Ep. 587 skewers the New York Times for publishing a debunked FBI-linked claim about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged assault, mocking its bias and Angela Screamypants’ Soros ties while ignoring Ford’s inconsistencies—like her husband’s prior knowledge of the incident. The episode slams media polarization, citing Joe Scarborough’s rare skepticism as an outlier, and condemns Democrats’ reliance on unverified claims like Julia Swetnick’s gang-rape allegations. It also exposes absurd "grievance studies" hoax papers, ties Trump’s appeal to perceived masculinity, and advises callers on faith, disability hypocrisy, and marital conflict—all while framing media as complicit in partisan narratives. [Automatically generated summary]
According to the New York Times, a former newspaper, the FBI has uncovered new scandalous information detailing how Brett Kavanaugh pulled a girl's pigtails when they were both five years old.
Anonymous sources close to the case informed anonymous sources close to the Times that anonymous sources within the FBI have spoken to anonymous sources who know someone who was there at the time and say that Kavanaugh's vicious assault on this innocent child left her crying and traumatized right up till snack time.
While police did not press charges in connection with the incident, the New York Times interviewed a psychologist who said that studies show all men who eventually rape women were once five-year-old boys, thus creating one more link in the chain of evidence that the New York Times will write anything and doesn't care how much it embarrasses itself.
New York Times reporter Angela Screamypants wrote the expose for the Times after she was hired away from her job running the George Soros-funded foundation, destroy the United States and Kill Everyone in It, starting with conservative Supreme Court justices in order to make a better world.
It's the D-U-S-K-E-S-C-S-C-J-O-M-B-W.
Some said this association may indicate bias on the part of the reporter, but Times board member Sarah Kill All White Men responded, quote, bias, what bias?
Kill all white men, unquote.
Times editor-in-chief, blithering prevarication the third defended the piece against those who read it and laughed hysterically until their stomachs hurt and they could do nothing but lie curled up on their sides.
Mr. Third said, quote, it is way past time that all the little girls who have had their pigtails pulled be heard complaining endlessly about it.
Because at this newspaper, we believe if it happened to one woman, then every conservative must also be guilty for some reason I can't entirely explain, unquote.
The Times says it will continue to investigate Kavanaugh's past until every last shred of its former reputation for journalistic excellence is gone.
Trigger warning.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety boo.
Birds are wingy, also singing hunky-dunky.
Ship-shaped tipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, it is mailbag day at last.
I know you've been waiting.
You've been clinging to your problems.
Ah, God, stop screaming at me.
I can't stand it anymore.
And now I'm triggered.
I'm triggered.
I don't feel this is a safe space, Austin.
It's not a safe space anymore.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't care if I'm triggered.
It's not a safe space.
By the way, this is good news.
This Clavenless weekend will not be quite so claven-less anymore.
This coming Monday, October 8th, Daily Wire will be launching the new season of my podcast series, Another Kingdom, performed by Michael Knowles.
If you aren't caught up on the first season, it'll be available Friday, October 5th on DailyWire.com and on the Daily Wire's YouTube channel.
Then on Monday, October 8th, and on every following Monday, subscribers to The Daily Wire will be able to watch new episodes of season two.
This season, we've added a dramatic visual component you won't want to miss.
I've seen the art.
It's amazing.
What if you're not a subscriber?
Well, you have to wait until Friday to get the new episodes, and you'll only be able to enjoy the visuals at the start of each episode, not through the entire thing.
So, that's new episodes with full visuals for subscribers on Mondays and the audio on Fridays for non-subscribers.
Head on over to DailyWire.com and subscribe.
Also, while you're doing that, by the way, please subscribe to the Andrew Clavin Show on iTunes.
It really helps us.
It helps us if you go on and leave a five-star rating and it lifts the show in the rankings and it's really good for us.
Now, we have to talk about quip because all of this, none of this would make any sense if I had no teeth.
I don't even know what that means, but my teeth are beautiful because I use an electric toothbrush and I love my quip because it is not like most electric toothbrushes, which are the size of a bazooka.
It's sleek, it's cool, it really is well designed.
It packs just the right amount of vibrations into this excellent design.
It also comes with a mount that suctions right to your mirror.
I like to stick it on my forehead and just walk around and scare my wife with it, but it unsticks to use as a hygienic travel holder so you can take it wherever you're going, whether you're going to the gym or whether you're going to Timbuktu.
You can have your Quip with you.
And Quip subscription plan refreshes your brush on a dentist-recommended schedule.
You get a new brush head every three months for just five bucks, including free shipping worldwide.
Quip starts at just $25.
And if you go to getquip.com slash Clavin right now, you'll get your first refill pack free with a Quip electric toothbrush.
That's your first refill pack free at getquip.com slash Clavin, spelled G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com slash, how do you spell it?
K-L-A-V-A-N, Mickey Mouse.
Media Misreporting00:15:26
You know, so much anger, obviously, so many accusations and counteraccusations.
And so much of it is made worse by the reporting of the media.
So much of this would not be happening for two important reasons.
I'll explain them both.
If the media were not so dishonest, if it would reform itself, it can't be reformed because of the First Amendment.
I believe in the First Amendment.
I don't want to reform it.
I want them to reform themselves.
They are doing the wrong thing.
They are doing something wrong.
CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, they are doing something wrong and they're making the country worse.
They're making the country worse by lying.
You want to see a crazy clip?
You want to see an amazing clip?
Here is Joe Scarborough agreeing with me.
You won't see this often.
Quite a few people that we talked to who I think a lot of them were registered Democrats raised questions about Dr. Ford's story.
Now, that's something in 24-7 news coverage, at least in mainstream media, you never hear anybody talk about.
They won't talk about it.
They feel that, you know, if anybody sticks their neck out and says that they disbelieve any part of her story, or if they talk about how there are no corroborating witnesses, well, they'll get absolutely slammed.
I think the media coverage of this has been so one-sided.
It has been so biased.
There has been the presumption from the very beginning that every single allegation made against the judge was true.
That this is what happened during the run-up to the Trump election.
Nobody would even consider the possibility that Donald Trump might win.
And so they were shocked by it.
Now, nobody has dared say, even the Republicans, that part of Dr. Ford's story just might not add up.
See, this means two things, one of two things.
It either means that Joe has been taking LSD, or it means that Joe knows, as I can tell from almost all the reporters, this FBI investigation is blowing up in their faces.
They got what they wanted.
When Donald Trump said it's a blessing in disguise, he knew what he was talking about.
They know that this is coming back and they are going to look like crap because they reported the story like crap.
They did a bad job.
Let's just put on one example.
Remember the story the New York Times ran that OE threw ice.
He got in a barroom brawl and he had altercation, not a brawl, an altercation.
And Brett Kavanaugh threw ice at somebody when he was in college.
So John Avalon are talking and Allison Camarada are talking on CNN.
Listen to what Avalon says first and then listen to Camerada's response.
I was poking around and actually when Stephen Breyer was nominated, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a piece of the Washington Post in 94 that mentions innocuously that he was arrested for underage drinking at Stanford.
It is one line in a very long profile that is utterly not relevant to the larger story of his qualifications for office upon nomination.
The drinking subplot here runs into questions of credibility.
Did he lie?
Did he embrace a choir boy standard when he in fact was more of a frat boy?
But it does seem to me to be a distraction from the larger questions of sexual assault that were raised.
And so now we're talking about long-ago arrest records for ice being thrown at a bar after a concert.
It's, I think, a symbol of the degradation of the debate we're having.
I disagree.
I think it's part and parcel of the entire thing.
I think that if you are known as a belligerent, mean, fighting drunk, that's relevant.
I think that it's relevant to then a woman who says that you would corner her and put your hand over her mouth.
Somehow that, I think, makes more sense than if you were just a fun drunk who always fell right asleep.
So let's just start with what Avalon said.
Stephen Breyer was arrested for underage drinking.
And it was one line in a Washington Post piece.
That's the first part of this.
That's the first part that Allison Camerada didn't address, that the press did not care about Breyer because Breyer is a liberal judge.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is what she's saying is absolutely absurd.
You can get in a barroom fight for all kinds of reasons.
Men get in fights all the time.
It doesn't mean they do anything to women.
It doesn't mean they have any kind of unkindness to women.
The idea that if you threw ice at a guy, you're going to also molest a girl, unbelievable garbage.
So right there, you had two examples in one minute.
In one minute on CNN, you had two examples of the unfairness of the press.
And what the press does repeatedly, which is the leftist technique, is it organizes us into leftists and haters, right?
You're for gay marriage or you hate.
You are for, you know, you're against, you're for Kavanaugh, you're for abortion or you hate women.
You know, whatever it is, there's one side and there's hate.
And they talk about, and they create this world that you have to break out of your imagination to see what they're doing to you.
So they'll say to you, you know, you have to believe women when they say they've been raped.
You stop for a minute and think, is there a group of people in America who doesn't think that women are sometimes raped?
How many people are in that group?
Let me guess.
None.
There are no people in the group of people who think women have never been raped and that some women aren't telling the truth when they say they've been raped.
Those people don't exist.
So it's not like, oh, good-hearted liberals, leftists who believe in women and evil conservatives who don't believe in women.
That organization of people doesn't exist.
It only exists in the minds of CNN and the networks and the New York Times.
The rest of us want to know, did this person do something to that person?
That's the question in front of us, and there is no other.
Let me talk to you for a minute about Ring.
Ring is just a modern way of having your getting alarms and security in your home.
And I'm going to have them come to my house and do my entire house because I don't like the security I've got there now.
And I'm going to have Ring come because they just do such a good job.
They have this home security.
They have a video doorbell.
That's the first, the most basic thing.
So you can see who's outside the door.
We have some video of this.
A woman comes up to a porch to steal a package.
You know, they do this in my house.
They leave you a package on your doorstep.
And a woman comes up to steal it, but they've got ring video doorbell.
And this is what happens.
Hey, put that down.
Dude, I just stopped someone from sealing my back.
Yeah, she just takes off like a shot.
She knows she's been spotted.
She knows they've got video.
If he calls the police, they're going to be able to identify them.
A ring video doorbell lets you see and speak to intruders on your smartphone from anywhere.
You don't even have to be home.
And you can even share video clips to neighbors using the Ring app.
Ring's Floodlight Cam and Spotlight Cam let you build a ring of security around your entire property.
Stop crime before it happens and help make your neighborhood safer with Ring.
Save up to $150 on a Ring of Security kit at ring.com/slash Clavin.
That's ring.com/slash Clavin.
$150 off when you go to ring.com/slash Claven.
Next time somebody comes up to your door, you'll be able to say, Hey, how do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So the first thing, I mean, they organize, they have this entire imaginary world that the press helps the left create that is just not rape culture.
Perfect example.
Rape culture.
What is, you know, I had to look up because they're always saying these words and you think, well, that sounds bad, but what is it?
Rape culture is a culture in which people minimize and accept rape.
Where does rape culture exist outside of some Islamic countries?
In America, where does it exist?
Nowhere.
Logic for just a second, just a second.
Men are bigger and stronger than women and want sex.
Okay?
Men are bigger and stronger than women and want sex.
If there was rape culture, if rape in this country were minimized, if it were ignored, when would it stop?
Who would stop it?
Who would be there?
Why are there police who believe, oh, I have to stop that?
That's a rape.
Why are there men who risk their lives to stop rape?
Most men, a majority, they always say, they always have that thing, well, not all men.
Yes, not all men.
Most men will come and help you if they can, if they have the capability, or will at least call the police.
If that were not true, close your eyes a minute and imagine what the world would look like.
So, Steve Crowder, my insane pal, the guy really needs to be put in restraints.
I mean, he is out of his mind.
He goes to some Texas, small Texas college, and he sits down with a table that says, rape culture is a myth.
Change my mind.
This is Steve's brand, change my mind.
And just listen to the way the debate goes.
Well, I hope you enjoy this, and I hope that you never get raped because it's horrible.
I hope you don't.
And rape culture exists, and you're telling me one in a thousand?
I can tell you that's bullshit.
Do you see 1900 people standing here?
I can guarantee you.
Multiple people right here have been raped, and this is not 1,900 people.
So, okay, how can you guarantee that?
And if anybody needs this UPD because they've been raped, good luck because they don't give a f.
They don't give a film it if you want, post it if you want.
I introduced myself to this man, and this man is saying one in 1900, 1900, according to the FBI, yeah.
According to the FBI, one in 1900 people have been raped.
I can guarantee that I'm not the only one standing here that's been raped, and we are not 1900.
So thank you, and thank you, and I hope you get the hell off our campus.
So that's she seems nice.
And you know, Crowder, if Crowder is the sanest person in the room, there's something wrong with your campus.
If Crowder is the sanest person on your campus, you need a new campus.
And he is.
She's screaming at him.
I mean, he's got the information from the FBI.
If one in four people were raped at any college, which is this number they keep sending around, it wouldn't be so.
So anyway, the fact that the media does this, it divides us.
It makes it impossible to tell what's true.
It makes us move into our corners and defend our place, defend our guys no matter what.
If we felt that everybody was getting hit by the New York Times, if we felt the New York Times was fair to everybody and hit everybody equally, we wouldn't constantly be defending every single thing that people on the right do.
Yesterday, Donald Trump, I got to tell you a joke.
All right, this is Donald Trump.
Let's just look at for a minute what Donald Trump said.
He finally, I went through this whole thing yesterday where I was talking about how well he was doing, how restrained he was, how he was keeping it together.
And now he goes off and he goes after Christine Blasey Ford.
There are now a lot of things, I would say a number of things, that have raised serious questions about Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh, have raised serious questions about whether she's telling the truth, things that do not hold together in her testimony.
I think these things should be questioned.
They should be reported.
I think she should have been questioned harder during the hearing.
But here's Donald Trump with his version of it.
36 years ago, this happened.
I had one beer.
Right?
I had one beer.
Well, do you think it was good?
Nope, it was one beer.
Oh, good.
How did you get home?
I don't remember.
How'd you get there?
I don't remember.
Where is the place?
I don't remember.
How many years ago was it?
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know!
What neighborhood was it in?
I don't know.
Where's the house?
I don't know.
Upstairs, downstairs.
Where was it?
I don't know.
But I had one beer.
That's the only thing I remember.
And a man's life is in tatters.
A man's life is shattered.
His wife is shattered.
His daughters, who are beautiful, incredible young kids.
They destroy people.
They want to destroy people.
These are really evil people.
See, that's just bad strategy, okay?
Now, everyone was saying he mocked her, and some people on the right were saying, he didn't mock her.
Yeah, he mocked her.
It's bad strategy.
It's bad.
There are only three senators who are on the fence, maybe five, but they're, you know, and two of them, at least two of them are women.
And, you know, what does he want to offend people like that?
It reminds me of this old joke.
I got to tell, I'll tell this joke.
Old joke, a philanthropist goes to a psychiatric institute to see if he wants to donate money.
As he's walking out, he sees the gardener, and the gardener is making these beautiful topiaries, you know, shaped hedges and all this.
And the philanthropist, rich guy, goes up to the gardener and says, excuse me, you're doing such a wonderful job.
And the gardener is this very elegant, very held-together guy.
And he says, well, thank you very much, sir.
And the philanthropist says, you know, I'd like you to, why don't you leave here and you can come work in my estate?
I just could really use a wonderful gardener like you.
And the man says, well, thank you so much.
That's so flattering, but unfortunately, I can't do that.
I'm an inmate here.
I was, you know, I have to stay here.
And the philanthropist says, you're an inmate?
You're mentally ill.
I can't believe that.
You're so poised and you're doing such wonderful work.
The man says, well, thank you.
Thank you.
I have very strong hopes of being released soon.
I've had troubles in my life, but I've gotten over them and I have strong hopes of being released soon.
And the philanthropist says, well, I'll tell you what.
When you get out of here, you come see me, son, and I will give you a job.
You will work at my estate.
And the gardener says, well, thank you so much.
That's very moving.
That really touches me.
And the philanthropist says, don't mention it and starts walking out.
And as the philanthropists are walking out, he feels whack.
He's been hit in the head by a rock.
And he turns around and the gardener says, you won't forget now, will you?
And Donald Trump reminds me of that.
The guy's almost out the door.
We're almost there.
We're almost on, but he's got to throw that rock.
He just can't resist.
He cannot resist.
And the thing about it is, it's so clear from the reporting that the FBI are not going to help the Democrats on this.
There are some things that have come out.
There's a real estate and other records that undercut a part of Christine Ford's account.
She said, remember that she told her husband about this attack when they were arguing about whether to put a second door in their home as they were redesigning their door.
It turns out that that happened, and they went into therapy and they were talking about that.
That happened a long time before the therapy and the second door was built in there as a part of to let guests in so they could rent out the room or have guests over so that didn't hold together.
There's a new letter that was released by Chuck Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Chairman, that a former boyfriend of Christine Ford says that he personally witnessed her coaching someone on how to take a polygraph test, which she said she didn't do.
So all these things are coming together.
But the thing that you just have to hear is the way the senators are talking, because we know the senators have sources in the FBI.
We know the New York Times has sources in the FBI, and yet suddenly there are no stories about this investigation, none at all.
Sudden Shift in Argument00:14:46
Here's Spartacus.
We all remember Corey Booker Spartacus.
Listen to what he says.
They're shifting the ground of the argument.
So my hope is that beyond the vicious partisan rancor that is going on, beyond the accusations, we don't lose sight of what this moral moment is about in this country.
And ultimately ask ourselves the question, is this the right person to sit on the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment when their credibility has been challenged by intimates, people that knew the candidate well as a classmate?
When his temperament has been revealed in an emotional moment where he used language that frankly shocked a lot of us.
And then ultimately, not whether he's innocent or guilty, this is not a trial, but ultimately, have enough questions be raised that we should not move on to another candidate.
You know, Brett Kavanaugh should have a beer every time he uses the phrase moral moment.
He just loves his moral moment.
This is the moral moment.
So Spartacus says it doesn't matter whether he's innocent or guilty.
Suddenly.
Suddenly it's about his record and his temperament.
We've heard all that about how he got angry about being accused of rape.
How could anybody get angry about that?
But suddenly it doesn't matter whether he's innocent or guilty or not.
Maisie Hirano from Hawaii, remember, shut up all white men.
Suddenly it's about his record.
This is the thing.
This is the argument that they lost at the hearings.
This is the argument that they lost at the hearings.
They could not get him on his record.
His judicial record is excellent.
His rulings have been adopted by higher courts again and again.
He has an impeccable judicial record.
And now listen to Maisie Rana.
That's the argument they lost.
So is she talking about rape anymore?
Let's hear.
He has a pattern of making decisions that limit a woman's right to choose.
That should be a major concern to Susan Collins.
He has certain attitudes about Native peoples.
That should be a major concern to Lisa Murkowski.
And so we can't, I hope that they're not just banking everything on the FBI report.
There's enough evidence of his pattern of decision-making, not to mention his very expansive views of presidential protections, because he's the only one who wrote that the president should be immune from any kind of criminal or civil proceedings while he's sitting in office.
So suddenly it's about the decisions again, which is what the whole hearing was about, which is why they brought this up because they lost the argument.
They wouldn't have done this.
They have covered themselves in shame.
They have covered themselves in shame.
If it turns out, as I very much believe it is now going to turn out, that this, that Christine Ford's story is not at least backed up by something, doesn't have any kind of backing at all, this was a shameful, cruel, stinking, rotten thing to do.
They said they were going to do it.
They said from the very beginning that they were going to use any means necessary.
They would not have done it if they hadn't known the press would run protection for them.
The press ran protection for them.
If you know that you are going to go out there and do that and the New York Times is going to say, ho, ho, ho, wait a minute.
Wait just a minute.
We don't agree with Brett Kavanaugh.
We hate his opinions.
But accusing him without proof of rape or it's not rape, it's molestation.
Accusing him of molestation without proof, that's going too far.
Just that much common decency, that much fairness.
If you'd gotten that from NBC instead of putting on Julia Swetnik, who had those completely now debunked attack on him of these rape parties, gang rape parties and nonsense, if they had known that they were not going to put that woman on the air, because NBC was going to say, hey, until I can, this is not a charge that I am willing to air against another human being until I've got proof.
I'll send out somebody to investigate, but I will not just let her come on the air like that.
If they had known the press was going to act like that, they would never have covered themselves in shame.
So I just want to end up by saying today the New York Times ran a piece, I think it was 500 pages long.
I think the entire, it almost was like the entire thing, about accusing Donald Trump and his family of committing tax fraud.
Now, I read the whole piece, and the whole idea was basically that Donald Trump's father gave his children lots and lots of money.
And when you give gifts to your family over a certain amount, you have to pay taxes on it.
But they built corporations to avoid the taxes.
Now, the IRS has not said anything about this.
The IRS closed all these cases.
It has not attacked them, but the New York Times says it's a problem.
Now, if the New York Times were fair, if the New York Times had not every single day run a piece telling me that, oh, one of our board members was molested, therefore Brett Kavanaugh was guilty.
If they hadn't run that piece every day, if they didn't attack Donald Trump in screaming 12-year-old girl headlines every day, I'd be a lot more prone to say, okay, well, Donald Trump has never struck me as the most honest businessman in the world.
I'm willing to look into this.
As it is, eh, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.
They say New York State says it's going to investigate.
New York State has been trying to get Trump for 100 years, you know, so I'm not sure they're going to be that fair.
But how do you believe anything?
We are divided against each other because the press divides us.
The media divides us.
If we knew they were going to be fair, we would sit and listen.
We wouldn't be arguing with our friends.
We'd be saying, here's the latest story from the New York Times that has both sides.
This is the one I believe.
That's the one I believe.
What they call on Fox News fair and balanced.
The only guy still doing it is Brett Baer.
He's the only one who's still giving you the whole story on Fox News.
So you can rail at Fox News' conservative all you want.
It's the only one that's got that show that tells the news straight.
This has been, I would call it a low point in the press, but if they got any lower, they would be able to walk under a snake with a top hat on.
It's like, I mean, it is just absurd.
All right, we got the mailbag coming up.
But first, we got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
You got to subscribe.
You want to get Another Kingdom season two.
You'll get it a few days early if you subscribe.
You get it ad-free if you subscribe.
It is so, you really got to see this thing.
It is so, so cool.
I wrote the entire second season, and I can tell you it's great.
Nobody writes this stuff like me.
It is terrific.
It really is.
It's a good story, but they have just done such a fantastic job putting it together.
That's on Friday this week.
And then if you subscribe, you can get it earlier.
But please come and take a look.
Otherwise, you're stuck at the Claveless weekend, and you know what that's like.
All right.
Mailbag coming up.
Mailbag.
I know.
Well, I'm so triggered by it.
Austin has me so shattered in my psyche.
He is so collapsing.
From Claire.
Hi, Andrew.
Or should I say the fountain of wisdom?
You should say the fountain of wisdom.
I think that's clear.
My question is, personal, I'm facing a crossroads.
Most of my life has been affected by leftist ideology and a strange form of cognitive dissidence.
My parents grew up in Belfast.
My mother was a cheater.
My father was angry, aggressive, and took his pain out on me.
I became a Christian after ending up in Australia in spite of a set of bad choices and poor relationships, including being drugged and raped.
And then in parentheses, she says, don't even get me started on the Brett Kavanaugh issue.
I remember every detail of what happened to me.
Ford is lying.
But she goes on.
My question is this.
After a series of terrible choices and poor influences, I'm now sitting on the edge of bankruptcy with seemingly no way out.
How do I come back from both my poor decisions and the bad influences that led me to them?
I'm 36.
I fear I will never get married or have kids since coming out of this leftist coma.
And honestly, I've had a pastor tell me I should just settle for some nice 30-something divorcee, suggesting I didn't deserve anything more than someone else's reject because I am someone else's reject.
God bless you and thank you for your time, Claire.
Oh man, Claire.
Okay, well, look, this letter resonates with me in a lot of ways.
As I have tried to be very honest about and straightforward about, I became the person that I am.
I think I was born to be this person, but it took me a long, long time to get here.
I'm not Brett Kavanaugh.
If somebody accused me of something, they'd probably be right.
I mean, I've done things that I'm so ashamed of, so bothered of.
I was a different man.
I was a sick person.
I was a twisted person.
I built this life through God.
And I won't say I built it.
God put a stairway in front of me.
I climbed the stairs.
Every time I took a step on that stairs, every single time I thought to myself, God, why did you let me be the person I was before?
Now it's too late.
Now I'm better, but it's too late.
Now I can't do the things that I want to do.
And every time I could do them, every time there was something ahead of me that was better than before, and I took the next step up and I thought, God, why did you wait so long to bring me to this place?
Now it's too late.
I'm too old.
You know, there's a wonderful scene.
One of my favorite movies.
I watch it every single year, is the Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens, a Christmas Carol, the one with Alastair Sim.
And they come to redeem this terrible old man, this terrible miser who's caused so much pain.
And he turns to the spirits who come to save him.
And he says, go and redeem some younger man.
I am too old.
But God doesn't think that.
God doesn't think it's too late.
He doesn't think it's too late for you.
He knows where you've been.
He knows what you've done.
You are not God's reject, obviously.
He called you to him.
He meant it.
He means it now.
He means it now.
The things you have done, the life you lived before is not the life you're going to live tomorrow.
So I can't guarantee you that you'll find love.
I can't guarantee you that things will go well.
I can guarantee you that if you walk up that stairs, you'll get closer and closer to God.
There will be more and more joy in your life.
It is not too late for that.
It is never too late for that.
And that is the task that you've begun.
That is the chart in front of you.
The alcoholics, alcoholics anonymous, they always have a lot of great sayings.
One of the great sayings they have is: do the next right thing.
That is great advice.
Don't worry so much about finding a guy, whether you're going to find a guy, what's going to happen, how you're going to get do the next right thing.
And when it's time for you to look for love, go to the places where you're going to find nice people.
Go to the places where you're going to find people who treat you well.
You don't know what that guy's going to look like.
And don't think he's a reject because he's divorced or whatever.
You don't know what that guy's going to look like.
Just do the next right thing.
Go up that stairs.
God is on every one of those stairs.
Just go up it.
It will get better every day.
It's not too late.
That's the answer.
And again, don't think about the outcome yet.
Just think about the next right thing, the next step up, and take that step.
From Jennifer, as a former Never Trumper, I find myself more and more enamored with President Trump every time I hear him speak.
That includes the occasions when he should probably just shut up.
Last week, when Lindsey Graham told off the Senate, I fell in love with him too, a guy whom I loathed up until that moment because he is such a two-faced backstabbing political hack.
The only logical reason I could come up with is that they were men acting like real men.
Could that really be it?
Jennifer, P.S., I love you too.
The obvious answer to that question is yes, you know the answer.
You're already answering your own question.
That's exactly why.
That was always Trump's appeal.
You know, some of the time when he started out, I used to say, you know, just because a guy is loud and belligerent doesn't mean he's a real man, and that is right.
But real men do come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
You can be a quiet real man, you can be a quiet intellectual real man, you can be a loud and belligerent athletic real man, you can be a chestbeating real man, but it is refreshing always to see them.
All these guys who are second-guessing themselves, who are playing not to lose, especially in politics, who are afraid if they open their mouth and say this, this will happen.
If they say that, that will happen.
So they just become, as you say, political hacks.
They become afraid of saying anything.
All of those guys are in, they think, they think they're doing the right thing because they're not offending anybody.
But the fact is they are losing audience, losing voters, because everybody hates a weak man.
Everybody hates a weak man.
A weak woman, not so much.
Vulnerable woman, not so much.
But a man who cannot take a stand, who can't say no, who can't say, this is where I stand, I will take the political hit, I'll take the audience hit.
The guy who can't say that is ultimately, he's not a man.
And when you hear that voice, when you hear the voice of manhood, you know it and it perks you up.
I think even men respond and think, ah, there is the guy that I want to be with or be around.
So yes, you've answered your own question.
From Chris, Dear Andrew, I'm 33 years old and have recently had to come to grips with the fact that I may become permanently disabled.
I am a type 1 diabetic and have sustained many internal and permanent conditions due to not being diagnosed soon enough.
I firmly stand against any, I firmly stand against government assistance, but may have no other choice to support my family without accepting disability benefits.
Am I wrong to vehemently oppose social welfare programs as a whole while still accepting benefits?
Well, first of all, I'm really sorry this has happened.
That sounds incredibly tough.
The answer is yes, to an extent.
Yes, to an extent.
If you are opposed to something, you should only use it if there is no other choice.
If the fact that you have lost the argument means that the way that you should have taken has been disbarred.
So for it has been barred to you.
So for instance, you may be against affirmative action, but when they accept you into Yale, you don't know whether you've been accepted for affirmative action or not.
And you're not going to turn it down because it might be affirmative action.
You're going to take the acceptance, right?
And that's perfectly fair, even if you're against affirmative action.
What you have to do is earn your place in Yale.
Now that you've got it, you have to earn what you've gotten.
But I'm deeply opposed to affirmative action, but I don't blame a guy if he works really hard and doesn't know whether affirmative action was given to him, was used on him or not.
Earning Your Place00:05:56
If you are against all forms of government assistance, and I'm not, by the way, but if you're against all forms of government assistance and you take the government assistance, yeah, I think that's being hypocritical.
But you can also change your mind and say, hey, you know, what I'm against is the idea that everybody should pay for everything.
In certain emergency situations, the government may be the best person.
You might not be a hypocrite if what you think is the church should take care of me when I can't take care of myself, but the church has been disabled by an overweening government.
You could make that argument.
So that's why I say yes and no.
You know, if what you really believe is there should be no government assistance and people should just fend for themselves, then yeah, it's hypocritical to take it.
But maybe you should re-examine your beliefs.
Maybe you've been too harsh.
Maybe, you know, there are other people in a similar situation than you that need the assistance.
I am not against social spending.
I think social spending has worked out well.
I simply think it is a foothold that the left uses to get as much money and power as it can, and that has to be fought against.
All right.
From Gabrielle, do you think body language analysis is a credible way to discredit Dr. Ford's testimony?
Daily Wire recently published an article on this topic, and I was curious on how good such analysis is and whether it is highly subject to personal bias.
Yeah, that's exactly my problem with it.
It's not that you can't read people's body language, but there are two problems with it.
One, your reading is going to be biased.
There's no science, exact science of body language reading.
And so I just don't feel that that is really credible evidence.
I don't know how the law treats that kind of thing.
But I'm very, very suspicious of psychological experts and language handwriting experts and things like that.
I think there may be people who can tell from handwriting or from body language, can tell things from it.
I think we all read each other's body language, but I think it is so affected by personal bias that it's just not reliable at all.
My second thing is, is if it were scientific, if there are studies that show that a person who stands like this or pulls his ear or all those things they put on TV that aren't really true, if he blinks rapidly, he's lying, people would learn how to game it.
If it were really a science, people would learn how to game it.
Because if you cross your arms when you feel like self-defensive, then you wouldn't cross your arms while you were being interviewed by the police.
You would relax, make sure you were seated in a relaxed pose.
So I just don't think it's a, I don't think it's credible, no.
I mean, I think that if my wife said to me, reading his body language, I felt this way, I know my wife, I know where she stands, I would think that that was more reliable than an actual expert.
From Casey, hello, my wife and I have a couple who have been very close family friends.
They recently were advised by their doctor to terminate a pregnancy.
They followed through with the termination and took it very hard, but knew the baby would not have survived otherwise.
My wife, who was very Catholic, has taken it very hard as well.
When the couple speaks of trying to have a child again, my wife gets upset and says that if it happened again like the last time, she could no longer be friends with them.
I think this is awful.
I know that the decision did not come easily to them and do not judge them as lacking faith, which my wife does.
I'm finding it harder to look past my wife's own inability to forgive, accept, or show any amount of grace in this time.
Here's the problem.
The problem is between you and your wife.
It has nothing to do with your friends.
Your friends are your friends.
Your wife and you have a different attitude toward abortion.
Hers is very understandable, and so is yours.
She believes that this is killing a child.
It's killing a child, and she cannot, does not know how to live with that or accept that in these people.
Your relationship to her is exponentially more important than your relationship to these friends, okay?
You don't have to break off with these friends.
You can continue your relationship with your friends, but what you need to do is you need to come to terms with the fact that you and your wife disagree on an important issue.
That's not a sin.
That's not a crime.
Marriages can well, well, well survive those disagreements.
They should survive those disagreements.
Those are things you can discuss if you discuss them in a civil, friendly way.
They're things you can talk about.
Maybe your wife will come around a little bit.
Maybe you'll come around to see what she's about.
But the problem you want to solve is the problem of you.
It's you not forgiving your wife.
It's you not showing grace to your wife's difference of opinions.
It's not her lack of grace for your friends because your friends are outside the marriage.
The marriage comes first.
Your friends are outside the marriage.
You have to show grace and forgiveness and understanding to the fact that your wife has a different point of view than you do.
You know, again, not a sin, not a tragedy.
You just have to come to terms with that.
If you can, you can continue to have a relationship with your friends that she may not want to continue.
But you do have to continue to have a relationship with your wife.
That's the important relationship here.
That's the one you have to protect.
Let's see.
Here it is.
Brian, do you think that after this shameful display by the Democrats, it will cause a flood of red voters?
Possibly so.
Possibly so.
Here's what I think.
I think that the Democrats have succeeded in acting so badly that they have energized the right for the midterms.
I think that is a good thing.
I think that if the Republicans fall apart and can't get this done and can't stand together long enough to push this nomination through as it deserves to go through, I think people may get so disgusted on the right that they stay home.
If they do confirm him, if they confirm Kavanaugh, I think that will be helpful.
If they don't confirm him and they re-nominate him, as Lindsey Graham recommended, and they just say, okay, let's take it to the people, I think they'll win both the House and the Senate.
Three academics who can describe themselves as liberal spent more than a year submitting absurd hoax papers to preeminent scholarly journals focusing on race, gender, sexuality, and other politically fraught disciplines that the academics call grievance studies.
These guys, they're left-leaning liberals, they call themselves.
James Lindsay, a math doctorate, Peter Bogozian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history.
They decided that American scholarship was being so skewed by grievance thinking that they could write these absurd articles.
And they submitted 20 papers to various peer-reviewed journals under pseudonyms, and seven of these absurd papers were accepted.
Let's see if I can find some of them.
There was Dog Park, Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon.
The thesis was that dog parks are condoning rape spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against the oppressed dog through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured.
This provides insight into training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone.
This was accepted.
Some of the reviewer comments, this is a wonderful paper, incredibly innovative, rich in analysis, and it's extremely well written.
This is insane.
Fat bodybuilding, title, Who Are They to Judge? Overcoming Anthropometry and a Framework for Fat Bodybuilding.
The thesis was that it is only oppressive cultural norms which make society regard the building of muscle rather than fat admirable and that bodybuilding and activism on behalf of the fat could be benefited by including fat bodies displayed in non-competitive ways.
Dildoz, title, going in through the back door, challenging straight male homo hysteria and transphobia through receptive penetrative sex toy use.
Thesis that it is suspicious that men rarely anally self-penetrate using sex toys.
That is suspicious.
And that this probably is due to a fear of being thought homosexual, homohysteria, and bigotry against trans people.
So men never use dildo's through the back door because they're afraid that it would make them homosexual.
It combines these ideas into novel concept, trans hysteria.
Selected reviewer comments.
This article is an incredibly rich and exciting contribution to the study of sexuality and culture and particularly the intersection between masculinity and anality, which we all are worried about.
Hooters, an ethnography of restaurant masculinity.
You know, I just love this.
I love this.
You know why this got, they stopped?
They stopped because that dog park one, the idea that dogs were practicing rape culture, the Wall Street Journal looked at that and went, wait a minute, are you kidding me?
And they started and they hunted these guys down and that's how they got exposed.
Absolutely great.
You know, this is when you saw that woman yelling at Steve Crowder.
This is why.
This is why, because these crazy people are teaching them this crazy stuff.
And it is crazy stuff, but it is wonderful to see it exposed.
And it's wonderful to see it exposed by people on the left.
There are plenty of good people on the left, plenty of sane people on the left that we could be having conversations with, but we can't as long as they're talking garbage.
All right.
Tomorrow, Thursday, beginning of the Clavenless weekend, but not entirely Clavenless, because another Kingdom Season 2 is coming and it is great.
Be here tomorrow for the last show of this show for the week.
Wonderful Exposures00:00:39
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
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.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire forward publishing production.