Andrew Clavin’s Oh Baloney! skewers Democrats’ "impeachment kabuki," mocking Schiff’s Ukraine transcript theatrics and Pelosi’s performative inquiry while contrasting Trump’s UN nationalism with her legislative failures. He dissects media bias—Comcast’s echo chamber, CNN’s "impeachment incantations"—and exposes double standards: Hunter Biden’s corruption ignored vs. Trump’s scrutiny. Mailbag segments pivot to raw advice: cutting toxic exes, navigating faith vs. LGBTQ+ weddings, and mental health in creative work, all framed through Clavin’s combative defense of "constitutional principles" against what he calls leftist overreach. The episode blends political rage with personal chaos, ending with book plugs and a swipe at Catholic marital advice. [Automatically generated summary]
Democrats are moving to impeach President Donald Trump over some damn thing or other.
This replaces the previous move to impeach him over, like, whatever, which replaced the move to impeach him over random stuff, which in turn replaced the original move to impeach him over complete nonsense and lies.
Democrat Senator Mindless Spender told a room full of cardboard cutouts of journalists that the latest move toward impeachment was necessary in order to set an example for the American public.
Spender said, quote, We've got to put an end to the pernicious idea that the American people can just elect anyone they want as president.
Years of talking about government by the people has given them the wrong idea that this is supposed to be a government by the people.
They have to learn that when they make the wrong choice, there's a consequence, or else they'll just go out and make the same mistake again electing whomever they want, unquote.
At the New York Times, a former newspaper, editor-in-chief Blithering Prevarication III gave an interview to his full-length mirror, saying, quote, the New York Times gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning the last election, and yet voters felt they could just go ahead and send Donald Trump to the White House as if we'd never said a word.
Journalists are the guardians of democracy, and we can't have democracy if people don't vote the way journalists tell them to vote, unquote.
Mr. Third added that Trump had clearly committed an impeachable offense by turning all his op-ed writers into hysterical little girls.
At CNN, anchorwoman Shapely Nudnick also joined the call for impeachment, saying, quote, people on CNN have used the word impeachment 256 times in the last hour and a half alone.
And I definitely think if we can say impeachment only 10 or 15 more times, Donald Trump will magically disappear, unquote.
Ironically, Ms. Nudnick then herself disappeared, although it's possible she was still there and there was simply no one to see her.
Trigger walking, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dicky.
Ship-shaped dipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
Earlier this week, I spoke about how large corporations create a biased and dishonest pro-big government, pro-Democrat news media without requiring anyone within the system to be himself corrupt.
I call this a conspiracy of interest because it doesn't require collusion or plotting.
It simply occurs when people follow their own interests and hire only people who agree with them.
By simply not hiring Trump supporters in positions of editorial power, a corporation like Comcast or the New York Times creates a newsroom environment where journalists come to mistake their passionately held political opinions as simple moral reality.
And therefore, they put their own opinions above the performance of their duties.
Even the corporation doesn't have to be corrupt.
It simply has to serve its interest, which is a big government that will suppress small business competition and allow for political influence to trump job performance.
The more socialism, the more cronyism, which helps the rich and powerful keep their wealth and power.
Let me take this one step further.
Television, an information delivery system that centers on video and audio, contains its own structural problems which exacerbate this kind of corruption.
Visual and audio information delivery as opposed to print inherently privileges drama over facts.
Drama, visual drama, captures the attention so that people come to believe that drama, big events and big gestures, screaming or moving your hands or appearing passionate, is more important than actual facts and is a good in and of itself.
That's why you get these college-age people, especially it seems to me, college-age women, emoting on camera without any display of reasoned thought, and they mistake that for a form of political expression because they grew up watching TV.
That's why our politicians have deemed it unnecessary to actually do anything.
They do absolutely nothing except create dramatic TV scenes and work out funding so they can get paid while creating more dramatic TV scenes.
I've long said that a culture based on pictures will ultimately become a stupid culture, whereas a culture based on words and reading has a chance at being a more intelligent culture.
Box of Awesome00:02:01
As we watch the thoroughly absurd and disgraceful display the Democrats are putting on in Congress while doing absolutely nothing for we the people, and as we watch them cheered on by the corporate Democrat press, we the people ought to be thinking about the ways we get information and how we can force our information gatherers to reform themselves and through that reform the government on which they report.
We're going to be talking about the transcript of Donald Trump, this ridiculous fake impeachment thing going on in the House.
First, let us talk about a new sponsor, Bespoke Post and their box of awesome.
I myself have received a box of awesome, namely a dop kit, which I was in desperate need of.
And it is a really, really, you know what a dop kit is.
That's where you keep your toiletries.
Some people call it a toiletry kit.
And they just sent me such a beautiful dop kit, which I really did need.
And you too can get a box of awesome from boxofawesome.com.
To get started, what you do is you visit boxofawesome.com and answer a few short questions so that they know what fits your style.
And they will send you a box with quality and unique products every month.
Whether you're in search of a perfect drink, a well-kept pad, or jet setting in style, Bespoke Post improves your life one box at a time.
Each box goes for under 50 bucks, but has more than $70 worth of unique gear waiting inside for you.
On the first of each month, you'll receive an email with your box details.
You'll have five days.
You can change the colors or sizes or add extra goods to your box.
And if you don't like it, simply skip it.
You get barrel aging kits, limited edition cigars, weekend bags, and a classy DopKit, which is what I got.
To receive 20% off your first subscription box, go to boxofawesome.com and enter code Clavin at checkout.
That's boxofawesome.com.
Code Clavin for 20% off your first box.
Bespoke Post-themed boxes for guys that give a damn.
And if you'd really give a damn, you have to know how to spell Clavin, which is K-L-A-V-A-N.
We've got the mailbag coming up.
Different Stories About Ukraine00:15:26
Yes, there it is.
I knew they were going to, somehow I guessed that they were going to do that.
So all your problems will be solved by the end of the show.
Kiss your problems.
Cuddle with your problems.
Treat them nicely because they're going to be gone by the end of this show.
So as Trump promised, he released an unredacted version of this phone call with the Ukrainian president.
So here is the way this shook out.
Trump said, I am going to release this tomorrow, an unredacted phone call, a transcript of my phone call with the Ukrainian president.
Then Nancy Pelosi went before Congress and did this thing about impeachment that had no meaning whatsoever.
But we'll get back to it.
It made big news.
It was very dramatic.
The news, the television news loved it, and they covered it as if it were an event.
It was not an event, but we'll talk about that too.
So that first, Trump promised he'd do it.
Then they made this impeachment show.
And then today they released this.
Now, I have to say, if you listen to what he says in this, I know that the Democrats, Adam Schiff, is saying, oh, my, it's evil.
Oh, my, look at the evil.
I read this transcript this morning, right?
Here's what he says to the Ukrainian president.
I would like you to do us a favor, though, because he's congratulating the president on his election, and they're having a very pleasant, friendly chat.
It's two guys, two politician guys talking, right?
He says, I would like you to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.
Remember, Ukraine is part of the reason, part of the Russian meddling with our elections.
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine.
They say crowd strike.
I guess you have one of your wealthy people.
The server, they say Ukraine has it.
There are a lot of things that went on.
whole situation.
I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people, and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a name, a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.
Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
So in other words, this crowd strike was the organization.
Remember, the Democrats never turned their servers over to Congress.
They never turned them over to any law enforcement agency.
They gave it to this agency, CrowdStrike, which has a Ukraine component, and they said, oh, yeah, the Russians hacked the DNC emails.
That's all we know.
We've never, no one in power has ever seen this, only this crowd strike organization.
So he's asking them to do this.
He's actually asking them to look at what happened in the 2016 election, which is what the Democrats have been calling about all this time, right?
And so then the president, Zelensky, brings up Rudy Giuliani and says they can't wait to meet him.
And Trump says what a great guy he is.
And Trump also says that he brings up Biden's son.
He says that Zelensky says the investigations will be done openly and candidly.
And then Trump says good.
And he says the prosecutor was shut down before he could look into corruption.
And that's when he talks about Biden's son, Hunter, and Joe Biden, who obviously got this prosecutor replaced.
And so there's still an open question whether the prosecutor he got replaced was looking into corruption or was not looking into corruption.
Biden says he wasn't, and that's why he used leverage to get him replaced.
And the Republicans are saying, no, he was investigating Hunter Biden, among other things, the gas company that Hunter Biden was working for at $50,000 a month with no expertise in energy matters whatsoever.
And it seems pretty clear, you know, he was doing that.
You know, he got this job because his father was vice president of the United States.
And it does look bad, but I'm not yet ready to say that Biden was committing an act of corruption by getting this prosecutor thrown over.
I can't really tell.
It's very hard because both sides are saying different things about it.
But one thing is clear.
It hasn't been fully investigated.
So Trump is saying this whole thing.
And now, you know, McCarthyite, Adam Schiff is saying, oh, yes, this confirms our impeachment call.
As far as I'm concerned, when I said they should have listened to me, when I told them that they were acting like Wally Coyote and this was going to blow up in their face, I think that was Monday I did that opening routine.
To me, when people of fair-minded people, because those are the people who matter, right?
The people who love Trump are going to love Trump.
The people who hate Trump are going to see it's evil and all this stuff.
We understand that.
But it's the people who matter, the people who are fair-minded and are looking at this and saying, you know, he's not offering them anything.
He's not, you know, offering a quid pro quo.
He's not, it's a very, very friendly conversation.
There's absolutely no, you know, and do us a favor or else.
It's really, it really is two people getting along and saying and say, you know, that's what it reads like to me.
Obviously, as I said yesterday, I'm not a fair-minded observer.
The Democrats seem to me to pose an actual threat to our freedom, to our founding values.
They actually are open socialists, which I think is against our founding values.
They don't like the First Amendment.
They don't like the Second Amendment.
They don't like the Constitution.
They don't like the Electoral College.
They think the Supreme Court should be stacked.
To me, those are enemies of our founding principles, enemies of the way this country has worked and the way it has remained free.
They say openly they don't think this country was ever great.
They all say that as well.
I am not in favor of the Democrats, right?
And I am prone to say Trump is a guy.
I've said this a million times.
He's a big, big American character with big, big flaws.
And I am willing to overlook those flaws if they are not threatening my freedom and the Constitution because the Democrats are a threat to that Constitution.
If that sounds unfair, if that sounds like I'm not calling balls and strikes, I'm not.
I'm trying to defend my freedom.
Trump means nothing to me.
He means nothing to me.
He'll be gone.
He will die as all men die.
But I do not want this country to die because I have children and a grandchild, and I want them to live free in this country.
That's my interest.
I'm laying it out there.
You know what my bias is.
So if I hear Donald Trump saying, you know, guess what, you know, listen, don't worry, Ukrainian president.
After my next election, I'll be able to get rid of all our missile defenses, like Obama said.
Then I'll start to worry.
Then I'll start to say, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
But as far as I'm concerned, Trump is defending the things that matter to me.
So now, right, Pelosi gets up and she makes this speech before this thing is released.
So they haven't seen it.
And by the way, we should point out that the DOJ got a referral on this matter, and they said, we're not going to, there's no basis for a criminal investigation here.
That's what the DOJ said.
And obviously it's Trump's DOJ.
But there's also the fact that the whistleblower who wasn't on the call, who didn't hear the call, was said to have a political bias in favor of a rival candidate of the president, according to Fox News.
We don't know who the rival candidate was.
I'm assuming it was Hillary, but maybe not.
Or maybe it was, I'm sorry, since it happened, it happened while Trump was president.
Maybe it was one of the guys running now.
We just don't know.
But obviously the whistleblower, it didn't mean that what he was doing was wrong.
It meant that he had an interest, right?
Because he's reporting on something that should be kept quiet.
When presidents talk, we don't really need to know about that.
And the Constitution, remember, gives the president almost complete control of foreign affairs.
Things go badly.
Things go badly when the Congress handles foreign affairs.
That's how we lost the war in Vietnam.
That's how we got the War of 1812.
I mean, it is the president who should handle war and foreign affairs.
So Pelosi gets up and she gives this speech, announcing that now all she's announcing is that now the things that the Democrats are doing constitute a formal impeachment inquiry.
To be clear, there was no vote in the House of Representatives.
They don't have the votes to do this yet, as far as I can tell.
There was no vote in the House of Representatives to open an impeachment inquiry.
This is the same thing that's happening before, only now they're calling it a formal impeachment inquiry.
What makes it formal?
Maybe she's wearing a gown.
Maybe they're going to show up with an orchid or something or wear a tuxedo.
I don't know.
But this is what Pelosi said.
The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the president says, Article 2 says I can do whatever I want.
For the past several months, we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the courts so the House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeachment.
And this week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically.
The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.
This is before she saw the transcript.
What is she even saying?
And you tell me, I mean, you know, I'm willing to be corrected.
You tell me what's the difference between the endless, endless investigation that Jerry Nadler has been running, the endless McCarthyite accusations that Adam Schiff has been churning out, and this.
What's the difference?
What changed?
absolutely nothing except it gave the press a chance to stop the presses and stand in front of the camera with their microphones looking dramatic and using the word impeachment.
That's the only difference.
There's absolutely no other difference.
And some people are saying this is a cynical move on Pelosi's part to serve her left-wing base, which is clamoring for impeachment while not actually doing anything because she thinks impeachment is a loser.
She thinks it's a loser, as she has said, because it's not going to convince anybody if it's just the Democrats.
They don't have the numbers, obviously, in the Senate to convict on impeachment.
They might have the numbers to produce a bill of impeachment, but they don't have the numbers to pull it off.
And it's bad for the country.
You know, the guy was elected according to the Constitution.
It is bad for the country for a group of partisan people to overturn that election.
It's bad for them to interfere in his powers to implement foreign policy.
I lived, as I said before, I've lived through Richard Nixon.
The only time I ever thought a president maybe should have been impeached was when Barack Obama used the IRS to silence his political opponents during his re-election campaign.
That's the only time I thought, well, that's an impeachable offense because that actually threatens the mechanics of government.
The mechanics of our freedom are actually threatened when you use the IRS, this incredibly powerful organization, to shut down free speech.
I thought that should have been investigated.
I thought it should have been endlessly covered by the press.
But of course, Barack Obama had the right color skin and the right politics for them to cover it up, and they did.
And so that's the only time.
I don't think impeachment is a good thing.
I think it is a bad thing.
I think it's a bad thing to constantly be talking about it.
And at this point, they've been talking about it for three years.
So here's Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Leader, coming out after Pelosi said this and basically saying something that I completely agree with.
Speaker Pelosi happens to be the Speaker of this House, but she does not speak for America when it comes to this issue.
She cannot decide unilaterally what happens here.
They have been investigating this president before he even got elected.
They have voted three times on impeachment on this floor.
Twice they voted before one word of the Moeller report came back.
Our job here is a serious job.
Our job is to focus on the American public.
Our job is to make tomorrow better than today.
Our job is to legislate, not to continue to investigate something in the back when you cannot find any reason to impeach this president.
This election is over.
I realize 2016 did not turn out the way Speaker Pelosi wanted it to happen.
But she cannot change the laws of this Congress.
She cannot unilaterally decide we're in an impeachment inquiry.
What she said today made no difference of what's been going on.
That's exactly it.
That's exactly it.
It made no difference.
They've been doing this since he got elected.
They have not accepted the people's decision.
They have not accepted government by the people.
They have decided that government should be by their base.
Government should be their resistance, their kabuki show in front of the TV.
And of course, of course, as always, because of this corrupt system, because the corporations have corrupted our media by hiring only people who think one thing, the press is there to cover for them.
And this is the important thing.
The New York Times, I mean, the New York Times ran a headline.
It was an editorial, to be fair, but it said, Congress steps up while Trump blinks.
In other words, they were trying to make it sound like the threat of making this a formal impeachment inquiry, which is no threat at all.
Trump is just sitting there rubbing his hands waiting for this.
But the threat of doing that made Trump release this transcript.
That's not true.
He was trying to put this to rest before it turned into another two-year Russian collusion hoax.
That's what he was trying to do.
It had nothing to do with defending.
It had to do with defending himself, by showing the truth, but by not letting the press run away with this.
You know, Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, the guy I sometimes refer to as Blithering Prevarication III, he made a speech at Brown University that was then published.
And I get this off the wonderful MRC Newsbuster site.
He says, he said, we cannot allow ourselves to be baited or applauded into becoming anyone's opposition or cheerleader.
Our loyalty must be to facts, not to any party or any leader, and we must continue to follow the truth wherever it leads without fear or favor.
Now, I just have to assume that he has never read the New York Times, that he has never looked at this paper.
That paper is hate speech at this point.
They just, he said this after, after they did this Justice Kavanaugh thing, where they quoted two anonymous sources saying that a guy who wouldn't talk to them said a girl who didn't remember had been molested by Justice Kavanaugh.
I mean, that was the story they ran.
But no, no, no, we just go with the facts.
Never mind, never you mind.
And have you noticed how the calls to impeach Justice Kavanaugh vanished, disappeared?
They're just gone.
It is all TV.
It's all 100% trying to control the news cycle when they have a willing press who wants to do this.
You want to see a willing press?
Here is Chuck Todd as Richard Nixon, disguised as Richard Nixon.
Remember, they accused Richard Nixon of cover-up.
The cover-up is worse than the crime.
The cover-up is what here is Chuck Todd covering for Joe Biden as Senator Joe Kennedy says, wait a minute, you know, Hunter Biden should be investigated.
This thing should be investigated.
Chuck Todd covers up.
This happened on CNN too.
Aaron Burnett did it too.
I'm not going to play both of them, but Chuck Todd shutting this down.
It's hard to believe the concern about Hunter Biden by some of these folks that are making this case.
If they were so serious about this, I'm trying to figure out why nobody from the FBI has been contacted.
Not a single person.
I don't understand why Rudy Giuliani thinks it's better to investigate an American via an outsource it to a country that apparently they also didn't trust.
The Peace of Westphalia00:08:23
I mean, do you see why I'm skeptical that the Hunter Biden stuff is really that serious?
If they were serious about it, you go to the FBI.
You don't go to an oligarch in Ukraine.
You don't know whether the FBI's been contacted or not.
And if the FBI follows protocol, it wouldn't tell us.
What we do know is this.
A Russian oligarch hired Hunter Biden, paid him $50,000 a month, gave a bucketload of money to his law firm.
It may turn out that the, I said Russian, I meant Ukrainian oligarch.
It may turn out that the Ukrainian oligarch got Mr. Biden's name off of ZipRecruiter, but I doubt it.
ZipRecruiter, what a plug for ZipRecruiter there.
No, of course, if they'd gotten the guy off ZipRecruiter, it wouldn't have been Hunter Biden.
It would have been somebody who knew what he was doing.
So there's Chuck Todd as Richard Nixon doing the cover-up on the air.
You know, they talk about saying the quiet thing out loud.
They're doing the cover-up on the air because, and so when Biden is asked about this, this is cut number seven.
I want to play this in just a second.
But when Biden is asked about this, he just walks away.
How does a presidential candidate walk away from these questions?
Why?
Because he knows the press will cover the story up.
Just watch.
We know who Donald Trump is.
It's time to let the world know who we are.
Thank you very much.
Have you told voters enough?
I just walked away because he can, because he can, because Chuck Todd is part of a corrupt system, because Erin Burnett is part of a corrupt system, because the press is now a corrupt system built to defend Joe Biden and attack Donald Trump and encourage Nancy Pelosi to put on her formal gown and say this is now a formal investigation when it's not.
when it's all kabuki.
It's just utter, utter baloney.
Some people who are doing a little bit of news gathering, I have to give credit to the Grabian people, that Grabian website, which has a video website that I check all the time.
They put out another Joe Biden, a different Joe Biden, who had different interests, right?
He was following different interests back in 1998 during Clinton's impeachment.
Here's what he said about impeachment for political purposes as opposed for legal purposes.
This is their president we are talking about.
The president of the United States does not serve at the pleasure of the legislature, does not serve at the pleasure of Joe Biden, does not serve at the pleasure of Henry Hyde, does not serve at the pleasure of the Congress as a prime minister does in a parliamentary system.
He is elected directly by the people of the United States of America.
And the election of a president is the only nationwide vote the American people will ever cast.
And that's a big deal.
The American people don't think that they have made a mistake by electing Bill Clinton.
And we in Congress had better be very careful before we upset their decision and make darn sure that we are able to convince them if we decide to upset their decision that our decision to impeach him was based upon principle and not politics.
Wow, wow.
And by the way, they put out Grabian put out one of Pelosi saying the same thing.
I won't play it now because it's repetitive, but basically saying this is a partisan political move and it's bad for the country.
Impeachment is bad for the country when it's only partisan politics.
There is simply no way you can argue that this is not partisan politics.
You can't even argue that it's impeachment.
It's just a show encouraged by the media because that's what the media does.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump sent out a tweet, and you know, I have mixed feelings about Trump's tweets, but he said it was an important day of the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news witch hunt garbage.
So bad for our country.
And you can tell Trump is really ticked off about this.
And the fact is, while the Democrats were abusing children like that poor Greta Thunberg, and I just really, I really hate what they've done to that child.
It really is wrong.
With this climate nonsense, this climate charade that they are putting on all over the place, Donald Trump actually did some excellent stuff at the United Nations.
He went and talked about religious freedom.
This is opposed to Barack Obama, who announced that the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
He called on the Islamics, Islamist nations, to give religious freedom to Christians and others.
And he talked about all the countries in which religious people are oppressed.
And Christians are the most oppressed religious people on earth.
So he was talking up for Christians, but he's also talking up for all religious people.
I don't want any religious people oppressed.
And then he gave us a wonderful, wonderful speech about nationalism.
Let's just listen to just a little bit of that.
If you want freedom, take pride in your country.
If you want democracy, hold on to your sovereignty.
And if you want peace, love your nation.
Wise leaders always put the good of their own people and their own country first.
The future does not belong to globalists.
The future belongs to patriots.
The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.
It is why we in the United States have embarked on an exciting program of national renewal.
In everything we do, we are focused on empowering the dreams and aspirations of our citizens.
I got to tell you a funny story.
Last week at this roast of Ben Shapiro for commentary, you know, we all got up and we were all kind of teasing each other.
And Jonah Goldberg, you know, made a joke about me kind of covering for Trump and kind of making excuses for Trump.
And I was sitting next to the great Peggy Noonan, the wonderful Peggy Noonan, and she leaned over and she said, do you do that?
And I said, no, I actually don't.
I mean, when I give Trump a pass on something I disapprove of, I tell you, I tell you, I disapprove of it, but I'm giving him a pass because I'm more worried about the lefts.
But I do not make excuses for Donald Trump.
And then Shapiro got up and he made this joke about how I swathe Trump in intellectual context and talk about the peace of Westphalia, which Donald Trump has never heard of.
And I leaned over to Peggy and I said, I do do that.
That is something I do.
And as I was listening to this, I was thinking, this is about the peace of Westphalia.
The peace of Westphalia is the end of the 30 years war, which engulfed Europe, destroyed the lands that would later become Germany.
And at the end of it, one historian said that focus or the passions of the people had shifted from the cross to the flag.
In other words, it started as a religious war, the 30 years' war.
It ended as a war of nationalism with people crossing religious lines.
And in the wake of the peace of Westphalia, it's normally thought that was kind of the end of Christendom and the beginning of the nation states of Europe and the beginning of nationalism.
And the question now is whether we are moving from that nation-state system into a global system and what that looks like.
And Donald Trump says, no, we may be becoming a global world, but we're still, but nationalism is still the best way to protect freedoms.
That's the argument we're having, even if Donald Trump has never heard of the peace of Westphalia.
However, I just want to say that Trump was doing real work.
He was doing real stuff.
Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, what has she done?
You tell me, what has she done?
What law has she passed?
What has she done that has helped this country, that has helped defend our borders, that has fixed the loopholes that are drawing people to use children to cross our borders?
What has she done to improve your life besides deal with AOC and the squad by putting out this false impeachment kabuki to keep them quiet?
What has anybody, what has any of the Democrats and their resistance accomplished for this country?
Marriage Problems and Counseling00:15:35
You tell me.
Mailbag, coming up, Homon.
Come on over.
Just do that.
Make that noise.
And then come on over to dailywire.com.
Subscribe so you can be in the mailbag next week and all your problems can be solved.
Mailbag!
Where the hell is she?
Where is she?
When I need her, when it's real.
Oh, you know, this is why we have a ZipRecruiter.
Otherwise, you won't die.
But you know who's doing this?
We hired Hunter Biden.
You know, Joe called us.
He said, you need an engineer?
Hunter Biden.
He's the guy who knows.
Guy needed a job.
We gave him a job.
And now he's pressing the screen at the wrong moment.
All right.
First letter from Derek.
Dear Drew, the man of no hair but infinite thought, if you recall, I posed a question to you a few months back regarding my lack of feelings towards a girl I ended up getting pregnant.
And I suggested that he either marry the girl, give the baby up for adoption, or raise the child together with and put attention and his presence into the raising of this child.
He now tells me, he says, that he didn't get married, but he wanted to be there for her and the baby.
But two weeks ago, I found out she was faking the pregnancy.
She says she has a miscarriage, but the evidence suggests that didn't happen.
She even went so far as to have her sister fake a voicemail from an OBGYN, canceling an ultrasound appointment.
And even if the miscarriage part is true, she still lied for nearly two months about being pregnant.
We've had very limited contact since the truth came out, but she wants to meet with me to explain her side of it.
Should I give her a chance to redeem herself or just move on?
All right, here's what you should do.
There's three.
A, you should be very kind to this lady.
She has a serious problem.
She has serious, you really have to be a troubled person to do what she did, okay?
So you should not be unkind to her.
You should not insult her, but you should get as far away from her as possible.
You do not want her in your life.
You do not want to give her a chance to explain herself.
You just want to very politely say, hey, you know, thank you.
I get it.
I forgive you.
It's over.
And I'm out of here.
That's the first thing you should do.
The second thing you should do is take a look at yourself.
Take a look in the mirror at what happened here.
You got a girl pregnant who you didn't like and you didn't want to spend your life with, so that you really were giving this make-believe baby a really bad shot at life.
And you were going out with a girl and sleeping with a girl who had serious mental problems.
Now I have a saying that people get the spouse they deserve.
Now that saying is self-serving because I happen to be married to the nicest woman on earth, which makes me the best person on earth, best man on earth.
So that is a self-serving saying, but it is true.
Whenever I hear people say, oh, I got a divorce because my first wife was a lunatic.
Oh, she was a psychopath.
Every divorced person says this.
Men and women both.
Oh, my ex, a psychopath, a psychopath.
If your ex was a psychopath, there is a good chance you are a psychopath too.
And then the second time you get married, you're going to get another psychopath, big surprise, all right?
If you were with this girl who is so troubled, there is reason to believe that you have a problem too.
You should be asking yourself about that.
You should be taking a good, hard look at yourself and make sure this does not happen in your life again.
You were having, you had unprotected sex.
You had unprotected sex with a woman you weren't willing to commit yourself to.
You really dodged a bullet here, right?
You got a great big telegram from God telling you, straighten your life out, straighten your life up.
Don't just not go back to her, but don't go back to anyone like her and find out why you did this in the first place.
It's on you.
From Tommy, what do you think of the White House announcing that there will be no more Delhi press briefings?
The press briefings have become a clown show.
Jim Acosta is a fool who has just took everything over.
Trump has been an incredibly open president.
Every time he walks outside, he talks to the press for 10, 20, 30 minutes.
He gives lots of answers.
As long as he's talking to the people and talking to the press, I'm happy.
From Eric, King Clavin, Supreme Leader of the Multiverse.
I'm 20 years old, two years old, and I write screenplays in my spare time.
I've written several shorts with a friend who makes films on YouTube.
We're working on a feature.
We're creating a dark comedy drama.
And I frequently think about how you discuss that great artists use their pain to make their art.
There's a great sports writer who once said, writing is easy.
All you do is sit down and open a vein.
I always like that line.
All right, for this project, I've had to reopen wounds of a previous emotionally abusive relationship in order to write effectively.
While I'm largely pleased with my writing, I've found myself distraught after having to re-experience these painful emotions, even though this relationship ended over a year ago.
Because of this, I struggle to continue writing, which puts a strain on our project.
I'm curious how, as a professional writer, you've been able to use the pain from your life and your work without it affecting your emotional health from day to day.
It's a great question.
I talk about this in my memoir, The Great Good Thing, what writing does to you if you're an unsteady personality.
I was an unsteady personality for many years.
I solved that problem.
And now, today, from that day on, which was now 30 years ago, I take very, very good care of my mental health because writing does do that to you.
Writing really can rip you to pieces.
I mean, to go in and create a character who's hateful, angry, you go into that place in yourself.
To go in to create villains, you go into a place in yourself.
Everyone, every character, you're going into a place, even when you create a good character who has a good character, who has heroic tendencies, you're looking at some of your better self.
When you create female characters, you have to go into feminine parts of yourself, which for men can be very upsetting.
I think that's why a lot of male writers are alcoholics, because they don't like to face that part of themselves, because it makes them feel that they're not manly.
So, like, writing is a tough thing.
It's not as tough as breaking bricks, but it's a hard thing to do.
I take very, very good care of my mental health.
I make sure to rest after writing something long after another kingdom.
I've taken a lot of time off not doing that kind of work.
I make sure that my personal life is in good fetal and that things are going well in my marriage and with my friendships.
I take time to pay attention to my friends and to my marriage and to my family.
And I check myself in prayer and in self-examination.
I make sure that I am steady and that when I do these things, that I recover from them and I take time to recover from them.
And I'm a professional writer.
You know, I show up.
I do my job, but I also know when to leave it alone and to leave myself alone.
It's a serious thing.
It's a serious issue, especially if, like me, you're really good at it.
If you're a really good writer, you really are going to hurt yourself sometimes and you have to take care of yourself and heal.
From Benjamin, good afternoon, Mr. Cleveland, with ease.
The police will be at your house.
I enjoy your thoughtful and considerate approach to politics and the news of the day.
I'd be interested in your opinion on a moral, religious predicament I'm in.
I'm a practicing Christian, trying my best to live my faith.
However, I've always tried to refrain from judging others.
A gay friend of mine recently got engaged and let my wife and I know that he will be invited to the wedding.
While I know the Bible prohibits gay marriage, I've always seen a person's romantic choice as his or her own.
And while God may judge them, when the time comes, I've always tried not to.
My inclination is to attend the wedding as a celebration of a major event in my friend's life and to show him that I value his friendship and wish him the best on this new chapter of his life.
Do you agree with this approach or do you think I should decline to attend given that God is against gay marriage?
I agree with that approach.
I do.
I'm not quite sure you're right about where God stands on this.
I certainly think that marriage to God, what marriage means, the word marriage means the relationship between a man and a woman to protect the children that they create.
I think that that is probably what sacramental marriage means.
But it is a good thing if a person's love, erotic or romantic love, is going to be focused on someone of the same sex, which I do not believe that people can help, then I think it's a good thing that they have a long-term, committed, loving relationship, and you should help them celebrate that and show your friendship for him and show that you accept it as an important event in his life.
I think that's the right thing to do.
Without any theological implications whatsoever.
You're not betraying anything.
From Patrick, dear Supreme Lord Clavin of Another Kingdom.
A while back, I had a conversation with a relative who said that only people who pay federal income taxes should be allowed to vote.
Her reasoning was that if you haven't paid federal income taxes, then you should have no say in how the government spends the money or should be run.
While I agree in principle, my only concerns are implementing such a policy and any political blowback from the left.
What's your opinion?
Thanks as always.
I think that there is a lot of sense in that only people who have skin in the game should get a vote that will never be implemented.
There's no sense worrying about it.
You would have a revolution and people would go crazy and it's just not going to happen.
So don't waste your time.
But it's perfectly fair.
You know, there used to be a property requirement for voting.
It was used against black people.
It was used against poor people.
I think ultimately you have to give people the vote.
You've already given the people the vote.
You're not going to be able to take the vote away from anybody.
I think there's sense to it, but I don't think it's going to happen.
And so I don't think it's worth talking about or worrying about.
From Linda, I have a very close friend who has suffered with severe and chronic depression for his entire life.
He's 65, feels he has nothing but death to look forward to.
He's retired from what he called a soul-destroying job.
He's unmarried, no children, few friends, little family, no local family, no religion, and very little hope.
He's been a virtual shut-in for years.
He's suicidal frequently.
What can I say or do for him to help him with his life and try to prevent him from taking his nothing?
You can't do anything except be his friend.
If you're his friend, that's a huge, huge deal.
It gives him something to look forward to.
It gives him someone to talk to.
It gives him a way to express himself.
But he's depressed and he's not going to do anything about it.
It doesn't sound like at 65 he's going to do anything about it.
You can encourage him to do something about it.
Maybe he'll change.
Maybe he'll go get some medication or therapy.
All of those things are available to him.
But if he doesn't do that, you can't do it for him.
So be his friend, help him out, give him good advice if you can about doing that.
Encourage him to do that, but don't nag him about it.
And hopefully, you know, remember, if he does take his life, that's on him.
That's his decision.
No one can, no one can help people by being their friends and loving them, but you can't stop people from making that ultimate decision.
From Ravi, what is one story or novel that you think should be made into a movie?
Thanks so much.
Well, for one thing, my novel, The Identity Man, should definitely be made into a movie.
I don't know why some major black actor hasn't found that book.
It would make a terrific movie.
But a little less selfishly, they haven't made the devil and the white city by Eric Larson into a film.
That would make a great film.
And if you haven't read it, it is an absolutely spectacular book, just a wonderful book.
Also, The Secret History by Donna Tart is an excellent book and would make a good film.
That one I know they've tried to make.
They've never approached me with it.
I don't think they made it.
They paid half a million dollars for the book, I seem to remember, but they've never made it.
They just made her new book, The Nightingale.
I think it's The Nightingale.
It's called The One About the Bird.
And apparently, that film's not very good.
There's a novel called Tiger in the Smoke by Marjorie Allingham that was made into a film, which I've never seen.
Really obscure.
I don't even think I've never even seen it be available because I would watch it.
The book is a little old.
Marjorie Allingham was a really good mystery writer.
The book is a little old-fashioned now, but it really is the first kind of Hannibal Lecter type character that I can think of in mystery stories.
I'm not sure if it comes before the Ripley books or not.
But anyway, it's a terrific book about a serial killer, which just wasn't a very big thing.
It is also a deeply, deeply religious work and a very wise religious work and a very intense, profound religious mystery story.
It's just a mystery story, but it's got a lot of profound religious thoughts in it.
And I think a Christian filmmaker should make it.
Instead of making these like happy God is not dead films, that would be a really good way to approach Christian thought was making Tiger in the Smoke.
That would make a good movie.
I know it's been made before, but I haven't seen it.
From Sam, my wife and I, dear Lord Claven, Master of the Multiverse, my wife and I are young newlyweds who are strong practicing Catholics.
We decided in marriage preparation to pursue Catholic natural family planning to both honor our church's position on birth control and hold time to focus on other areas of our relationship.
In practice, this has not been smooth or predictable as the class presented it.
We have had to consistently abstain for entire months and sometimes more.
Wow.
She also, my wife also frequently suffers from aches, pains, and illnesses that disrupt her chart and interfere with what little time we have together.
Misinterpreting her cycle earlier in this year also resulted in a pregnancy that we both welcomed, but tragically lost a miscarriage.
We have a wonderful marriage and I feel very blessed to be her husband.
However, it is increasingly clear to me that this method is not allowing us to sustain a healthy married sex life.
When I broach this topic, she becomes defensive.
She interprets my concerns as trying to force her onto birth control, wanting too much intercourse, and feeling she isn't enough.
She's more than enough for me, but I know that I'm much more productive and capable of conquering the world for her when we have a healthy sexual frequency.
I know you're not Catholic, but I would like your advice on how to deal with this reoccurring issue in our marriage in a way that still honors God and her wishes.
You know, there's a lot in this letter that is not clear to me, okay?
So I'm speaking a little bit in a fog.
I'm not a Catholic.
I don't fully understand the Catholic sexual practices, which are one of the reasons I'm not a Catholic because I don't agree with them.
But I know people who are Catholic, who do follow Catholic rules, who have wonderful marriage and who say their sex life is great.
And so I think that it may not be the church's position that's bothering.
That's the problem here.
First, it sounds like your wife is reluctant to have sex.
And listen, I believe that a wife needs to be very sexually generous and a husband needs to be very sexually thoughtful.
I think that is the way a good marriage works.
Sex is really important in a married relationship, but sex is important physically to men in a way that it's not entirely important to women.
And a lot of women will tell you that the emotional part of sex is the important part where men, if you don't take care of your husband's sexual needs, it's a disaster.
It's a real big problem.
If you do take care of him, you get a lot of gratitude and a lot more chance that he'll be a faithful husband.
So I don't know what the problem is here.
It may be that she has a problem.
She is reluctant to have sex.
It may be that you're not doing it right.
It may be that you're not taking the time required to make sure that she's having a good time, to make sure you're not hurting her, to make sure that she feels connected to you in that.
So there may be all kinds of problems between you, but there is a problem between you that needs to be solved, right?
This is not about Catholicism.
It is about the fact that you're not feeling sexually, you're not feeling sexually satisfied, and she doesn't seem to be feeling that she can reach out to you in a sexual way.
Something is a problem there, and I don't know what it is, and I don't know how deep it is.
I think it's a good idea to see somebody about this, to see a counselor about this, so you can talk to a third person in a neutral way and get past all this defensive stuff.
The defensive stuff is garbage.
She should get rid of it.
Obviously, she's having a hard time doing that, but you guys need to work this out.
And if it takes a third person, you should get a third person.
This is not about the Catholic faith.
I'm sure that you can follow the Catholic rules and get where you want to go.
But there's something between you guys that is getting in the way.
And that's what you should get rid of because this is an important part of your marriage.
And you're obviously not satisfied.
And she obviously has some kind of reluctance going on there.
Reluctance In Marriage00:01:46
And I don't know what it is, but you should find out.
It's not for me to find out.
It's for you guys to find out.
Take care of this because it's important to your marriage.
It's not enough.
It's not enough to bat your eyes at one another.
You have got to satisfy this part of it.
It's a very natural part of your life.
You're young people especially.
And it's important.
It will increase your bonding and increases both of your happiness.
But at this point, there's reluctance here, and I don't know what it is.
And you should find out.
I got to stop.
But good mailbag, get on dailywire.com, subscribe.
You can be in the mailbag next week.
All our answers are guaranteed correct.
We'll change your life, possibly for the better, and get rid of all your problems.
That's pretty good for a lousy 10 bucks a month.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
talk to you again tomorrow.
And if you want to help spread the word, give us a five-star review and also tell your friends to subscribe too.
We're available on Apple podcasts, on Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Austin Stevens and directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
And our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
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.