“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee
Steve Deace > News > 2012 Iowa Caucuses > A Big Endorsement for Ron Paul

Radio shows

A Big Endorsement for Ron Paul

The man that was the 2010 interview of the year for “Deace in the Afternoon” endorses the Texas Congressman for the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States in 2012.

 

  • Anonymous

    I will say the exact same thing as I said about Bob Dole and John McCain, if Paul gets the nomination he will show up no better than McCain, as I felt the same way about McCain would do no better than Dole. Can you imagine Ron debating Obama about anything other than the Fed? Obama – so Ron what would you do if you had Bin Laden in a house where we could get him?  Paul – I would not take him out under any conditions.  Obama – Ron even though you know that he personally ordered the slaughter of over 3,000 America citizens, you would still not get him even though we have lost about the same amount of solders as private citizens fighting Laden and his group??  Paul – I would not take him out under any conditions.  Obama – so Ron if my 12 year old daughter wants to smoke some weed would that be ok with you?  Paul – well of course, if that is what she wants to do.  Obama – so Ron what if 2 men want to marry or lets say 1 man and 5 women would you be ok with that?  Paul – well of course we should get marriage out of politics anyway and besides the Bible isn’t clear about all that stuff. Obama – so Ron do you think that the twin towers was an inside job?  Paul – well how do we know, there are a lot of unanswered questions.  Obama – Ron, no I mean inside job like our government was behind blowing the towers up.  Paul – well how do we know, there are a lot of unanswered questions… Should I go on?

    Ron Paul for Treasury Secretary!!!!

  • Gregg Jackson

    http://greggjackson.com/blog/?p=562

    Ron Paul’s Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Record
    I must say that I agree with Ron Paul on a number of economic issues including his consistent opposition to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, both bail-outs, and the recent lifting of the debt ceiling.But on the major social/moral issues that under-gird any society’s economy (life and marriage), Ron Paul is as far from being an authentic pro-Personhood pro-lifer and pro-family conservative as you can get. The bottom line with Ron Paul is that he claims to be pro-life but believes that individual states may allow the killing of pre-born babies if the majority of voters say it’s ok even though inalienable rights may never be alienated. He also claims to be pro-traditional marriage but is on record numerous times in support of same-sex “marriage” (or as Paul himself says, “whatever they want to call it”).The guy who just won the Gay friendly, formerly conservative, “Conservative Political Action Conference Presidential Straw Poll” for the second straight year:1. Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin. 2. Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” 3. Supports the “freedom philosophy” of legalizing cocaine, heroin, marijuana and all other hard drugs. “Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs.”4. Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution. 5. Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another. i.e. “gay marriage.” (“Gay couples can do whatever they want.”) 6. Is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate. 7. Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.8. Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality.

    • Anonymous

      And we haven’t even touched the subject of Israel…

      Ron Paul’s Defense of Hamas

      “Congressman Paul says Hamas is an elected government so Israel should
      not be blocking the delivery of weapons to Gaza. Once again, an
      estimated 10,000 Katusha rockets from Gaza have been launched at Israel
      since their voluntary withdrawal six years ago. Rep. Paul has never
      described these attacks as an act of war.

      In both of the presidential debates this year, the lawmaker has said he
      wants a “non-interventionist foreign policy.” He often votes alone and
      will not join his colleagues in condemning genocide, ethnic cleansing,
      rape camps and numerous other human rights abuses anywhere in the world.
      He justifies his actions by saying we should not tell other countries
      what to do, but he always tells Israel what to do and never fails to
      repeat Hamas and Hezbollah propaganda.”

      by Gregory Hilton

    • Chacho

      Paul wants anything to do with that in the federal government.

      5.  It’s pretty clear that Paul’s stance is that it is not the federal government’s role to regulate marriage, and that doesn’t mean he personally supports gays’ right to get married.  One group can play soccer and call it football, but that doesn’t make it football for another group.  Marriage is defined by peoples’ customs and religions, not governments.  Why should the governement define “not-marriage”?  Why should the government even practice marriage licensure?  Is it so that it can practice social engineering and can provide tax incentives to get married and have children and to buy a house together or to provide welfare incentives to not get married and have children out of wedlock thereby breaking down any natural occurances of a family that might have otherwise formed?  Is licensure the proper role of government in a free society?

      6.  Same argument – not role of federal government to regulate abortion.  Besides, why are you trying to associate a Christian OBGYN with pro-choice?  That’s kinda like bearing false witness.  You’re confusing a “strict constitutionalist” with something someone told you or something you made up in your head.  Paul supports the right to life.

      7.  I understand your concerns, but what legisation are you talking about and where are you getting his response from?  I’m just not believing you here like on number 1, and frankly, it’s not the role of government in a free society to legislate morality.  Whose morality are we to legislate?  Should we make fish with skin illegal to consume, or should we legally stone heretics, or should not maintining the state of being your brother’s keeper be illegal?  Should one be forced to buy health insurance because it might be immoral for you to burden others with costs that you might incur?  Our government was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and property, not morality.  Are inherent rights equivalent to morality?

      ________________________
      How is anything we do with our foreign policy consistent with “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”?  Was that advice from Jefferson just hogwash?  How is it that no other candidates identify the role of the Federal Reserve has played so clearly?  It’s very clear that every other candidate demonstrates their lack of qualifications when they can’t even identify the correct causes of major problems. How is advocating for declarations of war with clear objectives worse than unconstitutional military actions?  How do so many confuse non-intervention, or seperatism (policy of founders) with isolationism?  Paul has only supported constitutional monetary and foreign policy.  These are the issues that Republicans must first re-examine if they are to have any effect in conserving the repulic.

      The social-issue hang-ups that some have are too bad.  Paul’s not advocating the things you fear — he advocates liberty.  That’s an understanding more consistent with unconditional love than understandings based in fear and the desire to control others.  And besides, Paul’s position would place the authority on the issues that you care about much closer to you.  Municipal and state governments’ legislation into the moral domain are much more accountable than a national government.  How is that bad?

      Frankly, I’d rather deal with those problems relating to too much freedom, rather than those problems relating to too little freedom.  

      Sorry for the long post.  It’s so easy to ramble…

  • Tom Hoefling

    I’m confused. Is this a Ron Paul endorsement by this website?

  • GCSteven

    Look Tom Woods; “With God OBama and the evil doers that you mentioned can’t harm us, without God Jefferson (Ron Paul) and Washington couldn’t save US.” What exactly is Ron Paul’s position on Natures God and the Creator, or does Ayn Rand speak for him and you? You will get no support from me. PS. Nullify that. (Nullification of my sovereignty)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barb-Bricker/100002009313880 Barb Bricker

    The Steve Deace who is out there smearing Herman Cain? Steve Deuce who used his radio to sway elections in Iowa. This steve Deace? I smell a rat. I think we can dismiss all allegations he’s made about Herman Cain.

     

    http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/steve-deace-is-leaving-who-radio/

    　
    To appreciate the impact Deace has had on the body politic in the Iowa, one only needs to look at the results of the 2008 presidential caucuses and the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. In both instances, Deace publicly backed candidates and used his radio show to promote them. In the 2008 caucuses, Mike Huckabee dominated central Iowa from the Missouri to the Minnesota boarder. Mitt Romney, who Deace attacked and mocked on a daily basis, only won counties on the eastern and western edges of the state, except for Dallas County, which he narrowly won. Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 caucuses, and it’s safe to say that there was more behind his impressive Iowa victory than just Steve Deace, but Deace was certainly a factor.
    　

    　

    To appreciate the impact Deace has had on the body politic in the Iowa, one only needs to look at the results of the 2008 presidential caucuses and the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. In both instances, Deace publicly backed candidates and used his radio show to promote them. In the 2008 caucuses, Mike Huckabee dominated central Iowa from the Missouri to the Minnesota boarder. Mitt Romney, who Deace attacked and mocked on a daily basis, only won counties on the eastern and western edges of the state, except for Dallas County, which he narrowly won. Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 caucuses, and it’s safe to say that there was more behind his impressive Iowa victory than just Steve Deace, but Deace was certainly a factor.
    　

    To appreciate the impact Deace has had on the body politic in the Iowa, one only needs to look at the results of the 2008 presidential caucuses and the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. In both instances, Deace publicly backed candidates and used his radio show to promote them. In the 2008 caucuses, Mike Huckabee dominated central Iowa from the Missouri to the Minnesota boarder. Mitt Romney, who Deace attacked and mocked on a daily basis, only won counties on the eastern and western edges of the state, except for Dallas County, which he narrowly won. Huckabee crushed Mitt Romney in the 2008 caucuses, and it’s safe to say that there was more behind his impressive Iowa victory than just Steve Deace, but Deace was certainly a factor.

    　

    　

    By Craig Robinson
    By Craig Robinson

Deace on TV