Obama failed—why did we elect him again?

Obama has failed as president of the United States. His first term was a failure. I will outline his failure, objections to the argument, and question whether or not he will fail in his second term.

1. Slowest recovery on record

We are in the slowest recovery on record. It has been the weakest recovery since WWII, so I guess it is the second slowest. We entered a severe recession in 2008-9. However, after a recession we should expect strong job growth. This is known as Zarnowitz's law. This is the basis for Friedman's plucking model introduced in the 70s and was given empirical evidence in the early 90s. Of 5/6 financial crises, the recoveries are amazing. Other then the current downturn, the great depression was the only exception (that recovery was slower, and there is evidence liberal policies made it worse.) In the recent recovery—where Obama tried similar policies to Roosevelt in the 1930's—our recoveries have been very similar. Slow growth—when there should be fast growth, this means the government is holding it down—etc. It is an interesting correlation. When liberal policies are enacted, the depression (or recession) fails to get better. It actually gets worse. A liberal would argue unemployment has been falling, how is it worse? That is correct, but I refer to Friedman's plucking model. Unemployment hasn't grown fast (when it should), in other words the government has prolonged the current crisis! Just like Roosevelt did before. Let's compare to the Reagan recovery—a recovery done right.

Nine quarters into the Reagan recovery, GDP growth was over 3%. In Obamas ninth quarter, we just barely got to 2%. The third month of Reagans recovery, it averaged over  9% GDP growth (it slowed down later because Zarnowitz's theory shows if done correctly, fast growth then back to normal rates.) Obama, three quarters in was under 4%. The percentage in the Reagan recession out of the job market in 1981 was over 36%, in 1987 it was 34%. Under Obama all it has done is rise, from around 20% and in 2011 it was about 45%. 29 months into Reagan's term, there was an 8% change in employment, under Obama under 1%. Reagan's problem was actually worse then Obama's, but he fixed it faster. Look at the policies. Reagan had tax cuts and deregulation. Obama has had regulation increase and a stimulus. Comparing the two, we see Obama has likely lengthened the recession although the trend is getting better. Reagan sped up growth, Obama has slowed it [1].

A liberal would still argue it is getting better. First, growth is exaggerated because of the way we count unemployment. You are not considered unemployed if you are not looking for work—even though you are. The U6 unemployment rate is a more accurate measure of unemployment. The recovery is a lot slower when using this measurement [2].

Now, it would be beneficial to compare unemployment rates with Canada. Canada has almost always had a similar economy as us—similar unemployment rates and all of it. It would make sense, they are our #1 trade partner. Canada uses a similar method of unemployment as our U6, so to properly calculate the differences we must adjust the rate. Before the stimulus, our unemployment rose 2.1%, Canada's rose 1.9%. About the same. ONLY AFTER THE STIMULUS, did our rates change dramatically. Our unemployment rose to 10% and stood above 9% for 14 months, Canadian unemployment peaked at 7% and has fallen to 6% during the same period we were stuck at 10. Now, lets compare the policies. Obama used flawed Keynesian policies while Canada chose not to create new government programs. The conservative approach worked best [1].

Obama will also destroy business in the long term. Of the economically significant regulations—ones that will cost business at least 100 million dollars—have exploded under the Obama administration. Compared to Bush, Obama has regulated 40% more, and 55% more then Clinton. Even if we focus on only 75 regulations (only a fraction) this will cost business 38 billion in the coming decade. The World Economic Forum—liberal bias—started in 2004 measuring a competitiveness in an economy. For 5 years, we were the most competitive. In 2009 we slipped to second, in 2011 fifth. The Cato Institute went from seventh in 2008 to tenth in 2009. Our business rating in the Heritage Foundation Index went from tenth to 2010 to thirteenth in 2011. In the long run, this will harm us [1].

Let me give a brief summary: liberals will often point out that the economy is getting better. It is worse then it was four years ago, but better then it was two years ago. They miss the point, however. Yes, it has been "getting better". Unemployment currently trends down. But the facts speak for themselves: Obama's policies have not worked. He has likely lengthened the current problem. If he adopted different policies, like Canada, or Reagan, the unemployment would be much lower. So in one sentence: Yes, it's getting better, BUT it could have been a lot better if he did not implement his policies; and his policies have lengthened the amount of time we [should] have been in this bad economy.

2. Objections to the argumentargunment

A) He inherited the mess!

Correct; so did Reagan, and look where he went. First, they usually assume George Bush created the mess, but here is my question: which policies of his made it?

--It was his tax cuts!! This is a common argument I hear when my liberal school mates or teachers are preaching on the issue. It was the evil free market republicans. This argument makes no sense, though. Increasing the amount of money in small business, (yes, even the "evil" corpurations) would hurt the economy? This makes little sense, letting people keep their hard earned money to spend, save, and invest hurts us? This argument makes little sense.
--Income inequality! A study done over 14 countries using data from 120 years - present finds no correlation between income inequality and found credit booms cause banking crises', but that income concentration (liberals call it inequality) does not correlate with a credit crisis. The study said it proves there should be doubt with blaming income inequality with recessions.
--Bush deficits! Alright, first they never explain how. Deficits can cause a crisis, and although the Bush deficit was very irresponsible it was not crisis worthy. It likely had a small effect on consumers, but not enough to cause the current crisis. Also, the Obama deficits are much larger then the Bush deficits, yet you don't hear them complaining now. Interesting how they flip flopped, isn't it?

--It was deregulation! Obama used this in his debates, he made jokes about it in his speeches and in the debates. Yes, Mister President, the way to counter this crisis is to roll back regulations. As explained, I showed the tremendous cost of these regulations. AEI notes, "Except the law that ended Glass-Steagall was signed by President Bill Clinton. And few analysts think the end of Glass-Steagall directly contributed to the financial crisis. ... But it was the Fed’s monetary policy miscues after the downturn began that turned a run-of-the-mill recession into a once-in-a-century disaster."[3]

B) Clinton did better then Bush, Obama is like Clinton, therefore his policies helped.

Was Clinton such a good president? His economy was booming, and Bushes fell. It is impossible to defend Clintons high taxes as an example for growth. As the Heritage Foundation notes, and rightfully so, "The economic defense of the Clinton tax hikes does not hold up against the historical facts. The economy did exhibit strong economic growth during the 1990s, but rapid growth did not occur soon after the tax hike—it came much later in the decade, when Congress cut taxes. After the 1993 tax hike, the economy actually slowed to a point below what one would expect, considering the once-in-a-generation favorable economic climate that existed at the time." And, "As for the overall economic recovery—that started well before President Clinton took office. In January 1993, the economy was in the 22nd month of expansion following the recession from July 1990 to March 1991." Lastly, they list a number of factors explaining why the economy boomed, and no, it wasn't tax hikes: 1) The cold war ended, meaning many military jobs would merge with other industries (like mechanics etc.) which are more productive, helping the economy; 2) Energy Prices were low; 3) Inflation was low, only two percent, helping economic growth; 4) The tech boom, new electronics, the internet, impriving computers, creating a new economic market AND more productivity. All of this created a good economy, not high taxes [4]. 

The Heritage Foundation gives us a data table: After the 1993 tax hike. GDP grew 3.3% and wages fell 0.06% (note, the tech boom was occurring causing an increase in GDP). After the 1997 tax cuts, wages rose 1.7% and GDP grew 4.4%. 

C) We would have been worse.

This is the most common rebuttal: without the stimulus we would have been worse. However, as I explained above, countries (like Canada—they have a similar economy as we do) did far better then we did and they did no large stimulus. In other words, the argument is invalidated: Canada has an economy almost exactly like ours unemployment wise. They never did a stimulus, and are doing better then us now. 

Paul Krugman usually argues the states that got the most stimulus money are doing better off, however this is untrue. The whole correlation relies on the state North Dakota. When North Dakota—which always has a great economy—is taken out of the data, there is no difference in the states improvement. It did little to help the economy. It was a failed policy, as explained above. 

D) Obama saved the auto industry.

What is interesting is Romney's normal bankruptcy plan actually would have done better then the stimulus. It would allow them to return to the market and let free market processes fix the situation. They would be more competitive and less subsidized. The treasury could have provided no risk credit, but no such thing occurred. GM still cut jobs by 25%. Interestingly, the Airlines went through normal bankruptcy (what Mitt Romney proposed). These companies lost the same amount of jobs—25%—meaning the Obama stimulus failed to "save" anything, it had the same effect as normal bankruptcy but was FAR more expensive. Forbes.com notes, "Such was the case in Ohio:  In March of 2008, GM employed 12,300 Ohioans. Today, GM employs 9,533, for a loss of 2,767 jobs — equal the average GM job loss in U.S. operations. A structured bankruptcy would have yielded a similar jobs result, but a competitive GM. There would be about 10,000 GM jobs in Ohio today with or without Obama “Saving GM.”[5]

Interesting, isn't it? The losses would have been no different, and maybe even less because without the stimulus they would be more competitive. The stimulus left them at a slight disadvantage, meaning Obama's "I saved you" rhetoric is untrue. 

3. Life will recover. 

Oh, I hope so, but it is unlikely. According to Americans for Tax Reform, taxes will raise 442 billion dollars on small business in the next decade. This result is not the work of ATR—an advocacy group for a flat tax—but the Tax Policy center—a non biassed group—so I doubt the claim is biassed. Families making above 250,000 dollars will be taxes 14,000 dollars more. The ATR reports an Ernst and Young study has been done to predict the impact of the changes. 20% of workers employed by the small business public sector will be affected. They project this will cost the economy 700,000 jobs [6].




1. Norquist, Grover Glenn., and John R. Lott. Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2012. Print.
2.  http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
3. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/11/obama-didnt-end-the-great-recession-that-bush-didnt-cause/
4. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/setting-the-tax-record-straight-clinton-hikes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery
5. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/10/28/ohioans-are-no-fools-obama-did-not-save-your-automotive-jobs/
6. http://www.atr.org/president-obama-raise-taxes-successful-small-a7356

My predictions...

All where wrong, or gave Obama too close of a win... Obama won, America lost.

Short post, but that's it.

How common is voter fraud?

How common is voter fraud? Liberals go under the false statistics of "reported" voter fraud. They forget, however, that voter fraud is extremely easy to do and it is very hard for officials to catch them. In other words, the reported number is much smaller then it actually is. I was talking to one of my liberal teachers, he claimed only a few hundred (under 1,000) cases of voter fraud have occurred. He failed to mention, however, that all of the data on the subject is highly flawed. Most studies have low-balled the number, they always admit it is more likely then they can report as data is limited, and many middle of the road research groups have called for better data on the subject. One study finds 2.068 cases of voter fraud have occurred since the 2000 elections, but other academics rightly noted not all voter fraud accounts are caught. They don't always find the culprit, and no scientific method can measure for that [1]. So remember, we don't know how large the margins of errors are in these studies--probably a lot--meaning hundreds of thousands of cases are going unnoticed. So a reader might wonder, how many people do I think are committing voter fraud? To be simple: I don't know, but it is more common then the left makes it out to be. Recently a democrat has already admitted he has voted for the President 4 times [2]. Anther NY democrat was busted when he tried to vote twice [3]. Now, there have probably been Republican voter frauds, no doubt about it. But is is obvious one side does it more often. There are a few types of voter fraud. I will not name them all, but the two I see as most common. As stated, people trying to vote twice using another persons name or again in their own. The second, I like to call "I see dead people voting". Although the second is MUCH harder to catch, we can use a few proxies to estimate how often that occurs.

In Florida, 53,000 dead people are registered to vote. Fox News in just one country (Bucks County) found 500 cases of suspect voter fraud, CNN reported that in Philadelphia 1,500 ballots where considered tainted and another 8,000 where suspect. Voter fraud is a common problem and cannot be ignored [4]. NPR reports that 1.8 million dead people are registered to vote, and that 24 million people registered are invalid or inaccurate. NPR—with its liberal bias—said this doesn't means this has caused voter fraud, but admits it has left the system very vulnerable [5]. In South Carolina, though, we see many cases of the dead voting. Their AG reported that they have had 900 people dead people vote in recent elections [6].

Voter fraud is under reported, underestimated, and is a problem. I guarantee we will see reports of voter fraud from all sides. It is a problem, and it is happening. To end I will say this: 5,321 dead people have voted in North Carolina alone (this year!). 3,678 are democrats, 1,484 are republicans, and 15 are unaffiliated [7]. It is hard to imagine this problem isn't even larger in bigger states (like CA, TX, etc.) and even quite large in states like here in New Mexico (our voting system is a joke by the way). Stop ignoring the problem!




1. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/counting-voter-fraud-1165/
2. http://nation.foxnews.com/voter-fraud/2012/11/05/democrat-admits-hes-voted-four-times-already
3. http://nation.foxnews.com/voter-fraud/2012/11/06/nc-dem-busted-trying-vote-twice
4. http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA636.html
5. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote
6. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/south-carolina-attorney-general-we-know-for-a-fact-that-dead-people-are-voting-video/
7. http://www.carolinatransparency.com/votetracker/gen2012/age/112/

Can Romney win tomorrow? A prediction

With Dick Morris and Fox news declaring Romney victory—in some cases, they argue a landslide—and the majority of the liberal media and many "real" polls giving Romney a 0.2% chance of winning, who is correct? Who will win?

I am no pollster, and I don't want anyone to think what I am saying will be true. I want it to be true (some of them), and I am trying my best to ignore my biases and see who will really win—and by how much. So I have made three of the most likely scenarios that will happen Tuesday.

1) Ohio saves Romney:

Ohio rarely goes far from the national vote—almost always does it go in that direction. And I truly think Romney will succeed in swaying the majority of the electorate considering he has a 10-20 point lead amongst independents and that republicans usually do better then they poll. Assuming he wins Ohio (and a few other swing states I bet he will win: Florida, VA, WV, Indiana, and Colorado. Based on current polls, that's understandable).

In this scenario, Romney wins with 275 electoral votes, Obama 263.

2) Obama wins Ohio, Romney gets Iowa, Wisconsin, and NH,--WV goes for Johnson

Yes, some polls give WV a win for Gary Johnson. So I will do this scenario with and without WV going for Johnson.

WV going for Johnson: Romney 272 - Obama 261
WV going Romney (likely): Romney 277 - Obama 261
WV going Obama: Romney 272 - Obama 266

3) Obama gets Ohio, Iowa, and NH... And Wisconsin

Sadly, this is (if it happens) how Obama will win. It wont be close, like Romney scenario one and two. Its a comfortable, but not landslide, win.

Obama: 286 - Romney 252

For other predictions:

Dick Morris: http://www.dickmorris.com/prediction-romney-325-obama-213/
Lanny Davis: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/05/my-prediction-obama-will-and-should-win-on-election-day/
Just throwing a little economic post done by economist John Lott for those still wanting to research before a vote: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/02/obama-and-economy/
And, so I don't seem to biased (I am) I would like you to note my scenario 3 is similar to this liberal writers prediction. I guess we agree, in a bad way:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/11/05/my-election-prediction-the-polls-will-be-right-and-obama-will-win-with-290-electoral-votes/

If i have to say anything, scenario's 2 or three seem like the most likely. I will post after the election :)

Have a good night.

John Lotts coding errors

I was reading a sourcewatch.org article--a liberal think tank--which argued John Lott (founder of the more guns less crime thesis) has coding errors in his work [1]. Interestingly, this merely shows how much liberals need to twist evidence on the gun control issue. First, lets examine the claim.

Source Watch got their data from Tim Lambert. Tim Lambert got is Data from Aryes and Donahue 2003. First, the study is attacking Plassman and Whitley 2003, not Lott's work. Lott did co-author the study, but removed his name because the law review offered an ultimatum which he did not agree with. Lambert, along with Aryes and Donahue argue once these coding errors are fixed, the results disappear. This claim is far fetched and extremely weak. For a few reasons.

1) Donahue and Aryes argue coding errors show the study is flawed. The reason they are so hostile is because that very study argues their first review is weak and does not give evidence for their assertion. So instead of defending their flawed study, they argue their data has coding errors (something which would get media attention and sway the public on the issue). Plassman responded to their study, however. He shows their Hybrid model--the one which Aryes and Donahue put emphasis on as it shows it increases crime--is flawed. In the data, there is a curved line. Before the law, crime rises. After the law, it flat lines and falls. Look at this:




See source #2

As we can see, the crime rate shows conceal carry lowers crime. But Aryes and Donahue insert these straight lines. Using the top line (as they did) it would appear in the data that crime actually rose, then fell. This, they argue, shows CCW raises crime and then other factors make it have no effect. However, as we can see, the facts do not support this position and the results are artificially created by this line (which is not the actual data).

Aryes and Donahue do not even respond to the criticism. As Plassman notes, "Ayres and Donohue do not even acknowledge this problem that plagues all of their analyses.  They also decided not to cite Nic Tideman’s and my paper in their footnote 3 (p.1197) among the papers that are supportive of the “More Guns Less Crime” thesis, even though our paper appeared in the same issue of the Journal of Law and Economics as several other papers that they cite.  Any econometrician will agree that this ought to be one of the most relevant issues in the whole debate.  However, the public debate (as well as Ayres and Donohue in their response to our paper) decided to completely ignore this issue. In short, the fact that the extended dataset had errors does not provide card blanche to dismiss those comments that are not based on the extended data set.  Even if one decides to completely ignore the results of the extended data set that we report on pp.1336-1357, it is still necessary to acknowledge (and address) our criticism of Ayres and Donohue’s own analysis."[3]

In other words, Aryes and Donahue essentially concede their study is flawed and use the coding errors as an excuse to try and cover up their weak study. So, assume this:

a) Aryes and Donahue are right, coding errors invalidate Plassman and Whitley's paper.
b) Even if it iinvalidates their data, they conceded their study is flawed and their analysis is wrong.
Outcome: Both studies are flawed, meaning neither side has ammo on this position.

So, in reality, this invalidates (already) the assertion that CCW increases crime. But is Plassman's and Whitley's paper really destroyed by these codinbg errors?

2) The answer is no, negative. The results do change some, however the more guns less crime hypothesis still holds as decreases in crime still exist after the errors are fixed. John Lott showed in "More Guns, Less Crime" (third edition, 2010) that these errors did not erase the results and that the few errors where not vital the the hypothesis. The notion that it erases the results is a lie.



1. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Lott
2. Florenz Plassman, John Whitley. "Confirming More Guns Less Crime" Stanford Law Review, 2003.
3. http://johnrlott.tripod.com/link3.html

How many people are homosexual? And, what does it mean for the gay gene debate.

A new Gallup poll has been released showing only about 3.4% of the population is homosexual:

The inaugural results of a new Gallup question -- posed to more than 120,000 U.S. adults thus far -- shows that 3.4% say "yes" when asked if they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. ... This is the largest single study of the distribution of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population in the U.S. on record. ... Adults aged 18 to 29 (6.4%) are more than three times as likely as seniors aged 65 and older (1.9%) to identify as LGBT. Among those aged 30 to 64, LGBT identity declines with age -- at 3.2% for 30- to 49-year-olds and 2.6% for 50- to 64-year-olds.

What I find interesting is that those who are younger identify as LGBT more often then older people. Due to the fact I think homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, it proves the point that higher acceptance levels increases the chance one engages in homosexual acts or is a homosexual. These numbers merely back the social conservative opinion, and a plethora of academic studies.

Gay Marriage will not lower suicide rates

In debating homosexuality, one is likely to encounter something using this logic.

1. Homosexuals are more at risk for suicide
2. The cause is discrimination
3. Gay marriage will solve the problem.

I will go down each point and address each of them.

1 - Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide then heterosexuals

This is true. The gay crowd often does not agree with this, however the intelligent ones agree with this argument and use it to their advantage. Depending on the study, the facts differ. For example, one study claims homosexuals are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then heterosexuals [1]. 73% of psychiatrists argue homosexuals are more "unhappy" then heterosexuals. 20-30% of homosexuals are alcoholics, and 78% of homosexuals have STD's. 50% of suicides are done by homosexuals when they are only 1-4% of the population. Some estimates say they are 25 times more likely to commit suicide [2]. N.E. Whitehead uses the 8 times figure.

2 - The cause is discrimination

Of the 73% of doctors who think homosexuals are more unhappy, 70% think the cause is not discrimination. As stated, the many other problems in the homosexual community (pedophilia, drugs, STD's. high abuse rates [homosexual vs homosexual] etc.) cause suicide [2]. NARTH breaks it down this way:

Early Self-Identification as Gay: Subjects who had viewed themselves as homosexual or bisexual at an earlier age were more likely to attempt suicide.
Early Sexual Activity: Teens who had attempted suicide were more likely to have had sexual experiences at an early age.
Broken Homes: Only 27% of suicide attempters had parents who were married (vs. 50% of the non-attempters).
Sexual Molestation: 61% of the suicide attempters had been sexually abused (vs. only 29% of the non-attempters).
Illegal Drug Use: 85% of the attempters had used illicit drugs (vs. 63% of non-attempters).
Illegal Activities: 51% of the attempters had been arrested (vs. only 28% of non-attempters).
Prostitution: 29% of the attempters had been involved in prostitution (vs. 17% of non-attempters).
Gender Conflicts: 36.6% of the attempters were classified as feminine (vs. 17.7% of non-attempters) [3].

Other studies find 2/3 of gay suicides are because of relationships, not discrimination. Studies done in the Netherlands--which is tolerant of gays and has gay marriage--are at higher risk of suicide then heterosexuals hinting the fact discrimination is likely not the cause [4].

N.E. Whitehead notes in a 2010 study that homosexuals are sexually abused more often and that those people where more at risk for suicide then other homosexuals meaning sexual abuse may be a reason. Gender discrimination was found to have little effect, however racial discrimination seems to have a large effect. There is a correlation with AIDS/HIV and poor mental health, and homosexuals are at higher risk of getting AIDS. They also note there is little support for the discrimination hypothesis in academic circles. Abuse from parents is more likely to cause suicide then societal discrimination, and allowing gay marriage would not solve parental abuse, would it? Unlikely, especially due to the fact homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Two studies, Whitehead notes, in 1995 argue discrimination and bullying is not the reason most homosexuals do suicide. A 1988 study also finds areas where homosexuality is accepted have little difference in suicide rates compared to the "bigoted" USA. A 2002 study really is a killer, as the suicide rate has remained stable and the age which suicide is usually committed (the mean) is dropping, as the acceptance for homosexuality rises. This shows acceptance goes up, more/no change in suicide occurs. A 2006 study finds most suicides are not caused by discrimination, rather other factors usually predominate. Most gay suicides are done by blacks, further supporting the point that racial, not gender, discrimination is the cause. A 2009 meta analysis and a 2003 study both find legalization of marriage and supporting homosexuality has no effect on the suicide rate. Another 1995 study finds discrimination only accounts for 5% of the gay suicides. A 1978 study (the one cited above, source 4) argues relationships are mostly the cause for suicide. A 1995 book studies the causes for gay suicide, and it is mostly caused by relationship problems. Overall, homosexual suicide is mostly intrinsic and cannot be solved with gay marriage [5].

Now, I am not arguing no homosexual has been killed because of discrimination or bullying, however I am arguing that reason is not a large contributor to gay suicide, and this leads me to believe SSM wont lower suicides.

3 - Marriage will help!

Unlikely. Divorce rates are higher among homosexual couples in countries where SSM is legal and abuse is also high. In Denmark, where gays are tolerated, their have extremely high suicide rates even with these "tolerant" laws [6].

Conclusion:

SSM will not lower suicide rates, please stop with these weak arguments if you support SSM.



1. Gilbert, Kathleen. "LifeSiteNews Mobile | Study: Gay Teens Five times More Likely to Attempt Suicide." LifeSiteNews., 29 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-gay-teens-five-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/>.
2.  Joseph, Frank, M.D. "Statistics on Homosexuals - 1978 to 1994." Statistics on Homosexuals - 1978 to 1994. Tradition in Action, 15 Oct. 2005. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02rStatistcs.html>.
3. O'Leary, Dale. "Gay Teens and Attempted Suicide." Gay Teens and Attempted Suicide. National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.narth.com/docs/gayteens.html>.
4. "Gay Men Differ From Heterosexuals In Suicidality: Netherlands Study." Gay Men Differ From Heterosexuals In Suicidality: Netherlands Study. National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, 17 Oct. 2006. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.narth.com/docs/netherlands.html>.
5.  Whitley, N.E. "Homosexuality and Co-Morbididities: Research and Therapeutic Implications." Journal of Human Sexuality 2 (2010): 124-75.  2010.
6. Whitehead, N.E. "Male Gay Partnerships No Defence against Suicide." Male Gay Partnerships No Defence against Suicide. N.p., Jan. 2010. Web. 18 Oct. 2012. <http://www.mygenes.co.nz/suicide.htm>.