Andrew Clavin dissects how mainstream media’s portrayal of Russia flips with U.S. political cycles—praising it for defeating Nazis under Reagan but demonizing it post-2016—while dismissing "Russian collusion" as a partisan fabrication, citing Obama’s pre-Crimea business ties and Sessions’ routine meetings. He contrasts Breitbart’s original vision—a center-right media revolution—to Bannon’s pro-Trump alt-right pivot, arguing Trump’s presidency fulfilled Breitbart’s goal of dismantling the "Democrat media complex," despite personal policy clashes. Clavin frames Breitbart as a tactical genius who weaponized free-market media against leftist dominance, uniting conservatives like Shapiro and Crowder while exposing systemic bias in climate reporting and police narrative exaggerations. The episode ends with a tribute to Breitbart’s untimely death and his final defiance of media elites, framing Trump’s rise as the culmination of his legacy. [Automatically generated summary]
Those of you who still follow world events through the mainstream media may find you're beginning to have some serious questions like why is that big head on my television screen lying to me all the time?
Why is everything I know about the news completely untrue?
And how come I can't get a date?
But perhaps the most important question that is troubling followers of mainstream news is, are the Russians good or bad?
If they're bad, what's bad about them?
And if they're good, why don't they speak English like normal people?
The history of Russia, as told by the mainstream media, is very complex.
In the old days, Russia was good because they helped us defeat the Nazis who were bad, which was good, but then bad because then the Russians murdered millions of people and enslaved everybody, which can't be good.
During the 60s, the Russians were good because America was bad, because America was fighting communism, which was good, which was bad.
The fighting, I mean, was bad.
Because when America was fighting communism, you could get sent to war and killed, and that was bad because you were good.
Then Ronald Reagan was elected, and he was very bad because he was Republican.
So when he said the Russians were bad, they must have been good.
Reagan said the Russians were so bad that their country would collapse.
And all the smart people in the mainstream media said, ha ha ha, you stupid Reagan, because they were good and he was bad.
And then the Russians' country collapsed.
But not because of Reagan, because he was bad.
Now, all the people who had said that Russia was good became college professors so they could teach young people that they were good and America was bad.
Then the young people grew up and got jobs as journalists, which was very bad.
George W. Bush and Mitt Romney said the Russians were bad, but they were Republicans, so they were bad and the Russians were good.
Then America was good because we elected Barack Obama, who was good, and he said the Russians were good, so the Russians were good.
And we sent them a great big red reset button, which wasn't bad until they pressed the button and Crimea disappeared, which probably wasn't so good.
Barack Obama, who was good, said we should do business with Russia because they were good.
So Donald Trump's friends did business with them, which was bad, because Trump was bad.
And when he said Russia was good, Russia was bad.
But not like Reagan said it was bad, because Reagan was bad, so he couldn't be good, but Russia was bad because Trump said it was good and he was bad.
The important thing to remember is Republicans are bad.
So if they say Russia is good, it's bad.
And Democrats are good, so if they say Russia is bad, it's bad.
That's how the mainstream media tell it anyway, because they suck.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Underwear Wearing Debate00:02:27
I for hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dunky.
Shipsy, dipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
What's the same?
All right, the clavinless weekend is hovering over us like that pendulum in the pit in the pendulum with a blade swinging back and forth.
But before it hits, let's talk about your underwear.
We have to talk about Mac Weldon underwear, which actually is terrific stuff.
You know, we bought some, tried it.
It is unbelievably good.
It's much more comfortable than the underwear you're wearing right now.
And you can test that out by just taking the underwear you're wearing now off and running up and down the freeway screaming, I love Nancy Pelosi.
Then come back, I don't know what that'll prove, but just come back and then you can put on some Mac Weldon underwear and you'll be like, ah, I'm suddenly a Republican.
I feel great.
This is terrific.
It really is.
It's so easy to shop.
You go on their website.
They make it out of terrific material.
My Mac Weldon hoodie is now one of my favorite pieces of clothing.
You know, I really have to keep from doing it lest I get shot.
You know, who's that guy in the hoodie?
But it really is terrific, very, very comfortable.
The underwear, it's different.
I mean, it's different than other underwear.
It's just made out of nicer material and it fits better and it's good, good stuff.
Plus, if you're listening to me, you can get it for 20% off.
Just drop by and I'll sell.
No, that's not how it works.
You got to go on macweldon.com and you can get 20% off.
20% off by using the promo code Clavin.
How do you spell it?
How should I know?
What am I addiction?
I'm sorry. I cracked myself up.
Just get...
Just get the underwear.
Don't listen to me.
Just get the underwear.
Oh, man.
All right.
We can fix it in post.
Mac Weldon.
No, absolutely not.
Mac Weldon.
See, we're the only people left in the country who are still having fun.
Andrew Breitbart's Message00:15:54
Everyone else is screaming at each other.
Macweldon.com.
It really, I'm actually not joking.
It's tremendously comfortable.
You get 20% off by using the promo code Clavin.
And I will spell it, K-L-A-V-A-N.
Macweldon.com, promo code Clavin, 20% off on stuff that is much more comfortable than the underwear you're wearing right now.
Oh my goodness.
I'm not sure if they're going to pay me twice for that or just fire me.
I'm not sure.
Anyway, well, we're living in the aftermath of yesterday's speech.
And I don't know if you watched the speech, if you saw it toward the end, if you watched Trump's speech toward the end, all the Democrats got up and quickly ran out of the room, you know.
And so here's the report as they report on what happened to the Democrat Party after the speech.
It's fake and terrible.
Oh, Mike, get out of the way, please.
It's burning, breaking in a flames, and it's falling on one bad flow.
The folks believe that this is terrible.
This is one of the worst candidates in the world.
Still, it's hard.
The fake fold 4,500 feet into the sky, and it hits a terrific face, ladies and gentlemen, that's folks in the slave town.
And the famous rising to the crowd, not quite to the morning fans.
Oh, the humanity and all the fans mischieving us.
It wasn't a good day for the Democrats.
It was not a good day for the Democrats.
You know, five years ago, yesterday, our friend Andrew Breitbart died.
And I want to talk about that, but I want to talk about it in the context of what's happening with Trump and with the Breitbart sites and all of this history, because now Breitbart has become this word that doesn't mean Andrew.
It means these sites that became one of the big, under Steve Bannon's heading, it became one of the big pro-Trump sites and probably helped him get elected, I would have to say.
When Trump got up and made that speech yesterday and the Democrats ran for the doors and they didn't applaud for American jobs and some of them didn't applaud for the widow of a fallen Navy SEAL and they didn't applaud for all the things that Trump was talking, he was kind of talking about making compromises and working with them.
I just thought, wow, wow, this is a disaster for the Democrat Party.
I don't want to overblow it because Trump can sometimes step on his own feet.
He can blow himself up.
But that was, here's Dan Henninger in the Wall Street Journal talking about the state of the Democrats.
That scene you saw at the moment President Trump ended his speech to a joint session of Congress was the Democrats abandoning the ship of state.
Like the progressive street demonstrations endured by the country the past four weeks, we may assume Congress's Democratic delegation organized their post-speech bolt to the exits via the famous social media hashtag, hashtag the resistance.
You'd have thought that at the two-thirds point, when Mr. Trump hadn't self-destructed as expected, when instead he was looking less like Alec Baldwin and more like President Trump, that Chuck Schumer might have pulled out his smartphone to tweet the troops, walk out, maybe not a good idea.
Not this crew.
En mas, they went over the side just as they refused to attend hearings for cabinet nominees and voted as a block against virtually all of them.
So they blew it.
I mean, we talked about this yesterday.
They didn't see this coming.
It was like, it really was like a freight train ran them right over as they sat there in their old, you know, we're the resistance.
Who is it?
Roseanne Barr tweeted the other day.
Did you see this?
She tweeted, Trump is the resistance.
And I think that that's exactly right.
So in the aftermath, the press is scrambling, how can we get back the narrative?
This is the press's problem since it began.
And Charlie Sykes, who I think was speaking for all journalists, left-wing commentator on MSNBC, listened to him describe this speech, his hopes for the future that Trump will now self-destruct, and what he feels is happening to the press.
I mean, that was a good speech.
It's going to help him.
He's going to get a bump.
It reassured jittery Republicans.
There were some genuine grace notes.
But give it a minute.
I mean, how many times have we had this discussion?
Is he going to make a pivot?
Is he going to make a turn?
And I think Robert Costa's piece is very important because the point here is that nothing actually changed.
There is no policy.
He is the same Donald Trump as he was 24 hours previously.
And he does have this ability to change his tune when he needs to be in a different audience or needs to give a different style of speech.
We have seen that from time to time in the campaign trail.
But this certainly was quite different from what we're used to with Donald Trump.
But it was a solid speech.
Although I do think, with the exception of Robert Costa, there's almost a battered pundit syndrome going on out there where, you know, he comes home and he's not abusive and he's not drunk.
And so we're just so incredibly grateful.
It's so incredibly good.
So he's comparing the press to a battered wife.
The only difference is that, of course, wives don't deserve to be battered.
Beating the crap out of these guys should be a national sport.
I mean, they really have been so dishonest.
And they immediately, by the way, talking about who's getting battered, here's a chart from our friends at Newsbusters showing the negative coverage, right, is the red, versus the positive coverage for Trump in his first few days, in his first month in office, right?
And it's, you know, the difference, if you can't see it, the difference is insane.
I mean, the negative comments look like Trump Tower, and the positive comments look like a little hut off to the side.
So 74 to 86, 74 to 88.
Those are the comments.
And that's leaving out, that's leaving out partisan commentary.
It's leaving out people who actually were attacking the president or praising the president.
This is just from the anchorman.
All right.
So, and I'm talking about this in the context, I wanted just to remind you, and in the context of remembering Andrew Breitbart, who's been gone for five years.
And so today, the news trying to take this back, going back to this stupid Russian story, which I believe is a complete nothing burger.
I just think it is absolutely nothing.
Just remember, just remember that until Crimea was annexed, Barack Obama was urging businessmen to do business with the Soviet Union, with the Soviet Union, with the Russians.
He was going over to Russia, Obama was, accompanied by businessmen and by CEOs and saying, we need to invest in Russia.
This is going to press the reset button, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And all that money was going to establish and strengthen the regime of Vladimir Putin.
I mean, this is what Obama did.
Until they annexed the Crimea and he started to impose sanctions, he was helping out the Russians.
Of all those businessmen, very, very few of them had anything to do with Donald Trump.
I mean, Donald Trump did very, very little business with the Russians, less than a lot of people who were following Obama's lead.
So when they say, oh, Paul Manafort, he was over there representing Ukraine.
Obama wanted them to do that.
He asked them to do that.
So now they've got Jeff Sessions, and they are claiming, I mean, they've gone, they've just gone nuts.
Elizabeth Warren says he has to quit.
And even Lindsey Graham, who is like a useful idiot for the Democrats at this point, he's saying, you know, if any of this is true, he has to recuse himself from investigating the Russian ties to the Trump campaign and all this.
Al Franken, during his confirmation hearings, asked Jeff Sessions, Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearings for Attorney General this question, and I will leave, I'm going to play the whole thing, leave it to you to have it in context.
This is the question he asked, and this is Sessions' reply.
CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.
These documents also allegedly say, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.
Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out.
So, you know.
But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious.
And if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities.
I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn't have communications with the Russians.
And I'm unable to comment on it.
Okay, so it turns out that he, during this time, he was on the Armed Services Committee, and he did meet with the Russian ambassador a couple of times.
He says, in connection with his duties as a senator, not as a surrogate for the Donald Trump.
I mean, it's the Russian ambassador.
Everybody's met with him.
Everybody in Washington meets with these ambassadors, and so he met with them a couple times.
Now they're saying, oh, well, this is perjury.
This is perjury.
Completely forgetting, by the way, that Al Franken himself committed this act of perjury here.
I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Every word untrue.
I mean, every single, and under oath as well.
All right.
So here's what I'm going to say.
You know what?
I'm going to pause here before we get into the bright part of it all.
I'm going to pause to say goodbye to folks on Facebook and YouTube.
Come on over to thedailywire.com and hear the rest of the show or subscribe and watch the rest of the show.
Plus, put your questions in the mailbag and have your life changed, possibly for the better.
So during the primaries and then the election, I watched the Breitbart site change from a, you know, partisan right-wing site into, and it was always a Tea Party site.
into this kind of pro-Trump Trump drumbeat thing.
And Bannon, Steve Bannon, who ran the place, said he was making it a platform for the alt-right.
The alt-right, of course, is a phrase that now means so many different things, it's hard to know what it means.
But Milo Yiannopoulos was on it, and there was associations with anti-Semitism, which Bannon is not, in my opinion, anything like an anti-Semite or anything like a fascist or anything like that at all.
But apparently, but it did give Aiden comfort.
I mean, I've complained about this with Milo that he's given Aiden comfort to people who say terrible, terrible things and given cover to them and all this stuff.
And I was watching this, and you know, you can't talk for your dead friend.
You can't say, oh, Andrew would have done this or Andrew wouldn't have liked Trump or whatever.
I think that, you know, my guess, and this is purely my guess, I'm just speaking for myself and my own image of Andrew in my mind.
I don't think he would have liked the way Trump bullied his opponents sometimes.
But I think that he would really have enjoyed this presidency.
I, so far, you know, I who had so many problems with Trump during the primaries and who felt when he won the primary that a certain aspect of my conservatism had been defeated.
Small government conservatism was defeated.
Trump is not a small government conservative.
He is not a guy who hears Ivanka say, oh, we need paid leave, government paid leave for women, and says, no, you know, that's for companies to decide.
That's for independent people to decide on their own.
He thinks, okay, you know, if that's what we need, then that's what we need.
He's a guy who thinks in terms of government doing stuff and fixing problems and all this stuff, which I totally disagree with.
I disagree with what I think are his ideas on trade, though I want to see them played out, see what exactly it is he means.
But, but, look, in politics, you win and you lose, right?
And you win something.
You win something.
I think by not having Hillary Clinton elected, I won a reprieve for the First Amendment.
I think I won a reprieve for the Second Amendment.
I think she would have gutted those very important bases for American freedoms.
And so I think that I'm looking for the good things that Trump has done.
And I have incredibly enjoyed a lot of what Trump has done.
But nothing have I enjoyed more than his attacks on the media, because I think the media are so important.
This was Andrew Breitbart's message.
So let's just listen to Trump for just a minute.
We've played this before, but it's worth it.
It's just a minute of sound.
Worth listening to again.
And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news.
It's fake, phony, fake.
A few days ago, I called the fake news the enemy of the people, and they are.
They are the enemy of the people.
Because they have no sources.
They just make them up when there are none.
I saw one story recently where they said nine people have confirmed.
There are no nine people.
I don't believe there was one or two people.
Nine people.
And I said, give me a break, because I know the people.
I know who they talk to.
There were no nine people, but they say nine people.
And somebody reads it and they think, oh, nine people, they have nine sources.
They make up sources.
They're very dishonest people.
In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people, the fake news.
They dropped off the word fake.
And all of a sudden, the story became the media is the enemy.
They take the word fake out.
And now I'm saying, oh, no, this is no good.
But that's the way they are.
They even lie when they're lying.
You know, they lie about lying.
It's wonderful.
Okay.
Andrew Breitbart understood this.
I mean, Andrew Breitbart, when he would talk, you know, Mark Twain said he would rather hear a soldier who's been to war talk about war than a poet who's never been to the moon talk about the moon.
When Andrew Breitbart talked about the flow of news, it was like listening to a poet talk about language.
I remember sitting at a table with him, and I think it was my friend Brian Anderson from City Journal, and Andrew just described how information flows, the pulse of it, the rhythms of it, how it went, how the left controlled it, what he could do about that.
And it was incredible.
I mean, I just sat there and thought, wow, you know, that is how information flows.
That's exactly how it works.
And he understood how important this was, and he understood how to control the how to fight back.
So for instance, when he got, I'll never forget this.
It must have been around Christmas time.
He got those tapes, those acorn tapes, showing that this basically this major Democrat organization was corrupt, you know.
And he had it on tape, and he called me up, and Andrew was a talker, man.
He would just talk and talk and talk.
I mean, there's a lot of this on the right, by the way.
Not enough listening on the right, but he was a major talker.
And he called up, and for about an hour, he described to me how he was going to release these tapes.
And he said to me, I'm going to release this, and then the mainstream media is going to do this, and then I'm going to do this.
And after that, they're going to do this.
And he describes step by step.
Everything he said to me on that phone call happened, and the left, namely the mainstream news media, did everything he said it was going to do.
I mean, because he just understood the flow of information so incredibly well.
So here he is talking to my pal Peter Robinson.
And just to show you how corrupt the media is, Peter Robinson is one of the best and most intellectual interviewers.
Peter's Strategic Plan00:04:09
He should be on PBS.
He has a show called Uncommon Knowledge, which you can find online.
The Hoover Institute sometimes supports it.
And I think maybe the Wall Street Journal runs it now.
But Peter is just one of the best, smartest interviewers out there.
And the fact that he isn't on PBS just shows you right there, right there, how corrupt.
You can turn on PBS in my neighborhood and get Tavis Smiley one hour after another, like five hours in a row of left winger Tavis Smiley.
But you can't get 15 minutes of Peter.
So here's Peter talking about to Andrew Breitbart and asking, Andrew, what do you want?
I want I want a center right nation to fight for its soul and its soul is represented in the arts.
Its soul is represented in a world in which media is everything.
AM radio is the lowest form of communication.
It's tinny.
It's not robust.
It's not avatar.
I want avatar.
I want the right to enter the world of media to the extent and invest in media the way that the left does.
George Soros is throwing money like crazy.
You want an NPR?
I want everything.
I want us.
I want.
Right.
They have an NPR.
They're so slick in understanding how important media is.
They've convinced the government to pay them to propagate their worldview.
How come we're not fighting for money to propagate our worldview?
Because we don't believe in it.
OK, then use the free market to convey the same ideas with the same level of sophistication and excellence that NPR does because they are superior at what they do.
See, I want everything.
That was the key because I'm always getting asked, how can we stop the media?
How can we stop Hollywood?
How can we?
We don't stop them.
We just do them.
We outdo them.
We better them.
That was what was so different about what Breitbart was saying.
I met Breitbart when David Mamet, the famous playwright, probably the most famous of American playwrights right now, announced that he was no longer, as he put it, a brain dead liberal.
That was he wrote a piece for the Village Voice saying, I'm no longer a brain dead liberal.
And I wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times welcoming him to the fold, just saying, you know, you're going to find out what it's like to be an artist who is not a left winger, who's a right winger.
You're going to lose a lot of friends and all this stuff.
And Andrew called me up out of nowhere, and he was hosting a radio show.
I can't remember if it was Rusty Humphries or somebody.
It was a smallish right-wing radio show.
And he said, you've got to come on and be interviewed on my show because you're the only person who understands how important this is, how important having a playwright on our side is.
And I went on, and Andrew had ADHD.
He couldn't pay attention to anything.
And I am the opposite of that.
I have whatever the opposite of attention deficit disorder is.
That's what I have.
When I'm focused on something, I am completely focused on it.
So I'm focused on giving this interview to this guy that I've never met before.
And while I'm talking on the radio, on the air, he starts to text me.
He starts to send me things.
And he says, you've got to meet all these Hollywood conservatives.
You've got to come to this meeting and that meeting.
We're all getting together and all this stuff.
He introduced just about everybody out here, the entire California conservative movement, such as it is in communications.
You know, Ben Shapiro, Bill Whittle, Steve Crowder, John Nolte, Alfonso Rachel, Jeremy, I think.
Jeremy Boring, the god king of the Daily Wire, I think, was brought in by Andrew Breitbart.
All of them.
He was like the hub.
And we kind of, he brought us all together.
He introduced us.
He was incredibly generous and all this stuff.
And he understood that we were, we were like the front line.
I wrote the first, I don't know if it was the very first piece in Big Hollywood.
Big Hollywood was Andrew's first website that became, that later became the Breitbart sites.
It wasn't his first website ever, but it was the first site of those that became the Breitbart sites.
And I wrote one of the early pieces called Why We Fight.
And it kind of launched the site because Rush read it on the air.
And I remember Andrew calling me up going, are we having fun now or what?
You know, because he just was like just so exuberant about it.
And what he understood was it's not one story.
That's what Donald Trump is talking about in that clip where he says, oh, they say this, but it's really this.
Why We Fight00:09:41
It's this cloud of lies.
It's this cloud of emphasis, this cloud of assumptions.
America is racist.
Republicans are bad.
Government is good.
Women are happier as feminists than as not feminists.
Business is evil.
Unless women are a CEO, then it's good.
You know, it's all this confusing stuff.
But it's all these assumptions that govern how they choose the news.
You know, fake news, it's all fake news.
It's all fake news.
It is what Andrew called the Democrat media complex, OK?
Let me, this is from, this is just from the beginning of this year, right?
Talking about the most important stories of last year.
And again, from the indispensable newsbusters.
In an exercise performed since 1936, the AP's annual poll of U.S. editors and news directors asked participants to identify the top 10 stories of 2016, OK?
The top, what did editors and news directors think were the top 10 stories of 2016?
Black men killed by police, referring to the controversial killings of two black men by non-black cops, made it to number three.
This is what they thought was the third most important story of the year.
Attacks on police, which took at least 20 lives, right?
20 lives.
Only got to number six.
Rising crime in the U.S., including an increase in exceeding 50% in homicides in Chicago, didn't make the list at all.
Now, let's just revisit Heather McDonald, our friend from City Journal, who studies the police and never gets on the mainstream media, though she knows more about the issue than anybody.
She made a Prager video.
Let's just take a look at a little bit of it.
When it comes to the subject of American police, blacks, and the deadly use of force, here is what we know.
A recent deadly force study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones in simulated threat scenarios.
Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country.
He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.
In Houston, he found that blacks were 24% less likely than whites to be shot by officers, even though the suspects were armed or violent.
Does the truth matter?
Does the truth matter?
So in other words, the killing of a couple of black thugs by the police is not a news story.
It's actually not a news story.
Not only is it not the third most important news story of the year, it's not a news story at all.
Now you say, well, wait, it is a news story because people rioted and because the president of the United States used this to launch this war on police that is causing the rise in crime that we're seeing right now.
Yes, that makes it a news story, but what's the real news story?
The news story is to have Heather on to dismantle the statistics that the president is using, which I asked this to her face.
I asked Heather to her face.
She brought out this bestselling book, The War on the Cops, The War Against Cops.
I said, has any mainstream media outlet had you on?
She said, no.
It's all fake news.
It is all fake news.
The news that the police kill black people is just not true.
And if it happens once, yes, that's once too many.
But is it the third biggest story of the year?
No, it's not.
And let's take a look at one more climate change, OK?
Here is CBS this morning covering climate change.
I always love when journalists interview journalism about the news, OK?
So it's like journalists interviewing journalists to tell us what journalists think we should be thinking about the news.
No experts, no nothing, no debate, just journalists on journalists.
Here it is.
Amid fears of global warming, a distinct chill has come over the scientific community, both here and around the world.
Well, President-elect Donald Trump says he has an open mind when it comes to the issue of climate change.
His appointments appear openly hostile to addressing the problem.
Some are even looking to defund ongoing research to monitor environmental changes.
Here to talk about it, Jeffrey Kluger, Time Magazine's editor-at-large.
Jeffrey, good morning.
Good morning.
First of all, how concerned is the scientific community about the changes in the administration?
The community is concerned, and it should be concerned.
Look, global warming is an established fact.
It's immutable.
It's non-negotiable.
It's not subject to politics.
Global warming doesn't read tweets.
It doesn't care about who won the electoral college vote.
It's an immutable bit of science.
And what we're seeing is an administration that is choosing to appoint people who are hostile to that very idea, who at best will dodge it by saying, well, I'm not a scientist.
I don't know.
Well, then listen to the scientists, 97% of whom say that global warming is real, it's happening, and it's a deadly threat.
First of all, who cares what this guy thinks?
Why is he on the news?
That is the first thing.
97% is a bogus stat.
It's been completely dismantled.
And the thing is, it's all about finding where the story is.
The story is not whether the world is getting warmer or colder.
The world gets warmer and colder.
It does that.
The question is, what have we done that causes it, and what can we do to stop it?
And the answer is, they don't know.
I know this.
I've talked to people who do the studies.
Look, we're all like little energy machines, and the stuff we build has an effect.
And I have no doubt it has an effect on the climate to some degree, but we don't know how much.
And we don't know if, you know, we're not going to live in, you know, go back to caveman days.
So we don't know what we can do that's going to have any effect whatsoever.
We have no idea.
And that's why these guys talking about this, because it's all about transferring power to the government.
That's all it's about.
So all I'm just saying is, it's this cloud of lies.
It's not one story.
It's not that story or this story.
It's a cloud of opinion, a cloud of emphasis, a cloud of lies.
And the thing about the lies are, they are there for a purpose.
They are there to give power to the government.
They are there to give power to the left.
And this is what Andrew knew.
You know, everything the left touches dies.
Everything they do, it dies.
Every time they touch an economy, it gets worse.
Every time they touch a program, it causes dependency.
Every time they come into a neighborhood, it gets destroyed.
The left is, it is, leftism is a force of destruction.
And so all they have is these people creating this atmosphere, this narrative in which we all live and we all think.
And that's why if I was so against Trump being nominated, and I have been kind of friendly to him since he got elected, I have given him a lot of leeway.
I tried not to make excuses for him.
I've talked when he said that we had killers just like Russia had killers.
I said that was ridiculous, and I've tried to always remind people of what my objections to him are and all this stuff.
But the thing is, I think this work he is doing in dismantling the media and in making them feel like battered wives, which no wife should be battered.
The media should be battered every single day, okay?
That's the difference between a wife and the media.
I think this work he is doing is the work of God.
And if he himself is not a conservative, I think breaking down this corrupt Democrat news media that is so powerful and the corrupt information machine in the universities and the corrupt information machine that is our entertainment industry, if he can fight back against that, he will have paved the way for conservative government because how can we make our arguments if they won't let us speak?
How can they make our arguments if we're racist?
How can we make our arguments if, you know, white police are running along, you know, waking up every morning thinking how they can shoot black people and the climate is – we're all going to die because of climate change?
So Trump, so far, has been kind of the realization of Andrew Breitbart's vision, which puts a new twist on what the Breitbart sites did in a way.
Maybe his spirit, you know, maybe his spirit kind of worked through that site even when they did things that he himself would not have done.
I'm going to give Andrew the last word because he was so eloquent in addressing the media.
I think that this is really what we all should be saying to them.
And what the left has stood for with political correctness is to try and get those with whom they disagree to shut up.
And the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman and Alan West and all the people that have gone out there against the mainstream media and said, you're going to call us racist, you're going to call us potential Timothy McVeigh's – you.
I miss him.
I miss him.
I miss that guy.
I got to say, he was – you know, there are people who say he was murdered.
He wasn't.
He didn't live well.
He, you know, ate too much.
He drank too much.
And when – you know, one of my most powerful memories of him is he had a heart issue and he called me from the hospital.
And he got so worked up about some political thing that he was screaming – he's in the hospital screaming.
I could hear his wife off the phone going, Andrew, Andrew, calm down.
We all knew he wasn't going to last long, but he burned very bright and he illuminated this problem.
And those two words that he speaks at the end of the – at the end addressing the mainstream media, I think, are the two words that they should be hearing every single day.
Bag It Out00:01:29
All right.
The Clavenless weekend is upon us.
Survivors gather here on Monday.
I'm Andrew Claven.
This is The Andrew Claven Show.
Let's end with stuff I like.
A little Canadian group called Walk Off the Earth, covering a song, an Ed Sheeran song called Shape of You.
And if you can't see it, all they're using are toys, little percussion toys and a little bit of nuts that he's got in a bowl, just using different kind of percussion.
They've got their kid – it's a very cheap video.
They've got their kid playing on the sofa.
Some guy walks in and jumps up and kicks a cymbal at the end.
But it's really a fun video if you can find it, a walk off the earth with Shape of You.
I'll see you again on Monday.
I'm in love with the shape of you.
Pull out the mask night.
You were in my bed sheets now.
You were in your discoverance, something brand new.