America the Delusional skewers monkeypox renaming chaos—from "don’t say gay pox" to Kamala Harris’s incoherent speech—while Andrew Clavin slams leftist wokeness for denying biological reality and misframing Kansas’ abortion vote as a judicial overreach. He clashes with reform prosecutors like Soros-funded Warren, accusing them of prioritizing racial grievances over crime, then pivots to Tim Parrish’s call for Republicans to ditch stereotypes and address Black communities’ economic needs. Actor Clifton Duncan exposes Hollywood’s blacklisting of conservatives, while a gay Catholic questioner grapples with church doctrine’s rejection of same-sex relationships, forcing a debate on hypocrisy vs. integrity. The episode collapses into a war between perceived reality—where feelings dictate truth—and unyielding moral frameworks, leaving listeners to question whether progress or principle will prevail in America’s culture wars. [Automatically generated summary]
CDC officials and other Democrat quacks are scrambling to come up with a new name for monkeypox that won't stigmatize promiscuous homosexuals who have anal sex with multiple strangers and then break out in pustules so that everyone knows they've degraded themselves, making them literally stigmatized.
Monkeys would also like to have the disease renamed so they aren't associated with those people.
Monkey spokesman JoJo the Monkey told reporters, quote, Calling this disease monkeypox is offensive not just to simians, but to animals all the way down the evolutionary chain.
Sure, we throw excrement at one another and make indecipherable EEE noises like a bunch of idiots, but we're not stupid and uncivilized enough to hold orgies in San Francisco.
I personally have been faithful to the same sexual partner for 15 years now.
And sure, partly that's because I'm locked in a cage with her, but if the Supreme Court gave me the right to get married, I'd do it in a minute.
Unless I could get out of this cage, then I'd move to San Francisco, unquote.
A Democrat spokesman, also named JoJo the Monkey, explained the party's policy to a classroom of five-year-olds, saying, quote, we must not allow a disease that largely spreads through a debased and unhealthy lifestyle to become an impediment to promiscuous idiots who want to debase themselves and destroy their health.
Otherwise, people might start to develop self-respect and personal discipline, and there'd be no one left to vote for Democrats.
Oh, and by the way, kids, if anyone would like to further explore alternative sexualities, see me after class, unquote.
Other Democrats were quick to point out that renaming diseases has been central to their party's approach to health care.
Democrat activist JoJo the Groomer explained this strategy to a cage full of homosexual monkeys, saying, quote, during the pandemic, it was very important to us that COVID wasn't called the Chinese flu, or the yellow fever, or the Wu flu,
or the Flu Manchu, or the Flu Shoe Pork, or any other name that, yes, might have been both hilarious and accurate, but would have reminded people that the disease was developed and released by Chinese officials, which would have unfairly stigmatized evil communists trying to destroy the West so they can enslave the world.
Our renaming efforts were highly successful since most people now call the disease COVID and keep their real opinions to themselves, unquote.
Similarly, with the disease formerly known as monkeypox, although 98% of cases arise in men who have reckless sex with men, medical professionals are reluctant to call men who have sex with men homosexuals and instead call them men who have sex with men and then nudge each other and wink knowingly and snigger at them behind their backs when they walk away.
Since talking complete nonsense has become central to Democrat health efforts, Vice President Kamala Harris has been enlisted to spread the word.
In a speech to a group of people who also don't speak English, VP Harris said, quote, the future is now, only later.
So we can't go back to yesterday, which would also be now, if now were tomorrow, which it was the day before.
Therefore, we must look ahead to where the future would be if it weren't now.
And by the way, try not to sodomize half a dozen strangers so you don't break out in pustules, unquote.
Democrats feel the monkeypox renaming effort is so important, they have assigned the work to the party's central committee for renaming awful things so they sound less awful, also known as the Biden administration.
Up till now, the committee has been hard at work on other projects, which include renaming a recession a transition so that no one will notice it's a transition into a recession, renaming inflation something or other about Putin so people will stop calling it Bidenflation, which is just so damn catchy, and banning the word groomer so Democrats can continue sexually grooming children without being called groomers.
The chairman of the renaming committee, JoJo the Monkey, says the committee has created a list of possible new names for monkeypox, including the don't say gay pox, the it's just a coincidence you went to the kink festival and then broke out in pustules box, and the January 6 box.
When asked what the pox had to do with January 6, JoJo responded, not a damn thing, but at this point, January 6 is all we've got.
Trigger warning, I'm Andrew Clavin, and this is the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm the hunky-dunky, life is tickety-boo.
Birds are winging, also singing, hunky-dunky-dunky.
Ship-shaped ipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
Ring Alarm Protection00:02:55
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray!
Oh, hooray, hurrah.
We are back laughing our way through the fall of the Republic.
We have got insane stuff to talk about today.
We have the weirdest pro-abortion argument you have ever heard.
An insane rant from our old friend George Soros and canceled actor, this is not so insane, canceled actor Clifton Duncan will be with us to talk about how he got canceled and what he's doing now.
This is a great time to subscribe to wherever you get your podcast, subscribe to this podcast and give us a five-star review.
Those reviews are very important.
Your subscriptions are very important.
Also, you want to subscribe to the Andrew Clavin YouTube channel, not the Daily Wire.
This is my personal YouTube channel.
You will get personal, exclusive content there that I will personally deliver to your door.
Remember to count the silverware after I'm gone.
Also, if you leave a comment there and the comment is just absolutely reprehensible, it has to really verge on the unforgivable.
We will include it here as fitting in with the rest of our content.
Today's comment is from Sharon Bezriguez, who says, why did it take Biden so long to blink?
Because it wasn't written on the teleprompter.
See, people thought it was strange that he doesn't blink, but that's because they're not using cocaine.
Please go on.
I'm so grateful to you for pre-ordering my new novel, The Strange Habit of Mind.
It's Mind, M-I-N-D.
It's the sequel to When Christmas Comes.
It's not out until October, but the pre-orders give strength and courage to the publishers to order enough books so this time we can put it on a bestseller list and then we'll have a real series going.
I mean it will have we'll have books on books on books about Cameroon Winter, mystery stories that are, let's put it this way, they serve people like us.
They are about things that we want to hear about.
So I'm back from vacation, but this summer you're probably going to be away from home quite a bit.
Everyone is traveling.
You want to be able to rest easy with the protection of Ring Alarm.
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.
And Ring has even changed the game further by inventing Ring Alarm Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro is a whole home security with available professional monitoring when you subscribe to Ring Protect Pro.
Ring Alarm Pro combines a security system with a fast Eero Wi-Fi 6 router for home security and network security in one device.
So this summer, whether you're across the country or across town, you'll know everything at home is protected and connected and that it will stay that way.
With a Ring Protect Pro subscription, an amazing deal, you can get professional monitoring for the ultimate peace of mind.
This busy summer season to protect your home, GoPro with Ring Alarm Pro.
Learn more at ring.com forward slash clavin.
That's ring.com forward slash clavin.
How do you spell Clavin, you may ask?
The Left's War on Life00:15:45
Well, here's the answer.
There are no easing favourites.
K-L-A-V-A-N.
So much as I love following politics, I feel compelled every now and again to remind you that politics makes us stupid.
And partly that's a structural thing, but partly it's intentional.
Politics want to, politicians want us to be stupid, so we'll do what they say without thinking about it too much.
Leftists use panic to make us stupid, and they use insults and they'll say, oh, the weather is an emergency and everybody's a Nazi.
And some right-wingers use the waving the cross and the flag to make us stupid.
I love both the cross and the flag, as you know, but just because someone is waving them doesn't mean he isn't talking garbage.
So one of the most important ways that politics makes us stupid is by encouraging what's called ad hominem thinking.
You probably know ad hominem is short for argumentum ad hominem, which means it's Latin for an argument from the man, from the person.
And it's a way of directing your attention to the flaws of an individual and away from the argument he's actually making.
And ad hominem is what's known as a logical fallacy because it's a false way to deal with an argument.
Everybody has flaws, but that doesn't mean his argument isn't a good one.
The Democrats, of course, make hay out of Donald Trump's flaws, his political mistakes, particularly January 6th, they keep harping on.
And they're doing that because they're hoping it'll make you forget the results of his actual policy.
Some of this was mentioned in Jason Riley's Wall Street Journal column this week, not all of it, but some of it.
During Trump's first three years in office, median household incomes grew, inequality diminished, and the poverty rate among black people fell below 20% for the first time in post-World War II records.
That evil racist Donald Trump, wages for the bottom 10% of earners grew at more than double the rate they did during Obama's second term.
There also was the fact that Trump and his people wiped the ISIS caliphate off the face of the earth, woke the West to the danger of China, isolated Iran, brokered the first promising Middle East peace pact in forever, and appointed federal judges who were loyal to the Constitution instead of Ivy League leftism.
Barack Obama, you have to admit, was a much more presentable, eloquent, and elegant figure than Trump, and he did the opposite of almost all those things.
He made the country worse.
So this is not to discount the importance of good behavior, good personal behavior, and decency.
Corrupt and abusive politicians dishonor even their best ideas.
You know, you don't want a preacher preaching the word of God and then abusing his parishioners because he actually soils the word of God.
My only point is this.
To think clearly about policy and political philosophy, the best method is to assume temporarily that your opponent is a decent human being of good character acting with good intentions, even if you know he's a complete SOB, right, or a Democrat, but I repeat myself.
If you assume he's acting in good faith, you can isolate his ideas and look at them clearly and clarify your own objections.
And that's what I want to do just for a moment.
At the core of almost all debates in politics is one central and painful fact, and I'm going to call it the intolerable discrepancy.
The intolerable discrepancy is this.
Human beings have an intense sense of justice, and the world is not just in any way, shape, or form.
In the world, evil people thrive, good die young, children get sick, murderers get off scot-free, earthquakes and tornadoes kill the innocent, cancer doesn't care if you're a nice guy, jackasses sometimes make a billion dollars and get the girl.
It's just not fair here on planet Earth.
And yet, while the world is morally random, we cannot tolerate injustice.
We hate it when it happens to us.
We don't like looking at it.
And when I say we can't tolerate it, I mean we can barely stand to face the fact that it's the steady state of nature.
It's the steady state of the world.
And different people deal with the unbearable discrepancy in different ways.
So you'll hear Christians who say things like, everything happens for a reason, or it's God's will, or yes, little Billy got run over by a cement truck, but now he's in heaven playing with his dog Spot.
None of which, by the way, is actual Christian theology.
I mean, Jesus told us that the world is a satanic crap show.
I don't think he used those exact words, but his resurrection is supposed to assure us that there is justice in the context of eternity that doesn't exist here.
We have faith in that eternity, but we understand that it still stinks when little Billy gets run over by the cement truck.
This everything happens for a reason stuff is one way of erasing the intolerable discrepancy, the fact that we have a hunger for justice in a world that is not just.
Now, leftism and elite thought in general has kind of left God behind.
They don't want to talk about God anymore.
They don't believe in him.
They're embarrassed by them.
And they feel that it's we who have the job of reconciling the entire tolerable discrepancy by political and cultural means.
We can make the world just.
And there's some fairness to that.
Politics should be just, and it should make the world as just as it's possible to make it.
But Marxists imagined a man-made utopia that was going to come about inevitably through human history.
When it didn't come out inevitably through human history, they just started killing the human beings they thought were standing in its way.
Over 100 million humans were killed because Marxism didn't happen.
And when the Kill Fest was over, and when socialism still did not work, post-Marxist leftists, that's what we're dealing with now, we're dealing with post-Marxist leftists, they began to realize that the unfairness was baked into life.
And instead of accepting that as a fact of life, they began to wage a fanatical war against every form of perceived power imbalance.
From the fact that some cultures have ideas that cause them to thrive and some other cultures have behaviors that cause them to falter, to the fact that sophisticated science works way, way, way better than indigenous ways of knowing, which are not ways of knowing at all, to the fact that men and women aren't the same, they have different vulnerabilities and capabilities, and they can't change their sexes just because they want to.
And so we're going to fix that by just saying they can.
And if you say they can't, then you're mean and you're off Twitter.
To these post-Marxist leftists, even language is a form of power imbalance and needs to be broken of its annoying habit to referring to things that leftists don't like, like reality.
This philosophy is what we call wokeness, because it shows you're woke to the injustice of life, which has to be the fault of someone you don't like or someone who has more power or better looks or whatever than you do.
In practice, wokeness is wickedness.
It makes injustice worse.
If every reality is a matter of power, if every injustice is just a matter of power imbalance, you can fix all the injustice by taking all the power on yourself, which not only destroys freedom, but reveals a terrible, terrible fact.
The injustice is in us.
The line of evil, as Solton Nitson says, runs right through every human heart.
So when these wonderful leftists take all the power, they are going to be just as evil as all the people they think are Hitler now.
More evil, because most of the people they call Hitler are not Hitler at all.
But there is another sort of leftism that's a little bit more thoughtful, and this is associated with the thought of John Rawls.
This is very important in modern politics.
Even conservative Ted Cruz said, quote, we should assess policy with a Rawlsian lens, asking how it affects those least well-off among us.
What Rawls said in part was this, you should, in order to construct a fair society, you should imagine that you haven't been born yet and you're about to be born in a society, but you don't know how you're going to be born.
You might be male, you might be female, you might be rich, poor, black, white, smart, stupid, talented, or not talented.
You want to develop a society that you want to be born in, no matter which of those people you are.
Now, so that's what Cruz means by thinking always about the least well-off among us.
Now, obviously, a Christian society should care about the people who fall behind.
Sometimes conservatives just shrug off, they say life is unfair, and so we shouldn't help anybody.
It's just play it as it lays.
But that, of course, is not true.
We need to take care of people no matter how we work out doing it.
There are good and moral reasons to sharply curtail the welfare state, but we can't just shrug off the actual pain of people in poverty and people who have been left behind.
My problem with Rawls is not that, it's this.
Rawls is also denying the unbearable discrepancy, the fact that there's no justice.
Because here is the actual tragic fact of life, and this is the important point that I'm trying to get to.
It's not just that life is unfair.
It's that unfairness is life.
The difference between a man and a woman, the difference between an Einstein and Joy Behar, the difference between LeBron James and Napoleon Dynamite, the difference between the high culture of Europe with its science and constitutionalism and art and the persistent dysfunction, poverty, and violence of other places around the world, those inequalities are not just sources of injustice.
They are.
They're also the source of progress, beauty, and human achievement.
Competition between people, businesses, and nations means some are going to be losers.
Some fail.
And that's not nice and it's not fair, but it's also what inspires us to build and create and improve.
The generosity and self-sacrifice of homemakers leaves women open to abuse and neglect, but it's also the source and protection of a fully human society.
Without homemakers, we will cease to be human beings.
Cultural colonization can be oppressive and insulting, but it's the way that we spread better ideas and overtake bad ideas.
You know, I mean, everybody fights with guns now instead of machetes because guns work better.
A Rawlsian world of perfect equality is a world of stagnation and backwardness and the rule of envy overall.
There is going to be injustice.
Conservatism, like true Christianity, is hard to sell to people because it's tragic.
It's a tragic recognition of a tragic world.
The best we can do in the world is treat all people equally under the law and live with charity toward those who fall behind.
Because unfairness is life.
If you wage war against every unfairness, you will eventually be waging war against life itself.
And that's where you get this hatred of life that comes out in shouting your abortions, in spreading panic that's supposed to stop the use of fossil fuel, which means stopping the growth of civilization, in worrying and panicking over population so that you tell people not to have children or, oh, the world is too unkind.
This love of death that we see on the left is also grows out of a hatred of unfairness.
And it's only accepting the tragic facts of life that creates the kind of good politics that we used to have in this country until the left took over.
It's getting close to back to school season and many American kids are excited to get back into the classroom.
Many others are not because these children don't know where their meals will be coming from this semester.
That's why Good Ranchers has made it their mission to donate 100,000 high-quality meals to kids facing food insecurity and malnourishment this fall semester.
For every box ordered through the month of August, Good Ranchers will donate a nutritious meal to a child in need.
Help them reach their goal of 100,000 donated meals by ordering your box today at goodranchers.com/slash Clavin.
Good Ranchers is an award-winning food delivery service that ships 100% American meat and seafood right to your door.
Named the best food subscription service earlier this year, Good Ranchers is the fastest growing meat company in America.
They source only the best American farms so that you can trust that you're feeding your family with the highest possible quality meal.
Plus, right now you can use my code Clavin to get 30 bucks off your order plus free shipping.
Your purchase furthers their mission to donate 100,000 high quality meals to children in need.
This is a great cause that we should all rally behind.
Go to goodranchers.com slash Clavin today.
Use my code Clavin when you place your order and let's help these guys hit their goal.
One more proof that if you want to do good in the world, you have to know how to spell Clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So I want to take a look at how the left's war on life's inevitable and sometimes beautiful unfairness makes people stupid, dishonest, and nuts.
And if you want to find stupid, dishonest, and nuts, the best place to start is the New York Times, a former newspaper, especially on their op-ed section, or as we call it here, Knucklehead Row.
Oh, hey, hey, oh, hey, ho.
Let's go all to knock on.
So to set this up, there was a victory for leftist abortion lovers in Kansas.
It's a red state, but this is an overwhelming victory for those who love abortion.
Here is the press celebrating.
See if you can tell from these reports what happened.
Cut nine.
Abortion rights upheld in Kansas.
We have a lot of news to get to this morning, including that surprising vote overnight in Kansas, the first state to vote on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Voters there triggered a strong backlash, affirming the state's constitution, which protects abortion rights.
Remember, Kansas is a deep red state where there are far more Republicans than Democrats.
This was a massive show of support for abortion rights in a conservative, traditionally red state.
Less than six weeks after Roe versus Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court, voters in this state of Kansas sent a clear message that the right to an abortion should be protected.
This was the moment the results came in.
Kansas voters overwhelmingly decided to protect access to abortion.
A big win in Kansas for abortion rights advocates.
What it means for the midterms and America after Roe v. Wade.
We begin with some important primary election results, including a major victory for supporters of abortion rights.
They celebrated in Kansas last night after voters rejected a move to remove abortion right protections from the state's constitution.
So I don't know what that sounded like to you, but to me it sounded like the state's constitution protected abortion and they were trying to remove that protection.
Not what happened.
Now, this is a victory for pro-abortion people.
And I'm not soft-soaping it.
I'm not trying to say, oh, it didn't really happen.
It's a defeat for pro-life people.
However, in 2019, a judge in Kansas discovered a right to an abortion, kind of like the Roe v. Wade thing.
He discovered a right to an abortion in the state constitution.
Up until that point, it had been hiding.
Maybe it rolled under the bed.
You couldn't see it.
The only reason you had to wait, the only way you could see it is if you held the Kansas Constitution up to the light and then said magic words and then it appeared that there was a right to abortion.
So it was like Roe v. Wade.
It was a complete creation of the judiciary.
It was not written into there.
So they wanted to say, they wanted to amend the Constitution, not to ban abortion, but to say that right is not in the Constitution.
The judge read it wrong.
That was what they were trying to do.
And they were trying to say, no, there is not a right.
It has to be go back.
Just like the decision overturning Roe, they were not banning abortion.
They were saying it has to go back to the voters.
It has to go back to the voters and people have to make the laws.
So now, of course, every day, the New York Times has a new article about what a victory this is and how, you know, pro-life people better run for the hills because here come the folks.
Again, it is a victory for pro-abortion people, but these are off-year elections.
Very few people turn out.
Activists tend to turn out more.
And people did show up for this in a state, in a state that is conservative and went for Trump in a big way.
So again, it is a victory, but it's not the victory they're saying it is.
And, you know, what people, I don't think, really understood that all they were trying to do is give this back to the voters.
But we know the left, the left believes there's no greater threat to democracy than democracy.
Speculation on Personhood00:11:22
So they had a lot more money, by the way, too.
The pro-abortion people had a lot, lot more money.
The pro-life people were massively outspent.
And so, you know, it's a victory, but the pro-life people have got to get in the game.
This was what the Dobbs decision was about.
Get in the game, make your political argument.
So let's see the political argument of the left at a Knucklehead Row for abortion.
This is one of the most amazing op-eds I've ever read.
I almost don't have to comment on it.
I just want to read it to you.
And again, it's unfair.
If everything is supposed to be equal, if we're supposed to have equity, it's unfair that women have babies and men don't.
It's unfair.
It's unfair that sex does not mean the same thing to women that it means to men.
It's unfair that men can sit around and smoke cigars and make jokes about sex, but women are actually risking something, the creation of a life, maybe their own lives re-jiggered.
I mean, we think, we conservatives think this is a beautiful thing, a wonderful thing, a productive thing.
Mrs. Knowles and Mrs. Walsh are busy turning the entire population into Daily Wire listeners, which is great.
We congratulate Alyssa Knowles on her baby and Alyssa Walsh.
All women at the Daily Wire have to be named Alyssa.
That's just, I don't know why they made that rule, but Alyssa Walsh is having twins, so that's great news.
But they don't like this so much.
So, Knucklehead Row is going to solve the injustice by writing this argument.
Why do we talk, this is, I'm reading this, this is the headline.
Why do we talk about miscarriage differently from abortion?
Hmm.
That's a chin scratcher, isn't it?
That's a head scratcher.
Why do we talk about miscarriage differently from abortion?
Now, we know this has got to be written by college professors, and it is Jill Weber and Jill Weber and Lenz Greer-Donnelly.
I'm not sure where those names come out.
But very thoughtful question.
You know, we really have to think about this.
Let's do it again.
Why do we talk about miscarriage differently from abortion?
And I know you're scratching your head saying, why do we?
Here's the, I'm just going to read it.
The line between abortion and pregnancy loss has always been blurry.
I don't know if you, maybe that could be their glasses.
That may just be their glasses because I haven't found that to be the case.
But the line between abortion and pregnancy loss has always been blurry.
But over the past few decades, the anti-abortion movement has forged a cultural bright line between the two experiences, promoting dueling narratives of bad mothers who voluntarily cause fetal death versus good mothers who grieve unpreventable pregnancy loss.
That was evil anti-abortion.
What the hell are they talking about?
As if destroying your baby and losing your baby were two different, that's ridiculous.
The abortion rights movement has at times, reading again, has at times widened the divide.
The abortion rights movement has widened the divide between abortion and pregnancy loss by minimizing focus on the fetus to ensure that the pregnant person's interests can never be outweighed.
That has allowed many in the movement to avoid the difficult question that pregnancy loss raises, what was lost?
That's a big question.
What dies when a baby dies?
It's a very hard question to answer.
Let's see if we can find a clue in the question.
What dies when a baby dies?
Could it be a baby?
I don't know.
I'm not a professor, so maybe I'm getting this wrong.
But they're asking, what is lost when a pregnancy is lost?
Pregnancy loss and abortion have more in common than many people realize.
The physical experiences are often virtually identical.
This is amazing.
Early abortion with medication mimics the experience of miscarriage, and early miscarriage care often involves the same drugs or procedures used for an abortion.
Later pregnancy losses and abortion, which are both rare, often involve the same procedures or induction of labor.
It's kind of like death.
It's kind of like death.
You know, death by, you know, cancer looks very much the same as death by being stabbed repeatedly by a crazy person.
You know, they look, when you die, you die.
You know, so it looks very much the same.
Very hard to tell.
What is really the difference between having a heart attack and having a guy sneak up behind you with an axe and beat your head into pulpa?
These are really these distinctions.
Once you're a professor, see, you're probably not professors, a lot of you.
So you're not understanding the subtle differences between these two things.
These guys are so smart.
They're delving so deep.
The drugs are the same.
The procedure is the same.
What could the difference between a miscarriage and abortion possibly be?
Here's my favorite line.
The stigma and isolation that many experience after both events, miscarriage and abortion, is similar, many times revolving around a perceived failure at motherhood.
All right, I have no comment.
I'm not going to make a comment on that because I just can't.
Today, though, abortion and pregnancy loss are generally perceived as two different things.
I really, it really, it's like the scene in psycho where the woman gets killed, you know, in the shower being perceived differently than a guy having a heart attack.
I don't understand it.
But at least in part, this is because of anti-abortion strategy.
Ooh, I hate those guys.
Decades ago, the anti-abortion movement realized that it could weaponize grief after pregnancy loss to suggest the callousness of abortion and to promote the concept of fetal personhood.
You lousy conservatives calling a fetus up person.
I hope there are none of you sneaky conservatives listening to this show.
Turn yourselves in immediately for re-education.
Fetal personhood.
Where did you come up with that idea?
It is possible to recognize the loss in pregnancy loss without sacrificing abortion rights.
Now that we're getting to it, they're going to show us the way.
It does not damage the movement to admit that some people become attached to their children in utero, and that attachment has value.
Your love for your baby before the baby is born has value.
It has value.
Your feelings have value.
Denying fetal attachment, implicitly or explicitly, makes abortion rights supporters look unfeeling and doctrinaire.
It also alienates the countless people who grieve after pregnancy loss and still very much support abortion rights.
But here's the butt.
Attachment is subjective.
It develops for different people at different rates, depending on their circumstances.
And crucially, it may never develop.
The same person who may grieve an early miscarriage after months of trying to get pregnant might have an emotionally uncomplicated abortion at a different time in her life.
If you don't care about the baby, if you're not attached to the baby, then the baby is not a human being.
It has no rights.
You know, I mean, it's all about the way you feel.
It's like you confer personhood on the baby by having an attachment.
Now, I feel the same exact way about my wife.
I tell her this all the time.
Honey, I'm attached to you, but don't mess with that because if I stop being attached with you one of these days, I'll just pow zoom right to the moon.
Now, I actually never say that to my wife.
Why?
Because my wife is a person whom I love, and if I stop loving her, she'll still be a person.
It will be my mistake to stop loving her, but she will remain a person, even if I don't care.
Even if I, you know, think, oh my goodness, I can run away with some other, you know, young woman, she will still remain a person whom I have hurt badly.
That's why I don't do things to hurt her badly because of her personhood.
This is the center, you know, of all life.
This is what I call the great speculation, right?
The idea that you have an inner life that is equal in value to my inner life, as important to you as it is to me, and that both of us, both of our inner lives are equally important to God.
That is the center of all morality.
The center of all morality is our speculation that other people are not holograms.
Other people are not just figures floating in the ether that we happen to see who only live in our imagination.
Now, I'm the exception because you're all living in my imagination, but for other people, you really exist, you know?
And so they're getting rid of that.
They're going to eliminate the source and heart of all morality, the golden rule, love your neighbor as yourself.
And if you don't love him, screw him.
You know, you can kill him then because he's not a person anymore.
You don't have that attachment.
It's a complete fantasy.
Men and women are not the same.
Different things happen to them when they have sex.
They have different purposes.
They're built for different purposes in biology.
You can pretend to solve that by using birth control and all you get are depressed.
You know, you get depressed women being used by men.
But still, birth control works.
But if the birth control doesn't work, kill, kill, kill.
Because if you're not attached, if you're not attached to that fetus, that fetus does not have life.
This is an incredible thing.
It's an incredible thing.
It is the fascinating idea that your feelings create the world, that your perception creates the world.
I've talked about this a lot, that your perception does create the world in tandem with reality, in tandem with God.
You do create the world.
Time and space are things that are happening in your head, but there are recognitions of something's there, the rainbow, the rainbow point, right?
That the rainbow is something that's objectively happening, but it's only a rainbow when you look at it.
But if you look at it and you see a Mac truck, you're delusional, right?
There is something there.
You see it as a rainbow.
That makes you human.
That makes you beautiful.
That's a creation of beauty.
The same thing is true of a baby.
That baby is there.
That baby is real.
That baby is a new life being born into the world.
Whether you like it or not, whether you're attached to it or not, there it is.
The unfairness that that creates in life is life.
The unfairness that that creates in life.
And sure, it's unfair.
You know, women are there to nurture babies.
Their whole bodies are made to create and nurture babies.
That's unfair, but there it is.
And the only way you can get rid of it is by destroying life itself.
And the New York Times on Knucklehead Row, that's what they're arguing about.
As we say so long, let's play Knucklehead Row one more time.
So this is certainly an exciting time to invest in cryptocurrency, but you may be thinking to yourself, what am I going to do about taxes?
You can trade Bitcoin, Ethereum, and over 80 other cryptocurrencies in a tax advantage IRA.
With Alto Crypto IRA, you can avoid or defer the taxes when trading crypto like Bitcoin.
Alto offers alternative investment opportunities like private companies, crypto funds, real estate, venture capital, and more.
Alto Crypto IRA in particular is a great way to start investing and trading in crypto with a tax advantage retirement account.
No commissions, no paperwork.
Alto makes investing in crypto incredibly easy.
Create an account in just a few minutes, invest with as little as 10 bucks with no setup charges.
Just create your account, transfer funds, start investing.
Alto offers industry-leading security and alternative investment opportunities through some of the world's most recognized platforms and fund partners.
Plus, there are multiple ways to fund your account.
You can make a cash contribution, transfer cash from an existing IRA, or roll over an old 401k.
Open an Aalto Crypto IRA with as little as 10 bucks.
Just go to altoira.com slash Andrew.
Arrested Justice00:15:23
That's A-L-T-O-I-R-A.com slash Andrew.
Start investing in cryptocurrency today.
Go to altoira.com slash Andrew.
So here's another, I thought, fascinating op-ed.
This one in the Wall Street Journal by Dr. Evil, or as we call him, George Soros.
Soros, as I'm sure you know by now, has been funding the campaign of all these reform prosecutors, these guys who won't hold criminals on bail because it's not fair that you have to pay bail if you don't have any money.
And some of these prosecutors have taken office in liberal cities.
But you have to remember, I'm sure you go to vote and you see who's running for prosecutor.
You don't know who that is.
I mean, half the time, you have not taken the time.
And this is true of me.
I mean, it's true of everybody.
You haven't taken the time to find out who the prosecutor is.
So Soros pours money into their campaigns.
People hear the name.
They recognize, yeah, I heard that name, and they vote for him.
So it's not really necessarily people buying into the philosophy of the prosecutor, but also they may not know how bad it's going to be.
So it's been a disaster.
It has been a disaster.
They recalled the clown in San Francisco that Chelsea Boudin and San Francisco, not a conservative hotspot, not a place where you've got a lot of people calling for law and order, but too much is too much.
They're working to recall the clown in L.A., Gascon.
They have a lot of signatures.
And yesterday in Florida, the boss, who some of you think is Bruce Springsteen, but it's actually Governor Ron DeSantis, he is great.
This guy is great.
He is really terrific.
I do have to tell you that I wish Trump would just anoint him, the next Trump leader, and let him run.
Younger, more statesmanlike, really savvy, just doing great.
So he suspended a Soros-backed state attorney, which is their name for a prosecutor, Andrew Warren.
Because Warren said he was not going to prosecute people who gave sex changes to minors, which is illegal in Florida, or he would not prosecute people who violated the restrictions on abortions, which include late-term abortions.
He was not going to prosecute them.
So here's what the boss said.
This is 22.
The Constitution of Florida has vested the veto power in the governor, not in individual state attorneys.
And so when you flagrantly violate your oath of office, when you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty.
You have neglected your duty, and you are displaying a lack of competence to be able to reform those duties.
And so today, we are suspending state attorney Andrew Warren, effective immediately.
So the guy responded today, Andrew Warren responded today, and I knew this was what he was going to say.
I was going to tell you that this was what he was going to say, but he actually said it in the last couple of minutes.
He says, Andrew Warren says, people need to understand this isn't the governor trying to suspend the one elected official.
This is the governor trying to overthrow democracy here in Hillsborough County.
We are protecting people's rights.
We have fought so hard for public safety and fairness and justice.
If the governor thinks he can do a better job, then he should run for state attorney, not president.
The government wants to do his sideshow with his cronies.
I'm the one who's upholding the law.
So I knew that the thing was going to be this is an elected official.
He suspended him according to a rule in the Florida Constitution, but he is suspending an elected official.
So let's think for a minute about what it means for a prosecutor to say, I am not going to enforce the law.
You and your neighbors get together and you discuss.
You go to town halls, you watch TV, you read op-eds in the paper, wherever.
You discuss what you want the law to be.
You elect officials who say, yes, we are going to pass that law.
The officials get into office.
This is called representative democracy, right?
This is how a republic works.
Your representatives, people you elected, then go to their capital and they pass a law.
They say, this is going to be the law of the land.
The people speak.
The people speak through elections.
The people who are elected represent them.
The people who represent them make the law.
The prosecutor says, I don't want to prosecute that.
I don't want to do it.
I don't agree.
I don't agree with the people.
I don't agree with their representative.
I'm not going to do it.
Hey, it's prosecutorial discretion.
They have a name for it because it's so bad.
But no, prosecutorial discretion is a guy is arrested for stealing a loaf of bread and you say, well, that's a crime.
We've got to prosecute you.
And then you find out who's feeding his child and you think, like, I'm not going to win this case.
I'm not spending the state's money.
That's prosecutorial discretion.
Saying you are not going to prosecute a class of crime is saying that you are the king of Florida.
You can make all the laws you want.
We are not going to enforce them because I'm the king of Florida.
That's what it's saying.
It was true when Obama's Justice Department, one of the most corrupt justice departments in history, said they were not going to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
We're not going to, yeah, you voted for those guys.
They made that law.
We're not doing it.
We don't like it.
We don't like it.
I don't like democracy.
You know what's wrong with democracy?
Democracy is what's wrong with people.
It's all you people electing people and having them make the laws.
That's bad for democracy.
So that's going to be his argument.
I don't think he's going to win that argument.
I think it's a terrific thing.
He essentially, the census essentially fired him because he was not enforcing the laws made by the representatives of the people, which, surprise, is how democracies work.
All right.
So Soros looks around and he sees his ploy as being rejected now that they see the results.
The people in San Francisco are not conservatives.
They just saw the results.
They got tired of being mugged.
They got tired of mass crimes.
They got rid of Chelsea Boudin.
They are tired of the crimes in LA where you seriously, people are just getting attacked in their cars.
They're being followed home from the jewelry store.
You know, if they're rich people, they're being followed home from the jewelry store and held up.
Nobody is prosecuting the law and people are sick of it.
And I remember when Boudin was thrown out in San Francisco, I did a whole show or a whole segment of a show talking about how he thinks that the people that he has to take care of are the criminals, not the victims.
Remember, there are very few criminals.
There really are very few criminals.
The people who create most of the crime do it again and again and again.
The people, and it's always the poor people who get hurt.
The people are the majority of the people who are the victim class.
All right.
So George Soros crawls out of his shell or out from under his rock and writes this op-ed for the Wall Street Journal: Why I Support Reform Prosecutors.
Subhead, justice or safety.
It's a false choice.
They reinforce each other.
The idea that we need to choose between justice and safety is false.
Maybe I should read it in a George Soros.
The idea that he's like, I just picture him as a crinkly old, horrible guy.
Anyway, the idea that we need to choose between justice and safety is false.
They reinforce each other.
If people trust the justice system, it will work.
And the system works.
Public safety will improve.
We need to acknowledge that black people in the U.S. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people.
That is an unjustice, an injustice that undermines our democracy.
Let's pause for a minute.
Is it an injustice?
Is it an injustice that black people are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people?
Let's find out.
Blacks, who are 12% of the population, maybe 15% in some places, they commit about 60% nationwide of homicides, shootings, and robberies.
60% of violent crime is black people.
Who's going to go to prison?
Who are the cops going to send to prison?
So there may be injustices that cause black people to commit more crimes.
That's a possibility.
You could make that argument.
But the cops aren't committing them.
The justice system isn't committing those injustices.
They're happening before it gets to those guys.
The cops are always the last guy on the totem pole.
To blame the cops, it's like you went to the doctor and you had something on your hand, a little bump or a pustrel.
You've got monkeypox, whatever.
And the doctor said, oh man, that looks bad.
Let's paint that over.
Let's paint that over flesh color.
So it's gone.
Ah, it's gone.
So you're better.
It's nuts, right?
This may be a symptom of our society.
It's a symptom of something in our society that blacks, who are 12 to 15% of the population, commit 60% of the violent crime.
But it's not the cops' fault, and it's not the cops' job to ignore those crimes, right?
Who is being killed?
It's almost always black males.
That's who gets killed.
That's who gets murdered.
So who is going to die when this guy, when George Soros's people stop doing their job?
The injustice, that's the injustice.
The injustice, of course, is that these black men are being killed by the people that George Soros' prosecutors are not prosecuting.
All right.
Let's go back to this op-ed.
I wish I could do a good George Soros.
In recent years, reform-minded prosecutors and other law enforcement officials around the country have been coalescing around an agenda that promises to be more effective and just.
This agenda includes prioritizing the resources of the criminal justice system to protect people against violent crime.
It urges that we treat drug addiction as a disease, not a crime, and it seeks to end the criminalization of poverty and mental illness.
Now, is poverty criminalized?
Is mental illness criminalized?
Is even addiction criminalized?
I think it's crime that we criminalize.
Nobody is arrested.
You're mentally ill, you're under arrest.
Nobody is arrested for being poor.
You're poor, you're under arrest.
There are plenty of poor people, the majority of poor people, the majority of mentally ill people who do not commit crimes.
People who commit crimes are criminals and they have to be punished to protect people, to protect people.
And yes, see, this is the thing.
It's unjust that some people are mentally ill.
It's heartbreakingly unjust.
It's not a punishment for sin.
It's not because they were bad people.
It just happens.
It just happens.
It's intolerable that it should just happen.
It's unbearable that some innocent people are mentally ill.
Sometimes people from all classes of life become mentally ill and wind up on the streets and sometimes they get violent.
In rare cases, they get violent and they have to be stopped and they have to be arrested.
That's terribly unfair.
Letting them go doesn't do a damn thing to stop the unfairness of life.
It simply puts the unfairness of life on other people who are doing fine, who could be productive members of society, who could be doing well, who could be raising their kids, are being killed by people that George Source's prosecutors let go free because they cannot bear the unfairness of life.
They cannot bear the fact that unfairness is life.
In America, still, despite some of these guys who were being, I think, unfairly treated for January 6th, despite that, most people are arrested for committing crimes.
It's different in England, by the way, where you're arrested for tweeting.
Did you see, I don't know if you saw the story, a 51-year-old British Army veteran, this is a tangent, but still, Darren Brady, who shared the meme of the pride flag as a swastika, because he felt that gay pride, these six months of gay pride, there it is, swastika rainbow flag, he felt that gay pride was being pushed down people's throats in an authoritarian way.
So he retweeted a gay pride swastika.
The police show up at his house and they arrest him for it, this Army veteran.
Here's a video that went viral.
Scripture police would realize how ridiculous this is.
It is ridiculous.
It is.
I'm sorry to come to this.
What did you do?
What did it need to come to?
Tell us why you explained it to this level, because I don't understand.
I posted something that he posted.
You come to arrest me, you don't arrest him.
Why has it come to this?
Why am I in cuffs?
Because there's something he shared then I shared.
Because someone has been caused, obviously, anxiety based upon your social media posts.
That's not why you've been arrested.
He's brought out in cuffs because someone felt anxiety because of his tweet.
That's why they cuffed him in England.
That hasn't come here yet.
Obviously, we're not immune, but it hasn't come here yet.
He's arrested because someone was caused anxiety.
Your feelings are everything.
Just like your feelings give life to a baby, give humanity to a baby.
Feelings of anxiety are reason to arrest somebody who caused you that anxiety.
I mean, if people who cause me anxiety were arrested, almost the entire government would be in prison.
All right.
So here you get arrested for crimes most of the time.
Black people commit an inordinate number of the crimes, but they also get hurt by those crimes.
The innocent black people get hurt by those crimes as well.
You can't fix the injustice, at least not on the level of the streets.
You can't fix that unjustice on the streets.
If there's injustice down the line toward the cause place, maybe you can fix that by giving people opportunities, education, which the left is totally against.
You know, that may be the way to do it, but you can't do it by blaming the poor cop who's just fixing the problem once it has arrived.
The cop is like a surgeon.
He gets the problem once it has to be cut out.
All right, more Soros.
Some politicians and pundits have tried to blame the recent spikes in crime on policies of reform-minded prosecutors.
The research I've seen says otherwise.
The most rigorous academic study analyzing data across 35 jurisdictions shows no connection between the election of reform-minded prosecutors and local crime rates.
One of these reform-minded prosecutors is in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia has, I mean, it's got skyrocketing crime.
Its murders have gone up more than any other city.
According to the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, the country saw a 30% increase in homicides in 2020, the largest single-year spike since they began recording crime statistics 60 years ago.
These are happening in New York where there are Soros prosecutors.
They're happening in Philadelphia, in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is now a violent hellhole because of them.
That's why they've got, I think it's 70,000.
I'm talking off the top of my head, but I think they have 70,000 signatures to get rid of Gascon in LA.
Police chiefs, prosecutors refuse to enforce those low-level quality of life crimes that make the whole neighborhood better.
And so more gang members have guns.
They kill people at will.
You know, this stuff worked.
It worked for 20 years, and they've gotten rid of it because George Soros, sitting in his castle somewhere, can't stand the fact that life is unfair.
I am all for government that lessens the unfairness of life, but we can't get rid of it.
And we cannot deal with it by getting rid of the symptoms of unfairness.
We can't get rid of it by getting rid of the actual crimes.
Let's just read a little bit.
He says, I'm going to go on funding these things, and the public likes what it's hearing.
That's why they're throwing all these guys out.
That's why they're recalling them in San Francisco and L.A. That's why DeSantis is throwing this guy out and people are cheering for him.
It's because the public says George Soros likes what it gets.
This op-ed is so delusional that there can only be two explanations.
One is it's a troll.
George Soros hates America.
He's written that the main obstacle to a stable, there's a quote, the main obstacle to a stable and just world is the United States.
The United States continues to set the agenda for the world in spite of its loss of influence since 9-11 in the Bush administration.
The Bush administration agenda is nationalistic.
It emphasizes the use of force and ignores global problems.
George Soros wants a global world.
He wants an international world.
He wants to get rid of the United States.
So maybe he's laughing at us.
George Soros's Vision00:15:03
Hey, I got you, gotcha.
Your cities are going to pot because of my prosecutors.
I nailed you.
Maybe he's laughing at it.
Or maybe, and I think this is more likely, it's a fantasy.
He's a rich man who guards his money and tax shoulders but wants to tell us how to spend our money.
He doesn't even really want us to have money.
He wants to be in charge of the world because in his imagination, he's going to fix that injustice.
That intolerable discrepancy is going to disappear because George Soros made so much money, he must be intelligent, and he's going to fix it all.
Listen, do this thought experiment.
Go in your room one day and think how you can make the world a perfect place.
Imagine you have the power to make the world a perfect place.
See how long it takes before you are imagining killing people because there is no way to make the world a perfect place.
You'll start to think, well, first I'll wipe out this group of people because they're causing these problems and I'll wipe out that group of people.
And you start to commit mass murder in your imagination.
George Soros has destroyed, destroyed the cities where he sent these guys.
But I think in his imagination, I really do believe he is taking care of that intolerable discrepancy.
He's solving it.
He's nuts.
So we're deep in the summer now.
August has begun.
You probably want to go to a drive-in with your girl, but you don't have a girl and your car's not working and you don't have a girl because your car's not working and you haven't gone to rockauto.com.
All you have to do is say the words rockauto.com and the women come running because they know you're smart enough to fix your car just by going online.
No more sitting in your car, pretending it's running, pretending to drive down to an auto part shop.
The car won't move because it needs the auto parts.
No, you just go on rockauto.com and you get to say rockauto.com and they have an amazingly easy catalog of all the parts that are available and they have great, great prices and they don't change the prices.
No matter who you are, go on rockauto.com and get great parts at great prices and you get to say rockauto.com.
It sounds so cool.
Women go nuts.
Go to rockauto.com and get brakes, shocks, carpet, wipers, headlights, mirrors, mufflers, lug nuts, any other part you need, rockauto.com and be sure to write Clavin in their How Did You Hear About Us box so they know I sent you and make sure to write it in the same tone of voice, K-L-A-V-A-N.
So, with the left going insane and with all their policies failing, this is a really good time for Republicans to expand their base and to actually reach out to communities that have historically not voted for them.
Whether they will have the intelligence to do that or not is going to depend on guys like Tim Parrish.
I met Tim in a cigar bar.
I don't know what I was doing there.
It was dark.
I wandered in.
I thought it was a floral shop.
But Tim Parrish is a Northern Virginia-based veteran, business owner, and Republican activist.
He's the founder of Wright Appeal PAC, a political action committee dedicated to increasing engagement and strategic messaging of conservative values to diverse communities, which is exactly what we need and it's the key to success.
Tim, it's great to see you again.
How you doing?
I'm fantastic, Andrew.
It's great to be on with you.
And I also thought that cigar bar was a floral shop, too.
So we're the same person.
Strange, a coincidence.
Yeah, weird coincidence.
So before we start, I want to play for you a montage of journalists, we'll call them to be polite, reacting to the existence of black conservatives.
Here it is.
Let's be clear.
Tim Scott does not represent any constituency other than the small number of sleepy, slow-witted sufferers of Stockholm syndrome who get elevated to prominence for repeating a false narrative about this country that makes conservative white people feel comfortable.
That's the oxymoron, a black Republican.
It is so surprising, particularly coming from Ben Carson, who quite frankly in the African-American community and elsewhere he drank the Kool-Aid.
That's what Republicans want from their Negroes.
He does not seem to understand, and a lot of them don't seem to understand, the difference between a racist country and a systemic and systemic racism.
And then Tim promptly returned to the sensory deprivation egg he calls home.
Clarence Thomas is now very, very much out of control.
Do any of you guys trust Uncle Clarence?
Clarence Thomas, that really didn't egg.
So which is it, Tim?
Are you suffering from Stockholm syndrome?
Did you fall on your head or are you just not listening to Joy Behar?
I don't know.
I don't know what it is.
And I, you know, the one guy you showed is Eli Mistal.
And I'm realizing now that I'm one of these, according to him, Republican Negroes that are running around the country.
I didn't know that.
You know, and it's actually extra confusing because during the 2020 election, I was told that based on my voting, I was black.
And now I'm being put back into this column of Republican Negroes.
So we're all confused and trying to figure out where we stand on all these issues.
It is very, very difficult.
I know I feel for you.
I feel for you.
So you write appeal pack.
You're talking to people.
I mean, one of the frustrating things to me about Republicans is they complain about the fact that they don't have minority voters and most specifically black voters, but they never seem to do a damn thing about it.
What do you think they should do?
What are they doing wrong?
What can they do?
So let me tell you, we just discovered someone on our staff was looking at the setup of the RNC.
And I might get in trouble for saying this, but we'll say it anyway because we're fearless.
But we were looking at the makeup of the actual RNC, the Republican National Committee.
There's one black person that we saw that is on the leadership of our committee nationally.
Now, really, there's two or three, but the other two or three come from places like the Virgin Islands where like, okay, we get it, right?
You don't get any extra credit for that.
And so we've not made the concerted effort to actually do the work of representation.
You know, these folks say things like representation matters, and it's important.
It's important because I don't want you to just send the black guy or the Hispanic person into those neighborhoods.
I want them to bear the weight of leadership of actually, you know, not only just spouting out values, but I want you to actually carry the weight of what it means to be a leader within those.
So the RNC chair, the members of the RNC committee.
So our party's just done a horrible job of actually really projecting that phrase of representation matters.
We don't do it.
And what about this thing with this blanket coverage of black conservatives as being, you know, whatever they call you?
I don't know at this point, but this idea that you've somehow been captured.
They even say it, that you have been, you are part of the white supremacist ethos at this point.
How do you respond to that?
I mean, it's so crazy.
How do you respond to it?
Well, the first part of that is this is people go straight to that because that's what they know.
Let's not forget the history of the Democrat Party, white supremacists, KKK, slave owners.
So they are only affirming the fact that that's their history.
When they go and they say, those people are captured and we don't want them to be free and free thinking and individual, you know, have individual thought, individual liberty.
They want us to just think in line with them.
Look, history proves it.
Our current situation proves it that conservative values are values both politically, economically, just in living a life in this country that work best for all communities.
But they work really good for those of us that are in communities of color.
So when Mitt Romney was running, he went to the NAACP.
And I had some problems with that because the NAACP is basically a left-wing organization.
Like, why would he accept that that was representative?
But at least he went, you know, at least he went somewhere.
He went somewhere.
And he was talking to them and said, you know, what you really need are businesses.
You know, nobody ever went into a poor neighborhood and said, there are too many businesses here.
He was, they spent about the next three days tearing him to pieces.
How could he dare to talk to black people about businesses when they can't even start a bank account?
A congresswoman, I think it was Maxine Waters said that.
Now, what should a Republican do to get around that wall, to get his voice heard over that wall?
What did Mitt Romney do wrong?
What would you advise him to do next time?
Yeah, and it's not just Maxine Waters.
Don't forget that our vice president said that black people and minorities don't know how to get an ID.
And that's why we shouldn't make them have to use their ID when they go vote.
So first of all, we have to break this stigma of thinking that black people and people of color and diverse folks are too dumb to do anything, which is not the case.
We can't approach it that we're government, we're almighty, we're all knowing.
And so we have to tell you how to do these different things.
The second thing is, is it is important that we have representation.
People, culture matters, right?
So people who understand the culture, speak the language, they look like the people you want to communicate with.
It's important that we take those folks who agree with our values, put them in those communities to have those conversations.
And then just like any other group, Andrew, we have to communicate with folks where they are, and we have to talk to them about the issues that are impacting them.
I don't care what color you are.
If you've got a baby that can't get baby formula, that's a problem.
I don't care what color you are.
If you have to drive to work and your gas prices are the highest they've been in the history of the nation, that's a problem.
So we have to stop pandering to people based on their race and talk to them right where they are, right, about the issues that are impacting them.
And that's one of the things that the party has got to do a better job of doing if we really want to win these communities.
So is there any natural conflict between typical conservative ideas and the life of people?
You know, let's not just talk about black people, the life of anybody in poverty or of anybody in a bad neighborhood.
Is there something wrong with Republican ideas?
Do they need to re-examine their ideas or is it a question of messaging and not selling them?
Oh, it's a question of messaging.
It's a question of messaging and doing the hard work.
Let me tell you a quick story about the Second Amendment and black people.
I tell this to a lot of folks.
The ability to own a weapon actually is what has allowed a lot of communities of color to thrive.
There was a group called the Deacons Defense League back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s.
Jim Crow-era sheriffs, Democrat sheriffs, would come into towns and tell black churches that they couldn't have church, right?
Their freedom of assembly and religion was not valid because they were black.
Those black deacons, a lot of them, World War II and Korean War veterans, armed themselves, right, protected by the Second Amendment, and ran those sheriffs and KKK members out of their churches and out of their towns.
And when they say, you can't have those guns, those black men said, sure, we can.
We had the Second Amendment.
And so conservative values, things that we believe in, absolutely are applicable and appropriate for all communities.
But like I said earlier, especially we talk about generational wealth wanting to start a business.
You can't do that stuff with government regulation.
You can't do that stuff when you're overtaxed.
All things that the left espouses do that don't allow communities of colors, whether it be Asian, Hispanic, Black, to, in fact, start businesses and innovate and create jobs and send their kids to good schools in safe neighborhoods.
These things absolutely make sense, but it is a matter of doing the hard work of engagement and messaging.
You know, we were talking about crime earlier on the show, which is very high in some black urban neighborhoods.
And so the cops get nailed for arresting black people.
I mean, George Soros just wrote this thing saying, well, more black people go to prison than white people, and that's just unjust.
But of course, the cops, you know, most cops are in there trying to protect the people in those neighborhoods from the minority of criminals.
I mean, that's the truth.
But at the same time, I sometimes feel Republicans talk as if every neighborhood were a leave-it-to-beaver suburb where it's easy.
Republicans will say things like, all you have to do is not have kids before you're married, finish high school, and you won't be poor, and get a job and you won't be poor in America.
But that is a little tougher if you have no father, if your mom is messed up in some way.
You know, I always feel that Republicans are being a little dense when they say that.
Is there some way that they need to be educated to at least tailor their message, but maybe also tailor some of their policies to places where the culture is so ruinous that it's hard for people to get out?
Yeah, no, absolutely.
And we have done that in some ways.
Right now, the Republican RNC's black engagement director is a black female that I'm friends with from Missouri who wrote a book called Memoirs of the Hood Conservative.
And she talks about her cultural upbringing in urban environments and how conservatism made sense to her.
And then she went back into her neighborhood she grew up in and neighborhoods that were like that and had these conversations.
But it's also a matter of just talking to people about things that are tangible and impacting them.
Look, black women, when they said deep on the police on the left, more black women than any other group in this country went and applied for concealed carry permits.
When the Asian community was being attacked out in Georgia after that mass shooting, Asian women and Asian men went in and applied for concealed carry permits to protect themselves when the crime was going up.
And so it's absolutely a matter of having a conversation with folks about a set of values that positively impact their life, regardless of what color they are, but that it does have an extra impact on them because they are from a change of color.
Yeah, yeah.
I wrote a movie about an abortion serial abortionist serial killer called Gosnell.
And when I was researching it, I was in Philadelphia and I talked to a black pastor there and I said, well, do you preach against abortion?
He said, I can't do that because one day an Obama might come out of my parish and he'll be attacked for having listened to an anti-abortion preacher.
I thought that was kind of an interesting idea that the politics should govern the Christian messaging.
Has something gone wrong?
I mean, this used to be a highly religious country, but also these used to be highly religious communities.
Has something gone wrong there?
Have we lost the voice of the religious in bad neighborhoods?
Well, to the person who made that comment to you, Obama had a radical pastor named Jeremiah Wright who hated his country, right, quite frankly.
And so that is a totally separate issue all on its own.
Absolutely.
You've got a set of clergy and church leaders who have put more value on having members and having popularity and fame, right?
Which really, if we're going to be candid, equates to money, right?
Greatest Country Debated00:07:10
And the size of their church.
And they've abandoned the values that they believe in.
But I'll tell you what's starting to happen, Andrew.
We're seeing pastors more and more, particularly black pastors, who on this issue, on the issue of abortion, have said, look, I can't really waiver.
This is a very clear-cut, biblical, scripturally supported position.
And so I have to stay on this one.
I'm very proud of those pastors.
One of them is Bishop T.D. Jakes out of Dallas, Texas.
There's been a few different bishops from the Church of God in Christ, which is a predominantly black denomination, who have really taken a hard stance on this and said, here's what the Bible says.
Here's what scripture supports.
And that's good.
And the black community in turn, who is a very churched community, if you really want to reach out to the black community, the church is a great place to start.
They have found themselves in a bit of a predicament.
I listened to a great pastor also out of Texas who's talked a lot about in 2020 with the George Floyd and the woke movement that came out of that.
The church took a kind of a weird position on that.
Now, that base that they built from their wokeness is actually starting to question their allegiance to the church.
And the church is also starting to question some of those positions as they have the abortion conversation and other conversations that are impacting their communities and their parishioners.
What about the larger culture outside of the church?
You know, I remember I've been in a lot of prisons doing research, which I hate doing because prisons are genuinely horrible places.
And the minute you walk in, you know you are in a horrible place you don't want to be.
And you can look in the cells and you can say, well, there's a lot of black and brown faces in here.
But the real thing that links them together is every single one of them, virtually every single one, had no father.
You know, it's almost universal.
Marriage has broken down in black neighborhoods specifically.
The policies coming out of the great society, they were warned by their fellow Democrats that it was going to tear the family apart, and it did.
Is there any chance of restoring that?
And if there is, can you explain where that begins?
There is.
There is hope for changing that and reversing course.
But I want to go back and make another historical point.
What you just said about the Great Society and all the warnings, absolutely true.
But a president of the United States by the name of Lyndon Banks Johnson also told us: I'm going to implement a set of policies that are going to have, quote, these N-words, vote in Democrat for the next 200 years.
And so this was all a part of the plan.
Breakdown of the nuclear family, removing fathers from our homes, black homes in particular, was a part of this great plan that we are now seeing be implemented right now before our very eyes.
But there is, there is hope for a future where people subscribe to a set of values that really, quite frankly, forget the R or the D next to someone's name.
Let's just talk about a set of values that are going to allow me to thrive and prosper in the greatest country in the world.
And, you know, that only happens when you subscribe to a set of values that are, you know, aligning with things like low taxes, less government regulation, support for the police and the military, and all the things that we subscribe to on the right.
As the party recognizes this critical need for us to strategically message to diverse communities and realizes the critical need for us to engage these communities right where they are, right?
You hit the head on the nail when you talk about, or the nail on the head when you talked about, you know, white picket fence, leave it to bever neighborhoods.
No, no, no.
We need to meet people where they are in their communities, in their neighborhoods.
As we realize that critical need and we start to do that hard work, I think we'll start to quickly see a lot of changes happening and a lot of folks from diverse communities subscribing to the values that we align with on the right.
What about this idea of what do they call it?
Institutional racism, structural racism, where even if you're not a racist, you're being a racist.
And there's simply, you know, what did the New York Times say?
Racism is in our DNA.
Is there any legitimacy to that?
Is there anything that we can learn from that?
Or is that just a left-wing ploy?
You know, I think there is implicit bias, right?
I think people do have that.
I don't think that it's limited to white people, though.
You know, I'm a black man who will absolutely admit that I have biases, right?
I was a street cop and I developed some bias, right?
I was in the military and I developed some bias.
We all have bias, but to say that it's one group, to say that only you, you white man, have a bias that makes you inherently racist is wrong and it's not supported by any of the data.
Do I think there's bias?
Absolutely.
Do I think that there is institutional racism?
No.
Now, I have a different perspective.
I've traveled the world and I've seen that this issue of racism and bias is not limited to the United States.
That doesn't make it good.
But I think that to say that the United States of America, the greatest country on earth, that provides so much opportunity to so many people is institutionally racist.
I vehemently disagree with that.
I got about a minute left.
You're talking to Republicans.
You're trying to teach them some of this stuff because they are flat-footed.
It's embarrassing sometimes to watch them.
Are they listening?
Is anybody listening?
They are.
They are listening.
It's hard work.
They're not listening like, you know, if some other groups might come in, some more institutional groups.
A lot of this stuff is foreign to them.
A lot of these leaders don't like change.
They say, no, how we win is we just go knock doors and we just go do flag waving on the corner and that's how we win.
No, it's not the only way to win.
But as we provide the data for people and they start to see that these communities, even in the suburbs where Republicans used to have a stronghold, are diversifying a lot more.
And as we win more races, we have a lot of targeted races this year that right appeal our pack is going to help.
I think that as that data comes out, people are going to start listening and the numbers will prove, the data will prove that what we're doing is in fact effective.
People will listen even more.
But yeah, people are listening and are more interested in our work, and they're really interested in putting it to the test and seeing what comes out of that.
Nah, that's great.
I hope it happens.
Tim Parrish, the right appeal PAC, trying to teach Republicans something.
We'll find out if they're teachable.
Tim, it's great to see you again.
I hope we meet up again soon.
Yes, sir.
Thanks for having me on.
I appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
Matt Rolson's breakout documentary, What is a Woman, has only been out a couple of months, but it's already one of the most acclaimed films of the year.
It's received over 5,000 audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and has an audience score of 97%.
That's a higher score than Citizen Kane.
Now, while Matt is no worse than Wells, his film really is a modern masterpiece and its heralded reception is well deserved.
What is a Woman is smart, insightful, and it's as comical as it is disturbing in its exposure of radical gender theory.
See the film everyone, including me, is talking about by going to whatisAwoman.com.
That's whatisawoman.com, streaming now exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
A Lot of People Saw That00:09:54
So last week, I played a speech by a very talented actor and singer named Clifton Duncan.
A lot of you guys reacted to that, and I asked him to come on the show, thinking that he never would, because none of the show business people I asked come on because they're all afraid.
I mean, we have a really hard time with this and making movies and getting people to come on.
They're afraid of being associated with us.
It'll end their career.
Clifton didn't have that problem.
He said he would.
He's played leading roles on many of America's top stages off Broadway and on Broadway.
He's guest starred on cable and broadcast TV and he's now a podcaster and content creator.
Clifton, thanks so much for coming on.
It's really nice to meet you.
Well, thank you, Mr. Claven, for having me.
I do appreciate it.
I have to tell you, just briefly, I saw that speech, and then I looked up your stuff and saw how good you were, and I sent it to the people here at the Daily Wire who were making entertainment content, and I said, you might want to find this out.
And they said, yeah, we've already received this like three times, including from the great Gary Sinees.
So a lot of people saw that speech.
It must have had a big reaction.
I guess so.
I would love to have Mr. Sinise on my podcast.
I'm going to put that out there.
I'm sure he'd come on.
Well, though, I do have to say one thing, which is funny.
You know, a lot of actors are scared of jeopardizing their careers by talking to you.
I don't have a career to jeopardize, so I don't have that issue.
All right.
Well, let's talk about that.
We listened to the speech, but I think it would be nice to get some details.
First of all, where did you come from?
How did you come up and get as far as you did in the business?
Well, you know, I always say that my life really doesn't make sense.
I mean, nobody else in my family is an actor or performer.
Nobody else has any artistic inclinations except my younger brother, who at first was an athlete, but now then he moved into music.
But outside of that, you know, I was just sort of an introverted kid who liked to draw and I dabbled in music.
I was in band for a little bit.
You know, I liked video games and pro wrestling, all these kind of nerdy activities.
And then I was going to be an illustrator, but I'll truncate the story some, but there was a girl I liked who went into our drama class my senior year of high school.
I already had this kind of idea of, I mean, I liked watching shows like Martin or the Fresh Prince of Bel Air or all that or sketch comedies like SNL back when it was funny.
And so there was sort of a thing in the back of my mind of like, you know, that looks like it might be fun, you know, just trying to perform, but it really wasn't a serious thing for me.
And then I just found I had an aptitude for it.
I never had any sort of fear of being on stage.
I will say that I wasn't one of those kids who, you know, they saw a production of Joseph and the amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat when they were like six.
And they were like, oh my God, I have to do theater the rest of my life.
Like that wasn't me.
My life would have been easier if that was me.
But yeah, you know, I ended up going to theater school and I kept getting cast in plays there to the extent where they had to stop casting me.
And one of the faculty told me this.
They said they wanted to, we really wanted you to play HUD and Hare Clifton, but we had to give someone else a chance.
So then I started working in the community and professionally.
And then I went, I spent about a year in Washington, D.C. as a young actor, sleeping in my car and couch crashing.
And that's when I really got exposed to just high-quality professional theater, like the Shakespeare Theater, the Arena Stage down in D.C., just wonderful, wonderful places that do amazing work.
And I said, I think I'm okay, but I need to get better at this.
So I put all my eggs in one basket.
I went to, I auditioned for NYU's graduate acting program.
And like I said in the speech, it's very competitive.
They audition around 1,000 people and they call back 50 and they let in 18.
And I got out in the recession in 2009 and nothing was ever easy.
I just, I worked my way up and I gained some confidence and competence.
And around 2017, things really began to break.
I found myself doing productions.
I did a production of, you mentioned the City Center, which I think you might be aware of.
I did an all-star production of this Stephen Sondime musical called Assassins There.
And then I made my Broadway debut.
And then I was doing readings and workshops with all these A-list sort of theater people.
And I was moving into television.
And things were really accelerating at a nice, wonderful clip, especially after years and years of wondering why everyone else was becoming successful except myself.
And then 2020 happened.
And I lived in what I now call the city formerly known as New York.
And, you know, things kind of shut down.
And at the beginning, I was very much on train with the COVID narrative.
But then over time, I began to ask questions and really publicly oppose what was going on.
And then the industry began to mandate the COVID shots.
And I simply didn't want to take, I didn't want to take it for a variety of reasons.
And so now, as a result, I can't work as an actor anywhere in the United States at a time, by the way, when they've been swept up with this anti-racism hysteria.
So they're diversity hiring at a rapid pace, but I can't participate in any of it because I don't want this particular vaccine.
Because you have diverse ideas.
Diverse ideas are not the diversity they're talking about usually.
Oh, yeah.
Not at all.
Not at all.
So did you have any troublesome politics or were you not political or where were you in terms of that?
I had learned to shut my mouth.
And I say all the time, it's not as though I consider myself to be particularly conservative or right-wing.
It's just that I don't think that y'all are evil and that you're my enemies.
And that's funny already.
That's enough.
Yeah.
I know, it's enough.
And well, it's funny, the conservatives that have worked their way into my lives have been the most even-keeled and the kindest people as opposed to the really neurotic secularists on the other side.
But no, I would say that I was sort of quote unquote red-pilled around 2014.
But again, not in any sort of radical way.
Then I ended up leaving the Democratic Party in around maybe 2018 or so.
I just said, you know, this party no longer reflects any of my views.
And I had this epiphany actually in 2016 where I said, you know, if you're actually a self-possessed, self-confident, happy black person that dares not attribute all of the problems in their life to white people, the Democrats have no use for you.
So that was sort of my epiphany.
Like you can't really be a happy black person and vote Democrat.
You know, that goes against what they stand for.
I think you could actually leave the word black out of that.
I think, you know, I once heard, you talked about being an assassin, and I once heard Santime.
I'm a big Santime fan.
I think the guy was brilliant.
But he once said, you know, I'm proud to work in an industry that has no Republicans in it.
I'm quoting them from memory.
That's not exactly what he said.
But basically, that was what he said.
How often do you meet that in the theater and in Hollywood?
I mean, is that basically where people are?
It was, I'm assuming it was bad before because, like I said, I mean, I kept my mouth shut for a while.
And then once Trump got elected, people's brains just completely broke.
And it was the most extraordinary thing to see all these grown-ups, ostensible grown-ups, just completely lose their minds.
And so you couldn't get through.
I mean, I was doing a production of, it was an adaptation of Clue at Bucks County Playhouse.
And, you know, Sally Struthers was in it.
And it was hilarious.
And we were kind of working it out.
And it was just a ridiculous comedy.
But every 10 minutes, we're stopping rehearsal to say, you know, do you know, did you hear what Trump said now?
Or did you see this headline?
And it's like, dude, I just want to rehearse this ridiculous show and do the thing.
So as bad as it was before, it got even way, way, way worse once Trump was elected.
And to the point where I was doing this concert, it was maybe around 2018 or so.
And we were on a break.
And I had learned to sort of my subterfuge was to I would make sort of milquetoast comments about Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline, which was safe to joke about back then.
And, you know, this guy goes off on this rant.
And at one point, he goes, and then it was an anti-Republican rant.
And then he goes, and then there's these brain-dead independents.
And I'm thinking to myself, now I've just been secondhand insulted for my refusal to blindly swallow whatever the Democrats or whatever the news or whatever Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert says.
That is extraordinary.
And for the longest time, I posted a Facebook rant a long time ago about this orthodoxy, this left-wing orthodoxy.
And so I was sort of ahead of the curve in a few ways, but it's a really severe monoculture that just allows no dissent.
And I get annoyed, if I'm being frank, by people who don't share that perspective because they've been cowed into silence.
And it's like, well, that's kind of part of the problem.
We need people who have a different point of view in rehearsal studios, in rehearsal rooms, on set to provide a different perspective for a particular scene or moment that may be illuminating in a way that these other people haven't thought of, just simply due to the blind spots caused by their ideology.
But there's just none of that.
So, you know, one of the things I found really touching while I was watching your speech was basically your remark that you would do it again, all again.
I claim, and I think I'm right, that I was thrown out of, I was blacklisted in Hollywood for my political views.
Artists Need Different Perspectives00:05:08
All I know is that I was making a ton of money one day.
And the next day after I started coming out, I was making zero money.
And yet, I never worried about it because I'm a writer.
So I can always write.
I can always do what I do.
And nowadays, I can always find an outlet.
You're not in the same position.
You are an actor.
You've got to have an audience.
You've got to have a stage that you can play on.
You have the Clifton Duncan podcast, which I didn't mention in the introduction.
I should mention that.
So you are creating content, but you can't do what you were trained to do.
How do you make up for that?
Is there a way to make up for it?
You know, it's tough, obviously.
And this is a problem.
I've always envied singers, dancers, painters, writers, et cetera, because they can work on their own or practice on their own, I should say.
For me, I've said that if I cannot be in the industry, I need to find a way to be bigger than the industry.
And I think what's really great about now is that we live in an era where if you are an artist, you have a way to build, organically build your own following and reach those people directly and have them financially support you.
So the podcast is going really well right now.
And the YouTube channel is growing.
So what I want to do is add more performance-based content there and hopefully down the line.
So what is beginning to happen, which is heartening, is that more and more artists are sort of seeing the same problems and we're beginning to gather and organize and work together.
So the issue, of course, being that a lot of this kind of organization for what we do in particular, whether we're putting on films or we want to stage a play, it requires a level of industriousness and conscientiousness and discipline that many artists, frankly, don't have.
So I always say, you know, if I start a theater company, I would just want to focus on the acting and creative stuff and just have like some right-winger run it because that's to keep the kids in line.
So what would you say to a kid who comes to you and says, you know, I want to be in the theater.
I'm dying.
And you know, and I know the kind of ambition and drive it takes to make it in the creative world.
It is an incredible feeling of having a rocket in your pocket and it's just, you can't resist it.
You have to do it.
What do you say to a young guy who comes to you and says, I want to do this, but my opinions are right-wing.
Do you tell him to be quiet or do you tell them to take another path?
No, I wouldn't tell them to be quiet because the problem with that, and I began to experience this as well, is that, especially as an actor, there's so many paradoxes in terms of what we do.
You know, we are living truthfully under fictional circumstances.
I mean, and that in and of itself is a bit of a weird kind of oxymoron, I guess.
But the flip side of that is that if you're lying to yourself constantly in your life, then it actually makes it more difficult for you to function as an artist in your work.
So you're cutting off pieces of yourself.
And when I say it's an erosion of the soul.
So I would say don't be quiet.
And part of the problem is people are too afraid to be quiet.
But if you're kicked out, I think that one of the things, again, that's great now is that we have avenues where we can build our own work.
And I'm faithful that over time we'll be able to find ways to share it with other people.
And that way, the blue cult, as I call them, in the city formerly known as New York and in Los Angeles, they no longer get to say that they have a monopoly on sophistication and culture and the arts.
And I found, just in terms of what I've been doing, is that there is a huge audience out there of people that really want to see just great work, even classic work, just done well.
I mean, one of my most watched podcasts is with Victor Davis Hansen.
We're talking about the importance of Greek literature.
That's amazing to me.
So there are people out there who want to see just great work.
And if there's a way that we can all work together and forge a new sort of movement in the American theater and the American entertainment industry, then I think that's probably a good thing.
And I think it's happening slowly as these other industries, these other wings of the industry are dying off because of, I mean, it's a one-two punch, I think, of COVID and wokeness, but it's just, I don't see anything of really any cultural significance emerging out of any of these cultures anytime soon, unfortunately.
No, I agree with you.
I have to say, just to put my two cents in, I think the idea of adding performance to your Clifton Duncan podcast is a great idea.
Clifton, it's really nice to meet you.
I'm sure we're going to meet again, and I hope you start to build this thing because I'm waiting for it to be built.
A lot of us have been looking for it, and I think it's going to come from disparate places, and you're one of them.
Great to meet you, and great talking to you.
Oh, likewise, Andrew.
I appreciate it.
All right.
I'll see you again.
All righty.
So I'm sure many of you have read Edgar Allan Poe's wonderful short story, The Pit and the Pendulum, about a guy who's lying on a tie down to an altar and a big blade is going lower and lower to cut him to pieces.
Catholicism And Sin00:09:57
Kind of what the Clavenless Weekend is like as it approaches.
But before that thing, before the Clavenless Weekend touches down and just rips you to shreds, you do want to solve all your problems because you don't want to go with all your problems with you.
That's why we have the mailbag.
Donald Trump, don't trust China.
China is out.
What the hell was that?
All right, from Anonymous.
I'm gay, and thanks to you, I'm also a Christian.
I was brought up in the Episcopal Church, which I have been happy in and have had great memories in, but I can't see myself being a part of this church for much longer, even though I love the Anglican tradition.
Recently, I've been feeling called to the Catholic Church, and I found two nice Catholic parishes in my area.
My problem is I find Catholicism to be a more full expression of the truth of God, but I still want to find love in life and feel that I could only do that if I stayed apart of the Episcopal Church, as I would still be able to get married in the church.
I think Catholicism will avoid the question of gay marriage for as long as I live, so I will never be able to get married in the church.
If I convert to Catholicism, I can't figure out which is the more important choice, truth or love.
Can you offer any wisdom for me?
Thank you.
Well, first of all, Catholicism is not avoiding the question of gay marriage.
They are again it.
They believe, and I'm not a Catholic, so if I make any mistakes, I'm sure I will hear from people, but this is what I feel is the truth, is that Catholicism teaches that homosexual desire is a disorder.
It is objectively disordered, that's what they say, and that homosexual action is sinful and that there is no such thing as gay marriage, that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.
So as I understand it, you can certainly have homosexual desire.
They preach against any form of prejudice against people who feel same-sex desire, as they call it.
They say there should be no, not only no prejudice, there should be no sign of prejudice against people with same-sex desire.
And I believe that if you commit homosexual acts, you can go and ask for forgiveness and still take communion.
If, however, you actually get married, even out of the church and say, I am now married to a person of the same sex, then you are living against the dictates of the church.
You are essentially preaching against Catholicism, and then you can be banned from taking communion.
So if you became a Catholic, you would be accepting the idea, which I don't think is going to change anytime soon, if it ever changes.
You would be accepting the idea that you are objectively disordered and any act that you commit in keeping with your desires is a sin.
You would be accepting that as the truth and certainly would not be getting married in the church.
So you would be living, if you didn't believe that, by becoming Catholic, you would be living a falsehood.
You know, it's not the same as some churches require much less in terms of your beliefs.
You just have to say that Jesus is Lord and you're in, and that's basically it.
But the Catholic Church has a very long, traditional, and well-thought-out history, well-thought-out philosophy.
These are not things they plucked out of the sky.
This is in keeping with their idea of what sex is for, why you shouldn't have, for instance, birth control, because it gets in the way of the production of life.
And when you're not at least open, what they say is if you're not open to the production of life, then sex is just using another person for pleasure.
So what I would say is live honestly.
You've got to live honestly.
You accept the Catholic's idea of who you are and how you should behave, then accept it and become a Catholic.
Do not, this is what I would do.
I'm not telling you what to do, but this is what I would do.
I would not accept becoming part of a church where I had to live a double life, where I had to say, I believe this, but I actually don't believe it.
That would not be good, and I don't think that would actually be Christian.
So you really have to come to terms with that.
And only you can do that.
Only you can say, can I reconcile my actual actions and beliefs with the beliefs of this church?
And if you can't, then that's where you are.
You've got to stay maybe in the Anglican tradition or wherever you feel comfortable.
So I do not believe that it's fair to use the Catholic Church to give you a feeling that you're in the true church, but not actually believe what the Catholic Church believes is the true faith.
There are people who disagree with this, by the way.
Auden, the poet Auden, who was gay and a Catholic, just basically felt that he felt homosexuality is a sin, but I'm going to keep committing it.
That was the way he felt.
So that is another attack you can take, I guess.
But I think that sincerity of your belief and the integrity of your faith is very important.
And so you really have to wrestle with that yourself and figure out what you actually believe.
From Brayden or Braddon, with the increase in LGBTQ themes in children's films, I would appreciate if you could quickly expound on why this content, such as gay or lesbian kissing scene, akin to one we would see between a Disney prince and princess, is wrong.
This is one of those things that feels wrong to me, but I'm struggling to explain to myself why.
Yeah, you know, there's a couple of reasons why I feel it's wrong.
I think that, for one thing, I think that children's content largely deals with what's the word I'm looking for?
It deals with archetypes.
And I think that the archetype of romance is, in fact, a man and a woman.
That is the archetype of romance.
And before a child can parcel these differences, I think that he should be shown the archetype of romance.
Now, if we did not live in a monoculture, I would have far less problem with it.
If you could go and get great content that didn't have that in it, or even had anti-gay ideas that, no, you should not be gay, that had Christian, you know, traditional Christian ideas in it, and you could get all that great content, whatever you wanted, then you could pick as a parent which you wanted your children to see.
And I would think that was fair.
We don't live in that culture.
We live in a monoculture.
We live where all the money, all the corporate power, all of the culture is owned by one side.
And so it amounts to preaching homosexuality to your children.
And that seems to me to be a bad thing to do.
It's taking away the parental rights of the rights of the parent to impose this idea on you.
Disney is so big, so powerful, and has a tradition of such family entertainment that I think is violating their contract with the audience to do it.
And that's my real problem with it.
I'm not against diverse content.
I'm actually not against all the different people in America having content that they can look at that kind of suits them.
No matter what I believe, even though I hate what they're selling, what I'm against is this monoculture.
And I think once the monoculture starts to spit in the eyes of traditionalists and Catholics and other people who believe this is not something that should be shown to children, I think that that's wrong.
I think that that is bullying and it shouldn't be done.
From Thomas, I joined the Daily Wire so I could ask things in the mailbag.
And the latest mailbag, you spoke about living together before marriage.
You talked about how the person who asked the question will have to choose how to live moral lives.
In the past, you answered the same way on other moral issues such as same-sex relationship.
Your I cannot judge attitudes leads me to two questions.
Does this only apply to sexual issues, or is this also other moral issues like racism, cheating, and stealing?
As a pastor and someone who needs to preach on moral issues, is your don't judge others' idea only for people in their daily lives, or would you encourage pastors to not speak on such issues?
All right, perfectly fair question, but I think you're confusing with respect.
I feel that you're confusing several issues.
One, you're confusing speaking generally on an issue, which I think all of us can do, pastors as well as podcasters, about moral issues.
You're confusing that with speaking to a particular case.
That's one thing.
And also, you're confusing sins with crimes.
I mean, stealing is a crime.
And I don't mean that just in a legal way.
I mean, it's a crime.
It is an offense against another person.
Whereas if two people have agreed to move in together, it's actually not a crime.
It's not an offense against another person.
So those are two different things.
I believe that we should be non-judgmental about sin because sin is a question of trajectory.
Are you moving toward God or are you moving away from God?
I used this example earlier in the show.
Somebody steals a loaf of bread and we think stealing is wrong.
It is right to say that stealing is wrong.
It's not just a crime.
It's also a sin.
But then we find out he stole a loaf of bread because he had to feed his child.
Well, is that a sin in that moment?
You know, that's not for us.
It's not for us to judge.
So in the case of people moving in together, I moved in with my wife.
I would not do it the same today.
I said that I thought it was risky.
I thought it was bad for the woman specifically.
But clearly when I moved in with my wife, I was moving closer to God even though I didn't know it.
That's very hard.
Only God knows whether you're moving closer to him or farther away.
That's why, that is why God can forgive a murderer, but we sometimes can't.
We may have to execute a murderer, put him away for life, but God can forgive him because God knows which way his soul is going and we don't.
And that's why we don't pass judgment on people's souls and their sins because we're too busy looking at our own, but we can pass judgment against people's actions and their crimes.
So that's what I have to say about that.
I would say a lot more, but I'm out of time.
But it's a good question.
But to stand up and say that stealing is a sin is not the same thing as saying, should you take that piece of bread to feed your child?
And so I don't know what this person's life is like.
I don't know what they were doing.
And I had to say to them, if you have an absolute moral prohibition against it, don't do it.
But otherwise, here are the risks and here's why I think it's unwise, but I can't pronounce on it.
That's why I was saying that.
I got to stop there.
The Clavenless Weekend is, the Clavenless Week is here.
You're done for.
Episode Want: Spread the Word00:01:03
But if you survive, what a silly thing to say, but if you survive, we'll be back next Friday with the Andrew Clavin Show.
I'm Andrew Klavan.
Hey, if you enjoyed this episode and want to spread the word, give us a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe too.
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.