The Moral Test of a Marxist

After I picked myself up from the floor and wiped my eyes after laughing and crying so hard, I thought I'd take a more serious look at the comments of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) that Republicans "do not meet the moral test."

From The Politico:

“To be frank about it,” he said, “I think the Republicans, frankly, in many ways, have not — do not meet the moral test” when it comes to voting in the Senate. “And we see that in programs like children’s health insurance,” he went on. “This president, who is a man of faith, would go ahead and veto a program that was intended to provide health insurance to 9 million children.”

My laughter is not to say that Republicans are a bunch of choirboys who are perfectly moral...or even as a whole represent a good moral model.

But when you consider that the Democrat Party largely stands for killing unborn children, homosexuality, undermining marriage, and government theft, well...

Anyway, if we accept that Senator Salazar is being serious here, and not just trying to fool the most stupid among us or to make us all laugh hysterically, and he really means what he says, this comment illustrates the moral and philosophical divide between liberals and conservatives in this country.

Accepting this comment at face value, Salazar apparently considers it a moral act to empower government to take money from one person and give it to another person without the consent of the first person.

All government acts should, ideally, be moral acts. While acknowledging that all too often today they are not, ideally they should conform to law and morality.

It is therefore highly ironic that Salazar would consider government theft and wealth redistribution "moral" when there is no Biblical grounds for such actions. The Bible encourages people to help one another, but I've never found the place in the Bible where God says government should take money from one person against their will and give it to another. And I've looked.

It also seems highly ironic that, regardless of whether one reveres the Bible or not, that Salazar would consider such an act legal or in keeping with the principles of American government or Americanism when there is nothing in the United States Constitution to authorize such government theft and wealth redistribution, either.

Call me silly, but I, like James Madison, "cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

And I've looked.