OFFENSE

George Offerman

It’s interesting to see how quickly Harry Reid is excused from the blatantly racist remarks he made concerning Obama, and how the democrats are attempting to make this go away. This is a lesson our side should take, and that is protecting our own and being on the offensive. The difference in this though, is Harry Reid said something very immoral, and his party is still covering for him. In the pro life movement, there are not immoral actions or words being used, but truth that is uncomfortable, and the first reaction is to attack and put distance between the individuals or groups making the statements or activities.

In these days when good is called evil, and evil is passed as good, the enemy is very bold in their moves. There is no shame in their rhetoric or actions, and the enemy continues to ‘impose their will’ onto Christianity, and all that is good. This is an all out war from every direction, and these people are very passionate about their cause, despite the fact it is evil, and the unseen powers and principalities are working through them. They do not compromise, make deals or even want to listen to reason.

The enemy is on the offensive, and effectively sets the agenda by proactively passing laws, dictating the terms and language of the debates, and essentially ‘shuts up’ opposition by using such lame reasoning as “don’t impose your will or religion onto us”. They have the Church and most of Christianity on the run, and have no shame about it. They have commandeered the educational systems, the political system as well as many of the mainstream Churches and pulpits and have done this through liberalizing all of the above in the name of progress. The church allowed this to happen, and now finds itself in a very precarious predicament.

In using a sports analogy, games are not won by the defense. The offense must be on the field and know how to score points. The defense is there to stop the other side from progressing. In the battle for ending legalized child killing, which side is winning? What tactics are being used? What language is being utilized? Is the truth being told? Who has the truth on their side?

Most, if not all of the problems come down to beliefs. The enemy believes their position, and follows it very passionately. They are presenting their positions with a great deal of passion and are always willing to engage anyone who disagrees with them. They have a zest and a fighting spirit that is missing in most Christians, and nearly all of the Churches, and most people are intimidated when they meet someone willing to argue and fight these positions. Even though misguided, they dominate the debate by sheer perseverance and the need to win. And win they do.

The Church, on the other hand, seems to be embarrassed by the Gospel, and hides through flowery language and soft-pedaling the message. There is very little engagement outside of the pulpit or Church building, and as a result, the Church is unable to teach the laity how to defend the faith, or even the real nature of the faith. This wimpism then is justified by many and any attempts by some of the brave clergy and laity to break out of this is met with scorn, mockery and condemnation that should be directed at the enemy.

The Church lately has been on the defensive, and only when backed into the corner, like the hell care bill currently being debated, will they react. Where is the offense? Where is the proactive debate and leadership needed to guide this country into the will and blessings of God? Where is the defense of their own teachings, such as Cannon 915, and taking the lead in the formation of proper consciousness in light of the faith?

Yes, the likes of Ben Nelson should be held accountable for his ‘about face’, but if the Church was on the offensive and proactive, there wouldn’t be 59 other senators debating child killing, because it would be ILLEGAL. The Church could truly say that no one in their RIGHT MIND would even consider killing children in the womb, the Terry Schiavo’s and other life issues. But it has been so long since the Church stood up for what is right that most don’t pay attention to what is said when they do stand up, and there is dissention, even among the ranks of the Bishops on what to do about violations of their own rules.

If the Church has no moral authority within society, it is of its own making. The Church ha spent so much time trying to be accepted by the mainstream society, that it left behind its moral standards and authority. The ever shifting moral sands of this society ought to be no match for the solid foundations of the Church of Jesus Christ, yet it is this society that is handing the Church its ‘butt’ in matters of morals and authority. This can only happen if the Church gives up its ability to be the beacon it was meant to be. We have that answer, don’t we?



On another note, Life News covered the story about disruptions by pro lifers during Sen. Casey’s speech at the capitol. Thank you, Steve. Link here:

http://www.lifenews.com/state4714.html

SAY HELL(N)O TO RATIONING

George Offerman

It appears hell care reform is a done deal in the Senate, and soon these arrogant pompous lawmakers will be congratulating themselves on the destruction of what was the best health care system in the world. The fact that these senators did not listen to their constituency at all is telling in the sense, they had a much larger agenda than what they wanted to reveal. Once the government takes over, you can forget about quality, and know there will be limited quantity.

This is always a problem with human nature, when something for nothing is promised; it is very difficult to fight whatever it is that is promised. What is difficult to understand though, is there is too much evidence that the government lies to the people and does not really follow through with what they say. I am aware of all the tea parties and such, but the problem is, once November roles around, the majority will proceed robot like to the polls and re elect these bozos. There really is little fear these people have, and this has been proven time and time again.

Hell care is the epitome of violation of private property rights. Our bodies are the ultimate private property, and we have now given them over to an entity that only is concerned about how much we pay in taxes, and that we continue to produce for them. You can bet your life there is an army of actuaries that will be working on longevity tables, cost benefit analysis and any other means and schemes in taking care of the ‘cattle’.

Obama has not consulted with physicians or other health care professions in this push for reform. Now, how telling is that? Most of us in health care understand that the patient needs to have a stake in his treatment, and when this is taken away, the blame is thrust on the provider when things don’t work out. Congress has been meddling with the delivery system through contradictory laws that make it difficult enough now to adequately treat patients. Now, it will be getting close to impossible to do our jobs without violating some law somewhere. This, in effect, will drive out the best and brightest, as they will not chance breaking a law, even if it means delivering services that are vital, and go along with the oath to deliver the best services. Ask any provider about the HIPPA regulations, and they will roll their eyes.

Providers of good conscious will be mandated to perform abortions when they don’t want to, and to also not treat when treatment will save a life, but not necessarily be cost effective for the now god/state. I know several providers, who give great care that are looking for other ways of making a living, and I myself and looking at alternatives. I. like many others, got into the health care profession due to wanting to help people. I will not allow the ignorant and arrogant ‘masters’ dictate how I deliver services, when I know better than they do. So, I like many of my colleagues, will have to make a decision about how we will practice in the future, or to not practice at all, and possibly end up selling light bulbs at a home improvement store.
Our lives now will have a fixed dollar amount placed on them. Cost benefit will be the way in which all decisions will be made, versus needs of the patient. I have been telling people for a long time, that if government takes over health care, they will begin rationing care. A perfect example would be a woman finding out she has a Down’s syndrome baby with some complications while carrying this baby. The government may not ‘mandate’ abortion in this case, but they most likely will say to this family “we cannot tell you to abort, but we will not pay for the care your child will need”. The value of human life now has a price on it, and it will be the god/state determining who lives and who dies, and what quality of life the cattle will have.

We need to be worried about this. We now have a bunch of uneducated morons making decisions that are the most personal in nature and the intellectual genius, Harry Reid decided to compare this to slavery and other issues. Had he been more accurate in his description, he would have used ‘state sponsored terrorism’ to describe this. Is the state not promoting terror, when it denies treatment for medical matters that may save a life? You can’t tell me people are not feeling outright terror when being denied something that is life saving and could be given. Providers may feel ‘terror’ if they violate the mandates of the god/state in doing what is morally right, but breaking a godless law.

Say hell no to hell care and rationing



Speaking of rationing, more evidence of the gold shortage.

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page34?oid=94091&sn=Detail

HARRY REID'S CRUSADE

George Offerman

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has decided to embark on a crusade for health care, by now claiming it to be a ‘right’. He went on to make some rather incredible remarks comparing this to slavery, women’s suffrage and civil rights. To make this comparison is to really minimize the struggles of slavery (denied freedom), women’s suffrage (denied right to be heard) and civil rights (denied self determination) to supposedly not accessing services that must be paid for. The three movements he alludes to are intrinsically evil, versus heath care, which is not denied by gender or race, but a service that must be purchased, like any other service.

For something to be declared a right there must be counterbalancing responsibilities to go along with it. For instance, when slavery was abolished, the southern white plantation owners had to let the slaves go, pay them for their services, and not abuse them. They had a responsibility to abide by the law and address the real human rights issues that were in essence forced on them. Women, upon the right to vote, had the responsibility to register, educate themselves on the issues and now were just as accountable for outcomes of elections. With civil rights, business owners were mandated to serve and hire African Americans and deal with the regulations based upon this race having equal access to the society as was true for whites at the time.

If health care is a right, what are the responsibilities of the consumer? For instance, is it a ‘right’, or morally right for a person to smoke heavily, drink daily, not exercise and eat junk food, and then require someone else pay for the health care that this individual now needs? This person used their personal ‘rights’ to engage in behaviors that resulted in damaged health, now this same person is going to access care that is paid for by others? Where in the constitution is this guaranteed?

Health care is a fee for service industry. In this, people contract for this service by paying premiums, and then are able to access services. This is no different than any McDonald’s, but there may be a day in which one cannot afford a Big Mac, and believing they have a right to it, will get one free. There are other areas in which one can feel a ‘right’ to have, such as entertainment, vacations, housing and such, but no one would argue with the fact these items have to be purchased. One can only obtain the model of car, size of house, or vacation on ability to pay. Working on affordability is the way to address health care, and encouraging and living healthy lifestyles is the epitome of reducing outlays for health care

There are many issues currently in which the delivery of health care can improve, but to go to the extreme to call it a right, is only asking for trouble. Once the government determines health care is a ‘right’, then the responsibilities will soon follow (rationing). The problem is, the government will define ‘responsible’ behaviors, and it would not be at all out of the purview of government to have the drive through operators at McDonald’s have to do a ‘fat assessment’ of customers, much like bartenders have to cut off patrons who had a little too much to drink. This may seem outlandish to many, but one only needs to look at the farce of global warming, and the insanity of ‘carbon credits’ to see that government can come up with outrageous demands to access their programs.

People need to think long and hard before allowing government to take over health care. There is not a whole lot that government does well when taking over, and I am hard pressed to come up with even one example of what they do well. We need to work on getting this monstrosity to go down in defeat. Call your Senators as soon as possible and let them know you oppose the takeover of the health care industry. Nevada, vote Harry Reid out of office.