Ep. 913 pits Andrew Clavin against the Supreme Court’s Bostock ruling, arguing Title VII’s expansion to LGBTQ+ protections is a judicial overreach that strips businesses of their right to discriminate—while falsely framing Democrats as historical racists tied to slavery and the KKK. Beverly Beattie’s viral rejection of BLM is hailed as "reasonable," while liberals are mocked for pushing "white-approved" LGBTQ+ agendas onto Black communities, despite Obama’s own policy shifts on gay rights. The episode ties this to NFL anthem protests, demanding conservatives reject "woke" culture entirely, and ends with a mailbag teaser promising "100% correct" answers—all while promoting Daily Wire subscriptions as the antidote to "corporate censorship." [Automatically generated summary]
Scientific experts from the Union of Scientific Experts Who Are Totally Reliable This Time, or USEWTRTT, are expressing concern that the spread of the Chinese virus, which had been brought to a standstill by massive radical left protests, may begin again if Donald Trump starts holding rallies.
USEWTRTT spokesman Dr. Seymour Mendacius, who has a PhD in amazingly accurate predictions, said that computer models from the absolutely believable computer model company are predicting with amazing accuracy that if Trump holds rallies, the virus could suddenly spread to totally innocent people at utterly peaceful riots and may even cause them to drop the TV they were heroically rescuing from the burning electronics store.
At a press conference made from behind a podium manufactured by the extremely serious-looking podium company, Dr. Mendacius produced the computer models from the absolutely believable computer model company and told journalists from the Completely Honest News Network, or CHNN, that the spread could be worsened by the virus's systemic racism that has caused black people to smoke and eat too much.
Dr. Mendacius said, quote, we at the Union of Scientific Experts who are totally reliable this time would like to tell you of the Completely Honest News Network that this is a particularly nasty disease in the way it virulently spreads from irresponsible gatherings of Trump supporters to strike down people performing essential tasks like gathering en masse to blame the police for things.
What's more, the disease harms mostly women because they're the ones who must mourn their husbands and fathers while the men have been put out of their misery by a slow and painful death, unquote.
Dr. Mendacius went on to say, quote, seeing as the computer models from the absolutely believable computer model company are absolutely believable, we are recommending that every business in the entire galaxy be shut down until the economy is so bad people vote for Democrats out of sheer hunger-driven stupidity or until I get my medical degree, whichever comes first.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
Rockauto's Impact00:03:01
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety boom.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dee-dee.
Ship-shaped, ipsy-topsy, the world is a-biddy-zing.
It's a wonderful day, hooray, hooray, it makes me want to sing.
Oh, hooray, hooray.
All right, now that we're doing contact tracing, I figure to hell with civil rights.
And we are just following you to make sure you go on the Andrew Clavin YouTube channel and subscribe to that channel.
Otherwise, we know where you live.
We're also tracking your comments there for anything subversive, which we will immediately read on the show.
Noah York has a comment today.
He says, my brother has been battling on and off with depression for the past two years now, and he came to me for advice.
And I asked him, hey, when was the last time you said rockauto.com out loud?
To which he replied, I have never said rockauto.com, to which I replied, well then, there's your problem.
That, my friends, is science.
That is absolutely true.
If you have never said rockauto.com, that's why you're depressed.
So, in light of yesterday's Supreme Court decision on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we're going to talk about something dangerous today, namely whether civil rights law is eroding civil rights.
The Civil Rights Act is the bedrock legislation of the civil rights movement.
It helped to speed black Americans' rise into the middle class, a rise that was then cut short by the great society programs that destroyed black families and fostered the kind of dependence and political patronage the Democratic Party has been living off ever since.
There's no question that some sort of federal intervention was needed after a century of oppression as Democrats had tried to replace the Democrat institution of slavery with the Democrat institution of Jim Crow.
It wasn't fair.
It wasn't right.
And it wasn't American.
Well, of course not.
It was from the Democrats.
So it had to be stopped.
But that doesn't mean the law was without flaws or without bad unintended consequences.
I'm coming to the end of reading Christopher Caldwell's amazing new book, Age of Entitlement, and I highly recommend it.
Caldwell argues that the Civil Rights Act set up a parallel constitution that is in conflict with the original Constitution and is in fact devouring it whole.
Some conservatives at the time predicted this, most notably Barry Goldwater, the Arizona conservative who ran unsuccessfully for president against Lyndon Johnson.
Goldwater was a lifelong and dedicated believer in civil rights, but unlike most Republicans, he voted against the Civil Rights Act because he said it went too far in giving government power over private enterprises.
By the way, just so you know, a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the Rights Act than Democrats, but you don't know that because we've torn down all the statues, so you have no history.
But you should just remember that Democrats are locusts.
Anyway, since then, the left and their lawyers have used the Civil Rights Act so effectively that employers, the people who own businesses, have very little control over their own property and enterprise and are hemmed around by case law that holds them guilty of bigotry unless they can prove themselves innocent.
HR Audit for Truth00:02:38
They're terrified and they will therefore fire employees who just, for instance, tell the truth about the ugly leftist goals of the Black Lives Matter movement.
So, one unintended consequence of the Civil Rights Act then is in fact a curtailment of the most essential civil rights, freedom of association and freedom of speech.
That is done in the name of ending bigotry.
But it's totally fair to ask this dangerous question.
What good is it to include people in America if you're including them in a society that no longer has the basic American civil rights?
And that's what we're going to take a look at as we take a look at yesterday's Supreme Court decision more closely than we had time to yesterday when the decision was made.
But we do want to talk to you about HR.
A lot of these issues play into HR and can make your life an absolute nightmare when you're running a business.
HR issues can kill you, wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations, and HR manager salaries aren't cheap, an average of $70,000 a year.
Bambi, spelled B-A-M-B-E-E, was created specifically for small businesses.
You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month.
With Bambi, you can change HR from your biggest liability to your biggest strength.
Your dedicated HR manager is available by phone, email, or real-time chat from onboarding to terminations.
They customize your policies to fit your business and help you manage your employees day by day, all for just $99 a month.
So go to Bambi.com slash Clavin right now to schedule your free HR audit.
That's Bambi.com slash Clavin, spelled BAM to the B-E-E, B-A-M-B-E-E dot com slash Clavin.
You can get a dedicated manager to help you figure out how do you spell Clavin.
It is K-L-A to the V-A-N or whatever the hell it is.
That's the important point.
I just make it look easy.
The mailbag is tomorrow.
So you want to go over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
Then you want to go to the podcast page.
Then you want to hit the Andrew Clavin podcast.
Then you want to hit the little mailbag image.
And you can ask me anything you want about your personal life, about politics, about religion.
All my answers are guaranteed 100% correct.
You will not get that deal anywhere else.
And they will also change your life.
Will they change your life for the better?
Also, see, that one satisfied customer there.
I want to remind you that you can send your questions in in video form if you keep this questions under a minute.
Freedom of Association00:15:04
We won't penalize you if you don't do that, but we have enjoyed seeing some of your faces and seeing you ask the questions personally.
So if you want to send in a video of under a minute asking your question, please do.
So I always say this politics makes us stupid.
And that's sometimes intentional.
Sometimes politicians and political people are trying to make you stupid.
One of the ways they make you stupid is by telling you that what you should listen to when you hear somebody speak is whether or not you're offended or whether or not your sensibilities are moved in some way you don't like or whether you feel unsafe.
Instead of asking yourself, huh, is this a complex, interesting, dangerous, but important point that is going to be made.
So what was happening yesterday at the Supreme Court, and I personally think conservatives are getting this a little bit wrong.
I mean, I think they're getting some of it right.
But what happened is, is the Supreme Court was asked, does the civil rights law of 1964, Title VII, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin?
And the question was, does sex mean that you can't discriminate in employment against people who are gay or transgender?
Okay, that is the question, whether that is meant to or should cover discrimination against gays and transgender.
And of course, it was somebody who was fired who said he was fired for being gay or transgender who brought the case.
Neil Gorsuch said, yes, it does, but I'm going to explain his reasoning, which is not what you think it is and not what they say it is, I feel.
Gorsuch is known as a textualist, okay?
And sometimes they say, well, a textualist and an originalist is the same thing.
That's not entirely right, okay?
A textualist is reading the text of the law and saying what does it mean, but an originalist is referring back, and this is the Scalia thing, an originalist is referring back to the intention of the people who wrote the law and saying in everyday language, without going up your own backside with your legal reasoning, what it was the law intended to do and is this a way of doing it.
So Gorsuch reads the thing and he says, he's a textualist and he reads the thing and he says it prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
And he says, today we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.
The answer is clear, says Gorsuch.
An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.
Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.
Now follow the logic here, okay?
I was trying to talk to Jenna about this, but we were talking about so many different things.
I want to make sure I made it clear to Jenna Ellis, who was on yesterday.
The logic is that if a lady marries a man and a man marries a man, right, to say that the man can't do that, you're saying he can't do that because he's a man.
So you're discriminating against him because of his sex.
Do you get what I'm saying here?
He's not saying that the word sex means transgender and homosexual.
He's saying that if you discriminate against a person for doing something that the opposite sex would also do, that is discrimination on the basis of sex, right?
And he says those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result.
Likely they weren't thinking about many of the acts consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees.
But the limits of the drafter's imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands.
So now he goes on to say, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind.
The only question is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender is destroyed, discharged, or otherwise discriminated against that individual because of such individual's sex.
And he also says that Title VII, he reminds us that Title VII exempts religious organizations and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires significant efforts to accommodate beliefs that conflict with federal law.
But we know the left is after that.
We know the left wants to force religion to accept homosexuality.
The idea is to destroy religion.
It has nothing to do with it.
So, Gorsuch's argument is logical, but it's also absurd.
And this is one of the things that, one of the things about pure reason, I mean, this is why Immanuel Kant said you cannot use pure reason in metaphysical reasoning.
You have to also use certain ways that human beings receive information.
It is not illogical to say, well, if a woman can wear a dress, why can't a man wear a dress?
Then you're just penalizing him because of his sex.
You're saying he can't wear a dress because of his sex, right?
And so that's discrimination on the basis of sex.
That is not illogical.
It's simply absurd.
Why?
Because men and women are different.
And it raises the question.
By the way, I should just add that it also means that transgender women are men.
It also, remember, it means he is reasoning.
His reasoning means that you cannot now make a law saying transgender women have to be called she because they are men, according to what he's saying.
The reason they're being penalized for being transgender is because they're wearing a dress and calling themselves a woman when they're men.
That's why they're being attacked.
But it's absurd.
It is absurd.
And it brings into question whether discrimination on the basis of sex might be something that makes sense in certain cases.
Why can I say to myself, oh, this is a young woman and she's going to get pregnant, and when she gets pregnant, she's going to be more interested in her child than she is in my business.
That may not be fair.
That may not be fair.
But it is, in fact, a legitimate complaint that a businessman might have.
And that is the argument about the civil rights law is why isn't a businessman allowed to follow his interests freely regardless of what the society thinks is right or wrong, right?
He's not hurting anybody if he follows his interests freely.
And we'll get back to that in a minute.
Let's just read some of the dissents.
Samuel Lolito said sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity are different concepts.
The Civil Rights Act, no member of Congress said one word about the possibility that the prohibition of sex discrimination might have that meaning.
Instead, all the debate concerned discrimination on the basis of biological sex.
So in other words, he's making the argument, and Kavanaugh makes this argument too, that essentially Gorsuch and John Roberts, by the way, who also was on that side, are writing law and they shouldn't be writing law, okay?
And you know, it is absurd.
The reason it's absurd is because we're talking about the difference between immutable traits, being female, being black, being whatever you are, and choices that people make.
I don't believe that being gay is a choice.
I mean, I suppose it could be a choice, but I don't believe that people who are gay is a choice.
This is an argument that stupid conservatives who never get out of their house make.
It is not a choice.
If it were a choice, people would not have gotten themselves killed as they did, hanged, destroyed, their lives utterly destroyed to have sex with the people they felt compelled to have sex with.
We know that sex runs through people's bodies like a powerful river.
And if you are attracted to the same sex, you are going to want to do that no matter what.
Now, they recently that a study where they said, oh, there's no genetic component to this.
Baloney.
You know, they don't know.
There could be, for instance, a genetic component in the mother that causes something to happen in the womb that causes people to come out gay.
There are people.
I'm not saying not everybody is making a choice.
I'm just saying there are people who are gay.
It's absurd.
Still, to have gay sex, to act out your homosexuality, that is a choice.
And people do have the right to judge the morality of people's choices.
You don't have the right to say, well, you're black.
That's wrong.
Stop being black.
That's absurd.
It's absurd.
Even if I could find, like Neil Gorsuch, even if I could find some crazy logical reason for it, it would still be absurd.
You do not have the right to say that to people because they can't stop being black.
You can't stop maybe feeling gay, but you can't stop having gay sex.
And people have a right to judge the morality of that, especially if you're in the morality business, like some religions feel that they are.
Some religions feel like, yes, we are in the business of policing morality, of talking about what is moral.
And not all religions think this, but some religions do.
And we have the right to say this is something that we feel is immoral.
And if you do this, you're not part of, you are not part of our church.
You're not in keeping with our morality, our system.
So it really is absurd.
It's logical.
Again, it is logical, but it is absurd at the same time.
And people have to realize that there are these distinctions.
Everybody realizes that except for lawyers.
And that is one of the reasons the left has been able to use lawfare to overturn people's rights.
Now, let me talk about this freedom of association.
Freedom of association is not written out in the Constitution, but it's assumed.
It's assumed because it is the basic right, is the most basic right that you have not to associate with people you don't want to associate with.
You cannot suddenly be drafted into the pro-abortion movement, right?
You can't say, I'm sorry, you have to be part of the pro-abortion movement, whether you're pro-life or not, it doesn't matter.
That's why it was so egregious when Obama tried to get nuns to pay for abortion medicines.
That was why that was such a hit against freedom of association.
But Obama didn't care.
He didn't believe in freedom of association.
He believed in civil rights, this version of civil rights.
Let me give you some examples, all right?
And I'm going to be talking about this the whole show, so we'll just continue with it.
A friend of mine once came to me, and he was a great guy, but he was a little bit of a social climber.
We all have our flaws.
One of his flaws was he was a little bit of a social climber.
And he had an opportunity to get into a private club that he thought at the time was restricted to Jewish people.
It would not allow Jewish people in.
And he came to me and he said, I am thinking of joining this club that does not allow Jewish people.
And I said, well, you go and you do that, but I will never speak to you again.
You have the absolute right to do that, but I will never speak to you again.
And he said, I thought you believed in freedom of association.
And I said, I do.
And if you join that club, I will use my freedom of association to stop associating with you.
Okay?
That's the way it's supposed to work.
He is supposed to be able to make any decision he wants, and I'm supposed to be able to make any decision I want.
And the club, a private club, not taking federal money, should be able to restrict Jews.
I think they're jerks.
I think you're a jerk if you restrict black people.
I know liberals who belong to clubs that restrict black people.
Well, we're working for change from the inside.
It sucks.
You shouldn't belong to a club like that.
I truly believe that.
But you should be allowed to belong to a club like that.
And that is the question we're asking.
We're not asking about right and wrong.
We're asking who decides.
And of course, the reason individuals should decide is because if individuals don't take moral action, it's not moral action.
If you take moral action at the barrel of a gun with a gun pointing at you, which is essentially what the government is, you're not taking moral action.
The government is forcing upon you.
It ceases to be a moral act.
And that's the kind of freedom we're talking about.
And I'll continue talking about that in just a minute.
But first, let's talk about NetSuite.
Very important that you know what is going on in your business.
And it's not in a hundred different places, but it's all in one place.
If you don't know your numbers in your business, you don't know what's going on, right?
know HR, all the stuff you have to know, inventory, e-commerce, everything is all in one place with NetSuite by Oracle, the world's number one cloud business system.
Whether you're doing a million or hundreds of millions in sales, NetSuite gives you visibility and control so you can manage every penny with precision.
Join over 20,000 companies who trust NetSuite to go faster with confidence.
NetSuite surveyed hundreds of business leaders and assembled a playbook of the top strategies they're using as America reopens for business.
You can get your free guide, seven actions businesses need to take now and schedule your free product tour at netsuite.com/slash clavin.
Get your free guide and schedule your free product tour right now at netsuite.com slash clavin, netsuite.com slash claven, where you just look at one place to find out how you spell clavin.
It is K-L-A-L-C-A-N-A-N-A-C-A-D-N-R-L-A-N-F-D-J.
You know, it's K-L-A-V-A-N.
All right.
Let's say, let's take another look at this.
Let's say you're an evil bigot.
Say you work for the editorial board of the New York Times and you hate white people.
Yeah, no, you're either a Klansman or a New York Times editorial person.
So one of the two.
Either one.
It doesn't matter to me because it's the same thing, right?
So you're driving down the road and you're hating on white people or you're hating on black people or whoever you're hating on.
And you're getting tired and you see a motel and you walk into the motel to get a room.
And there, oh Lord, behind the desk is the person receiving you, is the person of that race you dislike.
So say you worked for the New York Times as a white person.
So as a white person, you think, oh, God, I hate those white people.
I'm an evil bigot who works for the New York Times.
I don't want to stay in this place.
Should the law force you to take a room in that hotel?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
You have the right to turn around, get back in your car for whatever reason.
You don't like the guy's nose, you don't like his eyes, you don't like the wallpaper, you don't like the color of his skin, you have the right to turn around, get back in your car, and drive down to the next motel.
So the question is, how did the guy who owns that hotel lose that right?
How does he lose that right to say, hey, I don't want to let Jews in.
I don't want to let white people, I work, look, I read the New York Times, I don't want to let white people in my hotel.
How did he lose that right to be a bigot?
Obviously, we all think that's an ugly thing, but why should he lose the right to do that?
Okay.
So now the civil rights law has become, and it was, again, it was a necessary action.
And the argument for it was, look, this is an emergency.
The Democrats have been stepping on the necks of black people for all this time, just like that cop in Democrat-run Minnesota in the Democrat city of Minneapolis was stepping on the neck of that black guy.
That's what Democrats do.
They step on the neck of black people.
This is what they do, and they've been doing it forever, okay?
So they needed a civil rights law to say you can't do that.
But when you started to say, oh, if you have a room in your house and you want to rent out that room, you can't look at somebody and say, well, I don't want to give it to a transgender people.
I thought person.
I think that's wrong.
I don't want to give it to a woman.
I'm a man.
I don't want a woman in my house who can accuse me of stuff.
Or I'm a woman and I don't want a man in my house who makes things dangerous, right?
You should be able to do that.
You should be able to make those discriminatory things.
When, when did the government get that right, get to take that right away?
Rand Paul's Controversy00:15:15
So the only person, the only current politician who has ever had the guts to address this is Rand Paul.
And Rand Paul, obviously the ultimate libertarian, he was running for the Senate, right?
And he said he questioned whether the civil rights law was correct in placing restrictions on private property, right?
His argument was libertarian, but people went nuts.
And then later, and I guess this is around 2010, he decided he might run for president.
This came up and he was attacked as being against the civil rights law.
Now here is an interview that Wolf Blitzer on CNN did, okay?
And I just, I want you, I want to dissect this a little bit.
Listen to the opening question.
We've just discussed what the problem is with the civil rights law, that it strips people who own businesses of certain rights that other people have.
It says to them, you cannot make choices that other people can make because once you buy a business, we, the government, control your life.
That's basically what it says.
So essentially, while a law was made, was needed, maybe the law did something wrong.
Maybe it had unintended consequences that need to be fixed.
That's a conversation that people should be allowed to have.
Are you allowed to have it?
Well, listen to what Wolf Blitzer asked Rand Paul when this controversy came up when he was deciding to run for president.
This is Cut 11.
I want to give you a chance to explain, because there's a lot of confusion right now about precisely where you stand.
I'll ask you a simple question.
If you had been a member of the Senate or the House back in 1964, would you have voted yay or nay for the Civil Rights Act?
I'll ask you a simple question, Rand.
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still beat your wife?
In other words, he is asking the wrong question, and Rand can't possibly give the right answer.
He can't possibly give the right answer, because if he says no, I wouldn't have voted for it.
Then he's got a million things he's got to explain.
If he says, well, wait a minute, you know, that's not the issue.
Again, the trapdoor is already open.
Wolf Blitzer has opened a trapdoor under.
That's not journalism.
That's activism.
That is not journalism.
That is activism.
It is enforcing a social point of view that Wolf Blitzer and CNN want to enforce, but it has nothing to do with getting from Rand Paul a conversation about what he says.
So Rand Paul folds.
He has to.
What is he going to do?
Really, as a politician, what is he going to do?
He's Cut 12.
Here's his answer to that question.
I think what troubles me is that the news cycle's gotten out of control.
I mean, for several hours on a major news network yesterday, they reported repeatedly that I was for repealing the Civil Rights Act.
That is not only not true, never been my position, but is an out-and-out lie.
And they repeated it all day long.
It started with my Democrat opponent asserting this, but has never been my position.
All right.
So there he is.
Look, what is the guy going to do when he's asked that question?
You know, why didn't Wolf Blitzer just say, what is your opinion?
What are you trying to say here?
Explain to us, what are you trying to say?
Why didn't he ask that question?
Well, of course he didn't.
Because he was wrangling Rand Paul into a position where he had to back down.
And that's what the press does, and it does it every single day, and it does it to every single body.
And so it's impossible to have a conversation.
The press makes us stupid.
And whenever you see anybody, I don't care who it is, go on and say, well, the press is left-wing.
We just have to learn to live with it.
No, it is the arm of an oppressive movement to take away your civil rights.
And again, my question is, look, believe me, I mean, I think anybody who listens to the show knows I want everybody included.
I want gay people included.
I want trans people included.
I don't care.
I want everybody to live his happiest life in a happy America.
That's what I want for everybody.
But that doesn't mean there aren't complex issues.
And that doesn't mean that laws can't go wrong.
And it doesn't mean that good intentions can't go wrong.
Of course they do.
The road to hell is paved with them.
Finally, Wolf Blitzer moves on to a Disabilities Act.
And he's just basically beating the crap out of Rand Paul in a quiet, very subtle way.
Finally, Rand Paul sort of gets that a little bit in talking about the Disabilities Act, what he's trying to say.
This CUT 13.
It doesn't always take government for people to do the right thing.
Sometimes government has to step in in extraordinary circumstances.
But I think a lot of times that the private world can step up and do the right things, or we can find local solutions over federal solutions.
So it's not always whether you oppose something.
It's about where the solution should arrive, whether it arrives at the federal government or the local government.
Now, see, how hard is that?
Now that brings us back.
It brings us back to the court case, Bostock, in which Neil Gorsuch made this incredibly absurd ruling.
It brings us back to that.
The question is not what's right or wrong.
The question is who decides.
And because of the civil rights law, Really, the Constitution has ceased to be, in some ways, operational.
It has ceased to be operational because we're no longer making law in Congress.
When was the last time Congress made a law that mattered?
Maybe Obamacare, and that was forced through with all kinds of bludgeoning and bullying and corruption.
That was forced through.
That was a law that mattered, I guess.
But I mean, when was the last time they made a law?
They don't make law.
They let agencies make regulations, which are then completely inarguable.
And the Supreme Court makes law as it did in this decision.
And that's because of the civil rights law.
That is because the civil rights law has made, created a constitutional avenue that is unconstitutional, that is against the Constitution.
And again, I ask the question, you know, you want to be included.
I want everybody to be included, but do you want to be included in America?
Or do you want to be included in an America that has ceased to be America because of putting inclusion above everything else?
This affects black people too.
There was a wonderful video that went around yesterday of a lady, I think her name is Beverly Beattie.
Is that it?
Yeah.
She was challenged outside this place that they've taken over in Seattle.
And she was challenged by this white lady.
And she responded why she doesn't support this Black Lives Matter movement and why she doesn't support the Democrats.
Let's play the first cut of this.
Let's cut one, I think.
I know people don't like Trump.
I understand that.
But let me tell you something.
If I had to pick between him and Joe Biden, I'm not voting in Joe Biden.
You want to see a bunch of black people go to jail by the next four years?
Put Joe Biden in.
Watch what happens.
You want to see black men get killed substantially like you've never seen before?
Put Joe Biden in and watch what happens.
These Democrats, and I'm sorry to say this, I'm not trying to be racist, but they hate black people.
These are the same people who fought to keep slavery in.
These are the same people who built the KKK.
These are the same people who hated us from the beginning.
The Republican Party is a party of the blacks.
Blacks three.
The Republican Party is the only party that the black people actually assisted in finding.
So what I love about this, the thing that's so beautiful is, first of all, this lady is obviously very well educated.
She is using actual reason.
She's using actual facts.
And the white lady who looks like, I'm sorry, but she just looks like white lady, liberal white lady.
She's wearing a big hat.
You could just say like a liberal white lady at the top.
She's like a central casting, you know, like Harvey, send down a liberal white lady.
She's looking at this woman and the look on her face, she is so taken aback, not just to have this woman disagree with her, but to have her disagree with her in a reasoned, fact-based way.
And so help me, if there were a thought bubble like in the cartoons over her head, I think what it would say is, wait, you're supposed to be dependent on the great white lady who is going to take care of you and explain things to you and help you and establish my virtue and my power by helping you.
You're not supposed to be explaining things to me.
And that is the real problem that we're facing is that all of this stuff that I'm talking about affects blacks too, because it is a matter of white power.
It always has been.
It is a matter of white power to keep blacks dependent on our justice, our righteousness, and our charity.
And I'll talk about that more in just a second.
But first, we have to tell you about the Reader's Pass sub-break.
This is for people who are just too damn cheap to pay for all access.
You know, maybe you're sitting around complaining that your kids can't eat or you're being evicted from your apartment.
So you don't want the all-access thing with all the fabulous things we give you, but we give you a smaller membership level called the Reader's Pass, and we'll give it to you for one buck for the first month, 99 cents for the first month, so you can't whine and complain that your children are starving and they don't have new clothes.
And then it's $3 after that.
It's a lousy $3 a month after that, $36 for the year.
You get articles ad-free.
You get Daily Wire talent writer-exclusive articles.
You can read my article that was put up as a column last week about the racial matrix that probably will get me fired.
But you can read all kinds of things with the Reader's Pass.
Also, you want to be at backstage, which is when?
It's Thursday, right?
It's Thursday, 3:30 Pacific, 6:30 Eastern, and we'll be talking about all this, or we won't because we're terrified.
Come over to DailyWire.com and subscribe.
All right, so let's return to this lady, Beverly Beatty, because, you know, Black Lives Matter.
A long time ago, I was on Gretchen Carlson's show on Fox.
Remember Gretchen Carlson?
And I was on a panel and I said, why is now the National Organization of Women left-wing?
Why is the National Organization of Women, why does it have to be left-wing?
And the entire panel erupted.
They were yelling at me.
They were just kind of like, they didn't really understand what I was saying.
I don't think Gretchen understood what I was saying.
What I was saying is, why are the rights of women a left-wing specifically cause if we believe that leftism abrogates our rights?
If it hurts our rights, why are the rights of women involved with the left?
The same thing is true of Black Lives Matter.
You can get fired today for saying, I don't agree with Black Lives Matter.
People are being fired.
Tucker Carlson is fighting for his life.
They're trying to boycott his show.
The sponsors are boycotting a show, and people are trying to destroy him because he's taking issue with the agenda of Black Lives Matter.
And we read part of this before.
This is on their website.
It says, we make space for transgender brothers and sisters.
We do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift black trans folks.
We make our spaces family-friendly, but we disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family structure.
Now, is this what black people want?
Is that necessarily what you want if you're black?
If your skin is black, are you definitely on board with that?
Do you not get to have your own opinions?
Is that it?
Enough melanin and bang, your rights to have your own opinions are shut up.
Well, not according to this lady.
And again, I think her name is Beverly Beattie.
That's what I, when I looked for her online, that was what I found.
But she goes on and she says to this liberal white lady, her name is actually Liberal White Lady.
I looked at that up too.
She says to her, this is not what blacks want.
Black people are conservative.
Now, I don't know if that's true either, but certainly a black person should be able to be conservative and say, I disagree with Black Lives Matter in the same way a woman should be able to be conservative and say, I disagree with the National Organization of Women.
This is the thing.
They have basically co-opted these issues, but they haven't, but in doing so, they've co-opted the rights of the people they're supposedly representing to have their own freedoms and opinions.
So here is this lady saying, Beverly Beattie saying this to this lady named Liberal White Lady.
Why do Black Lives Matter turn into something about LGBTQ when blacks really don't support that?
We're conservative about that.
We're really not about that.
Not only that, we don't support abortion.
We're about profiting.
This is the black culture.
We ain't giving a bit about that.
Not only that, we're not about feminism.
No, we're not black women.
Man, your husbands and respect your husbands.
That's what we on.
We're not on this.
Oh, I do what I want.
We don't do that.
That's not our community.
And you and I understand.
I know you understand what I'm saying.
We don't do that.
But yet these people are hijacking our women and dumping party.
They're trying to hijack all of them.
It is amazing.
Rob is telling me her name is Bevelyn Beattie.
So I'm close, but not exactly right.
But this is the people, the same people who are against colonialism, who are against imperialism, are incredibly colonial when it comes to black people.
The white people, white liberals feel that they have their right to bring abortion to Africa, to force abortion on the Africans who don't want it.
And they feel they have the right to force feminism and homosexual rights on this lady who doesn't want those either.
In other words, why is BLM the representative of black people when it's not?
It's a representative of liberal elites of whatever color.
It is the representation of liberal elites, the opinions of liberal elites, and is using black people as a front.
That's what they always do, okay?
The expert at this was Barack Obama.
You know, I often call Obama an incompetent because he flattened the recovery.
His policies really made it impossible for the economy to recover.
He left the Middle East in flames.
But sometimes I wonder if Dinesh D'Souza got it right, and maybe that was his intention.
Maybe he meant to weaken America.
I don't know.
But one thing he did mean to do is push the gay rights agenda.
And again, I'm in favor of gay rights.
I like gay people, and I want them to be a part.
I think they're part of creation, and I think they should be part of our society.
So it has nothing to do with my personal opinions.
It has to do with who decides and who has the right to disagree.
That is the important thing.
Now, Obama, and some of this is coming also from Chris Caldwell's book, The Age of Entitlement, which again, I highly recommend.
I'm on the last like 30 pages.
In 2008, Obama was interviewed by Rick Warren about the gay marriage issue.
And this is what he said.
This is Cut 14.
I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition?
No, I would not.
I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions.
I do believe that we should not, that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.
Okay, so that was 2008, right?
In 2006, according to Chris Caldwell in the Age of Entitlement, he was on a book tour and he was asked about this issue and he said, how could I be against gay marriage?
Though if I were running the movement, I wouldn't start with gay marriage.
Okay, so he was lying in 2008.
He was lying about his ultimate goals.
That's why, that is why no one ever really attacked him for that.
No one went insane about it.
A beauty queen contestant said she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.
She was absolutely excoriated.
She was just absolutely ripped from pillar to post.
A little girl, basically, a teenage girl who had her opinion.
She was ripped to pieces.
Lying About Flags00:06:30
But a presidential candidate who said this wasn't because they knew he was lying.
So later, after Oberg fell and after they won their case in the Supreme Court, though not necessarily with the opinions of the people, Obama was interviewed by Rolling Stone.
And this is what he said.
He said, if you will recall, what happened was first, very systematically, I changed laws around hospital visitation for people who were same-sex partners.
This is what he's talking about.
This was because of AIDS.
We saw people die and their partners couldn't get in to see them and we were moved by that.
And so people were very sympathetic to this movement, even though I think the majority was still opposed to it.
So he says, first, very systematically, I changed laws around hospital visitation for people who were same-sex partners.
I then assigned the Pentagon to do a study on getting rid of don't ask, don't tell, which then got the buy-in of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and we were then able to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
We then filed a brief on Proposition 8 out in California, and then, after a lot of groundwork was laid, then I took a position.
So he was lying the entire time.
He was lying.
He was selling, it was a strategy.
So that's not incompetence.
That is hypercompetence.
And he was scandal-free, so he couldn't actually have been lying.
He was just saying words that weren't true.
Because if he were lying, it would be a scandal, but he was scandal-free.
So it couldn't be that.
This is why.
This is why I feel that conservatives have to think more clearly about these things.
I love David French, and I love a lot of these guys who I know are never Trumpers and all this stuff, and they're good people.
But I so disagree with them about this.
Our rights come from God.
This is what our friend Jenna Ellis is constantly telling us.
Our rights don't come from the government.
They're not a legal trick that they can be argued away.
They come from the creator of the universe.
They come from the creator of the universe.
When he made you in your mother's womb, he gave you those rights.
The government has no right to take them away.
And this is why it bothers me, for instance, when Twitter or Google starts to censor us and people like David French said, well, they're a private business and the First Amendment.
No, no.
When you come after something that was given to you by God, if the law will not support you stopping them, then you have to change the law and you have to do it right away and you have to do it immediately because our right to free speech is not to be bargained away any more, I feel, than our right to freedom of association should be bargained away in legal niceties like Neil Gorsuch was doing.
You have the right.
I don't, but I don't condemn homosexuality, but you have the right to condemn it.
I don't condemn transgenderism, but you have the right to condemn it.
And it raises certain questions about whether men can play in women's sports just because they happen to declare themselves to be women and things like that.
This is the thing.
Conservatives have their heads up their butts about this.
This is not something that can be reasoned away.
These rights come from God.
And if you're not defending those rights in some way immediately, you're doing the wrong thing.
The system doesn't come first.
The rights come first.
The system serves the rights.
All right.
A final reflection.
I just want to talk one thing about Ben Carson, a comment Ben Carson made.
The NFL is now basically saying, oh, yeah, you should hire back Colin Kaepernick.
And yeah, we're all going to kneel for the Pledge of Allegiance.
And the Pledge of Allegiance, the national anthem.
And it's not really against the flag.
It's not against the flag.
It's against police brutality.
It's against police brutality.
Ben Carson the other day said a lot of people are under the impression that they're kneeling because they don't respect our national anthem or they don't respect the flag or what it stands for.
And in fact, I don't think that's the reason that most of them are kneeling.
I think most of them are kneeling because, you know, they want to protest some brutality in police forces.
They need to make that very clear.
I will never watch football again, ever, ever.
I'm a big football fan.
I will never watch the NFL again if people start kneeling for the flag.
I will never, ever watch it again.
As long as they kneel, I'll never watch it.
I won't watch the Super Bowl.
I won't watch two guys throw, I won't watch a commercial with Tom Brady in it.
I don't care.
You can tell me that kneeling during the national anthem is not disrespecting the flag.
You're a liar if you do.
And Ben Carson says he's going to bring Trump around.
If Trump comes around, Trump is finished.
Trump may be finished just from this Neil Gorsuch thing.
He was kind of praising the opinion because he doesn't care about gay people.
He's perfectly fine with gay people, as he should be.
I'm for that.
But he was praising this decision essentially, saying, well, that's the law.
There it goes.
But this is really going to hurt him.
This is what we brought him in there for, to fight the cultural fight.
We brought him in there to speak up for us.
And if you are disrespecting the flag, you're disrespecting the country that protects the rights that you are trying to get.
You are saying to me, you're saying to me, I'm not your fellow American.
I'm not your fellow American, but I want those American rights.
I'm not one of you.
You're a white guy and I'm a black guy and I get to do this.
I'm not with you.
But I don't respect your flag, but I want the rights that flag defends.
I want the rights that people died under that flag to secure me.
I want those rights, but I'm not going to respect the flag.
Never.
I'm never watching football if they do it.
And I don't think you should either.
And I think if conservatives continue to support the NFL, I think that if the right continues to support the NFL while they're kneeling for the flag, they get everything they deserve.
This is where conservatives basically lose it.
This is where they say, well, I like the football.
I don't want to miss the football.
This is, you know, they talk big.
They pound, conservatives pound their palms with their fists and they declare, they talk, make big, big talk about rights, big talk about civil rights.
Oh, freedom, freedom, America, the Constitution.
But I can't say anything.
I don't want to say anything because I might get a bad grade.
I don't want to say anything because I might lose a sponsor.
I don't want to say anything because I might get fired.
Oh, I don't want to miss the NFL.
I don't want to miss the NFL.
Never.
I will never watch the NFL again.
And Trump will lose me completely if he comes around on this.
This is disrespecting the flag.
It is disrespecting the thing that represents the rights you're trying to get.
It makes no sense.
And I will not be bullied into it.
And I don't think Trump should be either.
I think he's a fool if he follows this.
I think we're all fools if we follow it.
I'm going to stop there.
Don't forget the mailbag is tomorrow.
Come over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
Go over to the podcast page.
Got to go over to the Andrew Clavin podcast.
Hit that little mailbag.
Ask me anything you want.
All of your problems will be solved.
I mean, come on.
Where else do you get these offers that are completely untrue?
I'm Andrew Clavin.
Boring Technical Podcasts00:01:18
This is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'll see you 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 Wall Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring, technical producer, Austin Stevens, and our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Sayovitz.
Audio mixed by Robin Fenderson.
Hair and makeup is by Jessua Alvera.
Animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Production assistants, McKenna Waters and Ryan Love.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2020.
You know, the Matt Wall Show, it's not just another show about politics.
I think there are enough of those already out there.
We talk about culture because culture drives politics and it drives everything else.
So my main focuses are life, family, faith.
Those are fundamental, and that's what this show is about.