Politics

Follow @bnuckols Tweets @CPACNews #CPAC2012

Take a look at the far right sidebar for my tweets, or search Twitter #CPAC2010 Governor Palin will be up in about an hour, watch on CSPAN, CPAC.org

CPAC: My first and probably my last

I have a new expletive or two for really, really, really bad “screw ups”: one is CPAC and the other is the name of one particular rude CPAC staffer I encountered.

I’ve had a miserable time at CPAC, the only shining moments were Governor Rick Perry’s speech, Andrew Brietbart’s rant about Obama and the “silver pony-tail gang”, and the Presidential Banquet with Paul Ryan’s talk and the privilege of meeting some wonderful Conservatives. I was especially struck by one panelist’s comment that the proof that faith and family are priorities and that the proof is that the TEA Party hasn’t literally formed a third party.

I’ll complain about the Convention itself later, but, first, the Politics!

Here at CPAC, virtually everyone who finds out I’m from Texas told me they were rooting for Perry and/or that he was their first choice. The exceptions were one who switched over from Sarah Palin, two that were interested in Cain, and one Ron Pauler; all but the Pauler had supported Perry while he was in the race.

Governor Perry’s speech was extraordinary and had more passion and truth than all the current candidates’ speeches. He gave the boldest speech so far.

For the Powers That Be, all the candidates should have acted like they were at CPAC. Early in the speeches, we needed to hear their conservative ideas, social issues, and self-criticism of their past mistakes, preferably with a passionate conversion story, preferably one that made us all know how strong and permanent the change has been. At CPAC convince us that you could smell the brimstone and feel the singe of the heat.

Instead: We got Santorum’s very sad-faced family and 20 minutes of foot-stomping and whining without any substantial plan, Romney’s wide-eyed gaze at us, and his assumption that he’s already won and we’d better study his 50 page plan. Newt not only had his friend introduce Saint Calista, but Newt himself gave us big government plans to *replace* the EPA with a new Federal bureaucracy and *reform* the FDA, both of which should be abolished and their regulations returned to the States.

And now, to my own rant about the Conference: I have a new expletive or two for really, really bad times: one is CPAC and the other is the name of the incredibly rude staffer I encountered on Thursday

My husband and I have attended several very large conventions (The Texas Straw poll in ’07, the Value Voters Summit in DC in ’08, American Academy of Family Physicians with up to 10,000 in attendance, the National Pawnbroker’s Convention, and the Texas Republican State Convention, etc.) The system and facilities for CPAC2012 are the worst I’ve ever experienced.

The Marriott’s too small, the ballroom was set up wrong, and no one could have designed a more dangerous traffic pattern, even without the Mormon missionaries standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking traffic in the halls and lobbies.

I could never recommend that anyone pay for “Platinum Package.” Several people have said that they should have saved the money and gone “Diamond.” And it turns out that there’s another level of Very, Very Important People, but none of the rest of us get to even glimpse them.

I’m told that all previous CPACs offered less security rules and presence and more access to the Candidates and celebrities. That access was exactly why I asked my husband to buy me the “Platinum Package” tickets for my birthday this year. I also signed up for Blogger credentials (free), as well.

Well, there was no access.

The bloggers were divided weeks ago into the in-crowd and the rest of us.

And money can’t buy happiness, either. I’ve been in more lines this week than I thought possible, and there has been very little of the promised “special lines.” Even the “VIP entrance” is a joke: I’ve been stopped more than half the time and then still fight the fire-hazard crowds in the single in/out aisle. On the first day, I couldn’t find and empty chair in the “Platinum/Diamond” area until after noon. The Platinum Balconies offer little or no view and the food is available for very limited times.

The opportunity to hear the 3 main candidates in one day and to meet some great Conservatives is the only benefit I’ve seen this week at CPAC. (You can follow my tweets @bnuckols )

Unfunded “compromise:” who pays for it?

I mean, besides the insurance companies? Your neighborhood doctor and pharmacist will be forced to pay their “fair share,” too, I bet

Washington (CNN) — The White House announced a compromise Friday in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.

Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.

There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. And pills, diaphragms, and sterilizations don’t come free, either.

The end goal and the certain end result of this administration is to push private medicine out of business. We will all soon work for Uncle Sam unless we can turn the policies around.

Do you want to go to DC, hat in hand, for the health care your family and loved ones need?

Christian Medical Association on Contraception Mandate:Senate Dems block debate

The CMA sent out a couple of press releases by email, today on the attempts by members of Congress and the Senate, including some Democrats, to overturn the ObamaCare mandate that everyone who offers health insurance to their employees must offer plans that pay for contraception. The mandate would require Catholic health systems and schools to provide coverage that is against long held Church teachings.  (Disclosure, I’m Baptist, think true contraception is ok, and I’m the Chair of the Family Medicine Section of the CMA which is the same as the much longer, Christian Medical and Dental Association, the CMDA.)

Christian Medical Association: Contraception mandate fits pattern of assaults on conscience and religious liberty

Washington, DC–February 9, 2012: The 16,000-member Christian Medical Association today issued a statement asserting that the government’s mandate of contraception coverage nationwide fits a growing pattern of assaulting and restricting First Amendment freedoms of conscience and faith.

CMA CEO Dr. David Stevens noted, “The government contraception mandate violates the First Amendment rights and sensibilities of any individual or organization morally committed to life-honoring faith principles. The coercion likewise tramples the conscience rights of health care professionals ethically committed to the historic Hippocratic oath. And it fits a deplorable pattern of disregard for First Amendment freedoms.

“In the past three years, people of faith and conscience have witnessed the gutting of the only federal regulation protecting the exercise of conscience in health care; the denial of federal grant funds for aiding human trafficking victims because a faith-based organization refused to participate in abortion; the administration’s lobbying of the Supreme Court to restrict faith-based organizations’ hiring rights; and a coercive contraceptive mandate that imposes the government’s ideology on the faith-based and pro-life communities.

“The contraception mandate’s affront to religious freedom actually extends well beyond the Catholic Church, since many physicians and patients outside the Catholic tradition hold that it is morally or ethically wrong to risk ending the life of a developing human being by using pills such as ella and the morning-after pill. These pills are falsely promoted as ordinary contraceptives despite clear FDA label warnings that ‘ella may also work by preventing attachment (implantation) to the uterus’ and that the morning-after pill (Plan B) “may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium.'”

“To force every American to subsidize an ideological agenda that many find morally or ethically abhorrent is the antithesis of American First Amendment freedoms of religion and conscience.

“The First Amendment issue of religious and conscience liberty impacts Americans of all political stripes. Conscience freedoms protect Americans left, right and center, on issues ranging from abortion to the death penalty, from participation in war to the right to protest political actions such as we are witnessing now.

“Every American, regardless of political persuasion, should be protesting these assaults on our freedoms and contacting legislators to enact conscience-protecting legislation such as the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, introduced in the House by Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb. 1st) and in the Senate by Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

“As Dr. Martin Luther King reminds us, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'”

To remedy the assault on religious liberty and conscience freedoms, the Christian Medical Association supports the following legislation:

S. 1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

S. 2043 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012

S. 906 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

S. 877 – Protect Life Act

S. 165 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 1179 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act

H.R. 361 – Abortion Non-Discrimination Act

H.R. 358 – Protect Life Act

H.R. 3 – No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

Senate Democrats Block Debate on Religious Freedom Amendment

‘Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.  And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it.’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on the Senate floor Thursday regarding the Democrats’ refusal to allow consideration of an amendment on the Obama administration’s mandate in the health care law that violates the First Amendment rights of religious institutions:

“Our country is unique in the world because it was established on the basis of an idea: that we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights — in other words, rights that are conferred not by a king or a president or a Congress, but by the Creator himself. The state protects these rights, but it doesn’t grant them.

“And what the state doesn’t grant, the state can’t take away. That’s what this week’s debate on a particularly odious outcome from the President’s health care law has been about: Our founders believed so strongly that the government should neither establish a religion, nor prevent its free exercise that they listed it as the very first item in the Bill of Rights.

“And Republicans are trying today to reaffirm that basic right. But Democrats won’t allow it. They won’t allow those of us who were sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution to even offer an amendment that says we believe in our First Amendment right to religious freedom. I never thought I’d see the day. I’ve spent a lot of time in my life defending the First Amendment. But I never thought I’d see the day when the elected representatives of the people of this country would be blocked by a majority party in Congress to even express their support for it.”

Jonathan Imbody

Vice President for Government Relations

Christian Medical Association – est. 1931, now 16,000 members

CMA Washington office: P.O. Box 16351 • Washington, DC 20041

703.723.8688 • http://www.cmawashington.org

Director, Freedom2Care – 50 groups and 29,000 individuals advancing conscience rights

http://www.Freedom2Care.org  Twitter: @Freedom2Care

#CPAC2012 day 1 @CPACnews

In the spirit of “if you can’t say anything good, don’t say anything at all,” nothing follows.

#OccupyCPAC Plans Assaults in DC – Can anybody explain this??

Where does the urge to be a spoiler, to hurt others by assault come from? What would possess a grown person to plan to make false fire alarms and try to shut down a Conference?

What should CPAC attendees do when the fire alarm goes off or someone shouts “fire” in a crowded ballroom or hall?

The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming “fire” during conference activities, “glitter-bombing” participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

“Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,” the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, “said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’”

via ‘Speakers Will Be Physically Assaulted!’ Occupy DC Plans Mayhem at CPAC – Occupy Wall Street – Fox Nation.

There wasn’t a sign of any trouble on Wednesday night during early registration and check in for those who’d pre-registered.

I wonder whether CPAC-ers will be the first group to occupy an Occupy event? We’ve done this sort of thing, before. I’ll have two video cameras ready to go, and so will my friend.

Nominate a grassroots blogger for CPAC Blogger of the Year! @SonjaHHarris @CPAC2012

Do we want a big name blogger – one who is nearly a member of the traditional media – named to the CPAC Blogger of the Year? Or do we want a grassroots, self-taught blogger like you and me to represent us?

I know many of the bloggers who will most likely be nominated and would be proud to call them friends, but Sonja Harris better represents me and most of the Pajamas crowd.

So read the blog, nominate Red Sonja!

EMAIL THIS FORM, FILLED OUT WITH YOUR INFORMATION, TO BloggerAward@conservative.org

CPAC 2012 Blogger of the Year Award
Please submit nominations by COB on Wednesday, February 8

Your Name: ____________________
Your Organization/Blog:_____________
Your Email Address: ___________________
NOMINEE: ________Sonja Harris, Conservatives in Action_____
Nominee’s Blog Title: Conservatives In Action_____________________
Nominee’s Blog URL: http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/
Nominee’s Twitter ID (if applicable): @SonjaHHarris
Nominee’s Email Address: __libertyphoto@att.net_________________________________

Description of Merit:

Self-taught conservative with an email list that is forwarded to over 10,000 readers a week, including Israeli and other international readers. While the e-mail is her biggest effort, Sonja has a facebook page https://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Conservatives-in-Action/219411951422716 and publishes a blog under the name “Red Sonja” at http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/
She also publishes on TexasGOPVote.com http://texasgopvote.com/users/sonja-harris
Sonja was a volunteer blogger for the Rick Perry campaign in Iowa http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/rick-perry-and-iowa-caucus-2012.html , live-blogged the Newt Gingrich/Herman Cain debate in Houston http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/11/cain-gingrich-debate-on-november-5-2012.html ,

and has covered Texas http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/06/medina-valley-hs-class-of-2011-and.html , national and international news.
Please read her coverage of Pro-life rallies, take a look at her photographs of political and social events and her series on art. http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/02/photographys-place-in-art-art-for-our.html
http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/04/arts-in-your-community.html
http://redsonja-conservativesinaction.blogspot.com/2011/04/art-and-conservatives.html

So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.
James 4:17
CONSERVATIVES IN ACTION

Conservative Advice For @MittRomney, @NewtGingrich2012, @RickSantorum

When Conservatives refuse to vote, we don’t just get fewer Republican voters. We end up with candidates chosen by the least knowledgeable voters.

Conservatives are the foundation of the Republican Party, the remnant that has opposed “statists,” “centrists” and “moderates” for years. We are the ones who the Reagan Democrats joined; the glue and pegs that held together his famous 3-legged stool. We know what the Left re-learns each election cycle but our own Party never seems to: Americans vote to the right of center.

To “Teach Them A Lesson” many Conservatives sat out the 2006 and 2008 elections and a others crossed over in the name of Chaos. The result of both strategies was the defeat of strong candidates in some Primaries, leaving Conservatives with a choice between a RINO, a Democrat or an under-vote. Many who appropriated the title of “conservatives” – those who had never been active (or even voted) in the Republican Party before and those who spent their “meet-up” time with the Libertarian Party – used any and all opportunities to infect the Party with their discontent in the name of “Re-love-ution.”

      The Democrats won a super majority in the House and Senate as well as the White House, allowing Nancy Pelosi to turn off the lights and kick reporters out of the Chamber and Harry Reid to pass “Obamacare” at midnight on Christmas Eve. Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangel, and John Conyers wielded Committee chairs when they should have been indicted. The media ignored our plainly stated opposition, under-reported our numbers and drowned out our voices as they proclaimed that we lost because the Left better represented the voters and the Country was ready for “Change!”

    The Democrat Senate refuses to pass a budget for the third year and the Obama told the Catholic Church she has a year to overturn 2000 years of doctrine on abortion.

     In spite of 2010 Tea Party victories and a Republican House, our Party had a hard time staying on task.  The “moderates” and some of our conservatives decided to woo independents. Last year’s CPAC invited gay GOProud  and Ann Coulter joined their Council. The Big Tent began to look more like a Circus Tent.

      The media and Democrats now claim the Tea Party is dead and that we’ll see a repeat of 2008 in November, 2012.

      Conservative voters deserve respect, if only for the power of our numbers. Even in 2006, where Conservative voters turned out to vote, Republicans gained offices. Show us you are listening, convince us that you have learned from the mistakes of your own and the Republican Party’s past.

      Republican candidates should search for common threads in our Republican Party Platform, Newt Gingrich’s Contract from America from 2010 and the videos and bloggers’ accounts of those early, nearly impromptu, Tea Party events in February through April, 2009. Send staff to CPAC this week, not to campaign but to listen and learn what Conservatives are concerned about, now.

What would I do to get the Tea Party and Conservatives to turn out to vote and support the Republican Party? Go Right, Candidates!

Quico Conseco, TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’

Hooray for Quico Conseco!

San Antonio – Speaking at a town hall meeting this week in Texas, a freshman Republican congressman, elected in 2010 with Tea Party support, took aim at Planned Parenthood by calling the group a “front for mass murder.”

In the somewhat tony Fair Oaks Ranch subdivision, just northwest of San Antonio, Francisco “Quico” Canseco (TX-23) told his audience PP was a “front for mass murder” which “needs to be abolished,” according to BuzzFeed. He added federal funding for support of National Public Radio is “like funding Democratic Public Radio.”

via Op-Ed: TX GOP congressman links Planned Parenthood to ‘mass murder’.

Time to review “If only we had a vaccine for hysteria”

I’ll give you something to be hysterical about:  Rosanne Barr has filed the paperwork to run as a candidate for President. For the Green Party. We can laugh all day about her taking votes from Ron Paul AND from Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, I don’t mean hysterical-funny. I mean the more common definition of a psychiatric condition involving emotional excesses.

(I’ve still got the button to donate to Rick Perry on the WingRight home page and have no intention to take it down, so take my advice with that in mind.)

We don’t have a vaccine for hysteria, although Michael Fumento called for one back in 1999 in his op-ed on the hullabaloo surrounding the anthrax vaccine. I used the reference when writing about the HPV vaccine, back in October, 2011.

Now that we’re getting down to the pure, partisan politics in the Republican Primary election for Presidential candidate, I think we all need to take a look at the destructive nature of hysteria on our Conservative priorities. We want a President and Congress that will cut spending, cut government interference in our lives and businesses, and protect our inalienable rights. It is still absolutely true that the worst of the Republican candidates will be much more likely to give us what we want than Barack Obama.

The Conservatives I know fall into two camps, both of which are inappropriate in my opinion.  Either they believe that Mitt Romney already has the nomination for Republican candidate sewn up or  they’re angrily vowing  not to vote in the Primary or the November election.

Dr. Jack Kelly at the To The Point blog (behind a pay wall) is in the first camp. He’s already moved on to nominating the future Romney Administration VP (Marco Rubio) and Secretary of State (John Bolton).

Over at FreeRepublic.com, there are plenty of FReepers in the second group. They have spent months vowing not to vote for Romney if he’s nominated. “No Romney, No Way!” and “FUMR!” are all over the place.

Let’s not forget that we still have a long Primary season ahead of us. Less than 5% of the 1100 eventual delegate votes are determined. We should each remember that Obama is much more our enemy than any of the Republican candidates. We should also each continue to support the candidate that best reflects our values, even if it’s our own version of “FUMR!”

Would you force Jews and Muslims to sell pork?

Starting next year, religious groups will have to push aside their core doctrines and pay for pills that either prevent pregnancies or end them.

“[I]t would be like the government mandating that all delis, even Kosher delis, serve pork products and then justifying it by saying that protein is healthy, and many Jews don’t follow Kosher laws and many non-Jews go to those delis,” writes Michael Doughtery of Business Insider. “The law wouldn’t technically ban Jews from owning delis, but it would effectively ban their ability to run them according to their conscience.”

via FRC Homepage.

Please let your Representative and Senators know that the new Obama Administration conscience rules and the requirements for insurance are not freedom.

Texas media lies about Texas “Sonogram Law”

An article, based on lies, by the Texas Tribune’s Emily Ramshaw was picked up by the New York Times Sunday (January 29th) edition.

The lies are neatly tied up in these two sentences:

” This past fall, doctors were required to start performing a transvaginal sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, a shift they say has had frustrating consequences for clinics and patients.”

and

“Now the physician performing the abortion — not an ultrasound technician, for example, or a secondary doctor — must conduct the sonogram on a separate day.”

(I have a “Google News search” for articles on the Texas Sonogram law, so I get emails as soon as they’re published. These same lies are duplicated in other articles and op-eds, like this one in “The Jurist,” from a law professor at the Saint Louis School of Law.)

Editor-in-Chief, Evan Smith, and Ramshaw at the Texas Tribune must know they’re publishing emotional falsehoods. Even Judge Sam Sparks knew better.

Anyone who has read the text of HB 15 or Judge Sam Spark’s ruling would know that we’ve had a formal informed consent process and a 24 hour waiting period since 2003, that there is no mandate to use a “transvaginal sonogram,” and that “an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers” may perform the sonogram. The doctor is required to show the sonogram “images,” to make the heartbeat audible and to describe the development of the embryo or fetus. That the language did not require that the actual, real-time sonogram be conducted by ” the physician performing the abortion” was clear to Judge Sparks. As he said,

     “The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private.”

Still, Ramshaw revealed some truth:

    “. . . a scheduling struggle when doctors providing elective abortions are in short supply and rotate between clinics.

“They’ve had to set aside a whole other day doing ultrasounds, visits that in most parts of medicine would be dedicated to people with less training than a physician,” Hagstrom Miller said. “The effect on their travel schedule, on their reimbursement, on patients’ access to them has been tremendous.”

In the typical elective abortion, there’s rarely any on-going doctor-patient relationship and the real problem is bureaucratic and financial.  The clinic owners are mostly worried about the money and their ability to get doctors to show up for the informed consent and to return the next day to perform the abortion.

And it’s not all about money.  The doctors who “rotate between clinics” usually fly in, sometimes from another state, for “procedure day.” The “Sonogram law” doesn’t force the woman having the abortion to look at her sonogram. But it does force the doctor to spend time counseling the women – possibly more time than the abortion itself will require. They will now have to look the women in the eye and describe the development of the child. How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing the heart or limbs?

The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton

Friday’s announcement that the Obama Administration would force employers – including nonprofit religious employers – to pay for their employees’ contraception and abortifacients is just the latest example of how the abortion industry and its friends in the Obama Administration are attacking these well established rights of conscience in ways even the authors of Roe and Doe did not envision.

via The Obama Administration’s Attack on Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton |.

The other 99% – Republican Primary voters

Or 97%. This may be the year the “97%” – Republican Primary voters – force a brokered convention that makes our choices known. A very small percentage of voters were allowed to choose the candidates for the rest of us will have to consider, based on the allocation of less than 5% of the total 2244 delegates that could vote at the Republican National Convention next August.

In fact, only about 3% of the Republican Primary delegates have been voted on. All of the Primaries so far were conducted under penalty of the Republican National Committee’s “Sanctions,” meaning that those States lost half of their possible delegates. In addition, Iowa’s caucus results are not binding on the State Republicans, who will determine the actual allocation of delegates in June. (Santorum won the vote at the Caucus I attended in West Des Moines, Iowa, but they elected the representatives of Paul and Romney as delegates to the County convention, where the final delegates to the State convention will be chosen.)

Take a look at the breakdown of the “2012 Chronological Cumulative Allocation of Delegates” and the actual dedication of those delegates, here.

Great Day at the Texas Rally For Life in Austin, Texas

It was a beautiful day to go to the Capitol in Austin, Texas! I took my 11-year-old granddaughter to the Texas Rally for Life and we handed out information on the new “Choose Life” license plates that are available in Texas.

Texas’ Attorney General Greg Abbott was our key-note speaker. The video at this link has a portion of his speech and comments from people who attended – by their own free “choice.” The crowd displayed warm, loving support for those lives, mom and baby, threatened by abortion.

Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst (who is running for US Senate) and our Senator John Cornyn also spoke, along with Joe Pojman, PhD, of Texas Alliance for Life, and Carol Everett, a long-time supporter of pregnancy assistance services.

From the Austin, Texas TV station, KVUE.com:

AUSTIN — Crowds carried hundreds of signs in protest of abortion as they marched up Congress Avenue. For decades the Texas Rally for Life has brought people from all across the state to the steps of the capitol.

The Texas Rally for Life brought close to 3,000 people marching through downtown Austin Saturday afternoon.

Crowds listened as anti-abortion leaders urged them to spread their message to everyone.

Keynote speaker Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott explained how he learned the beauty of life when he lost the ability to walk.

Those who took part said the polarizing issue of abortion should not be approached with hate, but with love.

“Being Pro-Life is just such a blessing and seeing how much love we have for everyone — even after they have an abortion,” Elise Bockover said. “We’re still here for them, and I want people to know that — we’re here for them always.”

The date of this year’s rally added significance to everyone. Late January marked the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion in 1973.

This is very positive coverage of our Texas Rally for Life!

To all who call us “anti-abortion and “anti-choice” and to you who say that we who are pro-life should “adopt all the unwanted children” (see comments at this page): The people who attend this rally are the most likely to give their time and money to charities to directly help mothers, babies, and their families. We are truly “pro-life” and we do support the mothers and babies we defend. Take a look around, I’ll bet there’s a pregnancy crisis center close to you, run by volunteers and donations.

If you would like to support adoption, you can easily donate $22 when you renew your license plate by choosing the “Choose Life” license plate option.

(In the interest of full disclosure, I’m on the board of Texas Alliance for Life and my local “Options for Women” pregnancy assistance center.)

Remember the “Contract From America?”

‘Way back in history – In the Spring of 2010 – a wide variety of Conservative, independent, grass roots organizations (mostly from the Tea Party and 912 groups) held meetings in cities across the US. I attended one with Comal County (Texas) Republican Women and Tea Party members, in Austin, Texas, sponsored by the Austin Tea Party on April 15, 2010. Within a couple of weeks, my friend chartered and filled a big ol’ bus full of men and women willing to pay for their seat on the bus, meet very early in the morning, and give up a day to hear Newt Gingrich speak.

The former Speaker (and current candidate for Republican nomination for President) told us about  the initiative for a “grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.”

In the heat of our very long Primary build up, I’m afraid that we might have forgotten the Contract and how it came to be, from the idea that began in Houston, Texas, to the document, below.  I encourage everyone to visit the website, take a look at the names of the sponsors and to remember the Contract and why we were excited by it ‘way back then. (The numbers in parentheses represent the strength of support from the participants.)

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

1. Protect the Constitution   Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

 2. Reject Cap & Trade– Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget – Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform – Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington – Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

 6. End Runaway Government Spending – Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care – Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy – Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork – Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes – Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

Supreme Court Rejects Judgermandering

It looks like somebody remembered that the Constitutions (of Texas and the US) don’t say that judges get the important decisions and the Legislatures get the unimportant ones. I do wish the SCOTUS had said “hands off,” but this is better than nothing.

A second map was then drawn by a panel of federal judges in San Antonio, and seemed to favor Democrats through its deference to the state’s booming Hispanic population.



via Supreme Court sends judge-drawn maps back in Texas redistricting case – The Hill's Ballot Box.

The only “minority” the map San Antonio Federal District judges favored was the minority Party, the Dems. They actually created a brand new District! Don’t forget that the Democrats were the Party that discriminated in the first place.

From the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

The ruling is a blow to Texas Democrats who had cheered late last year when a San Antonio federal court released new legislative and congressional maps that were widely seen as less favorable to Republicans.

The Justices said that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a key provision often pointed to by minority groups in redistricting cases, could not be used as a way to ignore the plans approved by state lawmakers just because federal approval had not yet been achieved.

“Section 5 prevents a state plan from being implemented if it has not been precleared,” the Justices ruled. “But that does not mean that the plan is of no account or that the policy judgments it reflects can be disregarded by a district court drawing an interim plan. On the contrary, the state plan serves as a starting point for the district court.”

Our Republican Legislators include “minorities.” The judges ignored that all minorities turned more toward the Republicans in 2010.

@GovernorPerry should not drop out!

If Governor Perry drops out, most of the Nation will never get a chance to vote for our candidate, or to influence the Republican primary at all. I’m afraid that the voices that claim that the “Powers That Be” really determine our candidates will be proven right.

Now, I’ll admit to being an early supporter of Governor Rick Perry.  I’m still convinced that the Governor is the right man for the job. And he’s the only one of the remaining candidates who still has a job – and the only one who hasn’t been running for President for over a year.

Part of the reason that Romney is always in front is the script that he IS the front-runner. And part of the reason that Governor Perry is trailing is the repetitive script that he can’t win because he got in so late and made mistakes in his first couple of debates. I’d think more people would have noticed how fast Rick Perry learned debating, and how much he has improved in such a short space of time. But no: the consensus is he goofed up in September, so it’s all over.

The reality is that it’s still January. Even after South Carolina and Florida – the first “winner take all” primaries – just 5% of the Delegates to the Republican Convention will be determined. No one can possibly be declared the winner of the Republican Primary until late March. With less than 50 delegates out of the 1144 needed to win, half of the 2288 total, the race is – and should be – still on.

While both Santorum and Gingrich are Conservatives, their histories are no less tainted than any other candidate, and some of those votes and actions will need to be defended. Neither can speak authoritatively about working in the private sector, creating jobs, serving in the military, or upholding the Second Amendment. Worse, both have a long record of “crossing the aisle” and forgetting to come back.

Gingrich has been married three times and has a very public history of adultery. He muddled his response just last month as to when life begins and the balanced budgets he brags about depended on the Sustainable Growth Rate.

Santorum has a lack of executive experience, as well as the specter of his support for Senator Specter (who turned Democrat) and his loss in Pennsylvania. He also voted against the Right to Work Act because, as he said last week, Pennsylvania is not a Right to Work State.

And then, there are the wives. Apparently, there was a “war” over the wives at that meeting of Christian leaders last week. As the Republican platform supports the Defense of Marriage Act, the wives will become an issue when their husbands go up against Obama.

Governor Perry has had well over 11 years of experience running Texas, both as Lieutenant Governor and Governor. He understands what it means to be required to balance a budget, work with a contentious Legislature and fight for laws not only in the House and Senate, but in the Courts and in public opinion. He understands the ramifications of regulations and appointments to regulatory bodies.

He’s the only one of the five remaining candidates other than Paul who has served in the military, having volunteered to serve in the US Air Force near the end of the Viet Nam War, becoming a pilot for over four years and retiring as a Captain.

On the social issues, there’s no one with a better record than Governor Perry: he has been married to one wife, and has always been pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-state’s rights.

Governor Perry doesn’t just say these things because he believes it’s what Republicans and Conservatives want to hear. Governor Rick Perry, in his books, Fed Up! and On My Honor, and in his years of service to the State of Texas, has proven that he understands and believes in Conservative ideals.

Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture

Knowledge is power. Especially when it comes to Courts and lawyers. Knowing that the baby who might be aborted is not just a lifeless “tissue” or “product of pregnancy” is bound to change hearts and minds. Someday, abortion will be thought of in the same way that we think of slavery.

Legal scholar Hadley Arkes believes that the groundwork for a powerful challenge to legal abortion has been laid, in a judicial decision affirming the “informed consent” law in Texas.

Judge Edith Jones wrote a carefully reasoned decision in Texas Medical Providers v. Lakey, Arkes writes. Her decision, emphasizing that the new Texas law does not place any barriers in front of a woman seeking an abortion, is very likely to withstand a Supreme Court challenge, Arkes believes.

Beyond the judicial sphere, the Texas precedent should encourage legislators to consider bills that protect the unborn without directly challenging the Roe v. Wade precedent, Arkes suggests.

That move is bound to set off crippling tensions within the party of abortion in Congress. They are the tensions that could make that party come apart, and bring us to the beginning of the End.

via Does Texas ‘informed consent’ law signal a successful new strategy against abortion? : News Headlines – Catholic Culture.

Texas has already determined that it’s wise to regulate doctors, medicines and surgical procedures. In the case of the abortion laws and sonogram requirements, the rules for action are placed on the doctor doing the procedures. The doctor is the only one being “made” to do anything.

We have a 2005 State law mandating 24 hour waiting period and a set of steps to ensure that the patient, the woman who is going to have an abortion, receives thorough informed consent.  Texas also protects other patients with regulations requiring specific informed consent for sterilizations, hysterectomies, radiation therapy and electric shock therapy. These procedures are often performed on patients who may be vulnerable to outside influence (by the doctor or family members pr social expectations) and all carry risks of permanent harm and consequences that the patient should know about.

The Sonogram Bill ensures that the woman seeking an abortion will meet the doctor who will perform the abortion and that the physician will tell her the status of her pregnancy and the development of baby, all before she’s sedated and in a gown, before she’s up in the stirrups.

Who would go for any treatment without first meeting the doctor? Would you consider it “punishment” or “shaming,” much less based on some “religious value” to enforce Texas’ similar informed consent laws for patients about to undergo radiation therapy, electric shock therapy, or a hysterectomy? Where’s the outrage about shaming or frightening the smoker when the doc sits down to explain why you need bypass surgery?

Would any one argue that the man who goes in for radiation therapy does not know that he might have cancer cells remaining in his body? Or that a woman doesn’t know that she won’t ever be able to have children again if she has a hysterectomy? (We’ll skip the problems with consent for electric shock therapy.)

The Bill is reminds me of our earlier fights to allow patients to own their own medical information, to make our own choices with full, informed consent. It’s patronizing to tell women seeking abortion that they don’t need to see their own sonogram or to consider sharing her medical information with her as interference by the State.

‘You Know What’s Despicable? Beheading Daniel Pearl’ @GovernorPerry

Go watch the video, it’s impressive. “I saw a reduction of force  . . .and the results of it in the sands of Iran in 1979. Never again.”

Rick Perry sounded off on what he called the Obama administration’s “disdain” for America’s servicemen and women. He then addressed the video that surfaced of Marines urinating on the bodies of Taliban fighters, saying that these “young men made a mistake.” He then asserted, “The fact of the matter is this, when the Secretary of Defense calls that a despicable act … Let me tell you what’s utterly despicable. Cutting Danny Pearl’s head off and showing the video of it. Hanging our contractors from bridges. That’s utterly despicable.”

via Perry on Marines Peeing on Taliban: ‘You Know What’s Despicable? Beheading Daniel Pearl’ – Rick Perry – Fox Nation.

Setting the record straight on immigration rule change – The Hill’s Congress Blog

More on the immigration regulations in the previous post.

It’s interesting – besides the obvious – because of the line in the second paragraph about “what administrations do.” This was not the line we heard when the Bush Administration was regulation on conscience laws and health care.

These are precisely the immigrants who have been waiting in line and now face a bureaucratic challenge to obtaining the physical green cards.

The proposed rule change falls precisely within the scope of what administrations do. The regulatory change is important because, under current procedures, some persons who have already met the eligibility requirements for green cards must leave the U.S. to obtain their permanent residence status, but as soon as they leave, they are immediately barred from re-entering the U.S. for three or ten years because of a period of unlawful presence in the United States. There is a family unity waiver available, but the way the law is currently implemented, the waiver can only be adjudicated abroad. That adjudication can often take many months, leaving the applicants in limbo, waiting to find out if the waiver has been approved and if they will be able to go back to the U.S to join their US citizen or legal resident family member. As a result, many otherwise eligible applicants do not leave the country to get their green cards, remaining unauthorized in the U.S. rather than risk separation from their families. Under the proposed rule change, spouses and children of U.S. citizens who are eligible for a green card would be allowed to apply for the waiver without leaving the U.S. They would still be required to depart from the U.S. before receiving final approval and their green card.

via Setting the record straight on immigration rule change – The Hill’s Congress Blog.

Immigration Proposal Not Seen as Major Step —The Texas Tribune

Paging Libertarian Ron Paul: What do you think. Is this a major step? The Obama Admin plans to let people apply for mini-amnesty from this side of the border.

This waiver won’t fit all 11 million (typo in the article says 11.2 total), but 24,000 made this sort of application from their home country last year. Any bets on how quickly fraud will rear up on this scheme?

Current law mandates that illegal immigrants applying for legal status must return to their home country to do so. Once there, they are barred from re-entering the United States for either three or 10 years, depending on the length of their unauthorized stay.

But immigrants can apply for a waiver that allows them re-entry during the process if they can prove that their separation is causing extreme hardship for spouses or parents who are U.S. citizens. The new proposal would allow the applicant to apply for the waiver before leaving the country; if granted, the applicant could return to the U.S. during the visa application process.

via Immigration Proposal Not Seen as Major Step — Immigration | The Texas Tribune.

BTW, read the odd comments about “nuts with machine guts.”

5th US Court of Appeals: Texas may enforce abortion law

Wonderful news! The sonogram bill will be enforced as it winds its way through to the Supreme Court. For my critique of the very poor reasoning of the Federal judge who delayed enforcement, see this.

Will post the link to the ruling when it’s available.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A Texas abortion law passed last year that requires doctors to show sonograms to patients can be enforced while opponents challenge the measure in court, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ temporary order against enforcing the law, saying Sparks was incorrect to rule that doctors had a substantial chance of winning their case.

Sparks ruled in Austin in August that several provisions of the state law violated the free-speech rights of doctors who perform abortions by making them to show and describe the images and describe the fetal heartbeat — all of which doctors have said is not necessary for good treatment.

The appeals court cited a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “upheld an informed-consent statute over precisely the same ‘compelled speech’ challenges made” in the current Texas case.

Earlier rulings have found that laws requiring doctors to give “truthful, nonmisleading and relevant” information are reasonable regulation, not ideological speech requiring strict scrutiny under the First Amendment,” the appeals court said.

“‘Relevant’ informed consent may entail not only the physical and psychological risks to the expectant mother facing this ‘difficult moral decision,’ but also the state’s legitimate interests in ‘protecting the potential life within her,'” Chief Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the appeals’ decision.

via The Associated Press: Appeals court: Texas may enforce abortion law.

Unified Theory of Conservatism: Constitutional Ethics for a Small Government

There’s no conflict between the three legs of Reagan Conservatism, in spite of the confusion surrounding contraception and homosexual “rights” we witnessed during the New Hampshire debates. Social issues such as the right to life and traditional marriage are equally compatible with small government and States’ rights as National security and fiscal responsibility,  just as the Declaration of Independence is compatible with the10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Conservatives agree that the best government governs least, but we don’t forget that there is a proper role for even the Federal government.

After all, the Constitution is based on the existence of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States’ desire to ensure Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, using the least force and intervention possible to prevent or punish the infringement of our inalienable rights.

Liberals and Libertarians accuse Conservatives who advocate for social issues and national security of abandoning both the Constitution and the ideal of a small Federal government that is as “inconsequential in our lives as possible.” There are even some in the Tea Party willing to sacrifice these issues in order to form a coalition with the Libertarians to cut spending and lower taxes.

Unfortunately, the Left, Right and middle all manage to stir up not only the divide between Libertarians and Conservatives. They would also exaggerate conflict between socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who agree on the definition of marriage and that life begins at conception, but disagree on whether or not true contraception is ethical.

Abortion, medicine and research which result in the destruction of embryos or fetuses infringe on the right to life by causing the death of a human being. (See “Why Ethics.”) In contrast, true contraception prevents conception without endangering any human life. Therefore, unlike abortion, it does not infringe the right to life.

Marriage as a public institution is not merely a means to insurance and legal benefits. The definition of marriage predates the Constitution and goes far beyond culture, religion or National boundaries. Marriage affects the stability of the family and the well-being of both children and the husband and wife. (There’s strong research supporting the latter.) We define and defend traditional marriage in order to secure liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These same inalienable rights are the justification for establishing National borders, protecting National security, and punishing those who break the law, while opposing high taxes and big Government bureaucracy and regulation that serves to not only redistribute wealth, but creates a dependency on more and bigger Government intervention.

Conservatives like Governor Rick Perry have been just as vocal in opposing the attacks on religious freedom and conscience by the Obama Administration as we have been in opposing increased taxes and regulations and the EPA’s over-reaching. We can stand secure in our understanding that the Conservative, Constitutional and proper use of government is to prevent and punish infringement of inalienable rights.

(Edit 11 AM 1/10/12 “Reagan” added to the first sentence.  04/09/14 – fixed a broken link. BBN)

Biological Politics? Out-Of-Touch Liberals And Fear-Mongering Conservatives

Love this line: “science readers should just ignore the conclusion woo.”

Seriously, the authors are evidently expanding their publication of research (along the line of this prior study, “Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations,”Free access at Pub Med), using eye movements and skin conductance changes in response to visual stimuli (pretty bunny vs. violent images and Republican vs. Democratic politicians) and conclude that there is an evolutionary purpose/causation.

The conclusions the researchers draw are not as grounded; rather than showing that tolerances are why people pick parties, they try to say evolution is at the root, claiming political leanings are at least partial products of our biology, which goes to show you that political scientists and psychologists who don’t understand biology should not invoke it, at least as cause and effect. But the new study’s use of cognitive data regarding both positive and negative imagery adds to the understanding of how liberals and conservatives see and experience the world and that has value, even if the more broad conclusions are not evidence-based.

UNL professor of political science and psychology John Hibbing goes too far when he tries to play evolutionary psychologist, claiming the results might mean that those on the right are more attuned and attentive to aversive elements in life and are more naturally inclined to confront them, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, he said. That would mean humans are two distinct species, but only in America, so science readers should just ignore the conclusion woo and focus on the negative/positive responses they found in people already left or right and see where it can take us.

via Biological Politics? Out-Of-Touch Liberals And Fear-Mongering Conservatives.

Supreme Court Busy Today: Texas Redistricting, EPA, Election Law, Speech

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled (by refusing to take the case) on at least one important election law dispute and will hear arguments on Texas redistricting, whether the EPA can use the Clean Water Act to control all water and even shut down construction of homes on private property and (as explained by the Wall Street Journal), “broadcasters be able to air whatever the &#%@ they want?”

There are complaints that the first case, Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, which will in effect uphold a ban on political contributions by non-citizens of the United States is inconsistent in light of Citizens United ruling of a couple of years ago that allowed corporations, including non-profits like the pro-life Citizens United to accept donations and make political statements. I’m concerned about the problems related to reporting contributions to the corporations or non-profits, but agree with the basic premise that there should not be any limits to political speech by US citizens, other than those in the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence, on which it’s based). I believe that it’s logical to discriminate between US-based corporations and foreign citizens or corporations.

As to the Texas Redistricting case, I hope someone reminds SCOTUS that some of our Republican Legislators are Hispanic!

The Path Forward @GovernorPerry and the GOP Primaries

Governor Rick Perry has decided to follow the path to New Hampshire and South Carolina, calling the race for GOP candidate for President a “marathon” in a post to Twitter on Wednesday morning.

He is planning for the back to back debates in New Hampshire on January 7th and 8th in advance of the Primary on Tuesday, January 10th, and then to head on to South Carolina for debates and that State’s Primary.

I’m afraid that the Iowa Caucus was all for show, or as one of the people we called this week said, “a circus.” The second and third votes for Delegates were the real policymakers, but even few Iowans understand that their approval of Paulers and Romneyites negated their vote for Santorum or Gingrich.

I’m Interviewed about @GovernorPerry in IA Patch

Rick Perry: Beverly Nuckols, a doctor from New Braunfels, Texas, was among a group of supporters watching results come in at the Texas govenor’s party at the Sheraton West Des Moines.

Dozens of people milled about the main lobby of the hotel and also in the Des Moines Room, where Perry’s disappointing results were flashed across flat panel televisions.

Nuckols arrived from Texas on Wednesday and spoke for the man at a West Des Moines caucus location before coming to the hotel. “I do believe in the man,” she said.

The doctor and pro-life advocate said Perry has a good understanding of bioethics issues.

Perry came out and addressed his supporters in the Sheraton late into the evening thanking the group that had come from more than 30 states to support him. He read a letter from a supporter surrounded by his wife, Anita, and their children and then said that he didn’t run because he thought be would become president, but that he wanted to serve his nation one last time.

“Our country is in trouble,” Perry said. “Our country is not really on the track we want it to be on.”

But with the voters decision in Iowa he said that he would return to Texas and assess the caucus results and “determine whether there is a path forward for myself.”

via UPDATE: Mood at Candidates’ Election Night Parties Varies Greatly – Iowa City, IA Patch.

Photo @governorperry HQ, in Ames,IA “Patch”

Here I am, turning in the count on Caucus nite.

Caucus Night: Iowa for Rick Perry

I spoke as a surrogate speaker for Governor Rick Perry at a small precinct caucus in West Des Moines, Iowa, tonight. The 72 voters who came to the little elementary school gym weren’t representative of the “undecided” that I’d been hearing about all week. The neighborhood caucus goers had come ready to vote. Unfortunately, the tally came down to Romney/Santorum/Paul/Gingrich and then one little old vote for Governor Rick Perry. To give me credit, the lady who said she voted for Perry wouldn’t have if I hadn’t been there.

As of 9 o’clock, it looks like Iowa has decided not to decide,  with the top 3 slots getting just under 25% each and Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry vying for 4th slot. I’m disappointed in the outcome, but only surprised that the Ron Paul crowd is so strong and the Iowa voters seem so fickle.

(I was treated to classic Ron Paul voter behavior: half the signs I’d put up were knocked down and the surrogate speaker was told to behave when he snorted at me when my candidate got few votes.)