Andrew Clavin dissects Google’s alleged censorship of pro-life content, citing manipulated search results favoring extreme anti-abortion narratives while mocking its "Don’t Be Evil" slogan. He contrasts the media’s coverage of the March for Life with its silence on selective abortion by traits like gender or astrology, using Norma McCorvey’s reversal in Roe v. Wade to argue 55 million lives were lost unnecessarily. The episode also scrutinizes the Russia investigation, dismissing FBI actions as unconstitutional and media narratives as dubious, while a mailbag tackles overpopulation debates, Orthodox guilt, Hitler’s ideological contradictions, and introversion strategies. Clavin concludes by framing conservative advocacy in the arts as a career risk and warns against religious overreach in politics—unless core moral lines are crossed—before pivoting to Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic rhetoric and CNN’s selective outrage. [Automatically generated summary]
Google Manipulates Abortion Search Results00:02:33
The Breitbart website is reporting that Google has manually manipulated search results on abortion to favor pro-abortion results.
Breitbart says a leaked discussion thread shows Google intervened after a left-wing Slate reporter's abortion search pulled up pro-life videos.
The Slate reporter complained, saying the videos could cause people to question the morality of poisoning children in the womb, ripping them to pieces, and selling their body parts for sweet, sweet cash.
That might make women feel bad about killing human beings, which would be uncomfortable for them.
Google employees apparently responded to the complaint by rejiggering the search results so that only pro-abortion videos came up, including a vid of a feminist proudly shouting her abortion before turning off the camera and weeping uncontrollably, and another vid in which Planned Parenthood employees use the blood of slaughtered babies to raise demons who then rip the souls out of the employees and drag them to hell.
That made the Slate reporter feel much better.
Google CEO Sunder Pichai spoke to Congress under oath last month and swore that Google does not manually intervene in search results.
This is standard Google policy and in keeping with our slogan, be evil, unquote.
When the spokesman was told that the slogan was, don't be evil, he responded, quote, that was in the old days.
Then we dropped the don't to save space and also because it was more fun to be evil, unquote.
Although Google has repeatedly claimed it does not manipulate searches for political reasons, its far left bent is evident in 2017.
The company fired employee James Damore when he wrote an in-house letter explaining men and women are different.
Spokesman Face, however, told the Daily Wire, quote, that story is untrue.
There is no James Dammore.
Go on and Google him.
You'll see there's nothing there, unquote.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dicky.
Ship-shaped dipsy-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.
Today is the March for Life when thousands upon thousands of people gather in Washington to protest abortion, while journalists put their collective fingers in their collective ears and whistle collective Dixie, hoping the march will magically go away.
It won't, and neither will the issue.
March for Life Protest00:02:34
Yesterday, I gave a speech here in Gainesville at the University of Florida.
It was a great occasion.
The Young America Foundation students did a terrific job organizing it and publicizing it.
It had an SRO crowd of absolutely great kids.
And I spoke about the pursuit of happiness and how it requires liberty so that people can learn to love what's good and seek it out of their own free will.
But of course, there's something else that the pursuit of happiness requires, and that's life.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights given to us by God so that we can fulfill the purpose of our creation, which is the freely chosen love of righteousness, which turns out to be in God.
Governments, as the declaration goes on to tell us, are instituted to secure those rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others.
So a government that does not secure them has failed at every level to fulfill its only purpose.
When a woman walks into a clinic to have an abortion, there is only one person in the room who has no vote and no voice.
The unborn child is the least among us.
And if we the people don't speak up for him, no one here on earth will.
Our own Ben Shapiro is delivering the keynote at the march today.
God bless my friend in that endeavor and all the marchers.
More on this as we go on.
But first, let's talk about 23andMe.
23andMe is one of those genetic testing things.
I used it.
I have to tell you, it is enormous, enormous fun.
It's very simple.
You spit in the little jar they send you.
You put it back in the mailer they send you, and they give you all these really interesting results.
Here are a couple of them.
You can get a muscle composition report that tells you, do you have a genetic variant that is common among elite power athletes?
I, of course, do.
I found out I was related to Zeus.
Not many people know that.
Studies have found, I'm only joking, I don't want 23andMe to yell at me, studies have found that almost all elite power athletes. have a specific genetic variant in a gene related to muscle composition.
You can find that out.
You can find out a genetic weight report.
With 23andMe's genetic weight report, you can discover if your genes predispose you to weigh more or less than average and unique insights on which healthy habits are likely to have the biggest impact on your weight based on genetics.
These are just some of the things you can find out.
Get your 23andMe health and ancestry kit today at 23andMe.com slash Clavin.
That's the number 23andMe.com slash Clavin.
Again, that's 23andMe.com slash Clavin.
You can find out all kinds of things like, how do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
Evidence Seen in Texas00:15:29
All right, we're going to talk more about the March for Life, more about abortion in the mailbag, which is coming up, and we will stay on so you can hear the mailbag.
I've got this sound in here turned up so loud that just blew my eardrum out.
We're going to stay on, but that's all the more reason for you to subscribe to dailywire.com for a lousy 10 bucks a month or 100 bucks for the year, which will also get you the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
And you can be in the mailbag, which is a little uncomfortable, but you can leave a question while you're there, and I will answer all the questions as I will answer them today.
There it was.
I just want to continue on the subject of abortion for a couple of minutes and then get to the news of the day.
There was a wonderful, wonderful piece in Town Hall by Casey Maddox, who I don't believe I've met.
I don't believe I've heard of him, but it's a terrific piece called The Texas Woman Who Should Be Dead.
And I'm going to read some of it.
I've got to cut it for space, for time, but go on to Town Hall and find this article, The Texas Woman Who Should Be Dead by Casey Maddox.
It starts out, there's a 43-year-old woman born in Texas who should be dead right now.
In fact, she should never have been born.
40 years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Texas law that prevented Jane Rowe from ending the life of her unborn daughter was unconstitutional.
But by the time the Supreme Court issued its decision in 1973, she had already been born and adopted by a family, likely not knowing that all that ink spilled in Roe v. Wade was about her.
Norma McCorfey is Jane Rowe.
She claimed then that her pregnancy was the result of a rape, although for over a decade now, she has been outspokenly pro-life and publicly admitted that this and virtually every fact on which her case was built was a lie.
Both McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the doe of Doe v. Bolton, Roe's companion case from Georgia, decided the same day, are now outspoken pro-life advocates who have sworn that their cases are built on lies.
But before the Supreme Court could decide whether McCorfey did have a constitutional right to end her unborn daughter's life, it had to overcome a procedural obstacle that slowed down the process, a delay that factored into whether her daughter would ever have a family.
Because of that delay, McCorfey had already had the child by the time the Supreme Court issued its decision in January 1973.
The child had been adopted into a Texas home, perhaps somewhere in the Dallas area, where McCorvey lived.
Fortunately for her, for that child, the wheels of justice grind slowly.
Today, somewhere, maybe still in Texas, there lives a 43-year-old woman, perhaps with a family and a career of her own, with beautiful children that she loves dearly, perhaps with a husband and family that can't imagine life without her.
The 55 million other babies deserved that same chance at life.
Like McCorfey's daughter, they were all created in the image of a loving God and would have been loved and wanted by someone.
And that's why we fight.
Terrific piece by Casey Maddox.
It's an amazing thing to contemplate to me that all of the facts that went into the decision Roe v. Wade were untrue.
You know, everything about it was untrue and that both Roe and Doe became pro-life advocates.
That is an amazing thing to tell.
But the thing that gets me about this story, about the fact that Roe's daughter is still alive, is that that's the story.
that doesn't get told, the story of the life someone would have lived if you hadn't aborted them.
Every time a usually Republican or conservative comes out to be pro-life and they're in a debate, the news media, our reliably left-wing news media, asks that person, well, what about in the case of rape?
What about in the case of incest, which by the way, accounts for very, very few cases of abortion?
But nobody ever asks, nobody ever asks the pro-abortion candidate, what about in the case when you're going to have a girl and you don't want a girl, you want a boy?
What about in the case when the child is going to have red hair and you want it to have blonde hair?
What about in the case where the child is going to be born Capricorn and you want it to be born Taurus?
You know, they never ask those cases because a lot of people who are aborted are aborted for those reasons as well.
The other question that people don't ask pro-abortion candidates is what would that life have been like?
What would that life have been like?
Do you have genes that might have helped your child sing or dance or simply just become a mother or a father who would have had children who would love them?
Those are the voices that aren't being heard.
Those are the stories that aren't being told.
The March for Life is a chance for us, we, the living, we, the people who weren't aborted, to tell those stories.
We have to take that opportunity.
We have to tell them and we have to keep telling them until a government that was instituted among men to secure the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is in fact ensuring all three, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Speaking of stories, there were three stories that came out yesterday involving the Russia investigation in Trump.
And I want to take a look at them.
Each one of these stories was a bombshell.
It was like the war of the bombshells.
But two of them we can be pretty certain are true.
One of them we have to examine.
And I'm not sure.
I have no way of knowing whether it's true yet or not.
But it's pretty interesting.
And I do think I know why it's being told right now.
The first story coming from Kim Strassel, great reporter at the Wall Street Journal.
She has been on top of this story from the beginning and doing the best reporting, I think, about it.
And this is testimony from Bruce Orr.
Remember Bruce Orr, he was the guy who brought the steele dossier, the dossier about the prostitutes that was Russian basically disinformation about Donald Trump that had been paid for by the Clinton campaign, the Hillary Clinton campaign, right?
And Bruce Orr was the Justice Department official whose wife worked for the company that got this dossier and who brought the dossier to the FBI.
The thing is, we now have, Kimberly Strassel now has his testimony saying that he told everybody of importance that this was opo-research by Hillary Clinton and was not necessarily to be trusted and that it was unconfirmed.
Orr testified that he sat down with dossier author Christopher Steele on July 30th, 2016, and received this salacious information the opposition research had compiled.
Mr. Orr immediately took that to the FBI's then deputy director Andy McCabe, now fired, lawyer Lisa Page, now disgraced.
In August he took it to Peter Strzok, now also disgraced, the Bureau's lead investigator.
In the same month, Mr. Orr believes he briefed senior personnel in the Justice Department criminal division, okay, and he told them what this was.
Mr. Orr told this team the information came from the Clinton camp, and he warned them that it was likely biased and certainly unproven.
When I provided the steele information to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information.
I don't know how reliable it is.
Now, the thing is, this proves, this is further evidence, A, that the FBI misled the FISA court.
When they started to spy on the Trump campaign, they did not tell them that this was opo-research and unreliable.
They didn't tell them that.
And it also shows that the FBI and the Justice Department, still going off Strassel's article, they've gone to extraordinary lengths to muddy the details, as well as Adam Schiff, the congressman, who I think is like this Joe McCarthy thing, never met an anti-Trump story.
He didn't try to sell to the media, which of course always willingly buy it.
And they insisted that the FBI's closely held investigative team only received Steele's reporting in mid-September.
And the reason this is important, they obviously received it earlier.
And the reason this is important is they're trying to claim that this was not what got them to start the investigation, to start spying on the Trump campaign, but it obviously was.
The second story is from George Papadopoulos.
It's possible.
They claim that George Papadopoulos made some remarks that caused them to start this investigation.
That's possible, but this makes that very suspicious.
Now, that's the second story.
George Papadopoulos, who has pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents, he says he knew there was a spy in President Trump's 2016 campaign, and he has identified that spy to congressional investigators.
He is not, they haven't released the name of the spy, but he said, Papadopoulos said, I have my suspicions about person A, perhaps working on behalf of U.S. intelligence.
Papadopoulos says that the FBI asked them to wear a wire into the Trump campaign.
They were going to wire and spy on a presidential campaign.
I mean, this is appalling, appalling stuff, okay?
It is really clear to me, I've said this before, but this is more information, that this is the truth, that the FBI lost its stuff, okay?
The FBI saw Trump barreling down the road, and they tried to stop him.
And once he was in office, they tried to overturn the results of an election.
They decided that they were part of the checks and balances system, which they are not.
Why?
Because they have police investigative powers and they are not elected.
It is none of their business.
They said, we didn't like his foreign policy with Russia, basically.
We thought his foreign policy with Russia was suspicious, so we started an investigation.
That is very, very disturbing.
It really is.
This is a tremendous scandal.
And the press, on top of that, is the scandal that the press has run interference for them and defended them in these decisions, which if they had been done against a Democrat and certainly if they had been done against Barack Obama, would have been on the front page every day, every day as a major, major scandal.
The New York Times, a former newspaper, would have been running banner headlines about it.
Now, the reason these two stories are important is because BuzzFeed came out with another story that is also a bombshell.
This is the story that Michael Cohn says that he claims that President Trump directed Michael Cohn to lie during congressional testimony over discussions between the Trump organization and Russian authorities about a Trump tower Moscow project.
Now, this is important because it would be suborning perjury, which is what Bill Clinton did when he told Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath.
He was suborning perjury.
That was one of the reasons that they wanted to impeach him.
It wasn't the sex.
It was the lying.
William Barr is currently being vetted by the Senate for the role of Attorney General.
And they're asking him all these questions about would he fire Mueller if Trump asked him to and all these things.
And Barr, who is a highly qualified candidate, has been basically saying he will be an honest upholder of the law.
This is as opposed to Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch, who were the wingmen, as Eric Holder put it, of Barack Obama and would never have denied an order from him and covered up for him and buried everything for him and basically stonewalled Congress for him.
But William Barr, they're asking him, will he do that for Trump?
And he's saying no.
And Senator Amy Klobuchar asked him these questions about a situation like the one that BuzzFeed is describing.
A president persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction.
Is that right?
Yes.
Okay.
Or any, well, you know, any person who persuades another topic.
Okay.
You also said that a president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction.
Is that right?
Yes.
Okay.
And on page two, you said that a president deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence would be an instruction.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay.
And so what if a president told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon?
You know, I'd have to know the specific facts.
Okay.
And you wrote on page one that if a president knowingly destroys or alters evidence, that would be obstruction.
Yes.
Okay.
So what if a president drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting?
Would that be obstruction?
Again, you know, I'd have to know the specifics.
So it's a big story.
I mean, if it's true, it's a big story.
And of course, you can guess.
I don't have to tell you which of these three stories that I just told you, the news media has been pounding on all day, yesterday, and will, I'm sure, continue to pound on.
But the question is, is it true?
It comes from BuzzFeed, which is largely a garbage site, but it is written by two reporters.
One is named James Leopold, and the other is named Anthony Cormier, I guess it is, C-O-R-M-I-E-R.
So Allison Camerada on CNN had Cormier on by phone, and she asked him if he had seen the evidence.
He had talked to the two, he says he has two federal investigators who acted as unnamed sources and told him this.
And she asked, have you seen the evidence?
This is cut number one.
You have two law enforcement sources who tell you that they have seen evidence, texts, emails, a cache of other documents, maybe transcripts with other witnesses in Trump organization that Donald Trump pressured Michael Cohen to lie.
He subborn perjury.
Have you seen any of that other corroborating evidence?
No, I've not seen it personally, but the folks that we've talked to, the two officials that we've spoken to, are fully 100% read in to that aspect of the special counsel's investigation.
Now, a lot of Trump supporters, a lot of Trump defenders immediately said, oh, they haven't seen the evidence.
That's not necessarily a flaw in a story.
A lot of reporters get information on the phone.
They have trusted sources.
They read them documents.
Kimberly Strassel had documents read to her.
You know, it's a question of whether the reporters are any good.
Here's the thing, though.
His co-author says he did see it.
He actually contradicts this.
This is cut number 10.
A year we've reported pretty extensively on the Trump Moscow project.
And we have been, I'll just say that we've seen documents, we've been briefed on documents, we're very confident in our reporting.
That's what I'm sort of trying to get to here, Jason.
The idea, because one thing we keep saying is, listen, if this is true, this has some serious implications, but you can't ignore the if this is true part.
Right.
I completely understand that.
Now, he completely understands it.
But the problem is the guy is a bad reporter.
He has been called out several times on stories.
He came under scrutiny for faulty reporting for Salon in 2002.
That led to an article being removed.
In 2006, he reported that Karl Rove had been indicted, which he hadn't.
He has been called out a number of times for saying he had sources that he didn't have.
So Cormier was asked about this, actually.
Good for Allison Camarado.
She actually asked him about this, and here's his response.
Your co-writer, Jason Leopold, has a dubious past with this.
Dubious Cooperation00:03:05
He's gotten in trouble, as you well know, in 2002 and 2006.
He was in trouble for perhaps claiming to have sources that he didn't really have.
His stories didn't wash.
Executive directors and editors have had to apologize after some of his big blockbuster stories.
So how can you be certain today?
I am rock solid.
My sourcing on this goes beyond the two that are on the record.
This 100% patent.
I am the individual who confirmed and verified that it happened.
I am telling you that our sourcing goes beyond the two that I was able to put on the record.
We were able to gather information from individuals who know that this happened.
This is a thing that it could happen.
So, you know, we don't know.
I don't know whether the story is true.
I don't know if the story is true, if it means that Donald Trump did what they say he did.
In other words, if Michael Cohen is saying it, he hasn't been a very reliable guy.
He's obviously trying to stay out of, you know, stay out of prison.
He's cooperating, but he may be cooperating too much.
Here is what I do think.
The FBI screwed up royally.
They really did.
And it's not, of course, the agents who are doing the good work that they always do.
They do have so many great agents.
It was the leadership put in place by Barack Obama that basically saw an outsider coming down the pike and went after him like the most paranoid version of deep state in the most paranoid conservative's mind.
The FBI actually behaved in keeping with that paranoid version.
They actually did that.
And now they are leaking information to the press, because after all, why were they leaking this to BuzzFeed?
They're leaking information to a friendly press, trying to make it sound like their outrageously illegal and unconstitutional actions had some kind of moral basis.
That is why this story is coming out now.
The other thing that makes me really suspicious about it is that Donald Trump, first of all, the Russian Tower deal with Russia was completely legal.
There's nothing wrong with Trump building a tower in Russia.
And Donald Trump Jr. testified extensively about it to Congress.
So I'm not even sure why Trump would be telling Michael Cohen to lie about it.
I don't even know why he would be saying that.
It seems like a pretty dubious thing to do.
BuzzFeed is a dubious outlet.
Cohn is a dubious mouthpiece.
And the FBI has dubious reasons.
Federal investigators have dubious reasons to cover up for themselves.
That doesn't mean the story is untrue, but I'm holding my water, and I wish the press would hold theirs and not be so desperate to bring down this president that they hate that they give cover to an FBI that did the wrong thing.
That is the important story as far as I'm concerned so far.
And we'll see if this BuzzFeed story develops and what it means.
Why Letting Go Feels Guilty00:06:12
All right, it is time.
It is time for the mailbag.
Woo!
Yeah!
Where is the scream when we need it most?
I'm glad we're doing the mailbag on, we're staying on to do the mailbag live.
We don't usually get to do that.
Here is one from Corey.
So, what do you expect is going to happen if abortion is banned?
Do you believe people will suddenly just become responsible and not continue making unwanted babies?
What happens when those babies are born and now the parents have to receive welfare to take care of the child they could have aborted?
The planet is overpopulated, and to deny this is to deny reality.
So why not try to avoid more people being born into poverty if we can avoid it?
First of all, the planet is not overpopulated.
The planet has a lot of people in it.
And if it were to continue to grow at the size at this rate it has grown at, it would become overpopulated.
But most science denies that that will happen.
I think there are 7 billion people.
The population is supposed to top out at 9 billion people.
So far, poverty and hunger are being reduced around the world.
And they are not there because of overpopulation.
They are there because of bad government and because of failed methods of raising crops.
The world is not overpopulated.
But for the sake of answering your question, I'm going to pretend that that's a problem.
There are a lot of problems in the world.
Killing innocent people is not a good way of solving those problems.
You can have plenty of problems in the world, including babies born to people who don't want them, babies born into poverty.
Killing them is not the right thing to do.
What if I said the world is overpopulated, so I'm going to kill Corey, who wrote me this letter?
Would you object to that?
I think you might.
It's the wrong thing to do.
Killing innocent people is the wrong thing to do.
And as science develops, and as we can see more in the womb and see the development, it is very clear that this is a human being from the get-go.
You know, all of the things that they say, well, it can't feel pain at such a time.
What if you couldn't feel pain?
You know, there are people who actually have that condition where they can't feel pain.
Would I then be able to kill you?
That's not the point.
Some people say, well, it hasn't developed a consciousness yet.
But we don't just live in space.
We live in time as well.
We are what we will become, just as we are what we have been.
You're not suddenly not guilty of murder because you committed it yesterday.
You don't just say, well, that was yesterday.
Now's today.
I'm no longer guilty.
We live in time.
We are continuous beings.
The baby in the womb will become the person that it will become.
It will have a life.
It will do things and experience things.
We have no right to cut that light off no matter what problem we think we're solving.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter what problem we think we're solving.
It doesn't even matter if we solve that problem.
You have no right to commit murder to solve a problem.
I can think of a million problems that I could solve by killing people who annoy me.
I don't do it because it's wrong.
From Sarah, dear Andrew, Clavin, with no E but makes it look easy, with no E's, but makes it look easy.
I am a 30-year-old woman living in Israel, where I've always wanted to live, and I'm generally happy with my life.
Three years ago, I converted to Orthodox Judaism, having lived as a Jew my entire life.
I made a few major decisions as a result of this change, the most important of which was swearing off any premarital sex.
It wasn't difficult for me because although I was pretty promiscuous in my late teens and early 20s, I was never happy having sex with men I did not love.
Last week, I went to a big Shabbat dinner.
I had too much wine and I ended up going home with a man I do not like after being celibate for almost three years.
I'm now overcome with intense feelings of shame.
I'm close to tears every day.
I can't sleep.
Endless showers can't wash off the filth.
I do not blame the guy, but I feel like I've broken a promise to myself.
More than that, a sacred oath.
I feel broken.
I do not know how to move on and forgive myself for what I've done.
I feel as though I'm unable to change my behavior and be a better person.
Do you have any advice for how to get past this?
I continue to pray for forgiveness, but it's hard.
Thank you.
Yeah, definitely.
Look, I'm not going to speak into your Judaism because I don't know enough about it.
I'm going to speak from my Christianity.
There are probably rituals that Jews have for repentance.
But the point is this.
The point is this.
You're already forgiven.
God's forgiveness and his love for you is so much bigger than your sin.
You're cutting him, you're making him too small in your mind.
You're making God too small in your mind.
You're already forgiven.
You can let it go.
God has let it go.
You can let it go.
Guilt has a purpose.
Guilt is like a red light on a dial that flashes on and warns you that you have done something you should not have done and you need to make amends and to change your way and to change your ways.
You went for three years of being celibate, which is, and you violated that oath to yourself when you say you broke a promise to yourself.
You're right.
You did.
You did something you didn't mean to do, didn't want to do.
Now you go forward and you don't do it again.
The punishing yourself, if God has forgiven you, the voice in your head punishing you is not God's voice.
The voice in your head accusing you comes from somewhere else.
This is why they call Satan the accuser, right?
Satan is called the accuser because he uses your guilt.
He uses your sin, which we all have, to separate you from the love of God, which just wants you to move on and do what you said you would do.
You made a mistake.
You did something wrong.
Now don't do it again.
That is the reason you have that guilt.
It's like a light flashing on your boards, on your dials.
You fix the mistake and then you move on and you fly on.
You know, I really think the one thing I think you might want to examine is the drinking.
I don't know how much you drink.
I don't know whether this is a common thing with you.
But it's when you take a lot of wine that you make mistakes like this.
And it made me wonder if that's something you do very often.
If it is, that's something you ought to look into as a way of making sure this doesn't happen again.
God has forgiven you.
You have to forgive yourself.
The voice accusing you is not the voice of God.
Conservatives and Grants00:02:18
It is the voice of the enemy.
Let it go.
All right.
From Hendrik, the Lord Ubermeister of the spoken word.
I like that.
Übermeister, there's always like a song.
Can you give me a short definition, a short explanation of why Hitler and the Nazis are considered right-wing?
After all, they advocate and lie about the same things as left-wingers, gun seizures for safety, government control of most decisions, ruling elite and accomplices must live at a higher standard than others.
They're so-called altruistic motives.
Doesn't that have a commonality with Maoism and Stalinism and so forth?
Why not just regard them as left-wingers?
Well, there are a lot of people who have pointed out, Jonah Goldberg, probably most importantly, that Hitler was in fact a man of the left, and it was national socialism.
He was a left-winger.
However, certain aspects of his policy, his nationalism, and his idea of blood and soil, were part of European conservatism.
They are not, at its best, at its correct reading.
They are not part of American conservatism.
Why?
Because American conservatives are trying to conserve the Constitution, which is essentially a liberal document that grants all people equality.
It grants all people citizenship if they come in legally and they get citizenship.
It grants all people equality.
That's what we're trying to conserve.
So American conservatism is really a liberal, in the classical sense of the word, a liberal movement.
European conservatism, however, has more strains of nationalism and racism, and those are the strains of conservatism that Hitler did, in fact, embody.
He is not entirely right-wing.
He is also left-wing, so you're right about that.
Basically, though, he was a psychopath, and Germany, when they signed on to his policies, was psychopathic.
You know, a society can be insane, just like a person can be insane.
And so, to put him in one side or the other is a little bit unfair, even to leftists whom I disagree with so strongly, and certainly Maoists and Solomonists whom I despise.
It's a little unfair to put him on either side.
His ideas had elements of both European leftism and European conservatism, but not American conservatism.
So, that's why they get away with it.
But the idea that he was only a right-winger, of course, is a lie.
From Erla.
Christian Values and Politics00:11:52
Hi, Andrew.
Long story short, my ex-boyfriend of 10 years, who I finally broke up with in the summer after finding out he had a whole other girlfriend, a whole other life, and a cocaine problem for the last year we were together.
He wants to be friends again.
I am a born-again Christian.
He is not.
So I believe in repentance and change and hold nothing against him.
I simply can't subject myself to his emotional abuses again.
He's charming, funny, and knows all my buttons to push to get me to keep a friendly, to get me to stay friendly.
Am I wrong to block him out of my life to protect my own mental sanity that I just regained?
Thank you so much.
I absolutely love and appreciate your perspective.
Thank you for all you do.
You are not wrong.
You should definitely keep him out of your life.
This is an easy question to answer.
Dump him.
Walk away from him.
The guy is real trouble.
He's not just a guy who did a couple of wrong things.
He had another girlfriend.
He was using cocaine, didn't tell you about this stuff.
Keep him out of your life.
You can forgive him.
You should forgive him.
I may not be, I'm sure he is as miserable as it's possible to be.
But forgiving him has nothing to do with opening yourself up to abuse.
God did not make you to be abused.
He made you to be loved.
This is not somebody you want in your life.
Get rid of him.
All right.
From Marshall.
I'm a huge fan of your show and of Another Kingdom.
I love the way you inject humor into it.
I'm a huge introvert, and I find even the most mundane interactions with other people are a chore, and I tend to try to get out of them.
I have been trying to be better about it for some time, but I have not seemed to improve.
Do you have any advice for me?
Yeah, first of all, nothing can be accomplished without willpower and without some unpleasantness.
You're going to have to do it.
You're going to have to man up and do what you have to do.
But here's the thing.
I'm an enormously shy person.
I'm an enormously shy person.
I have had tremendous problems in my life, especially early on in my life, relating to people and talking, especially to people I didn't know.
You overcome it by doing it.
That is the only way to do it.
It takes courage.
It takes willpower.
But very, very quickly, when you begin doing it, you will get better.
Go join a club, go join a church, go to coffee hour after church, force yourself to talk to people.
The more you do it, the better you will get at it.
And finally, the problem will go away.
You'll always remain.
I mean, I remain an essentially shy person, but I no longer have the problem because the habit of it gets over it.
One thing that really helped me was I became a reporter, so I had to call people on the phone all the time, talk to strangers all the time.
The repeated doing of it really does overcome the problem.
It takes courage to get started.
It takes willpower to follow through.
But once you keep doing it, the problem will, it really will go away.
From anonymous, please keep me anonymous.
Greetings, Lord of the Lefties, Dictionary and Sultan of Stinging Satire.
What advice would you have for conservatives who work in the arts?
I'm a musician in Nashville.
I play on all kinds of records from indie projects to multi-platinum hits and film and TV scores.
I'm the only conservative under 40 in the scene.
And the current political climate has me keeping my mouth shut when my fellow musicians and producers start their CNN-induced rants.
I know older conservatives who have recently lost big accounts due to their political leanings.
You speak a lot about conservatives needing to take back some ground in the arts and in culture in general.
That's something I very much want to be a part of, but how do I move forward without losing my job?
Well, you're asking an impossible question.
You're asking, how do you be an outspoken conservative in a place where they will fire you for being an outspoken conservative and keep your job?
You can't.
I've lost a lot of jobs.
I've lost a lot of income from being as outspoken as I am.
You have to decide.
You have to decide how you want to go.
Now, in my case, the decision was different.
You're a musician.
I'm a writer.
My words are everything I've got.
My words, what I say, means everything to me.
It is what I do.
It is who I am.
If I go around, even in private life, if I go around lying to people, and if I go around saying I believe one thing when I believe something else, I am violating the core principles, the core telos of my profession.
For a musician, that's not true.
You can keep your mouth shut and play, and it's not going to make any difference to your art.
Your art is going to be the same as it was.
So you have to decide where the line is and what you're willing to risk.
If you feel that you're on a piece, for instance, that puts forward bad values, are you going to play music on that piece?
You have to decide.
You have to decide what risks you're willing to take, what damage you're willing to sustain, what income you're willing to lose.
I can't decide that for you.
You have to decide.
My decision, though, I will say, was made because I'm a writer, because my words are my bond and mean what I want to always mean what I say and say what I mean, like the elephant and Dr. Seuss.
And so that was incredibly important to me.
It may be less important to you who express yourself through music, but I can't make that decision for you.
From Charles to the man with no hair and a beard.
What the heck kind of a title is that?
You can do better, Charles.
As the only one of the Daily Wire group with grown children, this question is for you.
My father was bipolar.
Oh, geez, I'm sorry here.
My father was bipolar and committed suicide just before Christmas.
I have five kids.
The oldest is 21 and the youngest are nine and 10.
The question is when and if I should talk to the younger ones of his suicide and how should I do it?
For now, we have just said he was sick and passed away.
Thank you for your advice.
I always appreciate your wisdom.
First of all, I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry for your loss.
It's a terribly painful thing to have a parent commit suicide.
You, I hope, are dealing with that in yourself and experiencing the grief and taking it to God and maybe a counselor or whoever you want to take it to.
That's a terrible thing to have happen.
I would be honest.
You don't have to get into details, but you can explain to your kids that the way that your father was sick affected his mind.
The bipolar sickness affected his mind and he killed himself.
He ended his life.
You answer their questions honestly.
Again, you don't have to get into detail, but I would tell the truth.
When it comes up again, you don't have to pull them aside right now, but I would not tell them lies and have them find out later and then feel that they can't trust you to bring them the honest truth.
I think this is something honesty in a parent is a precious thing and it really pays enormous dividends.
You can be gentle about it.
You can find a way to phrase it where you're not blaming him.
I think that's important, that you're not blaming him.
This was an illness he had, bipolar illness, that caused him to do this.
But I don't think you should lie.
It just comes back and bites you in the end.
Nine and ten are old enough to understand these things and put it gently, but tell them.
All right, we're getting down to the end, but I do want to have a couple more.
From Jacob, Overlord Clavin, recently my family and I had a conversation that brought some major disagreement as to the handling of religion and its intermingling with politics.
What is your view?
Can you allow your religion to influence your politics if you come from a conservatarian view?
Or must you, on a personal level, make those philosophical decisions for yourself while allowing others to do the same?
Where does religion stop in accordance with politics?
Now, here's my view on this.
Religion affects the way you think.
It reflects your values.
It causes you to have the values.
It informs the values you have.
And so it's going to be part of your politics where you're making value decisions.
You cannot, in a secular government, under a secular government, you cannot have only religious reasons for why people should do what they do.
This is why the anti-abortion movement got off to such a slow start.
It started by saying God made you, he puts your soul in you when you are conceived, and therefore you can't be killed by abortion.
That is not a good argument because the government does not have to respond to your religion.
But obviously it shapes what you think, it shapes what you believe.
You just have to make your arguments in a secular political way.
Religion does have one effect, though.
I don't believe that religion provides us with a lot of political insight.
So for instance, in the immigration battle, Christianity can guide you to say that the people coming in should be let in, should be given sanctuary because they're suffering and they're the least of us and they need to be helped.
Or it could cause you to say, you know, the people who are being hurt, the parents who are losing children to crime, the people who are taking the drugs, the people whose property is being violated, the people who would have the jobs that these illegal immigrants come in and take away, those are the people we have to care about.
You can say either one of those things as a Christian.
What you can't say is ask screw them.
That's the thing you can't say.
As a Christian, you cannot say, I don't care about these suffering people, and it doesn't matter to me.
You can come up with different political answers, different people that you care about.
You will.
People will come up with those answers.
But all of those can be Christian ideas if they are based on Christian principles.
So those are the ways that I think religion limits what you can say and do in politics.
But I do think we live in a secular government.
Your arguments have to be sound to people who do not believe what you believe.
All right, I got to stop there.
There are some more questions.
We'll recycle the ones that I didn't answer and maybe get to them.
Next week, I have to talk about, before we go, this congresswoman, Ilan Omar.
She's done a lot of things that I don't have time to cover right now.
But you know, we talked a lot this week about Steve King and his comments.
Ilan Omar has been making terrible comments about Lindsey Graham saying that he's being blackmailed.
The suggestion is Graham is gay and maybe he's being blackmailed about that.
She said that's not the suggestion.
When she was asked about it, she said she had no proof.
She ought to clam up.
But she was asked on CNN about a tweet she sent out that does really seem anti-Semitic.
She is one of the two Islamic women who was elected to Congress, and she was asked about this anti-Semitic tweet she sent out, and this was her response.
This is the one, cut five.
To remind people what you tweeted about Israel in 2012 during the offensive in Gaza, you wrote, Israel has hypnotized the world.
May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
You've commented a lot since then, trying to explain what you meant by that.
And I wonder just what your message is this morning as the first on our Game Changers series to Jewish Americans who find that deeply offensive.
Oh, that's really a regrettable way of expressing that.
I don't know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans.
My comments precisely are addressing what was happening during the Gaza war.
And I am clearly speaking about the way that the Israeli regime was conducting itself in that war.
So good for CNN for asking her about it, but what they didn't do is they did not tar the entire Democrat Party with her anti-Semitism, the way they tried to tar the entire Republican Party with what they thought was Steve King's bigotry.
They didn't tar all liberals or leftists, not liberals, leftists, with her comments, the way they tried to tar Donald Trump and all conservatives with the comments of Steve King.
CNN's Nuanced Reporting00:01:37
That is the difference.
That's the bias, the action of bias that is really the source, I think, of so much of our division, so much of our anger, and so much of what's wrong with our politics.
It is the way they report these stories.
The Clavenless weekend has come.
It's come a day late, so that's one good thing, but you're probably not going to survive it anyway.
But if you do, if you crawl through it, if you come out the other end of Sunday, we will be back here on Monday.
I will be back in the studio, and we will keep you going from there.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Clavin Show.
Oh, hooray, hurry!
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Adam Sajovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
And our animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today, we're going to be talking about the March for Life, which is happening in D.C. today.
I want to tell you what I think is the most inspiring and incredible thing about the March for Life.
It may be something that you kind of overlook, and it's easy not to notice, but we'll talk about that.
Also, a congressional Democrat made a despicable insinuation about Lindsey Graham.
And finally, according to studies, we're spending about half of our day looking at screens.