Abortion Causes Major Mental Health Problems Major Study Shows

Women who have had an abortion have experienced an 81-percent increased risk of mental health problems according to a study published in this month’s (September 2011) British Journal of Psychiatry.

The study by Priscilla Coleman, a professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, involved 877,181 participants of whom 163, 831 had an abortion.

It shows that risks of anxiety and depression each rose by over a third after an
abortion, while the rates of suicidal behaviors and drug use more than
doubled.

The conclusion of the study calls into question the conclusions from traditional reviews and reveals  a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion.

“Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services, ” it says.

For those that don’t have subscriptions to the British Journal of Psychiatry more details can be found in this article on ETWNnews.Com

 

Abortion Causes Major Mental Health Problems Major Study Shows

Abortion Causes Major Mental Health Problems Major Study Shows

Pa. Republicans Blowing It With Biz As Usual Strategy

Pa. Republicans Blowing It With Biz As Usual Strategy


“This is the most important election in American history … if we don’t beat Obama and take back the U.S. Senate, the country won’t survive … ” Such is the rallying cry of many Republicans across Pennsylvania and the nation. When I hear this, several things come to mind:

1. The United States will “survive,” even if Barack Obama is elected to a second term. Sure, more spending and bigger government will push the country further down the wrong path, but the GOP would do well to tone down the sky-is-falling rhetoric and concentrate on the actual issues. And for the record, it’s a pretty good bet that America, the most powerful nation the world has ever known, is strong enough to survive a liberal President for a term or two. If one man really can “destroy” the nation, the ballgame was over long ago.

2. The electorate has shown itself to be extremely volatile, with huge swings in the last three elections. Those power shifts were not mandates for either side, but a message to Washington: solve the nation’s economic problems. That trend looks to continue in 2012, and as of now, seems to favor the GOP. In such a “wave,” some candidates will win solely because they have an “R” next to their name. That type of “right place, right time” luck should never be a strategy for victory, but in several key races, that appears to be the GOP plan.

* * *

What does it say about the Republican Party that, heading into what should be a banner year, it has only two top-tier presidential candidates (and as of two weeks ago, just one)? While it’s still feasible for candidates to enter either race, it is the fourth quarter, and the clock is running. The Iowa caucuses take place in just five months, barely enough time for a late entrant to organize a grassroots ground-game and raise the huge sums necessary to compete. So short of a nationally known figure with a solid track record jumping into the fray (which pretty much comes down to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie), the GOP field is set.

Two candidates? That’s it? In the “most important” election in history to many Republicans, it’s come down to a mere two (Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney)?

And before the partisans cry foul about that analysis, let’s be honest about the field. Congressman Ron Paul has the most loyal supporters, and more than anyone, shapes the debate. But his numbers will stay the same, not nearly enough to win the nomination.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, while also having passionate supporters, was dealt a severe blow by Perry’s entry, as many Republicans looking for the “conservative with the best chance of winning” have defected. And neither Paul nor Bachmann have history on their side, as only one congressman has ever been elected president (Garfield).

The rest of the field consists of has-beens and also-rans. None can win and labeling them “second-tier” is being entirely too generous.

At least there were four top-tier candidates in 2008 (McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson) with guys like Paul and former Congressman Tom Tancredo nipping at their heels. But to only have one up until recently begs the question: Of all the Republicans nationwide, how is it possible to have so few viable candidates?

* * *

In the all-important electoral swing state of Pennsylvania, things are even worse. There remains no frontrunner to take on vulnerable freshman senator Bob Casey. As a matter of fact, not only isn’t there a “big name” challenger, there is only one announced candidate, only months before the April primary: Marc Scaringi, a former Rick Santorum staffer.

Scaringi is a solid candidate with a firm grasp of the problems facing America, and, truth be told, would be a good U.S. senator. And if he wins the nomination by default because no other candidates step up, he may just be that senator if anti-incumbency fever runs high in Pennsylvania. (Although it is important to note that no Casey—father or son—has ever lost a general election). But he has no name recognition, little money and hails from a sparsely populated area of the state.

So where is everyone else?

Oh, the Party hierarchy is working hard, doing everything in its power to recruit a wealthy businessman who could self-fund the race, which is codespeak for them not wanting to do their job. The most important qualification for Party support? “How big of a check can you write?”

To the business-as-usual establishment, policy positions don’t matter, nor does damn near anything else. One’s knowledge of the issues—and how well a potential candidate can articulate those positions—is irrelevant.

How long have you been a Republican, and how closely aligned to the GOP platform are you? Can you relate to the voters? Will you run the campaign the way it must be run to win—aka visiting all 67 counties in the dead of winter? And are you a candidate of good character? All secondary to the Party establishment. The only thing that matters is the size of your wallet. And that is a major reason why Bob Casey, despite plummeting approval numbers, still maintains the advantage.

Several months ago, I wrote a column stating that the GOP had no frontrunner to challenge Casey and was roundly criticized by the same folks who are now scrambling to find a viable candidate. Some things never change.

And why is that?

Because the GOP, both nationally and in Pennsylvania, too often choose candidates not on merit—as in, who can best defeat the Democratic opponent—but instead, on whose “turn” it is or who can fund the race. In the mold of choosing Bob Dole and John McCain, Pennsylvania’s nominees may look great to Party insiders, but fare dismally when put before the voters.

There has been little effort to groom candidates for the future, and absolutely no push to stop the hemorrhaging from Philadelphia, where Republican statewide candidates routinely face half-a-million vote deficits. So now the Party is in the strange position of sitting on massive gains—having won a U.S. Senate seat (Toomey), the Governor’s office (Corbett), and winning back the State House (a 10-seat majority)—but potentially taking a pass on the Casey seat, which could well be the deciding vote as to which party controls that legislative body.

You reap what you sow, and the critical harvest is upon the GOP.

The biggest irony is that a strong senate candidate could help put Pennsylvania back in the “red” column nationally, as the state is still in electoral play. (Bush lost by only two points in 2004.) And while Republicans can lose Pennsylvania and still win the White House, the same is not the case for the Democrats. Take the Keystone State away from Obama, and you send him packing. It’s that simple.

But with scant Republican leadership in Pennsylvania, it’s not a good bet that will happen. Incumbents don’t usually lose unless they’re challenged by viable, first-tier candidates.

With Rick Perry now in the race, Obama is sweating. But Bob Casey is playing it cool, thankful the GOP is acting like his biggest campaign supporter.


Pa. Republicans Blowing It With Biz As Usual Strategy

Goofy Street Sign Mandate That Toomey Fought

Goofy Street Sign Mandate That Toomey Fought  — The federal government has rescinded it’s bizarre deadline to change all the street signs in the country and credit goes to Sen. Pat Toomey.

The Federal Highway Administration in 2009 mandated that  street name signs throughout the nation be upper/lower case with a deadline of 2018.

For the historically challenged, 2009 is the first year of the Obama era.

It would have been a costly and wasteful endeavor with the burden falling on municipal governments.

The cost to replace a street sign is about $50. It  adds up. The expense to New York City was estimated to be $28 million.

Anyway, last November Pennsylvania elected a new Republican senator and upon taking office Sen. Toomey made it a point to make common sense prevail. First, he got Secretary of Transportation  Ray LaHood to grant a exception to Lower Merion — a place that was not what one would describe as supportive of  Toomey’s election it should be noted — to  grant the township a waiver to save its historic and picturesque street signs.

Then he got Secretary LaHood to waive the deadline for the entire nation, which Toomey announced Aug. 30.

It’s not ending the mandate but street signs do last a long time as those in Lower Merion would tell you.

Pennsylvania’s other senator, Little Bobby Casey, was apparently content with the pointless new burden. He certainly was indifferent to the problems that it was causing.

So kudos to Sen. Toomey.

Hat tip to Cathy Craddock of the Delaware County Patriots.

Goofy Street Sign Mandate That Toomey Fought

Where “R” the Jobs?

At
a Town Hall Meeting held by rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), chairman of the
House, Energy, and Commerce Committee and a member of the super
committee his constituents became angry. As Upton began to show them
charts about the money that would be saved by cutting medicare,
social security and continued tax-breaks for the ultra-rich one of
his constituency asked, Where are the jobs on that flip chart?”

This led to many questions concerning lack of job creation and the
tax-breaks for the ultra-rich that many thought were unfair and a
large contribution to the failing economy and lack of jobs. The room
soon erupted when he could not find an answer as his constituency
began to chant “Where are the jobs!,” demanding new jobs from the
GOP.

With
the unemployment rate at 9% overall and in his district over all, and
much higher for people of color in many urban environments, the idea
of cutting taxes, benefits and service, for many without creating any
jobs were ridiculous. This cry for the creation of jobs in our
country is expanding and crossing all party lines. People seem to be
acting out, since they don’t seem to be heard by the GOP, Democratic
Party, or the Tea Party by demanding jobs themselves now. 

As a
response to this cry for jobs throughout the nation President Obama
has been formulating plans that will permit the creation of jobs
without a vote from Congress. I look forward to when this can be
done since Congress seems to be asleep at the wheel, or grand
standing, or operating at the behest of large corporations who want
nothing more than a surplus of workers available to keep the cost of labor (and pay wages) down. 

Warren Buffett Just Pay Your Taxes

Warren Buffett Just Pay Your Taxes — Billionaire investor and Obama supporter Warren Buffett says our tax rate is too low and rich people should pay more in taxes.

Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Buffett, is fighting the IRS which claims the conglomerate owes what could be up to $1 billion more in taxes than what it has paid.

So Mr. Buffett, why not, you know, just stop fighting and give the government the money it wants?

Use the short form, man.

Pay all the tax you can.

Or, better yet, keep fighting and stop being such a sanctimonious phoney.

Warren Buffett Just Pay Your Taxes

 

 

Warren Buffett Just Pay Your Taxes

The State Of Our Society

Old friend Tom Flocco, a resident of Delaware County who has made an honorable hobby of inflicting pain and suffering on politicians of all stripes, has sent these interesting links regarding the state of our society.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/08/fox-news-what-is-austrian-economics-and.html

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915

Thanks, Tom.


No Apology Required

 

 
Here’s a refresher on how some of our former patriots handled negative comments about our country.

 

JFK’S
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in  France  in the early 60’s when DeGaulle decided to pull out of NATO.  DeGaulle said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.

Rusk responded,

“Does that include those who are buried here?”

 

DeGaulle did not respond.

 

You could have heard a pin drop.

 

When in  England  ,

at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury  if our plans for  Iraq  were just an example of ’empire building’ by George Bush.

 

He answered by saying,

“Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.  The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

There was a conference in France

where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American.  During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying, “Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to  Indonesia  to help the tsunami victims  What does he intend to do, bomb them?”

 

A Boeing engineer

stood up and replied quietly:  “Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency  electrical power to shore facilities; they have three  cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.  We have eleven such ships;how many does France have?”

 
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

A  U.S. Navy Admiral

was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies  At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, “Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?”

 

Without hesitating,

the American Admiral replied, “Maybe it’s because the Brit’s, Canadians, Aussie’s and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.”
 
You could have heard a pin drop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE…

Robert Whiting,

an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.
At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on.

 

“You have been to France before, monsieur?” the customs officer asked sarcastically.

 

Mr. Whiting
admitted that he had been to France  previously.

 

“Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.”

 

The American said,

“The last time I was here, I didn’t have to show it.”

 

“Impossible..
Americans always have to show their passports on arrival  in France !”

 

The American senior

gave the Frenchman a long hard look.  Then he quietly explained, ”Well, when I came ashore at  Omaha Beach  on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn’t find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to.”

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pitiable State Of Dino Propagandists

Pitiable State Of Dino Propagandists — The Philadelphia Inquirer, yesterday, Sunday Aug. 28, devoted the back page of the A section to an New York Times News Service article which it titled Irene Renews Debate Over Cause Of Change.

The article does not seem to be available at the Inky website, Philly.Com, so here is the first graf:

The scale of Hurricane Irene, which could cause more extensive damage on the Eastern Seaboard than any storm in decades, has revived an old question: Are hurricanes getting worse because of human-induced climate change?

The second paragraph was basically “yes” according to “many” scientists.

Now when one writes “could” one “could” write just about anything and still be technically accurate i.e. “my dog could fly if the laws of physics mysteriously changed.”
The magic of “could” is something one learns during the intense playground arguments of the  second grade.

Still, with  Hurricane Floyd occurring just a dozen years ago it was a silly thing to say. If one is making the claim of catastrophic climate change, does one really want one’s targets to remember the  storms of  past decades that spread havoc in the Northeast like Floyd or the Long Island Express of 1938 or Hurricane Agnes of 1972?

Really, when one’s goal is to convince one’s targets something new is occurring why allude to events that show it really is not?

But the real problem with the story, of course, is that it ran on the day the storm fizzled. They couldn’t just wait to be sure.

The truly great progressive propagandists like Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Goebbels would sneer with disgust at the new crew.

For your reference here is a link to a list of the great East Coast hurricanes.

 

 

Pitiable State Of Dino Propagandists

Buy Seeds, Canned Food

Buy Seeds, Canned Food 

 

By Dr. John Gilmore

I have started to look for a part-time job. I am surprised how hard it is to find one, yet again, since there are no jobs why would I wonder why there aren’t part-time ones? I am hoping that lowering taxes to the richest 2% of the people in the country will get me a job, like Congress says. 

 

Actually, that is just a joke. Who would ever think that cutting services for the lower 98% of the people and cutting taxes on the ultra rich at the federal level while they are being raised at the state, county and local level for the average individuals to make up for the short fall, will bring about economic prosperity.

This may have been the case long ago, but now there is a global economy. Money is trickling out to developing nations instead of down. Every tax cut means investments in competing countries overseas as we all end up fighting and scraping for the crumbs, and feeling good if we can just get a hold of something that isn’t too rotten. On top of this, most of these companies are insured by the US government. 

 

If they take a risk and fail at creating industry in another country and moving our jobs there, they will be reimbursed with tax payer money. That must feel good. I would be very patriotic if I were them.

Despite this our new GOP candidates have promised: to lower taxes, except on working class and the working poor; to cut programs for senior citizens, the disabled, the young, families, and able bodied adults who are unemployed; to cut spending to public education; to privatize utilities; (which means they will cost more) and to do many other things that will cost the average working person more and more. 

 

And the Liberals, of course, will apologetically go along with it. They are always sorry. There must be something magical about these people. People who should be working together protesting what they are doing are still fighting with each other. Some are even protecting them and pushing their agendas forward and destroying the future for all of our children and future generations.

 

These are interesting times. People who claim to be religious and/or Born Again Christians are Pro-Life, but very Pro-War. These church representatives are leading in the argument for social service cuts to the poor, lowering the minimum wage, getting rid of social security and medicare. 

 

Those who claim to be patriots are fighting against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by trying to turn the government over to the very types of corporation that Adams, Jefferson, and Teddy Roosevelt fought to keep us free from.

 

There are news programs and TV stations that out right lie, but no one seems to do anything about it. My advice for everyone when you pull that lever in 2012 is to look two generations back at your own relatives and how they had to live, and vote in their best interest instead of voting against the interest of people who are just like them. That is my plan. Yet again, with all of the fixed voting machines that might not make a difference. Perhaps we all better buy a lot of seeds and canned food to hide in the basement as we wait for better times.

What It Means If They Stop Lending Us Money

Reader Tom C sent this fascinating link on what the Obama press conference would sound like the day it becomes impossible to lend dollars.

Extra kudos to the fine performance by the Obama impersonator.