The World and Everything in It: February 3, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Consider the military reservist called up to active duty: How should he be paid when serving during national emergencies—given how many there are?

KAGAN: There are 43 national emergencies now. This is just a sort of feature of modern life.

NICK EICHER, HOST: That Supreme Court question and others ahead on Legal Docket.

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat, David Bahnsen is standing by.

And later, the WORLD History Book: 85 years ago today, four black students stand up by sitting down.

MCNEIL: We decided that whatever actions we were gonna take, they’re gonna be nonviolent …

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 3rd. 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: Tariffs » Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president have ordered retaliatory tariffs against the United States. That comes after President Trump enacted 25 percent import tariffs on most goods from the neighboring countries.

Vice President JD Vance on Sunday said of the Trump tariffs:

VANCE: They have already been taking advantage of America for decades. The retaliation is Donald Trump saying no more. We're not going to be taken advantage of anymore.

He also says both Mexico and Canada aren’t doing enough to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the U.S.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau argued that—his words: less than 1 percent of fentanyl and less than 1 percent of illegal crossings into the U.S. come from Canada. And he announced:

TRUDEAU:   Canada will be responding to the U.S. trade action with 25 percent tariffs against 155 billion worth of American goods.

China is also striking back after Trump applied a 10 percent tariff to all Chinese imports. Beijing says its filing a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization.

Rubio in Panama » Marco Rubio has embarked on his first trip to Latin America as Secretary of State, visiting Panama on Sunday.

That comes as President Trump warns Panama of possible retaliation if it doesn’t work to reduce Chinese influence over the Panama Canal.

Secretary Rubio, though, naturally struck a more diplomatic tone. He noted that for many traveling by sea, Panama is effectively the entry point to the United States.

RUBIO: You're the first thing they know about America and how we treat them and how we interact with them. And everywhere we go in the world, we hear what a positive relationship we have.

The United States built the canal and handed over control of it to Panama in 1977, but it remains a critical thruway for U.S. commercial and military vessels.

Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino has thus far resisted pressure from the U.S. on the matter.

Netanyahu to discuss 'victory over Hamas' with Trump » Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington today, preparing for a meeting tomorrow in the Oval Office with President Trump.

Netanayahu said Sunday:

NETANYAHU:  In this meeting, we'll, uh, deal with, uh, important issues, critical issues facing Israel and our region, uh, victory over Hamas, achieving the release of all our hostages, and dealing with the Iranian terror axis and all its components.

Specifically, the two leaders will reportedly start discussions about phase two of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Israel’s earlier stated objective of total victory over Hamas remains elusive. The terror group has shown in recent weeks that despite 16 months of war, they still maintain significant control over the Gaza Strip.

Hostage release » Meantime, in Gaza the ceasefire saw its smoothest exchange yet of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners over the weekend. The terror group Hamas released three hostages who were held for well over a year.

Dr. Hagar Mizrahi with the Israeli Ministry of Health:

MIZRAHI:  The returnees are undergoing initial medical evaluation. They have been reunited with their families and friends. This is an exciting day for all of us.

Tal Wax is the niece of one of those free hostages, American-Israeli Keith Seigel. She told reporters:

WAX: You can see that he's lost a lot of weight, but still he's walking and talking. You can feel that it's still him.

Saturday’s exchange took place with the reopening of the crucial Rafah crossing.

Israel freed nearly 200 Palestinian prisoners in the exchange, including militants and others charged with crimes.

Philly plane crash investigation » Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker says five people hurt on the ground when a jet crashed recently remain hospitalized, and three of them are in critical condition.

PARKER: Please continue to lift them, their families and loved ones up in prayer, and our city stands with them and every victim of this tragedy.

The Learjet crash killed all six aboard and one person on the ground.

A Mexico-bound air ambulance crashed shortly after takeoff Friday evening from Northeast Philadelphia Airport. The cause of the accident is still under investigation.

Among those killed was a girl who spent months being treated at an area hospital.

Washington aircraft collision investigation » Meanwhile in the nation’s capital, Authorities say they have recovered the remains of 55 of the 67 people killed … in a mid-air collision last week.

Washington D.C. Fire and EMS Chief John Donnelly:

DONNELLY:  During our salvage surveys in preparation to lift the aircraft, additional remains were located and removed from the river and taken to the medical examiner's office.

Authorities are preparing to lift wreckage from the Potomac River as soon as this morning.

The mid-air collision last week between a commercial jet and a U.S. Army helicopter was the deadliest U.S. air disaster since 2001.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: our weekly coverage of cases before the Supreme Court. Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 3rd day of February, 2025. 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.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider two cases of interest to Christian parents—one involving religious education, the other, what students are required to read.

On that front, let’s begin in Montgomery County, Maryland, where parents are challenging a school district over mandatory LGBTQ-themed books.

NBC NEWS: Save our children! Save our children!

So unfortunately, if they're going to continue to hold their stance, we're going to be here until the end.

We will still continue to fight for what we believe is a good middle ground, which was the opt out option.

The audio from NBC News. The dispute goes back two summers ago. A group of around 300 parents were seeking an opt-out for lessons they say conflict with their religious beliefs. That includes Muslim, Jewish, and Christian families—an unexpected coalition all pointing to the same concern: We deserve a choice in what our children read at school.

EICHER: School officials refused the opt-out, so these parents took their case to federal court. And now, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to weigh in. The question is whether religious freedom allows exemptions from certain educational mandates.

REICHARD: Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, a Catholic online school wants to become the first-ever religious charter school in the nation.

But the Oklahoma supreme court rejected the idea, saying it violates the separation of church and state—public dollars can’t flow to religious instruction, as the state reads the law.

EICHER: The school counters that Oklahoma is violating its First Amendment rights—accusing the state of denying it a charter because it’s religious. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in April. These two cases could have broad implications for religious liberty in public education.

REICHARD: The two oral arguments we’ll cover today did not attract the same kind of attention the education cases did … but the stakes in this first case touch on national defense. At issue is how long a military reservist should collect extra pay “during” a national emergency.

The case is Feliciano versus the Department of Transportation. The entire thing rests on the meaning of a humble preposition … the word during. When Congress says government employers “must provide differential pay to reservists called to active duty during a war or national emergency,” how long is that?

The answer matters very much … because differential pay ensures these people working in higher-paid civilian jobs who are pressed into active duty don’t have to take a pay cut while serving.

EICHER: Nick Feliciano is a civilian federal employee and a reservist called to active duty. When he was, he initially got that extra pay. But when his service was extended, the pay dried up. So he sued, claiming the law guarantees him differential pay the whole time the national emergency is in effect.

The federal government disagrees, saying Feliciano’s extended duty wasn’t really part of the original emergency. Government attorney Nicole Reaves framed it this way:

REAVES: The word “during” has multiple meanings. And as with many words, the meaning of during in any particular sentence will depend upon context.

REICHARD: The government argued that “during” means “in the course of,” with a “substantive connection” between a reservist’s military service and the ongoing national emergency.

Feliciano’s attorney, Andrew Tutt, argued that the statute supports his client.

TUTT: Under the differential pay statute, the government must provide differential pay to its civilian employees who also serve in the reserves when they are called to active duty under a provision of law…of Title 10… Thus, during a national emergency, reservists called to active duty under any provision of law must receive differential pay. The government resists this common-sense temporal definition of "during…"

EICHER: Tutt sought to persuade the justices to draw a bright line that doesn’t have to answer so many questions about so many contingencies. Saying ambiguity like that just creates uncertainty:

TUTT: Not just for courts, not just for agencies, but for private employers, who will face criminal penalties…if they get the question wrong.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether Congress really intended Tutt’s interpretation:

JACKSON: I guess what I’m confused about is why Congress would have so carefully amended the statute over time to add new people, et cetera, if the right reading was just, if you’re called up, you get it?

REICHARD: Tutt countered that Congress often amends laws piecemeal to correct interpretations made by executive agencies.

Justice Elena Kagan pointed out the nature of national emergencies:

KAGAN: We're not going to have any sanctions programs? We're not going to have any hurricanes? I mean, it just seems like a world which couldn't possibly exist…

EICHER: … pointing out how national emergencies are common:

KAGAN: There are 43 national emergencies now. Every time we have a sanctions program in place, we declare a national emergency. This is just a sort of feature of modern life.

Justice Samuel Alito took a tad sarcastic touch in questioning Tutt:

ALITO: Your thinking is that Congress said: Well, you know, we realize that there have been national emergencies now for decades and decades and decades, but, if we look ahead, we foresee the time when there will be peace throughout the world and nothing threatening, and the --the lion or the wolf is going to lie down with the lamb, and there isn't going to be a national emergency, so that's why we've put in, what is it, eight specific provisions that would be superfluous if your interpretation were accepted?

The justices also considered the challenge private employers face in interpreting the law. Reaves, arguing for the government, emphasized that employers who fail to extend differential pay could face retroactive criminal liability.

Justice Neil Gorsuch hinted at a likely outcome in this case:

GORSUCH: Hey, you don't win everything, but, you know, it's better than a loss, isn't it, counsel?

TUTT: I --yes, Your Honor. Yes. And we would, of course, accept a vacate --a vacate and remand…

REICHARD: He’ll take the best he can get.

On to the final argument for today, United States versus Miller … it’s a bankruptcy case … but that doesn’t mean it’s uninteresting.

One thing about bankruptcy is that all the parties who are owed something are supposed to be equal. This case touches on whether the tax-man is more equal than everyone else.

EICHER: These parties owed something are called trustees. The bankruptcy court appoints trustees to manage a debtor’s assets and be the intermediary among the debtor, creditors, and the court.

The key question here is whether a bankruptcy trustee can claw-back tax payments made to the IRS before the bankruptcy filing—just as they can do with payments made to private creditors.

REICHARD: This case goes back eight years to when a transportation company in Utah filed for bankruptcy. Before that, the company All Resorts Group, Inc. had paid more than $145-thousand dollars in company funds to the IRS. This took care of the personal tax debts of two of its principals.

Bankruptcy trustee David Miller argued those payments were fraudulent transfers. And so he sought to reclaim the funds for creditors—claw them back. He wants that money back in the pot for creditors.

EICHER: To support his case, Miller cites the U.S. Bankruptcy Code … specifically Section 5-44(b) that allows a trustee to use state law to void certain transfers—to step into the shoes of an actual creditor.

Government lawyer Yaira Dubin emphasized this point … and cited the relevant law by number:

DUBIN: The trustee must first identify a creditor with the right to avoid the transfer under state law. If so, he can step into the creditor's shoes and avoid the same transfer under 544(b). But, if not, he has no one's shoes to step into and he can't use 544(b) to circumvent the code's two-year lookback period.

REICHARD: For the trustee, attorney Lisa Blatt pointed out Congress tried more than once to clarify that government agencies are not immune in bankruptcy. First, it passed a measure explicitly waiving sovereign immunity for government entities. Then another one to ensure agencies could not hide behind immunity to dodge bankruptcy rules. But the Supreme Court has traditionally read those waivers pretty narrowly.

BLATT: And after Congress made this very broad after this Court twice narrowed it, it just would be a strange thing…

EICHER: Blatt warned that a decision for the government could force Congress to act yet again to counteract the Supreme Court. But the justices doubted whether trustees can ignore who the recipient of a fraudulent transfer is.

Justice Gorsuch seemed to lean toward the trustee, citing precedent from a hundred years ago:

GORSUCH: If I understand what you’re saying…is that essentially, the trustee steps into the shoes of a normal creditor…I don’t see that in that language isn’t there. It does exist in some other statutes, which is notable. And we’ve got a very old case written by Oliver Wendell Holmes no less… that says sometimes a trustee’s power to avoid property transfers can transcend the rights of the creditor in whose shoes he might otherwise step.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about potential IRS overreach in this comment to Dubin for the IRS:

KAVANAUGH: The other side says that your position will create a playbook for fraud, that you pay your personal tax debts with corporate funds and let the IRS then, in their words, hide behind sovereign immunity that would short-change creditors. I want to make sure you respond to that.

Dubin argued just the opposite is true, but Justice Elena Kagan came at her argument this way:

KAGAN: I mean, but, if I understand the argument that you're making, you're saying, well, because Congress included so many things, we don't have to take any one of them particularly seriously.

DUBIN: That is not at all our position. Our position is --

KAGAN: Because it doesn't sound all that good. (Laughter.)

REICHARD: If the Supreme Court sides with the government, then tax payments would be untouchable in bankruptcy, even if they’d be considered fraudulent payments under normal rules. 

If the trustee wins, it could limit the government’s special protections in bankruptcy cases and make sure the IRS doesn’t get priority over other creditors. 

So, the justices could either keep the playing field level for all creditors or give the government a special advantage in bankruptcy cases—which could tip the balance in future bankruptcies involving taxes and government debts.

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: Time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group. He is here now. Good morning to you, David.

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

EICHER: GDP is in for 2024: no surprises, really, 2.8 percent for the entire 12-month period. What do you want to say about it?

BAHNSEN: Well, it came in in line with expectations. There were some questions as to whether it’d be 2.7 or 2.8, but that should be pointed out as real GDP. That means net of inflation. Nominal GDP was obviously even higher. 
So, all in all, a good year in terms of economic growth

Basically the number is two things, Nick. It’s below what our average since World War II has been, and it’s above what our average has been since the financial crisis.

EICHER: So, also no big surprise the Fed chose not to cut interest rates at its rate-setting meeting last week. What meaning, though, do you read into it? Is this a sign of uncertainty around inflation?

BAHNSEN: No, I don’t think so at all.

They have taken over 100 basis points out of the yield curve. Interest rates are more than one percent lower than they were just a few months ago, and they have still signaled the intent to continue cutting.

I would point out that a few weeks ago, the futures market was starting to price in two more rate cuts by the end of the year. It’s now at 62% odds that there will be three rate cuts by the end of the year. So the indications are not that they’re stopping cutting—just that they’re not going to do one every single meeting. 


It’s a balancing act. I don’t support the fact that it is a balancing act because it points to the sort of arbitrariness and interventionism of the whole process. I favor a rules-based approach. This isn’t rules based.

This is discretionary. But within their discretion, they believe that they need to get rates lower—and they believe they need to do it at a slow pace. Both of those things are reasonable beliefs. But if they were to now say, we don’t know whether we want rates to be lower, that would introduce uncertainty. They haven’t said that.

It’s just simply a question of the pace at which they get there. Candidly, it helps because they are getting jawboned a little bit from the White House. You end up with the executive branch trying to get in there and play a role in monetary policy, which I think, to some degree undermines some of its independence. But by not cutting now and then cutting later, it kind of holds off some of those issues that are going to come up with the White House. 


Jay Powell has a year and three months left of this very difficult job and I think he has a clear plan as to what he wants to do along the way. It mostly centers around housing. He cannot be at a 30-year low for existing home sales, transactions taking place when Powell’s leaving office. 
By that point, the impact it will have had into construction, into finance and consumer and all kinds of other elements of the economy would be very problematic. Housing has not yet caught a tail in terms of economic distress. I don’t think they care if house prices go higher or go lower. 
I think their point is they need house sales to take place and they’re not taking place.

That isn’t going to happen until mortgage rates come lower and the Fed is trying to figure out how to make that happen.

EICHER: All right, David, tariff talk is feeling like a lot more than talk. Coming into the weekend here at WORLD, because we use a lot of Canadian magazine paper, we were sweating that 25 percent. What is your expectation for where things might go with Mexico and Canada?

BAHNSEN : I think that what a lot of people have to understand when it comes to Mexico and Canada is regardless of what exactly is said and what it looks like is going to happen at a point in time, I am extremely confident that the president does not want tariffs on Mexico and Canada.


He doesn’t want the market disruption. He doesn’t want the negative economic impact. You mention even how it affects, you know, entities like WORLD. He doesn’t want the bad headlines. And by the way, he doesn’t want the higher prices that everybody can deny it creates, but that it most certainly does create. Now, people will say, well, David, if you don’t think the president wants it, why is he doing the things that could help, you know, implement it? 


Why is he saying it? That’s where I make a separation between China and other countries and the way his policy framework is set and the particulars with Mexico and Canada. He definitely ask people in his ear that have told him, you don’t have anything to lose by threatening these types of things all the way to the one yard line. 


He’s lagged what he’s gotten so far the incident with Columbia a week ago those are headlines that this president lives for, you know, even if some of it’s a little bit embellished or exaggerated, the basic narrative that Columbia wasn’t being cooperative, he threatened tariffs, and then they became cooperative. That’s something he loves. And so there’s some outcome that he’s going for with both Mexico and Canada and the tariffs become a way for him to use, you know, public flexing and posturing to get that. 


Ultimately, if we were to go through a period of time that lasts more than the average length of one of these fake government shutdowns, then obviously it would be very detrimental to markets to the economy to stability, to predictability to buying patterns. And this president doesn’t want that. And so that’s where my confidence comes from. 


Then, Nick, we’re going to have the same conversation in, I’m guessing a few months around China. He’s focusing on Mexico, Canada first because it’s a very different and easier to obtain outcome. With China, there’s a whole bigger picture involving currency, involving technology, involving IP, involving Taiwan, involving Russia, Ukraine. That’s a much more holistic policy objective, and he’s far more willing to use tariffs there because, of course, there’s already tariffs in place. 


So he’s talking about moving the knobs around those things to get there. Lots going on there. The tariff question continues to be very polarizing and very confusing.

EICHER: David, this is a week-old story now, but last week at this time, when the markets opened we saw a lot of market cap for the chipmaker Nvidia evaporate because of this heretofore virtually unknown AI competitor from China. What’s to be said here, David? Is this just the soft ground of the early days of artificial intelligence innovation where you’ve got to expect the unexpected, where crazy things are just going to happen with new tech?

BAHNSEN: Well, I hate to use our valuable time together to tout my dividendcafe.com but I was proud of the Dividend Cafe that posted a couple days ago about this very subject because I really do think, Nick, that those trying to make it all about China and Deep Seek are missing some of the real story. I think there is a story here. It is entirely possible that China has an AI tool that is generative AI, language learning model, that maybe can be powered at something far less than the hyper-expensive and hyper-complex capital expenditures that companies like Microsoft, Google, and Meta are pouring into.

But 95% cheaper?


I don’t know about that.

Are Americans gonna use Chinese AI tools with all of their censorship and state control? Of course not. 


So none of this has to do with me playing into the story about China’s competitiveness. I wouldn’t ignore the story. I think that China not being a customer and becoming a competitor has all kinds of implications, but the far bigger story, Nick, is that nobody can answer the question as to whether or not we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on AI capital expenditures for a good reason. 


They don’t know what the end run is supposed to be. They don’t know what the monetizable benefit is going to be. They don’t know who the monetizable benefit is going to accrue to.

So to me, there’s a Wild West right now that has a very big possibility of turning out to be a massive misallocation of capital. Things like Deep Seek coming out in a given weekend, the way it did, don’t so much show the misallocation as they remind us of the risk of misallocation.

And I think there’s any number of things. 


Look, we are used to with technology—the whole benefit is exponential downward pressure on prices that over time things get cheaper, not more expensive at scale. That’s been the point of digital pricing for 50 years.


Everybody has assumed that these Nvidia chips get more expensive over time, get ordered more over time, and get needed more over time. All three of those things might be false assumptions. In the meantime no one else has figured out any way whatsoever to make money on AI, except for the people making the chips. So there’s a lot of questions here and I do not know how they will play out. But I think about it, watch it, study it every single day.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at dividendcafe.com and regularly for WORLD Opinions. David, I hope you have a great week!

BAHSNEN: Thanks so much, Nick. You too.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 3rd. 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. Sixty-five years ago, the fight for civil rights and desegregation is in full swing. Four young men protest at a local lunch counter. WORLD’s Emma Perley brings us the story.

FRANKLIN MCCAIN: I certainly wasn’t afraid. And I wasn’t afraid because I was too angry to be afraid.

EMMA PERLEY: That’s Frank McCain. On February 1st, 1960, he’s one of four black college students whose peaceful but determined defiance is about to change history.

Inside an F.W. Woolworth five-and-dime in Greensboro, North Carolina, the young men sit down at the store’s stainless steel lunch counter and order coffee and a donut. The waitress refuses to serve them. She says: “Lunch service is for whites only.”

Just three feet away is a different counter. That’s where African-Americans are allowed to buy food.

An Associated Press reporter overhears the exchange between the waitress and the young men. He asks McCain and his friends what they’re going to do.

We’re going to stay until closing, the freshmen say. Then we’re going to come back again. And again. Until the store manager serves us some coffee.

At this, an elderly white woman leans toward the young men:

MCCAIN: She whispered in a calm voice, ‘Boys, I am so proud of you.’

The next day, the Greensboro Four—Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond and Franklin McCain—keep their word. But this time, more than 20 black students arrive to sit beside them, taking up a third of the counter space.

For four hours, from lunchtime until midafternoon, they sit quietly, doing homework. And for four hours, the wait staff refuses to serve them. Here’s Joe McNeil with the National Museum of American History:

MCNEIL: We decided that whatever actions we were gonna take, they’re gonna be nonviolent … on the third day, it started to get rough.

A friend of the Four alerts the media, and local reporters swarm Woolworth, armed with cameras, mics, and pens.

The media coverage sparks similar sit-ins throughout the South— like in Oklahoma City, Raleigh, and Richmond. These protests form the fighting front of the Civil Rights Movement, where many are already participating in bus boycotts. From NBC.

MCNEIL: And here the very young led the assaults on racial barriers. For five years they persistently demonstrated at lunch counters, department stores, and hotels. They won only small concessions.

The Greensboro Four aren’t the first ones to stage a sit-in. In Nashville, Tennessee, black students and civil rights activists peacefully sat at whites-only lunch counters a few months earlier in late 1959.

As the Civil Rights Movement heats up in the early 1960’s, sit-ins multiply. Many are not as peaceful as activists hope. At some restaurants, mobs form and protesters fear for their lives.

Like white civil rights activist Joan Trumpauer Mulholland. In 1963, Mulholland takes a seat at a segregated Woolworth counter in Jackson, Mississippi. Audio from her interview with Eater.

MULLHOLLAND: Everyone shopped at a five and dime. Everyone could afford it. And to not be welcomed as a customer at this one part of the store—the lunch counter—that was morally and legally indefensible.

Mulholland remembers the plan: one group of protesters would form a picket line down the street—diverting police, while another group would take up their posts at the Woolworth’s counter.

But the plan goes downhill fast.

MULLHOLLAND: Well, the picket line got arrested right away. So we decided we’d go down and see what was happening. And basically what was happening was, all hell was breaking loose.

The mob throws salt, pepper, ketchup and mustard at the protesters while police stand by, doing nothing. Worse, a black professor from nearby Tougaloo College is badly beaten.

That’s what Frank McCain means about things getting rough. Back in North Carolina, on the third day of their peaceful protest, 60 more students join the Greensboro Four.

White customers jeer at them and the Ku Klux Klan join the hecklers. Some try to drag the young black protesters from their seats. McCain again on CBS.

MCCAIN: If I were lucky, I would be carted off to jail for a long long time … and if I were not so lucky, then I would be going back to my campus in a pine box.

Police intervene and arrest those doing violence. By February 4th, more than 300 protesters cram the lunch counter and two days later, the crowd swells to 1,000.

Then someone calls in a bomb threat.

Woolworth’s quickly shuts its doors, and the protesters move to another segregated store across the street which also closes early.

Undaunted, the students continue to sit-in for five more months. And the fight for black equality in the city is just beginning. Black citizens unite and completely boycott segregated businesses in Greensboro. Local stores and restaurants lose hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This large-scale protest puts enormous pressure on business owners to desegregate. Finally, on July 25th, 1960, the Greensboro Woolworth store manager crosses the racial barrier into civil rights history. He invites four black employees to change out of their uniforms, sit at the counter, and eat lunch.

And so, what began with four, ends with four.

Decades later, McCain still seemed surprised at the widespread effect that he and three friends had on the Civil Rights Movement.

MCCAIN: I only sat on a dumb stool. I hadn’t even been served.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Emma Perley.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: An update on the Israeli hostages returned home this weekend, including family members we’ve highlighted on this program. And, the emotional toll air traffic controllers face day in and day out as they work to keep travelers safe. 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.

Jesus told the disciples: “‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.’  And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, ‘Then who can be saved?’ Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.’” —Mark 10:25-27

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.