KVUE.com, Austin’s ABC television affiliate, sent a crew to Tampa to cover the Texas Delegation to the Republican National Convention. The reporter, Tyler Sieswerda, interviewed Larry and me after this morning’s meeting of the Delegation.
http://www.kvue.com/news/editors-pick/Texans-represent-Lone-Star-State-at-RNC-167618275.html
I also told Mr. Sieswerda about my Texas Alliance for Life and Christian Medical Association pins, but they didn’t make the cut — although a view of the back of my T-shirt did! (I’m not as fat as the rear view makes me look!)
Or how I’ve spent the first 3 days of the Republican National Convention:
My husband, Larry, is one of the Delegates to the RNC for Comal County’s Congressional District 21 from Texas and I get to be a guest. We flew down on Friday, hoping to get some rest before starting the Convention. Isaac came along after. 
I added a bookmark for the Tampa, Florida weather to my taskbar and have been “praying unceasingly” that the Lord will moderate the laws of physics enough to keep Isaac from harming anyone. It’s my belief that the unbelievers and Dems who alternately pointed to Isaac as proof that their either is no God to answer our prayers or that He isn’t on our (the Republican Right, Believers’) side have had their mocking proven misplaced as Isaac has remained a Tropical Storm much longer than anyone thought possible and even veered far west of the Tampa Bay area in its journey. If I’m wrong, then we at least have proof of what one woman noted: the RNC and the Lord’s people are able, with His grace, to manage uncertainty and natural disasters!
We heard all about the snubbing of Texas’ delegation by the RNC which chose to put us 25 miles out of town at a resort in Wesley Chapel, Florida. And then learned what a great place this is to stay — and how safe the inland location turned out to be when Tropical Storm Isaac reared his ugly head and threatened to raise the head waters of Tampa Bay! Take that, RNC PTB! (Powers That Be)
There was an opportunity to let the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas know I’m not happy with him. (Larry wanted a picture with the man and I said I’d take the picture but didn’t want in it. Then as I focused, I said, “Say ‘There wasn’t a quorum!” Both men acted as though they couldn’t hear me.)
I’ve received my white hat and red,white and blue RPT scarf and Larry has his hat,
a red, white and blue tie and Delegate’s “swag bag” that contained a medal for the delegate and a stuffed giraffe from Busch Gardens. Although we had sunshine at the pool on Saturday, I doubt we’ll get much chance in the next week to use the sunblock, beach towel or sunglasses that were also included, thanks to Mr. Isaac.
Larry and I were invited by fellow CD 21 delegate, Lisa Roper, to several events held by the new Conservative Women’s group, Palladian View.
We attended a reception on Saturday night and Sunday, I went to two events with Lisa and a couple of other Texas Palladian View supporters, Toni Anne Dashiell and Kim Chambers. Take a look at this great new group that hosted a panel of Conservative women speaking about dealing with liberal media bias, “Lashing Back at the BackLash” and then had a full house at the “BlogBash,” a party for the stars of the New Media.The former was live-streamed on Fox News and will soon be available online at the website.
I’ve been posting pictures of the great Conservative leaders I’ve met on my Facebook and Twitter (@bnuckols) timelines: Former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley,Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn,Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch (Pronounced “clayfish” – her in-laws couldn’t spell either), along with Texas’ own Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Louis Gohmert, and Republican Nominee for Senate, Ted Cruz.
Guess what? States are allowed to decide what they want to spend tax money on!
From the ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court on Texas’ Law prohibiting our Family Planning tax funds from going to any “affiliate” of an abortion provider or anyone who “promotes” abortion: ”
Although this restriction functions as a speech-based funding condition, it also functions as a direct regulation of the content of a state program, and is therefore constitutional . . . “[W]hen the government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own it is entitled to say what it wishes.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833 (citing Rust, 500 U.S. at 194).
Needless to say, the press, including the Texas Tribune and theAustin Chronicle disagree with this ruling, the latter more obviously than the former.
Once again, please look at the Texas Tribune’s own interactive map or the State’s data base of doctors and clinics who have contracted with Texas’ WHP. Those Planned Parenthood clinics aren’t located in health care shortage areas. There are no shortages of willing providers for the services in question in the areas surrounding the abortion affiliates.
Women Defy “We Are Women” Rally Claims; Say Let Women Speak For Themselves
Washington DC, August 18—As some women gather at the Nation’s Capitol today for the “We Are Women” rally, members of the advocacy group, Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT; womenspeakforthemselves.com) are making their own voices heard. WSFT began with an open letter to the White House, Congress and Secretary Sebelius in February 2012, demanding respect both for religious freedom and for an understanding of woman’s freedom and equality that goes beyond “free contraception.” It now has over 31 thousand signatories from every state.
“It defies reason that a few groups could speak for all women on issues of life, family, sex and religion,” said WSFT founder, Helen Alvaré.
“The 31,000 plus women who have signed onto our open letter will no longer sit silently by while a few political figures and their allies insist that religious freedom has to bow to the theory, the ideology really, that the centerpiece of women’s freedom is sexual expression without commitment,” continued Alvaré.
Catherine, a woman in her twenties living in New York City and a signatory, wrote to WSFT: “Out of respect for themselves and others, many women choose to live a life of sexual integrity…Many of my girlfriends and I have found this approach to our sexuality to be freeing, empowering, and constitutive of a deep sense of happiness.”
“I’m a pro-choice woman who respects the rights of other women to hold different views,” wrote another WSFT member Carol, from Vermont. “More specifically I expect the government, in compliance with the Constitution, to protect every person from being coerced into acting in a manner contrary to his or her conscience. The HHS mandates are a fundamental violation of our rights to free speech and religion.”
Hundreds more women wrote to WSFT to express their strong opposition to the message of the Saturday rally.
“Our women come from diverse political, ideological and religious backgrounds,” Alvaré explained. “But they are united in their opposition to a ‘one size fits all’ version of what women really want, particularly a version contradicted by decades of data and women’s experience in the new sex, dating and marriage markets formed by the idea that contraception, with abortion as the backup, is the sum and substance of women’s equality.“
Jennifer from Indiana, for example, a signatory to the WSFT letter says:
”Women and reproduction are not things that need to be fixed, medicated, sterilized. To equate women’s rights and health to these things is to do an incredible disservice to the rights and health issues that women do face today.”“An honest ‘We Are Women’ rally would acknowledge the diverse views held by women. It would acknowledge the science about the decline in women’s well-being associated with the world view this rally represents.” Alvaré says. “No one speaks for all women on these issues. Let women speak for themselves.”
“Hate speech,” right? Only if you advocate for divorce and serial monogamy — or practice media abuse.
I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t look up Mr. Cathy’s actual remarks until I read a quote in a story about the shooting of a guard at the Washington, DC Headquarters of the Family Research Council.
I went searching for the original interview and found it, here:
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
A person has to try very hard to find hate in that comment or the others recorded in the piece about a radio interview that Mr. Cathy gave to the Biblical Recorder’s K. Allan Blume, and later published in the Baptist Press. In my opinion, your world view – or your agenda – must be pretty narrow to turn Mr. Cathy’s comments about the family and marriage into “anti” anything!
Here’s the part of the story that supposedly was “anti-gay:”
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners.
It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
“We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized.
“We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
As a “first wife,” I’m probably biased, but I like that he thanks the Lord for his marriage! And I don’t see any mention of gays, at all!
Not all of the members of Texas Medical Association agree with the TMA on this.
The San Antonio Express News published an editorial August 9th, by O. Ricardo Pimentel, entitled, “Texas tries to get between you, your doctor:”
For them, the issue isn’t abortion; it’s about the doctor-patient relationship, patient health and the ability to put everything on the table that needs to be discussed. Even if it’s abortion.
In a recent letter to the state, the Texas Medical Association, joined by other medical groups, said Texas is about to embark on a plan for providing medical care to low-income women that will impose a “gag order” on discussing abortion even on doctors working with patients not in the program.
Other groups, weighing in during the public comment period on proposed state rules, have similar concerns.
It’s a plan, they say, that will ensure not enough doctors for this program willing to provide care, including family planning services. And this, they say, will guarantee more unintended pregnancies, more abortions and more illness that might have been prevented for low-income women.
Among those also commenting on the rules were the Center for Public Policy Priorities, and leaders of Planned Parenthood entities in the state, South Texas groups among them.
Trust me, for everyone who is mentioned above, it’s about abortion. The law doesn’t stop anyone from discussing or even promoting true contraception that doesn’t end the life of our youngest children of tomorrow.
And it is about “elective abortions:” those that are performed on health babies in healthy mothers. We’re not talking about the more controversial abortions in cases of rape and incest, much less in the cases of congenital disorders that are “not compatible with life outside the womb and certainly not in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. Since when do elective abortions “need to be discussed?”
How difficult is it to understand that Texas taxpayers should not pay for “promotion” of abortion? Or that we most certainly do not want our State tax funds to go to doctors who perform elective abortions on healthy babies and healthy mothers?
While I don’t speak for the Society, I am an elected delegate for my County Medical Society to the TMA House of Delegates and I believe that most of our members would agree with me on this. I am very much in favor of restricting payment from our limited State funds to only those doctors and organizations that provide comprehensive and continuing medical care for the whole woman and her whole family. With Texas Family Doctors, Internal Medicine Docs, Pediatricians and OB/Gyns reeling from the lack of increasing fees from Medicare and decreases in Medicaid funding, why not help keep them in business by adding the availability of billing the State for screening tests like pap smears, exams for breast masses, diabetes and high blood pressure?
In fact, that’s what the Legislature decided: that money would be prioritized. First come the comprehensive care docs, hospitals, and county and city clinics. Planned Parenthood is never mentioned, although there is a section of the law that absolutely prohibits the State from contracting with anyone who “promotes” abortion *if there are other qualified providers available.*
Texas DHS has already identified more than enough doctors and clinics that qualify under the law. These doctors can actually treat the diseases for which the Texas Women’s Health Plan screens. Our Texas Legislature made a wise decision when they agreed that it doesn’t make sense to send our few dollars to a clinic that treats a very narrow medical spectrum in an intermittent manner.
And the law has already saved human lives: Austin city and Travis County taxes once paid for 400 elective abortions each year. A year ago, the law achieved what the taxpayers who protested this use of their money couldn’t do: Austin and Travis County health clinics were forced to stop funding those abortions.
If you have a family doctor, consider a polite call to his or her front desk asking them to let the TMA know their views on using Texas’ tax funds to support Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
You might also consider contacting Texas Alliance for Life and/or you local Crisis Pregnancy Center to let them know that you support their efforts to keep your State (and federal) tax funds from paying for the ending of lives of our Texans of tomorrow.
Based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our United States is designed to secure our rights to life, liberty and property for every human being, not just the ones who can speak out. Those of us who can speak, should join in the effort to protect the rights of all, including the unborn children of tomorrow, male and female, and everyone who objects to government-sponsored efforts to end their lives. The recent Obama mandate that infringes on the First Amendment protection of the right of free exercise of religion and their on-going efforts to force Texas to fund Planned Parenthood with State taxes is in direct violation of the Bill of Rights.
I received an email tonight from the group, “Women Speak for Themselves” asking for comments on next Saturday’s Washington, DC rally sponsored by pro-abortion, anti-family and anti-First Amendment rights groups:
This Saturday, on the National Capitol lawn, Think Progress (a George Soros funded group) is hosting a “We Are Women” rally. Soros’ group, along with some of their co-sponsors, the usual—the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Women’s Political Caucus—along with some more peculiar groups—Rock The Slut Vote, The National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Reformed Whores entertainers, among others—have a specific goal in mind.
“Our mission,” their website reads, “is to bring national attention to the ongoing war on women’s rights…”
Not surprisingly, the language on their website gives the appearance that they’re claiming to speak for all women on matters of healthcare, family, and freedom…which makes this just the type of event at which we need to make our voices heard! And so, here’s where YOU come in.
Prior to the rally, we’ll be releasing a statement to the press, informing them that there are women with alternative views on these matters, should the press wish to include us in the discussion. We’d like to add YOUR voices to that statement.
Send us a brief statement (2-3 sentences), articulating why as a woman you stand for and believe freedom includes protection for life, family, and/or religion. Be sure to include your full name, city and state, and your occupation, if you’d like—along with permission for us to include your information and quote in our press release.
If you’re not sure where to start, feel free to use our two sets of talking points for ideas (though your statement need not be solely focused on the HHS mandate), and try to stay focused on why you’re FOR our view of women’s freedom, as opposed to AGAINST the view of women’s freedom being put forth by Soros and cohorts.
Thanks for your help with this….I look forward to your statements!
My best to you,
Helenhttp://womenspeakforthemselves.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenSpeakForThemselves
https://twitter.com/womenspeak2012P.S. I’m told some pro-lifers will be gathering at the North Capitol Lawn on Saturday, to hold a counter protest. The rally starts at 11am, I believe, so feel free to head on over, with signs and pro-life gear, if you’d like to be a joyful example of the alternative.
I wish I could attend the counter protest, but I’m committed to a meeting for the Christian Medical and Dental Association that day. If you can attend, please do. Either way, send a message to http://womenspeakforthemselves.com/ or @womenspeak2012!
And anyone who supports his views is at risk, too.
In June, WingRight.org reported on the publication of Mark Regnerus‘ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” in Social Science Research. The adults reported more problems when compared to adult children of “intact biological families.” The early complaints from critics were that the data didn’t distinguish between types of homosexual relationships in the same way that it did among heterosexual families. The adult subjects were designated as having Lesbian Mothers (LM) or gay fathers (GF), without breaking out smaller groups by how long or stable the relationships of the parents were. This was a weakness in the study that was recognized by the author.
Legitimate criticism was rare. One article, here, by Walter Olson under “Gay Voices” at least looks at the data itself, although dismissing much of it and declaring the author’s own bias. Critics repeatedly point to a very few small studies of carefully chosen – often self-selected -upper-middle class LM families that are written by very biased authors, who openly advocate for same-sex marriage and parenting. Somehow, they believe that bias in favor is not significant, but any data or mention that there might be negative consequences from alternative families – or documentation of positive outcomes from intact biological families – is immediately dismissed as bigoted and discriminatory.
However, instead of focusing on the problems described and noting that adult children of divorced and step families also fared poorly compared to IBFs, the conversation in the media and on line quickly became attacks on Dr. Regnerus, the source of the funding, the Witherspoon Institute, and the connections between the leaders of the Institute and the National Organization for Marriage.
An article in “The New Civil Rights Movement,” an online site devoted to “gay rights and issues and marriage equality,” very literally attacks not only Dr. Regnerus, Witherspoon and NOM, but also tears apart the motives and history of a man who came forward to tell his story after the Regnerus piece was published. The author, gay rights activist Scott Rosensweig who writes under the name Scott Rose, is most certainly biased. His piece is loaded with emotional rants, using words such as the repeated use of “gay-bashing”personal attacks on the author of the Witherspoon essay.
And now, the heat is on the University of Texas to somehow censor or censure Dr. Regnerus. Due to a “formal” complaint by Rosensweig, author of the article above, UT is conducting an inquiry to determine whether to fully investigate Dr. Regnerus and his methods. Rosensweig’s letter evidently charged that “Your employee, Professor Mark Regnerus, is shaming and disgracing your institution by violating your university’s academic honor code,” he wrote. “If you take no stand against Regnerus’ coordinated political anti-gay hate campaign then you are leaving your institution’s reputation in a garbage-bin of iniquity.”
I’m forwarding my own essay to the University and suggest that those of you with an interest in the issue, or who pay taxes in Texas, send them your own polite informative notes. President Bill Power’s e-mail address is president@po.utexas.edu.
You wouldn’t know it from most of the headlines, however. Most of the mainstream news articles say that Federal Judge Alan C Kay ruled against gay marriage, “refuses to legalize gay marriage” or “upholds” a “ban” on gay marriage. One article at “Think Progress,” is even titled, “Reagan-Appointed Judge Upholds Marriage Discrimination In Hawaii.”
In fact, what the judge ruled was that the Courts shouldn’t overturn State Constitutional amendments passed by a popular vote of the people and/or laws passed by the State Legislature without good reason:
If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.
and,
Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a
superlegislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of
legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither
affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.” Jackson, Kleid, &Bradley v. Ambercrombie & Fudder ruling by Alan C. Kaye for District Court in Hawaii.
The judge does explore the history of marriage and, indeed, concludes that marriage has traditionally included a man and a woman and that the Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings have never considere marriage to be anything else. He also noted that homosexuals are not a “suspect class” that is protected from discrimination and that the law does not discriminate based on gender.
In an odd twist, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Ambercrombie, was not only a defendant in the case,he testified for the plaintiffs, and against traditional marriage.
Paul Ryan is an excellent, conservative choice for Mitt Romney’s Vice President running mate. Not lukewarm at all, no pale pastels, here!
For background on Representative Ryan from Wisconsin, read the coverage of his votes and past statements at OnTheIssues.org
My primary issue is the right to life – without security of protection for life, there is no other freedom or right and if a person discriminates between other human beings as “persons,” then I can’t trust them to preserve my life and liberty.
Here’s the notes on “Abortion” and other life issues on that link above:
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization. (Jan 2011)
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. (Jan 2011)
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment. (Jan 2007)
It seems our #TxLege complicated matters – everyone who wants to be a Volunteer Deputy Registrar (VDR) will now have to undergo training approved by their County Tax Assessor/Collector. My local County says that people should expect to spend 45 minutes at their office for the training offered two days a week.
Those of us who work regular business hours – not to mention mothers and volunteers who already have their time crunch – will find it difficult to dedicate a week-day morning on this training.
After the Federal judges wiped out most of the Voter ID and VDR requirements – including the requirement that VDR’s be Texas citizens – this may not be as bad as I first thought. At least the Carpetbaggers (“Acorn-like” groups from out of state) will have to spend some time training through some County office. But not all Counties are headed by Conservatives. (although we’re working on it).
The Texas Secretary of State’s office has published training on-line, here. I wonder why this couldn’t be used as actual “online” training for past VDR’s or at least for those of us who are residents of the County?
Here’s the 94 page ruling on VDR requirements.
I believe our Legislators need to reconsider the training requirements and some pressure needs to be placed on our SOS and County TAC’s to allow on line training, at least for County residents.
My idea for “Constitutional Solutions” for health care is up on the site. Take a look and second it, here.
Another place to read is under the Family Values and Faith-based Issues subheadings of Marriage and Family Values and Sanctity of Life. It seems the site is being bombarded by “Republicans” who want to get rid of these planks in our Platform. Please comment on the “ideas” that want to approve same sex marriage and get “pro-life” completely out of our Platform.
I wrote one of my (long) posts in response to “Remove Pro-life from the Party Platform,” here:
This idea can’t be considered by the Republican Party. The major difference between our Party and all others is the basic belief in and defense of the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution means nothing without the right to life. The freedom from tyranny that the Constitution preserves is nothing without the security “that all men are created equal and endowed by God with *unalienable* rights, …Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The definition of human being is scientific, it’s not arbitrary or dependent on stage of life or geography. Once we stop assuming that all human individuals are endowed with these rights and allow the government to decide which humans are human enough to have these inalienable rights protected by the force of law, we all become slaves to the majority, whether that majority is in numbers or the power of the biggest guns. We are the only species having this conversation.
Federal judge overturns State law, again:
Costa granted a preliminary injunction on five sections of the law until a trial on whether the entire law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights and the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.
Key points
Under the ruling, the state may no longer require that deputy voter registrars live in Texas, a law Voting for America said prevented it from organizing voter registration drives.It also may not prevent deputy registrars from registering voters who live outside their county; prevent organizations from firing or promoting employees based on the number of voters registered; prevent organizations from making photocopies of completed voter registration forms for their records; or prevent deputy registrars from mailing completed applications.
via Judge guts vote registration law – Houston Chronicle.
County Clerks are responsible for registering voters and maintaining the voter rolls,and they swear in the Deputy Voter registrars, but the judge says that County lines and even State residency don’t matter anymore. Anyone who wants to come in from out of State may grab a handful of voter registration cards and fill them out , copy the information, and even mail in completed forms.
Please Contact the Texas Department of State Health Services to Register Your Opposition to Tax Funding for Planned Parenthood!
Deadline on MONDAY
Please immediately contact the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and register your opposition to tax funding for Planned Parenthood in a new state health program.
DSHS is creating a new state-funded program, called the Texas Women’s Health Program (TWHP), to provide preventative health care for low-income women. The services will including some STD screening and treatments, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and contraceptives. The new state program will replace the Medicaid Women’s Health Program, which is expected to come to an end in October. The new TWHP will provide the same or more services as the Medicaid program it replaces.
See a sample message and contact information below. Comments must be received by Monday, August 6.
Email — click here to email to CHSS@dshs.state.tx.us.
“Dear Ms. Garcia,
“This is a comment regarding the proposed rules for the Texas Women’s Health Program published in the Texas Register on July 6, 2012.
“Please assure that Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide or promote elective abortion are not eligible for public funding under the Texas Women’s Health Program. Planned Parenthood runs 14 abortion facilities in Texas, and they promote elective abortion at every one of its sites in Texas even where they do not perform abortion. I do not want my tax dollars to go to organizations that perform or promote abortions as a method of family planning”
“—–Your name and address
BACKGROUND
For more information, visit Governor Rick Perry’s website, Fighting for Women’s Health: http://governor.state.tx.us/initiatives/womens_health/.
Here’s a (YouTube) video of Texas Alliance for Life’s executive director, Joe Pojman, Ph.D.: Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director. This video interviews Texas Alliance for Life’s board member, Dr. Beverly Nuckols: Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician
Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) is a non-sectarian, non-partisan, pro-life organization of people committed to protecting innocent human lives from conception through natural death through peaceful, legal means. TAL is a statewide organization based in the Texas capital.
www.TexasAllianceforLife.org 512.477.1244
twitter.com @TXAlliance4Life facebook.com/TexasAllianceforLife
Update, January 25, 2016 Read about the endorsement from Governor Perry
“I wanted to talk about him, who he was, see if I could get a handle on Ted Cruz the man, not Cruz the caricature I’d seen through the political lens. What I found was a very different person than what I had been led to believe.”
******
Espousing unconstrained majoritarianism, (Theodore Roosevelt) disdained Madison’s belief that the ultimate danger is wherever ultimate power resides, which in a democracy is with the majority.
George Will. Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Will-Forgotten-heroes-of-1912-3758656.php#ixzz22Z0xb3FN (link to bio by me, BBN)
Texas Senate District 25 is Conservative, Pro-life & Pro-family!
Donna Campbell wins 2:1 victory!!
Have we in the Republican Party really come so low that we only look at charisma and ethnicity?
Slate.com is a long time online and very left leaning news site. Today, the article by David Wiegle, “The Inescapable Logic of Nominating Ted Cruz for Senate” proves that they don’t think very highly of Republicans, especially Conservative Republicans.
…Only toward the end of the editorial do we get some sound logic for Cruz.
“[A]s the Houston-raised son of a Cuban immigrant, he is proof positive that the American dream is very much alive and well — if in desperate need of defenders within the political system. Mr. Cruz can provide that defense in a way that Mr. Dewhurst simply is not equipped to do.”
Ah, there we go. Cruz is 42 and Hispanic. Dewhurst is 66 and white.
So there you have it: This man believes that a “white man” in his 60’s can’t represent the American Dream, no matter his humble beginnings and his own evidence that the American Dream of success is possible.
I don’t believe the bulk of Conservatives have reached that point, yet. The trouble is that a lot of our Party members are young and/or just got out of their recliners to join in our electoral process. They are vulnerable to the loudest and most brash of our “leaders” who deceive them about the process and possibilities of legislative elective office.
The fact is that inertia is built into the system of Government, both at the State (especially) at the Federal level. Most of the time that’s a good thing!
David Dewhurst knows the ins and outs of government, he can balance budgets, convince men and women to form coalitions and get things done. Most of all, he knows how to move that inertia we call Government to success as in ‘The Texas Miracle.” (The year-round Senate in DC will probably seem too much, too long to him.)
Please consider voting for David Dewhurst for US Senator from the great State of Texas!
jroger777: So
if the #TeaParty fails to show up and the retirees get real excited about voting for Dewhurst then @tedcruz won’t be our next #TXSen (Twitter comment on a poll showing that people over 65 are more likely to vote for David Dewhurst)
By now, we’ve all heard that there’s a runoff race on for Texas’ U.S. Senator Republican candidate. Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst has received the endorsement of Governor Rick Perry, 18 of 19 Republican State Senators, and the bulk of State-Wide office holders. Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz is backed by many leaders of the “Tea Party,” especially those most interested in controlling illegal immigration. South Carolina’s Senator Jim DeMint recruited former Texas Solicitor Ted Cruz to run last year and has been campaigning with him this past weekend. We’ve seen the fanfare with Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, and Rick Santorum. A few know that Norman Adams, who masterminded the “Texas Solution” guest worker Plank in the Republican Party of Texas 2012 Platform, endorsed Cruz in the Primary.
But who are the grassroots supporters and what do they say in support of and against the candidates? One way to get an idea is to follow the race, the candidates and their “fans” on the social networking sites. The most popular are Facebook and Twitter. A cadre of supporters of both candidates post on Twitter, gathering together under the “hashtag” (see my “Primer” below) #TxSen, That’s why I’ve been putting the # in the title of most of my posts for the last month or so.
I posted about the news coverage and fallout from one conversation on Twitter back in early June, when Katrina Pierson, founder of Garland, Texas Tea Party and Grassroots Texans Network, and volunteer for Cruz, called former Marine Captain Dan Moran “a deformed disabled vet.”
That was about the time I got wrapped up in Facebook and Twitter – especially Twitter – – okay, addicted to Twitter – political social networking. I also started saving a few of the more notable Tweets sent by the Cruz crowd. (Sometimes derogatorily called “Cruzbots.” I wouldn’t do that. I call them the #CruzClan.)
Unfortunately, the conversation above is not that unusual, except that it got some press. The @DavidHDewhurst fans (voters) tend to be polite and rule followers. In contrast, the @tedcruz supporters follow a different drummer. I’ve argued politics on the Internet for nearly 20 years and have never seen the spite and name calling that comes from the #CruzClan, even when talking to atheists, pro-aborts and RonPaulers. That last statement reads like an incredible exaggeration, even to me, but just watch #TxSen or my “feed” after this blog is published.
The biggest surprise came in the form of questions indicating that some of the #CruzClan might not agree with their candidate, who says he’s pro-life and believes in laws protecting marriage as “one man and one woman,” on “social issues,” such as abortion and marriage. Here are a few examples:
I had a several-day discussion about the Constitution and abortion with this Cruz supporter:
Even with a limit of 140 characters, the discussion followed the same old pattern that all such conversations do.
Wonder how popular Cruz will be with his fans in a couple of years, if he’s elected, but proves more or less Conservative – and effective in the designed-to-be-immovable-Senate than they expect him to be?
If you are reading this on your computer or phone, you have all the skills necessary to be a social networker on Twitter. Join in!
If you want to see – or “follow” – the real time conversation, you have to sign up for Twitter at Twitter.com. (Hint: Pick the shortest name you can, so you don’t eat up the 140 character limit!) If you are interested in a topic or person, enter the word or name in the search box at the top. You can save the search to return to it over and over. You may have to pick the most appropriate result, or find your specific interest as a “hashtag” – subjects that appear frequently enough to form a subheading or group of Tweets – in the list of Tweets given. “Top Conservatives on Twitter” is a good place to start, #tcot. Or #TxSen/#txsen, “Texas Senate” will allow you to follow that subject through the election.
You’ll also see a list of people who tweet about your subject. People are contacted and referred to by @TheirName. I’m @bnuckols.
I received this in my e-mail, this morning. As a mother, a grandmother and long time advocate against the abuse of children and for smaller government, and fewer laws, with appropriate punishment for REAL crimes, I couldn’t agree more!
To the voters of Texas,
Police and Law enforcement put their lives on the line to protect the public from those who would hurt our most vulnerable, our children.
Ted Cruz chose to defend a man, Robert Mericle, who took part in a judicial kickback scheme the resulted in 4000 children being incarcerated for profit. This scheme was reprehensible and exploited these children so that Cruz’s client and the corrupt judges he bribed could make millions in profits.
Now Ted Cruz’s campaign is sending out a mailer to Texans claiming that this felon and child exploiter helped prosecutors. Ted Cruz should be ashamed of himself for making this claim, when he knows his client is a convicted felon who hurt kids.
Ted Cruz tried to get his client Mericle out of paying his victims, the children, the damages Cruz’s client owed them. And now Cruz is trying to paint this villain as a hero.
To follow the chain of Cruz’s logic–every cornered criminal who cooperates with prosecutors to save their skin would be treated as a hero.
Ted Cruz needs to answer whether he personally approved this mailer his campaign sent out. Does Mr. Cruz really believe his client Robert Mericle is someone who should be applauded for his role in this scandal?
Ted Cruz’s inability to admit that his client was a convicted felon who exploited children raises serious questions about whether he has the judgment and character to represent Texas in any way.
Sincerely,
Charley Wilkison
Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)
Texas Conservative Leaders Endorse Dewhurst | Dewhurst for Texas.
To the voters of Texas,
Across the Lone Star State, Texas Republicans are lining up behind conservative David Dewhurst in the race for U.S. Senate. Today, we are proud to do the same.
For years, we have worked alongside Governor Perry and David Dewhurst to create the best business climate in America. That conservative record of achievement has made Texas the envy of the nation, and the strongest state economy in America.
By turning conservative principles into conservative action, the Texas success story is known around the globe. Publication after publication and business upon business recognize that the Lone Star State shines above the rest as the measuring stick for economic success.
David Dewhurst has been a driving force behind the conservative policies that led to the Texas Miracle. In 2003, David brought the business skills he learned as the founder of a successful energy company in his approach to state government.
Since then, Texas has balanced five straight budgets without raising taxes. In contrast, it has been over 1,000 days since Washington has produced a budget. We cut taxes and fees 51 times to save taxpayers $14.5 billion. Meanwhile, Washington is trying to pass more and more tax hikes.
The contrast between Texas and Washington couldn’t be any clearer. David Dewhurst is the right conservative to bring the Texas model to Washington, and get America back to work.
We proudly endorse David Dewhurst for U.S. Senate.
For Texas and for America,
Senator John Carona
Dallas, Texas
Senator Bob Deuell
Greenville, Texas
Senator Bob Duncan
Lubbock, Texas
Senator Kevin Eltife
Tyler, Texas
Senator Craig Estes
Wichita Falls, Texas
Senator Troy Fraser
Horseshoe Bay, Texas
Senator Chris Harris
Arlington, Texas
Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr.
Katy, Texas
Senator Joan Huffman
Houston, Texas
Senator Mike Jackson
La Porte, Texas
Senator Jane Nelson
Flower Mound, Texas
Senator Robert Nichols
Jacksonville, Texas
Senator Steve Ogden
Bryan, Texas
Senator Dan Patrick
Houston, Texas
Senator Kel Seliger
Amarillo, Texas
Senator Florence Shapiro
Plano, Texas
Senator Jeff Wentworth
San Antonio, Texas
Senator Tommy Williams
The Woodlands, Texas
I received this Press Release from the David Dewhurst Campaign this afternoon. No one should be surprised, since Texas is # 1 for business several years in a row, according to many different measures.
As the wife of a Texas Businessman, as a member of Texas Medical Association and Texas Alliance for Life (the latter two have also endorsed Lt. Governor Dewhurst) and a proud member of the Texas Republican Party, I’m proud to post it here:
July 28, 2012
http://www.dewhurstfortexas.com press@dewhurstfortexas.com
As a lifelong businessman, David Dewhurst has been a friend and champion for businesses in Texas. He understands that in order to thrive, small businesses and the private sector need a predictable, stable business environment. That’s why over the last nine years, Dewhurst has implemented the lightest regulatory hand to help create the best business climate in the country.
Texas has consistently been rated the best state to do business in the country, most recently by CNBC as the top state for business. In the last three years alone, nearly half of all the jobs created in America were in Texas. Now, Dewhurst wants to bring the Texas economic model of success to Washington.
“As a United States Senator, David Dewhurst would help spread the Texas economic miracle to the rest of the country,” said Dewhurst Advisor Mark Miner. “In Texas, David Dewhurst and Governor Rick Perry have removed the red tape and gotten government out of the way to allow small businesses to succeed. Texans know David Dewhurst will create a better business climate in Washington, because he’s already proven he can do it in Texas.”
The following Texas business groups and organizations, which comprise more than two million members, have endorsed Dewhurst in his bid for U.S. Senate.
- Texas Oil & Gas PAC
- Texas Restaurant Association
- Texas Medical Association TEXPAC
- Texas Association of Realtors
- Texas Association of Builders (Home PAC)
- Texas Association of Hospitals (HOSPAC)
- Texas Society of Professional Engineers
- Texas Association of Business (BACPAC)
- Texas Association of Manufacturers
- Texas Apartment Association
- Texas Property Rights Association (STPRA Fed. PAC)
- Texas Civil Justice League
Paid for by Dewhurst for Texas
Dr. Donna Campbell is in the runoff election for Senate District 25 against pro-abort “Hairy-legged male,” incumbent Jeffrey Earl Wentworth.
Hairy, uh, Jeff has pulled out some statement about the Fair Tax or Flat Tax that Donna may have made years ago,adds in some testimony about a Texas sales tax that Donna commented on other to say she’d consider it if it lowered taxes, and claims that Dr. Campbell would back a 35% sales tax. Politifact Texas has evaluated that claim and not only is it “False,” it’s a “Pants on Fire’ lie.
At Monday night’s debate in Houston between Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz, Republicans in the runoff for the US Senate race(Twitter #TxSen), I met a couple who said they were still “undecided” about who to vote for. They asked why I was supporting Lt. Governor David Dewhurst over Ted Cruz. They were surprised that I believed his record is so strong and hadn’t even heard about Ted Cruz’ speculation to reporters that Governor Perry wanted to get Lt. Governor Dewhurst elected because he wanted Dewhurst out of Austin. The fact that these two went to the effort to attend a debate on a Monday night made me believe that they are actually informed voters, but that if these two people don’t know the issues, perhaps many others don’t either.
I’ve covered some of this in other posts on WingRight, including my last Post, “An Open Letter to Texas Voters,” and you can read about the support David Dewhurst received from 18 of the 19 Republicans in the 31 member Texas Senate, here. Here are more specific reasons why I support pro-life, pro-marriage, small government candidate Lt. Governor David Dewhurst for US Senator from Texas.
As I’m sure you know, Texas has a quirky system, where our Lieutenant Governor is more powerful than our Governor in many respects. If you want to know what Lt. Governor Dewhurst will do in the US Senate, look at just some of the laws he’s helped pass over the last 10 yrs:
Governor Perry, with the help of Lt. Gov. Dewhurst and the Texas Senate, refused to accept those “Stimulus funds” for education and unemployment insurance that would have forced us to change our laws in 2011. Yes, we used some stimulus funds that didn’t require us to change our laws, but, as our former Senator, Phil Gramm said,
“(I)f the Congress had a vote on whether to build a cheese factory on the Moon, I would oppose it based on what I know now, and I cannot imagine the circumstance under which I would support it. But on the other hand, if Congress in its lack of wisdom decided to start a cheese factory on the Moon, I would want a Texas firm to do the engineering, I would want a Texas construction firm to do the construction, I would want the milk to come from Texas cows, and I would want the celestial distribution center to be in Dallas, Texas, or College Station, Texas, or somewhere else in my State.”
These are just the highlights of a career that began the same year that 11 Democrat Senators left Austin on a supporter’s plane in order to hide out in Albuquerque New Mexico for a full month in order to deny the Senate a Quorum and avoid losing the votes on Congressional redistricting.
You might have read that Dewhurst increased taxes, with the misleading statistic that our revenues went up over the last 10 years. Increased revenues do not necessarily mean increased taxes! They also go up with the growth of the economy. Texas’ population went up over 20% and our State added more jobs than all the other States combined in the same time period. These were good jobs, and they went to legal residents who come into our State at the rate of 1000 people a WEEK! The fact is that even the Club for Growth, who is now backing Mr. Cruz, stated last year that Texas’ spending has actually gone down over the last 10 years, when adjusted for population and inflation.
How did we spend that money? Mr Cruz knows exactly how: he was the lawyer who worked out a deal in Federal Court when he was Solicitor General that bound the State to increase spending on Medicaid. He uses this spending from his agreement against the Lt. governor.
You might also read that Dewhurst supported a “payroll tax,” or even an “income tax.” These accusations are based on words in a press release and an editorial against the Lt Governor, from 2006. These weren’t the words used in the Bill that is bandied about, and that Bill never became law. In the law that was eventually passed, there are three ways to calculate our State business franchise tax. One of those is a tax based on employee pay, minus benefits. But there are two other ways, and the business chooses the best way for them. More telling is that our Attorney General won the case proving that the tax is not an income tax, last November. Cruz knew that his claim was wrong as from the beginning of his ads and web campaign against Dewhurst.
You can find my other posts on the US Senate race here.
Early voting will start on July 23 and goes through Friday, July 27. Election day is July 31, the Tuesday following.
During early voting, Comal County residents may vote at any of the following four polling places:
Pleas consider voting for Dr Donna Campbell for our State Senator for District 25, and for Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst for US Senator.
If you’re not from Comal County and still reading this, and for the other races in Comal County, please take a look at the recommendations at Texas Alliance for Life’s Pro-life Voter’s hub. http://www.texasallianceforlife.org/VotersHub.aspx
For other Counties, you can find your early voting places at the Secretary of State’s website, here.
Just a reminder here about how important it is to vote in the July 31 Texas Primary Runoff, and to vote for Donna Campbell for Texas Senate District 25. Early voting is cool and begins Monday, July 23, going through July 27!
I’m inclined to say only one candidate is acting like a dog in this race. Donna has made it a policy to refrain from the low, personal attacks that went on between Wentworth and Elizabeth Ames Jones in the last 6 months.
But that didn’t stop Wentworth’s campaign from putting out a 28 page dossier on Dr. Campbell and her family, including a note about problems her now husband had 15 years before they married!
State Sen. Jeff Wentworth personally apologized to his GOP re-election opponent, Dr. Donna Campbell, for releasing opposition research regarding her husband that she called trashy, tawdry, sleazy and out of bounds.Wentworth called disclosure of a 1985 DWI conviction before their marriage a “regrettable incident” in the July 31 runoff campaign.But four days later, the same information was disseminated by the Wentworth campaign, a move seen as a desperate attempt to survive a vigorous challenge from tea party-backed Campbell.Welcome to Texas politics.
via Campbell, Wentworth in dogfight of a runoff for Senate – San Antonio Express-News.
My last video post might have seemed too cryptic or as though I left out a few details. In addition, you might have heard or read that the case was a “private civil suit.”
Mericle plead to a lesser offense ( not a real fan of that, either) of tax fraud carried out to hide his participation in the Cash for Kids crime. Two judges have been convicted ofsending juveniles to jail for frivolous charges. Sometimes for years.
Mericle was also sued in civil court for his part in the scheme. He lost, but didn’t think he should actually have to give up his profits – out of his own pockets, for pity’s sake – to the victims! So, he then then tried to sue his insurance company, Traveler’s, to pay for the settlement! Not surprisingly, Traveler’s balked at covering Mericle for his “damages,” incurred during the commission of a crime. And he lost, again.
The “Civil appeal” was a repeat effort to force Traveler’s insurance to pay the civil suit judgement against Mericle. After all if at first you lose in court, sue, sue again!
Mericle and Cruz lost that go ’round.
More victims, if Cruz had had his way, would have been everyone with insurance through Travelers, whose premiums would have gone up.
Texas Senate candidate Lt Governor David Dewhurst’s New web ad shocks, with Ted Cruz’ own recorded words in defense of his client, the developer who helped exploit children and the juvenile justice system in Pennsylvania courts.
Here’s where to find the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2L-OhuNiE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
How does Congress reign in this Administration’s penchant for ignoring the letter and spirit of the law? Some headlines claim the Administration is “bypassing Congress! (and what’s next?)
The idea of allowing States more leeway sounds good until you read that the Obama admin will allow studying for GED to count. There’s not a thing wrong with working while taking classes. Lots of us did it.
Working to qualify for assistance from the Government is a reasonable expectation.
Republicans came out strongly against a quiet policy change by the Obama administration that could change how states administer welfare.
Under the new policy, federal waivers would allow states to test new approaches to improving employment among low-income families. In exchange, states would have to prove that their new methods are effective, or lose the waivers.
Republicans blasted the change as “gutting” work requirements in the landmark 1996 welfare-to-work law known as TANF.
via Romney, GOP blast Obama for ‘gutting’ welfare reform law – The Hill’s Healthwatch.
I believe in assisting people who have bad luck and hard times, although I do believe private charity is preferable.
One reason it’s better than government assistance is that government puts in more rules, and is much more likely to invade privacy of recipients. Then, there’s a difference between taking money from someone by force of law (with the accompanying threats of fines, prison) and freely giving of what you have out of compassion.
There’s also the personal indebtedness that comes from person to person charity and assistance. Taxpayer funded aide doesn’t cause the beneficiary to have reciprocal emotional attachment to the one giving the aide It’s good to see and hopefully understand and mirror the feeling of sacrifice by the giver. And it’s good to feel grateful and indebted. (And it’s more likely to cause the person who receives to be compelled to “pass it on” to someone else when able later on.
And back to that original question: this Administration ignores the law that’s written, so new law won’t help much. What can the rest of us or our Legislators do to keep them from flaunting the law and the Constitution?
In spite of the Open Letter to Texans from the Senate Republican Caucus, people on Twitter (follow the subject tag #TxSen), Facebook and even RedState.com are still making the accusation that Lieutenant Governor Dewhurst “proposed” or “supported” a personal income tax and/or a “wage” or “payroll” tax for Texas, back in 2006. I’ve touched on the subject before, but thought I’d post a more detailed explanation.
There’s a quote all over the Internet, used to prove that the LG made a statement in favor of the income tax when in fact, the comment is taken out of context. Dewhurst was objecting to adding another burden to small businesses and start ups. Unfortunately, the original Associated Press March 30, 2006 article, “Businesses studying proposed tax structure,” by April Castro, is not available online. (A Screen shot of the first page of one newspaper that carried the article is here in pdf, but there’s no quote from Dewhurst in this part. I haven’t been able to find any online version carrying the supposed quote.) However, here’s a summary from Politifacts debunking of the claim;
A March 30, 2006, AP news article, headlined “Businesses studying proposed tax structure,” indeed quotes Dewhurst as saying: “I think I’d rather see a tax that’s based on income — you earn money, you pay something, you don’t earn money, you don’t pay anything.”
We can see why a critic would single out that comment, though the full AP story indicates that Dewhurst was speaking to the particulars of revamping the business franchise tax rather than advancing his desire to create a personal or business income tax.
The story initially points out that lawmakers had previously stumbled over how to restructure the business tax, which most corporations did not owe. “They worried that proposals would not apply equally to different business structures,” the article says. “And business-friendly Republicans have been hesitant to levy a new tax that could be harmful to job creation and economic growth.”
According to the story, the consensus proposed fix — which was a plan devised by a panel headed by John Sharp, a former Texas state comptroller — would tax businesses on a percentage of their gross receipts, meaning the money a company brought in before expenses, with each company choosing between deductions for cost of goods sold or employee benefits like salary and health care. The story says sole proprietors and general partnerships would be exempt, along with companies that have annual gross receipts of $300,000 or less.
For more than 80 years, the story says, the state’s main business tax had been based on a company’s net assets, though lawmakers changed it in 1991 to make it more like a corporate income tax. Texas companies subsequently had the choice of paying either 0.25 percent of the value of their net assets or 4.5 percent of their net corporate income, whichever was greater, according to a 2003 report on Texas taxes by the nonpartisan House Research Organization.
The LG’s comment was in fact made in opposition of one idea floated during the 2005/2006 update of Texas’ 100 yr old tax business franchise tax, so that all businesses, whether they made a profit or not, had to pay on gross receipts.
In order to lower property taxes and comply with a Federal Court ruling that allowing local school districts to max out the property tax was a de facto State income tax, Governor Perry named an independent Commission in 2005, under the leadership of John Sharp, a fairly conservative Democrat. (Texas has a lot of those as well as left radicals.)
Before, there had been a lot of loopholes and exempted businesses, so that only 6% of businesses paid at all.. When the franchise tax was broadened to include nearly all businesses in Texas, lots of ideas floated around. It took a couple of years, but the final tax ended up with an exemption of the first $150K and then the next session amended that to the first $300K.
Another claim – currently seen in Cruz’ TV ads – is that Dewhurst “actively supported” a “payroll tax” during this process. Cruz cherry picks two words from a Press Release issued by the Dewhurst staff in 2006. One Senate version of the franchise tax rework praised the Senate for passing a bill that included School finance and the business tax changes. The term is only used once, in paragraph 4 and is not actually in the Bill. There are quotes around the statements by Dewhurst, but no quotes are found in the part that uses the words “payroll tax.” The Press Release notes that businesses had the option to choose between the two ways to calculate that tax, one based on income alone and one adjusted by employees payroll with exemptions, but doesn’t advocate one way over the other. (That version never passed into law.)
Attorney General Abbott successfully defended the tax against a lawsuit claiming that the franchise tax was an income tax on sole proprietorships and small partnerships in August, 2011, and the ruling from the Texas Supreme Court was reported in November, 2011.