George A. Sprecace M.D.,
J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New
RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section. It will
quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in
this rapid-fire world of ours. Of course, as in military
a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed
by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction. Charge that to
"the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or
campaign must maintain to be effective. But the mission will
be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick",
by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.
That's all I promise.
to return to the current Rapid Response list
THE START TREATY: POINT AND
warns of new arms race
MOSCOW (Reuters) – President Dmitry
Medvedev warned on Tuesday that a new arms race would erupt within the
next decade unless Russia and the West forged an agreement to cooperate
on building a missile
In his annual state of the nation
address, Medvedev called for closer cooperation with the United States
and the European Union, holding out the prospect of closer ties two
decades after the Soviet
ended the Cold War.
He said tension would ratchet up fast,
forcing Russia to bolster its military arsenal, if Western offers of
cooperation on a system to defend against missile
failed to produce a concrete agreement.
The warning appeared to reflect wariness
in the Kremlin over uncertainty about Senate ratification of New START,
the nuclear arms limitation pact Medvedev signed with President Barack
Obama in April, centerpiece of the push for better ties.
"In the coming decade we face the
following alternatives: Either we reach agreement on missile defense
and create a full-fledged joint mechanism of cooperation, or ... a new
round of the arms
will begin," Medvedev said.
"And we will have to take a decision
about the deployment of new offensive weapons. It is clear that this
scenario would be very grave."
The remarks, in a 72-minute speech to
members of parliament and ministers, raised the stakes in sensitive
discussions with the United States and NATO on missile defense. The
issue has divided Moscow and the West since the 1980s.
Medvedev agreed to NATO's offer of missile
at a summit with the alliance that was hailed as a fresh start, but the
plans are sketchy and Russia has warned it wants an equal voice in
evaluating threats and responses.
Medvedev has pursued warmer ties with the
West and particularly Washington since he was steered into the
presidency by his predecessor, Vladimir Putin.
He has embraced Obama's efforts to
"reset" a relationship that hit post-Cold War lows during Russia's war
with Georgia in August 2008, months after he took office.
RESET UNDER THREAT?
After the address, Kremlin aide Arkady
Dvorkovich told journalists the collapse of the New START pact "would
mean nothing good and we are counting on ratification going through."
Obama wants the treaty ratified before
his Democratic Party's majority decreases when the new Senate elected
this month convenes early next year.
Medvedev's comments also seemed aimed to
assuage hard-liners and assure Russians steeped in decades of
anti-Western rhetoric that Moscow will not open itself up to a threat.
When Medvedev said Russia might have to
deploy more weapons, applause broke out after a brief pause before he
went on to say that would be "very grave."
Russia has emphasized it could withdraw
from New START if a U.S. missile
becomes a threat to its security.
"Russia wants a legally binding agreement
on missile defense because it sees potential threats," said military
analyst Pavel Felgenhauer. But he said Russia "does not have the
capabilities" to hold its own in an arms race in the foreseeable future.
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of the journal
"Russia in Global Affairs," said Medvedev's message was that if Russia
is shut out of meaningful missile defense cooperation, it "will try to
take measures to counter that by modernizing its nuclear arsenal."
The Kremlin's pursuit of better ties with
the West has been accompanied by calls for a stronger say across a
broad swath of the globe including Europe, America and the ex-Soviet
"I see significant potential in
broadening cooperation with the European Union and the United States,"
Medvedev said, though he underscored that Moscow wants concrete
benefits such as help on Moscow's bid to join the WTO.
(Additional reporting by Alissa de
Carbonnel, Tom Grove, Amie Ferris-Rotman and Denis Dyomkin; Editing by
Irrelevance of the New START
It's a lame-duck session. Time is running
out. Unemployment is high, the economy is dangerously weak and, with
less than five weeks to go, no one knows what tax they'll be paying on
everything from income to dividends to death when the current rates
expire Jan. 1. And what is the president demanding that Congress pass
as "a top priority"? To what did he devote his latest weekly radio
address? Ratification of his New START treaty.
Good grief. Even among national security
concerns, New START is way down at the bottom of the list. From the
naval treaties of the 1920s to this day, arms control has oscillated
between mere symbolism at its best to major harm at its worst, with
general uselessness being the norm.
The reason is obvious. The problem is
never the weapon; it is the nature of the regime controlling the
weapon. That's why no one stays up nights worrying about British nukes,
while everyone worries about Iranian nukes.
In Soviet days, arms control at least
could be justified as giving us something to talk about when there was
nothing else to talk about, symbolically relieving tensions between
mortal enemies. It could be argued that it at least had a soporific and
therapeutic effect in the age of "the balance of terror."
But in post-Soviet days? The Russians are
no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington
and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many
nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury
creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.
President Obama insists that New START is
important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where
does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare.
We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop
nukes in secret.
Just last week we found out about a
hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment
facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in
the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them -
against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.
Moreover, Obama's idea that the great
powers must reduce their weapons to set a moral example for the rest of
the world to disarm is simply childish. Does anyone seriously believe
that the mullahs in Iran or the thugs in Pyongyang will in any way be
deflected from their pursuit of nukes by a reduction in the U.S.
Useless and problematic
Obama's New START treaty, like the rest,
is 90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic. One difficulty is
that it restricts the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons.
But because some of these are dual-use, our ability to deliver
long-range conventional weapons, a major U.S. strategic
advantage, is constrained.
The second problem is the recurrence of
language in the treaty preamble linking offensive to defensive nuclear
weaponry. We have a huge lead over the rest of the world in
anti-missile defenses. Ever since the Reagan days, the Russians have
been determined to undo this advantage. The New START treaty affirms
the "interrelationship" between offense and defense. And Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev has insisted that "the unchangeability of
circumstances" - translation: no major advances in U.S. anti-missile
deployment - is a condition of the entire treaty.
The worst thing about this treaty,
however, is that it is simply a distraction. It gives the illusion of
doing something about nuclear danger by addressing a non-problem,
Russia, while doing nothing about the real problem - Iran and North
Korea. The utter irrelevance of New START to nuclear safety was
dramatically underscored last week by the revelation of that North
Korean uranium enrichment plant, built with such sophistication that it
left the former head of the Los Alamos National Laboratory "stunned."
It could become the ultimate proliferation factory. Pyongyang is
already a serial proliferator. It has nothing else to sell. Iran, Syria
and al-Qaeda have the money to buy.
Iran's Islamic Republic lives to bring
down the Great Satan. North Korea, nuclear-armed and in a succession
crisis, has just shelled South Korean territory for the first time
since the Korean armistice.
Obama peddling New START is the guy
looking for his wallet under the lamppost because that's where the
light is good - even though he lost the wallet on the other side of
MONDAY, November 29, 2010
THERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE PERPETUAL VICTIMS ANYMORE.
How to Stop North Korea
Nov. 29 2010 - 12:03 am
“No one has found a way to persuade North Korea to move in sensible
directions.” Stapleton Roy, the former American ambassador, said
to me in the beginning of 2004.
Since then, Kim Jong Il has continued to travel down the wrong
The little dictator may be an absolute failure when it comes to running
the domestic affairs of his Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but
he is nonetheless a genius in roiling relations in North Asia. No
nation—with the possible exception of increasingly militant China—has
figured out how to get along with Pyongyang.
How do we deal with North Korea? There is one major step to take,
then the rest falls into place. As an initial matter, we have to
adjust our thinking. “Whenever peace—conceived as the avoidance
war—has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the
international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member
of the international community,” wrote Henry Kissinger, long before the
emergence of Kim Jong Il. “Whenever the international order has
acknowledged that certain principles could not be compromised even for
the sake of peace, stability based on an equilibrium of forces was at
Today, South Koreans think the use of force is inconceivable, and the
Obama administration shares that view. Therefore, we jump at just
about every offer to talk to Pyongyang, such as the one Beijing floated
But as Kissinger hints, the most reliable way to become engaged in a
war is to desperately try to avoid one. By not imposing any
consequences on the North for its belligerent behavior—the sinking of
the Cheonan in March and the shelling of Yeonpyeong last week, for
instance—Seoul has encouraged Kim Jong Il to continue to kill South
Koreans. Eventually, his regime will overstep, doing something
starts an escalatory spiral. So, if we want to avoid a general
conflict in North Asia, we need to change the way Pyongyang views the
The first thing we can do is intimidate Kim, who is usually well
behaved when confronted with superior force. He has abrogated the
armistice on various occasions, most recently on May 27 of last
We nonetheless maintain that the truce remains in force, but as a
matter of international law it cannot continue to exist if one party
states it has been terminated. We should take the North Koreans
their word and announce that we too recognize that there is no longer
any agreement not to use force.
If we have the right to use force, we certainly have the right to take
coercive measures. Here are three of them we should implement
First, the U.S. Treasury should order banks and other financial
institutions doing business in or with the U.S. to freeze North Korea’s
funds and to refrain from commercial transactions with the militant
state. This mimics the Bush administration’s targeting of Banco
Asia, a Macau institution that was handling Pyongyang’s illicit money
transfers. The action, taken in 2005, forced North Korea to use
diplomats as mules to ferry money around the world in bulging
suitcases. Much of the North’s commerce is illegitimate
anyway—counterfeit currency, methamphetamines, you name it—so this is
something that should be done in any event.
Second, South Korea should order its 120 or so companies in the Kaesong
Industrial Complex to close their facilities there. The area,
north of the Demilitarized Zone, funnels about $600 million yearly to
the North. A large portion of this sum ends up in the pockets of
senior regime members, who skim wages and other payments. It is
shameful for South Korean leaders to talk of North Korea’s
“unpardonable” acts while funding them at the same time. It is,
stated, morally wrong.
Third, the U.S., along with its allies, must interdict North Korean
shipments of long-range missiles and items that can be used in nuclear
weapons programs. Pyongyang has been proliferating nuclear
missile technology to Iran, Syria, and Burma, according to a U.N.
report released this month, and there are undoubtedly other customers
as well. North Korea has links with terrorist groups and has sold
conventional weaponry to Hezbollah, for instance. It’s not much a
for the regime to sell a nuke to Osama bin Laden.
So North Korea is a threat to not just its neighbors. It poses a
threat to the United States. Last June, the U.S. turned back the
Nam, a North Korean tramp freighter believed to be carrying nuclear
materials to Burma. The action was hailed at the time as a
Yet we never found out what happened to its cargo, which was unloaded
and probably shipped overland through China. We should have
the vessel on the high seas and, if necessary, confiscated its
With no armistice in effect, such an act would have been permissible
under international law. We had the right to sink the Kang Nam,
course we had the right to stop and search it.
If we want “the most ruthless member of the international
community”—that’s Kim Jong Il—“to move in sensible directions,” we need
to abandon policies that have not worked and adopt ones that can.
now, we don’t have much choice.
FRIDAY through SUNDAY, November
26 through 28, 2010
A--We had ties with Ho Chi Minh as
early as 1942, when he agreed to help the Allies against the
Japanese. In exchange, we agreed to sponsor his country's
sovereignty after the war. We promptly screwed him at the Potsdam
Conference in 1945 when the Allies decided to graciously return
Indo-China to the French. We see where that got us.
Note, however, that Ho was an ardent
communist since the 1920's, and that it doesn't matter if he
modeled his government after our founding documents. Actions
are everything. It also doesn't matter if the U.S.
mis-read Viet Nam's relationship to
China. History notes that the Vietnamese began
separating from Chinese influence in the 1300s. It was
Ho's relationship with the Soviet Union, not China, that
fueled his participation in expanding communism in that part of
the world at that time.
B--He's half-right about Saddam.
No way would Hussein have allowed Al Qaeda to further toxify his
relationship with the U.S. with those loose cannons rolling all
over the Fertile Crescent. However, Hussein was a victim of
his own duplicitous success. He did such a good job of
making everyone in his neighborhood, as well as us, believe that he had
nukes that we had no choice but to err on the side of caution. If
he truly had them, we would have found them by now. But, to say
that we had no reason to go into Iraq is as stupid as what we are
currently doing with Iran, to our and the world's eternal shame if,
under current circumstances, they get and subsequently push
Also, "many Iraqis ruefully admit that
perhaps only a complete SOB like Saddam can run their
country" is like saying that Mussolini made the trains run on
time. Is he kidding? Of course they're going to say
that. I'm all for "Better the devil you know . . .", but come
on! And, this guy made it up to Ambassador???
C--Re: Kim Jong-Il, sooo, if you're
intelligent that means that you can't be a diabolical,
sadistic despot hell-bent on making your people's lives a
blistering, collective, sheer hell so you can consolidate all
sorts of power at your disposal? News Flash!--you don't get to
sit at the table as a peer of true nations to discuss peace
treaties under those circumstances. And, if you are a despotic
regime, not at least until you are an 800 lb. gorilla like the Soviet
Union or China. But, people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and
Madeline Albright keep feeding the beast with heavy-water reactors
and/or dropping everything to rush over there to beg and plead to
Uncle Kim to release those two unfortunate souls who were caught for
"spying" on North Korea.
This guy makes Joe Stalin look like a
ham-handed amateur because he is so much more subtle in his
approach. He's intelligent, he wears designer glasses, he loves
American movies and music. He can't be that bad, right?
And, don't buy the latest news that
China has less awareness and information about North Korea's
actions than we suspected. They live on each other's doorstep for
God's sake! And, what does it say about China that they don't get
off their ass and push for a unified Korea a' la the present
South Korean economy and governance in order to defuse such a
potential bomb right in front of them? It means that they
don't care one bit about their own people or those anywhere on the
Korean Peninsula. It also means that they either don't care or
have no awareness of the immense boom to their economy that this
scenario would bring . . . , AGAIN, right on their
doorstep. And, it has nothing to do with political
ideology. Look who their biggest trading partner is.
To add to our brilliant ambassador's
final comment, "Talks are often needed most . . ." before
you give away literal and figurative leverage to your enemies.
Sorry, am I being too harsh with that word? I am by no means
a sabre-rattler or warhawk, but we have GOT to stop kicking the can
down the road.
Evil and despotism LOOOOVE apathy,
which so often these days comes in the misguided form of perceived
circumspect vision, patience, and tolerance.
Folks, this qualifies as a comment "on the other hand". I had
read about the Ho Chi Minh story before. And then there is the
book I just bought, entitled "The
American Way of War...Guided Missiles, Misguided Men, and a Republic in
Peril", by Eugene Jarecki, among other things the founder and
director of "The Eisenhower Project". You remember what the
General said about "the
I have also begun reading "Decision
Points" by W. And I have completed reviewing "Broke", a very good source of
history and serious thought by Glen Beck.
All of this is by way of following my own perennial advice:
cross-read...and do your part, however seeming like "a voice crying in
the wilderness", for yourselves, for your family, and for humanity.
Donald Gregg: Politico Commentary on North Korea
comment was originally posted on the POLITICO website. KDMJ]
Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il have in common?
are all foreign leaders we demonized. With two of them, Ho and Saddam,
we fought wars that should not have been fought. Many of your
conservative contributors suggest that we go after Kim Jong Il
militarily, ignoring, or not knowing or caring that Seoul is blanketed
by North Korean artillery, and that although North Korea would lose any
war that started today, hundreds of thousand of innocent Seoul citizens
would die in the first few days of fighting.
Minh’s life was saved by OSS at the end of World War II. In gratitude
he reached out to us repeatedly, asking for help and recognition. He
modeled his constitution on our founding documents, but we mis-read one
thousand years of Chinese-Vietnamese enmity and saw him as China’s
cat’s paw, instead of one it its toughest enemies, and slid into the
abyss of war.
Hussein, who largely deserved demonization, was not guilty of the two
things we accused him of; ties with Al Quaida, and possession of
nuclear weapons. Our war of choice in Iraq is a continuing tragedy, and
many Iraqis ruefully admit that perhaps only a complete SOB like Saddam
can run their country.
conduct is often hard to stomach and even harder to understand, but it
has its inner logic. We demonize him as a “nut case” but I have talked
to Russians, Chinese, South Koreans and Americans who have met with him
at length, and all say he is extremely intelligent. What Kim wants is
sustained, serious talks with the US, leading to a comprehensive peace
treaty. Our problem is that every time we elect a new president, we
seem to feel that we have to start from scratch with North Korea. For
example, just over ten years ago, then Vice President Al Gore hosted a
lavish luncheon for North Korean Marshal Jo Myong Rok at the State
Department. Jo had invited President Clinton to visit Pyongyang, and
Clinton had agreed to send Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to
North Korea to do the advance work for a possible visit. Albright went,
had good meetings with Kim, but time ran out, and Clinton was not able
to go. The North Koreans were hopeful that Bush 43 would take up where
Clinton left off, but that was not to be. In January 2002 Pyongyang
heard itself named as part of the “axis of evil,” with Iran and Iraq by
our recently elected president.
are often needed most when they seem hardest to start. Today is such a
Ambassador to Korea, 1989-93
SUNDAY through THURSDAY, November
21 through 25, 2010
Assess Health Risks of Airport Full-Body Scanners
By Emily P. Walker, Washington
Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: November 24, 2010
With the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) ramping up its use of full-body scanners in
airports just at the busiest travel time of the year, passengers are
extra cautious about what health risks, if any, are posed by the new
But the consensus among radiation experts
and medical physicists is that the scanners used in airports produce
such minuscule levels of radiation that they pose no real health risks.
However, others pose questions about the
machines -- what effects will the low-dose X-rays have on skin and what
would happen if a machine's off mechanism jammed and delivered a dose
of radiation that is millions of times higher than intended?
Airports use two types of scanning
technology -- millimeter wave scanners, which use radio waves and do
not expose people to X-rays, and backscatter scanners, which use very
low levels of X-rays.
It's the backscatter scanners -- which
create an anatomically accurate image that reveals if anything is
hidden under a person's clothing -- that have been the subject of
controversy in the past week.
The full-body backscatter scanners are
now deployed in 70 of the 450 airports in the U.S., according to the
TSA. Physical pat-downs are performed on people who refuse the
With amped-up media scrutiny on the
full-body scans, and with many patients preparing for holiday travel,
an increasing number of physicians have been calling Kelly Classic, a
health physicist at the Mayo Clinic and asking her what they should
tell their patients.
Classic's department even issued a
statement that Mayo doctors can refer to when explaining to patients if
the full-body scanners emit enough harmful radiation to pose a health
The message: "The amount of radiation is
Classic tells Mayo doctors to give their
patients the following comparisons:
The amount of radiation from one
full-body airport scan is equivalent to two minutes of flying in an
airplane, to sleeping next to another person for the night, and to 40
minutes of just living.
"There are so many common things we're
exposed to that produce radiation," she told MedPage Today. "This
[an airport scan] is a pretty minor piece of that."
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security
echoes the assessment that the radiation from one full-body scan is
equivalent to the radiation a person is exposed to from two minutes of
flying at cruising altitude.
Put another way, a traveler would require
more than 1,000 such scans in a year to reach the effective dose equal
to one standard chest X-ray, the American College of Radiology (ACR)
said in a statement posted to the group's website.
"The ACR is not aware of any evidence
that either of the scanning technologies that the TSA is considering
would present significant biological effects for passengers screened,"
the ACR said.
A group of scientists from the University
of California San Francisco (UCSF) first brought the issue to the
forefront of the radiology community more than seven months ago.
John Sedat, PhD, professor emeritus in
UCSF's department of biochemistry and biophysics, and several
colleagues wrote a letter to the White House in April expressing their
concern over the "potential serious health risks" of the full-body
The scientists said the device has not
been adequately tested and laid out a number of issues that they say
are unknown, including the effects of radiation on older passengers,
pregnant passengers, and passengers with HIV or cancer, and what effect
the low doses of radiation might have on breast tissue directly beneath
the skin, on corneas, and on testicles.
However, since that letter, scientists at
Johns Hopkins' applied physics lab tested the most commonly used
machine -- the Rapiscan -- for the Department of Homeland Security and
Their August report found the doses of
radiation delivered to a person standing in the scanner are well below
those laid out by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Even if a person had 46 screenings a day every single day for a year,
the dosage would still be just one-quarter of the total amount of
radiation that the ANSI recommends not be exceeded in a given year,
according to the report.
However, the scientists pointed out that
there are areas well above the unit, and at the entry and exit points
where the radiation dose could exceed the per year dosage cap laid out
But Peter Rez, PhD, professor of physics
at Arizona State University questioned the radiation figures from the
John Hopkins scientists. By his own mathematical calculations, the
doses emitted from the backscatter machines are much higher, although
still not high enough to pose a serious health risk.
The real risk posed by the machines is if
they jammed and failed to turn off, which could result in blasting a
person with enough radiation to cause serious burns, Rez told MedPage
"Mechanical things break down and if that
beam were to stop at one point, you'd get a very high dose on that one
part," Rez said. "That's what worries me the most."
The machines do have fail-safe methods
built in, but Rez said he won't trust them until he sees engineering
studies proving the fail-safes are reliable.
"It's one thing to have an X-ray in a lab
at a hospital that is looked over by trained people, but it's quite
another to have it in an airport terminal with all the hustle and
bustle and the TSA people looking over it."
Rez recently opted out of the full-body
scan before boarding a flight from Florida to Arizona, which meant he
was subjected instead to what he called the "big grope."
But the chief physicist at John Hopkins
-- who was not involved in writing the report for DHS and TSA -- told MedPage
Today that even if the machines failed to turn off, a person
would have to stand in the scanner for hours before being exposed to
radiation doses high enough to cause burns.
"In case the machine gets stuck, the
radiation output is not that high," said Mahadevappa Mahesh, MS, PhD,
who is also an associate professor of radiology and cardiology.
In light of the recent backlash over the
ramped-up screening procedures, Obama administration officials said the
screening process is "evolving" and the government will take into
account the public's concern.
SATURDAY, November 20, 2010
...AND THE CRETINS WHO "LEAD"
US WANT TO ADD THE MEDICAL PROFESSION TO THIS LIST OF
SHAME. DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN.
FRIDAY, November 19, 2010
DESPERATION. Barack and
Hillary, you're being played like a violin. Have you ever heard
of: "He who seeks equity must do
equity"? How about:
"Heads, I win; Tails, you lose"? GS
Israel and U.S.
struggle to conclude settlement pact
JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Talks between
Israeli and U.S. officials aimed at reviving Middle East peace talks
have hit snags over incentives promised by Washington to persuade
Israel to resume a freeze of Jewish
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
unveiled the U.S. inducements to his cabinet last weekend and appeared
hopeful the ministers would back plans for a temporary halt to building
in the occupied West
to overcome a hurdle to the peace talks.
But an Israeli official said on Friday
the United States had not yet provided the guarantees that Israel
wanted, with Washington reluctant to commit to paper all the promises
Netanyahu says he was offered verbally last week.
The latest snag concerned a pledge that
Israel says U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made to provide the
country free of charge 20 F-35 stealth warplanes worth $3 billion.
Politicians said Washington was
backtracking and now wanted some sort of payment for the coveted
"It looks like the free stealth fighters
have slipped," said Benny Begin, a minister from Netanyahu's Likud
party who is opposed to the proposed U.S. deal, warning that Washington
was setting a trap to extract major concessions later down the line.
"One may wonder if you cannot agree to
understandings from one week to the next, what could happen over three
months," he told the Army Radio on Friday.
The U.S. State Department said on Friday
it would be willing to put the guarantees in writing but declined to
discuss specifics of what they might be.
"We continue our discussions with the
Israelis. If there is a need to put certain understandings in writing,
we will be prepared to do that," State Department spokesman P.J.
Crowley told a news
Netanyahu has said "intensive"
discussions continued to get the necessary "understandings."
"If I receive such a proposal from the
American government, I will bring it before the security cabinet and I
have no doubt that my colleagues will accept it," he said late Thursday.
FOCUS ON BORDERS
U.S. President Barack Obama invested substantial
in persuading the Palestinians to resume direct talks with Israel in
early September, after months of mediation.
But, true to their warnings, the
Palestinians halted negotiations when Netanyahu refused to extend a
10-month partial settlement moratorium when it expired at the end of
Washington hoped its diplomatic and
defense enticements would persuade Israel to renew the freeze for 90
days, opening the way for three months of intense negotiations that
would focus on the future border of a Palestinian state.
However, Netanyahu's coalition allies
demanded a written pledge from the United States to make clear the
building freeze did not include occupied land in East Jerusalem and to
spell out there would be no U.S. pressure for any subsequent moratoria.
The Palestinians themselves have
expressed outrage in private over reports of the U.S. offer, saying it
was a bribe to get Israel to fulfill basic international obligations.
The Israeli official said there appeared
to be a disconnect between the White House and State Department with
Obama unhappy that Clinton
had offered so much for such a minimal concession.
However, he added that Netanyahu's office
thought a deal could be reached in the coming hours and that the prime
minister would get the necessary backing from his cabinet at the
Political sources say seven ministers are
ready to support the plan, while six were firmly opposed, leaving two
ministers from the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party holding the balance of
Newspapers say they are likely to
abstain, but they are facing growing pressure from the pro-settler
lobby to vote against and prevent any halt to settlement
(Additional reporting by Allyn
Fisher-Ilan and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Editing by Ralph Boulton
and Eric Beech)
THURSDAY, November 18, 2010
admits she’s seriously considering a 2012 run
By Holly Bailey
Make no mistake about it: Sarah
is seriously considering a run for the presidency in 2012. In a
just-released story for this Sunday's New York Times Magazine,
Alaska's former governor tells writer Robert Draper that she's talking
to her family about whether she should seek the White
and weighing whether she would bring unique qualities to the GOP field.
"I'm engaged in the internal deliberations candidly, and having that
discussion with my family, because my family is the most important
consideration here," Palin tells Draper.
She says there are no meaningful policy differences between her and
other potential GOP candidates--but acknowledges she will face more
pressure to prove that she has what it takes to be a serious
presidential contender. "I know that a hurdle I would have to cross,
that some other potential candidates wouldn't have to cross right out
of the chute, is proving my record," she says. "That's the most
frustrating thing for me--the warped and perverted description of my
record and what I've accomplished over the last two decades. It's been
much more perplexing to me than where the lamestream media has wanted
to go about my personal life. And other candidates haven't faced these
criticisms the way I have."
Asked whether her unwillingness to talk
to the national media is partly to blame for how the public views her,
Palin said she's been accessible on Fox News and through Facebook and
Twitter. "I haven't been avoiding anything or anybody," she said.
Because of the media's unfairness toward her, Palin said, "I fear for
Still, Palin's willingness to talk to the Times Magazine is perhaps
the biggest hint yet that she's serious about a White House bid. If she
is to have a real chance at the GOP nomination, Palin will have to
engage the national media more than she has over the past two years.
In a similar vein, Palin admits to Draper that she'll have to change
the way she's handled her political operation since leaving the Alaska
governorship two years ago. At the moment, Palin World consists of
fewer than 10 staffers, only a handful of whom have direct access to
her. While she doesn't have a formal chief of staff, Palin's
Todd, increasingly fills that role, serving as a gatekeeper to his wife.
"The organization would have to change," she said. "I'd have to
bring in more people--more people who are trustworthy." Citing her
experience as John
in 2008, Palin admits she remains deeply suspicious of political types,
especially those from Washington.
Palin's biggest struggle may not be wooing public support; rather,
she'll be hard-pressed to win over Beltway players working against her
candidacy. In the story, she again trashes the unnamed Republicans who
have criticized her potential White House run. "They want to be trusted
to take on the likes of Ahmadinejad, but they won't take on a hockey
mom from Wasilla?"
Still, the story notes that Karl Rove, who recently
declared that Palin lacks the "gravitas" to be president, has tried
to make nice with her. Draper writes that they ran into each other on
election night at Fox News, where both are contributors. As Palin left
the set, she spied Rove nearby, conspicuously reading a book called
"Alaska for Dummies." Palin, Draper writes, laughed and took a photo of
Rove with his book, never mentioning his criticism.
WEDNESDAY, November 17, 2010
Pro-Life Groups Respond to Tea Party
Activists Calling for Abortion Backdown
by Steven Ertelt |
Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/15/10 5:52 PM
The letter jointing signed by Republican
gay rights activists and a small group of Tea Party leaders has sent
shockwaves throughout the pro-life movement.
Two leading pro-life organizations issued
a swift response to the letter,
which calls for ignoring social issues like abortion in exchange for
focusing on the economy.
Concerned Women for America leader Penny
Nance told LifeNews.com that social issues shouldn’t be set aside and,
instead, should share an equal level of important with fiscal issues in
the next session of Congress.
“Social issues should be at the very top
of the list of priorities for the new Congress, along with sensible
fiscal policies,” she said.
Nance says internal post-election polling
her organization conducted showed American voters in the mid-term
elections were enthusiastic about pro-life and other social issues as
much as they were the economy.
“Americans voted overwhelmingly for both
social and fiscal conservatives, and it would be unwise to throw social
policies to the wayside and snub the voters who sent a strong message
to the new Congress that they want both pro-life and fiscally
conservative policies. In our post-election poll, when asked to name
the biggest issue facing future generations, 62 percent of voters said
it is the moral decline of our nation,” she said.
Kristan Hawkins, the director of Students
for Life of America, also told LifeNews.com she is upset by the joint
letter the GOProud organizers signed with the group of Tea Party
“Tea Party leaders who have called for
Congress to ignore social issues are forgetting how important the
pro-life issue is, especially after the passage of Obamacare,” she
said. “What these leaders fail to realize is that protecting the
sanctity of human life from the moment of conception is the first
responsibility of government.”
“The youth of America have shown that
they are also concerned about social issues as well as fiscal issues.
Ignoring the voice of the American people and important issues like
abortion will be the fastest way to kill the Tea Party,” she added.
Last week, Concerned Women for America sent a memo to
Republican leaders outlining three specific priorities the new Congress
must address in the wake of the first pro-life majority in the House
since Roe v. Wade.
“I’d like to know which one — support for
the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, eliminating taxpayer dollars
from funding embryonic stem cell research, or defunding Planned
Parenthood — the signers of the GOProud letter have a problem with,”
“There was a net 52-seat pro-life gain in
the House of Representatives, an unprecedented statement that voters
reject taxpayer-funded abortion and want a more conservative, pro-life
legislature moving forward. Now is not the time for Republicans
to back away from their own party’s foundational social issues,” she
TUESDAY, November 16, 2010
Regarding the previous Rapid Response
(November 15, 2010)...
I've thought about this for some time,
and here's what I've come up with:
Some years ago, Indian reservations and casinos came under fire for the
explosive expansion they underwent after the 1988 Supreme Court
decision legalizing casinos on Native American land. I became
personally aware of this issue as it related to the area surrounding
what has become Foxwoods. I determined then about Indian casinos
what I determine now about the trade relationship between the U.S. and
For every buyer, there must be a seller. For everyone who
complained that the reservations were expanding at an alarming rate,
there were those who freely sold their land to the Indian tribes.
Nobody put a gun to their heads and made them sell.
The roles are reversed, but the same notion holds true for the
ridiculous trade imbalance with China that has plagued the U.S. for
decades. For every seller of item X that is made with safe,
quality materials for price Y, there are tens of millions of idiots who
will buy item X from China, regardless of the fact that it will either
break down in a fraction of the time as the better item, regardless of
the fact that it could physically harm them, simply because it is sold
at price Y minus a few pennies or even --gasp!-- a dollar or two.
It is now virtually (and unfortunately) impossible to avoid buying
items from China no matter how hard we try. We can thank the
philosophy of "lowest price uber Alles" for this predicament.
But, the effort must persist even if the monetary cost is higher to us
as individuals and as a nation--yes even during the present economic
state. In fact, the more pressure there is to buy the lowest
price simply because it is the lowest price gives China even more power
than it currently wallows in. From drywall that leeches poison
gas into our homes to cookware that explodes under normal cooking
temperatures due to the deliberate use of inferior (and also
often-toxic) materials, and the myriad items in between, we have to
STOP buying things SIMPLY and SOLELY based on their price.
I'm sure we've all walked into the local 7-Eleven and seen the ad for
"Three hot dogs for only 75 cents! What a deal!" Are you
kidding? You couldn't pay me to eat a 25-cent hot dog. You
don't have to be a Nobel laureate in Economics to know that this math
doesn't add up. Nor does the simple explanation of China
intentionally devaluing its currency. Putting aside the fact that
the cost of labor alone puts them at a huge advantage, let China
continue to devalue its currency. If fewer people buy their goods
(especially in their largest market) they will be forced to further
devalue their currency in a hopeless effort to maintain the arguably
unsustainable growth rate that is required to keep the coastal,
exporting hubs happy even if it simultaneously raises the hackles of
the poorer (and larger) interior population who don't benefit from this
windfall. You can only devalue a currency so much before the Law
of Diminishing Returns bites you on the ass. They know this, but
have no fear of it as long as their biggest trading partner follows the
pied piper to the next sale price.
A well-known Asian philosophy states that when everyone is doing one
thing, you should do the opposite. Asians are born to think about
collectivism and the bigger picture. Historically, this has come
up short economically, politically, and militarily when placed against
the Western philosophy of individualism. However, we are giving
away the keys to the kingdom by consciously and literally subsidizing a
system that allows them the best of both of these philosophies, and we
are going to pay dearly for it in the end if we don't do something
about it now.
Let's start fighting fire with fire. At the same time, let's stop
acting so surprised that one of our mortal enemies wants to do us
harm. Case in point, did anyone hear the latest about the
reusable grocery bags made in China that have elevated levels of LEAD
in them? Really? Lead? In a friggin' grocery bag???
Once again, is this thing on?
MONDAY, November 15, 2010
SUNDAY, November 14, 2010
Another edition of "Around the World
in 80 Opinions...Satellite View.
Today, one need not go from nation to nation around the world to
capture the world-view of America. Just recall the immortal words
of Rodney Dangerfield: "I get no
From the Far East to the Near East, from Europe to Africa and the
Americas, both our "allies" and our adversaries sense blood in the
water - our blood.
And so, wherever our President goes, hat in hand and saddled with
the echoes of his many apologies for America being America, he is
rebuffed. The most recent example of this is his craven
capitulation to Israel in seeking a "90 day moratorium" on its
stiff-necked overreaching regarding the future of that region. Of
course we will always defend Israel as we would defend any State in the
Union. Of course we would prevent the gathered vultures at the
U.N. from swooping into that troubled region. But what have we
gotten out of these guarantees over all these decades toward the
promotion of a lasting peace? Less than nothing. "You're doing a heck of a job,
Yes, our blood is in the water...and we Americans cannot wait for our
"leaders" to staunch the flow. We must impose the necessary
discipline on ourselves and on those leaders. The Tea Party
movement has been a good start, with historic success in "throwing the
bums out". We all must continue this movement through our own
active, daily participation in the political life of the country at all
levels...and through our own change from our profligate ways.
Personal empowerment through education and re-education.
Frugality in our economic life. Practice and demand personal
responsibility in all things, great and small. Keep informed of
developments, not through the tainted pablum of the 30 second news
soundbites that surround us, but by means of critical cross-reading
from several at least formerly reputable news sources. We must do
this not as much for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren
who will otherwise be studying "The Decline and Fall of the American
A good place to start is with Glen Beck's latest offering entitled: "Broke".
Filled with facts and reasoned analysis from many sources, it is right
on point. To put it another way, remember the exercise lesson
from our typing class:
the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country."
FRIDAY through SATURDAY, November
5 through 13, 2010
Whether in the fields of Psychology or
Climate Change or Economics...or any other questions with political
agendas, some of today's "scientists" have become whores, prostituting
themselves and the Scientific Method to their own personal
Beware the "expert"; and cross-read
constantly. It's a jungle of duplicity out there.
Thirty Studies in Five Years Show
Abortion Hurts Women’s Mental Health
by Priscilla Coleman,
Ph.D. | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 11/12/10 5:04 PM
On Sunday November 7th, the Washington Post
published an opinion by Dr. Brenda Major titled “The Big Lie about
Abortion and Mental Health.”
I would like to offer another perspective on dishonesty permeating the
scientific study and dissemination of information pertaining to
abortion and mental health.
Dr. Major is absolutely correct; an
informed choice regarding abortion must be based on accurate
For abortion providers to offer an
unbiased and valid synopsis of the scientific literature on increased
risks of abortion, the information must include depression, substance
abuse, and anxiety disorders, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD), as well as suicide ideation and behaviors.
Over 30 studies have been published in
just the last 5 years and they add to a body of literature comprised of
hundreds of studies published in major medicine and psychology journals
throughout the world.
The list is provided below and the
conscientious reader is encouraged to check the studies out. No lies …
just scientifically derived information that individual academics,
several major professional organizations, and abortion providers have
done their best to hide and distort in recent years.
Like Brenda Major, I too am a tenured,
full professor at a well-respected U.S. University and I, too, have
published peer-reviewed scientific articles in reputable journals. In
fact, my publication record far exceeds that of Dr. Major on the topic
of abortion and mental health. I am not alone in my opinion, which has
been voiced by prominent researchers in Great Britain, Norway, New
Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S., and elsewhere.
As a group of researchers, who in 2008
had published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles indicating abortion is
associated with negative psychological outcomes, 6 colleagues and I
sent a petition letter to the American Psychological Association (APA)
criticizing their methods and conclusions as described in their Task
Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health.
The opinion piece by Brenda Major
following on the heels of the highly biased APA report is just the
latest effort to divert attention from a tidal wave of sound published
data on the emotional consequences of abortion. The evidence is
accumulating despite socio-political agendas to keep the truth from the
academic journals and ultimately from women to insure that the big
business of abortion continues unimpeded.
The literature now echoes the
voices of millions of women for whom abortion was not a liberating,
health promoting choice. A conservative estimate from the best
available data is 20 to 30 percent of women who undergo an abortion
will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences.
Any interpretation of the available
research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in
the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore
basic principles of scientific integrity.
The human fallout to such a choice by the
APA and like-minded colleagues is misinformed professionals, millions
of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion,
thousands who will seek an abortion today without the benefit of known
risks, and millions who will make this often life altering decision
tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent, which is
routinely extended for all other elective surgeries in the U.S.
In publishing Major’s opinion without
soliciting other voices on the topic, the Washington Post has
perpetuated a serious injustice.
Studies showing the abortion-mental
Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationship between induced
abortion, attitudes toward sexuality, and sexual problems. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 20, 390-406.
• Brockington, I.F. (2005).
Post-abortion psychosis, Archives of Women’s Mental Health 8: 53–54.
• Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker,
A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2006). Predictors of anxiety and depression
following pregnancy termination: A longitudinal five-year follow-up
study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 85: 317-23.
• Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker,
A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). Reasons for induced abortion and their
relation to women’s emotional distress: A prospective, two-year
follow-up study. General Hospital Psychiatry 27: 36-43.
• Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker,
A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). The course of mental health after
miscarriage and induced abortion: a longitudinal, five-year follow-up
study. BMC Medicine 3(18).
• Coleman, P. K. (2005). Induced
Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence.
Current Women’s Health Reviews 1, 21-34.
• Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution
of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus
childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological
consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 903-911.
• Coleman, P. K. (2009). The
Psychological Pain of Perinatal Loss and Subsequent Parenting Risks:
Could Induced Abortion be more Problematic than Other Forms of Loss?
Current Women’s Health Reviews, 5, 88-99.
• Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C. T.,
& Rue, V.M. (2010). Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility
to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Journal of Pregnancy, vol. 2010,
Article ID 130519.
• Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C.T.,
Shuping, M., & Rue, V. (2009), Induced Abortion and Anxiety, Mood,
and Substance Abuse Disorders: Isolating the Effects of Abortion in the
National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 770–
• Coleman, P. K., Maxey, C. D.,
Rue, V. M., & Coyle, C. T. (2005). Associations between voluntary
and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among
low-income mothers. Acta Paediatrica, 94(10), 1476-1483.
• Coleman, P. K., & Maxey, D.
C., Spence, M. Nixon, C. (2009). The choice to abort among mothers
living under ecologically deprived conditions: Predictors and
consequences. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 7,
• Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C.,
& Cougle, J. R. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the
context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 10 (2), 255-268.
• Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C.,
Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A
review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20,
• Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M. &
Coyle, C.T. (2009). Induced abortion and intimate relationship quality
in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey. Public Health, 123,
• Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Coyle,
C.T. & Maxey, C.D. (2007). Induced abortion and child-directed
aggression among mothers of maltreated children. Internet Journal of
Pediatrics and Neonatology, 6 (2), ISSN: 1528-8374.
• Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., &
Spence, M. (2007). Intrapersonal processes and
post-abortion relationship difficulties: A review and
consolidation of relevant literature. Internet Journal of Mental
Health, 4 (2).
• Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Spence,
M. & Coyle, C.T. (2008). Abortion and the sexual lives of men and
women: Is casual sexual behavior more appealing and more common after
abortion? International Journal of Health and Clinical Psychology, 8
• Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C.,
& Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized anxiety following unintended
pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: A cohort study of
the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 19, 137-142.
• Coyle, C.T., Coleman, P.K. &
Rue, V.M. (2010). Inadequate preabortion counseling and decision
conflict as predictors of subsequent relationship difficulties and
psychological stress in men and women. Traumatology, 16 (1), 16-30.
• Dingle, K., et al. (2008).
Pregnancy loss and psychiatric disorders in young women: An Australian
birth cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 455-460.
• Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J.,
& Boden, J.M. (2009). Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental
health. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 420-426.
• Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J.,
& Ridder, E. M. (2006). Abortion in young women and subsequent
mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 16-24.
• Gissler, M., et al. (2005).
Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy,
Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 459-463.
• Hemmerling, F., Siedentoff, F.,
& Kentenich, H. (2005). Emotional impact and acceptability of
medical abortion with mifepristone: A German experience. Journal of
Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 23-31.
• Mota, N.P. et al (2010).
Associations between abortion, mental disorders, and suicidal behaviors
in a nationally representative sample. The Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 55(4), 239-246.
• Pedersen, W. (2008). Abortion and
depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 36, No. 4, 424-428.
• Pedersen, W. (2007). Childbirth,
abortion and subsequent substance use in young women: a
population-based longitudinal study. Addiction, 102 (12), 1971-78.
• Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P.
K. (2006). Relative treatment for sleep disorders following abortion
and child delivery: A prospective record-based study. Sleep, 29 (1),
• Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J.
(2007). The Relationship between Abortion and Depression: New Evidence
from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Medical Science
Monitor. 13(10): 430-436.
• Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison
of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women
undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia
versus intravenous sedation. BMC Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9.
LifeNews.com Note: Dr. Priscilla
Coleman is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at
Bowling Green State University.
THURSDAY, November 4, 2010
Elections Provide Big Gains for Pro-Life Movement on Abortion
Americans clearly preferred pro-life
candidates on Tuesday when it came to the most hotly contested races
for the Senate in the 2010 elections
The results make it so pro-life advocates will have an easier time
stopping the advance of President Barack Obama’s pro-abortion agenda in
terms of abortion funding and pro-abortion judicial nominees for the
Supreme Court and other federal court appointments.
Wisconsin provided the pro-life movement
with one of the biggest upsets of the evening as pro-life Ron Johnson
defeated longtime pro-abortion Sen. Russ Feingold, who has promoted
abortion for decades.
In the same way, pro-life Pennsylvania
Senate candidate Pat Toomey defeated pro-abortion opponent Joe Sestak
in one of the most challenging campaigns of the election cycle.
In Arkansas, pro-life candidate John
Boozman picked up a seat for the pro-life movement in defeating
pro-abortion incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln. With 27 percent of the
vote counted, Boozman won 57-38 percent in a race that was never close
despite Lincoln attacking Boozman and claiming he supported raping
Indiana also saw a pro-life candidate
replace an outgoing abortion supporter as pro-life former Sen. Dan
Coats defeated Brad Ellsworth, a Democrat who claimed to be pro-life
but supported the abortion-funding ObamaCare bill. Coats will replace
pro-abortion Sen. Evan Bayh, who claimed a more moderate position but
repeatedly voted for abortion and abortion funding, after topping
Ellsworth on a lopsided 55-40 percentage point margin.
In North Dakota, pro-life John Hoeven won
is race to replace retiring pro-abortion Sen. Byron Dorgan, who defied
the relatively conservative views of state voters by consistently
supporting abortion and abortion funding during his career.
The Senate election also saw pro-life
candidates hold seats that were in jeopardy of switching to
Marco Rubio will become one of the top
pro-life Hispanic elected officials in the nation now that he is the
Senator-elect in Florida, having defeated pro-abortion incumbent Gov.
Charlie Crist, who ran as an independent.
Despite the presence of both Crist and
pro-abortion Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek, Rubio cruised to an easy
election victory capturing a majority of the vote and positioning
himself as a major national figure. Full story at LifeNews.com
Gubernatorial Wins Give Pro-Life Advocates
Chance to Cut Abortions Further
With wins from across the country in key
gubernatorial elections, pro-life advocates have a clear opportunity to
reduce abortions with the passage of additional pro-life legislation in
In Arizona, pro-life Governor Jan Brewer was able to keep her seat
after she delighted pro-life advocates by singing significant pro-life
legislation with a real potential to save the lives of unborn children.
Florida voters appeared likely to send pro-life candidate Rick Scott
to Tallahassee to replace pro-abortion Gov. Charlie Crist, who vetoed a
pro-life bill that would have allowed women a chance to see an
ultrasound of their unborn child prior to an abortion.
In Georgia, pro-life candidate Nathan Deal allows pro-life groups a
chance to continue passing bills by defeating his pro-abortion opponent.
Iowa is a state that will see a significant change as pro-life
candidate Terry Brandstad defeated pro-abortion Chet Culver, who was a
Planned Parenthood endorsement in a state where the abortion business
is advancing the concept known as telemed abortions.
Sam Brownback becomes the next governor in Kansas, giving pro-life
groups a real opportunity to reduce abortions, stop late-term abortions
and prosecute abortion practitioners who flout the law.
In New Mexico, voters elected one of the few pro-life women
governors and one who is a Hispanic to boot in Susanna Martinez. Mary
Falin, another pro-life woman, was elected in the state of Oklahoma as
was pro-life Nikki Haley in South Carolina.
Ohio saw pro-life former congressman John Kasich become the state’s
next governor to replace pro-abortion stalwart Ted Strickland.
Voters in Pennsylvania rewarded pro-life candidate Tom Corbett in a
race that will help the pro-life movement further reduce abortions
beyond the great gains it has already seen.
Texas voters re-elected pro-life Gov. Rick Perry to another term and
voters in Wisconsin helped the state elected pro-life candidate Scott
Walker. Full story at LifeNews.com
Pro-Life Democrats Pay the Price for Backing
They said the legislation that would allow a
government-run health care program did not fund abortions and they said
an executive order President Barack Obama signed would ensure that was
When legal analysis from
every respected pro-life groups showed otherwise, a handful of
self-declared pro-life Democrats insisted pro-life groups were lying.
In one case, with Steve Driehaus of Ohio,
the pro-life women’s group Susan B. Anthony List faces accusations that
its billboards were false and could potentially be forced to pay fines
or serve jail time if a state elections commission agrees. Driehaus is
currently losing his re-election bid to pro-life former Rep. Steve
Chabot, a Republican who won praise from pro-life advocates for his
hard work promoting a national ban on partial-birth abortions in the
But voters reminded those Democrats on
Tuesday that pro-life organizations were right and replaced them with
pro-life Republicans who campaigned against ObamaCare and on a more
consistent pro-life platform.
Thus far, eight of the so-called pro-life
Democrats have lost their bids for re-election. That includes Rep.
Kathy Dahlkemper, Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania; Alan
Mollohan of West Virginia; Baron Hill of Indiana; and Charlie Wilson of
Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for
Life added: “During the debate over the health care bill, we urged
Members of Congress to reject taxpayer-funded abortion. Tonight, Paul
Kanjorski learned that Life Counts as voters elected Lou Barletta, a
leader committed to defending Life
The SBA List ran a “Votes Have
Consequences” campaign involving $3.4 million and a massive us tour and
voting information effort that targeted the “pro-life Democrats” who
supported pro-abortion ObamaCare.
One of its targets, Democratic Rep.Brad
Ellsworth of Indiana, who ran against pro-life Senate candidate Dan
Coats, lost his bid for U.S. Senate. Full story at LifeNews.com
WEDNESDAY, November 3, 2010
- Republicans won the House of Representatives, will elect a
rational House Speaker for a nice change (third in line for the
Presidency), gained six Senate seats and a number of important
Governor's races (critical for the coming redistricting.
- The Republican Party owes the Tea Party and Sarah Palin a great
debt of gratitude for taking its fat out of the fire. They
articulated traditional and even bed-rock Republican positions that
many other Republicans were unwilling or unable to achieve. And
they provided the energy often lacking in the Grand Ol' elephant.
The Republican Party can repay by revisiting and clarifying those
issues as a substitute for all the bitching and moaning that has been
going on for too long between Conservatives and RINOS: stay strong on
Abortion; get real on Immigration, on the biologic phenomenon called
"Homosexuality; on the need for oversight of endemic Wall Street
greed and recklessness, on the chronic need for some Government
services and consequent taxation, on rebuilding America's economic
engine to replace much of its permanently lost manufacturing base, on
the need to address all "entitlements" if we are ever to regain control
of our budget, and on clearly articulating and fighting the good fight
in the "Culture Wars".
- The vast number of "Independents" voted with Republicans this
time. But they vote for moderation and common sense, not for
partisan diatribe. Their vote has to be earned at every
- Ultimately, John Boehner - the soon-to-be Speaker of the House
said it best: the people sent a message to President Obama: "CHANGE
MONDAY and TUESDAY, November 1 and
If Billy Graham didn't say this ("according to Snopes"), then I just
Graham's Prayer For
'Heavenly Father, we come before
you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your
direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to
those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have
done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed
our values.. We have exploited the poor and called it the
lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We
have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot
abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected
to discipline our children and called it building self
esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We
have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it
ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and
pornography and called it freedom of expression. We
have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers
and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know
our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us
(c) Copyright 1999-2018, Allergy Associates of New London, PC