote, an aggressive, explicit direction of the campaign to discredit Ms. Flowers, according to an exhaustive biography of Mrs. Clinton, a woman in charge, by Carl Bernstein, the Great Watergate reporter.
Finally, Mrs. Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who had an affair with 42nd president as a narcissistic looney tune, according to one of her closest confidants.
Ms. Lewinsky later called the comment an example of Mrs. Clinton's impulse to blame the woman.
And it is kind of devastating stuff to be on the front page of the New York Times when Clinton is sinking in the polls next to Bernie Sanders.
I mean, Bernie Sanders just came into New Hampshire at something like twice.
You know, he had like 66% to her 30%, something like that.
And the New York Times, let's face it, is an arm of the Democrat Party.
The New York Times is an arm of the upper class of the Democrat Party.
It's this left-wing rag, basically.
I keep calling it a former newspaper because it once actually was a great newspaper.
And it still has great reporting, but the way the stories are arranged and where they're put.
So it's leaked that Clinton did the same thing that Petraeus did.
It's leaked that Petraeus is about to be punished even worse for the things he did, that he was caught at four years ago, the same things that Hillary...
And then the New York Times is attacking her.
Now, I'm not one of these people who thinks that Obama is like a puppeteer.
You know, sometimes when you hate powerful people, you think they're more powerful than they are.
And a lot of people on the right think Obama is this kind of puppeteer who is pulling the strings of every event that happens.
And the reason I know that's not true is because that character doesn't actually exist in reality.
There is no person who's like that in reality.
That's a character that exists in fiction, but not in truth.
So Obama is just a guy like everybody else who sometimes things get away from him.
Sometimes things are out of his control.
I don't think that the Obama administration is targeting Hillary Clinton.
I think he's allowing this to happen, and I think he's had enough.
I think there is no way, I believe, that Obama is going to sacrifice his legacy and his reputation to pardon Hillary Clinton if the FBI and Comey come in and say, you should indict her.
And I think what he's doing is he's sending that signal.
You know, remember that story, I think it was in the New York Post of Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office screaming at him, call off your dogs, Barack.
Call off your effing dogs, Barack.
There's no love loss between these two people.
And this really does sound to me, I'm not like, I don't go for big drama for the simple reason that most days pass without much drama, and if you string enough undramatic days together, you're dead, and then other people are going to worry about the drama.
So I'm not always predicting dramatic things, but this really does seem that there is a locomotive coming down the track and about to run this woman over and that Obama is going to stand back and let it happen.
And I didn't see anybody else link those two stories together, the story about Petraeus and the story about this letter, but it seems to me that that's a very orchestrated thing.
And that, you know, it's just, like I said, it's not trying to kill her.
It's not an assassination attempt.
It's just signaling the public that she's going down.
And Obama is going to have a ready-made explanation for why he's not going to help her.
Conservatives And Money00:09:33
All right, now let's turn to this incredibly annoying story about Sarah Palin, Tea Party Queen, endorsing Donald Trump, king of Donald Trump, king of Donald Trump land, okay?
So I'm not, I was never a huge Sarah Palin fan.
I mean, I thought she was unprepared for her nomination to the vice president.
I thought Saturday Night Live, it was a fair hit on her that she did not know what she was talking about, and she came across as stupid.
But I always kind of liked her.
I always thought like she was kind of, I liked her kind of offhand hatred of the establishment, both the Republican establishment and the press and all this stuff, and her just utterly offhanded courage in sort of telling them to blow it out their ears.
I mean, I just always admired that about her, and I thought that was great.
And so I did what I think most of us did, is I sort of set her up as an attractive, you know, hilarious and admirable conservative icon.
But this, you know, I've made no secret about how I feel about Donald Trump and what my problem was with Donald Trump.
You know, Trump is a government healthcare supporting, abortion-supporting, eminent domain-loving crony capitalist who is playing on justifiable nationalist anger and fear among people, white-collar, blue-collar workers who have lost their jobs and who are angry at having their country disrespected by our own government and having our borders disappear and having people come in and take their jobs and on and on and on.
So he's, you know, Trump is playing to that to get his hands on power.
I think he's a bad candidate.
I think he'll lose a general election.
But never mind all that.
I just don't think he's a conservative, and I am, okay?
So it tells us something.
I mean, we have to ask ourselves when Palin and the Tea Party, essentially, I mean, the Tea Party she leads, when they turn to Donald Trump, because the Breitbart site, which has always been a Tea Party site, has also been turning to Donald Trump.
And it makes you wonder who is Sarah Palin and who is the Tea Party now.
And the other thing, the other mistake I don't want to make, I don't want to make this mistake when you say, why is Palin supporting him?
When people do things that you don't like, one of the classic errors in judgment you can make is to attribute your ideas to the facts, your assessment of the facts, and the other guy's ideas who you disagree with to his psychology.
You know, it's like, oh, he just says that because his mother never loved him when he was a kid, you know, or she's just, or to some kind of cynical motive, like Sarah Palin's just playing, you know, for the, I mean, let's just take her at his word.
Let's take her at her word.
Let's assume that Sarah Palin wants to endorse Donald Trump.
So let's ask why.
First of all, let's listen to her.
Play that first, the first cut.
This is part of her endorsement.
A very disturbing speech, I thought.
He's been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system, the way that the system really works.
And please hear me on this.
I want you guys to understand more and more how the system, the establishment, works and has gotten us into the troubles that we are in in America.
The permanent political class has been doing the bidding of their campaign donor class.
And that's why you see that the borders are kept open for them, for their cheap labor that they want to come in.
That's why they've been bloating budgets.
It's for crony capitalists to be able to suck off of them.
It's why we see these lousy trade deals that gut our industry for special interests elsewhere.
We need someone new who has the power and is in the position to bust up that establishment to make things great again.
It's part of the problem.
You know, one of the things I hated about this speech, first of all, that voice, I mean, that was not the voice she had when she was nominated for vice president.
And it is so shrill and so annoying.
You know, it's just, you could cut glass with it.
It's really, really an irritating sound.
But also, her use of catchphrases that were really popular, like drill, baby, drill, and going back to the community organizer, a point she hit again and again, just several times throughout, maybe four or five times, she hit those phrases that people like to hear from her.
It's such a manipulative and empty speech in that way.
But what you hear her saying there is, you've been cheated, but you've been cheated by the establishment, and you've been cheated because the borders are open and the rich have cheated you.
Okay?
Now, traditionally, we conservatives, we don't mind the rich.
I mean, I understand that the rich can be just as evil as the poor because all people can be evil, but we figure the rich make jobs and the rich, you know, build stuff, and they're good for the country.
And we don't really think about the rich as like strangling them people.
Play just one more cut of her, the second one, the second cut.
But now what they're doing is wailing, well, Trump and his trumpeters, well, they're not conservative enough.
Oh my goodness gracious.
What the heck would the establishment know about conservatism?
Tell me, is this conservative?
GOP majorities, handing Obama a blank check to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood and illegal immigration that competes for your jobs, and turning safety nets into hammocks, and all these new Democrat voters that are going to be coming on over the border as we keep the borders open and bequeathing our children millions in new debt,
and refusing to fight back for our solvency and our sovereignty, even though that's why we elected them and sent them as a majority to D.C.
No, if they're not willing to do that, then how are they to tell us that we're not conservative enough?
See, what's so confused about that, it's not confusing, it's confused, is that the people who are, the conservatives, people like me, who are complaining that Trump isn't a conservative are not the establishment.
You know, the establishment hates Trump for a number of reasons, and they will, she's right, they will bring up the fact that he's not a conservative, hoping to use any argument against him they can.
But the people who are the conservatives who are complaining that he isn't a conservative have been at odds with the establishment for years.
I mean, we've been in this death struggle with the establishment.
The establishment hates us.
We're the guys they call the looney birds or whatever, you know, John McCain said about us.
It's guys like Ted Cruz they hate.
They say they like Trump better.
Of course they like Trump better.
He's much more likely to cozy up to them and keep the crony capitalist system going.
I mean how could she sit there and attack crony capitalism standing next to Donald Trump?
I mean even Trump says he's a crony capitalist.
One of his pitches to the people is, you know, I know these people.
I've been in corrupt dealings with them for years.
You know, they're all corrupt.
They're as corrupt as I am.
You know, like, don't, you know, don't be silly.
That's his actual pitch.
You know, I know corruption.
I am corrupt.
You know, that's his pitch.
Let me just talk about a minute about the Obama administration and what has been happening in the Obama administration.
One of the things that nobody talks about, because it's so complicated and so painful to talk about.
We love to talk about politics, you know, like Sarah Palin is manipulating this one and doing that and going against this.
We love to talk about psychology, what she's thinking, what he's thinking.
But we hate to talk about the facts and money because it's complicated.
It's hard.
It's really hard.
The Obama administration, and it started before in the Bush administration, to stop the economy from going down the drain, they basically made money free.
They cut interest rates to virtually zero.
And what does that do?
It makes it, you don't want to, there's no reason to save your money, right?
So you don't save your money.
And you can get easy loans because you're not paying any interest on your loans.
I mean, I refinance my mortgage.
Why not?
Get the cheap money.
So you're not saving any money and you're spending more money.
And that's supposed to jumpstart the economy.
Now, personally, by the way, I don't agree with that.
I think saving is always better for the economy.
Encouraging people to save is always better in the long run.
But okay.
So they run out of interest.
You can't bring interest rates down lower than zero, right?
You can't like, you know, you can't make it pay the banks basically.
So the interest rates are at zero.
So now they have this thing, the quantitative easing.
Remember this?
QE1, QE2?
And that's where essentially the government goes to their computers and says, oh, we have, you know, $2 in the bank.
We'll make it four.
I'll just type in a four there, you know?
So now the government has $4.
And we're going to take those $2 extra dollars that we just made by tapping in this thing, and we're going to give it to the banks.
And they did this, it was about $4.5 trillion, okay?
Now, the problem, and I know this is complicated, but just like hang in for just a second.
The problem is, if that money goes to you, if you get that money, then everything becomes more expensive because suddenly you start spending money like crazy.
If it gets out into the general economy, then you start, we get hyperinflation because there's so much weird, you know, empty money there that was just created with a couple of keystrokes that everything becomes expensive.
So they just give it to the banks, and the banks invest it in the market, and the market soars.
And who's in the market?
Luddite Fallacy Fears00:04:55
You know, the 1%, the 1% of the 1%.
And so for the past seven years under the Obama administration, there has been this massive transfer of wealth.
You know, they're always talking about wealth redistribution.
This was wealth redistribution, and it has all gone to the upper classes.
It's all gone to the upper classes.
So when you see, when Obama gets up and he talks about, oh, the stock market is doing great, the stock market is doing great.
They've pumped all this money into it, and now it's starting to fall off because of oil prices, but they pumped all this fake money into it, and it's all going to the upper class.
It's all going to the 1%.
Okay, so Obama gets up and he gives the State of the Union and he brags about how the economy is doing.
He points to the low unemployment rate.
And here's Michael Gray in the New York Post.
Under this White House's job recovery program, the U.S. added roughly 1.5 million bartenders and wait staff while losing an equal number of manufacturing jobs, according to Job Creators Network figures.
The middle class has seen the wholesale export of good-paying jobs while on the hook for crushing mortgages and higher taxes to pay down the growing U.S. debt.
So all those jobs that they've been creating are, they're not bad jobs, but they're not good jobs.
They're replacing good jobs with lesser jobs.
Now here's David Frum in The Atlantic.
The Center for Immigration Studies released its latest job study.
This is, I think, from 2009, but it's still relevant.
They found that even now, almost seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans are working than in November 2007.
So it's not that long ago.
It's 2014.
The peak of the prior economics cycle.
Balancing the 1.5 million fewer native-born Americans at work, there are 2 million more immigrants, legal and illegal, working in the United States today than in November 2007.
All the net new jobs, all the net new jobs created since November 2007 have gone to immigrants.
Meanwhile, millions of native-born Americans, especially men, have abandoned the job market altogether.
So we know these people are in despair, right?
We know that the white working class is in despair because we know they're killing themselves.
We know they're taking heroin.
We know they're taking scripts.
They're dying like flies.
It's worse.
Their mortality rate is getting to be worse than what was always considered the worst mortality rate, which was poor black people.
And the left is saying to them, we know what the left says to them.
It says, screw you.
The left says, you're clinging to your Bibles and your guns.
You're white.
We hate you.
You know, to hell with you.
You know, you stink, basically.
But what has the right been saying to them?
You know, the right has been saying, oh, free markets will help you.
The right has been saying, let us help the millionaires and the millionaires will help you.
Capitalism will help you.
And these guys are saying, yeah, if it's helping me, how come I got no job?
How come I'm a waiter when I used to be a factory guy?
How come I'm running deliveries when I used to have a good job?
So what are you guys talking about over there at the Wall Street Journal when you're saying immigration is not the problem, illegal immigration?
And they say it every day.
They pound it on their editorial page.
Immigration, that's my job.
Back in the turn of the century, on the 18th to 19th centuries, during the Napoleonic Wars in England, there was this group of people called the Luddites.
And you may have heard the term Luddite to mean somebody who doesn't like the future, somebody who wants to live in the past, who's kind of primitive, a Luddite.
But the original Luddites were English weavers who saw the new weaving machines coming in and thought that's going to cost us our jobs.
And they started to break them.
They started to break the machines.
And that's who the Luddites were.
They said they were started by a guy named Ludd.
Nobody really knows where the term Luddite comes from.
But they started to break these machines.
And it was really bad.
So the British ultimately made that a capital offense.
You could get hanged for doing it, okay?
Economists have this thing called the Luddite fallacy.
And Obama is guilty of the Luddite fallacy.
Obama thinks that technology costs people jobs.
Remember, he says the ATM's a bank teller who loses a job.
Well, economists know that, in fact, better technology creates jobs because it creates cheaper goods.
More people can buy them.
More people have to produce them.
So there are more jobs.
But what the Luddites knew, okay, was it's not their jobs.
It's not their jobs that are going to be saved.
It does create more jobs, but it's not their jobs.
And if the jobs are going to China and if the jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants, it doesn't matter to you whether the economy is getting better.
It doesn't matter to you whether the goods are cheaper or not.
So the right, with all their think tanks and all their brains about the economy and all their fact-based thinking about the economy, have, you know, the left hates these people.
The left hates these people.
The right doesn't hear them.
And even worse than that, the right doesn't see them.
It doesn't know they're there.
And it thinks they're dumb and it thinks they just don't get it.
And they keep coming out and saying, no, no, we're helping you by helping your boss.
And these guys are saying, guess what?
Jungle Adventures and Mind War Triology00:03:09
We've had enough.
And they're angry.
And these people are Sarah Palin's people.
And they have always been Sarah Palin's people.
The reason the Tea Party has never coalesced into a genuine party is because it's always been in co-hate.
It's always been incoherent.
All they know, all they know is that they're losing stuff.
They're losing stuff.
And nobody is helping them.
And so they have never formed around anybody.
And now they're forming around Donald Trump.
Sarah Palin is not betraying anything.
Sarah Palin is not being cynical.
Sarah Palin is serving her constituency and handing it over to Donald Trump.
She's wrong about Trump's nature.
She's wrong about what he'll do, but she's not wrong about his message.
And she's not wrong about who he's talking to.
And if guys like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio don't get on this train, they are going to be left behind by a genuine demagogue, a genuine guy who is not going to be good for America.
I'm absolutely sure of that.
So that's my take on yesterday.
And it was a wild day, and it was a wild take.
Stuff I like.
Better to talk about stuff I like.
And before I get to stuff I like, let me just one more time plug my, I've been talking about adventure stories all week, so let me plug my adventure story.
Yeah, Game Over, the last book in the trilogy of the Mind War trilogy, it was named yesterday, I think, one of the 10 best Christian young adult novels of 2015.
I guess the whole Mind War trilogy they were talking about in one of the Christian websites.
I think it was Christian Top Christian Titles, Christian Top Titles, something of 2015.
So it was one of the 10 best.
It's about a kid who is basically injected into a video game to save America.
And it's cool.
So the last book is called Game Over.
The trilogy is called Mind War, and they are all available wherever excellent books are sold.
If they're not selling excellent books, they won't have it.
Stuff I like.
We've been talking about jungle adventures.
I can't end without mentioning the ultimate jungle adventure.
And you may laugh about this, but Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Most people, do you have the Tarzan?
Most people know only one thing about Tarzan.
We have an actual clip.
It's your last clip about Tarzan.
This is what they know about Tarzan.
Okay, skip the movie.
And skip the Disney movie.
And skip the remake of the modern movie.
The Disney movie wasn't so bad.
I like the score of the Disney movie.
The novel, it's a long series.
It was first published in 1912, okay?
I was in a country house of a friend once, and he had all these old books, and I just pulled it off the shelf.
It is, have you read it?
Have you read, Jay?
Oh, it is one of the great, great adventure novels of all time.
The first three books in the series are just spectacular.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Forget everything you know about it.
Just read the book.
It's so amazingly entertaining.
You will devour it, and you can devour the next two, and then it gets a little silly.
But those first three books are just some of the best adventure writing ever done.
I think I'm finished.
I think I can go home.
I'm going home now.
Goodbye.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
But come back again tomorrow because we'll still be here and we will do this again.