Saturday, December 28, 2013

A reminder of what the “broken” US healthcare system Obama is bent on destroying has done.

Flopping Aces ^ | 12-28-13 | DrJohn 

1703
If he said it once he said it a million times. Obama claimed the US health care system is broken.

Stepping up his push to enact legislation to reform the nation's health-care system, President Obama today declared, "The status quo is broken," and he warned that the current system could eventually collapse if nothing is done to control spiraling costs.With Congress poised to debate sweeping health-care legislation in the coming weeks, Obama warned that if "we do nothing, everyone's health care will be put in jeopardy."
Speaking in his weekly radio and Internet address, Obama said that the fast-rising cost of health care is placing an unsustainable burden on personal budgets, small businesses and the federal government.
"Within a decade we'll spend one dollar out of every five we earn on health care -- and we'll keep getting less for our money," he said. "That's why fixing what's wrong with our health care system is no longer a luxury we hope to achieve; it's a necessity we cannot postpone any longer."
Obama said that health-care reform can address rising costs by reining in profiteering by health insurers and providers, stoking competition in the industry, and creating a mechanism for building on the models of efficient care that exist around the country.
Let's remind our liberal colleagues what Barack Obama is bent on destroying. Let's remind them what a "broken" system has accomplished:
Overall cancer:

•American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.] U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One. fig1 •American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men. •Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent. •For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
Specific cancers:

•Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. 2 •Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher. •The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular).
Canada is better? Not

•For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada. •For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Confusing reporting rules will bite the IRS: Nasty surprises in store for taxpayers.

American Thinker ^ | 12/28/2013 | Rick Moran 

If you are currently receiving a subsidy from the government for your health insurance, you better be aware that any "life changes" that occur during the year - marriage, divorce, increase in income - has to be reported to the IRS. Otherwise, you're liable to get a nasty surprise come tax time.

Politico:

It's a new responsibility for this group - many of whom are just struggling to sign up.
The IRS, for its part, must make sure consumers don't get blindsided - or it will face a bunch of angry taxpayers who didn't realize they would owe Uncle Sam money back, tax experts said.
"If I were the IRS, I would be very concerned that I'm going to be viewed as the villain when people have to pay back money the government gave them for health insurance," said Chris Condeluci, who was Senate Finance Committee GOP tax counsel during drafting of the Affordable Care Act.
There is time. Potential "repayments" to the government will not come due until 2015, when recipients file next year's taxes. But the new rule for reporting these life changes begins this January.
(WATCH: Obamacare timeline)
But there might be good news: If a recipient's income were to fall and it wasn't reported, the recipient could get a nice, fat check because he or she would be owed a larger Obamacare tax credit than was received.
Right now, the IRS does explain the issue on its website, but consumers would have to be looking for the information to find it.


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Why The Chamber of Commerce Is Planning To Attack Conservatives and Tea Party Candidates…

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 12-28-2013 | sundance 

Yesterday we shared the story of the CoC announcing their intention to spend $50 million in order to protect and maintain establishment Republicans. Yesterday the SCF (Senate Conservatives Fund) also sent out a distribution letter notifying supporters of the same issue.
However, the SCF misses the point when they note:
“The Chamber is pro-bailout, pro-stimulus, and pro-debt so it’s no surprise they want to elect more liberal Republicans.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...

KWANZAA

Court: Obama Admin “Doesn’t Have the Right” to Impose HHS Mandate on Christian Colleges

Life News ^ | Steven Ertelt 

The Obama administration has lost yet another court case against the controversial HHS mandate that forces companies, colleges, and religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions under their employee health plans.
Today a Houston federal court delivered a major blow to the controversial HHS mandate ruling in favor of East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University. In a 46-page opinion, the court ruled that the federal mandate requiring employers to provide employees with abortion-causing drugs and devices violates federal civil rights laws, and issued an injunction against the mandate. Religious plaintiffs have now won injunctions in 9 out of 12 such cases involving non-profit entities challenging the mandate.
“The government doesn’t have the right to decide what religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones aren’t,” said Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and lead attorney for East Texas Baptist and Houston Baptist Universities. “In its careful opinion, the Court recognized that the government was trying to move across that forbidden line, and said “No further!”
In its opinion, the federal court specifically rejected the government’s argument that it evaluate the Universities’ beliefs: “The religious organization plaintiffs have shown a sincerely held religious belief that the court cannot second-guess.”
The decision is part of a recent groundswell of cases decided against the government. In nine of the twelve cases decided thus far, federal district courts across the country have issued injunctions against the mandate.
“The government has enforced the health care reform law very unevenly, handing out exemptions to those it sees as its allies,” stated Rassbach. “Perhaps the worst part of the government’s approach is that it seems to have decided that religious institutions are the only ones not to get an exemption.”
Also participating as plaintiff in the case is Westminster Theological Seminary, a Reformed Protestant seminary based in Philadelphia. Westminster is represented by Kenneth Wynne of Wynne & Wynne, LLP.
To date, there are currently 89 lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional HHS mandate.
The decision is good news in the battle against the mandate after, in another case, Priests for Life had its lawsuit tossed.
Father Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, tells LifeNews he is very concerned after learning that Priests for Life’s lawsuit against the HHS contraception mandate was dismissed by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
“The judge’s decision today is a complete contradiction to Judge Cogan’s decision of just a few days ago in New York for organizations situated similarly to us and using exactly the same arguments.
“The New York decision recognized that the religious nonprofits were being forced to cooperate with evil.Our judge, instead, claims that we are not being forced to cooperate with evil. Our judge’s decision is wrong, and we are confident of victory in our appeal.
“Meanwhile, injunction or not, we will absolutely not obey, cooperate with, or tolerate in any way this unjust mandate. As Scripture says, we will obey God rather than men.”
The Supreme Court recently agreed to take a case from Christian-run business Hobby Lobby, which is suing the Obama administration over its mandate that it pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs for its employees. But where do Americans stand on the issue of whether employers should be forced to comply with the mandate?
A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows they apparently agree.
“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.
The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.
Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”
Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.

Missouri bill would gut Obamacare

Washington Times ^ | 12/27/2013 | by Michael Boldin 

Next month, the Missouri Senate will consider a bill which would effectively cripple the implementation of the Affordable Care Act within the state.

Following the lead of South Carolina, where lawmakers are fast-tracking House Bill 3101 in 2014, and Georgia, where HB707 was recently introduced by Rep. Jason Spencer, Missouri State Senator John T. Lamping (R-24) pre-filed Senate Bill 546 (SB546) to update the Health Care Freedom Act passed by Missouri voters in 2010. It passed that year with more than 70% support.

SB546 would ban Missouri from taking any action that would “compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.” That means the state would be banned by law from operating a health care exchange for the federal government.

The bill also proposes suspending the licenses of insurers who accept federal subsidies which result in the “imposition of penalties contrary to the public policy” set forth in the legislation. Since it is unlikely that any insurer would then accept a subsidy, not a single employer in the state could be hit with the employer-mandate penalties those subsidies trigger.
In a press release, Lamping said his goal was make health care better for the people of his state. “These ideas are aimed at improving … health care decisions for Missourians.”
Following significant portions of the Tenth Amendment Center’s four-step plan to nullify Obamacare on a state-level, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano noted that such actions were not just legal, but effective.
“If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare because the federal government doesn’t have the resources … to go into each of the states if they start refusing,” he said.
Based on the long-standing principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine...
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...

The Ongoing Liberal Plague

RightWingPatriot.com ^ | December 27, 2013 | RightWingPatriot 

There is a foul pestilence making its way across America today. Where once proud bastions of conservatism and traditional American values have stood the test of time, a lingering disease has penetrated and spreads its malicious infection. I'm talking about the progressive liberal plague that occurs when liberals pick up and leave bastions of liberal thinking and move to areas of the country where conservatism was the backbone of the culture.
States such as Colorado, Texas, and Florida have all had an invasion of liberals. These entities have left behind states such as New York and Michigan after liberal policies destroyed those states. You would think that seeing the effects of liberalism would wake these people up, especially as they move to another state to better themselves economically. Sadly, that is not the case as logic and reason are two concepts that liberal minds cannot grasp or even begin to comprehend. Liberals will gladly complain of the insane taxes and regulations imposed by the very politicians they vote for, election after election, but when they move to another state that isn't strangled by red tape, high taxes, or anti-free market labor unions, they'll continue to support politicians that support the very things they are running from.
I've seen this firsthand in my home state of Florida. According to the US Census Bureau, New York is about to be displaced by Florida as the third most populous state. There are 50,000 people moving from New York to Florida every year, but it's just not old retirees. In fact, 78% of those moving are under the age of 60 and there are roughly the same number of people who are in their 30's and 40's as there are retirees. I actually find this stunning as the job situation in Florida is deplorable. Most of the jobs are low-wage jobs as Florida has long been a tourism/hospitality state for employment. Sadly, the number of New Yorkers (and others) moving to Florida is increasing the cost of living for native-born crackers. While Florida was always a low-wage state, the cost of living was also extremely low, plus we have no state income tax. Yet, the massive influx of liberals from the North and their voting habits is making the state extremely hard to afford to live in for normal people. South Florida is incredibly expensive to live in as housing prices and property taxes have gone through the roof in the last decade. I, myself, had to move from South to Central Florida just to be able to afford paying my property tax. When I lived in South Florida, the vast majority of people that I knew worked in counties to the south, but they were unable to afford to own or even rent a place to live in the counties that they worked. I'm not just talking about restaurant workers, but also teachers, firemen, and policemen.
When these liberals invade a new state, they don't discard their ideology despite the fact that they've been forced to relocate due to the effects of that ideology of big government and big taxes. They'll rail that the place they moved to is backward and this isn't "how things were done back home!" The obvious rebuttal is don't screw up my state just because you've screwed up yours. The proof is in the pudding, my friends. Florida was a solidly Republican state but voted for Obama twice. Colorado was a solid state for Republicans as well but now votes Democrat. Heck, a lunatic like Alan Grayson would not be electable twenty years ago, but he's now one two elections overall.
This is why I consider the population shift a liberal plague. They mess up their own state and are then forced to move to a state that is more business-friendly. Once in the new state, they continue to practice their infectious ideology of liberal progressivism and the sickness begins to spread. Eventually, the healthy (conservative) part of the state's body is marginalized and the very same practices that bankrupted other states are adopted and become the norm. It's an insidious spread and it's hard to combat. Liberal states still vote liberal Democrat but states that used to vote conservative or Republican are getting flipped. One wishes that there were a vaccine to cure this mind rot of liberalism, but, as the old adage goes, you just can't fix stupid.

Ted Cruz: 2013 Person of the Year

http://thehill.com/ ^ | December 27, 2013 | Rick Manning

No politician had a greater impact on the past year than freshman U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Cruz came from the Lone Star State not owing the D.C. political establishment anything, after he beat the chosen replacement for Kay Bailey Hutchison in an underfunded, grassroots driven Republican primary election.
Using his historic first speech on the Senate floor to support Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s quest to force the Obama administration to agree not to use drones to kill Americans on American soil, Cruz showed he would sacrifice personal glory for the cause of liberty. By helping shine a constitutional light on the Justice Department’s unwillingness to unequivocally declare that the federal government cannot just send a missile through the windshield of American citizens driving down I-95, Cruz chose to take his first stand on a seemingly esoteric, but important, constitutional issue.
Of course, Cruz made his biggest mark when he and fellow freshman Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) led a last-ditch national grassroots effort to defund ObamaCare before the law went into effect fully. Imagine how many Senate Democrats wish right now that they had heeded Cruz's entreaties and agreed to delaying or defunding it for one year. Now, they are stuck with the law and all its consequences.
Since the short federal government shutdown, Americans are coming to the conclusion that ObamaCare was sold through a series of lies, and they are not happy. Fear of losing coverage, fear of significantly increased healthcare costs and fear of losing the doctor/patient relationship have become the table topic in households.
These households know that Republicans, because of Cruz and Lee, did everything possible to protect America from the impact of ObamaCare.
snip
....his unique combination of intelligence, education and fierce determination to do what is right, regardless of [whose] cage gets rattled.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...



 


Why there will be war with queers!

Renew America ^ | 12-27-13 | Sylvia Thompson 

As the Left foams at the mouth over Phil Robertson, the Christian man who described Almighty God's take on homosexuality and other gross sins, their fear is becoming more and more apparent. They seem gradually to be realizing that they are a pernicious minority that only thrives because they are bolstered by Obama's morally corrupt federal government; intellectually lightweight media, devoid of principles; and interestingly, a general decency of American people influenced by the nation's Judeo-Christian roots. The masses, however, are becoming increasingly fed up with the Left's imposition of a twisted worldview that does not comport with anything resembling America as it was founded, and they are voicing that sentiment by the thousands. So far, the pushback is with protests and petitions against amoral multi-million-dollar corporations, such as Cracker Barrel and A&E. Such benign acts of self-preservation will not continue indefinitely.
If it were not so pathetic, it would be laughable that some leftists actually think that they can dictate to those of us who oppose their worldview how we should say things that offend them. I refer here to the Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren's question to former governor Sarah Palin on a recent "On the Record" show. She asked Palin if it would not have been better if Mr. Robertson had said what he said differently. That attitude, which is shared by others of Ms. Van Susteren's leftist cohorts on Fox and throughout the culture, is insufferably hubristic. We, who oppose their worldview, must now speak our opposition only in ways that they approve.
It is also interesting that those who oppose biblical Christianity (and a few who claim that they do not oppose it) have trotted out their list of affirmed homosexuals who proclaim Phil Robertson's right to "his opinion." To any but the scripturally ignorant, Robertson's statements are not "his opinion." He did not inspire the writing of the scriptures that condemn homosexuality; God did. In paraphrasing Scripture, Robertson did not compare homosexuality to bestiality; God did. Robertson's "opinion" is only that he chooses to accept God's directives. What homosexuals and the rest of the Left fail to comprehend is that their ultimate fight is with God, not believing Christians. We just happen to be visible objects to which wrath can be directed.
In a recent airing of the "Sean Hannity" show on Fox Cable News, Hannity hosted two Catholic priests and a female Fox religion commentator to discuss the Robertson issue. This show inadvertently shed light on the division in the Christian church between those who will follow God's directives and those who choose not to.
Of the two priests, one (also a Fox commentator) was clearly of a leftist bent. He tried to make the case that homosexuality is not sin if it is not acted upon. That twisted logic is employed by many proclaimed Christians grappling with how to accept homosexuality for personal reasons in light of God's condemnation of it. The second priest (obviously biblically directed) immediately followed with the biblical truth that the inclination to homosexuality itself is condemned by God. He compared the inclination to that of Hannity's lusting after a female, if he chose to do so. Pope Benedict XVI, who preceded the current Pontiff, described homosexuality as a "disordered orientation," allowing for the fact that the behavior can be "ordered" if the homosexual chooses to seek help, obviously from God and, if necessary, from medical professionals.
A moment of deafening silence ensued between the two priests, with a disapproving look from the leftist. He seemed perturbed at having been countered by the other priest. There was no nodding of the head in agreement. It turns out that the priest with the leftist view of Scripture has a homosexual sister in a "union" with another woman.
Frank Camp, a commentator posting at the Last Resistance blog site (12/23/2013), states that the latest strike by the Left against Christians (in the person of Phil Robertson) is a defining moment in time. He predicts, and I agree, that this moment is only one of many coming in the near future as the agenda of the Left becomes more and more hostile toward "average American values." He describes the current circumstances as what happens when Americans get angry and do something about it. As does Mr. Camp, I think there is a power embodied in righteously indignant anger that can take down any foe. That foe, in our time, comprises the Left (in all its manifestations, particularly its defiance against Almighty God); elitists, those in power and those claiming power that they do not deserve (such as Democrats, establishment Republicans, and the media – including the Fox News cadre of liberals and faux-conservatives); and other anti-God, anti-American forces that have long sought America's destruction from within. I truly hope that Phil Robertson has started a different movement, one that is not political but expressive of patriotic America saying "Enough."
Before this nation's founding, a group of pilgrims were able to escape the repression of the Church of England by seeking safe haven in a new territory. There are no more new worlds. There is nowhere else to run, and there will be no coming together in peaceful coexistence. The reason is that Christians are being required to do what we will not and cannot do – defy God for the sake of a corrupt, rotting culture. And not all Christians will passively bow to force.
This space called America cannot be concurrently occupied by the existing opposing worldviews. How this tragedy that is the destruction of America will play out remains to be seen, but I predict that it will not end peacefully.

Will Insurers Ever Say Enough’s Enough To Obamacare? How can anyone run a business this way?

The Federalist ^ | December 27, 2013 | Greg Scandlen 

I’ve been working professionally in health policy since 1979 when I was hired to write the consumer contracts and other communications in plain English for the Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in Maine. I neither knew nor cared anything about health care before that.
Rewriting contracts turned out to be a pretty good way to learn a whole lot about the business very quickly, I went from there to the research department and then to government relations. Before I left the Blues I was heading the state relations department for the national association in Washington. Then I went on to organize a trade association of health insurance companies that were interested in promoting free market solutions in health care.
I was surprised at how naïve the executives of these companies were when Clinton proposed his own health reforms. These were quiet, unassuming people who were happy to pool risks and pay claims and feel good about their work. They never expected to become the villains in Hillary’s ambitions, had never been political, and didn’t know how to cope with it.
So, understand that I am a man of the insurance industry. I am not a lawyer, have never worked for any government or politician, not an economist, don’t have an advanced degree in any field, and obviously have never cared for a patient. My sole qualifications are that I’m a good writer and a dogged researcher.
What has happened to the insurance industry has me stunned.
Now, I am no apologist for the industry. I have been one of its biggest critics. Its dalliance with Managed Care after the demise of ClintonCare was an enormous mistake that took its mission away from financial protection into health services management – something it was never qualified to do. The industry not only did a poor job of it, but it alienated and embittered the only people who really matter in health care – doctors and patients.
Granted, Managed Care pleased employers for a few years. It restrained their costs in the mid-1990s. But employers don’t really know anything about health care, either. What they do know is the morale of their workers, and Managed Care was the biggest morale-killer ever. Employees were furious that care was being denied by insurance company bureaucrats in Hartford, Connecticut, and they let company HR departments know it.
Employers started looking for other ways to restrain costs while preserving patient choice, and came to embrace “consumer-directed” health care (CDHC) in the early 2000s. This approach has been enormously successful and has exceeded the expectations of even its advocates like me. It has lowered costs and increased patient involvement in health care decision-making.
As an insurance guy, I liked that it was moving insurers away from their misguided notion of being the big boss in health care and back to the role of financial protection.
But the industry didn’t much like that aspect of it. Sure, they would sell the products because employers demanded it, but they were losing control as banks entered the market to manage the first few thousand dollars of expenses of a patient’s contract. The banks were still focused on financial protection and didn’t have ambitions to become health care managers.
So when Obama came along with an offer to require all Americans to buy their products, it was an offer they couldn’t refuse. Especially when the products he had in mind were comprehensive, cover-everything health plans. No more bank involvement. We’ll really be in the catbird seat now!
The naivety I had witnessed during the Clinton Wars was still in force. Many of us tried to warn the industry that they would regret this arrangement. Yes, they might be assured of modest profits, but the cost of sacrificing their autonomy would be far too high. They would become little more than public utilities. They would lose all control over benefit design, marketing practices, and rate setting. They would have no idea of the risks they were enrolling and would have to set premiums blindly.
It has become much, much worse than I ever imagined. Obamacare is not even fully in effect yet and already we are seeing the President playing with the carriers like a toddler plays with toy trucks –

•Employers will be mandated to buy your policies for 2014
•(Oops, employers are angry)
•Employers won’t be mandated until 2015 – if then
•Small employers will give workers a choice of health plans through the SHOP program in 2014
•(Oops, we can’t get the web site ready in time)
•Small employers won’t have to offer a choice of plan until – sometime later
•You must cancel these individual policies
•(Oops, public backlash)
•You must reinstate these policies
•(Oops, many insurance commissioners won’t allow it)
•You must continue to cover providers and drugs even for cancelled policies
•The deadline for enrollment will be December 15, 2013
•(Oops, web site problems)
•The deadline for enrollment will be December 23, 2013
•(Oops, too much traffic)
•The deadline for enrollment will be December 24, 2013
•Never mind, there is no deadline
•First month’s premium must be received by December 31, 2013
•(Oops, back-end problems with the web site)
•First month’s premium must be received by January 8, 2014
•Make that January 10, 2014

How can anyone run a business this way? This is worse than being a federal agency. No federal agency would be expected to stop and start on a personal whim like this. These aren’t rules, they aren’t regulations, they are dictates based on nothing more than Kathleen Sebelius’ momentary feelings.
These are only the “glitches” that have been made public. God knows what orders and threats are being issued in closed-door meetings.
How long will the insurance industry abide being treated like shoe shine boys? Mr. Obama will not be in office forever. His regime is already coming to an end. What will these companies do then? He will no longer be around to grant or withhold bailout (“risk corridor”) money. No other president, Democrat or Republican, will ever be as arrogant or irrational.
It is well past time for the industry, supposed Titans of Wall Street, to grow some spine and start thinking about the best interests of their customers and shareholders.

Can tear-jerkers turn you liberal? As Good As It Gets and The Rainmaker make you soppy, says study

UK Daily Mail ^ | December 27, 2013 

Sentimental films make you more liberal, research suggests.
Political scientists found that Hollywood movies are better able to change attitudes – in a left-wing direction – than advertising or news reports.
Todd Adkins, of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, said audiences seemed to turn off their critical faculties when they reach the cinema.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...

You Knew it was Coming: “Experts” Say Pedophilia is a Sexual Orientation – Hard-wired at Birth!

Freedom Outpost ^ | December 27, 2013 | Tim Brown 

First, let me say that I don’t want to hear anything from the homosexuals, their supporters, supporters of polygamy or any other perversion of God ordained sexuality. We told you this was coming and it has arrived. Researchers with Canada’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health have concluded, after a decade of research, that pedophilia is a deep-rooted, unchangeable predisposition.
The Toronto Star reports:
Pedophilia has been widely viewed as a psychological disorder triggered by early childhood trauma.
Now, many experts see it as a biologically rooted condition that does not change — like a sexual orientation — thanks largely to a decade of research by Dr. James Cantor at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.
Cantor’s team has found that pedophiles share a number of physical characteristics, including differences in brain wiring. It’s now thought that about 1 to 5 per cent of men are pedophiles, meaning they are primarily attracted to children.
These findings have been widely accepted among scientists, but have had little impact on social attitudes or law. However, we are left with the alarming question: if some men are born pedophiles, what should society do with them?
Well, what do you suppose those who have kept their pedophilia under control to some extent, at least keeping it only in their thoughts? They are doing the same thing the homosexuals are doing: calling for societal acceptance, and a cry for special rights will soon be accompanying this demand.
Let me say that I realize all of us face different temptations. Some are weaker in areas that others are not. For those that fight against their temptations, whether homosexuality, pedophilia, fornication, pornography, adultery or a myriad of other sins, let me say “thank you.” Thank you for not justifying your lusts and thank you for seeking to keep them under control. The Bible commands us to repent of these lusts, as well as any action based on them, and Jesus Christ is a Savior of sinners from sin.
However, to accept that this is biological in nature is to miss the aspect of sin. After all, even these that are claiming this is from birth cannot prove it. As my friend Shea Bernard wrote, concerning homosexuality, “Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, along with his team of over 150 of the top geneticists in the world, who sequenced and decoded the human genome, three years ahead of schedule, have emphatically said, ad nauseam, that there is NO gay gene.” To that I would add that there was no discovery of a “pedophilia” gene either. It may come as a surprise, but there are no “thieve” genes, “murderer” genes, or “liar” genes. This is a spiritual issue and deals with the mind.
However, Cantor wants us to believe it is biological. Cantor says of pedophilia: ”It’s either purely biological or a mix of biological and experiential.”
Cantor and his former colleague, Michael Seto, are careful to differentiate between pedophiles and sex offenders. The first, obviously has to do with the mental part and the second is the criminal action part.
So, how are they seeking to help those in the first category? A website, of course. Enter Virtuous Pedophiles. It’s a website for pedophiles who have never molested children, but do have an attraction for them.
One individual that was pointed to in the article in the Star was a man by the name of Ethan Edwards, who at the age of 50 found he could no longer suppress his desires and simply look at young girls in a protective manner. Edwards is the co-founder of Virtuous Pedophiles.
“I realized that young girls certainly took my breath away, more than grown-ups are usually charmed by kids,” Edwards said.
Edwards claims that his site desires to prevent child abuse, by reducing the stigma against non-offending pedophiles. “We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever. Yet we are despised for having a sexual attraction that we did not choose, cannot change, and successfully resist.”
While I’m happy to hear that Edwards and others acknowledge their problem, see it as a problem and seek to keep it from being a problem for young children, it is those like Cantor and Seto that seek to justify the mental state and actions by claiming people are just “born this way” that concern me even more. This is the same argument being used by the militant homosexuals to advance their agenda in this country.

Once it is accepted that behavior is caused by genetics, then society is forced to accept an excuse for all forms of evil behavior. How can you justify jailing anyone who murders, cheats, steals, or just assaults a person? How can a corrupted society condemn a person who is a drunkard, drug user, smoker, adulterer, liar or any other behavior that society now condemns? They have no moral grounds to condemn any behavior and must then accept it as normal.
Those who believe this trash pseudo-science are just sinners who want to justify their immoral behavior like homosexuals and the bad thing is, they will get by with it because we have voted into power those who are fundamentally immoral and Politically Correct. The current occupant of the White Hut comes to mind.