Deace Show Podcast 12-06-11

Hour 1:What could Barack Obama learn from the first “progressive”president, Teddy Roosevelt? Author Rick Marshall reveals the real Rough Rider in “Bully“… Plus, economic issues vs. social issues…there’s a difference?

Hour 2: Should Steve endorse Ron Paul? Dr. Tom Woods thinks so…he makes the case, you make the call.

Hour 3: The 60-40 split on Ron Paul…and former Presidential candidate and FOX host Mike Huckabee previews his new pro-life documentary…and where the current field stands on life.

Recommended For You

  • Zack

    Steve I couldn’t help but notice you wince at the guy saying he would repeal don’t ask don’t tell, but let me ask you this.  Are you comfortable with heterosexual sexual misconduct in the military?  Ron Paul’s stance is that both should be punishable.  Sexual misconduct is sexual misconduct. 

  • Dave

    In the process of listening to the 3rd hr right now, and two things immediately come to mind:
    1) Paul has several times introduced the Sanctity of Life Act that defines personhood in the US Congress. He also introduced the We the People Act as another method to make abortion illegal. Given everything else he has done inside and outside of Congress to further the pro-life agenda, I’m surprised that you think he is not pro-life enough. What else must he do or say to satisfy you on this issue?
    2) It wasn’t states’ rights that prolonged slavery but artificial intervention by the Federal government and the Courts with things like the Fugitive Slave Law and the Dred Scott Decision. If the slave south had not been able to, effectively, impose slavery on the free north through these measures and others, the absurdity of slavery would have collapsed without war. This would have happened for economic reasons even if the south failed to understand the moral reasons.

  • hatefalseweight

    Here is Ret. Col Doug McGregor telling judge Napalitano that the Pentagon is like the Fed… handing out money to its globalist buddies, unaudited, and driving us bankrupt by enforcing the  global monetary hegemony.  How can anyone listen to honest , common sense analysis like this and still act like Iran or Serbia or Libya or Venezuela or Syria or the rest of the globe needs to be invaded next?  Obviously, as Admiral Mullen has said, the bankster debts are our greatest national security threat.

    Defense Dollar Doldrums – Redistributing Spending & Neo-Wilsonian Interventionists

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGaAOSGSFF8&feature=youtu.be

  • Mark Ballentine

    To whom much is given, much is required.
    Ron Paul. A Christian. A family man. A doctor who has delivered thousands of babies. All that, and, he’s still willing to give states the right to kill innocent children. (Can you even imagine our Lord saying such a thing) That is not pro-life. Thank you, Steve (and company) and Jared, for your wisdom. 

    • hatefalseweight

       You, Steve Deace, Greg Jackson, and everyone else who pushes this line of thinking are just being hypocritical because you’re not out doing anything about it right now. 

      Why not extend our jurisdiction to Jerusalem?  Why don’t we invade Israel to overthrow their government and save the 50,000 babies they butcher every year and release the 20,000 Ukrainian / Serbian / Iraqi girls for they are sex slave trafficking through Tel Aviv right now? 

      You want someone else to do the dirty work and you want to selectively enforce who gets punished .

      Better yet, let’s get one world ruler and set him up in Jerusalem, be he god or be he devil , we will take him, to solve all these problems.  That’s the problem with standing centralized enforcement complexes.   For every one moral good they might selectively enforce, they’ll tempt the whole population into dozens of other evils and enforce those tribute payments and regulations and getting preachers to tell their sheeple to follow along with the system.  

      The biblical model for punishing such gross corporate sin is in Judges 19 – it’s ad hoc militia from the several states / tribes going and demanding evildoers be brought to justice with witnesses and trial.  Not droning them without due process.  Of course, at this point in history, not even Mississipi will vote in a personhood amendment.  Maybe South Dakota can take on the 49 other states that actually want abortion and human pesticides readily available.

    • Joshua

      States can’t have rights, only individuals can.  That’s like saying states can sin.  No, it’s individuals who sin.  I mean, if states could sin then they could be saved.  If they can be saved, then do they go to Heaven when they die?  People are in the image of God, so we have special attributes like rights, morals, and consciences.  We can enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ.  Social constructs like governments, corporations, and home owner’s associations have none of these things.

      At any rate, Ron Paul has introduced legislation defining human life as starting at conception:  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1096

      That’s from this Congressional session (2011).  He’s also done the same for the past two sessions (2007 and 2009) that I could see from a quick Google search.  Has Mitt worked toward this end?  Newt?  Bachman?  Any of the other status quo types?

  • http://www.thegiftoflifemovie.com Citizens United

    Learn more about Gov. Huckabee’s new film with Citizens United Productions and the Des Moines premiere here: http://www.thegiftoflifemovie.com/RSVP/

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.r.pomroy Michael Ross Pomroy

    Steve I never heard Ron Paul express the Fed’s right to enforce the right to work laws. Leaving the decision to local government or the person is what Dr. Paul I believe advocates. Now for the decision on anything to be made by government on any level the individual has to give the right to make that decision up. Rights come to the individual from our “Creator”. If you give up the right to a government entity to make abortion illegal they also can mandate the decision (ie, China). What do you think?

    • Erik Goodale

      I completely disagree.  Here is a quote from the Declaration of Independence:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

      So yes, rights come from God, but government is charged to protect said rights and the notion the federal government can defend the border but cannot and/or ought not protect babies is wrong.

      This is one of the few areas that Representative Paul speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  On one hand he says, “If we can’t protect life then we can’t protect liberty” (Source:  Direct quote from his ad. running in Iowa) but then on the other hand he will say it is up to the states or he will laugh about how ludicrous it is to have the federal government protect life and that we need less laws not more (Source:  His answer during a Fox News debate), as if protecting life is no different than tax code regulations.

      Representative Paul’s supporters go both ways too as I read (and have no reason to disbelieve) supporters such as Dave a few posts above, who point out how much work Representative Paul has done in the congress to protect life, but then see posts like this that abhor such action as only opening the door for worse violations…

      Life is too important an issue for this sort of conflict to exist so please tell me, as someone who has not committed to any candidate and has not ruled out Representative Paul, which is it?

      • Doctor Elefant

        Ron Paul is every bit as disgusted by abortion as you and I are. If it was in his power, he would see to it that it never happened again. However, his position is as follows. The 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution do not grant the federal government authority to legalize or ban abortion. Furthermore, the federal courts should recognize that all criminal laws are the juridiction of the states. For these reasons, it is up to the states to outlaw abortion.

  • Joshua

    Hi Steve and team!

    I’m a new listener, and I found you only because I’m a fan of Tom Woods.  I have two of his books (Meltdown and Rollback), and will have to check out Nullification based on your recommendation.  The premise of your own book is intriguing as well, so “We Won’t Get Fooled Again” is now on my Christmas list.

    I agree with a caller in hour 2 that feels entitled to an explanation of whomever you endorse.  Part of your mantra is “Tell the truth.” and this fits in with intellectual honesty with your listeners.

    In hour 2, around 24 minutes, Rebecca cited increasing government budgets and said, “creating all those jobs costs money”.  Maybe this was a devil’s advocate moment, but I should remind listeners that government cannot create jobs.  It can only divert resources from the private sector to the government sector.  It’s easy to see the jobs directly create by state programs, but what is very difficult to imagine are the jobs that were NOT created as a result of entrepreneurs having less resources to work with.  See Bastiat’s essay “That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen” (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html) or read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt (http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/) for more info.

    In hour 2, around 36 minutes, a caller was asked to define freedom.  I disagree a bit, and here’s my definition:  Freedom is a God-given right to life, liberty, and justly-acquired property. In exercising this freedom, you cannot infringe or do violence against another person’s right to life, liberty, or property.  To me, this sums up the golden rule, and frames the ten commandments into the language of man’s law.  With something like sodomy, yes, there is freedom.  There’s also freedom to be an adulterer of the regular variety (if there’s such a thing).  We have the freedom to gossip, dishonor our parents, covet, lust, and all sorts of other sins.  As the caller pointed out, Paul explained that everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial.  Freedom, in other words, includes the freedom to sin.  Without that key aspect of freedom, the virtue of resisting temptation is lost.  If there is no freedom to sin, what value is there in coming to the Cross of Christ?  God’s law will punish all sin unless the Christ’s payment is personally accepted.  By defining freedom as I have, we use man’s laws (the state) to heap an extra punishment on violent sins (murder, assault, rape, kidnapping, robbery, vandalism, etc.) while leaving non-violent sins (gambling, sexual immorality, not keeping the sabbath, gossip, gluttony, etc.) in the hands of God to sort out.

    Steve, I really appreciate your articulation of your beliefs about the institutions God has allowed for us to organize society: Individual, Family, Church, and State.  I’d like to point out that the state was the only one of these four that God gave us out of our own sin.  God originally setup laypeople to be spiritual leaders, like the judges and Samuel.  See 1 Samuel 8 for the whole story.  This is why I see the state as immoral–not only in practice but in its usurpation of God’s orignal design.  Of course, libertarian Christians like myself often pray against the immoral activities of states around the world, and seek true freedom and peace… but it won’t work.  1 Sam. 8:18 says, “…you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you that day.”

    In hour 3, around 19 minutes, you say that it’s crazy to think that trade with radical Islamists would bring peace.  As you have characterized it, Iranians will stop at nothing to destroy every last Christian on the planet.  When was the last war Iran started?  When was the last war we started?  The question of “Who is more agressive?” aside, I don’t see any good alternatives to trade.  Sanctions haven’t worked against Cuba.  They give dictators a bogeyman to rail against and blame everything on, even while the poorest people of their country starve.  Blockades are an act of war, as are first-strikes, obviously.  Just because we think someone has the desire to attack us doesn’t mean that they actually will, or that they have the capability.  I don’t think it’s naive or crazy to think that if we’re someone’s customer and trading partner, it’s less likely that they’ll try to kill us.

    As to Ron Paul’s view on homosexuality, I’ve heard the argument that America ought to have moral soldiers so that God will bless our military efforts.  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE)  I can’t know with 100% certainty whether someone is morally upright.  I can’t know if someone else is saved, even.  That’s squarely in God’s realm of authority to judge.  I see only the surface, not someone’s heart.  I believe the practice of homosexuality is a sin, and I believe that people are born with propensities toward certain sins.  That’s the whole “sins of the father” thing playing out through our sin nature, so I have compassion for people who say they were born that way. (It’s just like me having a bent toward violence.  That’s just the particular area of sin that I was born tho struggle with.)  The question we have to ask ourselves is how Ron Paul’s views would affect his execution as President.  Look further, and you’ll find that he believes the State has no business determining who ought to marry whom, not even in heterosexual unions.  He says that authority ought to be left to the church.  I don’t think that this issue would affect his role as President at all, honestly.  With his focus on monetary and fiscal reform, I think he’s got other things to tackle.

    Finally, in general, a lot of the Ron Paul supporters stressed your need to make up your own mind.  You’ll never find a more self-damning characteristic of the libertarian outlook.  We don’t go around trying to force people to have the same worldview as us, so our numbers don’t grow very quickly, do they?  :-)

    Very fair and wonderful discussion!  Thank you so much for bringing up some great things to think about and discuss!

  • Doctor Elefant

    What gets glossed over far too lightly is Ron Paul’s theory that people who are more responsible will be less likely to want abortions. Ron Paul crusades against the Nanny State like no other. It’s the liberty of the individual that forces responsible behavior, not the state. The point is that we will never achieve the kind of ethical society we’d like to be a part of, unless people re-adopt responsibility, instead of leaving our fate in the hands of the federal government time and again.

    Federal laws, constitutional or not, have done more harm than good in so many instances, that it’s a bad idea to bring in more of them, especially when you’re dealing with life itself. Did federal laws stop drug abuse, organized crime, shooting-sprees, terrorism, hate-crimes, alcoholism, etc.? Did they improve education, reduce poverty, or eliminate racial strife?

    Seriously, think about what you are asking for. Think about not getting fooled again!

  • Dan A.

    Good morning, Mr. Deace.

    On the 40% part of your “60/40″ rating of Ron Paul:

    — When you empower the central govt to punish all evil,
    you are tacitly accepting an ever-expanding leviathan which inevitably
    does more evil against all non-govt individuals under its claimed jurisdiction. The SCOTUS has ruled that the Ten Commandments are “evil” when displayed publicly, and that outlawing abortion is “evil.” What if the feds decide that breast-feeding, e.g., is evil? Who protects us from our “protectors”? Perhaps subsidiarity IS the way to go.

    — Individuals don’t belong in the same trash bin as their evil governments. When you favor cutting off trade to Iran and other so-called evil countries, you at least tacitly favor (a) punishing the non-govt individuals in those countries and in the United States and (b) further enriching and empowering both countries’ regimes and their corporatist cronies.

    — Pigeonhole Ron Paul supporters together with Ayn Rand admirers if you please, but you’re overreacting. Any such Randian-Paulite group is just not that significant a phenomenon to make a fuss over; nor does its actions negatively affect Ron Paul’s moral standing. (I’ve been enthusiastically following Ron Paul, online and off, since
    2006 and have noticed that extremely rarely do Paul supporters favorably
    invoke Ayn Rand to further Paul’s cause; in such cases, the mention
    typically is a response to a non-supporter’s invocation of Rand.) More importantly, Ron Paul is not a “Randian.” The ideals he has in common with Ayn Rand predate her.

    — All the other candidates, by virtue of their practically being the philosophical opposite of Ron Paul (60/40) in terms of state-worship, should hardly rate better than 40/60 on your endorsement meter. Therefore, the choice is clear: Ron Paul 2012!

    Thanks for this forum.

  • Laura & Carl

    I
    agree with you that the debate is “who is the Theo”, as that implies it is
    always a spiritual battle for mankind. 
    Indeed, it is.  I don’t think,
    though, that a libertarian philosophy prevents a person from voting into office
    one who “reflects” their moral & cultural values.  So, for me, it comes down to voting for
    someone who not just “says” he has my values, but really has “lived” my
    values.  The “state” or Federal
    government is never really amoral, because it contains “people”, but I think
    the ideology that Ron Paul and our Constitutional fathers believed in was a
    small government, because they knew all too well the evils that can be
    generated by large numbers of bureaucrats. 
    They wanted the power concentrated in the “people” instead and hoped,
    for the most part, that the politicians elected would reflect our values

    So,
    what has happened to us?  Besides the
    Hollywood/TV and the indoctrination by the Department of Education of our
    youth, many cultural forces have combined to make the electorate wholly
    dependent on TV news to tell them who to vote for.  Unfortunately, deceptive politicians used
    this to their advantage.  That’s why they
    say the one who has the most campaign contributions is the one who wins an
    election.  What can change this?  It is only now, after the Crash of ’08 and the
    immoral Banking Bailout that the public is now waking up from their slumber.  Simply put, the masses do not trust the Right
    or Left “typical” politicians anymore.  It
    comes down to a matter of trust and integrity. 
    Obama & Gingrich & Romney all supported the Banking Bailouts, not
    Paul.  Obama is weak, because he broke
    his campaign promises.  Paul can fight
    this and take many votes away from him. 
    Commentators always marvel at the strength of Paul’s supporters.  But, Paul’s base is nothing but real people
    who give their time & money.  We hate
    that we have to fork out money, when the other people who blindly vote don’t.  The other candidates rely on the lobbyist
    campaign contributions, so they don’t have the electorate involvement Paul
    does.  This alone should give us all
    pause.  

    While
    I hear your fears, I think we don’t have a better choice right now.  Ron Paul will take us to war, if it’s
    declared.  That’s good enough for me
    & my family.  Regarding the Muslims
    being warmongers, history shows mankind of all creeds have been warmongers.  Look at the Romans.  Look at other civilizations.  As far as trading with them, we trade with
    them now for the oil.  So, do you want to
    stop the oil from coming here? I understand your fear, but why not let a
    President Paul “try” to trade with them. 
    If it doesn’t work, he’ll soon know, and there will have been no harm
    done in trying.
     

    Remember
    9/11?  Bill Meehan, an acquaintance of
    mine, died that day in the North Tower. 
    The White House took us to war against Iraq, but later we found out that
    the Muslims on the planes were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq!  So, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?  My point is that at least with Ron Paul, the
    truth will always be sought after and relayed to the public, as he is a
    principled man.  He also is not afraid to
    attack another country if they dare even get close to attacking us.  But, he chooses to error on the side of
    caution, as well. We find Ron Paul a balanced man morally, as a result.  But, I digress…

    The
    problem with Gingrich & Romney is this—who do they serve?  Who gives them their campaign
    contributions?  Can we trust them?  The evidence shows otherwise.  Besides, I don’t want a serial cheater in the
    office!  A President Paul wants to put a
    stop to the economic catastrophe he sees coming!  This is what it comes down to, Steve.  President Paul will only be in one term, and
    by then, Americans will be woken up enough to make sure our ship continues in
    the right direction.  If we fall into an
    abyss economically, it will cripple us, and instead of the power being
    concentrated into our hands, it will be even more concentrated into the hands
    of the powerful political elite.  So, in
    the end, it is clear to me we will have much more power, both morally and economically,
    if we can keep from falling into that shocking abyss.  If the dollar crashes, as Paul has said will
    happen, we may not ever have that peaceful chance to turn our ship around.  We have to have money to reshape our
    government.  We cannot operate from a
    position of weakness, but then, that’s the 60% you agree with, right?

    Everything
    comes down to TRUST this time.  We can
    trust Ron Paul to abolish the morally bankrupt Department of Education.  I want that. 
    I don’t want our kids being indoctrinated.  Neither Gingrich nor Romney wants this.  I could go on, but in summary, you are right
    in your astute observation that Ron Paul will give us the “control, alt, delete
    button”.  I just see him as our “only”
    chance to start this nation back onto the path to where “we” want it to
    go.  The choice comes down to this.  Who’s the person we can trust the most?  And, is bombing Iran more important to you,
    or regaining control of our economy from the criminals in D.C.  That is the crux of the issue for me & my
    loved ones and why we’re going to vote for Dr. Paul….this time!  

  • Laura & Carl

    First, I apologize for the length.  It took me several hours to compose, though!

    I agree with you that the debate is “who is the Theo”, as it implies a spiritual battle for mankind.  I don’t think, though, that a libertarian philosophy prevents a person from voting into office one who “reflects” their moral and cultural values.  So, for me, it comes down to voting for someone who not just “says” he has my values, but really has “lived” my values. 

    So, what happened to America?  Besides the Hollywood/TV influences and the indoctrination by the Dpt. of Education of our youth, many cultural forces have combined to make the electorate wholly depenedent on TV news to tell them who to vote for.  Unfortunately, deceptive politicians used this to their advantage.  That’s why they say the one who has the most campaign contributions is the one who wins an election (as you know).  What can change this?  It is only now, after the Crash of ’08 and the immoral Banking Bailout that the public is now waking up from their long slumber.  Simply put, the masses do not trust the Right or Left politicians anymore.  It comes down to a matter of TRUST & INTEGRITY, doesn’t it?  Obama & Gingrich & Romney all supported the Banking Bailouts, not Paul.  Obama is weak, because he broke his campaign promises.  Paul can fight this and take many votes away from him. 

    Commentators always marvel at the enthusiasm of Paul’s supporters.  But, we are nothing but real people who give our time and money!  We hate that we have to fork out our own money, when other people who blindly vote don’t.  The other candidates rely on lobbyist campaign contributions, so they don’t have the electorate involvement Paul does.  This alone should give us pause.

    While I hear your fears, I think we don’t have a better choice.  Ron paul will take us to war, if it’s declared.  That’s good enough for us.  Regarding the muslims being warmongers, history shows mankind of all creeds have been warmongers at different times.  Look at the Romans.  Look at other civilizations.  As far as trading with them, I’ll give you that it might be “naieve”, but why not let a President Paul “try”, and if it doesn’t work, he’ll know soon enough.  Remember 9/11?  Bill Meehan, an acquaintance of mine, died that day in the North Tower.  The White House took us to war against Iraq, but later we found out the Muslims on the planes were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.  So, why didn’t we invade Saudi Arabia?  My point is that at least with Ron Paul, the truth will always be sought after and relayed to the public, as he is a principled man.  But, he’s not afraid to attack another country, if they even dare get close to attacking us.  But he chooses to error on the side of caution, as well.  We find Ron Paul a balanced man morally, as a result, but I digress.

    The problem with Gingrich & romney is this—who do they serve?  Who gives them their campaign contributions?  Can we trust them?  The evidence shows otherwise.  A President paul wants to put a stop to the economic catastrophe he sees coming!  Paul will only be one term, and by then, Americans will be woken up to make sure our ship continues in the right direction.  If we fall into an abyss economically, it will cripple us, and isntead of the power being concentrated into our hands, it will be even more concentrated into the hands of the powerful elite.  So, in the end, it is clear to me we will have much more power, both morally and economically, if we can keep from falling into that shocking abyss.  If the dollar crashes, as Paul has said will happen, we may not ever have that peaceful chance again to turn our ship around.  We cannot operate from a position of weakness, but then, that’ the 60% you agree with, right?

    Everything comes down to TRUST, Steve.  We can trust Ron Paul to abolish the morally bankrupt Dpt. of Education.  We want that.  We don’t want our kids being indoctrinated.  Neither Gingrich nor Romney will do this.  I could go on, but you are right in your astute observation that Ron Paul will give us the “control, alt, delete button”.  I just see him as our “only” chance to start this nation back onto the right path.  So, who can we trust the most?  And, is bombing Iran more important than regaining control of our country from the criminals in D.C.?  We feel our country’s very survival is more important than that.  And, this is why we’re going to vote for Dr. Paul….this time!