Ep. 1129 – The Smear Merchants dissects Hunter Biden’s $6M art fraud allegations, Tucker Carlson’s Fox News firing as a left-wing smear, and the Supreme Court’s $787M Dominion settlement—while framing Democrats’ ethics crusade against Clarence Thomas as hypocrisy. Conservative feminist Erica Bakayake argues abortion and transgender policies ignore women’s biological roles, linking systemic decay to media bias and elite corruption. The episode ends with gold investment pitches and a call for moral clarity in art and politics, warning of cultural collapse under progressive agendas. [Automatically generated summary]
And sure enough, presidential son Hunter Biden has taken time off from his busy schedule corruptly peddling his father's political influence to our Chinese communist enemies in order to try to get out of paying child support to the daughter he can't remember fathering off a former stripper.
So when they say no one is all bad, what the hell are they talking about?
To recap the history of the case, Hunter originally denied that his daughter was his, saying he had no memory of his sexual encounter with the child's mother, but could only recall a cocaine-fueled dream of a naked wrestling match with an inflatable sex doll that magically came to life when she and Hunter fell through the front of a 60-inch flat-screen television and ended up as animated characters in an episode of the Ren and Stimpy adult party cartoon.
A DNA test, however, proved that the little girl was in fact Hunter's child, although it did also confirm that Hunter was an animated character in Ren and Stimpy.
Hunter then agreed to pay $20,000 a month in child support, which he planned to take out of the $50,000 a month he was getting from Ukrainian oligarchs in return for his father sending $75 billion in military aid to Ukraine in order to start World War III, in the hope that a globe-destroying nuclear conflict would distract voters from skyrocketing crime and runaway inflation.
With those hopes temporarily on hold, however, Hunter says his income has been reduced to whatever few measly millions of dollars he can rake in by selling his worthless paintings for inflated prices to shadowy anonymous buyers in return for an I'm With Hunter t-shirt and unspecified political favors from the President of the United States.
At the same time, the little girl's mother is asking that her daughter be allowed to change her last name to Biden because, quote, and this is a real quote, the Biden name is now synonymous with being well-educated, successful, financially acute, and politically powerful, unquote.
Hunter's lawyers countered that the request was ridiculous when clearly the Biden name is synonymous with corruption, dementia, and political malfeasance.
When the judge asked the little girl which name she herself would like to have, the four-year-old responded that she wanted to have any name that would allow her to spend trillions of non-existent tax dollars on political payoffs that will ultimately solidify the power of a small cadre of authoritarian internationalists.
The child's response is believed to have confirmed the results of the DNA test.
President Biden has consistently refused to acknowledge his seventh grandchild as when he recently claimed he only had six grandchildren and could not wait to get his trembling, liver-spotted fingers on their soft white flesh while he drew in deep breaths of their silky hair perfumed with the sensual aroma of youth.
The children themselves were not available for comment because they were huddled together under the dining room table, trembling in terror and praying God would let them win this game of funny grandpa hide-and-seek.
White House spokesperson Corine Jean Identity Hire was recently asked why on earth the president refused to recognize the illegitimate daughter of his corrupt son's cocaine-riddled affair with a former stripper.
Miss Identity Hire responded, quote, speaking as a black female lesbian who is totally given this job for my talent and intelligence, I believe this president doesn't want to be exposed as the head of a sleazy criminal enterprise that's too busy squeezing Somoleans out of every corrupt gangsterocracy on earth to give a rat's buttock what happens to the American people.
Luckily, I'm only thinking that to myself and didn't say it out loud.
Or did I?
Unquote.
Democrats worry that the Hunter court case will expose other areas of corruption in the administration and thereby hobble Democrats in their important work of slaughtering infants 10 minutes before they're born, cutting the sexual organs off healthy young people, peddling gay pornography in elementary schools, and trying to delegitimize the Supreme Court because it keeps foiling their plans by upholding the Constitution.
In the words of Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, quote, it would be a tragedy for this country if outrage over our petty corruption prevented us from doing real evil, unquote.
Hunter Biden, however, swears he will press on with the case against his daughter, saying, quote, I will not stop trying to deprive this four-year-old of financial support because I want to see justice done, or possibly because I'm a corrupt dirtbag.
I'm so stoned I can't remember which.
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-dunkity-dicky.
Ship-shaped hipsy-topsy, the world is a bitty-zing.
It's a wonderful day.
Hoorah, hooray!
It makes me want to sing.
Oh, hurrah, hooray.
Oh, hooray, hoorah.
All right, we are back laughing our way through the fall of the Republic.
You have to excuse me.
I have a little bit of a sore throat today.
I was last night.
I was at a gathering for my son, Spencer Clavin, no relation, who was talking about his wonderful book, How to Save the West, to the log cabin Republicans.
That's the gay Republican group.
And it was like packed into this little bar.
And it was very, very noisy.
So I lost my voice screaming at gay people.
Today we're going to talk about the smear merchants, smearing Supreme Court justices and Tucker Carlson and other people who are better than they are while being in fact themselves incredibly dirty and ruining everybody's life.
This would be a wonderful time for you to subscribe to my personal Andrew Clavin YouTube channel.
This is my personal place.
You will get exclusive content from me.
It comes in a plain brown wrapper.
No one will know what it is.
It has just a picture on the front of a naked woman and inside is the filthy stuff, my content.
And if you leave a comment there and it is sufficiently morally disgusting and racially reprehensible, I will read the comment on the air because that's how we roll.
Today's comment, let's just see here, is from Heaton James.
And he says, Willie Nelson called.
He'd like the phone number of Kamala's dealer.
That's very funny.
I don't use drugs.
I think he has to get a Kamala's dealer from Woody Harrelson.
So let's talk about smears for a minute because this is really a big deal this week and for the last couple of weeks.
I'm going to start with a Greek philosopher named Plutarch.
You may have heard of him.
He was writing during the Roman Empire.
He wrote a famous series of biographies where he compared great Romans with great Greeks, and he's known as the father of biography.
And this is what he said about writing about a person's life.
He says, since it's difficult, or rather impossible, to represent a man's life as entirely spotless and free from blame, we should use the best chapters in it to build up the most complete picture and regard this as the true likeness.
Any errors or crimes, on the other hand, which may tarnish a man's career and may have been committed out of passion or political necessity, we should regard rather as a lapse from a particular virtue than as the products of some innate vice.
We must not dwell on them too emphatically in our history, but should rather show indulgence to human nature for its inability to produce a character which is absolutely good and uncompromisingly dedicated to virtue.
So to put that in Christian terms, since we're all sinners, our occasional sins don't really reveal who we are because we all sin.
We all have sins, but we don't all have great virtues.
So if we find out that a truly great man and a good man like George Washington did something wrong, like he held slaves, what we've learned is not that he was bad, but that he was human.
When we find out that he also gave up an empire to make America free, we realize he was a great human.
So their sins tell us we're human, but the great things we do actually elevate us and make us worth biographizing.
So you have to have compassion.
In order to have compassion on people, you have to see yourself honestly.
You have to see your own sins.
So I'll get back to this.
You'll understand why I started with this.
Last week, I talked about the firing of Tucker Carlson, and I tried to give my honest take on his work.
I talked about his mistakes and his flaws and the great things he's done.
And I emphasize, and I emphasize now that while I shook his hand once and I was on his show twice, I have no dog in this fight.
I'm not looking for anything from him.
And nobody has said to me, oh, we want to flatter Tucker Carlson.
None of that is true.
I'm just talking about this because I think it's important.
And my bottom line was that whatever his flaws and mistakes, Tucker is a far better commentator and a far more honest commentator than Jake Tapper, Brian Stelter, the New York Times, The Washington Post.
I think it's undeniable.
They covered up for Hunter Biden.
Tucker got to the truth and so on.
You can listen to the last week's show if you want to hear it.
Now, this firing, firing Tucker from Fox has hurt them big time.
Their ratings, they now call them cratings because they're cratering and their competitors are thriving.
So mysteriously, suddenly, who could say where these come from?
Suddenly, videos of Tucker that are off-the-air videos, they're from what's called a bird, which is an overhead camera that is taking pictures.
I mean, you could do this to me.
You could do this to any of us when I'm talking to the staff off the air.
It's often recorded.
So all of a sudden, these and his private texts are starting to appear and have been leaked, have been leaked.
Who could say why this is happening?
They've been leaked to left-wing, dishonest, really dirty venues like Media Matters, which is founded by confessed smear merchant David Brock with financial help from George Soros.
That's who Media Matters is, right?
So someone, could it be Fox, perhaps, is obviously releasing these videos and texts to far-left Media Matters and other venues, hoping that they'll make Tucker look bad and take the onus.
So people will say, oh, that's why they fire Tucker.
That's why I see.
So I'm not going to play them all.
I'll play one of them.
It was Tucker is caught off air, clowning around with his staff.
And he even makes a joke about Media Matters.
Here's just a clip.
This cut one.
You know what?
I'm not qualified on that score, I will say.
I thought his girlfriend was kind of yummy.
Just kidding.
Just kidding in case this is being pulled off the bird.
Yeah, the bird.
Hey, Media Matters for America.
Go f ⁇ yourself.
That's the first thing I want to say tonight.
Second thing is, totally kidding, I don't even know what his girlfriend looks like.
And if I did, I would not find her yummy.
So these are things, you know, you joke around behind the scenes.
And by the way, I would never say to Media Matters, I'll translate, I would never say, go to hell.
These are poor, sad, moral dwarves sitting alone in a room, listening to the, they listen to the Daily Wire all day in the hopes they can catch us in saying something that will make people mad.
I don't know, that will make people mad.
They're like that.
So there's no point in telling them to go to hell because they're already in hell.
Their lives are hell.
That's what that kind of left is like.
So all the left-wing venues pick up on this and the young Turks and all these people.
Oh, it's creepy AF to say a girl is yummy.
That's creepy, you know, please.
I mean, please.
And I want to make this clear before I get into this text, because the text is the big one.
The things that you say to people who know you are immediately taken into context.
I mean, you know, I'll personalize.
If my wife comes in and I'm ensconced in a chair reading a book and she says, oh, you know, the garbage is full.
Would you mind taking out the garbage?
And I say, I hate you.
She says, thank you.
Why?
Because she's been living.
I've told her every day for 45 years how deeply I adore her.
I take out the garbage whenever it's full.
She translates it.
She hears, and she knows I like to say silly stuff.
So what she hears when I say, I hate you, is, yes, my darling, in a moment, as soon as I finish reading this paragraph, I will take out the garbage.
That's what she hears.
So people hear things in the context of what they're saying.
So of the people they know.
So here is this text.
After January 6th, Tucker texts his producer, who obviously knows him.
And he tells a story.
He says, a couple of weeks ago, I was watching a video of people fighting on the street in Washington.
A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living crap out of him.
It was three against one at least.
Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable, obviously.
It's not how white men fight.
Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they'd hit him harder, kill him.
I really wanted to hurt the kid.
I could taste it.
Then, somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off.
This isn't good for me.
I'm becoming something I don't want to be.
And he goes on to say, even though this guy's Antifa and he hates the guy and would hate him in person, he doesn't want to become a guy who roots for people to be beaten up.
He's a human being.
Somebody loves him.
That's not the way he should be.
Obviously, this is the kind of humanity we all should exhibit because we all can feel this way.
I punched him.
You know, that was great.
You see it on Twitter all the time.
And I think like anybody can punch anybody.
You can always sucker punch somebody.
You know, it's a horrible, horrible thing to do.
And Tucker is right.
But buried in this example of Tucker's humanity is a mildly racist comment.
It's not how white men fight.
What is that?
Six words?
It's not how white men fight.
Yes, six words.
Six words.
And it's mildly, you know, it's kind of like the old days.
They would say, that's mighty white of you.
You know, that's what it's saying.
We have a code among us white folk and all this stuff.
Obviously, if you know any white people, that's not true.
But still, we all know he's saying it's mildly racist statement.
And they pick this up.
And so I Google the page.
I'm looking it up to find the text and I Google it.
This is what comes up on Google from CNN.
Tucker Carlson sent a racist text to a producer.
It's not how white men fight.
Tucker Carlson's racist text message shouldn't be surprising, right?
It shouldn't be.
I mean, I've seen Tucker numerous times come on and say, this is how I feel about race.
He's not a racist, obviously, but this is a mildly racist comment he makes to someone he knows who hears something else than what he's saying.
Fortune magazine, Tucker Carlson, reported ousted by Fox for racist texts.
That's the thing, right?
This is what Fox is trying to communicate.
It's not because we don't like Tucker.
It's because Tucker is a racist, right?
Tucker Carlson's Racist Text?00:07:20
I mean, that's the reason they fired him.
The guy was making most of their money.
They inspired him for these six words, in a pig's eye.
The shocking text message that allegedly got to, I'm, you know, I'm terribly shocked.
That was from New York magazine, Tucker Carlson's text that alarmed Fox.
The New York Times says this.
The New York Times ran, I can't even describe it, and I'm not going to read it, a hilarious column by A.O. Scott.
He's a former movie critic.
It must be a thousand words on this text and how it's, you know, he seems to be being human by sympathizing with a guy he doesn't like because he's being beaten up, but he's not really human.
He's not a racist, that racist, those six words.
So now we're supposed to believe that he was fired for these.
Now, let's talk about the New York Times, where they're spending thousands of words attacking Tucker.
And every day, he's right up there, especially on the online edition.
He's right up there in their front page, right?
Now, they have at the New York Times, as you know, a woman named Nicole Hannah.
What is her name?
Nicole?
I always forget her name.
I don't know because there's too many names for me.
Nicole Hannah Jones, right?
Is that what it is?
Just going.
Yes, it is.
Okay, Nicole Hannah Jones.
All right.
I always forget her name because there's too many names, too many first names put together.
When the riots were taking place, the George Floyd riots, burning down cities across the country, the great Charles Kessler from Claremont, just a terrific, terrific guy, said we should call these the 1619 riots because he said, you know, yes, the George Floyd death was bad and reform may be needed, but these riots are inspired by a false idea of America that's being spread by the New York Times through this toxic 1619 project, which is false.
It's just a false thing.
And it was headed up by Nicole Hanna-Jones.
Now, I'm reading some of this from Douglas Murray's great book, War on the West, that when the 1619 project came out, Nicole Hanna-Jones said it aims to reframe the country's history, understanding 1619 is our true founding.
In other words, we were founded because of slavery.
Our core belief is slavery.
Never mind all that guff about all men created equal with rights.
The true core of America is slavery.
That's what she's saying.
She said it again and again.
Our true founding is 1619, not 1776.
Our true core is slavery and racism.
That's what she's saying, okay?
So then, by the way, when she was caught out, and she was caught out in numerous, numerous factual errors, including central and important factual errors, she said, no, the 1619 project does not argue that 1619 is our true founding.
When she said that on her Twitter banner, it had 1776 crossed out and replaced by 1619.
So she's not only, she's dishonest, right?
But she's also selling this.
So Charles Kessler said, because of this toxic dishonesty, these riots should be called the 1619 riots.
And Hannah Jones said she was honored.
She was honored to have them called the 1619 Riots.
20 riots, 25 people were killed in those riots at least.
And she was honored that she might have caused them.
She was honored.
Here's what she said about the violence that took place at that time.
It's cut to.
Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.
And to put those things, to use the exact same language to describe those two things, I think really it's not moral to do that.
So again, let me personalize this again.
A husband is fighting with his wife and gets angry and he punches the wall, puts his fist through the wall next to her head.
Okay?
Is that violence?
It's just property.
Property can be replaced.
He didn't hit her.
Is that violence?
It's terror.
Of course it's violence.
Of course it's violence.
It's terrorizing that woman.
And if he only does it twice a year, is his marriage mostly peaceful?
No, that's a violent marriage.
That's a terrible, terrible thing to do.
What these guys were doing was terrorism.
It was terrorism.
In her name, she was honored by it.
And she not only works at the New York Times, she has a Pulitzer Prize, she has a MacArthur grant, she has a deal with Hulu to make the 16 Project lies become, you know, spread them even further.
But Tucker Carlson tries to emphasize, empathize with a man he hates, which is a deeply human and decent thing to do.
And he makes a mildly offhand racist comment to people who know him so they know he's not racist.
So they hear something different than what he's saying.
And that's the story over and over and over again.
So what's it all about, right?
Fox News just made a massive settlement with Dominion voting machines because they, they probably would have won that case, I think, but it was revealed that they put people on and suggested that Dominion had been hacked when they did not believe it.
Never mind what you believe, they did not believe it, and they put it on the air anyway, except for Tucker Carlson.
Tucker Carlson was the one person who had Sidney Powell on and questioned her until she wouldn't come on anymore.
And he says she didn't have proof of it, and he said it again and again.
But all the rest of them just let it pass, and they had to make this big payout because they didn't want them paraded in front on the witness stand.
So Fox looks like garbage.
They look like crap.
And now they're working with leaking things, I suspect, to Media Matters.
And the New York Times is backing them up.
And suddenly the Fox embarrassment, the Fox humiliation is wiped off the front pages in order to get it, Tucker Carlson, because they look bad and they're losing ratings and their ratings are cratering.
These guys are servants of the smear, right?
Anybody who picks this story up, anybody who emphasizes it, anybody who writes about it as anything but a smear is a servant of the smear, which means that Fox and Media Matters and the New York Times are all the same person.
Fox and the New York Times and Media Matters, the smear cat, guys who do nothing but huddle in their rooms like little rumpled stillskin dwarves trying to catch me and Knowles and Ben saying things and Walsh, you know, that's all they do all day long.
They're the same as Fox News.
They're the same as the New York Times.
It's all about the smears.
It's all about the Matrix media smearing and silencing anyone who wants you to take the red pill.
Have you ever read the fine print that appears when you start browsing in incognito mode?
It basically says you're not incognito.
Your activity might still be visible to your employer, your school, or your internet service provider.
To actually stop people from seeing the sites you visit, you have to do what I do and use Express VPN.
Think about all the times you've used Wi-Fi at a coffee shop or a hotel.
Without ExpressVPN, every site you visit could be logged by the admin of that network.
And that's still true, even when you're in incognito mode.
Plus, your home internet provider can track and record your browsing data.
In the U.S., they are legally allowed to sell that data to advertisers.
ExpressVPN is an app that encrypts all of your network data and reroutes it through a network of secure servers so that your private online activity stays private.
ExpressVPN works on all your devices.
It's super easy to use.
It's got one button.
Even I can use it.
And I was born before the invention of the pen.
So all you have to do is tap that button.
Stop letting strangers invade your online privacy.
Protect yourself at expressvpn.com slash clavin.
Use my link at expressvpn.com slash clavin to get three extra months free.
Chevron's Impact on Judges00:11:20
That's exprsvpn.com slash claven.
You're saying, yeah, sure, anybody can spell expressvpn, but how do you spell clavin?
It's k-l-a-v-a-n.
No ease.
I just make it look this easy.
All right, so now we know how this works, right?
They're all in this to silence people and to smear people.
And they're not arguing.
They're not saying, you know, this is what Tucker said and this is why we disagree.
They're just smearing him.
They're smearing him.
So now let's move on to something more important than Tucker Carlson, the Supreme Court, okay?
Because this is an amazing story.
The Supreme Court has a conservative majority.
They overturned Roe v. Wade.
But now there's another case in front of the court, which is, it's a very boring case, but the important part of it is this Chevron ruling.
Reading this off SCOTUS blog, Amy Howe writing, nearly 40 years ago in Chevron versus Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the Supreme Court ruled that courts should defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute as long as that interpretation is reasonable, right?
But now the court, the Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its ruling on Chevron in this new case, which is about fishing rights.
Now, the Chevron rule is a major, major blow to democracy and therefore a wonderful gift to the Democrats.
I've talked about this before, how Joe Biden and the Democrats are using unelected bureaucracies to impose regulations that force businesses to kowtow to the woke agenda on environment, on equity, equity, which is essentially socialism, taking things away from people to give them to other people that you think should have them instead of on merit, instead of taking each person as he comes.
And they're doing this through this bureaucracy.
What the Chevron rule does essentially is it allows a bureaucracy to pass what is effectively a law.
Say, oh, the law that Congress passed allows us to pass this law, right?
And if you don't like it, and the bureaucracy comes up to you one day and says, oh, by the way, now you have to hire only people who are colored purple, because that's what we're touting.
That's who we're getting votes out of this day.
So you have to hire purple people.
And you say, you don't have any right to tell me to do that.
They say, huh, well, you can appeal.
So you have to appeal to the bureaucrats.
And the bureaucrats say, we've studied our decision, and our decision is correct.
And you go, wait, you're the same people who made the decision.
That's Chevron.
Too bad.
That's the Chevron ruling.
You can bet that the socialists now running our government do not want Chevron to be taken away.
Now, there are two justices who have been outspokenly against Chevron.
Clarence Thomas, he was in a decision where he said this is, Chevron is bad.
It takes the power out of the judges' hands to use their own judgment.
And Neil Gorsuch, who's this has been a crusade with him, Neil Gorsuch.
So weirdly, coincidentally, just oddly out of nowhere, just imagine the, it's hard to even grasp this kind of coincidence.
Maybe it was God working in his heaven.
Suddenly, stories are coming out that seem to smear Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas, right?
Left-wing hate site, ProPublica.
I talked about this a little bit, but they keep doing it.
They keep publishing these articles.
What do these articles say?
Clarence Thomas has a rich friend, his name is Harlan Crowe, who sometimes takes him on vacation, which he's not required to report.
Now there are new rules that may make him required to report some of it, but when they happened, he was not required to report them.
Harlan Crowe is a Republican, but he's kind of middle of the road.
He's not anywhere near how conservative Clarence Thomas is.
And Clarence Thomas has a judicial philosophy, which is the same in every case.
As I've said before, the offensive line of the Eagles could not move Clarence Thomas off his judicial philosophy, right?
He's not going anywhere for Harlan Crowe or anybody else.
Okay, so that first thing didn't stick because it wasn't true.
But Thomas, then there was a deal, a land deal, where Harlan Crowe bought some money off Thomas, and Thomas lost money on that deal.
So that was no good.
He made a minor mistake.
Clarence Thomas made a minor mistake on his tax returns, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the same mistake.
So now they've got a new one.
And this is my favorite.
Clarence and Ginny Thomas took in a great nephew of theirs who needed help.
His parents were out of the picture.
And out of kindness, they took him in.
And they raised him.
And as he got older, he'd been through a lot.
He started to have some problems.
And Harlan Crowe said, look, you know, here's this great private school that may straighten him out.
And I'll help you out with tuition for one year.
Now, the rules on this are very specific.
If this had been the Thomas' son or daughter, or if it had been Ginny Thomas' wife, he would have had to report it.
But though he raised this child as a favor, as an act of goodwill, he never adopted him.
So he was not required to report this, so he didn't.
So basically the story, this is the hip job that they're doing on Clarence Thomas, is Clarence Thomas and Ginny did a mitzvah.
I'm using a good deed.
I'm using the Jewish word because anybody as smart as Clarence Thomas, obviously secretly a Jew, right?
Maybe he's Asian, but I don't know the Asian word for a good deed.
We'll just say he did a mitzvah.
He did a mitzvah.
And Harlan Crowe, out of generosity, helped him out with it financially.
He's not required to report it, so he didn't.
That's the story.
That is the story, all right?
So, and then there's a hit on Neil Gorsuch, which is ridiculous.
Vox and MSNBC accused Gorsuch of lying in his decision on that case.
Remember, the coach was praying on the field, and they ruled 6-3, so it wasn't just the conservatives.
They ruled 6-3 that the coach had a right to pray during a football game if he wanted to.
But it was untrue.
Gorsuch did not lie.
He's very specific about what he was saying about a photograph.
I won't get into the details.
It doesn't matter.
But the servants of the smear, the servants of the smear, come pouring out.
And the Washington Post, now the Senate Judiciary Committee says we've got to hold a hearing, which is run by Democrats.
Dick Durbin, he's run by Democrats.
They hold a hearing on Supreme Court ethics, right?
We've got to deal with Supreme Court ethics.
And the Washington Post says they're having this meeting considering strengthening ethics rules for the Supreme Court in response to a cascade of revelations about unreported lavish travel and real estate deals.
Washington Post are lying scum.
Now, that sounds offensive, but I'm only saying it because they're lying and they're scum, right?
Listen to the words.
Listen to the words.
In response to a cascade of revelations about unreported lavish travel and real estate deals, none of which was unethical or illegal or against the ethical rules, which are written down, right?
And none of it was.
And all the other judges have things about it.
Luke Roziak went after Sonia Sotomair.
But, you know, in the Wall Street Journal, they attacked the people smearing Thomas and they attacked the Daily Wire for that.
And I see what they're saying, but we were kind of hitting back.
We were making a point.
But still, I don't think Sonia Sotomayere should be impeached or anything like that, or that she did anything wrong.
So now they have this thing, and Dick Durbin is chairing this meeting.
And Sheldon Whitehouse, who is a thug, he is a thug.
He's the guy who is constantly writing letters to the Supreme Court saying, nice court you've got here.
Shame if anything happened to it.
He wants to intimidate them and they've put forward a bill.
And the thing about this you have to remember is the separation of powers is essential to our republic.
It's essential to the way our government runs.
And so the Senate is, and Congress is a different power, right, than the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is an independent power, and the Congress is not supposed to be messing with them.
And what they're looking for is power.
So they're putting forward this bill that would allow anybody on earth, essentially, to charge the Supreme Court justices with doing something unethical and to have hearings on it.
It's a smear attack.
It's a smear attack on really the foundation of the country.
So what about these senators who are doing this, right?
David Harsanyi has a piece at the Federalist, which I heartily recommend, where he just takes them down with links to the stories, right?
He says, I'll quote David here, while there has not been a scintilla of evidence offered by anyone that the originalist justices have altered their judicial philosophy or approach for personal benefit, one could not say the same thing about the leader of the delegitimization effort, Durbin, who, according to a 2014 Chicago Tribune investigation, used his office and power to help enrich his lobbyist wife.
Among the areas of overlap in the Durbin's career, her firm gets a one-year contract with a housing nonprofit group around the time the senator went to bat for the organization and others like it.
Durbin arranged for federal money to flow to his wife's organization.
Durbin did not pay a fine or face any repercussions for this conflict of interest.
Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal, another Democrat, he's the guy who said he served in Vietnam when he didn't, so he was stealing glory there.
His wife and he traded millions of dollars in Robinhood shares before calling for an investigation against Robinhood.
And then when they asked him about it, Blumenthal lied and said he didn't own the stock.
Judiciary Committee member Sheldon Whitehouse, the thug himself, he traded healthcare stock through his and his family's accounts while pushing to pass a medical bill directly related to that sector.
He also used his seat to prop up a green energy concern that supported his campaign.
The green energy concern gave money to Sheldon Whitehouse and then he passed laws that helped them out.
And Durbin unloaded investments right out.
You know, they've all been doing this to them.
So these dirty little schmucks, and I'm using the Jewish word here in honor of Clarence Thomas's secret ancestry, these dirty little schmucks.
They lost a bit of power.
They lost a bit of power when Donald Trump appointed justices to the Supreme Court who were conservative.
They had been using the court to cram unconstitutional interpretations of the Constitution down our throat.
The Roe v. Wade, obviously unconstitutional.
Remember, the Constitution grants, it enumerates the powers that the federal government has.
That's what it's supposed to do.
If it ain't in the Constitution, they don't have that power.
They don't have the power to regulate marriage.
That's why I'm against the gay marriage ruling.
They don't have the power to regulate abortion.
That's why I'm against that ruling.
But over the years, they have consistently, the federal government has consistently tried to override the boundaries of the Constitution.
And one of the ways the left has done it is through phony rulings in the Supreme Court.
They have now lost that right.
These judges, you call them conservative, but they're just constitutionalists.
Clarence Thomas, you know, you call him a conservative, and maybe he is personally a conservative, but he just wants to rule according to the Constitution.
Anton and Scalia was the same way, and they demonized him as well.
So they are trying to get that power back by smearing these good people, these, you know, Justice Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Phony Rulings and Smear Campaigns00:02:34
And, you know, again, Sonia Soda Myir.
I have nothing.
Obviously, I disagree with her, but I'm not trying to knock her off the court with smears.
That's what it's all about.
And they're trying to delegitimize a branch of government that they can't get their dirty little hands on.
They've been doing this since Roosevelt, since Roosevelt threatened to pack the court so that he could pass his New Deal stuff.
And they're doing it now.
It's all about smears.
And let's talk about who is smearing this, these people, and what the power structure in this country really looks like.
We'll do that in a sec.
I love meat.
I love meat, and I like knowing exactly where my meat comes from.
And with moink, I know it's coming from small family farms all across the country.
Moink, that's moo and oink, put together.
They deliver grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door.
Moink lets you choose the meat delivered in every box, select an existing box or create your own, set your delivery cadence and enjoy delicious meat.
You can cancel any time, but you won't want to.
If you're not sure where to start, check out their standard box.
It comes with a little bit of everything, chicken, ribeye burgers, and steak.
Moink is all about supporting the family farm.
Think about this.
2% of Americans are farmers, but 100% of us eat.
We need to show our support for the families that keep us well fed.
Help save the family farm and get access to the highest quality meat on earth when you join the moink movement today.
Skip the checkout lines at the grocery store and instead enjoy quality family time knowing that dinner is covered with moink.
Go to moinkbox.com/slash clavin and get a free package of bacon in your first box.
One thing, knowing how to spell clavin, K-L-A-V-A-N.
Now, the point of talking about these smears is that there's only a certain amount of space in the New York Times.
There's only a certain amount of time in a podcast or in a news organization.
So you're making choices about what you report.
So Tucker Carlson said six words, mildly racist, but he's talking to people he knows who know he's not a racist.
So they don't really mean anything whatsoever in terms, because we don't have that context.
Powerful People's Choices00:06:47
We don't know him.
They're just using them to smear him.
That's what they're doing.
They're smearing him because they hate him and because they know he's in actually a good position to move on to an even more powerful spot than he had at Fox News if he plays his cards right.
And Fox News are powerful people and all these powerful people are working together.
Now, the other side of this is there are actions that people take that do reveal their character, right?
Jeffrey Epstein, good example, right?
Here is a man who constantly, repeatedly enslaved young girls and used them sexually and apparently passed them out to his friend.
Well, he was convicted of it, so he did.
You know, he did it, right?
And now there are new documents coming out that reveal emails and schedules that Epstein have that have him meeting with some of the most powerful and famous and popular people in the country, right?
They now have his appointment books and his emails, some of his emails showing what he's doing.
So Jeffrey Epstein is a slave master, right?
He is running little girls or young girls, let's say, and paying them and giving them money so that they commit acts of sex and eventually essentially enslaving them and letting powerful men use them.
That is what he's doing.
And he dies in prison in a secure facility where there's supposed to be cameras on him, but the cameras just happen to be off.
There's supposed to be guards looking at him.
The guards just happen to be gone.
He's supposed to have a cellmate the cellmate has taken away.
And then suddenly he is suicided to death.
So that's a story, right?
And now these things are coming out and the Wall Street Journal is doing a good job reporting on it.
Who's hanging out with Jeffrey Epstein?
Now, these are people who hang out with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted sex offenders.
2006, he was publicly accused of sexually abusing girls in Florida who were as young as 14 years old.
And the FBI and police investigated.
And he reached this now much criticized deal with prosecutors in 2008, where he avoided federal charges and pleaded guilty to soliciting and procuring a minor for prostitution.
But he was obviously doing this in a great big way.
Who met with him?
William Burns.
William Burns is now the director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2021.
So he's Biden's director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
He was deputy secretary of state and had three meetings scheduled with Epstein in 2014 after he knew, after everybody knew what this guy was.
George Stephanopoulos was at a party in honor of Epstein.
Woody Allen and his wife gave Epstein private screenings of Allen's films.
Larry Summer of Harvard took $100,000 from him for a pet project of his wife.
Leon Botstein, the president of Bard College, invited Epstein to come to the college as a donor.
And Epstein arrived with a group of young female guests.
I wonder who those were.
Botstein said fundraising for the school was his responsibility.
He said it was a humiliating experience to deal with him, but I cannot afford to put my pride before my obligation to raise money for the causes I'm responsible for.
Noam Chomsky, professor, author, political activist on the left, scheduled to fly with Epstein to have dinner at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in 2015, where we know through the good work of my colleague James Patterson, who wrote a book about it, that he had some of these girls in his Manhattan townhouse.
On Monday, September 8th, 2014, Jeffrey Epstein had a full calendar.
He was scheduled to meet that day with Bill Gates, Thomas Pritzker, Lee and Black, and Mortimer Zuckerman, four of the richest men in the country.
Now, obviously, obviously, I'm not saying that just because these people knew Bill Gates, that they were sleeping with his enslaved girls.
I'm not saying that.
But they are hanging out with a guy who is a slaver.
Now, the left makes a big deal about people who were slavers 250 years ago, and we at least can assume the world looked different.
We have to assume that, you know, I'm not forgiving it.
I'm just saying that the world looked different 250 years ago.
This is happening now.
This guy was a slaver now, and he was enslaving children, and he was using those children for sex.
Now, you probably heard about J.P. Morgan Bank recently.
They just took over another of Biden's collapsing banks.
The small banks are in trouble because they have heard that the Biden administration is going to bail out the big banks, but not the little banks.
So people are pulling their money out of the little banks.
And it's this slow-rolling financial disaster brought about by the malfeasance of the Biden administration.
They caused the inflation with their overspending.
The banks acted irresponsibly because of all the free money that was pouring into the economy.
The Fed started to raise the interest rates, and suddenly they got caught with their pants down.
And now all these banks are in trouble.
This is all the administration's fault, all right?
So now J.P. Morgan takes over this bank.
That means that they won an auction and the federal government, the FDIC, awarded them this bank, which makes them bigger and stronger.
Now, Jamie Dimon, who's running J.P. Morgan, he's going to be testifying later this month, or he's scheduled to testify later this month, because the Virgin Islands and two women, Jane Does, are suing J.P. Morgan, saying that they were helping Jeffrey Epstein pay these women who were enslaved, that they were putting money into his account, knowing that this is what he was doing, and they weren't reporting it.
Now, J.P. Morgan says they're innocent.
They didn't do anything, but this is what they're accused of, and they're being sued by it.
A court ruling says that former Barclay boss Jess Staley, who was a friend of Epstein's, sexually abused a woman that he basically used aggressive force in his sexual assault.
This is a court saying this, a federal court saying this, and he told her that he had Epstein's permission to do anything that he wanted to do to her.
These are the people in power.
So this is slavery, people hanging out with a slaver.
The head of the CIA, who was then Assistant Secretary of State, was meeting with him.
Woody Allen, Lawrence Summers at Harvard, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, all hanging out with this guy who is a slaver using his slaves for sex.
So Tucker Carlson texted six words that were mildly racist in a context where people knew him.
The New York Times is spending column inches, thousands of words on this.
Clarence Thomas did nothing wrong.
Neil Gorsuch did nothing wrong, but this is the Washington Post is telling us this is a cascade of charges against him, a cascade of charges.
They're lying about good people while all of these, the richest, the most connected, the most famous, the most popular people in this country were hanging out with a man who enslaved and abused little girl.
And the New York Little Girls and the New York Times is barely covering it because they don't have time because they're too busy sliming Tucker Carlson over six words in a text, right?
Why Mother's Day Skincare Matters00:02:47
Never mind that these are the left.
This is the left.
So these are people who want babies to be killed the minute before they're born.
Literal infanticide.
They're voting for it.
They want to cut off pieces of healthy children to change their sex in some magical way.
They want to spread pornography in schools and they call it book banning whenever we get to stop them.
The most powerful people in the country are consorting with a slaver who died mysteriously in prison.
But the big story in the New York Times is Tucker Carlson sent six words.
And Fox News probably leaked that text to them.
They don't have time to cover what's actually happening in this country.
The deep corruption, the deep malfeasance, the deep connections between people who do not deserve the power that they hold over us and the power that they abuse over us.
They don't have time to cover that because they're too busy smearing good men with nonsense and lies.
So I'm smearing you bastards back with the truth.
Mother's Day is coming.
And if you're looking for the perfect Mother's Day gift that will make the women in your life feel pampered and appreciated, our friends at Genucelle have you covered.
Don't miss out on Genucelle's Mother Day sale.
Genucelle is offering 70% off their most popular package, which includes their ultra retinal and dark spot corrector.
My producers love Genucelle's Ultra Retinal.
This nighttime moisturizer contains a powerful retinal alternative that visibly reduces the appearance of fine lines, wrinkles, and skin discoloration without the irritation of retinal.
So you don't look like me.
It helps to exfoliate the skin, which can reduce the appearance of pores, improve skin texture, and even skin tone.
Best of all, Genucelle guarantees results in as little as 12 hours where you get your money back.
Give the gift of flawless skin this Mother's Day.
Visit genuicell.com slash Clavin to save over 70% off their most popular package.
This package includes the dark spot corrector as well as their ultra retinal and under-eye treatment.
You'll also get a complimentary spa essentials box with every order from now until Mother's Day, plus a free upgrade to priority shipping.
Go to genucelle.com slash clavin.
That's genuicel.com slash clavin.
I know what you're thinking.
You're thinking, oh, oh dear, if only I knew how to spell clavin.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So for the cultural section today, I want to, changing the subject a little bit from all the smears, I want to talk about some of the stuff that's going on on our side in terms of the culture, because I really do believe that this kind of smear work would not be acceptable if our culture was healthier than it was.
Nefarious Depictions00:15:08
I watched this film the other night called Nefarious, which is based on a novel by Steve Deese, who has a show over with our friends at the Blaze.
And a lot of people kept bothering me to watch it, and I hesitated.
First of all, it's kind of, it's not really horror.
It's kind of a spooky movie.
It's not really horror.
And I don't enjoy a lot of horror.
And I also, I like to promote good stuff, but I was worried that this wasn't any good.
So I actually really liked it.
Now, I've talked to some conservatives who didn't like it as much.
And one of the objections they had was they said that there was some preaching in it.
And there's a 30-second scene in it that could have been cut out.
It was a little right-wing preachy.
And the other objection they had, that there's an atheist in it, and they said the atheist, it wasn't a fair, they should have made the atheist a stronger character so he could make his case better.
But, but, okay, so those are the objections.
But I have to say, I couldn't stop watching it.
I was totally interested in it.
I wasn't messing around doing other stuff.
I thought it was really creative, the way it used its budget.
I'm a big advocate, and I have a hard time getting people to listen to me on this, that if you want to make a small budget film, you got to write the film into the budget.
You got to write a small budget film.
You cannot make a film that looks bad because you couldn't afford the scenes and the effects that you needed to make it.
You write the film into the budget.
So this movie is almost, almost the entire movie is two people in a room talking.
And what it is, is it's a story about a guy who's got to do a court-ordered, a psychiatrist's got to do a court-ordered examination of a man condemned to die that day and say that he's not insane so he can be cleared to be executed.
And he walks in.
The psychiatrist is played by Jordan Belfry, who also looks like Michael Knowles, and he's from Entourage.
And the condemned man is played really well, really good performance by Sean Patrick Flannery of the Boondock Saints.
And the condemned man says, I'm glad you're here.
I invited you here because I'm actually not who I seem to be.
I'm actually a demon.
I'm actually a person possessed by a demon.
Here's the trailer, Cut6.
Execution scheduled for 11 p.m.
He's trying to convince us he's gone insane.
And therefore incapable of being executed.
I need you to prove he's faking it.
Edward, I'm going to ask you some questions.
I'm not Edward.
I'm a demon.
Demons aren't really a thing.
What happened to Edward?
We own him.
We?
He's a master manipulator.
You have your head so twisted around, you think you're the killer, not him.
And give me something to make me believe you.
Prove to me you're a demon.
It's probably just a coincidence.
The light goes out.
He says, it's probably just a coincidence.
I really enjoyed this.
I really enjoyed the conversation.
It was spooky.
And it's not just a conversation.
It has a drama going on behind it.
It had some really good, had a really good twist to it that I don't want to give away, a really good twist on the meaning of what the, because the demon is always saying things that are true, but don't mean what they seem to mean.
I really enjoyed that.
I really like the depiction of the struggle between good and evil.
And you can tell the movie must have something to it because on Rotten Tomatoes, it got 33% from the critics and 97% from the humans.
And so you can tell that the people liked it.
And usually when anything is in favor of God, it gets 0%.
So they couldn't quite give it 0%.
So they gave it 33%.
So it's obviously pretty gripping.
I thought it was gripping.
And so when I was thinking about it, I recommend that.
I think it's 90 minutes well spent if you enjoy these kind of things.
But the thing that I was thinking about is I enjoy this so much more than I enjoy most Christian films.
This is by the guys I think who made God is Not Dead.
But I like this so much more than I like most Christian films.
And I thought, why is that?
And I think it's because it preaches Christian reality about the spiritual fight we're in, the fight between demons and God.
But it deals with evil and it doesn't make the ordinary people or the Christian people look good.
It makes society look like what society is like.
It's corrupt.
Capital punishment is cruel.
It doesn't mean it's not just, but it's cruel.
The movie isn't cloying with goodness because the problem is our argument is not that Christians are good and atheists are bad.
Our argument is that Christ is good and Satan is bad.
And that is a true argument.
But that argument takes place, that argument between good and evil takes place in a corrupt world.
All of us in a corrupt world, every single one of us part of a corrupt world.
And I was thinking by showing evil and being about evil, the film does not become cloying and sugary sweet the way most Christian films do.
And this kind of led me to think about something else that I've been thinking about a lot, the fact that evil makes for good storytelling and good often doesn't.
You know, there's a philosopher, a religious mystic named Simone, her name is spelled wild, but I think it's pronounced Ve, Simone Vey, she's French.
And she said, imaginary evil is romantic.
Imaginary evil is romantic and varied.
Real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring.
Imaginary good is boring.
Real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating.
Now, as somebody who has spent my life writing crime stories about evil with evil people in them, I asked myself, why should this be?
Why should it be that evil is riveting and that good doesn't really come across in a story?
When you have a good person, he's almost always defending, his goodness consists of attacking evil, of fighting evil.
So if he's a cop, he's fighting bad guys, a doctor fighting disease, a fireman fighting fires.
But he's not good in and of itself.
Now, none of us is righteous, and that's part of the reason why.
But also, there are two realms.
I think this is essentially the argument of Christianity.
There's a realm of power, which is the realm of the flesh, and there's a realm of love, which is the realm of the spirit.
And so modern theorists who don't believe in God, they don't believe in the spirit, always end up arguing about power.
This is like Michel Foucault, the famous French philosopher.
Everything is power.
Herbert Marcuse, who is the communist philosopher who powers a lot of this stuff about gender and critical race theory.
A lot of this comes from Marcus's theories basically that everything is about power, because in the flesh world, the material world, there is nothing with power.
If I kill you, you're dead.
If I beat you, you're beaten.
If I crucify you, you're finished, right?
That's the world of the flesh and the world of power.
And so power becomes very attractive, right?
This is why feminists want to be men, because they start out saying, well, men are not treating us fairly.
And they end up saying, well, men have all the power.
So we want to have the power because they're materialists.
Why blacks become racist?
Because they start out saying, well, whites are not being fair.
They're being racist.
And they end up saying, well, we hate whiteness.
They end up becoming racist because they think, well, the racists have the power.
We want the power.
And that's the only way that works.
And Jesus is saying something different.
He's saying, yes, there is a realm of power, but there's also a realm of love.
And that's where your true life is and your eternal life is.
So, you know, there's a lot of arguments about this thing about women's wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives.
And women say, well, feminists say, well, you can't submit to your husband.
But when you see a good marriage, what you often, almost always in my experience, my personal experience was limited, but what it is, in good marriages, women respect their husbands and husbands lead, but husbands love their wives.
And you suddenly realize, gee, you know, it's actually not, she's actually not being dominated.
And he's not, you know, being a tyrant if the marriage is a loving marriage, because the love transforms the power dynamic and they actually wind up being quite equal.
So I write these murder stories.
And one of the things I've struggled with my whole life is the minute you show a murder, you romanticize the murderer.
You can't help it because the murder is cool, it's exciting, it's interesting, and the person who dies is gone.
And so the murderer has all the power and our flesh is immediately attracted to power, right?
That's why when you step into pornography and you get outside the realm of love, whether it's pornography online or 50 Shades of Gray for women, you start dealing with power.
You start dealing with the sexuality, the sensuality of power.
I've told this story before, but just briefly, when I was writing ghost stories in Hollywood, I was selling ghost stories.
So they started to call me in to pitch horror stories to me and see if I wanted to write them.
And as you got down the line, these horror stories became less about the good people and more about the evil.
And I went into a pitch once and the guy said, we want you to write a story.
We have an idea for a story.
A woman is kidnapped and she's tortured.
And I said, yeah.
They said, that's the story.
I said, I'm not writing that story because that's just torture porn.
That's why they literally called it that in Hollywood.
It's very hard to tell a story without making evil attractive.
How do you do it?
Well, I've seen it done brilliantly.
I hope I've done it brilliantly from time to time.
There's a wonderful book by one of my favorite modern mystery writers, Ruth Rendell.
She wrote a book called Judgment and Stone.
She tells you who gets killed and who does the murder in the first sentence of the book.
And then the rest of the book, you just watch people live.
You watch people live as the murderer comes closer and closer.
And you start to realize that ordinary life is beautiful.
Family life is beautiful.
The little love that people show each other is beautiful.
And this evil is dull and stupid and plotting.
And she actually creates that wonderful sensation where she doesn't glamorize the murder.
She glamorizes the quotidian, the daily love between these people in this family.
David Mamet, his great play, Glenn Garry, Glenn Ross, if you watch it carefully, an act of courageous virtue takes place in the background where all the corruption is happening in the foreground.
The corruption makes the good story, but the goodness kind of shines through it.
Depictions of evil work when you use them in the context of love.
One of my favorite plays, I've given two standing ovations in my life, literally two standing ovations in the theater in my life.
One of them was for the play Sweeney Todd.
Stephen Sondim's a brilliant, brilliant musical about the, this is a legendary guy, the evil barber, Sweeney Todd, who cuts the throats of people because his wife was destroyed.
He was raped by a powerful judge and he was sent off to prison.
And now he's come back for revenge and he's killing people in the barbershop.
He's cutting their throats and he's dumping their bodies.
And his landlady, Mrs. Lovett, realized, she's got a pie shop and she's poor, so she can't get the meat.
And she realizes she can take the bodies of these dead bodies and bake them into pies and she'll have enough meat to sell the pies.
And so she gets this idea and she sells it to Sweeney Todd and they sing this hilarious song in which she talks about all the different people she can eat.
Here's a cut from the movie version of this with Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs. Lovett and Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd.
It's got seven.
Here we are, popped out at the oven.
What is that?
It's priest.
Have a little priest.
Is it really good?
So it's too good at least.
Then again, they don't come.
It sins all of the flesh.
So it's pretty fresh.
Awful lot of fat.
Only where it's sat.
Haven't you got poet or something like that?
Now you see the trouble with poeties.
How do you know it's deceased?
Try the priest.
It's a great song and the audience goes nuts and laughs out loud.
It is a show-stopping song.
So you're laughing at murder and cannibalism.
And you think, well, how can that be moral?
How can that be right?
But it is, because the entire play is about how by following his desire for revenge in a corrupt world, Sweeney destroys himself.
That's what the play is about.
That's the theme of the play.
So you are watching dramatize the reason why Jesus Christ said, love your enemies.
He's telling you to save yourself because the world is corrupt.
And it is delightful when that corruption gets paid off, just like Tucker Carlson watching an Antifa guy get beaten up.
It's delightful, but he pulls back from that.
And we pull back from Sweeney Todd when we see the horror of what he's done to himself, what he has done to himself by following revenge.
So we see both the world of the flesh in which we enjoy the revenge because it's fair because society's corrupt and this guy has been hard done by.
And we also see the horror and retreat into the world of the spirit where we say, no, no, I'm not going to cheer for this Antifa kid being beaten up or for these people having their throat cut.
Evil is funny when the actors go home at the end when people are not really being killed.
When we remember that we were made to be close to the angels, but we are fallen and we are closer to demons now.
That's funny.
That's like a man in a tuxedo falling into a mud puddle.
When you can dramatize the world of power so that it illuminates the life of love, when you can dramatize the flesh so that it illuminates the spirit, then you've told a great story.
And that, I think, is why conservative art doesn't look like conservative life.
And that's why we shouldn't be afraid when people deal with evil, when they deal with sex, when they deal with the corrupt world, if it is underpinned by a sense of the spirit and a sense of the world of love.
So President Trump recently issued a warning from his Mar-a-Lago home, quote, our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world's standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years, unquote.
There are three reasons the central banks are dumping the U.S. dollar, inflation, deficit spending, and our insurmountable national debt.
The fact is there's only one asset that has withstood famine, wars, political and economic upheaval dating back to biblical times, and you know what it is.
Women's Domestic Priorities00:15:27
It is gold.
You want gold, you can trust Birch Gold.
They can help you own gold in a tax-sheltered retirement account.
Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold.
When currencies fail, gold is a safe haven.
How much more time does the dollar have?
Protect your savings with gold.
Birch Gold has an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and thousands of happy customers.
Text Clavin to 989898.
Get your free info kit on gold.
Again, text Clavin to 989898.
And you're thinking, 989898, that's easy, but how do you spell Clavin?
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
There are no easy thing for me.
If you, along with tens of millions of people, watched Netflix's hit show, Making a Murderer, then you are going to love Daily Wire Plus' new exclusive 10-part series with Candace Owens convicting a murderer coming this summer.
There's a certain show that coined the phrase, the truth is out there, which suggests a very long distance.
Sometimes the truth is right under your nose, like the truth that Black Lives Matter was buying multiple million-dollar homes with the money it raised during the George Floyd riots.
They did their best to hide it, but Candace Owens uncovered the truth.
And in her documentary, The Greatest Lie Ever Sold, Candace exposed them for what they are.
If there is truth to be found, she will find it.
When Candace found out that key facts may have been omitted in Netflix's series, she set out to uncover the truth behind the notorious Stephen Avery case.
And the end result, which is coming soon, is a new series called Convicting a Murderer.
You will not want to miss it.
And right now, there's never been a better time to become a Daily Wire Plus member.
Sign up now for Convicting a Murderer, and you'll receive an early bird discount of 35% off your Daily Wire Plus membership.
Don't wait until the series comes out this summer because this deal won't last long.
You'll also get all of the other premium content from Daily Wire Plus, including the greatest lie ever sold, what is a woman, and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's series on the book of Exodus.
Join now at dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member and see the truth when it finally comes out.
So in the member block today, I'm going to talk about the disastrous things that are happening to girls and women in this country because of feminism.
But at the same time, that's happening, there is a movement growing.
I don't want to categorize it because it's between different women with different points of view.
I'll call it generally conservative feminism, but a lot of them don't want to be called conservatives either.
But it's just very clear that more and more I'm reading articles by highly intelligent women saying, calling themselves feminist, but saying something very different than I understand feminism.
I always say I'm not a feminist because I think it elevates male values over feminine values.
So it doesn't, it has never worked.
But we had Mary Harrington on.
She was great.
I think we had Louise Perry on.
There's a lady who writes wonderful things about postmodernism, Angela Franks.
I think she's absolutely beautiful writer.
And today we have Erica Bakiake, who has written a wonderful article in First Things called Sex Realist Feminism.
She's a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Her most recent book is The Rights of Women, Reclaiming a Lost Vision.
So I just want to hear what she's talking about and what she's thinking.
Erica, thank you so much for coming on.
Thanks for having me.
And I love all those women you've mentioned.
They're dear friends of mine, all of them.
Yeah, I can imagine because I think this is a really important discussion that's going on.
And I'm listening.
I want to know because I think that obviously women are sort of being erased on the left.
The entire category of being a woman is under question on the left, not to real people, but to people who are on the left.
And so I want to know, you know, you talk about sex realist feminism.
Can you define it?
Can you tell me what we're talking about exactly?
Yeah, sure.
You know, sex realist feminism, I mean, I go about this in a sort of deeply philosophical way in my piece in First Things, where I look at sort of the way in which Plato and Aristotle both got something right, lots of things right, in fact, but then also got some things wrong that sort of put us in a position where we've had to sort of women have had to sort of think through what feminism might mean throughout the centuries, really, right?
But so what sex realism feminism, realist feminism really is doing is just taking reality seriously, which, you know, isn't being done all that often by feminists, especially as we progress here through the trans ideology.
So what are we taking seriously?
Well, the reality that human beings are sexually dimorphic, right?
We come in two bodies, male and female.
We cannot change our sex, but really also the reality that the burdens and privileges of sex, so of sexual intercourse, but also of sex differences are asymmetrically distributed, right?
So I think that that's a really key play is like, why is it feminist then?
Is because these asymmetries, because of these privileges and burdens, that women do have interests that are particular to, say, their vulnerability and dependency that comes with being the sex that, you know, reproduces within itself.
And the fact, the reality that men and the male body is on average, stronger, faster, more sexually desirous, more aggressive, et cetera.
And so these, with these burdens and privileges that are asymmetrically distributed, women have certain interests and someone needs to speak for those interests.
And so, you know, this was something that the early women's rights advocates in our country did quite well in thinking about really taking seriously those reproductive and sexual asymmetries and then responding to them with, you know, moral appeals, with social appeals, with legal, you know, a legal movement.
And that's something I really try to trace in my recent book.
So this is all that all makes perfect sense to me.
There's an added part of this, though, that since we are evolved creatures, since we come into being over time, women have an emotional stake in the bodies that they have and in the life that they have and in the lives that they produce that it seems to me has completely been eliminated as a playing card in the game of trying to figure out how men and women are treated.
So women like babies.
I mean, that was one of the things I loved when I was talking to Mary Harrington.
She said, you know, I found out, oh, I kind of like this baby and I want to take care of this baby.
How do we take that into law?
I mean, can that be considered in law?
Yeah.
So my expertise, I mean, I have a background in political philosophy.
My expertise is actually in equal protection law.
And so what I also try to do in this piece in First Things and also in my book is kind of trace the evolution or I guess we could say devolution of sex discrimination law.
I think at root in our country, sex discrimination law really provides a corrective to, you know, the way in which American law at its origins really, you know, took, did sort of what I think Aristotle got wrong, which was overplaying biological difference so much that women, especially married women, were kept out of or excluded from certain professions and all of that.
What sex discrimination law said was, hold on.
Yes, women have these distinctive reproductive capacities, and that's actually what makes them women.
But we don't want to define them exclusively by those capacities.
And so really, you know, just because you can become a mother, whether or not you are one, doesn't mean you can't be a lawyer or practice law.
And so that's a real corrective, I think, that early on in the 1970s, sex discrimination came to see.
Now, where they went wrong, and this I also get into my article, as well as my book, is really having a kind of false understanding.
Well, first of all, downplaying sexual difference quite a bit and something someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but also having, I think, a false understanding of what it is to be human, that men and women both are trying to attain excellence.
It's not just something like market equality, the right to, I don't know, work the same number of hours and have the same sort of prominence and all that, but we want to make room for in our law those sexual differences, right?
Those the way in which women are more burdened, but also more privileged by childbearing.
And I think that would be the way to go about that is really to make more room for the family and for the great, important, culturally essential, kind of deeply formative work of the family in our institutions, both in terms of the market, but then also in terms of our politics.
I mean, if you think about it, and I know you know this very well, is that the work of the family when done well is really that which makes all other goods possible, civic, political, economic.
If we're not, we're slacking.
If moms and dads are slacking, we don't have virtuous citizens.
We don't have virtuous friends and spouses and all that.
And so that work is deeply important and is something that the early women's rights advocates, the Mary Wilson craft were all very invested in, that they saw mother and father, mother and fatherhood as really, really important, important work.
And they wanted to really shield those formative, that formative institution of the family from kind of encroaching market forces.
And I think we need to continue to do that today.
Well, see, this is a really interesting, because I completely agree with you.
I was talking to my son last night and I was talking about Anna Dostoevsky, the woman who saved Dostoevsky's life.
And I said she wasn't great because she saved Dostoevsky's life.
She was famous because she saved Dostoevsky's life.
There are a million unseen women doing exactly that kind of work all the time.
And it's not just the men in their lives, but the creation of homes, which seems to be a special talent of women.
I think that this is the thing that, you know, people say, well, a man can do this.
a man might do it, but women in general do it and seem to be naturally formed for it.
And it seems essential.
And yet I can't tell you how many letters I get from women who say that paying respect to the work of homemaking is rare.
They are usually felt that they're excluded.
So is that, I mean, I have a hard time having women address this because they feel immediately put on the dime.
Am I taking them out of the market?
Am I making them less?
Am I?
I mean, is there some way to address this?
Well, I think the really pointed point here is that the way in which our economy now functions, there are many, many, many women, poor women, working class women, who would much rather be spending time with their own children than punching a clock and doing work that barely covers their, you know, their expenses, et cetera.
So I think that there's a way in which if we were to elevate the work of the home, and it's not for me, of course, women are the ones who are sort of the center of the home in so many ways because they're the ones who bear the children, right, and nurse the children.
I mean, that takes a lot of time.
And if you have multiple children, it takes years and years.
I have many, many, many children myself.
But I think it's also the work that fathers do in the home, which many, many men take very, very seriously, and that it's something that is formative for both moms and dads, that that shared work of parenting, it looks different.
Men and women parent differently.
Fathers and mothers are different, but that both are necessary for the good of the children, that women's lives, mothers' lives are greatly enhanced when fathers are deeply engaged in the work of fatherhood.
So I'm sort of an advocate of both, of really engaging in sort of domestic life in general and seeing that life, that life that we share in the home as much as possible as just taking priority to market life.
That profession, I love my profession.
I engage in it.
I've been married part-time for most of my life, more full-time now.
But, and it's important to me.
But, you know, my children and my husband and the family that and the home we've created is far more important.
And I think more people would like to see that work elevated above the work that they do out in the world to make that life possible, really.
I mean, I think, I mean, one of the things that I thought was left out of Mary Harrington's book, which I loved, I thought it was a great book, but she sort of acts as if men, you know, yes, fathers are immensely important and fatherhood is important and being a husband is important.
It's an incredibly humanizing experience.
I mean, I have written at length about what an incredible humanizing experience it is to be married to a woman.
You know, it's just an amazing thing.
But at the same time, I think that most of the men I know live in their profession.
Their identity is connected to their profession.
I'm an artist, so my entire identity is connected to my profession in a way my wife's is not.
I mean, she did the same thing.
She raised children and then went full-time into a profession, but it's still not all of her life.
And I think that that's normal.
It may not, obviously, it's not universal, but it's normal.
I guess my question then is, is there a feminism that can take into account the difference that men feel, the intensity with which they perform their profession, the intensity with which they wish to support their family and wish to have play the role of breadwinner in their family?
Yeah, I mean, I think that that, why not, right?
I mean, in terms of taking sex differences seriously, I think that the more that men take very seriously, as my husband does, his profession and provide space for me to do incredibly creative work.
I mean, the work I've been able to do with a male breadwinner in my home and raising many children has been incredible.
I mean, the freedom I have is, it's so funny to hear of people, you know, saying that there was more autonomy somehow in the workplace and the autonomy I've had to engage in in the intellectual life, really, while raising my children and shaping their characters with very much the engagement of my husband whenever he's around and has been enormous, enormous freedom.
Now, again, we live a middle class and potentially upper middle class life in the way that he's provided and that now I can provide.
Not many women have that, right?
And so I think the way in which so many have to be really engaged very much in the market, much more than they potentially would want to, especially when they're having children, I think is a real shame.
I mean, if you look at the data, most women, when they have young children in the home, want to work part-time at the most.
And so that's where, you know, this push that we see, I think both on the right and the left, but of course, especially on the left, of, you know, getting women full-time in the marketplace so that we can increase GDP is a shame.
Like, why not think about what it is that women and men want, especially in those who are economically, you know, really struggling?
Like, what is it?
How could we benefit?
How could we think about family policy that could really benefit women so that they weren't, especially those low-income women who don't have the kind of freedom I do, you know, could not have to go to work two weeks later, which many women do.
And I think that that's a place where, you know, people who value the work of the home really need to kind of get behind the kind of, you know, the real struggles that lower income Americans, especially women, have.
Yeah.
And they're frequently the people who are hired to take care of the children of rich women as they go to work.
Talking to Erica Bakayake, her book is The Rights of Women Reclaiming a Lost a Vision.
I'm running out of time.
Women's Autonomy00:12:09
I do want to ask one thing that you are, you're a Catholic, I believe, and you are opposed to abortion.
Does the feminists essentially claim that without abortion, women have lost their equality?
Why are they wrong or are they wrong?
Yeah, so this is a huge bit of my legal scholarship is really taking on the equal protection arguments for abortion rights, which are really the most popular in the legal academy.
And I really think there's a deep male normativity in that argument.
I think that the argument that is that women ought to be just as autonomous.
I mean, it's an equal autonomy argument that women ought to be autonomous just like men.
So whereas men can walk away from an unexpected pregnancy, women ought to be able to walk away too.
Of course, women and men have different bodies.
And so when women are being expected in some sense, and then the market and political institutions and public institutions are shaped around that capacity to walk away from caregiving, then women who choose to care don't have that kind of room for caregiving there.
And so I think it's been incredibly, I think it's been actually a hatchet against really transforming the marketplace and our politics around the needs of the family.
I think it's been in that way devastating for so many women, like the ones I've talked about.
And I think that male normativity goes to the core, but it's something that very few feminists see.
I was very glad that Mary, the brilliant Mary Harrington, was able to see that and many others, I think, coming around too as well.
Erica Bakayake, thank you so much, Bakiyaki.
Thank you so much.
The book, again, is The Rights of Women Reclaiming a Lost Vision.
And her article was on sex realist feminism.
You know, you guys, I have to tell you, all of you are doing work that I'm finding absolutely fascinating and exciting and new and fresh.
You know, Mary and Louise Perry and Angela Franks and you, you're just doing tremendous stuff.
And I'm sorry you're not on all of the networks, but you're always welcome here.
I hope you'll come back.
Yeah, can I make a, can I make a final plug, which is that we actually are all together at Fairer Disputations.
You can find us on Twitter at FairSex.
And so we're all featured authors at this one site called Fairer Disputations.
So come read our work there.
And we've actually curated lots and lots of work from other authors as well.
So I'll have you follow us there.
I will, and I hope you come back here.
Thank you.
Thanks.
All right.
You know, I don't like the deal, like be like Senator Whitehouse, Sheldon Whitehouse, and threaten you, but the Clavinless Week is coming like a freight train.
I mean, it's coming just like down the tracks relentlessly.
We'll have a few more minutes left.
So this would be a good time to subscribe because then you get an extra segment, a member segment at the end.
But for now, for now, just to show you, remind you, while you're subscribing, I want to remind you just how incredibly generous we are because we will not plunge you into the doom, the darkness, the despair, the agony of the Clavenless Week before we have solved all your problems with the mailbag.
It will do it live.
Yeah!
Yeah, yeah, we'll do it live.
All right.
From Vana Nen, he is in Finland.
He says, I am an 18-year-old student from Finland.
I recently argued with one of my liberal friends about transgenderism.
And during the debate, my friend asked me, why is the truth so important?
And I found myself in a difficult situation because I did not expect to have to defend the importance of truth itself.
How can one answer such a question?
A great question.
And the reason it wrong-footed you, the reason you were put off, is because truth is a good per se.
It's a primary value, right?
There is no, you don't defend truth by saying, oh, truth is good because it's truth, because that is the answer.
The answer is truth is good because it's the truth.
It's like the question, what is a woman?
You know, people want to say, well, it's this chromosome and it's X's and Y's and all that stuff.
No, but women, that's a primary word.
We all know what a woman is.
A woman is a thing per se.
It is a thing in and of itself.
And so when we see a woman and we talk to a woman, we know a woman, it is not a man in a dress, no matter how much he feels like a woman.
It's just not.
It's a physical fact, but it's also a spiritual existence.
So truth is a good per se.
So the way you argue about truth is you ask the person if he wants to be a moral person.
Does he want to be a free person?
Does he want to be a loving person?
And then you point out that you can't be any of those things without the truth.
How can you do the moral thing if you don't know the truth about the results of your action?
So if you give people welfare and their marriages fall apart and they become dependent on government and their neighborhoods become crime-ridden cesspools, then you think, ah, if that's the truth, then maybe I should stop giving them welfare and make sure that they work for a living, which is dignified and will upraise them, right?
That's how you become a moral person by learning the truth.
You can't become a loving person if you don't know the truth about the person you're loving, because if she's in fact Messalina and she's holding affairs with every person in Rome, while you're devoted to her, you're not actually in love with the person you think you are.
You can't be a free person if you don't realize the constraints on your freedom and where they are and whether they're justified or not.
All of those things are dependent on truth.
Everything about the good life is dependent on truth.
You don't defend truth.
You defend the truth, things the truth gives you, which is morality, love, freedom, all the things that are worthwhile.
From Jason, greeting to the progenitor of Clavanon.
If you had to pick one Bible verse that describes our current political situation, what would it be and why?
For me, Isaiah 5.20, which reads in the King James Version, woe unto them that call evil good and good evil, that put darkness for light and light for darkness, and then put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
That's the obvious choice.
Thank you for the time.
You know, I will be absolutely honest with you as I was reading this letter before I got to your quotation.
That was exactly the verse that came into my mind.
And also another verse from Isaiah.
I think it's in, I think it's in 18, I believe, maybe not, 25.
I can't remember.
But it's, you have made a covenant with death and with hell, you are in agreement.
Isaiah is wondering why everybody's drinking and partying all the time, and he thinks it's because they have made alliances with non-Hebrew, non-God-loving countries that they think are going to protect them.
And he says, you've made a covenant, you're partying because you've made a covenant with death, and hell, you're in agreement, but that agreement won't stand.
And I think that is one of the reasons we're partying too.
But I like yours better.
I think those who call evil good and good evil is where we're at, because as we descend to reaching the bottom of the arc of atheism, which is what's happening, this is starting in 1500, this plunge into atheism where all values are transvalued and turned over and become the opposite of themselves.
People are now beginning to call evil good and good evil.
Not just people, by people, I mean the New York Times and all of their fellow smear merchants.
From HD, dear Lord of the Multiverse, my brother-in-law and I recently got into a disagreement about the existence of good and bad in art.
Good questions though.
We're both conservative, but he has the beauty is in the eye of the beholder relief.
I told him that was shallow relativistic thinking.
Of course it is.
His argument is basically that because someone out there might find a banana taped to the wall more beautiful than a painting of a sunset, that proves that art is not good or bad because who gets to be the arbiter of that standard?
First of all, it's me.
That's the answer.
It's me.
You've come to the right place.
And my argument was that good art exists and you know it exists because of its edification on society as a whole, and that good art promotes good things while bad art is deconstructive.
Is there a clear way to define good art or is it one of those things you know but can't explain?
Well, in some sense, it's a way, a thing you know but can't explain.
All the good things in life are things that you know but you can't explain.
I can't explain why I can't explain why I love somebody, but it's a backward explanation.
I love them and then I say, well, I love them because this and this and this, but that may not be the truth.
I just love them because I love them because I see the beauty of them inside and out.
Beauty links the physical world to spiritual truth.
It links the world of power to the world of love.
And if you don't believe in that spiritual world, then the banana is great, but also a punch in the nose is great.
Because what good and bad are, what good and evil are, what good art, but beauty and ugly are, are values that are on a higher plane.
They're above nature.
They are supernatural.
If there is no ultimate good, namely God, if there is no ultimate good, there is no good, right?
Because what you're saying is this action that I took when I punched this helpless person in the face, that action that I took is linked to a meaning that is above itself, that is supernatural.
And so when I say, I always use the Pietà, Michelangelo's wonderful statue, because I think it's just the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
Here is a picture of ultimate grief, a child dying, which is the worst thing that can happen to a person, God dying, which is the worst thing that can happen to the world, and yet it is as sad as it is beautiful.
And so you know that it is linked to something true.
It is linked to a truth, which is that life, our life is beautiful, and our life is beautiful because it is linked to a supernatural truth.
If he doesn't believe in that supernatural level of meaning, then you have to start to ask him what he thinks good and evil is.
And if he says that it's all relative, then punch him in the nose.
I'm joking, obviously, but I'm going to punch him in the nose and see how he likes that.
You say, I refute you thus.
From Bradley, hello, Supreme Admiral Overlord Clavin.
Thank you.
You like it when people use my real title.
Thanks for your excellent show and books.
I'm currently reading and loving the truth and beauty.
I was wondering if you might have some advice about being confident.
I'm 19 and having experienced so little of what is out there to see and feel it is hard to not feel like moments of confidence are a facade.
How does one demonstrate true confidence when their life experience is limited?
Thank you so much.
Well, of course, most confidence is a facade.
Most people are playing confident, but you can build your confidence.
And of course, you're right.
Young people are always faking it.
Young people may seem confident, but they're mostly not confident because they don't know what's going to happen.
And they know you can be humiliated and hurt and all that stuff.
But the way to build your confidence is to do things that frighten you.
And I don't mean by that jumping out of planes, although that will help you.
I do think things like that, a little daredevil work will help you.
But that's not what I mean.
I mean, if you're afraid of speaking, speak.
If you're afraid of public speaking, do a public speech.
If you're afraid of approaching women and saying hello, approach a woman and say hello.
Do those things when the fear hits you.
I did a lot of that when I was young.
I would just say, oh, this frightens me.
And sometimes I was foolish.
Sometimes I was right to be frightened and I shouldn't have done them.
But still, still, when you do those things, after a while, you start to realize, you know, most of the time, the worst thing that can happen is a girl is going to say, bug off, or a speech is not going to go very well.
I've done speeches that didn't go well, and it's an awful experience, but there you've lived, you've got through it.
And that makes you more confident over time.
And I think it also reminds you that courage is a thing that you do.
Courage is not being afraid, as John Wayne said.
And courage is being afraid, but saddling up anyway, to quote the great man himself.
And so when you do those things, you ultimately find that it's not going to kill you to be turned down by a girl.
It's not going to kill you to have a speech go badly, whatever it is that you're afraid of.
If you publish an article and it gets rejected, or you write an article and it gets rejected, it's not going to kill you.
You start to think like, oh, I get it.
It's just life.
It's just life and I can live it.
All right, I'm going to stop there.
If you are not a subscriber, you should be a subscriber.
You should be supporting what we're doing here because we depend on you to support us.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe.
And if you use Clavin at checkout, now you're probably saying, Claven?
How on earth am I supposed to spell Clavin?
If you put in K-L-A, V-A-N, at checkout, you will get two months free on all annual plans.