Ep. 196 skewers the New York Times for endorsing Hillary Clinton with absurd praise—like her fictional "reset" with Putin or candy cane seeds for Venezuela—while mocking Ted Cruz’s opportunistic Trump pivot and Michelle Obama’s Arkham Asylum fate. The Trump-Clinton debate parody frames media bias as a rigged game, with Clinton’s "curvy silhouette" and "airdo-floating" as peak performative femininity, while defending "stop and frisk" via FBI crime stats. Andrew Clavin’s mailbag defends biblical faith as literature, grappling with evil’s existence through Dostoevsky, then pivots to Blue Bloods as the sole conservative-friendly show before teasing his Shapiro appearance. The episode collapses satire, media critique, and theological debate into a chaotic takedown of liberal hypocrisy and conservative cultural warfare. [Automatically generated summary]
The New York Times, a former newspaper, has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.
So that's one vote for Hillary Clinton, plus everyone who was swayed by the opinion of the New York Times.
So that's one vote for Hillary Clinton.
The Times endorsement said, quote, yes, Mrs. Clinton lies and lies and lies.
But so do we, and we're nice people, and we went to very good schools too, and we dress well.
Look at these suits.
Do you think everyone wears suits like these?
No, siree.
Plus, Hillary Clinton has a record of service and pragmatism.
Oops, there we go, lying again.
But look at these great suits, unquote.
The Times went on to cite Mrs. Clinton's experience in public office, how her reset with Russia ended the threat from Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions, how her overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Libya brought greater peace and stability to the Middle East, and how her planting of candy cane seeds in the marshmallow jungles of South America caused enough cotton candy trees to grow to feed the entire population of Venezuela, plus the unicorns.
The Times dismissed rumors of Mrs. Clinton's bad health, saying, quote, reality is not our beat.
This is the New York Times, unquote.
In other endorsement news, Ted Cruz, who used to be like, I don't know, a senator or something, gave his endorsement to Donald Trump.
As you recall, Cruz refused to give that endorsement at the Republican National Convention because Trump had insulted Cruz's wife and suggested that Cruz's father had a hand in the assassination of President Kennedy.
But now that some time has gone by and those things have no longer happened, Cruz said he was willing to forget the past and, in fact, couldn't even remember what he was just saying.
Some Cruz supporters feared his endorsement of a big government liberal who had never read the Constitution would damage his reputation for conservative purity.
But Cruz said he would restore that reputation by selling conservative purity keychains and souvenirs on his website and hosting a conservative purity game show on Fox News to fill the slot left open by whatever newswoman just got molested there and quit.
He says he also considered marketing conservative purity macaroni and cheese, but it looked too much like Donald Trump and tasted like crap, or vice versa.
In the final startling endorsement, Michelle Obama was seen hugging former President George W. Bush.
Mrs. Obama addressed the press afterwards saying, quote, that was the first time I ever had my arms around a cisgender heterosexual white male who loves America, and I actually kind of liked it.
Barack always said they were bad people, but just the touch of him made me tingle all over.
Makes me wonder what I've been missing all these years.
In fact, it makes me wonder if maybe Barack has been lying to me about other things too.
Like maybe the failures of his administration aren't really W's fault.
Maybe my husband is just an incompetent blowhard, unquote.
After her statement, two secret servicemen led the dazed and starry-eyed Mrs. Obama away.
She is now being held at Arkham Asylum with other insane supervillains like Joker, Riddler, and the editors of the New York Times.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-doo.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bibby's in.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, what an earworm that thing is.
I can't stop singing it.
So we got to reset the clock to zero days.
I haven't cracked up.
I was on a roll there, too.
I think it was because I wasn't here, maybe.
That was what it was doing.
All right, it's mailbag day.
Woo-hoo!
We have the official Lindsay Woohoo.
You know, this entire show, like Lindsay has left her mark, this sign, the cardboard sign.
She wrote that song, didn't she?
Didn't she write the music to that?
I think she did, yeah.
And gosh, our official trademark woo-hoo.
We miss her.
We miss you, Lynn.
All right, if you subscribe, you know, you cannot see the mailbag if you're just watching on Facebook or YouTube, because after 15 minutes, we're going to cut you off like a disobedient child.
We're going to splunge you into darkness, and the only way you can hear the mailbag is to come over to the Daily Wire or download us from iTunes or SoundCloud.
But if you subscribe, you can watch the whole thing on the Daily Wire as it's happening.
Stop And Frisk Controversy00:13:26
You also get, for a limited time only, I think, still offered a free copy of my memoir, The Great Good Thing, A Secular Jew Comes to Faith in Christ.
And by the way, I know I said that I was going to talk about my feelings about the Bible because a lot of people have been bugging me about this.
I knew somebody would ask about it in the mailbag, and somebody did, so we'll get to it.
If you are watching, if you're still watching and haven't been plunged into the exterior darkness.
All right, so the debate.
The media declared, universally declared Donald Trump, Clinton the winner, Hillary Clinton the winner.
Here is Trump's reaction to that.
This is on the media.
We're going to take on the special interests, the lobbyists, and the corrupt corporate media right back there.
They are corrupt as you can get.
You know, the single weapon that Hillary Clinton has, I mean, she couldn't even pass her bar exam in Washington, D.C.
She failed it.
The single weapon that she's got is the media.
Without the mainstream media, she wouldn't even be here, folks.
That I can tell you.
She wouldn't even be here.
She wouldn't have a chance.
So we're going to create a new government that serves you, your family, and your country.
And it's going to be the kind of government that you've been looking for for a long time.
All right.
Well, he gave it to them, and they deserved it.
There's no question about it.
You heard here first that the, you know, even though it was a tie on points, because Trump won the first part and she won the last part and the middle part was kind of a tie.
Even though it was a tie on points, that I thought that Hillary Clinton benefited because a lot of women were watching this thing and thinking that she stood up to this bully.
Well, the media has gone nuts on this.
I mean, they have got the New York Times, a former newspaper, they must have had five editorials about this over the course of the last, you know, couple hours.
One was, their main editorial was called Hillary Clinton's Every Woman Moment.
There were plenty of aha moments for any woman who was the sole female member of her company's management team, a female sportscaster, bartender, cop, construction worker, law partner, or yes, a beauty queen, and maybe for the sole female presidential candidate too.
On Monday night, those women got to see Mrs. Clinton stand up to that common hazard of working white, of working while female, the sexist blowhard, the harasser.
Here's another one, same paper, right?
They just like, just plastered it.
Hillary Clinton will not be manterupted.
Feminists are such pigs.
I gotta say, feminists are pigs.
They are the nastiest people.
All right, to anyone who observed Mr. Trump speak, she says it shouldn't have been surprising, shouting, talking over, bulldozing, man-splaining.
These are Mr. Trump's linguistic trademarks.
Cosmo senior political writer, Jill Filipovic, tweeted, reminder to women, a lot of men who hate Hillary Clinton hate her because they hate you too.
Yes, including your Trump voting husband.
He hates you.
I mean, these people, these are the worst people on earth.
You know, the thing about this is, the reason I say they're, you know, first of all, these women, you're man interrupting, you're manterrupting.
Maybe I'm manterrupting because you're a girl talking too much.
You know, I mean, what is that stuff?
And the thing about it is, it's not like they have no point.
You know, that's what makes it so frustrating.
It's that, yes, men are aggressive.
They want to always have something to say.
They always want to talk.
And sometimes they don't remember to stop and let women talk.
And the thing is, if you want women to act like ladies, you got to act like a gentleman.
But the reverse is true, too.
If you want women to act like gentlemen, you got to act like a lady.
So these people, you know, think it's wrong for Donald Trump to interrupt Hillary Clinton.
Yes, it is.
The guy is a slob.
He's a slob.
But it's also wrong for her.
She's a shrill witch who hectors people and blames people.
So, you know, if women are going to act like that, why shouldn't men act like Donald Trump?
These guys are the product of the left.
These people are two products of the left.
One of them a screeching feminist witch and the other one a blowhard and a stumble bum who hasn't got the manners of a pig.
But you know, if you don't want it to be like that, ladies, you got to be ladies.
Gentlemen, you got to be gentlemen.
That's the way it is.
There's no other answer.
Otherwise, we'll all be equal and we'll hate each other.
Anyway, so of course, the female reporter on the plane, because God forbid she asks her a question or fact checks any of the stupid things Hillary Clinton said, she says, you know, like, how was it being man-interrupted all the time?
Here it is.
Donald talk about the way he kept interrupting and the way he answered the question about gender.
Do you think they know what he acted?
Well, I think his demeanor, his temperament, his behavior on the stage could be seen by everybody.
People could draw their own conclusions.
And I thought on several occasions he was making charges and claims that were demonstrably untrue, offering opinions that I think a lot of people would find offensive and awkwardly.
He can run his campaign and present himself however he chooses, but the real point is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the most important artist job in the world.
And I think people saw last night some very clear differences between us.
But interestingly, in a private interview, we asked Hillary how it felt to be female when dealing with the mainstream media.
And this is what she said.
I'm a girl, and by me, that's only great.
I am proud that my silhouette is curvy.
That I walk with a sweet and girlish gait.
With my hips kind of swivelly and swervy.
I adore being dressed in something frilly.
When my date comes to get me at my place, out I go with my Joe or John or Billy.
Like a billy who is ready for the race.
When I have a brand new hairdo with my eyelashes all in curl, I float as the clouds on airdo.
I enjoy being a girl.
So it's not all bad, you know.
It's not really that tough being the first female candidate for president in this particular atmosphere.
But let's take a look.
You know, let's take a look at the other side of this.
Lester Holt got a lot of flack from the right, and Trump wisely didn't complain about it, but he did say this.
This is Trump talking about the moderator, Lester Holt.
I thought she was very bad in the first half when they were asking normal questions.
And when they were asking unfair questions, she got better.
What grade would you give Lester Holt?
I'd give him a C. C.
I thought he was okay.
I thought he was fine.
I mean, nothing outstanding.
I thought he gave me very unfair questions at the end, the last three, four questions.
But, you know, I'm not complaining about that.
I thought he was okay.
Holt, Holt was genuinely unfair.
And I think Trump is right.
You don't want to go around complaining about the moderators, but every moderator is a left-winger except for the one from Fox.
Chris, what's his name?
What's his name?
Chris Wallace.
Wallace, thank you.
But this is Holtz's worst moment, as far as I was concerned, and it was a big one.
This is really bad, bad news.
This is like Holtz Candy Crowley moment.
Remember, Candy Crowley interrupted Mitt Romney to fact-check him and was wrong.
When Romney had Obama on the ropes over his lie about Benghazi, you know, Candy Crowley said, oh, he didn't lie.
He did.
Here's Holtz doing the same thing to Trump when Trump starts talking about stop and frisk, a policy that was in New York under Giuliani and Mayor Bloomberg that meant the police, if they saw somebody acting suspiciously, could see if he had a gun.
We have to bring back law and order.
Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago, you do stop and frisk, which worked very well.
Mayor Giuliani is here.
It worked very well in New York.
It brought the crime rate way down.
But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn't be having it.
We have gangs on the street.
And in many cases, they're illegally here, illegal immigrants.
And they have guns.
And they shoot people.
And we have to be very strong.
And we have to be very vigilant.
We have to know what we're doing.
Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything.
We have to protect our inner cities because African American communities are being decimated by crime.
Your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up.
Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.
No, you're wrong.
It went before a judge who was a very against police judge.
It was taken away from her, and our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case.
Trump is absolutely right.
He's 100% correct.
Lester Holt is 100% wrong.
First of all, a judge couldn't rule stop and frisk unconstitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in 1965.
So they had no power to do that.
Here's a description of what did happen from the Wall Street Journal.
The federal judge in the stop and frisk case was Shira Scheinlin, a notorious police critic whose behavior got her taken off the case by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appellate court put it this way.
Upon review of the record in these cases, we conclude that the district judge ran afoul of the code of conduct for United States judges.
And then what happened was Bloomberg's term ran out, and this communist de Blasio took over and he didn't appeal the case.
I mean, but that is an extraordinary rebuke, an extraordinary rebuke from a federal court to another federal judge saying that she was not fair.
We're going to pause here for a minute, but continue this conversation.
We have to say goodbye to our friends at Facebook and YouTube, but come on over to The Daily Wire and we will be there.
But even worse than the fact that Trump was right about this, Hillary Clinton then goes on to say that stop and frisk didn't work.
And if you go on PBS, if you go on all these news channels, they're all doubling down on that.
It's just not true.
Stop and frisk did a good job.
First of all, you know, I've talked to New York City cops.
I've talked to a lot of cops.
Cops can see if you're carrying a gun.
They cops know if you're carrying a gun.
They can just see by the way your pants ride.
These are not like professional hitmen who like, you know, have this thing secured by a special spring holster.
You know, they've just got it in the strap of their jogging pants, basically.
Here's Heather McDonald, the expert on this at City Journal.
Homicides and shootings in New York City rose 20% in the first half of 2015 thanks to the Scheindlin-induced drop in pedestrian stops.
And then, then what happened, and she's explaining why the rise in crime went away, Police Commissioner William Bratton responded with a massive deployment of overtime manpower to high crime corners.
Officers use command presence, i.e. their mere presence on the street, to deter criminal behavior.
This rollout of manpower resources quelled the shooting spike, and New York City ended 2016 with a 6% homicide increase, right?
They brought it down to 6%.
But other departments, says Heather Mack, do not have the personnel available to them to make up for a drop in proactive policing.
And we know that she's right.
We know Heather Mack is right because the FBI stats have come out and show that the Ferguson effect is now underway.
The number of violent crimes in the U.S. increased 3.9% in 2015 from a year earlier amid a jump in murders.
According to annual crime statistics released by the FBI, murders and non-negligent manslaughter increased 10.8%.
Now, let's just hear how the media wants to play this, okay?
Because this is a big deal.
This is all on Obama.
This is 100% on Obama and Black Lives Matter and a media, the New York Times in that Sop and Frisk case, they were on it every day.
They were hammering away at that judge, wanting her to stop, stop and frisk.
Here is a slate writer, Leon Nefak, who writes, should the media downplay the new murder spike?
He basically says they should play that.
He says there's no nationwide crime wave in the sense that most Americans in most parts of the country really are exposed to far less violent.
He says most Americans, I'm sorry, in most parts of the country really are exposed to far less violent crime in 2016 than they have been in decades because of these tough police measures.
But, he goes on, the FBI report suggests something else.
In a whole bunch of places across the country, including sections of Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee, life has recently become much more dangerous.
Different Truths, Different Beliefs00:14:15
What a coincidence.
Let's take those cities.
Baltimore, last Republican mayor, one term, 1963.
Chicago, last Republican mayor, one term, 1927.
St. Louis, last Republican mayor, one and a half terms, 1943.
Washington, D.C., last Republican mayor, 1900, although there were several independents since then, but they've been Democrats since 1961.
Milwaukee had a fusion candidate, Republican and Democrat, in 1912.
They've been Democrat ever since.
That's the connection, folks.
That's where the high crime is.
That's where blacks are stuck in poverty.
That's where ghettos are just our ghettos.
That's where people get trapped and can't get out.
It's the policies.
It's the policies.
And that was what they were arguing about.
And Trump isn't smart enough or articulate enough to make the case, but he was right.
The mailbag.
All right.
Now, listen, I know, I'm not going to talk, we've got a lot of religion questions this time, and I'm not going to take all of them, but I do wanted to talk about this one from Mark.
It says, Mark, if the first verse of Genesis is fact and followed by pages of things that did not, strictly speaking, happen, at what point does the Bible veer back to factual narrative?
So this is this larger question that had to do with something I said and something I say in my book, In the Great Good Thing.
I talk about my relationship to the Bible.
There's some idea going around, because now I've gotten several letters about this, that I don't read the Bible or my religion isn't based on the Bible.
I read the Bible every day.
I taught myself Greek so I could read the Bible, the New Testament, in the original.
I am now reading it in Greek.
I've read the Bible cover to cover more times than I can count.
I actually have lost count of how many times I've read the Bible from one page to another, from one end to another.
I read the Bible every day.
My religion is a Bible-based religion, okay?
So just to say that.
I believe the Bible is utterly true.
I do not believe it's utterly literal.
I've spent my life studying stories, all kinds of stories, how they're built, what they are, what they're like.
I flatter myself that I have some kind of idea of what kind of story is what.
So somebody asked me, another question someone asked me is, if I don't believe that Genesis, the creation story in Genesis, is literally the case, if I don't believe that, if I believe that maybe science has some kind of ability to talk about how old the earth is that the Bible doesn't even try to have, well then how do I know the gospels are real?
Really good question, fair question.
There are different kinds of stories in the Bible to tell different kinds of truths.
The gospels are an eyewitness account.
If I walk in and I say to you, I just saw a fire, the police ran in and saved 15 people, it was amazing, and you find out that I'm just making that up, I'm a liar.
But if I walk in and say, once upon a time, there was a cottage in the woods and two lost children who stumbled, you don't think I'm telling, you understand that I'm telling you something, but I'm not telling you the literal truth.
This kind of thinking, by the way, is why conservatives lose the culture.
Because we don't read novels, we don't see movies, we don't respect the arts because we don't respect the kind of truth they're telling.
You cannot tell the whole truth simply with literal history.
You can't pick up a newspaper, the fairest newspaper in the world, the fairest newspaper in the world, won't be able to tell you the whole truth about life, which I believe is actually in the Bible.
If that weren't true, Jesus wouldn't have told stories.
He didn't tell stories so you could pick out the moral and just remember the moral.
He told stories because stories tell a certain kind of truth that histories don't tell.
And that's the way I read the Bible.
Do I get it wrong?
Sometimes, yeah.
Probably I'm, you know, when I say like, oh, Job, it seems to me that there was a person named Job, but this is a legend that grew up around Job.
Well, it seems to me that the David story is very literal history.
You know, maybe I'm wrong, but it is the way that people have read the Bible for most of the Bible's existence.
It's only in the last 150 years that people have started to talk about it as if it were literally true.
And people who cite Jesus talking about Noah, I understand that, but that doesn't mean he was, he doesn't mean he thought every word in it was true.
After all, he was there.
He was there.
So he knows what happens.
I wasn't, and neither was the guy who wrote Genesis.
All right, so that's my attitude.
I think it's all true.
I just think there are different ways of telling truth and different kinds of truths in the Bible.
From Patrick, has the Daily Wire hired bodyguards for you yet?
I fear an eternal clavenless weekend will bring the rapture upon humanity.
Yes, they have.
I'm surrounded 24 hours a day with armed, sexy armed women.
They are dressed in tight leather outfits, but somehow are able to hide the guns.
I don't even want to ask where they are, but I am completely protected.
Anyone who even looks at me wrong, they will kill them on the spot like that.
So I'm glad you asked.
Nick, AK-47.
That's what Zoe always calls me.
Zoe always calls me AK-47 too.
All right, as a student, I have found that a lot of social science psychology wearing real science clothing has been foisted upon me.
My question is, how do you approach these studies and their respective fields?
I will tell you this.
If you walk out into a protest meeting or hear people talking about safe spaces and trigger warnings and oh, how offended they are, and oh, there's such snowflakes that they can't be touched by an idea, I guarantee you they are not in the sciences.
They're not engineers, they're not astronomers, they're not physicists.
They are either in the social sciences or in the liberal arts.
And I believe there is a reason for this, okay?
The liberal arts and social sciences are very useful, very important.
But they're there to talk about humanity, right?
You can't talk about humanity if you don't know what humanity is for.
If you have no values, if you have no idea what the best thing for people is, what people should be heading for, then you don't know what you're doing.
Your life is just a series of frustrations.
No wonder you're angry all the time.
If you're reading literature, if you're reading philosophy, and it's just like all a bunch of different opinions, and maybe Plato was right about something, and maybe Aristotle, you know, who knows?
You're just going to be angry all the time.
You have to understand.
You know, people have been picking on my friend and colleague Ben Shapiro because he has stalwartly will not refuses to support Donald Trump.
Why does he feel like that?
It's because he knows what life is for.
He knows that it's for freedom and there are certain things that he knows that support freedom and those things Trump doesn't stand for and he is annoyed.
He is annoyed that other people who he thought supported those principles have gone over to Trump as he feels it, leaving those principles to support the person.
I agree with Ben about this.
I agree that that's what's happening.
Why do I not feel as bad about it as he does?
Because I'm older and more cynical.
You know, that's the reason, because I've seen it happen before.
Look, sometimes it's Palm Sunday, and when you tell the truth, they carry you on their shoulders into the city.
And sometimes it's Good Friday, and when you tell the truth, they crucify you.
I've lived through a lot of Palm Sundays and a lot of Good Fridays.
I've seen them both come and both go.
And so I'm a little bit more relaxed about the fact that right this moment when you speak the truth to the right, to the people we thought loved the truth, the conservatives who thought they say, oh, you're a traitor.
You hate, you know, all you want to do is lose.
You don't know how to win, win, win, it's all about winning.
You know, it's not all about winning, obviously.
If you win without principle, what difference does it make?
The only reason I'm more relaxed about it is because I've seen it happen before, and I know it's going to happen again.
And I also know that if you, you know, tie your guts into knots over it happening, you're not going to live a happy life because this is what the world is like.
This is what people do.
They follow after humans instead of after principles.
So to get back to the question, these guys who study psychology, who study social science, but don't understand that there is a purpose to life and a best life and a good life that we may not know fully, but we know that we have learned about over the years and over the centuries, they have nothing to say.
They're just sitting there collecting data.
Some of the data is useful, some of it's not.
How can you know?
How can you know if you don't know what is best for man, if you don't know what human beings are for?
And so that's what I think about them.
I think those studies can all be useful, but I think that they are stuck in this relativistic world in which they become nonsense.
All right.
From G.R. White, I agree with Tracy Harris of the atheist community of Austin.
I guess that's Texas.
If I were an omnipotent God, I would stop a child rapist before the crime.
Your God just shrugs and says he'll deal harshly with the rapists later if a timely repentance has not been accomplished.
It's kind of like replying to Paul Pott's genocide with a sternly worded letter from the UN.
Are we more moral than your God?
Well, let's fact check this.
One of the greatest sops, SOPs, that's not the word I'm looking for.
One of the greatest obstacles to joy in life is speaking words that you don't believe, is holding philosophies that you don't believe.
One of the reasons these relativists are so angry all the time is because they're not really relativists.
No one really believes there is no moral truth.
Some people say we don't know what reality is, but the same people who don't know what reality is always turn north when they want to go north and always turn south when they want to go south.
They know plenty well what reality is, you know, and they're saying things they don't believe.
Let us see if you are saying something that you don't believe.
You say if I were an omnipotent God, I would stop a child rapist before the crime.
Well, would you stop there?
Why would you let anybody hurt anybody?
Why would you let anybody make any decision that was bad for them or bad for someone else?
You're not God.
You're a Democrat.
You're just trying to make people do what you think is right for them to do.
What God is telling you by allowing evil in the world is that freedom is the purpose of your life.
Now, there's a purpose to freedom.
There's a purpose to freedom.
It's not just there for you to go partying with, but there is a purpose to freedom.
But freedom is the purpose of your life, and that means that evil has to be allowed.
And if indeed this is the end, if you live and die and disappear, then it's not a good system.
We have faith that there is a larger system in which these things suddenly make a lot more sense than they do to us now.
It's incredibly painful.
If you want to read some of the best writing about it, read Dostoevsky's brothers Karamazov.
He talks about it at length.
It's a very painful problem, but it's not an insoluble problem.
Ask yourself, would you really make everybody make the right choice if you were an omnipotent God?
Would you?
I don't know.
It doesn't sound like much of a world to me, and it doesn't sound like a very good path to developing human beings into real human beings with depth and freedom of choice.
All right, stuff I like.
I've been talking about network TV all week, and I have to go to this show.
I'm not going to tell you this is a, oh boy, we have a new stuff I like thing.
This is my first time I've seen it.
I love it.
It's great.
I just love this stuff.
All right.
I'm not going to tell you this is a good show, but it is a show that I can't stop watching.
And any conservative, look, one of the things that network TV does well is comfort food.
You don't go to network TV really to be disturbed.
You don't go to see Breaking Bad.
You don't go to see The Sopranos or Game of Thrones where your senses are going to be rattled and you're going to have to re gauge your sensibilities.
You go to see, to get a little comfort before you fall asleep at night.
The best show for this on television is Blue Bloods.
If you are a conservative, it is the only show that consistently stands up for conservative values, family, faith, religion, and the cops, the police.
Without being fascist about it, without saying the cops can do anything they want, it shows you why the cops do what they do.
It stands up for them.
The season premiere this week should have just been called Screw Black Lives Matter.
And they did it without race at all.
They just had a cop on the dime for killing a man who was unarmed.
And we had seen the thing in a previous episode, so we knew he did the right thing and he stood up for himself.
This is the great Tom Selleck, one of the last open Republicans in Hollywood.
This is the great Tom Selleck making a speech in Blue Bloods about a cop who was going on vacation when 9-11 happened.
Molly kissed him goodbye, urged him to be careful, as she had done every day for the almost 30 years that he served and protected this city.
And then John headed for ground zero.
Where were you on 9-11?
Yeah, that's, I mean, it's just a different show.
It's a different sensibility.
They pray, they pray to Jesus.
They don't just pray like randomly.
They pray.
They stand up for the cops.
They have black agitators who are dishonest and political.
They have Muslims who are terrorists.
It's stuff, you know, and yes, do they fudge it?
Yeah, they fudge all of it.
But still, it's stuff you don't see anywhere else on TV.
And it's good.
It's touching.
It's a touching show.
The acting is good.
Donny Wahlberg is good.
It's lots of fun.
Blue Bloods.
All right.
Speaking of Ben Shapiro, I'm going to go on his show tomorrow.
You know how I found this out?
This is like, you know, Ben, does Ben call me?
Yeah, Ben called me.
I'm on the phone with him yesterday.
He doesn't mention this to me, but I saw it on Twitter.
So I saw it on Twitter and I wrote to myself, am I on your show Thursday?
Yes.
So I am.
I'm going to go on Ben's show tomorrow to talk about the great good thing, which should be kind of interesting because, of course, it is the story of a Jew who becomes a Christian.
And I know Ben gets a lot of flack for standing up for it.
But Ben, unlike the people who are giving me flak, Ben actually read the book, and so he knows that it is not offensive to Jewish people.
It is my personal story.
You know, Ben and I like to debate things.
We're not going to do that.
We're just going to have a fight with baseball bats.
We're just going to hit it.
Yeah, we're going right to it.
Anyway, I will be on Shapiro Show tomorrow.
I'm looking forward to it.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
We got one more before the Clavin List weekend.
You got to store up on MREs and on, you know, witty observations about the time.