Ben Shapiro dissects Rachel McKinnon’s world-record cycling win as a biological male, exposing contradictions in transgender sports policies while mocking media bias in Trump’s Ukraine impeachment—where Republicans were denied cross-examination and William Taylor’s testimony was weaponized without context. He defends Trump’s Syria sanctions rollback as strategic, contrasts him with Biden and Warren, then pivots to a mailbag: advising a depressed listener to ditch pills for purposeful action, warning a pro-life student to embrace consequences over family approval, and dismissing China’s "Cold War" potential due to its lack of imperial ambition. The episode ends by framing Trump’s "lynching" tweet as hypocritical given Democrats’ past racial rhetoric while teasing a deeper dive into "high-tech lynchings." [Automatically generated summary]
In an amazing leap forward for women's sports, women are being beaten at women's sports by other women who happen to be men.
In the latest Triumph for the Ladies, a biological male cyclist set a world record for women's cycling by a man.
All women who were men shared this historic achievement, saying soon women would become so good at sports that there would be no women left in sports at all.
The record-breaking cyclist is named Rachel McKinnon, sometimes known by his friends as Rachel Wink Wink McKinnon, or sometimes Rachel You Dog McKinnon.
He pointed out in an interview that it was not fair to accept him as a woman in every other branch of life and then ban him from women's sports.
A statement that proved the old rule of logic, that if you start a syllogism with a false premise, everything that follows it will be true, as in the true syllogism, if grass is purple, then up is down.
Or the true syllogism, if Rachel McKinnon is a woman, he should be able to participate in women's sports.
The revolution in women's sports that has done so much for women who happen to be men has spread to weightlifting, where transgender lifter Laurel Hubbard somehow managed to win two gold medals in the Pacific Games and mixed martial arts fighting where transgender fighter Fallon Fox broke his female opponent's skull, giving hope to wife beaters everywhere that they may soon be able to go pro.
In track and field, women runners who are men have managed to take scholarships away from women runners who are women, thus proving another old adage, there's a sucker born every minute.
The transgender revolution may soon transform other fields such as science, math, and of course child sexual abuse.
Democrats say they are so inspired by the amazing feats of women who aren't women that they may nominate Elizabeth Warren to run for president in 2020 in order to ensure we have our first woman president, Donald Trump.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Life is tickety boo.
Birds are ringing, also singing, hunky-dunkity.
Republicans Concerned About Testimony00:15:20
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is zippity-sing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
Okay, I know every time you watch this show, you're thinking to yourself, why don't they use ZipRecruiter?
You know, ZipRecruiter likes to tell a story about Cafe Alturo COO Dylan Miskiewicz, who needed to hire a director of coffee for his organic coffee company, but was having trouble finding qualified applicants.
So he switched to ZipRecruiter.
Because ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.
It finds them for you.
Its technology identifies people with the right experience and invites them to apply to your job so you get qualified candidates fast.
Dylan posted his job on ZipRecruiter and said he was impressed by how quickly he had great candidates apply.
He also used ZipRecruiter's candidate rating feature to filter his applicants so he could focus on the most relevant ones.
And that's how Dylan found his new director of coffee in just a few days.
And we didn't do that.
And that's how I got this show.
With results like that, it's no wonder four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day.
See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes?
Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ziprecruiter.com/slash dailywire.
That's ziprecruiter.com slash D-A-I-L-Y-W-I-R-E, all one word, ziprecruiter.com slash daily wire.
It is the smarter way to hire.
So shortly after the attack on America by Islamists on 9-11, ooh, I should point out, before I get started, I should point out the mailbag is later today.
All your problems will be solved.
You too will be screaming like that when all your problems are solved.
That's what you'll sound like.
And your folks will say, oh my God, what has happened.
Shortly after the attack on America by Islamists on 9-11 and the destruction of the World Trade Towers, a movie based on one of my novels, Don't Say a Word, became the number one box office hit in America.
There'd been some talk about delaying the release of the film and of second-guessing the release of all violent action films in the face of the real violence in New York.
And in fact, audiences in theaters gasped when Don't Say a Word opened with a shot of the Twin Towers still standing intact, with my name over the picture, by the way, which was kind of unnerving even for me.
To defend the release of the movie, I wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, which in the not that distant past had been a newspaper.
Here's part of what I wrote.
After a violent atrocity, there's always a rush to declare that movies were partly to blame because they desensitize us to violence.
But after September 11th, our collective response to the horror showed that the vast majority of people know the difference between movies and reality and react accordingly.
Many people remarked on how the video images of the terror on television looked incredibly like a Hollywood movie, but I haven't heard of anyone who reacted as if it actually were a Hollywood movie.
We didn't sob when the building blew up in diehard.
We didn't join the army when the aliens destroyed the White House in Independence Day.
What I was saying, in other words, is that people can tell the difference between stories and reality, between fantasy and reality.
And of course, that's true unless there is a massive effort to cut off access to reality.
Then you can sell people a fantasy for a while until reality breaks in.
At the end of World War I, many Germans were shocked that their country had surrendered while their armies were still in France because the German government hadn't told them that that outcome had been inevitable for years.
That's part of the reason why Hitler was able to sell the fairy tale that they'd been winning the war but been betrayed, stabbed in the back by the Jews and others.
In the Soviet Union, people were startled when the great communist experiment suddenly collapsed and it became clear that people in the West were living much happier, more prosperous lives than they were.
The Russian people had been lied to for so long that many, even some higher up in the government, just didn't know the truth.
Today, in league with the mainstream news media, the networks and the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN and so on, the Democrats are trying to create a similar situation.
They're trying to create a world in which men can declare themselves women and people are too afraid to say it isn't true when obviously it isn't true.
They're trying to create a world in which people can call Republicans racist, but to point out that calling Republicans racist is a stone lie, that's uncivil.
They're trying to create a world in which Islam is beyond reproach, but Christianity is beyond the pale.
And right this minute, right in front of us, they're trying to create a world in which the tyranny and criminality of Donald Trump that exists entirely in their imagination replaces the obvious reality of an outside, flawed, sometimes clumsy, sometimes loudmouthed president who in no way has infringed on our freedoms or damaged our democracy at all, as far as I can tell, but if at all, to nothing like the extent Barack Obama did with his out-of-control IRS, FBI, and CIA.
This is essentially a grand experiment in post-modern leftism.
These are the same people who taught an entire generation that there is no truth, there's only narrative, and that he who captures the human imagination captures reality itself.
After all, many on the left believe that God is just a narrative and that he can be replaced with another narrative of woke holiness.
Good luck with that.
Now, of course, the left has a lot of power over the means of producing narrative in this country.
They have the news media, they have Hollywood, and they have the Academy.
But they don't have all the power, and they have a lot less power than they've had even in the recent past.
So, what we're watching is not just a struggle between Trump and the Democrats, nor are we just watching a struggle between Trump's version of events and the Democrats' version.
We're watching a struggle between, on the one hand, a fantasy in which a socialist party that opposes everything America and the West have ever stood for are heroically battling a sort of Godzilla of bigotry and hatred in Donald Trump.
And on the other hand, we're watching, on the other hand, is reality in which Trump, with all his piccadillos, is the best hope we've got to preserve the best country that's ever been.
So we're going to see who's going to win that.
And it'll be a really interesting experiment on how much fantasy can be promoted in the face of reality.
Hey, I'm still here in Memphis, Tennessee.
I'm speaking at the University of Memphis.
I think it is tomorrow.
Last night I was at Mississippi State.
I want to thank them for their extremely warm welcome.
They gave me a cowbell.
It's out of reach, but they gave me a cowbell that they use to cheer on their losing football team.
And it was really a great event.
And it was live streamed, I think, so you can probably watch it if you like.
A lot of news is breaking as I'm talking to you.
And so I won't have time, obviously, to delve into that deeply because I'll want to find out more information.
But President Trump just went, announced that he has removed the sanctions from Turkey because Turkey has declared their ceasefire against the northern part of Syria and the Kurds there.
They've declared that ceasefire permanent, which would be a big win for Trump because it would mean that Turkey, he's now not opposed to our NATO ally, Turkey, and the Kurds are safe.
And he says that the, more importantly, that the ISIS fighters are still contained.
So he got everything he wanted.
He got his troops out of that situation in which he felt that, I think, I believe he felt that it could only be a bad thing if one of our soldiers got killed, that we would be forced to retaliate against Turkey, which would be a mess.
And I think that that's why he pulled out and he's wanted to pull out for a long time.
And all the tears and woe about, you know, they betraying our lovely friends, the Kurds, basically hasn't amounted to very much.
And the worry about the ISIS fighters escaping hasn't worried amounted to very much.
So in a single leap, Donald is free.
And we'll see if that's the way it turns out.
The other thing that's happening, which is more about what I want to talk about today, is that the Republicans stormed a closed-door hearing Wednesday morning to protest Democrats' impeachment inquiry, breaking up the deposition of a top Defense Department aide who was testifying about President Trump's dealings with Ukraine.
And this comes after what happened yesterday, which is an amazing, amazing piece of journalistic malfeasance and an amazing attempt to sell you on a narrative that they want you to have.
This fantasy narrative.
And I will pick it apart.
I'll pick apart the fantasy, but I also want to put forward the narrative, all right?
William Taylor, the United States top diplomat in Ukraine, testified and the Democrats leaked or released his opening, his written opening statement in which he said he became concerned in the Ukraine because he felt that diplomacy was being done by regular channels, but also irregular channels run by Rudy Giuliani.
And under these regular channels, he was afraid that some lethal aid was being held up from the Ukrainians who need these weapons to fight the Russians, that he was afraid it was being held up on the condition on the quid pro quo, as they keep saying, that the Ukrainians would investigate burisma and the fact that Hunter Biden was working there and other things, other things about the 2016 election.
Now, Byron York has a very good piece.
Well, wait a minute.
Before I talk about Byron York's piece, let's play, first of all, what the Democrats said as they came out of this meeting.
Just that quick montage of, nope, that's not the one.
It's the one, cut to.
This is my most disturbing day in Congress so far.
He's provided useful information that continues to corroborate what we've heard from the president's own confession, the confession co-signed by Mick Mulvaney.
So this is the smoking gun they're looking for.
Now, here is the way the anchors on the mainstream media played this story.
This is cut number one.
Today, Democrats called it the most damaging testimony to date against the president of the United States.
A West Point graduate with 50 years of service to the country testified that the president held up security aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Vice President Biden and his family.
And behind me on Capitol Hill, that diplomat, Ambassador Bill Taylor, is still testifying.
We begin with what the Democrats tonight are calling the most damaging testimony yet in the impeachment inquiry.
Some Republicans concerned tonight, too.
What the top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine said today about President Trump and about that money withheld from Ukraine.
That diplomat, Bill Taylor, testifying under subpoena.
President Trump's off-repeated impeachment defense that there was no quid pro quo may have crumbled today under the weight of explosive testimony from the administration's top envoy to Ukraine.
William Taylor, reportedly describing to House investigators what he says the administration dangled in order to nudge Ukraine into announcing politically charged investigations.
Unbelievable bias, right?
They all have behind them the words explosive testimony.
This is Democrat-leaked information.
You didn't hear the cross-examination.
You didn't hear the questioning by the Republicans.
You didn't hear other people who have disagreed with what he just said.
None of that has been released.
They only release what they want, and the Democrats release it to the Democrats, three of whom you just saw on television, who then repeat the information to you.
You're being surrounded by this narrative.
And in order to buy into this narrative, in order to even think this narrative is plausible, you have to have a kind of amnesia, right?
You have to forget that they wanted him defeated so badly, they spied on him using our intelligence and FBI service.
They called for his impeachment before he took office, so it has nothing to do with Ukraine.
They don't care about Ukraine.
They only care about the impeachment.
You have to forget that they used this very technique of leaking to Democrat news outlets to start the snowball rolling on this Russian collusion narrative.
You have to forget all about that and the fact that it all exploded in their face.
And when it exploded in their face, they tried to then roll that into an obstruction of justice narrative.
They tried to misread and rewrite the Mueller report and claim that Bill Barr had done something wrong.
Remember that this is an amazing thing.
They claim Bill Barr had done something wrong by withholding small parts of the Mueller report that he had to leave, that he was forced legally to withhold.
Oh my goodness, the fact that people, the people have a right to know and they're behind closed doors leaking the information they want.
You have to forget all that.
They are depending on you being an idiot, all right?
They're depending on you being an old thriller where the guy wakes up and doesn't remember who he is, right?
And there's a dead body next to him.
That's what they're depending on.
Like, oh, yeah, I forgot all about the other impeachment narratives.
They're all gone.
And now this one must be really, really important.
Well, John Radcliffe was one of the guys who cross-examined the ambassador.
And he went on with Marshall McAllen and talked about what happened.
This is his first cut.
Well, I read that testimony that you're talking about, his opening statement, and there were some things in there that I think provided greater detail than we had seen before from some other career diplomats.
But at the end of the day, again, this was about quid pro quo and whether or not the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld.
And on that most important issue, neither this witness or any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo, any evidence that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld on July 25th.
And unless and until they bring in a witness who is willing to say that there was knowledge by someone that speaks Ukrainian to that fact, a quid pro quo is legally impossible.
So he's saying this is an explosive testimony.
Hey, and listen, you know, if we had been able to see it, we could have made up our own minds.
That's what the Democrats don't want to happen because it happened before during the Russian collusion thing and it didn't work out well for them.
It happened during their attempt to claim obstruction of justice.
That didn't work out well.
So they're making sure that you will be taken out of the process and only their fantasy will enfold you.
That is what they're trying to do.
And I'm seeing, you know, mostly never Trumpers, but some right-wing writers who are saying, oh, they're wiping their brows, they're clutching their pearls.
Oh, my goodness, this explosive testimony because they're wrapped up in this narrative.
Let me take a moment here to welcome a new sponsor.
And I love welcoming sponsors that I have been using for years, even before they were sponsored.
This is Eero.
They are a company, a Wi-Fi company, a company that boosts the Wi-Fi in your home.
I have out in the back in my patio, I have this little outhouse.
It really is a sign of a size of an outhouse.
That's where I do my writing.
When I go out of the house and I lock myself in this little tiny shed and I do my writing there, and I need my Wi-Fi.
I need to be able to do research.
I need to be able to check on things.
I need to be able to know what I'm doing.
And I just was not getting Wi-Fi.
So I put in this Eero, E-E-R-O, and it boosts the Wi-Fi.
And now my Wi-Fi is absolutely perfect.
It really is.
It starts at just $99.
Eero blankets your whole home with fast, reliable Wi-Fi.
It truly does.
It sets up in just minutes.
If I can set it up, you can set it up.
It plugs right into your modem or modem router box and you manage it from an app on your phone.
It really is cool.
The app lets you pause the Wi-Fi for dinner if you want, get alerts if any device attempts to join your network.
Eero has fixed all my Wi-Fi issues.
Adam Schiff's Bad Thing00:10:59
You can get yours fixed as soon as tomorrow.
Go to Eero.com slash Andrew and enter code Andrew a checkout to get free overnight shipping with your order.
That's E-E-R-O.com slash dot com slash Andrew, code Andrew, a checkout to get your Eero delivered with free overnight shipping.
You must use this URL to receive the offer, Eero.com slash Andrew, code Andrew.
If you have this problem, if you have this Wi-Fi problem, use this thing.
It fixes it.
That's all you got to know.
And it's inexpensive and you never think about it again.
So let's hear the other thing that Ratcliffe says about this, the whole process and the fact that, I mean, really, really, Adam Schiff is a modern Joseph McCarthy.
This is not an exaggeration.
He is basically sending out half information, false information, trying to twist the narrative.
And the press is just going along with it as they did with McCarthy, as they did with McCarthy.
Everybody believed in McCarthy.
Nobody stopped him until finally the Army shut him down.
Really, that's who it was.
They give credit to the press and Edward R. Muro, but really he was already on the way down by that time.
I don't know who is going to stop Adam Schiff, but Adam Schiff is doing a truly, truly bad thing.
And it is even made worse by the fact that the press supports him.
Here is Ratcliffe talking about.
It changes every day, Martha.
We don't know because they haven't made up their minds.
This is Adam Schiff changing the rules literally day to day based on what's happening.
We don't know witnesses that are being called and what they're going to be focusing on.
It really depends on what they hear.
Again, this is you know, this is an abuse of power.
This is us finding out when we walk in the door what the rules of the day are going to be for that particular witness.
And it's really unfair for all of us that are trying to represent our constituents in this process.
And that's why it should be conducted in open, not behind closed doors, not as a secret grand jury where Adam Schiff, who is a material witness in this case, gets to make up the rules as they go.
That's right.
Schiff is a witness because he saw the whistleblower and then lied about it.
He saw him before anybody else and then lied about the fact that he did.
Buyer in New York.
I wanted to talk about briefly about this Washington Examiner piece where he says that Trump had five reasons for holding up lethal aid to the Ukraine.
And just remember, remember that Obama gave them no aid to fight the Russians with.
The Europeans are not giving them any lethal aid.
We are supplying them with arms to defend themselves.
We're the only ones doing it.
And he points out that Trump doesn't like foreign aid.
He's always trying to hold it up to all kinds of different countries.
And then Congress kind of forces him to go through with it.
But he doesn't like giving money to other people.
He wants to keep it here.
He has a concern that other countries don't contribute, that Europe isn't giving them any arms and we are doing the whole thing, that we're toting the whole thing.
And he's trying to correct that.
And he has a concern about corruption in the Ukraine, like everybody.
Corruption is endemic in the Ukraine.
It's in Ukraine.
Corruption is endemic in Ukraine.
And he wants to make sure that it gets rooted out, right?
And remember, let's take Joe Biden at his word.
Let's say when he held up what it was, a billion dollars in aid to get them to fire a prosecutor.
Let's say he was doing it for righteous reasons because the guy was corrupt.
Okay.
That's what Trump is doing.
That is exactly what Trump is doing.
He also wants to see Trump assist in the inquiry into the Russia 2016 campaign investigation.
Trump has caught on.
He's heard this theory that the Ukraine has the Democrat server that they never showed to the FBI, but somehow we all agree has been hacked by the Russians.
No one has seen this thing, but the Democrats say it was hacked by the Russians.
Yeah, so James Comey said, well, hacked by the Russians.
John Brennan said, yep, hacked by the Russians.
We've never seen it.
And there's some kind of theory that it's in Ukraine.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think there's any evidence of it.
But Trump gets off on these kind of conspiracy theory tears.
He seems to be on that.
And he wants to see Ukraine investigate the business dealings of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
Now, that, you know, is that a wise thing to say?
No, it's not, because Biden is his opponent.
In fact, Biden has gone up in the polls, which is amazing since he's running such a crummy campaign, but it shows you how bad Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are.
But I don't think Trump is really afraid of Joe Biden.
I don't think Biden can beat Trump, and I don't think Trump thinks he can beat him.
But he gets these things.
He gets these sticks in his teeth like a dog and he won't let it go.
He thinks this was corrupt, and he thinks this should be investigated.
It's unwise.
Is it impeachable?
Are you kidding me?
Is it impeachable?
If it's impeachable, then Barack Obama, who bugged Trump's phone, who sent spies into his campaign, should be in prison.
If this is an impeachable offense, this minor little trivial malfeasance on Trump's part, because he's got a big mouth and he doesn't think all the time before he speaks, if that's an impeachable offense, then Obama should be in prison for what he did.
And here's the problem, the real, obviously the real, I mean, I hardly have to say this, but it's obvious the real problem.
Here's Kevin McCarthy talking about what Trump has done.
I think the president has done a tremendous job.
Would my job be easier that the economy is so strong because this president has been able to turn it around?
Is our job as a nation safer because he's helped rebuilding the military?
Is America stronger because more people are working today?
Yeah, the president deserves credit for that.
That's the problem that they've got, is they've got a dead communist, you know, Bernie Sanders, who unfortunately, I'm sorry to say, passed away a couple of weeks ago, has now been carried around for a weekend at Bernie's campaign.
They've got the wooden Indian, you know, who's going to end up, if she runs for office, going to end up in front of a cigar store holding cigars.
And they've got Joe Biden, who's like a dodder old man who can't get the words out of his mouth.
His eye keeps exploding, you know, his teeth are falling out.
That's what this is about.
That's what this is about, you know.
So, and then, you know, if you just want to watch them sell a fantasy, yesterday, Trump tweeted out in his, again, you know, he ought to be careful about this because it does hurt him in the polls.
We all know this.
It is a criticism of Trump.
It's not a moral criticism of him, but it's just unwise.
He tweeted out, this is a lynching.
This impeachment hearing is a lynching.
So of course, of course, the left goes mad.
Oh, the racism, the racism.
I'll just show you one.
Charles Blow, the most accurately named person in commentary world.
Charles Blow goes on, Don Lemon, and Don Lemon says, tell us about this horrible, horrible, horrible thing that Donald Trump has done.
This is a simple objection because it's horrific.
But I think it's really big to me in the sense that it is a pattern that I see, particularly among conservatives, particularly among white conservatives,
to try to co-opt the language of white supremacists terror against black bodies and to neuter it or basically to purchase their way into oppression without ever being oppressed or to purchase their way into the effects of terror without ever being terrorized and to take the language and say that it applies.
It can be applied to anybody, right?
It's actually very specific.
So stop saying, I was lynched.
Stop saying you would vote democratically on a plantation.
Stop saying that this feels like slavery to me.
Stop saying that this is reverse discrimination whenever I don't get my way.
So that is, I mean, it's so open that they don't even know they're doing it, right?
They are setting the rules of the dialogue.
You are not allowed to use the word lynching.
You are not allowed to use these talking points.
These are our talking points.
This is the way we control the narrative.
This is the way we control people's minds.
You're not allowed to do it.
And just to show you what a fake, what a phony, what a fraud that narrative is, and Charles Blow is, here is a montage.
I got it from Grabian of the Democrats during the Clinton impeachment.
And in this montage, if you're not watching, it includes Joe Biden.
My votes are a protest against an unfair process.
The inequities in the impeachment process have been glaring.
What we are doing or what we are doing here is not a prosecution.
It's a persecution.
And indeed, it is a political lynching.
So I will not vote for this nightmare before Christmas.
I will not vote for this lynching in the people's house.
I will vote against these resolutions.
Even if the president should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching.
This day feels to me like we're taking a step down the road to becoming a political lynch mob.
And for those of you who say that this isn't about sex, I agree with you.
This is about getting rid of the president of the United States.
The whole idea is a lynch mob mentality.
That's amazing.
It is amazing.
The hypocrisy is amazing.
If the Democrats didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
The thing is, they keep saying about us, never Trumpers and the Democrats keep saying about us, oh, you know, you sell your principles and to say Trump is perfect and Trump is always perfect and you defend everything Trump does.
Well, you listen to the show and you know that's not true.
I mean, that's not what I think at all.
What I think is that Trump is better than they are.
I think Trump has his flaws, but he is doing a good job and he's preserving some semblance of the founding principle of limited government so there's more individual freedom.
Name one Democrat, all the ones they talk about as being moderate, name one Democrat who wants to limit the power of the government, who wants to limit the power of government and preserve your freedom.
Name one.
Name one who doesn't sit around and say that transgender child abuse is child abuse.
Name one who calls it out.
Name one who says that killing a baby before it's born, even moments before it's born, is an atrocity.
Name one, none of them say it.
Trump says all those things.
He stands up for all those things.
Is he flawed?
Yeah, of course he's flawed.
You know, when I go and talk to Trump supporters, even the people who love him, even the people who love him, say, oh, I wish he'd tweet less.
He probably shouldn't have said that thing about lynching.
We know that hurts him.
We know that hurts him with black people.
And it's too bad because he's doing a good job for black people too.
And it's too bad that it hurts him.
We all wish he didn't have flaws, but he's better than they are.
And there's only two choices.
He's doing a good job.
That's not a fantasy.
That's reality.
Everything the Democrats are selling is fantasy.
And it's going to be a really, really interesting experiment whether they can sell that fantasy to the American people while people like us at the Daily Wire are still here.
We will see.
Consequences of Integrity00:15:52
All right, we got to talk about NetSuite.
You know, NetSuite is an excellent, excellent system for your business.
And like I say, I am a business.
I need to know where all my numbers are.
If you don't know your numbers, you don't know what your business is doing.
And the problem is, the problem a lot of growing businesses have is that there's a hodgepodge of business systems.
They have to go different places to find out what's going on.
But NetSuite brings it all together.
NetSuite by Oracle is the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy-to-use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control you need to grow.
With NetSuite, you save time, you save money, you save unneeded headaches by managing sales, finance, and accounting orders and HR instantly right from your desktop or phone.
That's why NetSuite is the world's number one cloud business system.
And right now, NetSuite is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits at netsuite.com/slash claven.
That's netsuite.com/slash claven to download your free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits, netsuite.com/slash clavin.
First key strategy.
How do you spell clavin?
Ah, you lose.
You got to know that.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
No E's in Claven.
All right, come to Daily Wire and subscribe so you can be in the mailbag next week.
It's uncomfortable.
It's a little scratchy.
It's a little claustrophobic, but you get to answer.
you get all your questions answered, all your problems solved, as you will see, coming right up.
Mailbag.
All right, from Alex, I started watching your show after subscribing for Shapiro.
I'm starting to find, so I got to read this.
It's hilarious.
I'm starting to find Shapiro's commentary a big doer, you think?
But I found solace when I found your show.
I'm a 26-year-old recovering alcoholic.
I've been sober for three months and six days.
I find it surprisingly easy to avoid alcohol, but nothing else in my life is changing.
I'm an atheist.
I'm struggling to find meaning.
I'm single, gay, still living with my mother.
I have little social life beyond going to bars and taking various pills to fit in.
I have a decent job, which pays enough, but my finances are a mess.
I have access to the national health, but it's not addressing my persistent depression and anxiety.
My father died when I was 14.
And since I found your show, I feel you're giving me some direction I've been missing.
Thanks for everything that you do.
And he's asking for advice.
You know, he doesn't actually ask a question here.
It's kind of interesting.
But first of all, if you're taking pills, that's not sobriety.
Get off the pills.
Get off the pills as well.
That's a scam.
That's ridiculous.
I'm going to give you a piece of advice, though, right?
A lot of people write in and they say, I can't find meaning.
Where's meaning?
And a lot of times they sound to me, and you sound to me, like they're sitting around waiting for a knock at their door.
They're going to open the door.
Nobody's going to be there.
Then they'll look down and there's meaning standing there.
How are we meaning?
I'm here to fill up your life.
That's not the way it works.
You know, Alcoholics Anonymous has a saying, they have a lot of really good sayings because they've, like the Catholic Church, they've dealt with all this suffering, so they have a lot of good advice for people who are suffering.
And one of their sayings is God can't drive a parked car, okay?
Now, obviously, God can do anything he wants, but God won't drive a parked car.
You have to go out and look for meaning.
And the way you look for meaning is by changing the habits that have gotten you into the depression that you're in.
And that takes effort.
And the only way that effort is going to come is it's going to come from you.
You've got to get out and do things.
You've got to get out and do things for other people.
You've got to get out and do charitable things, do volunteer things.
Make sure you get out among other people.
Other people who aren't taking, where you don't have to take pills to fit in, other people where you don't have to drink to fit in, but you can just do the thing that you're doing.
Now, some of the stuff that you go out and do, the point about driving a parked car, some of the stuff you go out and do to find meaning might not be the stuff you end up doing, right?
I mean, when I was a long, long time ago, when I was in a deep, deep depression, I went out and joined a couple of clubs and colleges, and half of them I hated, but at least it got me out and it broke the grip depression held on me.
So you've got to get moving.
You've got to go out and do that stuff.
Look for it and get off those pills because that's a scam.
If you're on pills, you are not fully sober.
You have got to be clean and straight and sober to do this and then get out there and get out and do it.
And you'll find a lot of stuff cleans up once your depression, once the hold of your depression is broken.
This guy says his name is also Drew.
To the Mighty Claven, I love the show and I have a simple question that I really can't come up with a good answer to.
Are we in a Cold War with China?
I know there isn't really an arms race, but when it comes to communism versus capitalism, intellectual property theft, trade disparities, and other battles, it seems we're in some sort of fight with China.
If this is not a Cold War, what would make it one?
Well, I think it would be the fight for territory.
I mean, I think this was the thing.
You have to remember the Soviet Union was an imperialist power and was trying to take over Africa and South America, Cuba, all these different places where it was moving its philosophy.
And that was the goal.
And during the Carter administration, you go back and look at the countries that were turning communist, and it was on the march.
It was really coming forward, and then Reagan put an end to it.
But, you know, so that's why it was a war.
The two principles were not firing at each other.
We weren't nuking at each other.
But there was fighting going on.
It was fighting over whether places were going to go communist or whether they were going to stay free.
And I think that right now, communist China is not an imperialist power.
It is not expanding.
That's why this Hong Kong thing is so disturbing, even though it's obviously part of their territory and it was given back to them by the British.
They had a deal where they were going to keep essentially free for a certain number of years, and they seem to be encroaching on that deal.
But that's a gray area.
I mean, when China moved into Vietnam and we fought them there and everybody said, what a terrible thing to do, it actually stopped them.
It actually stopped their imperialist move because they thought if we're crazy enough to spend so much blood and treasure in Vietnam, they don't want to fight us in all these different places.
Right now, they are our main, what they call geopolitical enemy.
There's no question about it.
We're going to be in a struggle with them for the next century, probably.
It's going to be a big struggle.
It's going to be a difficult struggle.
It's going to be a struggle.
Maybe that ultimately is for territory.
There's already some question about the China Sea and the oceans around because we have a dominant navy.
So that could develop into a Cold War.
But right now, I would say no, it actually does not fulfill the qualifications of a Cold War, but it could, and it may.
From Remington, great name.
Hey, Andrew, I am the vice president of my university's pro-life club.
I'm an ardent pro-life Catholic, the only religious person in my family.
My family is somewhat tolerant of my decisions, but they can be very edgy and disapproving of my views.
And often when I bring this topic up, often when this topic comes up, I'm ganged up on.
When it comes to abortion, do you have any advice for a young person about standing your ground and effectively communicating your message, even in the face of everyone in the room disagreeing with you?
love my family.
They love me too.
And I want to stand up for what I believe in as effectively as I can and perhaps even change their mind someday.
You know, I mean, I get, this is another question I get a lot, especially at colleges.
And I got it last night at Mississippi State.
And my answer is not that pleasant.
You know, my answer is that what you're really asking is, can you have integrity without consequences?
And the answer is no.
You can't have integrity without consequences.
It costs you.
I mean, that's the main, as I said last night in this speech, that's the main message of the gospel.
If you tell the truth, they'll kill you.
I mean, that is the entire gospel.
The gospel means good news.
The good news is if you tell the truth, they'll kill you.
But the truth lives forever, I guess, is the rest of that good news, what makes it good news.
So listen, you don't have to set yourself to convince your family of this.
That's not your job.
Your job is to speak when you need to speak, to say what you have to say.
But don't, you know, put your love of your family first.
Put your love of your family first.
If they can't discuss it with you in a civil way, you don't have to, that's not the fight you have to pick.
It's not going to make any difference to the ultimate conclusion of this if your family changes their minds.
If they want to engage with you in a respectable, respectful and civil way, it's always something you can talk about.
If it comes up, you shouldn't feel that you should be silenced, but you should understand it's going to cause animosity.
It's going to cause hostility.
There's no integrity without consequences.
That's not the way it works.
That's what integrity is.
Integrity is the willingness to face the consequences, to speak the truth as you see it.
And so, like, you know, this is an important issue, and it's an issue that you will, that you should work toward and should participate in, but you don't have to do it in family situations.
You don't have to say, oh, boy, it's Thanksgiving.
Let's talk about abortion.
You know, that's not on you.
That's not the burden that's on you.
The burden is simply to speak the truth when the truth needs to be spoken.
All right.
So from Johnny, hello, Mr. Clavin.
I don't know what to do.
I'm head over heels for a woman that already has a boyfriend.
I'm not a bad person.
This weighs heavily on my conscience.
We have a lot in common and we just click.
I see a lot of potential in a possible relationship with her.
We have already been slightly intimate and I can't stop thinking about her.
She's younger than I am.
She's confused.
I have more life experience.
Her boyfriend is young and like a young person doesn't have the capacity to treat the woman the way she should.
Do you think it's possible to trust her if she does decide to be with me, given the fact that we speak privately every day and we've been slightly intimate already?
No, you can't trust her.
Of course you can't trust her.
You can't trust yourself.
I mean, you're not doing the right thing either.
But she's certainly not doing the right thing.
If she cheats on this guy with you, she'll cheat on you with somebody else.
That's almost guaranteed.
And even if it's not guaranteed, how will you ever know?
You're not in love.
You're in lust.
You have a thing for this girl.
I get it.
You know, you're hot for her.
I get it.
But still, you're doing the wrong thing.
And having a conscience, being bothered by something doesn't make you a good person.
Doing the right thing is what makes you a good person.
You know, it's like, yeah, I killed that guy, but I feel bad about it, so I'm a good person.
No, you're doing the wrong thing.
You're cheating on somebody.
And she's cheating on somebody.
And that's who she is.
She is a cheater, and she will be a cheater when she's with you.
And what you really seem to be saying is that you have more money than this guy, so you're more appealing to her.
And that's a question about her character, too.
But the character that I would be worried about is yours.
I'd be worried about, you know, what you're doing here, because this is just, you know, you lust after somebody.
And so you're doing the wrong thing, powered by lust.
People do that.
I've done it.
You know, it's not a good thing.
Stop doing it.
That's the answer.
Find a girl who won't cheat on whoever she's with and find somebody who's not with anybody and you'll be a lot happier.
From Ken, greetings, Edgar.
I always appreciate your humor and insight.
During one of your podcasts, you mentioned the filmmaker M. Night Shimalian.
I forget the context.
You talked about how much you liked The Sixth Sense.
Then you mentioned The Village.
And I didn't like that film.
Why?
I love that film.
I thought it worked very well.
The mood, the monster, the ending, the whole trip, and the fantastic score.
Please explain why it didn't measure up.
Well, I found it hackneyed.
I found it disappointing.
I found it unbelievable.
I found the twist ending forced.
I thought Shimalian made a key mistake.
Probably the people who were paying him also made this mistake.
The Sixth Sense had this wonderful ending.
He thought he had to imitate that ending.
He thought that was going to be his brand.
But the thing about The Sixth Sense when you watch it is it's a really good story well told.
That should have been his brand.
And I didn't think The Village, I thought the village had some good parts at the beginning of it, but I didn't think it was really a very good story.
And I didn't think the ending of it made any sense at all.
I just thought it was really forced and unbelievable.
And it wasn't scary and it was, you know, silly.
The thing that really got me about it, too, is that the trailers were great.
The trailers were some of the best trailers I ever saw.
So maybe I hated it more than it deserved because it didn't live up to the trailers, but it still was not a very good or moving film.
I really think The Sixth Sense remains his best film.
I can't think of one that's topped it off the top of my head.
From Luke, Hale Clavin, Lord of the Multiverse, Protector of Virgins, Slayer of Knolls.
My wife and I are soon going to have a son.
I'm full of excitement, but along with my excitement, I'm also worried about my ability to protect and prepare my son.
Mainly in light of my own struggles with pornography, I fear my son will follow me in my weakness.
I've heard of studies that show sheltering young people from sexuality simply gives them a desire to seek out pornography and sexual experiences more fervently.
I do not know how to apply that knowledge to my own family.
Exposing my son to nudity or sexuality seems like a betrayal of my mandate as a father.
While it seems that sheltering him could also cause him to seek out pornography even more, I would be grateful for any insight or guidance you could give me on this topic.
You know, this letter disturbs me a little bit, first of all, because you don't talk about where you are in your struggles with pornography.
Are you addicted to it?
Are you still addicted to it?
Were you addicted to it?
And you've stopped.
Do you occasionally partake of it and wish you didn't?
I don't know where you stand on that.
So I'm a little bit in the dark here.
However, however, this isn't.
If you are, if you are struggling with pornography, you need to win that struggle for the sake of your son.
And it has nothing to do with your son.
Why should he follow you in it?
Why on earth would you expose him to it?
I mean, that would be child abuse.
That would seriously be an abusive thing to do with this child.
It is not your job to expose him to naked women or sexuality or anything.
All that stuff will come in time.
He will find it in time.
Most normal boys do look at some pornography at some point.
He's certainly going to be attracted to women and want to know more about them and he will find out things.
There'll be a time when he's a teenager when you have to decide whether he can go to an R-rated film or not.
There'll be times when you have to make decisions about what he can see and those will come along, but they're not going to come for a long time and you certainly don't have to worry about that.
The idea that you should be exposing him to this stuff is garbage.
That's ridiculous.
So the best thing you can have for him is to be incredibly good to his mom, show him what a good relationship looks like, show him what a dad looks like when he comes home and takes care of him and puts in time with his son, and show him what a man of integrity looks like by being who you appear to be.
Obviously, you have a private life.
He doesn't have to know everything about you, but you don't want to be a scurvy guy behind the scenes while pretending to be a decent guy in front of him because that will play out eventually.
So you want to be who you appear to be to your kids.
And that is a question of developing integrity.
And look, maybe you can't develop it tomorrow, but develop it over time.
Work on it every day and make sure that remind yourself that every day that you indulge in a pornography addiction, you're not that guy.
So what your job, you know, your job here is to raise your kid, to give him a dad who loves him, who teaches him things, who teaches him the things that he loves, whether it's sports or whatever it is you do for entertainment, aside from pornography.
That's what is going to do a good thing for him.
And this idea that you have to somehow expose him to sexuality, believe me, he will get exposed.
And there's something wrong about that mode of thinking that you really ought to check out.
And I hope you're getting help for that addiction because it will degrade you over time.
Do I have one more?
Yeah, I'll do one more.
My question from Corey.
I'm a huge fan of the show and the whole Daily Wire team.
My question is related to religion.
I've been agnostic for the longest time.
I listened to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.
I haven't been able to rationalize the existence of God.
I do acknowledge that we are spiritual creatures.
Interesting that.
I mean, I don't understand how we can be spiritual creatures if there's no such thing as spirit.
And I believe there's a deeper meaning to life than besides being just random matter floating around in space.
You better think this philosophy through because you can't really say that without God, without some kind of overarching spirit.
But okay, this is where you are.
You come to me where you are.
I miss the community aspect of church.
Finding Spiritual Meaning00:03:09
My question is, how can you claim that Christianity is the correct religion that explains the meaning of the universe when there were civilizations long before Christ's time, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, et cetera, who for thousands of years had different belief systems?
All right, I will answer that question.
But before I answer that question, why don't you go to God first and find out what God wants you to believe, okay?
Because if you believe that life has meaning, if you believe in the spirit, let me tell you, once you work that out logically, you're going to find that there's a God or that there's at least some overarching spirit in the world.
Why don't you go to him first and find out what he communicates to you in prayer and in listening and in meditation and thinking and reading and reading not just the Bible, but other books that talk about all this?
I don't understand why you have to accept Christianity whole before you accept what is obviously part of your philosophy that there is meaning and spirit in life.
The answer to your question is very simple.
The Romans and Greeks and Egyptians also believed in kinds of medicine that weren't true.
It's entirely possible that great civilizations were built on myths, that C.S. Lewis called them good dreams.
They are dreams that when you read them, they come very close to some of the Christian stories, and then the Christian story actually happened.
It was as if the Christian story lived in our hearts as a prophecy and then came true.
Again, where you are right now, I would start to explore your ideas deeper.
What does it mean that life has meaning?
What does it mean that you're a spiritual person, that you're a person with a spirit?
How do you work that out into a greater vision that actually makes sense?
That's where I would begin before worrying about Christianity at all.
Find out what God is like and then find out, gee, which of these religions really describes him as I experience him?
That's the way I would do it.
That's the way I have done it.
I will be back tomorrow, still in Memphis one more day.
I will talk to you then.
This is Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
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 Wall 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.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
President Trump referred to the impeachment inquiry against him as a lynching.
And the left is absolutely furious that the man that they've called a Nazi for the last three years would ever consider referencing racial violence in his metaphors.
We will use our high-tech to examine the history of high-tech lynchings.