Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?
I believe our nation’s problems are moral, not just economic. The above is a simple moral question and can be answered with a simple yes or no answer. If you ask this of virtually any politician, you won’t get a straight answer. The reason is simple; your politician cannot give a simple yes or no answer to that question because he is sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for his agenda.
Charlie Crist has shown that he is not only a wishy-washy, flip-flopping, disloyal politician, but a man of questionable moral character. Gov. Charlie Crist issued an executive order on Friday that will make nearly a quarter million Floridians who have been out of work for a long time eligible for additional benefits. Earlier in the week he had been unsure if he had the unilateral authority to make the change to existing laws without the legislature’s approval. House Speaker Larry Cretul, R-Ocala, said Thursday that lawmakers would probably try to address the issue when they return for a special session next month or in September. But on Friday U.S. Senate Candidate, Crist, said he had determined he had a “constitutional duty” to authorize the use of available federal funds.
I’ve read both the US and Florida constitutions, I can’t find a place where he has the authority much less “duty” to change the existing law.
Charlie Crist has loudly and clearly answered the question - Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? His answer is a resounding Yes. Christ agrees with the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American. Crist is typical of liberal, progressive, socialists in this country, like Obama, and George Bush before him; they have no moral foundations for their actions, and simply react in a method that they best think will preserve their power.
This is a very basic question of morality. If you accept the premise is that I am my private property and you are your private property, then the simple answer to the question is NO, it is not moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. What's complex is what percentage of me belongs to someone else. If we accept the idea of self-ownership, then certain acts are readily revealed as moral or immoral. Acts such as rape and murder are immoral because they violate one's private property rights. Theft of the physical things that we own, such as cars, jewelry and money, also violates our ownership rights.
So we see that if a politician answers with No, it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, ObamaCare, unemployment benefits, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. Government spending on wealth redistribution, including charity, amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. Paying for the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government is a moral obligation we all have. Taking tax dollars from some Americans and giving them to other Americans for purposes other than those enumerated in the constitution is quite simply wrong and immoral.
Charlie has clearly shown that he has no moral basis for his political decisions. Do you want to elect as your nest US Senator a man who thinks that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American?
I’ve posted Alex Snitker on his FaceBook account, I’m eager to see how he answers the moral question: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?