Steve Deace

A Matter Of Trust

May 11, 2013 By Steve Deace 2 Comments

I don’t mind doing in-depth analysis. I do a show that treats you like critical-thinking adults, not low-information voting children who can only handle enough truth and data to fit into a single Tweet.

But sometimes in-depth analysis isn’t required. Sometimes all the data and argumentation in the world simply comes down to one question—who do you trust?

The details surrounding the aptly named “gang of eight” immigration bill and Benghazi are complicated for sure. For those of us out here in the cheap-seats, they’re also largely unattainable. We simply don’t have the resources it requires to investigate them exhaustively. Therefore, we rely on those who do to make it plain for us.

But what happens when there are conflicting accounts of those details? Then, it becomes a matter of trust.

Over the years, I’ve often been accused of demanding perfection; but that’s not true at all. What I demand is the same thing you demand of me—integrity. Integrity isn’t perfection because only one Man is, which is why the rest of us need Him.

Integrity is a consistency between right belief and right behavior. Even the best of us fall down, make bad calls, have blind spots, and commit terrible mistakes at times. But over the long haul of someone’s life and calling, you either see that consistency or you don’t. They either get it right much more often than they get it wrong or they don’t.

When it comes down to Benghazi, who has integrity here?

Is it Gregory Hicks, a man the Obama Regime once thought enough of to make him their second in command in all of Libya? Or is it President Obama? Is it Hicks, who has faithfully served administrations in both parties during a 22-year career in the U.S. State Department that has spanned six countries (and has been awarded a dozen merit pay or honor awards during his tenure)? Or is it Obama, the man who tells the child killers at Planned Parenthood “God bless you,” tries to make Christian institutions and companies provide abortifacients for their employees, and has disregarded the Constitution countless times already?

That one is a no-brainer. But so is this next one.

When it comes to illegal immigration, who has the integrity here?

Is it former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (the man now at the head of the Heritage Foundation), or is it the group of current U.S. Senators that make up the “gang of eight?” I really admire DeMint, but he isn’t infallible (and I have disagreed with him before.) But if you could only choose one to get into a Constitutional foxhole with, who would you rather have your back? Jim DeMint, or John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bob Menendez, and Charles Schumer?

Case closed.

(Learn more about Steve Deace’s nationally-syndicated radio show at www.stevedeace.com, or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Illegal Immigration, John McCain, Libya, Planned Parenthood

A Modest Proposal For Polygamy

March 30, 2013 By Steve Deace Leave a Comment

Those arguing for “marriage equality” at the U.S. Supreme Court this week should be ashamed of themselves.

They’re just as guilty of discrimination as those dastardly conservatives still bitterly clinging to their guns and their religion. Why no argument for polygamy, polyamory, and other forms of diversity? Why are they only defending their exclusive definition of diversity?

How dare those seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Clinton, or Proposition 8 ratified by the people of California, stop at just redefining marriage to include two consenting adults of the same gender. Why do these people believe they have the authority to draw a moralistic line against any consenting adults, and thus force their moral standard upon the rest of us?

Besides, society’s views on these other progressive forms of relationship diversity are shifting; and shouldn’t we always base our concept of right and wrong off what we see on TV, just like our gender-neutral maternal units taught us? Who better to consult on moral matters than the huddled masses that paid money to see all those Saw and Hostel movies? For example, there is a popular reality show on basic cable called Sister Wives about the lost art of polygamy. Showtime is airing a trailblazing show on the multiple wedded bliss of polyamory.

Oh, sure, Showtime also features a series with a creepy old dude watching 1970s porn with Z-list celebrities as well, but who are we to judge?

Why would those seeking to redefine marriage to include homosexual monogamy play right into the hands of those Draconian religious fundamentalists who think they and their alleged “God” have the authority to narrowly define love among consenting adults? Why aren’t those arguing for “marriage equality” being inclusive by including marriage among multiple consenting adults as well? Besides, polygamy is in the Bible no less. Abraham, David, and Solomon are just some of that dusty old book’s heroes who were polygamists. No member of the American Taliban can claim their puny God destroyed a whole city over polygamy, so why not be more inclusive?

If the government has no power to discriminate against relationships involving two consenting adults of the same gender, then why does it have the power to discriminate against multiple consenting adults of any gender? Next thing you know, we’ll be back to banning interracial dating!

If we’re truly champions of diversity, it’s time to embrace polygamy, polyamory, or “multiple marriage.” What better way for children to learn about different cultures and belief systems than to grow up around them in their own families? Imagine children being born into a household where each dad has a different religion, each mom speaks a different language, and then sometimes the dads are attracted to one another as well as the moms (and vice versa). Talk about covering all your bases!

It’s time for the marriage equality movement to stop being hypocrites and cease practicing its own form of discrimination and to stop compromising with pro-marriage bigots. Take a principled stand. Either all of us get to do whatever we want with as many whomevers as we want, or none of us are equal.

Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated radio host.

Photo credit: tantek (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: California, Supreme Court, Taliban

Newt Nails It

March 26, 2013 By Steve Deace Leave a Comment

Back in January, I wrote a column for Townhall.com expressing my disappointment that Newt Gingrich appeared to be waving the white flag in defense of marriage.

This time, I come not to bury the former House Speaker but to praise him. In the wake of Senator Rob Portman deciding his son’s thoughts on sexuality are more important than God’s, Gingrich was one of several Republican standard-bearers asked to comment on the issue of marriage by the mainstream media.

And in an interview on CNN, Gingrich gave about the best answer a politician in his position possibly could:

“Well, my stance (on marriage) hasn’t evolved. I believe as the Bible teaches, marriage is between a man and woman. I actually think that marriage is between a man and a woman no matter what politicians decide. I don’t think they have the power to change what is a religiously inspired definition. I’m not going to second guess Rob Portman. He’s an old personal friend. I think when you have somebody in your immediate family who comes out, you have three choices: You can say, ‘I believe my principles so much, I’m kicking you out.’ You can say, ‘I still believe in my principles, but I love you.’ Or you can say, ‘Gee, I love you so much I’m changing my principles.’ Rob picked the third path. That’s his prerogative. I’m not going to second guess him. But I would also say that historically in the long run, marriage will be between man and woman, that’s been the definition for thousands of years and I don’t think politicians will change that.”

Gingrich may be Catholic, but this is an answer that even the Protestant reformer Martin Luther would’ve been proud of because this is grace and law at its finest. The fact it came in less 300 words to a culture with a short attention span is a bonus. Gingrich’s approach to this question in this particular interview is one that should be emulated by conservatives who will be forced to follow in his footsteps.

First, Gingrich clearly asserts the standard, and where the standard comes from. Instead of falling into the trap of using politically-correct terminology like “traditional marriage” Gingrich simply calls marriage what it is—“marriage.” If we didn’t already have a definition for marriage, we wouldn’t have to argue over redefining it, so why do those who accept the proper definition preemptively volunteer to redefine it themselves? Gingrich also calls upon the Word of God as where he gets that understanding from. For too long, we have been gun shy about doing this. The Word of God is sharper than any double-edged sword, and it’s the best weapon we have. So why would we mothball it? Imagine a general who had a weapon at his disposal to devastate his enemy, but he chose not to use it in battle because it would offend his adversary. What kind of general would do that? Answer: a very bad one. Gingrich calls upon the Bible as the source of his belief and does so in a way that doesn’t regurgitate “Christianese” but simply repeats reality: the Word of God created marriage and defines it.

Next, Gingrich refers to the highest law, or what our Founders referred to as “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” He points out that no matter what politicians say, they can’t change the definition of marriage anymore than they can change the definition of gravity. The natural law was here before they got here, and it will be there after they’re ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Again, for too long, we’ve fallen into the Left’s trap by assuming things are defined by our opposition and not by the ultimate reality—what the Creator says.

Thirdly, Gingrich introduces grace and mercy into the conversation by refusing to personally condemn Portman but instead empathizing with him under these extraordinary and difficult circumstances. Regardless of how wrong Portman and his son are, they are still created in God’s image and are deserving of the dignity that goes along with it. Instead, Gingrich correctly points out the three options we have when faced with an emotional challenge to truth. Besides, had Gingrich condemned or affirmed Portman, that would’ve been the story and not the greater point he was trying to make, which he repeats.

And that greater point Gingrich repeats is that marriage is the purview of Almighty God alone, and thus it cannot change because He does not. Therefore, His standard will remain in effect for eternity because He is God and we are not. This explains why when we align our ethics and laws with His, we are blessed; and when we don’t, we are not. That also explains why many of the exact same people who put us over $16 trillion in debt are the same people who magically believe they can redefine marriage.

There are some emerging conservative future stars that have given less-than-inspiring answers on this vital issue as of late. They would be wise to learn from their elder here.

Photo Credit: patrickgensel (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Newt Gingrich

Memo To RNC: It’s About Principles Not Process

March 23, 2013 By Steve Deace 1 Comment

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has launched a nationwide “Growth and Opportunity Project” reviewing eight key areas he believes must be examined in the wake of a disappointing 2012 campaign.

While I applaud Priebus for his willingness to engage in some self-critical analysis, the reality is that none of the eight aspects he’s reviewing holds the key to a Republican resurgence. It’s not that reviewing campaign mechanics, messaging, fundraising, demographics, SuperPacs, campaign finance laws, the primary calendar, and successful Democrat tactics aren’t important because they are. That’s why I might spend as much time analyzing the process of politics as any nationally-syndicated conservative radio host does.

But if you’re analyzing what went wrong in 2012 (and is still going wrong for the GOP right now), it begins and ends with its principles—or lack thereof.

No campaign, no matter how well-funded and organized, can rise above its own candidate. Now, a campaign can sink a good candidate (and haven’t we seen plenty of that recently), but it can’t make a bad candidate good because grueling campaigns reveal every candidate’s true character and capabilities. You can’t hide your candidate in today’s multi-media environment where everybody has a camera on their phone and mobile device. If a candidate lacks integrity, consistency, professionalism, or discipline, it will be found out. A good campaign with a bad candidate is like good marketing of a bad product. All that good marketing can do for a bad product is help consumers realize quicker just how bad the product really is once they buy it.

There was no technology, messaging, or fundraising that was going to save Mitt Romney. For heaven’s sake, the GOP was so flushed with cash that the RNC ended the 2012 campaign cycle with unspent money in the bank. No tactic was going to make people forget that Romney was on every side of every issue. No tactic was going to make the conservative base forget how many times Romney had sold them out. The campaign revealed that Romney failed to be bold, consistent, and aggressive. If he does those things effectively and credibly, then the process comes into play; but until he does, the process is irrelevant.

People become Republicans or vote Republican based on issues and not personalities. People become Democrats or vote Democrat based on personalities (identity based politics). This is why Republicans tend to win general elections when they’re about issues, and Democrats tend to win when they’re about personas.

When you think Republican, you think issues: limited government, pro-life, anti-tax, strong national defense, family values, etc. When you think Democrat, you think personas: blacks, Hispanics, single women, homosexuals, young adults, etc. That’s why Obama ran in 2008 on the narrative of being the first black president (or “the one”) and in 2012 on the phony “war on women” meme.

What did Romney run on? He ran solely on Obama’s failures, but that’s not an issue: that’s a complaint. Yes, Reagan famously asked voters in 1980 “are you better off than you were four years ago?” But he still had to give them a credible vision on issues they could vote for and not just against. To this day, decades later, its still those issues Reagan’s presidency is most known for—specifically tax cuts to stimulate the economy and defeating the Soviet Union.

Romney couldn’t win the general election for the same reason all establishment milquetoast candidates have lost since 1976: they failed to inspire their base in the primary, which is always a sign they won’t inspire the masses in the general election. It should be simple common sense to anyone with any marketing acumen that if you can’t convince those most likely to buy your product to buy it, you’ll never convince those initially skeptical to do so.

Until Reince Priebus and the other five Republican “leaders” assisting him on this project make first things first – and in this case that means principles – they’re either not really serious about winning or incapable of it. Voters, even many Republicans, could care less about voting for a political party brand-name. They also don’t care that you dressed your stink-brick up in pretty pastels, or that you said “pretty please” when you asked them to take that lemon off their hands on social media.

There’s a reason the most noteworthy national Republican election victories of the last 30 years happened in 1980, 1984, 1994, and 2010. It’s because those were the years the GOP did the best job of offering a truly principled contrast to the Democrats, thus framing the election those years around issues and not personalities. The Left tried saying we hated women and minorities those years, too. But since Republicans focused the voters on issues first, it never became about personalities.

Right now, the average American thinks Republicans hate Obama because he’s black and/or just because he’s a Democrat. Until that changes, no amount of addressing the process will change that perception of Republicans. And until Republicans rediscover their principles again, that perception will remain.

You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Mitt Romney

Laissez Faire Marriage?

March 21, 2013 By Steve Deace Leave a Comment

There are three kinds of people nowadays advocating the state get out of the marriage business altogether.

One group is just using this terminology to camouflage the fact they’re really pro-homosexuality, and they just don’t want the conservatarian crowd they’ve aligned themselves with to know it for whatever reason.

The next group is made up of politicians more concerned about earning the approval of the secular/liberal media than they are their own voters, so this is their attempt to punt rather than fight. They clumsily adopt this position with tortured statements that make them look like they’ve never seriously thought about the purpose behind the oldest institution of God’s created order. While attempting to be wise, they come across as fools on this issue.

The third and final group is people who genuinely want to see the power of the state over our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness put back within its original Constitutional limits. It is to this third group that today’s morning briefing is written because the first group is frauds, and the second group is gutless. Thus, rather than casting pearls unto swine, I prefer to spend my time speaking to those who are honest and critical thinkers.

If you’re going to advocate the state get completely out of the marriage business, which I don’t necessarily disagree with in an ideal world, you need to understand what it is you’re really asking. Sometimes some of you doing so say this as if this is as simple as waving a magic wand.

But it’s not that simple at all.

Consider you cannot remove the marriage question from the state completely, unless you are willing to also remove probate courts and divorce courts as well and put them back in the hands of the church and not the state. Then you’d also have to completely reform the tax code and tax law, since much of that is also based on marital status. Then you still have the question regarding things like spousal privilege (i.e. you can’t be compelled to testify against your spouse in open court). If folks are going to retain that right, don’t we have to first know what a “spouse” is?

I think many people who are sincerely advocating the state get out of the marriage business don’t really understand the depth of what it is they are asking. You are essentially asking us to return to a pre-Civil War civilization (the first government-issued marriage licenses occurred in the mid-1800s). Therefore, it would take a greater uprooting of our current understanding of Americanism than elimination of sacrosanct entitlement programs would. The state’s regulation of marriage is older and far more embedded than even the welfare state itself. It would be easier to privatize social security than it would be to de-regulate marriage.

Thus, if you really would prefer the state get out of the marriage business altogether, it’s not the simple route to diffusing the hot-button political battle over marriage that threatens to rip apart the Republican Party at the seams. Quite the contrary, it is the most radical and difficult solution of them all. Ironically enough, because the church would have to step in to fill the void left by the state in most of these situations (including divorce and child custody cases), this solution would actually empower religious institutions’ influence over the culture all the more.

Literally every aspect of American jurisprudence (tax law, probate law, criminal law, civil law, etc.) currently hinges on at least some understanding of the definition of marriage. So you cannot remove the state from the marriage business as an ala carte option, but it would have to be a part of a sweeping reform package across the board.

For example, this would have to include a massive overhaul of the federal income tax code in place since the enactment of the 16^thAmendment. Until those advocating the state get out of the marriage business altogether communicate they understand that, and what their plan is to implement those sweeping reforms, it’s a position that sounds great in the comments section of blogs and on Facebook walls but frankly is as likely as finding a pro-life Democrat.

Still, if this is sincerely your long-term goal (and make no mistake, a long term goal this will be), you have a friend in me. However, in the meantime we still must wrestle with the question of what to do in the interim.

Do we validate relationships western civilization, heavily influenced by Biblical moral teaching, has up until now said for over a thousand years were immoral, destructive, and counter-procreative? Do we understand the reasons why western civilization came to those conclusions? Do we allow the validation of these relationships to impose upon freedom of speech and religious liberty, which has happened in every other country that has gone down this road? These questions will be determined long, long, long before you get the state out of the marriage business. And the answers to these questions have potentially dire consequences for the culture in the here and now.

As you can see, maintaining the position of getting the state out of the marriage business altogether may be a noble aspiration. But if it doesn’t include rules of engagement for the current battlefront, it is the culture war equivalent of the French hiding behind their Maginot Line.

(You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow)

Photo credit: loungerie (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Floyd Reports Tagged With: Republican Party

A Matter Of Trust

A Modest Proposal For Polygamy

Newt Nails It

Memo To RNC: It’s About Principles Not Process

Laissez Faire Marriage?

Help the Cause!

Stay Updated with Impeach Obama

Most Popular Today

Recent Posts

Impeach Obama Archives

Blogroll

Contributors