Ep. 120’s Trans is the New Black pits North Carolina’s HB2—banning transgender restroom use—against Loretta Lynch’s civil rights lawsuit, mirroring Jim Crow comparisons while Governor McCrory defends it as sex-based policy, sparking $77M in corporate backlash and FBI ISIS warnings. Satirical figures mock the debate’s performative outrage, but host Andrew Clavin pivots to Trump’s "five moral transgressions," from inciting violence to praising Putin, calling them "genuine evil" beyond policy flaws, while dismissing Clinton’s corruption as less damning—leaving voters with a "painful moral dilemma." [Automatically generated summary]
The Justice Department is now suing the state of North Carolina over the state law that would bar men who think they're women from using bathrooms meant for women who think they're women and a right because they're, you know, women.
Attorney General Blandley Sinister told reporters, quote, if the state of North Carolina can tell a man he's not a woman, then pretty soon dogs won't be cats, cars won't be trees, and beef won't be celery, and that's just not a world I want to live in.
If we can't make transgenderism the civil rights issue of this decade, then we're going to have to figure out how to fix the economy and fight terrorism, and let's face it, there's not much chance of that, unquote.
Transgender activist Burley Q. Molesto told reporters, quote, even though I still have a man's sexual equipment, I dream of having just the sort of soft, full, magnificent breasts that I would love to put my hands on.
If I were a man, which I'm not, believe me.
But if I were, I'd never be able to get enough of me.
1960s civil rights activist Reverend Ashton P. Racecard issued a statement saying, quote, this reminds me of the 1960s when brave black men who endured segregation faced violent resistance in order to win the right to identify as black women who endured segregation.
I was so impressed with their courage that I've been identifying as black ever since, and it's been a terrific living for me.
I don't mind saying, I mean, you should see my car.
Do you think a white man would be able to afford a car like that?
I don't think so, unquote.
Presumptive Democratic nominee for corrupt president Hillary Clinton said she would also join the fight to make sure sexually deviant men could use women's bathrooms and locker rooms.
Mrs. Clinton told reporters, quote, I will not rest until every single little girl in the state of North Carolina has been molested by some crazy dirtbag.
Mrs. Clinton, who is herself a harpy who identifies as a human being, says she fears there could soon be state laws that would prevent her from sweeping down out of the night sky and tearing men's souls out with her teeth.
Presumptive Republican nominee for absolutely disgraceful president Donald Trump also came out against the North Carolina bill.
He said, quote, this bill would prevent creepy men from sneaking up on younger women in areas where those women cannot easily call for help, which, let's face it, is my entire game at this point.
We here at the Daily Wire feel the Justice Department's suit raises many very serious questions.
For instance, what the hell is going on around here?
And when's the next train?
Back to reality.
Let's put it this way.
If you're waiting for that reality train, I hope you broke something to eat.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin show.
All right, we almost made it.
Oh, boy, oh boy.
We're descending back into madness, folks.
And you can hear it right here.
And you could see it here.
You could watch us descend into madness.
If you would only subscribe and send us your questions tomorrow, we hope to have our first mailbag.
We have a mailbag.
Yay, we'll have a mailbag.
You can only send in questions if you subscribe.
So subscribe and send in questions.
Now, today, I got a lot of tweets and emails over yesterday's show saying, oh, you're descending into Trump derangement syndrome.
And you used to be sensible, but now you're just bashing on Trump.
Today, toward the end of this program, I'm going to lay out for you exactly in absolute detail, seriously, in specific detail, why I feel the way I feel about Donald Trump.
I think I called him something like a clownish reptile.
I want to explain in exact detail why I would say that, because I don't just want to throw names at him.
There is something on my mind about Donald Trump, and I'm going to be very specific about exactly what it is.
But first, let's take a closer look at this thing in North Carolina.
Now, there's this bill, I think it's called HB2 or something.
They're just calling it the bathroom law.
And what it says, it was a bill to counteract a Charlotte North Carolina bill that demanded that transgender people be allowed into bathrooms.
And all this bill says is, no, businesses don't have to do that.
And if you are a government facility, you do have to bar transgenders.
Men should use men's rooms, women should use men's rooms.
So in the monologue that I almost got through, I called Loretta Lynch blandly sinister, and she is one of the most sinister public officials.
And everything she says comes out in this kind of school marmish, like she's explaining math to you, you know, like she's explaining just ordinary, the most basic thing.
And she's the most politicized, dishonest, creepy Justice Attorney General we have ever had.
I mean, does anybody think, just for instance, that if the FBI comes back with all this information about Hillary Clinton and says there ought to be an indictment, does anyone on earth think that Loretta Lynch is going to act without reference to political pressures?
I mean, she is just a complete political animal, and yet she talks to us like we're in first grade and she's just explaining the moral law to us.
And it really is offensive.
So let's listen to how she puts forward this lawsuit against North Carolina.
Action is about a great deal more than bathrooms.
This is about the dignity and the respect that we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we as a people and as a country have enacted to protect them, indeed to protect all of us.
And it's about the founding ideals that have led this country, haltingly but inexorably, in the direction of fairness, inclusion, and equality for all Americans.
This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation.
We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation.
We saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education.
And we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.
And that right, of course, is now recognized as a guarantee embedded in our Constitution.
Oh, yeah, the founders wrote it right in there, right between the Bill of Rights, right under the free speech and the freedom of religion.
It was like gay people get married.
Federal Fallout: Defining Sex and Gender00:06:31
You know, I don't know.
If I'm a black guy, she's telling, you know, it's like, yes, black people, you're exactly the same as Tranny's.
You know, your fight for freedom is exactly the same as a guy trying to get into a girl's room.
And even gay people, you know, I talk to gay people all the time and they say to me, you know, it's not really the same thing.
You know, I mean, it's like a gay person, a gay person is, I believe, probably born a gay person and has these desires.
And maybe I'm not, listen, I'm not hating on transgender people.
Maybe they're born that way too, but it's still, it still endangers the majority.
I'm hating on the government, not on the people themselves.
I mean, the people themselves really, you know, some of us have problems that make it uncomfortable for us to live among other people.
The government can't always fix that.
The majority has rights too.
So, you know, just to give you an example of something that really bugged me today, dozens, there's a story today in the Wall Street Journal about the fact that ISIS is now putting out kill lists of ordinary Americans.
They're just picking names off the internet, people who sound like they might be important to them because maybe they wrote a newspaper article or they're married to somebody who ran for office or something like this.
Could be you, could be me, could be anybody.
So they're just putting out lists of people saying, if you like ISIS, kill this guy.
You know, kill his mom, kill this dad, kill this kid, you know, whatever.
They're just putting out lists of people.
So these investigators for the FBI and the NYPD, these law officers, have to go out and they get a list of like 2,000 people and they spend hours and hours and hours calling them up and warning them that they've been put on this kill list and they're wondering if they should be spending their time like this.
So here's the Wall Street Journal, just a little bit of this story.
Dozens of investigators spent a week individually notifying the people on the list.
Among veteran counterterrorism officials, there is disagreement about how seriously the U.S. government should respond to such lists, officials said.
Within the NYPD, many officials believed the list didn't call for notifications of individuals because there was no credible threat to their safety.
While at the FBI, a number of officials argued that they should be notified out of an abundance of caution, the official said, because nobody has been killed yet on these lists, but they list come out.
And one federal counterterrorism official said, How would you justify not notifying 2,000 people if just one of those 2,000 ended up being hurt or killed?
So here's a guy who works for the federal government, maybe a girl who works for the federal government, I don't know, we'll call him a guy just for ease.
Gets up, puts on his shoes, pats his dog on the head, maybe kisses his wife goodbye, and goes in and worries about each one of these people spending hours of his time, just so you don't think that everybody in the federal government is wasting our money and our time, suing sovereign states to tell them who should use their bathrooms.
You know, I mean, that's not the way the government is.
There are people in our government still who are serving us and doing this, and that's why this blandly sinister attorney general that we have is so offensive to everything the government should be doing, everything they should be spending money on.
So that's the only reason I know there's a little bit of a tangent, but that's the only reason I bring it up because there are people in our federal government who we love who are doing great things, you know, and doing exactly what a federal government should be doing, which is keeping us safe from other people, not from ourselves and not from our states.
Okay.
So this goes beyond just the lawsuit because of course there are all these businesses.
First of all, the federal government can deprive North Carolina of billions of dollars, transportation money, university money.
They're studying, you know, how can we strip them of money to punish them for this evil deed that they have done of making men's rooms men's rooms.
And on top of that, there are all these businesses who are virtue posing by saying, well, we're not going to move our business and we're not going to give you this job and all this.
So here is Chris Wallace talking to the governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, about how he's going to withstand this onslaught.
But let's take a look at the fallout from this law.
PayPal canceled a 400-job operations center.
This is since the law was passed and you signed it in March.
Deutsche Bank shelved plans for facilities that would have employed 250 people.
One study found the law has cost North Carolina $77 million and 1,750 jobs.
Governor, you say you're not going to risk money.
All this has happened just since March.
Well, let me first say North Carolina has had the greatest economic recovery in the United States of America more than any other state.
This isn't good.
But since I've been governor, let me finish the sentence, Chris.
And then, second, I need to say PayPal, for example, is kind of selective hypocrisy and selective outrage.
This is the same PayPal company that did business in Sudan, did business in Iran, does business in Saudi Arabia, and they're lecturing North Carolina because the majority of North Carolinians, I believe, think a man who's a man ought to use the restroom that is on the door.
And the same thing applies to women.
And this is especially true in our schools, in our junior highs, in our high schools.
This is a basic change of norms that we've used for decades throughout the United States of America.
And the Obama administration is now trying to change that norm again, not just in North Carolina, but they're ordering this to every company in the United States of America starting tomorrow, I assume, or Tuesday, and also making this an order for every university in the United States of America.
See, the state is suing back, so that's the interesting point.
The argument of the federal government is that this is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which says you can't violate, you can't discriminate on the basis of sex.
Okay?
And what North Carolina is saying is by sex, we mean sex.
I mean, men are men and women are women.
And they are accusing the federal government of overreach by rewriting, essentially rewriting the law out of the Justice Department.
What McCrory said is if the federal government wants to pass a law redefining sex, redefining gender as whatever you think you are, and thereby opening our bathrooms to anybody in our locker rooms and our girls' locker rooms to anybody who wants to go in, let them do it.
But they haven't done it, and the law really just says there's no discrimination on the basis of sex.
And by the way, if it's not discriminating on the basis of sex to have a woman's room for women and a men's room for men, I don't see why it's discriminating on the basis of sex to make men use the room for men and women use the room for women.
I think this Justice Department are bullies.
I think that she, Loretta Lynch, is a fake.
I think they have done everything they can to overtake local law enforcement with federal law enforcement with disastrous results for localities with high crime.
Dilemma Of Conservative Leaders00:15:25
And I think that this is a complete distraction from the failures of this administration to handle our economy and to handle the threat of terrorism.
And the governor is absolutely right while they're lecturing us on how nice we should be to Muslim nations that treat women like absolute chattel.
They should be leaving the sovereign state of North Carolina to decide on its own who uses its bathrooms.
It's absolutely absurd.
And it's even just a distraction.
It's obviously just a distraction because it's, what is it, how many people are there like this in America who are worried about this?
Eight.
You know, so anyway.
All right, so back to the Trump Wars, as we'll call them, the Civil War, Captain America First Civil War.
You know, as I said yesterday, I was very hard on Trump and I was kind of dismissive of him, you know, and I've been using, I was name-calling and all this stuff.
And so people were yelling at me and they were saying, you know, why are you being like this when Hillary is so much worse and all this?
And I've been detailing some of the ways that people are thinking about this.
And I myself have still not decided how I'm going to use my one little vote that I have and how I'm going to, what I'm going to stand for exactly.
But I do know how I feel about it.
And I want to point out that the reason there's a lot of guys, if you'll notice that a lot of people of a certain age, a lot of guys of a certain age, and a certain intellectual bent, guys like Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hansen, me, are saying basically, you know, we're taking our time, making up our mind.
And there's a reason for that.
It's like after you reach a certain age, it suddenly dawns on you that moral certainty and morality are not the same thing.
In fact, sometimes they're the exact opposite.
So there's time to decide.
There's time to look at things from all angles.
It is a moral dilemma.
You know, a moral dilemma.
You don't get rid of a moral dilemma by just declaring that it's not a dilemma.
It actually is a painful moral dilemma.
It's painful to contemplate not just Obama's successor in Hillary Clinton, but Obama's even more corrupt successor in Hillary Clinton taking over the office of the presidency.
And Trump is a problem, and I'm going to detail exactly why.
Let me give you a couple of people now weighing in.
Here's Victor Davis Hansen, brilliant classicist.
He says, there are six long months to go in what has already become a reckless, grueling, and unpredictable campaign between two iffy candidates.
By the time of the election, Hillary Clinton will be 69.
She has health problems, and she is mired in a host of scandals, from the shakedowns of the Clinton Foundation to a possible federal reprimand or indictment over her reckless use of her private email server for State Department business.
Donald Trump is a year older with a trail of business controversies, and he is capable of saying anything at any time.
So obviously, Victor is hoping one of these people will just die.
They're old.
They're sick.
What's keeping them?
Why are they still here?
All right, he goes on to say, amid that dilemma, my suggestion, says VDH, is to curb the hysteria about Never Trump while watching him closely over the rest of the spring and early summer in the context of assessing not whether he is a humane and principled conservative, because he obviously isn't, but whether he is, as alleged by some conservatives, really less conservative and less humane than Hillary Clinton.
The Reagan horse left the 2016 conservative barn many months ago, and it is coming to be time to pause and assess whether we are really left with only two bad choices or with a bad Trump and a far, far worse Clinton.
If it is the latter, then it is an easy choice in November.
So he's making the same argument.
He's holding fire.
He's not deciding.
But he's making basically the argument that Bobby Jindal made yesterday where he said, you know, Trump is bad.
He's awful.
But we know how bad Hillary Clinton is.
We know how left-wing Hillary Clinton is.
Now, Brett Stevens, who is the foreign affairs columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and he's a very bright guy.
He lost a lot of cred with me by lumping Trump and Cruz together.
He went after the two of them.
He did that thing.
I think his upper-class New York sensibilities basically were offended by Cruz, and I don't think that was fair.
I don't think you take a constitutional lawyer who's argued before the Supreme Court and compare him to a guy like Donald Trump.
He says, he says that Hillary Clinton is the hope for conservatives.
He says the best hope for what's left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president held in check by a Republican Congress.
Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations.
Think Carter, then Reagan.
Carter was so bad, then Reagan came along.
What isn't survivable is a Republican president who is part Know-Nothing, part Smoot Hawley, and part John Birch.
The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation.
For conservatives, a Democratic victory in November means the loss of another election with all the policy reversals that entails.
That may be dispiriting, but elections will come again.
A Trump presidency means losing the Republican Party.
Conservatives need to accept that most conservatives, that most conservative of wisdoms, sometimes losing is winning, especially when it offers an education in the importance of political hygiene.
So he's making basically the argument that Ben is making, I think, you know, that this is just a stain on the Conservative Party.
And Ben is also very concerned about his policies.
He feels that Trump is just a leftist and just as much of a leftist, essentially, as Hillary Clinton.
By the way, one argument that I really don't like is when people tell me that what's going to happen is in four years the country will fall apart and then they'll turn to us to fix it.
Because after about 48 hours, human beings are confusing and complex enough that they become impossible to predict.
So when somebody tells you what's going to happen in four years, whether he's a climate scientist or a political observer, just keep your hand on your wallet because we just don't know.
These things are really, really confusing and really difficult.
All right, one more, just one more guy, P.J. O'Rourke, another straight down the line conservative guy, very funny, humorous, but obviously a conservative mainstay.
He says, I am endorsing Hillary and all her lies and all her empty promises.
It's the second worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place.
She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
All right, now this is what I want to address.
What are these normal parameters?
Why?
I mean, look, you can't look at these guys, P.J. O'Rourke, and you can't say, oh, he's not a conservative.
You know, suddenly, you know, it was like people saying Ted Cruz was the establishment.
Suddenly all the definitions change in order to accommodate Trump.
So why are people like me saying, you know, this is a real problem?
And while I still haven't decided this, this is why I have a problem.
I'm going to give you five examples of things that Donald Trump has done and said that make him anomalous.
And then I'm going to tell you why they make him different.
They make him different from every other candidate, not only who is running for president, but who has run for president in my lifetime.
And, you know, I don't want you to think that I'm just like, I don't like the way he talks or I don't like his hair or anything like that, or he's lower class or anything like that.
I have no problems with any of those things.
I just have a very specific problem with Donald Trump.
And it's not so much his policies.
Because if I added up, I would say probably Donald Trump is slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton.
I'm sympathetic with the idea that he might, just might.
There's a 10%, let's call it a 25% chance that he might nominate a better Supreme Court judge than Hillary Clinton would.
I think that's important.
And he certainly won't nominate a worse Supreme Court judge than Hillary Clinton would.
So that's an argument.
Why doesn't that argument convince me?
Why am I not convinced?
Okay.
Five things he's done.
One, he called for violence against protesters.
You remember he said that beat the cray.
You see a heckler in the crowd with a tomato, beat the crap out of him, and I'll pay for the legal fees.
Even when a guy actually sucker punched a guy and knocked him off his feet as he was being escorted out.
He was no longer causing trouble.
He was being taken out and he was mouthing off.
And this guy stood up and belted him.
Trump did not condemn him.
He said, you know, maybe I will pay for his legal fees.
I'm going to look into this, his usual Trumpian evasion.
This is completely unacceptable.
It's completely unacceptable in a man who wants to be president of the United States.
You may think, you may tell yourself, well, that guy deserved it, or this guy deserved it, but once you gin up an angry crowd to violence, it is out of control and you may just be next.
You do not know when that crowd is going to turn on you or your wife or your kid because you looked wrong, because you didn't cheer loud enough, because you didn't clap hard enough.
You know, in the Soviet Union, people used to clap until their hands were raw because they were afraid to be the first one to sit down.
Once you are ruled by a mob, that mob is in charge.
And when you sit and tell a mob, a group of angry Trump voters, go out and beat that guy up, you have transgressed against one of the most basic premises of democracy.
Okay, that's one.
Two, he dithered when he was asked about rejecting David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.
Now, he dialed that back, but I don't care.
As Ben said to me the other day, he said, you've got to get that question right 100% of the time.
That's not a 99% question.
Absolutely true.
Absolutely true.
Listen, no one, no one has come down on black bigotry more than me.
Black Lives Matter.
I have spoken out against them.
All these people who think that blacks should be given affirmative action should be speeded, treated in a special way.
I have gone after them.
I've made fun of them.
I've attacked them.
I feel exactly the same way about the white bigots and the white supremacists.
It is, I'm sorry, but it is an offense against the God who created us.
I'm just going to get right down to it.
You know, if we are made in God's image, God didn't make white people in his image.
He didn't make black people in his image.
It's all of us.
We're all here together.
That is a deep, deep offense.
And you have to know that.
You don't have to think about that.
You don't wink at those people.
You have to know when you come in and somebody says, do you condemn the Ku Klux Klan?
Let me give you advice.
100% of the time, the answer is yes, every single time.
You don't wink at it.
You don't have to dial it back.
You don't have to say it twice.
It's wrong.
It's wrong.
And it's against American values, too.
It says, pluribus unum on every penny you spend.
You know, I mean, that just means out of the many, we are one.
And there's a reason for that.
It's based in our Judeo-Christian ethos.
He violated that ethos.
That is not something that a candidate for president is allowed to do in this era at this time.
Number three, and Ben showed me this one too.
This one went completely by me.
I did not see this.
A journalist whose name I can't pronounce.
It's Julia Haffey or something like this.
He wrote an insulting article about Trump's wife, Melania, for GQ.
She was then besieged by anti-Semitic death threats from Trump's followers.
Wolf Blitzer had Trump on and asked him what he wanted to say to these followers of his, these fans of his, who were sending anti-Semitic death threats to a journalist.
Here's the clip of Trump answering that question.
I haven't read it, but I heard the article was not what it should be.
They shouldn't be doing that with wives.
I mean, they shouldn't be doing that.
Melania, as a top model, they sent pictures around to Utah, and it wasn't even, you know, it wasn't even.
I didn't follow these anti-Semitic artists.
I don't know about that.
I don't know anything about that.
But your message is.
You mean fans of mine?
Supposed fans of yours posting these very angry.
you'll have to talk to them.
Your message to these fans is?
I don't have a message to the fans.
A woman wrote an article that was inaccurate.
Now, I'm used to it.
I get such bad articles.
I get such, the press is so dishonest, Wolf, I can't even tell you.
It's so dishonest.
There is nothing more dishonest than the media.
Now, I'm sorry, but the right answer to that question is how do you feel about your fans sending anti-Semitic death threats to a journalist?
The right answer is simply, hey, nobody should be doing that in my name.
You don't even have to engage it.
You don't have to engage it.
You don't have to let the guy.
If you feel he's distracting, if you feel the journalist is distracting you from the real issues by tarring you with the actions of your supporters, which is not fair, say so.
You can say, hey, it's not fair to tar me with those guys.
I reject them entirely.
I reject what they're doing entirely.
He doesn't even say that.
It's okay.
He has no message for them.
I mean, Blitzer gave him, you know, two, maybe three chances to just say, no, okay, that's not me.
That's not what I represent.
And I don't think Trump is an anti-Semite, but I do think, I do think he winks at the violence and the hatred of his followers.
He winks at it because he doesn't want to alienate them.
He feels like he needs every one of those dirtbags, those worms who crawl out from under rocks.
He wants every one of them, and he's not, he's going to appease them.
And I think that that, again, that, again, is a transgression against everything, everything that Americans on both sides, right and left, in different ways, we all hold dear.
Those are our values.
Okay.
Number four, that's three.
Number four, you just heard him say, leave the families alone.
The family should be left alone.
He goes after Ted Cruz's father for some bizarre, absurd idea that he helped kill John F. Kennedy.
I mean, he went after Cruz's wife.
He argued that Cruz started that, you know, even if that was untrue.
But still, he went after people's families.
He went after their personal attributes and all this stuff.
That means two things.
One, it means he's a bully.
It means he's a schoolyard bully.
That's beneath, should be beneath our president.
Our president should be above that.
I'm sorry.
That is something our president should be above.
You don't even see, I mean, even Obama, who is offensive to the people who oppose him, is not a bully like that.
He's not a, you know, he's mean.
He's mean-spirited and he's small-minded, and he thinks, and he's supercilious and arrogant.
He still doesn't stoop to that level.
But it also means, it also means that Trump is not holding himself to his own values.
If he thinks the family should be left alone, why isn't he leaving families alone?
Cruz did hold himself to those values and he acted according to his values.
Trump simply doesn't.
He does not think he is governed by the same values as everybody else.
Five.
That's four.
Number five, his kind words for dictators, for Putin, who he says is a strong leader.
I mean, Putin's a thug.
He's a gangster.
Come on.
Putin killed people.
Putin has people assassinated, people who disagree with him assassinated.
His strong leader is stronger than our leaders.
The way that the Chinese murdered their own dissenters in Tiananmen Square, you know, they didn't have to pay the legal fees.
There were no legal fees.
They just blew them away.
They just piled up their bodies in their own blood because they were trying to get a little bit of democracy in China.
That, said Trump, they handled it in a strong way.
That is the kind of the romance of strength that this country was built against.
It's the entire thing that we're here fighting for.
It's the entire thing that we're here fighting for.
And you know what?
Satire Of Modern Marriage00:03:37
This goes for the left, too.
The left who, you know, the left who tends more than conservatives to follow people, to follow people instead of principles.
Even they, even they, stand, you know, back off from a certain kind of romance of the strongman.
Okay, there's five examples.
Those are not questions of policy, and they're not questions of character.
Those are not questions of like whether he cheated on his wife.
We know he cheated on his wife.
He brags about cheating on his wife.
That's a question of character.
They're not questions of policy.
He's going to tax this one.
He's not going to tax it.
The minimum wage, not minimum wage.
These are questions of morality.
Okay, these are questions of the web of right and wrong that binds our hearts together and binds our hearts to God.
It is the very, very center of what we are doing as human beings, and he violates it.
And you can say to me that Hillary Clinton is corrupt, but it's not the same thing.
Hillary Clinton is corrupt in the way that Democrat machine politicians have been corrupt forever.
We will live through Hillary Clinton's corruption.
God help us, but we will live through it.
But this, what I'm talking about, those are five examples of genuine evil.
And so when I call him names, when I have a problem thinking about voting for him, when I have a problem thinking about voting for him, even if he would name a better Supreme Court justice, that's why, because you can survive a little corruption in government.
If you couldn't, there would be no democracies.
Corruption is the disease of democracies.
We can survive that, but no one can survive.
No one ever can survive evil.
I mean, evil really does a number on governments, on societies.
It makes itself plausible.
It makes itself acceptable.
That's the problem with Donald Trump, and that is why I have not said that I'll vote for him and why it's going to be very, very hard for me to get to that place if I ever do, which I sort of doubt.
All right, I think I've explained myself enough, right?
Stuff I like.
We're doing best-selling books that are actually good, which is really not that common, you know?
I mean, I read a lot of stuff.
I read, go through the bestsellers and all this.
Most of it, you know, it's popular trash.
It's like TV shows, like a lot of the popular TV shows just aren't that good.
They're just bad.
You know, they're a waste of your time, all this.
But every now and again, books come along that get really are really successful and they're good.
And sometimes, like this one, they're good for reasons that I don't think a lot of the audience was really buying them for.
This is this book, Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn, which is a big movie, big book.
And the movie was pretty good too, I thought, with Ben Affleck.
Gone Girl is one of these, you know, twisty-turny girl mysteries, just like the one I was talking about.
In fact, the one I was talking about yesterday, Girl on a Train, was coming after Gone Girls, trying to play on the popularity of that.
Gillian Flynn is not that good a mystery writer.
I've read all of her books now, and she is an oh, she's got some good premises.
Okay, what she really is, and what people don't realize about her, is she's a satirist.
And Gone Girl is a satire on modern marriage.
It's a satire on the ideas of romance that have been replaced with the reality of narcissism.
And when you read it that way, it's a very entertaining little suspense story, although it doesn't entirely hold together.
A lot of people felt that the end kind of trails off.
It probably does.
However, as a satire of modern marriage, it's really funny, and it's really sharp and it's really insightful.
She's a good writer, Gillian Flynn.
I suspect, you know, I don't mean this as a curse on her.
I suspect that as people discover what she's really doing, she may not be as popular as she was with Gone Girl, but Gone Girl just caught the imagination, and it's every bit as good as its sales would suggest.
All right, if there is anybody still listening, I'll be back tomorrow.