Andrew Klavan dissects Kamala Harris’s campaign as a race-baiting, constitution-defying spectacle, mocking her "vava vavoom" gimmicks and Willie Brown’s past remarks while framing her as a symbol of leftist division. He contrasts this with conservative "patriotism," citing Nike’s cowardice in ditching the Betsy Ross flag—despite Lincoln’s anti-slavery stance—and accuses woke media of rewriting history to stoke racial grievances. The episode pivots to Supreme Court battles, where Jenna Ellis Reeves exposes Roberts’ political gerrymandering, while Klavan ties Hollywood’s abuse scandals to cultural collapse, warning that LGBTQ+ activism and corporate virtue-signaling are eroding religious freedoms. Mailbag segments reveal a worldview clashing with modern norms: from creative burnout to Christian courtship rules, Klavan’s rigid moral framework dismisses secular solutions as hollow, leaving listeners trapped between his uncompromising vision and the chaos of today’s culture wars. [Automatically generated summary]
Future former presidential candidate Kamala Harris has made a new campaign promise in a tweet which said, and this is a real quote, When elected president, I will give Congress 100 days to put a gun safety bill on my desk, and if they don't, I will take executive action, unquote.
Ms. Harris further says that when elected, she will wear a golden crown studded with rubies, a flowing purple robe with a white ermine collar, and she'll change the Constitution with a touch of her scepter, which will double as a magic wand.
Harris told reporters, quote, I didn't sleep my way into politics to just stand around doing nothing once I have all that sweet, sweet power in my hot little hands.
I envision a close presidential race that further inflames the division and anger tearing this country to pieces, swiftly followed by my destroying the rights half the nation holds dear, unquote.
After her stunning performance at the debate in which she unfairly implied Joe Biden was racist and sentimentalized the catastrophic policy of busing, observers say Harris has recaptured some of the feisty spirit that caused Willie Brown to call her, quote, a terrific lay and well worth the $120,000 patronage job I had to give her for the privilege of getting my hands on her, unquote.
Strategists in the Harris campaign say if their girl can just continue race baiting and getting dewy about crappy leftist policies, she should have a shot at the White House, where she'll be able to follow in Barack Obama's footsteps by demonstrating all the good that race baiting and crappy policies can do for this nation.
Demonstrating her new energy in a speech to a group of homeless San Franciscans crapping on the sidewalk, Harris said, quote, as senator from the formerly great state of California, I helped make this state the overpriced hellhole it's become, and I believe I can do the same for the entire country.
As Willie Brown used to say, vava vavoom.
Trigger roy.
I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boom.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dicky.
Ship-shaped ipsy-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.
Hey, if you need parts for your car, here's something you don't want to do.
You don't want to go stand online at some parts store where somebody behind the counter who doesn't know any more than you do goes into the computer and looks stuff up and then charges you a lot more than you should have to pay.
Instead, you go to rockauto.com.
Rockauto.com is a family business.
They serve auto parts customers online for over 20 years.
If you go to rockauto.com, you can shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
They have everything from engine control modules, and who even knows what that is, and brake parts to tail lamps, motor oil, and even new carpet.
Whether it's for your classic or daily driver, get everything you need in a few easy clicks delivered directly to your door.
And best of all, the prices at rockauto.com are always reliably low and the same for professionals and do-it-yourselfers.
Why?
Spend up to twice as much for the same parts.
You get an amazing selection, low prices, all the parts you'll need, rockauto.com.
And if you go to rockauto.com right now, you can see all the parts available for your car or truck and write Klavin in their how did you hear about us box so they know we sent you.
And I know you say, well, wait, wait, wait.
I know what a control module is, but how do you spell Klavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So I want to finish the thought I've been working out all week, my idea that the division in this country is not between traditional right and left, but between friends of the American founding and enemies of those founding ideas.
What makes American conservatism different from all other conservative movements in other countries around the world is that it's not backward-looking or reactionary.
It's a way of creating new things, but with a tried and true system, the Constitution.
In fact, if you think about it, conservatives are progressive, where progressives are regressive.
No sane conservative wants to go back to the days of judging people by the color of their skin.
What we want is for people of all colors to sign on to the founding.
It's the left that wants to cling to those age-old racist divisions.
Conservatives don't want to return to the top-down government that's been the norm since Pharaoh.
That's what the left wants.
We want to explore new ways that individualism and freedom and free markets and small government can recreate the world in the 21st century the way they did in the 20th through, for instance, the free market growth of the tech industry and the internet.
As we come now to celebrate America's birthday, July 4th, we conservatives are celebrating the genius engine of revolutionary change that has been put in our hands, the Constitution, with its underlying faith in a God who wants us to be free.
And I truly believe that.
I truly believe that God has his great big godly thumb on the scales of idiotic human history, tilting it in freedom's direction, no matter how hard we try to destroy his great gifts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Look at what's happening right now.
The left.
The left owns virtually the entire communications industry, certainly all the big corporate entities.
And they are working overtime using that communication, that communication material to sell sexual malfeasance, racial division, and self-lacerating anti-Americanism.
They are doing this again and again, day after day, with a vengeance.
And yet, the people are beginning to turn away and draw back and fight back in surprising ways.
This is the time for conservatives to start expressing and living out an alternative progressive vision to the left's violent, racist, self-hating, self-destruction.
Sing to the Lord a new song, the Bible says.
And if we cling to the founding, we can offer a new vision of a better future to a public that I think has begun to grow sick of what the left is selling and selling and selling.
So you've all heard, I'm sure, about this Nike thing, this idiotic Nike thing.
They had a shoe that had the Betsy Ross flag.
It's called the Betsy Ross flag.
It's the flag from, I think, 1770 with the stars in a circle.
We've all seen it.
Barack Obama had it up on his inauguration.
It is a wonderful reminder of where we started in this country.
And Colin Kaepernick, Colin Kaepernick, who is, the guy's a second-rate loon.
He had one year, one season of being a good quarterback.
He was a mediocre quarterback.
He started this whole thing of kneeling during the Star-Spangled Banner and said that it wasn't about the flag.
It was protesting police brutality.
But soon it became about the flag.
And he apparently told Nike that this flag symbol was offensive to people.
It was offensive because it was there during slavery days.
So that's what made it offensive to people.
And they pulled the shoe.
Nike pulled the shoe.
So of course, some members of the press are piling on and saying this is a wonderful thing.
Here's an example on CNN Bakari Sellers.
First of all, it's within Nike's prerogative to pull the shoe.
This Republican and this faux outrage is just, it's almost laughable.
I mean, look, the shoe, the flag, it represented a period of time where, with all due respect, I was three-fifths of a human being.
And so that is an issue.
People don't want to go back to that time.
And people have an issue with it.
But Nike made a business decision that they have every right to do.
And so for the governor of Arizona, for Ted Cruz, for all of these now self-righteous politicians on the right to come out and break out pitchforks for Nike, look, they were the same people who were trying to burn Nike's a few weeks ago, and that stock just went straight up and they had the biggest sales they've had in the history when they signed Colin Kaepernick.
So why don't you do that same thing again?
I'm pretty sure it's going to help Nike's bottom line.
But even more, they are quiet as church mice when they're talking about a president who tramples on the American flag today, who cavorts with dictators, who lets his children play government on the weekends, and now who has a humanitarian crisis on the border.
So I don't really want to hear what you have to say about Nike.
I'd rather you worry about what's going on today with our American values.
That is such a rote leftist speech that I almost could have written it before he opened his mouth.
The thing that they have a right to pull the shoe, I haven't heard one person say they have no right to pull the shoe.
The question isn't whether they have a right, it's whether it is right.
And that's, of course, the point.
And what you're really seeing, and we know, listen, Nike the other day pulled a product because the designer of the product supported Hong Kong in their protests against China.
So they pulled it out of China, saying we don't want to offend Chinese consumers.
In other words, basically the Communist Party and the dictators there.
So Nike is not acting out of conscience here, and we have an absolute right to challenge them and talk about them.
You know, what you're really seeing, you're seeing this in Hollywood.
You've seen it in Hollywood.
You're seeing it with all these corporations, is they use America and its free markets to build their corporation.
Then the corporation goes global.
Then suddenly the patriotism is gone because they don't want to lose market shares in other countries.
And that's why they react so immediately to this.
That's why they're the slaves of every outrage mob that comes along.
The other thing they do here is this false history.
This was when I was three-fifths of a person.
I mean, first of all, that was put in the Constitution, counting slaves as three-fifths of a person, so that the slave states could have representation above, they could punch above their weight with representatives.
They didn't want to give rights to the people, but they wanted to count those people in order to have more representatives.
Just like today, they don't want to take census of illegal aliens because they want to count those people to give them more representative power.
That's why they did it.
It wasn't about, that was the anti-slavery people who did that.
The anti-slavery people made them three-fifths of a person because they didn't want to give the southern states that much power.
The other thing about it is no American flag ever represents slavery.
No American flag represents slavery.
When I hear people on CNN, almost always, they say that racism is the founding principle of this country.
Racism was never the founding principle of this country.
You know, I got a hat tip to Instapundit, which reprinted a 2011 Weekly Standard piece by John McCormick, in which he talks about a famous speech that Abraham Lincoln made at Cooper Union, proving that the founders were anti-slavery, that they wouldn't put in to the Constitution or any of the founding documents.
They wouldn't name slavery because they wanted to hide it as Lincoln said, the way a man hides a cancer.
And he noted that of the 39 framers of the Constitution, right, 22 voted on the question of banning slavery in the new territories.
20 of the 22 voted to ban it, while another one of the Constitution's framers, George Washington, signed into law legislation enforcing the Northwest Ordinance that banned slavery in the Northwest Territories.
At Cooper Union, Lincoln also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who had argued in favor of Virginia emancipation.
It is still in our power, Jefferson said, to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such a slow degrees as the evil will wear off insensibly.
The founding fathers weren't abolitionists because they understood that slavery was so interwoven into the economy, they didn't think they could get rid of it.
And they didn't think they could get the southern states to sign on to the Constitution by getting rid of it, but they were definitely dedicated to getting rid of it over time.
Nothing is so surely written, Thomas Jefferson said, as that these people should be free.
So it's ignorance.
It's ignorance that causes people to say these things.
It's global allegiances rather than national patriotic allegiances that causes companies to react.
They reacted to the Chinese tyrants the same way they reacted to tyrannical little Colin Kaepernick.
They'll react to anything.
It's fear and globalization instead of patriotism.
But how are the people going to react?
What are the people going to say?
You know, we frequently make fun of Joe Scarborough and his Morning Joe show, but the guy's not an idiot, right?
And he started tweeting.
When he heard this, he started tweeting.
Joe Scarborough started tweeting.
He said, the Betsy Ross flag is now a symbol of white nationalism and slavery, not defiance against a distant monarchy.
Really, Nike?
PC madness is accelerating just in time for 2020.
Trump feeds on your reflexive wokeness.
Great job, everybody.
Democrat candidates, you now support universal health care for illegal immigrants, making illegally crossing America's borders legal and a return to forced busing.
Do you also now support the banning of the Betsy Ross flag from public places?
Let me disabuse.
This is still Scarborough tweeting out one tweet after another.
Let me disabuse woke Democrats of the notion that I expect them to adjust their beliefs and strategies to suit former Republicans.
I don't, but I do want them to refrain from blowing themselves up politically.
And that is what they are doing.
People are reacting.
It's the same with race, this race stuff.
Tucker Carlson played this last night.
I happened to be watching, and well, I like the show.
And he played this little montage of the way the left talks about race.
Listen to this.
In my opinion, we don't need white people leading the Democratic Party right now.
The Democratic Party is diverse, and it should be reflected as so in our leadership and throughout the staff at the highest levels.
I will point out, though, another white male, I'm very suspect of that this year going into a Democratic primary with women doing well and the African-American base of the Democratic Party.
I'm not sure it's the time to dominate a white man.
Joe Biden understands that this modern Democratic Party is going to sit back and say, really?
We want a 76-year-old white man?
I mean, you know, that is going back.
As I've said, I've said this a million times.
I won't go into it again.
But what the left does is they identify abuses of power and then adopt the philosophy of the abusers.
So they identify, truly, there was abuse of black people in this country and almost every other country on earth.
There was racism in other countries as well.
But here, and the left just says, yes, now we're going to do that, but we're going to turn it around.
So then it'll be good racism.
Because when you turn that racism around, it'll be good, you know.
But of course, it's just all the racism goes into one side of the scale.
All the hate goes into one side of the scale.
How long do you think people are going to put up with that?
I mean, let alone black people who are going to say, you know what, you know, I love being an American.
We get a lot of good stuff out of America.
You know, I'm tired.
I'm tired of like hating on people for things that didn't happen to me.
I'm tired of hating on people for things that happened in the past.
You know, that's going to happen on the one hand.
And of course, white people, a lot of white people are going to say, hey, if racism is allowed, since we're in the majority, why don't we just celebrate our whiteness?
We don't want to go there either, right?
So how long are people going to put up with this stuff?
What conservatives want, what conservatives want is e pluribus unum.
We want us all to sign on to the founding.
Any color you want, just sign on to the founding.
Here's Libby Eamons writing in the Federalists.
Gorsuch's Emotional Core00:13:25
Every year, GLAAD, the organization that advocates for LGBT acceptance in society, every year they conduct a study called the Accelerating Acceptance Index.
This national survey takes the country's temperature about what used to be known as gay and lesbian rights and straight people's acceptance of them.
The first three years of the study showed an increase in social acceptance.
Last year's study showed a sharp decrease, a decrease in social acceptance for gay people.
After a big push by GLAAD during the ensuing year, the results remained mostly stable, but did not return to the higher levels of acceptance of previous years.
It was primarily younger people.
It was younger people who were responsible for the drop-off.
How could that have happened?
Well, how do you think it happened?
How do you think it happened, right?
If you say, I mean, I've argued this for a long time, accepting gay people and letting them have their lives and their relationships and not, you know, kicking down their doors to find out what they're doing in their bedrooms.
That seems to me an American idea.
That seems to me an idea, extending the principles of the founding to a new group of people.
I don't have any problem with that.
That is good conservative principle.
But, but then telling them that their rights are so sacred that they overcome the rights of religious people to practice their faith by, say, not catering their wedding, then suddenly, not so much.
When you go dancing down the street at a pride parade and you're dressed up in leather and you look ridiculous, then suddenly you're violating true conservative principles of self-restraint and sexual responsibility.
What we want is if gay people are going to come on board, they have to subscribe to the founding.
The founding idea is that you have the right to practice your faith, not just go to church, not just pray in secret, but go and practice your faith as a living thing.
And if that includes not wanting to celebrate homosexuality, you got to join on with that.
You know, sexuality is a difficult, difficult thing because it is like a kind of torrent, like a flood that runs through human life.
Life wants to continue life.
And so we are imbued with this powerful, powerful urge to reproduce and take pleasure in reproducing.
And of course, what conservatives say is, hey, listen, we get it.
You know, this is a good thing.
This is God's gift.
But you have to maintain your human dignity and your human responsibility and take responsibility for your actions and not say, oh, you know, I slept with 15 million people and now it's the government's job to cure me of AIDS.
Or, you know, I have this baby and now you have to pay for my abortion or now you have to pay for my birth control.
No, just because there is this torrent coming through life and we understand is messy.
It's got all kinds of problems to it.
No one has ever come up with a sexual system that works for everybody.
No one has done that.
But we have some good ideas about how to be responsible.
It's just about acting responsibility.
You know, it's really interesting.
Miley Cyrus has this new video out and it's just, you know, you know I'm incredibly libertarian about other people's sex lives, but it's just an embarrassing, it's an embarrassing, it's embarrassing.
And she comes out and she's dressed up in this S ⁇ M plastic red suit and it's got her body parts kind of expressed in the suit itself and she rubs herself and there's all kinds of very almost pornographic stuff.
And I just looked at this and I just felt sorry for her, this young woman, but also I started thinking about this.
I thought, what is it about Disney girls that they turn out like this?
Because there's something not cool about this, you know, because these Disney girls pick up our little girls.
Our little girls look at them and think they're fun and exciting and they're role models.
And then they all go bad.
Not all of them, but so many of them.
I mean, think about Lindsay Loan, right?
Who's practically has had to be scraped out of the gutter.
Brittany Spears, who's been in mental institutions, Sheila Bouff, who's like acted like a loon.
Zendaya, who I really admired in that greatest showman.
She's a tremendously beautiful, talented young lady.
Now she's on that euphoria show, which is, it really is an embarrassment, that show.
It's just a, you know, it's not the sexuality of it.
It's kind of the lost, the romanticization of self-abuse in it that's terrible.
Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, so many of them with drug problems.
So this Disney girl, Bella Thorne, and she goes on an interview show and she talks about the fact that while she was being elevated and while she was having, you know, photographers take her pictures and while all these little girls were admiring her when she's 12 years old, she was being sexually abused behind the scenes.
Listen to this.
I do know that obviously the transition, it's really definitely tough, you know, but it is what it is.
Like it's like anything in my life.
I mean, if you read the book, you'll be like, transitioning from Disney to this was easy.
I don't know.
Getting molested from your six to your 14 seems like way harder circumstances.
You're being physically abused all the time seems like a much more difficult situation than you have paparazzi following you since you were 12.
I don't know.
I was still being molested when Paparazzi were still following me.
So it's pretty hard in my mind to think about these big flashlight photographs and everyone thinking they know me and talking about me, but having no idea the type of mistreatment that I was still dealing with at that time, that everyone around me saw and did nothing.
So I don't know.
You tell me what's so hard because that to me, way harder than any other of this other that I do on a daily basis.
Now, she doesn't say who abused her, but I bet every penny in my pocket, every penny in my pocket, that so many of the stars that I name suffered this.
This is a hidden epidemic in Hollywood.
You know, it bugs me.
You've heard me go after the Catholic Church for not cleaning this up because I think it gives religion a bad name.
And I think it's sinful when you cover up the sexual misuse of young people.
But it's happening in Hollywood.
I truly believe that the newspapers here and the media here cover it up because they want the advertising, the movie advertising.
I believe this is an epidemic.
This is a town where they trade little people for their pleasure and they give them fame in return.
And then they all wind up dressed up like Miley Cyrus because they're all trauma victims.
I mean, they're all trauma victims.
You know, I'm not accusing any specific person and I'm not saying any specific person is a victim.
But you tell me why so many of these Disney girls end up with drug problems, end up in rehab.
Young people are having less sex.
They're having fewer abortions.
They sell and sell and sell.
What you're seeing here is trauma.
What you're seeing here is a reaction that this is not hip.
This is not cool.
It's not like, oh, we're cool and the conservatives are uptight squares.
That's not what's going on here.
That's not what's going on.
You're seeing post-traumatic stress.
And I think people are getting this because young people are doing this less.
A new generation is coming up that is reacting to this, reacting to the gay, the homosexual activists, not gay people, the homosexual activists' abuse of our rights.
We want everybody to sign on to the founding.
We want everybody to sign on to individual responsibility and freedom.
The guy yesterday talking about the burdens of freedom.
We want everybody to sign on to that.
We want every race to sign on to that.
We want all the different kinds of people who are going to be included in this new vision.
We want all of them to sign on to that.
And that's how we're going to build a 21st century.
I got to bring on, as you know, one of my favorite guests, Jenna Ellis Reeves.
Mrs. Reeves is a constitutional law attorney, a Daily Wire contributor, and a Trump 2020 advisory board member.
She's on Fox News, but who cares if she's on Fox News?
She's here.
She is here.
That is more important.
And she is the author of the legal basis for a moral constitution.
Jenna, it's great to see you.
How are you?
Great to see you too, Drew.
And of course, this is way more important than Fox News because everybody watches Daily Wire and everybody watches you.
The thing is, if you're on Fox, they watch you, but then they die because they're so old.
That's true.
This is the next generation.
Yes, you'll have viewers much longer.
Right, because that's right.
They say, there's Jenna, and then it's over.
Yeah, yeah.
That's why they have such short segments.
This is why you have longer ones.
So I was on vacation and all the Supreme Court decisions came in.
You tell me, what's the most important one as far as you're concerned?
Well, you know, I think that the two most important ones are the gerrymandering case and the census case.
What's interesting about these two is that they kind of were two sides of the same coin, and they should have been decided constitutionally, equally, the same decision, which is that, of course, the Department of Commerce can put a citizenship question back onto the census.
They've been doing this since 1820, and the long form went away in 2010.
And so now, all that the Trump administration is trying to do is put this question of citizenship back on the census.
No big deal.
But of course, Chief Justice Roberts is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
And so he said, no, you know, this question, we had a good enough reason from the Secretary of Commerce.
And they admitted in the majority, which is really important, that the question does not violate the enumerations clause.
It doesn't violate the Census Act.
But hey, we need the Trump administration to give us a much, much better reason.
That's completely stupid.
But then in the gerrymandering case, they actually held that, yeah, the Constitution says that states can draw their own district lines and partisan gerrymandering.
We're not condoning it.
We're just saying that this is not something that we can get involved in because it's a political question.
So I think here, what's really fascinating is that Justice Roberts was the deciding vote in both of those cases.
He is simply a never Trumper and he is showing his colors here by being absolutely.
I think it's so completely ridiculous that all he's doing based on the timing of this is saying, I'm just not going to let the citizenship question get on the 2020 census because of the presidential election.
It's going to get on there eventually.
He's just saying, let's make sure they held this very last day of the term, knowing full well that the timing here was super problematic.
It's insanely political.
Wow, that is really interesting.
I mean, Roberts gets accused of this a lot.
He certainly got accused of it with the Obamacare decision of caving in to political pressures instead of legal reasoning.
That's, you know, because the other hit on Roberts was that he was too deferential to executive power.
So it's interesting that you say that really it's not that.
It's not even a philosophy.
It's just a kind of gut reaction.
It makes him kind of the new Kennedy making law out of his emotional core.
That is really, really interesting.
A case, you know, I'm going to ask you about this because this is so dear to my heart, a case about deferring to bureaucratic decisions, which drives me nuts.
I mean, if I could raise every bureaucracy to the ground, I would.
It was a weird decision.
Even I didn't really understand.
I read it and I couldn't really understand what they were saying.
Give me the case.
What was this case about?
Yeah, well, you, me, and Justice Gorsuch are all really annoyed at this.
When an executive agency or administration, which a lot of them, by the way, are just fundamentally unconstitutional, but when those agencies have their own set of rules, then they can act as the legislature, write the rules.
They can act as enforcement, enforce their own rules.
And then when it goes up to judicial review, they get difference.
They can interpret the rules in any way they want to.
So there's no separation of powers in administrative law.
That's the problem.
And that's what was challenged in this case.
And Justice Gorsuch had, by the way, go and read his dissent.
It's really great.
And he's basically saying we have to address this question.
We can't let administrative law just go unchecked and unbalanced.
But basically, what Justice Kagan wrote for the majority, boiling this down, was saying, as long as it's reasonable and it's not unambiguous, then we're going to go ahead with it.
Wow, it's very annoying.
I mean, I wish they would just sweep this thing away.
It sounds like, it does sound like Gorsuch is ready.
I always thought Kavanaugh was a big opponent to this as well.
Give me a take.
We have these two Trump judges, and a lot of people have said, oh, they were not the best picks, especially Kavanaugh.
What's your take on them so far?
Gorsuch, I think he is brilliant.
I am 100% a fan of Justice Gorsuch.
I think he's gotten it right every single time.
You can read my commentary in Daily Wire and Washington Examiner about those cases.
Kavanaugh, you know, he was an appropriate nominee and he was the president's pet.
Constitutionally, Trump could do this.
And so I'm happy he got confirmed because he should have.
And I advocated very strongly that he should have been confirmed.
But I am disappointed that he seems to not have such an originalist view when it comes to things like administrative law.
And he may or may not hold. consistently constitutionally on the abortion question.
I think that's going to be his trial by fire to see is he truly an originalist or is he going to go political on that question?
He's personally a Catholic, which so is Gorsuch.
So or, you know, several, so is Justice Khalia.
But the important thing is not your personal politics or your personal faith.
When you're on the bench, you have to look at the Constitution and you have to rule accordingly.
Not Your Personal Politics00:15:56
Jenna, thanks so much.
It's great to see you.
It's really interesting.
I'm glad you brought me up to date.
And we'll see you again soon.
All right.
We're going to have the mailbag in just a second.
First, I got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Come on over to dailywire.com and subscribe for allows you 10 bucks a month, 100 bucks for the entire year.
You too can be in the mailbag where it's a little stuffy and kind of it's kind of scratchy in there, but then you get to ask questions and all your problems will be solved.
It's the best deal in town.
Mailbag.
Oh, yeah.
We got to get something new here.
I'm starting to get it's starting to get me my nerves.
Yeah.
All right.
From Joshua.
Hey, Andrew, I am currently stuck at a job.
I find very low satisfaction.
It pays well, but being a creative person, the constant repetitive busy work really sucks the soul from me.
I feel trapped because I need financial stability for my family, mortgage, and other expenses, but I have this constant calling to peruse other career choices related to things I genuinely enjoy.
I envy the people whose passion and careers intertwine.
Could you share some advice with me and the many people who may be in a similar situation?
Well, yeah, this happens to a lot of us creative types.
And the answer is to work harder.
You've made some choices that you are now responsible for.
You started a family.
You have a mortgage.
You have other expenses.
Those things are in place.
So you can't just walk away.
That's something you created and you are responsible for it.
So you've got to support that.
You've got to support your family.
You've got to pay your mortgage.
So you can't walk away from this job, but you've got to find time to work on your creative pursuits and maybe so that maybe you can spin that into a job that pays the kind of money that you need.
And the way you do that is you don't take time away from your family.
You take time away from watching television.
You take time away from drinking.
You take time away from lazing off.
You take time, you wake up an hour earlier.
This is always a, you know, there's almost no problem on earth that can't be solved by waking up an hour earlier.
This is one of the things I found.
I mean, if I could, I wake up, you know, around five o'clock in the morning because I get more done that way than if I sleep later.
So, you know, look at the way, look at the time in your life that you're wasting and use that time to start creating things that you can sell that might move you into another place where you can do more creative work.
You've got to stand by your responsibilities.
Those are choices you made and you've got to support those things.
But you can also put in extra time building a creative life.
I don't know.
You use the word creative.
I don't know what that means exactly, but you can build that creative life in your spare time if you wake up earlier and have more spare time.
Don't take the time away from your family.
Take it away from your whatever it is you do when you're lazing off.
From Anthony, Sir Andrew Clavin, His Imperial Majesty, God King of the Multiverse.
That is my preferred pronoun.
My wife and I are leaders of a young adult college-age social group within our church.
We've been discussing dating lately and how a Christian relationship should look versus an unmarried couples.
My wife and I believe in courtship.
Before asking my wife out, I got permission from her father and pastor.
We dated seven weeks and got engaged and were married six months after that.
When we were dating, we would meet only in public because we didn't think it was appropriate for a man and woman to be alone in private.
We've been married a few years and feel our marriage is better than most.
I don't think people need to move as quickly as us.
I still believe the Bible is pretty clear about living separate from the world, not having sex before marriage, etc.
I feel that long-term dating is a recipe for sin.
Obviously, I'm old-fashioned.
As the ruler and king of the multiverse, what do you think are reasonable boundaries for college kids and dating?
Thanks for your witty insight into the crap show that is our politics.
You know, actually here, you're asking the wrong question.
The question is not, you're here running a, you're leaders of a young adult college-age social group in our church.
The question is not what I think, and the question is not even what you think.
I mean, obviously, you have very strong views about this, but the question is, what does your church think?
What are the beliefs of the system and the church that you are representing?
And to be honest with you, since a lot of times just putting out kind of general rules for everybody in something that is as difficult to deal with as dating and sexuality and so forth is not really very effective, maybe the best thing you could do is start listening to people instead of talking to them, instead of telling them what you think, certainly telling them what I think, which doesn't matter at all, in this case.
Why not talk to them and find out where they stand, what they want, what they think?
Because as far as I'm concerned, the most important thing you can do in this situation is know what you think before you get in the situation.
Once you're in the back of somebody's car, back of a car with somebody at three o'clock in the morning and you've had a couple of drinks, it really doesn't matter what your philosophy is.
So you want to have your philosophy in place before you do that.
Because if you don't think that's such a good idea, you want to avoid the occasion of sin.
So I think, first of all, you should represent the beliefs of your church.
You can tell people what your particular church believes and what are those things.
And you can find that out from the pastor, obviously.
But also talk to people and find out what their lives are like and what their concerns are and what they, you know, how they want to go forward as moral beings in the world, maintaining their dignity.
I mean, this is, you know, I know a lot of people disagree with me about this, but Christianity is not a set of rules.
Christianity is a relationship with Christ.
And it is good news that has already happened, which is that you have been forgiven through the death and resurrection of Christ.
So that, you know, Christianity is not something where you can make a list and say, these are the rules and this is what we do.
So it's more important to find out where they are and what they're doing and how can you help them through the beliefs of your church.
Certainly more important in this case than what I think.
From Jonathan, I have a very serious issue.
I've been growing more and more concerned.
My girlfriend and I have been together for 10 months now.
It was rocky when we were getting together, but I was obsessed with her and I didn't give up.
And now I'm worried my obsession made me overlook the inherent vice in our relationship.
She's an emotionally volatile person.
We have fights regularly and then we forget about them.
But lately she's been horribly, horribly depressed.
The fights are wearing me down more and more.
A couple of nights ago I knew I couldn't do it anymore.
I told her I was done.
She was distraught, cried on the floor, screamed she wanted to die.
I was so concerned that I stayed with her.
Basically, she threatens to kill herself when he leaves.
How much obligation, he says, is there in a non-marital relationship?
I love that.
First, you don't marry her, and then you wonder if you have any responsibility to her.
Am I fighting a losing battle by trying to stay with her?
I am also very worried that if I stay with her for the wrong reason, I'll resent her for the rest of my life.
Any advice you can offer is appreciated.
Yeah, you can't stay in a relationship.
This is not a good relationship.
This is a sick relationship.
But the thing is, it's not just her, it's also you.
You obsessed about her.
You hunted her down.
She was reluctant.
You made sure that she would love you and now she's attached to you.
You still, you still can't stay because it's not good for either of you.
It is not good for either of you to be in a relationship where she feels she's going to die if you leave.
If you leave, if you leave, you got to leave.
You cannot, cannot leave and come back and offer and say yes, I'll be around.
And if she threatens to kill herself, call the police.
You know, call the police and tell her she is threatening to kill herself.
I can't promise you she won't do it.
I can't promise you she won't do it.
She's obviously a very disturbed person.
But you can't sacrifice your life to that.
Now, now the responsibility that you have to take is what got you into this?
Because this is 50% on you.
This is 50% on you.
You got into this relationship.
You are just the one golden rule of relationships is if the person you're with is messed up, so are you.
You know, people get the spouses and the girlfriends and the boyfriends they deserve.
And so you are 50% a problem here.
You got to start looking at what got you into this, how you got into this situation, and how you can get out.
The one thing is, if you decide to go, and I don't see how you can stay in a relationship that's basically built on emotional blackmail, if you decide to go, go.
You know, go.
Get her help.
Call emergency services if she needs them.
But do not continually tease her and come back and say, oh, okay, this time I'll come back.
Because that is truly, truly brutally cruel.
I cannot promise you that she won't hurt herself.
She sounds like a volatile person.
But at some point, this relationship has to end.
It's not a good thing.
And then you have to fix yourself because how'd you get into this in the first place?
From Joey, Wise Claven, in your absence last week, I resorted to asking Ben my question.
Come on, how desperate were you?
I was worried his answer would pale in comparison to yours, and he didn't even do a mailbag.
That Shapiro, damn.
All right, glad to have you back.
And with that, my question.
My life was forever changed for the better when I was given a full scholarship to an elite boarding school.
I'm so grateful for everything it has meant to me and all the doors it has opened.
Every year since my graduation, I've donated in some capacity and have increased my donations as I've earned more.
However, after my younger brother told me of his experience there, it didn't sound like the same place.
I remember the stories he told me and his required readings first led me to believe it has become a leftist woke factory.
How do I support the place that taught me to think and reason, a place I owe so much to without supporting what it has become and where it appears to be headed?
P.S. loved werewolf cop.
Yeah, well, you support it by withdrawing your money.
Obviously, if it has been gutted by the left, that's what the left does.
It guts institutions, then wears their skin like the alien and men in black and pretends to still be that institution.
You can go and talk to them about it and tell them your concerns, but then you should withdraw all your support and take that support and give it to an organization that is the organization that helped you, right?
Just because it has a different name, just because you never went there, doesn't mean it's not the kinds of organization that helped you to go forward don't exist.
They do.
So put your money into those organizations.
But, you know, you might approach them and say, this is my concern.
This is what's bothering me, and find out, you know, you're only going off your brother's take on it.
You might find out what they believe.
Is there a section of the school that you can still support?
But other than that, if it has been gutted by the left, it's no longer the organization that you think it is.
It's just pretending to be.
It just has the same name.
So support an organization that is the kind of organization that will do for someone else what this organization, when it was good, did for you.
Okay, from Anonymous.
Hello, Supreme Leader of the Multiverse.
I hope that your thoughts and answers can guide me through this difficult time.
I'm a 21-year-old man.
I've been going to a local community college, looking to transfer to a public university for a facilities management degree.
I've done poorly in almost half my classes.
I've had to redo the courses.
That's cost me time.
I have a lower GPA.
I failed a physics course for the second time, which has pushed me to the edge of whether or not I should cut my losses and get an associate's degree in business management.
My question to you is, should I still strive to get a bachelor's degree in that specific program that will guarantee a job?
Or should I stop the idea of transforming and just get an associate's?
Thanks for all you do and God bless.
You know, I get a lot of questions about this letter.
Why are you failing?
Are you failing because you're not working hard enough?
Or are you failing because you don't like the subject and it's not a good subject for you?
If it's not a good subject for you, maybe you should reconsider your career plans and find something that you really love doing and are suited for.
You know, I don't think I could pass a physics class, but I didn't go into physics.
So the question I have is, why is this happening?
Are you not working?
Are you goofing off?
Or are you working really hard and you just can't pass the course?
In which case, you should go into something you can pass.
Why go into something that you're not suited for?
I don't quite get that.
I don't quite get a full picture of what's going on here.
But I think you ought to stop, take a breath.
It's not a question of this degree or that degree.
It's a question of why are you doing something that you're not suited for or why aren't you working harder?
You know, those are the questions.
So I feel like there's something in this letter I'm not hearing.
But at the same time, I do think you can ask those questions like, why is this not working out?
And how can you fix it either by going into something else that you're more suited for or by working harder?
From Thaddeus.
Dear Mr. Claven, with all the honorifics that go with that name, I am a high school math teacher of more than 30 years.
I've scrupulously avoided any politics in my classroom.
Up to now, I figured I was doing my job well if none of my students knew anything about my political opinions.
However, the 2016 election seems to have broken many of my colleagues, and I know my students are getting a fairly steady diet of progressivism in their other classes.
Should I try to provide some balance in mind?
Needless to say, I'm one of an infinitesimal conservative minority in my school's faculty.
I'm a new subscriber, but I read The Great Good Thing when it first came out, and I've recommended it to many of my friends.
My leftist tears tumbler is almost worth a lousy hundred bucks all on its own.
So, should you now start to, because after 2016, the other teachers have gone woke, should you go anti-woke in your calculus class?
No, of course not.
That's not, then you're just doing the wrong thing that they're doing.
Teach calculus.
That's what you're there for.
Teach math, whatever it is, whatever kind of math you're teaching.
Teach math.
It's not a bad idea to go to the faculty and the other teachers and say, and state in a civilized and friendly manner what your problem is with what they're doing.
It's wrong for them to basically inculcate these students with their particular political point of view.
It is not true, though they like to tell themselves it's true, that everyone who voted for Trump or even anybody who voted for Trump is a bigot or a hate monger or a white supremacist or all this.
This is an illusion that they put up because they didn't like the outcome of the election.
So it's wrong what they're doing, but the people to address it with is them, not the students.
You know, it doesn't help, I think, for the students to just get more of this garbage.
I think you should go to the administration and say, I think this is a problem, and talk to the other teachers, do it with the other teachers present, but just put it forward that they're doing something that is not right.
From Gerard, can you separate religion from values to teach conservatism?
I believe in Catholic values, but I find the state of the church to be unsavory.
I think a lot of people find the state of the church to be unsavory.
But first of all, we have to separate religion from God, okay?
Believe me, I tried for 50 years.
You cannot build a value system without God.
You simply can't.
I know you think you can't.
I know a lot of people, a lot of conservatives think they're smart.
Oh, they're smart.
We're too smart for this.
You're just wrong.
You're just wrong.
You can have good values without God, but you're not making any sense.
So I think that the first thing you've got to say is, look, there's a God.
I'm in a relationship with God.
God is there.
He has an effect in the world.
And that is one thing.
The fact that a church, any church, is full of bad actors is not the point.
So in walking away from the Catholic Church, which is not necessary because not every Catholic Church partakes of the problem, but still, if that's what you feel you have to do, there are a million different churches in this country.
I'm sure one of them will serve your needs and support you in your faith.
I don't think religion is something you do alone.
I think that it is good for people to gather together and worship, and I think you should do it too.
But no, I think the problem is you will find, you will find when you put forward those values without God, somebody's going to start questioning those values.
I call it the toddler test.
Toddlers keep saying why, why, why, until you run out of reasons.
If you can't go back on the creator of the universe and the creator of the moral order, you're going to find yourself defeated by that test that has happened in big ways and small throughout the last 60, 70 years.
So again, you know, there is unsavory stuff going on in the Catholic Church and in other churches as well.
Why Religion Needs God00:01:51
And I think that that is something to be fought against.
But I don't think you have to walk away necessarily from every Catholic Church, from every branch of the Catholic Church to do that.
The Catholic values are still sound.
The Catholic theology is sound.
And those people, there are many, many good priests who represent that theology.
So I think that I think you're being a little global here.
I think you're trying to walk away from something because it bothers you in the news, but you're not thinking locally, which is what you have to do.
Find a good church, go to that church, learn more about your faith and your religion and what it means, and then use that to put forward your values.
I got to stop.
I hope you have a wonderful 4th of July.
And then right after the 4th of July, of course, the apocalypse of the Clavin List, the long Clavinless weekend will begin.
Those of you who make it, we will be back here on Monday.
I look forward to seeing you then.
Have a great 4th.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
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.
The illiterate millennials of the New York Times have published a five-minute long video essay titled, Please Stop Telling Me America is Great.
Just in time for the 4th of July.
We will dissect the nonsense.
Then Sargon of Akkad stops by to talk YouTube and politics.
Finally, the mailbag and my favorite story from the Revolutionary War.