Conservative Answers to Political Questions | FAQ

If you want to know how conservative a candidate is then just ask the candidate some of these FAQ and you will quickly find out how conservative your candidate really is. That of course is if they don’t lie to you. Whether they are lying or not, is part of another discussion which I won’t get into at this time, but on with the questions.

I will put the questions into the major political issues that they belong within. You can use any of them to find out how your candidate stands in the political arena. Most of these questions will be obvious just like most of their answers will be.


Is it okay to kill an unborn baby at any time? If so then when is it okay?

Aborting a fetus is no different than someone killing a pregnant woman. The person who murders a pregnant woman can be tried for murder of the mother and the child. Aborting a fetus is murder even at the consent of the mother.

Is it okay to force tax payers to pay for abortions?

Abortion is murder and it is against the moral beliefs of many religions therefore the government should never provide payment for the murderous act of abortion

When does human life begin?

                It begins at conception not when the baby breathes its first breath.


Should people be hired and promoted by merit only, with no regard to race, education or beliefs?

The only fair way to hire and promote people is to do it on merit. If you hire or promote on any other basis it will create animosity amongst the work force and thus it will hinder production and create a hostile work environment.

Should members of any race to be given preferential treatment just because of their race?

That is reverse discrimination which is immoral because reverse discrimination is still discrimination and all discrimination is immoral.

Should a race of people ever be forced to pay retribution for racism committed against previous generations of other race?

There should never be penalties paid by today’s citizens for crimes committed by people who haven’t been around for centuries. The people who committed the crimes should be made liable whenever possible but once they are gone it is difficult to point blame to anyone else so how do you levy liability to innocent parties.

What is the best way to compensate for economic differences between the races?

The only way to equal the playing field between races is by education. Educate the down trodden races and they will pull themselves out of the economic ditches and gullies. If you just give a person a hand up without them deserving or qualifying for it, you haven’t leveled the playing field but you have actually lowered the playing field. The person hasn’t really come up to the same level because they don’t deserve what they have received and everyone knows it. Everyone will resent them for it but if they actually earned the hand up they will be on a level playing field because everyone will recognize it as the right thing to do.


Is there ever justification for capital punishment?

A conservative believes that a punishment should fit the crime and an eye for an eye means the crime of murder calls for the death penalty.

Is capital punishment ‘cruel and unusual’ or inhumane?

Capital punishment is no more cruel or inhumane than the act of murder and in most case it is even more humane than the way the murder was committed.


Should the government regulate the market within its borders?

This answer should be “NO” with one exception and that is where criminal actions such as things like fraud or embezzlement are involved.

Should the government protect its citizens from the greed of big business?

The free market, competitive capitalism and private enterprise should be allowed to create opportunities and growth on its own without interference from oppressive or excessive government regulations. The greed of big business is stifled by competition.

What creates more jobs, the government or a market free from excessive government?

                The free market creates more jobs and excessive government hinders jobs growth.

Should the government have a balanced budget?

The government is no different than anyone else they should never spend more than we give them.

Is a deficit dangerous to the economy?

A government deficit is no different than your deficit because when anyone or any entity spends more than they have they risk the chance of bankruptcy.


Is the public school system the best way to educate our children?

The public school system is the worst way to educate anyone, all the alternatives are better than public schools. There are some exceptions but as a general rule the public education system is a joke.

Do vouchers work?

Vouchers make constructive competition among schools that cultivates performance improvements. Without them the public schools have a monopoly on public education and have no competition thus no incentive to improve.

Should parents be able to choose the schools their children attend or should they take their children to the closest public school regardless of its performance academically?

                Parents should always have the last say where their children’s education is concerned.

Should the government increase funding to schools to increase schools’ performance?

Rarely does it help because the money is usually wasted. Instead of spending on productive measures the money goes to unproductive programs. Unless a school does more than just throw money at the problem it won’t increase its performance. We spend more on education than any other country in the industrial world but we are nowhere near the top in performance that should tell you that money is not the answer.


Should energy companies such as gas and electric be privately owned or government controlled?

Private ownership provides for competition and lower prices but government owned companies creates monopolies which allows for higher prices and dictatorships within the industries.

Are oil, gas and coal good abundant energy sources within America’s borders?

They are all very abundant domestic energy sources and are very viable. None of these sources of energy are bad nor are they being rapidly depleted. America could easily sustain itself for a very long time if it was allowed to do so.

Should the government subsidize alternate energy sources and production?

The government should stay out of any business and let the free market run itself. If alternate energy sources are viable then the market would support them wholeheartedly. There would be no need for the government to subsidize them if they were viable in the first place.

Should oil drilling be decreased or even be stopped on or near American soil?

Foreign oil dependency should be stopped, not the drilling within America. The oil within reach of American soil should be used long before using any foreign oil. It is the only way we will break our dependency on foreign energy sources.


Is Social Security an entitlement?

Social Security was created to allow people to set aside for their retirement. It was essentially a retirement program in the form of a social insurance and in some ways it continues in that role even today. However its insurance aspect has changed because originally the workers paid into the insurance for their own benefits and not for the benefits of others. It was not an entitlement because only those who paid into it were supposed to reap the return on their investment. It was never intended to provide for every ones retirement regardless of an investment or not.

Was the Social Security Administration created to provide for the poor and needy?

It was not, it was created as a retirement fund for the working class. It has been since manipulated into a welfare system for the poor.

Is our Social Security program a socialist concept?

It did not start out that way but in its present state it is socialist in ideology. It is being used to spread the wealth among all citizens which is socialist in concept. It was originally a retirement investment for those who contributed to the program.

Does the government have an obligation to provide for the poor and needy within its citizenry?

It has an obligation to help, but not sustain permanent entitlements for the poor especially when the needy have the abilities to improve their own financial situation.

Should the government bail out the Social Security fund at all costs?

The government should not bail it out any cost. The government should get out of the business of providing financial retirement for its citizenry. The citizens should be allowed to privatize their investment into the system or even be able to individually manage of their own funds.

Is the money paid into the Social Security system still there today?

That money was originally paid into a special account away from the rest of the government’s money but that has since changed. The money is now placed into the general government account to be used just like all tax money by the government. Your money is technically gone into the vast government complex and cannot be traced or tracked. At this point your Social Security money is no different than your income tax money.

Should our welfare system provide lifelong substance to anyone who asks?

It should only be a provider of a stop gap to those in need. It should provide for a means to return the needy to a self-sufficient status. Those with true permanent disabilities are different and should be provided a means to sustain their 

Does our welfare system create lazy dependent people?

Why should anyone have to look for a job when they can stay home and get a pay check? The majority of those on welfare are only there because it is easier to stay on it than become productive. There are some who can’t be productive but they are the exception not the rule. Handouts will always feed laziness in lazy people.


Should a person have the right to end their life at any time they wish because of a terminal illness?

Terminating a life by a medical health provider should be illegal. If the answer given mentions that it will lower health care cost or that legalizing it could not lead to doctor assisted suicides for non-terminal patients then don’t trust the candidate.

Does euthanasia devalue human life?

Life always becomes less valuable when you make it so easy to discard it, just like with abortions.

Would it reduce health costs?

Yes it probably would but is a life worth so little and are heath costs more important than a human life?


Is the climate changing because of man’s wasteful use of fossil fuels?

                No the earth is not warming because of man’s carbon emissions into the environment.

Has science proven that global warming is a science fact?

Many scientists have jumped on the global warming band wagon but all of their science has been proven to be faulty. None of their predictions for our environment from decades gone by have ever come true.

Should the government enact laws to force the reduction of carbon emissions, regardless of the economic effects on industry?

                There is absolutely no reason to force such regulations on industry.


Does the Constitution give citizens or states the right to keep and bear arms?

It gives citizens the right to bear arms and that right should not be infringed in any way by law. The states have the right to create and maintain militias.

Do citizens have the right to protect themselves with a firearm?

                Yes, they have a Constitutional right to do so.                                               

Is it solely the responsibility of law enforcement to protect the public?

                No, everyone has a right to protect themselves from criminals.

Do gun laws stop criminals from obtaining guns?

No, because criminals by definition do not obey the law. When they want a weapon, they will obtain one through whatever means necessary.

Do gun laws deter violence?

No, it has been proven in cities and countries all around the world that less gun restriction actually deters violence not the opposite.


Should the government guarantee and provide healthcare for everyone?

No, it is not the job of America’s government to provide anything to its citizens other than security.

Is healthcare a right?

                No, healthcare is not listed as a right in any of the pages of Constitutional concepts.

Can the government provide cheaper and better healthcare than the private sector?

No, it cannot and the government will actually cause healthcare costs to soar and thus it will have to provide a less desirable care in order to compensate for the higher costs.

Does government controlled healthcare breed better care and more medical research?

It actually hampers research and competitive advances in the medical field because it removes the possible economic rewards that always drive advances in a capitalist market.

Can the government force its citizens to purchase health insurance?

The Constitution does not provide for the government to force its citizens to purchase anything. Health insurance does not fall within the federal government’s jurisdiction. It falls within the states powers. That is why the Supreme Court changed the definition of the Affordable Care Act to a tax because the federal government can levy taxes but it cannot force healthcare on to us.


Should people who enter America illegally be given amnesty and citizenship?

Absolutely not, this is rewarding illegal activity and only sends the message to others to follow in their footsteps. Amnesty has never worked and it has been used in the past but it has only inspired more illegals to come here.

Do illegal immigrants deserve the same benefits as legal citizens of America such as healthcare, welfare, education, Social Security, Medicare, financial aid, etc…?

They are criminals by definition and criminals never deserve rewards for their illegal activity.

Should illegal immigrants be arrested and deported?

                They should be but it won’t do any good as long as our borders are insecure.

Should anything be done to our borders?

                They should be secured and sealed from further illegal entry.

Should the immigration laws presently on the books adequate to take care of the problem?

                They would be more than adequate if only they were enforced along with securing our borders.


Is profiling a racist concept and discriminatory?

It is not because if the majority of the criminals are coming from one race or one group of people then it only makes sense to scrutinize that group more than others. If the vast majority of terrorists come from Arab countries then watch that group more intently than say children, grandmothers or women from other parts of the world. You won’t stop terrorism by ignoring the obvious.

Should more intense security practices use only random screenings to check crowds and passengers?

Randomness should always be used but it should never be the only means to screen possible suspects. Any criminal investigator will tell you that you never randomly look for suspects you always narrow the field of suspects by looking for the traits that are associated with the crime which mean they are profiling a suspect. That is no different in the principle whether a crime has been committed or could be committed.

Is an elderly Swedish Grandmother just as likely to be a terrorist as a middle aged Muslim from Afghanistan and should she receive the same amount of scrutiny?

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that the Muslim is more likely to be a terrorist. That doesn’t mean he is but it does mean that he should receive much more scrutiny than a Swedish Grandmother.

Should law enforcement always avoid offending people when doing their job?

Law enforcement is paid to be cordial but there is a point where that may get in the way of doing their job. One of those times includes offending someone just because they were profiled.


Is it a Constitutional right to be able to marry anyone or anything that a person desires?

The Constitution does not state anything about marriage or about any rights in that area of discussion. It states the rights we are entitled to and marriage is not listed anywhere. The Constitution is specific in listing the governing powers of the federal government and then it states that all other none stated governing powers belong to the states. That means that the governing power of marriage falls within the states’ rights to govern.

Does the federal government have the right to define marriage with our present laws?

Our present laws leave that power up to the states. It would take an Constitutional Amendment to give that power to the federal government. The Support Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 confirms that states have the right to recognize or not recognize same sex marriages, regardless of where the marriage licenses were issued.

Is it a violation of a person’s civil rights if they are denied the same privileges of heterosexual couples just because their marriage is homosexual in nature?

It isn’t a right to marry anyone or anything you want, therefore it does not violate any ones civil rights do deny privileges to such couples.

What is the definition of marriage?

It is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage was created by God for one man and one woman anything else is not a marriage. To label a union of any couple that doesn’t fit the one man and one woman definition as a marriage is defile the very sanctity of marriage.


Does the government have the right to use eminent domain whenever it decides it is in the best interest of the public?

No it should not, Eminent Domain has been over used and exploited by the government and private developers all in the interest of profit. It should never be used for private developers.

Does the government have the right to cease private property when there is suspicion of criminal activity?

Suspicion is not guilt, seizure without proof of criminal activity is criminal activity in itself. A person is assumed innocent until proven guilty therefore his property should never be seized without proof.


Does the Constitution require separation of church and state?

It does not state any such thing nor do any of our laws. The phrase is not stated or required within any law in America.

Is it unconstitutional to express any religious concepts or values within government?

The Constitution does not forbid religious expression anywhere or anytime but on the contrary it states that we have the right to free speech and religious freedom to practice our religion as we please. Matter of fact if the founding fathers wish such a thing then they would not have used God within so many of their founding documents.

What does the Constitution say about religion and government?

It prohibits the government from creating or passing any laws supporting a national religion or church. It also prohibits the government from stopping the free exercise of religion.

Is it unconstitutional for any religious references or displays to be in public or government locations?

The Constitution does not prohibit any religious references or displays anywhere. The wording of the Constitution does not prohibit religious references or displays within any location especially government ones.

Is it legal to teach references to religions in a public school?

There is no constitutional basis for prohibiting a teacher from teaching about religions within a public classroom. The Constitution specifically states that “CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It is specific about Congress not meddling in religion and it was also specific it that Congress shall not hinder anyone from practicing their religion either.


Does increasing taxes improve the economy?

Increasing taxes hampers economic growth and burdens the tax payer. Increasing taxes takes money out of the hands of industry and places it into the hands of the government which reduces the availability of money to increase production.

Should the tax rates be increased on the rich to compensate for the inequities of the poor?

Our tax system should never be used as a welfare subsidy and penalizing the rich for the inequities of the poor should never be allowed.

Can the government create jobs by increasing taxes?

Increasing taxes does not create jobs in the private sector but it can increase jobs within the government.

Does increasing jobs within government help the economy?

Increasing government jobs does not help the economy, when at the same time jobs in the private sector are lost.

Is big government better for the business world?

The bigger the government the smaller or more restricted the business world. Big government only makes a more hostile environment for businesses. The more the government, the more the regulations on business and thus the more it hinders business.


Is terrorism a bigger threat to America than global warming?

Yes it is a much larger threat than global warming because global warming isn’t really a threat.

Is diplomacy the only way to stop terrorism?

Diplomacy is a useful tool to slow terrorism but diplomacy in itself cannot stop terrorism. It takes much more, including excellent intelligence and strong military actions to destroy terrorism.

Should terrorist captured abroad be tried in civil courts or military courts?

Anyone who commits terror against America from a foreign land is acting as an enemy of the state and is thus declaring war on America. Therefore they are enemy combatants and as such should be tried in military tribunals.

Has Islam extremists declared war on America?

They have not only declared war but they have promised the removal of America and its way of life from the face of the earth.

Can Islam and Christianity co-exist?

They could if Islam would accept the fact that Christianity has a right to exist, but Islamists believe that Islam has to ultimately be the only religion on the face of the earth.

 Is the threat of terror that America is facing today only the result of past American foreign policies?

It is true that some of the terrorism that America is facing is a result of past foreign policies but that is a very small part of the reason we face the threats we face today. The vast majority of the threats come from the Muslim extremists, who hate America and everything it stands for, not just its foreign policies. They are fighting for world domination, regardless of others ideologies or policies.


Is the UN the foremost provider of peace and stability in the world?

The UN has never been in the forefront of providing for world peace or stability. America has always been the foremost provider of these things. 

Should America step back and submit to the UN as the world’s peace giver?

America should never submit to any other international entity. America should keep its sovereignty intact and continue to act as such.

Has the UN ever been successful in stopping genocide, international crimes, and abuses against human rights or even in stopping wars?

It has never been successful on its own to do any of those things. It drags its feet every time there is a crisis and often it fails to even act.

Should America turn over it sovereignty to the UN and allow the UN to dictate policy to the US and its citizens?

The UN does not have America’s best interest at heart. It is run by mostly corrupt governments and corrupt officials from around the world. It doesn’t even have the world’s best interest at heart. The governing body has its own personal interest at heart.

Should US troops submit to UN command and even wear their uniform?

Our military is our military and they should never be asked to take commands from anyone or anything that is not part of the US military structure, to do so is actually an act of surrender.

Should the US adhere to Agenda 21 and other UN policies such as gun control?

Agenda 21 and most other UN polices or “treaties” subvert American law and constitutional rights. We should never let another entity around the world subvert our laws. The Constitution has created the best government ever created by man and to allow other foreign ideologies to manipulate it would be criminal and a travesty to the American way of life.

ConservativeFifty Affiliates