The World and Everything in It - December 13, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Surveillance of Muslim Americans after 9/11 brings freedom of religion into conflict with national security.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat. Inflation continues to exceed even the pre-Covid economy. I’ll talk with economist David Bahnsen.

Plus the WORLD History Book. Today, the story behind an annual royal tradition.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, December 13th. 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: Time now for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Death toll from tornado outbreak likely to top 100 » Some residents of Mayfield, Kentucky continued to worship and sing Christmas carols on Sunday amid tragedy and mourning.

That after a monstrous tornado—or perhaps a series of twisters—carved a violent path that could rival the longest on record. It ripped across several states, derailing a train and crushing a candle factory, a nursing home, and an Amazon warehouse.

In Mayfield, rescuers were still digging through piles of twisted steel and shattered lumber on Sunday hoping to find more survivors. But Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said the death toll will likely top 100 with the largest loss of life at that candle factory in Mayfield.

BESHEAR: There’s at least 15 feet of metal with cars on top of it.

One-hundred-and-ten people were working there when the storm hit.

But the twister devastated the entire town. Milton West is Senior Minister at First Christian Church in Mayfield.

WEST: We were up most of the night praying and worrying, and then when it got daylight, I got in my truck and came on into town and was just stunned. What I saw, just heartbreaking.

Deaths have also been reported in Tennessee, Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri.

U.K. raises coronavirus alert level » The British government raised the country’s official coronavirus threat level on Sunday. Top medical officials said the omicron variant poses a “rapidly increasing” threat. They recommended raising the alert level from 3 to 4 on a 5-point scale.

British officials say omicron is likely to replace delta as the dominant strain in the U.K. within days.

Omicron is not yet widespread in the United States, but it is on the rise. President Biden’s top medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci told ABC’s This Week…

FAUCI: It looks like it has a high degree of transmissibility. And that’s the reason why you’re seeing, literally every day, more and more countries, and in the United States, more and more states.

U.S. health officials are encouraging people to get vaccinated or get a booster shot.

So far, it appears that vaccines offer less protection against the omicron variant than against previous strains.

But CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky says there are two things to keep in mind. First, early data suggests vaccines do provide strong protection against severe illness from omicron. And second...

WALENSKY: Still, over 99 percent of cases in this country right now are caused by the delta variant.

New COVID-19 cases have surged roughly 50 percent over the past two weeks, driven almost entirely by the delta strain.

Democrats face continued uphill push to pass spending bill » Democratic leaders are still working to push the president’s multi-trillion-dollar spending package across the finish line.

But that task won’t be any easier after new inflation numbers last week along with a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO said that if many of the bill's supposedly temporary spending boosts were made permanent, it would nearly triple the advertised price tag. And it would add trillions to the nation’s debt over 10 years.

GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham is Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee. He again voiced his concerns on Sunday...

GRAHAM: This bill, Build Back Better, is $5 trillion dollars. It’s not $1.75. It will add $3 trillion dollars to the deficit. When they tell you this bill is paid for, they’re lying.

Shortly after the CBO report on Friday, Democratic leaders issued a statement, calling the CBO report “fake.” They insist the spending will be paid for.

But party leaders have to win over moderate Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin, who remains unconvinced. He’s concerned about adding to the nation’s debt and about soaring inflation.

A government report last week revealed consumer prices jumped 6.8 percent over the past year. That’s the highest such inflation rate in 39 years.

G7 nations warn Russia against invading Ukraine » The United States and other G7 nations issued another warning to Russia over the weekend. G7 is short for the Group of Seven, some of the world’s top economic powers.

After G7 meetings this past weekend in Liverpool, British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss had this to say...

TRUSS: What we have this weekend is a united front from the G7 that there would be massive consequences if there were to be a Russian incursion into Ukraine, which would carry severe costs.

In a joint statement, the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan declared themselves—quote—“united in our condemnation of Russia’s military buildup and aggressive rhetoric towards Ukraine.”

Truss said the G-7 was “considering all options” when it came to economic sanctions. And U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken told NBC’s Meet the Press...

BLINKEN: We are looking at and we are prepared to take the kinds of steps we’ve refrained from taking in the past that would have massive consequences for Russia.

The White House and U.S. allies have played down talk of a military response to defend Ukraine, with efforts focusing on tough sanctions.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: the limit of government surveillance.

Plus, Queen Elizabeth’s Christmas Day address.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday, December 13th and we’re so glad you’ve joined us for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Today, we’re about a third of the way through the month and about a third of the way toward the goal for our December Giving Drive. So I want to encourage you if you’ve not given yet to head over to WNG.org/donate and register your support.

EICHER: Received a kind note from a listener who worried we may be talking about the giving drive a little too much and I respect that and want to be sensitive to that. So let me keep this short and to the point:

You may be in a position to give out of more illiquid assets—in other words, you may want to donate appreciated stock and you can do that very simply online at WNG.org. I want to call your attention to the “GIVE” button at the top right hand corner—when you hover over that, you’ll find an option to give stock. You can select that and just follow the process.

I want to mention that today because it’s helpful to get stock gifts in earlier rather than later in December to make sure you get the tax benefit this tax year because it does take a little time to convert that.

Now, you can also give through a donor advised fund if you have one, something like the National Christian Foundation, for example. But all that info is just a click away at WNG.org, hover over the “GIVE” button and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

So that’s it for today and let’s jump into this week’s Legal Docket.

REICHARD: On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court left in place a 6-week abortion ban in Texas while it permits doctors and abortion businesses to proceed with their legal challenges in lower court.

The Texas Heartbeat Act authorizes anyone to sue anyone else for aiding and abetting in an abortion of an unborn child six weeks’ gestation or older.

The big issue is not the merits of the law. It’s about identifying which party is responsible for enforcement, because the typical state authorities are not responsible in this case. Eight justices agreed to limit the ongoing challenge to the law as against only state medical licensing board officials. But not against state’s judges, court clerks, attorney general, or even an activist pro-life pastor.

EICHER: It’s entirely possible the case may return to the High Court again if the same scenario plays out as it did before. That is, a trial judge issues an order invalidating the law, and then the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issues an order reinstating it.

As for the Biden Justice Department's challenge, the court dismissed it as improvidently granted known by the acronym “DIG” and meaning the court mistakenly accepted the case to begin with.

REICHARD: On to oral arguments now, two of them from last month.

First, a dispute over government surveillance after 9/11. Not long after that horrific day, President George W. Bush signed into law The Patriot Act. It greatly expanded the authority of the FBI to monitor Americans.

One surveillance project took place in Orange County, California. For over a year, the FBI paid an informant to pose as a convert to Islam and secretly record conversations with Muslims.

In 2011, three of the men the FBI spied on sued the FBI. They say the agency targeted them solely because of their Islamic faith, in violation of their constitutional rights.

EICHER: The weekly public radio show, This American Life, aired a series about this back in 2012. A quotation from an Egyptian man the producer did not name underscored one of the problems that arose after the surveillance came to light:

AYMAN: Really, what they did is they made everybody in the mosque not trust everybody. Nobody would talk about it, but nobody—you would see some weird looks, you know what I mean? People are looking at each other weird.

Suspicion abounded, even in unexpected directions.

Some of the Muslim men under surveillance reported the FBI’s paid informant to the FBI! That informant scared them, as being a potential terrorist.

For its part, the FBI says it can’t disclose those recordings without putting national security at risk. The agency claims the “state-secrets privilege.” That allows government to resist orders by a court to disclose information during litigation, if there’s a reasonable danger that the disclosure would harm national security.

REICHARD: So the legal question is whether the state secrets privilege means case dismissed, or, whether the Muslim men could use another law to permit a private review of evidence by a judge. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known by the acronym FISA, permits that private review and restricts when the federal government can conduct surveillance without a warrant.

Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t wild about that private-review option.

ALITO: Wouldn't that be quite something? Because just dealing with some super-secret information in district court, in district courthouses around the country, would create an incredible security problem. Most district courts don't have the facilities to deal with information of that sensitivity.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to agree. He served five years as legal counsel in the Bush administration:

KAVANAUGH: That this kind of information, depending on what it is, is not the kind of information you want floating around even in the White House to people, much less floating around the country, depending on what it is, of course.

But lawyer for the Muslim men argue that his clients have a right to due process. And FISA’s entire point aims to stop the persecution of minority groups.

Lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham:

ARULANANTHAM: Congress might have looked—seeing a backdrop of abuses identified in the Church Committee, surveillance of Vietnam War protestors and MLK and even a justice of this court, I believe, they would have said we don't just want to know whether this is secret. We also want to know did you break the law.

The individual FBI agents had their own lawyer. She argued it’s unfair to let a claim against the agents proceed, even with a judge’s private review determination. If the judge sides with the government that the information is a state secret, then her clients can’t defend themselves. That information wouldn’t be available to them.

Justice Alito asked about that. What if the judge in private review says what the government did was based on religion alone, rendering it illegal? Would that end the case for the individual FBI agents because they can’t access info to defend themselves?

Arulanantham, lawyer for the Muslim men, answered “no.”

ALITO: How can that possibly be consistent with—with due process?

ARULANANTHAM: Well, I think—

ALITO: I mean, that's—that's the Star Chamber.

“Star Chamber,” a pejorative term for a proceeding that’s grossly unfair. Star Chambers were used during the Middle Ages, and they were the subject of a 1983 movie starring Michael Douglas, a fictional story about a secret panel of judges fed up with bad guys getting away with crimes over legal technicalities.

Civil libertarians warn that the federal government abuses the state secrets defense to get challenges against it dismissed, especially when it comes to warrantless surveillance.

The justices are aware of this risk, but they also didn’t seem to agree on a way to let the Muslim mens’ lawsuit proceed. I suspect they’ll remand the case.

This last dispute today is over those digital billboards, the ones that change every so many seconds to a new ad.

Billboard companies like digital signs because you don’t need to send someone out there with a ladder to change the ads. A computer can instantly update them.

But the City of Austin, Texas has a rule about all this. If you want to convert an old style billboard to digital, you can only do that for signs that advertise on the premises of the business or activity advertised on the board.

So if you have an old style billboard on your business premises right now, you can’t trade it out for a digital one.

The city says that’s for aesthetic and public safety reasons.

The billboard company says that’s a violation of its free speech rights.

And this really is a big deal. Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

KAVANAUGH: Unlike some of our decisions, this decision is going to affect every state and local official around America. They spend a lot of money and a lot of time trying to figure out how to comply with the First Amendment implications of sign ordinances.

Here’s the problem. Signs are a form of speech. If the government wants to regulate speech that’s based on the content of what is said, the law presumes the government can’t do that without a compelling reason. Even then, the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.

So if a city official must read the sign to figure out if the sign is or is not prohibited, is that reading for content?

Or is it just policing the location of the sign, as the city of Austin argues?

Justice Neil Gorsuch had a hypothetical to test out what “content” means. Listen to this exchange with lawyer for the billboard company, Kanon Shanmugam:

GORSUCH: Let's say a sign just says "Black Lives Matter." I think we'd agree that that's not an off-premises sign because it doesn't identify a particular location. Is that right?

SHANMUGAM: Yes. I would say that that would not qualify as an off-premises sign because it's not advertising an activity.

GORSUCH: But what if Black Lives Matter has a local office and it isn't there?

SHANMUGAM: Well, I mean, it would be a question for Mr. Dreeben. I think he would say that sign does not advertise an activity, business, or person.

GORSUCH: So that one’s okay?

SHANMUGAM: Potentially so.

GORSUCH: How about—how about if it says "Black Lives Matter, Do Something About It," anticipating an upcoming rally, but no information is provided?

SHANMUGAM: I mean, that seems like it might be advertising an activity at that point. And, again, I don't mean to—

GORSUCH: So that one might not be permissible. And—and then what if it gives the date and the time of the rally?

SHANMUGAM: At that point, it seems more clearly to be advertising a particular activity.

GORSUCH: And so an official would have to—somebody's going to have to read this and decide which side of the line these four examples fall on.

Justice Clarence Thomas didn’t see how a sign’s location should make any difference. He’s apparently familiar with a barbeque restaurant in Austin called Franklin’s.

THOMAS: I can’t say certain things unless I’m at a certain location? … I don’t understand how that’s not content-based, if I could say ‘Eat at Franklin’s’ if I’m at Franklin’s, but I can’t say it if I’m at McDonald’s.

Justice Alito a hypothetical of his own:

ALITO: An enforcement officer could determine whether you're in compliance or not in compliance without reading what is on the billboard. If everything on the billboard were written in Chinese and the enforcement officer can't read Chinese, the enforcement officer could still say you're in violation because they're digitized. That wouldn't be a content-based distinction, would it?

Signs about Black Lives Matter, signs in Chinese, and then a sign about Justice Stephen Breyer’s hypothetical Kale shop:

BREYER: All right—my own kale shop, I sell fried kale, and right outside I want a big picture of kale that lights up, okay? It's mine. This is my shop. I want to decorate it the way I want. A strong interest! I don't have the same interest in what the billboard 40 miles outside the town says about my kale shop. Okay?

Most of the justices didn’t want to define what is “content based” speech too broadly, nor did they want to disrupt the thousands of regulations around the country on billboards.

As Justice Elena Kagan put it:

KAGAN: Down that road, madness lies.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Time now for our weekly conversation and commentary on business, markets, and the economy. Financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen joins us. David, good morning.

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

EICHER: Inflation again in the headlines: almost 7 percent rise in the consumer price index for November compared with the previous November, so a year-on-year comparison there, it’s almost a full percentage point higher month on month versus October and that number was considered high. It marks six straight months with 5 percent or more rise in the CPI, it’s a 40-year high. I guess, pick your superlative. How do you read the consumer price inflation number the Labor Department released on Friday?

BAHNSEN: I was pretty much right in line with expectations, no big surprises at all. And so it's, you know, the the ongoing story continues so much higher prices, versus where we were at the end of 2020. No question about it. But I think that the numbers being compared to the end of 2020 are somewhat unhelpful. So that's the way that this gets measured when you look at year over year. But I continue to look at it year over 2019, because of the obvious factors in 2020, that were, shall we say, skewing the data, substantially. They skewed it a year ago when we were in the data. And now of course, if it was skewed then, it skewed now, and using it as a reference point. But you still have above trend inflation when you're comparing to 2019, not not just to 2020. And so I think that that has to be looked at the difference is it doesn't have quite the same headline appeal. When you talk about three to 4%. It doesn't sound as interesting as the five to 6%.

EICHER: But still troublesome, right? Even comparing the 2021 price index to 2019—pre-Covid—instead of 2020, the number is still troublesome, isn’t it?

BAHNSEN: Well, of course. it's troublesome, not only in the effect of making prices go higher, but it's troublesome for the reason the prices are going higher, which is these various shortages, that when you have an economy that is not operating at full capacity, that's very problematic, not only because of the price signal that it kicks off, but because of the fact that it represents lower productivity than we're capable of, which creates more invisible effects that we don't like. So, you know, again, when you strip out the more volatile sectors, the food and energy components, the numbers get a lot less problematic, but the cause does not and that is getting us at full capacity and our ability to get closer to demand with the supply generation.

EICHER: A few weeks ago, we spent a little time defining terms, David. The term inflation—to use the Milton Friedman construction—too much money chasing too few goods and making your edit, “and services.” Too much money chasing too few goods and services, this inflation we’re looking at right now, is it the “too much money” side of it?

BAHNSEN: No, you're actually seeing money supply come down. And so that's not what this is. You know, the level of money supply growth in 2021, has been much less than it was in 2020. So it doesn't fit that kind of narrative, it is much more on the second half of the equation, as we talked about a few weeks ago, you don't have enough goods and services yet you do have enough demand for such. And so whether people are a little more biased towards blaming the labor shortages or, or constraints in the supply chain that helps deliver goods, or the actual manufacturing of the goods themselves. My study indicates very clearly that it's a bit of all of these factors, not just one, but I do find that most people want to be able to blame one thing and so it doesn't fit into that kind of construction.

I want to say one more thing on the inflation price issue that is really important. There's nothing that's going to move the needle more, prices higher in the months and probably the year ahead, than the way in which the higher prices for rent and the higher prices for mortgage. These are the things that are the biggest needle movers for people and their monthly expenditures. And this is the area that is not that much related to supply chain or post COVID issues or underestimating of demand that even if there had never been a COVID, we have a society All addiction to never ending house price escalation. And I think that right now you have absolutely inexplicable bad policy with interest rates and the Fed buying Fannie and Freddie mortgage bonds that has contributed to the problem. I think you have a totally inexcusable state and local, and in some cases federal policy problem that is disincentivize the production of new housing stock with environmental and building and zoning and other regulations. But I think economically, our country has not done housing well. And what we're dealing with now is a lot of post financial crisis realities to how we treated a housing bubble by trying to reflate the bubble. And now that's going to be the primary subject of price inflation for years to come is in rentals and housing stock. That to me is a really ignored part of this discussion. Nick.

EICHER: All right! David Bahnsen, financial analyst and adviser. He writes at dividendcafe.com. Sign up there for his daily email newsletter. Thank you, David.

BAHNSEN: Thank you so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, December 13th. 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. Next up, the WORLD History Book. Today, a sort of mashup between History Book and our occasional “Notable Speech.”

Every year, the British monarch delivers a Christmas address, officially titled “Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech.” Or “His Majesty,” if the monarch is a king. Marking its 88th anniversary this year, the message has become a staple of Christmas Day in the United Kingdom and around the Commonwealth.

EICHER: Today, WORLD senior correspondent Katie Gaultney returns to the place it all began.

BROADWAY STRING ENSEMBLE: CHRISTMAS MEDLEY

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: The monarch’s annual Yuletide message began as a radio broadcast in 1932, on the BBC during the reign of King George V. The king had resisted making an address for over a decade, believing radio was an undignified medium. But, with Rudyard Kipling writing the speech for the king, he moved forward.

The king’s nerves almost got the better of him. Aides covered the table he broadcasted from with a thick cloth to muffle the rustling of the papers as his hands trembled.

GEORGE V: To all, to each, I wish a happy Christmas. God bless you.

But, the speech was a hit with his listening audience, and a royal Christmas message became an annual fixture. After George V’s death, all expected his son Edward to continue the tradition. But Edward’s abdication just before Christmas meant he never made a Christmas Day broadcast.

Instead, his brother George VI carried the torch. The Christmas addresses brought the British Empire together during the dark days of the Second World War. He persisted through speech difficulties—as colorfully illustrated in the 2010 film The King’s Speech. From George VI’s actual 1937 message:

GEORGE VI: We have promised to try and be worthy of your [pauses] trust.

101 STRINGS ORCHESTRA: THE GLORY OF CHRISTMAS—SILENT NIGHT

His daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, has delivered the annual message since ascending the throne in 1952. At first, the broadcasts aired live on radio or TV. But in 1960, the queen’s handlers began pre-recording so countries could choose the best time to air it.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: My own family often gather round to watch television, as they are at this moment. And that is how I imagine you now.

She writes her speeches herself, occasionally receiving input from trusted advisors. And she often references personal milestones and current events. Her 1968 speech—delivered during a time of geopolitical and cultural unrest—made a special emphasis on peace.

LONDON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA: CHRISTMAS CLASSICS—LO, HOW A ROSE E'ER BLOOMING

QUEEN ELIZABETH: Philosophers and prophets have concluded that peace is better than war, love is better than hate, and that mankind can only find progress in friendship and cooperation.

The year 1992 was a particularly heavy one for the queen, with the divorces of three of her four children. Then, as scandal ravaged her family, a catastrophic fire swept through Windsor Castle, destroying much of it. She touched on her personal trials in that year’s Christmas address.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: Like many other families, we have lived through some difficult days this year. The prayers, understanding, and sympathy given to us by so many of you in good times and bad have lent us great support and encouragement.

Her viewers had a sneak peek of what she was going to say that year. The Sun, a British tabloid, leaked the contents of her address two days early. The queen sued for breach of copyright and won, giving charity the 200,000 pounds awarded to her.

In 1997, more personal heartache and more technological advancement. In the first royal Christmas address posted to the internet, the Queen shared her grief over her former daughter-in-law’s death.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: We all felt the shock and sorrow of Diana’s death. Thousands upon thousands of you expressed your grief most poignantly in the wonderful flowers and messages left in tribute to her.

But, with Diana’s death too came PR backlash for the royals, whom some accused of caring too little or too late about the princess. The BBC had had a monopoly on broadcasting the annual speech until 1997, when Buckingham Palace began alternating between BBC and rival ITN. Eventually, Sky News was also added to the rotation.

LONDON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA: HARK THE HERALD ANGELS SING

As the years went by, the royals experienced highs—weddings, births, Olympic success—and lows, like the deaths of Elizabeth’s mother and sister, more wars, and more scandals. Over time, her speeches have more explicitly reflected her Christian faith, and last year—the first Christmas of the pandemic era—she emphasized that the light of Christmas reminds us of hope for better days.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: For Christians, Jesus is the light of the world. But we can’t celebrate his birth today in quite the usual way.

And she remarked on the resilience of the human spirit.

QUEEN ELIZABETH: People have risen magnificently to the challenges of the year, and I'm so proud and moved by this quiet, indomitable spirit.

While the contents of this year’s speech remain unknown, the Queen has experienced another year of trials, with conflict among her children and grandchildren, the death of her husband of 73 years, and her own declining health. Perhaps she will heed her own closing remarks from last year’s speech…

QUEEN ELIZABETH: The Bible tells how a star appeared in the sky, its light guiding the shepherds and wise men to the scene of Jesus’ birth. Let the light of Christmas, the spirit of selflessness, love, and above all, hope, guide us in the times ahead. It is in that spirit that I wish you a very happy Christmas.

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Katie Gaultney.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: peering into space. We’ll tell you about the new telescope NASA’s preparing to launch.

And, we’ll take a trip to Australia to meet an entertaining spider.

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.

Proverbs says: Whoever gives thought to the Word will discover good, and blessed is he who trusts in the Lord.

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.