Depoliticizing the Abortion/Breast Cancer Link

Read the studies, look at the facts, keep an open mind, do not base your opinion on your beliefs about abortion and determine for yourself: Is there a link between abortions and breast cancer? What is your opinion? All comments welcome. Also, if anyone has links to other, independent studies, I'd be interested in seeing them.

The recent events of the Susan G. Koman Foundation pulling and then renewing support for Planned Parenthood has brought up, once again, the issue of “does Abortion increase the risk of breast cancer?”

As a nurse, I was interested to know the facts. It seems that there are a lot of studies out there with differing viewpoints. Both sides use the studies that support their views as “proof” one way or the other. The interpretation of the studies has been so politicized, that it is difficult to determine if there is a connection or not.

This topic is coming up again because of the Koman Foundation’s monetary support of Planned Parenthood. If there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer how could the Koman Foundation, whose main goal is eradication of breast cancer, support an organization who’s main focus is abortion? That is the issue, but both organizations have stated that they believe there is no link between abortions and breast cancer.

But why should the Koman foundation be funding Planned Parenthood? What does Planned Parenthood have to do with breast cancer? According to both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood the funding is for breast cancer screenings. In my opinion Planned Parenthood is not the best use of this money and the Koman Foundation would be better able to provide breast screenings more cost effectively if they removed the middle man. This opinion has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood’s abortions, but rather it makes better business sense. It seems that the Koman Foundation is bending over backward to accommodate Planned Parenthood and I find their connection suspect. It seems, to me, that there must be something more going on. In order to do justice to the topic, I am eliminating both the Koman Foundation and Planned Parenthood from the discussion.

Back to the topic of abortion and breast cancer. I have looked over many studies, and there are studies to support both sides.

First, let me start by saying that I am pro-life. I do not believe in abortion and I believe that abortion is the killing of a baby. In conversations I have never used the alleged abortion/breast cancer link to support my belief. I do not need there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer for me to be pro-life. To me, the killing of an unborn baby is wrong, plain and simple. I have approached the topic with an open mind and have tried to present both sides fairly.

Those who support the “no-connection” theory, and that it has been proven debunked, will show you these from The National Cancer Institute based on a 2004 report of a 2003 workshop: "Risks of Abortion and Miscarriage" and "Causes of Cancer".

They include the results from a wide variety of studies and have been determined to be definitive proof by those who believe there is no connection. I have found that almost all of those who support the "no-connection" theory reference either this fact sheet or the conference that reported the study that this fact sheet is based on.

The American Cancer Society also links back to the above information from the National Cancer Institute report and they make the conclusion: "At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer."

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynocologists (ACOG) also refers to the 2003 workshop and the above information. They however preface the information with the following statement: "This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed."

On the other side of the debate is Dr. Joel Brind who counters in this 2005 article, in the “Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons”, that there was reporting bias in the 2003 workshop and subsequent 2004 report.

Dr. Brind has also mentioned that during the 2004 seminar, conflicting viewpoints were not allowed to be presented. In essence he is saying that, instead of investigation all data and letting the data dictate if the theory is true, they found data to support their theory and disregarded the rest. In some cases they may have even manipulated the studies to fit the theory.

This video of Dr. Brind is from the “Life Matters” program, again politicizing the issue.

It is difficult to look at all of these and not say they are biased. Each side has an agenda. On one side are the pro-abortionists wanting to prove that there is no increased risk of abortion and breast cancer, and then the pro-life side that wants to use the link as additional ammunition against abortion.

I do need to point out that the video’s that feature Dr. Brind give logical thought as to WHY there is a risk whereas the other studies simply say there is no link, end of story. Also Dr. Brind, while not the only one supporting the connection, is the most vocal. There are medical groups that support the connection theory, as well. Again, this list is published by abortion/breast cancer coalition.

So who do you believe?

I have done some research and came across this article from 2010, which is peer reviewed, but no one has yet used it as a weapon in this abortion/breast cancer link war. "Radiological Diagnostics of Frequent Interruption of Pregnancy as a Primary Factor of Breast Carcinomas." The conclusion of this study is that “Based on the researches done for the purposes of this project, we concluded that artificial interruption of pregnancy is one of the numerous causes (factors) of breast cancer arising.” This study does not appear to have any bias and does not seem to have been sponsored by any group.

In addition, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute believes there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Here is the text from a pamphlet by the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute:

Abortion & Breast Cancer: Is there a Link? What is the Truth Behind the Controversy

How Does the Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Work?

Two principles account for the link:

1. Estrogen Exposure

2. Breast Lobule Formation

Estrogen Exposure

As soon as conception occurs and even before implantation in the uterus, the embryo secretes a hormone, hCG (Human chorianic gonadotropin), which causes the mother’s ovaries to produce more estrogen and progesterone. This causes the mother’s breasts to become sore and tender.

In a viable pregnancy, estrogen levels increase 2,000% by the end of the 1st trimester. This surge in hormones causes the breasts to grow by making more Type 1 & 2 lobules where cancers can start. The breast doubles in volume by 20 weeks.

Breast Lobule Formation

•After 32 weeks of pregnancy, the Type 1 and 2 lobules mature into Type 3 and 4 lobules in preparation for breast feeding.

•If the pregnancy ends by elective abortion, the increase in numbers of Type 1 and 2 lobules formed in the first two trimesters provide more places for cancers to start, increasing risk.

•Women who never carry a pregnancy beyond 32 weeks never fully mature their breast tissue and have increased risk.

•Women who delay full-term pregnancy past age 30 have a 90% higher risk of breast cancer than those who carry a pregnancy to term by age 20.

A Woman’s Choice

A woman who chooses induced abortion of her first pregnancy:

•Denies herself the risk reduction of a full-term pregnancy.

•May never have children—a risk for breast cancer.

•Or, delay a full-term pregnancy which increases her risk of premenopausal breast cancer by 5% per year delayed after age 20.

A woman who chooses induced abortion after she has had a child:

•Denies herself a further 10% reduction in risk by another full-term pregnancy.

•Will have increased the number of Type 1 & Type 2 lobules where cancers start in her breast.

Here is a video that explains why it is believed that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer but it also has a segment where Dr. Brind’s explains about studies and how they should be done. This video is put out by an organization that supports the abortion/breast cancer link.  

Note: the 2007 study that is mentioned in the video, cames after the 2004 report that supposedly “debunks” the theory.

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

Research Analysis, My Opinion:

Being that there are such conflicting reports, I cannot state for certain that there is not an abortion/breast cancer link. If you compare the evidence from one side or the other, the side supporting the link has presented a much better case with better references. The National Cancer Institute's fact sheet that everyone else seems to reference is lacking the information department. They make a list of findings, "studies show," but really no reference to the studies upon which those findings are based. 

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, on the other hand, seems to believe there is a connection as addressed in their pamphlet.

In addition, if you remove all of the previous studies that have been biasedly used and focus on the independent study of 2010, there seems to be more proof that there is a link than there is not. If there is a link and there is a cover up, would those involved in the cover up be guilty of negligence? Would they not be criminally liable for withholding pertinent information from those receiving abortions? It is unlikely there will be a conclusion to this debate anytime in the near future. Though in my mind it seems there is, indeed, a connection between abortion and an increased risk for breast cancer.

Adoption Disguising Kidnapping

In an increasingly alarming trend children are being separated from their parents, in what basically amounts to kidnapping by government agencies. Illegal immigrants who are deported, are often being done so without their children. The children, instead of being sent back with their parents, are being placed in foster care and sometimes even given up for adoption.

In what is but one instance, the children of Felipe and Marie Montes were taken away from them, after he was deported, even though she wasn't. She is still living in North Carolina, trying to get them back, but they are about to be given up for adoption. To make things worse, two of their three children, were abused while in foster care. Both of the parents, and their American neighbours have petitioned for all three of them to be sent to join their father in Mexico.

Immigration is an important issue. But even more important is the family. A private party who did what government agencies do, would be imprisoned for kidnapping. These acts are clearly illegal and immoral, and must be stopped. If we are to deport the parents, we should not be breaking up the family, the children should be sent with them.

Outrageous and Dangerous Disregard of Parental Rights

An outrageous act of disregarding parental rights by The Division of Child Development and Early Education of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services also violates the US and North Carolina Constitutions and may also be a deadly practice.

RAEFORD — A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

- Sara Burrows associate editor of Carolina Journal.

Full Story

Disregard of Parental Rights:

The DHHS and the school blatantly violated parent's rights. When did it become okay to disregard the rights and wishes of the parents in the care of their own children? It is not alright to take the parent completely out of the equation. Parents have rights.

While the Hoke County school board does not address parental rights when it comes to food selection, they do recognize the importance of parental involvement in their child’s education.

School board policy: 1310/4002 The board recognizes the critical role of parents in the education of their children and in the schools.

The Hoke county school board and the DHHS do not have the right to indiscriminately bypass the wishes of the parent in order to force their own agenda. Parents should have the right to feed their own children whatever they want. How can they pass and enforce guidelines that exclude the parent in the decision making for their own children? Parents should have the right to feed their children what they wish. A better alternative would be for the school and the DHHS to educate the parents who they believe are not providing a healthy diet to their children so that the parents can make an informed decision. It is not their place to force what they believe is healthy eating habits upon other people’s children.

In addition to tramping on parental rights, this policy could also be illegal, it is certainly unconstitutional and has the potential to harmful to children's health and potentially lethal.

The Hoke school board states in policy code 3515 that The United States Constitution and North Carolina Constitution protect the right of an individual to choose his or her own religious or non-religious beliefs and prohibit any governmental action that may advance or inhibit such beliefs. This policy is intended to protect the religious rights of students and school personnel, to preserve the separation of church and state, and to provide guidance to students and personnel about religion in the public schools.

North Carolina constitution Article 1 Sec. 19.

Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, libraries, and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.

In addition, the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines, that the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services follows specifically states:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. “In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, political beliefs, or disability.

Providing students with food that goes against the child’s religious belief would clearly be in violation of the US Constitution, the North Carolina Constitution and the policies of both the US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Guidelines and the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.

The policy also is contrary to what we know of childhood development. Most pediatricians and child psychologists and psychiatrists agree that children go through food phases. Children will go through periods where they may only eat few or even one type of food. While they all state that a balanced diet is best (and some would even disagree as to what constitutes a balanced diet), they generally agree that children, when going through these phases should be encouraged to eat a variety of foods, but not forced. This policy goes against this by trying to force the child to eat foods they deem acceptable in place of the food the child would actually eat. In the case of the story above, the child ate only 3 chicken nuggets (which are probably highly processed) instead of the turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice that the parent provided.

This policy can also be dangerous, even lethal if the child is on a special diet due to health concerns or allergies.

There are many diseases where a child’s body may not be able to process certain foods. In addition, some children have food allergies, some severe enough to produce hives or anaphylaxis, a life threatening condition. The school would be held responsible for providing a child food that caused a negative reaction in the child.

Many parents also follow special diets for health or religious reasons. The DHHS thinks that their way is the absolute best way for all students and that all students are required to follow their guidelines, religion be damned!

How can a school and the DHHS tell parents that their children cannot keep Kosher? They can’t. This is NOT KOSHER!! The USDA guidelines state that lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home. One serving of meat and one serving of milk, that goes against Kosher dietary laws right there. Most schools do not prepare Kosher meals. Providing anything from the kitchen to the child would go against that family’s religious beliefs.

What if the child is lactose intolerant or has a milk allergy. One serving of grain, not good for those who are gluten intolerant. Not to mention, what specifically the school is serving on any given day may have ingredients that the child is intolerant or allergic to. Chicken nuggets, while the main ingredient is chicken, has fillers and breading which would detrimental to the health of a child who is gluten intolerant.

What if the family is vegetarian or prescribes to another kind of diet the precludes certain foods? Not allowed according to the food dictators.

Let parents be the parents and take responsibility for their own children. Let parents decide what their children can/can not, should/should not eat.

Youngest Pacemaker Recipient

I was just fifteen minutes old when doctors cut open my chest and installed a pacemaker to keep me alive. That's what Jaya Maharaj would tell us, if she could talk, yet.

While she was still in her mother's womb, her parents were informed that she had a dangerously low heart beat due to congenital heart block. She would not survive til full term. It was decided that labour would have to be induced at thirty-one weeks, so that little Jaya's organs would have as long as possible to grow.

A medical team of nearly two dozen was on hand for the procedures. Weighing only three and a half pounds, Jaya came into the world as smoothly as could be, but her heart rate was still too low. It was then that doctors decided to insert the pace maker directly into her chest, instead of the normal just connecting wires and then waiting to do surgery for a few weeks. Thankfully the surgery went extremely well, taking less than an hour.

Now eight months old, Jaya is doing better than could've been expected. The current pacemaker will last her until she is ten, when she will need a new one. Her parents could not be more proud of how she is living up to her name, which means victorious.

Boone's Tavern

Last night we explored Boone's Tavern which resides at the intersection of Evans and Downing, in Denver. The place is well sized. It actually holds three different bar areas, a couple dozen tables, a couple pool tables, and some other games.

I had the chicken caesar salad, which was quite good. A nice smoky flavour to the chicken. Interestingly they use an oil based, rather than cream based, caesar so whilst it tasted like caesar felt like Italian and was quite good. A brilliant touch by them, was that instead of a piece of texas toast, that most places add if they have bread at all, Boone's gives you a couple pieces of a really good pita bread.

Really nice thing about Boone's is that on Tuesday nights, all Colorado beers are only $3. Tuesday night's also have $4 drinks from all the Colorado distilleries. It's also trivia night and if you can handle multiple part questions, you'll quite enjoy that.

Unfortunately, they only have about a dozen beers on draft and the music was a little too loud for normal conversation, but we didn't let that stop us. And likely we'll end up back there sometime again. I know that I look forward to trying more off their menu, the burgers smelled delicious.

Classic Pick of the Week: Mad World!

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, Blu-ray. This has to be one of the most epically insane movies ever made, not for quality and success (Marx Brothers movies and many silent comedies beat Mad in that department) but for sheer ambition, size and scope. On paper, the gags are plenty and would be enough, because it never gets old to laugh at panicked amateurs having to take over flying a plane from the drunken pilot, lots of cartoonish car crashes and explosions, an attempt at busting out of a hardware store, or a temper tantrum that literally brings down a building. And all in Cinerama no less!

Sounds fun already, but truly what makes all those situations and this movie as a whole (a three hour whole, mind you) is the massive collection of funny people. Director Stanley Kramer basically rounded up everybody that was funny in, around or anytime before 1963, threw in some serious notables and familiar character actors and packed them all in a greed-fueled race to a fortune (relatively little money by today’s standards, but Dr. Evil might approve) buried under a giant “W” with just some vague clues provided by a dying Jimmy Durante. The result, though far from the greatest comedy you’ll ever see, is still satisfying good natured nuttiness on a scale that must be seen to be believed and meant for Blu-ray. This release has a few scant extras.  

Balance of Freedom

Most people want to be free. They definitely say they do. They're quick to give their opinions on how they want to be too. Some want it by simply being left alone, others by being given everything so they don't have to worry about anything. Somewhere in there is an extremely key balance. Somewhere between anarchy and totalitarianism is the answer.

The writers of the Constitution did their best to write it so that it would establish the balance. A democratic republic, where the citizens would have rights that protected them from the government. It was designed to keep the government controlled by not just the people, but the rule of law, so that anarchy would not be able to take over.

Ever since people have done their best to tear at the balance, to get it to fall to their world view. And unfortunately they've been all too successful in making it teeter towards tyranny. The government now has way too much power. It no longer worries about whether it's actually helping it's citizens, if it is doing their will, or even if it is actually following the Constitution. Government simply does things to grow it's own power.

For some the status quo is great. Others think we need more government, more control. To some the answer is to tear it all down, start over, as if a country has a reset button; and they wish to remake it with a government that has no power at all. Others think that simply changing the party which holds office, but not changing the mindset that is there will be the solution. And others wish to make us freer in some ways, but tyrannize other parts of our lives, or that of our neighbors. Very few wish to get us back on the track that the forefathers set, the one of the Constitution.

The storm clouds are coming. The time to decide and act are near. Do you support freedom? Do you support the balance of the Constitution? Do you stand for what this country was founded on?

How Quickly We Forget - Placing National Security on the Back Burner

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) unveiled its annual Budget and Economic Outlook report which projected that the federal deficit will exceed $1 trillion for the fourth year consecutively. In other news, CPAC succeeded in re-energizing the base and the 2012 election is escalating in intensity.

At the same time, other issues exist which have received minimal media attention, but which are no less important than the above mentioned. While we continue to monitor our massive debt, constitutional overreach and election coverage, we would be remiss in not acknowledging current threats to national security.

One such threat is documented in an article by Seth Jones, writing for Foreign Affairs. Jones highlights the disquieting relationship between al Qaeda and Iran - one which has the potential to significantly impact the U.S. Though Hezbollah has operated as an Iranian proxy for some time, now Iran is working with al Qaeda, as well, and is providing the group with a safe haven, out of reach of U.S. drones. Iran is also facilitating al Qaeda fundraising, communications with al Qaeda in Pakistan and the movement of foreign fighters through Iran. Jones suggests that Iran is amenable to further developing the relationship with al Qaeda.

Jones goes on to emphasize the fact that Tehran “could support an al Qaeda attack against the United States or one of its allies, although the regime would surely attempt to hide its role in any plotting.”  Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, believes that an attack by Iran against the U.S. could occur in response to a perceived threat of an attack by the U.S. on Iran.

But, as Van Hipp indicates in a Fox News article, there are also threats which have been ongoing. In addition to citing Iran’s nuclear program and the fact that it is progressing to the point at which even a bunker buster may not be able to subdue it and its increasing missile launch capability, Hipp also directs our attention to China and North Korea.

The alignment between Iran and North Korea has been in place since the early ‘80s. Iran assisted North Korea with funding for its missile development and now North Korea has reportedly developed enough fissile material for at least six plutonium based nuclear weapons in addition to the Taepodong missile.

The Chinese, on the other hand, have been focusing primarily on cyber warfare. The Pentagon, other U.S. government agencies and defense and security companies, in the U.S., have been barraged by China’s cyber offensive. 

Then too, Hezbollah continues their industrious spread throughout the world. They are now active in 40 countries - including right across the border in Mexico. According to Michael Braun, former chief of operations at the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), “Hezbollah are absolute masters at forming close relationships with existing organized crime groups around the world that helps them facilitate what they need to do to move their agendas forward.” Braun went on to emphasize that “if anyone thinks for a moment that they don’t have their eye on the southwest border and all of our country, then they couldn’t be more wrong.”

Braun warned that these liaisons allow the "groups to operate freely in our neighborhood” and he stressed that the U.S. would regret it if the threats were not taken seriously.

It has been noted that Hezbollah’s agenda is the same as that of al-Qaeda. Both embrace the goal of destroying the United States. Both are also intent on reducing Western resistance to the spread of radical Islam.

It is estimated that Hezbollah is made up of 10,000 armed members, world-wide. Hezbollah’s network includes cells throughout Latin America and Central America. And, not only are they also active right across the open border in Mexico, but they also have cells within the U.S. Under any circumstances, sustaining an attack by Hezbollah could be catastrophic. It should, then, go without saying that with reduced U.S. military strength, due to the gutting of the Pentagon budget, the potential exists for far more devastation.

There have been reports of terrorists crossing the U.S./Mexican border, one of which occurred in November of 2010. Ahmed Muhammad was indicted for allegedly aiding and abetting hundreds of people’s entry into the U.S. via Brazil to Mexico and then on to the U.S. Even in view of these events and of 9/11, there are those who vehemently support an open border.

And, U.S. authorities continue to pursue of individuals, found within the U.S., who aid and abet terrorists.  Recently, Craig Benedict Baxam, age 24, and a resident of Laurel, Maryland was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a terrorist group based in Somalia.  The affidavit supporting the complaint states that Baxam joined the U.S. Army in 2007 and completed eight months of training in cryptology and intelligence.  Following deployment to Iraq, he reenlisted in the Army. A month prior to a deployment to Korea, Baxam separated from the Army and returned to Maryland.

Federal prosecutor, W. Anders Folk has affirmed that that al Shabaab’s power-seizing animus is not limited to Somalia. Despite claims that al Shabaab is too small to present a problem to the U.S., Folk points out that many people were similarly persuaded regarding al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But, as of Christmas, 2009, when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted a suicide bombing on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, estimations of al Shabaab’s potential have changed.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul area, for all practical purposes, functions as command central for al Shabaab operations in the U.S. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, al Shabaab in the area routinely travel back to Somalia for training. Recruitment efforts include using Internet videos, with the purpose of glamorizing the movement. While jubilant in the deaths of martyrs and striving for jihad, they excoriate their enemies in Somalia and the West.

Similarly, another African-based terrorist group, Boko Haram, according to a report by the U.S. Representatives Subcommittee on Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence, has quickly evolved and poses an emerging threat to the U.S. The report reveals that Boko Haram "has the intent and may be developing capability to coordinate on a rhetorical and operational level" with al Qaeda. The report emphasizes that heed should be taken in view of the group’s rapid progression. And, it has been an unusually swift progression.

Another looming concern is that of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Clapper has said that the spread of WMD is “among our top concerns” because "the time when only a few states had access to the most dangerous technologies is past." He added that chemical and biological components "move easily in our globalized economy, as do the personnel with scientific expertise to design and use them.”

In addition to that, technology has advanced to a level at which biological weapons can be created by using the latest advances in synthetic biology. This process, which was originally about reading DNA is now about both reading and writing DNA.

With the genesis of synthetic biology, ultimately terrorists will not be limited to mass attacks with biological weapons. They will also be able to target specific individuals based on those individuals' own unique DNA.

James Clapper also indicated that advances in information technology have paved the way for mass-scale data collection by China, Russia and various non-governmental entities.

Terrorist groups, in particular, have made use of social media to further their goals. The New Internet explains that on Twitter, for example, terrorists and jihadists can distribute content quickly and to a vast amount of people. Particular innovations in technology – such as encryption software and cloud computing – enable them to store and disseminate material online, while disguising their activity.

UK Home Secretary, Theresa May, affirms that “terrorists are increasingly using online technology, including Google Earth and Street View, for planning attacks. While radicalization continues to be primarily a social process, terrorists are making more use of new technologies to communicate their propaganda.”

The Taliban has two official Twitter accounts: Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Abdulqahar Balkhi.

In the midst of all of this, the Obama administration laid out a total of $489 billion in defense cuts over ten years and acknowledged that the United States would no longer be able to fight two regional conflicts simultaneously.
 
A potential $500-600 billion in cuts, in addition to that, as a result of the Super Committee's failure, could yield disastrous consequences for the U.S. in terms of national security.

Van Hipp wrote in his article that "if these additional cuts go through, I doubt seriously whether the United States would be able to fight even one MRC successfully."

We, as a country, need to be able to focus on more than two or three issues at a time. To not do so could seal the fate of thousands of U.S.citizens--again.

Explosions in Bangkok

Explosions rocked Bangkok last night, as three Iranian men who were building bombs, apparently managed to blow up one of them in their own house. They fled the scene, one has so far escaped custody, one of the others was arrested at the airport trying to leave the country.

The third man, injured in the first blast, attempted to take a taxi to the hospital. When the driver refused to take him, he threw a bomb under the taxi, injuring the driver and three bystanders. Later confronted by police, he attempted to throw another bomb at them, but only succeeded in blowing his own legs off. He was then taken to the hospital under police custody.

At the home, police found yet another explosive device, but were able to diffuse it. The home was only four blocks from the Israeli embassy and nearby a Jewish community center. The events in Thailand would seem to add weight to Israel's accusations that Iran was responsible for yesterday's attacks on Israeli Embassy Staff.

Epidemic in Central America

A mysterious disease is killing off sugar cane workers in Central America. Thousands of workers have been dying from unexplainable kidney failure. It is not contained to one area, or even one country, but stretches from southern Mexico all the way down to Panama.

Some, especially environmental activists, are trying to blame the illness on pesticides. Nothing however backs their theory, especially the wide spread area that is being effected. Doctors, however, say that something else is to blame.

The workers often start at ages as young as ten. Working practically nonstop for nine hours, forcing their bodies into dehydration. The effects of constant dehydration, and fatigue would damage the liver and other organs.

To protect against this, many companies have begun supplying water, sometimes even with added electrolytes, for the workers. But for all too many it is too late an action. And many workers still refuse to believe that a simple thing such as drinking water, could save their lives.