With DAPA, The President Broke The Law

The following commentary was written by U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R, UT) following the recent Supreme Court hearing on President Obama's unilateral amnesty for  millions of illegal aliens which also includes broad access to governmental aid programs.

'The President Broke the Law with DAPA. Will the Supreme Court Stop Him?'

"One of the most fundamental challenges facing the United States today is the deep and growing distrust between the American people and their political system in Washington, D.C. And the inconvenient truth — rarely acknowledged by Washington elites — is that the American people’s distrust of their public institutions is totally justified.

Most moms and dads in America still teach their children to follow the rules even when they’re inconvenient, to respect the authority of the law, and to work hard to earn their success. But when they look to their nation’s capital, they see a very different ethos — one that rewards politicians and bureaucrats who rewrite the rules whenever they please, flout the law with impunity, and rig public policy in their favor.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which challenges one of the most egregious examples of Washington’s corrupted culture: President Obama’s amnesty program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Records (DAPA).

For more than six decades, Congress has exercised its power over immigration by establishing a comprehensive scheme of rules and regulations governing admission to the country and the circumstances under which foreign nationals may be eligible for work authorization or government benefits.

President Obama does not like the current immigration code and, to be honest, I have problems with it as well. But neither of us is allowed to change the law on our own, a fact President Obama used to respect.

As he (the President) explained in March 2011: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. . . . There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

But just a few years later, President Obama did exactly what he had previously said was strictly prohibited by the Constitution. With the adoption of DAPA, he unilaterally suspended federal immigration law for more than 4 million aliens living in the United States illegally, granting them “lawful presence,” work authorization, and access to a host of government benefits.

President Obama claims DAPA is just a routine exercise of the chief executive’s inherent power of “prosecutorial discretion,” which gives executive-branch agencies some degree of leeway when enforcing the law. But that power has limits, and it’s clear that DAPA goes beyond them.

For instance, it is a legitimate use of prosecutorial discretion for a prosecutor to decide not to prosecute someone who got a ticket for driving 75 miles per hour in a 65-mile-per-hour zone.

But that same prosecutor could not announce that, as a matter of policy, all motorists are permitted to travel at 75 miles per hour and then create a special lane for them to do so. This would be an obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion, as it would effectively create a new law.

That is exactly what President Obama did when he created DAPA.
DAPA is not a minor adjustment of immigration-enforcement policy; it is a wholesale rewriting of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Nor is DAPA even remotely comparable to past deferred-action programs implemented by former presidents. Historically, deferred action has been reserved to provide temporary relief to narrowly tailored groups, but President Obama has used it to circumvent the legislative process and unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of foreign nationals living in the United States illegally.

The facts of the case are clear: By adopting the DAPA program, President Obama broke the law, usurped Congress’s authority to regulate immigration, and violated his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
You don’t have to oppose the policy outcome contemplated by DAPA to see the danger of allowing the president to singlehandedly rewrite the law.

In a republic such as ours, the stability and legitimacy of government rests, above all, on a moral foundation of public trust. Citizens must have confidence that the representatives they elect to write and enforce the nation’s laws will do so honestly, if not honorably. But today, that confidence has withered and weakened.

Fortunately, United States v. Texas gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to strengthen the public’s trust in our political system by affirming that in America no one, not even the president, is above the law."

"Equality" Demands in the State of Georgia

This week, the State of Georgia's Legislature passed a Bill addressing the issue of LGBT persons using the restroom facilities of the opposite sex, according to their birth gender. If signed by Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, several entertainment companies including Disney and Tyler Perry Productions have stated that if the Bill is indeed signed, that they will pull out of the State, taking their production business elsewhere. Their gripe? Because they are all for "Equality" in all its forms, and against intolerance towards those of various sexual persuasions or identities. In other words, they are basically demanding that anyone of the LGBT ilk be allowed to use the public restroom facilities of their 'chosen' gender identity.
Forget the fact that this poses the traumatizing risk of children being exposed to things they just should be made to see, there is the very real probability that such allowances will pose the risk of pedophiles and other sexual predators to legally enter the bathroom of their potential victims. How is this OK with these companies who demand this so-called "equality?"
The issue is definitely a 'Hot Button' topic, and I immediately sat down and wrote the following comment to a story on today's MSN:

So, in the name of "equality" these companies and various celebrities would infringe on the rights of the vast 99% who don't want themselves or their children exposed to this vast minority of just 1% who seek to dictate to everyone else what is fair and acceptable. How about coming up with a solution that doesn't infringe on the 99% who see this as either a Freedom of Religion issue, or simply what is right, and what is blatantly wrong...or both.

It's because of the vast minority dictating to the vast majority that the Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited in our public schools; that a student wishing to say a prayer over school lunch is prohibited; that our Freedom of Religion, as guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, is on the brink of collapse; that the ACLU wrongly coerces school districts across the nation into banning Christmas references, and other religious activities in our schools; and that public displays of the Ten Commandments are being torn up from city hall's across the country.

Oh! Someone is offended! Now, they are going to make the entire country bend to their will, rather than displaying basic human understanding and compassion and allowing the vast majority to do, say and worship as they expect to be able to. You know...those pesky freedoms included in our Founding documents.

The Obama Administration Misrepresents the Constitution...Again.

With the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a vacancy on the High Court needs to be filled which is the job of the President to Nominate a successor, but the job of the US Senate to Accept or Reject the candidate at all.

US Senator Mike Lee (R), Utah, highlights the misrepresentation of the Obama Administration of the issue to the American people in the text of his weekly address to his constituents as follows:

Chairman's Note: The People Should Determine What Kind of Supreme Court They Wish to Have

The opening words of the Preamble to the United States Constitution are familiar to us all: “We the People.” But what exactly do they mean?

It was by “the People” that the Constitution was written and ratified. It is for “the People” that my colleagues and I, along with every other public official across these United States, now serve. And it was on behalf of “the People” that the Constitution established “one supreme Court,” consisting of judges appointed “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Since the tragic passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the Constitution.

But there should be no controversy. The text of our founding charter is clear: The president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court, and the Senate has full and complete power to confirm nominees or to withhold consent.
It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider – much less accept or reject – presidential nominees.

This should not be controversial. It is how virtually every student of the Constitution – and nearly every member of Congress – has understood the Senate’s power of “Advice and Consent” for the past 228 years since the Constitution was ratified.

But now, with the presidential election in full swing, President Obama and his allies in Congress and the media claim the opposite is true. As they tell it, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and to vote on the candidate that President Obama eventually nominates to replace Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court.

I respectfully dissent.

"It’s as simple as that. Indeed, the Senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even consider – much less accept or reject – presidential nominees."

If this a-textual and a-historical account of the Constitution were accurate, then prior Senates violated the Constitution when they did not cast up-or-down votes on Supreme Court nominees. Even the Standing Rules of the Senate would be suspect, contemplating as they do that “[n]ominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President...”

Neither does the prospect of a temporary eight-member Court raise concern. For instance, during the Court’s 2010-2011 term, the Court decided over 30 cases with eight or fewer justices, almost entirely as a result of recusals arising from Justice Kagan’s nomination. Similarly, following the retirement of Justice Powell in 1987, the Court acted on 80 cases with eight or fewer justices.

In short, the sky does not fall when the Court comprises only eight justices. As Justice Breyer recently stated, the work of the court “[f]or the most part...will not change.”

With the future of the Supreme Court now at stake, and the election for our next president already well underway, it is the People who should determine what kind of Supreme Court they wish to have. The president is entitled, of course, to discharge his own constitutional authority to nominate. But the Senate is equally entitled to withhold consent and protect the People’s voice.

As James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, "ambition must counteract ambition. And the People should decide."

President Obama's Latest Attempt to Bypass Congress

The recent FBI order to coerce Apple (inc) to write backdoor software to break into the phones of the San Bernardino shooters as a part of its investigation as been met with wall of resistance by Apple, stating it refuses to unlock the phones due to very real and worrying Governmental intrusion into privacy of its citizens that our Government is sworn to protect. Apple has used the courts to block the injunction served by the FBI, and has publicly stated that it will never unlock the phones.
President Obama, in his ever-present desire to rule as an uncrowned Monarch, has pulled out an antiquated, seldom used law from 1789 called the All Writs Act which compels law enforcement to demand technology from a company in the course of its investigation.

As Written into Law:

"The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law."
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
(b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be issued by a justice or judge of a court which has jurisdiction.

Application of the All Writs Act requires the fulfillment of four conditions:^[3]

• The absence of alternative remedies—the act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available.
• An independent basis for jurisdiction—the act authorizes writs in aid of jurisdiction, but does not in itself create any federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction—the writ must be necessary or appropriate to the particular case.
• Usages and principles of law—the statute requires courts to issue writs "agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

Example:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. New York Telephone Co. 434 U.S. 159 (1977) that the act provided authority for a U.S. District Court to order a telephone company to assist law enforcement officials in installing a device on a rotary phone in order to track the phone numbers dialed on that phone, which was reasonably believed to be used in furtherance of criminal activity.

Senator Mike Lee (R) Utah, has illustrated the Obama Administration's latest attempt to bypass Congress on this issue in his weekly communication with his (Lee's) constituents. This is another clear violation by Obama of the Founding Documents he has twice sworn to Uphold, Protect and Defend," which he has clearly lied about doing.

"After seven years in office, it is now very clear what President Obama does when Congress refuses to do his bidding: he simply ignores the lawmaking branch and tries to use raw power to change the law by fiat.

He did it on immigration to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. He did on education to force Common Core on the states. And now he is doing it again to try to rewrite our nation’s privacy laws.

In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which determines the requirements facing technology companies when law-enforcement agencies want their help with criminal investigations.

Specifically, the law states that it “does not authorize any law enforcement agency or officer to require any specific design of equipment, features [...] or system configurations to be adopted by any [...] manufacturer of telecommunications equipment.”

In other words, a mobile phone manufacturer, like Apple, can’t be forced to create a backdoor key for law-enforcement agencies to use to access any phone they want.

For years President Obama sought to change this law, but Congress disagreed.

So when one of the San Bernardino terrorists failed to destroy one of his three mobile phones, which was owned by the county for which he worked, President Obama saw his chance to rewrite the law through the courts.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is now claiming in federal court that the All Writs Act, passed in 1789, empowers the law-enforcement agency to compel Apple to create new software that will allow to get FBI agents into the terrorist’s phone.

Earlier this week, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, President Obama’s Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, testified that there was no link between the president’s failure to change the law in Congress and the FBI’s decision to use the All Writs Act to achieve the same result through the courts.

But a federal judge in Brooklyn, New York, who received a similar All Writs Act request from the FBI exposed President Obama’s tactics. In a February 29 ruling, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein wrote: “It is also clear that the government has made the considered decision that it is better off securing such crypto-legislative authority from the courts (in proceedings that had always been, at the time it filed the instant Application, shielded from public scrutiny) rather than taking the chance that open legislative debate might produce a result less to its liking.”

“Indeed,” Orenstein continued, “on the very same day that the government filed the ex parte Application in this case [...] it made a public announcement that after months of discussion about the need to update CALEA to provide the kind of authority it seeks here, it would not seek such legislation.”

People of good faith can have honest disagreements about what tech companies should or should not be compelled to do by law enforcement. But the proper place for that debate and policymaking process is Congress, not the courts."

When will Congress collectively stand up and demand the President cease his assault on Congress and the Constitution? Frankly, after everything he has done, including his open defiance of Congress, I am surprised they have failed to address the Power Grab he so blatantly uses to get his way.

Opening Public Lands to Unregulated Logging and Mining

A story from "The Guardian" today highlights an alarming bit of legislation that I absolutely had to comment on. The following are both the article and my response. Please read...

Congress is to consider two bills that would allow states to hand over vast tracts of federal land for mining, logging or other commercial activities – just weeks after the arrest of an armed militia that took over a wildlife refuge in Oregon in protest at federal oversight of public land.
Related: Oregon militia explainer: background to the standoff
The legislation, which will be presented to the House committee on natural resources on Thursday, would loosen federal authority over parts of the 600m acres (240m hectares), nearly one-third of the land mass of the US, it administers.

A bill put forward by Republican Don Young would allow any state to assume control of up to two million acres of the national forest system to be “managed primarily for timber production” in order to address what Young claims is a decline in national logging rates.

A further bill, written by Republican Raul Labrador, would allow state governors to assign up to four million acres of land as “forest demonstration areas”, which would allow logging free from any federal water, air or endangered species restrictions.

The bills, which will be heard by a Republican-dominated committee, come just two weeks after the dramatic end to the armed militia occupation of the Malheur national wildlife refuge in Oregon. The 41-day occupation, which resulted in the fatal shooting of the militia’s spokesman before the arrest of the rest of the group, was sparked by the group’s anger at federal land use regulations.

The heavily armed militia, led by Ammon and Ryan Bundy, said the occupation could last for “several years”, with some saying they were willing to die for the cause. Republican presidential contender Ted Cruz recently aligned himself with sentiments expressed by the group, releasing an advert in Nevada that criticized federal control of public land.

“If you trust me with your vote, I will fight day and night to return full control of Nevada’s lands to its rightful owners,” Cruz said in the ad. The Texas senator came third in the Republican caucus in Nevada.

Environmentalists have decried the latest attempt to strip federal control from public land, warning that endangered species and vital ecosystem services, such as clean water, will be put at risk.

“The natural resources committee is pretty radicalized at this point,” said Bobby McEnaney, senior lands analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The fact that they would react to what’s happened in Oregon to advance an agenda to take land from the federal government is seriously tone deaf.

“Most of this committee didn’t condemn the actions at Malheur, so this is not completely unexpected. The agenda here is being driven by oil, gas and timber industries. The Republicans are interested in a deregulation race to zero.”

Donald Barry, senior vice-president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife, said the authors of the bill were in a “time warp”.

“One would expect this kind of thing would happen in the 1900s, but not the 21st century,” he said.

“National forests are no longer viewed by the public as an ATM machine based on the exploitation of natural resources. They are places to hike, camp and to be protected in order to provide clean water supplies. The American people clearly realize this now.

“The idea that states will manage this land well is just an illusion. They don’t have the resources to do so, which means there will be a fire sale for mining and timber companies. The American public would lose access to these lands. Those days should be behind us.”

The authors of the bills, along with the committee chairman, Rob Bishop, were all approached for comment.

My response:

"This is terrible, poorly considered legislation!

If allowed, logging and mining companies will absolutely destroy public lands for the sake of profit. Anyone who has seen the logging practice called "Clear-Cutting" knows what I'm talking about. There is no forest management; only the total decimation of every tree, whether it is mature enough or not. After doing so, it takes generations for the forest to recover.

As far as mining, they will pollute every stream they are near, destroying clean water, fish and other wildlife habitat, and affecting entire ecosystems. These companies will utilize grandfather clauses to destroy both parks and wilderness areas as well, such as one companies' attempt to mine in the middle of the pristine Glacier Peaks Wilderness. Only a land swap averted that from happening.

Add in the removal of all environmental protections and we WILL see an environmental disaster unlike anything this country has seen in decades. Anyone who jumps onboard this legislation needs to get the boot from public office as this is purely in the best interest of corporations only, and to the detriment of the American public."

Syrian Refugees and President Obama's Constitutional Misrepresentation

From The Wall Builders comes a fantastic editorial on President Obama's attempted rewrite of Article VI of the US Constitution so as to support his political agenda regarding Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country.
This is yet another example of the President of the United States attempting to alter the Constitution--the very guiding principles of our country--to push his political agenda forward, which is clearly becoming his attempt to change the very fabric of law that this country was founded upon. Please read on.

Article VI of the Constitution

Following the recent attacks in Paris, and after learning that terrorists were hiding among Muslim Syrian refugees, a political battle erupted in America over allowing those refugees to enter. The President supported their continued admission while Congress voted to increase screening of those refugees. Numerous governors added their opposition to accepting Syrian refugees.
Presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz recommended that America accept only Christian refugees from Syria, but President Obama flatly dismissed that proposal, explaining:

When I hear folks say that, well, "Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims" -- when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted. . . that’s shameful.

The President's allusion to a “religious test” is a reference to Article VI of the Constitution, which says:

. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

President Obama, once again, has completely rewritten the simple wording of the Constitution to make it say something it does not. As is evident from the clear wording above, the "religious test" clause applies only to federally elected and appointed officials, and that's all. It does not apply to immigrants or anyone who does not hold federal office.
Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (considered one of the two "Fathers of American Jurisprudence") affirmed this in his famous 1833 Commentary on the Constitution:

 This clause. . . is designed to cut off every pretense of an alliance between the Church and State in the administration of the National Government. (emphasis added)

This clause specifically ensured that there would be no requirement that all federal officials must belong to just one specific denomination, which had been the case across much of Europe at the time the Constitution was written.
Signer of the Constitution Richard Dobbs Spaight likewise affirmed:

As to the subject of religion. . . . [n]o power is given to the general [federal] government to interfere with it at all. . . . No sect [denomination] is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity are equally eligible to offices.

The religious test clause of the U.S. Constitution applies only to those holding a federal office.
Whether or not Syrian Muslim refugees should be accepted into America is still to be determined, but contrary to what President Obama claims, Article VI of the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. 

Veterans Day Salute 2015

My wife is a Veteran of the US Army, serving from 1979-1983 in Europe at the height of the Cold War. As a Military Intelligence officer, she was often on the front lines in Eastern Europe, and served her country with pride and distinction.
The following text is from the National Day of Prayer task Force, in honor of all those who have served in the military to protect and defend the United States.

Honoring America's Heroes

by John Bornschein

As we honor those who have served in the United States Armed Forces, the National Day of Prayer Task Force encourages you to pray for our military families and diligently intercede on behalf of those who continue to fight for freedom across the globe. Scriptures remind us that Almighty God goes before us even on the battlefield:

He appointed military officers over the people and assembled them before him in the square at the city gate and encouraged them with these words: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of Assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. With him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the LORD our God to help us and to fight our battles.” – II Chronicles 32:6-8

The National Day of Prayer Task Force would like to salute our brave men and women who have courageously stood on the front lines throughout America’s history to defend the defenseless, to protect the innocent, and even lay down their lives. We pause and remember the many who made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as those who were prepared to do so though it was not required. Most of all, we remember the character and devotion with which each of them served this nation as champions of liberty.

Today, we echo the sentiment of President Ronald Reagan’s 1988 Veterans Day address:

“… in our hearts you will always be young, full of the love that is youth, love of life, love of joy, love of country – you fought for your country and for its safety and for the freedom of others with strength and courage. We love you for it. We honor you. And we have faith that, as He does all His sacred children, the Lord will bless you and keep you, the Lord will make His face to shine upon you and give you peace, now and forevermore.”

Join with us as we unite in prayer for our military families, our chaplains, those who have served, and those who continue to serve this great nation. These are America’s heroes. May we never forget their perseverance and vigilance. May we never forget their sacrifice.

 

May God bless you and may God bless America!

John Bornschein
Vice Chairman
National Day of Prayer Task Force

Ben Stein on Christmas and God

From the always enlightened and spot on correct Ben Stein:

"Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year, which prompted Ben Stein, to say, on CBS Sunday Morning,
...My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.
Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.
Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.
Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.
Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

-Ben Stein"