Ep. 261 skewers political theater with Trump’s satirical "Sermon on the Mount" order, sparking Chuck Schumer’s melodrama and Andrew Cuomo’s explosive demise, while Hollywood actors like Chad Self weaponize awards shows against him. The episode pivots to Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination, dismissing Democratic "stolen seat" claims as partisan overreach and praising his originalist record. Critiquing left-wing outrage culture—from Steve Martin’s forced apologies to Redskins controversies—the host argues Trump’s policies force Democrats into self-sabotaging hysteria. Mailbag advice rejects climate alarmism as a power grab, urges conservative parents to prioritize faith over dogma in interfaith marriages, and warns against liberal arts programs unless they teach "great books." Closing with Hemingway’s A Movable Feast and a joke about younger-host fantasies, the episode blends sharp satire with cultural war tactics. [Automatically generated summary]
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order containing Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.
Anti-sermon protesters immediately took to the streets in major cities around the country while Democrats in Congress vowed to oppose the sermon and journalists and movie actors joined together in a rollicking anti-Trump music video to the tune of Uptown Funk.
Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer burst into tears as he declared that the sermon order was a mean-spirited violation of the separation of church and state.
In a statement before reporters, Schumer said, quote, America is not some sort of theocracy where the president can just come into our homes and force us to bless the pure of heart.
Are we going to start having heart purity tests and denying people blessings if they're impure?
It's outrageous.
True Americans must oppose this sort of religious oppression.
That's why I named my daughter Atheista Seculara Disbeliever Rama.
But the rest of Schumer's statement was incomprehensible due to his uncontrollable sobbing.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told a press conference that the sermon order was an insult to all those religious people who did not believe in love and peace.
Governor Cuomo said, quote, as a New Yorker, I am a Muslim, unquote.
He then proceeded to blow himself up, killing 53 people.
Protesters took to the streets demanding that the administration rescind its request for Americans to love their enemies, carrying signs that read, hate Trump's love.
The demonstrators told reporters that if Trump was for love, they were against it, and anyone who went around loving people would get a punch in the face.
In Hollywood, at an award program giving awards for the best award program, actors and actresses repeatedly received their awards for best awards by making angry political speeches about how oppressed they felt by the Sermon on the Mount.
Actor Chad Self, who won the award for best presentation of an award for best award at an award ceremony, told the cheering crowd, quote, As actors, it is our job to transform the known universe by pretending to be police officers and pointing toy guns at one another while shouting, Let the girl go.
After all, if a childish narcissist who's been divorced three times can't come out of rehab and tell the rest of America how to run the country, who can?
Unquote.
President Trump defended the order by reading the text of the Sermon on the Mount aloud to reporters, saying, Quote, Blessed are the pure in heart, except for the losers and haters.
And also, if the pure in heart give me problems, then I won't bless them so much, believe me.
Blessed are the poor in spirit, although personally I prefer the rich in spirit because I've built a great spirit worth billions.
It's not just me saying it.
Many people have said, I've got the best spirit.
They just can't believe what a great spirit I have.
Also, the meek will inherit the earth, though frankly, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, unquote.
Presidential spokesman Sean Spicer later admitted there were some problems with the sermon rollout.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I for hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dooky.
Ship-shaped dipsy-topsy, the world is zippity-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hoorah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
Winning at Every Level00:03:08
We're going to win so much.
We're going to win at every level.
We're going to win economically.
We're going to win with the economy.
We're going to win with the military.
We're going to win with health care and for our veterans.
We're going to win with every single facet.
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay.
My, oh my, what a wonderful day.
We're going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning.
Yay!
You say, please, please, it's too much winning.
We can't take it anymore.
I feel pretty.
Oh, so pretty.
I feel pretty and witty and gay.
We have to keep winning.
We have to win more.
We don't even have to do the show today.
We're just going to go right into the Trump montage.
We may just play the Trump montage for 30 minutes in a row.
All right, it's Mailbag.
Hey, Trump had a great day yesterday.
He hit a home run, Supreme Court nomination.
Even I heard that even Shapiro was wearing his Make America Great Again hat.
And we're going to talk about all that.
And it's also Mailbag Day from Washington, D.C. We'll answer all your questions.
Answers are guaranteed 100% correct.
And the answers will change your life, possibly for the better.
First, we have to talk about Blue Apron.
Why do I even have to do these ads for Blue Apron when they're giving you the food for free?
It's like that should be the entire ad, free food.
I mean, who would say, nah, I don't want free food?
All you got to do is go on blueapron.com slash Andrew.
You will get the first three meals for free.
This is the number one fresh ingredient and recipe delivery service in the country.
They bring the ingredients directly to your door, then you cook them up, and it makes a restaurant-level meal.
I've already signed on for the first three.
I've eaten the first three and signed on for the next three.
I'm telling you, these are, this is, they call it great home cooking, but it's really great restaurant cooking in your home.
Because, you know, I mean, my wife is a terrific country cook, but, you know, she's not going to make roasted pork with apple, walnut, and faro salad, cashew chicken stir-fry with tango mandarins and jasmine rice, crispy barramundi.
I don't even know what crispy barramundi is.
Sounds great, but udon noodle soup with me.
You know, this is stuff you would get in a restaurant, but instead it comes to your house, you get the fun of cooking it, all the ingredients.
You get just, you don't have to measure it out.
You get just the number of ingredients you need and the instructions, put it together, and you get a meal for around 10 bucks.
So you're getting a restaurant-level meal for around 10 bucks in your home.
The variety changes all the time.
They're flexible.
You can pick your own menus.
And each meal comes with a step-by-step thing.
And it's free.
It's free food.
I mean, what else is there?
Yeah.
I mean, really, blueapron.com slash Andrew.
Blueapron.com slash Andrew.
You get your first three meals free with free shipping.
You will love how good it feels and tastes to create incredible home cooked meals with Blue Apron.
So do not wait.
That's blueapron.com slash Andrew.
It's a better way to cook.
The Scalia Seat Controversy00:15:32
All right.
What a day.
An excellent Trump day.
And a classic Trump day because Trump did this whole, you know, celebrity apprentice thing where he brought his last two Supreme Court picks to Washington.
He had Thomas Hardeman.
Hardeman apparently never really made it to Washington.
He heard the news before he came, but he was invited and he kind of stretched out the suspense.
And then finally he got together, he came out, he invited Democrats to show up, but they didn't show up.
So basically it was a partisan crowd and announced that he had picked Neil Gorsuch, who of course makes those famous winter coats.
No, maybe that's another Neil Gorsuch.
Maybe that's another Gorsuch.
But he announced Neil Gorsuch.
And here is Trump making the announcement on his promises.
Cut three, I think.
Months ago as a candidate, I publicly presented a list of brilliant and accomplished people to the American electorate and pledged to make my choice from among that list.
Millions of voters said this was the single most important issue to them when they voted for me for president.
I am a man of my word.
I will do as I say.
Something that the American people have been asking for from Washington for a very, very long time.
Now, it's really, it was really a great thing.
Gorsuch is what they call an originalist.
They throw these words around a textualist, but really what it means is he believes that the Constitution meant what people, he thinks that laws meant what people believed them to mean when they passed them.
What was the common understanding of the law?
If they find some buried piece of document from James Madison saying, no, I saw it differently, that doesn't matter.
It's what laws did the people think they were getting at the time.
And he's in the mold of Antonin Scalia in that he's not like a strict originalist because, you know, times do change.
So for instance, if there's a rule against cruel and unusual punishment, the punishments that they had in the 18th century were pretty tough.
You could get branded, you could get whipped, you could have your ears cut and stuff like this.
And even Scalia would say, well, we're not that originalist.
You know, we understand that times change.
Clarence Thomas, not so much.
Clarence Thomas is like, you don't like the 18th century law, change it.
But this guy and Scalia are people who believe in basically the Constitution.
He believes in the Constitution, and that is what the Democrats don't like.
And that's why it's going to be a big fight.
He's been really good on religious liberty.
He supported the decision, the Hobby Lobby decision.
I love the way they sell these things.
I love the way the left sells these things on TV.
They said this allows corporations to deny women health care.
Totally untrue.
Just a complete distortion of what happened.
Hobby Lobby was a small company, about 21,000 employees owned, you know, what they call a closely owned company.
It was basically owned by a family, evangelical Christians.
They ran the company according to their belief systems, just like this company, the Daily Wire, is run according to some of the beliefs of our owners.
So they had the right to exercise their religion, religious beliefs, as the Constitution guarantees.
And what they believed was that certain forms of birth control paid for by Obamacare insurance were a kind of abortion.
And so they didn't want to support that.
And the court supported them.
And Gorsuch supported the court in that.
Very good on that.
He's really good on judicial overreach and the court shouldn't make the law.
And he objects to this rule, which I've now learned to call the Chevron Rule.
I didn't know what that was called, but that's the rule that bureaucracies can decide for themselves what their own rules mean.
They could interpret their own rules, which essentially gives all these powers not just to unelected bureaucrats, but to the president, because the president is appointing the bureaucrats so he can kind of reinterpret the law out of existence, which is pretty much what Obama was doing.
So here is Gorsuch, you know, paying tribute.
The first thing he did was pay tribute to Scalia, his predecessor.
The towering judges that have served in this particular seat of the Supreme Court, including Ann and Scalia and Robert Jackson, are much in my mind at this moment.
Justice Scalia was a lion of the law.
Agree or disagree with him, all of his colleagues on the bench cherish his wisdom and his humor.
And like them, I miss him.
Now, you know, this is part of this idea.
See, there are two bad arguments that go on that you hear on TV.
One is the argument from the right.
The argument from the right is this is the Scalia seat, and therefore we get to appoint a guy who's like Scalia.
That's ridiculous.
The seat belongs to the people.
The seat belongs to anybody who can fill it.
You know, we are thrilled that he has got a guy that Scalia apparently liked and Scalia apparently endorsed before his death.
I'm delighted about that.
But it's not the Scalia seat, you know, but it is great that he is in that tradition.
Here he is describing his judicial philosophy, which is so important because if these guys don't describe their judicial philosophy out front, you can wind up with a guy like Souter who was appointed, Reagan appointed him thinking, I'm sorry, it was Bush appointed him thinking he was a conservative, turns out to be a flaming liberal.
But this guy definitely has an originalist philosophy.
Here he is stating it.
Practicing in the trial work trenches of the law, I saw, too, that when we judges don our robes, it doesn't make us any smarter.
But it does serve as a reminder of what's expected of us: impartiality and independence, collegiality, and courage.
As this process now moves to the Senate, I look forward with speaking with members from both sides of the aisle, to answering their questions and to hearing their concerns.
I consider the United States Senate the greatest deliberative body in the world, and I respect the important role the Constitution affords it in the confirmation of our judges.
I respect, too, the fact that in our legal order, it is for Congress and not the courts to write new laws.
It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives.
A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.
So I love, by the way, Trump.
Trump, when he makes this announcement, he turns to the audience and says, was that a surprise?
Are you surprised?
Like it's a TV show, you know, and now he gets up and Trump tries to sell this to the Democrats because, of course, the Democrats are out protesting before the announcement is made.
They were standing.
There were protests on the steps of the Supreme Court with guys with signs that had, we oppose blank.
And then they filled in the name after the announcement was made.
So here's Trump making a bid for bipartisan support.
Good luck to him.
I have always felt that after the defense of our nation, the most important decision a president of the United States can make is the appointment of a Supreme Court justice.
Depending on their age, a justice can be active for 50 years and his or her decisions can last a century or more and can often be permanent.
I took the task of this nomination very seriously.
I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really, and I mean closely define what we're looking for.
Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline, and has earned bipartisan support.
When he was nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he was confirmed by the Senate unanimously.
Also, that's unanimous.
Can you believe that nowadays with what's going on?
Does that happen anymore?
Does it happen?
I think it's going to happen, maybe again.
Okay, he thinks it's going to happen maybe again.
Not so fast, not so fast.
He was confirmed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006 unanimously by a voice vote.
People thought, you know, the guy is eminently qualified, Harvard, Oxford, the whole deal.
But suddenly Chuck Schumer comes out, and this is Chuck Schumer's statement, to which Donald Trump made the following response.
Guards, Dave, hey, why?
Hey, Momwa, Boma's boy.
I bet you're going to cry.
I see you cry now.
Politics is a tough game.
I tell you, the real response comes from Jeff Merkley, Senator Jeff Merkley, who has already stated that he thinks there should be a filibuster against the judge.
And here he is on Rachel Maddow's show explaining why he feels this way.
Was we must not forget this.
This is not a normal consideration.
This is a seat that was stolen from the former president, Obama.
That's never been done in U.S. history before.
To let this become normal just invites a complete partisan polarization of the court from here to eternity.
At what point does a majority say in the future, we will not let someone make a nomination two years into their four years or three years into their four years or their entire four years.
So I made it clear that I was going to insist on a 60-vote standard and that I would vote against closing debate.
So insisting on 60 votes is the way you start what we refer to as a filibuster.
And then the question is, are there going to be enough votes to shut it down?
And of course, my hope is that there won't be.
Okay, that's the stolen seat argument from the right.
I explained why the left's Scalia's seat is bad.
And I'll explain why that's a bad argument too.
But first, I have to say goodbye to the folks on Facebook and YouTube.
But come on over to thedailywire.com and you can hear the mailbag, all your questions answered, and the answer is guaranteed 100% correct.
And you can be in the mailbag if you subscribe for a lousy eight bucks a month.
So the stolen seat is, of course, the reference to Obama's pick, Merrick, who the Republicans refused to confirm because they knew the election was coming up.
And they said, let the people decide who they had the majority.
They said, let the people decide who is going to be the next president.
And the next president can make the pick.
And so now they're saying, well, they stole the seat from him.
But once again, just as it's not Scalia's seat, it ain't Obama's seat either.
You can't steal something from someone unless they own it.
Obama didn't own the seat either.
The seat belongs to the president who can pick the guy and get him through.
And that is what we call, hooray, the democratic American process.
I mean, that's the point of having all these different people fighting and arguing about it.
The problem is, the problem is, is the left, and it's only the left, has transformed the court into a super legislative body.
The court has been making law, the abortion law, the gay marriage law, whether you agree with them or not, has nothing to do with it.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree with the results.
It has to do with the fact that five guys and girls wearing black robes who aren't elected should not be making the law.
They should be interpreting the law that Congress makes.
And their only job, the only time, and this is a right they gave themselves, this is the right the Supreme Court gave themselves, that they can strike down a law if it is in clear violation of the Constitution.
But that should be a much more stringent rule than it is with the left.
The left just decides it's against the Constitution, meaning if it's against what they like, it's the famous living document, which essentially means a blank document that they can interpret any way they want.
And that's why this has become such a big fight.
But the problem is, the problem is every single thing that Trump does, these guys get hysterical.
So when you say, you know, protesters took to the street, they didn't take to the street because they were already out in the street from the last thing he did, from the immigration thing he did.
So if they're constant, if everything is going to be constant hysteria on the left, ultimately it seems to me that just becomes a high-pitched noise that people are free to ignore and will start to ignore.
You know, even the left is beginning to notice the way they behave.
This is really funny.
I mean, I just noticed all of a sudden it's the sting of losing that does this to people.
It kind of wakes them up that maybe they haven't behaved in such a great way.
This is why power corrupts, because as long as you're in power, you don't have to question yourself.
But once you start to lose, you have to say, well, what did I do wrong?
Maybe I'm not doing something right.
Just listen for a minute to Bill Maher talking about why he feels the left loses elections.
You know, in 2016, conservatives won the White House, both houses of Congress, and almost two-thirds of governorships and state legislatures.
Whereas liberals, on the other hand, caught Steve Martin calling Carrie Fisher beautiful in a tweet and made him take it down.
I'm not making that up.
That really happened.
Here's Steve's offensive tweet.
When I was a young man, Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I'd ever seen.
She turned out to be witty and bright as well.
How could you, Steve?
We thought we knew you, but this, you noted her appearance first and then that she was witty and bright.
You're a monster.
Liberals do this all the time.
They get offended for people who themselves would not be offended.
You know that whole controversy about the name Washington Redskins?
They did a survey.
9 out of 10 actual Indians don't give a s**t.
Why would we?
They're insane.
Their ancestors learned firsthand that New England patriots cheat.
All right, a good line.
But, you know, this is the thing.
If you're going to be hysterical about every little thing, eventually that just becomes a high-pitched tone that only dogs can hear and only dogs give a damn about as well.
So I just think that Trump has maneuvered these guys.
And I don't even know if this is a strategy.
It just may be his personality.
He has maneuvered the left into a position where they are constantly, constantly screaming.
And now something important is happening.
You know, the immigration, the ban on refugees, temporary ban on refugees, was nothing, really.
I mean, 109 people, one interpreter got held up.
There was nothing.
This is the Supreme Court.
And now they may have screamed themselves hoarse and used up a lot of the capital they, the political capital they might have had had they kept their powder dry.
All right, let's go to the mailbag.
From Simon.
Oh, you know, we didn't get, I'm sorry, we need a woo-hoo for the mailbag.
Give me, hey, give me a woo-hoo.
Just because I'm in Washington doesn't mean I don't get a woo-hoo.
There you go.
All right.
You know, we should look.
I should show you just for a minute.
Can you see?
Can you see there?
Oh, no, it's too bright.
Well, there you can see it.
It's.
All right, there it is.
That's Georgetown outside my window.
The place is filled.
The hotel is filled for the national prayer breakfast with people from all over the world.
And there are so many Secret Service guys here that it looks like an episode of 24.
And we're all being checked tremendously and everything.
All right, from Simon Andrews, what is the Republican argument against global warming?
Very simple.
Let's say there's a televangelist on TV.
And let's say he says, the world is going to come to an end.
God is going to come to judge the living and the dead.
Therefore, you should send me $100.
Okay.
Now, the world is going to come to an end.
Scam Economics00:04:57
That's a scientific fact.
God will come to judge the living and the dead.
That is a point of faith that we probably agree with those of us of faith who agree with the televangelist.
The fraud comes in when he tells you that you can do something about this by sending him $100.
The thing with the left is this.
The world does seem to have gotten a little bit warmer, not as much as people predicted it would, but it seems to have gotten a little bit warmer.
The world is always getting warmer and colder.
Many of our lakes used to be glaciers, right?
That was before mankind even existed.
The idea that therefore, because the world is getting warmer, that therefore we should give the government power over our energy supplies, that's the scam.
That is the scam.
I mean, look, you're listening to televangelists and you're going, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And then he asks you to send them the money.
That's when you grab your wallet.
You should do the same thing with the left.
When they tell you there's global warming, that's interesting.
When they tell you maybe we need, you know, to take a look at this and do some things, maybe.
But when they simply are trying to seize our energy supplies and regulate energy production into the ground, and it has basically been shown that none of this will help, that none of this will do anything.
Because remember, part of this is that we don't know.
Nobody knows how much human activity is causing warming.
Surely there's a little bit of cause from human activity.
We're all like little light bulbs, you know, causing some heat.
But without going back to the caveman days, it's very unlikely we can do anything about that.
And so the scam comes in when the government tries to use this panic to seize power.
From Ricardo Benavidez, what do you think conservatives should major in in colleges?
Well, I'll tell you, you should obviously major in whatever you want to do with your life if you want to be an engineer or lawyer or things, major in pre-law, major in pre-med, if that's what you want to do.
If you go into the liberal arts, into English, into history, into even things like sociology and psychology, you are going to hit the leftist buzzsaw.
You are going to hit the leftist buzzsaw.
And if that's your plan, the best thing you can do is look at your colleges first and make sure they have something like a great books course, a great books semester.
Places like Yale and so on still have what they call directed studies, where you go in and you learn the philosophy of the West, the literature of the West.
There's no discussion of politics.
There's only the discussion of what the literature meant to the people writing it.
If you're going to go into the soft studies, like I did, I was an English major, make sure you're going to learn English.
If you come out of college with an English major and you haven't read all of Shakespeare, every single word that Shakespeare wrote, you're not an English major.
You haven't learned anything.
Okay, so make sure they're going to teach you the history of English literature and not just throw in a lot of minority guys because that's fair.
You know, that's the only thing I would say.
And you can find that out before you go.
You don't have to find it out.
It doesn't have to be a big surprise after you arrive in college.
Almighty Lord Clevanus III, finally, people using my proper titles.
If you could compare the American election to a movie, what movie would it be?
From Android the Surf.
If I could compare the American election to a movie, what movie would it be?
It would probably be the Battle of the Bastards from Game of Thrones, I think.
And I may just leave that comment.
It's just like all kinds of crazy people fighting each other to the death.
The odds were incredibly bad for one side, and yet things turned out differently than they looked like they were going to turn out.
From, it's kind of a funny question.
Beaver C at gmail.com.
Andrew Donald Trump has thrown the word protectionism around on a few occasions.
To what extent do you believe he will implement these economy-slowing anti-trade policies?
And also, if the economy crashes from productionist tariffs, will history mistakenly blame his actual conservative policies like lowering taxes and cutting regulations?
That, of course, is the fear.
If he does something stupid and crashes the economy, will conservatives get blamed?
Yeah, of course they will.
And that is why I think that Trump ultimately, I mean, even though what he did today is probably even more important with his appointment of the Supreme Court guy, if he gets in, ultimately he'll be judged on whether he crashes the economy or makes it come roaring back.
If he makes it come roaring back, he's going to have a lot of political capital.
I am hoping when he talks about protectionism, what he is talking about is reasonable protection from unfair trade.
You know, there is an argument to be made that if another country is not playing fair with us and is putting tariffs on our products, we can strike back by putting products on their tariffs without starting a trade war, without causing our trade to collapse.
That makes a certain amount of sense.
If what he really means is he's going to try and control companies by changing their minds, by punishing them as he has threatened repeatedly to do, I think it could be a problem.
And yes, if he crashes the economy, it's going to come back on us.
There's just no question about it, even if we didn't support those particular policies.
Attending to Our Relationship with God00:04:51
From Mike, Dear Your Lordship Supreme Merciful God, King Claven.
My wife's father is a homosexual man.
He is a wonderful man, but leans to the left.
My question to you would be, what advice you would have for navigating these waters, raising my future child in a conservative Christian way?
Love the show.
Keep up the great work.
I will warn you before I say this that I'm neither a theologian nor a pastor.
What I say comes from deep reading in my particular faith, and I get yelled at every time I say this.
Christianity is not a set of rules.
I don't care what anybody says.
It's not a set of rules.
This is my theology, my belief.
Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ that, if you give yourself over to it, will transform you.
Now, I make this joke all the time about changing people's lives.
The joke I make is if you give a book to somebody or a diet to somebody or a dress to somebody and say, this will change your life, they will be excited about it.
And that is true whether it is the most famous, most handsome, most beautiful, wealthiest movie star or billionaire in the world, a person who you would think has everything they need.
You say to them, this diet will change their life, they will be interested in it.
That is because all of us know we do not have the life we're supposed to have.
Every one of us knows that we are not what we were made to be.
And the relationship with Jesus Christ is a way of allowing God to bring you every day a little bit closer to that person you were made to be.
Now, you may say to yourself, well, what's that got to do with the fact that my father-in-law is a gay man?
And that is exactly my question.
What does it have to do with the fact that your father-in-law is a gay man?
Absolutely nothing.
We are told to judge not lest we be judged.
We are told to remove the moat from the plank from our own eye before we judge the moat in other people's eyes.
Those instructions deal with the inner life of man, the inner relationship of a man with God, right?
It doesn't mean you can't say, oh, murder is wrong.
Of course, murder is wrong.
It doesn't mean you can't have opinions about being gay.
What it means is that you are supposed to be attendant to your relationship with God.
And as that transforms and your relationship with men transforms, human beings transform with it.
You know, you will begin to come into this inheritance that was given to you through Christ.
All right?
That's the point.
All you got to do with this guy is follow the rules, which is love your neighbor.
And all you got to do with your father-in-law is love him and show your kid that you love him.
And, you know, I would just say something else.
I strongly believe that being gay has a genetic component to it as well.
It may not be the only thing, but this may be something that turns up in your family.
Again, you want to make sure that you have taken a loving, accepting posture.
It doesn't mean you have to approve of it.
I'm not telling you to approve of anything.
I'm just telling you that you love the person.
You love the person no matter what.
I mean, even if you have to visit somebody in prison, you love them.
But if you follow that guidance, you will not go far wrong, and your son will get the message.
You know, the thing is, Christianity is not a religion of no, it's a religion of yes.
You can show your son by the way you treat your wife what a marriage is supposed to look like.
You can make him want that marriage, that kind of marriage, by treating your wife.
Every word you say to your wife, every word your wife says to you, every way that you treat her and every way she treats you, he is going to be watching and he will learn what a marriage should look like and what you want a marriage to look like and what he wants a marriage to look like if that's a joyous thing.
If you're treating her badly, he's going to learn that too, and then you're going to have no sway over him whatsoever.
I hope that's an answer to the question.
I look forward to all the notes telling me that I don't hate enough people in the name of Jesus, but that's my answer.
Here is another one on the same kind of topic.
I'm a Christian.
This is from Sean.
I'm a Christian and can use any advice you have pertaining to an interfaith relationship.
I've been dating an incredible Jewish woman for about a year now.
I love her tremendously, and we plan on getting married.
She's not a leftist, but is a liberal.
To say we disagree on politics would be an understatement, but we both enjoy discussing our differences and are able to do so civilly.
Do you have any wisdom on how to be the type of Christian conservative that might inspire her to be those things too?
Yeah, again, again, if Christianity is not a set of rules, the reason it's not a set of rules is because rules just strangle your joy.
If all you're doing is telling yourself that your natural self, the desires of your natural self are bad, bad, bad, no, no, no, if that's all you're doing, you're going to be kind of unhappy because you're never going to triumph over your lust.
You're never going to triumph over your greed.
You're never going to triumph over your ambition.
What you're trying to do is actually transform that natural self into another kind of self, a Jesus self.
And if you do that, you will find that you're always moving toward that thing.
A Movable Feast00:02:52
And that is a joyous thing.
That is not just a joyous thing, it's also a happy thing.
And that joy will communicate itself.
And that is so much more powerful than any rules or any Jesus, Jesus, Jesus stuff you can do.
Live in joy, live in the joy of Christ, and live into the joy of Christ.
And you'll be surprised.
It's a great sales tool, if nothing else.
Final question from Ethan, Supreme Leader Claven.
I bought my girlfriend The Great Good Thing as a Christmas present, and she loved it enough to immediately pick up another one of your books, True Crime.
After seeing the author bio, which has a picture of your younger self, I am convinced she's more attractive to you, attracted to you than to me.
She wanted to know what happened to that sexy beast.
I'm still in here, sweetheart.
And she's absolutely, I just said, speaks so well of her taste that she's more attracted to me than to you.
P.S.
We love the show and appreciate the laughs.
I hope this was one of them.
All right, stuff I like.
That's the mailbag.
Stuff I like.
Subscribe to the dailywire.com and you can be in the next mailbag.
We've been doing memoirs, and here is one of the great memoirs of all time.
It's by Ernest Hemingway.
It's called A Movable Feast.
It's the story of him being a young, starving writer in Paris.
It couldn't be any more romantic and touchingly written and just so beautiful.
You know, Hemingway, at his best, was a beautiful writer.
It's really interesting.
These are notes that he made while he was living in Paris as a young man trying to get started as a writer, trying to develop the famous Hemingwayan style.
And the notebooks that he wrote this in disappeared in the 20s.
And I think about 30, 40 years later, 35, 40 years later, he was sitting in a cafe in Paris, and the waiter came out.
It was a hotel cafe, and they said, you know, we have a trunk of yours in storage here.
And Ernest Hemingway went down, found this trunk, opened the trunk, went through it.
There's a lot of junk in it.
At the bottom of the trunk, there were these notebooks.
And that he put together into this memoir, A Movable Feast.
Do we have a pardon me?
Do we have a cut from that movable feast?
No, we don't.
Okay.
It's beautifully written.
It's so touching.
It will take you there.
It's got all these famous people like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Fitzgerald or Alistair Crowley, all these famous people of the 20s.
If you've ever seen that Woody Allen movie, Paris at Midnight or whatever it was called, that's kind of based on or inspired by the kind of stories that are in A Movable Feast by Ernest Hemingway.
Great book.
All right, tomorrow we are gone because we are going to the national prayer breakfast where we hope to see our orange overlord at prayer.
If the number of Secret Service agents in this hotel is any indication, I'm guessing he'll be here.
But I guess we're going to do one on Friday.
Is that right?
Yep, we'll do a show on Friday when I get back, and I'll tell you how it went.