Andrew Clavin’s Ep. 474 mocks White House chaos by framing Trump’s erratic leadership—like firing Gary Cohn over tariffs or resigning mid-episode—as strategic poker bluffing, not incompetence, while dismissing economic warnings as overstated. He defends Trump’s North Korea approach as effective and rejects gun control, arguing more firearms reduce crime and that school shootings stem from government failure, not access to guns. Clavin ties gun rights to anti-tyranny resistance, even advocating arming newborns, while critiquing secular morality on marriage and BDSM as tools of leftist control. The episode blends satire with hardline conservative takes, ending with a preview on homelessness. [Automatically generated summary]
Hooray for Easy Life Insurance Comparisons!00:03:48
Donald Trump's economic advisor, Gary Cohn, has resigned, bringing the number of Trump advisors who have resigned to all of them.
Speaking in an empty White House where his voice echoed up and down the deserted hallways, the president said that there would be no problem replacing Cohn and the other advisors because all the best people are still applying for White House jobs.
So far, Trump says he has interviewed such candidates as Bette Midler, Ari Lewiendik from The Bachelor, The Evil Clown from It, and Jim Acosta.
Unfortunately, the evil clown told reporters he refuses to work with Acosta.
He says it's one thing to entice children into sewers with balloons, but what Acosta does is disgusting.
Acosta responded by issuing a statement saying, quote, look at me.
I'm Jim Acosta.
Look, look, I'm Jim Acosta.
Look at me, unquote.
Meanwhile, the guy from The Bachelor had no comment, although Trump did return from the interview carrying a rose.
Until the advisors are replaced, Trump says he will simply sit at a long table by himself and move from chair to chair, giving himself advice in different voices.
In a demonstration, Trump sat at the head of the table and announced he would soon be raising tariffs on steel, then moved to another chair and said, I resign.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is ticky-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-ding.
Ship-shaped dipsy-topsy, go welcome to zippity-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, it's mailbag day.
You've been clinging on by your fingernails, hoping that your life would get just a little bit better.
The time has come.
We will answer your questions.
The answers are guaranteed 100% correct.
Will change your life sometimes for the better.
Sometimes.
You have to subscribe to be in the mailbag.
So go over to the dailywire.com and subscribe.
It's a lousy 10 bucks a month.
For a lousy $100, you get the whole year plus the leftist tears mug.
As I answer mailbag questions, the leftist tears mug magically fills up with leftist tears, which cure all kinds of diseases, including rashes.
Meanwhile, you also want to get, just in case the leftist tears mug doesn't show up, you want to get life insurance.
Of course you want to get life insurance.
If you're alive, you need life insurance because at any moment, you could have problems.
And then you want to make sure the people you love are taken care of, not just your kids and your spouse, but if you're a young person, maybe you've got older parents who need taking care of, you got to have life insurance.
It really is important.
Policy genius makes it easy.
You don't have to go in and talk to a salesman.
You don't have to get some kind of a pushy guy trying to force something on you.
It's so easy.
You go in to Policy Genius and they let you compare prices.
And when you compare, when people have to fight over your business, you get the best price.
They really make it so easy.
It's the easy way to compare and buy life insurance online.
In just five minutes, you can compare quotes from over 15 life insurance providers.
And when you compare quotes, you save money.
It's that simple.
In fact, Policy Genius has helped over 4 million people shop for insurance and has placed over $20 billion in coverage.
That's not just life insurance.
They ensure everything that's in your life, like your health insurance, disability insurance, pet insurance, and renter's insurance.
If you are putting off getting life insurance, don't do it.
Don't do it because you don't, they call it insurance for a reason.
It insures you.
It's never been easier to buy.
Rates are at a 20-year low.
Go to policygenius.com.
Policygenius.com.
It's the easy way to compare and buy life insurance.
Go on over and do it.
Sincere Missteps in North Korea00:15:05
Now, yesterday, we were talking about that moment when a narrative starts to take hold of you emotionally, right?
Like you're watching a TV show and somebody dies on it and suddenly you're crying over a person who doesn't exist.
And this works whether it's fiction or nonfiction.
So the news media creates this sense of terror and emergency and chaos and suddenly you find yourself all excited and energized just as if you were watching a TV show.
But the question is, is what they're talking about, does what they're talking about exist.
And the reason they do this with Republicans, they did it to George W. Bush.
Everything he said, everything he did was a scandal.
And the reason they do it is because ultimately, in every single presidency, there is going to be a crisis.
There is going to be a mistake.
There may even be a scandal.
This is true in every presidency.
And so when that happens, they want you to feel like, oh, my goodness, this is the straw that broke the camel's back.
Because if it's Barack Obama, they just don't cover the scandals.
And then when there is a scandal, something goes wrong.
They say, well, he's been doing such a good job.
It's a little glitch in the machinery with Trump and with George W. Bush.
When finally they make a mistake, even if it's just a cosmetic mistake like Bush made when he didn't go and visit New Orleans right away after Katrina, even if it's just a cosmetic mistake, they suddenly say, look, it's all true.
Everything we've been saying up till now is true.
Here's the proof.
Here is the final proof.
So yesterday, Gary Cohn resigned.
And this is a big resignation.
The guy has been, he's a Democrat.
He has fought with Trump openly about things like his Charlottesville comment.
He made a give a big interview about how he disagreed strongly with that.
But he has also been, he's been an avid free trader.
He pushed the tax cut.
He has been a big regulation cutter, which, as you know, is one of my pet peeves' regulations.
I think it's great that he did this.
And there's speculation, and this is speculation, but there's speculation that because Trump started talking about tariffs, obviously Cohn was on the side of no tariffs, of free trade.
There are other guys in the White House who are in favor of tariffs and protectionism.
And there's speculation that that is why Cohn left.
So he's an important guy.
And it's, again, you know, you don't like to see the president get isolated with only people who share his opinions.
You want people arguing with him.
You want him to hear different sides because Trump does listen.
He does hear things.
So the narrative, the important narrative is that this is yet another resignation in so many resignations.
Morning Joe put out this montage of all the people resigned, all of their announcements of all the people resigning.
This is CUT 13.
Michael Flynn has resigned.
The White House Communications Director Mike Dubke has resigned.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer resigning.
Bryant Spriebus is out.
White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci resigned.
The senior administration official is confirming that Bannon will be leaving.
Keith Schiller will be departing.
The White House Health Secretary Tom Price resigns.
The Deputy National Security Advisor is now leaving.
Rob Porter is resigning.
White House Communications Director Hope Hicks has resigned.
The president's chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, has officially resigned.
But the bigger narrative here, of course, is that the White House is imploding.
The White House is in chaos.
If you type White House imploding, if you Google that, all these stories come up.
But the thing is, they've been going on since Trump came into office.
So we put together, this is a montage we put together.
This is over the course of Trump's presidency.
This cut 16 of people basically selling you this narrative of chaos at the White House.
Because it's been a chaotic week in the White House, even by Trumpian standards.
I have never seen such chaos.
I have never seen such infighting.
A White House that, keeping them honest, just about any way you look at it, is a picture of turbulence, turmoil, and yes, chaos.
What's the split on fear and loathing, and how do they now recruit folks to fill some of these jobs?
It's a great question.
I think fear and loathing are heading down the track toward a photo finish.
Unglued.
That is Donald Trump's clearing condition.
We're not even through the first year, and there's just so much chaos and so much disruption.
President Trump is at his Florida resort after a week of extraordinary turbulence that seems to signify a deepening crisis than some of the previous rocky weeks in this White House.
What matters in all of this?
What matters is chaos in the White House is bad for the United States and bad for the world.
So it's bad for everybody.
Chaos, chaos, chaos.
Everybody's resigning.
Everybody's walking out.
And obviously, Trump is a chaotic guy.
I'm not going to sell you any line.
I mean, these narratives always work when there's an element of truth in it.
Trump tweets out the new fake news narrative is that there's chaos in the White House.
Wrong.
People will always come and go.
And I want strong dialogue before making a final decision.
I still have some people that I want to change, always seeking perfection.
There is no chaos, only great energy.
And then he came out yesterday and he said this.
This is cut number two.
The White House has tremendous energy.
It has tremendous spirit.
It is a great place to be working.
Many, many people want every single job.
You know, I read where, oh, gee, maybe people don't want to work for Trump.
But believe me, everybody wants to work in the White House.
They all want a piece of that Oval Office.
They want a piece of the West Wing.
And not only in terms of it looks great on their resume, it's just a great place to work.
It's got tremendous energy.
It's tough.
I like conflict.
I like having two people with different points of view, and I certainly have that.
And then I make a decision.
But I like watching it.
I like seeing it.
And I think it's the best way to go.
I like different points of view.
So everybody wants to work at the White House, he says, here, just for a dissenting opinion, here is an economics professor from the University of Chicago, Austin Goolsby, asked if he would like to take Cohn's place.
I wouldn't take that job if it was the last job on earth.
Why?
Well, A, because the focus of the administration, to my mind, has been not where it should be.
And now this slapping of tariffs threatens potentially to lead to an escalating trade war, if not an outright global recession.
So that'd be category A.
But category B, there's chaos on the personnel side in the White House.
And you see that not just on the economic team.
You've seen in communications on the political side on foreign policy and the chief of staff role now on the economic team, unprecedented turnover of personnel.
And I think that's a sign that it's not a healthy environment.
So, you know, there's a certain amount of truth to this in most presidencies.
After two years, people start bailing.
You know, if St. Francis were president, President St. Francis, people would still bail after two years.
It's just that high pressure, that tough.
It's that hard a job.
Trump is no St. Francis.
I mean, he says it himself.
He likes conflict.
He likes a little chaos.
He likes things going on like that.
If you're in a high-pressure job and you're a normal human being or even a very high-functioning human being, after about a year, you start to think like, I don't think so.
You know, I'm out of here.
I've done my job.
But, you know, there have been about 19 major people who resigned.
But I want you to listen to some of the people who resigned, just so you actually get a real sense of it.
Preet Bahara, he is the guy, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District, who basically defied Trump and Trump got rid of him.
Sally Yates, also, Attorney General, said she wouldn't have forced some of Trump's anti-immigration things.
She was fired.
Michael Flynn, he was the guy who got caught on that phone call.
Pence was angry at him and that he lied about it or didn't come clean about it.
Very unclear exactly what Flynn did wrong.
He resigned.
James Comey, fired.
Obviously, a guy who was not doing what Trump wanted him to do.
So some of these people are just people who didn't get along.
Anthony Scaramucci, bad hire, right?
Came in, did this, and certainly Steve Bannon as they adjusted.
My point about this is this.
Trump is a neophyte.
He comes in.
He's never been a politician before.
He's going to make more mistakes than other presidents in terms of hiring, in terms of, you know, you bring in Steve Bannon and Steve Bannon is doing a good job in the campaign.
And suddenly you think, you know, Steve Bannon doesn't know what he's doing.
He proved that with Roy, what's his name down in Roy Moore, thank you.
He proved that with Roy Moore supporting it.
He didn't really know what he was doing.
So Trump caught on to that.
He got rid of him.
So you're seeing a little bit of this.
Obviously, there's also stuff that's not so good.
Rob Porter was badly handled.
The guy who was accused of beating his wife, that should have been caught earlier on.
It's a shame to lose Hope Hicks.
That's somebody who really was attached at the, you know, it was like his right arm, and it's a shame to lose her.
But some of this is being overplayed because of the fact that he's a neophyte who is in opposition to the Washington establishment.
So you've got the real chaos that is part of his managing style and his personality, but also you've got a little extra chaos from the fact that he's just coming in here.
He's coming in as an opposition guy, as a guy who's opposed to the way things usually run.
He's learning the ropes.
So it was a little bit half and half on there.
Also, one of your letters, when I asked you what would cause you to abandon Trump, one of your letters said, and I can't remember, unfortunately, the name of the person who wrote this in, but one of the letters was that the very fact that Trump is unpredictable is a bad thing.
The president should be predictable.
I get that.
I understand that.
You certainly want the president to, his word to be good.
The problem with Trump is he is a constant, constant negotiator.
And in negotiation, it is an understood thing that everybody's not telling the truth, right?
So you're not really lying because everybody understands when I say this is my last offer.
Everybody understands that I'm taking a shot.
I'm bluffing.
It's like playing poker.
You're playing poker.
Nobody says, oh, you said you had a great hand and I turn over your cards and you don't have anything.
You're a liar and a sneak.
You know, you were bluffing.
It's part of the game.
And Trump plays everything like that.
He plays everything like that.
So some of his statements not being true, some of his statements and dialing them back are part of a negotiation technique.
It's not politics as usual.
It's tough to deal with in a world where your word really matters.
I can think of ways in which it's beneficial, like with North Korea.
The guy, you know, Trump had a wonderful joke the other day where he said, you know, negotiating with North Korea, people say you shouldn't negotiate with a crazy man.
And he said, but that's his problem, not mine.
And I think that's what he's selling to Kim Jong-un in North Korea.
I'm nuts, pal.
Do you really want to mess with me?
I got a great big red button.
I got a big nuclear arsenal.
And I am out of my freaking mind.
Do you want to negotiate?
Do you want to push it with me?
And the other day, North Korea said, oh, yes, we'd love, you know, it's been my father's dream to get rid of our nuclear weapons.
These guys will say anything.
They'll just say, yeah, my father's dream.
Get rid of the nuclear weapons.
So they say, yes, we will negotiate.
And Trump was asked, what changed?
This is great.
This is Trump as I love him.
Okay, this is cut number five.
To what do you owe this recent openness to talk?
Me.
I think that nobody got that.
I think that they are sincere, but I think they're sincere also because the sanctions and what we're doing with respect to North Korea, including the great help that we've been given from China, and they can do more, but I think they've done more than certainly they've ever done for our country before.
So China has been a big help.
I think that's been a factor.
But the sanctions have been very, very strong and very biting.
And we don't want that to happen.
So I really believe they are sincere.
I hope they're sincere.
We're going to soon find out.
I don't believe they're sincere at all.
I don't believe he believes they're sincere at all.
I believe that's also just kind of a negotiating technique.
But I love that line where they said, what changed?
He said, me.
And also, also, he said it as he says everything in that New York deadpan, which is the way New Yorkers make jokes when they say something outrageous and they just keep a deadpan face and like absolute silence in the press room.
Like everything he says has to be deadly serious.
So again, I think that the narrative of chaos is based on a truth.
Trump likes chaos.
It's his managing style.
It makes it much harder to work in a very, very difficult environment.
But really, really, to me, the question when Gary Cohn resigned was not so much, oh, is everything imploding?
Is the White House going down the drain?
Because it's kind of a normal day for Trump.
The real question is, did he leave over this tariff thing and how bad are these tariffs?
You heard that economic professor say a worldwide recession is on the way.
Now, I love economic professors.
Economists never get anything right.
Every single month, the numbers come out and they say, unexpectedly, unexpectedly, they're this, unexpectedly, they're this.
You think like, well, if you don't expect it every month, maybe you should change your theories somewhere along.
No, no, no, we don't want to do that.
Our theories work perfectly.
It's reality that is out of whack.
All right.
Our next episode of The Conversation, by the way, is coming up on Tuesday, March 13th.
It'll be at 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
And it features Ben Shapiro, who many of you may have heard of.
If you subscribe today, you can be part of this hour-long conversation with Ben.
You can ask Ben questions about everything you ever wanted to know, his thoughts on politics, culture, comic books.
He knows about everything, so you can ask him anything you want.
And just try and stump him.
That'll be fun.
Ben's conversation will stream live on the Ben Shapiro Facebook page and the Daily Wire YouTube channel, and it'll be free for everyone to watch, but only subscribers can ask the questions for a lousy 10 bucks.
Lousy 10 bucks.
You not only get to ask him questions, you get to be in the next mailbag.
To ask questions as a subscriber, log into our website, dailywire.com, and head over to the conversation page to watch the live stream.
And after that, you just start typing into the Daily Wire chat box where Ben will answer questions as they're posted.
Will Alicia be there?
Do you know?
Probably.
Probably.
You also get to hear your questions coming out in Alicia's mellifluous tone.
So that improves every question.
Once again, subscribe to get your questions answered by Ben Shapiro on Tuesday, March 13th, 5.30 p.m. Eastern, 2.30 p.m. Pacific.
Join the conversation.
So let's just talk about this tariff thing.
Now, the reason I don't talk about these things is I'm not an economist.
You know, you listen to the experts.
Tariff Talks00:06:43
The experts frequently get it wrong.
I do strongly suspect that the panic and craziness is panic and craziness.
I mean, Trump has this thing about trade deficits.
I think we actually have a cut about this.
Yeah, talking about trade imbalances, cut number four.
And he's said this.
This is something he has been saying for as long as I remember.
I mean, decades.
When I was with President Xi in China, as an example, we lose $500 billion a year on trade.
We have a deficit of approximately $500 billion a year with China.
And we're doing things with China, which are very strong, but they understand it.
But I was with him and I said to him in public, I said, look, I'm not blaming you.
blame our people for not doing a better job for allowing this to happen.
But it's like that with many countries other than smaller.
The European Union has been particularly tough on the United States.
They make it almost impossible for us to do business with them, and yet they send their cars and everything else back into the United States.
And they can do whatever they'd like.
But if they do that, then we put a big tax of 25% on their cars.
And believe me, they won't be doing it very long.
The European Union has not treated us well.
And it's been a very, very unfair trade situation.
I'm here to protect.
And one of the reasons I was elected is I'm protecting our workers.
I'm protecting our companies.
Now, just using basic logic about trade, you can see how things go right and you can see how things go wrong.
If I spend $1,000 for a stereo, that stereo is worth more to me than $1,000.
People always say, it's worth $1,000, but that's not right.
The point is I would rather have the stereo than the $1,000 or I wouldn't spend the money, right?
It is also worth more.
It's worth less than $1,000 to the guy who's selling it.
He estimates how much work, how much materials he put into it, and he says, oh, it's about $950, so I'm going to make an extra $50 here.
So he's making a profit, and I'm essentially making a profit because the stereo is worth more to me.
You can't measure exactly what it's worth to me, but it's worth it to have the music, worth it to have the tone, whatever it is that I'm looking for.
It's worth more than $1,000, or I wouldn't give him the money.
That doesn't hold up when you're talking about things that you need, like food.
If you need food and you're starving and only one person has the food, he can charge you whatever he wants.
And basically, he's gouging you.
You can say, well, obviously it's worth more than all the money you have, but he's still gouging you.
So this is what Trump is talking about.
He's talking about steel, which of course we need.
We make most of our steel.
But he's also talking about these guys who screw around with us.
And this is why Paul Ryan came out and said, you've got to be surgical about these things.
You can retaliate against people who are actually hurting you, but you can't just go out there and say, yes, everybody is now going to pay this tariff on steel.
Here's Paul Ryan talking what sounds to me like common sense.
There is clearly abuse occurring.
Clearly, there is overcapacity, dumping, and trans shipping of steel and aluminum by some countries, particularly China.
But I think the smarter way to go is to make it more surgical and more targeted.
So I think 232 is a little too broad, and I think it's more prone to retaliation.
And so what we're encouraging the administration to do is to focus on what is clearly a legitimate problem and to be more surgical in its approach so that we can go after the true abusers without creating any kind of unintended consequences or collateral damage.
The interesting thing about this is a steel guy, an American steel guy who obviously supports, I mean, one of my problems with these tariffs is they're kind of like a tax on me to support the steel industry because I'm going to be paying for these tariffs whenever you buy something made of steel.
When you buy a car, the car is going to cost more.
That money is essentially being given to the steel industry.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
But here's this guy, Burke Beyer, who even though he says, yes, I need this, I need this in order to compete, he also wants Canada and Mexico who deal, who don't, who are dealing fairly, he says, he wants them to be carved out.
His cut number 12.
The fortunate thing about the situation is the president has the ability in his power to carve out countries or products.
And we're strongly in support that he hopefully evaluates all sides of the situation.
And he's able to appraise our talented and valuable allies like Canada and Mexico because to the gentleman from Nova's point, they're very valuable trading partners with us.
So again, here it is, the news media is selling you chaos, world recession, end of the economy, everything is terrible.
You know, in all of this stuff, there's sense to be made.
When you're listening to Paul Ryan, he's talking sense.
When you're looking at Trump negotiating, Trump is frequently talking more sense than even he sounds like because he has that brash style and he always goes in guns blazing and he always says the most the most extreme thing that he can say in every negotiating session.
And this is a negotiating session.
He is basically saying to these guys, hey, straighten up and fly right or we're going to nail you and you want to get in a trade war.
I'm ready.
I'm ready for a trade war.
So you have the press going, it's a trade war.
And he's saying, I don't care.
All of that is nonsense.
All of that is narrative.
It's just a negotiation that's going on.
And we'll see.
You know, I'm not sure that Trump knows what he's talking about when it comes to this, when it comes to the trade deficit.
It seems wrong to me to worry about a trade deficit when you could have a trade surplus.
You know, we've had trade surpluses with countries that were doing terribly.
I mean, if Turkey is cheating us and we straighten them out, are we going to, you know, do we want to be like Turkey?
Are we saying, gee, I wish we could be more like Turkey?
I don't think so.
You know, the country actually is doing quite well economically, except for our government spending.
So my only point about this is as this news comes in all the time, be cool.
Be cool.
Don't let them tell you the story.
Think through the story.
That's all I'm saying.
It's like think through the story.
When you're watching a mystery story, I remember this, there's this one that's a trial story where there's a guy who looks like the good guy and a guy who looks like the bad guy and the good guy turns out to be the bad guy.
And I just thought, that's not real.
That's not like real life.
I'm not going to be surprised by that because that wouldn't actually happen in real life.
Well, this is the same thing.
Is the chaos really happening?
Yeah, but it's a managing style.
Are we going down the drain because of tariffs?
No, it's negotiation.
These are things that you can disagree with.
You can have different points of view on, but don't let them sell you this chaos and panic because that is a technique they are using because a Republican is in office and a Republican they especially dislike.
The Complexity of Gay Marriage Rights00:15:22
All right, we've got the mailbag coming up, but I got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Bye.
You should be at the day.
I don't, you know, we're casting you out into the exterior darkness where there's great weeping and gnashing of teeth for a lousy $9.99 a month.
You don't have to have the weeping or the gnashing of teeth, although feel free to weep and gnash your teeth if you want.
Come on over to the dailywire.com.
can hear the rest of the show.
All right.
The mailbag.
That was good.
That was fast.
Your trigger finger is getting better back there.
From Jacob.
Hello, Sir Claven.
How should one go about arguing for same-sex marriage on the grounds of freedom, but against incest with a secular argument and taking out the argument that it could be harmful to a child from an incestuous marriage?
Well, first, with one hand tied behind my back while standing on my head.
First of all, you can't make any moral argument.
There are no secular moral arguments.
There's no secular moral arguments.
You can prove this to yourself with a little handy-dandy experiment.
Go in and try and make a secular argument to yourself, and then after each argument you make, ask yourself why that, why, or why you should care.
So if you say, well, it's for the good of society, say, why should I care about the good of society?
Why shouldn't I care about my own good?
If they say, well, it'll make you happy.
Well, somebody else could say, no, an incestuous marriage would make me happy.
There are only moral arguments.
I mean, we talked about this last week, about the fact that the very word morality in the sense that we understand it only came into use in the 16th and 17th centuries.
That word didn't exist in classical Greece and Athens.
They used the word ethics and it was translated as moralis in Latin, but it wasn't morality as we understand it.
cannot make an argument an argument without God.
And by the way, by the way, since I feel that what is behind this question is a challenge to my sense that like gay marriage, I don't get all excited about it.
My point about gay marriage, listen, marriage, as we understand it, is an invention of the church to protect women.
That's why it was invented, to protect women and to basically organize society into a family so that becomes a building block of freedom.
If a family is a self-governing unit, you don't have to bring the government in to govern it.
We know that the left hates the family because they want the government to come in and govern everybody's life.
Okay, fine.
And my opinion is that that was the definition of marriage for 2,000 years.
2,000 years, the definition of marriage was a man and a woman having children more than 2,000 years.
I mean, except for the fact that there was more, you could marry more than one woman in a lot of places.
That was the definition of marriage.
Just because you declare that gay people can get married doesn't mean it's marriage by that definition.
My point about marriage is marriage stopped being marriage when you invented no-fault divorce.
That was Reagan, by the way, back in California invented no-fault divorce.
My point is, if heterosexuals destroy marriage by having no-fault divorce, don't blame gay people.
Don't blame gay people that they're saying, well, if you can redefine a marriage so you can have a divorce without any consequences, we want to play.
We want to play that game, you know?
That's my only point about that.
It's not that, oh yes, this is not changing the entire definition of marriage.
It is.
So anyway, the point about incest is, you're right, you're right.
It's a slippery slope.
Once you start allowing people to do things, that argument is going to work for all kinds of terrible things that people do.
My whole argument, the whole thing that I've been trying to say for the last, what have I been doing this now, two, three years?
I mean, the whole thing, is that we have lost touch with what causes, not with the rules.
Everybody wants the rules.
Everybody wants to know what the rules are.
You can't know the rules if you don't know what virtue is, if you don't know what right and wrong is.
And you can't know what right and wrong is unless you know what a person is for.
Once you know what a person is for, you can have all kinds of debates about right and wrong.
You know, I think I just said this about Ed Fazer, that, you know, we had a debate about gay marriage and we were both debating the same thing.
We both agreed that sex was for a certain purpose.
I had a more broad idea of how you could use sex in different ways.
He had a more stringent idea about it.
But we both agreed that people were for things.
Sex was for something.
If you lose that idea, as we have, you can't make any arguments at all.
All right, from Denise.
Mr. Clavin, I enjoy your show immensely.
And as a result of watching it, as well as Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Knowles, who is Knowles?
Oh, no.
I know.
I have been convinced of the importance of preserving Second Amendment rights.
However, as a new convert, I'm a little baffled by your vehement opposition to raising the age limit for purchasing a firearm.
We currently have an age limit for drinking and buying cigarettes that is much higher than the one for buying a gun.
Please clarify for me what is so egregious about raising the legal age for gun ownership.
Well, first, notice in your own question, you talk about the age limit for drinking and cigarettes.
Those are vices.
Owning a gun is not a vice.
That's what they've been trying to convince you of.
Now, here's the other thing.
There are all kinds of answers to this, but let me give a few of them.
Every fact that they're talking about with guns is wrong.
As there have become more guns, there's been less crime.
There were more school shootings in the 1990s than there are now.
Everything they're saying is wrong.
So why should we be having the discussion at all?
The latest shooting in Florida was caused by a serial breakdown of government, you know, it was just government incompetence all the way from the federal government down to the local government.
Why are we talking about guns?
Why aren't we talking about government incompetence?
Their basic argument, the basic argument is the government failed to protect you.
It let this guy collect guns and do what he wasn't supposed to do.
It stood there and did nothing while he ran in and killed you.
Now give us all your guns.
That's a stupid argument.
Why should we give them an inch?
Why should they give them an inch?
The Constitution says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
That means exactly what it means.
Sounds like.
It means they should not even take away the fringes of your right to bear arms.
Now, when it comes to young people, you know, the reason we believe in bearing arms is so that you can fight the power when they become tyrannical.
So you can fight the government when they become tyrannical.
Who are your best fighters?
Young men.
Who do they put in the army?
Young men.
You can be in the army when you're 18 because those are the best fighters we have.
Who is at risk of being attacked by somebody they can't defend themselves against?
Young women.
Young women.
You know, you send your daughter to college, you send her to someplace where she wants to do a job and maybe in a bad neighborhood.
I want her to have a gun.
I want her to be able to protect herself against somebody, you know, a guy who's maybe 100 pounds heavier than she is and won't be stopped by her fighting.
Wonder Woman is a fantasy, right?
Guns are what make those things possible.
And finally, you take guns away from young people.
You're just creating more gun-free zones.
And we know that over 90% of these shootings take place in gun-free zones.
Here's the thing.
We know the left wants to take our guns, and we know why they want to take our guns.
Every now and again, they actually spill it and they say it.
They want to take our guns.
We know why they want to take our guns because they want to be able to tell us what to do safely.
We heard David Brooks, was it yesterday we were talking about David Brooks talking about how, isn't it wonderful now you can't say that marriage is a between a man and a woman without losing your job.
Now you can't say that affirmative action is wrong, which it is.
It's a terrible thing, affirmative action.
You can't say it without losing your job.
Isn't that wonderful?
They want, you know, people show up.
Ben goes to talk on college campuses.
They show up and riot.
They want to silence you.
They want to take away your freedom, your religious freedom.
They want to force you to participate in gay weddings, which even if that's against your religious rights, Obama wanted people to pay for abortions.
We wanted Catholic nuns to pay for abortions.
I mean, and for birth control that they didn't believe.
We know they want this.
We know they want it.
Why would you give them an inch?
As far as I'm concerned, every baby born in America should be issued a bazooka and with a big flag on it that says, come and take my rights.
Mullen lobby, baby.
Come and take it away.
Every single baby born in America.
So don't let them have anything.
Don't let them have anything.
Cigarettes and liquor are a vice.
We should protect kids from them.
We don't have to protect kids from guns.
We just have to teach them how to use it and when to use it.
See, I'm really just, this is just my way of flirting with Dana Lash, I think.
All right, Spencer, most sublime purveyor of sublime ideas Clavin.
While I was listening to episode seven of Another Kingdom, which you should all be listening to, by the way, even though it's over, we're planning the second season, so you want to listen to it.
It's 13 episodes.
You can get it on any place where you get podcasts starring the world's heartthrob, Michael Knowles, in a very exciting fantasy suspense adventure.
All right, so I was listening to episode seven of Another Kingdom the other day.
I couldn't help but notice that the character Serge Orozgo bears an uncanny resemblance to the all-too-real megalomaniac George Soros.
Both are foreign-born billionaires with insidious plans to implant their egos indelibly into the course of history.
Their similarities are further underscored by the fact that the name Serge Orozgo appears to be an anagram of the name George Soros.
Was Soros actually your inspiration for the Orozco character?
Or are these similarities a mere coincidence?
A mere coincidence.
Anna, Andrew, howdy, big fan right here, where do you see the FISA scandal going and will justice be served?
I don't make a lot of predictions, and I'm not going to make a prediction on this.
If you're talking about people being indicted, if you're talking about like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama going to jail, no, none of that is going to happen.
The real issue here is whether FISA courts should be in operation at all.
Are they protecting our rights as they were supposed to?
They're supposed to protect our rights from surveillance, but they seem to be acting in a very, very sloppy manner.
And so it's possible there might be some show indictments.
It's possible some low-level guy is going to get in trouble with the courts because of something he did.
But the real problem is with the FISA courts themselves.
And since they just re-upped them, with the Republicans voting for them, I don't see a lot of appetite for getting rid of them.
So basically, what I think we're fighting over here is the narrative.
That's what I really think.
I think that's what a lot of these investigations are about.
I think they're about the narrative.
I think they're about saying is no, Trump didn't do anything wrong by colluding with Russia.
It's the Democrats who did something wrong.
And that is where the battle is going to be fought.
It's going to be fought in the media.
It's going to be fought in the hearts of the public.
We know which way the media is going to go, but we want to get the facts.
And as the facts come out, people do pay attention to the facts.
Reality has a voice, and people do listen to it.
So I think if justice is going to be done, it's going to be you who do it.
It's not going to be the courts.
That's my belief.
But I don't know.
Now we have a question.
I don't usually allow this, but we let our guy Austin get a question in because he had a good question.
And he is technically a subscriber because they give us a subscription.
I have no idea what Austin does for a living.
He sits back there every now and again.
I hear his voice in my headset, but what he's doing, drinking probably.
I have no idea.
But he has this really interesting question, which is, can an AI, an artificial intelligence, have a relationship with Jesus Christ?
And if so, can it go to heaven?
It's a great question.
You hear thoughts like this all the time.
My take on it is this.
We are not an intelligence.
A person is not an intelligence.
A person is a complete entity.
He is a spirit being spoken in the language of the flesh, right?
So he's not a brain in a test tube.
He is not a reasoning machine.
He is reason interacting with the flesh, interacting with death, interacting with aging, interacting with disease, interacting with lust, interacting with all these things.
If you invent a person, not an artificial intelligence, but if you invent a person, an actual person, then yes, of course.
I mean, all Jesus is, is God, the spirit of God, the logos, in the language of flesh.
So yes, if you invented a person, I don't think God cares if people are created in a test tube.
I don't think God cares if people are created in a workshop, if they are really people.
But AI is not people.
I don't care how good they get at playing chess.
I don't care if they can imitate poetry.
I don't care if they can imitate feelings.
If they are not in relationship with death, if they're not in relationship with flesh, they actually are not a spirit being spoken in the language of flesh.
They may be something else, in which case I have no idea how that works theologically.
But if you can create a person, I think, yes, the person can be in relation with Jesus Christ.
From Benjamin, I am 20 years old and an aspiring writer.
I'm taking a few creative writing classes in college, but I do not know what my next step should be.
Is there any sort of apprenticeship or internship I could apply for?
Thank you so much for considering my question.
I've been a subscriber and daily listener for a really long time.
You and Ben are the only people keeping me sane in this political environment right now.
I can understand that.
I mean, when you watch TV, you sit there and you go like, what?
This is like a fantasy.
And there's so much of it that even I occasionally get tempted to think like, is it me?
Is it, you know, am I wrong?
And then you kind of go back and read the Constitution of the Bible and think, oh, no, it's them.
It's always them.
Writing, being an aspiring writer.
You know, I always say writing is a great job, but a tough profession.
It's wonderful to do, but it is a hard, a very difficult profession, and it has gotten in some ways more difficult, in some ways easier.
It's gotten more difficult because there's just so much material, and there's so many people who want to spread your material around without paying you.
So a lot of people want eyes, and they'll say, I'll do anything to get eyes on my work, but they don't take pay.
And of course, I'm a professional writer, and I always, people write to me all the time, say, well, you write for my site.
And I say, well, what do you pay?
They say, well, we don't pay, but we have millions of subscribers.
And I say, I'm a professional writer.
Professional means you get paid for what you do.
You know, that's why people do things professionally.
It's their living.
So it's gotten very difficult in that way.
Here's the advice I give to writers.
Read everything.
I mean, read everything in your field.
If you want to be a novelist, read every novel you can get your hands on.
And I don't mean just the one that was written last week.
I mean Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, read all the greats.
If you're in a different field, read that stuff.
Really know what you're doing.
Secondly, and even this should be firstly, really, learn grammar, because I get so many letters from writers who say, you know, I would like to be a writer, and there's grammatical errors in their letter.
And you think like, you know, if a carpenter showed up at my house with a hammer and he said, do you know how to use this thing?
You know, like I, you know, he's holding the wrong end of the hammer and he's hitting it with it.
I would just say, get out.
You're fired.
Same thing with writers.
These are your tools.
Words are your tools.
Grammar is your tools.
You can only break the rules if you know what they are.
What to do professionally?
Well, I believe I did everything wrong professionally.
And I managed to get here through sheer grit and luck and determination.
But I do think it's good to find a mentor if you can, a really good mentor.
Tickety Boo News00:05:12
I do think it's good to find an internship with magazines.
It depends what kind of writing you want to do.
There's no internship for fiction.
These classes that people take, I don't know how, I never took one.
I don't know how helpful they are.
I suppose it's helpful to discuss with, to get readings from other people, I think is always helpful.
But I think that if you can get an internship on a magazine, if you want to be a journalist or a newspaper, I think that's great.
And I think that the thing that helps writers, that helped me as a writer more than anything, was a job I had writing news because I had to hit deadlines every minute almost.
There were four televisions going on at the same time.
There was a radio playing.
In those days, there were teletypes which had this amazingly loud pounding noise in this newsroom.
I think there were four teletypes going, and you had to write really well while all that was going on.
So now when I sit in my workshop and maybe I hear a leaf blower down the street, it's like, dude, you don't know who you're doing.
You'd have to bomb my workshop before you could disturb me.
So those are my pieces of advice.
It is a tough job.
I got a letter from somebody who got a rejection the other day and they were brokenhearted.
And I said, there's a wonderful scene in Lawrence of Arabia, the movie Lawrence of Arabia, where Lawrence lights a match and lets it burn down to his fingers, past his fingers.
And the guy watching him says, what's the trick?
And Lawrence says, the trick is not minding that it hurts.
And that is the way you have to deal with rejection in the writing game.
The trick is not minding that it hurts.
So it's a tough profession, you know, and if you follow my mother's advice, you'll become a lawyer and do it in your spare time.
I never did.
All right, tickety boo news.
Where's the teeth?
See, Austin got to the thing and then he dozed off after I answered his question.
Tickety boo news.
Listen, I am, as you know, really libertarian about people's sexual practices.
I don't care what people do as long as they don't hurt each other and that lie to each other.
It doesn't mean it's good for you.
It doesn't mean you're doing the right thing.
It doesn't mean you're not sinning before God.
It means it's none of my business.
That's the only thing.
But I have to say, some of this S ⁇ M stuff that I see has really gotten to me.
Like, I don't mind a little, you know, slapping each other, whatever people do, tying each other up with towels, whatever you want to do.
But when I see, like, I watch the show Billions, which I really enjoy, I think it's on Showtime, and one of the guys in it is a masochist, and his wife, who is his dominatrix, burns him with cigarettes.
And I'm like, I wouldn't be excited sexually for like a month after you did that to me.
And then I saw that picture, you know, 50 Shades of Gray.
I kind of skimmed through it just to watch the sex scenes.
I was thinking, you got to be kidding me.
This is what women are daydreaming about.
They're like beating this poor woman up.
However, however, all that, none of that has shocked me as much as what I saw.
This Mistress Velvet, who is a black dominatrix, who says that this is what she does to her clients.
Listen to this.
It's very wonderful to be a black femme whipping a white man.
My name is Mistress Velvet.
I've been a dominatrix for four years.
I've been a goddess my whole life.
The core of my domination style is that I force slaves to read black feminist theory.
My very first slave I had ended up being like, you are such a nice, kind, and smart person, but you will never be a dom.
And that, like, really upset me.
I was like, no, I don't want any white man telling me that there's something I can't do.
And so it kind of pushed me to like do a lot of research around BDSM and kind of cultivate myself as a dom and what that meant for me.
243, Mr. 244, thank you, Mr. I kind of pushed them to engage in BDSM outside of like just what you think of it as just being beaten by some cruel woman.
Why are women allowed to say that they're a goddess?
I wouldn't be if I came out and said, I'm a god.
I've been a god my whole life.
Like men can't say that.
Women can say, I'm a goddess.
However, what I want to just want to point out here, and the reason I put this under tickety boo news and not under sexual follies, is because she actually admits that reading black feminist theory to a man is torturing him.
And so every teacher in every school who is reading black feminist theory or for my money, any kind of theory, and certainly feminist theory, is committing an act of dominatrix torture.
And you know, boys, you know what that makes you, doesn't it?
That makes you the victim.
That makes you the sub.
Do not do this.
It's not a good thing.
But finally, finally, somebody admits that reading this stuff to anybody is torture.
It is torturing somebody.
So at least what's his name?
Mistress Velvet?
Mistress Velvet, at least she's being an honest dominatrix.
So good for her.
All right.
Tomorrow.
Who do we have tomorrow?
Oh, we're talking about homelessness some more tomorrow.
Yes, we're going back to this subject.
We're not going to leave this subject alone.
We're going to talk more about homelessness and everything else that comes up.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
Tomorrow's Topic: Homelessness00:00:35
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
We'll see you then.
The Andrew Klavan Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Technical producer, Austin Stevens.
Edited by Alex Zingaro.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
And their animations are by Cynthia Angulo and Jacob Jackson.