The World and Everything in It: February 6, 2023

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court considers what a student who is deaf must do to get what he is entitled to under the law.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, economist David Bahnsen will be here to answer listener questions.

And the WORLD History Book. Today, remembering the blizzard of 1978.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, February 6th. 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: Now news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: China balloon, tensions » Republicans on Capitol Hill say China just made a mockery of U.S. airspace and that President Biden let it happen.

Congressman Mike Turner chairs the House Intelligence Committee. He said it’s clear that the large balloon China floated over the continental US was on a spy mission.

TURNER: Clearly this was an attempt by China to gather information to defeat command and control of our sensitive missile defense and nuclear weapons sites. And that certainly is an urgency that this administration doesn’t recognize.

An American F-22 fighter jet shot down the balloon off the coast of South Carolina, but not before its mounted cameras got a good look at US military installations.

President Biden said he chose not to shoot down the balloon over land over safety concerns for those on the ground. But GOP Sen. Ted Cruz said there were many opportunities to safely take it down.

CRUZ: He allowed a full week for the Chinese to conduct spying operations over the United States over sensitive military installations, exposing not just photographs, but the potential for intercepted communications.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans should wait until all the facts are in hand. He said of Republican criticisms…

SCHUMER: They are premature, and they are political. Our friends are playing politics with US intelligence.

The U.S. military is currently recovering the pieces of the suspected spy balloon in shallow Atlantic waters.

GOP push for Mayorkas ouster » Democrats also say Republicans are playing politics with their push to oust Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Arizona Congressman Andy Biggs on Sunday noted record numbers of illegal crossings since Mayorkas took the job two years ago.

BIGGS: We just don’t have the time. We can’t go for another two years with 5 million illegally entering the country.

Republicans have repeatedly called on Mayorkas to resign, accusing him of violating his oath of office. And Biggs last week introduced articles of impeachment against the secretary.

Republicans have accused President Biden and Mayorkas of intentionally allowing the border to spiral out of control.

Ukraine is auditing its military amid anti-corruption push, defense minister says » Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov says Ukrainian officials are now auditing the military as part of a push to clean up corruption in government ranks.

That comes as Ukraine is seeking membership in the European Union. And E-U officials say Kyiv must work to root out corruption before it can join the bloc.

REZNIKOV: [Ukrainian]

Reznikov also says his country is still trying to talk Western allies into sending warplanes. And he said he’s optimistic that Ukraine will get the fighter jets it seeks.

REZNIKOV: [Ukrainian]

The West is already set to send German-made tanks to Ukraine.

DNC calendar approved » AUDIO: [Vote on primaries]

With that vote, Iowa is no longer first in the nation, at least not for Democrats running for president.

The Democratic National Committee voted to upend decades of political tradition, rearranging the order of states’ presidential primaries and caucuses.

South Carolina will now host the party’s presidential first primary while Iowa and New Hampshire won’t hold their votes until days or even weeks later.

The Iowa caucuses have kicked off every presidential primary season since 1972.

Weather in NE » Many Americans are beginning to thaw out after bone-chilling cold gripped much of the northern United States.

Bob Oravec with National Weather Service:

ORAVEC: The really cold temperatures we had on Saturday have definitely moderated, and it looks like going forward, over the next week, temperatures are going to be above average across a good part of the country.

Temperatures in the northeast warmed up into the mid-40s on Sunday. That feels like t-shirt weather to many after a sub-zero blast last week.

Freight train derailment » Firefighters have not yet approached smoldering train cars in Ohio after a freight train transporting dangerous chemicals derailed near the town of East Palestine over the weekend.

Authorities ordered evacuations of the area after the train’s hazardous cargo spilled onto the gravel and grass near the tracks.

But Fire Chief Keith Drabick says the most dangerous chemicals are secure for now.

DRABICK: The product in question that we're dealing with and most concerned about is vinyl chloride. The railcar that was carrying that is doing its job. The safety features of that railcar are still functioning.

Authorities say they have not detected any toxic airborne chemicals.

Gas prices » Pump prices are once again on the decline. That national average stands at $3.47 per gallon according to AAA—down 3 cents over the past week.

Fuel price analyst Trilby Lundberg:

LUNDBERG: The high average in this panel of cities is Honolulu at $4.87. And the lowest Houston at $3.00. Between them here's Baltimore $3.50 Las Vegas $3.91 at Chicago at $3.97

A month ago, the price of regular unleaded had dipped to roughly $3.30 per gallon.

I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: The Supreme Court considers what a student who is deaf must do to get what he is entitled to under the law.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning, February 6th and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from WORLD Radio. So glad you’re here! Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket. Today, we cover two oral arguments heard last month by the US Supreme Court.

First, the case of Miguel Perez, now a 27 year old man. He’s been deaf since birth, the youngest of 9 children. When he was age 9, he and his family moved from Mexico to a small town in southwest Michigan called Sturgis.

Miguel Perez had no formal education in Mexico, so he arrived in the United States unable to read or write or communicate in sign language.

REICHARD: Sturgis public school created an individualized education plan and assigned him a classroom aide. But the aide didn’t know sign language. Instead, she came up with a signing system that only the two of them could understand.

A quick word about journalistic style before moving ahead. Typically, we refer in subsequent references to people simply by their last name. In the Supreme Court oral argument, the justices and the lawyers referred to Miguel Perez by his first name, so we’ll also do that today, just to keep consistent with them and not confuse you.

Representing Miguel at the high court is attorney Roman Martinez:

MARTINEZ: For 12 years, Sturgis neglected Miguel, denied him an education, and lied to his parents about the progress he was allegedly making in school. This shameful conduct permanently stunted Miguel's ability to communicate with the outside world. It also violated two federal statutes, the I-D-E-A and the A-D-A, giving different remedies to victims of discrimination.

Let’s define some terms: I-D-E-A is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. A-D-A is the Americans with Disabilities Act. It guarantees a free public education to children with disabilities, specific to each child’s individual needs.

EICHER: The year after Miguel left high school, the family filed a complaint with the state of Michigan. They claimed that the school district violated the I-D-E-A and the A-D-A, among other laws.

So Miguel’s family settled on the I-D-E-A claim. The school district, Sturgis, agreed to certain terms: paying Miguel’s tuition to attend a school for the deaf, among other things. He graduated four years later from that school in 2020, after he’d acquired some communication skills.

REICHARD: But those were equitable damages. Meaning, the school was required to remediate Miguel’s education. It wasn’t money damages paid to Miguel for emotional distress and the economic harm to him. And that’s what he wants now.

Shay Dvoretzky argued on behalf of Sturgis Public Schools. He said whether Miguel can get around the plain language of the law depends upon how the court interprets the word “relief.” You’re going to hear Dvoretzky mention an acronym: FAPE. It means free, appropriate, public, education. F-A-P-E, FAPE.

DVORETZKY: Congress carefully crafted those procedures, and it wanted parents and school districts to go through them because of the primacy of a FAPE.

EICHER: Dvortetzky pointed to language that required Miguel to finish out the administrative process under the I-D-E-A. Even if that takes years of hearings that can never wind up with money damages, which is what Miguel seeks.

Dvortetzky’s argument is this: If he didn’t want to go through the proper procedures, then Miguel should have rejected the settlement and proceeded to get a final administrative decision on the merits of his I-D-E-A claim. Only then could he go to federal trial court under his A-D-A claim.

Again, Miguel’s lawyer, Martinez.

MARTINEZ: Miguel responded by doing everything the IDEA wants him to do. He filed an IDEA agency claim. He followed the IDEA settlement procedures. And he accepted a favorable settlement giving him full IDEA relief, including an immediate FAPE. Sturgis wants you to hold that this settlement extinguishes Miguel's separate and distinct rights to money damages under the ADA. You should reject that.

REICHARD: Dvoretzky for Sturgis Public Schools didn’t seem to have the sympathies of the justices. Listen to his exchange with Justice Elena Kagan:

KAGAN: What should Miguel have done differently from what he did do in this case?

DVORETZKY: I think a plaintiff in that situation has several options. One is, as part of the settlement, to negotiate whatever compensation he thinks he's entitled to for his non-IDEA claims. Another is to negotiate as part of the settlement a waiver from the school of the exhaustion requirement and then proceed to court. So there were options as part of that global settlement to get the full relief he was asking for.

KAGAN: But you know, Sturgis was not, for all we know, offering any of those things. So what's he supposed to do?

DVORETZKY: Negotiate, I mean, as in all settlements.

KAGAN: Better – negotiate better. Just pound his fist on the table with your legal rule such that Sturgis doesn't have to offer any of those things because he can't -- he has two choices. He can either reject a good settlement which is enabling him to receive educational services or give up on the potential, which this statute clearly gives him, of getting compensatory damages as well under the ADA.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether cost is a limiting factor in all this. Here’s an exchange with lawyer Anthony Yang, who argued in support of Miguel on behalf of the federal government.

ALITO: Well, does the – does the ADA -- does the ADA require a school to provide auxiliary aids regardless of the cost?

YANG: Does the ADA?

ALITO: Yes, the --

YANG: No, because there is a -- there is an exception for substantial burden, financial or administrative burden.

The justices need to clear up confusion about administrative rules. Families want their children with disabilities to be properly educated, without having to navigate an incomprehensible agency system.

EICHER: Well, on to our last case today.

This dispute involves the labor union that represents millions of employees of the federal government. It’s called the American Federation of Government Employees, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO.

The Ohio National Guard had a collective bargaining agreement with the union for nearly half a century. The union represented a hybrid of federal civilian employees called technicians. They work for state guard units but are paid by the federal government.

Eventually, labor talks between the Guard and the union failed. And so for awhile they operated under terms of an expired contract. Then four years ago, the Guard announced it would no longer abide by terms of that expired agreement or—crucially—they would no longer collect union dues.

REICHARD: The union complained to the federal agency that oversees these matters, the Federal Labor Relations Authority. It decided the Guard failed to negotiate in good faith.

But the Guard disputes the agency’s authority. Listen to its lawyer, Benjamin Flowers. He’ll mention “adjutant general.” That’s the Guard’s commander.

FLOWERS: The Reform Act defines agencies to include executive departments, government corporations, and independent establishments. Adjutants General and state Guards are none of these things.

The feds regulate state officers, he argued, but that doesn’t transform state officers into federal ones.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wasn’t buying that argument.

SOTOMAYOR: I think, most importantly, under Article I, military matters are left to the executive, and we should be doing very little to interfere in that process.

Lawyer for the union, Andres Grajales, argued the Guard should take its grievance up with Congress:

GRAJALES: Ultimately, this is a policy disagreement that Ohio can take to Congress, but Congress, as it stands today, understood the matter to be settled. They understood Adjutant General[s] and the state National Guards to be covered.

The justices have to decide the contours of the various state guard units in relationship to the federal government.

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: It’s time to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and adviser David Bahnsen. He’s head of the wealth management firm The Bahnsen Group and he’s here now.

David, good morning!

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

EICHER: Before we get to listener questions this week, David, let’s talk jobs. On Friday, the Labor Department report for the month of January came out. It was noteworthy. More than half-a-million new jobs added—and that’s strong in and of itself. But it trounced expectations, employers added almost three times more jobs than were expected.

BAHNSEN:  It would be impossible for someone to spin it into something that wasn’t overwhelmingly constructive. There are seasonal adjustments that make all this a little tricky: There were upward revisions to the last two jobs report that amounted to another 72,000 jobs on top of the 517,000 that were reported for the month of January. As you say, that was about triple what was expected. So across the board, it was a very positive report.

In November and December, those looking for something negative under the hood could see that there was a very slight decline in the average hours worked; that number picked up by 1.2% month over month in January. So I believe that the mismatch between the amount of open positions and the amount of people looking for work continues to be the issue, and it should be taken as a net positive in the present state of the economy.

EICHER: Also, David, the Federal Reserve hiked up interest rates last week, just a quarter point this time, but Fed chairman Jay Powell indicated there’s still more to come. This is eight in a row and it leads into a question sent in by Alan Hahn of Farmington Hills, Michigan, the Detroit area. He wants to know:

Why is the Fed continuing to raise rates and punishing the consumer when it seems “the problem” is too much spending by the federal government? In other words, isn’t this primarily a fiscal problem, not a monetary problem?

He concludes with appreciation, David, for your level-headed approach and advice.

BAHNSEN: Well, I’m not sure that those two are entirely separated. At the end of the day, the fiscal problem is also an argument for the Fed to be cutting rates, because the more the government borrows and spends the higher cost of debt they have. Eventually we’re going to see significant downward pressure and interest rates because as we’ve learned time and time again, the central bank has to end up enabling what happens out of fiscal activity and the government can’t afford the debt it’s taken on. So the Fed is not likely to raise rates much from here: I think the quarter point they just did was quite token, and the next quarter point may or may not happen. The futures market is predicting a 50/50 chance either way. I don’t see many increases after that. In fact, I happen to believe there will probably be some cuts by the end of the year, or shortly thereafter.

EICHER: So, let me toss this in, David, I saw lots of speculation on the business news wires last week after the softer rate increase and Jay Powell’s comments on Wednesday that there’s a better chance that the Fed will succeed in engineering a so-called “soft landing” and avoiding recession. What do you say?

BAHNSEN: I don’t want to accept the premise of the question, Nick, because I don’t think that they can engineer anything. I think our country might very well avoid recession. And I think we very well might end up with a soft landing. But I don’t think that’s the same as believing the Fed will engineer it. As if 12 people sitting around a conference table can engineer the economic interactions of 330 million people and control the varying degrees of supply and demand that go into economic output. It’s a very complicated endeavor, and we shouldn’t be trying to control it to the degree that we are.

But nevertheless, the question as to whether or not a recession is a foregone conclusion is one I’ve been tackling quite a bit over the last several weeks. I devoted an entire Dividend Cafe to both sides of the argument two weeks ago, and I continue to believe that nobody knows for sure right now. We’re seeing the ITSM services this month increase quite nicely when there had been a decline on the manufacturing side. See, in the jobs number—there’s just conflicting data there. And yet, there’s plenty of reason for people to hope we can avoid a severe recession.

EICHER: Here’s a question from listener Bretta McAllister asking about parental leave.

MCALLISTER: My name is Brenda, and I live in Western Massachusetts. Recently, quite a few members of my family have had babies, myself included, and our different companies that our husbands or spouses work for, provide different benefits for parental leave, some of them being as far as 12 weeks of parental leave after a baby is born. And I just have a hard time settling on how, as believers, we should look at this kind of leave. I know you talk a lot about the fact that the economy is driven by the production level instead of consumption. And so if workers are leaving the workforce for up to 12 weeks after a baby is born, is that not a good contribution to society? Or does the fact that a child is being brought in as another form of production, which might sound weird to say, is that also a good and the time that a family gets to spend together after that I just have had a hard time wrapping my mind around how I view those kinds of things. And we'd love to hear your take on it.

BAHNSEN: I believe that part of it depends on what it is we’re trying to solve for it. Are we asking about if the government should be mandating and subsidizing parental leave? Or if the government should be subsidizing paternal leave? I think those are sort of different questions. Certainly, I have no problem with the idea of there being leave for a mother after having a baby. I think it’s a wonderful thing for there to be extended time for a mother to be with her baby after delivery. But does the question have to do with the newer phenomena— and it really is quite new, maybe about 6 out of the last 6000 years— of paternity leave, where we’re asking for the father (who is obviously not involved in nursing and was not involved in delivery) to be subsidized with 12 weeks of paid leave from the workforce? I have different opinions there. And the reason is not only the kind of obvious natural and biological distinction.

Ultimately, I’m a traditionalist. I put a high value on history, and we should always strive to do better in some things we have historically not done effectively. There is a high burden of proof to assert that somehow it did not work out fine having dads return to work a little quicker than moms over the years. And so there’s something about forced paternity leave that I feel differently about.

The one thing I would ask is should we view the child as sort of a production of a good itself? And I certainly do not believe so. I think that what we’re talking about is just a different sphere of God’s kingdom. I believe in the sphere of family, the sphere of church, and that of the marketplace, and these are each distinct from one another. And each family is able to kind of wrestle through what makes the most sense for their situation. All things being equal, I tend to believe the government doesn’t need to be a huge part of that.

EICHER: One final question, this one from Brian Lawrence of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada … a question about American public policy on the economy. He says he remembers the “Contract with America” Republicans promised when they took control of Congress in the 90s … and it included a balanced budget amendment. He writes: “I realize you're an economist, not a political analyst or historian, but can you tell us what happened?”

BAHNSEN: Well, let me refresh everyone's memory about what did happen there because there was a part of their commitment that did come through and there was a part that did not. And the reason is that our United States Constitution requires a two thirds vote to change the constitution. So their specific verbiage back in the Gingrich 1990s Contract with America was to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. And they proposed doing that with a line item veto, and then a balanced budget amendment. And the line item veto would allow the President to strike specific spending provisions and bills without having to veto the entire bill and then that could effectively eliminate unnecessary, wasteful spending that passed both the House and Senate. But the Balanced Budget Amendment never had the two thirds vote and yet, in fairness to both the Congress of the time and the Clinton administration, they did achieve a balanced budget for a couple of years and, in fact, ran a bit of a surplus largely on pre-911 defense cuts, but all also really excessive growth of revenue as the economy was expanding. So that's sort of the history of what happened. We have never had the two thirds vote in the Senate necessary to get a balanced budget amendment required. But they did pass the line item veto, which was somewhat effective at certain points in time. But I have to point out, it's hard for a line item veto to be very effective if the President of either party doesn't use it.

EICHER: All right, that’s all of our time for this week. If you have a question for David Bahnsen, please do send it to me at feedback@worldandeverything.com. It can be an email or an audio file attachment using your Voice Memo app on your smartphone. Regardless, the email address is feedback@worldandeverything.com.

David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. Check out his latest project at fulltimebook.com. Three words: full, time, book—no spaces. fulltimebook.com.

David, thanks!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. 

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, February 6th. 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 we remember a blizzard that shut down the east coast, and a change in U.S. policy toward asylum-seekers. But first, a milestone for the Westminster Confession of Faith. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: We begin today on February 7th, 1649. The Scottish Parliament ratifies the Westminster Confession of Faith—a reformed doctrinal treatise on the Word of God.

JOHN GERSTNER: This is one of the most important creeds of protestantism and especially the reformed tradition.

Pastor and Presbyterian theologian John Gerstner:

GERSTNER: It was written for the purposes of uniting England, Scotland and Ireland in a single creed. It didn't actually succeed in that purpose, but it did succeed in being the definitive statement of reformed theology in the British Isles and largely in America as well.

The Protestant church council is referred to as the Westminster Assembly—as it gathers in the Westminster abbey. The assembly includes 30 laymen from the House of Commons and House of Lords, plus 121 English clergymen, and a delegation of Scottish Presbyterians. They meet off and on for a decade—beginning in 1643 during the English civil war. The confession is completed in 1646.

GERSTNER: The Westminster confession theologically speaking is that it is a determined attempt to remain faithful to the Bible and to explain in brief compass what the 66 books of Holy Scripture actually do reveal.

The Westminster Confession of Faith is described as a “subordinate standard” of doctrine—meaning Scripture itself must be the ultimate authority…the very topic of the first chapter of the confession.

GERSTNER: This has no value whatsoever except as the labored, studied prayerful deliberations of a body of scholarly devoted theologians who tried to the best of their ability to present to the world what they thought the word of God and its systematic abbreviated form actually taught.

Since its adoption in the 17th century the document has been amended a handful of times. The lengthy creed remains a key document within Presbyterianism. Congregationalists adhere to an almost identical confession, with many other nonconformist denominations choosing to catechise their children with some form of the 375 year old statement of faith and practice.

Next, the Great Blizzard of 1978 hits the Northeast. Audio here of NBC Today host Tom Brokaw:

TOM BROKAW:  We have a genuine snow emergency reaching all the way from Washington, DC to north of Boston this morning.

The midwest had suffered a major blizzard of its own the week before. That storm moved into Canada—missing most of New England.

But now in early February an extratropical cyclone forms off the coast of South Carolina. Meteorologists along the eastern seaboard warn of potentially heavy snowfall for Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. For the most part forecasters misjudge just how much snow is coming.

15 years ago, NBC 10 weatherman John Ghiorse reflected back on his own forecast of the time:

JOHN GHIORSE:   The forecasts were in the range of 12 to 24 that perhaps, uh, lent to the, you know, the image that the, the forecast was wrong. And it was because we get two to four feet of snow in general, and we were forecasting one to two.

The blizzard features sustained hurricane-force winds with gusts up to 111 miles per hour. Steady snow falls across the region for 33 hours—sometimes at a rate approaching 4 inches an hour.

Drivers caught in the storm abandon their cars on the highway—snowdrifts then encase thousands of cars and trucks—making snow removal nearly impossible. The storm kills about 100 people and injures over 4,000—causing more than $520 million dollars in damage.

And finally today, the Biden administration keeps a campaign promise to overturn President Trump’s asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

NED PRICE: When it comes to the termination of the asylum cooperative agreements…

U.S. Department of State spokesman Ned Price.

NED PRICE: …It is a broader element of the President's commitment to a regional migration plan.

Asylum cooperative agreements—or A-C-As—allow the United States to send asylum-seekers back to countries the migrants traveled through before getting to the U.S. border. The agreements are an attempt to prevent migrant caravans.

The 2019 ACAs with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras were also used by the Trump administration as “safe third country agreements.” Meaning even if an asylum seeker didn’t travel through one of those countries, the US could send immigrants to them to seek asylum there—as long as they had access to a fair procedure for determining their asylum claims.

Critics of the program asserted that wasn’t happening—calling the practice inhumane and uncompassionate. On the campaign trail Joe Biden promised to do something about it. On February 6th, 2021, the U.S. State Department releases a weekend statement immediately suspending the ACAs—while declaring the change doesn’t mean the border is open.

During the February 8th press briefing, the Biden administration promises to address the root causes leading to the incredible numbers of immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. Again, spokesman Ned Price.

PRICE: Our strategy is predicated on the idea that we can give opportunity to those in the region and remove some of the inducements…

In the two years since the change, those root causes seem to be getting worse—not better. The number of southern border encounters have more than doubled since February 2021. And while just last week U.S. authorities announced a 97% decline in illegal border crossings by migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela—officials estimate that over the last four months alone as many as 300,000 immigrants have evaded the border agents.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: school choice and what one state is going to do to support it.

And, what happens when a community newspaper has to stop the presses for good?

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 that Jesus “called the people to him and said to them, ‘Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.’” (Matthew 15:10-11 ESV)

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.