Posts

Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?

/7 Comments/in , /by

“If he’ll cheat on her, he’ll cheat on you,” is what Southern mothers tell their daughters, warning them that stealing away a woman’s husband isn’t just gravely immoral. It also means you’re as dumb as a box of rocks. A man who proves that he’s willing to be unfaithful this time is pretty much promising you that he’ll be unfaithful next time, when you’re the victim. The only safe response to a man like this is Carrie Underwood’s: “The next time he cheats/it won’t be on me.”

And that’s what we’d like pro-life Americans to think about as they consider Donald Trump. Not Mr. Trump’s personal life [warning: graphic content] — the fact that he abandoned one aging wife (Ivana) to take up with a younger woman (Marla), then dumped her just shy of the date when their pre-nup would have expired, chivalrously breaking her the news by leaking it to a newspaper, and leaving a copy of the paper on her bed. No, that’s strictly personal stuff, and there’s no way we can learn about a man’s promise-keeping habits from irrelevant data like that. Instead, let’s think about Trump’s stated, public record on life issues, and what it means.

But first please walk on a little imaginative journey with us. Pretend, for just a second, that the pro-life movement acted as an effective pressure group, like the gun lobby. Imagine if in addition to its spiritual uplift mission, the pro-life movement were disciplined, rigorous and political. This would make sense on the face of it, since its stated goal is to change the laws of this country.

Yes, we do hope to change Americans’ hearts, and restore the dignity of sex, and build up a wholesome culture that sees life as meaningful and beautiful. But that is really a job for the churches, one which too many good-hearted people have piled onto the pro-life movement because their churches aren’t bothering with it. That sad fact makes it all too easy to lose our focus on the movement’s stated goal, which is to legally protect a whole class of abandoned Americans from lethal violence. Period. If that has the happy side effects of strengthening marriage, curing the “hook-up” culture, increasing respect for women, and helping souls to accept Jesus as Lord — and we think it will — then all the better.

But first the laws must change. There is no substitute. If we had never outlawed slavery, you can count on it people would own some. If segregation in restaurants had never been outlawed, it would still prevail in many places. The law is a great teacher. It tells citizens what is really, really important — important enough that if you flout the law, there are people in uniform who will come to your door. We wouldn’t settle for a nation that had changed its heart, but not its laws, on slavery or segregation, and we can’t when it comes to abortion.

The Margaret Sanger Argument Against Abortion

If you were pro-life in the same way that the head of the NRA is pro-gun rights, would you settle for a candidate who had spent most of his life as a radical anti-gun advocate, supporting the seizure of all private weapons? Well, Donald Trump favored abortion on demand until … some point after he decided to run for president. In 1999, he expressed support even for partial birth abortion, the destruction of near-newborns who could survive outside the womb. By 2011, Trump claimed to be pro-life, recalling that he knew “a friend had a child who they were going to abort, and now they have it, and the child is incredible.” In a GOP debate, Trump upped the ante, calling that lucky child a “superstar.” Jamie Weinstein of The Daily Caller, as a good journalist, asked Trump the obvious question:

Would Trump have changed his view on abortion if the child had become a total loser?

“I’ve never thought of it,” Trump said in our interview. “That’s an interesting question. I’ve never thought of it. Probably not, but I’ve never thought of it.”

Margaret Sanger couldn’t have said it any better. In fact, Trump’s view echoes her slogan: “More children from the fit, fewer from the unfit.” He would realize that if he ever took the time to think about it, which he admits he has not. That’s how important the deaths of a million American pre-born children each year are to Donald Trump: unworthy of two consecutive, logical thoughts, bridged by an inference. Would the NRA settle for this kind of callous “conversion” from a lifelong gun-grabber? Why should pro-lifers?

Perhaps it’s not surprising that when every pro-lifer in America was reeling from the gruesome footage obtained by journalistic hero David Daleiden, which proved that Planned Parenthood doesn’t just kill unborn babies, but cuts them up for parts, Donald Trump was one of the few Republicans to openly say that the government should go on funding that ghoulish group. He argued that the taxpayer should pay for all the non-abortion stuff (like imaginary mammograms) that Planned Parenthood is supposed to do — a distinction which he understands is meaningless. If your son is a heroin addict, you can’t make a deal with him that you will pay all his other bills, but will not pay for his drugs. Of course, you’re just freeing up his other money for … buying drugs! A man who has navigated four bankruptcies unscathed, while his investors lost tens of millions, surely understands basic accounting better than that.

We all know the way that abortion was legalized for all nine months, for any reason, in 50 states, against the wishes of voters — by unelected judges. In the same way, same-sex marriage and countless other evils have been foisted on us, and carved in stone out of voters’ reach. Trump knows this too. He knows that vast power has been seized from the citizens of this country by a cabal of judges, the presidents who appoint them, and the senators who confirm them.

This travesty of democracy which perverts and degrades our Constitution is one of the main complaints of the entire conservative movement — including immigration restrictionists, who note that “birthright citizenship” was only applied to illegal immigrants by virtue of a crackpot Supreme Court decision made in 1898. The greatest disappointment to social conservatives of three Republican presidents has been their mixed record of choosing Supreme Court appointees. Notice that Democratic presidents never, never disappoint the abortion lobby. Why do you think that is? Because they wouldn’t get away with it. Republican candidates know that they can, so they do. Since up to four Supreme Court seats might become vacant in the next presidential term, this issue matters more than ever, and more than most. The next four (or eight) years of presidential Court appointments could change America radically, revoking gun rights and gutting the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.

So you’d think that the fervent pro-life convert Donald Trump would be keenly attuned to the need for appointing solid Constitutionalists to federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. But you would be wrong. When asked about this issue, Trump didn’t offer some mealy-mouthed speech about avoiding “litmus tests,” as too many weak pro-life politicians do. No, he didn’t hint with a wink that he might betray us. He outright promised to. Trump cited as the kind of judge he’d appoint to the Court his left-wing, judicial activist sister, who in the Trump tradition supports partial birth abortion. Some were tempted to write this statement off, even excuse it, as a mere example of charming, roguish nepotism. Really? Would Wayne LaPierre of the NRA settle for such an excuse? So why should we?

Lately, it seems that someone who knows the pro-life movement has gotten to Mr. Trump, and helped him to hire a ghostwriter. We’re glad that writer found work, but it’s hard to take seriously an op-ed like Trump’s recent piece in the Washington Examiner, which flies in the face not only of what he was saying in recent years, but in recent months. Given what he has said over many years, and in unguarded moments when there was no ghostwriter at hand, we must take Trump’s pro-life promises no more seriously than he took his business debts, or “till death do us part.”

If pro-lifers accept at face value Donald Trump’s half-hearted, fingers-crossed, nod-and-a-wink conversion, then they really are as clueless as Donald Trump thinks all Republican voters are. He boasted just this weekend that he “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” If voters choose such a man as the legal champion of innocent unborn life, then they deserve to be betrayed. But those unborn babies don’t.

Or maybe some “pro-lifers” just don’t care. They are so concerned with winning, with sidling up to the big dog, with walling off the border or stopping goods from China, that a fig leaf’s enough for them. Ann Coulter, with her famous good taste, responded to Trump’s vague immigration plan by Tweeting:

Pro-lifers who share her priorities will nod at Trump’s empty promises, and pretend that they believe them. Then they’ll bat their eyes, sign the prenup, and give The Donald what he wants.’ (For more from the author of “Will Pro-Lifers for Trump Get Dumped — Like Ivana and Marla?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Rejects Heartbeat Bill Appeal

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal that would reinstate an Arkansas law prohibiting abortion if an unborn child has a heartbeat.

The Human Heartbeat Protection Act barred abortionists from aborting a baby after 12 weeks if “the fetus that a pregnant woman is carrying possesses a detectible heartbeat.”

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton, struck down the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act in March 2014, ruling that it “impermissibly infringes a woman’s Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy.” Her ruling was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, last May . . .

The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the lawsuit, was overjoyed that the lower court rulings will stand.

“Arkansas politicians cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to uphold,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “The Supreme Court has never wavered in affirming that every woman has a right to safely and legally end a pregnancy in the U.S — and this extreme abortion ban was a direct affront to that right.” (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Heartbeat Bill Appeal” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Transgender “Men” Ask Supreme Court to Overturn Texas’ Prolife Law Because They Want the Right to Kill Babies, Too

/9 Comments/in , /by

In a shocking turn of events transgender men (always genetically, and sometime anatomically, women), along with other similar LGBTQ-type groups, have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court requesting the current Texas abortion restrictions to be removed. They feel it is important that transgender men have access to unrestricted abortion.

At the very least, arguing on behalf of transgender men to have abortions seems specious because if they were truly men they obviously could not get pregnant. However, there are a number of cases where transgender men have by choice, and by accident become pregnant.

Transgender men were born women but generally believe they should have been endowed with male genitalia. Up until very recently, it was nearly universally recognized that such a condition was a treatable mental disorder. Now, many transgender men go through multiple operations in barbaric surgical attempts to become more like men. At the end of such an ordeal, they would physiologically be unable to become pregnant. However, many transgender men choose not to go through the entire process either due to the substantial costs, medical complications, or numerous personal reasons.

Even so, if transgender men truly self-perceive as male, how is it possible that they need abortions? Shouldn’t they also be attracted to women as most men are? If that was the case then, a transgender man having sex with a woman could not get pregnant. But, in reality, many transgender men engage in bi-sexual and high-risk activities, creating risks of unintended pregnancies if they have not fully completed transitioning. So then, is it right for them to demand that the Texas abortion laws be changed for them?

Frankly, it’s likely the Texas abortion law doesn’t even apply to them (the statute refers to “the woman”). Since the law seems to only apply to women, and many of them have legally changed their status to men while still retaining the ability to become pregnant, they are likely not affected by the statute in question.

So what are these activist transgender men and the broader LGBTQ community doing in this case? It seems they want to expose themselves to the public and force a degree of public acceptance. See it enough and you won’t be shocked any more; the obscene becomes normal with enough exposure. In short, they want the public to accept them as men who can still get pregnant and have periods.

As a woman, these efforts are offensive to me. For centuries men have had numerous advantages over women. Even today, transgender men admit that they do see privileges in their everyday life that they did not get as women.

Why then are they also demanding to retain special “rights” from the gender they were assigned by the Creator at birth? If they want to live as a transgender man they must be willing to give up those rights. Or, they need to admit that they are women (due to their ability to still get pregnant) that simply want to live and look like men.

For a sane person, none of this really makes sense except to understand this is all just another effort to rebel against the created order and further deconstruct the Judeo-Christian foundations of western civilization.

________________________________

Walt Heyer is one voice of reason who intimately understands transgender issues. For another perspective, please see his article comprehensively discussing the problems with a transgender lifestyle and other associated psychological problems.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Anchorage Memorial: Remembering the Millions Lost Through 43 Dark Years of Abortion

/0 Comments/in , /by

It has been 43 years. 43 years of children being literally crushed and torn limb from limb for the sake of convenience. Sacrificed at the alter of self-interest, these were individual human beings who deserved to live their God-given lives.

Join us as we memorialize their short lives on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the day in 1973 that their deaths were sanctioned by 9 unelected Supreme Court Justices. We will be gathering at the Anchorage Memorial Park Cemetery (corner of 9th and Cordova) on Saturday, January 23rd at 2pm for a short prayer service, calling on God for mercy and interceding for the lives of the little ones who are yet to come. Please make it a priority to come and take part in this memorial service and be re-inspired to be a voice for the voiceless.

We will also be having an organizational meeting for 40 Days for Life at our office on January 23rd at 6pm. If you have been part of 40 Days for Life in the past or would like to be involved now, please come and take part in this meeting. We will be providing dinner. Our office is located at 1220 E Street and we are upstairs in Suite 207.

Even though godless elected officials have waged a war on America’s most vulnerable for 43 years, we believe in the power of an Almighty God who already has won the victory. He is still on the throne and He will be the One with the last Word. His heart is broken for all the lives lost to the tragedy of abortion, just as ours should be. (For more from the author of “Anchorage Memorial: Remembering the Millions Lost Through 43 Dark Years of Abortion” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alveda King’s Open Letter to Obama: ‘Are the Babies in the Empty Chair?’

/1 Comment/in , /by

Dear President Obama, my prayers are with you as I write this letter today, anticipating your State of the Union address.

Sir, you recently tweeted: “If there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save—we’ve got an obligation to try.” Your appeal seemed to be directed at gun control. Yet, the one life chord is vibrating on a frequency that embraces not just victims of gun violence, but even reaching the innocent lives in the womb . . .

As you may know, I am a pro-life activist. I am concerned about all human lives. I write to you today because, like you and so many other Americans, I am concerned about the growing violence in America. But I am also concerned over the millions of lives lost to the violence of abortion.

Mother Teresa once said, “I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.”

I’m writing today to appeal to your compassion for those lost to violent acts, and I ask you to consider that what our world needs is not just gun control but violence control. We need to turn to LOVE for the answer. (Read more from “Alveda King’s Open Letter to Obama: ‘Are the Babies in the Empty Chair?'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Church Can’t Be Afraid to Denounce a Political Party That Supports Killing Unborn Babies [+video]

/3 Comments/in , /by

Churches must not be afraid to speak out against abortion in the 2016 election, according to one prominent pro-life group.

On Wednesday, Priests for Life hosted a press conference on abortion in light of the upcoming 2016 elections at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The event centered on the question “How political can the Catholic Church be?” under its tax-exempt status and highlighted that “restrictions on political activity by churches are misunderstood” — even by the media.

Priests for Life National Director Fr. Frank Pavone opened the press conference by stressing Church obligation during the election season.

“This is not about the Church becoming a political machine,” he said. “This is about the Church becoming more the Church.”

But instead, many churches have been undergoing a “massive self-censorship” to avoid losing their tax exemptions. (Read more from “The Church Can’t Be Afraid to Denounce a Political Party That Supports Killing Unborn Babies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Reality TV Star Admits Something Huge About Her Abortion – This Is Heartbreaking

/4 Comments/in , /by

Patti Stanger, better known as the Millionaire Matchmaker and the star of the reality show that has her company pairing up well-to-do single men and women potential matches, is, ironically, single herself. In a new interview, she revealed her biggest regret: having an abortion and not having children.

Stanger revealed the shocking abortion secret during an interview with OK! Magazine, saying she had an abortion in her late 20s and now regrets the decision, saying she wish she’d had children.

“My biggest regret is I didn’t have children,” the 52-year-old replied. “I had an abortion in my 20s. I was pregnant, and I didn’t have enough money and I didn’t think it was okay to have a child and be a single parent. And now look, everybody’s doing that! I didn’t find the right guy at the right time to have one with, I guess.” (Read more from “Reality TV Star Admits Something Huge About Her Abortion – This Is Heartbreaking” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, Supported by Obama, Opposed by Planned Parenthood Exec.

/1 Comment/in , /by

Last month, the 38 Michigan Senators unanimously passed the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act authorizing courts to terminate the parental rights of rapists upon a rape conviction or upon a finding based upon “clear and convincing evidence” that the parent committed “criminal sexual conduct” – the terminology used for rape under Michigan law – and that the “conduct resulted in the child being conceived.” SB 629 had 9 co-sponsors, including one Democrat and one female Republican. So there were 7 male Republicans who, contrary to the mainstream media, do care about rape victims who become pregnant.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Republican Senator Rick Jones, who spent 31 years in law enforcement said, “I want to ensure that victims of rape are not faced with a custody battle from their rapist. . . . I’ve actually heard of horrible cases where the rapist contacted the victim after they heard that a child had been conceived and said: ‘Get an abortion, and if you don’t, I will be going for custody. . . . I certainly cannot imagine a rapist being able to continue to harass the victim, or have custody of a child conceived in that act.”

Last month, I testified before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee on this legislation. My background as a Family Law Attorney helped in explaining why the “clear and convincing evidence” standard is appropriate. After all, it’s the standard used in Michigan law for all other termination of parental rights cases, and it’s the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Santosky v Kramer.

I shared stories of women from Save The 1 and Hope After Rape Conception who were sued by their rapists for custody, including Analyn Megison from HARC, Angela Grogg from HARC and her daughter Pyper, and Save The 1 pro-life speaker Liz Carl – a birthmother who had to agree to drop criminal charges, just to be able to consent to an adoption without the rapist getting custody. Additionally, I told the Senators of two women who were conceived in rape, then raped by their own fathers while in the rapists’ care – Save The 1 Vice-President Darlene Pawlik, and Rowena Slusser.

Attorney Shauna Prewitt — one of my co-founders of Hope After Conception (HARC), who was sued by her rapist for custody, also testified before the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee by sharing her own compelling story, as well as the research she did for her Georgetown Law Journal article, Giving Birth to a “Rapist’s Child”: A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded to Women Who Become Mothers Through Rape.

By passing this law, Michigan will be entitled to receive federal funds for programs which help survivors of rape, in accordance with the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last June – the only pro-life legislation approved by the President. This law is pro-life in effect because if pregnant rape victims know they’ll be protected from the rapist, they’ll be more likely to choose life. It also provides opportunities for legislators to hear from rape survivor mothers who deeply love their children, and we see legislators for once referring to these children as “the rape victim’s child” instead of the usual derogatory terminology of “the rapist’s child.” So they get to see this issue, the mothers and their children in a whole new light.

Under the federal act, Congress made the following findings:

(1) Men who father children through rape should be prohibited from visiting or having custody of those children.

(2) According to several studies, it is estimated that there are between 25,000 and 32,000 rape-related pregnancies annually in the United States.

(3) A substantial number of women choose to raise their child conceived through rape and, as a result, may face custody battles with their rapists.

(4) According to one study, 32.3 percent of women who were raped and became pregnant as a result of the rape kept their child.

(5) Another study found that, of the 73 percent of women who became pregnant as a result of a rape and carried their pregnancies to term, 64 percent raised their children.

(6) Rape is one of the most under-prosecuted serious crimes, with estimates of criminal conviction occurring in less than 5 percent of rapes.

(7) The clear and convincing evidence standard is the most common standard for termination of parental rights among the 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia.

(8) The Supreme Court established that the clear and convincing evidence standard satisfies due process for allegations to terminate or restrict parental rights in Santosky v. Kramer (455 U.S. 745 (1982)).

(9) Currently only 6 States have statutes allowing rape survivors to petition for the termination of parental rights of the rapist based on clear and convincing evidence that the child was conceived through rape.

(10) A rapist pursuing parental or custody rights forces the survivor to have continued interaction with the rapist, which can have traumatic psychological effects on the survivor, making it more difficult for her to recover.

(11) These traumatic effects on the mother can severely negatively impact her ability to raise a healthy child.

(12) Rapists may use the threat of pursuing custody or parental rights to coerce survivors into not prosecuting rape, or otherwise harass, intimidate, or manipulate them.

The federal act then provided additional grant money to states who pass this law: “The Attorney General shall make grants to States that have in place a law that allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek court-ordered termination of the parental rights of her rapist with regard to that child, which the court shall grant upon clear and convincing evidence of rape.” The grant programs are the STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grant.

We are currently awaiting on some amendments to the companion bill which authorizes Family Court judges to suspend custody and parenting time rights upon a showing of “clear and convincing evidence,” which would then provide rape survivor mothers with the opportunity to get a case filed for termination of parental rights. When the bill was passed in the House to suspend custody and parenting time, 101 Michigan State Representatives voted in favor of the bill and 4 voted against it. One of those who voted against it, Marcia Hovey-Wright, served as the Executive Director of Muskegon Area Planned Parenthood. She certainly showed her true colors in caring more about rapists than rape victim mothers who had the audacity to choose life for their children.

Many thanks to Right to Life of Michigan for spearheading this effort in Michigan — especially Ed Rivet and Genevieve Marnon out of the legislative office in Lansing. You set an example to every Right to Life organization as to how to make this a priority and how to get it done. You’ve never allowed a rape exception in Michigan, and now you’ve shown how to continue this protection after the children conceived in rape are born. (For more from the author of “Michigan Unanimously Passes the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Yahoo Is Celebrating a Disgusting Article on Late-Term Abortion as One of Their ‘Best of 2015’

/4 Comments/in , /by

One of America’s top media companies celebrated parenting in 2015 with a republished essay from a mother who called her husband’s support for aborting their second child when it was in its 36th week “a gift.”

In the essay, originally published on April 30, an administrator for the support group “Ending a Wanted Pregnancy” told Yahoo Parenting’s Rachel Bertsche that she aborted her daughter, Rose, because doctors diagnosed the child with Dandy-Walker malformation and agenesis of the corpus callosum.

According to “Kate,” these diagnoses “meant there were holes in [Rose’s] brain” and “the bridge between the two hemispheres of her brain didn’t grow,” respectively.

“The doctor said, ‘We expect your baby to have moderate to severe mental retardation; she’s going to have moderate to severe physical disability; she is probably never going to walk or talk; she will possibly never be able to lift her head; she is going to have seizures all of the time.’”

They were also told the baby was unlikely to live very long if brought to term. But rather than letting nature take an unsure course, they decided to take matters into their own hands. In order to get a very late-term abortion, Kate and her husband traveled from Boston to Colorado, for an abortion that cost her $25,000 — an amount her parents took out of their retirement account. (Read more from “Yahoo Is Celebrating a Disgusting Article on Late-Term Abortion as One of Their ‘Best of 2015′” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Co-Writer of a Classic Pixar Movie Leads a Disgusting Pro-Abortion Campaign

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Hollywood writer and producer who co-wrote the popular children’s movie Toy Story is headlining an end-of-the-year donation campaign to benefit the Planned Parenthood abortion business. The donation campaign is tragically ironic given that Toy Story and its sequels are movies that celebrate children and the role toys play in providing their enjoyment — whereas Planned Parenthood is an abortion company that makes a living killing children.

Planned Parenthood announced Joss Whedon’s participation in an effort to double year-end donations abortion advocates make to Planned Parenthood:

The tweet leads to a donation page that mentions the Toy Story co-writer’s efforts to put more money in the abortion giant’s coffers:

Planned Parenthood has faced an unprecedented onslaught of attacks this year. Out-of-touch lawmakers are determined to push through a dangerous agenda: eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood health centers, block access to affordable birth control, enact a nationwide 20-week ban on abortion, and more. But in the wake of the violent attack on a Planned Parenthood health center in Colorado Springs, we are more committed than ever to keeping health center doors open, no matter what. Start a monthly gift right now and Joss Whedon will chip in an extra $50 (up to $100,000 total) to power the fight for women’s health and rights.

(Read more from “The Co-Writer of a Classic Pixar Movie Leads a Disgusting Pro-Abortion Campaign” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.