ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


Woods to Iowa Radio Host Steve Deace: Please Endorse Ron Paul

6th December 2011      by: Tom Woods     

Steve Deace has a large evangelical audience, and I was recently invited on to make the Christian case for Ron Paul. Now I’m asking Steve, who says kind things about my books, to do something bold: defy the establishment and endorse Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Lou Bjostad

    Be bold. Good advice for so many things in life.

  • Lou Bjostad

    Robert Nisbet reminded us in his 1953 book The Quest for Community that one of the most destructive acts of a strong central government is that it deliberately weakens churches and other community organizations.  A strong central government wishes to redirect the proper functions of our local neighborhoods to itself as a distant authority, because it wants power it cannot get in any legitimate way.  So what is the machinery that makes this possible?

    1. Divorce power from responsibility.  As individuals, and as communities, we know that our wealth and our liberty to act are deeply embedded with our responsibility to make our communities better.  Power and responsibility must therefore always remain firmly wedded in order for a moral individual to live a good life.  This marriage is exactly what a strong central government must destroy, because government wants that power for itself.  So how does government break the marriage of individual power and responsibility?

    2. Government begins by aggressively demanding responsibility for all the problems that individuals would normally have to solve for themselves.  This aggression is the key to the misery that follows, because a bully who demands to solve all our individual problems always sounds especially seductive and appealing to the morally weak.

    3. Having seized all responsibility, government then announces that it must have power to solve all the problems that it has just taken on.  The morally weak assume that the government will take only a little of their individual wealth and liberty, or better still, will take only the wealth and liberty of people other than themselves.

    4. Government now aggressively demands all power, not just a little, and not just from some individuals.  Even though the government is stripping all wealth and all  liberty from all individuals, an act that is clearly offensive to everybody, the government argues at this stage that it is better at solving problems than people who are acting on their own.

    5. Now comes the best part.  Government retains control of all wealth and all liberty, and relinquishes all the problems back to the individuals who had them to start with.  The divorce of power and responsibility is now complete.  Each individual has the same responsibility he started out with, but has now lost the power that was once wedded to that responsibility.  The strong central government now has all the power, and bears none of the responsibility.

    I am confident that Ron Paul will never build this obscene machine.  His political adversaries, however, have shown themselves all too willing.

  • Greg

    very good.  you see how Woods tailored his message to a particular group (the christian far right) without compromising Paul’s message which the christian far right doesn’t like (end of torture, free trade and open immigration/emigration, same sex marriage etc.).  he simply left out the things this particular group doesn’t like and said the things this particular group does like. 

    Paul should do the same.  in the primaries he should concentrate on guns, abortion and healthcare and in the general election he should focus on ” war on…” (on drugs, terrorism, poverty all that crap) and economy topics.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Tom -

    I know I’m just a far away guy from Holland, starting my day by visiting your site, but I seriously think that Ron Paul’s campaign team should follow my example ;)

    You’re one of a rare kind, capable of being bold and courteous at the same time. That’s part character (and you have character!) but me thinks it’s also due to very clever manoeuvring and a spot on delivery of the core message, like you did in this vid.

    In the end, you don’t just present Ron Paul as the guy one would like to drink a beer with, no, you deliver the philosophy of freedom and in the end, Ron Paul is the guy you’d not only like to join and share some brew, but to also run the bar with, or the entire brewery for that matter!

    Kind regs from Amsterdam,
    Richard

    Btw: looking good and healthy, Tom. Did you perhaps pick up on the Gary Taubes writings or Mark Sisson’s daily apple?

  • http://twitter.com/Aloha_Analytics Aloha Analytics

    Gingrich also ushered through the Repeal of Glass Steagall which he now says was a mistake, but why did Newt not recognize that before the fact?  Further, Newt was fully invested in believing in Cap-and-Trade and climate science, not just misled by Gore and Pelosi.  Gingrich, “I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html
    Gingrich now says that position was a mistake too, but only after the policy has been legitimately called into question.  Like Thomas says, Gingrich always comes down on the side of lobby money, regardless of whether it can be shown to be wrong even beforehand.  When it comes right down to it, Gingrich is really no different from Obama.  He’s just a sophist who makes it sound different.

  • Laura

    Hi Tom,

    Excellent plea to Mr. Deace.  Being a Catholic Christian (former Baptist) myself, I can tell you EVERYTHING you said is true.

    What it REALLY comes down to is this~~

    Do you want to SAVE OUR ECONOMY & OUR CULTURE?

    –or–

    Do you want to BOMB IRAN…..

    Which is more important to you?  Because I know that I could live with a Ron Paul who would bomb the smithereens out of Iran, if they DARED to do anything to us, and I could live with that, but what I can’t live with anymore is……..all the corruption…….the BIG BANKS & the FEDERAL RESERVE who not only dumped on us the Banking Bailout, but also have recently & OUTRAGEOUSLY dumped on us the EUROPEAN BAILOUTS—This alone should give Mr. Deace pause, as it does me!

    Besides, NONE of the other candidates even want to bring our troops home from Japan or Germany!  That gives me pause, too.

    So, in the end, I do hope AND pray that more & more commentators come around to Dr. Paul, a man who would be SUCH A WONDERFUL ADVOCATE for PRO-LIFE, and turn so many people’s brainwashed ideas about it around.

    Tom, if you like the way I’ve worded any of this, please feel free to put it in your own words & post it on your page to Mr. Deace.  Good luck, my friend, from both me & my husband.

  • SRG

    Tom,

    Great effort with a 2×4 to the head of Deace but…

    While you were making this video, Steve Deace was writing the following about the Iowa poll results which show RP in 2nd place:”Hard to believe *** that there isn’t a true Tea Party champion (or Christian conservative for that matter) anywhere near the first tier of this poll.”http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/what-the-iowa-poll-means/Deace just doesn’t get it.  He doesn’t even see RP as a Christian or a conservative.  Good luck changing his mind.Deace (and other zealots) don’t understand that the key issue they should vote on is religious freedom.  Instead, they want to force their views on everyone in a kind of theocratic America.  They imagine their particular brand of religion will always be in power…

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Thanks, Richard. Actually, we’re planning to go primal around here sometime
    within the next month.

  • PrismPaul

    Based on Deace’s quote at the end of your video, it seems as if he’s already endorsed Ron Paul. Who else could he possibly be talking about?

  • Daniel Greer

    Well done, Tom.  Thanks you for your hard work.

  • Anonymous

    So obviously, the very thought of going primal is what matters already ;)

    I trust you won’t become one of them natural fallacy cavemen “fundamentalists”, but just in case, here’s a good one by Mark Sisson on science proper and primal primacy. Take care, and all the best from us over here in Amsterdam,
    Richard

  • http://twitter.com/Aloha_Analytics Aloha Analytics

    Follow-up:

    Gingrich’s desperate back-peddling on his support for global warming alarmism and carbon taxes is yet more evidence that the former Congressman is a political chameleon who flip-flops whenever it’s convenient for him and whose political campaign has no principled foundation whatsoever.

    “Geo-engineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” Gingrich said back in 2008. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”

    From:  http://bit.ly/tsVTRm and http://bit.ly/oydCIh

  • Republic Reminder

    Operating in the role of the voice of the “Christian far right”:  I don’t know or care who Deace is.  I have never heard him and I am not interested in trying to find him because I presume he is just another liberal in conservative clothes.  Greg says Ron Paul is pro-homosexual marriage and I don’t believe that, I believe Ron Paul may possibly be pro-keeping the state out of the church’s business.  On the abominable marriage issue, I believe the state should never have entered into the business of trying to “sanctify” marriage without God’s approval.  We were marrying and giving in marriage long before marriage licenses existed and the fact that it is such a big issue is just an indication of how ignorant people are as to who authorizes and sanctifies a marriage in the first place. 

    Again as the voice of the Christian far right on the issue of “ending torture”.  The virtuous and moral people in this nation do not condone or approve torturing people who are created in the image of God.  We have been educated into ignorance of our obligation to stand against government leaders who have forsaken God’s righteous standards, therefore we often feel powerless to stop the unrighteous actions of those we have placed into positions of power.  The MSM directs all public communication therefore, we have never had a voice and are frustrated in our feeble attempts to get things done according to God’s righteous standards.  Yet, most of us will remain unaware of the power we have available to us if the message never reaches us.  And, we will once again, usher in another media chosen loser because we simply have no source of reliable information that doesn’t contradict everything we believe in and support. 

    You may all enjoy this presentation but since I am looking for a truthful presentation that will reach the people that are not here and will not get here – I remain thankful for the information but unimpressed with the lack of acknowledging of the foundational truth of what is preventing the support necessary for Ron Paul from getting the message.

  • Mark

    As an Iowan, I am guessing that Deace is leaning toward Santorum or Bachmann.  They are on his show all of the time.  Tom, come to Iowa and stump on Paul’s behalf.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457760294 Robert Fellner

    The quote of Steve’s you present at the end is an emphatic slam dunk of a closing argument. Very well done, Tom!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457760294 Robert Fellner

    The quote of Steve’s you present at the end is an emphatic slam dunk of a closing argument. Very well done, Tom!

  • Paradise

    Sorry for eavesdropping ;) but I agree with you entirely Tom. I love to hear what you have to say on everything, especially Ron Paul. Don’t forget that by definition a Newt is slippery and a relative of the chameleon!!!

  • Chris5191973

    I posted a comment the other day (4th) about browsing gingrich’s “Real Change” at the library.
    In the book, which published in 2008, he praises the political changes that were creating such a boom for the Irish economy. He even predicts that the Irish economy may become the biggest and strongest in Europe. Truly a horrific warning that every American should know about this bum.
    On top of all he says in his book I also discovered that he has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (along with Albright, Greenspan, and Geithner) since ’92.

    Now, do the American people know this about Newt? Do they really believe this man will uphold the American constitution?

  • Republic Reminder

     Actually the key is the freedom to practice our religion without government infringing on our rights to practice our religion openly, in public, in private, in the courts, in the schools, in the parks, in the boards of education, in the city councils and the state and federal governments.  Hallelujah!  The Supreme Court never had the authority to infringe on our freedom to practice our religion.  We just let them get away with doing it until they now think they have the right to continue doing it.  Tra la la

  • Martin Brock

    Ron Paul is indisputably the most genuinely Christian candidate to seek the Presidency in my lifetime, but good luck persuading a nominal “Christian” to support him. Many, if not most, nominal “Christians” are anti-Christians. Anti-Christian churches have more followers than genuinely Christian churches. Ironically, the anti-Christians expect this marginalization of true Christians by a dominant church masquerading as “Christianity” but preaching the anti-thesis. They can’t comprehend the possibility that they’ve embraced the latter rather than the former.

    No offense to Roman Catholics intended, but many Protestant reformers held during the Reformation that the Roman Catholic church was anti-Christian. These days, most Protestant churches fit the description as well or better, particularly the most nominally “fundamental” and evangelical.

    As an example, here’s the forum of a group of self-described “conservative Christians” accepting some brand of dispensationalism. They’re “Rapture Ready”.

    http://rr-bb.com

    Browse to the board rules and guidelines for posting, and you’ll find this admonition.

    “No posts supporting issues on pacifism: Continuous wars will exist on this planet until the Prince of Peace establishes His Kingdom on earth, and only after a great and bloody war that Jesus Himself will wage against His enemies. Laws and governments (with armies) are established to restrain evil, if left unrestrained, evil will overtake peaceful countries, including “pacifists”. “Pacifist Christians” would be persecuted, oppressed, slaughtered…” [emphasis in the original]

    The guideline goes on to quote a passage from Romans (13:4) that doesn’t say a word about pacifists being slaughtered. It rather says that lawful authorities punish evil people, so the site simply assumes that pacifism is evil.

    Some governments persecute pacifists, and others don’t. Right? These people believe fundamentally that the Kingdom of God is the sort of government that persecutes pacifists. The idea is absolutely central to their thinking. It is axiomatic.

    The Prince of Peace Himself will lead a great and bloody war … soon. This belief creates no cognitive dissonance for its believers, and if you don’t share the belief, they will not communicate with you at all, so they stop listening as soon as Ron Paul opens his mouth. Paul can’t possibly be a “Christian” in the minds of these people, because he doesn’t pine for a great and bloody war. Period.

    I don’t know Steve Deace, so I don’t know what sort of “Christian” he is, but if he’s anything like these Left Behinders, you’re probably wasting your breath. They’ll take a flip flopping, war mongering, serial adulterer over a consistent, peace loving paragon of fidelity any day. Don’t ask how Christians could make this choice. We aren’t discussing Christians here. We’re discussing anti-Christians labeling themselves “Christian”. Don’t be fooled.

    I don’t accept the “Christian” label myself. These days, I might as well tattoo 666 on my forehead.

  • Chris5191973

    What conservatives don’t practice is tolerance.
    In his letters the biblical Paul did advise Christians to be tolerant.
    These lessons appear to be totally lost on today’s Christians.

  • Chris5191973

    What conservatives don’t practice is tolerance.
    In his letters the biblical Paul did advise Christians to be tolerant.
    These lessons appear to be totally lost on today’s Christians.

  • Frpeter

    Martin, you spoke well, until the last line. (You wrote that last line out of ignorance, so I don’t hold it against you) Indeed, just as they have grossly distorted what it means to be a conservative in the Republican Party, so too have they grossly distorted what it means to be a Christian in the Protestant-Evangelical Party. However. Just as so many who are friends of Liberty are as of yet ignorant of the champion of the Constitution, Ron Paul, so, too, so many in American have yet to hear “the best kept secret in America” – the [Eastern] Orthodox Church. Now, I won’t get into it more than that (you can search on-line the many sites). I will, however, encourage you to love the Truth in this all-important matter as you have in the matters of a passing nature – “re: this world which passeth away.” We know from our support of Ron Paul that you need not be either Republican or Democrat to be right. In fact, it is the “third way”, the least trodden path, the forgotten way, which is the right way. The same – I do believe – is true in terms of Christian Tradition: the third way, the forgotten way, the ancient ways: follow these and you’ll encounter the True Face of Christ and Liberty in Him…All the best.

  • Laura

    I hope someday the truth comes out about 9/11.  A friend of mine died that day in the North Tower.  So much evidence has been brought forward by over 1,500 architects and engineers.  I can no longer be in denial, but the presstitutes are, and they are culpable for not conveying the truth.  Bill Moyer, a well respected journalist, has said that it is a shame that journalists no longer investigate.  But, 9/11 is really the key to the terrorism fears pervasive today.  And, I would like to know how much the Federal Reserve is involved with decisions about our military, something NOBODY ever talks about or even questions.

  • Laura

    The far right Christians are no different than anyone else.  The TV has been the main brainwashing mechanism.  That’s why we have such a battle.

  • Shark Man

    Could someone link me to the 2010 interview that got awarded interview of the year?

  • Shark Man

    He should watch Ron Pauls values voters speech from this year. 

  • Marcos

    Call steave deace on the air now!

  • jen

    Excellent.  How does this broad message/information seep into the masses and what is the vehicle to communicate them to? 

    Just thinking off the top of my head, but is there a good way to show incrementally over the last so many decades of how events/decisions incrementally leads to the above 5 points?  For ex, how one event/legislation led to another, so people get a sense of how this all took shape and how it has been creeping on them for some time.  Graphs/diagrams/comedy/etc….so that they can connect the dots and come to a conclusion. 

    Also, is there details on how his political adversaries have shown themselves willing to oblige to the points above?  For ex, Bachmann has said that the US needs to be “feared” again in order to regain respect and that she would “every arsenal” against Iran. 

  • Jay

    My reply to Steve Deace’s closing remarks following his broadcast response to Tom  Woods’ appeal to Deace to endorse Paul: http://stevedeace.com/steve-deace-live/
    ———-

    Mr. Deace, please consider these opportunities to re-evaluate your summary of the facts concerning Ron Paul:

    (1) Marines Corps

    The Marines were formed in 1775, their first Battle was in New Providence, Bahamas, against the British. The Marines were not formed to fight “radical Islam”.  When the Marines did fight the Barbary Pirates, they were fighting them because they were pirates; injurious to our mariners, and disruptive of our commerce.  Whether or not they were Islamic, was quite beside the point.  Recall also that the Marines fought our fellow Christians in 1812 when they were also injurious to our mariners, and disruptive of our commerce.  There were few Muslims in the royal Navy at the time.

       Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Marines

    (2) Radical Muslims

    There are fewer Christians in Iraq now because of our foreign policy.  Noeconservative, pro-war foreign policy has resulted in the retreat of the Church in the Middle East, and the advance of radical Islam.  Ron Paul’s foreign policy might actually result in an expansion of the Church in the Middle East; what we’re doing now certainly hasn’t.  Most Muslim do not hate Christians, but our foreign policy has given many of them reasons to associate drone strikes, invasions, bombings with a Christian United States.  The Neocon foreign policy puts reaching the Middle East for Christ at a great disadvantage.

       Link:  http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/july-23-2010/disappearing-christians-of-iraq/6701/

       Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-11-12-iraqchristians12_ST_N.htm

    (3) Homosexuality

    You are wanting Ron Paul, a candidate for the Presidency, to advocate engaging the Executive Branch in outlawing or prosecuting homosexuality; when or if that is the task of Government, why is it the task of the Federal government?  Where is that in the Constitution? 

    More specifically, the task of discouraging sin, and freeing people from it, belongs to the Church first and foremost.  Why should the Church abdicate this moral authority to a Federal bureaucracy? 

    Pragmatically, giving that power to punish and prosecute homosexuality to the Federal government, may seem good for some Christians when we are in power, but it puts our freedom of religion and our own exercise of conscience at great peril when we are not.  Is everything we do and believe as Christians regarded as moral by non-believers?  When non-believers are in power over Christians how rigorous are they in protecting what we esteem?

    Both Christians and non-believers are safest when we remove such power from the Federal government completely; and as Christians we are most effective when we by our example, charity, and our evangelism we reach sinners for Christ.  The Federal government is not, and should not be greater than the power of the Gospel.

  • Jay

    “Our government should not engage in actions in the Mideast or anywhere else that endanger Christian communities already in existence or make it less likely that Muslims will take the gospel seriously.”

    Link: http://ccheadliner.com/opinion/guest-u-s-wars-and-arab-christianity/article_2ffea33c-2026-11e1-90a2-0019bb2963f4.html

  • Lou Bjostad

    Thanks, Jen! I started to connect the dots while I was reading Murray Rothbard’s incredible narrative An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, which has hundreds of case histories.  He starts with the Greeks and just relentlessly works his way forward for 2300 years.  I bought the two-volume set from the Mises Institute (about 1000 pages).

    There are no masses.  I think Rothbard and Nisbet would both agree on that point.  Each individual struggles separately with pain, fear, anger, sadness, and boredom, at the same time embracing anticipation, progress, completion, and joy.  Ordinary conversation is the great engine of social change, because it specifically requires that we speak to one another as individual to individual, not as an individual speaking to “the masses”.

    I am highly intrigued by your last point above, because it’s something I’ve been thinking about quite a lot recently.  We are all individuals, but that also means we are not all the same. We differ.  We value things differently.  We have different personalities. In particular, we find about a dozen basic kinds of personalities in any local community, and I’m actively trying to understand how this has caused our larger political structure to emerge in the way that it has.  Once we understand the real cause of a disease, it becomes much easier to treat or prevent that disease.

  • Jovan Galtic

    And remind him that the USA sided with radical Muslims against fellow Christians in Bosnia and Kosovo:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJrNeZgnj7Y

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn5SkGpIKDs

    How does Christ look at that?

  • RFN

    Went primal a few weeks ago and can already tell the difference in both shape and energy level.  Plus a lot of red meat!  What’s not to like.  Though, I do love milk, so that goes in my 20% column :)

  • RFN

    Way to generalize, Chris.  Wow.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Primal doesn’t exclude full-fat milk; the paleo diet does.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    Primal doesn’t exclude full-fat milk; the paleo diet does.

  • SRG

    Well, no surprise to me.  Here’s how Deace writes up his political views as of today (12-7-11):
    There are several good candidates running, and I’m still an undecided voter myself. But there is one candidate running whose worldview lines up almost completely with my own. This is also the only candidate that doesn’t have a YouTube’s greatest hits of flip-flops, tough-to-justify endorsements of pro-infanticide RINOs, a comfy couch moment with Nancy Pelosi, nor any hint of scandal.That candidate is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.According to this genius, Bachmann is the “ONLY” candidate who doesn’t flip-flop, doesn’t have the endorsement of abortionist RINOs, doesn’t buy into Global Warming and the only candidate with no hint of scandal.  No one else even comes into his mind.This is the guy you’re trying to persuade to support RP.  Good luck…

  • jen

    Bachmann does not have any record of achievements to tout, hence she can say she is not a flip flopper.  I don’t think she has taken a stand on much of anything so there is no record of her saying much of anything.  She is a true social conservative as defined by far right Judeo-Christian training, however that is not how to elect a president.  New York Times did a great centerpiece on Bachman’s radical right views on religion and how she has spent a lifetime being trained to combine religion with politics.  The article also mentions how she downplays this on the campaign trail.  I am sure Deace knows that Bachmann does not have a shot for the nomination and would get scoffed at during a general election as she only appeals to a small base of those holding far right  views like John Hagee.  The Hagee crowd would only be drawn to her. 

    Most of media is against Newt at this point and increasingly become so while leaving Romney fairly untouched.   

  • jen

    Newt is not the best candidate.  However, remember he is opposed to the Fed and the only other candidate other than Paul, to make the public aware of the trillions printed by the Fed and made reigning in the Fed as part of his economic plan.  One of his biggest goofs is saying that is was a good idea to get rid of Qaddafi and then backpedaled.   

    Romney is by far the worse candidate.  Bachmann follows with Santorum in third place.  Cain’s lack of seriousness means noone ever considered him in the running, especially as most candidates didn’t even bother mentioning him.  Recently, Huntsman has been too caught up with Trump. 

  • Anonymous

    Look what was up on Deace’s site today: http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/a-clear-choice-ron-paul-on-life/.  Seems to me like they’re making an effort to distort Dr. Paul’s position, or they’re so biased that they are nit-picking at reasons to reject him as a candidate.

  • H. Bunce

    Tom,
    Please post any response from Mr. Deace. If none, please let us know via your site.
    Thanks.

  • Silence Dogood IX

    Hey Mr. Woods!

    I gave Mr. Deace a call today regarding your video urging him to support the Good Doctor.

    This is basically what I told him…. 

    Mr. Deace, please read Matthew 6: 5-6 then reconsider all of the candidates.  That’s basically what I said.

     Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.  I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”
    Matthew 6:6 “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.  Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

  • http://perlstar.myopenid.com/ perlstar

    Tom knocks it out of the park again. Your youtubes keep getting better and better!

    I have seen this before. Steve Deace shows all the symptoms of being told not to endorse Ron Paul. His excuses for not doing so are flimsy, and just look at the quote that this youtube ends with. 

    Unfortunately, Steve Deace works for someone else, and if he were to say the words “I endorse Ron Paul” it would probably be his last show. Almost all of the radio stations in the country are owned by one of the “big 5″ media companies. They have control over what is broadcast.

    Of course, if Deace happened to have more interest in his own personal integrity, he would announce the endorsement anyway, even if it meant he would have to find another job. Too bad we can’t take him to a bar and get a couple of drinks in him, to find out what’s really going on.

  • Martin Brock

    Thanks, Fr. I have little experience with Orthodoxy. I’ve known one Greek Orthodox personally, but he wasn’t very religious as far as I know, and I never discussed the faith with him. I don’t intend to offend genuine Christians, but the anti-Christians do offend me.

  • Laura

    The problem with Far Right thinking is that they never want to follow the Constitution and declare war.  So, to criticize Democrats is ridiculous.  They need to set an example.  There is no excuse for not voting for Ron Paul.  They just don’t “get it”~~~that America is on the precipice of a HISTORIC FINANCIAL CALAMITY.  Mainstream Americans may lose everything!  They don’t realize that if the likes of Corzine of MF Global get off, then, all of our financial accounts are vulnerable.  Without enforcement of laws, the criminals will keep robbing our bank accounts.

  • Laura

    Have you guys been to Steve Deace’s website recently??  GO TO HIS WEBSITE!!!  I’m posting this on DAILY PAUL immediately.

  • Laura

    Hi Tom, this took me several hours to compose, but I posted on Steve’s website by the interview with Mike Huckabee.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    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!

  • Jim

    “And as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.”  — Steve Deace
    http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/24/the_buchanan_treatment_wont_work_on_ron_paul/page/2

    Wait…so has Deace come around? He may not be _endorsing_ Paul outright, but it sure sounds like he’s saying that Paul is the best option in the race.



Find me on Google