The ongoing confirmation hearings of smokin hot judge Amy Cooney Barrett are raising some very important constitutional questions. For instance, exactly how stupid do you have to be to become a Democrat senator? The question arose after the cutie pie and also judge endured somewhere between nine and 11 hundred hours of questioning until she could no longer tell the difference between the hearing and raising her seven children. Except that in the hearing, the older children seemed to have left the room in what seemed to be a contest for stupid a senator or game show called Be the Stupidest Senator, or maybe a TV talent competition called America's Got Really Stupid Senators.

Questions ranged in intelligence from will you recuse yourself from any case in which you're likely to give a ruling? I don't like to Glogg Bagger Magodonga or something that made approximately the same amount of sense. Vying for the title of absolutely stupid as possible senator was stupid. Senator Mazie Hirono Hirono, you'll remember, once told men to shut up so as not to interrupt her while she was viciously slandering Brett Kavanaugh. But today she appeared even stupider as she tried to declare Judge Barrett bigoted against gay people because she used the term sexual preference in describing people with a sexual preference.

Hirono also asked the smokin hot judge if she had ever sexually assaulted someone, and Barrett said she had not, which was not strictly true, since technically she has, but only in my dreams. But just as you thought, no stupid senator could ever possibly be as stupid as that stupid senator. Hold the phone. There was Cory Booker who asked the mother of two black children. And as God is my witness, I'm not making this up. Here's an actual quote.

You've already spoken to issues of racism and how you deplore it, but you condemn white supremacy, correct? To soften the blow of his stupidity. Senator Spartacists did ask the question while bare chested and wearing a leather gladiator skirt, but that was just his preference trigger warning.

I'm Andrew Clavon and this is the Andrew Clavon show I call honkytonk I just tickety boo. Needless to say, she didn't see autopsying as a bit easy. It's a wonderful. Who makes me want to sing? Oh, hurrah, hurrah! Oh. All right, we are back laughing our way through the Rapid Fall Republic, what a strange news day it is. We'll get to it in a minute. But first, go on the Andrew Clavon YouTube channel and subscribe to get all my content.

Ring the bell and we'll notify you of the content. I will personally come to your house and notify you of the content. And if you leave a question and it is sufficiently ignorant and ridiculous, we will include it in the show as it will fit right in. We get one today from Alex Clavering, who says, I asked Clavon if his mailbag mailbag answers will change my life for the better. And he said, I don't deserve to know and I'll find out after the election.

That's true. You don't deserve to know. But I'm not going to tell you after the election either.

Did I remember to mention how stupid our Democrat senators were in the opening when they were questioning Amy Barrett? I've heard a lot of talk about how embarrassed Americans are supposed to be in front of the elite sophisticates of Europe when they're forced to deal with that animal. Donald Trump, I've never been embarrassed by Donald Trump, even though I find him a large and eccentric American character who does a lot of things I don't particularly like. But I am embarrassed by our Democrat senators because they are the stupidest and meanest bunch of clowns and animals I have ever seen gathered together in one place to inject a woman of accomplishment, intelligence and decency like Barrett to the toxic idiocy of those hearings yesterday is a genuine American disgrace.

And even if it weren't accomplished, and even if she weren't intelligent, even if she were just decent, just a normal, decent woman, it would still be a disgrace. It would be perfectly fair for a Democrat to respond to me by saying, well, Donald Trump acts as badly as they do. And in fact, the other day, Mitt Romney, in one of his pompous exercises and virtue signalling self-congratulation, denounced the, quote, vile, the two bit of hate filled morass that American politics has become.

And he singled the president out for a special scolding. This is Mitt Romney, who the Democrats accused of causing a woman's cancer back when he was running for president. I see this all the exact way different, the exact other way around. The Democrats have behaved like this for a long time. They have been mean and ugly for decades. Before Trump finally showed up and gave it back to them, they called anyone who disagreed with them racist, which is one of the worst things you can say about an American.

They felt absolutely justified in rioting and shouting people down on college campuses when they had ideas they disagreed with. They ran people out of jobs and awards and and colleges for nothing other than being conservative. Trump is the answer to decades of their crappy behavior. He's the chosen form of their destroyer. He's then just brought back to life against them. Now, you might say, well, we're the good guys. We conservatives are the good guys. We should behave better than they do.

And I agree. We are the good guys and we should behave better. But as much as I deplore rudeness and meanness and ugliness on either side, I will not forget they started it. And I hope Trump finishes it come Election Day. Stay tuned. We're going to have the mailbag coming up. All the answers correct. Your problems varnishing. All right. Your car needs a what do you do? Do you get in your car and pretend you're driving to the car parts store because your car isn't moving because it needs a part and then get to the make believe store and ask to make believe person to look in his computer.

Now, all you got to do is say or ask auto dotcom. You got to say just like a rock auto dotcom. Believe me, you'll love it. The women just swoon when they hear you do this and and you can get the car part you need right out of your computer. Rock, auto, dotcom always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear. It has a huge selection of auto parts, whether you've got a classic car or a new car.

The rock auto dotcom catalog is unique. It's remarkably easy to navigate. You can quickly see all the parts available and choose the brands specifications and prices you prefer. Go to rock, auto, dotcom right now and see all the parts available for your car or truck and right Clavon in your how did you hear about us box. So they know we sent you. You've got to say the same way, even Clavon because you also want to say how do you spell, how do you spell Clavon say it's kela van.

There are no easy enclaved. I just make it sound like rock auto dotcom.

There are.

While we're on the subject of Democrats stupidity, I have to give the stupid Democrat crown to Sheldon Whitehouse. This guy is genuinely a weaselly little guy. I just want to remind you who he is because remember there was a gun case out of New York where New York City passed a law that made it impossible for you to carry your legal gun out of town, to go to a shooting range or your second home before it reached the Supreme Court. The city changed the law, but not entirely.

It's still burdened gun carriers and they asked the Supreme Court to make a judgment. This guy, White House, wrote a letter to an amicus brief, he had an amicus brief, which is when you have an interest in a case, but you're not part of the case, saying the Supreme Court is not. Well, perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. This is like, you know, nice Supreme Court we have here.

Too bad if anything happened to it, it worked. John Roberts was intimidated by this and they refused to hear the case. So now he is part of all these organizations that go after the court.

So now he goes after Amy CONI Barrett with this insane dark money scheme and he's got the blackboards and the the drawings and all this stuff like the guy in that movie Conspiracy Theory with Mel Gibson.

He's like tying everything together. Here's a cut of cut eighteen.

In all cases, there's big anonymous money behind various lanes of activity, one lane of activity through the conduit of the Federalist Society.

It's managed by a guy who was managed by a guy named Leonard Leo.

And it's taken over the selection of judicial nominees, all the same funders over and over again. Bringing the cases and providing this orchestrated, orchestrated chorus of anarchy. Then the same group also funds the Federalist Society over here. It was an 80 to zero five to four partisan. Route ransacking liquids fixed just like these. Why didn't I go into an honest business, that's the look on Lindsey Graham's face. He goes after the Coke money. Remember Harry Reid with the Coke money?

You know, Coke. This is the thing. The Koch brothers were, I think, the 10th largest donor in politics. So there were a number 10 in the list of the richest donors in politics that the top nine were donating to Barack Obama. So this whole idea that, oh, the dark money of the Koch brothers and all this Ted Cruz, thankfully, was there and just unloaded on White House, who, of course, is flooded with money.

Dark money just means that. It means that they are not required to disclose their donors. They were under certain regulations where they don't have to disclose their donors. And Cruz pointed out that White House is flooded with that kind of money cut 19.

The senator from Rhode Island talked about big corporate powers without acknowledging that the contributions from the Fortune 500 in this presidential election overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden and the Democrats. So all of the great umbrage about the corporate interest or spending dark money.

Is wildly in conflict with the actual facts that the corporate interests that are spending dark money are funding the Democrats, this this is key. This is because I talk to Democrats. I talk to liberals all the time, and they're always going after the dark money. And they did it after the Hillary Clinton Trump election when Clinton was spending twice as much money as Trump was. It is just amazing. So Ted Cruz won the exchange, but Whitehouse won the stupidest senator award and it really was a competition.

So it was very tight. So I have to give my congratulations to Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island. What is what's going on here? Because a lot of people who were watching this and thinking it's so stupid, it's so ugly, it's so nasty and low, what are they doing? And what they're doing is they're not attacking her. They're not attacking her religion. They're not attacking her children. The election is simply too close for them to Cavanaugh her.

They can't Cavanaugh her. So what they're doing is they're trying to frighten people about what she might do. And they of course, the press is picking this up. And she's she has been great. She has been actually my son, Spencer Clavon. No relation is he has actually framed the meme, calling her calling her the sleigh queen. I've been going to slay me, Barrett, but she's the queen. He's very, very proud. This is now a meme.

I mean, I'm proud of him because, like, he has a PhD and he has this wonderful podcast, The Young Heretics. He's proud because he's spreading a meme. But she was slaying them. She's just she's just trying to explain to them. This is actually very telling. She's trying to explain to what originalism is, what it means to interpret the law as it was written and as it was intended at the time. It doesn't mean you don't apply it to things that didn't happen at the time, like the fact that we now have Twitter and we have to discuss free speech in terms of Twitter, in terms of Facebook, which we will in a few minutes.

She's just saying that you have to create you have to read the law as it's written. This is cut six where she talks about she doesn't want politics. Her opinions, her feelings don't matter because they're not going to affect her judgement of what the law says.

It's got six part of the rationale for courts adhering to the rule of law and for judges taking great care to avoid imposing their policy preferences is that it's inconsistent with democracy. Nobody wants to live in accord with the law of Amy. I assure you, my children don't even want to do that. So I can't, as a judge, get up on the bench and say, you're going to live by my policy preferences because I have life tenure and you can't kick me out if you don't like them.

She's she doesn't want to turn the court into a legislature. She wants the court to be a court, which means there's written law. She interprets the written law to read as close as she can figure it out to how it's written. It's not the law of Amy. It's the law passed by the people who theoretically are responsible to our vote. Now, I just want to show you how this translates, right? You put words into the Democrat media machine and then outcomes nonsense.

You know, you put truth into the Democrat media machine outcomes, lies. It's really it's really a wonderful process. We now turn to CNN where there's Krak legal expert or legal expert. I can't remember. Jeffrey Toobin is asked by Alisyn Camerota to explain Amy Cooney, Barrett's opening statement about her originalism. And so Alisyn Camerota reads the statement and then Toobin cracked. Legal expert explains it to us.

The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the people. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try. When you pass that, does that spell doom for the Affordable Care Act?

Well, I think more specifically, it spells doom for Roe v. Wade because it really suggests that issues like abortion, like gay rights, should be decided by the political branches of governments, the ones directly accountable to the people. It is the code there is don't expect the courts to enforce rights. If there are rights to be enforced, it should be the political branches of government to do it. So it's really more about social issues than about the Affordable Care Act in particular.

So when she says she's not going to use the court to make legislation, that's code for she's not going to use the court to make legislation, these rights to an abortion, these rights to gay marriage, they're not in the Constitution. The court made them up. The court made them up and basically said they made them up. They said, you know, it's in the it's in the shadow of the emanation of the number of what you know, they basically say this.

And now the court is supposed to support the the court is not supposed to maintain the rights it made up. And what Amy Barrett is saying is, no, the court just interprets the law. That doesn't mean she's going to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't think actually, I think that's going to happen, though. I think it should happen. It doesn't mean she's going to do that. And it certainly doesn't mean that I think is the one that's so.

Recent and so bad, it's such a bad decision, makes absolutely no constitutional sense whatsoever, that that's the one that might be overturned. But at the same time, so many people have now got married, so many gay people now got married. Very hard thing for the court to do. And they usually don't do things that actually throw everything into chaos. So let's just hear one more time from Amy. Couldn't be better. So at least we had some common sense on the show, just talking about the fact that it's not her job, it's her job to interpret the Constitution and her job to update.

It's got seven.

You said you're an originalist. Is that true? What does that mean in English?

OK, so in English that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it took that meaning doesn't change over time and it's not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.

So now they want to know that all they want to know because they feel the left feels that the that the Supreme Court is the House of Lords. It's supposed to rule over us with Democrat policies and install Democrat policies. That's all it's there to do. It's not there to decide the law. What we don't need no law. We don't need no stinking law. We are legislators. We don't need no stinking law. So they ask her about specific cases.

And here's what she says.

This would cut 13 judges, one to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hits for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Sorry, that was the wrong judge.

That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg just delivering what is now called the Ginsburg rule, which is that judges are not supposed to, when they're up to become justices on the Supreme Court, are not supposed to rule from the Senate hearing floor. They're supposed to rule only when they have specific cases argued before them. That has all gone by the boards. Never mind her.

That was it was her dying wish, by the way, that they could maintain the Ginsburg rule. I mean, it was it probably wasn't. But they're making up her dying wish. Why can't we? So so now that's all gone by the board. We're going to ask her about Roe v. Wade. That's the scare tactic, Roe v. Wade. And you're going to lose your health care. Here's Dianne Feinstein's cut 14.

Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe was wrongly decided?

Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question. But again, I can't pre comment or say, yes, I'm going in with some agenda because I'm not.

Do you agree with Justice Scalia's view that Roe can and should be overturned by the Supreme Court?

Well, I think my answer is the same, because, you know, that's a case that's litigated.

I want to play two quick cuts. All the stuff is hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is typical in politics. Everybody does it. This is the stuff that drives me crazy. And this is the stuff I want to talk about in just a sec. Two quick cuts, right. She was asked about her reaction to the death of George Floyd. And, of course, she has these two black children from Haiti. This is her response, Cutin.

I was there and my 17 year old daughter Vivian, who was adopted from Haiti, all of this was erupting. It was very difficult for her. We wept together in my room. And then it was also difficult for my daughter, Julia, who's 10. I had to try to explain some of this to them. I mean, my children to this point and their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence.

And for Vivian, you know, to understand that there would be a risk to her brother or the son, she might have one day of that kind of brutality has been an ongoing conversation. And it's a difficult one for us like it is for Americans all over the country.

OK, now here's Corey Booker. Spartacists asking this question has got 17.

I want to just ask you very simply, I imagine he'll give me a very short, resolute answer. But you condemn white supremacy, correct? Yes. Thank you. I'm glad to see that you said that.

I wish our president would say that so resolutely and unequivocally as well.

OK, so it's just a way of attacking Trump, but it's also disgusting. It's mean. It's nasty, it's ugly. And we're used to it. This is the thing. Why does she even have to talk about race? Why does she even have to talk about race? Is there any clue, any hint that she has ever done a racist thing in her life? Why are they allowed to do that? They are allowed to do it because they are entitled.

This is an entitled group of people, and the meanness and the ugliness is only for them when Donald Trump gives it back and suddenly. Oh, my. God, this the state of our discourse has sunk through the bottom of the floor, suddenly our discourse has been is now suddenly uncivil. It's now uncivil because it's Donald Trump doing it instead of them. But we're used to them doing it. We're used to the poison they spew and the things they do to people and the way they treat people.

We just we just let it pass because they're entitled. But when we do it back, suddenly it's all so very wrong. And you want to see I mean, you want to see this in action. There is a story in The New York Post today, and it's a legit story. I mean, it's a legit it's a legit news story because of the way they got it. Hunter Biden, it is kind of what they call a bombshell, right?

It's a bump since the beginning of the end. The walls are closing in, but here it is. Hunter Biden introduced his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who is investigating the company, according to emails obtained by the Post by Emidio Morris. So you remember this whole story, you remember Joe Biden saying, I got this guy fired, I got this prosecutor fired, I threatened to withhold aid and he was fired and all this.

But now we find out a never before revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that got him Pisarski, an advisor to the board of Verismo where Hunter Biden worked right. Allegedly sent Hunter Biden this email on April 17th, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the tourism board at a reported salary of up to fifty thousand dollars a month. Which about what I make right there, Deer Hunter, this is the email from this guy from thank you for inviting me to D.C. and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spend some time together.

It's really an honor and pleasure. An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pisarski reportedly Charisma's number three exact asking Hunter for advice on how you could use your influence on the company's behalf. Now, remember, Joe Biden has said this about Hunter Biden's dealings with this company and other companies I have never discussed with my son.

Brother or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses, period. Now that was obvious, obviously a lie. I mean, you discuss things with your sons and and relatives and their business. So that's obviously untrue. But all the same now we kind of know it's untrue. Now, I just want to point out that the provenance of this story, right. Is a laptop that was the laptop was abandoned at a Delaware computer repair store. The guy at the repair store notified the FBI and the FBI seized it on December 17, 20, 19, which was the day before Nancy Pelosi held the vote to impeach the president.

Someone from the store had contacted the FBI about the laptop, but they also made a copy of the drive and gave that to Robert Castelo, an attorney for Rudy Giuliani. And Giuliani has just released the information to The New York Post. Why did the FBI never make the information public? We don't know for sure. Maybe the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will get to the bottom of it. They seem to be investigating this now. Now.

All of a sudden, all of a sudden, remember, you remember the press when Donald Trump Jr. had a meeting with a Russian who said she had opposition research against Hillary Clinton. The meeting turned out to be nothing. But you remember that condemned Donald Trump because he went to the meeting and then walked out of it, didn't care about it. This is supposed to be completely off limits. Andy Stone, the policy communications manager at Facebook. Right.

This is the guy who decides what goes on Facebook. He says, While I will intentionally not link to The New York Post, I want to be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third party, fact checking partners who include the Southern Poverty Law Center, as I recall, a completely left wing organization. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform, Facebook. This massive monopoly, this massive information monopoly is censoring this story to keep it from getting out.

It is a total even Maggie Haberman tweeted, by the way, this is the FBI has this has this laptop, has this information. And she was attacked by her followers on Twitter saying we shouldn't be spreading this around. She said, look, this is what's going on. She you know, she was remembering for a moment that she is a reporter. This is the thing, the entitlement, the entitlement to the only the way, even the ways they describe reality.

Here's another example of this, another example of the stupid senator, Mazie Hirono. And she is she had just driven in from Hawaii and boy, was her car. When she goes after Amy Barrett for what's obviously nothing. Amy Barrett had used the word sexual preferences cut to not once, but twice.

You use the term sexual preference to describe those in the LGBTQ community. And let me make clear, sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. It is used by anti LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity. That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.

Now, stupid Senator Mazie Hirono is welcome to her stupid opinion. But that's not science what she's talking about. It's just her point of view. But she is allowed to define reality in such a way that she can accuse this woman again with absolutely zero percent evidence of any bigotry against gay people or anybody else.

She is allowed to do that. And and we don't even we don't know. Even the conservatives hardly notice it. We hardly understand this happening. And when they attack Trump, we go like that. Trump is kind of rude, but no more wicked and toxic and even less than what she's doing right there. Now, Webster's Dictionary overnight, the minute this came out of Mazie Hirono mouth, they go into their definitions and they take the word preference, which at one point had their definition of preference in this regard in regard to sexuality, they their definition of preference was an orientation or a sexual preference.

Today, they changed that. The definition of the word, they changed the definition of the word in Webster's Dictionary to say, oh, that's an offensive term. That's an offensive term. The left feels entitled to reality itself, they feel entitled to the meaning of words, they feel entitled to define what's offensive, what's right, what's wrong. And listen, there may be people I've heard there are people actually I've heard there are people who use the word sexual preference because they mean it's to say that you have a choice, whether you're gay or not.

We don't really know very much about this yet. We don't really know where homosexuality comes from, what causes it, how it how it fits into personality, which is really the sciences, as they say, unsettled. But but you're entitled to your opinions. You're entitled to your opinions as long as you're a Democrat and your opinions are the same as the Democrats, even the word the meaning of the word is changed overnight in Webster's Dictionary because and this is the way the Democrats behave, the way they behave.

This is why they behave in the entitled way, but they behave. This is why Donald Trump is such a shock to their system, because he behaves the way they behave. And that's why they don't understand where we go. Like, yeah, well, he's he's rude and we don't like being rude. We're conservatives. We believe in being polite. And Donald Trump is rude and they don't understand why we're not really back, because he is the shape of their destroyer.

They invented him. Nancy Pelosi on with Wolf Blitzer. They're having this. I haven't covered this very much, but they're obviously having this argument over the stimulus relief package. Right. And the House is constantly coming up with these humongous stimulus relief packages with all kinds of pork in them. This is what they do before. And the Senate is now trying to get out a smaller relief package just to get paychecks to people who have been hurt by the government shutdowns.

And listen, we don't have the money for this. We don't. But at the same time, these people didn't do anything wrong. These businesses didn't do anything wrong. Their businesses were shut down by stupid government. Right. That's by an overlong shutdown enforced by the government, which we now know was a bad thing, was worse than the disease was trying to protect. So Nancy Pelosi is on with Wolf Blitzer and he starts to say, well, why are you holding this up?

Why are you holding it up? And here's her responses. Cut. Twenty three. Excuse me for interrupting.

Go back, Madam Speaker, but they really need the money right now and even members of I sure that, but but even members of Congress and even members of your own caucus, Madam Speaker, want to accept this deal.

One point a trillion dollars.

So what do you say to Roxana when I say to you is I don't know why you're always an apologist and many of your colleagues, apologists for the Republican position? Well, that's nice. That isn't what we're going to do.

Say to CNN is apologizing is apologists for the Republican position. Now, what is normal in normal journalistic world? What you do is you confront each politician with the opinions of the other side. Right. You ask Nancy Pelosi how she would. Does she respond to Republicans and people, as he said in her own party who are saying, pass this bill, people need the money. How do you respond to that? That makes him to her a Republican apologist, because she expects a free ride.

She is entitled to a free ride when you own. That's the way life is when you own the the industry, when you own the communication industry. This got worse and worse just to play. It just is let's play cut. Twenty five.

Do you have any idea of how and precisely why that still there of concern? That's why it's so important right now.

Yesterday I spoke to Adrienne, who says the same thing. It's not everything you want. You know, there's a lot there.

Honest to God, you really can't get over it. I didn't come over here to have. So you're the apologist for the Obama.

And excuse me, Madam Speaker, it's not just I'm asking you serious questions because so many people are against you right now. Let me ask you. This was the last time you saw me respond to it.

It's just amazing that the entitlement is what gets me the entitlement. We get to call people racist, but you don't get to respond as rudely. We get to call people anti-gay bigots. We don't you should be excoriated by the press, but you can't even ask us a question. The entitlement is a beautiful, beautiful thing. It's a wonderful thing to own the communications industry. Facebook should be ashamed of itself. Now you're going to need a baseball bat, obviously, so you want to get the daily wires, Old Glory, daily wire, baseball bat, it is back.

This is our limited edition, handcrafted, custom painted baseball bat. Ben makes them themselves, chews them out of the living wood. They're emblazoned with the daily wire logo. Since we relaunched on Monday, they've almost sold out again. They sold out like in 48 hours. The first time today is the last day they'll be available. But you can still get yours if you hurry. Easy peasy. Text the keyword baseball to eighty three four hundred eight three four zero zero to purchase your bat today.

And you get to use the phrase easy peasy, which we don't often allow. The mailbag is coming right up. All your problems will be solved.

Mailbag. Tadesse was that I can't make excuses for these people anymore.

You should use a recruiter. All right. From Ricardo Dear Lord Clavon my name is Ricky. And unlike Michael Knowles, a real Sicilian young man in my mid 20s, I'm struggling to find a partner, future wife. Due to the great differences between my ideals and the ideals of most of the women my age in places like Sicily or Italy, where the left is monopolized the culture for decades, people are completely absorbed by the idea that sex is nothing but a bodily function and promiscuity is completely fine, both for men and women.

Some people may see me as a bigot for saying this, but I find very upsetting the idea of dating a woman who I know has already slept with five or six other men before turning twenty five. Which is even worse is that I personally know many young women who have their lives completely wrecked by their bad sexual decisions, but still refuse to abandon the dogma that sex is nothing but a bodily function, therefore carrying their lives to higher and higher standards of misery and loneliness.

Am I wrong for desiring a woman who has a deep sense of respect for her body and believes that sex is a sacred part of life? Andrea, I'm used to a show. I have no idea what that means. All right. I know you're not a bigot, but the standard has to be, you know, men and women are different when it comes to sex. And it's not bigoted to say that it is not bigoted to say that the experience of most women in sexual relations is different than the experience of men, especially in casual.

There's no such thing as casual sex, but especially in casual sex. But what you're talking about is morality. You are talking about the moral morality of treating your body like meat instead of treating your body as if it were the word that expresses you, that word that expresses your soul, your body is Atlantes, the language in which your soul speaks into the world. And if you treat it that way, you will be happy. And if you don't treat it that way, and as in as much as you don't treat it that way, you will be miserable.

That is a basic, hard and fast rule of life. So you want a woman who is either a virgin or at least chaste in some way and discreet. My question to you is, how are you living? What life are you living? Because if you're not living that life, you aren't going to meet that girl. And if you're not living a essentially a woman who feels that way, the only women, the only people, never mind women, the only people who are going to feel that way are really people who have at least some religious feelings, some sense that they are more than just a body, that they are not just a meat puppet, that they are not just an object in space, that they are, in fact, the expression of a living, maybe even immortal soul.

So if you're not in that congregation, if you're not in that community, how do you expect to meet that woman? I'm not saying you're not. I don't know. But if you're if you are in that community, you're much more likely to be meeting those women. You're not going to change the world. You're not going to change all the women in the world who feel that promiscuity is a good thing even when they know it's not. They continue to feel it is because they feel it makes them strong or equal, because they've been brainwashed to think that you're not going to change, that you're not going to change that.

If you want to find the women who don't feel that way, you have to live the life of people who don't feel that way, part of which is living in a church and a church community. You're much more likely to find women who treat their bodies with respect and you're much more likely to find women who treat their bodies with respect if you treat your body with respect and if you treat women's bodies with respect. So all I'm saying is, look, you're not going to change the world.

You're going to have to go to the places where these women live and you're going to have to live in those places as if you belong there and you're going to have to belong there. Once you do that, I think your problem may be a lot closer to being solved from James. Hi, Andrew. I have a friend who I've been very close to since college. We've talked several days a week since I left college five years ago. During the course of that time, he has decided that he's a woman.

My approach to this so far has been to completely ignore it and continue on as normal. But the other day I struggled to say his new female name and he chewed me out, saying he would seriously have to reevaluate our relationship if I couldn't call him by what was now his legal name. He says he doesn't mind that, but he has a very serious problem with changing the gender of pronouns. It goes completely against my religious understanding of human nature to say that a human can change their sex.

I just won't know what to do if he asked me to do that. I value this person's friendship enormously.

I don't have very many friends and I would genuinely it would be paying me to lose this one, so. You can't have both, right? You can't basically stick to your guns and stick to your beliefs and keep this guy as a friend if he's going to be offended to the point of breaking off the friendship. So you're going to have to choose which you want. You're going to have to choose whether you want to have integrity and stick to your beliefs and speak as you wish to speak and speak in such a way that it expresses the truth as you understand it.

Or you can have this guy as a friend. That seems to me what you're describing. Maybe it's wrong. You can find out whether it's wrong or not. This is what and I can't tell you what to do. Right. This is a decision you have to make because you can't have both. It just doesn't sound to me as if you can have both. So you're going to have to decide which you want your integrity, your belief system to live according to your lights or to have this guy as accept you as a friend.

You have to choose that. And I can't tell you which to choose. Right. I can only tell you that you're going to have to choose. I can tell you what I would do in your situation. What I would do is I would sit down with my friend and I would say to him, listen, I love you. I respect you, but we have a disagreement. I disagree with you about something. I understand that you feel a disconnect between your physical gender and your internal reality.

And I respect you for living out that truth. And I respect that you feel that way. And it has nothing that has nothing to do with me. And I have no opinions about it. It is your life that is something that you have to come to terms with. But I also have a life. I also have an outlook. And while I think that you have totally welcome to live your life any way you want, I do not believe that transforms you from a male into a female.

I believe a male is what you were made. I believe a male is what you will remain. And I all I ask from you is my right to live out my my life with integrity while you live your life out with integrity. I don't want to sacrifice my integrity to yours. I think we can be friends while we have this disagreement. I can almost guarantee you that he will tell you to screw off, but he might not. You might actually see this if you say you say he's a thoughtful, intelligent guy.

He might understand this. If he tells you to blow up to take a hike. I would then start to explore why you don't have very many friends. Why is it you don't have very many friends? And why is it you have so few close friends? And then I start to fix that problem so that you don't have to sacrifice your integrity to this guy? His integrity, his way of life should not interfere with your way of life. He's not he's not killing people, in which case you would have to interfere with him.

He's living his life the way he wants to live it. But you have the same right that he does in the way you want to live your life is to express the truth as you see it. So you've got to choose. And that's the way I would do it. That's that is what I would do. And it's the way I would do it from Patrick. Dear Lord Clavon, whom we must all save over Nolte's. I've been watching The Sopranos on HBO, great show.

And one of the most interesting aspects of it is its ending semi's spoilers. It ends on an ambiguous note. Yes, it does. The ending is so famous that I feel like you almost can't spell it now. But he says many fans of the show are split. Some love the ending because it's open to interpretation. Others hate it because it doesn't actually resolve the story in a satisfactory way. As a writer, what's your opinion on deliberately ending a story on an ambiguous note like The Sopranos?

It is a smart way to keep your audience engaged after the story is over. Or is it just a cheap gimmick? Thanks as always. OK, I see the issue a little differently, right? It's not a cheap gimmick. I mean, he's a very intelligent writer and it was a very intelligent ending. I didn't like it and I didn't like it, not because it was ambiguous. It's OK. It's OK to end a story ambiguously if the ambiguity somehow settles the story.

Sometimes there are some stories that can only be settled by ambiguity. I mean, there's a wonderful poem by Keats which ends was this a vision or a waking dream? And you think like, oh, wow, that's really you know, he's in this really that's a really interesting question that the poem poses. So ambiguity is not bad in and of itself. What I didn't like about the ending was this. The Sopranos, in my opinion, is a story.

What's the guy's name? David Chase. Is that the writer's name? I think is is a story. I think it's about television. I think it's about the way television tells stories in movies. Characters go through an arc in novels. They go through an arc. They start with a problem. If in Hamlet they write or Macbeth or any story, that is one story a character goes through what is called an arc and he usually comes out the other side change.

It's usually meets the story. That challenge is who he is and changes him. That's what stories are often about. So take the Hobbit right? He goes off and he fights the dragon and that that is going to be his arc and that changes him and makes him a different person. But in TV, TV is much more like life. In TV, the person remains the same, but the incidents change and that's the way most of us will live our lives.

We change over time. Maybe some of us, but some of us don't change and we remain. I know lots and lots of people who just go around the same track in their personalities over and over again. And that's what happens in The Sopranos. And that's where he finds the core of The Sopranos evil. They're always confronting the moral facts of life, but they always go back to being exactly who they are. And that is something he's telling you about.

The way television tells stories and the way that television tells stories reflects on life. OK, and so that's what the ending talks about. The ending talks about that stagnation, which has been the whole theme in a lot of ways, the whole theme of the show, stagnation and the evils of stagnation. And so that's what the ending speaks about to me. But to me, a story should be about itself first, right? It should not be about its meaning.

Its meaning should arise out of the story. So I would have liked an ending that actually ended the story instead of commenting on the story. That's the way I felt about the story. So I didn't hate it. I didn't think was the worst thing I thought was an interesting choice. I was interested that he did it his story, not mine, but he went in a direction that I don't like. As much as I like to see the characters.

I like to see writer respect the life of his characters. I'd like to see a writer respect the life of his characters and let them live out their lives in the story. I don't like the postmodern trick of reminding the audience that, you know, you're in a story because I think that's actually less interesting, less deep than letting the story tell itself. So that was my reaction to it. But still an interesting choice by a good writer. And you've got to respect that.

And I did respect it. I just didn't like it as much as I would have liked it if the story had resolved itself. But it wasn't the ambiguity that bothered me. It was the choice of speaking into the meaning of the story, rather into the story itself. All right. From Sheila, a question for the wise and all knowing Clavon my brother, my mother. I'm sorry, my mother has serious TDRS Trump derangement syndrome staunch never trump her.

When she found out that I am a Trump supporter, she said that Christians that vote for Trump are like the Jews calling for. Be sorry. We're like the Jews calling for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus before his crucifixion. I don't even I can't even pass that comparison. But every day she bombards me with articles from former newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post and lately leftist. Initially, I tried to counter her arguments with my own, sending her articles that she obviously never read or called right wing bias.

Anyway, engaging her just made it worse. Lenira send me more and more information, quote unquote to convert me. I told her that I love her and that I feared for a relationship she didn't stop. We should agree to disagree. When that didn't work, I made the decision to just flat out ignore the political news that she sends me, deciding to instead only talk with her about anything else. But the bombardment continues every day, multiple times a day.

To my daily frustration, if you were me, what would you do? Well, I would ditch the frustration and then just do what you were doing is I would ignore everything she said. I've edited out. I would send her a note. I love you, but I'm deleting everything you sent me about this. I'm just not reading it. I'm not looking at it. You're wasting your time. But I love you and I wish you respected my opinion as much as I respect yours.

You know, it would be much nicer for me if you did that, but I'm simply not discussing it with you. Your frustration is an expression of fear, and I don't mean that as an insult at all. I'm just talking about this is one of the things we all deal with in dealing with our parents. Our parents have had so much tremendous control over our lives as children and we never stop in some part of ourselves being children. Right.

That we're always afraid when they say things in a way we're not afraid and aggravated when other people say things. If I started sending you anti Trump or anti anything literature constantly, we'd go out Klavan. I hate that. That's ridiculous. I'm just not going to pay attention to him. But you don't want to break off with your mother and you're afraid of her power and influence over you. So that's why you feel frustrated. But she doesn't. You're a grown up now.

She doesn't really have any power or influence over you. You're not going to become Trump the range and you're not going to agree with her. You are angry about the fact that she's disrespecting you and you don't want to express that anger because she's your mom. And all those things are frustrating, but you're just going to have to take a deep breath. This is her problem. It's not your problem. This is her problem, not yours. But you have to do is build a fence around yourself.

You have to what do they call it? Psychology boundaries. You have to build boundaries around yourself and say this is a place where mom can't get to she cannot influence my opinion. I'm not going to allow her to disrespect me. I'm not going to accept her disrespect. I'm going to just edit everything out and just tell her that I'm doing it one time lovingly. This is what's going on and just keep doing it. Don't talk to her about it.

Just say I'm going to I'm going to have to hang up. If you talk about it and don't accept any of her emails, just edit it out. It's going to go on till the election and maybe afterwards. But eventually, hopefully she'll calm down when she realizes it's disrespectful. Explain it to her once, explain it to her nicely, explain it to her lovingly that it is disrespectful for her to keep doing this to you and then and that you're not going to listen to it and then just don't listen to it.

The the frustration and the anger you have to psychologize out of yourself. You have to understand why your mom doing this once you're a grown up and she can't really influence you, why that's bothering you so much. You know, because it is it's annoying. I'm not saying it's not annoying. I'm just saying, OK, moms are annoying. Parents can be annoying. Just edited it out of your life and let it go. That's all you can do.

Because otherwise, you know, you don't want to break with her. You don't want to start a fight. You don't want to get on the stoop to the level that she's that you just want to protect yourself. You want to build those boundaries around yourself. Got to stop there. But I will be back tomorrow. This is a long week for me. I'm going to work all through Friday and then I won't be back until I think it's Wednesdays.

Is it Wednesday of next week? I think I'll be back Wednesday and Thursday of next week. It's a little weird. I have to do some traveling, but I will be here through Friday. I'm Andrew Clavon. This is the Andrew Clavon show.

Have you enjoyed this episode? Don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, give us a five star review and also tell your friends to subscribe to. We're available on Apple podcast on Spotify, wherever you listen to podcast. Also, be sure to check out the other daily WYO podcast, including the Ben Shapiro Show and that Wall Show and The Michael Noll Show. Thanks for listening to. Andrew Clavon show is produced by Robert Sterling, executive producer Jeremy Boring.

Our technical director is Austin Stevens, supervising producer. Matthias Glover, Assistant Director Pavel Widdowson, edited by Adam Savitz and Danny Damico. Audio mixed by Robin Fenderson. Hair and makeup or hair and Makeup is by Nico Janiva. Animations are by Cynthia Angulo, production assistant McKenna Waters and Ryan Love. The Andrew Clavon show is a daily wire production copyright Daily Wire 20 20.

Senator Mazie Hirono tries to pull a Kavanaugh on Judge Amy CONI Barrett, President Trump offers to kiss his supporters, male and female, and Oreo's get gay. Check it out on the Michael No show.