I too am pro-family. Whether I am “conservative” or not depends very much on your definition. My personal morality is certainly conservative. I believe that conservative morality is much, much better for society in general than liberal morality.
Nonetheless, I am not a Republican, and with a few exceptions, generally do not support Republicans. If you really care about having strong families in the United States, I would encourage you not to do so either. Here I will share my reasons why. But before I do so, I want to focus on what we have in common. If you are like most conservatives, you think government is too big. I do too. You think the liberal agenda is destroying families and traditional values. I agree. And above all, you likely cringe at Roe v Wade, which legalizes the murder of millions of unborn children every year. I stand with you here as well.
However, most Republicans do not really agree with me on these things. They say government is too big, and yet they make it bigger. The Presidency of George W. Bush comes to mind. He greatly expanded the national debt, created the Department of Homeland Security and the Transport Security Administration, passed the “No Child Left Behind” act which expanded Federal control of public education, and started two wars. If I wished, I could go on and on with the list. Ronald Reagan also comes to mind. Although he did do some good things, he also did a number of bad things, including massively increasing defense spending, waging a “War on Drugs” that broke up families and expanded the government, and worse of all, passed a ban on automatic weapons. Any readers that think this is a good idea needs to read Judge Andrew Napolitano’s explanation of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. If, after reading this, you still think that an automatic weapons ban is a good idea, you fear your fellow citizens more than you fear the government. This means you do not yet understand the need for limited government. I’d be happy to engage any readers on this topic in the comments section, if necessary.
Below I’ll explain a few specific policies where most Republicans fail to be pro-family or pro-freedom, specifically in areas where more freedom actually makes families stronger. I am not saying every single Republican politician agrees with the things I will mention below. There are some Republicans, who are commonly known as “Liberty candidates”, who will likely agree with me, and not the Republican Party, on many of these issues. Right now, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, and Rand Paul immediately come to mind as Republicans who do not fall into this mode. Despite being personally immoral, Mark Sanford would also fall into this category. There are likely a few others that don’t come to mind. So, while I encourage the reader to stop supporting the Republican Party in general, I am not necessarily saying every single candidate who calls himself a Republican should not be supported. When I say that the Republican Party in general is a big government, anti-family party, I am not saying that every single Republican politician supports big government and is anti-family. If you have questions about anyone in particular, feel free to ask in the comments section, and if at all possible I will try to answer you specifically.
Also note that my condemnation of the Republican Party is not an endorsement of the Democratic Party. Most Democrats are just as bad, if not worse, than most Republicans. In fact, I do not belong to any political party at all, and view most candidates from all parties as being somewhat in favor of big government, however, in general I would say the Libertarian and Constitution Parties are far better than the Republicans or the Democrats.
Without further ado, the Republican Party supports:
This is perhaps the most blatantly obvious reason, in my mind, that the Republican Party is not worthy of the support of any pr0-family, Christian conservative. If a soldier is fighting overseas, where is he not? With his family. If a soldier is killed overseas, what is broken up? A family. And this could also apply to soldiers in other countries, who fight against American attempts to invade their countries. Their familes, too, are tragically destroyed by war.
Many will protest that in these wars we are “defending our freedoms.” But how? Who is trying to take away our freedom? Contrary to what the media pundits tell us, nobody has ever attacked the United States because they were angry about its freedoms. Most often, we hear that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were for our freedom. If this were the case, surely we would be fighting enemies on our own soil. Instead, we fight against countries that are far smaller than ours, and who have never even tried to come over to the United States.
If you need more convincing on this point, this video gives compelling evidence from people who would know more about this firsthand than you, me, or the media pundits who blindly say every war is “For our freedom” and that the other country always “attacked us” regardless of what actually happened.
And Laurence Vance gives us this very real picture of what the Iraq War did to a certain man. If he had a family, which is very possible, this is another picture of a family destroyed by the war
At some point, you’re going to have to decide. Do you want to support strong families or a strong government? You can’t have it both ways. As the government gets stronger, familes get weaker, because families are fundamentally in opposition to State power. Have you ever wondered why Stalin and Hitler hated parental rights so much?
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Matthew 5:9)
So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots (1 Samuel 8:10-12)
Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’ And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, ‘Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.’ (Deuteronomy 20:5-8)
That last set of verses in particular is of interest to those conservatives who support “National service” being required of young men. I seriously hope these people do not understand that they are, in effect, supporting slavery. These people are holding to nationalistic tradition over God’s Word, and should repent.
None of this, of course, addresses the financial costs of war, and how that money could be much better used in the hands of the populace, particularly the families that earn the money to begin with.
The number of Republicans who are truly pro-life on the issue of abortion may outnumber those who are pro-life on foreign policy, but there are nonetheless a number of fakers in the Republican Party on this issue. These are not limited to the so called “moderates”, but also include people you may have thought were conservative:
In the above video, Rick Santorum (I know many Republicans who believe this man is a conservative) is exposed by Ron Paul for funding Planned Parenthood. Now, regarding the morning after pill, I am not a doctor and do not understand how this works medically, and so I will trust that being a medical doctor, Ron knows what he is talking about in those first twenty seconds. However, the reason I posted the video can be found about 20 seconds in. Rick excuses his voting for planned parenthood because it was part of a “large appropriations bill.” And worse, he adds even more Federal spending!
I am not denying that abstinence based education is better than other forms of sex education. I think this is likely the case. However, this is not the role of the Federal government according to the US Constitution. Ultimately, it is the job of parents to bring up their children to be godly*, not any level of government. Furthermore, it is NEVER acceptable to vote to fund abortion, no matter what else is in the appropriations bill. Like any neoconservative, however, Rick Santorum cannot possibly imagine welfare and warfare being defunded. This, I believe, is his top priority, not stopping the murder of the unborn. I think this is likely true for many Republican politicians.
Ron Paul will not be running in 2016, so he will not have an easy opportunity to expose these frauds. And I should mention that while I do support Sen. Rand Paul (R, Ky) himself at the present time, and would love to see him become President, he is in many ways a “team player.” So, do not trust what he says about other Republican politicians. Do your own homework before voting for anyone, make sure they are not yet another big government RINO.
*Train up a child in the way he should go;
even when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
3. The War on Drugs
Before I get into this, let me be clear that drug use is surely a vice. I am not in any way denying that. I do not use illegal drugs, I do not condone the use of illegal drugs.
I don’t use cigarettes either. I think using cigarettes would be a misuse of the body God gave me. Yet my grandmother has used cigarettes, and has even been addicted to the nicotine in the cigarettes (I do not know if she currently is or not, as she lives in a different state.) Despite this, she does not belong in jail.
There is a very simple economic concept called “Supply and Demand”. This essentially means that if there is a high demand for a good that has low supply, the price of that good will be high. On the other hand, if a good has high supply and low demand, the price will be lower. This concept is not really complicated or controversial.
With most goods, the price also affects the demand to a certain degree. Let’s take books as a random example that just came from the top of my head. Perhaps you would only be willing to pay $25 dollars for a given book. So you will be “demanding” that book if it is $25 or less, but at $26 or more you will not any longer wish to buy the book. Someone else, however, might be willing to pay more or less for the book. So, as prices rise, demand falls. At some price, supply and demand will be in equilibrium, which means that the supply will equal the demand. Ultimately, the price of a good will be set so this equilibrium is reached, as this will maximize profit for the seller.
However, with certain things, such as addictive drugs, it does not really work this way. If someone is addicted to crack, heroin, or similar hard drugs (I speak from what I have heard, here, not firsthand experience, but I believe my perception is accurate) they will pay whatever it takes to buy the drug. This is because the person feels like he needs it, and in some cases, withdrawal can even kill if a person goes cold turkey.
When drugs are prohibited, the supply is reduced. At first glance, this seems like a good thing. In a perfect world, nobody would even want to use these substances, so it wouldn’t be a problem. But in reality, people use these substances even though they are illegal, and they are addicted to those substances. This leads to prices shooting through the roof, yet drug abusers still buy the drugs, because they are addicted. And who suffers for that? If they have families, their families do. No, a family with a drug user is not a perfect situation any way you look at it, but if the drug was legal, the addict would be much more easily able to get his “fix” which would make it much less likely that he would wind up neglecting his family in order to buy the drugs. Not to mention you wouldn’t have families being thrown out of whack by having a working parent thrown in jail, or having children having to experience a police officer breaking into their house and dragging their father or mother away.
Unfortunately, child neglect would still happen even if drugs were legalized, but I strongly believe that the frequency of it would be greatly reduced. Not to mention the fact that the narcotics controls laws are Federal Laws, and there is no constitutional basis for this. Since the constitution is a higher law than the Federal Government, the Federal agent who enforces these laws is not only immorally acting to destroy families, he is actually breaking the law as well.
Proverbs 3:30 “Strive not with a man without cause, if he has done you no harm.”
This post does not cover every single area that the Republican Party supports government over families, but I believe there is more than enough here to indicate that the Republican Party as it currently stands is not the answer to our problems. I welcome any questions about anything I have written here.