Ben Shapiro dissects Biden’s evasive court-packing stance, mocking media redefinitions of "capitalism" and "liberty" while exposing the 1619 Project’s dishonest edits—Nicole Hannah-Jones and Jake Silverstein’s denial of revisions proves virtue over truth. Democrats’ procedural hypocrisy mirrors FDR’s failed scheme, yet they frame GOP appointments as "packing" while ignoring their own plans. Biden’s alleged senility risks exposure in debates, contrasting Trump’s energy, as the campaign thrives on media deception and fear-motivated voters. The episode ties these themes to historical narratives, from Cleopatra’s Greek-Macedonian roots to Columbus Day’s celebration of Western ideals, culminating in a critique of ideological virtue signaling over constitutional integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Now that Joe Biden is refusing to tell whether he will pack the Supreme Court if he becomes president, journalists and other Democrat spokesmen have decided it will no longer call packing the Supreme Court packing the Supreme Court, but will instead call constitutionally appointing justices to the Supreme Court packing the Supreme Court, and will call packing the Supreme Court depoliticizing the Supreme Court.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, oh, Clavin, you incorrigible rap scallion, how on earth do you manage to dream up these outrageous satirical absurdities while still projecting that smoldering sexuality that leaves women weak with desire.
But no, I'm actually not making this up.
Over the weekend, no less a lowlife than Dan Rather declared that Republicans had been packing the Supreme Court for years by winning elections and using their constitutional power to appoint justices, while the Associated Press now says Democrats may add judges to the Supreme Court as a way of, quote, depoliticizing the court.
In a further attempt to carry the body of Joe Biden to victory in November's election, the media has also made other changes to their official style book.
For instance, from now on, capitalism will be referred to as the excesses of capitalism, and socialism will be called happy, happy, fun, fun, super good party time.
As in the sentence, we must put an end to the excesses of capitalism so we can have happy, happy, fun, fun, super good party time and kill anyone who opposes us.
In another change, liberty will now be referred to as selfishness, and being forcibly stripped of your earnings will be called paying your fair share, as in the sentence, we the government are out of cash and you the people have cash, so stop being selfish and pay your fair share so we can afford to teach you you're a racist whose sons should wear dresses.
To further protect Biden, his campaign has declared that journalists wearing masks during press conferences is not safe enough and instead they'll have to wear gags.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky donkey.
Birds are winging also singing hunky dunkety doom.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is it easing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, we're back laughing our way through the fall of the Republic.
If you want to get all the possible content, exqueze every drop of clavin-y goodness you can out of the content on the show, go on YouTube and subscribe to my personal Andrew Clavin channel.
We have separated those channels from the Daily Wire channel because the Daily Wire is just embarrassed to be associated with me.
But we're still connected.
And if you go on and subscribe and you ring the bell, you'll get original content.
You'll be notified when new content is there.
And if you leave a comment and it's particularly stupid, we will read it on the air because it'll fit right in with the rest of what we're saying here.
Today we have a comment from K-Drop, which says, here is another show where Andrew refuses to let us know if he would pack the Supreme Court once he hits 10 million subscribers.
That's absolutely true.
You do not deserve to know whether I would pack the Supreme Court.
Or if you do, please write me and tell me what you have done to deserve knowing.
So Brett Stevens wrote an amazing piece last week in the New York Times, a former newspaper.
The piece brutally disassembles the 1619 project, which you know is the Times dishonest rewrite of American history that originally claimed the date of the beginning of the slave trade, 1690, 1619 was the true founding of America instead of 1776 and that it should be taught that way.
Now, Brett Stevens, you may remember, was an excellent Wall Street Journal columnist, but he hated Donald Trump so much he felt he could no longer write for the journal.
He didn't feel he fit in with their op-ed page anymore, which is largely pro-Trump.
So he moved to the Times, but he quickly discovered at the Times that any variation from leftist orthodoxy could quickly get you fired.
Well, apparently, the man has managed to retain his conscience and his integrity under these toxic conditions and has surely risked his job by putting out a piece that starts with a lot of throat clearing about collegiality and journalists and how they're really patriots and all this stuff.
And then it just absolutely destroys the logic of 1619 and humiliates its author, the awful Nicole Hannah-Jones.
And you know, Hannah Jones is the one who said she'd be honored if the riots tearing Democrat cities apart were called the 1619 riots.
That would be an honor to her.
So that's who she is.
So I'm going to talk about Brett's piece in detail, but here's one point I want to mention upfront.
Stevens notes that after attacks by historians, the central claim of the 1619 project was erased.
When Hannah Jones was challenged on this, she lied and said the text had not been changed.
When Brett emailed Times editor Jake Silverstein about it, Silverstein said the change, which is massive and meaningful, had been immaterial.
So he lied too.
The dishonesty of this is so apparent and so enormous that it raises the question, at least in my mind, why?
Why would you lie like that?
In public and to a colleague and to a friend, why defend an idea with lies?
If you need lies to support your idea, the idea is probably untrue.
So why not just abandon it or change it?
The answer, I think, is a kind of narcissism.
I call it the narcissism of bad ideas.
It's the sense that your idea is so full of virtuey goodness that its falseness is just a technicality.
It isn't true that everything we need to know we learn in kindergarten, but it is true that some of what we learn in kindergarten we do actually need to know.
Be polite, be kind, don't lie.
No good idea requires cruelty or dishonesty.
And if your philosophy does require them, you should get a new philosophy.
Hey, you know what sucks?
Being in debt.
I don't know if you have ever been in debt, but it is unpleasant.
It is unpleasant to have to worry about money, credit cards, student loans, mortgages.
It doesn't matter what kind of debt you're in.
It just is not good.
There is a way to defeat your debt thanks to bills.com.
If you're losing sleep over maxed out credit cards or stressed out thinking about your mortgage payments or student loans, bills.com can help you take back control of your life.
The first step to lowering your monthly payments and becoming debt-free is to get a free debt assessment.
It only takes a few minutes and could save you hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month from debt settlement to personal loan consolidation to student loan or mortgage refinancing.
Bills.com has you covered.
They're part of the Freedom Financial Network, which has been in business since 2002 and has settled over $10 billion in debt.
And so you'll probably need to know, how do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no evils.
I was going to say that.
Let's start by talking about Columbus Day.
Happy Columbus Day.
People now say, no, it should be Indigenous People Day and ooh, the evil Columbus, he did this and he did that.
And I don't even want to engage with that.
You know, Michael Knowles does some great material about who Columbus really was and he was really a hero, but of course he was flawed, just like all of us.
Has nothing to do with it.
The point is this.
There's no one, no person who is sorry the Europeans came and took over the continent.
There are zero people.
There are no Native Americans who feel that way.
There's nobody who feels that way.
The reason is, I mean, look, even Native Americans use TV, medicine, and cars, all the things that came with civilization.
The point is not that Indigenous people are worse than civilized people.
That's garbage.
People haven't changed since they were kicked out of Eden.
People are exactly, we are exactly the same people as the people who crucified Christ.
We would do it again tomorrow.
And I'm including you, and I'm including me.
We are all of us messed up as we have been from the beginning.
That doesn't change.
Indigenous people are no better or worse than civilized people.
As somebody once said in a wonderful movie, their good is as good as our good and their bad is as bad as our bad.
That's not the point.
The point is that civilized life is better than primitive, primitive life.
And we all know it.
We all know that medicine and the wheel, which the Native Americans never invented, are better.
I don't know why the wheel gets invented one place.
Maybe they just lucked out and got the wheel guy, the guy who says, you know, that round thing would roll if I, you know, you don't know why that happens.
Maybe the Indians, the Native Americans, didn't need the wheel, so they didn't invent it.
You don't know why, but it's better to have the wheel just like it's better to have medicine.
So why do we lie about it?
Why do we say, oh, let's celebrate Indigenous People Day?
Let's celebrate how wonderful it is to live in a teepee on the ground and die when you're 30.
Let's celebrate that.
Why?
Why would we do it?
And the idea is it's the narcissism of bad ideas.
The virtue of saying that is more important than telling the truth.
The virtue is more important than virtue.
That's why it's narcissism.
That's why it's deluded.
Lying, remember, lying is not something where you say something that's false.
Lying is when you say something that's false, knowing it's false.
And we all know this is false.
I think of Barack Obama saying that he was against gay marriage when he'd already said elsewhere that he was for gay marriage.
He was lying.
Why was he lying?
Because he thought the people, he said this basically, he thought the people wouldn't accept it, but he thought that over time, he could get the people to accept it.
Now, if you feel that way, you obviously don't believe the people are sovereign.
You believe you're sovereign, and you have to trick the people.
The people just happen to have a lot of power, so you have to trick them into doing what you want.
So your idea is so virtuous, your idea of gay marriage is so virtuous that it's more virtuous than the system that keeps you free.
All right.
Take a look at Keith Olbermann.
Keith Olbermann is back.
I vaguely, just a little bit, knew Keith Olbermann when we were both starting out in New York radio.
Just met him a couple of times.
And I want to tell you, he's crazy, but he's also stupid.
So here he is delivering a really incisive editorial about Donald Trump, Cut 12.
The task is twofold.
The terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box.
And then he and his enablers and his supporters and his collaborators and the Mike Lees and the William Barrs and the Sean Hannity's and the Mike Pence's and the Rudy Giulianis and the Kyle Rittenhouses and the Amy Coney Barretts must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has nearly destroyed by turning it over to a virus.
So Sean Hannity and Amy Cooney Barrett and all those other people need to be prosecuted and thrown out of society because Keith Olbermann's idea of what is right is so virtuous that it's more virtuous than truth.
It's more virtuous than freedom.
It's more virtuous than the American way.
It's more virtuous than the traditions of the West that have been handed down to him.
His idea, that's how virtuous it is.
This is the narcissism of bad ideas.
And you can even see the anger and pinched rage on his face.
You think it's even more virtuous than his own virtue.
So let's take a look at this Brett Stevens thing.
It really is.
We're going to talk about the Supreme Court.
Amy Coney Barrett's hearings have started.
They're just getting underway and there's just a lot of posturing by the politicians and all this stuff.
But I want to show you what I mean because it really does play into what this is about.
Let's take a look at what Brett Stevens writes about the 1619 project.
Now, remember, the heart of this, again, is to tell you that it really is interesting what it does tell you.
It tells you that American history begins with the importation of slaves as if there was slavery nowhere else, where there was slavery everywhere else.
Slavery in Africa was rife, okay?
And the contradictions, the tensions between our ideals and reality began then, even though those ideals didn't even exist.
So that's the illogic of it all.
So let me read what Brett Stevens writes.
He says, first he goes through paragraph after paragraph of, oh, I love these people.
These are my colleagues.
They're collegiate.
I love them.
But then he gets into the real stuff.
He says, concerns came to light last month when a long-standing critic of the 1619 project, Philip W. Magnus, noted in the online magazine Quillette that references to 1619 as the country's true founding or the moment America began had disappeared from the digital display copy without explanation.
And, you know, historians are calling for the Pulitzer Prize for this dishonesty to be taken away.
The Pulitzers kind of wove around giving it to them for this exact thing because they knew it was untrue, but they still gave it to them for this.
Anyway, Brett goes on.
These were not minor points.
The deleted assertions went to the core of the project's most controversial goal, quote, to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation's birth year.
In a tweet, Hannah Jones responded to Magnus and other critics by insisting that the text of the project remained unchanged, while maintaining that the case for making 1619 the country's true birth year was always a metaphoric argument.
It was a metaphor, right?
They weren't really saying that should happen.
It was just a suggestion, an idea.
She then challenged me.
She wrote an email to Brett Stevens saying that it was so obvious it was a metaphor, we didn't have to say it was a metaphor.
But she then challenged me, he says, to find any instance in which the project stated that using 1776 as our country's birth date is wrong, that it should not be taught to schoolchildren, and that the only one that should be taught was 1619.
And she said, in that snotty way corrupt people have, good luck unearthing any of us arguing that, she added.
Dianne Feinstein's Challenge00:15:22
All right.
Now Stevens prints what was in the original 1619, okay?
1619.
This is from the original project, the original article, 1619.
It is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.
Those who do know it are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.
What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every 4th of July, is wrong and that the country's true birth date, the moment that its defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619.
Now, he compares this to the version of the same text as it now appears online.
1619 is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country's history.
Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation's birth.
What if, however, we were to tell you that the moment the country's defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August of 1619.
In an email, Brett Stevens goes on, the New York Times magazine's editor Jake Silverstein told me that the changes to the text were immaterial in part because it still cited 1776 as our nation's official birth date and because the project's stated aim remained to put 1619 and its consequences as the true starting point of the American story.
Readers can judge for themselves.
He then goes on, I have to say, to just dismantle the logic of the entire enterprise.
The guy says, the text now reads, what if we were to tell you that the moment that the country's defining contradictions first came into the world was in late August of 1619.
But of course, there were no contradictions.
Slavery was universal.
There was slavery all over.
As I say, in Africa, there was slavery all over the place.
The first white explorers were actually shocked at how much slavery they found in Africa and nobody thought twice about it.
People only began to think twice about it when they wrote the words, all men are created equal.
And then in 1776, then there was a conflict.
Then there was a tension.
It was the ideas, the ideas that came from the Europeans moving onto the continent that created a problem, a tension between the slavery they were holding in the South of America and the ideals of America.
That's when that started.
That's what we celebrate.
But the thing about this is it's the people writing, emailing him, Hannah Jones and Brett Silverstein writing him and saying, well, we did and we didn't, but we have, but we're not, but lying.
They're lying, okay?
You know, I'm not watching the show.
I'm watching this TV show, which is a few years old called The Americans, about a sleeper cell of Russian spies in the era of Reagan who are sent in and they start a family and they pretend they're married.
They are married.
They get married.
They start a family, but they're really these murderous Russian spies.
And it's a brilliant show.
It's just a brilliant show.
And what's brilliant about the show is the way they manipulate your sympathies because you sympathize with the Russian spies because they're having all the problems that families have.
They're in arguments.
They don't know how to raise their kids.
They're getting separated.
They're having all these kinds of problems.
But meanwhile, they're also murdering Americans and stealing secrets and doing all these things that you don't sympathize with.
And it's very smart that way.
But the smartest thing about it is you feel a kind of sadness for them because you know they're living a lie.
And part of it, the husband, is sort of starting to say, you know, this life in America is not so bad, but the wife is just like, no, you never give up.
You never let go.
You never, you know, that's just weakness.
And so you feel this sorrow for people who are living this lie and who know it's a lie.
Again, a lie is something you have to know you're telling, right?
You can't tell a lie by accident.
You tell a lie because you say, I know this to be true, but I'm going to say this, like saying, I'm sorry Columbus came to, the Europeans came to this continent when you know that's not true.
You know you're not sorry.
And that's what they're doing.
And so Jake Silverstein is now tweeting in regard to this column, which I have to imagine is going to cost Stevens his job.
Jake Silverstein tweets today, while we disagree strongly with Brett's column, we welcome debate about the historical analysis the 1619 project rigorously advances.
I'm proud of the fact that over the past year, the project has had such a profound impact on discussions about our history.
I'm even more proud of the way that Hannah Jones' vision and clarity and strength have transformed how many millions of Americans understand their country.
She's a national treasure.
We stand behind this work entirely because you don't go after the black woman because Hannah Jones is well known, well known to pull the race card whenever she's criticized.
But she's a lying dogface pony soldier.
She has done a terrible thing.
And so what do you mean when you say the historical analysis?
We're proud of the fact that over the past year, the project has had such a profound impact on discussions about our history.
What impact can a lie have?
What impact can a lie have?
It can only convince some people that the lie is the truth.
That's the only thing it can do.
It has started a debate that didn't need to be had because it wasn't the truth.
It was about something that wasn't the truth.
Here is the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, with a statement to the staff, because as you know, the staff runs the New York Times.
These 20-year-olds come in and they protest and the union gets behind them and they have to just cave into them.
So that's why I think Stevens will be gone.
He says, hi all.
I've gotten a few questions about Brett's column on the 1619 project over the weekend and whether it represents an institutional shift in our support for the project.
That couldn't be farther from the truth.
It is a journalistic triumph that changed the way millions of Americans understand our country, its history, and its president.
Nicole is a brilliant and principled journalist who has deserved every bit of praise that has come her way.
Doesn't matter if it's true.
It's virtuous.
That's the narcissism of bad ideas.
The virtue of the project supersedes the fact that it's entirely, utterly, completely, historically, factually false.
Which brings us to what is going on now in the Senate as they start the hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, her confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Now, a lot of people are predicting that this is going to be the firefight from hell.
The minute Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, everybody was just saying, oh my gosh, here we go into the Brett Kavanaugh hell again.
We'll have to see.
I think that there is a large possibility, a large possibility, that we're not going to get that at all, that this is going to be a quiet, you know, protest, some emotional things about, oh, how terrible this is going to be.
They're going to set up a background of how awful, awful, awful the glorious ACB is going to be, but they're not going to pull the, you know, oh, she's too Catholic.
They're not going to attack her religion.
They're not going to attack her personal life.
They're not going to find somebody she slept with.
They're not going to do any of that stuff or who will say that he slept with her.
They're not going to do any of that stuff.
Listen to the tone.
Listen to what Dianne Feinstein says.
Now, Dianne Feinstein, I think, is a snake.
I mean, I think she's the one who brought Christine Blasey Ford, right?
She hid it until the last minute.
She held on to Ford's letter until the last minute.
And then she pulled it without any kind of vetting, without any kind of, was this true?
She just threw it out there in an attempt to stop that nomination.
She's the one who got the whole thing started.
I'm really like the opposite of a fan of Dianne Feinstein because of her cultural work.
You know, when Zero Dark 30, the murder about the killing, the murder, the movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden came out, she threatened to investigate it, that it had gotten classified information and put it into the movie because the movie put forward the fact that some of the information that helped them find bin Laden had come from very harsh interrogations that could be connected, that could be called torture.
And she didn't want that to come out.
So she didn't want the film to win an Oscar.
She didn't want the film to win an Oscar.
So she made a lot of noise about investigating the people who made the film, whether it was a crime.
And then after the Oscars were over, the investigation vanished.
She did the same thing to the show 24.
She wrote letters to the network.
Remember, 24 came out and it was shocking because it had actual Islamic villains, Islamic terrorist villains.
And she said, this show is much too violent, much too violent.
And she went after the show and they really toned it down after that.
So she's a bully.
She's also, of course, a Chinese spy.
She had a Chinese spot working for her for 20 years and that's never been investigated at all.
But here's the tone that Dianne Feinstein is setting cut to.
When asked in October 2018 if Republicans intended to honor their own rule if an opening were to come up in 2020, Chairman Graham promised, quote, if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term and the primary process has started, we'll wait till after the next election.
Republicans should honor this word for their promise and let the American people be heard.
Simply put, I believe we should not be moving forward on this nomination, not until the election has ended and the next president has taken office.
So procedural, you know, appealing to the election, accusing them of hypocrisy, but not personal, not the kind of scorched earth stuff we expect to see.
I just, I could be wrong because they may have to play to their base.
They may have to play to their base, but they don't want to because they know it will hurt them in the election.
And they think they've got this election locked up and they are planning to pack the Supreme Court.
Now, packing the Supreme Court, the point about packing the Supreme Court is it essentially turns it into the House of Lords.
It essentially turns the Supreme Court into an alternative legislator because you had, say, three justices, four justices, and a leftist president, Kamala Harris, appoints them.
You have completely skewed the Supreme Court without playing the game the way the game is played, without saying it's you can do it because it doesn't mention how many justices are on the court in the Constitution, but you could do it forever.
Next time the Republicans win, they can pack the court with 15 judges.
I mean, you can do it forever.
It becomes essentially the House of Lords.
Somebody really, you know, FDR tried to do this.
He died to do this because I think it was 1937.
He was frustrated that they kept saying he couldn't put the New Deal into operation because it was unconstitutional.
So he threatened them with packing the Supreme Court.
And one of the judges started to give him the decisions he wanted.
They called it the switch in time that saved nine.
Here's what Joe Biden had to say about that in 1983 when he first came out of his cave and was running, he was in government.
This is cut seven.
President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the court.
It was totally within his right to do that.
He violated no law.
He was legalistically, absolutely correct, but it was a bonehead idea.
It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make.
And it put in question for an entire decade the independence of the most significant body, including the Congress in my view, the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Packing the court was a bonehead idea.
Then the other day, he was asked if he would pack the court if he won.
This is cut 14, cut 14, and he wouldn't answer.
You'll know my opinion of court packing when the election is over.
Now, look, I know it's a great question, y'all, and I don't blame you for asking it.
But you know, the moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that.
Other than, other than focusing on what's happening now.
So he doesn't want to address the issue because then the issue would become an issue.
It's news.
It's news if he would pack the Supreme Court.
So he doesn't want it to become news.
Now, even the poodle press, even the Democrat poodle press, felt a little startled to push back on this.
And they asked him, don't the American people deserve, you're running for president.
Don't the American people deserve to know what you will do as president of the United States?
Isn't that what a campaign is supposed to establish?
Here's his response, cut 16.
Sir, I've got to ask you about packing the courts and I know that you're.
You said yesterday you aren't going to answer the question until after the election.
But this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days.
Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now.
Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know?
No, they don't.
I'm not going to play his game.
He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on court packing.
He'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now.
You don't deserve to know.
You don't deserve to know what he's going to do.
You're just the voter.
Come on.
Who do you think you are?
Who do you think you are?
You're just the voter.
You do not deserve to know who you're voting for or what he will do.
That's not the way this works.
That is not the way this works.
The guy's wearing a mask.
He's hiding in his basement.
It's just like, it's like one of those things where you go to a party and you pick a bag and you don't know what's inside it.
That's what an election is supposed to be.
It's not supposed to be a discussion of the amazingly, even the press is starting to push back on this.
Here's John Carl, a reliable left-wing Democrat reporter who's constantly going after Trump, but not after the left.
Here he is talking about this cut nine on Good Morning America.
It's not just that he won't answer the question.
It's the clumsy way in which he says he won't answer the question.
He said in an interview yesterday, asked directly, don't the people have a right to know?
And he said, no, voters don't have a right to know where he stands on this.
And he also said a couple of days ago that he will give an answer on this after the election.
So it's very strange.
This is a major issue.
This is not a trivial issue.
And he's saying he won't tell voters where he stands until after they have voted.
I don't think it's very helpful.
Wow.
Wow.
I mean, that's coming from John Carl.
And if you think that's amazing, Jake Tapper, for a moment, woke from the sleep of being a Democrat and suddenly became a journalist again, as he used to be.
And he was interviewing Biden campaign coordinator Kate Beddingfield.
And he actually challenged her.
I was shocked to cut 21.
He said, it's not constitutional what they're doing.
How is it not constitutional what they're doing?
The vast majority of people say that they want the person who wins the election on November 3rd to nominate the justice.
That's a poll.
That's not the Constitution.
Poll after poll shows that most Americans vehemently disagree with this.
Again, Kate, that's the same thing.
That the vote should happen on November 3rd.
That's not what the word constitutional means.
Constitutional doesn't mean I like it or I don't like it.
It means it's according to the U.S. Constitution.
There's nothing unconstitutional about what the U.S. Senate is doing.
They got to give him another shot.
We got to go back to sleep, Jake.
Go back to sleep.
Constitutional Crisis?00:04:19
That's not supposed to happen.
That happened on CNN, the most busted name in news.
I mean, that's not supposed to be what's going on.
So Biden comes up.
I'm sure somebody told him to do this.
I'm sure he couldn't think of it himself at this point.
He comes up with the talking point that will now spread through the journalistic community.
This is Cut 15.
The only court packing going on right now is going on with Republicans in the court now.
It's not constitutional what they're doing.
We should be focused on what's happening right now.
And the fact is that the only packing going on is this court is made packed now by the Republicans after the vote has already begun.
It's not constitutional what's going on.
The president, the Supreme Court justice dies, the president of the United States nominates another one.
The Senate advises and consent on it, but that's not constitutional because it's in the Constitution that that's what's supposed to happen, but it's not what they want to happen, so it's not constitutional.
And this spreads.
I wasn't joking in the opening.
Dan Rather actually said, yeah, this is, this is, the GOP has been packing the court.
And the Associated Press did indeed call it depoliticizing the court.
It is depoliticizing court.
It is now going to become depoliticizing the court to actually add people onto the Supreme Court so you can get all the decisions to go your way.
That's deep.
You know, it's 1984.
It's like everything is not exactly what it is.
Unbelievable stuff, but it's lying because their virtue is more important than even the truth.
So I don't know if you saw this.
Ben Shapiro on his Sunday show had the God King of the Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring on.
A lot of people were wondering how Jeremy keeps his hair.
The fact is, I gave him that hair.
He was whining and sobbing.
I felt sorry for him.
So now he won't give it back.
But if you listen to it, you could really hear that Jeremy is, in fact, a brilliant guy who has steered the Daily Wire through tough times to massive, massive success.
So it's exciting to tell you that next week, the Daily Wire God King himself, Jeremy Boring, is going to be presenting alongside an incredibly successful group of business owners at Expert Ownership Live, a two-day virtual conference about leading through crisis.
The conference features a lineup of speakers like world-renowned leadership author John Maxwell, the founders of Duck Commander and Otterbox, the Benham brothers, and many others who can relate to what entrepreneurs and leaders are going through right now.
They'll share stories about their own businesses and startup journeys, the tough times that come with any company, and how they were able to come out even stronger on the other side.
And the urgent news is there are only 48 hours left for you to register for $147 before prices go up.
Go to expertownershiplive.com slash Claven to register and get a second ticket for a friend 50% off.
You do not want to miss Jeremy telling it like it is.
That's expertownershiplive.com slash Clavin for $147 today and tomorrow, only before prices go up.
So go right now to expertownershiplive.com slash Claven to secure your spot.
And if you get to talk to Jeremy, ask him, how do you spell Clavin?
Because he doesn't know.
He'll go, who?
I don't know.
More important than even the truth is that the Daily Wire Old Glory baseball bat is back.
I mean, you want to talk about important.
You want to talk about the things that matter, right?
You want to talk about the limited edition handcrafted custom-painted baseball bat emblazoned with the Daily Wire logo.
This is actually Ben Shapiro himself, like a beaver.
He chews this out of a living tree himself.
That's when we say it's handmade.
We really mean this is a genuinely original thing.
And when we first put this bat out in a numbered edition a few months ago, it sold out in 48 hours.
And that was when it was available only to all Access members.
Now anyone can purchase it.
Shapiro's teeth are getting tired, so the inventory is limited.
So get yours before they're gone.
Text the keyword baseball to 83400-83400-83400 to purchase your bat today.
And while you're at it, come over to dailywire.com and subscribe.
Fearful Voters Lie00:09:33
In some ways, this whole election is a lie.
I mean, I don't mean that it's a lie that we're having in an election.
I mean, you know, they keep telling us Trump is the great liar.
What a liar, Trump.
Oh, Trump is a liar.
He said this and he meant that.
He over, you know, he exaggerated this and all this stuff.
But who the hell is Joe Biden now?
Who is he now?
You know, I mean, everybody is saying that Trump is going to lose and the polls look really bad and all this.
But Biden won't come out.
He will not come out.
He's obviously, he's obviously in very bad shape.
Britt Hume was asked on Chris Wallace's Sunday show.
He was asked, is there any way that Trump can pull this election out?
Because the polls just look so bad.
I mean, they look bad with Hillary, but these polls do, really, really do look bad.
I'm not saying they don't.
And Britt Hume said the quiet part out loud.
What is the one thing, the one thing that could cause, turn this around for Donald Trump?
This is Cut 11.
I think he's in a place where the only thing that might save him would be a performance or several performances by Joe Biden in which his senility, which I think has been obvious to careful watchers for some time, becomes utterly obvious and people begin to say, wait a minute, we really can't have this guy in the White House.
I think that's his best hope, but that means more debates and letting Biden talk because the longer he talks, the greater the chance of us showing through are.
He's senile.
I mean, I've been saying this for at least a year.
I mean, the guy, all you have to do is go back and look at it.
We've played and cut from him 1983.
Is that the same man you're looking at now?
I mean, Trump's not the same man he was as a young man, who is the same man, who is the same when he's old as when he's young, but he's clearly a vibrant, powerful, energetic guy whose mind is clicking along.
He gets the Chinese flu.
The Chinese flu dies screaming inside him.
Now, like, I'm trying to buy his blood on the black market so I can live forever because he's got the antibodies and not just any antibodies.
These are tremendous, tremendous antibodies.
Everyone says so.
The guy is senile.
So he can't be president.
He's not going to serve as president.
He's just a ventriloquist dummy who is going to be the left's president.
And ultimately, I assume Kamala Harris is going to become the president if he gets elected.
So the whole thing is a lie, but they're lying to you just like they lied about gay marriage, just like Obama lied about not supporting gay marriage, just like they're lying about the court packing.
They are so virtuous.
Their vision for the country is so virtuous that it is more important than they're telling the truth.
It's more important than you, the voter, having the truth.
It's therefore more important than the entire system the country is based on.
So their vision for the country is so virtuous, it's more important than the country.
It's more important than the actual country of America.
They are so, they are such great Americans that their greatness as Americans is more important than America itself.
And the thing is, when I say that a lie is something that you know is a lie, the people who are voting for Joe Biden know.
They know.
They are participating in this narcissism of bad ideas.
They are participating in the lie.
How do you know?
Because when Biden shows up to speak, there's no one there.
He was in Arizona.
This was at an Arizona rally.
I believe it was the first rally he was going to hold together with Kamala.
I think they were going to be there for the first time together.
So of course, the local station sends their local reporter out to cover a local story of great weight, and she's standing outside the meeting place.
And this is, I mean, she's an honest lady.
This is her report, Cut 10.
There's really not much to see.
I'll step out of the way, but it's kind of boring out here.
So it's not your typical presidential campaign event.
We don't see people rallying outside.
We don't see signs or really much of what's going on here in Arizona.
We've established, our state has established itself as a battleground state.
And so this is technically a big event, but not a lot of fanfare.
So we're getting information about what's going on with these meetings from our national correspondent pool reporters.
But from out here, you really can't tell anything much is going on.
It's kind of touching to see this honest reporter out there reporting on this big lie.
This big lie.
This is a lie that the press is complicit in.
They're not covering the fact that he shows up.
Biden shows up to speak, and there are four people there.
Trump shows up to speak, and there are thousands of people there.
In L.A., in New York, there are suddenly Trump demonstrations that are being held.
This is a lot of enthusiasm that you're seeing for this candidate, and no one cares about Biden because the people who are voting for them, the people themselves, are lying to themselves and to everyone else that this guy is going to be president, that this guy can be president, that just they hate Donald Trump so much that their idea of what is good for America is more important even than the president of the United States, even than their own honesty, even than the integrity of the system.
Vote for the wooden dummy and put him up there and just see what happens.
Just roll the dice.
We don't have to, don't tell us.
We don't deserve to know whether you're going to pack the Supreme Court.
We're just the voters.
We don't deserve to know.
They're participating in this lie.
And if you have to lie to people, if you have to lie to support your ideas, change your ideas.
It's so simple.
It's so simple.
Sometimes I come up with great ideas.
I come up with great ideas and I go to research them and I think, oh, my idea is wrong.
So I change it.
Even if I told somebody about it, even if I said it on the podcast, you've heard me come on and say, nah, you know, I didn't get that right.
That's what you do.
That's how you move forward.
That's how you get smarter.
That's how you get wiser.
That's how the country gets better.
When you start to lie, ultimately, you wind up like the people in the Americans.
You wind up like the Soviets, supporting a system that everyone can see with his own eyes.
Does not work.
And that's what's happened to the Democrat Party.
Their virtue, the virtue of Alexandria Casio-Cortez, is so great that even the fact that what is coming out of her mouth is complete and utter nonsense doesn't matter because her ideas are so much more virtuous than that.
You know, it really was interesting.
Chuck Todd, who does the Sunday show at NBC, he's talking to their chief White House correspondent, Hallie Jackson, and they have a poll showing that Trump voters are more hopeful than Biden voters, who are more fearful.
And listen to her response to this.
79% of Biden supporters call themselves fearful.
Trump supporters call themselves hopeful, 64%.
I will say this: fear motivates.
The Trump supporters were more fearful four years ago, and that worked.
And you're starting to see that.
And I'm struck by something that Senator Cruz said, Chuck, that he's been talking about, which is this idea that if fear does motivate, it's an acknowledgement from the senator that Democrats would likely do better.
And it's because of those poll numbers that you're talking about, Chuck.
So you're seeing Republicans trying to take that and spin it as Democrats are the ones painting this sort of dark and dystopian message to try to motivate people to come out to the polls.
You know, in reality, some of the language and rhetoric that we've heard from President Trump, what he's been running on so far, has been this message of law and order, which his supporters appreciate.
Critics say, listen, you're talking about trying to scare, for example, suburban women at some of these key voting constituencies with the language that you're using and with the picture that you're painting.
So I do think that is something that is going to be critical over the next couple of weeks.
I hope you could follow that.
Trump's voters are hopeful because Trump's rhetoric is fearful, but Biden's voters are fearful because Biden's rhetoric are hopeful.
I mean, the Democrats just are full of hopeful rhetoric.
Here's a little bit of it, cut five.
It is insulting to every American who wears a mask.
I mean, it's disgraceful, Wolf.
It's absurd.
Don't tell your supporters, don't be afraid of COVID.
Everyone should be afraid of COVID.
It's okay to be afraid of COVID, and it's okay that it's dominating your life because it has dominated your life.
They can't figure out why Democrats are fearful.
Meanwhile, here's Trump talking about telling us what he's going to do in his second term, Cut Three.
The first thing we have to do, Marie, is open up our country.
You can't keep all these states closed up, the Democrat states.
And they're not doing well.
And the country is doing well.
We're looking like a super V. But, you know, despite the fact New York has to open up, New York's like a ghost town.
New York is very sad what's going on there.
And other places.
We just won a case in Michigan against the governor, the governor that is, you know, I call her the complainer-in-chief.
All she does is complain, except when she's on the phone directly.
All she does is say, thank you very much for doing such a great job.
But the fact is that you have to open up Wisconsin.
You have to open up North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
We won another case there about opening it up because it's unconstitutional what these people are doing.
Trump the fearful, Trump the Dishonest tells you everything he's thinking, and he's very hopeful and wants to go forward.
The left just lies and lies and lies.
Their whole campaign is a lie.
Their theory is a lie.
Their 1619 project is a lie, but they think that they are so virtuous, that their idea is so virtuous, that the truth just doesn't matter.
It's just a technicality.
They're more virtuous than the truth itself.
One last thing I got to talk about, just because it actually feeds into Columbus Day.
Gal Gadot, the beautiful actress who was Wonder Woman, here's from Variety.
She'll trade her lasso of truth for a golden crown, playing the legendary queen of Egypt in Cleopatra, a historical drama that will reunite the actress with her Wonder Woman director, Patty Jenkins.
The idea for this is her idea.
Cleopatra's Legacy00:04:19
She wants to play Cleopatra.
Now, they're saying there's a backlash against this, but that's not really true.
There's Twitter noise about it.
I'm wondering, the question is whether Galgodo will step down, whether she'll abandon the project.
You can guess what it is.
She's an Israeli actress.
She's playing the queen of Egypt.
And leftist journalist Samira Khan is a woman who used to work for RT, the Russian Putin's propaganda arm.
And she supports, she just wrote a column, I think, for the Times, I think it was, supporting China's takeover of Hong Kong.
So she's not a freedom-loving journalist, right?
She writes, which Hollywood dumbass thought it would be a good idea to cast an Israeli actress as Cleopatra, a very bland-looking one, instead of a stunning Arab actress.
Now, of course, Cleopatra was a descendant of the Ptolemaic line.
She was a Macedonian, she was a descendant of the Macedonian Greeks, who, in the person of Alexander the Great, conquered the world, right?
And in conquering the world, Alexander the Great, a Macedonian Greek, and she was a descendant of Ptolemy in the Ptolemaic line.
So she was a descendant of Macedonian Greek.
We know she was not black.
We know her skin was light.
They said so.
The Macedonians, Alexander the Great, conquered the world, and that is how what was called the Hellenistic world began, right?
That is where you got the idea of the Hellenistic world, the world that was like the Greeks, the world that basically spread the ideas of the Greeks.
When the Romans conquered the Hellenistic world, the Hellenistic world also conquered Rome.
It used to be an expression.
Rome conquered Greece, Greece conquered Rome, because then the Romans became a Hellenistic empire.
When Christianity conquered Rome, when the Romans became Christians, then Christianity became part of that Hellenistic society.
And Christianity took ideas from the Stoics and blended ideas with the Stoics and became, you know, Paul preached to the Greeks and he said there are no Jews, no Greeks.
We're all one in Christ.
And that's what happened going forward.
And when the Roman world broke up and became the European world, Christian ideas filtered into it with the ideas of Aristotle and the Greeks.
And basically, that's where we got the idea, ideas like equality, like ideas of the dignity of the individual, women's rights, the fact that women had rights, simply the fact that women were valuable as individuals and that individuals had rights.
Those are all the ideas of Christendom.
Those are all ideas that spread through Christendom.
Then they spread to the indigenous people when Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered America and brought, began to bring European culture with its ideas of rights, with its ideas of equality, with its ideas of tolerance, with its ideas that women should be treated fairly.
All that came over.
Did it come over with conquest?
Yes, it did.
Did it come over with cruelty?
Yes, it did.
The spread of those ideas is God's plan, the violence and the cruelty and the corruption that come with it.
That's us.
That's our contribution.
But that God's plan works itself out in history and that we have all become better for it, that our ideas have become better, that the idea that there shouldn't be slaves is an idea that comes over with Christ, that comes through the Romans, through the Macedonian Greeks, back through to Socrates himself, that comes all through that process is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
It's the violence and the corruption and the evil that we add to it.
I'm not denying that.
But you've got to separate the ideas, the good ideas, the true ideas, the truly virtuous ideas, from the lies and the violence and the corruption of human beings.
Happy Columbus Day.
I'm 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 Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Andrew Klavan Show00:00:41
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Our technical director is Austin Stevens.
Supervising producer, Mathis Glover.
Assistant Director, Pavel Wadowski.
Edited by Adam Saevitz and Danny D'AMico.
Audio mixed by Robin Fenderson.
Hair and Makeup, or Head and Makeup, is by Nika Geneva.
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.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to the Ben Shapiro Show.