Andrew Clavin dissects the Detroit Democratic debate, mocking second-tier candidates like Warren (tax evasion silence) and Buttigieg (0% Black support) while praising Trump’s Jamestown speech for defending liberty. He slams moderators for pushing conservative talking points, contrasts Williamson’s 1776 tweet with Lincoln’s pragmatism, and ridicules open-borders rhetoric. Mailbag shifts to dating advice—urging pre-marital sex talks—and abortion debates, dismissing "murder" framing while pushing state-level restrictions. Clavin ties Democratic policies to eroding freedom, framing socialism as elite cronyism and abortion as a cultural failure, all while dismissing biblical judgment as "proof texting." [Automatically generated summary]
The first round of the second round of the Democrat debates took place last night.
And if anyone was watching, please write in and let me know what happened.
As I understand it, the debates took place in Detroit, a city laid waste by Democrat policies.
The theory seemed to be, if there's anyone left in Detroit who's still voting Democrat, they'd be too stupid to understand how utterly they'd be screwed by the Democrats' policies so the candidates won't lose any votes by proposing them.
Which is a good thing since this debate included mostly second-string candidates.
This includes Bernie Sanders, who's polling at 20% of people who still think communism is a great idea and that the Soviet Union will ascend to glory just as soon as Stalin is brought back to life by the ghost of Rasputin chanting the Internationale.
There's also Elizabeth Warren, who's polling at 1 1024th of all the people who believe she is favored by the great spirit in the sky, who himself is voting for Trump because he enjoys the laughs.
Then there's Beto O'Rourke, who is polling at 0% but feels once he finishes apologizing for his white privilege, his poll numbers will go up, though by then the election will be over.
And there's Pete Budejej, who is polling at 0% among African Americans, though some may vote for him on the down low.
Finally, of course, there's Marianne Williamson, who is polling at a whopping 85% of all people who believe her aura is silvery white with edges of gold, representing either transcendent holiness or some old fillings in her molars she hasn't had replaced yet.
This charismatic and exciting group of non-entities began the debate by greeting the public, and then suddenly I woke up and found it was 1 a.m. and I was watching an old rerun of NYPD Blue, which was pretty good, incidentally, and had a gritty realism and honesty that made it essentially the opposite of a Democrat debate.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boom.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-dee.
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.
Man, it is good to be a Democrat.
You go to a debate, and who shows up to ask you the tough questions?
Other Democrats, namely the media.
Now, Don Lemon isn't a journalist.
He's not even a commentator.
He's just a race-baiting talking point in a suit.
But Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, biased as they are, do sometimes work in something that used to look vaguely like the profession of journalism.
And to their credit, they did bring up what the Democrat candidates called conservative talking points and what the rest of us call reality.
Man, It Is Good To Be A Democrat00:14:49
How are you going to pay for all that health care, Bernie?
What do you think the border will look like once you decriminalize criminal immigration?
And hey, Elizabeth Warren, if you swear not to use nuclear weapons first, won't you have to use nuclear weapons second after some of us have been departicalized by our enemies?
Now, these mild injections of real life so shocked the rest of the Democrat press that they took the moderators to task.
But conservative evildoer that I am, I felt there was a much bigger talking point left unspoken.
All night long, I felt there was one word missing from the debate, the word liberty.
Adorable Looney Tune Marianne Williamson sent out a tweet yesterday, just before the debate, that said this, In 1776, our founders brought forth on this planet an extraordinary new possibility.
It was the idea that people, no matter who they were, would simply have the possibility of thriving.
Ah, yeah, only not.
Marianne sounds kind of like Abraham Lincoln, only without the profundity and truth.
What Lincoln really said was, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Liberty and liberty equally for all.
That's what the country is supposed to be about.
That's everything it's supposed to be about.
Everything in the Constitution is designed to protect our liberty, the separation of powers, the enumerated powers the federal government is not supposed to go beyond.
Liberty in speech, liberty in religion, and the right to bear arms that we need to protect that liberty when the government, inevitably, it seems, gets hungry for more and more power.
That's the whole problem with the left and with leftism.
Every free thing they offer you costs you not only money, it costs you liberty.
If the government can take your money and give it to someone else, they own and control your time and labor.
If they can regulate every aspect of your life, they can pass laws without your consent.
If the government runs healthcare, they get to decide how you treat yourself and ultimately who lives and dies.
If they can outlaw certain kinds of speech as hate speech or as a campaign finance violation, they decide who you are and what you think.
Every insult they throw at us is meant to distract us from this one important point.
Racism, Islamophobia, climate denial, every single slur they hit us with is meant to take our minds off our real concern.
Because it's not racist to oppose humongous government entitlements.
It's a defense of liberty.
It's not phobic to question restrictive tenets of a religion.
It's a defense of liberty.
And it's not some kind of thought crime to question whether more government power is going to do one damn thing to help whatever troubles the climate might have.
We're fighting for our liberty.
Too often we on the right get all wonky and practical about our ideas.
We point out that Democrat programs don't work.
They don't.
But even if they did, they'd take our liberty.
We point out that capitalism beats socialism.
It does.
But more important, capitalism supports and incentivizes liberty.
We point out that identity politics is bigotry in disguise.
It is, and it's not much of a disguise, if you ask me.
But more importantly, when you reduce a person to his skin color or his gender or his sexuality, you take away his individual spirit, the spirit for which liberty was made.
So good for the Democrats.
They've created a media bubble in which they can hide from the L-word.
That means it's up to us to keep the word alive, to keep saying it loud and proud, no matter what they call us, no matter what they offer us, and no matter which of their gormless nudmiks tries to become president and take our liberty away.
We're going to talk more about this.
We'll look at the debates.
We gotta.
We have no choice.
But first, let's talk about ExpressVPN.
Here is something I actually use every single day.
I'm online all day, and I don't like to think about the fact that people are out there who want to steal my information.
I don't have to think about it because I use Express VPN.
ExpressVPN runs in the background of your computer or phone, and when you use the internet, just like you normally would, you downloaded this app, you click to connect it, and you're protected.
I don't go online without ExpressVPN because it basically encodes your information so no one can steal it.
It costs less than seven bucks a month and comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.
It uses cutting-edge technology called Trusted Server to make sure there are no logs of what you do online.
It's time to stop hackers, big brother, and internet companies from grabbing all your data.
Take back your online privacy like I did with ExpressVPN.
Protect your online activity today and find out how you can get three months free at expressvpn.com slash clavin.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash Clavin for three months free with a one-year package.
Visit expressvpn.com slash clavin to learn more.
And I know you're thinking everybody knows how to spell express, but how do you spell clavin?
There's no ease in clavin.
It's k-l-a-v-a-n.
So before we talk about the details of the debate, one thing I just have to point out.
Oh, I should also point out we have the mailbag coming up later.
Don't scream.
No, no, don't really don't scream.
All right, scream.
It's wonderful.
All your, stop, stop.
I can't stand it anymore.
All your problems will be solved.
That's coming up.
And I want to point out all this talk about, you know, Donald Trump and he says this and it's racist.
He says that it's racist.
Whatever he says, they twist it to mean it's racist and somehow he doesn't like black people or he doesn't like this.
He doesn't like that.
But Marion Williamson said something last night that I found incredibly offensive.
This is cut number two.
We have communities, particularly communities of color and disadvantaged communities all over this country who are suffering from environmental injustice.
I assure you, I lived in Grosse Point.
What happened in Flint would not have happened in Grosse Point.
This is part of the dark underbelly of American society.
The racism, the bigotry, and the entire conversation that we're having here tonight.
If you think any of this wonkiness is going to deal with this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country, then I'm afraid that the Democrats are going to see some very dark days.
We need to say it like it is.
It's bigger than Flint.
I just want to say, as someone who identifies as a dark psychic force, I was deeply offended by this.
Dark psychic forces, we have feelings too.
And we vote.
You know, I mean, we vote, and so don't expect the dark, we dark psychic forces to show up at the ballot box if Marion Williamson gets the nomination, which I hope she does, because she's kind of hot and she can dance.
And unlike the rest of the Democrats, she's openly insane instead of just insane in her policies.
So, you know, you've offended dark psychic forces like myself.
And, you know, don't think we won't take it out on you in the ballot box.
The debate was basically Bernie and the great white Elizabeth Warren fending off these kind of non-entities that nobody's going to vote for, nobody's heard of, who were trying to say to them that they were being too radical.
So Bernie and Elizabeth were like saying, no, no, you know, we're going all the way to the left.
Let's take a quick look at a clip.
Here's Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio going after Bernie on health care.
This was much quoted, much quoted because of Bernie's response.
And one of the things about these debates, by the way, I don't think there should be audiences at debates because applause doesn't mean you're right and booze don't mean you're wrong.
So why do we have to have them there?
I don't know, but you'll hear the way this shook out.
This is Ryan versus Bernie.
Can you guarantee those union members that the benefits under Medicare for All will be as good as the benefits that their representatives, their union reps, fought hard to negotiate?
Well, two things.
They will be better because Medicare for All is comprehensive.
It covers all health care needs for senior citizens.
It will finally include dental care, hearing aids, and eyeglasses.
But you don't know.
Second of all.
You don't know that.
Second of all.
I'll come to you in a second.
I do know when I wrote the damn bill.
And second of all.
Second of all.
Many of our union brothers and sisters, nobody more pro-union than me up here, are now paying high deductibles and co-payments.
And when we do Medicare for all, instead of having the company putting money into health care, they can get decent wage increases, which they're not getting today.
I just want to say that.
And I want to bring in Congressman Ryan to respond to what Senator Sanders is saying.
Senator Sanders does not know all of the union contracts in the United States.
I'm trying to explain that these union members are losing their jobs.
Their wages have been stagnant.
The world is crumbling around them.
The only thing they have is possibly really good health care.
And the Democratic message is going to be, we're going to go in, and the only thing you have left, we're going to take it and we're going to do better.
I do not think that's a round.
What's he talking about?
These guys were out of work until Donald Trump became president.
Now they're back at work again.
There's virtually no unemployment in this country.
How is the world crumbling around them?
But that's the world the Democrats are living in.
So even the guy who's voted, you know, Ryan, I mean, Ryan at least came out for sensible policies.
He had one little speech he made.
This is play cut three about how they're basically, these guys are going so far left, they're going to leave the building.
Now, in this discussion already tonight, we've talked about taking private health insurance away from union members in the industrial Midwest.
We've talked about decriminalizing the border.
And we've talked about giving free health care to undocumented workers when so many Americans are struggling to pay for their health care.
I quite frankly don't think that that is an agenda that we can move forward on and win.
We've got to talk about the working class issues, the people that take a shower after work who haven't had a raise in 30 years.
If we focus on that, we'll win the election.
People who take a shower.
I take a shower after work.
What does that mean?
Anyway, what he's saying is you guys are not talking to working class people.
He's right about this.
He is right about it.
Trump is talking to working class people.
They're making the argument that with Trump, Trump's rough housing, his rough way of talking, his almost, you know, his belligerent way of tweeting that he's he's alienating suburban women.
That is their argument.
And they've gone out and they've gotten some proof of that.
There seems to have been some evidence of that in the midterms.
They're an important vote.
Trump may want to take that.
Look, there seems to be a consensus on both sides that Trump is hurting himself with his tweets.
I like the fact that he is breaking down these barriers that the left has put in place, but it's something to take into account.
Maybe this is true.
If he's losing votes with it, that would be a terrible thing, even though we're gaining in culture, in cultural freedom, what we may be losing in votes.
It's a tough choice to make, but Trump is going to have to make it.
But Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren, bravely, I think, and straightforwardly came out in favor of the leftist agenda.
She basically answered Ryan's speech by saying, no, go big or go home.
It's cut five.
I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for.
Women in Washington is corruption.
It is giant corporations that have taken our government and that are holding it by the throat.
And we need to have the courage to fight back against that.
And until we're ready to do that, it's just more of the same.
Well, I'm ready to get in this fight.
I'm ready to win this.
Thank you, Senator Congressman.
You know, and there's no one there that because it's all Democrats asking the questions, because it's Jake Tapper and Don Lemon, of all people, we'll get to him in a minute, but because it's Democrats asking the question, no one thinks to say to Elizabeth Warren, is there anything you think government shouldn't do?
Is there any good thing that you think government shouldn't do?
Is there anything that shouldn't be subsidized?
Is there anything that you don't like that shouldn't be forbidden by government?
Nobody will say that to her.
So, you know, big ideas and everybody's applauding, yay, yeah, yeah, and all these guys in a city destroyed, destroyed by unions, destroyed by the Democrats.
There's nobody to say, well, you know, forget about the fact that it doesn't work.
Wasn't this country supposed to be about freedom?
Is there something in the Constitution that prevents you from doing this?
Is there anything?
Do you care what's in the Constitution?
Does anybody want to talk about the Constitution or the founding principles?
But they don't have that problem because they won't let Fox come in and talk to them.
They won't let anybody who disagrees with them come in and talk with them.
So, you know, even though some of the moderators did bring some conservative arguments, no one will say to Elizabeth.
The only person who said anything to Elizabeth Warren was afterwards, Chris Matthews, of all people, the leftists of leftists, at least asked her if her health care plan was going to raise taxes, and she wouldn't answer.
You guys dodge that tonight, don't you?
No, it's not a dodgy, it's about where.
No, because Shane Tamper kept saying, how much of your tax is going to go up?
And you said, how much are your costs going to?
Different question.
How much were your taxes?
No, it's how much are your costs?
This goes on and on.
And the thing is, when they say how much is it going to cost overall, again, there's an underlying theory here.
There's an underlying thesis that all the money in the country belong to them.
You know, all the money in the country belongs to them, and they're going to save money overall.
But the thing is, your money is your money.
No why?
You did the work for it.
You spent the time for it.
Your life was put into producing that wealth.
So when Elizabeth Warren says, yes, but overall we're going to save money, that's not the point.
You know, Matthews is right practically, because if your taxes are going up, that's the money you earn being taken away from you and given to somebody else.
And they don't have the right to do that, and it's not right to do it.
Your money is your time.
And they talk about it as if you were being greedy to want what you produced to belong to you.
That's not greed.
It's greed if you don't give to charity.
It's greed if you don't, you know, if you're not generous with your money.
But that's not being generous.
That is giving them the power to decide where your money goes.
And that's why Democrat socialism is just the same as socialism.
That's why when Bernie says, well, it'll be democratic this time.
It won't be Stalin killing you until we get to that point.
But first, it'll be democratic.
You know, when he's saying that, it doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean anything because even if everybody votes to take your money away, it's still your money.
They haven't got the right to do it.
But there's no one there to raise these points.
There's no one there to talk about liberty, to talk about founding values, to talk about what the country is supposed to be about, which is different from what Europe is supposed to be about, different from what any other country is supposed to be about.
They imitate us.
Why should we imitate them?
They're dying.
We're thriving.
Why should we imitate them?
But no one is there to ask those questions because they will not let them in.
Let's do another one.
Just this is Tim Ryan versus.
Wait a minute.
I want to make sure I've got the right thing that we were talking.
Oh, and I want to get to Bullock versus Warren on immigration.
This is the governor of Montana.
What happened to Montana?
They're electing this guy, Stephen Bullock.
Montana's Immigration Dilemma00:12:59
But at least he's trying to be at least a little bit limited in who they allow into the country, of how much of our border they want to take away.
And so here is Bullock versus Warren on immigration.
We need to expand legal immigration.
We need to create a path for citizenship, not just for dreamers, but for grandmas and for people who have been working here in the farms and for students who have overstayed their visas.
We need to fix the crisis at the border.
And a big part of how we do that is we do not play into Donald Trump's hands.
But he wants to stir up the crisis at the border because that's his overall message.
If there's anything wrong in your life, thank you, Senator Warren.
Governor Bullock, your response.
But you are playing into Donald Trump's hands.
The challenge isn't that it's a criminal offense to cross the border.
The challenge is that Donald Trump is president and using this to rip families apart.
A sane immigration system needs a sane leader.
And we can do that without decriminalizing, providing health care for everyone.
And it's not me saying that.
That's Obama's Homeland Security Secretary that said you'll cause further problems at the border, not making it better.
It matters if we say our law is that we will lock people up who come here seeking refuge, who come here seeking asylum.
That is not a crime.
And as Americans, what we need to do is have a sane system that keeps us safe at the border, but does not criminalize the activity of a mother-fleeing European community.
Thank you.
I don't understand.
I don't understand when she says we need to have more immigration.
We need to free up our immigrants.
I don't understand why that's true and why no one says to her why.
Why do we need that?
Do we need more immigrants?
It's all about the people coming in and about the poor people running away.
And listen, I have a heart for that.
I understand that we need asylum laws and we need to let people in when they are going to be killed elsewhere.
Other countries should do that too.
I'm not saying, you know, shut the border.
I'm not saying don't let anybody in.
But why do we need to expand the border?
I mean, why is it only about them?
Isn't it ever about the good for our country?
They have no concept of our country.
You know, if our country is an idea, which they never talk about, they never talk about the idea of liberty, if our country is an idea of liberty, shouldn't we only let people in who share that idea, who want to be part of that idea, and shouldn't we only let that number of people in who won't threaten that idea, who won't threaten our systems, our welfare systems?
You can't have an open border and a welfare state.
You can only have one of the other, right?
If you have a welfare state, it costs money, it means taking money away from people, which again limits their freedom.
It says to them, your time, your effort, your work belong to us.
It belongs to the government.
And that's the problem with immigration.
Just letting everybody in is it means there are more people who are going to need to take your time, your money, your work for them.
And that gives the government more power.
And that's what it's all about.
They're talking about that.
So I have to just at least take one little detour and ask the essential question: Don Lemon?
Don Lemon?
I mean, they gave him, this is the guy CNN sends to question.
I mean, the fact that he's on TV at all is amazing.
Newsbusters put out a little montage.
This is who will be at the debate.
It's a little Don Lemon montage.
Oh my gosh.
Nancy Pelosi is a boss.
The closest thing that we have to royalty, President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama, the biggest terror threat in this country is white men.
There is no ban on, you know, they had the Muslim ban.
There is no white guy ban.
So what do we do about that?
It says it right in the name, Antifa, anti-fascism, which is what they were there fighting.
Listen, there's, you know, no organization is perfect.
There is some violence.
No president has ever been charged with treason, Douglas.
Do you believe the president's actions fall anywhere within that definition?
Can we still call him the leader of the United States?
The president of the United States is racist.
Donald Trump calling African nations shithole countries.
They want to know if they're a shit whole nation.
Holes.
Whole countries?
Black holes.
This is who we elected president of the United States.
His speech was without thought.
It was without reason.
You seem very into it a piercing idea.
No, I don't want to touch your nipple.
That's Don.
Here's the question he got asked, which really got to me.
He asked this of Amy Klobucher, I think it was.
Those Trump voters who prioritize the economy over the president's bigotry.
Well, first of all, there are people that voted for Donald Trump before that aren't racist.
They just wanted a better shake in the economy.
And so I would appeal to them.
But I don't think anyone can justify what this president is doing.
Little kids literally woke up this weekend, turned on the TV, and saw their president calling their city, the town of Baltimore, nothing more than a home for rats.
And I can tell you.
That's telling the truth about Baltimore.
But never mind what she said.
You could almost not hear the question.
The question Lemon asked was: What do you say to Trump voters who prioritize the economy over his racism?
So the assumption is that Trump is racist.
There's no question about it.
Not do you think that Trump is racist?
You know, something really interesting happened yesterday.
The National Archives released this really unpleasant tape of Governor Ronald Reagan, governor of California, Ronald Reagan, on the phone talking to Richard Nixon.
It's October 1971.
The UN has just voted to recognize communist China and they're both ticked off about it.
And Reagan calls up Nixon and this is what he says about the UN.
Last night, I tell you to watch that thing on television, as I did, to see those pinkies from those African countries, damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes.
Well, and then the tail wags the dog there, doesn't it?
Yeah.
So that's pretty ugly.
You know, he's calling these guys from the African countries monkeys, saying they're uncomfortable wearing shoes and why the tail wags the dog, meaning why are they making rules for America?
Why are they recognizing this communist, this monstrosity, which it was?
And, you know, that's genuinely ugly.
You know, and you can make all the excuses.
1971, totally different time.
I mean, now it's 50 years ago.
It's a long time ago.
People say things in private that they wouldn't say in public.
He's talking about a specific people.
But let's even put all that aside.
Let's just say it's racism straight up.
I mean, I think you could make an argument that it's different context, but still, still, it's an ugly thing to say about people.
Let's also think about Ronald Reagan and what he did.
Ronald Reagan's economy, the economy, when he, Reagan took over.
And I remember this, okay?
The economy was worse than it has ever been before or since.
It was worse than the 2008 crash.
It was horrible.
We were waiting an hour online for gas.
You could only buy gas every other day if your license plate was odd or even.
There was this horrible shortage.
Our guys were being held hostage and Carter couldn't do anything about it.
We had inflation.
We had stagnation.
It was all, it was just a terrible, terrible time.
Reagan took it over and within two years.
He not only started the, jump-started the economy, he gave us a good economy that lasted essentially for 25 years, a quarter of a century, almost a working life, 25 years.
That Clinton economy was the Reagan economy.
There's just no question about it.
He gave us all that innovation.
He started all this stuff.
And by the way, the people who benefited most from it were single women and blacks.
Blacks and single women were the two groups that benefited most from the turnaround in the economy.
The weakest people were helped the most, of course, when your economy takes over, just like now.
Ronald Reagan, almost single-handedly, with the help of Thatcher and the Pope, brought down the Soviet Union.
He was the only person, and people forget this.
Again, I was there.
He was the only person who said we can win the Cold War.
His Secretary of State said, what do you mean?
He said, I mean, we win and they lose.
And he won and they lost.
And he brought the Soviet Union down, freeing tens, hundreds of millions of people from the slavery of communism, breaking them out of that absolute prison of communism, that murderous prison of communism.
So here's the thing.
If they had released that tape before and you had heard him say that, would you give it back?
Would you give that economy back?
Would you give the Soviet Union back?
Would you recreate that terrible threat to lives, not just the lives of the people who live there, but to all of our lives with their nuclear weapons?
Were his policies more important than whatever glitches he had, whatever ugly things he said in private?
We all have glitches.
We all say things in private that we shouldn't say.
I mean, that's part of why you're talking in private.
That's part of what privacy is.
Would you take away the fact that he was a man of his time with some racism in his heart?
Would you take away all his achievements, all the good he did for both this country and the world because of that tape?
And that's the problem with guys like Don Lemon.
I mean, if you took the word racism out of Don Lemon's vocabulary, he would just sit there and stare with those cow eyes into the camera with nothing else to say.
And it is the policies that matter and it is the principles that matter, not our flaws, not our sins, because we all got them.
We can all be caught out.
We can all play gotcha on one another.
But it is the policies.
And that's why I want to end this talking about the one guy who was talking about what matters yesterday.
Your president and mine, Donald Trump.
Donald Trump went and gave a speech about Jamestown.
Yeah.
Sorry.
He gave a speech about Jamestown when the first British representative government was installed, basically the beginning of the colony that would become the United States.
He talked very beautifully about the evil of slavery.
He said it was a barbaric trade.
And he said, in honor, we remember every sacred soul who suffered the horrors of slavery and the anguish of bondage.
And of course, Democrats showed up and were heckling him and all this.
But he ended on this note.
In our time, we must vigorously defend those cherished democratic traditions that have made our beloved republic the envy of the entire world.
And it still is as much as ever before, and maybe more.
Our hard-won culture of self-government must be nourished, protected, and constantly preserved.
That is why we must speak out strongly against anyone who would take power away from citizens, individuals, and state governments such as yours.
In America, the people will forever rule.
The people will forever reign.
And the people will forever be sovereign.
From the first Legislative Assembly down to today, America has been the story of citizens who take ownership of their future and their control of their destiny.
That is what self-rule is all about.
Everyday Americans coming together to take action, to build, to create, to seize opportunities, to pursue the common good, and to never stop striving for greatness.
Donald Trump, flawed guy, lots of flaws, belligerent.
Sometimes he says things he shouldn't.
The only guy yesterday who was talking about what this country is about, liberty.
I hope people heard him.
I hope they still care.
We've got the mailbag coming up.
Come to dailywire.com.
Now back.
Woo!
Yeah!
What would we do without that scream?
All right, from Wilbur, dear sire, who is as wise as he is bald.
I am equally wise and bald.
It's true.
I'm dating a beautiful 28-year-old Christian woman.
She's a virgin, never kissed a guy before me.
She's very careful about physical touch, and she wants to save herself from marriage.
This is part of the reason I love and respect her so much.
We've been dating for about four months, and the other night I kissed her more than just a quick kiss.
We kind of made out.
At first, she seemed okay with it, but then abruptly pushed me off and stormed out of the house, visibly upset.
I'm not a virgin, and I express my affection to her through physical contact.
I know I crossed the line.
I love her and I'm dating her with the intent to marry her.
I've told her that I'm willing to wait for marriage, and I've been using every ounce of self-control.
However, our standards of acceptable behavior seem to be very different.
Knowing this, do you have any advice for me on self-control and or advice in general for this situation?
Yeah.
I mean, look, there's no advice.
Self-control is self-control.
In order to control yourself, you've got to control yourself.
But I do have some questions.
I mean, she's 28 years old.
You know, she doesn't have to storm out on you if you went a little too far.
She can say that's a little too far and ask you to pull back.
And so I think you guys need to have a conversation because the drawback, the drawback to not having premarital sex, I mean, there are a million drawbacks to having premarital sex, but the drawback to not having it is you don't want to get married and find yourself completely incompatible, to find there's some problem there that you didn't know about, to find that she's not into sex at all or that she doesn't want to do the things that you want to do.
Do Not Judge Others00:06:12
You should know.
And you guys should have a conversation.
You've been dating for four months.
You're getting to a point where you know as much about her as you're going to know before you marry her.
But maybe you should have a frank conversation about this and not have this communication by means of storming out, by means of anger, but actually sit down and say, hey, let's talk about the role of sex in a marriage and let's talk about do you have problems?
Were you attacked at any point that his mate put you off the whole idea of sex or are you just protecting your virginity before marriage?
It doesn't have to be communicated in terms of slamming doors, in terms of secret signals.
Have it out.
Have it out.
You're going to be together for a long time.
The rest of your life is a long time.
You want to know the person as much as you can before you get married.
And I think this is something you should talk about in an honest, unthreatening, uncruel way.
But at least have the conversation so you know what you're walking into.
I think it's important.
And I think that the idea that somehow if you save yourself from marriage somehow when you marry, everything's going to be great and your sex life is going to be great.
You know, I'm not sure that that's such a good idea.
I think talking about it is a good idea.
From Nicholas, in your last mailbag, you talked about Jesus' teaching about the plank in one's own eye and letting the one without sin cast the first stone.
I don't believe that Jesus is saying, do not judge others, even though Jesus said, do not judge others.
You don't believe he's saying that, because Ezekiel mentions that God will hold us accountable for the death caused by the sin of others if we do not attempt to correct them.
Ezekiel 3.18, St. Paul writes multiple times about gently correcting brothers and sisters.
I agree we shouldn't focus on others when there's plenty of sinfulness within our own hearts, but the Bible certainly does not command us to turn away from immoral behavior of others when seen.
How do you reconcile these?
Thanks for all you do and love the show.
Hashtag no E-Army.
I like it.
Well, no, you know, I'm sorry, but this is a classic case of proof texting.
Jesus did say, don't judge others.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
He didn't say, judge not hypocritically, which is the interpretation people keep telling me.
He didn't say that.
He said, judge not, lest ye be judged.
Now, obviously, we've got to make sense of what he's saying.
He wasn't saying, don't pass moral judgments.
He wasn't saying don't know right from wrong.
He obviously wasn't saying that.
What he was saying was, do not judge where another man stands or another woman stands in relationship to God.
That's not your job.
It is not your job to tell people that they are sinning.
The Ezekiel thing you said, you say this.
This is what I mean by proof texting, all right?
Ezekiel mentions that God will hold us accountable for the death caused by the sin of others.
That's not what that passage is about.
I mean, this is like quoting Shakespeare and saying Shakespeare says when what you meet as Hamlet says or Macbeth says, Ezekiel is talking about his call to be a prophet.
And God says to him, to Ezekiel, I'm giving you the power of prophecy.
He gives him a scroll to eat, as I recall it.
He says, I'm giving you the power of prophecy.
I will hold you responsible if you don't send my message to people.
You, Ezekiel, he's making him a prophet and telling him that he has a job to do, which is bringing the word of God and the interpretation of the word of God in that moment to the people of Israel.
That's what he's talking about.
And when you look at other passages too, some of the other passages you quote, what they're talking about is a church where you have to maintain order, a church where you have to maintain discipline, and a church where people kind of agree on certain of the principles that are there.
And they always talk about gently saying, hey, maybe you're violating the principles that we're all here in agreement with.
That does not have to do with going up to anybody that you happen to see or even a person who just happens to be in your church and telling him that he is in a state of sin.
We're all in a state of sin, every one of us.
And so that's why Jesus is saying, let him who is without sin, which is nobody, cast the first stone.
You know, a lot of times they quote to me a line that Jesus actually does say where he says, if the man sins, gently rebuke him.
But in a lot of the versions of this, and there are different versions of the Bible that we have, different oldest versions of the Bible that we have, Jesus says, if a man sins against you.
And so what bothers me about this is we have God, the Word of God, the living incarnate word of God, speaking and saying, judge not lest you be judged.
Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.
Don't remove the speck in another man's eye.
Deal with the plank in your own eye.
That is what we have the word of God saying.
And you go to Ezekiel and quote out of context a statement that seems to let you give you the power to rebuke your neighbor.
Why not listen to Jesus?
For a very simple reason.
Try it.
A, it's really hard.
That's how you know it's true.
B, it makes your life better.
It fills your life with joy.
When you stop worrying about where other people are and just kind of love them, you know, this is the other thing that Jesus is always doing.
He's always saying, he's always infusing the law with love.
He's always saying, you know, like, well, yeah, the Sabbath was made for you.
You're not made for the Sabbath.
Do you do good on the Sabbath or do you do evil on the Sabbath?
I mean, this was a big law that he was monkeying around with by infusing it with love.
And so I'm just saying that when you're looking at the other guy and saying, oh, the most loving thing I can do to this guy is tell him to stop being what he is or stop doing what he's doing or stop talking the way he's talking, that maybe you should be turning.
Maybe you're looking in the wrong direction.
If you follow that advice, hard advice to follow, if you follow that rules, you will be happier.
The people around you will be happier.
And you will have more authority in their lives when they come to you and say, hey, I think something's going wrong here.
Can you help me out?
When you haven't judged them, when you haven't passed judgment on them, when you've tried to love them as they are and who they are, when they come to you and say, you know what, I'm in trouble, you will have some authority in their life and a place in their life where they'll listen to you.
Maybe.
Maybe they'll listen to you.
So I don't know.
It seems to me that all this kind of negotiating you do with Jesus when Jesus says judge not, you say, well, that can't be what that means because here I found a text here that I can rip out of context and fight with Jesus over.
Why not just listen to him?
Why not just do what he says and see if that improves your life and see if it improves the life of the people around you?
From Kyle, Lord K-L-V-N.
Ways to Stay Published00:04:00
My girlfriend and I just found out she's pregnant.
This is wonderful news for us in many ways.
We're both very happy, but there are a few issues, the biggest of which is we're not married.
I know that I personally believe that the right thing to do would be to marry her soon, preferably before our child is born, and I've spoken with her about it and she agrees.
However, without me even bringing it up to her parents, they spoke to me and said it might be wiser to wait until after one of us is done with college because of the potential financial benefits of her being a single mother in college.
That's really bad advice.
That's bad advice.
You are right and your parents or her parents are wrong.
Marry her.
Marry her before the baby comes.
Give the baby a name.
Give the baby a family.
Give the baby a married couple to come into and build a family.
Don't wait around for some, you know, don't let the government decide that you're not going to get married.
You're not going to do the right thing because they'll give you money to do the wrong thing.
I mean, that's absurd.
That's absurd.
That's really, really bad advice.
That's not even your question, but I'm just telling you, marry her, that's the right thing to do.
Okay, so the question you want is, do you think it's reasonable for me to continue with college?
He's pre-med and work at nights and on weekends, keeping in mind that I have to continue getting A's to be considered by any med school.
Or do you think it's more reasonable for me to take a hiatus from school and wait for my girlfriend to finish nursing and then start up again?
We both have very strong support system on our sides of the family, so we will not be completely alone, but financially it's just us.
Any advice you have would be appreciated.
No, I think you should stay in school, keep working, put yourself through med school and become a doctor.
If any of you should take a break, it is her to take care of the baby.
You should stay the course because once you get off that course, the baby comes, it's going to be very, very difficult for you to do it.
Stay the course, do the work now, and later on your family will benefit.
You're doing it for the family, for your future lives.
More important, the most important thing that the child needs right now is a mom, and you will be there as much as you can, but do the work and get the medical degree and become a doctor.
And then that will be a help to your family and possibly to the world at large.
But the other part is more important, Marrier.
All right, Bradley from Bradley.
Dear Master of the Multiverse, hater of ease.
My father has tried for many years to be an author.
He recently wrote a book and had me read it objectively.
I think the novel is fantastic.
That's great.
But he hasn't had a lot of success with publishers.
How can I best encourage him or help him?
P.S. My father is paralyzed, and I've always had a big role in helping him.
So I feel a deep sense of responsibility.
I want to help him succeed in his goals.
Okay, well, first of all, he shouldn't be going to publishers.
He should be trying to find an agent.
You should get a book.
Writer's market is usually the kind of industry standard.
Tells you how to approach agents.
There's also a book called the LMP, Literary Marketplace, which lists agents.
You find out what kind of agents, the way you do this is you find out what kind of agents represent the kind of books this is.
So let's say it's an international thriller.
Find the guys who represent Brad Thor.
If you go into Brad's book and look at his acknowledgments, maybe it'll say, I want to thank my agent so-and-so.
Then Writer's Market will explain to you how you approach them.
Follow that advice.
They don't want a 15-page letter.
They want a well-written, short letter with a query.
Sometimes they want pages attached.
You find out sometimes on the website they will tell you they're not accepting unsolicited manuscripts, but that's the way you do it.
An agent is still an important part of this.
And I think that you should get advice.
I mean, I can't give it to you all right now, but get advice from something like Writer's Market on how to approach agents and how to publish a book.
I mean, don't just go into it blind.
Don't just go send it to your friends.
Do it the way that it's supposed to be done and do it by industry standard and see how far you get.
And, you know, you can always go back to self-publishing later, to internet publishing and promoting it yourself.
There are all kinds of ways to do that.
It's another thing you can look up.
There are also books and websites about that.
From Tom.
And it's nice of you to help him, by the way.
From Tom, I enjoyed Homelanders.
Each chapter captivated me with action and questioning.
Culture of Life00:06:13
My burning question is, how can elites believe they will survive a socialist communist turnover?
They always believe this because they don't think it's going to affect them.
And in a lot of ways, they're right.
The thing that socialism does is it guts the middle class because they never really tax the rich.
And it creates a world in which the rich and the powerful and the rich become one set of people.
See, in America, when you have freedom, I mean, right now we have a lot of crony capitalism that's ruining the system, but when you have real capitalism, a little guy can make a gazillion dollars.
When you have socialism, only the people who are in with the government, only the people who have cronies in the government, that's why they call it crony capitalism, can get the regulations they want, can get the lawyers they need to defeat the regulations, can bribe the politicians.
That's when the system becomes corrupt.
So elites love decadence.
Elites love socialism in the end because it really does just divide the world into the poor who keep falling for the socialist lies and the wealthy who benefit from socialism.
It is freedom and capitalism that has a tiered system where yes, there will still be people at the bottom, but they will rise because everybody rises.
And then there'll be a tiered system of people who succeed going up the line.
And if you don't make it, maybe you'll create a world in which your kids can make it and things remain fluid.
Right now, we don't have that system because we have too much crony capitalism, too big a government.
Too much leftism has crept in.
And what the left always does is they say, oh, look, inequality, we need more leftism, when really it was the leftism that put the inequality there in the first place.
From Ethan, I want to start off by thanking you and the rest of the Daily Wire, even to my surprise, Knowles, for releasing me from a vigilante-type anger surrounding politics.
You guys have de-radicalized me and shown me the truth of what I should fight for.
And for that, you have my gratitude.
However, I have been having a severe problem that has been plaguing me for the whole of 2019, and it concerns me greatly.
I was diagnosed with depression early on in the year, and over the course of three months, it changed the way I behave.
And after six months, it has changed who I am.
I can't ever think straight.
I only feel motivated when I'm at work.
It helps distract me.
Everyone I have ever known has forsaken me, and I just rot alone.
I heard that in your youth you were also depressed.
I need all the advice I can get because I'm afraid of just how unstable I may become.
Yes, I was depressed in my youth.
And my friend, I say this to you as a brother and a pal.
I really do.
You've got a problem, and you've got to get help.
You've got to get help.
This is not something you can do alone.
You've got a problem.
You've got to get help.
That's the first thing, all right?
Even when you talk about a vigilante-type anger, because anger and depression are two sides of a single coin, when you talk about a vigilante-type anger, that implies violence, that means you were already kind of in trouble when you were diagnosed.
And I want to know what kind of diagnosis this is.
I want to know who this came from.
I want to know what kind of treatment they've offered you.
What you need is to get a first-class diagnosis.
I mean, you need to go to a university hospital and find out what's wrong with you, whether you need treatment, you need counseling, you may need some drugs to get you past.
I'm not a big fan of antidepressants, but sometimes they work to get you past the point where you can get the help you need from a counselor.
This is not something you can do alone.
There's something wrong.
There's something that's troubling you.
I don't know if it's emotional.
I don't know if it's chemical.
I don't know any of that.
But you need to get help, my friend.
Please do it.
You don't have to live like this.
You don't have to be in trouble.
You don't have to rot alone.
You're not alone.
You're not alone.
You're never alone.
And so you should go and get the help you need and get out of that situation.
I did.
It's doable.
Do it.
Okay.
Because I can tell even from your letter that you need the help.
Last one from Mark.
In a recent podcast, you made the point that loosely referring to abortion as murder fails to acknowledge that women have become victims in the abortion covenant the left has woven.
While I agree that the average woman is by some measure a victim in the extremity of abortion, she's also an autonomous moral agent arranging the death of another human.
How do we resolve this dilemma?
Listen, I think it's the wrong way to go.
Murders are committed by murderers, you know, and so when a woman goes in and has an abortion under the system that we have now, under the system where people are telling her, oh, it's her right to choose.
It's not a human being.
It's just a cluster of cells.
She's probably not a murderer.
She's probably not someone who thinks of herself or sees herself as premeditated, as taking a life in a premeditated manner.
The problem with that, with using big words like murder and accusing people of murder, is I don't think it's going to get you where you need to go.
What we need is, as they say, a culture of life.
We need to say, okay, you're pregnant with a baby you don't want.
What can we do for you?
How can we help?
How can we set up a society that responds?
We need to talk about sex and how you have sex, the responsibility of having sex, the responsibility of having sex outside of marriage.
We need to talk about all these things.
What we don't need is chasing women down the street with torches, shouting murder, murder.
It's not going to get us where we need to go.
It's not compassionate.
It's not loving.
It is not achieving the goals that we need to achieve.
This is a matter of life and death.
It's a matter of life and death.
So we want to create a culture of life where we say, you know what, this is not an acceptable thing to do.
This is a baby.
You created the baby.
We need to keep this baby alive.
What can we do now to help this baby live?
That's the way we got to go.
I think repealing Roe v. Wade is a good start because then it's going to be a matter of state by state, and each state is going to be responsible to the laws they make.
So if you have New York where they're willing to kill babies, you'll have the state of Baal.
You know, New York will be, we'll call it New Baal, New York, you know, where they are sacrificing children to the gods of sex and pleasure and freedom.
If you have another state, say, we'll make it Missouri, where they say, no, we're not going to have any abortion, then Missouri will be responsible for creating a culture where babies can thrive, even if the mother had them by accident, didn't want them, or had them in some way where she wasn't responsible.
You know, that's the way to go.
It's the only way we can go.
The society is really sick on this subject.
It is really ill.
It is close to death on this subject.
We need to heal it.
And this is the best way it can do it.
I'm not going to argue with you about the word murder.
It's a legal term, but all I'm saying is you want to get where you're going here.
This is a very practical issue.
And I don't think that's the way to do it.
I got to stop.
We'll be back tomorrow.
Society's Critical Condition00:01:11
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
And our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Edited by Adam Sayovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
Animations are by Cynthia Ngulo.
And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey guys, over on the Matt Wall Show today.
Democrat debate last night.
We'll go over the major takeaways from the show, including the fight, the losing fight by some of the remaining, the very few remaining sane Democrats to preserve some semblance of sanity in the party.
Also, a Republican proposes a bill that is ostensibly supposed to fight social media addiction.
I'll explain my problem with this bill.
And is it time to just let leftists destroy women's sports as they obviously desire to do?