Posted on 03/26/2015 5:51:31 PM PDT by Kaslin
I don’t know what his reasons are. I tend to not think this is an issue because it is similar to what we would have to do if my husband lost his employee coverage. We are both in our 60’s and have a few serious health issues so going without coverage is not an option.
Cruz is a very smart man. I can’t imagine that he didn’t know that doing this wasn’t going to raise eyebrows. So my gut feeling is that maybe there is a method to this madness. I don’t believe flouting the law is an option for a man running for POTUS.
In the meantime it is not a worry to me as he has made his position on the ACA very plain and he apparently believes that what is good for the little people should be good enough for a US Senator as well.
To paraphrase David Horowitz, the controversy is never the controversy. His conservatism is the controversy. This man is the biggest threat to the pigs at the trough and they will try and harm him from now until, God willing, he leaves office in 2024. If Bush is any indicator maybe even after that.
I don’t. And I don’t get why Rush is so dense as to not understand.
Ted Cruz signed up for Obamacare… we hope he doesn’t get sick. We know “progressives” despise any and who disagree with their narrative and insults are their standard practice. This administration has used government power as a weapon against political opponents. Lois Lerner and IRS a glaring example. Americans must “surrender” to the almighty state or face persecution? I fear that these not just un- (but anti)-Constitutional quasi-Gestapo type actions will also be part of Obamacare, where those who dissent will have medical care delayed and even denied till they get with the “program” and kneel to the power of the centralized all powerful state. Yet DemWits still follow the Serpent promises with smiles of their faces... till they too late realize it ain’t utopia it’s HELL!
Exactly!
The Rats play the same thuggish games with public schools.
They force households to pay property taxes for the local govt school, then when you send your kid there because you have no discretionary funds left for a private school they say — “See - you LIKE the public schools, don’t you!”
It’s sssssssickening.
He is playing chess while the rest of the field and MSM are playing checkers.
Of course it makes no sense. Good thing is that the attacks will get tired soon and have less impact. Let them attack stupid things with stupid ideas early.
That's what it comes down to. Look at Hillary -- violating laws left and right. Look at Obama -- no respect for the law. Now, look at Cruz -- he follows the law. There's the difference.
Plenty of people realize that we now have a two-tier society. The laws are (apparently) for the little folk. The "important" people can ignore the laws. Well, Cruz is letting people know that he stands with the little folk.
He'll follow the law. Even when he doesn't like it. He'll pay his taxes. He'll sign up for Obamacare. He is not above the law.
But, given the chance, he'll make changes, and get rid of the laws that trouble the little folk. But the time for that hasn't come yet. And until it does come, he does what's right. Unlike the Power Elite of the Democrats (and too many Republicans).
I agree with you. Obamacare will be used as a weapon against those who will not conform.
One’s healthcare and the ability to pay for it is a powerful weapon.
I agree with your grasp of the reality that Senator Ted Cruz has to take. Those who fail to see it are living in the fantasy land of the Unicorn Farm. Obamacare give us little margin of variance and, it is that freedom it has taken away from us.
Compare that with what 'Rats have usually done when they're protesting something, which is to make a big show of "civil disobedience", chain themselves to fences, throw paint, go to jail, and then scream at the newspapers and evening news shows.
That's when DeathCare will really come to America, and docs and hospitals will be incented to kill (white) people.
But I'm looking too far down the road. First they have to get their Soylent Corporation shares and warrants lined up.
Cruz then would be asking well okay, why am I getting the VIP treatment?
That was the saying of a guy who did worse than Readers Digest to the bible...
Good thing Jesus ignored that. Or He never would have gone to the Cross and we’d still bear the blame for our sins.
Theologically this would be known as the “humility of Christ.” The “sons do not owe taxes.” But they can choose to pay to satisfy the formality and to identify with those who really do owe taxes.
I agree with you. Political miscalculations don’t mean a whole lot to me as it is an impossible mine field.
I just see it as a practical decision with political impact. Again, I don’t think thee is any real hidden agenda he has but I still think this is a non-issue.
""Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God" is a summation of the famous 1750 sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, based on Biblical and reformation principles.
"...On 30 Juanuary 1750, Mayhew delivered a sermon "Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I." Its critique of the proper Christian response to tyranny would lay the philosophocal groundwork for the American Revolution. As Peter Kershaw writes:John Adams called Rev. Mayhew "the morning gun of the Revolution." Adams also dubbed him a "transcendent genius." Robert Treat Paine called Dr. Mayhew, "The Father of Civil and Religious Liberty in Massachusetts and America." No one today should underestimate the significant contribution that the Rev. Jonathan Mayhew made toward the cause of liberty and American independence. Mayhew preached several sermons on Romans 13. The sermon . . . was considered so important that it was printed and widely distributed throughout the American Colonies. Mayhew was also famous for his election sermons (in Mayhew's day it was common for preachers to preach a sermon to the governor and the legislators immediately following an election). The message of Mayhew's sermon challenging passive obedience and non-resistance to all rulers was radical and unmistakable -- the king must repent of his tyrannies or face the consequences of his subjects forcibly throwing off the chains of tyranny. Mayhew's sermon was even sent to the king and the British parliament as a "remonstrance." Mayhew's habit of serving remonstrances on tyrants became a common practice with many other patriot preachers, as well. King George branded these "nonconformist" clergymen as the "Black Regiment" (mocking them for the black robes they wore). Mayhew's sermon resulted in the motto for the American Revolution: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548
Jesus obeyed the Father and went to the cross voluntary to pay the penalty for our sins. The point of my post was that that a civil government has authority in civil matters, but the authority is limited and defined. See the article below the one linked above on Romans 13, which clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose:
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
"Any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. This is a basic principle of Natural Law (and all of America's legal documents--including the U.S. Constitution--are founded upon the God-ordained principles of Natural Law"".
Cordially,
Since government is, like all humanity, all sinners, then by the light you “cordially” proffer no government could ever have any authority. It’s not a question of whether it will err, it’s only a question of how BADLY it will err.
Paul wrote Romans 13 while Nero was on the throne. Not a nice guy.
The actual biblical limit is drawn at being required to sin. Nobody has obligation to yield to being required to sin by the government.
Not at all. Merely that government does not have unlimited authority. Do you disagree? Do you think government has unlimited power and authority? I think not. All I'm saying is that government has limited authority, which is strictly defined by its purpose:
"... it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
In our case, our government is (or ought to be) limited by our Constitution, which severely limits the powers of the Federal government. Now this next statement is just my own opinion, mind you, but laws that are made by the Federal government, such as Obamanocare that are made outside the scope of the stated powers of the Constitution are simply ultra vires. It's none of the Federal goverment's damm business whether I have health insurance or not because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes or grants them any power over health insurance, because health insurance is not and has never been regarded as interstate commerce.
The actual biblical limit is drawn at being required to sin. Nobody has obligation to yield to being required to sin by the government.
"Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17
Do they cause you or others to sin when they compel you to pay money that goes for abortion-killing the innocent? Do they have the authority to do that?
Cordially,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.