MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!
The Supreme Court considers a law aimed at regulating these annoying phone calls.
NICK EICHER, HOST: What’s free speech—and what’s unprotected harassment—that’s ahead on Legal Docket.
Also today, some surprisingly good news on the economy.
Plus the WORLD History Book. Today, the story of how one of the world’s largest addiction-assistance groups got its start.
And taking extreme ownership.
REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 8th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.
EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!
REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: National Guard withdrawing from DC, NY curfew lifted » President Trump announced Sunday that the National Guard would begin withdrawing from Washington D.C. in his words—“Now that everything is under perfect control.” But he added that the troops “can quickly return, if needed.”
The use of force in Washington became a flashpoint last week after troops cleared protesters out of a park near the White House.
On Sunday, more retired military leaders spoke out. Former Navy Admiral James Stavridis told NBC’s Meet the Press…
STAVRIDIS: This is a moment when I think many of us watched the use of active duty military to clear peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square. And it rang echoes of what the founders feared more than anything, which was the use of armed active duty military against citizens.
And former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey condemned President Trump’s threats to use military force to quell violent protests across the country. On ABC’s This Week, Dempsey explained…
DEMPSEY: The military is given enormous power by the people of the United States. And they’re given that power because the people of the United States trust them that they’ll be both a force for order and stability overseas, if necessary in extremes at home.
He said that trust must be guarded.
Chauvin makes first court appearance » Meantime, Derek Chauvin will face a judge today for the first time. He’s the former police officer pictured in video footage with his knee on George Floyd’s neck.
He faces murder and manslaughter charges, both in the second degree.
Chauvin was a 19-year veteran and the senior officer on the scene. He claimed in his police report that Floyd had resisted arrest—though none of the video evidence made public supports that claim.
Three former officers at the scene are behind bars on charges of aiding and abetting murder and manslaughter. A judge conditionally set bail at $750,000 each.
New York City lifts curfew, governor urges protesters » Protests over the death of George Floyd continued over the weekend, but most were peaceful. With that in mind, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he’s easing restrictions in the Big Apple.
DE BLASIO: Because we got each day a better and better situation, more and more peaceful protesters coming out, better situation overall each day, fewer and fewer arrests, I made the decision to end the curfew.
Many restrictions remain in place over coronavirus concerns. And as New York City continues preparations to reopen, Governor Andrew Cuomo is urging anyone who participated in protests to get tested.
CUOMO: I would act as if you were exposed, and I would tell people who I’m interacting with, assume I am positive for the virus, because you could be infecting other people.
Cuomo said his state performed 60,000 tests on Saturday, with fewer than 800 people testing positive. That’s the lowest total since March 16th.
But the world passed a grim milestone on Sunday: 400,000 confirmed deaths related to the coronavirus—amid some 7 million infections. Experts say both totals likely underestimate the real impact of the virus, since many countries have sparse testing, while others have not accurately reported their numbers.
Brazil over the weekend announced it will no longer publish death and infection numbers in the country. Brazil is currently one of the hardest-hit nations in the world and one of the few places where the crisis is worsening.
Tropical storm Cristobal hits Gulf Coast » Tropical Storm Cristobal slammed the Gulf Coast on Sunday, with strong winds, heavy rain and storm surge. Thousands lost power along the coasts of Mississippi and Louisiana—before the storm made landfall.
Forecasters said some parts of those states could get up to 12 inches of rain. And Eric Blake with the National Hurricane Center said the threat isn’t over.
BLAKE: On Monday the storm should be moving from north Louisiana into Arkansas. The heavy rain threat will continue, along with some possible tornadoes [SIC].
President Trump signed an emergency declaration for Louisiana on Sunday to help mobilize relief after the storm passes.
Last week, the storm brought heavy rains and triggered mudslides in Mexico and South America. It later spawned a tornado in central Florida. No injuries were reported.
Tim Keller announces cancer diagnosis » Christian author and pastor Tim Keller announced Sunday that he’s been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
He tweeted that he’ll receive additional testing before beginning chemotherapy next week. He said he feels good and currently has no symptoms. Keller added—quote— “It was what doctors call an ‘incidental pickup,’ otherwise known as providential intervention.”
The 69-year-old was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002 and wrote a book about faith in times of suffering.
KELLER: There’s no better place to learn about the grace of God than in dark times. And also there’s no better place to become a person of greatness than in dark times.
Keller heard there in a 2018 sermon.
He asked Twitter followers to pray for healing, comfort for his family, and the strength to continue writing and speaking during his treatment.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead on Legal Docket: The Supreme Court weighs whether the government can prohibit those pesky robocalls.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MARY REICHARD: It’s Monday morning and a brand new work week for The World and Everything in It. Today is the 8th of June, 2020.
Good morning to you, I’m Mary Reichard.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. As you heard at the beginning of the program today, we are in our June Giving Drive. WORLD is a nonprofit organization devoted to biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires. And we depend on your support to keep going.
I know very well the sort of economic straits we’re in as a country. This is a hard time to be asking, we realize it.
REICHARD: Nevertheless, the support of listeners and readers is what makes it possible for us to supply you with sound journalism. It helps us to train the next generation of reporters. It helps us to produce new programs, launch new podcasts, create video news for students—and if we’ve earned your trust, we would ask in all humility, if you’re able, please support us however you can.
EICHER: You can give online at wng.org/donate. And you can track progress online. We’re praying for $850,000 in the month of June. We did start the drive last week and we’re over $170,000 so far. Again, wng.org/donate.
REICHARD: Now, on to oral arguments. Only three remain. Today, a dispute over something most of us will recognize.
AUDIO: [SOUND OF ROBOCALL]
EICHER: I have just the Seinfeld quote for you.
REICHARD: Because of course you do!
EICHER: Here’s how you handle these calls…
AUDIO: Just a sec. Hello?
Hi, would you be interested in switching over to TMI long distance service?
Oh, gee, I can’t talk right now. Why don’t you give me your home number and I’ll call you later?
Well, I’m sorry, we’re not allowed to do that.
Oh, I guess you don’t want people calling you at home.
Well, now you know how I feel.
REICHARD: Standup comedian. Quick on his feet!
Listen to the way Chief Justice John Roberts announced the case heard by teleconference.
ROBERTS: We’ll hear argument next in case 19-631 William Barr Attorney General versus The American Association of Political Consultants. Before we get started I’d like to remind everyone to turn their cell phones off.
This was the second day of arguments by phone, and some user difficulties arose. Have a listen:
ROBERTS: Justice Breyer? Justice Breyer? Justice Alito?
Not to worry, though. The chief came back around to him—but first, imagine Seinfeld going to law school…
ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel. Justice Breyer?
BREYER: Yeah, thank you. I’m sorry. The telephone started to ring, and it cut me off the call. And I don’t think it was a robocall. [Laughter] And we got it straightened out.
On to the background of this case.
Public outcry over robocalls prompted Congress in 1991 to pass the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. It forbids a business, debt collector, political activist, or charity to call you, unless you consented before by giving out your number.
The law had teeth: You can sue harassing telephone callers. According to the Cato Institute, 21 cases over the past 10 years have settled for over $10 million.
EICHER: Few problems with that for 23 years. But then Congress amended the law to make an exception for calls made “to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.”
A group of political consultants sued, arguing the whole law is an unconstitutional restriction on free speech based on its content, or the message conveyed. That’s a big no-no per prior Supreme Court opinion, because the government is not neutral. It has a proclivity to pass laws that benefit speech it likes and disfavors speech it doesn’t like.
REICHARD: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit acknowledged that. To “fix” it, that court struck down the debt collection government exception part, and kept the rest of the law.
But that meant more speech was restricted than before!
So, the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that government debt exception to robocalls is content neutral, having to do with other factors like the economic activity of the caller. Not the message itself.
One thing is quite clear: the justices like the ban on robocalls. You’ll hear it in these three clips from the chief justice, and justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh:
ROBERTS: It’s an extremely popular law. Nobody wants to get robocalls on their cell phone.
SOTOMAYOR: Any schemes to get money. And there’s so many scams from robocalls.
KAVANAUGH: This is one of the more popular laws on the books because people don’t like cell phone robocalls. That seems just common sense. Do you want to argue against that common sense?
It’s not so easy to argue against common sense. But that’s what the lawyer for the political groups had to do: argue that the whole law is unconstitutional.
Here’s that lawyer for the political groups, Roman Martinez. You’ll hear him say “TCPA,” and when he does you’ll know that’s the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
MARTINEZ: The TCPA bars them from using some of the most effective tools for communication now available: automated text messages and calls to cell phones. At the same time, the statute’s exceptions let government-approved speakers use these same technologies to deliver government-approved messages.
Put that way, it does seem like a slam-dunk, impermissible content violation. And most of the justices seemed to agree.
Listen to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg admonish the lawyer for the government:
GINSBURG: I don’t see how you can escape the content-based distinction. If the content is a debt owed to the government, that’s the content of the message, you owe the government for a student loan or whatever, then the call is okay. But, if the message is, please contribute to our political organization, it’s banned. So it’s based on what the message is.
And Justice Stephen Breyer had a much bigger, more philosophical inquiry:
BREYER: My question is what is content discrimination? All human life is carried on through speech. All government regulation is carried on through speech. Every single statute book is filled with all kinds of content discrimination. The SEC and every agency deals with nothing but what do their rules apply to, where are the exceptions, etc.
In answering him, Martinez for the political groups urged a distinction between commercial regulations of speech and speech subject to strict scrutiny.
Lots of back and forth over whether the appeals court could just lop off that offending government exception. The government argued of course it can; Congress put a severability clause right in the law itself. Besides that, the law went for years without that exception and worked fine. Just don’t strike down the whole thing.
But the political groups emphasized that Congress can figure out other anti-robocall measures. And then it could craft a more tailored approach that wouldn’t violate free speech.
Justice Ginsburg seemed to work both sides of the case in this comment to Martinez for the political groups:
GINSBURG: What Congress wanted to stop were out-of-the-blue calls, calls that you had no reason to anticipate. And calls about debts owed to the government can be regarded as less invasive in that respect, that they’re not out of the blue; they are simply a reminder of an obligation that the debtor undertook.
Americans really do love this law. I know I do! But fundamental freedoms and technical legalities are the tools of the law trade.
The justices have a much bigger case on their hands than it might first seem. This is about more than only robocalls; however the justices decide, the principles they lay down will affect other kinds of speech.
As Garrett Epps at The Atlantic wrote, this case offers “a good way for the court to become the least popular institution in America: by making it decide that Americans have to live with unsolicited, repeated prerecorded calls—so-called robocalls—to their cellphones.”
And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!
MARY REICHARD: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.
NICK EICHER: Americans suffered record-setting job losses with the economy largely on lockdown because of the coronavirus threat. But in the month of May, record-setting job gains as the economy reopens.
Two-and-a-half million jobs came back. That’s a record number going back to 1948 when the government first started keeping track.
The job gains were broad among both goods-makers and service-providers: construction jobs went way up, as did education, health, and hospitality jobs.
But an indication of how far we have to go is this: the unemployment rate fell nearly two percentage points and yet sits above 13 percent, 13.3.
Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us now. David, good morning.
DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning, Nick.
EICHER: Well, what a week. Let’s have a listen to White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow’s analogy on the jobs front.
KUDLOW: It was like a bad hurricane or a bad snowstorm. There’s a lot of heartache in that and there’s a lot of hardship in that, absolutely. But they’re sharp and fast and they recover fast. And we’re beginning to see this rapid recovery, which I believe will extend well into the third quarter and the fourth quarter.
Sharp and fast down, sharp and fast up. We’re seeing a rapid recovery—agree or disagree with Mr. Kudlow?
BAHNSEN: Oh, I definitely agree. And I’ve felt throughout this whole experience that the recovery was going to be rapid, it’s just that the questions around it were when that recovery could even start because the lockdown ended up lasting so much longer than initially had been anticipated.
And then the question will end up being: if you get a 90 percent recovery in some industries that have, let’s say, 30 percent margins, that’s a substantial recovery. But if you get a 95 percent recovery in something that has 3 percent margins, that’s not even good enough. And so it’s going to vary industry by industry.
But as far as the employment side, when you say 2-and-a-half million jobs coming back, that’s the accurate number. But you have to contrast it against an additional 8 million that they anticipated being lost. So, the net difference of what we got in the jobs data versus expectation was 10.5 million.
That is profound.
But it calls into question a whole lot of other economic data going forward that people have to say, wait a second, how much better could other things be than have been previously anticipated?
EICHER: Still, though, we’re 20 million jobs down. Recovery may be on, but we’re not back by any stretch.
BAHNSEN: Of course not. That’s right. Now, 13.3 percent unemployment rate in an absolute sense would be absolutely horrific. But these things are not measured that way.
They have to be measured by trajectory and by a relative comparison to where we were and where we thought we’d be and things of that nature.
The 1.5 million jobs—give or take—from bars and restaurants and the million or so in leisure hospitality, that is incredibly indicative of a very temporal and transitory situation.
Will you have hundreds of thousands of white-collar jobs that become permanent losses? Very possibly. But you’re not going to have millions. And so in a macroeconomic sense, the early indicators are that we’re going to be outperforming our negative expectations.
I think it was 169,000, if I remember correctly, in permanent job losses that went higher. So there were some negative little pieces in that data overall, but the fact of the matter is we do see some silver linings on the employment side.
And, I think intuitively, I don’t know, Nick, if you’ve been able to get back out into restaurants and things yet. Orange County started this reopening where I am in Southern California right now. I’m not back in my New York City office yet. I know it’s going to be a different picture there. But I’ve got to tell you, the restaurant scene here, it’s back. The waiters, waitresses, those jobs are back. Clearly. They’ve reopened and you see that. And I think we’ve got to be encouraged by that.
EICHER: Two final things, and let’s run fast here. Want to do a what’s next on an economic package in Congress but also the market week. I see the Nasdaq has recovered to its pre-COVID level, near its all-time high in February. Tech stocks, mainly. The Dow and the Standard & Poor’s not quite that good, but doing a lot better. So, what’s the market story?
BAHNSEN: Well, the market story continues to be the same story that it has pretty much been since the end of March, only this week it just took another quite significant leg higher. And that story is that markets are pricing in what they believe about the future. And that the future is significantly better than it was at the peak level of COVID hysteria in the middle of March.
The NASDAQ, indeed, has done better. You have some of those big tech names that were never really all that affected. But this week you saw financials, real estate, industrial, some of those more cyclical names really turn it on. And I think investors probably have to feel good if they did in fact avoid panicking back in March.
EICHER: You mentioned the widespread belief of another 8 million jobs lost, but instead we re-gained 2.5 million, for net plus 10.5. Does that change the politics of the negotiations between the White House and Congress on what to do next?
BAHNSEN: It does. That’s a great question, by the way, because you immediately saw some of the parties go into damage control. When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the Democrats immediately went out and said, oh, you cannot be taking a victory lap, 13.3 percent unemployment is still very bad, so forth and so on, that was him posturing for the next level of stimulus. But the point is politically this would set that back. And it sets the timing back.
I noticed that my friend Larry Kudlow, I didn’t get a chance to ask him about this yesterday. I saw him in the press say we’re going to start negotiations now after July 4th. Previously they had been saying finish by July 4th. And so they may also buy themselves more time when there isn’t the urgency of legislating. That’s what happened with the CARES Act. The economy was in free fall. We were in total panic, jobs, I mean, it was brutal. You remember. And we were on air together talking about it.
That forced them to do that quickly. This is different. So, I absolutely think that this even further pushes out—a bill’s still coming and they’re going to spend trillions of dollars, but it’s going to push it out a bit now and give, perhaps, a little bit more leverage to people as to what their agenda may be.
EICHER: Alright, David Bahnsen, financial analyst and adviser. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
BAHNSEN: Thank you, Nick.
MARY REICHARD: Today is Monday, June 8th, 2020. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: the WORLD History Book. Thirty years ago this week, Boris Yeltsin declares Russian independence. Plus, 65 years ago—the deadliest accident in auto-racing history.
REICHARD: But first, the story behind a worldwide organization helping those with addictions—here’s Paul Butler.
PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today on Mother’s Day weekend, 1935. A surgeon in Akron, Ohio, named Robert Smith is drunk, lying on the floor under the dining room table. Anne—his wife—is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Just then, the phone rings. On the other end of the line is a New York businessman—in town for work.
The caller is a Christian named Bill Wilson. He’s just had a business venture fall through and is vulnerable. He’s upset, all alone, in a strange town, and the draw of the hotel bar is strong. He’d heard of Dr. Smith through an acquaintance and thought perhaps they could help each other. Smith is in no condition for visitors, so they agree to meet up the next day. Audio here of Bill Wilson from a 1964 documentary.
WILSON: The doorbell rang, there stood Dr. Bob and Anne…he was shaking violently, and said: “I have another engagement, I don’t believe I can stay but a few minutes…”
Bill takes Bob to a private room, and tells him his story. Dr. Smith listens intently. The two men become instant friends. Wilson even moves in with the Smiths for a time. On June 10th, 1935, Smith takes his last drink, begins making amends with people he’s hurt, and Alcoholics Anonymous is born.
Today there are more than 2 million active members of AA groups around the world and it all started with a simple, honest conversation.
Next, June 11th, 1955, in Le Mans, France. More than 200,000 spectators gather for the annual running of the 24 Hours of Le Mans motor race.
NEWSREEL: The 60 starters are in their stride, thundering away to gain that early lead…
The prestigious contest is not a fixed distance race. Rather, drivers run an eight-and-a-half-mile circuit for 24 hours. Whoever travels the farthest over the duration of the race wins.
The drivers are almost like jockeys in horse racing. Many are well known, but it’s the cars—and the car companies—most people come to see.
NEWSREEL: The leaders streak past the grandstand in the early laps with Mercedez, Jaguar, and Ferrari’s well to the fore…
During the 35th lap, the frontrunners begin making their way to the pit for refueling and minor adjustments.
NEWSREEL: All seems to be going smoothly when disaster strikes going 125 miles per hour. Levegh’s Mercedes collides and blows up.
The car disintegrates as the engine block, hood, and front-end catapult into the grandstand, sweeping away complete swaths of spectators.
NEWSREEL: In a few ghastly seconds, death wipes out whole families. Levegh is killed before his wife’s eyes, and some 70 spectators with him.
Race officials fear a mob if they red flag the competition, so they agree to let it continue. The back-up driver for Mercedes enters the race, but within hours, the company quietly pulls the car, and withdraws from the race.
NEWSREEL: Doctors, priests, uninjured survivors do their best, but 79 men, women, and children, are dead or dying in the worst disaster in motor-racing history…
Due to the accident, many European countries temporarily ban all motorsports until racetracks are made safer. Within three months, a few circuits are reopened so the ‘55 racing season can finish.
Within a year, most countries allow racing again, with redesigned pit facilities, and greater protections for the fans and drivers. However Switzerland doesn’t allow the sport to restart for nearly 60 years—not until 20-15, and only then with electric cars.
And finally, we head to Russia:
In the late 1980s, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, was unraveling around the edges. Democratic protests were common, and the centralized socialist propaganda machine could no longer hide the growing call for freedom across the republic.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was just the beginning. By the next summer, five former Soviet republics held democratic elections and successfully left the USSR: Lithuania, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, and Armenia.
The democratic movement was growing in Russia as well. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had introduced social and political reforms in the mid 1980s. Those freedoms had now grown beyond his control.
In May of 1990, Borris Yeltsin was elected chairman of Russia, the largest territory of the USSR. The Russian congress wanted control over its own affairs and on June 12th, 1990, declared national sovereignty.
While largely a symbolic vote, it laid the groundwork for a new constitution and the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union.
AUDIO: [RUSSIAN ANTHEM]
Since 1992, Russians have marked June 12th as “Russian Independence Day,” and today as simply “Russia Day.”
That’s this week’s WORLD History Book, I’m Paul Butler.
MARY REICHARD: Today is Monday, June 8th, 2020. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. WORLD Radio’s J.C. Derrick now with some thoughts on taking responsibility, extremely.
J.C. DERRICK, MANAGING EDITOR: I’m currently listening to an audiobook called Extreme Ownership. Two former Navy SEALS wrote the book based on leadership lessons they learned during combat operations in Iraq.
It’s a riveting read. I find myself almost holding my breath as they recount stories of dangerous, complex operations in an urban environment. Mistake one building for another, one street for another, and you might attack your comrades instead of your enemy—and the authors recount numerous close calls.
The key idea is this: Rather than give in to human nature and blame others, take responsibility. All of it. Take responsibility for your team, your performance, for communicating up and down the chain of command. And most of all, take responsibility when something goes wrong.
Authors Jocko Willink and Leif Babin apply this principle to business, which makes sense. But I keep wondering what would happen if we did this in every area of our lives.
What would happen if we took responsibility for the problems in our marriages, rather than blaming our spouses? What would happen if we took full responsibility for our life choices, rather than blaming our parents, or the circumstances of our childhood?
And, yes, what would happen if we took responsibility for our own part of America’s racial strife? It’s an obvious connection right now, but no less important. What if?
Last week, my pastor, Mark Davis, preached an excellent sermon along these lines. He made the point that, as Christians, we must always see our primary identity as children of God. Not black or white. Not Democrat or Republican. I can’t see myself first as a Texan, even though it’s a big part of my identity.
But, Mark said from that place of identity in Christ, we must speak and engage on these cultural issues. We don’t get to take a pass.
Of course, the question is how. Well, the most important thing we can do is pray. As Russell Moore recently wrote—quote—“Civil religion cannot get us out of this, and social-media politics surely can’t. We will need consciences made alive by the Spirit of God and determined to do what is right.” End quote.
That aligns with Paul’s words in Ephesians 6: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
It doesn’t take moral courage to condemn destructive riots, virtue signaling, or the many ill-conceived proposals floating around. What’s much harder is offering a better way.
The question is: Will we? The Bible commands us to mourn with those who mourn. But will we take other first steps, like speaking up when someone tells a racist joke? Will we commit to build a new friendship or read one of the race relations books Marvin Olasky recently recommended on this program? Will we read a book like Trillia Newbell’s God’s Very Good Idea to our children?
In other words, will we take ownership? Or, as peace returns, will we use the idea of colorblindness as an excuse to do nothing?
May God illuminate and convict as appropriate. And may He redeem recent events in a powerful way.
I’m J.C. Derrick.
NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: States are ramping up contact tracing efforts to prevent a second wave of coronavirus infections. But privacy advocates are raising red flags.
And, we’ll talk to a religious liberty expert about the president’s new policy on foreign aid and human rights violations.
That and more tomorrow.
I’m Nick Eicher.
MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.
The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.
WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
Remember, we’re in our June Giving Drive. If you can’t right now, we understand, but if you can, please visit wng.org/donate and please pray with us that we’ll reach our goal.
Go now in grace and peace.