That is a nice image.

The site, catholictraditions.org, is not indexed very well. I couldn't find the Mary blessings area anywhere indexed, but a search engine found the front page:
.
Index page of Mary blessings:
http://catholictradition.org/Mary/blessings.htm
.
At the bottom, it links an online store that offers this image for sale as a poster (price reduced to $7.79):
.
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Madonna-Posters_i250656_.htm




(The CI robot won't let me paste in the text from the vendor site. 
This poster vendor in their product description doesn't mention the artist's name or the source of the original image, and I haven't seen this one before so I can't help you. Sorry.)

Nice find Neil

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/blessings1.htm

I would like to buy a copy if anyone can direct me to where it came from originally.

.
What's not immediately obvious when you go to the page linked above, the border design on the left side appears to repeat down the page (the framed picture occurs several times, vertically). But the text on the right half of the page doesn't seem to be in any way related to it. Here is the palette border design:



Once you look at the palette however, and read the page source info, you can see that the words on the right side are in fact written on top of the background that is part of the palette, and the palette is formed by a repeated or stacked set of the framed picture attached to a background zone that runs across the page to the right. We just don't see any joint between subsequent bands, which don't show up because it's the same color with no space in between bands. It is an illusion.
.
This "border" is abbreviated "bdr" in the code, 

style="background-image: url(blessings-bdr.jpg); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(207, 218, 212);"

.
Interesting, no?
.

Looking at the bold colors of the artist, can sometimes give you a clue.  Brights reds and blues, I think is Europe.

"Bold colors", when intended to be light-stable, were horribly expensive before the proliferation of synthetic dyes in the 19th Century.  For millennia before then, pigments were low-tech, e.g., pulverized minerals or other natural materials, notably for blue: the decorative mineral lapis lazuli, and for red: either the toxic mineral cinnabar (i.e., sulfide of mercury), or preparations of Old- or New-World scale insects.  It might seem intolerable to readers accustomed to their RGB computer-monitors, but low-tech light-stable colors did not provide a palette that offered the artist the complete spectrum of colors.

So it is plausible that the combination of choices made for assorted colorful objects in a picture could dramatically narrow the possible locales and time-periods.

Be that as it may, perhaps we needn't appeal to art-historians; the picture seems already to be credited:

The Blessings of Mary
Taken from A GARLAND FOR OUR LADY
Irish Ursulines, 1920 with IMPRIMATUR

Jesus is shown with infant-orange hair, and Mary is shown with medium-brownish hair that seems to my eyes to have reddish undertones, as if it had, um, matured from obviously redder hair during her childhood.  Wouldn't such a picture be very congenial to the Irish faithful?  Furthermore, this is yet another picture of a descendant of the House of (King) David who has a long straight nose.  Which reminds me of the sarcastic line in the 1970s film Cabaret:

    "She doesn't / look Jєωιѕн / at all!"

So I'm confused.  Is there some compelling reason to reject the simple assumption that the picture-of-interest might be a color illustration--maybe a frontispiece complete with tissue paper--in exactly the Irish book already identified?   Might it have been printed entirely with spot-color (e.g., as used for (at least some) color plates in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica), which is far better adapted to accurate digital scanning, archiving, and (re)printing than the far-less expensive--thus far more widespread--screened 4-color (CMYK) process?