Andrew Clavin exposes Critical Dishonesty Theory (CDT), a satirical leftist framework falsely attributed to a fictional UC Berkeley scholar, as a tool to redefine reality—relabeling poverty as "wealth" and dissent as "misinformation." He ties it to media censorship, like suppressing Hunter Biden’s laptop or COVID-19 lab leak debates, while citing CensorTrack.org’s claim that 170 million users face opinion suppression. The episode also dissects Hollywood blacklists (e.g., actor Clifton Duncan’s ruin for opposing COVID mandates) and TikTok’s CCP-linked surveillance, calling it a national security threat despite slow-moving bipartisan bans. Clavin argues CDT reflects a broader crisis of truth-telling, where ideological agendas silence debate—from abortion exceptions to social media addiction—challenging listeners to resist redefined "honesty" in favor of unfiltered discourse. [Automatically generated summary]
Left-wing philosophers working around the clock have developed a new school of thought called critical dishonesty theory, or CDT, that perfectly explains why leftism is working just great.
Now, of course, having been created by intellectuals and experts in association with expert intellectuals supported by intellectual experts, critical dishonesty theory is very complex and difficult for laypersons like ourselves to understand.
But put in its simplest terms, CDT basically consists of describing things as they are not rather than as they are, and then silencing anyone who tries to say they are what they are instead of saying they are what they are not, which of course under critical dishonesty theory, they are because they're not.
The dean of UC Berkeley's new critical dishonesty department, Snide Lee Sinister, says, quote, critical dishonesty theory is an entirely original post-postmodern critical theory that has never been utilized by any political movement before.
And just look how easy it is to use.
The genius of CDT is that it embraces every other form of critical theory under one umbrella of all-inclusive dishonesty.
Gender, race, economics, and morality can now all be brought into line with leftist thinking by a subtle and intricate process known as lying, or as it's called under CDT, telling the truth, unquote.
CDT is largely derived from the brilliant work of Chinese theorist Ho Li Klapp, who scrawled it on the wall of the cell in his re-education camp where he'd been imprisoned for saying that socialism never works anywhere.
Writing in the blood of dead cockroaches, Dr. Ho determined that he could win release from his cell simply by changing the meaning of words to reflect what leftists want to be true instead of what is true.
For instance, if the word man can mean woman and the word woman can mean nothing, then the word nothing can mean money and the socialist economy is suddenly great.
Dr. Ho is ultimately released by Chinese authorities and dropped off in San Francisco, where working with other homeless schizophrenics, he went on to prove that the words flaming crime-ridden dung heap mean all of us here happy, happy, ha-ha people.
Whereupon Dr. Ho was immediately hired to head the exploratory committee for Gavin Newsom's presidential campaign.
President of the Teachers and Sexual Predators Union, Shirley Damned, says, quote, critical dishonesty theory is now being taught to children as young as five, and anyone who says it is is lying, according to critical dishonesty theory.
We must root out dishonesty deniers who are spreading the truth, which is misinformation, as every child knows, because we're teaching them CDT, which we're not doing.
Anti-CDT rhetoric is a form of white supremacy, especially when utilized by black people who then become white, which is very bad according to CDT, because it's perfectly fine.
If that's too complicated for you to understand, ask your five-year-old to explain it to you because we're teaching him CDT, which we're not.
Unquote.
From its humble beginnings as the ravings of a lunatic smuggled into our country by Chinese dictators trying to destroy us, CDT has spread throughout the left-wing political and intellectual establishment as a tremendously powerful tool for explaining why everything leftists do works like a charm.
CDT training is now being widely provided online so that a woman sobbing in her lonely room over the children she'll never get to have can find out why feminism is so great.
A black man who's just been shot dead because he couldn't find a cop can hear all about how black lives matter.
A 13-year-old boy who's crawling around his hospital room desperately searching for his testicles can learn how happily he's been transitioned into the daughter his mentally ill mother always wanted.
And an Uber driver who just paid his entire week's salary to gas up his car can discover how his poverty is really just the birth pang of a green and sustainable world in which he'll have a wonderful new job sitting on the curb and eating bugs.
Leftists in mansions around the world are raving about CDT when they aren't just raving in general and calling critical dishonesty the unified field theory that will at last explain why all their failures are successes, all your poverty is wealth, and all your misery is joy.
Namely, because they're privileged-lying bastards.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm a hunky-dunky.
Life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dunky.
Ship-shaped dipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
All right, here we are, laughing our way through the fall of the Republic.
You think I'm joking about critical dishonesty theory, but we're going to take a real look at the way the left tries to hide its failure and its ugliness by changing the definitions of words, by censorship, and by gaslighting.
And Megan Basham will be here to discuss some chilling stuff about TikTok, really an amazing story she's working on.
The mailbag, you know, we make it so hard for you to get into the mailbag, and that's because we want to know that you really want to ask your questions.
But here's how we do it.
We had a team of researchers find out how you ask mailbag questions.
This is what you do.
You have to be a member.
Then you log in to dailywire.com, hit the watch tab at the top, and then click on the Daily Wire, scroll down to the Andrew Clavin show, and hit the View All button.
Under the latest episode button, under the latest episode button, you'll find the paper airplane that says mailbag, send Andrew a question, email me your question.
It could be about anything you want, about politics, religion, your personal life.
All my answers are guaranteed 100% correct and will change your life.
Will they change your life for the better?
Ring Alarm Security00:02:45
You're just going to have to find out.
We've made it as difficult as we possibly can.
So I hope you'll be there.
Also, you want to subscribe to the podcast wherever you get your podcast.
Leave us a five-star review.
It's tremendously helpful for us.
Also, if you subscribe to my personal YouTube channel, you get exclusive content, all kinds of things that aren't on the show about movies, other stuff that's going on.
And if you hit that little bell there, someone you don't know will die and you will get a million dollars.
I'm joking about the million bucks.
But someone, never mind.
Also, leave a comment.
If the comment is sufficiently reprehensible, we will include it on the show as being fitting right in with the rest of our content.
William Vinopal Gillette says, I only survived the Clavenless Fortnite by purchasing and reading the truth and beauty.
It was still a close call.
Yes, this is something that does work during the Clavenless Week.
If you buy my books, and especially, especially, you get a special dispensation.
This is the Pope himself will tell you this.
Maybe not the Pope himself, but somebody dressed like the Pope will tell you this.
If you pre-order my new novel in the Cameron Winter series, the sequel to When Christmas Comes, it's called The Strange Habit of Mind.
I promise you'll like it, and it helps so much if you pre-order it because it means the company will believe in it, order more copies.
We can get a bestseller or at least a good seller out of it.
And then we'll have established a top-notch crime series under our umbrella, which would be a great, great thing.
All right, I had a wonderful vacation, and you will probably get some vacation time.
I hope so during this summer.
You can rest easy when you're away if you have the protection of Ring Alarm.
This is Ring, the same company makes the wonderful video doorbells where anyone comes to your door, no matter where you are, you can talk to them on the app.
Well, Ring Alarm is an award-winning home security system with available professional monitoring when you subscribe.
And best of all, you can easily install it yourself.
Ring didn't stop there.
They've upped the game with Ring Alarm Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro is a next-level security system.
CNET calls Ring Alarm Pro a giant leap for home security.
Ring combined a home security system and a Wi-Fi router, so it helps protect your home and secure your network.
With the Ring Protect Pro subscription, which is a great deal, you can get professional monitoring for the ultimate peace of mind.
If anything happens, professional monitoring will call you and can request emergency services.
You may not have known it if you haven't been listening, but it's true.
Ring has an award-winning alarm.
This busy summer season to protect your home.
GoPro with RingAlarm Pro to learn more.
Go to ring.com forward slash clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash clavin.
I know what you're thinking and thinking, that sounds great.
How do you spell clavin?
Racial Profiling and Christian Nationalism00:13:37
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
K-L-A-B-A-N, there are no easing things.
All right.
Most of you have probably noticed that I'm not joking about this thing, that the left never argues its position.
It never says our ideas are good because they have the following great results, because they can't do that because everything they touch turns to trash.
So instead, what do they say?
They say, if you disagree with us, you're bad.
It's your fault.
And you can't explain why you believe that a man is not a woman, but so you stink and you're a hateful person.
And just to give a good example of this, a sort of less, you know, a less explosive example, you're in a city where most of the murders are committed by young black men killing other black people.
And the police, that means the police are wise to pay special attention to young black men.
That's good police work to do that, even though I know it's painful and insulting to the large majority of black men who are law-abiding.
I understand it's painful, but it is a good police technique to keep the crime level down.
So the left says this is racial profiling.
And they come up with that term, racial profiling.
Everybody says, oh, we don't want to be racial profiling.
That sounds bad, racial profiling.
And the police are forced to back down by public opinion and by the fact that politicians are spineless and they say, oh, we don't want any racial profiling.
That's bad.
What happens?
More black people die by murder, right?
Because you're not policing the guys who might be the murderer, even though it's a little bit insensitive.
You still got to do it.
So as a conservative, you might say, you know, more of my fellow citizens who are black are being murdered here, a lot more.
Maybe we should try something else.
Maybe this isn't working.
Maybe you should crack down on murderers, no matter what color they are.
And if skin color in your neighborhood is a sign that somebody might be more likely to be a criminal, pay attention to it, even though it's uncomfortable and insensitive.
The left can't say our system is working because we can see it's not.
We can see that Chicago is a hellhole.
We can see that crime is rising everywhere where they put these policies into place.
So instead of arguing their position, they say you're racist.
They say there are only more black murderers because you're racist.
Why do you think there are more black murders?
You know, you must be racist.
The country is racist.
It's inherent racism in the country.
We have racism in our DNA.
Anybody who supports this is racist.
Even caring more about the victims than the criminals is racist.
So we're letting the criminals out without bail.
You can't have a discussion with people like that.
The only answer to them is what Doshel Hammett once described as two words.
The first a short guttural verb and the second one, you.
It wouldn't even work.
This trick wouldn't even work if it weren't for the fact that our media is so corrupt.
And I'm talking about ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the rest.
They are so corrupt that they not only repeat the invented slur, you know, in this case, racial profiling, they institutionalize it.
It's what they call that kind of good police work.
They call it racial profiling.
All of a sudden, yeah, it sounds bad.
It's awful.
Instead of insisting on an honest discussion about the results of policy, which is actually what politics is about.
I know a lot of people think it's about, oh, I like this guy and I don't like that guy.
It's about the results of policy and how many good policies can he get in place.
How many bad policies can he get rid of?
So you can't point out that your fellow citizens are dying because of leftist ideas like racial profiling because even saying the word, you know, you're against racial profiling, you suddenly called racism, that can hurt you.
It can hurt your reputation.
It can hurt you.
It can get you fired.
It can do all kinds of things.
So because everything the left touches does turn to crap and the crap right now is rolling down on us like a mighty wind, they're always hard at work inventing new shutupisms to keep from doing the one thing it's just impossible for them to do, which is defend their positions from the from the point of view of results.
So whatever you try to discuss in a legitimate, non-panicky way, you try to discuss environmentalism.
We talked about this, I think it was last week.
We were talking about the disaster of the Green New Deal and all kinds of green policies.
What a disaster it is.
Well, now you're a climate denier, which sounds like a Holocaust denier, as if denying the future predicted by a computer is the same as denying the most documented atrocity in human history.
If you think it stinks that some guy can steal a woman's athletic trophy or violate her privacy or in fact rape her because he's been put in a prison cell with her because he thinks that putting on a string of pearls and a sweater, a cardigan, is going to make him a woman, if you think that, now you're a transphobe.
And all of this is picked up by the media and made into institutionalized.
You're a transphobe institutionally, because they might say, well, people call you a transphobe, but they mean you're a transphobe.
And whatever that means, it has no real meaning.
It's just propaganda.
This week's We Have No Arguments, So We'll Call You Names meme was particularly ugly and took in, had a particularly ugly purpose.
It was an attack on what they are now calling Christian nationalism.
This is another one of their little, you know, you know, a cliché.
The word cliché comes is a printer's term.
It was two words that were so often put together that sometimes they would just link them, and that's why it was called the cliché.
So this is a new cliché, Christian nationalism.
These are the same clowns, remember, the same leftist clowns who, when you said, you know, gee, a lot of the people blowing us up are Islamic, they were, oh, what you're Islamophobe.
This is their religion.
What a terrible thing to attack somebody's religion.
It's a religion, so it's holy.
It's a religion.
You can't say this.
So you couldn't describe accurately what was going on because that would make you a racist, right?
I remember like after an attack by Islamic terrorists, people would say, I don't even like to say, news people would say, I don't even like to say where that said, couldn't possibly have anything to do with the way they're reading the Quran.
No, no, no, it couldn't have anything to do with that.
But if you're a Christian and you believe in the United States of America, now you're a Christian nationalist and they can come after you.
So now, of course, they're pushing this January 6th narrative.
The same clowns, the same clowns who let the country burn after the George Floyd killing, after George Floyd was killed by sloppy policemen in a sloppy policing in a non-racist act, an act that's never been proved to have anything to do with race.
They were perfectly happy to have that.
Now they're trying to convince us that January 6th is the worst thing ever.
And the way they're trying to convince us is to say, you know what the real cause, the real underlying cause, besides Donald Trump, who of course is the worst thing ever, it's Christian nationalism.
So the meme launch came from Democrat mouthpiece CNN.
CNN's John Blake writes, an imposter Christianity.
Not you good Christians who are Democrats, not you good Christians who don't support Donald Trump.
It's an imposter Christianity.
It's threatening American democracy.
And it starts out with a chilling description of people doing chilling things like praying.
They're praying.
Uh-oh.
And this is taking place on January 6th outside the Capitol.
So this is very bad.
And he writes, the insurrection, that's when all those people roamed aimlessly through the Capitol.
The insurrection marked the first time many Americans realize the U.S. is facing a burgeoning white Christian nationalist movement.
Ooh, when he says many Americans realize this, of course, he meant many American journalists who work at CNN under the name John Blake.
All right, so the U.S. is facing a burgeoning white Christian national movement.
You have to say it that way too.
The movement uses Christian language to cloak sexism and hostility to black people and non-white immigrants in its quest to create a white Christian America.
And then there's, of course, those pictures of Klu Kuck's Klansmen.
Still, okay.
There's obviously a talking point launch because it's all over the place now.
It's not the first time they used it, but they're selling it hard.
The New York Times, a former newspaper is using it, Twitter, wherever Democrats are bought and sold.
Okay, they're using Christian nationalism.
Now, I can entirely understand why the people who want to pull babies to pieces in the womb and sell their body parts to science for research, who want to castrate healthy boys and cut the breasts off healthy little girls, I can understand that they want to teach racism under the guise of anti-racism and push various forms of sexual perversion, including sadomasochism and pedophilia, on children as young as five.
I can understand why people like that would want to demonize Christianity.
It's because they're demons.
They want to demonize everything and Christians stand in their way.
All the same, taking their argument seriously, even good religions can be used for bad purposes, right?
The measure of religion is what it teaches at its core, not the bad people who sometimes misuse it.
But the Bible, and the Bible does, the Bible teaches that the nations are a drop in the bucket.
It teaches that you should not put your faith in princes or any human beings.
And I take that to mean that no matter how much I love America and no matter how strongly I support any particular candidate, I have to put God and God's truth first.
However, when I see David French write an article like he wrote this week, there is no remaining Christian case for Trump.
And he argues, his argument is that Trump sometimes did bad things and people supported Trump so much that they supported the bad things that he did and therefore they were made bad and this was polluting to Christianity.
And that's not 100%.
I can understand something of that argument.
I get a lot of pressure when I say that I thought Trump acted badly on January 6th, when I say he's done things that I don't like, when I say he's rude or vulgar or something like that, and people get angry and I lose listeners.
And I don't want to lose listeners and I don't want people to get angry at me.
I don't want the people I agree with to get angry with me.
So there's a temptation to say it didn't happen, but I say it because I'm committed to telling you what I believe to be the truth.
I can be wrong, but what I believe to be the truth because of my Christianity, right?
So French is saying some people don't do that, and I'm sure that's true.
But I would like to think that I'm going to stand up for the truth no matter what, just like, you know, I hope I would have stood up to King David when he killed Uriah because he was banging his wife.
I hope I would have said, thou art the man who's doing this.
But I like to think I would have.
But sometimes leaders do bad things even when they're good leaders, and sometimes Trump, all leaders do bad things at times.
Okay.
But the thing is that Christianity, like every religion, is a vision of what the world is like.
It's a vision of what reality is like.
The Christian vision has this advantage over other religions is that it's true, right?
Key to the vision of Christianity is that the world is enemy territory.
It's broken.
Bad things happen here.
It's a bad world in a lot of ways.
And all we can do is speak the truth and act lovingly and take the punishment that our enemy who runs the world is going to dish out, whether it's getting us fired from our jobs, getting us thrown off Twitter, or getting nailed to a cross.
At some point, if you speak the truth and if you say what's right, somebody's going to come after you and it's going to cost you money.
It's going to cost you friends.
It's going to cost you position and prestige.
It's going to happen to you if you insist on speaking the truth.
So this is a Christian approach to the evil of the world.
And there are other approaches, but this is the important Christian approach.
For instance, you know, some philosophers, David Hume, said the fact that the world is evil shows there's no God, so you should stop believing.
The Marquis DeSade said the fact that the world is evil means that nature is evil, and if you want to be a natural man, you should be evil too.
You should get rid of this God stuff and just be evil because there is no God.
Karl Marx believed that since the world was evil, but since you knew good from bad, that you, people, should make the world into utopia.
But Christians get it right, in my opinion.
The evil of the world is not going away.
We're not making it into utopia because we participate in it.
The evil of the world is not going away.
But the fact that we know evil is evil is God's signature.
It's his autograph on our soul, right?
And that means that we are called to fight evil and to suffer through it with as much courage and valor and as much love as we can muster.
That's why I voted for Trump twice.
And I'd rather have somebody new come in.
I'm honest about this.
I'd rather have somebody younger, somebody more statesmanlike, somebody more DeSantis come in and run.
However, if I have to choose, if I have to choose between Donald Trump and the people who kill babies and the people who mutilate children and the people who say it's all right to do that and the people who teach our children sexual dysfunction and sexual craziness, I will vote for Trump not just once, I will vote for him twice.
You know, I said this, I made a speech to Yaff, had a wonderful time at Yaffin and I said to him, I'll vote for him once as myself and once as an illegal alien because I think, you know, you got to take the best choice, the best choice.
And what Trump's flaws are nothing compared to the evil that's being now propagated at the highest levels of our government.
I think Christ is the truth.
And I think everything that's true refers back to Christ.
I think America is a great country and was a great country until about 20 years ago when it started to really slide into this leftist morass that we're going into.
I think it can be great again.
I think we can make America great again.
If that makes me a Christian nationalist, I'm a Christian nationalist.
And I hope so are you.
And I'll answer to God for it, but I am not going to answer to the perversion and evil of the left.
Now, as you know, I never sleep, but some of you, you know, you want to get some sleep because losing sleep can cause weight gain, mood issues, poor mental health, and lower productivity.
That doesn't bother me, but that might bother you.
Some reports say sleeping less than six to seven hours per night is linked to reduce white blood cell count.
I have no white blood cells, but they protect our body against illness and diseases, fighting viruses, bacteria, and more.
So you do want them.
Not many people realize this, but having a consistent nighttime routine is very important.
A better tomorrow starts tonight.
Season Finale: Incendiary Revelations00:14:57
Introducing Beam Dream.
Beam is one of the world's most innovative functional wellness brands with unique products for everything from sleep to focus.
Today, my listeners get a special discount available for Beam's sleep product, Dream Powder, their best-selling hot cocoa.
It contains premium ingredients, triple lab tested, and you wake up refreshed.
I looked up the ingredients and they are said to work.
98% of people surveyed fall asleep faster when taking Beam Dream, and 99% of people experience better sleep quality.
If you don't love it, you get your money back guaranteed for a limited time.
Get up to 35% off when you go to beamorganics.com slash Claven and use CodeClavin at checkout.
That's B-E-A-MORG.com slash Claven.
Use code Clavin for up to 35% off.
They're telling you how to spell BEAM.
Everyone knows how to spell Beam.
How do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
No E's in Claven.
So, let's talk about critical dishonesty theory more, not just Christian nationalism, but all the ways they try to shut us up and lie to us and censor us and avoid the truth.
America is now in a recession.
We've got inflation and recession.
That's usually called stagflation.
A recession has been defined for as long as I can remember as two quarters of negative growth in the GDP.
I think it was Thursday, the second quarter was announced.
We had something like 0.09% negative growth.
The New York, let's find out what the press is saying about this.
The New York Times, a former newspaper.
Gross domestic product fell in the second quarter after a decline in the first, fueling fears that a recession may have already begun.
I mean, that is the definition of a recession.
So a recession has begun, but they say it's fueling fears.
CNN says mortgage rates fall as recession fears grow.
We're afraid there's a recession, but no, it's not, it's not.
You know, just because it's defined, the definition of a recession has been fulfilled, that doesn't make it a recession.
Other places are saying it's technical.
It's a technical recession.
Not a recession recession.
It's a technical recession.
My favorite is the Atlantic Monthly.
Is this a recession?
Wrong question.
You can't even ask.
You can't even ask.
So what happened?
What happened?
What happened is that suddenly the White House has put out the word that the definition of recession has changed.
Why?
Because we're in a recession and they're in power.
That's why it's changed.
And the press, like the lying scum they are, just falls in line.
Except, of course, for our friend Peter Ducey.
We love him.
He went to the White House, asked White House lie person, Catherine Jean-Pierre, you know, here's the definition of a recession.
How come it's not a recession?
Here's the exchange.
If things are going so great, though, then why is it the White House officials are trying to redefine recession?
No, we're not redefining recession.
If we all understand a recession to be two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth in a row, and then you have White House officials come up here to say, no, no, no, that's not what a recession is.
It's something else.
How is that not redefining recession?
Because that's not the definition.
That is not the definition.
Brian Peath said in 2008, of course, economists have a technical definition, which is of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
I can tell you.
He said two negative quarters of GDP growth is not the technical definition of a recession.
It is not.
It is not.
Why did he say that a recession?
It is not.
It's just not, Peter.
Come on.
Come on.
Karine, give us some more answers.
Tell us more, please.
I don't have anything.
just don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
We don't have anything.
We just don't have anything.
Don't have anything.
So I don't have anything.
Just don't have anything.
I just don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
Again, I don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
Don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
I just don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
You know, when you don't have anything, you don't have anything.
I told Matt Walsh that his next film should be called What is a Recession?
And he can just, instead of having transgender people throw him out for asking, what is a woman?
He can just have economists throwing him out the door.
When you have to lie this much, I mean, redefining words, man, woman, recession, whatever is getting in your way, just redefine it out of existence, is one way you can lie.
But when you are this much of a failure, when you have a, this administration, I don't want to belittle 9-11, but this is the worst disaster to hit this country since 9-11.
They are bad at everything.
The crime rate, the people dying of murders, the economy, the people losing their money becoming meaningless, the inflation is just awful what's happening in this country.
And it's all because they will not change their minds.
I mean, they won't change their minds.
We always compare the presidents to Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter used to change his mind when he found out everything he believed was wrong.
He would actually change his mind.
Not these guys.
Obama set the tone.
Never say you're wrong because you're never wrong.
It's all about these great ideas.
So you have to lie this much.
You have to come up with different ways of lying because you don't want to repeat yourself, all right?
Another way of lying is simply just ignoring all of the things that people want to hear about that are bothering people.
An amazing, amazing Rasmus poll came out just this week.
It's what are voters concerned about, right?
The people who consume news, what are they concerned about?
Number one, rising gas prices, 92% concerned.
Two, inflation, rising gas prices, inflation two.
Three, the economy, people very concerned, 89% concerned.
Four, energy policy, 86% important.
Five, violent crime, okay?
That's the five things, the top five things that people are concerned about.
Here are the things that the media, the legacy media, the corporate media are concerned about.
One, climate change.
Two, the Ukraine war.
Three, capital riot investigation.
Four, COVID-19.
Five, LGBTQ issues.
The press is not covering the country the people live in.
They're covering the country of their imagination.
You know, it's like it really is.
You know, this is Dan Ruther reporting from inside my own head.
You know, that's what it is.
They're covering their own imaginations.
None of those five things that the press is covering is in the top 10 of what people want to hear about.
That's what the news is.
The news is what people want to know about the country they're in.
The things that are bothering you.
That's the news.
That's the definition of the news.
So this is the form of misinformation, which is just simply silence.
We're not doing it.
We won't report it.
We're just not going to cover it.
It's just not there.
You know what?
What we care about is important.
You're too stupid to know it's important just because you're the people.
No, no, no.
We went to better schools.
We had, look at these ties.
We have these wonderful ties and suits.
What we care about is important.
Well, what if you say, you know what?
We do care about it and we're not going to listen to you anymore because we care about it.
Then they silence you, right?
Then they go on and find you on social media and they silence you.
Remember, they own the press.
They own the press and they own social media.
And social media has been collaborating with the government during COVID.
We now know that social media was on the phone to Google and all those places, basically telling them what they can and can't say.
Now, our pals at Media Research Center, you know, I love Media Research Center.
It's a great site.
Newsbusters is a great site.
They have an organization called CensorTrack.org.
And they are studying censorship on social media and how it works.
They've done a big study about this.
And what they did was they took the cases of censorship where an opinion was silenced.
And then, because this is what Twitter and all the rest of them are doing, they counted the number of people who did not receive that news.
Okay.
Now here's Tim Graham.
I know Tim.
He's a great guy.
He's Tim Graham explaining how that works.
They had a number.
They had the number of instances of censorship.
Then they counted how many people were deprived of the news.
Here's Tim.
It's not just about the user.
It's about the audience of this user or users who don't get this information or this opinion.
It adds up to 170-some million people being denied these things.
Some of them are just opinions.
So for obviously, for example, we've learned this over and over again.
If you say there are two genders, or if you misgender somebody, you get shut down.
We're seeing it now with abortion.
You can't be pro-life without them trying to shut you down.
Obviously, we've seen this for years with COVID when you've tried to wonder about where the lab leak was.
So it really is one of these cases.
It's not about what they call disinformation.
It's about opinions and reporting that they don't like, as you suggested, certainly the reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop right before the election.
They just decided to shut it down.
You know, and this is, you know, some of us, if you're savvy enough to get beyond this stuff, maybe it doesn't affect you, but it has a big effect on people because it creates an atmosphere that you're alone.
That's the whole idea of this, especially for young people.
It's very powerful on young people.
Young people are, of course, more attuned to social pressures.
They're trying to find a place in the world, trying to find out who they are in the world, and the social pressures matter a lot.
And if you feel that you're the only person who thinks, you know, a man can't become a woman.
That just doesn't happen.
If you're the only person who thinks that, well, maybe you want to be quiet.
And I've noticed this.
I was talking to Knowles about this earlier today.
That when you go and give speeches, especially you're talking to young people, and you say, look, you know, it's ridiculous.
A man can't become a woman.
I mean, it's just insane.
And in fact, when you take children, you know, you always hate to make these Nazi comparisons because the left is always calling you a Nazi if you believe in the Constitution.
I believe in the Constitution.
What are you, a Nazi?
But if the evil Nazi doctor, Joseph Mengele, went to Hitler and said, I've got this new idea.
It's called gender-affirming surgery.
Hitler would have said, ah, no, no, that's evil, evil.
I don't want to be.
I want to kill millions of people, but we don't want to be.
That's too evil.
I mean, this is insane stuff.
And yet, if you think you're the only person who is saying that, you get a little nervous when somebody comes and says it out loud.
And this is really happening because of that kind of censorship.
On top of changing the names for things so that every discussion becomes meaningless, which is the point, silencing, not reporting on the stories that people are concerned about because they damn you because you're doing a bad job, and then basically silencing anybody who tries to get the information out, on top of all of that stuff, they flood the zone with this fake excitement about things that simply don't matter.
The January 6th Committee.
You know, I don't talk much about the January 6th Committee except to say that I'm not talking about it.
And the reason I'm not talking about it is I've said a million times now.
If Trump has no defense, if the people who acted on January 6th, even though you know I didn't, I thought that was really bad, if they have no defense, there's no information coming out.
You're not getting information if nobody can defend you.
If you're on trial for murder and only the prosecution gets to speak, that's not a trial.
I would not report on that trial.
I would not say this is legitimate information.
If you can't cross-examine witnesses, if there's nobody there to present the other side of the story, no.
There's no but after that sentence.
You just don't report it.
It's not real.
Scott Adams had a good tweet where he was saying what we've learned from the January 6th Committee.
He says, one, Trump attempted a planned insurrection.
Two, okay, loosely planned.
Three, okay, not planned, but he encouraged it.
Four, okay, he didn't encourage it, but he didn't try to stop it.
Five, okay, he did try to stop the violence, but he should have done more and sooner.
You know, that's basically what we're getting from this.
And it's like just people trying to cover their butts and all this stuff.
So you think, well, then what is this?
What is this?
It's a show.
It is a show.
How do we know it's a show?
Listen to the way the media talks about it.
This is from a montage from Grabian, Cut 3.
What we are expecting tonight from the January 6th investigation is something that's been described as a season finale.
Not a show finale, but a season finale.
There may be more seasons.
There may be bonus episodes.
The way that I've been talking about this hearing is that it's more the season finale than the series finale for the committee.
Season finale, as it were, of their blockbuster hearings.
In prime time.
A season finale of sorts.
Thursday's prime time finale, so to speak.
Does this feel to you like the series finale or the season finale for the January 6th committee?
That's such a good way to put it.
We thought this was the season finale.
Everybody's like, come back for more.
There is hunger.
There is new information.
These are incendiary revelations.
Even the things we thought we knew.
We're learning.
It's a multi-dimensional scandal, right?
Shape the narrative, you know, at the end of season one, as you're effectively doing, in a way that lets us know there may still be more to come and move towards that in the season two if necessary.
You think these weasels are working for the Democrats?
You think maybe somebody's put out a notice?
I love my favorite one was the line, what an interesting way to put it.
Everybody's saying exactly the same thing.
You bet they're in line.
All right, so there's flooding the zone.
They're telling, oh, this is so important.
If you're missing this, you're missing it.
It's better than, you know, Chicago PD.
This is the season finale of something so exciting.
And, of course, and I believe this is never going to happen.
They're pushing for the prosecution of Donald Trump because what is a banana republic if he can't put the last president in jail?
So Lester Holt interviews corrupt attorney general, the corrupt attorney.
That's actually now a new term.
They used to be the attorney general, Merrick Garland, but now we just call him the CAG, the corrupt attorney general, Merrick Garland.
And this is what he asks him.
You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law.
That said, the indictment of a former president, of perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart.
Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here?
Do you have to think about things like that?
Look, we pursue justice without fear or favor.
We intend to hold everyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6th for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable.
That's what we do.
But what does Holt not ask him about?
Because that's how the press works is what they don't cover.
He doesn't ask him about Hunter Biden.
There's information now from Hunter Biden's laptop that Joe Biden, the big guy, did know, did discuss his business with him, was aware of the kind of corrupt stuff he was doing.
And, you know, think about that.
Hunter Biden's Corruption00:02:05
There's now also information.
This comes from Catherine Herridge, a good investigative reporter now at CBS, formerly at Fox, who has a letter from Senator Chuck Grassley to the FBI director Christopher Wray saying, my office has received a significant number of protected communications from highly creditable whistleblowers.
The information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI's receipt and use of derogatory information relating to Hunter Biden and the FBI's false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation.
They're making it hard to get the information and making it almost impossible for anybody to investigate the information.
Some of the people involved, some of the agents involved with spreading the Russia collusion hoax against Trump are involved in this, apparently.
And the FBI is basically bearing information against the president's son.
Remember, 51 former intelligence officers, including former CIA directors or acting directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta, General Michael Hayden, and John McLaughlin, said during the election that this was Russian misinformation, which obviously now we know it was not.
That's a huge story.
The FBI is covering it up.
The former intelligence agents are covering it up.
This is a huge story.
Hunter Biden's corruption, which involves China, involves Ukraine, involves the interests of the United States of America and the interests of Joe Biden.
And he knew about it, apparently.
He knew about some of it at least.
All of it's been covered up by our intelligence and our FBI people and the press.
And this is the thing that's so different from the America of the 80s, 90s, even up to 2000, that the press would never have covered up a story no matter how much they were in the can for a candidate or a party.
A story like this is too big to cover up.
Not anymore.
We are living in an empire of lies.
We're living in an empire of lies.
These guys are gaslighting the lot of us and then wondering why we don't believe a word they say.
Hunter Biden's Corruption Cover-Up00:10:27
You got to have life insurance, and it's annoying to set up your life insurance policy.
But what if I told you getting a great policy did not have to be complicated?
My friends over at Fabric Life Insurance made the process quick, easy, and surprisingly affordable.
Fabric was built specifically for parents to help you manage your family's financial future like a parenting pro, stress-free.
Fabric's new lower prices mean significant savings over other providers with great policies like a million dollars in coverage for less than a dollar a day.
Everything is on your schedule with Fabric because it's all online.
It takes less than 10 minutes to apply and you could be offered coverage instantly with no health exam required.
Then just personalize your quote to fit your family's need.
With Fabric's online hub, it's easy to track your family finances all in one place, get affordable life insurance, set up your kids' college savings plan, and even establish a rainy day savings.
There's no risk to apply today.
Fabric has a 30-day money-back guarantee.
Protect your family with term life insurance now in just 10 minutes.
Apply today at meetfabric.com slash clavin.
That's meet M-E-E-T fabric.com slash Clavin to start protecting your family today.
Meetfabric.com slash Clavin.
Fabric Insurance Agency policies issued by Vantis Life, not available in New York and Montana.
Price is subject to underwriting and health questions.
You have to know how to spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A-P-A-N.
It all fades away, fades away.
Well, that is a very talented singer-actor named Clifton Duncan.
Because now I want to talk about censorship in the arts.
And the arts, as James Joyce said, they forge the uncreated conscience of our race.
They forge the atmosphere and the culture around us.
Clifton Duncan had a, until very recently, had a very strong career off Broadway.
He did Shakespeare in the Park, which is very prestigious City Center productions.
He was on a lot of TV, including NCIS, Flesh and Bone, Elementary, The Good Fight.
He said he was making five figures a week at times.
And that, listen, in the arts, I'm in the arts.
People like me, you know, this is the thing you have to understand.
People like me who have made our living in the arts, and I've made a really good living in the arts.
There are fewer baseball, professional major league baseball players than people like that.
It's a very hard thing to do.
This is obviously a talented guy, a well-spoken guy.
He's now waiting tables.
He's looking at 40 years old.
He is waiting tables.
He is out of work.
He used to, as he puts it, he used to have his picture up in Times Square, as you do when you're a good working actor and dancer and singer.
And now he has all he has to offer is these talents, which can only be used in show business and he can't work.
Why?
What happened?
This is cut seven.
I want cut seven.
You may be asking yourself, well, what the hell happened?
Why have I gone from having a billboard with my likeness on it in the middle of Times Square winning standout notices in the New York Times and guest during our network television to where I am now?
Well, it's quite simple.
I refuse to allow any employer or by extension the government to act as my health care provider and to dictate what I inject into my body.
I refuse to be bullied or coerced or shamed into taking a medical product that I neither want nor need.
I've been extraordinarily vocal in my opposition to what I view as grotesque and egregious state overreach into private affairs and personal freedoms.
Indeed, even if things were to magically return to normal tomorrow, I'm greatly disturbed by the precedent which has been set, wherein government officials and bureaucrats can take it upon themselves to determine who is essential and who is not, to decide who gets to operate their business and who does not, and in some cases decide who's allowed to travel and who is not.
Now, I know that I'm listening to this and I'm choking up because I know the feeling.
I went from making literally millions of dollars in the movie business to making zero in the movie business.
I can't prove I was blacklisted because of my opinions, but I was blacklisted because of my opinions.
And he, I've said to you before, I never lost a minute's sleep over it.
I never did.
I was talking during the Wars on Terror.
I knew young men were having their legs blown off.
The fact that I was losing money in the movie business didn't mean a damn thing to me.
And he says the same thing.
Again, this is Clifton Duncan Cut 8.
As an actor, I was trained to be a conduit and a vessel for both the splendor and the tragedy of the human condition.
And as such, I'm also a staunch advocate for the freedom of expression and a firm believer in and champion of the irrepressible fire and vitality of the human spirit.
As an artist, while I can appreciate form and structure, I also value non-conformity, especially when it challenges an increasingly square and constrictive status quo.
And so, although I've paid a price, I'll never regret standing up and forcefully saying no to a repressive, nonsensical, unethical, and ultimately unnecessary encroachment on our freedoms.
I'll always enjoy denouncing short-sighted, inept, or corrupt elites.
I don't really call them elites, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll refrain from calling them what I normally do, which is garbage people.
Clifton has agreed to come on the show, showing he really does have courage, because a lot of people who say these things won't come on the show, but he'll be on in a couple weeks, I think.
You know, a lot of the people, I've noticed that a lot of the people they go after are black.
Clifton's black.
Kevin Hart, obviously Dave Chappelle, they hate that.
They hate black people straying from their point of view because they use them as tools to push their point of view.
But it's not just black people because white people are now frequently unable to sell their material.
Even the New York Times, a former newspaper, wrote a piece saying there's more than one way to ban a book.
And she makes this false equivalence as written by Pamela Paul.
She makes this false equivalence saying, you know, there are right-wing censors at school boards, but no, no, saying a book is inappropriate for children is not the same as banning the book.
And what she says is, many books the left might object to never make it to bookshelves because a softer form of banishment happens earlier in the publishing process.
And Joyce Carol Oates tweeted and caught a lot of flack.
Joyce Carol Oates, a famous writer in her time, still a very well-respected writer.
She caught a lot of flack for saying there are white men out there who cannot sell a book.
Now listen, if you don't think this affects me, let me tell you something.
My books, these Cameroon Winter books that I keep pushing on you and saying you should go out and pre-order A Strange Habit of Mine.
Please pre-order A Strange Habit of Mine.
The guy who publishes this, Otto Penzler, is the greatest mystery editor probably in the world, I would say.
Certainly one of the best mystery editors.
But he runs a smaller press that is part of a larger press, Mysterious Press.
He gets hit all the time because a lot of the people he publishes are white and a lot of their characters are white and he can't get reviewed anymore.
You cannot get reviewed in big venues.
And that's how you sell books.
And so if you guys don't go out and pre-order A Strange Habit of Mind, I'm not getting press anywhere else.
I'm getting it from you.
I'm getting it from the Daily Wire.
This is why I keep pushing it.
I know it's a pain.
I hate selling myself.
I truly do.
I've never done it before.
You know, I started with When Christmas Comes, the first book in this series, and I'm doing with this book because I want this series to work because I know it's not going to get any help.
I'll be lucky if it doesn't get attacked, but it won't get any help from the New York Times or the Washington Post or even the Wall Street Journal doesn't review me because of this thing which has come about, okay?
You know, it's not just the lack of reviews.
You get attacked.
The things that I say in this book, In A Strange Habit of Mine, you will see, you will see that it is not.
It is not a left-wing book, and it's a mystery story.
It's a crime story.
It is not a propaganda book in any way, shape, or form.
But still, you'll see the kinds of things that I say.
When you get edited, you get copy edited, which is a good thing, right?
They say, oh, you said this character's eyes were blue here, but here you say it's brown.
They catch mistakes that you make.
Nowadays, when you get copy edited on When Christmas comes, I think it was, it may have been this book, the copy editor said, well, you describe this character as having coffee-colored skin.
And, you know, black people used to have to harvest coffee as slaves, so you shouldn't call them coffee coffee.
I was like, are you freaking kidding me?
That really happens.
It happens to me.
I got one book in the Another Kingdom series where I had to make them take it back and get another copy editor because it was all things like, well, you described this woman as being pretty.
You described her by according to her looks.
You know, I had a guy's description of a woman.
This is happening all over.
And if you don't think it's going to affect you, if you don't think it's going to affect your mind, you're absolutely wrong.
So when I come to you and I say, you know, you got to help and support because I'm one of the best crime writers in the country.
And if we can't have a book put out by one of the best crime writers in the country and have it get bought and supported, then we're lost because this is what is really happening in the arts.
It's so important.
It is so important, not just about me.
Now, I'm not just making it about me.
It is so important when they strangle the arts.
When a guy like Clifton Duncan, with all of the talent you saw him have, when he can be shut down because he doesn't believe in the vaccine, which we now know didn't do anywhere near what they said it was going to do, when that can happen, then believe me, believe me, your conscience, your atmosphere, your ideas will be affected.
And if not you, your kids, and if not your kids, their kids, it will happen.
The arts control so much of what we think, so much of what we feel it's right to say, so much of what we feel is acceptable to say, and they are after us there too.
The censorship is everywhere for one reason and one reason only.
Abortion Laws Post-Dobbs Decision00:14:33
Everything they do fails.
And when you can't accept failure, when you can't say you're wrong, when you can't change your mind, you have to censor anyone who points out the truth.
Some of those great Supreme Court wins recently make us feel like the pendulum may be swinging back to a time when the nuclear family was situated at the center of American life, where real conversation, learning, and growth began at home with your family gathered around the table.
In President Ronald Reagan's farewell address, he said, all great change in America begins around the dinner table.
Bring your family to the dinner table with Good Ranchers.
Good Ranchers cares deeply about providing families with high-quality meat at a reasonable price.
Their mission is to bring people to the table, making those shared moments with your loved ones easy, accessible, and delicious.
Good Ranchers ships 100% American meat, born, raised, harvested in the U.S. right to your door.
All of their cattle are grass-fed, grain-finished, and grow in a stress-free environment.
Plus, when you subscribe, your price is locked in for the life of your subscription.
Very useful these days.
Good Ranchers not only supports American agriculture, they're also big fans of the Daily Wire.
They sponsor all our shows and we love them.
Use my code Claven to get $30 off plus free shipping on your order.
Take advantage of this offer.
Invest in time.
Shared with your family.
Go to goodranchers.com slash Clavin to start bringing people back to the table, eating seriously delicious foods and discussing serious issues like how you spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So one of the ways in which disinformation is spreading, of course, is in the reaction to the Dobbs decision, which the New York Times has called a ban on abortion in their op-ed page.
It's quite amazing.
They've basically tried to convince people and have in some ways convinced people that the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade is going to end abortion.
Alexandra de Sanctis is a staff writer at National Review, a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and she's co-authored a book with Ryan T. Anderson.
It's called Tearing Us Apart, How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing.
She's been doing a lot of great writing on the subject, so we thought we'd talk to her about what happens now.
Alexandra, thanks for coming on.
Great to be with you.
So obviously the Dobbs decision, you know, you can look at it as a victory for the pro-life movement, but it really is just a victory for constitutionalism and federalism and the fact that states should be able to make their own laws.
Where do you think this goes from here?
Where would you like to see it go from here?
Well, I think the good thing is that now the decision is back in the hands of the American people, right?
For 50 years, the Supreme Court has had a total stranglehold on the issue of abortion.
Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, have not been able to have their policies or their preferred policies put into law.
And now we have a situation where across the entire country, everybody can actually debate the abortion issue and put laws in place that they prefer, right?
And so whether you're pro-life or pro-abortion, now you can vote for lawmakers who are going to put your perspective into law.
And I think that's a victory regardless of where you stand on abortion.
Of course, our opponents on this do not agree with that.
Yeah, no, it's kind of a strange argument they're making that we don't want to have to argue about this.
But that is the general argument from the left.
When you look at the map, obviously you expect states like California and New York are going to have very loose abortion laws if they have any laws restricting abortion at all.
What's the state of play?
What do you think?
What are you thinking as you look at the politics of it?
Yeah, so as of right now, there are about 20 states, a little more than 20 states, that have some form of a very protective pro-life law.
So maybe about a dozen states have a total ban on all abortion other than exceptions to save the life of the mother or cases of rape and incest.
And then kind of like you mentioned, there's a handful of very abortion-friendly states where they're going to try and become sort of a travel destination for people to come and get abortions and become even more abortion friendly in the future.
And then in the middle, there's kind of a battleground.
And I think that's where Americans are more moderate.
Maybe haven't made up their minds yet on the issue.
Maybe they'll come down with a 20-week ban, a 15-week ban on abortion, but that's sort of where I think all eyes will be looking.
So do you think the Democrats have always pushed the line that this is, if they overturn Roe, it's going to be an election, an electoral disaster for Republicans.
Women will pour into the voting booths and vote Republicans out of office.
What do you think?
I don't buy that at all.
And I think there's a couple of reasons for that.
One is most polling since the Dobbs decision came out overturning Roe has not shown that people are upset about it being overturned.
Most people don't vote based on abortion.
Most people vote based on how expensive gas is or how expensive their grocery bill is, right?
This is not a good year for Democrats.
And most Americans actually don't support the status quo of Roe, right?
Like some of them might prefer to have abortion legal in the first trimester or in cases of rape or incest.
But by far, Americans do not support abortion on demand until birth, which is what we had under Roe and what Democrats want.
It's really, I mean, they always point to Europe.
I mean, leftists have always been pointing to Europe as the kind of paragon of advanced thinking.
But the Europeans have much more restrictive anti-abortion laws, don't they?
That's right.
And we're, in fact, one of only seven countries to allow abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
So we are in rare company with China, North Korea, a handful of others.
So it's very unfortunate.
Yeah, I think in North Korea, they allowed abortion up to the 18th year, I think.
Now, so let's talk about a couple of the arguments from the left.
I mean, the one that immediately comes out, women will die.
Women will die.
Is there some truth to that?
Is there danger in more restrictive abortion laws?
No, there's no truth to this at all.
And in fact, I wrote a multi-thousand word piece about this earlier this week, going through state by state every state pro-life law that's in place right now.
And the fact is in the text of these laws, there are explicit exceptions saying that if in a doctor's medical judgment, a woman is at risk of death or substantial impairment, they can perform any health care procedure they need to perform to save her life or to take care of her health.
That's always been true.
That was true before Roe and pro-life laws, and it's true now.
And frankly, abortion supporters are just making this up and fear-mongering.
So there's no state at all that's proposing that you can't get an abortion for an ectopic, you can't get an ectopic pregnancy, for instance, cleared out.
No, of course not.
And the important thing to remember is that any kind of procedure like that, whether it's post-miscarriage care or an ectopic pregnancy, is not actually a direct abortion, right?
In a direct abortion, you're killing a human being, an unborn human being, versus in these other procedures, you're trying to save a mother's life.
And sometimes the baby might die as a side effect of that, but you're not directly killing a baby just because the mother doesn't want to be pregnant.
Right.
Well, let me ask you what I think is a fairly difficult question.
If you are pro-life, what does the perfect abortion law look like in real life?
Yeah, I mean, I think our goal as pro-lifers should be a society where every unborn child is protected under law and every family is supported, every mother is supported to be able to welcome that child into the world.
Because we can't just, I think we have to have pro-life laws.
We have to prohibit abortion, but we also have to build a culture where women don't feel like they need abortion, right?
Because abortion's not good for women either.
So, I mean, this is, it's a technique on the left's part, but it has some legitimacy to it.
They always come up with these extreme stories.
And of course, the thing is that the baby doesn't get to tell his or her story.
The baby is silent.
So all these stories that stir your heart, and they do stir your heart, because of course a pregnancy can be a bad thing for a mother, or at least an uncomfortable or difficult thing for a mother.
And it does stir your heart, but the baby can't stir your heart.
A baby can't say to you, I would have done this, I would have had this life.
And so that voice is completely outside of the argument.
But let's take a look at, for instance, they had that story that now seems to have been true of a 10-year-old child incestuously raped, gets pregnant, has to travel to a nearby, I mean, it was a two and a half hour drive, I think, to a nearby state.
But still, should there be exceptions for truly tragic situations like that?
You know, my point of view on this is that obviously that was a tragic situation.
That was horrible, what happened to that girl.
And if, you know, she was extremely young.
So in the case of a 10-year-old, I imagine it might have been some kind of medical emergency.
I don't know the facts of the case well enough to know.
If there is a medical emergency where the mother's health or life is at risk because of the pregnancy, that would fall under existing exceptions.
But I think no matter how tragic the case, it actually compounds the suffering that the mother has been through to tell her to turn around and commit violence against her child, right?
As difficult as that situation is, as awful as it is, as much compassion as we have for her, I don't think it's compassionate or just to direct the punishment at the unborn child.
So if you're a politician and you're on the debate stage, because they never ask, they never ask the other person, like, you know, can you abort a child if it's Capricorn instead of Pisces?
You know, they never ask that question of Republican candidates, but they always ask of Democrat candidates, but they always ask the Republican candidate that question, you know, would you support this?
You're writing the answer for this guy.
You're doing prep for the debate.
What would you tell him to say?
because it does come across, I mean, it can come across as hard-hearted.
The idea of a 10-year-old raped and pregnant is very compelling.
What would you tell the politician to say?
You know, I think it's a difficult question only because of, as a politician, you have to think of what's politically practical, right?
And so even though I believe that the most just law would protect all unborn children, no matter the circumstances in which they were conceived, I would never say to a pro-life politician, you can't vote for an abortion ban simply because it has a rape exception, right?
So I'm fine with a politician accepting that as sort of the price of admission to having a more pro-life law.
But I do think at the same time, we always have to advocate the most pro-life laws possible.
And so my job is a little bit different from that of a politician.
So I'm not sure exactly what I'd say if I were advising a candidate.
Yeah, because it is, I mean, it's a nice, it's a nice little pincer technique they've developed because if you say that I would make an exception for rape, for instance, you're essentially negating your argument that the unborn child has the right to life.
The unborn child didn't commit the rape.
The unborn child should be protected.
So they put these politicians into pretty difficult situations.
I think they could use people like you to actually think for them because most of them don't think very well for themselves.
Would you ever agree to coach somebody like that?
I don't know.
I mean, I'd be happy to help Republicans come up with better pro-life messaging.
I'm not especially impressed by a lot of what I see on the topic.
So I'd be happy to help.
I hope they'd read my book.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, you know, let me ask you about your book.
The book has the title, Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing.
So let me ask you about that.
When you say it solves nothing, obviously the women who have had abortions felt it would solve something for them.
Why were they wrong?
So I think that the thing we have to remember here is that the fundamental harm of abortion is that it kills an innocent human being.
And if that's true, if that's, and we know that's morally wrong to take the life of an innocent human being, no mother is actually better off if the best solution our society is offering her is to commit wefil violence against her child.
And so no matter how difficult a situation is that any mother or woman is in, she needs some kind of response of compassion and support from society, not this kind of band-aid of committing violence.
So what would that look like?
What does compassionate support actually look like?
What does affordable compassionate support look like in the world?
Yeah, I like that modifier there.
I mean, I think for me, from my perspective, I'm conservative.
And so my view is it actually has to come from revitalizing a marriage culture, right?
Revitalizing a culture where mothers and fathers commit to each other and raise children together so that fewer women actually become pregnant in a situation where they find themselves desperate, right?
We know most women who get abortions do so because the father of their child is not supporting them.
That's the reason they give.
And so if men supported women, if men and women had sex with one another when they were ready to commit and raise children, the need for abortion would almost disappear, right?
And then that's a much smaller problem to solve.
It is, you know, I see that, but we are in this situation right now where, for instance, in many black neighborhoods, you know, I think marriage has virtually vanished.
We know that a lot of the babies being killed are black children.
You know, what do you do in that situation?
What does a society do to support the woman?
I mean, let's take the problem as it stands.
What does a society do to take the woman who actually is in this kind of crisis situation?
Yeah, well, I mean, that's where I point to the work of pregnancy resource centers.
There's almost 3,000 across the entire country.
Pro-lifers have been building up these networks since Roe v. Wade in 1973, basically saying to women, look, if you're pregnant, if you're in a difficult situation, come to us, we'll help you.
And, you know, they can't take the place of a supportive husband or a supportive family, but they help with diapers or formula or further education or connection with a lawyer, whatever it might be that the woman needs, just to assure them that they can do it, right?
If a woman walks into Planned Parenthood, all she's told is, you can't do this.
You have to have an abortion.
And pro-lifers have been trying to build a culture, at least as best we can, of saying, actually, you can and let us help you.
All right.
I may not look like it, but I am a small business.
I actually am a small business.
And the one thing I do not want to be doing is spending my day online at the post office when I could be using stamps.com.
Stamps.com makes mailing and shipping quick, easy, cost-effective.
For more than 20 years, stamps.com has been indispensable for over 1 million businesses.
Stamps.com gives you access to all the post office and UPS shipping services you need right from your computer.
And you get discounts you can't find anywhere else, like up to 30% off USPS rates and 86% off UPS.
All you need is your computer and a printer.
No special supplies or equipment.
You're up and running in minutes, printing official postage for any letter, any package, anywhere you want to send.
Whether you're in an office sending invoices, an Etsy shop sending your products or a warehouse shipping out orders, stamps.com is your mailing and shipping solution.
Stop wasting time.
Start saving money when you use stamps.com to mail and ship.
Sign up with promo code Clavin for a special offer that includes a four-week trial, free postage, and a digital scale.
No long-term commitments or contracts.
Just go to stamps.com, click the microphone at the top of the page, and enter code Clavin.
I know what you're saying.
You're saying, sure, but how do you spell Clavin?
There are no E's in Clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no E's in Clavin.
Abortion Debates and Crisis Centers00:10:21
So this is something that I have found absolutely appalling.
I mean, kind of mind-boggling, that not only has there been violence against these crisis pregnancy centers across the country, not only has it gone uncovered by the media, which is pretty amazing in and of itself.
I mean, you know, there's been very few real attacks on actual abortion clinics, but those one or two attacks that have happened over the course of decades have been mythologized by the left until basically pro-lifers have looked like a bunch of insane, violent people, which is just the absolute opposite of the truth.
But now we find out, oh, wait, on the pro-abortion side, there is this violent strain of people attacking crisis pregnant centers.
Now, the Episcopal Church just barely, no, I won't say barely, they turned down a move to condemn crisis pregnancy centers.
They were going to condemn crisis pregnancy centers.
I believe it lost that vote.
But still, what on earth are they talking about?
What is the story they're telling about what's wrong with crisis pregnancy centers?
Yeah, I think the lie, I'm not familiar with the Episcopal Church argument necessarily, but I think that the line we hear a lot from abortion supporters is that these centers deceive women or they somehow pretend that they're going to give medical care or offer abortions when they don't.
And in fact, if you kind of dig into the supposed investigations that abortion groups have done, there's nothing to that, right?
Like the lies they point to are women who go here are told that their unborn baby is a baby, right?
They use the word baby to describe it and they call that a lie.
Well, it is a baby, right?
Actually, it's all just honestly a lie made up by abortion supporters because they know when women go to these clinics, they often don't choose abortion and that undercuts the bottom line.
And, you know, Elizabeth Warren is saying these places must be shut down.
It's so macabre to say that we would rather have it's one thing to say that women should have a right to abortion, but to say we would rather they have abortion than that their babies are saved is really pretty macabre.
You know, when you debate people, I assume you talk to people, I mean, I'm sure they argue with you, what do they tell you?
What is their idea that, you know, is the idea that abortion is actually better than delivering the child?
I think a lot of people think that's true, unfortunately.
They think that if a woman's in a particularly difficult circumstance, it might be better for her child not to be born at all.
And this is, we talk about this in the book a lot too.
There's situations where if the unborn child is diagnosed with some kind of disability in the womb, or if a sex-selective abortion or race, race-based, obviously, people aren't aborting their children because of race, but we know about the elevated rates of abortion among minority communities.
And unfortunately, the response from abortion supporters is that's a good thing, right?
Let's have more abortion.
If minority communities want more abortion, let's build more Planned Parenthoods in those neighborhoods, rather than saying, why is it that people are feeling compelled to abort their children?
And how can we help them choose life?
So now the fight is on, right?
Now you've got, there's actually a fight to be had.
It's going to be a political fight.
It's going to be different in each state.
What are you worried about?
Are you worried, for instance, that they will pass, that the Congress will pass a law, as they put it, codifying Roe v. Wade?
Is that a concern for you?
Do you feel like that'll be struck down in the courts or how do you feel about that?
Yeah, I think it's kind of unlikely, given that they've voted on a codifying bill and it hasn't passed yet.
At some point, maybe if they get more Democrats in the Senate, they might be able to pull it off.
I think it would be struck down with the current court.
It would not at all be compatible with the reasoning in jobs.
But what I'm most concerned about is honestly male-order chemical abortion drugs, because it's very easy now to get abortion drugs via telemedicine, to take them at home.
That could be in a state even with pro-life laws.
And they actually, these drugs put women at risk too, not to mention, of course, the abortions, but women are more at risk if they take these drugs at home.
Is abortion any more dangerous than not aborting?
I mean, women die in childbirth too.
What are the rates of death?
I mean, are they worse with abortion?
I don't think that they're worse.
No, but in the case of chemical abortion drugs in particular, the problem now is that it's legal to get them via telemedicine, which means that women never see a doctor.
And so if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy or if she's further along in pregnancy than she's estimating, she could be taking these drugs and inducing an abortion at home and not knowing, which could cause serious complications.
Are you concerned about prosecutors who say, I won't prosecute people who have abortions?
Yeah, we've already seen a couple of places where, and just to be clear, they wouldn't, women are not going to be prosecuted for having an abortion, but all of the pro-life laws in place would prosecute the abortionist.
But there are faithless prosecutors who have already said we're just not going to enforce pro-life laws, even if they're enacted in our states.
And that you don't see anybody fighting back against that, or do you do?
I have.
I've seen it in Texas, at least.
I think they're working on a policy to kind of deputize the state government or someone, you know, other people, a kind of secondary enforcement mechanism, depending on who's being faithless.
So I would assume more pro-life states would be working on that in the future.
Is there anybody on the left who talks to you in a reasonable manner?
I mean, do you have people who say, you know, Alexandra, I understand where you're coming from, but this is where I'm coming from?
Do you have this problem?
I do.
I've actually had a couple of debates on college campuses with a feminist writer named Jill Filipovich, who's an attorney and a columnist.
And we've done two events now for students debating very reasonably and spending time together afterwards in a friendly manner.
So I'm heartened by that.
Yeah, no, that is heartening.
Because I wonder a lot.
We started out with safe, legal, and rare, ended up with shout your abortion, and abortion should happen right up until the moment of birth.
And if a child survives an abortion, she should leave them to die.
It got to the point where you're starting to, I mean, you hate to say like, oh my God, this is demonic, but it actually got to a point where I thought, wow, they've actually descended into actual killing children that you can see.
How did we get there?
How did that happen?
Yeah, it's actually heartbreaking, but I think the shift was just the Democratic Party in particular embraced this idea that if abortion is a good thing or women shouldn't have to apologize for having an abortion, we have to defend all of them, right?
Because if you say maybe it's not okay to leave a newborn who's supposed to be aborted to die, then suddenly maybe you're admitting there's something wrong with letting that child die five seconds earlier.
Or if we say a 20-week ban is okay, because that's what a ton of Americans would support, why 20 weeks, right?
Why do we draw the line there?
And so I think they realized they have to be consistent or else they're exposing the whole logic of lethal killing of innocent people to more scrutiny.
So I'm just about out of time.
If you can give me a minute.
20 years from now, what do you think the country is going to look like on this issue?
Well, my hope, and on my more optimistic days, my thought is that we will, because Roe v. Wade has been overturned, be able to debate abortion in a far more serious way than we have for the last 50 years.
Americans will be hearing pro-life arguments that the media, that our politics, our toxic debate has really suppressed.
And they realize that the pro-life argument actually is good for everybody, right?
This isn't just, this isn't about women versus children.
This is about how all of us are better off about abortion.
And so my hope is that more Americans will be exposed to that argument and convinced by it.
If you had to, if you had to guess how many states would ban abortion, how many do you think would in 20, 25 years?
20 years from now, I'd say maybe 35 would have pretty strict regulations on abortion.
Interesting, interesting.
Alexandra DeSanchis, thank you very much.
The book is tearing us apart with the notorious Ryan Anderson tearing us apart, how abortion harms everything and solves nothing.
Alexandra, thank you very much for coming on.
I really enjoyed that.
I enjoyed your point of view.
Thanks.
Thank you.
All right, it's summer and we all know the special joys of summer love, but you can't have summer love if your car's not working and if you're not smart enough to go to rockauto.com because women are just going to look at you and say, you're not smart enough to go to rockauto.com.
And also, I like to hear a man who says, rockauto.com.
When you say that, firstly, it just sounds so cool.
And also, women know that you know where to get parts for your car online without going to an auto parts shop.
Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com.
Don't just go there.
Say rockauto.com.
The women love it and you get great parts from hundreds of manufacturers at terrific prices.
And the rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.
So easy that you can navigate it and say rockauto.com at the same time.
Go to rockauto.com right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck at great, great prices.
And write Clavin in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know I sent you.
And as you're writing Clavin, say it the same way.
Say, K-L-A-V-A-N.
All right, so this is the moment in the show where years past, I would have read you an ad for Harry's Razors.
I would have said, hey, you millions of listeners, I love Harry's.
Go out and buy one.
But I'm not going to do that because I don't love Harry's.
I hate Harry's.
If you don't know the story, Harry's used to advertise on our shows until someone here said that boys are boys and girls are girls.
I won't mention Knowles' name because I don't want to say who would say such a horrible thing as boys are boys and girls are girls.
But that was too much for our sponsor who pulled their ads due to what they called values misalignment.
Well, we're not going to promote products that hate our values and your values.
So we did the only thing that makes sense.
We launched our own razor company, Jeremy's Razors.
Every Jeremy's Razors kit comes with a premium razor, two sets of blades, shaving cream, and aftershave bomb.
I use it when I'm shaving Clavin, and you know I have a lot of territory to shave.
It's a beautiful thing to behold.
And they've already sold over 70,000 kits.
So instead of telling you I'm a big fan of Harry's, I'm here to tell you about the thousands of ex-Harry's fans who have literally thrown their razors in the trash and switched to Jeremy's.
Do not go to Harry's.com.
Go to ihateHarry's.com and get your Jeremy's Razors Founders kit.
It's time to stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you.
Give it to Jeremy instead.
TikTok's Sanctioned Videos00:14:44
All right, we are always delighted when it's time to talk to Megan Basham.
You know, the Daily Wire's coverage of a lot of stuff has gone really gotten so much better recently.
And a good percentage of the reason is Megan's coverage of the culture.
She's doing a great job.
She's worked all over the place.
Wall Street Journal, National Review, focus on the family, the Washington Times, and she is the author of Beside Every Successful Man.
And we talk to her every month because we like to.
Megan, it's good to see you.
It's good to be here.
I like being here every month.
Oh, yeah.
You know, you're just doing great.
You really are.
The reporting is just excellent.
You're doing a story now about TikTok.
So, for someone like me, I don't use TikTok very much.
I see it most of the time when I see it, it's libs of TikTok just showing me crazy people.
What is the problem with TikTok that you have that's now becoming really, really a crisis almost?
Well, and I was like you, Drew.
I didn't use it very often.
I don't use it at all, really, other than when I'm looking at it for stories.
I don't let my kids use it.
We don't have social media.
So it really wasn't on my radar personally until I started covering this story.
And then you realize that this actually matters to everybody, whether you use TikTok or not.
Part of the issue here is that we hear a lot of stories about data harvesting from big tech.
And that's scary enough when you're thinking about Mark Zuckerberg doing it.
But now think about the Chinese Communist Party doing it.
And so that's part of what is so scary here: it's owned by a company called Byte Dance, which is based in China.
And, you know, for a while, they would try to sort of hedge and say, well, we have moved our servers and our data storage to Houston, and it's now housed by Oracle.
Therefore, it's not really connected to the Chinese party.
And then, you know, just about a few weeks ago, stories started coming out in BuzzFeed and other outlets that indicated internally they knew that it really doesn't matter where the data is stored, China has access to it.
They built this technology.
They have backdoor access to keystrokes, face prints, fingerprints, search history, location data, all kinds of information for everyone who uses TikTok, which even if you don't, you need to know it's a lot of people, a billion users now on TikTok.
Yeah, so it's now the most visited site on Google.
If you are a young person, you use it more than Google to get restaurant recommendations, to find out information.
If you want to know about something, if you're, you know, in that 13 to 24-year-old age range, you're probably going to TikTok to get your information.
So that's one piece of the problem.
And then the other piece of the problem is that we now know that China has been using it to also put forward the messages they want out there.
So not only are your kids and your, if you're using it, information being harvested by China, they are also pushing data towards you, pushing propaganda towards all of these users.
So let's start with you said they could capture keystrokes.
I assume that means only when you're using TikTok or if you have the TikTok app that no, that is no, they, I mean, there have been instances that they have now discovered the application running in the background when it had not been enabled and hadn't been empowered to do that.
So there are so many ramifications of this, Drew.
That includes, you know, the U.S. government doesn't allow it on military-issued devices, but it does not bar the troops from using it on their personal devices.
So that means you have military personnel who are using it on their own iPhone and they're showing their location data, potentially images of the barracks, images of weaponry, of troop formations, all kinds of things.
So it's really a deep rabbit hole and it's a pretty scary one.
Well, what about what about, you know, you hear about things like people reading faces and things like that.
I mean, what kind of information can they get besides just what you're searching for?
Yeah, that was part of the interesting research in this story was I spoke to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.
And what he told me is that there is AI, artificial intelligence that reads your emotions as you're watching these videos, and it's picking up how you're reacting to it.
Do you like something?
Do you not like something?
And that may not seem that scary until you start to think about, okay, if you're China, how might they be using this information?
And one of the ways they might use it is, I don't know, let's just say hypothetically you're a California congressman and a Chinese asset wants to get close to you.
I'm not thinking anyone in particular, but say like arbitrarily Eric Swalwell, someone like that.
And if they want to know what you're interested in, if you like phishing, if you like certain kind of books, that kind of information can be used to then cozy up and create a relationship and make inroads, not just with government officials, but also with private sector, heads of companies, really a lot of ways you could use this information.
And that is what Brendan Carr, the FCC commissioner, was really stressing.
And it's part of why he has been pushing both the Biden administration to act on this.
I mean, he is very much in the camp of we need to get rid of TikTok altogether.
It should be banned in our country.
India banned it in 2020 for national security reasons.
And so that's the position he's coming from.
But also from the private sector, he has asked Google and Apple to remove this app from their app stores.
And they've not responded to him, which is a little frustrating because we know from the parlor debacle that they can move applications pretty fast off of their stores when they want to.
In this case, for whatever reason, they just don't seem to want to.
So they're happy with banning, for instance, the president of the United States, who they don't like, but not China.
I mean, this seems like, it seems like a no-brainer to me if they're reading people's faces, if they can read people's faces and find out what they like and really get that kind of personal information on them.
And they are trying to, you know, they are our enemies.
Why, what's the, what's the argument against banning them?
Well, that's a good question.
As you look into it, there's not really much argument.
There's nobody saying, hey, TikTok's great.
Let's just keep it.
And you have to say the Biden administration is not doing that either.
What they're doing is kind of this perpetual, we're studying the situation.
And I asked Carr, why did they roll back the Trump administration moves to do something about TikTok?
If you remember, the Trump administration was trying to get rid of it.
It said it needed to be owned by a U.S. or European company in order to remain in the U.S.
And, you know, Carr told me for whatever reason, he thinks it's this, frankly.
He thinks that it was just sort of this attitude that anything that was a Trump administration priority was just going to be rolled back.
And that was kind of the attitude.
And now what they're doing is they are taking steps.
And you have to say it is in somewhat, it is a bipartisan approach now.
You have Senator Marco Rubio, you have Senator Mark Warner who are moving on this in a bipartisan way, but it's been very slow.
So you have everybody kind of recognizing we have a problem here.
But both Carr and also I spoke to the former chief software designer of the Air Force and he resigned over this.
He resigned from the Department of Defense and he's kind of been out there talking to everyone.
And he said the problem is you have a lot of congressmen, you have a lot of senators who don't even know how to put apps on their phone or take them off.
And so they don't really understand this situation.
They don't understand the problem with data and it's just been very slow going to learn about it.
Wait, he resigned from the Air Force because of this?
He resigned from the Department of Defense.
Yes, he was the chief software officer.
And he issued a big letter.
It's a man named Nicholas Chailan.
And his story is fascinating.
He has been blowing the whistle all over.
And I think part of what you asked me about why isn't there more movement to do something about this, there's also a question of money.
A lot of companies are making a lot of money.
They're advertising on TikTok.
They're hitting that very young demographic that they want.
And somebody like Nicholas Chailan said, you know, he was scheduled to speak to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is the lobbying arm of American big business.
The day before he was supposed to do that, he went on Tucker Carlson to talk about this TikTok issue.
One of the things he brought up in that segment was the fact that China doesn't allow TikTok in China.
Of course not.
They're not stupid.
So they have a version.
They have something called doiyan.
And I hope I'm pronouncing that right, but something called doyan.
It's sort of the Chinese version of TikTok, but it is very different in some significant ways in that it shows educational videos.
No twerking, no pornography, educational, very socially positive videos.
And there are very limited rules on how kids can access it.
And so he went on Tucker Carlson to talk about that.
And he said within 12 hours, the Chamber of Commerce had canceled his engagement that he was supposed to have with them.
They didn't tell him why.
They just said they ran out of time.
And then they did not remove him from the email chain.
And he discovered later that though they told him they had to cancel him because of time, that in fact they replaced him with another speaker.
So, you know, his suspicion is that it was done at the behest of possibly TikTok, possibly China.
He doesn't know.
But clearly, you know, there's a financial incentive for these companies.
And we have seen American companies kowtowing to China before for financial gain.
So let's go.
I want to go back to something you said earlier about the positive, I don't mean morally positive, but just the active use of propaganda.
You said that China was actually pushing ideas and propaganda to people on TikTok.
Yeah, and I think that is part of the reason that I go, even if you don't use it, we need to be concerned that a huge portion of our population, a huge portion of young voters are watching this.
And what they're finding is that just this week, this just happened this week, Drew, an app called Top Buzz was on the TikTok application.
It was forwarded to millions of American accounts.
And it was pushing Chinese propaganda.
They're pushing the messages they want to push.
One of the things people pointed out, if your kid goes on to TikTok to search something like Tiananmen Square, they're getting CCP approved returns, videos, information that China has sanctioned.
So think about how many millions of kids, teens, people in their 20s are getting their information that way.
And it's all being used, you know, going through China, going through the CCP's approval system.
So, you know, I see all these, you know, libs of TikTok type videos of very disturbed, it seems to me, young people and teachers pushing their sexual oddity to other people and putting it forward as a good thing.
The Chinese have done things like banned overly effeminate men from being entertainers.
They basically said, we don't want you on TV.
They feel that that weakens the society.
And so is there the possibility that they're manipulating that kind of video so more people see it or they can find the people who like it or anything like that?
Absolutely.
They absolutely have that capability to prioritize the kind of videos that will create a disordered social structure.
So yes, I mean, you go, could this be a psyops?
Absolutely.
You know, both Nicholas Chailon and Brendan Carr were very specific with me that, look, it may look like it's just a fun entertainment app.
It's a very sophisticated surveillance tool and it's a weapon.
I mean, both of them called TikTok a weapon.
So that really kind of puts it in very stark clarity what we're dealing with here.
Yeah, I mean, it's just, it just seems that this would be a kind of a priority that, you know, we're perfectly capable.
I mean, I don't even like the idea that our government could be getting this kind of information from us.
I certainly don't like the idea that Google could be getting it, but that the Chinese are getting it.
It seems to me even a bridge, two bridges too far.
It seems like it would be a priority.
Why can't we make our own TikTok?
Well, and that's an interesting point is we're kind of starting to see that.
And you go, you went from complaining about, oh, gosh, I don't want Google to have my information.
I don't want Mark Zuckerberg to have it.
And you go, okay, well, hopefully Mark Zuckerberg will come in and build something at least.
I mean, and they are doing that.
And that's kind of what's been interesting is that because TikTok, it was designed to be incredibly addictive.
And China has done studies.
They know that the way it functions, it just feeds these endorphin buzzes to your brain.
And so you swipe and you keep using it.
And so we actually are seeing because it is so popular and it's really actually caused some shakeup in the tech world.
So you have Facebook for the first time ever this week announced that they had a revenue decline and they are losing users to TikTok.
So they are reorganizing their algorithms and user experience to draw people over to Facebook by doing these same kind of videos.
Now, you go, that's sort of a double-edged sword, but a part of you hopes that it works because you go, I would rather have kids, young people on Facebook looking at these videos than Chinese propaganda on TikTok.
Does anybody, I mean, I have very severe views of social media.
I mean, I feel that it needs to be regulated.
And one of the ways I'm not at all against their regulating methods of addiction, things that are purposely designed to addict you, there was a pretty good explanation of this in the Wall Street Journal where they said they can find what you like and then point you to things that you like and then point you from those things that you like to things that they want you to see.
It seems to me that a lot of that needs to be regulated.
Does anybody talk about that or is that just me ranting alone in my room?
No, you know, what's funny is I asked Chai Lan particularly about that and he said, you know, I liked, I don't know what his politics are, but he seemed to me a fairly measured, maybe a broadly conservative guy and that he said, I don't think there needs to be, you know, extreme regulation.
And he said that's part of the fear from, you know, the private sector is they don't want the government to come in and put up so much red tape and so much regulation.
And as a conservative, I certainly understand that.
And he seemed to be sympathetic with that, but he said, look, there needs to be some kind of guardrails on how they're accessing our data and how they're using it.
And he made the point that, look, Facebook's not in China.
Marriage For The Ages00:10:31
They're not able.
There aren't two versions of Facebook in the world.
And China doesn't allow their population to just access this technology any way they want.
So it's pretty interesting that we don't have a reciprocal situation here.
So there's a lot of levers that pressure that they could use that they're not using.
Megan, it's always great talking to you.
Megan Basham, check out her stuff on the Daily Wire.
You do a great job.
And this is a really interesting story.
I'm sure you're going to be following it up.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah.
We're going to, I'll plug Morningwire.
We have a special next Sunday coming out on Morningwire.
Okay.
So you'll go check that out.
All right.
Excellent.
Thanks very much, Megan.
I'll see you next month.
Absolutely.
Thanks.
Thanks.
All right.
Look outside your window.
You see that black cloud gathering.
You see little creatures in there that look like they're going to devour everything they touch.
That is the Clavenless Week approaching.
But while it's approaching, you do not want to go down for the, obviously the last time, with your problems still intact.
So we will solve them all right now with the mailbag.
I don't have anything.
I don't have anything.
Yeah!
All right.
From Michelle.
Hello, Mr. Clavin.
I don't want this question to sound snide because it's coming from a woman.
I'm just curious because I hear men say women aren't funny.
So I just wanted your take.
Do you think women can be funny?
Why or why not?
And generally speaking, why is it that men are funnier than women?
Well, I don't know.
You know, I don't think there are no women comedians that come to mind immediately.
They're anywhere near as funny as the male comedians.
And in general, women aren't as funny as men.
My wife makes me laugh a lot.
She can make me laugh.
She always takes great pictures of me because she can make me laugh with a word and then you get a picture of me smiling.
So I don't think women are necessarily unfunny.
They're just not professional level funny the way men frequently are.
Men can really be funny.
Now, why is that?
The usual answer is because men have to charm women, right?
Women don't have to charm men.
All women have to do is be women and men are charmed, right?
We're easy targets.
But men have to charm women.
They have to win their hearts so that humor is a way to do it.
And women do say, whenever they ask women what you like, they always say a good sense of humor.
I love it when a man is funny.
And so that does seem to be something.
That's the evolutionary explanation.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe it's not.
I don't know.
The other thing that always occurs to me is that when you can't have children, when you can't create life, life seems a little bit more meaningless, I think.
You know, women actually, if women do not pay attention to feminism, if women just pay attention to themselves and their lives and their desires and their dreams and their hopes, their lives make sense.
It really is a wonderful thing to actually bring life out of yourself into the world.
Men can't do that.
I know they contribute, but it's not the same thing.
And I think maybe that life is a little just existentially more absurd for men than it is for women.
And then you develop a sense of humor.
Are the funniest people?
I mean, if you want to talk to funny people, you talk to Jews.
You talk to black people.
You talk to cops.
You talk to people who are under the gun, people who are not always accepted.
Gay people, hilarious.
They used to be hilarious.
Now they've totally lost their sense of humor because of gay activism.
But still, you know, if you want to talk to people who are funny, you talk to people who are on the edge a little bit.
And men just do not have, aren't at the center of creation the way women are.
And I think that maybe you need more of a sense of humor.
I don't know why it is, but I have observed it just like everybody else that men are funnier at a higher level than women are.
But women, like I said, my wife always makes me laugh.
She can make me laugh too easily.
Damn it.
All right.
From Bethany, what's your opinion on a couple living together before they get married?
I made the mistake before coming on and saying, I got this interesting question in the mailbag, asking Knowles and Walsh.
It's wrong.
The Catholics, but of course, it is a difficult, difficult question for me, first of all, because I did everything wrong with my wife.
I mean, first of all, I met her by picking her up hitchhiking, and that's just so wrong.
We moved in together almost immediately.
We lived together for, I think, two years, was it?
Maybe four years before we got married.
Everything wrong, and yet it is a marriage for the ages.
From my point of view anyway, it is terrific.
And so I never know.
I don't want to be a hypocrite.
I don't want to be a hypocrite and say it can't work out.
When I see young people do it, I think the women are nuts.
I think the women are crazy.
And I think that, like, you know, what are you going to learn?
I mean, after a month, right?
When you are married, when you live together, over time, you know, my wife and I don't fight, but it doesn't mean you don't ever get on each other's nerves or you don't ever have a moment when you're annoyed with each other.
You know, you're going to get annoyed with one another.
Not sure.
Living together you're going to learn anything that is going to be informative for for whether you should get married, I will say this, if you do it, you should have a distinct cutoff date.
You know, I'm just talking practically, I'm not talking morally.
The moral question you have to figure out yourself.
The moral question has to do with your own moral outlook.
You know this.
If you think like only people who are married should live together, if you think only people who are married should sleep together, then that's the way you should live and you shouldn't let anybody talk you out of that.
However, if you, if you're considering this, you know you should have a definite, definite date and it should be short, like two months, where you live together and you say yes or no because, I'm sorry, women's value goes down.
Men's tends to go up for a long period of time because they earn more.
As they get older, you know, they become more sophisticated, more knowledgeable, they become more valuable.
Where women, you know, obviously they get.
They get older, they're not as fertile, they're not as young and beautiful as they were and their value goes down.
You should not waste your time with men who won't commit, and that's my basic, practical answer to this.
You should not waste your time with men who won't commit.
Don't write to me and say it's immoral, because we're not passing judgment on anybody in the mailbag section.
We're just saying that as a practical matter.
A woman is a fool.
A woman is a fool if she lives with somebody for any period or any really long period of time without getting, without a commitment.
Women should get commitment and I'll tell you something else, have kids, have them soon, have them early.
Worry about your career later.
You can have a career later.
Have your kids early so you know you're healthy and you can have a lot of them.
You can raise them, pay attention to them, make your husband support you and then, after the kids grow up, then you can have your career.
That's my advice.
All right, I know you weren't asking, but I'm giving it to you anyway from Jesse.
I'm homegrown in Salt Lake City.
I'm a Mormon.
I'm the youngest of eight kids.
My family have been faithful churchgoers since my parents were married.
Recently we found out that my dad has been having affairs with men and that he's been hiding his sexuality from everyone all his life.
Some of my siblings won't talk to him.
Some are trying to talk her into leaving him.
My dad is begging for my mom's forgiveness and needs her to take him back.
I'm 21 and while people are taking sides and turning on each other, I just want to keep my siblings together, because a house divided against itself can't stand.
How do I communicate this to my family?
I'm the youngest, after all.
I'm not taking seriously in family situations.
Thanks for all you do.
God bless you, sir.
Well listen, that's a very tough very, very tough issue here's.
Here's a couple of things I want to say about it.
First of all, you should take stock.
You're talking about how it's affecting everybody else, but you're not talking about how it's affecting you.
This is a big deal.
It's a big deal to find out about your father that he's homosexual, that he's he's gay and has been keeping that secret and cheating on your mom.
Those are those.
Those are really tough pieces of information to digest and process.
So, before you turn your mind outward, turn your mind inward a little bit.
Feel, feel how you feel about this.
Do you feel betrayed?
Do you feel hurt?
Do you feel disappointed?
Do you feel disgusted?
Do you what?
What do you feel?
You should know this about yourself.
You know this is not something that you should.
Uh, you're kind of you're kind of going out before you've gone in.
You got to go in first and know where you stand and what trauma you've suffered and how you can deal with this situation.
And after that, after that, you know, what you don't want, and I don't blame you, and what you're afraid of is that you'll lose this loving family that you've had.
You've had this trauma.
You've found out that the family you thought you had was not the family you had, right?
I mean, and this has happened to me, it's happened to a lot of people.
You find out that the family you thought you were living in is not that family, and it's a disappointment, and it's very tough to process and digest.
And you're afraid it's just going to get worse as everybody turns on each other and yells at each other.
It's a good thing, I think, maybe not to get into the fray, not to take a side, to be there for everybody, to be loving to everybody, to say, I understand how you feel.
I understand why you're so hurt, and maybe you should talk about that and how hurt you are about this.
And maybe we should talk about whether it would even be a good thing.
Really, the issue, the actual issue, is between your mother and your father.
It's between them.
It really, it's not about you.
It's about their relationship and what they're going to do.
And they have to figure that out for yourself, theirselves.
And you don't really need to participate in that debate.
You really don't.
And if everybody else feels that they have to have a word in, because that's the way people are, they feel that they have to judge and they have to be part of the conversation where really it's not their business.
It's just not what your mother decides to do about this.
If they feel that way, you don't have to participate in that.
So you're right about that.
That's a good instinct.
I think it's a good instinct to be loving to everybody, to be non-judgmental, to just say, I have made a judgment about this, but it's none of anybody's business how I feel about this.
And I just, you know, I'm just sorry, you're hurt and I'm sorry for this and to be there for everybody on all sides.
That's fine, but you can't do that.
You cannot do that unless you know how you've been affected by it first.
This is a hammer blow.
This is a very, very tough thing to deal with.
And, you know, you want to deal with it as lovingly as you can, but you can't do that until you really experience your own emotions, which are going to be tumultuous.
You know, they're going to be painful.
This is a really painful thing.
And I'm sorry it's happened to you, but like, you know, you have to deal with it in yourself first, and then you can deal with the family in a loving way.
And hopefully the family, some measure of the family will stay together and remain loving and a place for you to go to find comfort and relief yourself.
And I will end it there.
And we'll be back in a week.
You won't be here because the Clavenless Week will destroy you.
I mean, it's, you know, it's just the way it happens.
Painful Family Matters00:01:22
It's the darkness, the lizards, the horrible little monsters that come and devour you.
They pitchforks and flower.
I can't even think about it.
However, for those few of you who make it through to next Friday, I'll be back.
I'm Andrew Clavin.
This is The Andrew Klavan Show.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, on Spotify, basically wherever you listen to podcasts.
Also, remember to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including the Ben Shapiro Show, the Matt Walsh Show, and the Michael Knoll Show.
Thank you for listening.
The Andrew Clavin Show is produced by Lisa Bacon, executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
Production Manager Pavel Wadowski.
Editor and Associate Producer Danny D'Amico.
Our audio is mixed by Mike Cormina.
Animations are by Cynthia Angulo.
Hair and makeup is done by Cherokee Hart.
Our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
And our production assistant is Jacob Falash.
The Andrew Clavin Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2022.
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.