States Fighting Federal Government Takeover of Health Care

There is so much wrong, on so many levels, with the passage of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" that it is tough to know where to even begin. My last post on this blog was focused on sharing a copy of my petition to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller that he fight the bill, which was signed yesterday (23 March 2010) by the President.

This post follows up with some good news that I turned up in my continued research:
1. Indiana is going to fight the health care law;
2. Indiana is among many states fighting the health care law;
3. The law is an overt attempt by the federal government, especially Democrats, to "control the people."



The Law is Bad for Indiana... and We'll Fight It
It is unconstitutional, limits options, and raises costs in Indiana

According to this news release on IN.gov, AG Zoeller is "reviewing options for legal challenge to health care bill". The news release included a link to the official report that AG Zoeller submitted to Senator Luger (US Senate, R-IN) on 05 February 2010 analyzing Senate version of the health care bill. Here is a link to the full report on IN.gov (PDF, 55 pages). And here is a summary of the report on IN.gov (1 page, web).

So why exactly is this law bad for Indiana? Check out these highlights from AG Zoeller's report (or read the full report, if you wish).

1. Constitutionality at issue.
   
   • Never before has the federal government required Americans to purchase any good or service, nor has it regulated inactivity.
   
   
   • The bill's "Nebraska Compromise" amendment ... appears to violate Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
   
   
2. Insurance exchanges problematic.


3. Indiana Medicaid costs.


• Increases Indiana's Medicaid costs by $2.4 billion over 10 years.


• Diverts pharmaceutical rebate savings from the states to the federal government, potentially resulting in a loss to Indiana of $750 million by 2019.


4. State insurance plans preempted.


• [May] spell the end of the popular Healthy Indiana Plan (HIP) where low-income Hoosiers now are able to purchase state-run health coverage — funded partially through cigarette tax — that emphasizes preventive care.


5. Economic impact.


Substantial negative impact on two Indiana industries that employed a combined 35,500 Hoosiers in 2007.

The report concludes that the Senate version of the health care bill is unlikely to achieve one of its major goals, reducing the cost of health care. ... The Senate bill is likely to cause a steep increase in insurance premiums.

Indiana is Not Alone in the Fight
14 Sovereign States have already filed suit

In the build-up the bill's final passage and signing, I was most aware of the Commonwealth of Virginia's opposition to it. Little did I know, the ball was already rolling throughout the Union.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (website | Twitter) was outspoken in his opposition and made it clear before the House even passed the bill that Virginia would file suit if it became law. When the House did pass the bill, AG Cuccinelli tweeted: "Well, they did it. Once the president signs it into law, we'll walk across the street and file suit b/c the ind mandate is unconstitutional".

Not only has the Attorney General stood up for the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and the liberty of its People, but the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill, expected to be signed into law by Governor Bob McDonnell today (24 March 2010), that explicitly makes it illegal for the federal government to force Virginia residents to purchase health care. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", since the Congress was not granted authority to force citizens to purchase a product or service, State laws supercede the federal government's "law".

As I said, I have been most aware of the fight in Virginia, but that last link includes a tidbit that Idaho has actually enacted such a law already.

In separate action, the attorneys general from thirteen (13) other states have jointly filed suit in the US District Court in Florida.

Attorney General	State of
Bill McCollum	Florida
Henry McMaster	South Carolina
Jon Bruning	Nebraska
Greg Abbott	Texas
Mark L. Shurtleff	Utah
James D. "Buddy" Caldwell	Louisiana
Troy King	Alabama
Michael A. Cox	Michigan
John W. Suthers	Colorado
Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.	Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Robert M. McKenna	Washington
Lawrence G. Wasden	Idaho
Marty J. Jackley	South Dakota

One interesting note is that, while in most states the Attorney General and the Governor are allies in this battle, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire supports the health care law that WA AG Rob McKenna has filed suit to block. Since both are elected offices, neither has authority over the other's actions.

Thankfully, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has been just as adamantly opposed to the federal government's takeover of the health care system. I'm encouraged to see that my home state is but one among many with heads of sound logic and balls of steel to stand up to the federal government's outright attempt to "control the people".


The Real Reason for the Health Care Bill
To control the people

Oh, did you miss that? Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI) admitted "it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps ... to control the people." He went on to say that "our Republicans have spent a long time not participating [in trying to control the people], not helping [the effort to control the people], prepping [to fight Democratic power-grabs], and delaying [Democratic power grabs],... they have contributed nothing to [the attempt to control the people] and made no offer whatsoever as to what it is they want or what they stand for."

There you have it, folks, straight from the horse's mouth. "Democrats been working a long time to advance the federal government's power to control the people, and Republicans have done nothing but try to stop them." And he is sorely mistaken if he believes Republicans have not made it known what they stand against. The very fact they've put up such a fight against these kinds of power-grabs speak louder than any official press-release or party policy.

Thank God we have States like Indiana and the others who have already filed suit to stop the injustice and folly that is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

Fighting for State's Rights & Personal Liberty

It has been asked, "How do we get our country back?"

There is no simple answer. We have been slowly eroded by politicians from both parties for decades, and it will likewise take a while to recover. But one thing is known - the first step is to contact your representatives. If they will listen, great! Tell them how they can best represent you and the best interest of the people. If not, it is time to start looking for a replacement - who knows, the right man for the job may be the one in the mirror.

With the passage of the "health care" bill by the US House of Representatives yesterday, we have taken a giant leap towards becoming the Union of Socialist States of America (USSA). Thankfully, several of the Sovereign States have already made it known that the federal government, a creature OF the Sovereign States, has overstepped its bounds, gone beyond the power granted to it by the States that created it.

At this point in time, at least 10 States have disclosed plans to file a lawsuit against the federal government for overstepping its powers with the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". More Sovereign States are likely to follow. My fellow Hoosiers, I encourage you to contact Attorney General Greg Zoeller in support of Indiana joining the list of States with the cajones to stand up to the federal government.

Below is a copy of the email I sent to AG Zoeller, and here is a link to contact him yourself. (If you are not a Hoosier, please contact your respective attorney general an encourage him to join the cause of State's Rights and Personal Liberty.

Dear Mr. Greg Zoeller:

I write to you on a day that is dreary not only because of the rainy weather, but more importantly because of the decision of the United States Congress to pass the "health care" bill last night. The bill was strongly opposed by a majority of American citizens throughout our great nation; watchdog groups warned us of the repercussions; the Democratic Party even lost seats already because citizens simply did not want this bill enacted. Yet, Congress, in its Infinite Wisdom, decided that the We the People are not intelligent nor wise enough to make this sort of decision, that it is somehow ordained to push this down our necks against our every petition, plea, and protest. Nevertheless, as of today, what has been done has already been done.

Yesterday, the President said, "This is what 'change' looks like."
"Oh really, Mr. President?" is my response. "Just wait until you see November... then you will truly see 'change'!"

I was disheartened to see that all five (5) of the Democratic representatives from Indiana to the United States House of Representatives voted in support of this bill. Surely they will receive their reckoning come election time. In the mean time, however, we have work to be done. As the highest legal advisor to the State of Indiana, I implore you to help us fight off this tragedy of American greatness that is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

As many as twelve (12) Sovereign States of our Great Union have begun preparations to file a lawsuit against the federal government's seizure of the health care system [1]. Most outspoken on this intention has been Virginia's Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, but Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has also made his intentions known. Furthermore, the attorneys general from Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Washington will be standing up to the federal government on behalf of their respective states [2]. I respectfully petition you, sir, to join the growing throng of opposition among these Sovereign States against the unconstitutional behavior of the members of the Congress of the United States and the White House.

Our very own Governor Mitch Daniels has been publicly against the passage of this outrageous bill [3]. I am a young man, and I have not been active in following politics until just the past two years, but my research and diligence has given me great faith in our State and in our Governor. I know you are much more aware of all the ramifications of this "reform" bill than I, but from every stretch of my knowledge, from every byte of insight I've extracted from my elders, advisors, peers, and mentors, and from every application of my sincerest wisdom, I have concluded that this Act must be undone at the earliest possible moment in order to protect, if not the Union as a whole, the State of Indiana. So again, I encourage you to join Governor Daniels in opposition to this bill for the welfare of our own state.


Thank you.


Best regards,

Caleb W. Allen
Fort Wayne, IN
B.S., Computer Science, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, 2009


Sources:
[1] http://www.wbur.org/npr/125030078
[2] http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/health.care.lawsuit/
[3] http://www.wthitv.com/dpps/news/indiana/governor-mitch-daniels-releases-statement-on-health-care-bill_3284623

All for now...
Caleb

Why There Should Be No Ban On Texting-and-driving

That video is gut wrenching. Were you even able to watch its entirety? The part that hurts me the most is seeing the little girl asking "Why won't Mommy and Daddy wake up?" and the little infant with an empty stare while emergency personnel frantically check for a pulse because I see in them my two nieces, ages 8 months and 6 years, who lost their mother when my sister Rachel passed away suddenly 8 months ago.

The accident depicted was caused by a teenaged girl texting while driving. So how could I possibly still oppose a legal restriction against texting while driving? There are many reasons, but let me discuss three of them:
1. Such a ban can not be well enforced.
2. "Texting" isn't the cause of accidents.
3. I have a better idea to handle the issue.

For the sake of discussion, let us consider HB 1279 which passed in the Indiana House yesterday (02 FEB 10). You should click that link to get more details on the specifics and definitions, but this is the main part of the bill:

A person may not use a telecommunications device to transmit a text message or electronic mail message while operating a moving motor vehicle unless the device is used in conjunction with hands free or voice operated technology.

1. Non-Enforceability
Law enforcement officers (LEOs) have no legal way of determining if you are texting.

In Indiana, using your wireless phone to make phone calls while driving is not illegal. In fact, Indiana does not even have a hands-free law regarding placing calls. Neither is there any restriction on using the GPS, music player, camera, or even game features that most modern phones include. These facts demonstrate that there are legal reasons to be looking at your phone and pressing buttons (or touching the screen) while driving.

So, a LEO may visually observe you pushing buttons on your phone while driving, but this is not sufficient to pull you over under the proposed law. This is different from Indiana's "Seat Belt Law" which specifically allows LEOs to stop a driver under Indiana Code 9-19-10-3.1.

Suppose that you have already been pulled over. A LEO may very well want to find out if you were in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law", but he cannot. If the officer asks you if you were texting, the Constitution of the United States protects you from answering. If the officer asks (or even "orders") you to produce your phone for inspection, the same Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure without 1) a warrant or 2) probable cause.

There are two very important things to remember. The first is that under United States law, the exercise of your Fifth Amendment right is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such. The second is that, since there are legal reasons to be pushing buttons (or touching the screen) of a phone, the fact that you were doing so does not provide probable cause for a search or seizure of your phone, and neither does refusing to tell the LEO if you were texting develop probable cause.

So, without probable cause or a warrant to search your wireless phone (or a subpoena for your phone records), there is no legal way for an officer of the law to determine if a driver was to be in violation of the "Texting While Driving Law". I must note that this does not apply to drivers foolish enough to waive their 4th and 5th Amendment protections by either admitting guilt or producing the evidence of guilt without a warrant.

June 2012 Update: Indiana passed a law banning texting while driving. Now, after several years, hardly any tickets have been written because… cops say they can't enforce it. "Police struggle to enforce texting law" - WISH-TV.

2. The Real Cause of Accidents
The real cause of accidents is not texting or even using a wireless phone; it is driver negligence.

The results are in. They can be read all over the internet, and they are seen and heard on the news. But many people have misinterpreted those results.

The following sources produce statistics and quotes you've probably heard before.
1. Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update. December 2008. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
2. Highway Officials: National Ban On Texting While Driving. SeriousAccidents.com (Car Accident Lawyers)
3. Teen Driver Menace: Text-Messaging: Studies Show Texting While Driving Is Epidemic. ParentingTeens.com
4. Teens Admit Text Messaging Most Distracting While Driving. Students Against Destructive Decisions.

The overriding theme is that there are many things which distract drivers from the road, and that one of the most common distractions these days is the use of a cell phone, especially for sending and receiving text messages. (Side note: HB1279 would only ban sending messages, not receiving and/or reading them, while driving.) So, you see, texting isn't really the cause; instead, the main cause is that drivers are paying more attention to something other than driving. Let's brainstorm a moment here.

Possible distractions to drivers:
• Reaching for a moving object inside the vehicle.
• Looking at an object or event outside of the vehicle.
• Reading a book or newspaper.
• Applying makeup.
• Doing or fixing hair.
• Eating.
• Taking a drink (assume non-alcoholic).
• Talking to passengers.
• Dealing with your kids in the back seat (lost toy, fighting, spill, potty accident, sick, etc.)
• Changing a CD, tape, radio station, song, or volume.
• Just listening to music, even if you don't change or adjust anything about it.
• Sexual activity (let's not be naïve, it happens).

And, of course, some other things that can adversely affect a driver's ability to safely operate a motorized vehicle:
• Emotions and state of mind.
• Cough syrup.
• Lack of sleep.
• Body aches and injuries.
• Drunkenness.
• Gender. (OK, just kidding on that one;)

The evidence in all studies to date has demonstrated that a driver whose attention is not focused on driving puts himself at a MUCH higher risk of being in a collision. (Note that I do not call it an "accident". One thing I learned in Driver's Ed is that there are very few accidents; it is almost always somebody's fault.) Whether that driver's attention is diverted by a phone, an iPod, CD player, GPS, or passengers is really irrelevant. No matter what causes that distraction, it is the responsibility of the driver to make sure that his vehicle does not hit anything. Thus, you see that most accidents result from driver negligence—neglecting to fulfill his responsibility to keep his vehicle from hitting something.


3. A Better Approach
Regulating distractions doesn't work. Regulating driving will.

Consider the findings of the attorneys at SeriousAccidents.com (source 2, above).

The percentage of car accidents attributed to dialing a cell phone is nearly identical to the number associated with talking or listening on a cell phone or bluetooth headset.

Again, the results are in. When cellular phones were just beginning to gain popularity, it became evident they were becoming a distraction to drivers. Many states enacted legislation requiring drivers to use "hands-free" devices if they wanted to use a cell phone while driving. But that did not help. Even Arizona Democratic State Rep. Steve Farley, who was the first legislator in the country to introduce a bill that would ban texting while driving, has noted that "hands-free" legislation has not proven successful.

What are legislators to do? Should they doggedly continue down the list of possible distractions and attempt to regulate each one, hoping that success will be found once they've all been banned? No, certainly not. This would be a waste of tax-payer money, since they'd be wasting time, on our dime, writing laws that are too difficult to enforce, infringe on our rights, and, most importantly, have little positive effect in solving the actual problem!

Listen, folks, I don't know if I've made it clear yet, but I'm not saying people should text whenever they want. And I don't believe that people should drive when they are drunk or high.

I've never been drunk, and thus never driven while drunk, but I've driven while I was way more sleepy than was safe. Studies have shown that driving while sleep-deprived can be as dangerous as, or more than, driving drunk. So why is driving tired not illegal too? Well the easy answer is that it cannot be easily measured such as your BAC can be measured, even though some people are not drunk at .08 while others are drunk well before then.

The laws are tackling the issue the wrong way. We should come up with a better way to handle this.

Let us create a "Distracted Driving Law" that is based on your driving, not what you're doing. Distracted driving tickets could be issued for, among other things:
• Not going at a green light.
• Swerving (which is already a reason to suspect drunk driving).
• Merging into somebody.
In fact, there are already several things in the Indiana Code that are classified as "reckless driving". Let's add to that.

Behavior that is generally indicative of being an impaired driver should be banned rather than each and every single little thing which could possibly contribute to impaired driving. In Indiana, one of the drivers in a collision is assigned fault (which is as it should be, in contrast with Michigan's no-fault policies). An appropriate piece of legislation may impose penalties for being the at-fault driver beyond the current status quo of simply being financially responsible for any damage caused to person or property.

We could do away with the current drunk driving laws, this proposed "Texting While Driving Law", and a flurry of other similar laws, both current and future. It doesn't matter what the heck you are doing in your car if you are able to maintain proper control of its velocity, path, and destination, i.e., speed, direction, where it goes, and where it ends up. But so help you, if you screw up, you're in deep poo-poo.

Legislating the driving itself also allows the law to be flexible to people of various skill levels. Can you barely chew gum and drive in a straight line? Better not chew and drive. Are you a big, burly, bartender who knows he can have four beers in an hour without even getting a buzz? Fine, if you can keep the car on the road and not hit anything; THAT is what is important, not your BAC nor bottle count.

And need I mention that this doesn't infringe on your personal rights? No illegal searches. No need to pull somebody over and give them a hard time on suspicion alone. The LEO can clearly observe if the vehicle is being operated in a reckless manner. This is much more easy to enforce.

Finally, this approach lets us stop writing laws about it! Thirty years ago there were no laws about texting and driving, or even using a phone while driving, because they weren't relevant. But suppose that laws had been written as I have suggested. In that case, the old law would still be relevant today because it was focused on the way a driver operates the motor vehicle on the roadway rather than what the particular distraction of his generation is.




Come on, folks. Don't let your legislature enact another "feel good" law with demonstrably little effect on stemming the real problem. Instead, let us encourage them to use some common sense and write a better law.

Click here to email your Indiana legislators. Tell them you oppose this bill, and all others like it, not because you think texting and driving is safe, but because it is a foolhardy approach to establishing roadway safety.




Further Reading
A Penchant for Controlling Others - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Institute
~ Angry White Boy ~ » Indiana House Bill 1279 – Nanny State Legislation
Do Not Make New Laws – Enforce the Ones We Have (Texas)

ATTN: Hoosiers. Support Senate Bill 25 - "Parking Lot Bill"

UPDATE! A law to this effect has been enacted!

HB 1065 was signed into law by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels on 18 March 2010.
News release on IndyStar.com
Digest of HB1065 on IN.gov

HB 1065 included provisions that protect Hoosiers from Katrina-style weapons confiscation in time of emergencies, among other emergency powers protections. In addition, the bill, which takes effect on 1 July 2010, prevents employers from banning legally possessed firearms from being stored in locked vehicles on company property. Both of these protections are important for the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms protected by the constitutions of the United States and of Indiana.

------------------------
Original post follows
------------------------

My fellow Hoosiers,

On Tuesday, January 12, Senate Bill 25 passed out of the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters by a vote of 8 to 3. SB 25, sponsored by NRA Board Member and State Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43), will now head to the full Senate for a floor vote.

This legislation would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and it is time Indiana did the same.

This is a bill that all citizens who are concerned for their own personal safety should support. To that end, I encourage you, fellow Hoosiers, to contact your state senators and encourage them to vote in support of this bill. I have already done so, and you are free to use the letter I drafted if you would like to, or you may feel free to compose your own; either way, just show your support for the bill!

Click here to contact the senator for your district.

Dear Senator [NAME]:

I am contacting you, as my representative in the Indiana Senate, to encourage you to vote in support of, and to work with all diligence to otherwise lend your support to, Senate Bill 25.

Senate Bill 25 would prevent a business from adopting or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits an individual from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the individual's private vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the business’ property. Twelve states have already enacted similar legislation to protect their law-abiding citizens from being wrongfully terminated for exercising their Second Amendment rights, and it is time Indiana did the same.

This is extremely important to Hoosiers who legally own and transport a firearm from their residence to place of business where said firearm may not be welcome due to company policy. Citizens concerned for their safety while in transit to and from their place of employ are then forced either to break company policy, at risk of job loss, or to forfeit their inherent right to bear arms recognized and protected by the constitutions of the State of Indiana and of the United States of America, at risk of life, limb, and/or property loss.

With these considerations in mind, please remember to vote in SUPPORT of SB 25.

Thank you.


Sincerely,
Your Name
Your City, IN

Caleb.

These Evils Shall Not Come Nigh Thee

I came home from Rose for Thanksgiving Break on Thursday afternoon. It is very good to be home again. I really love my family, and it is always just great to come home.

After a delicious dinner of Jamaican-style rice and peas (photo, recipe) by my Mom, followed by Indonesian-style ketan (sweet/sticky rice) for dessert, my parents had some news to share with me. They had opted not to tell me sooner because they did not want it to disrupt my studies.

My next door neighbor — for whom I had worked lawn for a few summers in high school; who started a local pizza chain; a generally great, friendly, thoughtful guy; a husband, father, and grandfather — had committed suicide. Needless to say, I was shocked. My parents had spoken with him only a week prior, and he’d said everything was going well: his business was improving, his family was doing well, things were good. Well, after the tragedy, my parents found out from his widow that there had been a series of signs that, in retrospect, betrayed his inner struggles. My condolences go out to his family and friends.

While any suicide is traumatic for those who knew the person, two suicides a mere week apart hits even harder. While I only now learned of my neighbor’s death, there was another suicide: a friend who lived on my floor when I was a Sophomore Advisor at Rose-Hulman committed suicide on what turned out to be only the 5th day after my neighbor had done the same.

As I thought of these four deaths of the past 7 months, each of which came as a great surprise, I was nearly overwhelmed. First, my uncle died of a nurse’s mistake while in the hospital. Then our Father called my sister home suddenly only 3 weeks after that. And then the two suicides. “What is with all this death?!” I wondered.

I haven’t even told you of the other deaths on my mind at the time. The best friend of a member in my home church was shot to death last month. The brother-in-law of one of my brother’s friends from his church died in a car crash this week.

I’d never known anybody who had died, nor known anybody who’d been directly affected by death until this year. Is it only as I become more aware of the world around me that I pay attention to these deaths? It really just seems like death is starting to fall around me, at various distances, of course.

Then God took my mind back to a verse I memorized in sixth grade: “A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.” Whether or not you agree that the verse applies to the situation of death seemingly falling all around me is inconsequential. Recalling that verse led me back to the chapter in which it is found: Psalm 91.

I read through Psalm 91 and was struck by how relevant it is to me as I ponder the deaths in the last 7 months. I wanted to take the time to write all this down so that you, too, may be comforted and strengthened by the promises therein.

1 Those who live in the shelter of the Most High
     will find rest in the shadow of the Almighty.
2 This I declare about the Lord:
  He alone is my refuge, my place of safety;
     he is my God, and I trust him.
3 For he will rescue you from every trap
     and protect you from deadly disease.
4 He will cover you with his feathers.
     He will shelter you with his wings.
     His faithful promises are your armor and protection.
5 Do not be afraid of the terrors of the night,
     nor the arrow that flies in the day.
6 Do not dread the disease that stalks in darkness,
     nor the disaster that strikes at midday.
7 Though a thousand fall at your side,
     though ten thousand are dying around you,
     these evils will not touch you.
8 Just open your eyes,
     and see how the wicked are punished.

9 If you make the Lord your refuge,
     if you make the Most High your shelter,
10 no evil will conquer you;
     no plague will come near your home.
11 For he will order his angels
     to protect you wherever you go.
12 They will hold you up with their hands
     so you won’t even hurt your foot on a stone.
13 You will trample upon lions and cobras;
     you will crush fierce lions and serpents under your feet!

14 The Lord says, “I will rescue those who love me.
     I will protect those who trust in my name.
15 When they call on me, I will answer;
     I will be with them in trouble.
     I will rescue and honor them.
16 I will reward them with a long life
     and give them my salvation.”

Psalm 91 (NLT)

This is the word of the Lord.

Thanks be to God.