Ben Shapiro dissects the left’s weaponization of Hitler/KKK comparisons against Trump, citing Beto O’Rourke and Elizabeth Warren’s inflammatory rhetoric—tying his "whiteness" to systemic racism while ignoring leftist mass shooters like El Paso. Jenna Ellis Reeves warns red flag laws erode due process, framing gun ownership as a pre-political right under siege by liberal overreach. Media bias peaks with Joaquin Castro’s doxxing and NBC’s false neo-Nazi flag claims, exposing ideological echo chambers. A pro-life baseball player’s dilemma highlights conscience vs. career risks, while listeners debate forgiveness, infidelity, and political labeling—ultimately framing 2024 as a cultural war for free speech against media oppression. [Automatically generated summary]
Democrat presidential candidates are saying they want to reduce hate by censoring, harassing, and assaulting anyone who disagrees with them.
The candidates took to the streets with torches and clubs to hunt down any haters who might be ranging free, expressing opinions that are not Democrat opinions and are therefore hateful and therefore must be extinguished by any means necessary.
Once in future losing candidate Beto O'Rourke, who is currently polling so low he may actually have to return votes to the populace in order to bring himself up to zero, told an imaginary group of reporters, quote, Trump's hateful rhetoric is so hyperbolic, it's like something from Hitler or the KKK.
He's so full of anger, you just want to punch him repeatedly in the face and then stomp on him while screaming that he's a giant booger and then set him on fire.
That's how full of hate his rhetoric is, unquote.
Elizabeth Warren agreed and in a series of smoke signals to the tribes throughout the nation said, quote, Trump's virulent racism is typical of white men.
His whiteness causes him to see everything in racial terms.
If only he weren't so white, the scourge of racism would finally be lifted from this nation where the white man took so much of the land of my Native American ancestors, they were forced to live only in my imagination.
That's how racist the dirty white man is in his whiteness, unquote.
Bernie Sanders also condemned the president in a keynote speech at the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg Memorial Dinner, saying, quote, Trump's rhetoric is so violent and bigoted, he should be taken into the cellar of the Lubianca prison, never to return, like we did with all those Rafusnik Jews in the good old days, unquote.
Finally, Corey Booker chimed in, saying, quote, I'm Spartacus, or at least I'm wearing a leather loincloth, which amounts to the same thing.
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-dunkity-doom.
Ship-shaped hip-sy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Memorial Dinner, raise your hand if you got that joke.
I see two out there.
All right, for the last several days, we've been listening to mainstream Democrat political candidates and media figures associate our president and everyone who supports him with the lunatic killer in El Paso, while, of course, ignoring the leftist politics of the lunatic killer in Dayton.
This is a new level of hysteria from the left's usual hysterical reaction to mass shooters, and it's genuinely disturbing.
Normally, the Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself, despicably seize on these crimes in the hopes of using our emotions to overturn the Second Amendment without going through all that annoying constitutional stuff of repeal that would require them to do something other than demonize half the populace.
But this is worse.
This is an attempt to brand the president and those of us who support what he's doing as somehow responsible for the evil of the evildoers.
This is essentially using the bodies of murdered Americans as an election gimmick.
What's ironic about this is that the cause of the left's disgraceful behavior has a lot to do with the process that turns extremists like the evildoers into extremists in the first place.
Psychologists say that extremism breeds when people develop inviolable sacred ideas and then refuse to associate with anyone but those who adhere to those ideas.
As they're confirmed in their rigid opinions by everyone around them, they begin to believe that others are trying to exterminate them and so projecting their own violence onto their opponents, they feel justified in acting violently against them.
That describes the mainstream media to an extremist T.
They have sacred ideas about what you're allowed to think and what words you're allowed to use and who good people can vote for, and they've excluded anyone from their ranks who might disagree.
They've secluded themselves in a corporate environment that rewards their leftism and punishes and condemns traditional American values as partaking in what they see in their distorted minds as a long history of racism and oppression.
They only talk to themselves and they become radicalized.
And with Fox News haunting their dreams, they feel justified in calling us any rotten thing they want without any qualm of conscience.
I'm not saying they're evil like the shooters.
Obviously, they're not evil.
But when I see Joaquin Castro doxing Trump supporters, when I see Christian Amonpour bullying Kellyanne Conway in a self-blind, corrupt, and dishonest manner, when I see Chuck Todd ranting about some imaginary right-wing propaganda machine, when I hear Elizabeth Warren condemn Fox News as hate speech, I feel I'm watching people who have cut themselves off from communication with half the country and thus driven themselves to the brink of psychopathology.
They remind me of some sick nerd hunched over his computer, listening to his own ideas come back at him until he goes nuts.
Mental Health Misconceptions00:12:51
Now, I also have sacred ideas, ideas that I think are inviable.
They include the idea that God created us in his image and that therefore the love of God is closely connected to our love of our neighbor.
These ideas, along with the command to not judge whether others are living up to them, prevent me from sequestering myself among those who agree with me and are an almost surefire break against radicalism and hatred.
As a nation, we've abandoned those ideas in pursuit of sexual libertinism and radical moral autonomy.
The results, as I say, are disturbing.
This is not a problem that's going to be solved by one side or the other winning.
It's only going to be solved when the rest of us walk away from the radicals and extremists, whether they're in the dark chat rooms where the right-wing radicals live or where the left-wing radicals live on the bright sets of NBC News.
So let me talk for a minute about 23andMe, which is enormous fun.
I used it.
It is incredibly cool to get your genetic information.
With 23andMe's Health and Ancestry Service, you can learn how your genes can affect your health.
It's a lot to take in, but once you know more, you can take action and helps you stay healthy.
There's a whole world of genes just waiting to meet you.
125 plus personalized genetic reports on your health traits and more.
Understand your genetic predisposition to health conditions like type 2 diabetes or inherited high cholesterol, which I have.
And the LDLR gene helps transport bad cholesterol out of your bloodstream.
People can have a version of the gene that can lead to very high cholesterol levels.
23andMe reports do not diagnose disease or describe overall likelihood of developing any disease.
23andMe tests selected genetic variants only.
So visit 23andMe.com slash Clavin for important test information.
Order your health and ancestry kit at 23andMe.com slash Clavin, and you can meet your genes in 125 plus personalized genetic reports.
That's the number two, 3andMe.com slash Clavin.
Get all kinds of information.
Like, how do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
The mailbag is today.
This time they were ready for me.
The mailbag is today.
All your problems will be solved.
So, you know, what do you got?
You got a couple of minutes to wait, and then everything will be tickety-boo.
You know, I talked a while back about Anthony Trollop, one of my favorite writers.
He's kind of the conservative Dickens.
Sometimes they call him the adult Dickens.
He writes very adult novels, not in the pornographic sense, obviously.
He's a Victorian writer, but he writes a lot of political stuff, and he was more conservative than Dickens and had a really, really insightful way of looking at the world and looking at politics.
One of my favorite of his books is called Phineas Finn, which very much deals with politics.
And there's a sequel, Phineas Finn Redux.
And one of the things he talks about is how conservatives get maneuvered and manipulated into doing what now we would call leftist things by a sense that these things are inevitable.
And I think that that is one of the things that the press tries to create.
The press tries to create whenever conservatives are in power or Republicans are in power, the press tries to create a sense of crisis so we're always on edge.
And so Joe Biden can run on the platform of back to normalcy.
Things are pretty normal if you look out there.
It's just us.
It's just the press that's making people crazy all the time.
And the other thing that they try to do is give you the idea that the toothpaste is out of the tube.
There's no going back.
What the left wants is what is going to happen.
That's why it's progressive.
They're progressing into this world.
So one of the things you see now is Trump and the Republicans starting to talk about the kind of gun control legislation that will do absolutely nothing except put the wedge into the door of trying to get rid of the Second Amendment, which has been in the left sights for ages.
They do not like an armed populace because they don't like the populace.
They don't like individuals being free.
That's what they don't like about guns.
That is the thing.
It's not how scary they are.
Maybe for some people it is.
But for the left, it's that they don't like the fact that they can't do anything they want because we have the means to protect ourselves against the government.
That's what guns are for, against the government if it should ever become truly tyrannical.
So now it's the right, it's Republicans who are talking about gun control laws and these red flag laws.
So we thought we would bring in our friend Jenna Ellis Reeves.
She's a constitutional law attorney, Daily Wire contributor, and a Trump 2020 advisory board member.
You frequently see her on Fox News, but who cares?
Because you see her here.
That's the important thing.
And she has a book out, The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution, a guide for Christians to understand America's current constitutional crisis.
I read it.
It's a good book.
I really recommend it.
Jenna, you there?
I am.
Great to see you, Drew.
It's good to see you.
Advertising for Fox News.
They don't have to go to Fox News.
Everyone should tune in here because you have so much more robust commentary.
And you have to give me more than 30 seconds.
And I really appreciate that.
That's it.
And you practically live here, so they can find you anytime.
So let's talk about these red flag laws.
First of all, what are they exactly?
Yeah, so red flag laws are essentially gun violence prevention laws.
And so what this does is trying to attempt to prevent any sort of mass shooting or any sort of gun violence.
And let's all kind of dispense with the threshold sort of extreme propositions because we all know if there was a perfect law out there that would stay within the margins of absolutely restraining everybody who was going to commit a crime, but then allowing everyone else who are law-abiding citizens to do absolutely whatever they want in the confines of liberty, then we would all agree to that, right?
But that's utopia.
That's never going to happen.
And so what the left is now arguing for, and you're right, a lot of Republicans, unfortunately, are also arguing for, are these kind of red flag laws that they say can somehow predict based on theoretical indicators that someone's going to be a mass shooter.
It's just not going to be possible.
There's no possible due process element to this that's going to stay within the constitutional margins.
And now, Drew, the other threshold question is that conservatives approach the Second Amendment as protecting a fundamental pre-political right to self-defense that includes keeping and bearing arms.
The left defines gun ownership as merely a privilege.
So we can talk about what are reasonable restrictions.
Why does anyone want to own a firearm?
We can place all kinds of background checks and boundaries on this because, hey, it's a privilege.
The government can define it.
That is not constitutionally accurate.
So when we're talking about the conversation, understand liberals and progressives and even now Republicans are going to approach this as a privilege that can be curtailed.
And that is really scary because then what else are they going to turn into merely a privilege?
Thought crime, hate speech, all this other stuff.
They're turning into a privilege that the government can restrict at Wimp.
All right, let me question you on this because you're making excellent points, but I have some ideas from the other side and I just want to run them by you and see what you say.
I mean, obviously, it seems to me that if I say to somebody, hey, you know, my kid or my friend is nuts.
The guy is telling me things that are dangerous.
He's threatening the president.
He's telling me, you know, I want to kill, kill, kill.
I have these urges.
And I go to the police, shouldn't there be some due process system where we can say, yeah, let's not have, you know, let's not let this guy get his hands on a firearm?
Well, so in your hypothetical, that's exactly what the left will do is try to say this is based on how I feel.
I feel scared.
I think this guy is nuts, right?
What does that actually mean legally?
Can we have a common definition that accurately predicts and says this person is genuinely nuts, whatever that means, and these other people genuinely aren't.
And so let's remember the Klein case back in Oregon.
That court said, and I'm quoting now, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with their own aesthetic choices, they make no showing that other people will necessarily experience any wedding cake that the clients create predominantly as quote-unquote expression rather than food.
So what is the court doing?
It's basically saying if your message is not perceived correctly by others, then we can punish you for it.
So this is the danger of red flag laws.
And we're seeing this not just in the context of gun control, but every single thing that the left is manipulating.
They're saying if we are offended by you in any way, we can take away your freedom and liberty, whether that's guns, whether that's your artistic design and cake making, whether that's your shop, whether that's your freedom and liberty, whether that's your children.
Where are they going to stop?
Well, there's no question you're right about this.
There's no question you're right about their intentions.
And there's no question you're right about this slippery slope.
But when I look at the streets of Los Angeles, which are now littered with people who in no way should be allowed to take care of themselves because they can't take care of themselves, they're crazy.
Isn't there something we used to be able to put people like that in hospitals?
I think we should be able to put them in hospitals.
They're clearly damaging society and themselves.
So isn't there some due process along the way where we can say to somebody, this guy, I mean, I don't even know if this would have any effect on mass shootings.
I kind of doubt it, though it might have some help people not blow their heads off, which they do a lot more than commit mass shootings.
Isn't there some way we can say, take a guy to court and call him crazy?
Isn't there some, shouldn't there be some way I can say, you know, my relative can't take care of himself.
He's going to live on the street.
I want him medicated.
I want him, I want his care taken out of his own hands.
Well, that's where mental health is a really complex and interesting problem.
And so in that hypothetical that you described, that's saying I'm really concerned that someone is going to harm himself or others.
And you can have some sort of thing like a suicide prevention, a welfare check.
We do that all the time.
And what's also happening as well in the context of mental health is that we as a society are actually de-escalating that and typical behaviors that generally society would not condone.
And we would say, hey, that is maybe a red flag in the very initial inception stages where people can get help before they become a threat to themselves or others.
We're actually not taking that seriously.
And so, if we go back and we say, why are we such a violent society?
Why are we lovers of violence?
Like the video game type of angle that President Trump is looking at, or saying, you know, why are people so, why are these mental health choices like, you know, transgender, sort of the LGBT movement, those kinds of things that used to be saying, you know, if you think that you are a man when you are actually in a female's body or you want to chop off some sort of, you know, biological part of yourself, that used to be a mental health red flag, but we're not taking those things seriously.
So I think that that at the inception is kind of giving rise to these larger problems.
And we have to also understand, Drew, that government is not our savior.
Government is not going to cure all of these problems, including mental health.
We as a society used to have a nuclear family where we all saw each other on a regular basis.
We could help each other.
We had the church that was robust in society.
We had other forms of helping each other out rather than saying, Hey, Lindsey Graham, why don't you solve the gun crisis with the blink of an eye?
That's just not going to happen.
We're expecting too much of our federal government if we think that they can solve the gun crisis through legislation.
Evil is not going to be preventatively restrained through government legislation.
We can see that all throughout world history.
Now, last question of the Supreme Court, as it now stands, is it more pro-Second Amendment than it was, or do you think it's about the same?
That's a really interesting question.
And I think that, you know, if we look at the court's composition, I think that we can count on Justices Gorsuch and Thomas and others to be genuine originalists.
And we have to look at, you know, the Heller case and some of those things and the principles that the court, when they address gun control, it's been a while.
And so we don't really know with the court's newest members exactly where Justice Brett Kavanaugh is going to align.
Has Roberts changed his mind?
We kind of never really know that on any given day.
So I think that in the current context, it's going to be very interesting.
And I hope, I hope that the court will agree with what the Constitution actually provides: that the right to self-defense through the context of keeping and bearing arms is a pre-political, inalienable, fundamental right that the government has to preserve and protect, even though we can all agree we need to do something about mass shootings, but it's not taking away the right to keep and bear arms.
And it's not just these liberal, you know, do something with no substance to it.
Hire Trump Supporters?00:08:50
It's making sure we address the fundamental cultural problem, which is that we don't value human life anymore.
We look at abortion, we look at physician-assisted suicide, end-of-life bills, evolution in society saying, hey, you're nothing more than a conglomeration of cells.
We need to address those problems as a whole society, but the Supreme Court needs to not infringe on our rights while we're trying to take care of this problem.
Jenna, you are one of my favorite conglomerations of cells.
I appreciate your coming on.
That was really good commentary.
I appreciate it.
Jenna Ellis Reeves, Constitutional Law Attorney and member of Trump 2020 Advisory Board.
I'll talk to you soon.
Thanks.
That's good, Cecilia.
All right.
Now, you know, sometimes when you watch the incredible professionalism we have here at the Daily Wire, I know you say to yourself, why don't they use ZipRecruiter and hire people who know what they're doing?
Well, it's too late for us, but it's not too late for you.
ZipRecruiter is a great system.
It sends your job to over 100 of the web's leading job boards, and they don't stop there.
They have powerful matching technology and they use that to scan thousands of resumes to find people with the right experience and then invite them to apply to your job.
So ZipRecruiter actually goes out and finds the people who ought to be working for you.
ZipRecruiter is so effective that four out of five of employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate through the site within the first day.
So you hire fast and you hire well.
Right now, my listeners can try ZipRecruiter for free at this exclusive web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash daily wire.
It's all one word, D-A-I-L-Y, W-I-R-E, ziprecruiter.com slash DailyWire.
It is the smartest way to hire.
Don't let what happens here happen to you.
All right.
So let's take a look at some of this craziness that's going on.
We don't have a lot of time because I kept Jenna longer than I probably should have, but she was being really interesting, so I wanted to keep her on.
You know, Trump, I think, is visiting Dallas or Dayton, or he's planning to.
He is talking in the way you want him to talk.
He's saying, I don't blame the Dayton shooting on Elizabeth Warren, even though the guy was an Elizabeth Warren fan.
I blame the people who do these things.
Meanwhile, the press and the left has gone nuts.
Joaquin Castro, one of the Democrat candidates, he doxed Trump supporters.
And what can that lead to?
What's the point of doing that, except putting a target on their backs?
What is the point of doing that, except having them harassed?
People are outside Mitch McConnell's house screaming incredibly violent, incredibly disgusting things.
And, you know, the way the press is talking, it's irresponsible.
It is irresponsible.
Nicole Wallace, who is on MSNBC, she made this thing where she said she had gotten this conversation.
I want you to listen to this because not only does she say that Trump has called for the extermination of Latinos, this is what she says, the extermination of Latinos.
But then her commentator goes on to basically negate anything Trump says.
This is a strategy they are now using.
Trump comes out and denounces hate, denounces bigotry, denounces racism, as he has done repeatedly throughout his administration.
But no, no, no, they're reporting on what he really feels in his heart.
Listen to this conversation.
It really is awful.
President Obama used the power of the presidency to try to pass comprehensive immigration reform with the Latino community, Latina leaders at the table.
You don't have a president, as you said, talking about exterminating Latinos.
It's not even, to me, it's not even a question of what this president could do.
And it brings me no pleasure saying this.
I just think with this administration, it is too late.
And this goes, to me, it's not even a political question because Obama, George W. Bush, H.W., all of the presidents in modern history have made sincere outreach to Latinos.
Whether or not their views happen to align with mainstream Latinos, they wanted them in their party.
They wanted their support.
This president beats beyond like the slightest minimum modicum of respect.
Really, virtually has no regard for our communities.
And we see the way he's treated some of the most prominent people, some of the Latino achievers in this nation.
So when I watch his speech and I hear these words, they strike me as utterly insincere, completely inauthentic.
If you've paid five minutes worth of attention to Trump over the last few years, that's not who he is.
We're reporting on who he is, not what he says and not what he does and not the effects of his policies, which have been good for everybody.
Nicole Wallace issued a non-apology apology.
He said, I misspoke about Trump calling for an extermination of Latinos.
My mistake was unintentional, and I'm sorry.
Trump's constant assault on people of color and his use of the word invasion to describe the flow of immigrants is intentional and constant.
Scott Adams, you know, the cartoonist, the Dilbert guy, joked that he also was apologizing to anyone he accidentally accused of genocide, which is, you know, that's a very good joke because essentially, you know, how can you apologize?
You know, why would you say that about somebody?
It is a terrible thing to say.
But it's only the beginning.
I got to just play some of this so you see how nutty it is.
So you just see that I'm not just going off on people.
Here is Frank Fidliuszi, who is a former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI.
If you didn't already feel bad about the FBI, here's the security analyst for NBC.
This is a security analyst for NBC.
You know, I don't like to play SNBC because I think it's fair for them to be left-wing, although they do go over the top, like with that Nicole Wallace thing.
But this is the NBC analyst, right?
talking about the fact that Donald Trump is going to put the flag at half mast and raise it on August 8th.
We have to understand the adversary and the threat we're dealing with.
And if we don't understand how they think, we'll never understand how to counter them.
So it's the little things and language and messaging that matters.
The president said that we will fly our flags at half mast until August 8th.
That's 8-8.
Now, I'm not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that's being demonstrated by the White House.
The numbers 8-8 are very significant in neo-Nazi and white supremacy movement.
Why?
Because the letter H is the eighth letter of the alphabet.
And to them, the numbers 8-8 together stand for Heil Hitler.
So we're going to be raising the flag back up at dusk on 8-8.
No one's thinking about this.
No one's giving him the advice or he's rejecting the advice.
I can't imagine why no one's thinking about this.
Frank, back away from the microphone, back slowly away from the microphone.
I got a bunch of these.
I'm running out of time, but let me just play one more because it is hilarious.
I guess let's play the one of NBC.
They're trying to find how Trump is inspiring haters.
They have to go to Germany, first of all, to find enough of these neo-Nazis.
I mean, if you're going to look for neo-Nazis, where do you go?
But they can't find them here.
So they go to Germany, and I love this Nazis' response to their reporting.
Listen to this.
We found the ideology that can inspire some to mass murder is taking inspiration from the president.
We went to a neo-Nazi festival in Germany a few weeks ago.
But what surprised us most is what organizers were handing out at the door.
So they're giving out hats.
M-G-H-A, make Germany hate again.
We found the man who made the hats.
So people are using his hat as an inspiration.
Yes.
Do people here like him?
Do you like him?
I like his style.
So they travel to Germany.
They got to travel to Germany to find the Nazis, right?
That's the first thing.
Then they find a hat based on the MAGA hat, and then they say, well, do you like Trump?
And he says, well, I like his style, you know?
He doesn't like his policies.
He doesn't like what he's actually saying, what he's doing, but he likes the shouting.
You know, I like shouting.
Shouting is good.
I hate people.
I like the shouts.
I like the Tomp that talks loud and it's insulting.
You know, come on.
Come on.
And they said, this is NBC.
Again, this is not MSNBC.
Again, they said, oh, yes, Trump is inspiring the kind of extremism that leads to hatred around the world.
That's what they're saying about the president of the United States on NBC news, right?
And they find this clown, this neo-Nazi clown out in Germany who doesn't even attribute, it's not about the philosophy.
He just likes to style.
I like red.
Red is good.
I like a red hat.
When I put on a hat, a red hat, I feel like a Nazi.
You know, it's like, what kind of naughtiness is that?
I mean, and it is dangerous.
It really is dangerous.
And it's a textbook case of radicalization.
They're sacred ideas.
They're secluding themselves among themselves.
The press needs to be reformed.
Fight for Change00:15:41
It really does need.
It needs to reform itself because the First Amendment protects it from us reforming it, which is a good thing.
But they really, all they have to do is hire people in positions of editorial power who voted for Donald Trump.
Not one of them.
They need to hire 30% at least of their staff, of their editorial staff, should be people who voted for Donald Trump so they can turn to them and say this story where you went to Germany and accused the president of inspiring mass murder because some clown is wearing a red hat.
This is a stupid story.
Do not put it on the air.
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen because the corporations who employ them want it this way.
All right.
Let us talk about Noom.
Noom.
This is a really excellent app.
It is an app.
It's not a diet app.
It is an app that helps you adjust your psychology so that you can diet and get in shape.
It has got specific, you put in specific goals that you want to achieve or have achieved, that you want to achieve, and Noom will tell you how to do it.
It's a habit-changing solution that helps users learn to develop a new relationship with food through personalized courses.
It's Noom, N-O-O-M, as is in N as in Nancy, O-O-M as in Mary.
It's based in psychology.
Noom teaches you why you do the things you do and it arms you with the tools to break the bad habits and replace them with better ones.
It's not a diet.
It's a healthy and easy to stick to way of life.
And it really does work.
I've been trying it.
It really is.
It's very well attuned to the way the psychology works.
You're a human being and you might go off track, but Noom doesn't shame you.
It just gives you tips to help you get back on track tomorrow.
You don't have to change all in one day.
Small steps, make big progress.
Sign up for your trial today at noom, n-o-o-m.com slash clavin.
What do you have to lose?
Visit noom.com slash clavin to start your trial today.
That's noom.com slash clavin.
It's the last weight program you will need.
And I know what you're saying, of course.
How do you spell Clavin?
There are no E's in Clavin.
I just make it look this easy.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
And there is barely any time left to purchase tickets to the backstage show, which is going live on August 21st at the magnificent Terrace Theater in Long Beach, California.
I've never been there, so I don't know if it's magnificent yet, but it will be when we get there, when I get there, and Ben Shapiro, and of course the Daily Wire God King, Jeremy Boring, and that other guy, what's his name? Michael Knowles, will all be there taking our popular backstage show live on the road for a special one-night only event.
There'll be politics and drinks and pop culture and drinks and laughs and drinks, insights, drinks, and we will dazzle you with answers to your burning questions from the audience and then we'll drink.
Tickets are available at dailywire.com slash backstage and there still are a few VIP ticket packages available.
Those include premium seating, photos, meet and greets with each of us and a gift from Shapiro and more.
And you can pay a little more and you don't have to meet Knowles.
They're selling fast.
So head over to dailywire.com slash backstage and purchase yours today.
We got the mailbag coming up.
There it is.
All your problems solved.
Come over to dailywire.com.
Mailbag!
What the hell are you about?
I need you.
You guys fall asleep.
Never mind.
It's too late now.
It's too late.
You ruined it.
All right.
Let me do the mailbag.
First of all, let me say that I got a letter from a lady named Veronica.
I just wanted to let her know.
I got that letter.
Sometimes when I get dead tree mail, I can't always respond to it.
I did send you some signed books, which you sent me, and I really appreciated what you said.
She said she'd been very helped by some of the mailbag questions and was praying for me.
Unlike the left, who's always denigrating thoughts and prayers, if they don't want your thoughts and prayers, I will take them.
So thank you, Veronica.
I appreciated that letter very much.
From Kyle, Ben won't answer my question, so I'm going to ask you.
I am a minor league baseball player and am very pro-life.
With so many random promotional days that happen at these minor league stadiums, one of them in a liberal city is considering having a planned parenthood appreciation night.
And this could run us into a situation where we will be forced to wear something with respect to supporting abortion.
I care heavily about my baseball career, but I do not want to support this kind of evil.
Your thoughts on what I should do?
Thanks.
All right, well, look, you're asking me, so you're asking my opinion, so I'll give you my opinion.
It is not for me to tell you what kind of courage or integrity you have and how you are going to risk your career.
For me, I could not do this.
I could not stand with a pro-Planned Parenthood patch on my uniform, and I would risk a great deal not to do that.
But, but you don't have to.
It doesn't have to be a big fight.
Here's the thing that I would say.
First, make sure this is happening or is likely to happen before you do anything.
If it's not going to happen, you don't have to say anything.
Second, you might want to see, I mean, I'm sure you know some of the other players on the team.
You're probably friendly with them.
You might want to feel out some of them who you think agree with you so that it's not just you going to talk to them.
If this thing really does seem likely, you then go and say, listen, I can't do this.
It's against my religion.
It's against my conscience.
Obviously, I don't want to get in the way of the team, but I don't want to wear this patch.
And if you want to keep me out of the game that day, that's fine.
If you want to, you know, just let me play without a patch, that is also fine.
If you can go with other people, that's a good thing.
I would not be able to do this, and I would risk a lot of my career.
Listen, I have risked a lot of my career.
I've lost a lot of my career saying the things that I believe, but this is one where I think you're in a jam if they go for it.
So wait and make sure it really seems likely to happen before you do anything.
Don't anticipate trouble, right?
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, and then see if you can get some allies to go in and make your case altogether.
From Christopher, Andrew, Fountain of Wisdom, but not hair.
This year I married a lovely woman.
She's everything I dreamed of and more.
We've been having a recurring argument that I would like your insight on.
I'm planning on taking a guy's trip in a couple months, four days of golf, baseball games, and brotherhood.
This has been planned for over a year and was originally intended to be a bachelor party, but it's not.
My wife hates the idea of guys trips and doesn't think married couples should be traveling separately.
My wife says that she's not sure she can be happy in a marriage where her husband does not want me, does not want me, the wife, for several days.
It's putting marriage on hold.
My friends and I are not a wild crowd.
We don't have raucous parties.
There's zero chance of infidelity.
We don't even smoke.
We just golf and have a few drinks with friends.
This might happen once every other year, most once a year.
Every time we argue about this, it brings her to tears.
We never make any progress.
I also know if we don't resolve this, it will remain hanging over us.
Is not allowing me to have guy friendships without her a control issue?
Am I being unreasonable?
Am I abandoning my new bride to go gallivanting across the golf course with my friends?
Is having guy girl trips a detriment to marriage?
No, she's being unreasonable and probably because she's insecure about you being faithful to her.
That's my guess.
She's being so extreme about this that I suspect she thinks you're going to cheat on her.
You can't just keep having the same argument over and over again.
It's not good for you.
It's not good for her.
It's not good for anybody.
You're the head of the household.
It's time for you to, in the gentlest, sweetest, most loving possible way, put an end to this, okay?
You're going.
You're going on your trip.
You say to her, you know, I love you dearly, but this is the way this is going to be.
I'm going to do this maybe once a year.
So once a year, this is going to happen.
I'm never going to cheat on you.
That's never a problem.
If she can't live with that, if she really can't live with that, maybe you got to see somebody.
Maybe you got to go to couples therapy.
There must be a reason she's this insecure.
And it might be worth talking about that.
But don't keep going back to the argument.
At some point, you just have to make the decision and do what you're going to do.
And you have to do that in the gentlest, most loving way possible, but you got to do it.
And she is being unreasonable, but I think she's in pain here somewhere.
And I think maybe it would be helpful if you could find that pain either with a therapist or just talking it out between you.
But don't keep going back to this argument over and over again.
It just makes it worse.
From Patrick, dear Lord Clayton of the A's and not the E's.
George R. R. Martin gave an interesting interview a few years ago where he said most writers are either architects, i.e. writers who plot everything out beforehand, or gardeners, i.e. writers who develop their works as they go along.
Are you a gardener or an architect and why?
That is a good question.
I am, I guess I would be an architect in this case.
I do extensive outlines.
I go back over my outlines.
I do them again and again.
I do it because it allows me to garden where I think it's important, which is in the creation of living moments.
So if I know what's going to happen, I can then put my skill to work making it happen.
So in other words, if I know I'm going to have a scene that is emotional or violent or exciting or whatever, scary, I can then, I don't have to put my thoughts into what's going to happen.
I can just put my thoughts into making it come alive for the reader.
That's why I do it the way I have.
I've tested it over the years.
There are many, many fine writers who do it the other way.
I think Stephen King works without an outline.
Ruth Rendell, one of the great mystery writers, especially as Barbara Vine said, she used to work without an outline.
Both King and Barbara Vine are very, very prolific.
And so maybe that's why.
But the one thing I have noticed about people who write without outlines, they have about five different books that they write, but then they write them over and over again, where I feel having an outline allows me to do original things and look at things before I start and think, you know, I've done that before.
This is too much like what I've done before.
But then I put a very high premium on originality and not a lot of writers do.
I do a lot of different things.
Instead of writing a series, I do different stories.
I've written trilogies, obviously, like Another Kingdom.
But I like to do different things and experiment and all that.
And outlining things beforehand helps me out, helps me do that.
From Nicholas, oh supreme lord of the dark psychic force, my question is about forgiveness.
I'm in my mid-20s.
I've never quite forgiven my mother.
She had an affair with my coach in high school, and our family soon disintegrated.
I moved many states away for college and haven't spoken to mom in years.
Within the last few years, her mother died, and we started to talk again, but I still haven't forgiven her.
She and her whole family continue to badmouth my dad, and it seems like a massive fight could break out every time we're together.
She seems to never want to admit any fault in the family falling apart.
Any advice on how to forgive people would be appreciated.
Many thanks, and may the dark psychic force be with you.
Yeah, this is a very important thing, and what you've got to do first is you've got to separate the spiritual act of forgiveness, something that goes on within you, from how your mother behaves and what your relationship with your mother is going to be.
Your mother sounds like kind of a toxic person, to be perfectly honest with you.
The fact that she has had an affair that destroyed your family and she's never taken responsibility for that and is always bad-mouthing your father, which is not a good thing to do in any case, those all speak to me of somebody who's really got problems.
That's not going to change.
Nothing you do is going to change that.
No fight you get into is suddenly going to wake her up to what's going on.
So either stay away from her, keep your distance, or understand that when you go and see her, you're going to see a toxic person and you can only react in a certain number of ways.
You know, you don't want to be constantly screaming at her.
You can tell her if you don't want to listen to her badmouth your father, you can say, if you do that, I'm not going to see you anymore.
But then you have to carry out that threat and not see her anymore.
The forgiveness part happens within you.
It is letting go of the pain, letting go of the anger.
Sometimes that takes actual praxis, by which I mean the anger will come up and you've got to stop it.
You've got to stop the conversation in your head.
That's something that sometimes you need a therapist for, but sometimes you can do it yourself simply by training.
Stop the anger in your head.
Remind yourself, if you believe in God, go before God and forgive her openly before God.
Say, I have forgiven her.
I'm letting this go.
I will this to be, I will this forgiveness to happen.
Because in other words, it's not about your emotions.
Your emotions will sometimes get out of control, but you can stop that by forcing your mind not to go there, not indulging in the conversation, the imaginary argument with your mother, not indulging yourself.
going off on how wrong your mother is.
Leave it go.
Change the subject in your own mind and let go of it.
Will yourself to forgive.
But then, again, you have to deal separately with how you're going to behave because she's not going to stop being who she is.
Going over there and getting in fights with her is not going to change a damn thing.
It's not going to make you feel better.
It's not going to change her behavior.
She's on this little train track.
She's going to go around that track again and again forever.
So get used to that and decide what role you want her to have in your life.
If you wanted to cut her out of your life, you can do that and still forgive her.
If you want her a little bit in your life, you can do that and forgive her.
But what you can't do is get into her toxic world and let it poison your world.
From Devon, I absolutely love the Daily Wire and all of the hosts, but I do have a concern that should really appeal to all conservatives or people who are not left-wing nuts.
Given the bias of most major news media outlets and the corporations that want big government and control over the people, how in the world will the Republicans have a chance in 2020?
Well, it is something, you know, it is a force.
It's a genuine force.
That's why we're here.
That's why the Daily Wire exists.
It's a genuine force that we have to fight against in terms of speaking up, in terms of not being afraid, in terms of not allowing them to deplatform us, even in taking legal action against them when we have to, when we can.
This is what we're doing.
This is the fight.
This is the fight.
The fight, see, this is the thing.
On policy, on policy, there are always places where you can compromise.
There are ways you can go a third way and say, well, your way doesn't work and my way doesn't work.
Let's go a third way and find another answer.
On actual policy about to get the results you want, two people who disagree can find compromise and find discussions.
What we can't compromise on is our right to put forward our ideas in the academy, in the news, and in the entertainment media.
That is how we have been excluded.
That's how we've been silenced.
That's the fight we're in.
Okay, so you're absolutely right to worry about it, but it requires all of us to speak up.
I think it's best to speak up politely.
I understand why Trump does what he does, but I think you can be very, very definitive and not be crazed and insulting.
Like these last few days after these shootings, I've found Twitter just a horrible, horrible place to be.
The things people say to one another as if they're not speaking to another human being, I find absolutely disheartening.
You know, you can absolutely disagree with people extensively without being unkind, but you have to do it courageously.
That is the thing.
You shouldn't confuse belligerence with courage.
Courage is speaking your mind.
Belligerence is just being a loudmouth and being unkind to people.
Those things you should separate.
So you're right.
You're right to worry about it, but the truth has a voice too.
We're here.
There's a lot of media, a lot of right-wing media, you know, staging a revolution out there.
We are, I compare us to the original Minutemen.
You know, they have the empire and they come after us in these huge hordes, NBC and ABC and the New York Times.
But we have our little places where we pop up from behind the rocks and shoot little pellets of truth at them.
And who knows?
Who knows what will happen?
And we will see.
From John, hello, Mr. Clavin.
Conserving Conservative Ideals00:03:42
Everyone always compares Nazis and the KKK to the right-wing Conservative Party.
However, the ideology of both line up more with the Democratic Party.
Why do you and others continue to push this false narrative?
It would seem more beneficial to conservatives to call out this lie and speak the truth.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.
Thank you.
Okay.
Well, first of all, you're asking somebody who knows a lot about Adolf Hitler.
I don't like to talk about him much because I feel the guy has been overused as a straw man to attack enemies.
What you're saying is not quite true, okay?
The KKK was a Democrat operation.
There's no question about that.
It was a Democrat operation.
I do not believe the KKK is really related to Democrats today.
I believe their woke philosophy is racist, but it's obviously not racist in the same hateful way as the KKK.
So I'm not really willing to say, I do tease them about it, and I like to nickel them about it because it's history.
But the KKK is in some sense a conservative group in the sense that they were trying to conserve the slavery and the racism that they had lost in the Civil War.
So they're conservative in that way.
I am not that kind of conservative.
What I am trying, I am an American conservative.
I'm trying to conserve the ideals in our founding.
That is where I'm at.
I'm trying to conserve the ideas in our founding.
So it's not really, it is fair to point out that the KKK was a Democrat organization, and it's fair to say that the Republicans have been forever against racism because all that is true, but it's not really fair to associate them with the Democrats today, and it's certainly not fair to associate them with the Republicans today.
The Nazis are different, okay?
Adolf Hitler was a psychopath, and he turned his country into a psychopath, into one gigantic psychopath.
He started out with some sense of being a man on the left.
Obviously, right-wingers love to point out that it was called National Socialism.
But the fact is, the socialists were purged from the Nazi Party during Hitler's seizure of power.
He was always a fascist.
He was always into blood and soil and race.
And those are things associated with European conservatism.
Not necessarily with American conservatism, but with European conservatism.
The idea that we need to preserve this make-believe, pure race that we have.
Certainly, the hatred of Jews was a facet of European conservatism.
And certainly the idea that they wanted, they were medieval.
I mean, they wanted to go back to the Middle Ages when they thought they had this mythology that Germany was powerful in the Middle Ages.
And the reason they had that mythology was before that, Germany was just a disparate series of princedoms, and it never really had the kind of unity that it had except under the Holy Roman Empire.
And so that was, it was a large mythology.
So Hitler really was, I have to say, he was such a psychopath that there are things that he said that were both left-wing and right-wing, but he was a fascist.
He said he believed in being a fascist dictator.
And so that is normally thought of as European right-wing.
Again, not American right-wing.
And this is one of the reasons we shouldn't allow people to use words like conservative about Islamists, for instance.
They are conservative in an Islamic way, but they are not conservative in an American way.
Blood and soil conservatives of Europe are conservative in a European way, but not in an American way.
And so those are the things I agree with you that we have to correct all the time.
But, you know, I would say that Hitler, if I had to put him somewhere on the scale, I would put him on the right of Europe.
The idea that he started out as a man of the left is true, but the socialists were purged.
He was a fascist.
Fascism is normally conceived of as a European right-wing movement.
So that's my response.
And I'm out of time.
I hope I've solved some problems.
Get back to me next week.
Fascism Reconsidered00:01:13
We will have another mailbag.
Get back tomorrow.
And we will have our last show before the terrible, terrible tragedy of the Clavenless Weekend, which is upcoming too fast.
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.
In the wake of two mass shootings that would not have been prevented by any of the gun control laws proposed in recent years, Republicans and Democrats are coming together to endorse more gun control laws that will not stop any future shootings.
But hey, at least the laws will infringe on our constitutional rights.
We will analyze the many red flags in red flag laws.