All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 11, 2019 - The Ben Shapiro Show
56:04
Bolton Is Out | Ep. 858
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's 18 years since 9-11, President Trump dumps his National Security Advisor John Bolton, and Republicans prevail in a North Carolina congressional bellwether election.
I'm Ben Shapiro.
This is the Ben Shapiro Show.
Well, today does mark the 18th anniversary.
It's always weird to call it an anniversary of nine There are a lot of people I know who are listening to this show who don't remember 9-11, who are too young to remember 9-11, which is an amazing thing, because for people who were there, it was a seminal moment, much like, I'm sure, the assassination of JFK was for our parents and our grandparents.
9-11 was an earth-shifting moment.
I remember precisely where I was when 9-11 happened.
We were dropping my sisters off at school, my father and I, and people rushed out into the parking lot to tell us that the planes had hit the World Trade Center towers.
It was a moment of clarification and crystallization.
It was a reminder that the world is an incredibly dangerous place, filled with evil and foes who hate the United States of America.
And it was a reminder that America was still capable of coming together In times when America was under attack, because the fact is that as divided as America was at the time, and I think America is more divided now than it was in 2001, the fact is that we're still able to recognize the common humanity in other Americans, realize that we shared the vast majority of the same values, realize that we were all on the same page on an essential, key level.
And we got together and we recognized that we had to go and fight the people who had murdered 3,000 Americans, who had taken down the World Trade Centers, who had attacked the Pentagon.
It was a shocking and horrifying day, obviously.
I still get a little bit nauseous thinking about it, and I'm sure everyone who remembers it does.
I mean, I'm not unique in that capacity in any way, shape, or form.
We all remember the sacrifice of the firefighters and then the police officers who were rushing into the towers as people were running out trying to save people.
We all remember the firefighters who were there for cleanup, many of whom have gotten diseased since because of all the asbestos and soot and dust in the air.
We all remember the soldiers who stood up and volunteered, people who are far braver than I was, who stood up and said, I'm going to go and I'm going to fight the bad guys over there so they never come over here.
And it's important to remember those things because how you view 9-11 as a natural outgrowth of an isolationist foreign policy or as an aberration in American history, It's just something weird that happened that one time.
Shapes how we see foreign policy in the United States today.
And how you reacted to 9-11 and how you react now to remembering 9-11 is indicative of where the future of American foreign policy lies.
Because it seems to me that in the United States right now, there is this long slide back into the post-Cold War, pre-9-11 mentality on foreign policy, which is that the United States should retreat from the world.
The United States has no place.
In the world that a stronger United States is more likely to draw the attention of bad guys all over the world.
If we sort of left the world alone the world would leave us alone.
And 9-11 was a reminder that that wasn't true because the fact is that The Clinton administration had been extraordinarily non-forthcoming in terms of interventionism.
In fact, the only real interventionist acts they took were on humanitarian levels, right?
They did that in Yugoslavia, they did that in Somalia, they did that a little bit in Sudan.
But the Clinton administration was certainly not an aggressive, hawkish administration.
Bill Clinton rapidly cut the military such that the military was simply not ready to do a two-front war by the time 2003 came around.
And as a result of the United States abdicating its duty around the world in the aftermath of the Cold War with the assumption that the vacuum would not be filled by bad guys, the vacuum was indeed filled by bad guys.
And we saw a spate of terror attacks leading up to 9-11 that should have been indicative that something like 9-11 was going to happen.
We saw the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
We saw the bombings of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
We saw the bombings of American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998-1999.
We saw the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.
And then, of course, we saw the massive World Trade Center attacks, and that was the final straw that woke America from its reverie.
And a second, I want to remind you exactly what that was like, what President George W. Bush had to say at the time, a time when America was unified and there was a realization, this brutal realization, that the world's problems would come here if we were not actively fighting them off away from our own doorstep.
We'll get to that in just one second.
First, gotta talk about something that is always a little bit awkward to talk about, and that is the topic of sex within marriage.
So, obviously, sex is a pretty important thing, and one of the things that you want to make sure of is that if you've got a medical problem, you get it taken care of.
Even though 52% of dudes over the age of 40 and 26% under 40 experience erectile dysfunction, studies show that 70% of men who experience ED don't get treated for it.
And that's where our friends at Roman come in.
Thankfully, Roman has created an easy way to get checked out by a doctor Get treated for ED online.
With Roman, you can get medical care for ED, if appropriate, from the comfort and privacy of your own home.
You can handle everything online in a convenient, discreet manner.
Getting started is simple.
You just go to GetRoman.com and you complete an online visit.
If your doctor decides that treatment would be appropriate, they can prescribe genuine medication that can be delivered in discreet packaging directly to your door with free two-day shipping.
Dudes, you should go talk to a doctor.
If you've got a medical problem, that's not something to be embarrassed about.
That's something to get solved.
Just go to GetRoman.com slash Ben to get a free online visit and free two-day shipping.
That's GetRoman.com slash Ben for that free visit to get started.
GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Again, GetRoman.com slash Ben.
Okay, so on 9-11, there was also a key reminder that we also seem to have forgotten in the United States, and that reminder is That for all the critiques we have of the United States, the people who wish to destroy the United States, if America stays true to our own values and true to ourselves, those people are enemies of the world and enemies of freedom.
There's a strong, and I think morally correct, attempt in the United States toward constant self-correction.
We're constantly introspective, and we should be.
We should be looking at all the things we can do to alleviate sins of the past and to correct problems of the present.
We should do all of that.
But America is a uniquely good place.
America is a place of uniquely good ideals.
And yes, we have sinned in the past.
And yes, we are attempting to self-correct.
But the story of America is a country that has done An insane amount of good on the world stage, a country that has freed billions of people, not only from tyranny, but also from poverty.
The United States is a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
And when we act as we should act, then our enemies are the worst people on planet Earth.
And for all the talk today about how terrible the United States is, Beto O'Rourke out there on the campaign trail talking about how America is a bastion of racism and violence.
The idea that America is a dark, sinister place that you get sometimes from both sides.
It's just not true, and it wasn't true on 9-11 either.
And the people who attacked us on 9-11 saw America, and particularly saw our worldview, a worldview of liberalism, a worldview that suggested that freedoms allow the freedom to sin, a worldview that recognized that the power of the people Still, the majority should not be able to overrule the individual rights we all hold against government.
That worldview came under attack.
And we all remember this.
I mean, for a brief period in time, all the Lakers flags went down in Los Angeles and American flags hung out every window.
People realized that, wait a second, maybe we've forgotten what America was all about.
Maybe in our desire for petty politics, we've forgotten what America was all about.
And it took an act of evil, it took a tragedy, to remind us of all of that.
And honestly, I prefer the term act of evil to tragedy because a tragedy is something that is sort of unavoidable.
In Greek tragedy, it's the main character's fatal flaw that leads to his downfall.
But that's not what happened on 9-11.
What happened on 9-11 is that the United States got tired, the United States got lazy, in terms of foreign policy, and we forgot what we were all about.
And then, in shattering fashion, we were reminded of that, and the United States had to unify once again, and the sleeping giant was awakened.
President George W. Bush.
On September 21st, 2001, he went before a joint session of Congress and he demanded that the Taliban, which was the evil terror group in charge of Afghanistan, surrender Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda was using Afghanistan as a home base.
And here's what President George W. Bush had to say about it.
The leadership of Al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan.
After all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid.
But we condemn the Taliban regime.
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban.
Okay, and the United States was unified around that message.
Now, later, obviously, this would all turn very political, and people would suggest that the Bush administration botched the invasion of Afghanistan, and then they would suggest that the war in Iraq was completely fruitless and pointless.
And this all shattered on the shoals of war in foreign places.
But the fact is, in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, there was tremendous unity in the country on the basis of, we cannot sit around and hope that the rest of the world will leave us alone.
President Trump spelled out the changes in American foreign policy.
President Bush did.
He spelled out the changes in American foreign policy.
And he talked about what an American response would look like.
He said it would involve more than simple case-by-case retaliation and isolated strikes.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.
Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
And that line obviously became this sort of rallying cry for the left.
Oh, look at that binary view of the universe.
But the reality is that if you were not with the United States in its war on Islamic radical terrorism, then you were on the other side.
There is no sort of neutrality in that particular battle.
George W. Bush was right about that.
So it seems that we have now forgotten what exactly happened on 9-11, what that experience was like, what that experience meant in terms of foreign policy.
I think we've forgotten it on the left.
I think that many people have forgotten it on the right, because it has been nearly 20 years since that happened.
And people are starting to view 9-11 as this historic aberration, as opposed to, as I mentioned, an outgrowth of an isolationist and retreat-based foreign policy.
We'll talk about that in just one second.
First, let's talk about hiring at your company.
So, hiring can be a slow process.
Cafe Altura's COO, Dylan Miskiewicz, needed to hire a director of coffee for his organic coffee company, but he was actually having trouble finding qualified applicants.
So, he switched on over to ZipRecruiter.
ZipRecruiter doesn't depend on candidates finding you.
It finds them for you.
Its technology identifies people with the right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
So, you get qualified candidates fast.
Dylan posted his job on ZipRecruiter, said he was impressed by how quickly he had great candidate supply.
He also used ZipRecruiter's candidate rating feature to filter applicants so he could then focus on the most relevant applicants.
And that's how Dylan found his new director of coffee in just a few days.
With results like that, it's no wonder that four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the very first day.
Let's say, for example, that you have a director of your show.
Let's say his name is Director Mike.
And he just sort of weirdly laughs at things.
And nobody knows quite why, right?
He sort of rants in the background and things get awkward.
And you think to yourself, well, you know, is there anyone better available than Director Mike?
So you head on over to ZipRecruiter and you check it out.
Well, four out of five people who are looking for a placement for Director Mike might find them at ZipRecruiter.com.
I'm not speaking about anybody specifically here, guys.
See why ZipRecruiter is effective for businesses of all sizes, Try ZipRecruiter for free at our web address, ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
That is ziprecruiter.com slash d-a-i-l-y-w-i-r-e ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
And I'm not just going to throw Pavel under the bus and suggest that he's the one who told me to talk about Director Mike there, but that's kind of what happened.
In any case, In any case, when we talk about 9-11 and forgetting the lessons of 9-11, a couple of pieces of evidence that people on the left have forgotten about 9-11, and then some evidence that people on the right may be moving away from a worldview that we remembered on 9-11 that was kind of important.
In the post 9-11 world because let's be real about this.
The fact is that the United States is actions in the aftermath of 9-11 did make America safer.
They did make America safe.
You know, we can talk as much as we want about how 9-11 was an aberration as a uniquely spectacular attempt to commit terrorism in the United States.
But the fact is that I remember in the aftermath of 9-11, there was serious fear of a follow-on attack.
That fear remained for years.
There was serious fear that Al-Qaeda would be able to pull off another mass casualty attack in the United States.
And it took actually until the rise of ISIS for us to see similar mass casualty attacks in the West.
And that was a full decade after 9-11.
And that was again because the United States and its allies started to retrench from the world.
They started to move away from engagement with the world.
First, the evidence on the left.
So today, the New York Times originally tweeted about 9-11.
This was their original tweet.
18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center.
Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2,000 people died.
Really, was it airplanes that took aim and brought down the World Trade Center?
I do remember that we launched a 20-year war on airplanes in the aftermath of that.
You were either with the airplanes or you were against the airplanes.
That was the basic tenor of that.
The New York Times obviously then had to delete this.
They said, we deleted an earlier tweet to this story and have edited for clarity.
The story has also been updated.
The story's lead, by the way, repeated exactly the same line.
The story's lead also suggested that airplanes had taken AIM.
For the same reason the media refuse, and still refuse, to show the actual pictures of what happened on 9-11, and refuse to talk about the actual perpetrators of 9-11, and refuse to show the pictures of people leaping from the tops of flaming buildings to their death because they don't want to remind America what 9-11 actually was.
For the same reason the New York Times is tweeting out about how airplanes took aim.
And it's not just that tweet, okay?
The New York Times editorial page today, online.
I don't receive their print newspapers, so I'm just gonna give you their editorial page today, online.
It is the 18th anniversary of 9-11.
You would expect...
That this might prompt some reflection on 9-11.
Hey, there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 editorials on the website of the New York Times as we record this, right?
As I'm speaking these words.
One of them is about 9-11.
The one about 9-11 is titled, The World 9-11 Took From Us.
It's by a person named Omar Aziz, and it's talking about Islamophobia.
So 18 years after 9-11, we are still doing the routine that the media did in the aftermath of 9-11, which was that the biggest problem facing the United States was not evil Islamic radical terrorists attempting to murder Westerners.
Now, the biggest problem in the United States was supposed brutal Islamophobia springing from the American people.
In other words, the radical left's knee-jerk belief that the United States is responsible for everything that happens to the United States, that the United States' skirt was too short, led a lot of people on the left to immediately respond by suggesting that Americans were these vicious racists who were going to attempt to target Muslims across the United States.
That wave of anti-Muslim violence never materialized.
Okay, by hate crime statistics, Jews were targeted every single year, far more than Muslims were in the United States on a per capita basis.
And yet, that media narrative remained.
For years.
That the real problem was that America, after 9-11, became Islamophobic.
That that was the big issue.
And you see this today.
In the left's continued crusade to paint America as a uniquely terrible place.
When 9-11 really reminded us that, you know, when you look at America in relation to the rest of the world, this place is pretty effing fantastic.
And our ideals are pretty spectacular.
The unity that surrounded 9-11 lasted for about five minutes and certainly by now on the left we have forgotten that unity and we've gone back to America's responsible for all the sins against her and if only we would be more conciliatory and we'd be more multicultural.
If only we'd be nicer to the immigrants then everything would be fine.
Now that is not an argument about illegal immigration.
That's not an argument about legal immigration.
I'm not making an argument on that basis.
I'm saying that for the left The radical left, all of America's sins, in the words of Jeremiah Wright, came home to roost on 9-11.
That was a perspective on the left.
It remains a predominant perspective on the radical left in the United States.
It is wrong, it is dangerous, and it is morally obtuse.
And then on the right.
We seem to have forgotten that we have intractable foes in the world, and that they do fill the vacuum left by the United States.
That the world is not simply a place of status quo.
That if the United States moves out of particular areas, America's enemies move in.
And that does have an impact.
And that impact may not be felt for some years.
But we do have to make difficult decisions on foreign policy.
And some of those decisions are decisions like, should we have a more intrusive, invasive, Hawkish foreign policy to prevent the death of civilians at home, or should we accept the fact that if we are more isolated from the rest of the world in terms of foreign policy, if we leave areas to fester for years at a time without any sort of intervention, without any sort of American influence in those areas, that every so often we're going to take a mass casualty attack in the United States that may kill 3,000 Americans.
Because to pretend that you can have your cake and eat it too when it comes to foreign policy is an immature view of foreign policy.
This immature view of foreign policy came to a head over the last week and a half when apparently the Trump administration and President Trump himself were specifically considering whether to have that same Taliban, the Taliban that George W. Bush talked about in 2001 that that fostered Al Qaeda.
The same Taliban that continues to reject the legitimate government of Afghanistan and foster terrorism throughout Afghanistan.
Whether that same Taliban should be welcomed to Camp David and the United States should cut a peace deal with a bunch of people who acknowledge openly that they wish to murder Americans and hate everything the United States stands for.
And you can see this gap opening up on the right between sort of Bush-era foreign policy and the Trump-era foreign policy.
And I was fearful that this was going to open up more in 2016 when President Trump was elected, mainly because the Bush administration made mistakes on foreign policy, right?
Knowing now what they knew then, would they have invaded Iraq?
I highly doubt it.
Knowing now what they knew then, would they have surged troops in Afghanistan sooner?
Probably.
Knowing now what we knew then, would they have focused on building up the military and fighting a one front war instead of a two front war?
I'm sure they would have.
Would they have surged sooner in Iraq even if they had gone in?
Absolutely.
But the overall foreign policy view of the Bush administration was, If we do nothing, we're gonna get another 9-11 and we're gonna get a lot more terrorism and we're going to see our enemies thrive.
And so we have to do more.
The Clinton-era foreign policy was a mistake.
In the aftermath of the Bush foreign policy, we got the Obama-Trump foreign policy.
And Trump was...
There was a question, an open question in 2016 as to whether Trump was going to be more interventionist, sort of like Bush, or was he going to be more Obama-esque, seeking to bring America's troops home from these far-flung places across the world and assume that everything would sort of be fine.
That was Obama's approach to foreign policy in which he slashed the military.
Now, Trump has a knee-jerk like for the military that Obama simply didn't have.
Obama had a knee-jerk dislike for the strength of the United States military, which is why when it came to, for example, sequestration, he insisted that half of the cuts come from the military.
Trump innately likes the American military, loves the American military in a way that Barack Obama didn't, and so he's built up the American military.
But the question was going to be how he deployed that military and how he approached diplomacy versus military force versus threats versus sanctions.
And for a while there, it seemed that the Trump administration was going to be more Bush-like in its general approach than Obama-like in its general approach.
That may be changing.
That Taliban attempted meeting was a horrible, horrible idea on virtually every level.
In a second, I'll talk a little bit more about all of that.
First, let's talk about the fact that if you work out at all, if you're just seeking to be healthy, then you need to be hydrated.
If you hate being dehydrated, but sugary sports drinks are not the solution for you, you need something called liquid IV.
It is the fastest, most efficient way to stay hydrated.
It hydrates you faster and more efficiently than water alone, and it gives you the added bonus of vitamins C, B3, B5, B6, and B12.
Liquid IV is the fastest growing wellness brand on the market.
You can find them everywhere, even at Costco.
All Liquid IV products utilize cellular transport technology.
It's a specific ratio of glucose, sodium, and potassium.
When mixed with 16 ounces of water, it helps your body absorb more of the water and nutrients you drink directly into your bloodstream.
Liquid IV fuels tough workouts.
It helps prevent muscle fatigue.
It promotes healthy post-workout recovery.
So, I've been urging Andrew Clavin to take it so he remains alive.
I've been urging Michael Mills not to take it for precisely the opposite reason.
Unfortunately, both of them are taking it and both of them love it.
Both of them say that liquid IV really helps them out and it makes them feel better.
They've been telling me, really raving about it.
It's not kosher, so I haven't tried it, but everybody who doesn't keep kosher absolutely should, right?
Andrew Klavan and Michael Molls absolutely attest that the thing is fantastic.
Right now, my listeners get 25% off at liquidiv.com when you use my code BEN at checkout.
That is 25% off anything you order on Liquid IV's website.
Go to liquidiv.com, enter my promo code BEN to get your savings and start getting better hydration.
That's liquidiv.com, promo code BEN if you wish to be hydrated and be healthier.
Check it out.
Liquid IV dot com.
Promo code Ben.
Everybody but Noel should take it.
Liquid IV dot com.
Promo code Ben.
Don't wait.
Start properly hydrating today.
OK, so as I say, there's this open question about the Trump administration's foreign policy, and so far it seemed as though the Trump administration foreign policy had been more along sort of bushy in lines, although without the.
the sort of Wilsonian aggressive instincts of the Bush foreign policy.
So in other words, the United States had to be involved in the world, but sometimes it would just be a long-term holding pattern.
It wasn't going to be the transformation of Afghanistan into a thriving democracy or the transformation of Iraq into a thriving democracy.
It was Bushian aggressive interventionism with a real politic twinge.
And that was actually pretty good.
That was pretty good.
And then over the last week, we got all this talk about the Taliban and you could see the gaps beginning to emerge on the right over the legacy of 9-11.
So Condoleezza Rice came out yesterday.
She's on CBS this morning.
And she said, listen, this is ridiculous.
We should not be negotiating with the Taliban.
Well, I'm relieved that we walked away from these talks.
I always wondered if it was really possible to get a solution with a Taliban that is not really committed to peace.
And there were some bad tell-tale signs.
There is an Afghan government that has been there now as our ally for a decade and a half, and the Taliban says they don't recognize them, they won't talk to them.
That's a bad sign.
Okay, and Condoleezza Rice points out correctly that if the United States withdraws from Afghanistan, it collapses back into chaos again with the Taliban taking over.
...in Europe for 45 years until Germany could unify between 1945 and 1990.
We're still there.
We keep the peace on the Korean Peninsula since 1953.
And I know that Americans are tired of some of the responsibilities, but frankly, there's nobody but the United States of America that can do these things.
And so, I don't know what the right numbers are, but I hope that the President and his aides are asking our military What can we do to leave enough of a presence there to stabilize the situation?
Now, as I say, this is the conflict that is breaking out into the open.
And it seems to have broken out specifically over this Taliban thing.
And the conflict I'm talking about ends with the firing of John Bolton, the national security advisor.
So apparently Bolton's position with the Taliban was exactly Condoleezza Rice's position with the Taliban, which would be the Bush position with the Taliban.
Frankly, you can't negotiate with terrorists.
And if we have to leave a footprint in Afghanistan indefinitely, we will leave a footprint in Afghanistan indefinitely.
And then there was the other side of the equation, which was sort of Trump's instinct, which is get out now as fast as humanly possible.
And if they hit us, then maybe we have to hit them again.
But we got to get out as fast as humanly possible.
That side of the equation is backed by people more like Tucker Carlson and Rand Paul.
And that came to a head with the firing of Bolton.
So according to Karen's young Josh Dawsey and John Hudson over at The Washington Post, over a turbulent 17 months, President Trump and National Security Advisor John Bolton had disagreed on a variety of issues from North Korea to Venezuela to Iran.
But Trump finally decided to remove his top security aide on Tuesday after a heated discussion in the Oval Office following accusations by other officials in the administration that Bolton had leaked to the news media, tried to drag others into his battles with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over Afghanistan, and promoted his own views rather than those of the president, according to people familiar with the matter.
Trump called on Bolton to meet with him on Monday afternoon as he prepared to leave for a campaign rally that night in North Carolina.
Bolton was seen by some in the administration as the source of a media report that Vice President Pence and he were allies in opposing a peace deal with the Taliban negotiated by Pompeo's State Department.
Just before the meeting, Trump had tweeted that it was fake news designed to create the look of turmoil in the White House, of which there is none.
And then, of course, he fired Bolton.
Bolton denied the charge, said, I didn't leak that to the media, that there was this big division.
But the Afghanistan issue, according to The Washington Post, turned out to be a tipping point.
Among accumulated grievances that had been building for months, the president was annoyed that Bolton would regularly call on members of Congress to try to get them to push Bolton-preferred policies on Trump, according to a senior official who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Many on Bolton's handpicked staff were seen as unnecessarily confrontational with other parts of the national security bureaucracy.
Now, let's be real about this.
The way that policy is conducted in the Trump administration is via television and outside influences.
That is the way it is conducted, okay?
It is not what happens in the room.
So it used to be that foreign policy was conducted in the room.
Basically, you'd have all of your foreign policy players, they'd sit around the table, they'd bring in briefing experts, and then decisions would be made.
That is not how President Trump makes policy.
He makes policy by watching TV, he listens to commentary, he takes in the commentary, and then he produces a decision.
Or, he gets a call from somebody outside, and then he considers that, and then he makes decisions.
Okay, we have seen this repeatedly on everything from domestic to foreign policy.
He'll take a call from Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity and then he will make decisions on the basis of his opinion about those calls.
He'll watch something on Fox News and this will shape his thinking on how a particular issue takes place.
Now, it's not my preferred methodology, but people inside the administration know this.
Everyone inside the administration knows this, whether or not they are saying so.
Everybody sort of acknowledges that this is how Trump's administration works.
If you know anybody in the White House, you know this is true.
And I know nearly everybody in the White House.
OK, so this is just a fact of life.
So this complaint about Bolton, that he was going to outside Congress, people having them call.
Everybody in the White House does that.
That is nothing new.
That is nothing new.
What really happened here is that Trump got egg on his face over this whole Taliban ridiculous appeal that he's going to bring the worst people on earth, literally some of the worst people on earth to Camp David.
And then he was going to have some sort of peace agreement with them in which they would promise something and then give up nothing.
And then we were going to withdraw American troops on that basis.
And never reinsert them, because once you withdraw them, Trump is not going to reinsert those troops.
It was a bad idea from the outset.
Bolton opposed it.
Bolton's pretty loud about opposing it until Bolton's out.
That's pretty much what seems to have happened here.
Trump had been inundated with complaints, according to officials.
Pence and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who are awaiting Trump's arrival Monday afternoon in Fayetteville, found Bolton increasingly abrasive and self-promoting, which is to say, the best way to get someone fired in the Trump administration is to go to Trump and say, that guy's stealing your limelight.
He's on TV and he's undermining you.
It's always to appeal to Trump's ego.
Secretary of State Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had told Trump that his national security advisor was not helping him, officials said.
Bolton had even refused in recent weeks to go on television and defend the president's policies on Afghanistan and Russia.
Bolton, the president felt, wasn't loyal.
He wasn't on the team.
Of course, it always comes down to that for President Trump.
After Trump made his views known, Bolton offered to resign.
According to Bolton, Trump insisted that they would discuss it the next day.
It was the last time he saw the president.
He had the meeting, thought about it for a few hours, especially since the president wasn't exactly begging him to stay on and he'd had enough, said a person familiar with Bolton's thinking.
On Tuesday morning, Bolton handed a two sentence letter to an aide for delivery to Trump and left the building.
I hereby resign effective immediately.
Just before noon, Trump stole his thunder, announcing in a terse tweet that he had fired his third national security in a row.
That'd be after Mike Flynn and H.R.
McMaster.
He said, I disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions, as did others in the administration.
I will be naming a new national security advisor next week.
And there is this whole.
No, it doesn't.
But it certainly provides an opening to a lot of the members of that caucus who seek to minimize America's presence on the world stage.
mean that Trump is shifting radically to the isolationist caucus when it comes to foreign policy?
No, it doesn't.
But it certainly provides an opening to a lot of the members of that caucus who seek to minimize America's presence on the world stage.
Now, again, I'm not saying that's coming from a bad place for a lot of these folks.
I'm not saying that Tucker, who tends to be on this side, or Rand Paul, who tends to be on this side.
I'm not saying this is coming from a place that the American left is coming from, where they say that America's presence on the world stage provokes attacks against the United States, and America is a force for nefarious ends in the world.
I'm not saying any of that.
I think that Tucker's basic perspective is that the United States should not be expending resources abroad that could be better spent at home.
I think this is Rand Paul's perspective, too.
Although more tinged with maybe a Ron Paul sentiment.
And Tucker's perspective is, if we bring those folks home from distant lands, we can build up the United States.
If somebody hits us, we hit them back.
And that's pretty much how this works.
You don't need an interventionist foreign policy.
And that's a good faith argument.
I would suggest that the aftermath of 9-11, that argument basically fell apart.
But we're now 20 years distant from that.
And so now there's a reconsideration.
of that argument.
That argument seems to be breaking out a new specifically over Bolton, who is a Bush era holdover, and Mike Pompeo, who is not as much.
He was a congressperson before he headed on over to the State Department.
Okay, we'll get into more of this in just one second.
First, let's talk about knowing your business inside and out.
So we run a profitable business here at The Daily Wire, right?
We're not a 501c3.
We actually have to run a profit.
That means we have to keep track of everything that is going on in our offices.
And most businesses do.
You want to run a successful business, you have to make sure that you know your numbers.
If you don't know your numbers, you simply don't know your business.
But the problem growing businesses have is that they have these hodgepodge business systems.
So you don't actually have one centralized place where you keep track of all your numbers.
This is why you need NetSuite by Oracle.
It's the business management software that handles every aspect of your business in an easy-to-use cloud platform, giving you the visibility and control you need to grow.
With NetSuite, you save time, money, and unneeded headaches by managing sales, finance, and accounting orders, and HR instantly, direct from your system, your desktop, Or your phone.
That's why NetSuite is the world's number one cloud-based business system.
Business owners, you need to know your business.
The best way to do that is using NetSuite.
Right now, NetSuite is offering you valuable insights with a free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
That's netsuite.com slash Shapiro to download your free guide, seven key strategies to grow your profits, which I think would be useful for everyone.
We can all grow our profits.
Netsuite.com slash Shapiro.
Go check them out right now.
Use that slash.
Shapiro, so you get that special deal on seven key strategies to grow your profits.
Alrighty, we're gonna get to more of John Bolton being fired.
We'll also get to this North Carolina special election.
Republicans did win in North Carolina 9 last night.
We'll talk about that.
But first, you have to go over to Daily Wire and subscribe.
You should do it.
I make a pitch every day.
99 bucks a year.
It's getting near the end of the year.
And I promise, we are about to implement all sorts of massive changes over at Daily Wire, like we're flipping our website.
We have all sorts of great new benefits for subscribers.
We have some real goodies that are coming up.
So go check us out right now over at Daily Wire.
99 bucks a year for the annual is better than 9.99 a month for the monthly.
Go check us out right now.
Right now, we are the largest, fastest growing conservative podcast and radio show in the nation.
So the question about Bolton's ouster is whether it reflects deeper divides inside the Trump administration about foreign policy itself or whether this was just interpersonal conflict.
And it's not totally clear.
So you get Mike Pompeo, who is fairly hawkish on foreign policy himself, saying he disagreed with Bolton many times.
He obviously looks happy about this.
So maybe it was just an interpersonal conflict.
Can you describe your working relationship with John Bolton as it was today?
And also, does this departure make it easier for you to do your job and for the administration to accomplish the President's foreign policy agenda?
Look, I don't talk about the inner workings of how this all goes.
We all give our candid opinions.
There were many times Ambassador Bolton and I disagreed, that's to be sure.
But that's true for lots of people with whom I interact.
Okay, so Pompeo obviously had some interpersonal problems, and people like Lindsey Graham, who are close to the administration, also close to Bolton, he says, it was probably coming because this was as much a personality conflict as anything else.
He says, the president had gotten into a situation where he didn't like reading about some stuff in the paper.
It got to be a breakdown of trust that had pretty well shut down the policy process among national security agencies.
At the White House, those outside the inner sanctum were stunned when Trump's tweet appeared.
At the Pentagon, there were cheers.
When Pompeo appeared in an unrelated news briefing shortly after Trump's tweet, he rebuffed frantic questions about Bolton, saying he would not talk about the administration's inner workings.
Steve Mnuchin also looked pretty pleased over at the Treasury Department, and he sort of blamed this on the variant views of Trump and Bolton on the Iraq War, which makes zero sense considering that the United States does not have a lot going on in Iraq at this point as compared with Afghanistan.
One thing I would just say, follow up, because the president's been very clear on this.
The president's view of the Iraq war and Ambassador Bolton's was very different.
The president's made that clear.
Okay, so there is apparently a long list of people inside the White House who just didn't like Bolton very much on a personal level, apparently including Melania Trump, Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Mnuchin, and other Defense Department officials.
So maybe this was all interpersonal.
That's my hope, is that this was all interpersonal.
I fear that this is reflective of a move to the left by the Trump administration on foreign policy, or at least a move toward a more isolationist sentiment by the Trump administration.
So Tucker Carlson, to take an example, was celebrating Bolton's ouster last night.
You can see he's very happy about all of this, is Tucker.
And Tucker suggested, I think ridiculously, that Bolton is a man of the left, which is just bizarre and insane.
Like, there's no evidence whatsoever that Bolton is a left winger.
I mean, really, does the left love John Bolton?
Because I'm missing it.
If you're wondering why so many progressives are mourning Bolton's firing tonight, it's because Bolton himself fundamentally was a man of the left.
There was not a human problem.
John Bolton wasn't totally convinced could be solved with the brute force of government.
That's an assumption of the left, not the right.
Don't let the mustache fool you.
John Bolton was one of the most progressive people in the Trump administration.
And by the way, naturally, once he was ensconced there, Bolton promoted Obama loyalists within the National Security Council.
That shouldn't surprise you either.
Okay, I don't know what this is referring to.
I mean, seriously, John Bolton is a man of the left, and the left was mourning him yesterday?
No, the left is just happy there was chaos inside the Trump administration.
I don't know anybody on the left who is thrilled about John Bolton.
I mean, do you remember how upset they were when John Bolton was hired?
They went nuts.
They went nuts.
Rand Paul, of course, plays the same tune.
He says that the threat of war is diminished with Bolton gone.
Let me just make something clear here.
This notion that John Bolton is going around stumping for war...
If that were the case, wouldn't there have been a little more war under John Bolton?
Because one of the things that I have noticed is that John Bolton mainly stymied President Trump for making a crap deal with the North Koreans.
He was apparently ready to sign an agreement with the North Koreans in which the United States would stop military exercises, would start to withdraw some of its joint exercises with the South Koreans, would ease some of the economic burden on North Korea in return for empty promises.
And Bolton was like, no, that's a bad idea.
And then Bolton also undermined the negotiations with Iran that were going on that would have presumably returned the United States to something resembling the Iran nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew in the first place.
And then Bolton was standing strong against this Taliban deal.
Okay.
In none of these cases was war the alternative.
In none of these cases was Bolton stumping for full-scale war with any of these places.
Okay, so this is all a bunch of- this is strawman crap.
Here's Rand Paul spewing it.
You know, I think the threat of war around the world is greatly diminished with Bolton out of the White House.
I think he had a naive point of view for the world that we should topple regimes everywhere and institute, you know, democratic governments and we would make the world perfect or remake the world in our image.
And frankly, it just doesn't work that way.
There's a lot of history of getting rid of strong men in the Middle East and having them replaced by vacuums or chaos or actually making the Place more hospitable for terrorist training.
OK, again, you can criticize Americans interventionist foreign policy, but doing this whole thing about how America is less likely to go to war now that John Bolton is out.
And there are two ways America goes to war.
America goes to war precipitously and America goes to war reactively.
After 9-11, it was reactive and then it became precipitous.
Are you more fearful that the Trump administration is going to go to war reactively or precipitously?
My fear is that we will go to war reactively.
We won't do enough.
We will be attacked and then we'll be forced into a position of doing something.
And so far, that's been Trump's tendency.
One of the things about an active foreign policy is sometimes you forestall war by preventing the conditions that lead to an outbreak in the first place.
The sort of preemptive strategy of interventionism in foreign policy that was Bushian, is that going to be replaced by a different sort of isolationist foreign policy now that Bolton is out?
That remains to be seen.
And I think that how we view 9-11 has something to do with that.
I do.
I mean, I think that the relative unanimity that we saw in the aftermath of 9-11 has faded.
And now we are back to the Clinton era arguments that took place.
Frankly, I think we're back to those arguments as soon as 2008-2009 when Barack Obama was elected.
But to see that sort of cross party lines is at the very least somewhat disturbing.
I would prefer to think, and I think realistically, that the Trump administration is not going to suddenly embrace all sorts of deals with the world's worst regimes, at least I hope not.
Instead, I think that the Trump administration, maybe this was just about interpersonal conflict, that at least is my hope.
I will say this, when Iran is celebrating the ouster of an American advisor, that's probably not a great thing.
According to the Associated Press, Iran's president urged the United States on Wednesday to, quote, put warmongers aside as tensions roiled the Persian Gulf amid an escalating crisis between Washington and Tehran in the wake of collapsing nuclear deals with world powers.
Hassan Rouhani, his remarks signaled approval of Trump's abrupt dismissal of John Bolton as national security adviser.
I have a general rule.
Anything that pleases Iran is bad.
The reason I say this is because Iran is run by evil, evil people who have pursued awful violence in the region against American allies, against various sovereign countries.
Whenever you are Again, Iran celebrating is not a good thing for the United States as a general rule.
OK, meanwhile, over in North Carolina, there was a special election last night.
The Democrats were hoping very much like that Georgia district where John Ossoff ran and lost, that they were going to pull out a surprise victory in a heavy red district.
This district was won by President Trump in 2016 by 12 points.
Well, last night, the district was won again by a Republican.
It's been held by a Republican for something like 40 years.
It was won by two.
According to the New York Times, Dan Bishop, a Republican state senator, scored a narrow victory on Tuesday in a special House election in North Carolina that demonstrated Trump's appeal with his political base, but also highlighted his party's deepening unpopularity with suburban voters.
Bishop defeated Dan McCready, a moderate Democrat, one day after Trump made a full-throated plea for support for the Republican at a rally on the conservative end of a Charlotte to Fayetteville district, which the president carried by nearly 12 points in 2016.
With most votes counted as of Tuesday night, Bishop was ahead by about two percentage points, according to the Associated Press.
The fierce fight for the 9th Congressional District also brought to an end a tortured political drama.
The 2018 midterm race for the seat, in which McCready barely lost against a different Republican, was in question for months because of evidence of election fraud on the GOP side.
That election was thrown out and a special election had to be held, and then the Democrat lost actually by more votes than the Democrat lost the first time around.
So, the question is what kind of bellwether this is.
President Trump believes that this is a bellwether for coming Republican victory in 2020, and he tweeted out as much.
He tweeted, Dan Bishop was down 17 points three weeks ago.
He then asked me for help.
We changed his strategy together and he ran a great race.
Big rally last night.
Now it looks like he is going to win.
CNN and MSNBC are moving their big studio equipment and talent out.
Stay tuned.
Trump is obviously correct that CNN and MSNBC were in mourning last night.
It's always amusing to watch as President Trump takes credit for victory and casts blame whenever there is a loss.
I really doubt that if Bishop lost, he would have been like, well, you know, went in there, guess it didn't help.
It wasn't going to go that way.
But Trump is correct that his last minute push must have helped Bishop.
I mean, that was a slim, close race.
Trump gets out the base.
He's a formidable political figure at getting out the base.
As I am fond of saying, Winning an election in the United States is about two things, making it unpalatable to vote for your opponents, and making it very palatable for people to vote for you.
Trump is fantastic at the former, and he is not phenomenal at the latter, getting people to vote for him.
However, he does drive out the base.
There are a lot of people who show up to vote against him, but in a special election where turnout's gonna be low, Trump's presence there may have been the turning point for the Republican in this race, Bishop.
Is it true that Bishop was down 17 points a couple of weeks ago?
I haven't seen any data that supports that.
It was a pretty close race for weeks and months.
But still, Trump helped.
I mean, Trump showing up and rallying helped.
And that's why I said yesterday on the show that President Trump's rally was a good moment for Trump.
It looked a lot like what 2020 has to look like.
Him touting his economic record and him pointing at Democrats and suggesting that they are indeed incredibly radical.
The Democrats only lost narrowly because they were running a blue dog Democrat in this race.
They were running an ex-military member who was fairly moderate on a lot of push-button policies.
And that guy only lost by two.
Now, the possibility here is the Democrats failed to take the lesson.
The lesson Democrats should take is if we run a very good candidate in a red district, it turns purple.
And if we run a very good Democratic candidate in a purple district, it turns blue.
In other words, they should be running more toward the center and not proclaiming progressive policy as the be-all end-all.
But it seems like they're taking the opposite message, which is, I guess we didn't get out our base enough.
So, for example, you get this article from the Washington Post's Philip Bump, quote, His impression is that what Democrats really need to do is skew to the progressive left.
Now, if that's the lesson you took out of NC9, you're getting it wrong.
The only reason that was a competitive race is because Democrats ran a very good candidate in that race against a somewhat weak Republican candidate.
In a time when Republicans are not overwhelmingly popular.
But if Democrats had run AOC in that district, they'd lose by 30, right?
But a lot of Democrats are taking the wrong message.
So Philip Bump says, "Since Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, "there's been a slow uptick in Americans reporting satisfaction "with how things are going in the country." You can see that in the Gallup polling.
Over the course of 2008, Gallup data indicated that, on average, 15% of Americans were satisfied with how things were going.
In 2009, that jumped to an average of 26%, before slipping back into the upper teens by 2011.
By Obama's last year in office, the average was 27%, which carried into 2017, President Trump's first year in office.
In 2018, the figure was over 30%.
So far this year, the average has fallen slightly.
Now, I love that he's attributing this to politics.
Okay, the fact is, That this has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how the economy is going.
In other words, when the economy sucks, satisfaction goes down.
And when the economy gets better, satisfaction goes up.
But Bump says during the 1990s, views of satisfaction among Democrats and Republicans generally tracked with one another.
Starting in 2001, when George W. Bush became president, Democratic satisfaction tanked, while Republicans remained confident with how things were going, at least until Bush was re-elected.
Then the Iraq war and the economy submarine satisfaction, even within Bush's own party.
Satisfaction stayed low among Republicans during Obama's two turns, recovering only once Trump won.
Trump's victory, though, prompted Democrats to suddenly see the direction of the country as increasingly unsatisfactory.
So he's right about this.
There is a partisan gap in satisfaction with the country that is largely based on political control.
But overall, The satisfaction with the country tends to track with the economy fairly well.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, Democrats and Republicans differed in their satisfaction over how things were going by about 19 points on average.
Under Bush, that gap soared to an average of 40 points.
Under Trump, the average gap has been 45 points.
Philip Bump says this largely mirrors another metric, which is presidential job approval because of partisanship.
So he says all of this brings us to the question we're here to answer.
Does this new reality suggest new mechanics will be in play in 2020?
And on Tuesday, the New York Times looked at the history of successful Democratic moderates in political campaigns.
Even in the 2018 Democratic wave, they argue, more moderate candidates had more success in congressional campaigns.
That's good news for the current leader, former Vice President Joe Biden.
But, they say, do more moderate positions mean that Biden has a better chance of winning?
But, says Philip Bump, Democrats hate Trump, so hatred of Trump may drive them to support more progressive policies and drive them out to the polls.
So he suggests that it is possible a more progressive candidate will be more useful to Democrats.
He says the countervailing theory to a moderate is the safer bet for Democrats is a variant on the Ted Cruz theory of 2016.
Nominate a hard-right conservative, more moderate Republicans will vote for that candidate anyway, but conservatives were the ones staying home and now they'll show up.
So the idea from Democrats is very similar.
Philip Bum says most Democrats now identify as liberal.
That's a shift that has been slowly happening in the party, with self-identified liberals passing moderates during Obama's tenure.
So the question comes down to energy.
So Democrats may, in fact, take the wrong lesson from NC9 and then run somebody who is radically progressive.
Now, again, the reason that this is not going to it may be true on a national popular vote level that you get more people from New York and California to vote for you if you run Elizabeth Warren than if you run Joe Biden.
But Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan.
Are those the areas where you actually need a more progressive candidate?
If Democrats take their lesson, I think that will be a massive, massive mistake.
So, I hope they make that mistake.
I hope they continue along these lines.
In the end, is NC9 an indicator that is good for Republicans?
Well, no.
It's never great when you drop from R plus 12 to R plus 2.
But, does it spell complete crisis in 2020 for Republicans the way that a Republican loss may have?
No, not quite.
And it still shows that President Trump has some last-minute push-button appeal.
With Republicans that many Democrats do not.
Like, for example, there's a poll out of Texas today that shows a bunch of Democrats ahead of President Trump in Texas in the national election, but none of those Democrats is breaking 50.
Every single Democrat in that poll is stuck in the upper 40s, which really suggests that President Trump is going to win that state and probably win the state pretty handily.
All of the polls that have Trump down at 42 right now have no Democratic opponent.
Right, it's Trump against generic Democrat.
Well, Trump against generic Democrat probably gets 40% in 2016.
Against Hillary Clinton, Trump against generic Democrat ends up with something like 46%.
Okay, so the opponent matters very, very much here.
NC9 demonstrates that, but I think Democrats may take the wrong lesson, at least I hope so.
All right, time for some things I like and then some things that I hate.
So, things that I like today.
So, I'm constantly hearing questions from parents about what are some great books for kids.
I love this series from Brad Meltzer, illustrated by Christopher Eliopoulos.
It's called the I am series the ordinary people change the world series and it's great they have these books about Albert Einstein have recommended them before there are two new ones that have just come out one is called I am Walt Disney and the other is I am Mary Curie and it's just these are great books they're all about the obstacles that these historical figures had to overcome and the great things that they did I just read my daughter, the one on Marie Curie.
And first of all, it taught me things that I didn't remember about Marie Curie.
And second of all, it really is inspiring for kids.
My daughter turned to me and she said, when I grow up, I want to be a scientist.
And I said, well, you know, mommy's also a scientist.
Mommy's a doctor.
She said, no, I want to be a real scientist.
She wants to be a research scientist, which is just awesome.
And she is super smart.
And so she will probably make that happen.
She's a very determined kid.
And these books are just great.
They're really, Pro-America, but in the sort of non-flag-waving sense, meaning that the ones about American citizens, they don't sugarcoat American history.
They have one about Jackie Robinson that talks about racism in American history, but reminds you that America is the land of opportunity and reminds you that the most successful people in life are the people who work through obstacles and work hard and take advantage of the opportunities that they have and make opportunities for themselves.
I love this series.
I really do, and I recommend it for all kids.
It's the Ordinary People Change the World series from Brad Meltzer.
The new ones that are out are I Am Walt Disney and I Am Mary Curie.
They're just fantastic.
You should go check them out right now.
Okay, time for a couple of quick things that I hate.
California sucks.
I'm just going to put that out there.
I've lived here my entire life, except for three years when I was in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
California is terrible.
And they continue to push terrible policy, the Democrats in Sacramento.
Today, California legislators approved a landmark bill on Tuesday that requires companies like Uber and Lyft to treat contract workers as employees, a move that could reshape the gig economy and that adds fuel to a years-long debate over whether the nature of work has become too insecure.
This is the part Where we remind everybody that if you make all of these people employees, then Uber and Lyft have to pay them like employees and not like independent contractors, which means that the price dramatically goes up on consumers, which means fewer people are employed.
That's what's going to happen here.
You're artificially boosting wages as opposed to just paying people what they want to take a job for.
Uber and Lyft have transformed the transportation economy, particularly in the city of Los Angeles, which is very spread out.
You've seen this in New York, where people with taxi medallions have been lobbying for years to have Uber and Lyft treated as though all of the drivers are actually working directly for the business, creating liability and health insurance issues and all of the rest of it.
Well, I don't blame the folks who paid 50 grand for a taxi medallion in New York, because New York had created this idiotic cartel.
In Los Angeles, you want to make LA, a lot worse place to live, do exactly this.
And that, of course, is what they're doing.
We have a massive homeless problem here in Los Angeles.
A lot of people who are seeking jobs to tide them over from job to job, drive an Uber and Lyft.
I mean, if you've ever driven with any of these rideshare services and you talk to the folks who are driving, very often they'll say, yeah, I'm between jobs right now and one of the ways I'm paying my rent is that I was able to become one of these drivers on like 48 hours notice and it's allowing me to pay my bills.
So California is going to take that ability away from you, which is just spectacular.
The bill passed in a 29 to 11 vote in the state senate and will apply to app-based companies despite their efforts to negotiate an exemption.
Gavin Newsom, who has the looks and brains of a Ken doll, endorsed the bill this month and is expected to sign it after it goes through the state assembly.
Under the measure, workers must be designated as employees instead of contractors if a company exerts control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a company's regular business.
Which, of course, is idiotic.
I use FedEx all the time and I direct them how to do their work.
Where to take my packages?
Does that mean that FedEx is now my employee or are they my agent?
The bill may influence other states.
A coalition of labor groups, of course, is pushing similar legislation in New York because they don't like free and open competition in the labor market.
Instead, they prefer unionized work that raises wages but limits employment.
Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom signed another idiotic bill today.
This bill prevents schools from suspending disruptive students from kindergarten through eighth grade because nothing makes education in California's public schools better than having a kid who's being a little crap, disrupting the class and not being able to do anything about it.
Gavin Newsom signed the law, Senate Bill 419.
It permanently prohibits willful defiance suspensions in grades 4 and 5.
It also bans such suspensions in grades 6 through 8 for five years.
Nothing like taking away a tool that a teacher has to remove a bad influence from a classroom.
Nothing ruins a classroom quite like disruptive children that you can't do anything about.
In fact, I remember even when I was in private school, you'd get this because if the parents were big donors to the school, then teachers were reluctant to remove the kids from the classroom.
Those were always the kids who were in the classroom.
Now, the reason they're doing this is because they suggest that too many minority kids are being suspended from class.
Well, first of all, there are a lot of minority teachers who are suspending minority kids.
This is not necessarily the result of some endemic racism.
Maybe kids who are acting badly should stop acting badly in class and their parents should step in.
There is this endemic problem, white, black, and green in the United States, and that is that parents these days...
Toss their kids on schools, and then expect the teachers to raise their kids for them.
And then, if their kids come home and they're like, ah, my teacher got on my case, the parents call up the teacher and whine about it.
And you know what happens if a teacher calls us up and says, your kid is making trouble in class?
The talk that I have is not with the teacher.
The talk I have is with my kid.
Because my assumption is that adults know more than children.
You know why?
Because kids are dumb.
Kids don't know things.
Kids don't have behavioral regulation.
Their brains aren't that developed yet.
You need to be able to remove disruptive students from the classroom because, especially in LA, you got like 30 other kids in the classroom.
I've been in classrooms where kids are disruptive.
I'm sure you have too.
It is not a pretty picture and it tends to have a snowball effect because once kids know they can get away with something, then all the kids start acting this way.
The bill was opposed by the Charter School Development Center, whose executive director argued that this was one-size-fits-all legislation that is a fix in search of a problem.
And that is correct, but there is this whole case that this is one of the best ways to disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline.
Right.
I'm sure that suspending kids from class is what causes them to be bad kids, not the fact that they were being bad kids in class, which is why they were suspended in the first place.
I would love to see the control group here.
The kids who were terrible in class were not suspended, and then ended up being Fortune 500 CEOs.
As opposed to, kids were suspended, their parents called the school, the parents punished the kid, and then the kid got back on the straight and narrow.
Alrighty, we'll be back here later today for two additional hours of content.
And as always, you know, I think we should keep 9-11 in our hearts and minds today.
Remember what that was like, and remember that that sort of thing can happen again if the United States falls asleep again.
You're listening to The Ben Shapiro Show.
The Ben Shapiro Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Directed by Mike Joyner.
Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Assistant director, Pavel Wydowski.
Edited by Adam Siovitz.
Audio is mixed by Mike Koromina.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant, Nick Sheehan.
The Ben Shapiro Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everybody, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, some people are depressed because the American Republic is collapsing, the end of days is approaching, and the moon has turned to blood.
But on The Andrew Klavan Show, that's where the fun just gets started.
▲
Export Selection