tv National Conservative Student Conference Liz Wheeler Remarks CSPAN August 7, 2018 3:35pm-4:32pm EDT
become intuitive, statesmen, we are defending the principles that have made america what it is.matters of opportunity instead of robes of dependency. truth is on our side and at the end of the day they can call themselves progressive all they want. history is on our side. let us go forward with confidence.and may the force be with us. thank you! [applause] >> thank you for that wonderful introduction. thank you all for having me tonight. it seems like you have been having a pretty busy and pretty fun past three days. [applause] we got in a 2a him last night. you all were still up in the
lobby so i think it says a lot about how hard you been working tonight. i want to start today, first by introducing myself. my name is liz wheeler. i host the show, "tipping point" on one america news network. you can catch that every night at 9 pm eastern. before we really get into the meat of what i want to talk about today want to start with a story. what you think you might like. i eventually told this before. but it really depends on the audience whether people think it's funny. but i think you conservatives on college campuses, i think you're going to like this. it's like daniell in the lions den. you live and work and study every day in the liberal cesspool that our college campuses. has anyone in this room been called a racist? have you been called homophobic? islamophobic, sexist, misogynist, that's a lot of hands. and the rest of the isms just
because you dared to be conservative on campus. yeah? you can respond. it is not rhetorical. then you will love this story. if you don't, please pretend 11 and left anyway. back in march, i spoke at the alaska republican convention. on my flight up there, there was a gentleman at the terminal and he asked me where i was going. we had a layover in seattle and i think a lot of people on the flight, it was the final destination in seattle. so i told him i'm heading up to alaska. he asked me what are you doing alaska? i told him i was going to a convention, a political convention. sometimes it is fun to mess with people. especially in the airport when you you will never see them again. i could have just said i was going to work but i told him i was going to a political convention and i told him i was giving a speech at a political convention. and i waited, would he take the bait? he did. he says to me, where on the
political spectrum do you fall? i knew he meant if you are liberal or whatever or evil? people who are not communist don't disagree with the substance of what i say. they're just indoctrinated by the left labor conservatives. so deliberate we misunderstood the guy. i said where on the spectrum? i fall on the individual liberty limited government site.i don't want the government up in my business. i can make better decisions for myself than the government can. i don't like when the government wastes my money. i don't like politicians. he nods. and he says, but like, on the spectrum, what do they call what you are? [laughter] i said what do they call that? free speech, free markets,
pro-life, pro-guns, low taxes, strong government, strong military, secure borders. i think they call that a bigot. this is where he laughs. this is where he is supposed left. that's the great thing about talking to people at airports. you can say whatever you want to them. okay so now to the meat of the speech. what i want to communicate to you today, do you have a safe space at your school? specific places on school where you can say what you want and other places you are prohibited from exercising their first amendment? how do you feel about that? bad, good? bad, obviously. have any of you had professors who talk about white privilege or male privilege? okay. my brother-in-law just finished his freshman year at a university in the midwest and he tried to start a chapter on his campus and a student government rejected his application. to be recognized as an official club at the school because get this -- you probably read the f charter. he says they are opposed to communism. the university said that a
charter that says one ideology and in this case, liberty, is superior to another ideology, in this case communism. his exclusionary and discriminatory. to communists. as opposed to communism of course where all people are included in welcome, given emotional unicorns including 100 million innocent people that were killed under communism or socialism in the 20th century. this is my point. this is the radical left. they worry about offending communists. i tried to offend communists. the radical left -- [applause] this is the radical left they were tolerant of everything just as long as you are saying exactly what they tell you to say and thinking exactly what they tell you to think. i want to tell you today, why, what you do on your campuses,
fighting back against this liberal and saturday is so important. you guys are brave. what you do is not easy. it is not easy, it is not without consequences. sometimes you're called racist or bigoted and sexist. sometimes professors pick on you, downgrade your work. just because they are triggered by the fact that your conservative on a college campus. let's think about this for a minute. if we keep allowing the left to go down this path, what would our country look like? what would our country look like if we actually adopted all of the liberal nonsense their teaching on the campus? like really, what would it look like? let's paint the picture. walk into your classroom, five or six years down the road. at the whiteboard, it is not called a whiteboard anymore because it is just racist. there is a professor of some sort. a funny looking dude.
gender nonconforming. non-age-specific. we do not know his race. because it is offensive to ask him. we cannot assume his race either based on characteristics because that might not show how he or should i say, -- identifies who did not know she is a person at all. and we can't even say the word person anymore, can we? because person is a sexist micro-aggression.person. you know, per son a son is a male. so we have this unknown race, he might identify as a mexican giraffe or siberian tiger for all we know. because trans-species is a thing now. this individual teaching a physics class he can even do basic addition or subtraction let alone complicated mathematics.because the hiring committee could not ask him his qualifications because saying we will hundred the individual most qualified for the position is a blessed
micro-aggression. this is a true story. we'll get to that in a moment. it doesn't matter anyway though. because you will all get the same grades anyway because that is true equality. actually, the people that will get lower grades are white men. if you are a white dude walking to class, get a smack on the hand with a ruler because you were born a male in the patriarchy is your fault. even though professor unidentified says there's no such thing as gender. for men there is it's all your fault, all of our problems. halfway through the semester the physics class isn't even a physics class anymore.because you can't teach science. or grammar or history anymore because all of those subjects further white supremacy. at the end of the day even though gender is a social construct and they tell us but a girl can be born in a boys body. and equality means everybody ending up in the same place doing the same thing with the same outcome. the only thing you're going to be asked when you are applying for a job is to mark down your privilege points.
are you straight, white, gender male? we don't have work for you. are you a trans agent gender nonconforming species of color? congratulations, the job is yours! this picture we just painted is funny, right? it is and it isn't. every example i used is actually real. every example i used has either happened on college campuses throughout the country, which you know, you are there. or else, professors and liberal activists on campus are advocating for these very policies that are put into place. ucla. anyone here go to ucla? they published a guideline to diversity called recognizing micro-aggressions and the message they send. in this handout, ucla says i believe the most qualified person should get the job is a racist and sexist micro-aggression.at cal poly,
the school is actively trying to get rid of white people on the campus. they published a report, i kid you not. it would save brag about discriminating against white people because the people are white. and it said, we still have a lot more work to do to eliminate white people from school. the university of washington tacoma. if you hear your school name shout out please. university of washington kuchta, says expecting proper english grammar from others perpetuates racism. a professor at the university of illinois says teaching math perpetuates right privilege. where was that when we were in elementary school? [laughter] university minnesota plans to expel students who do not use the preferred gender pronoun of other students, this is according to a draft of the new gender identity policy. i can go on and on. there examples across the country. this picture i just painted is this close to being real. this close to being real if these loony liberals have their
way. this is why what you guys do is so very important. you are here, you're educating yourself, doing battle, metaphorically, not literally. we are not maxine waters on this side of the aisle. you're metaphorically doing battle with a radical leftist on college campuses. and it is fantastic to see. so many people in this room, everyone of you doing battle every single day on your college campuses. because otherwise what happens? professor unidentified takes over in your peers, the liberals in your classroom, who i guess outnumber you buy a lot, they end up like cortez. does everyone know who that is? the 28-year-old democratic socialist who won the democratic primary in new york. 14th congressional district. back in june. she ousted the fourth ranking democrat in the house of revenues. congressman joe crowley.this was a big deal to the left.
the dnc chair, tom perez says that cortez is the future of the democratic party. she has been on a bunch of liberal talk shows, news networks and shows like the view since then. although she and her team have not responded to repeated emails inviting her to come on my program and abate socialism with me. cortez won the district by promising people in her district free stuff. free healthcare, free college, free housing, free jobs, free guaranteed income. what i want to do today is give you the five questions to ask your liberal peers to jump on this democratic socialism bandwagon. five questions that destroy the democratic socialist platform. i will tell you why it is important to do this. and to know this.let's start with question number one. what is the difference between democratic socialism and good old regular socialism?
define it. when government takes over the means of production and distribution, when government redistributes wealth, that is socialism, right? when the government takes over peoples profits for taxes and redistributes the money by giving away free stuff. that is democratic socialism. that is the same. the only difference is maybe, just maybe, people choose socialism and in regular old socialism, it is imposed on them. so the difference between murder and suicide. it is the same thing. question number two, where in the world has socialism ever worked? in venezuela? as we speak, people are fleeing the country because there's no toilet paper on the shelves. i read a story about a month ago about a little girl. i think she was 10 years old. in the hospital for an infection we would have just run to cvs or walgreens for an
antibiotic and not missed a day. she landed in the hospital because there were no antibiotics available. and she only lived because the kid in the hospital room next to her, died. in his mother gave the little girl is left over antibiotics. in cuba, and the universal healthcare system there, you can bring your own light bulbs and blankets to the hostel. the surgical instruments are rusty and the elite fly to western nations for the medical care. and the left, when we state venezuela and cuba they scoff and tell us it will not happen here. you point to scandinavia. this just happened in denmark. they canceled the universal basic income experiment because it didn't work. shocking, right? in sweden to turn the economy back towards capitalism decades ago and socialism was threatening to tank their entire country, the economy. the soviet union there is no better example of socialism than the soviet union. people used to stand for hours in line for local bread and you
can see photographs of this in history books. they do not want to open this on the left. they eat their own shoes because otherwise they would have starved. where has socialism ever worked? nowhere. everywhere it is tried there is oppression, starvation and death. and it brings us to the question number three, the bridge between democratic socialism and regular old socialism. who pays for all of the free stuff she is promised? i mean it would be great, i will not lie. if you look at what she's promising who would not want to have all of that disposable income, someone else paying for what you're doing. but who pays for it? the wall street top one percent. that's what she says. but even if you tax the top one percent, adding 100 percent tax rate it still will not pay for all of the free stuff that they are promising people. what happens then? you tax the rich. once the rich are not rich anymore, you tax the kind of
rich. and was the kind of rich are not rich anymore you tax the middle class. and was the middle class has been taxed to the point that they are not the middle class anymore, then everyone, is that we are going for? everyone is equally poor. and the government is in charge of all of your money. question number four, what will stop democratic socialism if there is a difference, from turning into regular old socialism? nothing. they cannot identify in-line for a mark on this continuum of socialism that would stop it from moving from one end of the spectrum to the other. once you give the government the power to tell people what to do, once government has the power to take our money, and give it to someone else, once the government has the power to tell us what our fair share is, it is just a matter of time before it is full-blown socialism. in question number five, it is a bit surprising to me that the left does not ask. i'm not talking at the left radicalized politicians bit and
talk about the voters. why on earth do they not ask why would we want that here? we all want fairness. everyone in this room i think wants fairness. we want every person to get a fair shot. a fair opportunity. but in the past 100 years, 100 million innocent people have been killed by socialist and communist governments and regimes. is that what democratic socialists want to happen here? do you know all of this, right? right. you know all of this. you know socialism is one of the deadliest ideologies the world has ever known. you know there's a difference between giving someone a hand up and giving somebody a handout. because a hand out means you have to steal what is in your hand from somebody else's hand. this is the point i really want to hammer home to you today. we as young conservatives have to know what we are talking about. we have to know why we believe what we believe. what i mean, we have to be able
to take a democratic talking points like adjuster with democratic socialism. and in the space of five minutes, sometimes as little as 30 seconds, we have to be able to destroy it. that is my challenge to you today. i want you to make a list. i see a lot of you have notepads in front of you taking notes. i want you to make a list of 10 or 15 issues, the most popular democratic talking points and a way to teach yourself how to destroy those talking points in less than one minute time. this is why it is so important. let me ask you a question. your classrooms, dear professors talk about politics? a lot? yes. your professors and classmates to the talk about president trump? yes. do kids perhaps you went to high school and now you are just friends on facebook, you don't go to school with them anymore. do they post about how donald trumps rhetoric divides our nation? they say that it is
unprecedented? right. we've all heard the word about a billion times. for goodness sake, andrew bird, shot alexander hamilton. he was the vice president. the former secretary of the treasury shot and killed. but the left today they are horrified when the president says pocahontas. this is my point. it is not the divide in our nation in and of itself. what's unprecedented is the fact that the radical left hook taken over the democratic party no longer believe in the fundamental principles, the same fundamental principles that we do. i will show you what i mean. back in the day, when our founding fathers were drafted the declaration of independence and the constitution and in the first few years of our brand-new baby republic, the men serving in our government were very divided.
massive disagreements. it is how we got the house and the senate. set up to philip it is how we got state and federal government. the examples are just numerous. you can go on and on. but the political division back that was different than the political division today. because back then, both sides agreed on the fundamental morality of the thing. this is what i mean. thomas jefferson and adams teamed up in the congress to write for independence, freedom, liberty, justice for all. they pledged their lives, their fortune and their sacred honor in defense of what they wrote. and then they spent the next half of their lives hitting each other's guts. because they disagreed about the practical ways to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. in other words, even while they hated each other, jefferson and adams actually always agreed on
the underlying fundamental principle that all people are endowed by their creator. with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. they both believed government cannot supersede those rights. they both believed those rights are not loaned from our government. both jefferson and adams believed our fundamental rights existed before government was instituted among men. and they both believed the role of government was to protect those rights. so they are disagreements, their animosity towards each other between jefferson and adams was over how to protect those rights. the federal government, the state government, these guys believed in their own prescriptions. they believed their own way was the best way. so strongly, they feuded about it and wrote nasty letters to each other for decades. and that is the difference between the divide in our country now and the divide back
then. back then, the differences prompted the writing of federalist papers or the nasty letters between jefferson and adams. they were funny you should read them. and now, the political division in our country prompts the radical left to keep republicans out of restaurants and burn make america great again hats. you saw the story of the teenager wearing a make america great again hat in texas, right? he was attacked by a liberal pig liberal came up and cursed him out, through water in his face. maxine waters supported should burn the american flag in front of her office two or three weeks ago. the divide now is different because democrats and republicans don't agree on the fundamental things anymore. democrats no longer believe that the judeo-christian values on which the country was built. they no longer believe in that. do not get me wrong. you do not have to be a christian to abide by our laws. but the idea of morality and
justice as codified into the laws of our nation, is directly drawn from judeo-christian teachings. instead of both sides of the aisle acknowledging that, with anti-religion on the left trying to redefine the idea of rights. and wrongs. and justice. instead of right and wrong, they want political correctness. instead of justice, they want privilege points. they want us to ignore objective truth and focus on how people are feeling instead. the point of all of this, this is what i'm trying to communicate to you today. this is why it is critically important that we as young conservatives, everyone sitting in this room, this is what i do on my show every night. that we know why we believe what we believe. knowing what we believe, just will not cut it anymore. because we all have this kind of idea of what is good and bad. we know intrinsically.
i don't know if it is our conscience. we can tell intuitively if a political policy or politician is good or bad or stupid or smart, right? right. that isn't enough anymore. we have to know why we believe what we believe and we have to be able to articulate it. because the democrats are not trying to negotiate with us about what the best practical policy to achieve a common shared goal. number it is not a situation where republicans think we should secure the border. democrats also think we should secure the border. but republicans think we should secure the border by building a wall and democrats that we should secure the border by preventing illegal immigration by helping mexico's economy so people don't want to come here. that is not the situation anymore. the immigration debate is not a jefferson, adams, intellectual disagreement where both sides agree we should secure our borders and simply disagree on the best policy to do that. now democrats do not want to
secure our border at all. they want open borders. and as you can see we have now come in a full circle. what you are doing at your school on your campus, fighting for conservative principles in the liberal cesspool is so important. ... >> we have to change our traditions, our history, we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation. they said it themselves. that's what the left wants to do. so it's up to each and every one of us in this room to stop that.
never doubt whether what you do on campus is valuable. it is. you might be mocked. you might get insulted. you probably will. you might get expelled if you call that physics professor, you know, he instead of his preferred gender pronoun but what you are doing now and what you are preparing to do in the future fighting for conservative principles is going to be the reason that when all of us in this room, when we have kids of our own, that we also have the united states of america, a free nation with liberty and justice for all to hand down to them. thank you. [applause]
>> from western new england university, my question is, i appreciate your point about how conservatives and liberals disagree on the fundamental principles because i don't think that liberals do believe in christian morality or natural law or what we think get to the heart of politics in government, i guess my question is we come to a point where we no longer disagree or we disagree not only on policy but fundamental principles of political philosophy in general is it possible for this country to be one unified nation and if so how? >> sure, by doing what we're doing, by educating people. when i talk about the radical left, it is mostly the leaders of the radical left movement i'm talking about. it is not necessarily liberal voters. it is not the people who nominated or voted for alexandria ocasio cortez. there are leaders who will profit off of being in charge of government. it is our job to educate voters.
it is our job to educate our peers. in this past election, i forget the exact number, but the millennial population we could have actually determined the outcome of the 2016 election by ourselves if we had all turned out to vote. there is such a small percentage of us who actually vote that it became sort of a moot point. i guess the politicians donald trump and hilary clinton didn't really reach out to millennials as much because we don't vote so it is our job to educate people to bridge that divide because it is not a loss cause by any means. that's why we do what we do to fight for this country so it remains unified and un -- one nation under god. >> thank you. >> sure. >> i'm from the university of uc riverside. my question to you is two of the biggest cries from the left is that there's a shrinking middle class and that healthcare is the leading cause of debt in the usa. so what would you say in response to that? >> so shrinking middle class? is there any other country in
the world who has a more vibrant middle class than america? >> that's what the left says. >> that's what i would say. one strategy i use when i'm talking to the left is i always take what they say and try to repackage it into a question because many times they memorize these talking points and they don't study the issue or know the truth. so if they are talking about a shrinking middle class, if you look at the history of our nation, history of the world, you compare that of the history i guess of the free market economy, you can see the correlation between prosperity and capitalism. you can see how many people have pulled themselves out of poverty, not just in the united states, but around the world because of the freedom to make those economic choices for themselves. so when they say, you know, our middle class isn't competing with other nations or we have a shrinking middle class, the question i would ask them is is there any other nation where the middle class is as vibrant and as wealthy and has as much disposable income as we do in the united states? because i think the answer to that is no and they won't admit it. can you repeat the second half of your question? >> the second one is that
healthcare is leading the cause of debt for families in the united states of america. when they need healthcare, when they get the attention they need, that's what drives them to debt the most. >> that's probably true. easy solution to that, give healthcare back to the free market. [applause] >> we covered a story on my show, probably six months ago about a surgical senator in oklahoma who is using a model of healthcare different than what we're used to, different than what the left wants. they actually post on their website. i wish i could remember the name of this place. they post on their website exactly how much each appointment costs, how much a certain procedure costs so you know going in how much you will owe. right now with our system now, it's gotten even worse since obama care, we never know how
much something is going to cost until we get the bill in the mail. then we hope the insurance company covers the bulk of it, but we never really know. when we don't know, there's no way to drive that down because there's no competition. if healthcare is the leading cause of debt, it very well may be, it is not that difficult to solve if we just give it back to the free market. that's what i would say to them. >> okay, thank you very much. >> sure. >> liz, jeremy roscoe. >> hi, jeremy. >> care to make a comment on a statement my professor said about how the -- how it's worse for an inner city family in chicago to have a baby be born because they are poor and won't have everything paid for than a child to be born in havana, cuba? >> well, that's very sad, isn't it? i don't think it's ever a tragedy for a baby to be born. [applause] >> i mean, i think that
highlights actually the dangers of having government in charge of our life because when government officials or politicos reduce human beings to dollars and cents, then what gets left at the wayside, the dignity of human life. not only is your professor factually incorrect. it is not worse for a baby to be born in the united states in my circumstance than to be born in cuba, our country was founded on the premise that every person has dignity, every person has a right to life, and every person has a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that applies here because it doesn't matter in our country what socioeconomic situation you are born in. you are not stuck there. you have that opportunity to achieve anything that you want or at least to attempt to achieve it. you won't always get a trophy for it, but you have that opportunity to pull yourself out of poverty. so not only is he missing the dignity of life, i think he's missing what makes america great and what makes cuba suck, that
they don't have the opportunity to pursue what they want to and we do here. >> thank you. >> sure. [applause] >> thank you for coming and speaking. >> of course. >> i'm from the university of florida. a friend of mine on the left made this comment, and i'm not sure how to respond to it so maybe you have a better response, but a friend of mine mentioned that republican members of congress or conservative politicians use congressional redistricting to maintain a white vote enexclude minorities in their voting pool in order to keep their seats. i'm wondering what would be the best way to refute something like that and how did you respond to it? >> didn't courts just rule that gerrymandering wasn't racially motivated? i think they did. i forget what court that was. i would look up the facts. what i do is if i don't have the
answer off the top of my head is i immediately research it, i look it up. because like i was saying before to the first gentleman who asked a question, a lot of times what the left does is they memorize the pamphlet of talking book, which is like one line, this is the talking point, and then one line of response. if you take them like three levels down, they are not going to know the answer to it. so for something like gerrymandering, obviously it would -- you would need to look at the map. you would need to look at what specific district it is. it is not just something that you can generalize and look and see if that's what's happening. politicians in our country have always used gerrymandering to win seats, that's not something new and probably won't stop. arguments from the left that say that republicans are doing something solely for the purpose of suppressing minorities i usually am fundamentally skeptical of those talking points unless they can show me proof. if there's proof, then i will stand with them and call that out. i don't know what district she was talking about. i would look it up, look at the numbers and look at why the left is trying to use that talking point, and what their point is
so you can debunk it. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you for being here. i snuck into a young democratic socialist meeting last semester, lost a few brain cells along the way, but at the end of their time they said liberalism is antithetical to communism. how can we convince people who have so fundamentally broken? >> i actually think that's pretty insightful. you have to understand a lot of people and young people may be easier to mold here, but a lot of people who choose liberalism or democratic socialism are missing something else in their life. they are looking for structure. they are looking for faith. they are looking for family. and so all normal healthy things to do, but they are misplacing that and they are looking for government to answer those things. they are looking for government to be their god. they are looking for government to be their family.
they are looking for government to be their confidant, their source of everything. government is the last place we should look for all of those things. government should be held in their place so as not to interfere with those things. i think it is important to remember when you are talking to the left, remember their perspective. you don't know everybody's story. you don't know if they came from a broken family. you don't know maybe they are feeling hopeless because they don't have any faith, they don't have a relationship, you don't know where they are coming from. getting on twitter isn't the place to do this, but in person get to know people. get to know why they believe what they believe, so you can talk to them about better ways to fulfill what they are looking for because ultimately human nature is universal, whether you are a democratic socialist or whether you are a conservative college student, we all have the same feelings. we're all hungry. we're all sleepy. we all desire to be loved and to love. we are all looking for those same things. it's a matter of whether we're looking in the right places for it. when you are talking to these
friends when you are at these meetings, it is hard to see how you would bridge that gap because when you are at those meetings, people are just dug in to their own political views, but in our regular life, i mean, i think we're called, and this is coming from a faith perspective, we're called to minister or to share the kingdom of god or called to share conservative values with people by how we live. part of doing that is being kind and loving and empathetic to other people who believe things differently than we do. [applause] >> thank you very much. >> hi liz. i'm an intern at the washington bureau this summer. >> oh, nice >> it is nice to put a face to the voice that i have been hearing. >> i will see you later today. we are shooting our show there today. >> i know. i was part of the dry run. my question is kind of piggy-backing off of what you mentioned here. you talked earlier about how jefferson and adams disagreed on a number of different fronts but still maintained a good amount of respect for each other in to even their later years.
how do we maintain or re-establish that level of civility between conservatives and liberals without losing our minds? >> but how we treat them. you always play by your own rules. you don't stoop to playing by their rules. we don't stoop to their standards. that's why -- [applause] >> did you see that video or that tweet from cnn when he was at that trump rally, did you see how that crowd treated him? kind of like a mob? i didn't like to see that. i didn't like to see him be treated like that. i think he's trying to take down trump, but i don't think we should stoop to their level. we were calling out the left for how they treated ben shapiro. we call out maxine waters for saying that no trump administration official should feel welcome anywhere anymore. we can't stoop to their level. so it all starts with remembering that when we strip
politics away, every person is entitled to be treated with dignity and with respect. if we treat people like that, it's much more likely that they will treat us the same way. [applause] . >> thank you. it is nice to meet you. >> you too. >> i'm victor sanchez from the university of florida. i was wondering what your opinion was on basically given the hate on america and the hate on trump right now, just, you know, this anti-american exceptionalism or denial and a lack thereof, what do you think is one of the irrefutable facts that makes the united states the greatest country in the world in this century? >> that every person in this country regardless of where they were born, whether they were born into poverty or whether they were born wealthy, regardless of their gender, their race, their religion, or any other characteristic has a right under law to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that every person has a right to
be treated with the same standard under the law, that every person has the opportunity to be who they want to be. that sets america apart from any other country in the world, because there is no other country where we can choose to live our lives the way we want to live our lives without government intervening or bossing us around in some way. there is not a single nation that a liberal could list that they can say the same. there's almost no logical argument that could be made that says that the fundamental principles on which this country were founded are not superior to every other form of government. i think we can see that. just how we live our lives. we criticize our government without fear of repercussion. even trump's media -- you know, the media's war on donald trump, i mean these journalists are saying horrible things about the president, and they are allowed to go back in the press briefing room the very next day. they are not thrown in jail, not assassinated, not silenced. we are allowed to criticize our government. we are to vote in who we want and vote out who we want. we are allowed to advocate for what we want. we're allowed to live the way we
want, marry who we want, work how we want, say what we want, keep and bear arms, no matter what the left thinks when we want. everything about this country, every liberty that is codified into our constitution and into our laws does make us superior to other nations in the world. doesn't mean it makes us superior as individuals, the dignity of all people are equal, but our governmental structure is superior. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> hello. university of kansas. with the national journalism center. i want to ask about so we see all this media bias and then we get these rallies where conservatives are attacking, you know, different media organizations. how do we handle that? and then a second question, just short, what is the best tip you have received from a producer from a television? >> how do we handle the attacks?
verbal or physical? >> verbal attacks, so like what we saw this week. >> i would go back to what i said. you treat other people with dignity and respect. don't stoop to their level. don't do it. it is tempting. we are all human. we want to roll our eyes. we all want to jeer at people who are threatening our values, especially when it is something so personal to us, you know, the way we live our lives, our freedoms, but don't stoop to that level. don't. don't be afraid to gently and politely call out other republicans or other conservatives that do that in a way, you know, that i did today saying i don't like to see that. i wish that, you know, we hadn't behaved in that way. i wish that we would operate with a higher standard and a higher calling in how we treat other people. that's the best way, i think. [applause] >> the advice part? >> yeah. >> are you talking about politics or tv industry?
>> tv. >> the best advice i got i'm not going to mention the name of the person who gave this to me, make sure that all your friends are not in the industry. make sure your core group of friends are not in tv because it is a rough and tough business. at the end of the day, you are going to get attacked, if you are a conservative a lot. you are going to get a lot of hatred. you are going to get a lot of vitriol. in order to stay true to your values, to stay true to your principles, you need to have a fundamental support network. you need to be a person of faith. you need to have a relationship with jesus christ. you need to have good relationships with your family. your nuclear family and your extended family. you need to have friends who are good people, who are supportive, who you are supporting, and you need to be able to withdraw from the industry, whether it's at the end of the day, the weekend, vacations and not be consumed with it. you need to have a regular life that has purpose outside of your identity on tv. [applause]
>> fernando from university of florida. i'm a big advocate for freedom of speech. how do you combat political correctness because in my opinion it restricts our ways to talk about what we feel? how do we combat that? >> say what you want anyway. >> okay. [laughter] >> in a polite way. [laughter] >> it's not law yet. yet. it is our job to prevent it from being law. that's why we're all here today. say what you want. say it gently but firmly. you don't have to be abrasive to make your point. you don't have to be a sensationalist to make your point. you do have to be courageous. if someone is sitting across from you or if there are a lot of leftists sitting across from you on line on in your school or classroom telling you are a bad person to say a certain thing it is difficult to go up and say that thing. some people do it anyway by yelling at the left. some people do it anyway in an abrasive way, but you can do it anyway.
you can speak the truth and let the truth be the sensation, and other people will follow your example. we are as a species -- i don't want to say collectivist species, but the word i want is not coming to mind, but we are -- we do copy each other a lot. so when one person does something, other people follow along. when you set that example, when you're the trailblazer, when you are polite and gentle, but you speak the truth anyway, other people will have the courage to do it because what they feared, the repercussions, they will know that it's really not that bad, and you survived just fine. >> thank you. >> sure. [applause] >> hi. nolan meyer, i'm with mjc program at crtv. >> oh, nice. >> yeah, anyway, i really believe that separation of church and state is one of the most important fundamental constitutional values, and so, you know, i disagree on the point that we get our -- we draw our constitutional morality
directly from judeo christian values. but on a larger point -- >> where do we draw from them? >> i don't know. >> i want to make this point. you can ask your question. you don't have to be christian. you don't have to be jewish to live in our society according to the judeo christian values but if you look at the fundamental laws on which our country was built, i mean, why is murder wrong? >> well i don't think you need to believe in any judeo christian values to not -- i don't think nonchristians are fighting some kind of, you know, compelling urge to wake up and kill people every day. >> well, i think we all are. isn't that why we have laws?
>> the reason i ask you about murder, is our idea right of wrong, that we all have inherent rights, that's not endowed by nature. that's endowed by god. that's what our founders of the country believed, that's how they built the premise of our nation, every person is worth the same thing. if you are not looking, if you are not studying from a judeo christian standpoint there would be no reason to believe that because some people are smarter than others, some people are more creative than others and some people are more successful than others. if you don't have that viewpoint where you believed in the dignity of a person's soul, then there would be no reason to codify into law that all people have the same rights. [applause] >> i'm confident that you can justify making an argument against murder without invoking christianity. but getting to my question, it does concern me as a conservative that it seems like more and more i'm hearing conservatives invoke christianity, and i worry that
that potentially alienates us from nonchristian voters. i do think all conservative policies can be defended in strictly secular terms, and i think it is wisest to go about it that way. >> i agree with you that all conservative policies can be defended in strictly secular terms. i think there's a place for both. and i will give you an example. so one of my -- one of the topics that i'm most passionate about is abortion, pro-life, the right to life. [applause] >> and -- thank you. [applause] >> and there are many avenues that you can take to make that argument. there are arguments from a religious standpoint that those of us who are christian believe that from the moment of conception, god has formed this baby in the womb, fearfully and wonderfully made, and therefore, we have no right morally to end that child's life. you can also do it from a secular stand point. you can say well, science says that life begins at conception, a unique dna is formed from that
moment. so if that new human life is a person, and it is, because there's no other time during a pregnancy that it would become a person, turn from a nonperson into a person, then by our standards in our country, by our laws, what right do we have legally to end that person's life? what right do we have standing outside the womb to say well this person deserves less protection under the law than i do? so i think that it's a good thing to think about what you're thinking about. it is good to have in your pocket arguments from both sides of the aisle. it's called audience targeting. you know, when you are talking to a group of christian people, you know that you're going to talk to them in a way that is going to connect with them. you are going to talk more about principles, more about morals, more about values, more about faith. when you are talking to people that you know are not christian or not coming from a christian world view then you talk about the secular argument. what i do personally, and i'm pretty open about my faith on my show, i'm a practicing catholic, i do talk about that quite a lot. what i do in my personal life is when i'm examining a political policy or a bill, i support it only if it has an argument from
both secular -- from a secular standpoint, a practical standpoint and a religious standpoint. meaning, i would never support a policy that i thought would practically work if it contradicted my religious views but i would never support a policy based only on my religious views if there wasn't a practical argument for it either. if you combine that hybrid, you make sure you're not imposing your religious views on other people, forcing them to live their lives or live their lives in our society under your religious tenets but it is also -- our government is by the people for the people and of the people. our religious beliefs inform our values and it should inform our politics. [applause] >> thank you. >> sure. >> hi. my name is jared rodriguez. i go to the university of florida. but my question is, in the era of fake news and whatnot, it seems that journalism is not as
respected as it used to be, in a career in that sense, so i think a lot of young conservatives may be kind of turned away from, you know, pursuing a career in journalism. so do you think that we should be making a push in order to kind of combat like the left basically dominating the mainstream media or is it kind of like a loss cause, the left will always kind of dominate? >>i hope it is not a loss cause. that would mean everything i do on my show wouldn't mean anything. i think conservatives should get into media for sure. the more of us the better. i don't really buy into the generalizations when you say oh, should we try to -- should we try to look at journalism and, you know, recreate the image, make it more respected. we should look at each individual person's work and judge them based on the work. if their work is worthy of respect, then respect it. if it is not, then criticize it. getting into journalism or getting into politics or
political commentary, it is somewhat different. i mean, the line between it has been smudged i think because there's so much political activism just in people -- in journalists who claim there is straight news. if we go back to that example. but the more of us, the better. i say people who are feeling hesitant about -- for young conservatives for feeling hesitant about getting into journalism or getting into political commentary or the news, make sure before you do, you know why you believe what you believe because the first thing that will happen to you when you speak the truth, when you stand up for conservative principles is you will get attacked. our human nature reaction when we get attacked is to question ourselves. that's normal. everyone does it. we question ourselves. you have to know not only so you can speak to them but you have to know for yourself that what you are saying is correct, whether it's factually correct, whether it's morally correct, whatever, you have to know why you're standing for each policy because then when you get attacked, you can just brush it off and be like they are wrong. then you won't feel the same
hesitation to wade into the business. >> thank you. >> sure. [applause] >> thank you all. [applause] >> tonight on c-span 2 book tv in prime time. we will hear from former white house press secretary sean spicer, former house speaker newt gingrich and journalist david corn and michael isikoff. book tv on prime-time on the trump administration begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight on c-span 2. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on 1968, america in turmoil. we look at the presidential campaign. we will discuss the cast of characters and events dominating 1968 presidential politics. robert f. kennedy's assassination, televised clashes
between chicago police and protesters, during the democratic national convention and richard nixon's decisive victory. watch 1968, america in turmoil, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span 3. >> this weekend on book tv, author interviews from this year's freedom fest conference in las vegas. starting saturday at 3:20 p.m., the author discussing her book failure the federal miseducation of america's children. at 6:30 p.m., robert pool with rethinking america's highways, a 21st century vision for better infrastructure. then on sunday at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the book in order to live, a north korean girl's journey to freedom. at 5:00 p.m., walter block with space capitalism, how humans
will colonize planets moons and asteroids. at 10:00 p.m., the book life after google, the fall of big data and the rise of the block chain economy. and at 11:40 p.m., the author discusses his book profit motive, what drives the things we do. watch this weekend on c-span 2's book tv. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the trump administration is planning to reorganize several government agencies, including
the general services administration and the office of personnel management. senator james langford of oklahoma is leading this 90 minute hearing. he chairs the subcommittee that oversees issues concerning federal management and regulatory affairs. >> good morning everyone. welcome to today's subcommittee hearing. thank you for being here and being part of this conversation. this hearing provides an opportunity to discuss the administration's proposal to transfer certain functions being handled by the office of personal management to the general services administration. this particular proposal was released on june 21, .