Ep. 77 skewers Hillary Clinton’s Harlem pledge of "$22T in welfare since LBJ’s War on Poverty" failed to cut black poverty, blaming the ’60s cultural revolution—not racism—for urban decline. Mocking Obama’s flip-flop on Supreme Court confirmations and Trump’s "107% approval," it frames politics as absurd theater while exposing BLM’s exploitation of police shootings (most cleared) and "white privilege" myths. The host argues two-parent households slash poverty rates more than policies, linking O.J. Simpson’s trial to a broader culture of dependency, then pivots to static modern storytelling—like Limbo—mirroring society’s stalled progress. [Automatically generated summary]
In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, President Barack Obama says the Constitution is clear.
According to Article 2, Section 2, the president has the right to appoint a new Supreme Court justice, and the Senate must confirm him, or the president is allowed to tap his scepter three times against the ground and summon dragons who will lay waste the cities of the Midwest.
The White House later issued a clarification saying that only some of those provisions are in the Constitution, while the rest are actually in Game of Thrones, but that if Antonin and Scalia were alive today, he would want us to interpret Game of Thrones according to its meaning in the original Dothraki, so the president is still allowed to summon dragons.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had threatened not to schedule hearings on a new Supreme Court appointee, responded to the president's press conference by issuing a statement, which read in part, quote, stop the pressure.
Please stop.
I can't stand it anymore.
All right, all right.
I'll call for a confirmation hearing, but I refuse to confirm the appointee.
All right, I will confirm him.
Just please stop the pressure.
I can't stand it.
Really, I was only joking about not holding hearings.
Can't you tell when I'm joking?
Please, I'm sorry, okay?
I didn't mean it.
I'll confirm anyone.
A gay abortionist would be fine, I swear.
Just please stop, stop.
End quote.
Senator McConnell then drove over to Harry Reid's house and gave the Senate minority leader a gift of a Rolex Yacht Master watch and left his Mercedes in the driveway saying, you keep it, Harry.
I can walk to the Senate, but we're friends, right?
In other news, Donald Trump's positive poll numbers doubled so that he now has the support of 107% of the Republican Party.
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
You know, recently, recently, I had this idea.
You know, in my day job, I'm a novelist and a screenwriter.
I had this idea that was so outlandish.
I decided, you know, I think I'm going to try and sell this as a graphic novel.
So I did.
I pitched it and I sold it.
I teamed up with an artist.
I pitched it.
Now I have to, you know, when I leave here, I go home every day and I write the script for this graphic novel.
I sit there thinking, you know, it's outlandish.
That's why I sold this as a graphic novel.
It's got this, you know, futuristic city and this genetically modified Hitman and all stuff.
And I'm thinking, this is actually more plausible than what's happening.
This is more believable than what I'm reading in the newspaper.
So at least we're entertained, right?
A lot of you are whining about the death of the Republic and the last, oh, we're losing the last best hope on earth.
But I mean, come on, that's entertainment, right?
That's why we're here.
We're here to be amused.
Actually, this is true.
Part of my idea of heaven is, you know, obviously we'll have the 72 virgins, but I mean, that's in the Bible, right?
So yeah, yeah.
You think the guys who wrote the Koran had ever actually been with a virgin?
You know, you think you'd really, in heaven, you'd really want like one virgin and 71 party girls, you know, like one virgin who can cook, and then the rest are just, never mind, a little theology, a little theological discussion here.
I totally forgot what I was talking about.
See, in Christianity, you just get two weeks in Miami and a brand new Pontiac.
It's more like Wheel of Fortune or something.
What was I talking about?
Oh, yeah.
My idea is that one of the things you do is you get a TV and you get to watch the rest of history without, but it all makes sense, right?
Voting Decisions and Politics00:14:40
Because you realize that beyond suffering, there's this wonderful paradise and that God is good and he makes sense and everything makes sense.
So you just get to watch it as pure entertainment because it really is amazing.
So, you know, I told you that now the left, Obama, the news media, the Senate, the entertainment media, everybody, anybody who can get anywhere near a television camera or a microphone is now going to start to create this emotional atmosphere where the worst thing you could ever do, the worst thing you do is try and hold up a president.
Who would do such a thing as hold up a president's Supreme Court nominee?
And yesterday we saw Chuck Schumer saying one thing now and another thing.
So now, first of all, here is Obama addressing the Republicans on this issue.
Go and boil your button, sons of a silly person.
I'll blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English niggas.
He does a good French accent, doesn't he?
All right, stop messing around, will you?
Come on.
All right, play the round.
This is the press conference Obama gives yesterday about the Supreme Court vacancy.
The Constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now.
When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is to nominate someone.
The Senate is to consider that nomination.
And either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the Supreme Court.
Historically, this has not been viewed as a question.
There's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off ears.
That's not in the constitutional text.
I'm amused when I hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the Constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there.
There is more than enough time for the Senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that I present and to make a decision.
But wait.
Do not wait.
In 2006, President Obama George W. Bush named Samuel Alito to the court, and then Senator Obama stood up and said, tried to join a filibuster.
And he said, and this is in the congressional record, it's quoted in the Daily Caller.
This is Obama speaking in 2006 about Alito.
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee, that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view.
I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent.
I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent, and that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record.
I will vote no and urge my colleagues to vote no on this confirmation.
It's like, rubro, it's the same thing as with Schumer.
So now at the press conference, this was amazing.
At the press conference, somebody gets up and accidentally asks him a hard question.
This never happens.
I don't know, I couldn't identify this reporter.
And this is just my take on it.
He looked like he thought he was teeing the president up.
It looked like he thought he was giving him a slowball down the middle, you know, just so he could attack these silly Republicans who were bringing up the Alito thing.
And the president can't handle the question.
So let's watch this question and answer.
How do you respond to Republican criticism that your position is undercut by the fact that you and other members of your administration who were in the Senate at the time tried to filibuster Judge Alito in 2006?
You know, the look, I think what's fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party.
This has become just one more extension of politics.
And there are times where folks are in the Senate and they're thinking, as I just described, primarily about, is this going to cause me problems in a primary?
Is this going to cause me problems with supporters of mine?
And so people take strategic decisions.
I understand that.
Huh?
He just says, like, pay no attention to that Senator Obama behind the curtain.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
The Queen has spoken.
Essentially, the answer to that question, if you listen to the answer to that question, is what he's saying is, well, I'm dishonest and two-faced, and I say whatever I want to whenever it suits me.
Next question.
So this goes on.
All right, so now just let's pull up one more quote from this press conference in which Obama now addresses the upcoming election, the primaries.
I'll leave it to you to speculate on how this whole race is going to go.
I continue to believe Mr. Trump will not be president.
And the reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people.
And I think they recognize that being president is a serious job.
It's not hosting a talk show or a reality show.
It's not promotion.
It's not marketing.
It's hard.
And a lot of people count on us getting it right.
And it's not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day.
And sometimes it requires you making hard decisions even when people don't like it and doing things that are unpopular.
If you're actually, if you've subscribed so you can watch this, that little flickering back was the Mideast going up in smoke.
It's hard.
Just, oh my goodness, what was that?
Something's happening.
But I wanted to play that cut because I think this may be the first time in the last seven years the president actually said something.
And I thought, yeah, I agree with that.
It is hard.
Trump can't do the job.
And I don't think he's going to be president.
I think that Trump has got, you know, the thing is, everybody who's voting for Trump, who is going to vote for Trump, is voting for him already.
Every single person who's going to vote for Trump is now voting for him.
And it's not enough to get him into the White House.
So if he gets the nomination, you know, Hillary or whoever the Democrats run will be president.
So now, Trump immediately had this response to Obama.
What Ted Cruz did to Obama, where he said that Obama had quit the race and take our votes, right?
Is that right?
Carson.
I'm Carson.
Carson.
Carson, Obama, all those Midwesterners look alike to me.
They're both from the Midwest.
How do you tell them apart?
The corn-fed Illinois boys?
All right.
So speaking, let's move on and speak about Midwesterners here because as we say euphemistically, Midwesterners.
Because now the Democrats are moving into this state, you know, for the weekend primary that has got a lot of black voters.
And so they're fighting over the black voters.
And of course, Bernie Sanders is closing in.
I mean, everybody thought like, I thought, I thought that Bernie Sanders would be finished after New Hampshire.
They're going down into the South.
There's, you know, black voters, they turn up for the Democrat machine.
They've been voting for the Democrat machine for years.
That's just going to continue.
But the polls show it's closing.
So they're getting desperate.
So Hillary Clinton goes to Harlem, where she had heard that there might be some black people, I guess.
And she goes in and she gives an address.
So here's part of her address in Harlem.
me.
Too much to say.
What the hell are they cheering about?
She's a woman's dying.
You know, that goes on for three minutes.
Three minutes.
And it's like the second or third time it's happened to her.
Something is wrong.
I shouldn't be laughing, but I mean, you know, they're cheering and it's like, yeah, hey, our power candidate is dying.
Why am I cheering?
I don't know.
It's like the Democrats.
The Democrats are running these people who are so old.
They're just lucky.
They're just going to collapse.
And it's like, and all you hear is, we're not going to go back to the past because I know, because I was there.
It was there.
The horses in the street.
There was, you know, before the car, before they invented the horseless carriage, I tell you, it was terrible.
We're not going to let those Republicans take us back then.
The Republicans got these guys who were like 40, 50 years old.
And the Democrats are like, I don't want to go back to the past.
It was, I was there.
So, all right, let's see what she really says as she's kowtowing, pandering to black people in Harlem.
Despite our best efforts and our highest hopes, America's long struggle with race is far from finished.
For many white Americans, it's tempting to believe that bigotry is largely behind us.
That would leave us with a lot less work, wouldn't it?
But more than half a century after Rosa Park sat and Dr. King marched and John Lewis bled, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind.
Here's the bottom line as I see it.
When we make direct strategic investments in communities that have been left behind, and when we guarantee justice and dignity to every American, then we really can make progress, lasting progress, progress that will catapult us into the future.
We can reduce poverty.
We can build ladders of opportunity.
So I'm proposing a comprehensive new commitment to equity and opportunity for African American communities.
That means a real plan to create jobs.
If I'm elected president, we will direct hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments to places like Harlem and rural South Carolina.
Hundreds of billions.
I wonder what that comes out to provoke hundreds of billions of dollars.
I mean, this is what some black leaders call this, the Democrat plantation, where they keep you on these programs.
I defy Hillary Clinton.
I defy Hillary Clinton to name one program that has improved the lives of black people.
Okay, one.
This is, you know, since 1964, when LBJ declared the war on poverty, the government has spent something like $22 trillion in these programs.
Poor $22 trillion.
That's in, I think, 2012 dollars.
Okay, so it's modern dollars.
$22 trillion.
That is an unimaginable amount of money.
Now, I have a chart.
Do you have that chart?
This is a chart of poverty.
That little vertical line is when the war on poverty begins.
Poverty was going down.
You can see the war on poverty begins Zippo.
Nothing.
What happens, those little bumps in the road are good times and bad times.
In bad times, poverty goes up.
In good times, poverty goes down.
Nothing.
There has been no effect on the war on poverty.
It has just kept the people who are being paid to have bad behavior in that bad behavior.
I have this friend, great guy named Myron Magnet.
Show a picture.
I have a picture of Myron Magnet.
You can't see this, but he has these two mutton chop sideburns.
You have to think to yourself, how intelligent do you have to be to get away with cyberburns like that?
I always tease them that they're really a clamp to hold his brain in his head because it's just so enormous.
He's a brilliant guy, and all he has done is study a lot.
Some of what he has done is study a lot of this.
He was the editor of City Journal for the Manhattan Institute.
Now he is their editor-at-large.
He's writing on his own.
And he has written a lot about the war on poverty.
And he points out that in 1964, two things, two big things happened.
One was the Civil Rights Act passed.
And as I recall, a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it because all the Dixiecrats didn't vote for it.
But that passed.
And that just said, no more discrimination.
It's now against the law to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, or national origin.
That was the Civil Rights Act.
Huge deal, okay?
Sprung, set people free from generations of Democrat-created Jim Crow, set people free from the Democrats who were trying to keep them segregated, ended all that stuff.
I mean, that stuff was real.
People who were young don't remember.
That was real stuff.
You could still go into the South and see bathrooms that a black person couldn't use.
I mean, it was a genuinely bad thing, okay?
Here's Myron Magnet writing about what happened when these two things, the War on Poverty, 1964, the War on Poverty and the Civil Rights Act.
The result of the Civil Rights Act was dramatic and unequivocal.
Beginning in the mid-60s, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly.
While in 1960, one in three blacks aged 25 to 29 was a high school grad.
By 1972, the percentage had doubled to two out of three.
The percentage of black college grads also doubled.
Job status and pay showed a corresponding improvement during the 60s and 70s.
Narratives In Flux00:13:38
The proportion of black working women, on and on.
Things went, got better.
But even as the opportunity opened by the Civil Rights Act resulted in such dramatic gains for the vast majority of black Americans, the condition of a minority of blacks, perhaps one in 10, markedly worsened in the years after 1964.
So much so that a recognizable underclass, defined by the self-defeating behavior that kept it mired in intergenerational poverty, became entrenched in the nation's cities.
However small a minority, the new underclass was so spectacularly visible because of the blight and disorder it created in the nation's cities that pundits of all kinds spilled oceans of ink trying to explain its origin.
What's clear in retrospect is that racism can't be to blame, since just at the moment that the underclass came into existence, the Civil Rights Act was permitting blacks to flood into the mainstream.
In addition, the 1960s economic boom makes it hard to ascribe the growth of the underclass to a lack of jobs.
So there's a boom going on.
The nation has reached pretty much a consensus that this black, you know, this prejudice against black people, it's got to come to an end.
So it can't be racism.
It's not the lack of jobs.
Says Myron, blame instead the enormous changes unfolding in American culture in exactly those years.
The sexual revolution, the countercultures, contempt for the system, the celebration of drugs dropping out and rebellion.
When this change in our nation's most fundamental values and beliefs filtered down from the elites who started it to those at the very bottom of the social ladder, the consequences were catastrophic.
The new culture devalued virtues that the poor need to succeed and celebrated behavior almost guaranteed to keep them out of the mainstream.
The war on poverty certainly didn't cause the 60s cultural revolution, quite the reverse.
It was itself the emanation of the new culture's worldview, but it played such a decisive role in the formation of the underclass because it was one of the principal channels through which the new worldview got transmitted to the worst-off Americans.
At the heart of the war on poverty, listen to this, at the heart of the war on poverty was the utterly debilitating message that the worst-off were victims, that the larger society, the system, rather than their own behavior, was to blame for their poverty, their crime, their failure.
So when Hillary Clinton gets up and says racism isn't over, she wants to make sure that they don't get off their backs and say, I am the captain of my ship.
I am the master of my fate.
He wants to make sure that doesn't happen.
The black people are just being hit by a narrative, a dishonest narrative, right?
The Democrats live on the illusions of the poor.
They live on the illusions on the poor and they live on the fears of black people.
They live on the dishonesty of Black Lives Matter activists.
They complain about black shootings, okay?
The Washington Post did a study of every shooting, every police shooting of last year, of about 800-plus shootings, maybe 850-something shootings.
5% of those shootings, 40 of them about, were outside of the realm of the cops were under fire.
They were outside of the realm where it was obvious that the cops were being shot at.
They fired back.
They killed the guy.
That's 5%.
40 shootings last year took place when there could be a possible question.
It's almost none, almost none of these shootings.
And that doesn't mean those shootings were bad at all.
It doesn't mean they were bad at all.
It means the police said this guy was running at me.
He came at me.
He was making a gesture.
He went into his pocket.
He cried out a curse and then pulled out his hand and I thought he was going to shoot me.
Those are the things.
And those are the things, how many of these things that Black Lives Matter have turned into riots, have turned into cost-solebs, that Obama and Holder and the Justice Department have turned into big deals.
All of them, so many of them, not all of them, but so many of them, except for maybe one or two, have been cleared.
The cops have been cleared, and yet they keep feeding this thing out to people.
The poverty, you know, they keep talking, now they're talking about white privilege, one of the stupidest ideas ever to come down the pike.
We can't make ourselves better, so you have to make yourself worse.
You have to surrender whatever is good in your life to make me better.
That's going to somehow make me more equal.
That's going to even out the score.
Dennis Prager, the wonderful Dennis Prager, writes a piece in the National Review in which he completely explodes this white privilege myth, because of course it's white people who are killing themselves, you know, and white men who don't represent that big a part of society are just killing themselves in huge numbers.
But what he points out is that two-parent privilege trumps everything.
Prager says the poverty rate among two parent black families is only 7%, so it's a little higher than the overall poverty rate.
But the poverty rate among two parent black families is only 7%.
Compare that with a 22% poverty rate among whites in single-parent homes.
The two-parent home is the decisive privilege.
It really is.
I mean, you go in prisons.
I've been in prisons, and this is the one thing you see, that what links one cell to another is not the color of people's skins.
It's the fact that they have no fathers.
So that confirms what Myron said, that this is a question of behavior.
You know, there's a show on TV right now about O.J. Simpson, the O.J. Simpson trial.
And I didn't want to watch it because it's written by a guy.
What's his name?
Jeffrey Toobin, who is just a stone left-winger.
He's a friend of Vela and Kagan, the left-wing Supreme Court justice.
He called Clarence Thomas a nut, you know, and all this stuff.
So he's writing this, Lee.
But it's just based on that.
And so far, I've seen the first two episodes.
So far, it's been pretty fair.
I mean, it's a little too nice to Johnny Cochran for my taste, but still, it's been pretty fair.
And it shows this sense in the black community that they are hard done by, that they are the victims of police oppression.
So that when this killer, this man who just about cut off the head of two young people, goes running down the highway in that famous white Bronco, they're cheering him on.
What do you think it does to people?
What do you think it does to children when murderers become their heroes?
What do you think it does to children when they're told that they can't succeed because everyone's against them?
You know, I'm going to move into stuff I like.
I didn't have time to do stuff I like because I want to keep talking about this idea about narrative and stories, the things that people are being told.
Because I keep ranting about how conservatives don't like this.
They don't like stories because stories are really about emotional intelligence.
They're really touching on something that's not a fact.
It's just an experience.
But that's what life is.
Life is not facts.
Life is experience.
It's what the scientists call qualia.
It's the sense of being here.
And I've noticed that something is happening to our narratives.
You know, if you grew up in the Middle Ages, before there was technology, think about how many stories you might hear by the time you were maybe 16.
You know, probably not that many.
Probably, you know, a countable number, you would have heard a countable number of stories.
You know, maybe your mother would tell you stories at night.
Maybe there'd be a fair and you'd hear a story.
And probably a lot of them would be the same stories over and over again.
Compare that to your life now, where there's so many stories and some of them are true, and you can't really, they all kind of blend together.
The stories that you hear that are true and the stories that are just there as a way of touching on the emotions of the experience of living, they all kind of blend together and they've all gotten confused together.
And new technologies have created new kinds of storytellings.
And one of the most important ones, obviously, is television.
We've just come through a golden age of television.
I think we're sort of tapering off now, but a golden age of some of the greatest, you know, some of the greatest stories really in American history have just been told on television.
And one of the things about the way a television show is structured is a normal story is about a one-off event that changes the protagonist.
Hamlet, or destroys him.
Hamlet is revealed because he's put in the one situation he can't deal with.
He's indecisive and he's told to make a decision and act without enough proof.
Othello in his play acts on almost no proof.
If Othello had been in Hamlet, the play would have been over in 10 minutes.
Avenge your father, that would have been the entire play.
And so it's really about a certain man at a certain moment whose character is revealed by the events that precede.
And Joseph Campbell, the famous mythographer, the guy who kind of supplied the thinking behind the mythology of Star Wars, he studied myths his whole life.
He wrote a famous book called The Hero with a Thousand Faces.
He said that these myths, stories, were a way of checking your progress in life.
That when you turn to a myth, if it's about a young man killing a dragon and winning the princess, you say, well, where am I on that chart?
Have I killed my dragon?
Have I won my princess?
This is where I am.
But in television, television stories are much more like real life.
The events change, but the characters stay the same.
If you're on a network TV show, you might solve a million murders over the course of three years or five years or however long the show lasts, but your character is going to develop a little bit the way real human beings do, but he's not going to go through that shocking change.
If you go back and watch The Sopranos, the David Chase, the famous David Chase HBO show, which really was at the heart of the golden age of television, that's the theme of the show.
Watch the show carefully.
That's the theme of the show.
The theme of the show is that nobody ever changes.
That things happen.
People say they're going to change.
People think they have revelations, but everybody stays the same.
They stay true to their nature.
And that's why the show ends in this famous way.
It just blacks out.
It doesn't have a resolution.
It just is over.
Because what he's basically saying is this is your character.
You're stuck in it.
Then you die.
That's the message of television shows to some degree.
Now, that's changing a little bit as you start to have these limited series where you have a series like Breaking Bad, where the guy does go through a development.
He does develop and it has ramifications and you see it.
The shield was the same way.
But there is this thing in television that is so popular of stasis, of basically that you never change.
And now I mentioned this a little bit a little while ago because I wanted to do this week stuff I like about video games that I like.
And I've noticed that video games are just kind of in a trough.
They're not really developing.
The reason I think that's happening is because games are a medium of storytelling, right?
You go in and you fight the battle, you know, you fight the zombies and you get to the end and the helicopter comes and lifts you out and the story is over.
They are a medium of storytelling, but they are primarily a way of gaming.
And gaming is an open-ended system.
Will you live or will you die?
Will this character live or will you die?
You don't know because it all depends on how fast you move your thumbs on the controller, right?
So there's a tension between the gameplay, which is open-ended, and the narrative, which by nature has to be told.
A narrative is locked in.
It has authority.
That's where it comes from author.
It is authored.
And they used to talk a lot about this in the 60s and 70s.
They used to have these series.
How will we free storytelling from the tyranny of narrativity, they used to say?
How will we free it from the tyranny?
You can't.
You can't free it.
You can have different endings.
Some of these games have different endings.
But basically, when people hear a story, they want to be told a story.
So to solve this problem, I've noticed that a couple of very creative gamers have started to tell stories that are amorphous, where they don't really, I was talking the other day about the room, and it has this narrative as you're getting through this room solving puzzles, but you can't really tell what it is.
You know, you can't really, I could not sit down and tell you what the first, second, and third act of this story is.
It's just a sense of threat and a sense of danger.
And the video game I want to recommend today and stuff I like is called Limbo.
We have a screenshot of it.
And you can see on the screenshot that it's this kid lost in a fog of, you know, with threatening things and little monsters come and big spiders chase him and all this.
And you have to solve the puzzles, which are just terrific.
I mean, it's one of the most entertaining games.
You can download it on your, yeah, JHA has given me the thumbs up because it's just terrific.
You can download it on your iPhone or your iPad, or I think I'm sure it's on Android too, and you can get it on your computer.
But the thing about it is, is that it's not a narrative in the sense that we know he's getting through this narrative.
We know that he's going through this threatening place, but we don't know how he got there, why he's there, or really what's going on, or where it is.
And I can't help but think that, you know, culture is weird.
Culture both reflects society and affects society.
It's kind of culture, a good metaphor for it is like you're standing in a pool looking at your reflection in the water.
You know, it's showing you yourself, but you're also immersed in it.
And that's the way culture is.
So it's hard to know whether this is just a solution to the problem of gaming storytelling, or if it also reflects something in the society that we don't have stories anymore because we don't have old-fashioned stories anymore because we're not advancing.
And you can't advance if you don't know where you're going.
You know, you can go ahead and die.
You can get old and die.
But if you don't know where your destination is, you can't advance.
How do you know if you're advancing?
And I think that that's reflected a little bit in these games.
And I think it's reflected a little bit in our country in the fact that these narratives are put out to people that, yes, we're progressing, but we never get there.
We never get there.
The blacks never get to the point where they say, okay, okay, you know, it's over now.
Never Truly Arrive00:00:50
Nobody hates, you know, sure, there are individuals who hate people because they're black.
They're bigots.
They're always going to be bigots.
The government doesn't hate you anymore.
The government isn't in your way anymore.
No government is in your way.
No institution is in your way.
You are on your own.
You can do it.
You can do it.
They never tell that.
It's much more like these video games where they stick you in there forever.
You don't know where you are.
You don't know how you got there.
You don't know where you're going and you're never getting out.
And that is the narrative that the Democrats are selling to blacks.
And they're buying them.
They're buying them.
But the price of being bought is dependency.
That's the end of the show.
And tomorrow, we're going to try something different if we can.
I'm not promising, but I want to do an interview.
I've wanted to have at least one interview a week on the show, so we're going to try and do it tomorrow.