Andrew Clavin’s Ep. 148 satirizes Trump’s fabricated Christian conversion and Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi lies, exposing the 2012 attack’s cover-up—no military aid despite requests, a rushed "video" narrative to protect Obama/Clinton, and contractors left to die alone. He contrasts Democrats’ Islamophobia accusations with their silence on radical Islam, citing the Istanbul attack and NYC Pride’s "Republican hate kills" banner. Farage’s EU speech aligns with Trump’s anti-globalism, while polls show both candidates tied amid scandal fallout. Clavin rejects equality for "flow," blames societal decay on single-parent homes, and frames alcoholism as a spiritual war—ending by promoting his memoir and Brexit-themed film recommendations. [Automatically generated summary]
Evangelical leader James Dobson says he is convinced Donald Trump has developed a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Dobson, who founded the socially conservative group Focus on the Family, says he believes he and Trump, a proudly adulterous gay marriage supporter who believes in transgender bathroom use, are now on the same religious page.
Donald told me he believes in Jesus, Dobson said, and I can't imagine why he would say that if it weren't the absolute truth, unless, of course, it's all just a lot of cynical crap.
Trump himself confirms Dobson's statement, saying, quote, I have recently formed a relationship with Jesus Christ, and it's a great, great relationship.
Frankly, it's the best relationship Jesus has ever had with anybody.
I have many, many other Jewish friends, believe me, and they are great people, and the Jews love me, but I feel Jesus is special because he's the savior of the whole world, where a lot of the other Jews, let's face it, are nobodies.
Trump went on to say, quote, I have been reading the Bible every day, and my favorite part is two kings, or maybe it's three kings because Clooney was so great in that, just a terrific, terrific movie star.
Why he married Amal, I don't know.
A guy who looks like that, he could have had anyone.
It doesn't make any sense, unquote.
Trump met with evangelical leaders last week in an attempt to win their support and is said to have recited large portions of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount from memory, including the portion that says, quote, woe unto you, you losers and haters, because no one has listened to you for years, and you're lucky to have enough money to buy a pair of sandals.
Blessed are the meek.
I am very meek.
Many people say there goes Jesus.
He's incredibly meek, the meekest person maybe ever.
And also, blessed are the poor, only not so much because they can't pick up a check and then they make all kinds of trouble.
You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and that is one of my favorite Bible verses because you can't let people take advantage of you or you'll never hear the end of it.
And lastly, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard, but I say unto you, what God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
Although, frankly, when you get to know some of these women, Moses probably had a point, unquote.
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton also made an expression of her faith.
Those witnesses who survived were unable to describe the horrific creature that arose at the bidding of her incantations, but they said they were sure it dragged the people struggling in its tentacles to a wonderful place where there's universal health care and unending fire.
By the way, for any leftists in the audience, those Bible verses weren't actually real.
I made them up as a satirical joke.
If you want to, you can read the real Sermon on the Mount in the Bible.
Or you can remain leftists, but you can't do both.
Benghazi Report Controversy00:15:28
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
There goes Jesus.
He's just incredibly meek.
All right.
So we're live again.
We're still live.
Live from yesterday.
All these people are live.
I'm mechanical, but everybody else is live.
And we will be live for 15 minutes, right?
And today it's, and today is Mailbag Day.
So, you know, you will not see the mailbag unless you subscribe.
You have to subscribe, and then you get the whole show.
You can watch the show.
You can listen to the show, and you can contribute mailbag questions, which is the most important thing, because how are you going to get your questions answered if you're not in the mailbag?
It doesn't make any sense.
That's right.
So we have a lot of news today.
First, I just have to start out and say one thing about this attack in Istanbul on this airport.
You know, I almost did the opening about this attack, but I have a hard time making fun of people when they're lying dead on the airport floor.
It just kind of saps the humor out of the situation.
But there's natural satire here because the first thing I imagined, you know, I think it was a suicide bomb attack in Istanbul.
Over 40 people were killed, over 200 people were injured.
And the first thing that went into my mind was Democrats' claim that we have to repeal the Second Amendment because that'll solve the problem.
Obama comes out and he makes a speech and he says, you know, if only we would get another more gun violence, if only we would get rid of these guns.
And the New York Times starts running editorials saying, well, a lot of the people who were killed were Muslims, so it's obviously Islamophobia that caused this.
And then Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, comes out and she says, we'll never know the motives of these people, you know.
And if they did that, the way they did it in the Orlando attacks.
And remember at the end of the Orlando attacks at the Gay Pride Parade in New York, they had this thing, this banner that said Republican hate kills, you know, I mean, because the guy who shot them was a Democrat, the policies that left them unprotected, Democrat policies, the people who won't stand up to radical Islam, Democrats, all of them.
So it's Republican hate that kills.
So it all comes.
So, you know, I was just thinking, like, if they did that, if you could imagine them pulling all this narrative baloney when the attacks happen overseas, because they're happening every day overseas.
They're hitting cities and airports at will.
They're hitting Brussels.
They're hitting France.
They're hitting every place.
It's not the Second Amendment that's causing it.
It's radical Islam.
Honk.
You know, I mean, it's so easy.
So if you could see them, if people could see them constructing the narrative about another country, you would suddenly realize that's all it is.
It's a narrative.
And as I said before, the point is not to convince you.
You're not supposed to believe that it's the Second Amendment.
You're not supposed to believe that it's not radical Islam.
You're just supposed to believe that lying about it is the right thing to do, that you are a better person.
You know, yesterday when people were leaving notes on the Facebook page and somebody said, why is he talking about the way Hillary Clinton looks, you know, and Elizabeth Warren looks?
The reason is because women's looks are more important than men's.
The way women look, we react to women's looks more than we react to men's.
And you're not supposed to say that.
I'm supposed to lie to you.
That would make me virtuous.
And, you know, it's not respectful for me to tell you the truth.
I'm supposed to lie.
And that's the thing that they're selling when they sell this stuff.
They're not selling the narrative.
They're just selling the fact that the narrative is more virtuous than the truth.
If you want that, you're listening to the wrong show, obviously.
This is not the place.
All right, let's talk about this Benghazi report.
I got it.
You know, they released the 800-page Benghazi report, Trey Gowdy and his committee, after two years of research.
The Democrats have essentially stonewalled this.
The White House has stonewalled this.
And all the time they've said, this is a partisan enterprise.
And the only people who have really been partisan about it are the left.
Here's the New York Times headline on this Benghazi report, okay?
House Benghazi report finds no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.
Now listen to the way they write this.
Ending one of the longest, costliest, and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, which is nonsense because they're all like that, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.
The 800-page report, I mean, let's stop there for a minute.
Why do we need any new evidence about this?
There's plenty of new material in this report, by the way.
It's 800 pages.
I haven't read the whole thing.
I'm still waiting for other people to read it and digest it, you know, and I'll read the digest.
But why do we need new evidence?
I mean, we already know what happened.
This attack, this fight in Benghazi, especially the fight for the CIA compound, was like our Rourke's Drift.
If you ever saw the movie Zulu, the British went over in 1886, 88, I'm not quite sure, 86 or 88.
They invaded Zululand and they were wiped out.
You know, the tribes were so well trained, the Zulu tribes were so well trained, they wiped out the British army, and then 4,000 natives descended on this little place in Rourke's Drift, where there were 100 guys, 100 British guys, and they fought them off.
They held them off.
That's essentially what happened.
Six guys on the CIA compound fought off wave after wave after wave of attackers and no one showed up from America.
That is the key finding of this report.
Let's listen to Trey Gowdy describe what happened.
Do we have him?
At the time of the mortar attack at 5.15 a.m., not a single wheel of a single U.S. military asset was headed towards Libya.
So this is seven hours after the initial attack.
And the world's most powerful military can't get a single wheel turning towards the region.
That's in addition to the fact, as our committee learned, nothing was ever going to Benghazi, Joe.
Nothing.
So the mortar attacks could have taken place at 7.15 a.m. or 9.15 a.m. or lunchtime on the 12th.
The result would have been the same because nothing was ever headed toward Benghazi, despite what Leon Panetta testified to our committee that he ordered.
He ordered it.
Panetta, who was the Secretary of Defense, Obama ordered, said, anything you need, send them.
Nobody sent anything.
Nobody sent anything.
Now, remember, four people died, and we keep talking about the four people who died, including the Ambassador Chris Stevens.
But a lot of people survived.
They got out because of these six guys, basically, these six contracted Navy SEALs and special forces fighters defending this building.
None of them took American planes out.
They were requisitioning like Libyan planes.
They were getting people as a favor to send over planes.
No American wheels were moving to this thing, okay?
Now, let's put this in context.
We have to put this in context because the New York Times, a former newspaper, but every now and again they do their job.
A while back, they did a magazine piece, a long magazine piece, on how it was Hillary Clinton who pushed the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya that started all this, okay?
So this is 2011.
Here's the phrase from the New York Times magazine piece.
Hillary's conviction would be critical in persuading President Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces.
In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a 51-49 decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support, the Secretary of State then, that put the ambivalent president over the line.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven.
And remember, this is what Obama told Chris Wallace on Fox.
This is what he said was his biggest mistake, was not overthrowing Qaddafi, but not following it up with security.
Here's Obama just in that interview.
Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.
Okay, so he didn't plan for the day after.
In other words, he overturned, this is what everybody blamed George W. Bush for in Iraq, was that you overturn the top guy, the place goes into chaos.
You've got to be there.
You've got to have a presence on the ground.
So in Benghazi, we have this CIA compound.
No one has yet confirmed why it was there.
They think they were maybe running guns to the pro-freedom rebels who were out there.
Plenty of the Libyans wanted a good government.
Plenty of the Libyans stood in support of the Americans.
100,000 people gathered to mourn Libyans, gathered to mourn the four people who were killed afterwards.
And you could see them holding up signs saying, we're sorry, this is not what Islam is.
This is not what Muhammad wanted.
We're sorry to the Americans.
You know, there were good people over there.
So we have this CIA compound.
Nobody knows why it's there.
It gets attacked.
Obama says, send anything you need, but nothing went.
And here's from the Wall Street Journal: nothing was even en route when the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began.
No one's done anything.
No one's done anything, right?
Eight hours of these guys under fire.
The holdup seems to have been caused in part by something we learned from this report, a 7.30 p.m. teleconference of defense and state officials, including Mrs. Clinton.
Now remember, the New York Times says no new information.
They're covering for Hillary Clinton.
But there was this 7.30 p.m. teleconference, right?
This is after the Secret of Defense, after the Secretary of Defense says sends people, after Obama, the president, the commander-in-chief, says send people.
They get on the phone.
Hillary Clinton's on the phone.
Ostensibly, they were sharing intelligence and coordinating responses, but they debated whether they needed Libya's permission to deploy American troops to defend endangered Americans, whether Marines should wear uniforms or civilian clothes, and so on.
There's a story that the Marines were changing in and out of uniform as they made different decisions.
They got off the phone and they took notes of this teleconference.
There were 10 action points.
Five of them, five of the action points were about telling people that this was about this video, right?
Because remember, it's 56 days before Obama's reelection.
Hillary Clinton has been pushing the Libyan project, so that's her big project.
So she wants to be the next president.
Her argument is she has all this foreign policy experience.
Libya is her big accomplishment.
Libya is her big accomplishment and is going up in flames, okay?
So they're having a conversation.
Our guys are under fire.
They're having a conversation.
Nothing is moving.
Nothing.
And they're talking about this damned video.
They are talking about this video.
And we know from this investigation, we know from Hillary's emails that she knew the video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
She emailed her daughter and said it was an al-Qaeda-like attack.
She emailed, she discussed it with the Egyptian prime minister the next day.
She said it was a terrorist attack.
She went out and told us and the parents of the dead that it was this video that had nothing to do with it, that insulted Islam.
Remember, it's our fault that we insulted Islam.
This whole thing was our fault.
So not to shatter Obama's narrative as he was running for reelection and not to shatter her narrative as she goes forward to run for election, this was her project.
So when the New York Times says there's no new information, A, there is new information, but B, how much more information do we need?
And so now Hillary comes out and she makes the statement.
This is her dismissing the report.
I understand that after more than two years and $7 million spent by the Benghazi committee out of taxpayer funds, it had to today report it had found nothing, nothing to contradict the conclusions of the Independent Accountability Board or the conclusions of the prior, multiple earlier investigations carried out on a bipartisan basis in the Congress.
So while this unfortunately took on a partisan tinge, I want us to stay focused on what I've always wanted us to stay focused on, and that is the important work of diplomacy and development.
That's especially true in dangerous places.
We cannot withdraw or retreat from the world.
America needs a presence for a lot of reasons, and the best way to honor the commitment and sacrifice of those we lost is to redouble our efforts to provide the resources and support that our diplomats and our development experts deserve.
So I'll leave it to others to characterize this report, but I think it's pretty clear it's time to move on.
Okay, we're running out of Facebook time.
We're going to go dead, but you can hear the rest of the show at thedailywire.com, and you can subscribe if you want to watch.
That Clinton remark is classic Clinton playbook.
Bill and Hillary both.
It's lie, lie, lie.
Delay, delay, delay.
Oh, it's an old story.
So you lie and you lie and you delay and you obfuscate.
And then when the truth comes out, it's an old story.
We know all this already.
It just confirms what we already said, except that we didn't say it because we said something else because we were lying.
You know, this is the Clinton playbook.
So it's like, just throw it all away.
You know, if Trump is smart, and that's an open question, if Trump is smart, he will hammer her with this stuff because this is her main accomplishment as Secretary of State.
Aside from selling her favors to the highest bidder, it is Libya.
She destroyed the place.
She left these guys.
Nobody went to get them.
And I'm not saying they could have had military forces there.
Apparently, they weren't close enough to attack, but just to get them out.
They were just, even then, they were not getting American vehicles to get them out.
Okay, we have time for a little bit more.
I have to play this Nigel Farage speech at the EU.
He went before.
This is Nigel Farage, the guy who is the right-wing, the head of the right-wing party, UKIP in the UK, big leave the EU proponent, very big fighting to leave the EU.
He now goes, the EU is now saying, don't, you know, this is going to cost you guys and Britain big.
We're not letting you leave and still keep good trading relations with us.
We're not going to let you have any special relationship with the rest of Europe.
We're going to make you pay for what you did.
So Farage goes to the EU and play the first cut.
This is what you, as a political project, are in denial.
You're in denial that your currency is failing.
You're in denial.
Well, just well, just look at the Mediterranean.
No, no, no, as a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean, you've done very well.
And you're in denial over Mrs. Merkel, Mrs. Merkel's call last year for as many, any people as possible to cross the Mediterranean into the European Union has led to massive divisions between countries and within countries.
But the biggest problem you've got, and the reason, the main reason, the United Kingdom voted the way that it did, is you have, by stealth, by deception, without ever telling the truth to the British or the rest of the peoples of Europe, you have imposed upon them a political union.
The Devil's Debate00:10:06
So then they're booing, they're screaming.
The chairman has to keep quieting them down, saying, you know, in a democracy, we have to listen to one another.
They're yelling at him and all this stuff.
And he just gives it to him.
Just play this last cut.
But what I would like to see is a grown-up and sensible attitude to how we negotiate a different relationship.
Now, I know, I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives or worked or worked in business or worked in trade or indeed ever created a job.
But listen.
Just listen.
They won't listen.
They just scream him down.
He can't go on.
There's nothing after that.
He comes back a little later, but you've never had a job.
So Trump is picking up on this.
And he made a speech on trade, which maybe we'll talk about that tomorrow.
We don't really have time to talk about it today.
The only thing I just want to add is there's a new Quinnipiac University poll that shows Trump and Hillary virtually neck and neck.
And I just, I just, the only thing I love about this, it's really that Hillary is just so bad.
It's not, they hate both.
The poll shows they hate both of them.
It's not that Trump is winning, but he's not losing, it looks like.
He's not losing any ground.
So all this narrative about how he's making this gap and that gap, and it's really been a problem, it's all nonsense.
It's like people already know, they already know they hate both these people.
One of them would be a better president than the other.
And right this minute, I would say, just by events, the events that are taking place, they favor Trump because the terrorist attacks, this is all Obama's policies that have left us open to these terrorist attacks.
And the report from Benghazi and all this stuff is really favoring him.
And I think when people go to choose between these two people they seriously dislike, reality may be on Trump's side, which is a weird thing to talk about.
It's time for the mailbag.
Hey, hey, hey, hey.
All right, we have good questions.
We have so many questions that I just had to line some of them up if I missed one.
Somebody, by the way, sent in a, I saw it on Twitter, sent in a video question, but I don't know what if it, but it hasn't come over the mailbox yet, so we haven't seen it yet.
So I'll send you what I saw, but I don't know if it was done properly so that we can put it on.
Yeah, okay.
It's not, we won't do it today, but we'll do it if we can find it.
From Benji, hey, Andrew, I love your show and listen to it daily.
Thank you.
The question, the idea that we could all ever have equal opportunities seems like another utopian myth.
Should we be more clear that the kind of equal opportunity we talk about is equal opportunity before the law?
Perhaps we should really be focusing on maximizing opportunities without bringing anyone down.
What do you think?
I think I couldn't have said that better myself.
I really have no answer to that.
There is no equal opportunity.
Some of us are born talented.
Some of us are born rich.
Some of us are born smart.
Some of us are born with good parents.
Some of us are born without parents.
You know, without a father.
You know, you're just at a disadvantage.
There is no opportunity.
What you're looking for in a free society is flow.
You're looking, you don't want the richest people in one generation to be the same people as in the next generation.
And that's the problem we're having.
Decades of crony capitalism and increasing government have stagnated.
The people in the middle class are moving up into the upper class, but the people in the lower class can't move into the middle class.
And so the middle class is disappearing.
A lot of that is cultural.
A lot of it has to do with single-parent homes and not getting an education and all that stuff.
But it also is, big government helps big business.
If you have a big government, it makes all kinds of regulations.
We're over-regulated.
We have all these regulations.
Who can afford to cut through red tape?
Who can afford the lawyers that need to dot all the I's that the government imposes on corporations?
It's the big corporations who can do that.
The little guy who's just invented a flying car in his garage can't do that.
And so he's not going to be able to create a job and hire his next door neighbor.
And so what we need is flow.
We can't have equal opportunity.
We can't have equality of outcome.
All we can have is flow where everybody can become rich.
And that's what keeps people satisfied.
All right.
From Andrew.
I'm trying to develop a better relationship with my girlfriend with regards to political values, but she doesn't enjoy talking about it much.
However, she loves reading.
Are there any books you can suggest that are both enjoyable and emphasize conservative values?
You know, I took this question because I get asked this all the time.
And I don't have a good answer because each person needs to hear different things.
Some people are convinced by emotional stories.
Some people want to hear about history.
Witness is a wonderful book about the fight against communism and how the press lied and one man stood up against a Soviet spy in the State Department.
The Looming Tower tells about the beginning of Al-Qaeda and how it had nothing to do with us.
It's not our fault.
Slander by Ann Coulter is a wonderful book about the way the press lies, but there are all these different things.
You know, if your girlfriend likes novels, I'm going to recommend my novel, Empire of Lies.
Read Empire of Lies, because it is a really, I think it's one of my most underrated novels.
I got really badly attacked for it.
I was called the right-wing nut job, I think was the word.
But it's not actually a right-wing book.
It's a very fair book about a very damaged man trying to find the truth.
So Empire of Lies, I think, start with that and see how your girlfriend likes it.
And if she leaves you, don't blame me.
From Jonathan, I'm a big fan of your show.
I would appreciate it if you could address Frederick Nietzsche's criticism of traditional Christian morality along with the concepts of the Superman and Master Slaymore.
Okay, that's actually from Austin, it says at the bottom.
That is a very complicated question.
Nietzsche was, there's a great question, a great debate that goes on in Western philosophical history.
And the debate starts with Pontius Pilate and Jesus.
Jesus says, I am the truth.
I speak the truth.
All who know the truth know my voice.
I am the way.
I am the truth.
And Pontius Pilate says, what is truth?
Nobody knows what truth is.
And that debate continues after the Reformation when the Catholic Church loses its monopoly on what the truth is.
And so all of a sudden there are all these debates.
All Nietzsche did, Nietzsche who said God is dead, and therefore, Nietzsche said God is dead, and therefore there's no absolute morality.
What we need is a genealogy of morals, he said, which is essentially what we're doing now, what the left does now.
It's relativism.
It's not saying this is right.
It's saying you think this is right because of this, this, and this, because you're a white man, because you have privilege, because you're from the West.
So your values are not absolute.
You just think they're absolute.
That is one side of the question.
The other side of the question is, no, there is a God.
He has a certain way that he wants things to go.
When you go that way, you know it.
When you don't go that way, your life becomes poisoned inside.
Those are the two points of view.
There's nothing, I mean, Nietzsche died crazy from syphilis, but that's not why he was saying this stuff.
He actually is an honest philosopher who was putting forward that point of view.
His nemesis at the time, he was writing before Nietzsche published, and yet he anticipated Nietzsche, was Dostoevsky, who became a Christian and wrote Crime and Punishment, which basically shows to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, the book changed my life, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a moral world.
And when you violate that moral order, Kant called it the two realities.
He said it was the starry sky above and the moral law within, and that those things are very real.
And that's the great debate, and that's the great debate we're still in now, and the left is on one side of it, and I am standing alone on the other side of it, like Britain during World War II.
From Matthew, any chance you've read N.T. Wright?
I have read huge amounts of N.T. Wright.
N.T. Wright is a theologian, an Episcopal theologian, an Anglican theologian, I should say, who basically says that Jesus was not predicting the end of the world.
He was predicting the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, in AD 70.
So he was giving very practical advice.
I feel, I don't mean to accuse him of this.
There's a very British Anglican strain of anti-Semitism in N.T. Wright.
I feel he is talking about Israel a lot of times and telling them not to fight back.
And yet his scholarship is brilliant.
And his longer book, in his small books, he tries to be C.S. Lewis and fails.
In his longer books, he writes some very interesting theology.
It's very different.
From John, is alcoholism a disease?
I am now 19 months sober and my faith has helped me a lot.
The AA Alcoholics Anonymous book calls Alcoholism a spiritual malady.
I am curious to hear your response because you talk about matters of faith and spirituality so beautifully.
Well, thank you for that and congratulations on being 19 months sober.
I'm a writer, so I've seen a lot of drinking, a lot of writers drink hard.
I've seen it destroy so many, so many lives.
I mean, it is a brutal, brutal master and a demon.
Is it a disease?
I don't think so.
No, I wouldn't call it a disease.
I think that that's a term that they use to help people avoid shame.
You know, so much in our society is to help people avoid guilt and feeling bad about themselves.
I take a different tack.
I say, feel bad about yourselves and take it to God, and he will take that burden off your shoulders.
That's what I believe.
That's why I think a spiritual malady, better phrase, more like it.
The reason I say it's not a disease is because you can give it up.
You can't give up cancer.
You can't say, I'm quitting cancer.
I'm quitting.
I have a cold.
I'm quitting it.
I don't want it.
I'm going to use my willpower and not have a cold anymore.
So it is a spiritual matter.
You are confronting this.
It's a devil.
It's a devil.
And the devil gets into you in your broken places.
The devil gets into all of us in our broken places.
We all have broken places, and the devil uses them.
This is yours.
I'm sorry.
I have my own.
Everybody in this room, everybody on this earth has his own.
This is your fight.
You got to make it.
And I do agree with AA that you can really.
Some people have done it without God, but I think God gives you a big, big, big helping hand.
I guess I have to stop.
There's so many more.
I love doing the mailbag, and I would come back and do it again every day, but I can't.
So we will move on to stuff I like.
We've been doing, in honor of the Brexit, we have been doing, well, let me say, though, all these people, a lot of people asked about the question of Christianity.
Great British Films Tribute00:03:12
Let me once again beg and plead with you to pre-order my memoir, The Great Good Thing: A Secular Jew Comes to Faith in Christ.
I was born and raised a Jew.
I lived most of my life as an agnostic/slash atheist.
Very late in life, I came to believe in Christianity for what I consider purely logical reasons.
And this is my story, The Great Good Thing.
You can pre-order it.
You'll get it in September, but it's good for me if you pre-order it and if you want to read it.
Stuff I like.
I've been doing great British films in honor of Brexit.
What I've been doing is great British films that are among the greatest films ever made.
So not just films that I love.
We'll come back to some of those.
I mentioned Zulu, I think, earlier, about Rourke Strift, one of my favorite films of all time, but not one of the greatest films of all time.
This is The 39 Steps by Alfred Hitchcock.
He made a lot of really good British films before he came to America and made his most famous films.
This is a very early movie, but it really holds up.
It's one of his usual Hitchcock's usual themes about an innocent man who is caught up in this tangle of spies.
He's chased across England by spies.
Very brilliant plot based on the novel by John Buchan, a very famous thriller writer of his day.
It's incredibly witty.
Here's a scene where Robert Donot, he's the star.
The name of the character just went out of my mind, but there's a dead body upstairs, and he's got to escape.
And the bad guys have got two people outside.
So he tries to convince the milkman to let him out, and he tells the milkman the truth, and the milkman won't believe him.
So he tells him a lie that the milkman will believe.
Here's the scene.
I want to borrow your capital coat.
Yeah, wait a minute.
What's all this?
What's the big idea?
I want to make a getaway.
To a bunk?
Yes.
What have you been up to?
I'll have to trust you.
There's been a murder committed up on the first floor.
Are you?
No, no.
Are those two men out there?
I see.
Now I suppose they're waiting there as good as gold for a copper to come and arrest us.
It's quite true.
Listen, they're spies, foreigners.
They've murdered a woman in my flat, and now they're waiting for me.
Oh, come off your funny jokes at five o'clock in the morning.
All right, all right.
I'll tell you the truth.
You married?
Yes, but don't rub it in.
What's the idea now?
Well, I'm not, you see.
I'm a bachelor.
Oh, are you?
A married woman lives on the first floor, does she?
Yes, and I've just been paying her a call.
And now I want to go home.
Well, what's preventing you?
One of those men's her brother, the other's her husband.
How do you see?
Why didn't you tell me before, old fellow?
Only one in a big tove.
He won't believe there's a body up there and two spies waiting to kill him, but he'll believe he was running around with a married woman and that's his brother and husband.
It's a really witty film, incredibly suspenseful, even now.
I think 1934, and it still really holds up.
One of the, I would say, got to be one of the top 100 films of all time.
Great British films we like all week, and hopefully they'll make some more.
We have one more day before the Clavenless weekend begins.
I know.
Who can even begin to imagine the horrors that await us?