tv Open Phones With Ben Shapiro CSPAN May 30, 2015 2:23am-3:19am EDT
didn't think i wanted to talk about friendship and how that helps people get through difficult experiences but that is really what the heart of the book is about. i think we have time for some questions. thank you so much. does anyone have any questions? >> this is roger till he is one of our authors >> you had mentioned you didn't have any family in the military. did you feel like you didn't have did you feel like you didn't have a right to write about it? >> very much so. it was hard actually to even feel legitimate i think my
editor tricked me into starting to write it. i think he thought i would research it forever and never feel like i have the authority. i think when you don't go overseas you never feel like this is your story to tell. i knew when i wrote the manuscript that i had to be making mistakes because frankly it's so hard to understand the military culture. there was a funny moment where they were trying to explain to me where she had lived in iraq. i said well was a in afghanistan? and she said no it was a chew. and she said no it was like a container housing unit. she said a shipping container.
it required for attempts at translation before i understood what she was trying to say. it's that kind of gulp between the military and civilians. i could turn it around and say isn't it hard to explain what you lived through. isn't that the reverse question? >> first i want to say you have every right to write about just as i do so thank you for doing it. you should know there is a continual of credibility in the military.
even for people who have been deployed many times in the military are wondering if they have any right to talk about it at all. i was in the special forces and you think of that person on this part of the continuum but then when you meet them they don't fit that. everyone knows their role is very small and in warfare, combat is the punctuation mark at the end of a very long paragraph. so you have every right. >> you just said combat is the punctuation mark at the end of a long paragraph, that is really beautiful. i know these women would agree because these support personnel
sometimes felt a sense of illegitimacy because they would compare themselves to the combat veterans. they wonder why is our story valuable when we weren't in the combat role. they were only support. most military people are in support roles supporting the combat fighters. i think the combat stories are even more dramatic and even more heroic. i was drawn to the support personnel because their stories aren't often told. they are the stories we don't hear about as much.
thank you guys for being here. >> can you hear me? what were and if you share this with us earlier and i missed it does its loud back here what were the f this ethnicity of the women you selected? >> all three were white. i had written up book previously about three young latina women and this time i wanted to write about white poverty and what it is to be from a working-class family and sometimes we make a mistake in this country that poverty is based on color and that's not always true.
sometimes it can be true but not always. michelle's dad had been married many times and in and out of jail and her mom is on welfare. she other the other comes from a more difficult background where she would been in foster care and really pulled herself together inside the military. she feels that was very valuable to her in building a healthier lifestyle than the one she grew up in. debbie had a less challenging childhood but never rich. was there a second part to that question? >> that was part of the original thought process.
did you ever think what the perspective would've been if you had identified a variety of cities ethnicities. >> armed forces are incredibly diverse and that would've been a different book and incredibly valuable book. i ended up being drawn to this book partly because of meeting michelle first and then her introducing me to the other two girls. these women were willing to
share so much material. the strength of the book material. the strength of the book is these stories were very personal and intimate stories but only three stories. it's a very close look at three individuals and there certainly are other stories that could be told. one of the things i find very interesting about the rings she selected, michelle signed up because she thought she would get fit. that's the level she was thinking about. debbie was doing it out of patriotism and asthma was doing it for hope of education. those are the real issues here. i think there is time for one more question. >> i have a and a question.
i thought one of the really interesting issues was the social class. how are her children doing? that was part of the issue as well. >> last fall we went to washington and we were asked to speak at the armed services committee about the experiences they've had as women. during that conversation, i was discussing what it meant to deploy single mothers. in the book you would see in close detail how her children
are careful for during hurt to year-long absences. her son is a little bit older but her girl is young. the question for children is even something that the department of defense is looking at. when we had the draft we didn't draft single parents of either gender. there is a reality that we have these children at home when their parents are off at war. when i finish talking she war. when i finish talking she took the microphone and said i just want to add something to that. she said i earned a lot of money during my deployment.
i earned combat pay and i chose to fulfill those orders. i appreciated having that opportunity to earn that money. i earned a lot more money during this than what i was waking making at a waitress at a truck stop. i didn't want my experience to be used in a way that would deny anyone else and economic opportunity. she was essentially saying you might think it's not a great thing for a single mom but that's easy for you to say because you weren't trying to raise my children on what i was earning. she told me later that she thought my perspective was persnickety and upper class.
i think she was right. the class angle is there and it's very real. if you speak about it in a certain way it makes you look like you are talking down on people and i wouldn't like i wouldn't like that at all. she is not someone who wants to be seen as a victim. there is something there in my perspective that i don't think it's great as a society to deploy single mothers and i feel that propensity on our part because i feel the children are suffering as a result but i think there's i think there's a lot there that we could talk about for a long time. she actually got all around
they weren't supposed to allow single mothers _-dash you're making an important observation. she actually got married right before she went to training. or she could have given up custody of her child but she chose to marry her boyfriend so she was technically no longer a single mom. there are many people who end up in her situation later on because the marriage didn't work. if you are married when you sign up and later does morrison have custody of your children you can
paperback this month and we will talk about that but what's on your mind clicks >> the presidential race is on my mind. if i have to watch hillary clinton faked being a human for much longer i'm not sure that i can take it. in the animation business it is to say if you ever watch polar express, it is realistic enough that it looks like human beings but not realistic enough while you are watching. hillary clinton actually has an address and bought while jim her try to imitate human is slightly odd and you wait for the glitch to go off in her head and she turns in from star trek. on the republican side of the aisle it's watching them -- each
other and not thinking about the race for a few minutes. >> how unique are you in los angeles, young jewish, conservative, pretty outspoken. >> the orthodox jews felt right so they tend to vote and the secular culture all the time as i am but it's alright. all right. i mean, i would go with -- certainly a statistical anomaly if we have to count the odds from los angeles ucla undergrad, i'm going to go with 99% before we get started. so this is the differentiating factor. they basically send me to the right. >> you recently wrote a call him on this issue by jews vote democratic.
>> if it is how you were born then it's a meaningless statistic. it's the same thing as those that are born catholic if you are not a self identified catholic if you're somebody that doesn't practice but you're born into the catholic family, if you are a jew and you were born into the family but have no relationship with judaism and you don't do any of these things and call your self then at that point you are going to vote left. the jewish population is extraordinarily secular with high income you just described the white leftists they've just been born with a name like feinstein. >> is california a lost cause for republicans? >> yes. to be perfectly frank what i would see as the short road and
long road in california. people suddenly wake up in the fact the state is bankrupt and the crimes are going up and they have no water because we spent our water on stupidity instead of infrastructure. why are the businesses moving out of state and the tax base is leaving. all of these things happen and nobody does anything about it. then republicans have to come back and clean it up like what's happening in michigan right now so that's going to take longer for that to happen but it seems like it is accelerating. they keep wanting to run which isn't going to be anything effective here if you want real democrats to vote for real democrats. it's the republican party nationally doing the same thing in the republican party. basically there are two theories. there's the theory that ronald reagan's pursuit which is i'm going to convince people they
are on my side and then there's the theory i'm going to convince people i'm on their side. they want them to be successful and the one that republicans are pursuing is the one that tends not to be. we know you are on the left that we agree with you most of the time and they are trying to carve off the middle voter. we don't know anymore we are not in the united states. we are in the era of the turnout. they won the vote and lost by 5 million. it's about getting the base out and finding the base and having them turn out in enormous numbers. >> who do you like at this point? >> it's hard for me. i don't know who i like at this point. i know i don't like jeb bush on the republican side. hillary is more formidable. it isn't about hillary it's about what she represents to the media that has decided that they
are dedicated to the idea. on the republican side there are a lot of candidates that are very good, so ted cruz, great on policy, can come off as negative rand paul is very strong. they will have a hard time reaching out to the tea party and then you have marco rubio that would be the jack of all trades shifting wildly over the past 12 months. do any of them come onto the radio program? the >> i believe bobby jindal has been on the radio show before on
the show that i did before. we had a lot of these guys. the people versus barack obama what is your criminal case. they bring the racketeering charges against the federal government which has shut down the government and i can deal with. for the different cases there are multiple accounts against the administration from the privacy violation of the civil rights and the fourth amendment and federal law and internal revenue service law with regards to the targeting of the conservative groups and everything from the failure to provide security at the embassy which doesn't amount to the voluntary manslaughter to the testing.
scandal. there's a lot of criminal activity going on in this administration. the person charged with policing the criminal scandals certainly involved in the enormous scale of obstruction of justice they will get away with it and there will be no consequences and this is what happens when an executive is out of control. bill clinton was an executive out of control. this goes back to the 100 year history of the executives grooming and power by leaps and bounds. all of that is very frightening to the citizens or it should be which is why i call for something radical to sue the federal government and the injunction on the federal policy which is admittedly did the
unthinkable. i don't know what the alternatives are. they can do whatever he wants even criminally speaking and given the fact that no one is getting engaged because he decided that this taboo there are no ramifications for a president that violates the law any more. >> host: the numbers are on the screen if you want to participate this afternoon 20,227,488,200 for those of you in the east and central, 748-8201 if you live in the mountain or pacific time zone we will take your calls in just a minute. then ship your zero is a strong executive indirect relationship to the weak congress.
>> they've delegated in an honest amount of power. it is pretty closely circumscribed and the fact is that it's grown so much the president of the unilateral will make the fact that president of the united states have talked about the taxes and wants to unilaterally put climate change via the executive branch agency and he wants to pass through. they fall in the purview. we now have a system in the united states i wrote my third-year harvard wall thesis on this actually.
they do not match up in any real way of holding the power the president gains power with the american people believe that he exercises the power. congress gets popularity by basically not doing anything because of that right something goes wrong they can always say the president screwed up it wasn't me i said the president do good stuff we get re- elected, the the president of the united states can go out and be as active as he once thought to be particularly active and the supreme court as justice roberts stated. they are constantly striking down after the president of the united states lied justice roberts decided to rule the way he did on obamacare and there is
only a political rationale for it. >> the patriot act renewal, what do you think lexus gimmick it needs to be circumscribed. it shouldn't be renewed in its current form. the fact is the patriot act allowed to the executive branch or has been taken that way and it needs to be closely monitored and curtailed. even the people that wrote the patriot act said he didn't think that they were going to do this come you shouldn't have written it that way. but it would be a good time to go back and write what you think is to monitor the communication because they don't need my data to find the terrorists. >> we just talked with robert earlier today and the newest book is called they know everything about you and prior to getting started it's why he's
seeing a significant uptick in the popularity because the case that he's made that there ought to be. >> during the war on terror before they declared at the end to what victory is in the george w. bush administration they decided that we were going to basically take an enormous ounce of data to capture and catch come into that and growing and growing under bush. the threat is so great we need to trust you and it turns out no matter how much you think the federal government ought to be trusted it never ends well trusting the government is very rarely a good proposition and that's why we do need some significant limitations on what the federal government can and cannot do. >> paperback, any updates updates enough enough to click >> i don't believe so. >> your previous book bullies
who are they click >> they are the folks on the left that are trying to say that anybody that disagrees is about human being into this is the entire thing. he did is costly to marco rubio it's fascinating hillary clinton is now a week and a half into the campaign she has been asked zero questions because she is away from the cameras and we get to talk about the order that was would you attend a wedding it the case in which no he is mean and nasty guy for not going to this wedding.
it requires the federal government and the idea is if we agree on policy i must necessarily be about human being the next step is therefore i can bring the government out of the equation. this couple comes in and she's been serving them for ten years. they come in and say we want to buy flowers, they've now legalized marriage so what you provide the flowers and they say i'm a religious christian come here is the list that will provide you the flowers instead of just saying okay we have different opinions and we will go across the street and it turns out that some are days of the tiny flower shop. but instead of giving databases with her if she was forced to pay the fine and this is what it has now come to because then when indiana passes the freedom restoration act designed to protect the rights of religious people to act in accordance with
the religion in indiana is called terrible and horrible and it's so far as to compare it to jim crow which is absolutely non-technical. it forces businesses not to associate. it's nonsensical in every level but the idea is that it's mean and nasty and cruel and they can do whatever they want. it's by virtue of their belief system they are horrible and nasty and they can be victimized by the government and putting a gun to their head and force them to do. >> so how do you think that he handled the indiana situation?
they once came close to saying this. the truth is that in america you should have the right to refuse service to anybody that they you want and if you reserve service -- refuse service to somebody that does make you a bad person if you do that you will lose money and your business will go out of business. that's why they had to in the south because to enforce the regime it turns out that the capitalists and the only color they care about is green. it's not even a religious issue. it's idiotic. i am a religious person but if i were atheist and i decided it shouldn't be my responsibility. it's not my job to serve a ceremony if i'm anti-circumcision this is america we still have freedom. is it free for me does that mean i'm anti-jew, no i'm just anti-circumcision. we are about to have the freedom to choose in the country and
it's amazing to refuse the consensual engagement is now considered an act of tierney. it's too what amounts to involuntarily serving you by definition. they were not going basic of the principal and ended up in this situation he was explaining the difference and it's true not serving the same-sex wedding and a person there is a difference. i can surf a person all day long and if i surf the wedding presumably i'm serving a prison that they are not equivalent. it's not the same thing. now the question is when did that become discrimination.
>> ben shapiro is the guest coming a lot of issues on the table and a lot of calls on hold. your views are precisely right down to that one. on the situation you take the affect that would be with the obama boycott before congress. >> you will see an impact. it won't be as great as other people say the program, the vast majority don't actually care which is unfortunate. you did see the drop from the levels of support in 2012 they dropped from about 78% to about 65% in the traditional vote. you will see the draft if
hillary clinton is the nominee and doesn't separate off from the policy you will see the continued drop but they will never vote and the majority because most have nothing to do with judaism so they are the ones that will vote republican because they care about it. >> washington, d.c., go ahead. >> you described hillary clinton as a robot and president obama as a perpetrator of involuntary manslaughter and then you critique the left for personal attacks. as a fellow law can you slow down. for example if i say you are a
narcissistic adolescent and that is my political opinion i suppose that is using the techniques. i wish the best of luck with your mind as you grow up. it's a badge of honor for me as far as the insult. >> why did you call that or compare that to your professors at harvard law. >> the truth is that went along pretty well with most of my professors. there are people who are known for not being particular and the other political viewpoint. one is a senator from massachusetts, but there were a
lot of harvard law professors law professors i got along very well with. as long as folks have an open mind it's fun to talk with them. what i object to is when elizabeth warren, i does with her a little bit and she and i met at the top in la because she recruited me up the wall school at the time and our initial conversation she'd read my profile and she suggested there was no such thing, which is only discounted by every single poll ever donned a college campus and then she started ripping into rush limbaugh. when i asked if she ever was and it listened it got relatively heated which is an interesting way to recruit. it if elizabeth warren is a lot of fun. i always going to have
conversations. it's how i got. >> have you ever been told before that you talk fast? >> i've been working on it for a long time that i will fall into the stereotype and my parents talk extremely quickly so everybody we sit around the table and it sounds like everybody is on fast forward and then we go back and time and i had to make sure that my parents met and i was born eventually. it was wild. [laughter] >> dickie is a missing augustine you are on book tv. >> i have read several of your works and i have heard you speak before in los angeles. i am a former republican and i'm
so fed up with the party and the politics i wanted to ask you are we still able to grab defeat out of the victory this time around and are we going to fire lit up again and then we need to recommend the book freedom to choose. it's a great book about freedom of choice and i also want to mention talking about the civil rights that barry goldwater refused to sign the legislation because he felt that it deprives people of the freedom to associate with those they want to associate which kind of reflects back on this. anyway, are we -- >> dickie, before we get an answer from ben shapiro when you say that you are afraid the republicans are going to screw it up again in 2016 can you give an example of what you? >> as a former republican i broke my back for john mccain
going door-to-door and also for mitt romney. they were such lovely gentleman but he ran campaigns and could not communicate with the american people of the level they needed to and i'm afraid it will happen again because we have people running on the republican ticket we just can't be as sharp as the democrats ..
i believe conservatism to be a morally superior beliefs that impaired people on the right it will to articulate back and i will be a serious problem for them. is the republican party, are they going to be able to do any damage here? the republican senate is less than useful thus far appeared what they did passing a bill that allows president obama to new sanctions on iran was truly egregious. the bill allows president obama to lose sanctions unless republicans come up a 67 votes that will be an uphill battle. i think there are some who have started to learn about teaching moral language a very basic admin full-term people resonate to. unless they speak in moral terms on a routine basis they will try 57 tax plans and talk about everybody's marginal tax rate, i know my effect of marginal tax
rate because they defend a big check to the irs because of it. most people don't know. that is your pitch for president come which by the way if your marginal tax rate or the highest tax bracket is 357 you will cripple the economy. that is not much of a page to be president of the united states. >> host: next book. what is it? >> guest: actually, i am working on a novel. i felt like changing it. as most conservatives are coming post-american novel. most think along the lines. i am writing something along those lines and it is fun to write. and then i was thinking along lines of a couple topics that would be interesting to write about and one would be the creeping tyranny of the american mind, this move towards i disagree with you dare forget to use the government to use what i want to do. that is truly frightening because there's plenty of things i disagree with.
there are plenty of things i find distasteful and problematic and things i find gross and terrible. i don't think that gives me the ability to use the government forcing them to do what i want. unless americans return to the vision of government, the government is only there to prevent externalities of interpersonal action to protect third parties. we look. we look at ourselves into a lot of trouble. that is a libertarian perspective but we are becoming such a country divided by styles it will be difficult to remain one country in the long run unless we come to an agreement the government has to stay out of it and deal with each other in an interpersonal level. but in a religious community that it's nobody else's business in same thing if you live in an atheist community, christian community, you should be allowed to be left alone without freedom of movement which is very led
and the fact that decided on a national level and it is happening right and left unfortunately that the federal government -- the one right you can use the power and nobody can love the power. this is why it is so fascinating. the government tried and have failed. for years i've been advocating the government get completely out of the business because it not like the government to do any good in the first place. get the government out of it let people of interpersonal contractual relationships. we have a tuba jewish veritable document. we have a jewish marital document. it makes no difference. and something had to register with the government. that was the way they registered nurse to do years ago, 3000 years ago. the idea that could agreement
with one person how we live our lives seems a better system than having the government decide what is appropriate about is not appropriate that doesn't affect others. >> host: jim, caliente california. you are an old tv with ben shapiro. are you with us? jim is -- all right. let's move on to tailor in dover, delaware. please go ahead with your question or comment. >> yes. a couple of questions for him. one is on a personal level i wanted to know if he has ever served in the military or anyone in his family ever has. i would also like to know if he is so hell-bent basically on destroying the federal government, what government which you think we would need to have in order to stay in the
united states of america. the other question is i don't understand the republican party right now because a lot of policies are coming from the ivorian institute, which is based on object of his own which is basically the most nonreligious coming in now, she was an atheist to begin with in the republican party just worships her, especially paul ryan had cancer but to everyone. >> host: with got it. i'll tell you why. why did you last the first question about the military? >> caller: but i get sick and tired of all these people that are pro military. my dad were shot down -- not shut down but shut down to survive two plane crashes in world war ii. my husband was in vietnam and died very prematurely because of
that. i work with the united states government for 30 years and all of these people that have never served their government never served in the military, always gotten help military and they do not you know it is like they have never served in the military. >> host: okay, we've got the point. i appreciate that. we'll add that to the list. >> guest: i loved your addition of shake it off. as far as military service thank you prayer service at, thank you prayer service that does your husband. you asked me why i want to destroy the federal government and also bulk of the military. those are in complete opposition. i want to restrict the federal government to be taxed virtuous originally designed including national security and military defense. sr is the argument the chicken
hawk argument that i didn't serve in the military number one, i am not a member of the police force i still get to vote on police policy. second of all when it comes to who defines military policy folks on the left, i'll make you a deal right now. we all agree the members of the military get to vote on military policy. are you happy with that? have a feeling that will go very poorly because members of the military agree with me on national defense and national security. as far as the ayn rand question objectivism. i point out the evils of collectivism. as far as the personal philosophy, the atheistic notion that selfishness is the ultimate value, most republicans don't agree with that. i like her description of capitalism and collectivism. if you asked most republicans, the answer is absolutely not. which is why the vast majority
of republicans are actually religious. >> host: jocelyn is richer in los angeles. please go ahead. >> caller: yes i would like to ask ben shapiro, why he is so focused on the obama administration with regards to privacy and lack thereof when this issue was really accelerated with bush and the cheney administration and now that president obama is in office, it is a big deal. shouldn't his title rate the people versus bush and cheney? >> guest: that the privacy question. i call for prosecution in the book of people involved in surveillance programs. actually you make my case. i don't restrict barack obama. the obama administration did dramatically upscale because it's fascinating in light of the fact the obama administration is declared the war on terror and wind down mode. while ratcheting up the amounts of information about americans
currently gathering. at least bush and cheney are trying to give us an excuse. we were trying to see folks are dangerous. they refuse to acknowledge folks are dangerous. we're in the middle of signing the nuclear deal even today they will not allow inspection of nuclear facilities. many say there is no threat i get little bit suspicious. >> host: cohost k. rla 870 los angeles, the warning answer. sln author of several books including his two most recent, always and "the people vs. barack obama." at 15 minutes left with ben shapiro. kerry coming back,, washington. good afternoon. >> caller: hi, how are you. i wanted to talk to mr. shapiro
about the drought in california. i wanted to give him my suggestion that we at washington state that transferred after he graduated from college in california and my fellow mother was snow skiing. they have lots of water appeared. with thousands following on people. i am also a child -- i'm an army corps of engineers family kid. i grew up in australia all over the world for the army corps of engineers. they are third world countries helping people get their country is going anyway. i know how construction works and i was.
>> host: where are you going with this? >> guest: >> caller: i want to know we are not doing something with dams and reservoirs coming all the way down. >> host: i am going to stop you there. let's talk about politics and more. >> guest: when it comes to the drought, it is clear environmental is done and they will build new reservoirs and a giant body of water right off our coast. they've somehow figured out since he's been $100 billion it doesn't exist. they provide fodder to people. as far as reservoirs and aqueducts from washington state. pat brown did a lot of these things. jerry brown hasn't done anything
on this and now they have to restrict everybody shower land. the water use is going to agriculture and agriculture for this talk about how we create the fruits and nuts in the united states, in terms of actual first and not the fact is that accounts for 2% of the gdp of the state of california. 2% of gdp is taken at 80% of the water. jerry brown's plan is to reduce water usage in the state of california in urban areas. he's going to achieve 600 700 gallons every year. we made 11 to fill up only loss. here's the reality. 150 gallons of fresh water pumped in every year. another 250 are pumped out of there to help the salmon swim to their spawning places. we have to make sure they have
usable water in san francisco bay. this is not exactly the best use of water. we are going to have to get over the old subsidies to industry as we like. i like farmers in central valley. beatty something incredibly worthwhile. the fact is if you are one segment of the population that represents 2% of gdp i may think almonds are more valuable. i may think that is more of a value to the united states. guess what, free country. i should go to pay for the water. the reason it's happening is the state of california. people in urban and agricultural areas. you would've thought competition for the water and water usage would have gone down. you go to the store. has anyone ever run out of bottled water? no. nobody ever wants