The World and Everything in It: April 8, 2024

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like me. Hi, I'm Jenny Civerolo, and I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico at the base of the beautiful Sandia mountains. I know you will be informed, educated, and inspired by today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! The Supreme Court wants to know: When does state “advice” become coercion?

KNUDSEN: Government should not be able to come in and act like the mafia. And that's really what this was.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Later on, the Monday Moneybeat. Today, the Disney proxy fight over company policy. And what is a proxy fight, anyway?

And the WORLD History Book. 90 years ago a labor strike turns violent, but expands employee rights across the U.S.

AUDIO: There was an incredible amount of violence going on. There were bricks thrown, there were punches thrown, there was tear gas.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, April 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: It’s time now for news. Here’s Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Solar eclipse » The moon will blot out the sun today for people along a particular swath of North America.

JEDIDAH ISLER: What we’re looking at is the moon passing between us and the sun, and we’re standing in the moon’s shadow.

Astrophysicist Jedidah Isler on ABC’s This Week compared this to the last solar eclipse to cross parts of the United States in 2017.

ISLER: The moon is closer to us in 2024 than it was in 2017, and so we’ll see a bigger shadow on the Earth, which means it’s longer. The path of totality and the moment of darkness will be longer.

Aside from cloud cover, this will be the first time in hundreds of years that the sun will not shine on cities like San Antonio and Indianapolis and many small towns along the way.

Gaza cease-fire talks » Negotiators are back at the table in Cairo, Egypt resuming Gaza cease-fire talks on Sunday.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons serves on the Sen. Foreign Relations Committee. He said he’s directly urged the Israeli government to continue negotiations.

COONS: And I’ve also directly communicated with Egyptian and Qatari leaders on the urgency of a hostage release as a condition of any cease-fire.

A recent U.N. Security Council resolution insisted on an immediate cease-fire, but did not make the release of hostages a condition of that demand.

The Biden administration chose not to veto that resolution, leading to a deeper rift between the White House and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

IDF report reaction » Meantime, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby says U.S. officials have read the Israeli report on an airstrike that killed seven international aid workers in Gaza, but …

KIRBY: We haven’t come to any conclusions one way or another. This was an investigation that was done, sort of akin to an inspector general. So it was outside of the chain of command. But again, we’re working our way through that.

The Israeli government says it was a tragic error and a case of mistaken identity.

Kirby conceded that deadly mistakes can occur in a conflict zone.

KIRBY: We know from our own experience that the intelligence you get and you process and you analyze may not always be accurate. 

But he said the important thing to the White House is that Israel makes the—quote—“deconfliction and communications changes” needed to make sure it does not happen again.

Yellen China » Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, speaking to reporters in Beijing says recent talks have put the relationship between the U.S. and China on “more stable footing.”

She said there are still plenty of sharp disagreements, but …

JANET YELLEN: We can only make progress if we directly and openly communicate with one another.

Yellen focused on trade and economic issues for the first two days of her visit, but turned attention on Sunday to the broader relationship between Washington and Beijing.

Yellen’s visit marks the highest-level meetings between the two governments since President Biden and leader Xi Jinping in November.

Texas border law » Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Sunday that he’s confident his administration will ultimately win a court battle over a controversial state immigration law. His legal fight with the Biden administration could wind up at the Supreme Court.

ABBOTT: I feel good about us winning for this very simple reason; What Texas is doing is not in conflict with the laws of the United States of America. They are consistent and uphold the laws of the United States of America.

The law gives state authorities the power to arrest anyone who crosses the southern border illegally.

Federal courts have blocked the state from enforcing the law until its fate is decided.

Trump Palm Beach fundraiser » Donald Trump’s campaign and the RNC hauled in big bucks over the weekend. Trump held his first major fundraising event since he became the presumptive nominee. The event raised more than $50 million dollars.

TRUMP: This has been some incredible evening because people, they wanted to contribute to a cause of making America great again, and that's what's happening. We're going to make America great again.

Trump’s Saturday event hauled in more than double what President Biden raised at an event with former presidents Obama and Clinton.

But Biden’s reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee said Saturday that they raised more than $90 million in March and ended the year's first quarter with $192 million-plus in cash on hand, further stretching their cash advantage over Trump and the Republicans.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: When does state “advice” become coercion? That’s a question the Supreme Court is considering, and that’s ahead on Legal Docket.

Plus, the Monday Moneybeat.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 8th day of April, 2024, eclipse day. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today! Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Advertising is designed to attract attention, but it’s rare when it ultimately attracts the kind of attention that lands at the U.S. Supreme Court. Like this:

DANA LOESH: It happened fast. A bad guy walked in and opened fire. While others were panicking, one man was legally armed and well-trained. That hero acted decisively and saved innocent lives. The police know it’s a lawful shooting. But there’ll still be a long night of interrogations. This is why the NRA created NRA Carry Guard. The most comprehensive training, legal protection, and financial coverage.

EICHER: It’s an ad for a National Rifle Association insurance product called Carry Guard. At the time of need, it would pay expenses that would arise out of the use of a legally possessed firearm used in self defense. Bail, legal fees, court costs.

REICHARD: But New York is one of many states that doesn’t allow for this kind of coverage. Some commentators dubbed the policy “murder insurance.”

At the time, Maria Vullo was superintendent of the state Department of Financial Services. She ran an agency that oversees all financial services institutions and insurance companies that do business in New York. Thousands of them.

EICHER: Vullo opened an investigation of the insurance companies that underwrote Carry Guard.

Here she is on Bloomberg’s Daybreak program in 2017, the same year the NRA introduced Carry Guard.

MARIA VULLO: As regulators, we keep on top of the companies that we regulate. We’re making sure that they do the things that they need to do. Certainly in New York we will always fill whatever gaps that need to be filled to protect New Yorkers. And we’ve done a lot of that in the past year. We’ve done it in, you know, in lots of different areas. We’ll do it in the banking industry, the insurance industry, wherever is needed to make sure that our markets are protected and our consumers are protected.

EICHER: Eventually, she succeeded in fining three insurance entities millions of dollars for underwriting the product. Those insurers admitted some of the products the NRA endorsed broke the law.

A few years later, NRA agreed to pay a penalty of two and a half million dollars.

That isn’t in dispute in this case.

What is, is what Vullo did after that.

She pushed every bank and insurance company in New York to “sever their ties” with the NRA or similar organizations. Vullo promised leniency to businesses that went along.

Her pressure campaign worked. Numerous banks and insurers dropped the NRA out of fear for what Vullo might do next.

REICHARD: So, the NRA sued, seeking to stop the state from interfering with its business relationships. It also alleged violation of its free speech and equal-protection rights.

The dispute attracted plenty of third-party interest. Montana and 17 other states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting NRA’s position.

Here’s Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen on the NRA’s America First Freedom Show, earlier this year.

AUSTIN KNUDSEN: Government should not be able to come in and act like the mafia. And that's really what this was. I mean, you had Maria Vullo come in and act like a mobster and basically threatened companies for doing business with the NRA. And it wasn't overt, right. And that actually was found in the district court filing that you know, she never made any direct threats but it was like a Tony Soprano situation you know, “Boy, that's a nice business you have there. Be an awful shame if anything were to happen to it.” Wink wink nudge nudge.

EICHER: At the Supreme Court, Vullo’s lawyer Neal Katyal argued she was just doing her job. The NRA pushed illegal insurance products, so it’s only logical for her to warn businesses about the NRA. Katyal mentions the term “twiqbal.” That’s a nickname for two Supreme Court precedents that outline how to plead in federal civil lawsuits.

NEAL KATYAL: That’s why what Ms. Vullo was doing here was absolutely explainable. There’s an obvious alternative explanation, to use the Twiqbal words. And that’s why if you let this complaint go forward, you will be saying to government regulators everywhere that you have to be careful about the speech you say. It’s not just the NRA today, it’s every regulated party tomorrow, from TikTok on.

Besides, he argued, Vullo has qualified immunity from this lawsuit.

For the other side arguing on behalf of the NRA, a lawyer for a typical NRA foe: the ACLU!

Lawyer David Cole argued that for the government to target groups the way Vullo did is dangerous business.

DAVID COLE: This was not about enforcing insurance law or mere government speech. It was a campaign by the state’s highest political officials to use their power to coerce a boycott of a political advocacy organization because they disagreed with its advocacy….p 3 Government officials are free to urge people not to support political groups they oppose. What they cannot do is use their regulatory might to add "or else" to that request.

REICHARD: So the question is where’s the line between urging and coercing? Justice Samuel Alito searched for it in this exchange with Cole for the NRA:

JUSTICE ALITO: On the question of the meaning of coercion, I can think of a spectrum. And on one end of the spectrum, a government official says, look, suppress this speech and, if you don't do it, I have legal weapons I can use against you and I'm going to punish you using those. That's very clear coercion. At the other end, the -- the government official who has no authority to do anything for any practical purposes to the entity that the government official is speaking to says you should do this. It -- it would be a good thing to do, you'd be a good citizen if you did it. And in between, there are a lot of different gradations, particularly when the official who's making this request has that power and you have to assume that the person or the entity to whom or to which the request is being made knows that, just as I -- I am sure that these insurance companies were well aware of the power of Ms. Vullo. So how do you define when it goes too far along that line?

COLE: So I do think that the power of the official over those to whom she is speaking is a relevant factor in the assessment, but the assessment is, at the end of the day, is would a reasonable person in this situation feel that the government is coercing it. That it is implying some sort of threat of action against it…

REICHARD: Interestingly … the Department of Justice argued in support of the NRA here, too. Mainly to say there’s enough here that the lower court was wrong to throw the case out.

The DOJ contrasted this case with another government interference case I covered two weeks ago, Murthy versus Missouri. The question in Murthy is whether government officials pressured social-media companies to silence certain voices in violation of their rights.

Listen to Assistant to the Solicitor General Ephraim McDowell try to distinguish the two cases. Murthy contained no direct threat, and at worst, an indirect one. But Vullo in New York wasn’t even subtle:

MCDOWELL: So coercion in our view requires a threat of adverse action connected to a specific instruction such that it's saying, if you don't do X, we will do Y to you.

EICHER: But Justice Elena Kagan expressed Vullo’s perspective that’s it’s fair to consider how certain associations can hurt business:

JUSTICE KAGAN: If -- if -- reputational risk is a real thing, and if gun companies or gun advocacy groups impose that kind of reputational risk, isn't it a bank regulator's job to point that out?

Cole answered, it may well be. And Supreme Court precedent does say there’s a safe harbor when it comes to genuine advice about law enforcement.

But Vullo’s communications? They’re very different. Cole brings up a meeting she had with insurance giant Lloyds of London:

COLE: This was not genuine advice about law enforcement. Why would she spend four paragraphs, you know, denouncing guns? That actually has nothing to do with whether there's reputational risk. That has everything to do with what she said in the meeting with Lloyd's she was trying to do: leverage her authority to weaken the NRA because she disagreed with its political viewpoints.

Justice Alito later got down to basics and reminded everyone who has to prove what:

JUSTICE ALITO: This is a First Amendment case. All they need to do is to show that the desire to suppress speech was a motivating factor. They don’t have to prove that the ... regulatory action would have been taken even if Ms. Vullo didn’t have this motivation.

REICHARD: I think it’s safe to say that a majority of justices will find this state official took her power and authority much too far.

Sometimes it’s good to get back to basics. This case and the Murthy case is about power, and about how concentrated power threatens the civil liberties of regular citizens.

The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect them by reining in government. But without a judiciary willing to pull the reins … those rights are just words on parchment … as the late Justice Antonin Scalia used to say. Listen to him before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2011:

JUSTICE SCALIA: If you think that a Bill of Rights is what sets us apart, you're crazy. Every Banana Republic in the world has a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally, it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal! They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa! That is wonderful stuff! Of course, just words on paper. What our framers would have called a parchment guarantee. That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over.

REICHARD: But thankfully, the game’s still on. And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It's time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm, the Bahnsen group and he is here now. David, good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN: Well, good morning, Nick, good to be with you. 

EICHER: Okay, David, let's begin with the jobs report. Wow! American employers adding 300,000 new jobs in the month of March. That's better than expected. The headline unemployment rate ticked down a bit. So when you include the numbers from last week, David, the jobless rate has now remained below 4% for 26 months in a row. That is the longest streak since the 1960s. Really big numbers here.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, big, big numbers. Indeed. And it's, you know, really very difficult to say much negative. I mean, the one statistic I don't think people can get around, is that initial weekly jobless claims have been very, very low. And when people don't have a job in this country, and they have unemployment available, they take it, and people aren't taking it. So I don't know how you can interpret that as any other way than most people up and down the wage tiers that wants a job, have one. The labor participation force also ticked up a tiny bit, but it went from 62.5 to 62.7. I want it back in 67 or 68%. So we got a long way to go there. But overall, this was a great jobs report, Nick.

EICHER: So let me take a stab at negative. I was chatting with a colleague and looking deeper. You find the number one area of job growth was government. 71,000 of the 300,000 were government jobs. 

BAHNSEN: Yeah, on a month over month basis has been a couple, but there are only a percent or two higher than the norm. You know, if 19% of the population is employed by city, local, and federal government, and 22% of new jobs are from government—those statistics are not exact, but I'm just approximating to make the point—you expect new job creation to, over a full year, kind of round out to about what the average of the whole workforce is. So that's picked up. I don't think they're super high quality jobs. But Nick, 39,000 jobs in March were construction. And so you do see a very healthy pickup in some of those blue collar private sector working class jobs as well. 

EICHER: And then one other thing to mention just that leisure and hospitality finally snapped back to pre-pandemic levels. So that's a marker.

BAHNSEN: Yes. And again, those aren't real high paying jobs, either. But there's a lot of people that need those jobs, and they have definitely come back. And it's been a source of big restored job creation post COVID.

EICHER: All right, David, a couple of stories I'd like to hit this week. The Treasury Secretary is in China, Janet Yellen. What is she hoping to achieve there, do you think? It's not a quick trip. This is a five day trip. What is success on this?

BAHNSEN: You’re right, it is a five day trip. And they have not been very forthcoming as to what exactly the agenda is. Out of five days you expect there's going to be a lot of conversations about trade. I've tried to get a little bit deeper dive, and I have good sources in Treasury to understand a little more. But I think we're going to end up hearing after the trip, what they were looking to do if something good came out of it. But the fact that they haven't really announced much of an agenda, I believe is probably indicative that they're going there to try to get some concessions and then announce them later. But that they don't want to set expectations ahead of time because nothing is certain. And then ultimately, whether it ends up being a second term for Biden or a first term for a new administration. They most things that are on the table with U.S.-China economic and trade relations are very likely to take place in 2025. I do not expect much needle-moving activity in an election year.

EICHER: Okay, makes sense. But let me ask you what should Secretary Yellen be trying to achieve with a trip like this?

BAHNSEN: You're not having a conversation right now about the big picture long term. Like the best case—and you're asking David Bahnsen—the best case is for trying to agree to stop being a Communist country. Okay. I mean, that's that's not the agenda of this trip. It's trying to get concessions around we'll export certain chips to you guys. And we'll allow part of the chips to come to you for supply chain if you stop tariffing this and we stopped tariffing that. It's in the weeds of what they're going to allow to happen in a quid pro quo. That's all that is really on the table right now. Big picture, best case of improving that relationship with Communist China, that's not right now in discussion whatsoever.

EICHER: All right, David, and then could you address the proxy fight, the big corporate showdown at Disney last week. It seemed at least part of it had to do with culture issues, some of the bad content that Disney has been putting out. But the whole drama was expressed in highly technical corporate governance terms. Could you break that down a bit for us?

BAHNSEN: Well, it starts with them knowing what they're doing. Nelson Peltz is one of the most significant activist investors for 40 years now. He's had a career that goes back to the mid 1980s, and has had incredible success stories. But in this particular case, the first step is for anyone to care. The company is not going to care about your activist inclinations, unless you own a ton of shares. He not only owns a ton of shares, but he has the clout and the history of launching proxy fights. But then you need other shareholders to agree that there's a problem. And Disney's stock is down huge over the last couple years. And Nelson has a belief system of certain things that are not being done well. So even though he may not have won this proxy fight to get a couple people on the board, he definitely is on track, I think, to win the bigger war of getting some of the concessions he wants. But that's really what activism comes down to is having the muscle and the competence to affect change. And with a company as large as Disney, it's hard to do. But with an activist investor as good as Nelson, it's a lot easier to do.

EICHER: Okay, so this term proxy fight, that's probably our “Defining Terms” for this week. Explain what is a proxy fight.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, and what it's a reference to is shareholder votes. A publicly held company has a CEO who works for the company, and they have a board who are elected by the shareholders. But nothing changes the fact that the shareholders own the company. And there could be hundreds of millions of shares, and a CEO who's famous, and a board of directors that's impressive, but the shareholders own the company. Which means they elect the board of directors, and the board hires and fires things like a CEO. So a proxy is when you're trying to get resolutions for shareholders to vote on. And I've done some of this myself with different companies. But in addition to resolutions about policies, and things and strategies you want for the company, it most commonly refers to people who are going to be on the board. And if you want to go effect change in a company, there's no easier way to do it than getting a proxy fight for shareholders to vote on who will be on the board. And that's all we're talking about, but it's applied to corporate America.

EICHER: All right, David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of the Bahnsen group. David's latest book is titled Full-Time: Work and the Meaning of Life. And you can find out more about that book at fulltimebook.com. David, I hope you have a great week. 

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday April 8th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. Today, the first photo of a black hole. And, a humanitarian agreement ends in bloodshed. But first, one of the biggest strikes in U.S. history sparks a five-day melee …

Here’s WORLD Executive Producer Paul Butler:

PAUL BUTLER: In the 1930s, Toledo, Ohio is in the grips of the great depression—like the rest of the country. Unemployment is high. The city had been an industrial powerhouse for nearly a century before the economic downturn. Now, it’s struggling. Historian Lou Hebert describes the situation on C-SPAN.

HEBERT: So we have thousands, thousands, maybe one out of three workers out of work in this city. So there was a lot of tension, there was a lot of pressure.

On April 12th, 1934, hundreds of angry workers gather outside the Electric Auto-Lite Company. They demand higher wages and better working conditions.

Tensions had been building for months between the employer and union leaders. When the Auto-Lite Company refuses to meet the union demands, workers begin picketing outside the factory.

HEBERT: They would amass at the gates and they would try to stop the strike breakers from going in.

A court injunction tries to limit the amount of picketers allowed on the grounds, but the unions defy the order. So the Auto-Lite Company hires hundreds of replacement workers. By May, 6,000 strikers and sympathizers surround the complex. When police arrest a union leader and four picketers, the Battle of Toledo begins.

HEBERT: There was an incredible amount of violence going on. There were bricks thrown, there were punches thrown, there was tear gas.

Workers barricade themselves within the buildings as the rioters set fire to cars and hurl bricks and stones. The Ohio National Guard arrives to settle the dispute.

HEBERT: The national guard was given orders that they could fire. And they did. Two people were killed in that gunfire, and probably as many as fifteen were wounded.

The conflict rages for another four days. Finally, the Auto-Lite Company agrees to a 5% pay increase, and rehires the employees, ending the strike. It also empowers workers to unionize across the country.

Next, we jump ahead 70 years to Northeast Africa. By 2004, the nation of Sudan has been at war with itself for more than a decade. The conflict is often referred to as the Land Cruiser War—due to the prevalence of the vehicles as military transports. Though in more recent years, it’s been called the Darfur Genocide. Audio here from a 2021 VICE interview with a refugee.

AUDIO: They burned our village in the middle of Al-Jabal. They bombed the area with airstrikes and ammunition.

Since the 1990s, the non-Arab indigenous peoples of Sudan had been under severe persecution by the Sudanese government and an allied Islamist militia known as the Janjaweed. The forces displaced millions of civilians—using a scorched earth strategy, bombing villages from the air, burning homes and crops, killing livestock. The campaign pushed thousands of Sudanese tribal villagers to neighboring Chad or deeper into the country.

Here is refugee Fisa Hussein describing a 2003 attack. Audio from Journeyman Pictures:

AUDIO: They burned our houses, took our money, and using planes and tanks they killed our children and brothers.

The villagers form rebel armies and attempt to fight back.

On April 11th, 2004, most of the forces on both sides agree to a ceasefire. The 2004 Darfur Humanitarian Ceasefire Agreement stipulates a 45-day truce, an exchange of prisoners of war, and humanitarian aid for the hundreds of thousands of refugees in and around Darfur. But the ceasefire doesn’t turn into lasting peace. War continues in various skirmishes and even chemical warfare for more than a decade.

On April 11th, 2019—15 years to the day after the failed ceasefire—Sudanese militants depose al-Bashir in a coup d’etat. Audio courtesy of Channel 4 News.

SOUND: [PEOPLE CELEBRATE]

Al-Bashir has been indicted for crimes against humanity, genocide, and murder by the International Criminal Court, but has yet to stand trial. Last year, war in Sudan began again…and the humanitarian crisis is once again severe as millions are displaced and facing famine.

We end on April 10th, 5 years ago, when scientists reveal what they believe to be the first photo ever taken of a black hole. At the Event Horizon Telescope Project, astronomers point eight telescopes around the world at a particular point in the Messier 87 galaxy where scientists believe there is a black hole.

Here’s lead astrophysicist Shep Doeleman for the project speaking at a conference in 2019.

DOELEMAN: To see this black hole, you need a telescope as large as the earth if you’re going to see it in a radio spectrum.

To fix this problem, the team records data through the telescopes for one entire rotation of the Earth. Then a computer splices the images together for a full picture.

DOELEMAN: This is called Earth rotation aperture synthesis.

Astronomers believe black holes have light and hot gas swirling around its event horizon…the gravitational point where all matter is sucked in. The image of the black hole shows this intense light as a fiery, golden ring around the dark event horizon. 

Doeleman again at a 2019 TED Talk:

DOELEMAN: That dark region is the signature of the event horizon. There’s reason we don’t see light from there—is that the light that would come to us from that place is swallowed by the event horizon.

Three years later, astronomers snap another picture of a supermassive black hole using the same technique. This time much closer to home, in our own Milky Way Galaxy. These grainy photographs are helping scientists build a more complete model of the mysterious nature and behavior of these cosmic objects…

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book with reporting from Emma Perley. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: The U.S., Israel, and Hamas. The Biden administration is pressuring Israel, so what’ll be the impact on uprooting terror in Gaza?

And, young men, start your engines! Fathers and sons are teaming up to build and race the fastest model cars. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: 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.

The Bible says: He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.” —Psalm 91:1, 2

Go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.